Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive208

Deletion discussions awaiting closure at least 2 weeks

There are currently 21 deletion discussions which were opened, or relisted, more than 3 weeks ago, and are still open without having been relisted:

• Files for deletion - 1 discussion from December 29, File:Aleina Ramirez Gonzalez2.jpg
• Stub types for deletion - a total of 6 discussions, from December 11th till December 21st.
• Categories for discussion - a total of 14 discussions, from December 26th till December 30th.

It would be nice if someone could please help close all these discussions, or relist them if there is still no consensus about the result. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

They should not be relisted if they've been opened for that long. I'll look into them if no one else has after I finish with the item one header above. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a discussion shouldn't be relisted just because it's been open for too long. In both FFD and CFD, discussions over a week old are less visable, which means that relisting a discussion in these processes will immediately make it more likely that users will comment or vote. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, deletion discussion should not remain open more than two weeks. If consensus hasn't formed by then, they should be closed as "no consensus". continuing to relist them only clogs an already clogged system. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Question: under what circumstances would you relist? (Declaration of interest: I nominated in a FFD which is overdue closing - is it okay for me to suggest that it be relisted? There are only two substantive comments on it, one each way, so seems to me it just needs someone to give it a casting vote.) --FormerIP (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the unsourced BLP problem: it's up to administrators

A call to arms.

Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Prod changes depend on the attitude of administrators

Avanti! --TS 23:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, how about this - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Possible_way_forward_on_BLP_semiprotection_-_proposal as something which is using tools we have and might be acceptable overall. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How about keyboards? I hope we don't actually start shooting each other over this. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Advice about a potential RFC/U

I (and others) would be interested in getting the opinions of others about the appropriateness of starting a RFC/U on an editor who hasn't edited for the last 8 days. He stopped the day after the preparation of the RFC/U began, and one of his last edits was this sandbox post that seems to acknowledge that some evaluation of his editing was in the works. We are pondering about whether going ahead would be unfair in that he is not (apparently) around to respond to the concerns. On the other hand, the problems with this editor are longstanding, have been identified by multiple editors/administrators, and the editor is somewhat inclined to take breaks and then return to exactly the same patterns weeks and months later; so perhaps it would be good to get feedback (for all) to try and forestall future frustration. The full hemming and hawing about this is here. Comments welcome.--Slp1 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:The cows want their milk back

I don't really know where to start here. At Cornwall and Pasty, the above user, originally using the IP 82.1.148.215 started removing all references to the UK and replacing them with "England". An old story and one that has been discussed many times. He was reverted by me and another user and a discussion was started at Talk:Pasty, during which this user continued to edit war. The edit war is one thing, and I've probably broken 3RR myself this evening in the confusion, but he also removed another user's talk page comment [1], and called me biased [2] and disruptive [3]. He also seems to have gone to my user page, picked the first-listed (completely unconnected) article I wrote and edited that in the same way [4] twice [5].

This behaviour seems to be ongoing, and this user's talk page User talk:The cows want their milk back is full of other problems and violations. Any ideas what can be done? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just add, I've gone over 3 reverts too, but the editor in question appears to be a POV warrior, using both his account and IP (I think there's one or two other IP addresses too). Any admins who remember previous England/Cornwall/Scotland/United Kingdom disruption may be able to help. DuncanHill (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference to the UK can be removed completely. Everybody knows where England is. It's a bit like saying "Europe, Earth, The Solar System" and whatnot. Cornwall, England is enough. There is even a good argument for saying, simply, Cornwall. --TS 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll appreciate that that's not really the point here, given the behaviour shown by the editor in question. The discussion would have raised a change to the consensus if one was desired by enough editors. There is a lot of feeling about this point and edit wars are common. This was a consensus reached over time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Saying "Cornwall, England" upsets the Cornish nationalists and leads to edit wars. Saying just "Cornwall" upsets the English nationalists, and leads to edit wars. The "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" formula was worked out as a compromise following previous edit wars, and has remained fairly stable for a long time (until, in fact, the editor in question turned up)> DuncanHill (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, he is still doing it [6]. How many times does he have to break 3RR before something is done here? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

[7], [8]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for sticking my oar in. My comment really was off-topic for the discussion. --TS 23:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

He has now accused me of vandalism [9]. Is this discussion in the wrong place or something? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

He is now going through the articles I have worked on, doing exactly the same thing. [10], [11]. This is starting to look like harrassment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind me sticking my nose in, It is a fact that cornwall is in England, if you are a nationalist or not it is true, and it is a far better term than 'United Kingdom', as not only is it a mouthful it is also a less specific reference. Its like writing European Union on there, its just too general. Theres no point crying over a Cornish Pasty Bret.

And PS, who's saying I'm a he? Stop making accusations. 82.1.148.215 (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The ins and outs of the England/UK debate are not at issue here. The issue is your behaviour. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And also, they are not YOUR articles Bret, they belong to Wikipedia no matter who wrote them. You had not included a coutry in the information on that page, i was merely improving that article, as I am intitled to. 82.1.148.215 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said they were my articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Further edit-warring [12]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done anything wrong Bret, I have tried to add detailed, relevant, and correct information to articles. You have very biased views and continue to undo my edits so that the articles go back to having inadaquate and subtly biased information. I think I shall make a complaint about you. As an advanced User, could you please tell me how to do this? The cows want their milk back (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Add taunting and/or baiting to the list. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Taunting? Baiting? I have entered information which i believe to be correct, and whether you are ignorant enough to see this as 'Taunting' is your choice. I asked you an honest question, and you refuse to help me. As a new user, I do not know a lot about how to do things on wikipedia, and the fact that you won't try to help is mean, lazy, and un-wikipedian. The cows want their milk back (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I refuse to rise to the bait. Maybe at some point, an admin will venture through here and actually do something about this. Having someone openly flaunt the rules on an admin notification page is a pretty sad state of affairs. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring for 31 hrs - also blocked the ip. Vsmith (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How come the other two editors waging an edit war didn't get blocked Mr Smith? They would be User:Bretonbanquet and particularly User:DuncanHill. FootballPhil (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, maybe repeatedly urging The Cows to use the talk page and discuss his proposed changes had something to do with it. That or we're not SPAs. DuncanHill (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've opened a sockpuppet investigation on TCWTMB and FootballPhil here. I've asked for checkuser, but probably it isn't even necessary in this case. Auntie E. (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just alerting everyone that the same pattern of unhelpful activity by this user has re-emerged, this time at Saint Piran's Flag and its talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have indef'ed the editor until they indicate an understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and acknowledge that there is one for the admittedly clunky use of "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" in related topics, which was a compromise which ended an edit war back in 2007. As someone involved in creating that consensus back then I suppose that I am involved historically, so I should be grateful for a review of my actions and rationale regarding the sanction - and also if someone still active in editing Cornwall project articles can find the discussion that lead to the consensus and place it on Tcwtmb's talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment regarding biographies of living people

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people --MZMcBride (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can this be put on WP:CENT? I know there's already a similar discussion up there, but this is more recent and broader in scope. ThemFromSpace 17:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, an RFC was likely the most appropriate route to go, thus I think CENT should be updated. NJA (t/c) 17:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Just throwing this out there: per my usual, I am willing to userfy any deleted article to allow it to be properly sourced. I'll check back after a short while to ensure the needful has been done. –xeno^talk 18:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Gah! There's that phrase again! "the needful" - where does that come from?!? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, hold on. We have an article on it. Ignore me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
      • That pleases me greatly. –xeno^talk 21:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I ignore me all the time. I'm sure that's why I'm such a happy and level headed person. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I meant the existence of the article =] –xeno^talk 21:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Oh, but that would have been the best put down ever. I laughed! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Userfication of an article that violates WP:BLP is in violation of WP:BLP. Woogee (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced non-controversial, non-negative articles do not violate WP:BLP. Fences&Windows 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the crux of the problem here, bud; no one really knows what is in all of these problematic articles. 50,000 wildcards that just simply need to be taken out of play rather than deliberated over one by one. Tarc (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I will naturally review the article for any glaring problems. –xeno^talk 22:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indeed. I'm no deletionist and I think we need to be very careful here about babies and bathwater but, as Tarc says, we have over 50,000 of these and I'd say it's better to nuke every last one of them than to leave just a single attack page or BLP containing defamatory information. BLPs aren't the only victims of libelous vandalism but it's a good place to start and I'm glad this is getting so much attentions now. HJMitchell You rang? 23:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never subscribed to the theory that the best way to save something is to destroy it. Abusing the tools to jump start a much needed discussion can be forgiven, even applauded, so long as the abuse stops once the community begins taking the issue seriously. Indiscriminate deletion is not the solution, and I think the RfC is showing that there is very little support for such a course of action no matter how big a hissyfit the usual suspects throw. In fact, deliberation over each article is what is needed, and much of what the PROD-like discussion is centred around. Resolute 23:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced non-controversial, non-negative articles do not violate WP:BLP If that were the case, the articles wouldn't be being deleted. Woogee (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you arriving late to this party? You might want to familiarize yourself with the recent events in this area. –xeno^talk 23:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assumption of good faith. I see I'm not the only one questioning your assertion. Woogee (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

including this User. Woogee (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Where does faith come into it at all? And I don't recall making any assertion. I offered to userfy any article summarily deleted to allow time for sourcing. –xeno^talk 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your nasty comment to me is a clear example of bad faith assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about. Woogee (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What nasty comment? Someone can act entirely in good faith yet still be working with an incomplete picture of the situation. We are currently in a period of rapid upheaval. –xeno^talk 23:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

xeno, how does it make sense to offer to userify an article when nobody who needs it userified knows what its content is and whether it would be worth the trouble? DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This question is key, and it mystifies me. The best way to improve the enyclopedia is by building on its existing contents. If you can't see the content, you can't improve it, and you don't have a clue where to begin. Franamax (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

@dgg - Isn't that kind of the point?- So that they can see for themselves if there is something of value there and source it? The alternative is having to duplicate work. –xeno^talk 13:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Question: If anyone knows the answer to this question I posed at VPT, can they reply there. I am posting this request here, since I assume it would be of interest to other projects too. Abecedare (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion regarding BLP deletions

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion in lieu of a full case regarding the BLP deletions request. The text of the motion is as follows:

The Committee has examined this matter. In light of the following considerations:

• That the core principles of the policy on biographies of living people—in particular, neutrality and verifiability—have been set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation as a mandate for all projects;
• That the policy on biographies of living people, and this Committee's ruling in the Badlydrawnjeff case, call for the removal of poorly sourced and controversial content, and places the burden of demonstrating compliance on those who wish to see the content included;
• That unsourced biographies of living people may contain seemingly innocuous statements which are actually damaging, but there is no way to determine whether they do without providing sources;
• That Wikipedia, through the founding principle of "Ignore All Rules", has traditionally given administrators wide discretion to enforce policies and principles using their own best judgment; and
• That administrators have been instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people.

The Committee has determined that:

• The deletions carried out by Rdm2376, Scott MacDonald, and various other administrators are a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion to enforce the policy on biographies of living people.
• The administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, but are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner.
• The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns.

The Committee hereby proclaims an amnesty for all editors who may have overstepped the bounds of policy in this matter. Everyone is asked to continue working together to improve and uphold the goals of our project. The Committee recommends, in particular, that a request for comments be opened to centralize discussion on the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 19:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Spam filter exception request

Please see Talk:Spheksophobia, as I have posted a comment there regarding a false positive in the spam filter. -- IRP ☎ 01:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffee edit warring on protected policy page, now blocked; please review

No point in discussing this further here. Comments here -> Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WP:PROD_wheel_war - Alison ^❤ 09:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the context of the current disputes about how to deal with unsourced WP:BLPs, the policy page Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was recently fully protected due to an edit war about whether to include language concerning BLPs. Today, Coffee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, re-added the contested content with the edit summary: "The consensus has not and will not change, ArbCom passed a motion that tells admins to be BOLD about this. Therefore I'm being bold and putting this back here."

I asked Coffee, at User talk:Coffee#Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, to revert himself, with reference to the policy WP:FULL that prohibits admins editing protected pages unless the edit has consensus or is uncontroversial. He declined, saying:

The "communities view" doesn't really matter in this case, ArbCom passed a rather simple motion that everyone has pretty much interpreted the same way. The consensus at the RFC is that PRODs on unsourced BLPs should not be removed unless sources are added, this to you should be better than me just mass deleting, which believe me I have no problem starting again. There's no reason to delay adding it to that policy, other than plain and simple policy wonkery, which I will not tolerate. [emphasis in original]

While I am somewhat sympathetic with Coffee in the policy dispute as such (indeed I supported two RfC policy proposals with a similar aim to that of the contested policy language), I believe that nothing in the currently ongoing discussions or the ArbCom motion (see WP:BLPRFC#View by Sandstein)) allows administrators to edit-war on fully protected policy pages to enact their preferred policy through brute force.

For this reason, I have blocked Coffee for 24 hours for edit-warring and abuse of admin tools, and invite review of that action. Because I must leave shortly, any uninvolved administrator is invited to lift or adjust the block as required by consensus (if any) here.  Sandstein  08:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My principle objection here isn't that Coffee was blocked, but that you blocked him after filing a viewpoint on the matter at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#View_by_Sandstein and having filed an opinion at [13], you should not block other participants in dispute you are involved in. You should have reported it here for an uninvolved administrator to handle. You should strongly consider unblocking and leaving it to an uninvolved administrator to handle. MBisanz ^talk 08:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not involved in the dispute in the course of which I blocked Coffee, which is whether or not WP:PROD should be changed to include language related to BLPs. As noted above, the only comments I have ever made concerning this have been generally in favor of Coffee's position.  Sandstein  08:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering the content he was adding was the content in the discussion, that is involved. Someone else has reverted the protect page, I assume you will also be asking them to self-revert? MBisanz ^talk 08:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What a load of absolute codswallop. Please remove the block now, I have never seen anything so puerile. billinghurst sDrewth 08:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC) (annotation … uninvolved admin)

In my discussion with Sandstein, Coffee was adding what was a resolution by abrcom made recently. Sure, Coffee needed it to point it out better or link it, but factually, Coffee was right. I call for his immediate unblocking. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Also seems strange and really needs to stop. We should just cite the arbcom motion and leave this page alone. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec x 4) Whether or not the blocking admin may have been previously involved, the edit is clearly in violation of suggestions made in the vague ArbComm ruling, and should probably result in an extended block, although that may need to be left to ArbComm. The ruling specifically said that further actions should wait until a community consensus is obtained. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock, please - you just blocked a fellow-editor in a dispute in which you are clearly involved. This should have been brought to ANI first, and have an uninvolved admin evaluate the situation. What you did smacks of 'shoot first, questions later' - Alison ^❤ 08:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Question: how many active admins are left that have not yet taken a position in this matter? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I've no idea, but I know where they can be found, after all, we've over 1,600 of them :| - Alison ^❤ 09:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
      • • • That would be me who has no interest in the BLPs. Much prefer bios of the 19thC. billinghurst sDrewth 09:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
      • (To Fut. Perf.) I asked that about β. There may be fewer uninvolved admins this time, but there are probably some. However, he's clearly a rogue admin, and needs to be blocked, for the good of Wikipedia, until he realizes that his specific edits are not supported by consensus or ArbCom. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Alison and others asking for you to unblock Coffee. You are too heavily involved in the matter to make an impartial decision about the matter. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 09:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's very long-standing practice that administrators should not edit disputed protected pages in this manner. Was a block justified and was Sandstein a good person to make the block? I don't know. But Coffee is responsible for creating this mess. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Since it looks like people are splitting on the issue and it involves admin-y stuff, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WP:PROD_wheel_war. MBisanz ^talk 09:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Good grief - what a tangled wheel-war. Good summation, though, MBisanz. Suggest we archive this thread now, as no good can come of it and there's already one arbitrator who's accepted - Alison ^❤ 09:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec ec ec)I have unblocked Coffee billinghurst sDrewth 09:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• It has been referred to Arbitration, and Coffee has opportunity to make comment
• the blocker has said to use consensus due to their absence,
• I have asked Coffee to not edit Wikipedia:Proposed deletion to which they have agreed to, at least for the term of the initial block.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting topic ban or extended block of User:Likebox

He stated that he intends to push his POV ad infinitum on his preferred versions of proofs, and has edit warred over the attempts to move his umpteen rehashing of the same argument to his talk page [14] [15]. Clearly the editing restrictions previously agreeed did not work as he's trying to manufacture consensus by exhausting the patience of others trough endless talk page repetition. I'm asking for an indefinite topic ban on Mathematics articles, widely construed (this includes any theoretical computer science), or for a lengthy block. The basic issue is pushing original research in the form of his own proofs to various theorems. Pcap ping 11:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What is going on here? I didn't even edit the page! I just put a short summary of the proofs on the Talk:Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems for the benefit of future editors, because the old versions were archived.

A short follow-up discussion was deleted from the talk page by some other editors. This violates policy, and I restored the discussion. It is never appropriate to delete other peoples talk page comments.

Do not use this forum to intimidate editors from (briefly) discussing topics on talk pages.Likebox (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I request that editors somehow make it clear that making these types of accusations is not proper behavior.Likebox (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am also aware that an administrator in a hurry could look this over, and conclude that I had done something wrong. This is very intimidating--- it is not good behavior to accuse people of "edit warring". The talk page discussion that was moved to my talk specifically said that if I did not like it being moved, it would be restored.Likebox (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

With edit summary YEAH RIGHT! you add back that:

“ And it will be discussed AGAIN and AGAIN. I am under no editing restrictions--- I am asked to keep to 1RR, and I have complied with this voluntarily. So do not be under the impression that I am somehow going to go away. This will never go away as long as I am around. ”

If this isn't a promise to POV push ad infinitum, then what is it? Pcap ping 12:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That isn't quite what I meant--- I didn't mean that I was going to POV push on the page, only that the dispute is not resolved. So if the old discussion goes into archive, I will restore the proofs to the talk page, because they are still not presented elsewhere. I didn't mean that I would edit the page for inclusion against consensus, just that I would talk until consensus is changed. I hope this happes sooner rather than later.Likebox (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary, just to make clear, was to express annoyance at the deletion of the talk page comments. CBM deleted the back-and-forth and moved it to my talk page. This is not something that should be done without agreement from both parties. The reason he did so is probably because the discussion is not particularly illuminating as regards the material. But the problem is that a long talk page post without a response and without a reference to ongoing back-and-forth discussions make it seem like I am a crackpot pushing original material.Likebox (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I moved the comments because I thought they were mostly referring to your edit restrictions, rather than to the material. I said at the time I didn't care if they were moved back, and I don't. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed topic ban. At the moment Likebox is under an editing restriction visible on that page. The discussion that led up to the restriction is here.

At the time of that discussion, editors reported that Likebox was repeatedly added material to Talk:History wars after failing to get consensus to include it in the article. He has said he is now planning to do the same on Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorem. This is obviously a misuse of talk pages, which are not intended to provide an alternate forum for unsourceable material that cannot be included in the article itself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

First off--- the material I placed on History Wars is extensively sourced, since it is about history, and it is pointless to discuss anything historical without sources. The sources on History wars include at least 4 refereed articles and 4 textbooks. The dispute there is entirely distinct from the dispute regarding Godel's theorem, and there is no point in discussing it further.

Second--- I am under no editing restrictions! I never was. I am under advisory probation to not make edit wars, because I have gotten people pissed off in the past. That's it. Don't edit war, don't POV push. These are the normal restrictions on any Wikipedian, and I am more than happy to comply. You wanted me to be put on specific editing restrictions regarding Godel's theorem, and you did not get that. I am saying this here so that it is clear that my edits were not deemed problematic so much as the tactics I was using to get them accepted.

Third--- I know that you and Arthur Rubin oppose including a proof of Godel's theorem, if that proof is stated using computer programs. That might be consensus at the moment, but its an idiotic consensus, and I don't think it has a chance to stand in the future. Let's wait and see. Until then, if the proofs are deleted from the talk page, then the dispute is effectively buried where nobody will see it. So keep the proofs on the talk page, and wait to see if consensus shifts. That's it.

Regarding your moving comments--- I don't think you did anything wrong, and I considered leaving the comments on my talk page. But the comments might lead people to read the archive, which I think is a good thing. Also, when you are discussing mathematics, there are a lot of people who say stupid things, and I think that a back-and-forth shows that this material was considered and rejected for reasons other than mathemtical accuracy.Likebox (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

General comment on the use of talk pages. (I can recall no personal history of interaction with any of these editors, nor edits to these articles.) Article talk pages are not intended to be indefinite storage areas for material that is not presented in an article. If, after a reasonable period of discussion – with suitable recourse to RfCs, third opinions, or other consensus-building tools, as necessary – no consensus to include material is reached, then it is generally best to let the discussion end. Talk pages have archives, should reference to the material be required in the future. For that matter, the material remains in the history of the talk page in perpetuity.

In general, it is considered poor form to repeatedly 'bump' a topic from the talk page archives absent a good reason to do so. Good reasons may include a shift in Wikipedia policy, the effects of broader discussion on related topics, articles, or WikiProjects, the publication of significant new reliable sources, etc. Broadly speaking, a 'good' reason is one which might lead a reasonable person to believe that the outcome of the discussion might be changed on the basis of the new evidence or information. "I think the other editors are wrong" or variations on that theme are not 'good' reasons for the purposes of this discussion. Repeated 'bumping' of a topic without good reason (or repeated restatement of essentially the same, previously-archived points) is disruptive and should be avoided. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Coping my comment at Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems as relevant to this discussion:

"The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." (WP:TALK). Like any other page the talk page can be can be edited as appropriate by editor consensus and in accord with WP guideline and policies. In particular:

"Refactoring for relevance: Archiving material not relevant to improving the article ... Formerly it was not uncommon to simply delete off-topic posts, but this has led to disputes from time to time, and it is generally better to move such threads to an archive page. ... Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion." (WP:TALK#Others' comments).

I suspect that Carl and Arthur Rubin are of the opinion that the much of the above discussion is off-topic. I would support that view. Paul August ☎ 15:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul August ☎ 16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion of Likebox at all. However it is clear that "Pcap" is not what is referred to in law as a "Reasonable Person of Normal Sensitivity". It appears that he believes that topic bans are the solution for a lot of issues, and that he is active in discussion about the topic ban policy. If you give this type of person a hammer, they will see everything as a nail. The reason Pcap tries to abuse this policy, is that he is probably incapable of real collaboration himself. To such a person, getting rid of others is the only way to cope. It's very immature political behavior. What ever administrators are considering action proposed by Pcap, please consider whether or not his proposal is appropriate with this in mind. Pcap -- learn to collaborate, by proposing formulations for the article, not by wikilawyering. Greg Bard (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments on "General Use of Talk Pages": There are cases where extensive material is deleted from the main article--- it is then advised that this material be saved on the talk page, as a courtesy to the author. In the case involved, the material was rejected by a split decision involving basically one hardheaded person for inclusion (me) with a few less committed supporters against two hardheaded editors against (CBM + Arthur Rubin) with a few less committed supporters. I was able to persuade some of the other people involved who opposed inclusion to leave because they were ignorant or because they don't like me, and others to agree that the text is accurate, and not too bad. But among the truly willing to revert or insert text, that's just one vs. two (as is all too common on Wikipedia).

The material is mathematically correct (up to typos, etc), as can be checked by anybody who knows any of the mathematics. The question of whether proofs with some novelties in presentation are to be included in an article, and this is an old, old question. All proofs, as anyone who reads mathematics can attest, are reworked to some extent. They follow the main ideas in the sources, but use different language, different formulas. This is the mathematical version of paraphrasing. A paraphrase of ill understood mathematics looks like OR to someone who does not follow the ideas in the literature very well.

I want to point out that CBM does not believe the material is OR. I believe he understands it completely, and opposes it for different reasons. I believe that he opposes it because he understands the dominant politics of the field of recursion theory. This presentation I am giving is basically 60 years old, and it has been systematically excluded from textbooks, etc, so that it is only presented informally here and there in the dead trees literature. The reason that it is excluded has to do with academic politics: there is a strong language barrier put in place. Proofs which mention computer programs have to be stated in the mathematician's preferred language, which is called "recursive function theory" which is purposefully obscure: it is designed to look as little as possible like ordinary computer programs. The reason is explicitly stated in the literature--- it is to make sure that computer science literature does not bleed into mathematics.

This separation barrier is stupid, and has a snowball's chance in hell of standing in the internet era. Unfortunately, there are older people who do not agree. So the discussion will continue (with modified text--- the current iteration is better than the last) until the balance of people shifts which could be only when the relevant editors retire.

The talk pages are extremely important for keeping this alive. I don't intend formal dispute resolution, because I am not sure that the dispute resolvers will be mathematically competent (actually, I am pretty sure the opposite is true). I also do not intend to let it drop, because this is one of those cases where a mathematical proof, made widely known, will do a lot of good.

The comments on the talk page are a few thousand characters in size, and the dispute has not gone away.Likebox (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Likebox hasn't done anything worthy of a long or permanent block. He's just leaving his obsessions on the article's talk page. What's the harm? Those of you who view that page notice that I don't react to his posts -- we who are long of tooth have learned this trick w.r.t. dealing with minor annoyances. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done anything worthy of even a rebuke. This type of harassment of editors regarding talk-page comments has only one goal: to shut them up. This is a form of censorship, when it is successful. I am not particularly politically savvy, but there are people who are even less savvy than I am who have gotten blocked for comparably trivial things. Please restrain the urge to block people because someone lodges a complaint, and try to put some measures to reduce the credibility of those who bring up spurious accusations of this nature.Likebox (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is particularly ill equipped in dealing with people relentlessly pushing their idiosyncratic views. User:Gregbard, who criticizes me above for proposing this, has pushed his POV on formal language for a couple of years now, trying to rewrite that article based on an obscure book that hardly has any citations. I do think topic bans should be handed out more often in cases like this. Manufacturing consensus via WP:SILENCE by wearing out editors who have other things to do than reject the same POV push the n-th time is the path to Fringipedia. Pcap ping 06:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has functioned very well inclusively up until now. You don't need to ban people for made up reasons, and if you try to do this, you should not be active here. I looked over the edits Gregbard has made on formal language, and what I see is mundane, useful information regarding applications of formal languages to formal logic. I don't see any nonconstructive contributions, and he has made many edits. Why do you believe that you should be the arbiter of who gets to speak? And why do you believe in your mission so much that you bring up requests for user-bans on such spurious accusations?

My own edits to Godel's theorem present the standard Kleene proof of the incompleteness theorem in informal jargon-free way that anyone can understand. The textbook presentations are hopelessly jargon riddled, and they say exactly the same thing. One of the core missions of Wikipedia is to de-jargon technical material, and I just happen to know what I am pretty sure is the best way to do this for Godel's theorem. I am running up against opposition because this type of presentation is taboo in mathematics (for no good reason). If you read the material I put, and you came to the conclusion that it is fringy, you need to have your head examined.Likebox (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good situation for a user conduct request for comment. Durova⁴⁰³ 07:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your responses (Pcap) support my claims. First of all "POV" means something, you don't just throw out the term when you don't like something but can't articulate why. You do not seem to understand what is POV and what is legitimate subject matter. The issue at formal language demonstrates the need for collaborative, not combative editors. After the combat stopped we were able to arrive at a mutually agreeable arrangement (No thanks to you I might add). Fringipedia? Really? You have demonstrated exactly my point about you: you are not a reasonable person of normal sensitivity. Greg Bard (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Would somebody please close this ridiculous request so that I don't have to be afraid of every moronic hotheaded administrator anymore?Likebox (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Likebox's unarchiving of his own proof proposal, an action that was not requested by any other editor, is a form of refactoring. As it states in WP:REFACTOR, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." If he continues to unarchive his own material against the objections of others, I believe he could be blocked for WP:Disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not unarchive anything! The text I wrote is a completely new text, written from scratch without reference to previous material, and including new language and new examples. It took a bunch of thinking to write, and it is annoying to have to defend it. EdJohnston should not be attempting to silence anybody--- he is free to respond to the new text, or to leave it alone.

The Wikipedia policy regarding material on talk pages is clear: when there is disputed text , text which used to be in the article, which isn't libelous or off-topic, then it is not correct to ask for punitive actions towards editors for including it. This is especially true considering that the new text is brief and to the point, more so than previous texts.Likebox (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am also afraid that these types of bogus administrative actions will be tolerated, and will substitute for debate. There has to be some sort of way to file a frivolous action request complaint, so that people who bring up frivolous requests for administrative blocks can be prevented from doing so in the future.Likebox (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

There is currently a bit of a backlog at WP:TFD, and any help closing these discussions would be most appreciated. Unfortunately, there are many that I can't close due to !voting. Thank you! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Justa quick note before I head off for another wikibreak. I got blocked yesterday for 3RR violation. Yes, I did violate 3RR but:

• The person reporting it made no attempt to draw my attention to it or remind me before going to report.
• The last diff was six hours old and I was actively editing much of that time, most significantly starting an RfC to resolve the dispute itself.
• The appearance is a punitive block caused by a tag-team baiting someone and running straight to the boards.
• Yes, I've been here a while and know about 3RR. Apparently having been here for over five years means I'm no longer entitled to the basic courtesy of a reminder before requesting a block.

In the old days blocks were preventive not punitive. A block six hours after the last diff, and after which the person in question has started the correct dispute resolution process (as contrasted with the other parties who have been edit-warring the first sentence of an article for some time) can only look punitive. There was nothing to prevent and would have been nothing to prevent had anyone thought to extend the basic courtesy of pointing out that I'd got carried away with the reverts (I'd have inserted {{disputed}} instead). I sincerely hope that blocking people based on stale diffs when they have already stopped reverting and initiated the correct dispute resolution process is not the norm, though it would explain why some people are so pissed off with the admin community these days.

Aside: Tbsdy summed this up admirably at Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government: "I don't believe that JzG was taking a side here, what he's basically saying is that though it may well be that Gibraltar is self-governing, the simple fact is that not everyone agrees with this position. Should we state that Gibraltar is self-governing, then Wikipedia would be taking a stance on this matter. This conflicts with our policy of neutrality." Precisely. A statement of fact has to be an undisputed fact; since it is not, even according to the sources used to support it, I removed it. The two POVs were "is self-governing" and "is not self-governing" and the truth is, as so often, somewhere in between - saying neither is more neutral than stating either as fact and the default for contentious material is to exclude it pending proper discussion and a provably neutral statement otherwise every POV-pusher in the world could insert their text of choice, source it to something and then demand that it stays in until someone finally persuades them to allow a version that complies with policy.

Right, that's that off my chest, I'm out of here for a while. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad faith accusations and running around making uncivil edits in your talk page is hardly going to make your case for 'Whoa is me' much stronger. Nor is constantly going 'I've edited here for X years and I've been an admin since X' or what have you. I'd also question whether 6 hours is a stale diff. Someone edit wars and goes to sleep, that would cause a six hour+ gap. I can't say I've looked into every facet of this in depth (partly because it would involve more than glancing at the Gibraltar talk page and I just can't bring myself to do that), but this does appear to be 'I fucked up, it must be everyone else's fault'. A pity as I thought you were doing some good with what is an atrocious article atmosphere. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as I was the reporting editor (and I think it's worth getting both sides):

You've made this bad faith accusation ("Tag-team baiting someone and running straight to the boards") on ANI, AN3, here and on your talk page. I don't think it's helpful or civil and obviously I reject it - noting in passing that my proposed solution in the RFC does not call Gibraltar "self-governing" without qualification.

I didn't warn you because I didn't notice you'd got to three reverts until after the fourth, and I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to expect an editor as experienced as you are to be aware of 3RR and to avoid it. I reported around fifty minutes after the last revert - which seems reasonable to me. Six hours, I agree, seems like a long time - but as Narson notes it's not that implausible. I wouldn't have argued the toss if the report had been thrown out on either of those grounds. But the fact remains that you did break 3RR. You knew the rule, and no-one forced you to break it.

I'd also note that I did take account of the RFC when considering whether to report - but you continued to revert after you started the RFC (which was called at 10:14am UTC; the fourth revert was at 11:47am UTC). If you'd stopped when you called the RFC, you wouldn't have broken 3RR - and I probably wouldn't have reported even if you had. But you didn't stop, you carried straight on. Pfainuk talk 21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As someone labelled a "POV Warrior" and of "tag team baiting". I'd dispute some of the claims above.

• The person reporting it made no attempt to draw my attention to it or remind me before going to report. [16] Yes they did, some 5 hrs before you were blocked.
• JzG misjudged the situation completely, he made up his mind before he started and, unfortunately, sided with the disruptive editors who've plagued the article for months.
• Edit summaries like FFS, didn't help his unblock request, nor did the fact his unblock request blamed everyone else, then several foul mouthed edits after that. Nor did his suggestion for admins to act out of process and ban everyone who'd disagreed with him. Justin talk 22:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not involved in this dispute, but I read it accidentally.

The blocking behavior of administrators is getting out of hand, and as a person who has been blocked several times (and unblocked once), I can tell you that it is effectively impossible to get unblocked, no matter how ridiculous the original block. This means that you could always be struck by a bolt out of the blue.

The reason is that administrators are all buddy-buddy, and nobody wants to make enemies. So when your buddy makes a block, you are not going to overrule it, even if you disagree with it.

One way out of this is to make a higher tier of administrators, who overrule others, like an appeals court. Another way is just to use the block discretion infrequently.

There are already several options for appealing a block (which I would think you'd be well familiar with given how frequently you find yourself blocked.). Please review existing policies before blathering on like this -- it only makes you look (more) ridiculous 71.139.18.249 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that these review policies are meaningful. For example, in this case, obviously a well-meaning experienced editor got sucked into a revert-vortex, accidentally violated 3RR without noticing, and realized this needs dispute resolution. An administrator reviewed the actions with too much haste, and decided that a block is appropriate.

But now, politically, no administrator is willing to call "bullshit" on the block. There needs to be sensitivity. Blocks are a bludgeon, and should be used only when somebody has no idea how to behave.Likebox (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A block causes endless political problems. Your material can lose supporters because others do not wish to be associated with an unpopular position. Further, there are always people who don't like you, who will bear false witness. A block should be used when somebody is endlessly disruptive, and there is no other way around it.Likebox (talk)

I bet if he wasn't blocked, someone would have complained that admins were going easy on him because he's a former admin, experienced editor, etc. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. -- tariqabjotu 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those occasion I feel sorry for admins; one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't situations. On the face of it a block was on the cards as he'd continued to revert after starting the RFC, he ignored the 3RR warning and when blocked lost it, rather than making a calm appeal for common sense. Even now he is blaming everyone else for what happened, even though one of the alleged conspirators asked you to over turn the block. If I may be blunt the block is arguably a correct decision, granting the unblock request may have cooled the situation but given the foul mouthed diatribe I can understand why you didn't. Personally I think the criticism of the blocking admin is unwarranted. Justin talk 14:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole point is that there was no warning, not even a friendly reminder. You went straight to the 3RR noticeboard and even though your comment about that was sufficient to draw my attention to the fact that I'd over reverted, six hours later, with no further reverts and having started the RfC that should have been started in the first place when the factions were engaged in the "oh not it isn't" / "oh yes it is" pantomime, I was blocked for it. I don't think I ever blocked anyone based on a six-hour-old diff with absolutely no warnings or comments whatsoever. Feel free to point out where I did that. That was my point, really - not that I hadn't made an error, I did and I put my hands up to it, but that it went error -> noticeboard -> six hours of no recurrence of the issue -> block. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive. Tell me how that looks any other way. Anyway, I'm supposed to be on a break so I will go now. Was I pissed off? Yes, and I still am. For the reasons eloquently noted by Tbsdy. But that isn't the point, the point is that I don't think we're supposed ot block people for 3RR based on stale diffs and with absolutely no attempt to remind them to stop before a report is made to the 3RR board. If you ever get in that position again I would suggest to you that instead of being an arsehole you make a comment first, then, if they continue to revert, report them all you like. Just imagine how it feels to someone who's been here over five years to be blocked without even the basic courtesy of a comment to remind them they are getting carried away, especially when they are making an admittedly clumsy attempt to fix a WP:NPOV violation. "Hey, you've been here too long for the minor courtesy of a warning, have a time bomb instead, it might go off any time". Wonderful, it makes you feel really valued. Now, look below, the notice on my talk page is there for a purpose, and the purpose is to stop me form berating you for being a shit while I'm still pissed off about getting rather less consideration than the average vandal. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How is this edit [17] by JZG not deserving of a block, when he explicitly says he is making a legal threat? Is it just lame humor, and is that somehow exempt from Wikipedia:No legal threats? Is he quoting a post from someone else? Are there different sets of rules for different editors? Edison (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

He was pissed off at the place at the time, and wanted someone to block him. See WP:BLOCKME. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an old Wikipedia joke; see this. NW (Talk) 17:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman

Could an admin please take a look at this DRV? The DRV has run for a full week. It has been rather heated and is now veering towards a possibility of edit warring[18][19][20][21]. IMO, everything that could be said there has already been said, several times over, and it is time to close it. Nsk92 (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And one more[22]. Nsk92 (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Shereth 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Closed. Shereth 19:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I only hope the next time it gets nominated somebody does the right thing and excludes all the usual suspects from both sides of the EEML issue from it. That's the only way a reasonable debate will be possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, including User:Nsk92, who requested that this debate be closed. I welcome your participation with a sense of relief, and hold no animosities against anybody who acted in good faith at this DRV. But, would you please follow up on your decision and remove the residue DRV flag from the article itself. Thank you in advance. -- Poeticbent talk 20:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally I was removing the flag and came here to see the request. Nice timing :) Shereth 20:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. -- Poeticbent talk 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing is sure - when this will be renominated someone needs to make sure that Poeticbent refrains from attacking and smearing those who argue for a deletion, and those involved in the EEML case stay away from the deletion discussion. It is of course a disgrace to see how easy it is to disrupt and derail a deletion discussion, but then there are worse articles than this one here on Wikipedia. Pantherskin (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sitenotice updates

Moved from WP:ANI ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 18:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not knowing this by now, but who, or what page, is responsible for updating sitenotice banners? For example, when I sign on today I see a banner soliciting my attendance at the January New York wikiconference, which is a great thing except that the conference was yesterday.... Is there a centralized place for handling these matters? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages might be a good place to start. I haven't seen the NY wikiconference banner, though I do see the Strategy Task Force recommendations and the Steward Election notice. Maybe someone caught it? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have or know the exact text? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You should look here. The full list of notices is here. Ruslik_Zero 20:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fairly sure NYB is talking about the Geonotice. Tim Song (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• User:Tothwolf is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

• User:JBsupreme is warned to refrain from incivility and personal attacks.

• User:Miami33139 and and User:JBsupreme are reminded to observe deletion best practices when nominating articles for deletion, including the consideration of alternatives to deletion such as merging articles or curing problems through editing.

• The parties in particular, and other editors generally, are reminded to observe at all times Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on dealing with harassed editors and on handling conflicts of interest.

• Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

DIREKTOR again

Resolved

 – OP blocked. Posting these threads seems to be the norm of this sock. Spellcast (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

After long discussion in talk:Josip Broz Tito and in this project page: wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive587#User:DIREKTOR, user:DIREKTOR has yet bad behaviour very much. He is aggressive against who want only neutrality of various mattters because article Josip Broz Tito is tagged and I agree with users Sir Floyd, ShadowRanger, Andrea Fox2, Thewanderer, AP1929, Jeppiz and others who want contribute to neutrality but DIREKTOR is in permanent edit war in all Tito's articles related and accuses or insults other users who have different opinions! This is an example of this guy's insolenceand here in edit summary he accuses me of nonsense and spamming! Also here he has disruptive and hostile words! But he is not alone titoist around and probably I will request ARBCOM; what do you think? Moreover I assert to entire community: these titoist/communist guy's do not represent real mind of people in new Republics of ex Yugoslavia because communist nostalgics of dictator Broz are few individuals--ANTE RAKELA (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with sarcasm here. First, it actually doesn't seem to include you and I'm not a big fan of the gamesmanship those articles bring out. Second, it's from July so why bring it up now? Of course, I see the edit warring with you now occurring so that's my guess as to the reason. Here you are adding an unsourced paragraph about additional mass executions also being carried out later. I don't know if that's nonsense or spam but perhaps you could follow his advice here and "refrain from introducing controversial edits without prior discussion." Wouldn't that help? This name-calling certainly doesn't help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have notified Director of this discussion as required and if you wish to inform ARBCOM, I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia (well, this part is important) before continuing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, User:ANTE RAKELA, if you feel my behavior warrants an ARBCOM report, its your perrogative. However, I'd still reccomend actual sources as a means of pushing your text into the article.

The situation on that cursed article is simple enough. The political figure is a left-wing leader. He's hated by the Balkans nationalists (with a passion, I might add). Thus a number of persons are trying to write up a text accusing the politician of crimes, killings, bad breath, BO, you name it. All I'm saying is: first present your source. I'm not a crusader over there, I'm just trying to keep the text sane (the article used to be a WP:GA candidate). I keep saying: just show me a scholar that thinks this person is guilty of something or other. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RFBAG

I am currently standing for BAG membership. Your input is appreciated. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nowcommons, be careful

Hi admins, I'm tagging a lot of files (about 20.000) with {{Nowcommons}} now. The first 12.000 files will end up in Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. Please remember Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#F8 and don't delete these files without checking. Thank you, multichill (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Already one admin emptied out the category without properly checking :-(. multichill (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It takes me a while to do these, unless it's something dead simple like all those road signs that were done last week. If I'm deleting these, I tend to have an edit on Commons for every two or three I delete: I am not doing this crap because I love Commons, but because it's necessary to satisfy myself that CSD F8 is being met. If I'm doing something stupid here, while it would be nicer if I'd known several thousand deletions ago, I'd still like to know now. My routine is: open image page; check there is a duplicate listed on Commons; check link to Commons on NCD tag works; check license is right on Commons; check upload log is there; remove "bot check" tag if there's one there, remove any left-over templates and duplicate tags, fix broken links back to here; click link to here and check I get back to the right page; consider for a second if the license and so on is good enough that the image on Commons won't be speedied; click delete; pick F8 and add the new name if it changed. So, am I being stupid here, or just thorough? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I've looked through some of these. The fact that the original page for File:Annete09.jpg had as the source "Google" is not a terribly good sign. Chick Bowen 02:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There's always room for improvement of course. But what I'm really hoping is for the opposite. More like DGAF. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked at the uploader's talk page about that image; if there's no response requesting deletion might be the way to go. As for the general question: I'm not sure what to tell you. No one can be blamed for assuming good faith, which we have to do whenever we transfer an image to Commons (it would be ridiculous to actually track down every image at its source). But a certain percentage will be copyvios, or will have inaccurate information. The good news is that the deleted image page is always available if questions are later raised; the bad news is, with the shortage of both admins and prolific image-taggers at Commons, they often aren't. So I don't know what we should do. I've sometimes thought that CSD#F8 should be repealed, on the grounds that it too often transfers our copyvios to Commons, where there are fewer admins to deal with them. But I've thought it best to keep quiet about it. . . Chick Bowen 03:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sound good what you're doing Angus! I try to stick to Commons:Commons:Moving to Commons. multichill (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, such is my process as well. Sometimes it will take me 10 minutes to fully check an image, and 1 image per minute is my maximum rate with this. If I have time later today, I'll try and help out a bit. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it was not a very good idea to s=do such a large number at one time, which can tend to overwhelm our processes. At the least, it would have been good to make sure people were notified before, not after, doing the tagging. Do we have a rule about pre-checking for even the most clearly and unquestionably correct large scale actions? Perhaps we ought to. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

All the files have a bot field set. If it overwhelms the process, these files can easily be moved to another category by just one edit at {{Nowcommons}}. Do you want me to do that? multichill (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The number should not mean anything. There is no rule saying that admins can choose NOT to be careful just because there is a lot of files to check. It does not matter if tag is added by a bot or a human. Admins have to check files before they are deleted. Only exception is if Multichill (he is an admin on Commons and very trustworhty) or an other trusted user has transfered xxx files and give an admin a list and say "I transfered these and they are ok then the files can be deleted" - then the files can be deleted fast.

Also there is no rule saying that files with "NowCommons" has to be deleted within 24 hours. If it take a month to check files then so be it. If it makes the enwiki-admins really sad that it has to take that long, then you could consider to give some Commons admins temporary admin rights on enwiki. Then it would also be easier to clean up any mess made because of files deleted without a check. --MGA73 (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

On dewiki they have a category for "NowCommons" that needs to be fixed before image can be deleted. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make a similar category on enwiki. Then admins can delete ok files, fix the ones that only need minor fixes and place the really "bad ones" in a category for later fixing. --MGA73 (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am very unhappy with the TFD process for Template:Abuse

It has been a major nightmare for me for various reasons. It has taken up a great deal of my time which could have been much better spent doing constructive work on Wikipedia doing more research etc. The associated subject matter Abuse is widely misunderstood by the general public and it seems the TFD has been subject to misinformed delete views by editors who freely admit they have no specialist knowledge in the subject. Some editors whizz through the AFDs and TFDs and make snap judgements on diverse topics, some which they know nothing about. This may be fine for many subjects but unfortunately abuse is so widely misunderstood by the general public and it is important that contributors have an informed view in this case.

It is a vicious circle because it is precisely because abuse is so widely misunderstood, that I felt motivated to overhaul the Abuse article (which had been languishing as a DAB page for years), which is closely associated with the template and depends on it a lot for navigation reasons etc. I have not yet properly written the later sections explaining the several commons strands that relate to abuses in general (but differing strands for different abuse types). But until people read that and understand it, they are likely to stick to the widespread myth that the abuse subject is just a long list of unrelated abuses. In my view deletion of the template would seriously undermine the Abuse article.

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_24#Template:Abuse

The other issue is that to my horror the TFD was relisted when it seemed clear to me that the result was a clear KEEP and the whole basis of the new TFD is undermined. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_24#Very_important_statement_on_the_validity_of_this_TFD

User:Woohookitty who started the TFD in the first place said "I sort of regret bringing this up to begin with".

--Penbat (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place for this. AN is for reporting abuse by administrators. This is not the place to argue a keep argument for a template. But we can comment on the process issues you bring up. I'm sorry you are frustrated by the process, but you know, that's how WP works. We're not all "experts" on the subject. XfDs are not really for showing expertness. Its is this appropriate for the encyclopedia. Your point seems to be that people should be "experts" to have their vote counted or their voice heard. Well that's not what people are voting on. They are voting on the issue as to whether the template is appropriate for the encyclopedia. It has ZERO to do with the subject itself or at least it shouldn't. And when admins go to close a XfD, they are looking for that kind of argument. And they are looking for a consensus. Extensions are done if a consensus hasn't been reached and obviously that's what the admin decided. The thing is, look at my initial argument. I didn't see a say thing about the subject matter. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 21:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My main point (as indicated by the title) was the process involved in relisting the TFD which makes me despair and want to give up - ref Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_24#Very_important_statement_on_the_validity_of_this_TFD

I am halfway out the door already.

--Penbat (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Penbat, to what in particular about "the process involved in relisting the TFD" do you object? Initially, you cited two issues: (1) that those who supported deletion at the beginning of the TfD (myself, Woohookitty, and Apoc2400) had changed their position to "effectively neutral"; and (2) that the practice of unbolding duplicate bolded !votes prevented people from expressing a change in opinion.

On the first issue, you can see already that your assessment was not accurate. Both Woohookitty and I have already stated explicitly that we neither were nor are "effectively neutral" about the template's deletion. On the second issue, it was pointed out to you at the TfD that unbolding duplicate bolded !votes is common, accepted practice and in no way prevents any editor from expressing a change in opinion or from confirming their original opinion. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I've closed the discussion since the relist does not appear to have achieved any progress towards consensus. I do not endorse Penbat's complaint about the relisting, which was a perfectly valid (if fruitless) attempt to find consensus, nor do I see any problem with the unbolding of duplicate !votes. --RL0919 (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am extremely grateful that the TFD has been closed. Personally I think I have had to do too much work on some psychology articles single handedly and would have liked more constructive help. I have had enough of the abuse article and the abuse template for the time being. I will be unwatching them for about 12 months and see if anybody else does manages to do any constructive work on them in the meantime. I am abandoning the difficult unfinished sections at the end of the abuse article (which require a lot of heavy research) until then. It is these unfinished sections which were my main reason for overhauling the abuse article in the first place by concentrating on the common features between abuses which in turn in my view makes the template fully justifiable.--Penbat (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, the abuse article looks like WP:SYNT. Based on your retort here, I was expecting an article citing scientific references explaining how the various forms of abuse are related. There's none of that there. Even the basic definition is sourced from Wikictionary, and what follows is just a list. If you expect editors to take your claimed credentials seriously, you need to produce a more convincing article. Pcap ping 18:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation

Started editing at TM on Jan 19th 2010 as a neutral third party as the health care content was not compliant with wiki policy particularly WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:MEDRS. Some of the edits there appear to work for the Maharishi University of Management which it appears actively edits Wikipedia to conform to there POV. My edits were based on consensus developed here [[23]] and here [[24]] among other places. We have WP:COI by a couple of edits who seem to be WP:SPAs. A discussion is taking place here [25]. Well I agree this will probably need to go to arbitration in the long run with issues similar to those surround Scientology would appreciate further eye on this matter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There's CU evidence that this group may be a sock or meat drawer. I've filed an SPI to see if it looks like there's a WP:SOCK violation. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin decision review

Resolvedish
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi all, I have made a number of admin decisions over the past 24 hours that I thought reasonable, but others have questioned. I am putting these forward for review. The first is not really an admin-only decision, but it was fully addresed on WP:AN/I. I felt that the deletion decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible was not spelled out, so I changed the decision and informed the closing admin. I also made others aware at WP:AN/I#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (2nd nomination). This was a mistake, I should have taken to DRV. While I don't agree with the way that the AFD was closed, I have realised that I should have used another process. The second issue is that Ikip others thought that Ikip was using a bot. However, I don't believe this to be the case, in fact he uses a .NET helper app. What happened here was that he was implementing something called an article incubator, which moved BLPs to Wikipedia space. Now that hasn't been agreed upon yet, but when he was warned to stop then he did. As he was accused of using a bot when he wasn't, I unblocked. This was uncontroversial, however Hipocrite has told me that I'm misusing the tools by unblocking. For further info, see WP:AN/I#Wow, the unsourced BLPs are moving to a new namespace. The final issue is that Fuckingeveryone, a vandal only account with a bad username, was indefinitely blocked. However, on the first unblock request, where they asked for the ability to change their username they were given the unblock denial reasoning on "No fucking way". Then when they tried again, they were denied, with the suggestion that they make their request at the user rename page. Both of these responses were, I felt, totally unreasonable, with the first being inflammatory and incivil. I unblocked, with the proviso that should they edit at any other page than the user rename page they would get blocked again, and after a week I would be reblocking should no request be made. For the last incident, Toddst1 wrote on my user talk page that "Your action there seems rather more of a Kumbaya than that of a responsible admin". This was the same admin that gave the first unblock request. Toddst1 has also accused another editor of being a sock of Fuckingeveryone, though he really has no evidence of this. As I have received a message on my talk page about all these things by Hipocrite, I am taking this to the wider community to review. I don't believe that I've misused the tools, though with the deletion obviously I used entirely the wrong process. However, for the deletion decision when I realised that it was the wrong move, though for the right reasons, I reversed the delete. I also never edited the locked AFD. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 20:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC) According to Hipocrite, he will be seeking "further redress". If that is the case, can I also extend this review to what that should be? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC) This is not the first time Toddst1 has blocked or accused people as being sockpuppets based on a hunch or weak circumstantial evidence. If he wants to be a checkuser he should apply for the tools in the usual way. –xenotalk 21:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Well, certainly Fuckingeveryone was given a rude answer; we do get tired of vandals. But as far as rename requests are concerned, when an account is username blocked and has nothing but vandalism in their history, the best course is simply to tell them to start a new account (I usually ask, "You don't really want that filth in your history, do you?"). Further, vulgar username plus pure vandal edits doesn't require any more consideration than "go away"; we're expected to assume good faith right up to the point that that assumption is proven invalid. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC) (ecs)I don't see how my decision on what venue to seek redress can be determined here. Perhaps if there is strong conensus that you have done nothing wrong, I would decide to drop it, but I don't believe I should be directed by AN to decide if I am seeking your recall, opening an admin-conduct RFC or an arbitration case. I contest each and every one of your descriptions of your questionable actions. To the AFD - you have admitted your mistake. This is a good thing. If you had not admitted your mistake, I would write more. You cleary continue to misunderstand the bot policy. You have stated that ikip was not using a bot. However, Ikip was using a tools which assisted with repetitive tasks, but did alter Wikipedia's content without some human interaction. Per Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Assisted_editing_guidelines this a bot. He was unblocked, by you, with the comment "Not a bot." However, a .net helper app certainly can be a bot, and his unblock comment should have been "user promises to stop." Worse, however, is that because you blessed him with "not a bot" he yet again violated Botpol - see Wikipedia:ANI#Unapproved_bot - this is from a user who was warned by arbcom "to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing." (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black#Ikip_warned). To the unblock. While the comment by the other adminstrator was problematic, you should not be unblocking usernames like "Fuckingeveryone," when their only edits were vandalism. They do not need to seek a name change, they should make a new account when their autoblock runs out. Perhaps you could change the block to a softblock and clear the autoblock, but there is no reason at all to unblock that username with no edit history of note. Because this was three incidents of poor decision making in a very short time, I raised my concern on your talk page. If you had commented at all constructivly, that would have been all, but you have chosen to dig in your heels, which is a shame. The user was not blocked as a sockpuppet, nor by Toddst1 which I believe invalidates xeno's comment. Hipocrite (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I was replying to "Toddst1 has also accused another editor of being a sock of Fuckingeveryone, though he really has no evidence of this". –xenotalk 21:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I don't see how that is at all relevent to TBSDY's conduct, given that it happened after the problematic unblocking. Of course, Toddst1 is also obviously right, but we can let that drop from here. Hipocrite (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Given that I don't actually think I've abused the tools, I can hardly say that I've dug in my heels. However, I've taken this here so that the wider community can comment, which I feel is more constructive than a number of harassing messages on my talk page. I'm curious what sort of redress you will be seeking? With the sock-puppet business, I never said that Toddst1 blocked the editor. He did accuse them of being a sock though. As I have given my detailed reasoning here, I will not be restating it, unless clarification is required. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC) The redress I initially sought was you saying "Gee, perhaps I am acting a bit hasty. I think I'll slow down some." The redress I then sought was you saying something like "I see your concerns, and I'll make every effort to familiarize myself with policies I don't typically deal with before adminstrating them, as things have changed since I was active last." I think I'd probably still be happy with that statment. If you really can't see that there is any reasonable concern over your behavior, I think it would be appropriate to see if you would pass RFA again. Hipocrite (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC) You started the message on my talk page with the premise that I had used my tools hastily. In the next sentence you asked me for a reassurance that I will not misuse them. Apart from the AFD, I don't believe that I have misused them. Your final comment was that "If you cannot grant me such assurance, I will be forced to seek further redress.", which seems a might threatening. As you seemed to be extremely concerned about my actions, yet I don't feel that I've misused the tools, I took it here. I think that is a good faith action to allow others to review my conduct. Of course, I'm always reading policy and I try to be very careful in my decision making. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Tbsdy has his facts wrong. Fuckingeveryone only made one unblock request. Toddst1 (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Hmmm... seems you are correct. You seemed fairly outraged on my talk page that I unblocked though, in fact I believe that you told me that it was a "kumbaya" decision. My decision would not have been different, because you denied their request for unblock to rename their account, but then another editor suggested that they add an unblock request so that they can make the request. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Agree with above on the unblock being unnecessary. I don't think the unblock request itself was even serious - read the reasoning - so that account just needed to go away. I might've protected the talk page too just to make sure the comedian really found another site to vandalize. Wknight94 talk 21:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I can definitely see why you'd say that. However, would you characterize this as a misuse of admin tools? That is the assertion being made here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC) In that case I probably would've thrown up a {{2nd chance}} prior to unblocking. –xenotalk 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC) True... but given that I only unblocked so they could make the rename request, I thought that this would have been sufficient. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Not an abuse of the bit but I would have locked the talk page, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC) @Tbsdy, Misuse of tools? I wouldn't go that far. Just not what I would've done. Wknight94 talk 21:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC) At various times in the RW something like this has happened to me--that people have told me that I was displaying somewhat less accurate judgment or more irascibility than usual. It's even been hinted at me from time to time here. I generally thought that each of the things I did was more of less defensible, but learned to realise that if I was appearing otherwise, perhaps I was not the best judge. One way I came to look at it is that if people are misperceiving me, I am not being as effective as I might be. The remedy is to either take a short rest or to do something totally routine for a while--my own remedy of choice is copyediting--some chose NPP, but I find it only makes me irritable. (I'm not commenting on any of the particulars, though I will say that "further action" in a formal sense would seem to be a excessive reaction. Hipocrite should really regard your acknowledgment of the situation as sufficient.) DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I'd say that some very poor decisions have been made by Tbdsy in the last day, but I'm wondering if it's not just due to distraction and lack of sleep. I think I'd take a short wikibreak, if I were in your shoes. Your wife would undoubtedly appreciate it. Congratulations, by the way. —DoRD (?) (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks :-) I stand by the two unblocks, but I have apologised for the AFD and will ensure I use the correct procedure in future. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Recall? Hipocrite has now asked me to run a recall on my adminship. I feel that I'm being harassed by this editor now. Can someone please review? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Well, AFAIK, you haven't opted to be open to recall, which is an optional nonbinding procedure anyway, so I don't think there is anything he can do other than file a case at arbcom. MBisanz talk 21:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I have not asked you to run a recall, I asked you what your procedures were. You stated you were open to recall when you added the category to your user page on 18 January 2010. I have removed it from your user page, per your statement on your talk page. I believe you have confused my concern over your adminstrative actions with harassment. I am not following you around trying to make your experience at the encyclopedia worse. Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC) OK, but I find the timing curious. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Hipocrite, did you actually remove a category from someone else's user page? If it was not accurate, you should have suggested that he do it himself. I suggest the two of you should avoid interaction for a while. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, I removed an innacurate category from his user page, and commented as such on his user page. If he had a problem with it, he can readd it, but I don't think he's open to recall. User pages are not sacrosanct areas not to be touched by others - it's a wiki. Review WP:OWN. Hipocrite (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Fine by me! He initiated this conversation, I'm more than willing to stay away :-) BTW, I have no problem with him removing the category, I really had forgotten about it. No harm there. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC) How so? You've said you don't think you did anything wrong. I disagree - you have disregarded my concens in totality, escalated to the communities attention before I could do any sort of due dilligence on your contribution history, and have consistantly pressed people to say "no tool abuse," with only one side of the story being presented - in fact, given a whole list of things you could have done better (softblock and fix the autoblock, use the second chance template, unblock and lock the users talk page), you haven't said yet "wow, that's a really good idea. I think I'll conform to best practices in the future." Instead, you've been getting more and more defensive - and now that I've raised the possibility - possibility that your hard fought precious grandfathered adminship might be subject to non-binding recall which you could ignore at your will, you accuse me of harassing you? I think you need to take a big step back. Hipocrite (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Do you make it a practice to ask admins what their recall procedure is when there is a current discussion ongoing on WP:AN? As I gave reasonings for all the concerns you had, and you didn't want to let it rest, and also because Toddst1 got involved, I took it to the community. Do you have a problem with that? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Ironically, when I'm considering recalling them, yes. I also asked every admin open to recall A-B what there procedures are, untill I was informed by more than one person via email that actually asking admins to codify their recall process in the absence of a desire to recall them was harassment. However, given your situation (congratulations), and the fact that you've said something above that at least leads me to believe you might possibly consider reevaluating your approach (no need to deny it here), I'll let this drop. Furthermore, if you wanted to bring it to the community, best practice would have been to work with me to draft a question we could have presented to the community neutrally via RFC. Just for future reference. Hipocrite (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC) It seems to me, Hipocrite, that you are trying (hard) to make a rather large mountain out of a rather small molehill. I'm not entirely sure what the reason is for this, but there we go. In my opinion, an unblock that you disagree with (and even if it was indeed wrong, I have no comment with regard to that) is completely insufficient to get quite this worked up about, and I think that the unblock of the offensive name account was an assumption of good faith that Tbsdy is permitted to make, if they want (especially as the first decline message was so totally inappropriate - but I'm not getting worked up about it =/). Why doesn't everyone just go and do something useful? Ale_Jrbtalk 22:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC) How worked up am I, exactly? No, don't answer that. Hipocrite (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review#Obsession (band)

Resolved

Can someone close this DRV before it disappears from the main DRV page? Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Aye.  Skomorokh  05:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

1) Exception to topic ban

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is permitted to participate in featured article candidacy discussions for "Speed of light" for the sole purpose of discussing the images used in the article. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (remedy #4.2).

2) Second exception to topic ban

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is permitted to edit images used in the "Speed of light" article to address issues regarding the images that arise in connection with the article's featured article candidacies. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (remedy #4.2).

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

admission

Resolved

 – No administrator action required. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 07:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

i want to know about ur new admission for early learning when started.what is ur criteria and what u need for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.167.116.231 (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really can't tell what you're asking. You might like to try asking again at our reference desk, although it would help if you could be a bit more specific. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 07:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

False accusation of canvassing and reverting during consensus discussion by User:Gavia immer and User:Tbsdy lives

• Moved to WP:ANI#False accusation of canvassing and reverting during consensus discussion by User:Gavia immer and User:Tbsdy lives. —DoRD (?) (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Theoprakt/open proxy blocks

I'm not to up on the whole proxy editing thing, but this user is suggesting in their unblock request (they were not blocked directly) that a massive error may have been made last year by a now-inactive admin. More eyes requested please. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked those two IPs. There are many thousands of blocked dynamic IPs like this (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies/Dynamic IPs blocked as of 7 October 2007 for some examples). Another example why routine indef and super-long blocks are not recommended for IPs, even if they're open proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone should write a bot to check of the proxy is still open and unblock if not. –xeno^talk 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That would probably be a good idea given sensible parameters, even if it unblocks some dodgy IPs. Procseebot could pick up any slack. That list (see this) was based on the listing of CAT:OP and the SORBS dynamic IP list, but it's quite incomplete. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is the user:ProcseeBot that should already accomplish such a task. South Bay (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

ProcseeBot seems to be driving on a one-way street. –xeno^talk 22:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It does however read proxy lists and checks specified ports, so it's halfway there. The complications comes when ports have not been specified, which is likely to be the vast majority. However if they're dynamic-dynamic IPs, and the blocks are older than the DHCP assignments, then they can probably just be unblocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I left slakr a message, to see if he's interested. –xeno^talk 19:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussions pending closing for at least 2 weeks

There are currently 31 deletion discussions more than 3 weeks old, which haven't been closed or relisted:

Files - 7 discussions are still open from January 4th till January 6th (1 2 3 4 5 6 7)

Categories - 17 discussions still open from December 26 until January 6 (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17)

Stub types - 7 open (1 2 3 4 5 6 7)

It would be nice if someone could close these discussions already. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Closures needed at featured picture candidates

15 candidacies are ready for closure. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates. Assistance welcomed. Durova⁴⁰³ 05:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list (1)

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

1) Topic ban narrowed

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may edit the articles listed here solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Radeksz is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

2) Tagging and categorizing of unreferenced Poland-related BLPs allowed

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may create a category for unreferenced Polish-related biographies of living persons, tag articles for inclusion in that category, and announce the category's existence at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list (2)

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Malik Shabazz, Xavexgoem, and Durova are authorized to act as proxies for Piotrus by editing, at his direction, the Lech Wałęsa article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to its nomination for Good Article status.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Ed Fitzgerald and his sockpuppets

Resolved

 – Consensus not to impose any sanctions on Ed/BMK beside the status quo. Filer of the SPI and their socks blocked by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per Checkuser results in another SPI. User advised that in the future a private email to functionaries-en or arbcom is recommended for such situations. The SPIs will be closed in due course. Tim Song (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ed Fitzgerald (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• H Debussy-Jones (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ed Fitzgerald, Ed Fitzgerald, an experienced Wikipedian who has not edited since June 2009 (except for 8 edits during November), was found to be the same person who had been editing as Beyond My Ken and H Debussy-Jones. Although the accounts never technically overlapped in their editing, Beyond My Ken denied the connection between himself and H Debussy-Jones several times during the SPI case. Conflict of interest issues and other editing problems were also noted during the SPI case. I'm concerned that while this may not be a technical violation of the sockpuppetry policy, it was an attempt to evade scrutiny, especially because the Ed Fitzgerald account had a block log. I have temporarily indefinitely blocked all three accounts, and will be informing them of this discussion. I have no problem with one of them being unblocked to participate in this discussion. I would like the community to establish what sanctions, if any, should be applied in this case. NW (Talk) 04:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to thank Nuclear Warfare for unblocking this account so that I might take part in this discussion. I have three questions to ask of the community:

• Where, exactly, did I deny any connection between these accounts?
• Where, exactly, is the abusive use of multiple accounts?
• What is a good faith editor, who believes in the value of Wikipedia and wishes to contribute to it, to do when his good faith and in-policy edits are hounded and deleted by another editor, but the policies on Wikistalking (or Wikihounding, or whatever the current term-of-art is) are so ineffective that nothing can be done about it?

These questions are neither rhetorical nor naive, they are real and of intense interest to me. Nor do I think I am the only editor who finds him- or herself in this kind of predicament. Perhaps my response to the situation was wrong – what, then, was the proper response, the one that allows an editor with value to contribute to the project to continue to edit without harrassment from other users?

Any action that I took was done with one thought in mind: to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, to improve the quality of the project (both informationally and visually) and to help insure that Wikipedia is and remains the best and most accurate source of information on the Web, the first line of information. My impression (perhaps I am wrong) is that the policies on multiple accounts are intended to prevent vandalism and other disruptions of the project. Prehaps I am deceiving myself, but I do not see my contibutions as being of that sort: I believe that, on the whole, and judged independent of anything else, I have improved the encyclopedia. I would like to continue to do that, but the path to doing so is obscure to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, FTR, the allegations made that I have a conflict of interest in regard to the film Yesterday Was a Lie are, purely and simply, hogwash. Categorically: I was not a crewmember on the film (I don't even work in the film industry), I do not know any of the filmmakers, and I wasn't even aware of the existence of the film until I accidentally came across it while editing Wikipedia. Irrespective of my own situation, I would urge that a checkuser investigate the complaint I filed here, which arose entirely from the behavior of the reported accounts, and which was in no ways motivated by any kind of personal concern other then a desire to protect the project from being used as a means of promotion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've interacted with Ed Fitzgerald on a few occasions regarding images on sports pages and found them at least provocative, if not insightful. I'm not saying I agreed with him (quite frankly, I don't remember the specifics), but I kept his user talk page in my watch list. When I found him blocked for sockpuppetry, I was a bit confused as it didn't make much sense, however, it appears he has gone under some serious harassment (even harassment doesn't excuse poor behavior, but it certainly is an extenuating factor) by what seems to be a rather prolific sockpuppeteer. If you'll notice, the timestamp on this case is about an hour before Ed Fitzgerald's case and was likely a response to his justified filing (this is not to excuse EF's behavior).

I too have been wikihounded by someone who has accused me of various felonies, crimes under the uniform code of military justice, and even murder. Someone bouncing around cyberspace with a bunch of IPs and/or user names can be a real headache, nuisance, and even drive editors away as cyber bullies. I for one will not stand for it.

While I understand BMK's/Ed's/whoever's motives ("I just want to edit in peace!"), I think we need to consider that this sockpuppetry may have actually been done in good faith and certainly under the auspices of WP:IAR. I believe an "severe" trouting is in order here, as long as he promises not to do it again, and perhaps a few admins to watch over his contributions for a while (make sure everything is going as he says it is and help him along the Wikipedia path). A few semi-protects on related pages wouldn't hurt either.

As for the other editor, I believe he has driven this editor, for whatever reason, into the realm of sockpuppetry and is, in fact, guilty of it himself, and did so with the express purpose of wikihounding this contributor and to file a WP:SSP case. I feel the investigation of this sockpuppeter should be expedited as much as possible and appropriate restrictions handed out. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no technical abuse, and the accounts are now linked. Close the thread with no further action and move on. DrKiernan (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good thing to note next time is, if he wishes to move accounts for privacy/harassment reasons, etc, it may be best to drop a note to the Functionaries mailing list or to ArbCom. Otherwise, especially with a prior block log, shenanigans may be assumed - Alison ^❤ 08:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if we want to finally remove the note about that option being "under discussion" on WP:SOCK (the discussion has long been archived). James (T|C) 10:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea - Alison ^❤ 11:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh you already did it, beautiful /me hugs James (T|C) 12:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems worth noting that the user who submitted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ed Fitzgerald has just been confirmed as a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sorrywrongnumber. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that the case I filed was checkusered and found to be substantially correct. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like time to close out this then. I'd ask Beyond My Ken to just stick with the one account he is using, and I think that should be all that needs doing. I'll leave this open for a bit longer in case anyone else wants to comment. NW (Talk) 00:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I will indeed. Thanks for redirecting the other user and talk pages. I sheepishly await whatever trouting is forthcoming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• You may want to consider nominating the disputed page for semi-protection. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, but at this point, although they've been confirmed as socks, no one has blocked the accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Give it a little time (like 12 hours). — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like NW has now blocked them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

...and I've requested semi-protection for the primary article in question at WP:RFPP Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally would like to see this editor blocked indefinitely given his betrayal of the Wikipedia community. This editor started filing sock investigations against other editors within days of starting on Wikipedia. He filed one against me but fortunately I was vindicated. I voiced my suspicions at the time that I felt Beyond My Ken was a sockpuppet filing these investigations out of revenge. I think it's highly inappropriate that a sock account should be used to file investigations because it prevents the investigating admin from checking any previous history between the accuser and accused. In my sock investigation even though the admin pointed out I was not a disruptive editor, Beyond My Ken insisted that if I had multiple accounts without declaring them I should be banned on that basis alone. I find the hypocrisy breathtaking, and in my view setting up a sock to bring false accusations against legitimate editors is a major breach of trust within the community, and there is only one acceptable punishment. Betty Logan (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You somewhat misrepresent both my stance and my situation. I suggested, on the basis of what I believed to be strong behavioral evidence, that you were the sockpuppet of two blocked editors, and that it was editing to circumvent a block that constituted the abusive use of multiple accounts. I never said, nor do I believe, that your editing per se was disruptive -- in fact, I explicitly said just the opposite.[26] The clerk that handled the case saw that there was no current disruption in your editing, and declined to act on the behavioral evidence, which he called "suggestive but not conclusive." The record of my complaint can be found here.

If anyone wishes to re-examine that case on the basis of your suggestion that I filed it vindictively because of a run-in between us under my previous accounts, I have no objection to them doing so. As far as I know, I had never heard of you or interacted with you in the past, although there is some small overlap in our editing: H Debussy-Jones: [27], Ed Fitzgerald: [28] (not unexpected, considering that under the Ed Fitzgerald account I had over 42,000 edits to almost 9,000 unique pages [29]), Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC) rev: 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the suggestion that I "started filing sock investigations against other editors within days of starting on Wikipedia" is not borne out by the evidence. My first edit with this account took place on 29 November, and the first of the three (and only 3 - two of which were confirmed) sockpuppet reports I filed is dated 24 December, which is 26 days (and 946 edits) later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD backlog

There are over 50 outstanding CfDs going as far back as December 26. —Farix (t | c) 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting administrator removal of diffs

Hi. I would like some diffs to be removed from my userspace and elsewhere that contains potentially sensitive information, so should I contact an admin by talkpage or email, and where else can I do this (it is not serious enough to require oversight)? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 03:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrators do not yet have an easy way to hide this information, so I would advise contacting the oversight team. If they decide it is not a matter for oversight, well, they are all experienced administrators and would handle it appropriately. NW (Talk) 03:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, take care to contact the oversighters by email. SGGH ^ping! 00:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Rip2010's Talk Page

It seems that a user has move their talk page into the main namespace (possibly accidentally) and trying to move the page back gives this error.

“ The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text. ”

Could an administrator fix this? Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 15° 32' 0" NET 01:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Done and done.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks PMDrive1061! :D Set Sail For The Seven Seas 26° 19' 45" NET 01:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter question

Hi all, I'm quite new to the edit filter - it wasn't around when I last edited, so if this is a newbie question or is controversial please understand that I've been reading up on the documentation I can find but I may have missed something!

However, I understand that it basically works by first invoking a filter that examines the edit for certain rules, and if this matches then it can run a variety of actions.

I'm curious about whether it would be possible, or even reasonable, to get the filter to apply topic bans to specific editor? For instance, editor User:IHateKittens has been banned from Cat, Kitten and Dog; could we get the edit filter to enforce the ban? If so, would there be a technical reason not to, and if no technical reason would there be a reason we would not want to do this as a community? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, perhaps this is better suited for WT:EF? In any case, is it possible? Sure. Is it a good idea? Possibly. For some bans it could be very difficult to clearly define exactly what articles are part of the ban. On a secondary and more important note, part of the problem is that every filter adds a small (but cumulatively noticeable) amount of computation time for every edit made. For something that may never get a hit (assuming the user respects the ban that is in place, for example), this performance hit may be unjustified. For that reason, my knee-jerk reaction is to say it's not a good idea when blocks are available just as well. (A filter would be appropriate in addressing a WP:SOCK issue related to a topic ban, though.) Hope that helps. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I'll make sure that I take it there in future. If there is a performance hit, then probably not worth it. I was just wondering how we could give editors the option to edit other articles and not be tempted to edit articles they've been banned by. It would certain reduce the drama for admins :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I heard that some developer was working on a per-article blocking system and remember seeing it in SVN, briefly. Unfortunately, it's fallen by the wayside and is therefore a lower priority than FLR, (il)LiquidThreads and the bloated JavaScript that is the usability stuff, so don't get your hopes up too soon. MER-C 06:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Per-page blocking would solve a lot of problems. Large amount of blockable violations concern specific topics. A lot of socks who use dynamic IPs edit specific pages, certainly blocking IP ranges in specific pages would cause less collateral damage. Sole Soul (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

From a philosophical standpoint, I'm not sure that it's worth our while to try to enforce page or topic bans in this way. Either editors are willing to respect the conditions of bans or they are not. We shouldn't have to 'child-proof' the project — anyone who is still allowed to edit Wikipedia pages should also know enough not to stick a fork in an electrical outlet. People who just can't resist the temptation to violate page and topic bans don't need specially-padded environments; they need to be asked to leave until they are prepared to work within the project's rules. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga death hoax

According to this source (not sure if People Magazine is a reliable source, though). If this is the case, I wanted to note it here in case her artcle needs a few extra eyes (which I expect it will). Master&Expert (Talk) 11:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Seems unlikely that a car accident in London (a place with a large and very competitive media) would not be reported there but instead in People Magazine. But hang on, isn't .tk the domain name for Tokelau? Is that the real People Magazine? Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• .tk domains are handed out to all and sundry for free. In this case, people-magazine.tk redirects to http://ladygagalink.darkbb.com/Lady-GaGa-Dead-h1.htm . It's a fake. MER-C 11:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• And on investigation, perhaps this story explains the origin of the hoax. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• • It appears to be a hoax. See coverage on the Google News aggregator. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, I was just about to say that a quick Google search suggests she be the latest victim of the "internet death" rumor. On account of this though it may be a good idea to extend her articles semi-protection another day or two; its currently set to expire 31 January. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah, so it's a hoax. Figures... definitely should be semi-protected for a while, in my opinion. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I tell you what though, it's revealed a few interesting accounts! Check out the editors making... interesting... changes during semi-protection:

• Bepmexico
• Dr. Yingst

A cause for concern? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Craigy144

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

Summary motion in lieu of a full case:

1. Key principle:

   Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to lead by example and follow Wikipedia policies. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this as administrators are not expected to be perfect though they are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment or sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with this trusted role and administrators who repeatedly engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

2. Summary of evidence:

   (i) Craigy144 has repeatedly posted text and images which do not fully comply with the relevant policies.

   (ii) Craigy144's actions have received much comment but he/she has failed to respond to it.

   (iii) Craigy144 has not so far responded to this Request for Arbitration nor provided an explanation for his/her conduct.

3. Remedy:

   Craigy144 is temporarily desysopped until such time as he/she provides the committee with a satisfactory explanation of his/her conduct.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Backlog at TFD

WP:Templates for discussion is currently backlogged. I just closed a few days, but I won't be able to close many more due to being the nom or !voting. I would be happy to help with any cleanup issues. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin abuse and how to prevent it

After having given it careful review and consideration, I have decided to respond to the following petion. This appalling behaviour must stop! I urge all administrators to sign the following statement. Thank you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought you administrationers knew how to administrate stuff right nice? Not only did you fail to categorise this petition, you failed to index it aswell. If you cannot do these simple administrative functions to raise awareness of these serious issues amongst the community, how is anybody meant to take your supposed claim of actually being against kitten abuse seriously? MickMacNee (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it... What does kitten abuse have to do with the price of eggs? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, joy...

Is it just me or are the 4chan kids back in force? I've been seeing an awful lot of garbage on the new user log with the usual stupid attacks and alternate spellings of profanity which they think will keep them from getting blocked by the filters. Likewise over at Simple. Making things even more fun: Unless they did what I and a couple of other admins did over here and block all of Bambifan101's ranges over there, they're getting clobbered wither by BF via a new IP or a copycat. One of the blocked accounts smacks of "copycat." Just my two cents'. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I just answered my own question: User:Pmdriɣe1061. Imitation is, after all, the sincerest form of flattery.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think they are because there's been a lot of similar nonsense over at Conservapedia, with much of it actually referencing to 4chan. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV

Resolved

Could an admin please clear the backlog at AIV? Thanks! Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 23:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks to be caught up at the moment ... — Kralizec! (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The mother of all admin backlogs

I've been trying to clear some admin backlogs, and I think I've just hit the motherlode. Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages has 29,500+ pages... do I dare start? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr.Z-man used to have a bot clear it, but there was some concern about the parameters, meaning not everything in the category should be deleted. The problem, imo, is that just about every indef-block template places the user and usertalk pages in the category. Some indef-blocked users should not have their talk pages deleted. Sockpuppets used to be automatically removed from the category, spammers weren't removed when they should have been, and users with significant talk page histories were also not removed. Simple vandal-only accounts with four edits up to four warnings in their talk page history followed by an indef-block are probably fair game for a bot. There's no particular hurry to delete these pages in any case. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's closely followed by Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, at 11k images. In this case, all you really need to do is check at the bottom that the file matches a file on Commons. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it helpful to delete talkpages of banned users because regular editors like me find them useful in identifying sockpuppets. Auntie E. (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk pages really shouldn't be deleted unless thare is a special reason (and MfD is the way to go for those cases). They are helpful in identifying sockpuppets, as mentioned above, and selective revision deletion or oversight can be used for individual problematic edits (e.g. BLP vios). DuncanHill (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

One final FFD to close

I've managed to clear the backlog at FFD. However, as I commented on one FFD nomination, could someone close it? The FFD is Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 18#File:Thomas Youngblood at Monsters of Rock 2007 in Zaragoza, Spain.jpg. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. This one turns out to be a copyvio. I'll take care of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Can't believe it... I added it to an article! And that finally clears the backlog. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, somebody else was faster than me anyway. But we're sorting it out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Smkaram more community review please

I just blocked User talk:Smkaram for copyrignt violations with general considerations for disruptive editing as well. I had previously declined a vandalism block and have commented on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smkaram. It is highly likely that many if not all of the users edits should be reverted. A larger communittee review is indicated at this time. Further action on my part alone could be questionable and I don't have the subject mater expertise in the articles. Jeepday (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

BioSlimDisk

I do not like do deal with the topic anymore BioSlimDisk. The user puts up promotional stuff, uploads images with questionable copy right status several times, recreates it after wikification, removes tags and at the end it looks the same as befor. Somebody more capable to deal with this multible issues should deal with it. --Stone (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The user is the Business Development Manager of the company producing the product. I've brought this up at the conflict of interest forum, WP:COIN, and edited it a bit. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, but with a person which acts like a wall and reverts all the time only the cleaning power of ADMIN helps.--Stone (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection of BLP articles for Super Bowl players

Proposal moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Semiprotection_of_BLP_articles_for_Super_Bowl_players.  Skomorokh  12:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

170kb AfD

Resolved

 – Closed by Skomorokh NW (Talk) 23:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM

Anyone want to give closing this a shot? NW (Talk) 19:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, put it out of its misery. – ukexpat (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically it's been a week anyway., Isn't that the max amount of time AFDs are meant to go? HalfShadow 19:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Depending on who you ask, it's the minim or it's the maxim. (aka, AfDs shouldn't run for less of 7 days unless there is a good clear reson to close soon, and the AfDs can be relisted. Some AfDs are relisted a couple of times.) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 Doing....  Skomorokh  20:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good close. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that Wikipedia is an "Encyclopedia", not an "Encyclopædia".
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 21:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh stop being so pædantic... HalfShadow 23:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What? It's no more an encyclopedia as an encyclopædia, or for that matter an encyclopédie. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at CfD

Another reminder that Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is still heavily backlogged (around 20 days) with very few old discussions closed since the last notice. —Farix (t | c) 15:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

An unusual situation worth recording

No attack pages, no spam pages, no copy vio pages for deletion - ALL CSD pages are empty! (Although by the time I finish typing this, I suspect that will have changed. Still, I thought I would mention it...) Stephen! ^Coming... 17:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC) :Empty? Uh... unless I'm reading your post wrong, C:SD is far from empty... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait, this post was 3 hours ago... nevermind... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I cleared it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

NFCC Bot

Hey guys,

I just wanted to let you know that I have proposed a bot to remove nonfree images from namespaces other then the article namespace. See the discussion here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 5 Thanks, Tim1357 (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis about to be unprotected

The article Creation according to Genesis was recently subject to an edit war regarding the lede, specifically over how and if to include the term "creation myth". The page was protected and a lengthy debate ensued on Talk:Creation according to Genesis. In a few hours the page is bound to be unprotected, and some extra uninvolved administrators would be appreciated to issue warnings (and possibly enforce blocks) for editwarring, should the need arise (which I assume it will). Gabbe (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"On the seventh day, they wrestled." It's an endless loop that was given a 7-day break. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And TreasuryTag spake: seriously, if there's going to be another spate of crap POV-pushing, then just re-protect it. Easy... ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 10:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless it's extended indefinitely, the edit war will likely continue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good reason to keep it protected indefinitely (either that or station a Cherub over the "edit" button!). ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 11:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The adminly host. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesus wept. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's sometimes alleged to be a mis-translation. Jesus worked in His stepfather's carpenter shop, making bookshelves and the like. At the end of each workday, Jesus swept. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah - silly me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bookshelves? What's wrong with this picture? LeadSongDog come howl 19:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

About as much as the guy who wondered what Jesus would've done if he cut his hand on the circular saw. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who lost the tip of their index finger to a table saw...He probably would have run around shouting his own name a lot. It would have been quite the spectacle, I'm sure. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring by people who should know better is no reason to keep an article full-protected indefinitely. If the edit warring starts again, what about article probation? -- Vary | (Talk) 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Adminbot BRFA: 7SeriesBOT to put the "speedy" into CSD-G7

It is proposed that Bwilkins (talk · contribs) operate an Admin-bot that deletes strictly-complying pages tagged with [[WP:CSD-G7]|]. All other CSD-G7 tagged pages are ignored.

Any entry in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user is checked for simple compliance with CSD-G7: a single contributor page containing {{db-g7}}, {{db-self}}, {{db-author}} or {{db-blanked}}. Complying pages are deleted. Checks against the category are run every 30 seconds.

CSD-G7 allows for pages other than those with a single contributor to be deleted (no substantial contributions from others), but that requires judgment and so the bot will only delete those with a single contributor.

For the related discussion, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/7SeriesBOT. Josh Parris 12:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Abd-William M. Connolley

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:

1) Abd and William M. Connolley prohibited from interacting Abd (talk · contribs) and William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) shall not interact with each other, nor comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia. Should either editor do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

BAG membership request

I have been nominated for Bot Approvals Group membership by MBisanz, and I am posting a notification here as encouraged by the bot policy. If you have time, please comment at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/The Earwig. Thanks, — The Earwig @ 03:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Something not right

Resolved

 – Cache Rules Everything Around Me (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Having read over Wikipedia:Drv#Human_Instrumentality_Project, I concurred with restoring the history of the page. I was then going to re-introduce the redirect, and then protect from editing by all but admins. I carefully and clearly followed the steps, but the history of the article still does not seem to appear ... what did I miss? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Can you see this diff [30]? If so, it's probably just database slowness. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that ... but I must have some caching things going on. Let me see if I can fix. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

6 minutes of cache clearing later ... all's cool. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixing a link on a protected template - help please

Resolved

 – I have put live the sandbox version which looks like a simple change. Keith D (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please could someone edit the fully-protected Template:Infobox UK place to fix a link to a disambiguation page? At the moment it links to Douglas, and it should link to Douglas, Isle of Man. The link is under the "city distances section". Thankyou. --BelovedFreak 13:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've updated Template:Infobox UK place/sandbox to fix this and two other minor bugs. I'm not an admin but just add {{editprotected}} to the discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Link to disambiguation page if/when everyone is satisfied with the proposed amendments, then an admin will know to check the proposed change and implement it. — Richardguk (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Complaint re Administrator - SirFozzie

Resolved

 – IP blocked for a month. Tan | 39 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have recently had my talk page edited by this administrator [31] contrary to the rules.

I understand it is not appropriate for anyone and that includes administrators to edit a users talkpage in such a manner. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think so. You're clearly being disruptive, and Fozz was well within his bounds to make that edit to your talk page. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Explain disruptive please? if you can! --81.187.71.75 (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DE and WP:POINT. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed a personal attack, and an inflammatory series of statements attempting to rile up opponents. If the block evading user behind the IP thinks I was flippant, then I do apologize. However, the removal of their inflammatory statements was justified by Wikipedia's rules and policies. SirFozzie (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So you block my talk page because I retaliated to a personal attack on me by another troll editor? I think they call that biased editing! My statement was not inflammatory it was actual fact if you knew anything. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by block evading? I have never evaded any block. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can do something useful now and tell me how to raise this so-called dispute over the village of Eglinton's name? --81.187.71.75 (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Better not to feed here. BigDunc 17:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why?? Are you embarrassed that all the other admin's will see it??? --81.187.71.75 (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh look!!! ..the troll's back to cause more trouble!! --81.187.71.75 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you mean BigDunc? you're mistaken. BigDunc is not a troll. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe in refuting misinformation: [32]... (the SPI archive showing the evasion of a block). I will let someone else decide if the continued evasion and disruption needs to be handled by blocking the IP again (it appears to be remarkably static). SirFozzie (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't sign your name to that eh?? says it all! --81.187.71.75 (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't you create an account & sign in? It's not required, but it does help. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no.. one too many ~'s will do that to you. SirFozzie (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No perfect place here at least Admins can see what you are doing now. BigDunc 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This user seems to be assertively demanding to be blocked. I see that his request has been granted. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack evading block (part two)

Resolved

 – Notice to contact the info @en wiki team left at IP talk page Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive594 § BlackJack evading block

BlackJack (talk · contribs), who was recently blocked for abusing sockpuppets, is again evading his block and again issuing legal threats.[33] Could somebody take a look at this? Thanks in advance. --212.139.80.79 (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no legal threats. Block evasion is another matter. SGGH ^ping! 13:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I interpret "If you will delete this material, it will remove all threat of litigation against Wikipedia" as a legal threat. --212.139.80.79 (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He warns about possible legal action because of talk page posts which he considers defamatory and/or libelous. He is not saying he will take any legal action himself, but merely states that in accordance to policy, we should remove these posts. Using legal terms does not equal issuing legal threats.--Atlan (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Post reverted and ip blocked, the comment quoted by 212.139 being sufficient under the "chilling effect" aspect to make the post a threat. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there's too much of a taboo on using any kind of legal terms on Wikipedia these days, although I agree this could be considered a perceived legal threat.--Atlan (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I perceived no threat in that post. And I do indeed believe that the blocked user has a) been harshly dealt with by Wikipedia and b) has indeed been harassed and defamed on Wikipedia by another user, who is persistently evading block to do so. Our policies are being gamed and Blackjack's requests should be looked at carefully. I just wish I had the time. --Dweller (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Has BlackJack been directed to the office, where such matters can be dealt with? I shall take a look, and drop them an email if not - but they are only disrupting at best, and chilling the desire of other editors to contribute at worst, if they think posting comment that speaks of the (supposed effect of) legal consequences of wishes being complied with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see email is not available - perhaps the suggestion could be made to the next sock that appears? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Could someone block the other two self-admitted socks The bowling of a ghost and Bart Maverick? He also appears to have used an IP to vandalize the userpages of his various socks and Puppetmaster acount to remove the templates. That is also block evasion. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've filed an SPI since it looks like there's another BlackJack sockpuppet active [34]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

New sock has been blocked and tagged. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've left a notice to contact the information team on the IPs talk page. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Admin Assistance: Need to modify template {{WPMED}}

Resolved

 – No admin needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi -- I have just created a new page for the Wikiproject Medicine Toxicology Task Force. One of the last steps I've got remaining for setup is modifying the {{WPMED}} template to include two new parameters -- "toxicology" (yes/no) and "toxicology-imp" (standard importance options) -- and add documentation for them to both Template:WPMED/doc and WP:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Task force parameters ... Would someone with admin privileges mind taking care of this for me? Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you might need some technical assistance, but it's not admin assistance you need because that template is only semi-protected. If you want some help, please post on Template talk:WPMED with some specifics. I've got it on my watchlist. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Martin -- I thought I needed an admin, because that's what the task force setup instructions said for Wikiproject Medicine -- but I've got it taken care of now. I'll fix the instructions as well. Sorry about the confusion, and thanks for the help. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

trying not to be a liar

Ok, I said early in the game of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simulation12 that I wouldn't block User:Checker Fred and would only report my observations. Now I'm wishing I hadn't because I'm fairly certain I was right to suspect him. This is an issue I tried to back away from, and kind of got sucked back in by accident. If another uninvolved admin could just drop by and make a determination one way or the other I'd be more than happy to just be done with it. Thanks in advance, Beeblebrox (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

It says Checker Fred is unrelated? –xeno^talk 17:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The CU says that, but if you look at the pattern of Sim12, they have used multiple ips in the past, and I found the wikistalk link that Tim Song provided very compelling. The case has just been archived without any further comment, and if nobody is willing to block I'll drop it and be done with Sim12. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at TFD

There is about a 10 day backlog at WP:TFD. I cannot close most of them due to either !voting or being the nom. I would be happy to assist with any cleanup, e.g., WP:TFD/H, after the TFDs are closed. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP-sensitive AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Kayatta. Pcap ping 19:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

NPR story: "Has Wikipedia gotten too big for its britches?"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please, everybody remember, you can't start a thread on this subject on this page on an odd day during an even calendar month unless you fill in form 2B.SS7 and get it signed and witnessed first.

---

Resolved

 – Keep your pants on, no fire here. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Provocative promotional noise title (as usual) ... Actual title on site: "Can Wikipedia Keep Growing?" (listen) ... Yet another interview with Evgeny Morozov -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)}}

Wednesday's Here and Now program on National Public Radio in the United States is headlining a story titled "Has Wikipedia gotten too big for its britches?" While I am not saying that it will cause a wave of new editors to come and 'fix' Wikipedia articles Colbert-style, we should probably keep an eye out nonetheless. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(different programming schedules?)

I see that topic title listed on the Michigan Radio NPR schedule (which also mentions Teaparty event in Nashville which starts tomorrow) ... but not mentioned on Here and Now site. In fact, there is no correlation between the two schedules. Hmmmm. (I have no clue. Do you?) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 18:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to have some clue of what their specific concerns are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

How odd ... my interest was piqued because of an advert I heard for the story during Morning Edition on my local station here in Ohio. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Radio schedule bumfuzzlement by the vast left-wing conspiracy!?! ... Out-of-work pranksters from Air America? :-) Of course we liberals don't listen to radio anyway — we've got French virtual theory lectures on our Ipods. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 19:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

After contacting the show, one of their producers said the Wikipedia story had to be bumped due to breaking news, but it may air tomorrow. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• We will likely need to look after the britches article, since it is an arcane word only now used in a rather old fashioned metaphor... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, the younger generations will likely think it is a misspelling ... with an extraneous "r" :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Well, the anatomical causes for becoming too big for one's britches are mostly protected anyway, I assume. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the Hear and Now website has details about what the story is:

"Can Wikipedia Keep Growing?

"It’s one of the most successful experiments on the web. There are now Wikipedias in about 250 languages, while the English version has grown to 25 times the size of the the Encyclopedia Britannica. But articles are skewed toward popular culture and the growth of entries has slowed, amid controversies about the site’s rules. So how can Wikipedia keep growing? We speak with Evgeny Morozow, contributing editor to Foreign Policy Magazine, where he also runs the “Net Effect” blog."

And there's a link there to this page. One for the In the News fie, but not explicitly involving Admins I think. Tabercil (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• The segment is up now, at http://www.hereandnow.org under the Feb. 4 entry. Rough Synposis: Wikipedia is mostly only as good as Google because it relies on Google primarily for sourcing. Then some crap about the Ayn Rand. We are "rolling out" something to protect BLPs from anonymous edits (o rly? when?). The inner core of "guardians" and "rules and bureaucracy" are discouraging more casual editors (and scientists, for example) who don't have time to engage in debates. Wikipedia wouldn't have been as successful as its been if it clamped down on who edited to begin with (as Larry Sanger's later project failed)--Milowent (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I liked the part about "authority evolved into a vast bureaucratic apparatus with a Kafkaesque system of rules." Woo hoo! That sounds like something I can add to my cv! — Kralizec! (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heads-up: WP:AIV is backlogged

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared. ConCompS talk 19:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Reports have been unanswered for about +20 minutes. Would an admin be available to clear the backlog? Thanks, ConCompS talk 17:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleared. ConCompS talk 19:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Breaking news, guys

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A sentence containing the {{fact}} tag is apparently "properly sourced". Who knew? Sceptre (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC) No offense, but wouldn't this be better discussed on the article's talk page or the editor's talk page, instead of pointed out on AN? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Seeing as this revelation has far-reaching ramifications, AN seems to be a suitable place for notification. Sceptre (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC) This is already being discussed on WP:ANEW. Sceptre, you know better than to forumshbring this here while it's already going on there. Tsk. → ROUX ₪ 05:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC) I'm not forum shopping. I'm just saying, that there seems to be a major change to the citation needed template that seems to source content :) Sceptre (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Sceptre, I can't see any way this thread and the included sarcasm can be a benefit to that ANEW thread and the Criticism of YouTube article generally. The whole situation needs to be toned down a few notches- and this thread encourages the exact opposite scenario. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there such a page?

I have searched and searched, but cannot find a page where someone can compliment an Administrator in a place where his peers and everyone else can see it. I think to be an administrator must be the hardest of all at Wiki and one should be acknowledged when he does well. Please advise. Mugginsx (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is as good a place as any, I suppose. Normally an editor thanks an admin via their talk page, but if it is felt that wider recognition is warranted, well, this is the Admins' Noticeboard. Mjroots (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:TEA is a good page for public compliments. -- œ^™ 09:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledgement of an Excellent Administrator

I think, too often, we tend to critize the administrators more than acknowledge them for praise. That is too bad, but I would like to retify that here in my praise for User:Jbmurray. In reviewing his work it is obvious that he is a fair and just Administrator, not because of any particular service he has done for me, although he has done such services, but rather to praise his style, his innate sense of fairness and his gentle criticism too all editors who have had the good fortunate to seek his services. Again, in looking at his past and present work, he is extremely knowledgeable, yet humble in his style. In my opinion, he is surely an exemplification of how Wiki defines a good administrator. I hope he is acknowledged for his work. He is surely the Administrator's Administrator. Mugginsx (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You could give him an administrators barnstar.. -- œ^™ 09:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Stemonitis and space in front of ref tag

Hello, I would like to ask somebody to assure to User:Stemonitis how ref tag should be formated at User talk:Stemonitis#Citing references. He is intentionally doing things that are not welcomed. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP RfC Closer Needed

The Requests for comment/Biographies of living people is due to pause later today (at 23:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)), and is need of an admin willing to take on the hefty task of summarizing and sorting the proposals enumerated there. Since this is now weighing in at 109 threads, I imagine this might take a bit of time, so I wanted to thank in advance the admin wiling to take on the task of bringing some order to this discussion. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 19:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin, at that. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We have those? Be aware that whoever steps up, and whatever they do, someone somewhere is going to not like it. :) ++Lar: t/c 04:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Lar is right that some people won't be happy, but probably a lot more will be (and thankful—that the "summarizing admin" actually read through it all). Furthermore it's not really that hard to sort and summarize the various proposals and points of view in a manner that most reasonable people will find objective. There are a few viewpoints (from both "sides" of the debate) which have floated to the top of discussion in terms of support level. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone actually been found to do this? Is User:Sam still active - if so, he'd do a good job. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No one seems to be stepping forward (probably for a couple of reasons: 1) It would take while; 2) Half the people on earth have commented in the RfC, including a lot of active admins). I don't know User:Sam but he did make some edits a few days ago, and does not seem to have participated in the recent BLP discussions. If no one else is able to work on this, it might be worthwhile for Fritzpoll or someone else to drop a note on Sam's page and see if he'd oblige the community (big time) by taking care of a summary. Another option would be to get a couple of "involved" admins (but on different sides of the debate) to summarize it jointly. As I said above the summarizing should not really be too hard so maybe some editors who already commented could take care of it. Regardless we don't want it just sitting there on pause for days, and indeed it's pretty important to narrow and then continue the discussion so we can come to some sort of consensus in the near future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's now been three days since the RfC was "paused" and two since my preceding comment. We really need someone to step in and summarize, and that does not seem to be happening. If there is no one uninvolved who is able and willing to do so, we need to figure out a way for someone (or a couple of someones) who have commented to do the summarizing. I thought Risker did a good job with an interim summary here, so maybe she would be willing to do so again, though as a member of ArbCom she's not entirely uninvolved. Regardless the fact is that this is not one of the those discussions we can just let languish and die off with nothing coming of it. If we don't end up coming to some sort of generally agreed upon conclusion/solution, the whole hellstorm of chaos and angst that preceded the opening of the RfC will likely start up again. Three days is too long for nothing to be happening, and we need to move the discussion forward pronto before we lose what had been a significant amount of momentum. Suggestions, volunteers? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: if no-one comes forward (and people who aren't involved yet interested enough to do it will be hard to find), then ask Arbcom to do it. One of them can write a summary, the others can check/edit it so there's a collaborative element. We elect them for when the community can't decide by itself; this is not an ideal solution (what is?) but it's miles better than nothing. Rd232 ^talk 07:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

To keep things moving why don't we have 2 admins with roughly opposing views do the summary, and then find a real uninvolved admin to certify it. You and I for instance. Kevin (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That could work, and even an involved admin kicking things off with a neutralish summary would help keep things moving (and just possibly could the summary be collaboratively edited by people sharing those views). There is already Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase II to build on. However the most important thing is not so much simple summary, as a merging of different, overlapping proposals of similar types into a "broad outline" Idea X / Y etc. For instance, my "BLP incubation" idea and Jehochman's proposal are similar enough to merge. It needs to end up with a relatively small number of ideas ( < 5 if they're direct competitors; <10 if some can supplement each other) to stay manageable. After input on the "broad outline" ideas, it will hopefully be clear which of the ideas (maybe more than one if they supplement each other) should be taken forward (probably on its own "draft process" page to hash out details, which will hopefully be relatively quick).

Some plausible "broad outline" ideas: 1. PROD-based variations ("BLP incubation"; Jehochman; David Gerard; NJA; Themfromspace) 2. Cleanup-but-not-deletion (Jclemens; OrangeDog; Power.corrupts; Collect; DGG) 3. deletion-based-on-age (Jimbo Wales) 4. new process/restrictions specifically for new BLPs (Pointillist).

I hope this helps, but I can't do any more at this point - doing this properly will take hours I don't currently have. Rd232 ^talk 13:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Still think asking Arbcom is the most plausible - Risker was mentioned. If she could draft, Arbcom could review the draft - that ought to be neutral enough, and if it isn't people will say so. Rd232 ^talk 13:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I will do it. Please note that it isn't really an "Arbcom" closure—I will be standing behind my own words here—but I have given a quick read-through to what is needed here, and it's pretty clear that the objective is to help this through to the next phase, not to bring the matter to a final resolution. This will take at least the rest of the evening, and I may not be finished until tomorrow, because I really do want to read it from beginning to end so as not to miss some of the fine points raised by various comments. Risker (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to offer my thanks in advance :) -- Bfigura ^(talk) 17:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, props to Risker for taking this on, and inasmuch as the task is annoying she should feel free to direct any anger or frustration at me for somewhat "drafting" her in a comment I made above.  :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just stopping in to say "still reading". As contentious as this issue may have appeared at the beginning, I am finding myself incredibly impressed by the thoughtful, informed positions that have been put forth, including worthwhile suggestions interwoven within the responses to various views. There is a gold mine in this RFC, which is filled with ideas that can help the project in all kinds of ways, not just in addressing unsourced BLPs, and I hope others will come through it later and pick out more and more of these nuggets. Risker (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Good to see my Metacomment #2 (on the talk) has been, um, efficacious. :-) Now to find a Clive Owen instant play on Netflix. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 03:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have now posted my close comments. Risker (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for taking on this thankless task. Kevin (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor Review Archives

I have copied Wikipedia:Editor review/Archive (2005–2008) to Wikipedia:Editor review/Archive (2005–2009), and I have merged the contents of Wikipedia:Editor review/Archive (2009) with it.

Is it possible for someone to delete Wikipedia:Editor review/Archive (2005–2008) (all the content is at the 2005-2009 page) and Wikipedia:Editor review/Archive (2009) (ditto) as well as the associated talk pages?

I didn't want to tag them as WP:CSD#G6, even though it should be an uncontroversial maintenance, as the reviewing admin may not realise what I've done, so I thought I should mention it here instead.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. I note that Wikipedia:Editor review/Archive (2005–2008) redirected to the merged article, and would be happy if someone undid my delete without reference to me if they think that is a better solution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I note both have a number of incoming links. Is there any reason not to re-create these as redirects to the new names to avoid redlinks scattered through various archives? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No good reason that I can think of. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OOps... I forgot to check the "What Links here" before asking for the deletion... sorry about that -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've undeleted everything, since the deletions broke links, the 2009 archive had significant edit history (even if it was just people archiving editor reviews), and redirects are cheap. Graham87 10:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Graham87 - I think that is the right decision (it's also why I left the message here, so that admins who have experience can think about it!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Block Review Needed

Resolved

 – handled by way of appeal at WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

See User talk: Verbal. Thank you. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Did someone temporarily shorten the redlink MediaWiki?

I clicked on a redlink and it said:

You have followed a link to a page that does not exist yet.

To create the page, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info).

If you are here by mistake, click your browser's back button.

Is there a link showing the place where this was edited? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The prevailing message is MediaWiki:Newarticletext. The text you saw above is the English language default text, which is shown when that message hasn't been set in the database. That message of course has been set, and has been so for ages. What happened is that sometimes the system hiccups, fails to get the required message from the database, and so shows the default one instead. That's what happened to you. The message hasn't been changed recently, and the proper edited text of that message shows for almost everyone most of the time. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you perhaps set your language preference to British English? MediaWiki:Newarticletext/en-gb has not been changed from its default. Algebraist 21:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks a bit odd to me. If I look at [35] I can see a diff revealing a much more complete page than the Current Revision at the bottom shows - "Wikipedia does not have a page with this exact title. To start a page called MediaWiki:Newarticletext, type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it." in someway related perhaps or a feature? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Need a CU or something, really long unblock hold

See User talk:DaisyQueen. They've been on hold for nearly a month. The blocking admin has not commented or acted. I don't see any autoblock, and the ip they are apparently editing from has an anon-only block on it, so I'm at a loss as to what to do. A Checkuser may be needed to sort this out.Beeblebrox (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect we've lost this editor, at least under this account, and the edits prior to blocking weren't harmful. Hopefully Daisy Queen has started a new account and is contributing positively, but this delay is not a great user experience. I doubt there's anything we can do now. Rodhullandemu 02:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If Community De-Adminship existed, would this affect your administrator behavior?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Closed: As noted in the final few posts, this isn't on-topic and general discussion about the proposal belong on its talk page or at the upcoming RfC. NJA (t/c) 11:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not looking to start a debate on the validity of Community De-Adminship (CDA) in general. Please, if you would, restrict your comments to answering the following specific question;

Before answering this question, please read and understand the CDA process being proposed.

Q: If the CDA process were implemented as proposed, would its existence have an effect on how you went about your administrative duties? If yes, why and what effect(s) would it have? If no, why not? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't the appropriate place for discussions like this, you should post it on the village pump--Jac16888^Talk 20:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The edit notice on this page says "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally - announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." Seems it is the right place? I'm trying to ask a question of administrators in general. There is no specific portion of Village Pump dedicated just to administrators. You could say it's more appropriate at proposals or policy, but I'm not here to garner input on the proposal or the policy. I'm here to gain input on how it would affect administrator behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we should wait until CDA is prepared & presented to the community, before getting administrators opinons on it. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
      • If you'd like to discuss the merits of how this process should be developed, feel free to contribute at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship. I don't think this is the appropriate place for that :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
        • It's your choice, I was merely making a suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• An additional relevant question would be "would its existence have an effect on your content editing?" Because whilst we trust admins to separate mop duties from content interests, it would be rather optimistic to expect all other editors to do so in a potential CDA. So getting involved in any heated content disputes, particularly on political battleground topics - whether the admin acts entirely beyond reproach or exhibits human flaws - will risk opponents declaring the editor unfit to wield the mop, regardless of the way they've actually used it. (Of course, much the same effect applies for the question asked - perfectly good mop-wielding will produce malcontents at CDA.) Canvassing, whether it takes place openly or not, will make any admin willing to tread in ANI territory in the longer term a target. That will have a dramatic chilling effect, if not immediately then after the first CDA or CDA-desysopping. Rd232 ^talk 20:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• At first I was going to say that I hope it would affect adminstrators' behavior, but then after further consideration, I would hope, rather, that they were already behaving as if such a thing were in place. So I guess that means I hope it would NOT affect their behavior. And really, if you weren't behaving like that in the first place, well, I hope you get CDA'd. Kevin Baas^talk 21:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Obviously not an administrator but I'll say my piece: If it would change the way you acted as a sysop you shouldn't be an sysop. :) James (T|C) 21:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• • The point has been made elsewhere in more detail, summarise as: if anyone - including criminals, who'd have by far the most motivation to vote - could vote on whether a cop should lose his badge, how do you think that would go? Rd232 ^talk 22:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

But you think "we trust admins to separate mop duties from content interests"!! Don't you realise that people who want to see more admin accountability are not actually criminals? You are tarring a huge amount honest people, scare mongering over the amount of who are likely to be criminalistic, and failing to see that admin who avoid making difficult decisions that they would otherwise choose to make because a CDA against them is a possibility (even with the many safeguards in place) do not deserve to be admin. Adminship is a commitment to Wikipedia above yourself as an editor. If you don't have that you should NOT be an admin. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you're the second person to abuse my metaphor, I'll point out that it was... just a metaphor. I'm not "tarring" anyone, the point is that there's a reason cops aren't elected, and the same logic applies to admins in respect of the cop-like duties of adminship; I'm sorry you don't see that rather obvious point (cf selection bias). In addition, and the reason I actually bothered engaging with this thread in the first place, was to make the point that whilst WP:RFA is predicated on editors promoted to admin being able to separate content editing from adminship, those admins which do not cease content editing and which engage in contentious content areas risk retaliation at CDA by editors who harbour content-related grudges. This is another reason why recall should not be based on a public vote (at least without a clear screening process by a trusted party, like Arbcom); it is generally subject to gaming. Finally, I seem to be the sole representative here of a widely-held view; visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall (see also discuss at CDA) and please cease your personal attacks. Rd232 ^talk 11:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept my comment may have been a misunderstanding of your metaphor (rather than "abuse" of it), but I fail to see it as a personal attack. I'm arguing the case as strongly as I can. I'm not sure I like seeing admin compared to cops. If an admin is put off from editing by the presense of CDA, then he is probably a better editor than an admin, and should return to being one. Admin who edit in certain areas should of course be careful. It is FAR worse that an admin abuses that position, than an innocent admin has to suffer a CDA for being accused of doing so (a FAR FAR less likely thing to happen). The innocent admin would hardly be desysopped at the CDA.

Admin clearly have too many powers, which should spread across different jobs. But that hardly effect CDA. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • It is of course a risk, and the most legitimate reason against the idea in my opinion but I still stand by my statement. If being the cop is so important to you that you would change how you act because you are worried about retaliation then you never deserved the position anyway. I would say that in general (especially with the amazingly high percentages required to desysop in the current proposal) it is highly unlikely you would get enough people to vote against you for removal unless you probably could have gone to arbcom and lost it there anyway. If you do regardless? It is a risk, but if you are going to go against what you think is best for the community because you want to keep the position? Sorry you wouldn't have my sympathy. James (T|C) 23:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but that just doesn't wash. Adminship is a volunteer position with many duties; very many of the active admins already shy away from the really hard drama-heavy "cop" duties (as opposed to more mop-type). CDA will make that worse. You can impugn the motivation of the volunteers doing it (cops at least get paid...), but what matters is the end result, which is not hard to predict Rd232 ^talk 23:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Most admin do not seem that shy to me, but there are all different types of admin. Some do not want to get into unpleasant fights, and why should they when there are plenty of others who are happy to step in. Yes - Wikipedia does need more admin (or workers of different types in my opinion - the "administrator" position involves far too much for one individual, both in work load and providing abusable powers), and I think that CDA will make the administrator post something that more people can justify being involved in. Some people simply need to see more accountability, Wikipedia being a "democracy" or not (it's as democratic as anything else in the world - ie semi-democratic). It's an ethical matter to some of us.

If CDA makes WP:RfA slightly less of an embarrassingly deep-fried experience, that would be a good thing too. I worry sometimes exactly why some people would put themselves through all that. Is it always just for the mop? RfA should be more streamlined as a process anyway - it's too heavily reliant on a balanced group of people contributing. Even with CDA, many admin will get away with all kinds of pov enforcing, power tripping and bullying etc. CDA is more about what it represents, than it's actual use - which with all the safeguards in place will be fairly minimal I think anyway. It could be used a little bit perhaps, and then fall off. It might highlight a few issues, which when solved are then gone. It's message of accountability could actually sink in. We'll have to (hopefully) see. I think just having a decent CDA process will automatically make admin behave a little more thoughtfully, and editors a little less cynically. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, are you honestly saying that admins shouldn't be accountable simply because 'criminals' may be able to vote on their fate? Or since we're volunteers, our activities are somehow not open to community scrutiny and sanction? If you read the process as drafted, you'd realise that dispute resolution must have been attempted with the admin and failed, and further that 10 editors with 500 edits and at least 3 months activity are needed to even get the nomination to the point of polling. Even then, the poll is open to the entire community (admins included), and the closure is under the discretion of the 'crat. If we lose a few admins because they don't want their behaviour scrutinised should they act foolish, then good riddance. NJA (t/c) 09:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No NJA, I'm not saying that (thanks for the facetiousness - helpful). There are already processes that hold admins accountable, and lead to desysopping if required. And any addition to such processes deemed necessary by the community need not involve such unnecessary additional bureaucracy, or such potential for gaming. These were points abundantly made clear, by many people, in the Admin Recall RFC which preceded the current CDA RFC (somehow all the options and discussion disappeared down the drain; the Admin Recall RFC clearly needed a Part II after sorting through and merging proposals). Rd232 ^talk 09:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there is definitely a question as to whether an admin who engages in the most difficult areas of Wikipedia's governance and policy enforcement should be held accountable to the mob. An admin like myself - someone who is an editor first and always, using the tools only for mop related duties - will never fall afoul of this process, so it becomes obvious whom the ultimate targets of this proposal will be. Mob rule does not serve this project as the mob exists only to further its own aims; aims that are not necessarily going to align with what is best for the project. Truthfully, I see proposals such as this running smack into WP:IAR and losing. Resolute 06:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Many people have who made it abundantly clear that the current system is not enough. The status quo does not have an element of superiority for being so. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedia at all. People against this CDA proposal can argue their case, but they have to listen to others too. I've personally had had my ears bashed by critics of CDA continually claiming that they are not being listened to, while I and others are patiently doing just that. The reality is that they are being listened to; they are just not being agreed with. Their arguments are always subjective and theoretical. So are the CDA arguments? Then let's vote at the RFC on whether try it out, and see what happens if people have said they would like it.

To propose an Admin Recall proposal at RFC (which turned out to be CDA) is the result of a snowball that could not have been stopped. It probably could have done with taking more time in stages - but too few people stood in it's way with good enough arguments for doing so. It needed that to slow down - but the fact is that most people simply let it roll. It may not have been a totally smooth journey, but how can things every really be that smooth on Wikipedia? The encyclopedia that everyone can edit? Some people did try to stop it, but it had too much momentum. Se la vie. The CDA proposal is still being worked on, and people can edit it directly there, or contribure here at the meta-detail Talk page, and here at the general Talk page, or they can simply vote for or against it in the upcoming RFC. In fact, people can do what they want - within the rules. Just don't expect to 'blow up' a snowball that is clearly of everyone's making. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Would you please propose something already? These endless and pointless discussions need to stop. Any administrator who is opposed by 70 - 80 percent of the community will already have been taken to WP:RFC and then desysopped by our elected representative on the Arbitration Committee. To me, it seems like a useless and pointless bureaucracy to create a redundant pathway that will never do anything other than foment drama and waste editors' time. Any time a little cabal of ten editors with a common interest gets together, they will go after an admin they don't like, creating much grief and drama, but nothing whatsoever of value. I think that gaming the rules should not be encouraged, and am confident that my view is typical of many editors here. It is very likely that any such proposal will be strongly rejected. Jehochman ^Brrr 12:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

But really, who is this "you"? CDA is been worked on by a number of people (who are not a 'close gang'), and it can only be proposed when there is a general consensus (from as many people as possible) that it is ready. CDA clearly has to be a professional looking proposal, that cannot be easily picked apart for its holes; a proposal that is actually attractive to the voter. You keep saying we should just get the idea out, and not bother with the technical details - but you know that there are a number of people waiting to castigate anything that is presented that way. It is not beneficial to the proposal to give people silly reasons to 'oppose'. If CDA opponents have theoretical concerns that it will work badly, and they are not even willing to trial it, they should be forced to admit that. Why give the more cynical people places to hide?

There are only benefits in bringing a finished article (as much as these things ever are) to the final community vote. Even if CDA fails, it will only be a useful experience to us if it was proposed as professionally as possible. It can either have been a clear experience we all can learn things from, or a muddied mess that some people will happily archive as a "waste of time". Matt Lewis (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The product is not getting better with discussion. You're just making people more and more opposed to it by engaging in endless votes and processes. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-focus to answer the question

I really, really, really didn't want to get into a debate on the merits of CDA. That was the exact antithesis of my point in raising the question I originally posted. So, I'm going to start again. PLEASE do not debate the merits of CDA here. Focus your answers on the question at hand, and please if administrators only would answer this question:

Q: If the CDA process were implemented as proposed, would its existence have an effect on how you went about your administrative duties? If yes, why and what effect(s) would it have? If no, why not? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

note: (admins who previously answered have had their answers copied down here)

• An additional relevant question would be "would its existence have an effect on your content editing?" Because whilst we trust admins to separate mop duties from content interests, it would be rather optimistic to expect all other editors to do so in a potential CDA. So getting involved in any heated content disputes, particularly on political battleground topics - whether the admin acts entirely beyond reproach or exhibits human flaws - will risk opponents declaring the editor unfit to wield the mop, regardless of the way they've actually used it. (Of course, much the same effect applies for the question asked - perfectly good mop-wielding will produce malcontents at CDA.) Canvassing, whether it takes place openly or not, will make any admin willing to tread in ANI territory in the longer term a target. That will have a dramatic chilling effect, if not immediately then after the first CDA or CDA-desysopping. Rd232 ^talk 20:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Answer: Not currently, because the way I use my admin tools is generally pretty clear cut. (I work copyright problems, 24/7. Not literally. But close enough to literally to be a bit pathetic. :)) I am confident in my understanding of related policy and in my methods of enforcing it. I can imagine it might keep me from deciding to wade in to help clean up controversial areas involving many contributors, however — say, addressing a secret cabal composed of a number of long-standing contributors. Even if trusting the overall good sense of the community, I can do without the excitement. But that's one reason why I'd probably not decide to wade in to those areas in the first place. I prefer soul-crushing tedium. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• RFA is an utter mess. CDA is a way to make the messy drama of RFA a semi-permanent condition for all admins who attempt to solve difficult problems. No thanks. ArbCom, with all it's flaws, is a lot less gameable. The proposal stinks and is getting stinkier. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• No. I'm open to recall on the reasoning that the community needs more of a recourse than the lenghty RFC->ArbCom process, and I strive to ensure that my administrative actions stand up to scrutiny. As for the fears about gaming the system, I'm quite confident that even admins working on difficult blocks or WP:AE will have enough people to stand up for them if they ever were to be subject to any for of community deadminship. What a CDA would help with is to ensure that the bad apples can be removed in less than the month+ process it takes now. MLauba (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  It's smug to say that something will be no problem for somebody else who does a tough job that you don't do yourself. Getting put in the stocks so people can toss accusations for a week or two is stressful, even when one is completely vindicated at the end of the process. No thanks. The proposal is a naive idea put forward by people who aren't listening to concerns of those affected by the proposal. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• And what of the many admin who back CDA? It simply has to be trialled. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

@Jehochman:How is CDA is any different than RFC in this regard. Sole Soul (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC requires two editors make prior, good faith attempts at dispute resolution, and an uninvolved administrator needs to certify that those attempts were made. While RFC is gamed once in a while (for which we customarily award cupcakes to the subject), it has generally stood the test of time. Can such protections be built into CDA? Can the requirements be lowered so that CDA actually has some teeth? These are the changes I'd like to see. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That is a specific legitimate objection. Have you made a specific proposal to address this issue? Ideas that raise concerns in theory do not really improve until they are implemented, the wiki idea is a good example. Sole Soul (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• A fine comment, but can we please reserve debate about CDA itself for other places? I'd like to stay focused on the question. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, you have no right to limit the scope of discussions. Asking what color should we paint the bikeshed invites the question do we even need a bikeshed? Jehochman ^Brrr 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Falsely claiming that the proposers aren't listening does not help your cause; the question at the top specifically invites input from those affected by this proposal to articulate how, why, and to what extent they are affected by this proposal. Perhaps this proposal means that some will need to improve their act so as to avoid further controversy (and do their work properly). Regardless, we cannot forget that there wouldn't be so much interest in a proposal like this, if there wasn't a noticeable concern about the number of "bad apples" being discovered, old or new, and the (time-consuming) manner in which they are dealt with. Note: I'm not saying the proposal itself is without flaws. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Ncmvocalist, the proposers are not listening. I've voiced my concerns repeatedly and they have just ignored them. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny how unwanted answers can be described as 'deaf ears'. You should respect more the dialogue you have always had. Not listening and disagreeing are too different things.Matt Lewis (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I hope you will not allege that Hammersoft, I, or anyone else is overdominating this discussion because of legitimate attempts to keep this discussion focussed on the specific input that was needed from this discussion; you will have plenty of opportunity (and even invitation) to restate other concerns at a separate discussion in the near future. I'm sure you have many concerns, and some may appear unaddressed - I'll definitely try to highlight them. But in this discussion, at this time, could you articulate (or restate) your concerns which specifically relate to how (and to what extent) this proposal would affect your performance of admin duties, if it was enacted? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Why do you ask? Jafeluv (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  I think it is important to understand what impact CDA might have on the project were it implemented. One of the ways in which it might have an impact is administrator behavior. I'm not seeking answers condemning or supporting CDA, but answers that are self evaluative from administrators regarding how CDA may or may not impact their administrator actions. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Personally I would not anticipate CDA having any impact on me as an admin. The reason is because 98% or more of my admin actions are processing requests at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Since the vast majority of my admin edits are not in controversy-causing areas in the project, CDA and I may never cross paths. Other than the odd serial sockmaster, I really cannot imagine someone getting angry with me as an administrator (well, except maybe those seeing out-of-process blocks and page protections whom I have declined). — Kralizec! (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Honestly, none whatsoever. As proposed, a CFA nomination wouldn't even be a possibility unless I've acted foolish on several occasions (it's not for one-offs, unless extremely serious), and only then after some sort of legitimate dispute resolution had been tried with me and to failed to produce an amicable outcome, and even then it would take 10 editors with 500 edits and 3 months registration just to get it to a poll, where then it would need 50+ !votes and a strong consensus of the editing community. Therefore it would not affect my daily duties, and I can't see how it would affect any good admin, as you'd have to be a complete knob head if you cannot come to some kind of satisfactory compromise during legitimate dispute resolution. NJA (t/c) 15:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also since there seems to be a line drawn between 'safe' and risky admin duties, I wanted to note that believe I do quite variety of admin tasks, including 3RR blocks, sock clerking and blocks, username vios, deletions, block reviews, etc. I've been accused of admin abuse, and have been told that they will file complaints against me, etc. Even still, the knowledge that a community based mechanism (as currently worded in the draft) to nominate me for a de-sysop poll would not affect my activities, as again I think you'd have to be very thick headed to not resolve it during dispute resolution. NJA (t/c) 15:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Let's say you piss off a cabal of pro-Elbonian editors by blocking one of their leaders who's violated arbitration sanctions. The cabal members sheik "adminabuse" and nominate you for CDA. The process runs for a week or two, and various past people you've blocked come forward and toss mud at you. Even if the process fails to remove your access, is this the way you want to spend your time on Wikipedia? The problem here is that there is no protection against abuse, unlike WP:RFC and WP:RFAR. Please address this point. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you've read the draft of the proposed policy, as that scenario is not a possibility. NJA (t/c) 15:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is why I suggested that Hammersoft not ask his question about the CDA stuff, here. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC) [36]

• No. Similar to Moonriddengirl and Kralizec!, I generally limit myself to blocking vandals and deleting crap out of preference, and don't get involved in Arbcom/political/religious/ethno/nationalist/US political/Eastern European/Israeli/pseudo-scientific/Global warming/filmplot/etc -type disputes. I applaud admins who take on those tasks and wouldn't want to see them disadvantaged or deterred. However I would hope that anyone involved in those areas could maintain at least 50% support across the whole community. One thing I would like to see is the 10 editor nomination requirement increased for such admins because it's easy to piss off cabals of that size. It seems a lot of people are actually aware of what goes on at RfA, and where a good candidate is suffering a cabal onslaught, suddenly hundreds of independent others will appear out of nowhere to deliver the right result. I expect a similar phenomena at CDA. But lets not waste all that time unnecessarily. (This is not necessarily an endorsement) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• No I rather think the policy has its process conditions so limiting that it will accomplish nothing at all, good or bad. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• No as I am already recallable. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Lar, your criteria are Byzantine and unsatisfiable as a practical matter. Jehochman ^Brrr 01:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Admin should have nothing to fear of CDA, and I think the above shows this. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Disagree. Address concerns rather than pooh poohing them. How does this proposal prevent gaming? How does it reduce rather than foment drama? Jehochman ^Brrr 01:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hammersoft, repeatedly asking the same questions wherever you can (having had responses every time - despite your claims of being ignored) is really pusing AGF now. You are dictating what people can say, and forcing people to repeat responses by copying the answers that you were happy with into a new section. This is just not on, and I really feel you are wasting people's time now. I wasn't bothered with you posting here, it's just the way you go about it - it's not right. You are consistently trying to make it look like you have more support than you do, but bundling people's previous comments together isn't going to impress anyone but the laziest of busy people.

Nobody can stop CDA now just because you (or anyone else) theorises that X,Y,Z disasters will happen. You simply do not know what will happen, and your demand for proof that CDA will be a guaranteed success is unfair and unworkable. CDA doesn't have to proven to be better than other system either. It doesn't have to fix a gaping hole, or compete with anything. If any admin in here admit to you that a CDA process would make them even more afraid of making "difficult decisions", then should they really be those kind of admin in the first place? Perhaps they should focus on the other types of adminsterative jobs.

Comment: The majority of editors actually respect tough/brave admin who make hard decisions (it's hypocracy or breaking the rules that tends to bug most editors), and they would support them before 10 committed angry editors can realistically start up a de-adminship process. There are plenty of safeguards surrounding CDA, so the vast majority of our 'braver' admin will have nothing to fear - unless they consistently go OTT on a very dodgy matter without heeding at all what a number of editors think. Angry editors have to go through the various forms of dispute resolution first - they can't just run to CDA frothing at the mouths. After all of that, an admin may (just may) have people soberly looking at a CDA. But the chances are that any reasonable admin would have started listening first. A resolution before CDA even happens (what CDA is really about imo). Most cases of admin gone completely 'mad' will be dealt with by other admin via the other channels. We will all be voting on whether to give CDA a try (it surely can't be stopped now), so I suggest we focus on the process itself, or wait for the RFC vote. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't affect my admin behavior, because I'm already subject to recall (and have gone through the process once). As pointed out above, if CDA would affect your behavior, then you're probably not qualified for adminship anyway. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• No. For one I have a recall process and it's rather more strict than the CDA proposal, as all one has to do is start a standard RFC, and if enough people (doesn't even have to be half of those who comment) have a problem with my admin work I resign the tools. Just for the record, as it were, I don't have a problem with the current CDA proposal really, and if anything I think the "anything less than 65% opposition means they keep the bit" aspect is far too lenient (if just under two-thirds of the community thinks you're doing a bad job you should lose the tools, and indeed you should have enough clue to resign them yourself). I hear the concerns about admins working in controversial areas, but if a cabal of nationalist editors was going after an admin doing good work (or at least trying to) in their topic area, I think that would be incredibly transparent, and if anything a classic WP:PLAXICO moment where the CDA "nominators" end up catching heat rather than the admin (who would probably end up getting plaudits). There could be something I'm missing, but I just don't see a scenario whereby admins doing basically good work would get railroaded by a process like this, so I would think most would feel as I do that they would not need to change what they do as an admin. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• I am not one of the admins that this proposal is so very obviously targeting, so no, it won't affect me. As I noted in the above section, however, forcing the admins that this proposal does target to be subservient to mob rule is not beneficial to the project. In fact, I find the proposal as it stands to be utterly worthless, as it revolves around a straight vote, something that Wikipedia is not, rather than a judgment of consensus. Resolute 06:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerns

My concerns with the proposal are twofold:

1. Gaming. What protections exist to prevent a group with a common POV from using this process to attack (perhaps unsuccessfully, but annoyingly nonetheless) an admin they dislike? Who is the gatekeeper to make sure that frivolous requests by a group of 10 don't get started? Having to address frivolous wiki-litigation can be very time consuming and annoying. People should not be put through that.
2. Impossibility. The proposed thresholds are very high. I do not think we'll ever get to the point where 70-80% of commenting editors will oppose a bad admin. For instance, if an admin has been tendentiously protecting a group of nationalistic edit warriors, those folks will naturally support their guardian. I think a more realistic ratio would be 2:1, 1.5:1, or even a simple majority of opposes to supports as a criteria for removal. Jehochman ^Brrr 12:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought this thread was supposed to be about our potential reactions to the proposal-if-implemented, not our feelings about it positive or negative? If we cannot stay on topic then perhaps this discussion ought to be brought to a close.  Skomorokh  14:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It was never really ontopic, because the responses to potential reactions rapidly became a general discussion. Close it, I say. Rd232 ^talk 15:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The first concern is not unique to CDA. RFC, ArbCom and AN/I can be abused on a similar way. Ten people, each with more than 500 edits and with good standing would draw scrutiny to any questionable relationship between them and any misconduct or agenda they may have, which may result serious sanctions against them. So it is not like they do not have anything to lose and the prospect of them gaining much without good case is not high. Sole Soul (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase II

I've made an outline for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase II based on Risker's closing summary of Phase I. If that seems reasonable, then we should go ahead and advertise Phase II on WP:CENT etc. Rd232 ^talk 11:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest it be advertised on the watch list, like the first phase was. Pcap ping 13:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect or protect List of The Simpsons couch gags less please

This page has been protected since 2007, can someone please unprotect it or protect it less so I can add sources for the AFD? I have found so many, it is unrealistic for me to add sources to the talk page. Okip (formerly Ikip) 05:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have set your account to "confirmed", so you should be able to edit past semi-protection now. Could you try if it works? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirects for Discussion close/relist needed.

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#List_of_Halo_weapons and either close/relist it please? It's been sitting in the backlog for a while now. Thanks alot in advance, --Taelus (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with alternate account

Please could an administrator delete and create protect my alternate account's talk page? The alternate account template says: "You may discuss this account at User talk:Minimac94". Minimac94 (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason for the page to be protected? Would a simple redirect not suffice, or is there reason to suspect that the page will be vandalised? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

TT is correct, a redirect is much more useful (although I'd say you should still be orange-bar reachable when editing with your altacc, but that's up to you). I've redirected the altacc's talk page to yours; shout me if you want this to be protected, but only after unwanted edits there. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 20:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Secure Accounts

Since accidents happen, and sometimes any user, even an admin can have their account compromised. Based on the discussion here, its recommended all admins ensure they have a way of verifying their identity to a higher-up in the case of emergency, be it using {{User committed identity}}, legitimate sock accounts with different passwords, uploading photos with unique meta-data, or anything else you can think of, as long its unique and secret. Thanks--Jac16888^Talk 16:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There are "higher ups"? I have heard of hirer ups, but usually call them "recruitment officers"... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Recruitment officers? I normally call them head hunters, or "people marginally above estate agents" depending on my mood :) Pedro :  Chat  22:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So, for example would the metadata on File:Chugachreflection.JPG be sufficient if I took another photo with the same camera? Does it make any difference that I'm probably the only one still using a Kodak EasyShare this old? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about metadata, I was just going by Wehwalt's comment on talk:rfa. The metadate for yours doesn't have a serial number, but its true, I imagine you could just upload another photo to prove yourself, it would be a pretty determined vandal who goes to the trouble of getting hold of the same model camera to pretend to be you--Jac16888^Talk 01:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Image metadata can be trivially forged by anyone who understands how it's stored. If it's possible to get a free admin account by forging metadata, you can bet that people will do so - so reliance on such metadata as an alternate identifier for admin accounts is less secure, not more secure. Don't do it. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, here's a list of so-clever-they're-not people whose committed identities are the empty string: [37]. Hesperian 04:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Being an admin does't equal being a tech guru. This discussion (and thus the ability to prove one's identity on Wikipedia) requires a significant level of IT technical understanding, including the concept of a 'string', or meta data. I had a look at {{User committed identity}}; whilst it starts off with a simple explanation, a successful implementaiton would require an understanding of technical instructions. It would be great if the process for ensuring a secure account could be 'dumbed down' to the level that a non IT technically literate admin could use. Savlonn (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not that complicated, though the page is. I would assume these technically-illterate admins are using some flavour of Windows, so they would just need to download http://www.slavasoft.com/hashcalc/ , enter a string, select the right hash function, and copy and paste the result into the committed identity template. –xeno^talk 21:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to download anything, it can be done online here – ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 21:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not so sure transmitting your hash back and forth ota is a best-practice, but I guess it's not bad for government work. –xeno^talk 21:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That link is to a page that provides locally-run Javascript. Your hash would not be transferred anywhere. Hesperian 23:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Alright then. Serves me right for not looking. –xeno^talk 23:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

New Bomb the Music Industry EP: ADULTS!!!: SMART!!! SHITHAMMERED!!! AND EXCITED BY NOTHING!!!!!!!

Resolved

Flagged because of the title, although this is the official title of the album, as noted by http://www.quoteunquoterecords.com/qur038.htm

Notable release by a notable band (Bomb the Music Industry!), whose other releases all have Wikipedia pages. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostBoy66 (talk • contribs)

Um, what? I mean, what is it exactly you are trying to tell us/ask us about this? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Links are needed to the page that has been flagged and the user that flagged it so that we may be able to help you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the discography section of the band's article, the album title article would be at Adults!!!: Smart!!! Shithammered!!! And Excited by Nothing!!!!!!!. As far as I can see no article has ever been created, and there is no protection on the title preventing anyone from doing so now. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That is because you are an admin. Log out to see the blacklist message. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. - That's what I see if I try to create it. --Onorem♠Dil 02:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My guess is because of the multiple bangs in a row. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 02:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(after many ECs) The problem he is running into is that the title of the album is showing up on the title blacklist, so the article cannot be created. This is likely due to the repeating characters in the official title (the !!!!!!). In order to stop obvious article vandalism, the system will not let regular users create articles with certain titles; 999,999 out of 1,000,000 an article title with, say, the same character 8 times in a row is just vandalism. This is the one time out of a million where a legitimate article will have that title. SO he needs someone to create the article with the proper title so he can write it. Being a notable release by a notable music band, the article is a valid article, but because of the weird title of the album, it won't let him create it, because the system thinks its vandalism. My suggestion is to be VERY SURE this is the actual title of the album, then if we can verify that through multiple sources, we can create the article as a stub and let him edit it. But lets make sure we get it right. If the album has an alternate title, like if reliable sources omit the crazy exclamation points, or don't use all the caps, then maybe we can name the article that way. Lets make sure we get the name absolutely right, and then lets create it the right way. --Jayron32 02:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Or create it as a user subpage draft and have an admin move it when it is ready. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The English message probably should be fixed. I get "Een pagina met de naam "Adults!!!: Smart!!! Shithammered!!! And Excited by Nothing!!!!!!!" kan niet aangemaakt worden. Deze paginanaam voldoet aan de volgende beperking op de zwarte lijst: .*[^\p{L}\d ]{5}.* # Disallows five consecutive characters that are not letters (in any script), numbers, or spaces", which, disregarding the language barrier, is quite explicit as to exactly why I can't create the page.—Kww(talk) 03:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I just tried to create a page called !!!Three !!! Amigos!!! and it was perfectly willing to let me do it. (I did NOT hit save, though.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The restriction kicks in at 5 exclamation points. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I got prevented from moving a page that had two exclamation points in the title. But that's apparently a different issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the existing stub at Adults!: Smart! Shithammered! And Excited by Nothing! to the attested title Adults!!!: Smart!!! Shithammered!!! And Excited by Nothing!!!!!!!. I cannot say for sure that the article meets notability requirements, but it's certainly not a speedy candidate and if needed can be taken to AFD. Abecedare (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help in identifying and unblocking former Google Web Accelerator proxies

This might be old news, but I noticed that Google Web Accelerator has been discontinued, and many sources have shown that the proxies have been taken down. See [38] and [39]. Can some admins help me search for and unblock these IPs? I am not enough to unblock these IPs by myself. Jesse Viviano (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see this for why the issue has become urgent. We do not want to block innocent users. Jesse Viviano (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just being slow, but I don't get it. Why does Google's announcement that they're working on a fibre-in-the-home rollout plan make unblocking old proxy IP addresses an urgent issue? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

They might reuse the old proxy IPs for their users. Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the 27,019 pages in CAT:OP, many of them dynamic and stale. Anyway you'd want to check [40], [41], and Category:Google Web Accelerator proxies, though not all of them will be GWA. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A warning: I noticed that some of the proxies are still proxies that are used by Google's mobile transcoder at http://www.google.com/gwt/n . Please be careful. I have therefore stopped unblocking, except for removing the rangeblocks. Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate that they might reuse GWA IP addresses with this new program, but I still don't see the need for urgency. Having read the official blog post, it's clear that this project is just in the planning stages. From the end of that post: "We'll collect responses until March 26, and will announce our target communities later this year." I think the best thing to do at the moment would be to wait and see how the rollout progresses. Right now seems a bit early to start scrambling. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Application for BAG membership

I have accepted MBisanz's nomination of myself for membership of the Bot Approvals Group, and invite interested parties to participate in the discussion and voting. Josh Parris 03:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bomb-making instructions on the internet

Resolved

 – No legal issue here. Tan | 39 17:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

New article, up at DYK, which is where it caught my attention. I'm asking this as an exercise in caution, knowing I would kick myself if something happened and I didn't say anything.

In the article is a quote by Sherman Austin: Take any plastic film canister and fill 3/4 of the cannister [sic] with _____. Fill the rest with Draino and put the lid on it. Take this mixture to a cop car and drop it in the gas tank. Run like hell. In about ten minutes the car will explode like in the movie.

The quote is sourced to an online link. When I clicked the link it showed up as forbidden. When I copied and pasted the Fill the rest with..., into a Google Search, the formula showed up on the first Google hit, not blanked out.

Further down in the article is a cited statement reading, In 1995, Dianne Feinstein produced a bill to the United States Congress making it illegal to distribute bomb-making information, punishable by a $250,000 fine and 20 years' imprisonment. Two years later, the body voted 94-0 in favour of implementing it.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to express other than a distinct feeling of unease about this. --Moni3 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I pinged Mike Godwin on his talk page and sent an email. Tan | 39 16:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Point of interest, I amusingly already poked him on his talk page when I first created the article, because he's listed among the references. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(as creator of the article) Without resorting to the immediate Virgin Killer issue, the bill does not eliminate the need for Mens Rea in any crime; criminal intent is still a necessary part of the action. A demolition company will not be prosecuted for showing its employees how to destroy a building with large explosions, for example. As an encyclopaedia, it is clear that Wikipedia (and I) have no intent for the information to be used in a criminal fashion - we are providing the quote as a snapshop of the kind of information that has been deemed "illegal" and successfully prosecuted. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That might very well be, Sherurcij, and it's an excellent article. I just agree with Moni3 that it might be prudent to get official Wikimedia legal eyes on it. Tan | 39 16:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all, I'm not offended...I just hope everybody who stops by spends two minutes to add another detail/source. It's a good article, but it has the potential to be a great article with enough eyes and hands on it. I was actually surprised it didn't already exist. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So far, in my research of the salient law (Feinstein Amendment SP419), there is no issue here - intent is a key part of this law. "Thus, the Feinstein Amendment only precludes the distribution of material intentionally directed toward a 'a federal offense or other criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce'." Tan | 39 17:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I just had a brief email discussion with Mike Godwin. I don't wish to quote him here, but there doesn't seem to be an issue with this article. He did recommend that we link to the statute itself; Sherurcij, I will leave that to you to place as you see fit. Tan | 39 17:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In Spain, my local library had a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook. The central pages had instructions on how to manufacture a Molotov cocktail. It was perfectly legal. I'm not sure if it's still there. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

While not acting with my admin hat on, I've removed this from the article and explained my reasoning on its talk page (in short, I think that it had been arbitrarily placed in the article with no clear attempt to link it into the prose). Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question

Did Shakespeare write the plays attributed to him? A troublesome article is now up for peer review. There are two disputants on the article who have edit-warred in the past and have been warned for personal attack. Since this is not a boring subject, I am hopeful that experienced editors might contribute to the peer review. Having outside input could calm things down, and lessen the need for admin watchfulness. The edit war is now in abeyance, and the article itself is open for improvement if your changes have consensus. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

the problem of vandalism

I have just undone this vandalism [42] on the article about the Polish city Opole done by some IP from US. The problem is that it went unnoticed for a full 40 minutes (and had i not had to stay up during night for some work today it would have probably gone undetected even longer). IMO it completely destroys the credibility of wikipedia to have stuff like "poppopopopopopopopopopopopopopopp fuck" inserted in an article for so long. It's high time the armada of admins we have on wikipedia comes up with some new ideas how to prevent this type of vandalism.  Dr. Loosmark  02:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

One would have thought the Abuse Filter would have caught that. Alas. Unfortunately the only thing we can do is rely on the RC patrollers and Hugglers to catch this sort of thing. Alternatively, ban anonymous editing. It is a pity that the latter solution won't even be entertained; too many people don't get that the 'anyone can edit' model isn't scaleable. There's more driveby vandalism than there are people to deal with it, period. → ROUX ₪ 02:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Much more dangerous to the accuracy and reputation of Wikipedia is the vandal lowers the accuracy by incorrectly changing a birthdate by a year, or adding a bogus middle initial or nickname, or adds a spouse or child, or add a fake inaccessible print reference documenting some spurious fact. These are very hard (sometimes impossible) to check, and blanket reversion of such edits is objected to by some when many other statements in the article in question are also difficult to verify. Edison (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that insidious vandalism is more of a problem than blatant, but how is changing the birthday of a person much more dangerous than altering the year of an event? With the town, there are many more people to get insulted. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The speed at which an article gets corrected is proportional to how many are watching it and, by implication, its level of notability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, quite bluntly, a fuckload of edits go through here in just a period of a couple of minutes. It's not impossible for vandalism to get past simply because it streams through the recent changes list so fast. HalfShadow 06:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that a metric fuckload or an imperial fuckload? Seriously, for any but the top hundred or so watched articles, 40 minutes is a very short time for vandalism to stick around. I would say that half an hour or so is pretty average for vandalism on most articles on my watch list. That is, if I don't get to reverting it, some one else does in something around a half an hour. 40 minutes would not be unusual. On some lightly watched articles, it can sit around for days. Occasionally I'll use the random article feature, and generally once or twice every few dozen articles you'll find some silly vandalism from days or weeks before that no one noticed. I seriously wouldn't sweat 40 minutes. --Jayron32 06:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of these trolls/vandals make a change just to see if they can engage someone in a minor edit war. After 40 minutes, it's likely they will have moved on, or passed out, or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

ok another, much worse example, since lately there is much fuss about BLPs, take for example the article about the MotoGp rider Daniel Pedrosa. A little more than a week ago some clown deleted a whole bunch of text and added the following message HE IS GOOD BUT I HATE HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 [43]. For those who aren't into motorcycle racing: Daniel Pedrosa is a 3 times World Champion and currently one of 3 or 4 best riders in the world. Shockingly before the vandalism was reverted 5 hours and 21 minutes passed. There are 2 things to consider 1) Basically the vandal could have inserted any garbage or even libelous crap and it would have stayed un-reverted that long. 2) I can't even imagine how long it would take to revert a vandalism on the page of a less famous rider, maybe even days. In my opinion the wikipedia anti-vandalism measures are a failure, relying on people having articles on watch lists just isn't good enough.  Dr. Loosmark  09:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

MotionTime to close this thread?:

• Vandalism happens.
• That is because anyone can edit.
• The community is aware of what open access means, but willing to pay the prize given the net benefit.
• Most vandal edits get caught fast, some slip through.

Unless Loosmark makes clear what he wants to achieve here and how, this thread is pointless. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Skapperod, if you aren't interested in this thread, nobody forces you to read it.  Dr. Loosmark  10:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Motion to close"??? What is that exactly, haven't seen something like that before on these pages (I think you're confusing this with Arbitration Enforcement or something)? Why? And what does "close" mean in this context? If you think this is unimportant, let it just sit there and dither away on its own like a good many threads. But other editors, especially those paying attention to the recently brought up issues of sourcing and vandalism problems may find this relevant. The point of Loosmark's post was to alert. If the alert is unwarranted, then... it will be ignored. If there's something there, then why jump in with this "motion to close!". Weird.radek (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed "motion to close" --> "time to close this thread?". Time to close this now. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark, this is one of the reasons flagged revisions (and/or semi-protection of all BLPs) are supported by a lot of people. It would prevent a lot of such vandalism. Fram (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the valid point Fram makes: Skapperod and Radeksz, please don't hijack this thread with your personal feuds. Loosmark: apart from what Fram mentions, we can't technically do much beyond what we are already doing, and everybody is aware of the issue, so I don't think this thread serves much of a purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"everybody is aware of the issue". I am not sure that's true, I for one for example, would have never imagined that an article about a high profile rider like Daniel Pedrosa can stay vandalized for more than 5 hours. Like Fram, I too support the flagged revision, but as we all know implementing big changes like that is soooo difficult because given wikipedia's size there will always be huge number of editors defending the status quo for whatever reason. In the mean time we should think of something to at least alleviate the problem. Once I have seen a bot which reverts vandalism, perhaps it can be enhanced to be more effective. Also for example from examining the history of the Daniel Pedrosa article [44], it can be seen that 1 day before the vandalism that i described above the same IP made another vandalism. I propose giving a quick article ban to IPs as soon they make a vandalism.  Dr. Loosmark  11:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This thread probably belongs at the village pump or at WT:Vandalism. The issues are not new, but for what it's worth, I agree that we should be far less timid in our use of the systemic tools we do have against vandals (blocks not warnings; at least semi-protection of BLPs and similar magnets). In fact I think it would be an interesting experiment (though it won't happen) to give all confirmed editors the ability to semiprotect pages.--Kotniski (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand of the technological aspects of blocks and bans, It's really pretty much impossible to block out all the vandals, or even the vast majority, without blocking out a large number of good-faith contributors as well. Any one person could get most of his town blocked if he understood how to change his IP and was willing to drive up to the libraries and schools to get them blocked too. It's not that we allow vandalism because we're "being nice" to them, it's because we don't really have a choice if we want to remain Wikipedia. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This kind of vandalism is almost a service to the community. As much as we want Wikipedia to be a reliable encyclopedia we are still far from this goal, and this kind of vandalism makes it clear to even the most naive reader that any Wikipedia article need to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. Should we still do something about obvious vandalism? Probably yes, but it is also the least of our worries. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The way I deal with apparent test edits is I always look up the IP address to see who is editing - If it is a non-internet company, a school, a university, or another shared IP I mark it. Also I always leave a message asking the person to test in the sandbox. By making it clear to people that other people are watching and are scrutinizing their moves, they'll be more likely to test in the sandbox. If someone wants to play edit war after being warned not to, that person will likely be blocked, and he or she will move on. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked User:Rachmaninoffrus requesting deletion of their talk user page

As a new admin, I would value advice on this!

Rachmaninoffrus was indef blocked on 08 Aug 2009 as a sockpuppet of Pianoplonkers.

At 14:06 today, they asked for their talk page to be deleted (see here). I left a message saying that I would do it, then realised about the block/sockpuppetry, so left a sockpuppet blocknotice instead, and left a message on the talk page explaining this. When they said they still wanted the user page deleted, I offered to redirect it to the talk page (so the block notice would still be visible).

They do not like this, and said here surley it is my right to have it deleted as it is a userpage.

My take on this is that it is not their right, as they lost such a right when they received their indef block for sockpuppetry.

Any advice on this issue would be most welcome!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(not an admin) My understanding is that the right to have your tracks erased on WP is absolute, not conditional on complying with community standards. As such, he has the right to have his account deleted, renamed, or the talk page wiped - even if he is banned. Especially in this case, as it seems it may be his RL surname - unintentionally leading to WP:OUTING. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The right to vanish usually requires that you were in good standing. First of all: You have no right to have anything deleted. All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA and as such are not yours to demand removal anymore. As such, all deletions are subject to community consensus and our relevant policy, WP:CSD, has a criterion for user pages: U1 - but U1 explicitly excludes user talk pages for good reasons. While a number of admins (including myself) have in the past deleted user talk pages upon request as an WP:RTV-warranted exception to the rule, it should require that the requesting user was in good standing (the wording was changed though and requests should go through WP:MFD). A sock of a banned user has no right to have a page deleted and it serves us better if it is not deleted since the sockpuppet tag informs all other users why this user was blocked. Regards SoWhy 17:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistyped the section title - it is not the talk page, but the user page that they want deleted. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just saw this discussion. The user talkpage had {{adminhelp}} on it again, so I looked over the prior discussion and the userpage. There wasn't anything of import in the userpage history, so I went ahead and deleted it, but restored the last rev with the block template. Sorry if I stepped on any toes! —DoRD (?) (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks DoRD - I saw that you had done that, and think that's a good solution. I'll bear that in mind should this kind of situation arises again. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like User:Pianoplonkers is no longer blocked and is indeed a positive contributor to the encyclopedia. I see no reason not to honor his request.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 19:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The war on orphaned free images: am I being dim(mer than usual)?

I had a run-in with our esteemed colleague Fastily over the nomination of orphaned, free images at Wikipedia:Files for deletion a couple of days back. Now someone else appears to be doing it. Am I being dim(mer than usual), or am I right in thinking that deleting orphaned free images which might possibly be useful on Commons would be the Wrong Thing? For example: pictures of king posts like File:King post truss variation.jpg, File:King tie rod.jpg, File:King post singapore.jpg. If, as is entirely possible, the point missed me by miles, please don't hold back. Yours in puzzlement, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ehm, that would seem very strange to me. We should treasure our free content and make sure it lives for ever. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't save any space or gain much at all by deleting, so yes, I agree that is a peculiar choice of how to spend their time. –xeno^talk 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked the person if there is some deeper reason to delete them. If not, we can just tag them {{tocommons}} and/or move them using commonshelper. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I was going through watermarked images to see if they were fixable. In these cases, the images were watermarked and not in use, and so it seemed easier to just nominate them for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem with that is that nothing may be as simple as it seems. In the above cases, the images were removed from King post in good faith, citing WP:WATERMARK, which is a guideline and not a policy. They had been added there by the uploader who had given some sort of release on the image pages. However, I have also seen some editors remove images from articles as "unencyclopedic", without complaint, and then they are open to be deleted as orphaned, even if free. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The deleting admin should always do some sort of due diligence to make sure they are validly orphaned, and if free, tag them for moving to Commons. Rodhullandemu 21:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And there's the rub isn't it - how are they going to find out if they were orphaned out of process? –xeno^talk 22:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, therein lies the rub. When one is going through maintenance categories, there's no way to tell from the file description page or the file history where it was once linked. For all I know, the file could have never been used. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No. I don't think you're dim. I ended up there the last couple of days because of something that hit my watchlist and I'm particularly unimpressed what is going on there. A lot of things being nominated for deletion or "possible" deletion that seem to result from thoughtlessness or lazyness. Both appropriate images and otherwise. We've got one user who is nominating tons of stuff they should because they apparently don't understand the rules, another editor who mass nominated tons of in use images because they thought dealing with the uploader was difficult (even though they seem to think the images are probably appropriate), other editors mass nominating things that should be sent to commons, editors nominating things for clean-up, or simply because they just don't know what to do with something.--Crossmr (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the editors has uploaded dozens of low-res photos with watermarks on them. There is no OTRS ticket for any copyright release. The images have no camera info, only info from Photoshop. These images are not acceptable for Commons, and they should be speedied unless the uploader can give proof that they are their photos. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Pickbothmanlol

Resolved

 – let's not bother

He might be blocked, but I don't think that gives him the message. He has just started to use the I.P of a high school to his advantage. This is getting out of control. It might seem pointless to propose a ban on an already blocked user but for the sake of enforcing, we need him to get the message. The Green Lombax (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser on aisle 5!!!! –MuZemike 19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• You called? Ok - confirmed the following;

• The Green Lombax (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Big Red Lobster (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Also upgrading one schoolblock to hardblock. No collateral damage - Alison ^❤ 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Alison. Marked as resolved. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• As User:MZMcBride resigned his adminship while a request for arbitration was pending against him, he may regain adminship only through a new request for adminship or by application to this Committee. To the extent MZMcBride requests that he be allowed to regain adminship by simple request to a bureaucrat, his request is denied, in large measure because his conduct would likely have led to a significant sanction against him had he not resigned;

• MZMcBride is admonished for failing to learn from the lessons of the past and for creating avoidable drama;

• MZMcBride is admonished for facilitating vandalism by a banned user.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

User:Gooddday

Gooddday (talk · contribs) appears to be GoodDay (talk · contribs)'s stalker. MickMacNee (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a long-term banned editor, impersonating him for the lulz. Indefblocked. What's weird is that my own (cellular) IP address showed up in his /16 IP range. Wow - Alison ^❤ 01:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and semi-protected GoodDay's userpage - Alison ^❤ 01:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mick & Alison. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

There is currently a major backlog at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. Unfortunately, I can't close most of them, since I am the nominator or a participator. Can someone please close them? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Richard Daft

Resolved

 – All three blocked and tagged.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This person is still active on the site despite being banned only last month. He is using two accounts, User:FirstComrade and User:BrownEdge. His edit patterns and his talk page comments [45] [46], especially where he is in discussion with User:Sarastro1 who has "rumbled" him [47] [48], leave no doubt whatsoever that he is the same person who was previously User:Richard Daft, User:Fieldgoalunit and User:HughGal. He is here for confrontation purposes only, being what the internet terms a WP:TROLL. Would you please ban the two active accounts immediately. --JamesJJames (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also discovered User:ASMF which is again the same person [49], although this account seems to be not in use any more. --JamesJJames (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please attend to this asap, please. It had been archived by the bot. User:FirstComrade and User:BrownEdge are definitely block evasions. See Sarastro1's talk edits. --86.134.60.7 (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• You should use the WP:SPI pages in future. The admins there are more adept at reviewing the claims, and the "file" on the sockmaster is maintained. I have, nevertheless, actioned this request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

List of War Crimes

Can 1 admin please block user Uncle Dick who has now blatantly violated the 3RR by reverting a 4th time to his preferred edit. Please also note that this is a disruptive user who is wiping my warnings to him and other users and reinstating his to mine on my talk and it is totallt unfair because he has been the No.1 opponent provoking me in my onw disputes. He is not qualified to stand neutral when he is constantly reverting my edits. Well a rule has been broken and as I see things, users normally get banned on this note. Z Victor Alpha (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

See sockpuppet investigation. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe breaking the 3RR spells instanrt ban. Sockpuppeting is purely circumstantial and less important. I have obided by Wikipedia rules and Uncle Dick has not. Z Victor Alpha (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Dick has been putting a good deal of time and effort into combatting obstructive editing by Z Victor Alpha/Neutral Solution 100/Warcrimesexpert, who are clearly all the same user. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, Uncle Dick is constantly edit warring on my own talk page and in doing so - removing a comment made by a totally separate independent user, so he is shooting himself twice in the same foot a) edit warring and b) removing other people's remarks. Furthermore, he is signing himself as JamesBWatson so it is obvious that this is one and the same user and the sockpuppet can't remember how he was last logged in. Ban the lot of them please. I mean the best evidence is how these users pop up all at the same time to help each other. Z Victor Alpha (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(1) The "totally separate independent user" is a sockpuppet of Z Victor Alpha, as a consideration of their editing histories shows. (2) As far as I am aware Uncle Dick has never "signed himself as JamesBWatson". If he has I should be interested to see the relevant diff. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

ZVA blocked for 12 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks in their edit summaries[50], also pending outcome of SPI. Feel free to change as necessary. —DoRD (?) (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello all...assistance requested at Wikiquote!!!

BD2412's high school yearbook photo

Hello Wikipedia.Over at Wikiquote we have a severe problem going on regarding Kalki and BD2412. The evidence is pointing that they are Sockpuppets of each other. See This. We request input of Wikipedia users familliar with Kalki and BD2412 at the discussion here. I'm also writing to let you know preemptively in case there are any issues at Wikipedia in the future. Cheers! Stayinganonfornow (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note this account has been blocked as being a sock of a cross-wiki vandal who is harassing Kalki on Wikiquote. Tiptoety ^talk 06:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms that. There are other socks, now also blocked - Alison ^❤ 06:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Which account? I assume you're referring to User:Stayinganonfornow, but it isn't immediately obvious from context. --Zarel (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that one - Alison ^❤ 06:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, he was harassing me too. What am I, chopped liver? bd2412 T 01:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

'fraid so! :) - Alison ^❤ 03:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Editors are reminded to keep in mind Wikipedia policies, and seek content-dispute resolution if collaboration between editors breaks down. Editors are also reminded to continue editing in good faith. No enforcement motions are included in the final decision, but a request may be made to reopen the case should the situation deteriorate.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

Good faith (towards Peter Damian)

REMOVED DUPLICATE ARCHIVED DISCUSSION. The discussion is still ongoing at Wikipedia:AN#Good_faith_.28towards_Peter_Damian.29 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list (3)

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

1) Topic ban narrowed (Radeksz)

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may edit articles in Category:Poland related unreferenced BLP as of February 8, 2010, solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Radeksz is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

2) Topic ban narrowed (Martintg)

The topic ban applied to Martintg (talk · contribs) is amended. Martintg may edit the articles listed here solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Martintg is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Disruption from an administrator

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. File an WP:RFC/U if you have an issue with Tbsdy; this noticeboard is not the appropriate place for such a discussion. NW (Talk) 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC) What is going on with this administrator Tbsdy lives, he has been repeatedly disruptive at multiple locations since he was re-sopped here? Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Could you provide some examples of the behavior you mean to highlight? —Soap— 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) The header of this page quite clearly says to include diffs, and, as an immensely experienced user, you should anyway know that your comment above is useless and unhelpful. Please provide clear evidence. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 18:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I will if it is required but everyone has seen his edits have been repeatedly disruptive, in fact that is all I have seen from this editor since he returned, first it was the pictures he added to his talkpage and since then it is the baiting of Giano, a blind person has seen it, do you really want diffs? Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, it's bloody required. As is notifying Tbsdy of this thread (which I believe you failed to do). What's the matter with you? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 18:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC) To be fair, I reverted his comments to me on my talk page, as I didn't really know how to respond - certainly he didn't provide me with any evidence of disruption. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) No, the comments on your talkpage did not notify you of this thread. He didn't do what was required of him, and it's inexcusable. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 18:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC) If you could provide some direct evidence of where I have disrupted the flow of articles, I would appreciate this so that I can take corrective action. Could you provide some diffs? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I tried to help him when first came back and told him he has been away to take a step back and see how things are here, he was in dispute then and adding pictures representing editors he was in dispute with in a negative way, I was surprised that an administrator was acting in sucjh a way then and I advised him to step back as he had been away, but since then he has been continuing along the same path and is actually the center and cause of the disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC) There was an etiquette notification where this was all hashed out and I gave some detailed reasoning behind why I added the images. This has now been archived now though, is this your evidence? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC) A blind person has seen the way you have been disrupting the general editing environment here since your return, what evidence do I need, you know yourself what you are doing. Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC) You have said this before. If it is so obvious, then please, I welcome specific criticism of my actions so that I may consider whether I need to change something. I am definitely willing to discuss the issues further, I would be fine to discuss this on WP:AN, after all this is what I created it for. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I know basically nothing about the backstory here, but this is not going to yield anything. Off2riorob has a problem with Tbsdy. Step one is to talk about it on that editor's talk page. If that has not worked, and you think others might have a similar problem and tried unsuccessfully to resolve it, then an RFC is the thing to do. Tbsdy seems quite willing to communicate, so I suggest you take this matter to his talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC) In all fairness to Off2riorob, he did make an attempt, but I couldn't work out what he wanted me to do I reverted him. If he could send me a more specific message then I'll discuss this with him. However, I am more than happy to hash this out here, if nobody has any concerns about this. If it is not felt to be appropriate then that's fine also, I'll go with what others want to do. Unfortunately, I am about to go to bed, so this might have to wait till another day :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Yes I did attempt to talk to him on his talkpage, he deleted it out of hand, Tbsdy lives you have been at dispute resolution boards since your return, would you deny that you have been involved in multiple disputes since your return? Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC) You tell me! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Note—I have issued Off2riob a warning on his talkpage, for his behaviour here. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 18:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A topic ban not on the admin noticeboard

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Unified discussion now at the thread below this one. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

---

see also: wp:ani#A topic ban not on the admin noticeboard — Jack Merridew 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm at a bit of a loss to know where to post this, so I've also posted on WP:AN/I. Please feel free to remove from either one. However, I was wondering whether the following topic ban proposal for myself should be conducted here or on ANI? And if not, where should it be announced so that an appropriate cross section of the community gets to comment? Also, who will be the admins who administer this ban? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the last, I would be content to allow you to administer it; you do have some aptitude in adminning, and you are fundamentally a sound individual. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm... he's the SUBJECT of the ban. Scottaka UnitAnode 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What, administer my own ban? LOL! I don't think that would regular, surely? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page creation problems

I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask this question:

Is there a technological way to prevent an editor from starting new pages? We've got an enthusiastic newbie that has started a number of stubs. Most of them have been promptly redirected back to the main article. For example, Symptoms of influenza was redirected to Influenza#Signs and symptoms within a couple of hours. There is usually far less information in the new page than at the original one.

The editor has been told, by myself and others, that he (or she) needs to search for existing articles and to add new information to the existing articles, and the advice has been received politely, but it doesn't seem to affect his behavior. Is there a way to simply turn off his ability to create new pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The only way to do that that I am aware of is to block them. I tried to get policy tweaked to require autoconfirmed status to create new articles but the proposal was rejected. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the only ones who can't create pages are IP's. Note that this particular editor has 1500 edits so the autoconfirmed thing wouldnt affect him anyway. —Soap— 20:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• That's untrue. I've seen several pages created by IPs. HalfShadow 20:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mainspace pages? I mean, they can create talk pages, but Im pretty sure they cannot create new articles. If I go a title like dghdfhgdfgsfd as an IP and try to create the page, I get the "Unauthorized" message telling me to create an account so that i can start the article. —Soap— 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Older pages I'm sure. I think the restriction that you needed an account to write an article was put in around 2005 or 2006, soon after whenever the Seigenthaler thing happened. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You may be looking at either talk pages (which can be created by IPs) or pages created through the AFC process (in which an IP can create a page and have it moved to the mainspace). TNXMan 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I'm sure I saw one a couple of days ago, but it was deleted pretty quickly, so I can't even prove it one way or another. I'll assume an error on my part, though. HalfShadow 20:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles created through the Articles for creation project would show up as having been created by IPs. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ronald Mckay/Allen Mills

Any suggestions on how to deal with pages such as this one? It's the subpage of a perma-blocked sock.

It also raises issues about abandoned subpages/userspace drafts in general. Do they just hang around forever? 76.102.12.35 (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not appear to have a regular article, so the question is whether it's salvageable as an article. If so, you could move it and tag the then-almost-empty subpage for deletion. If not, you could tag the subpage for deletion. An admin can tell you for sure, but my guess is that they do stay forever unless someone takes the initiative to handle them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, I couldn't do any of those things. IP editors are not able to move pages or create them. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But any IP is free to create an account at any time. And you know that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And when it becomes mandatory, I'll consider it. Until then, I'm looking for answers not criticisms. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. So stay away from where you don't belong. *shrugs* Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody actually answered the IP's question, and I'm curious about it also. Is it correct to say that a page like that, left untended, will stick around indefinitely? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No Bugs, it won't. If you stare at it long enough it will vanish right before your very eyes. That's what happens to unsourced BLP's in sockpuppets user pages. something lame from CBW 13:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you have known about it if it hadn't been brought to your attention? Also, it doesn't exactly vanish - it undergoes a red shift. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Seb, that's an entirely inappropriate response, and especially so from somebody whose actuall logged-in account is pretty illegible. Woogee (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And still no answer to the general question of how to deal with old user subpages. Anybody with knowledge of the issue care to respond? 76.102.12.35 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have an account then send them to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. If you don't have an account then you will need to get someone to finish the nomination as it requires that a page be created. Of course it's also possible that any given user subpage could be tagged using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. And to Bugs, no I didn't know it was there until I saw this. something lame from CBW 06:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a relatively easy way to identify such pages? I suspect that there are tens of thousands lurking around with no easy way to find them. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some users who are regulars at WP:MFD that specialize on ferreting out this sort of stuff. You might ask them what methods they use, I'm a bit curious myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As the admin who has blocked most of the socks of this account, I must confess, I often let these subpages remain, because the new socks would always come back to edit them (among other articles). It was a fast way to identify them and block them. If you're interested in deleting other subpages, just go through the contributions and subpages of the other socks of this account. I haven't blocked the latest sock incarnation as they "appear" to be attempting to make useful contributions. If another admin cares to block, feel free. I'm beginning to tire of following these socks around. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, the old leave-some-bait-for-the-sock game. Played that one a few times myself, it does wear thin after a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The technical term is honeypot. I've always like that term, I imagine some espionage agents trying to capture Winnie-the-Pooh. -- Atama頭 22:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In Alaskan parlance a honeypot is a bucket that persons who don't have indoor plumbing use as a toilet on cold nights to avoid a trip to the outhouse, taking it out and emptying it in the morning. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you mean a gazunder :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed article ban and interaction ban of Tbsdy

On my own initiative, I am archiving this thread. I hope any similar threads will be archived as well. Tbsdy has indicated that he is heading off for the night; hopefully when he comes back online tomorrow, things will be more rational. If a new thread is started tomorrow, could it please be held here, on the Administrators' noticeboard, with no subheadings? Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. NW (Talk) 21:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• DOCUMENTATION: diff of archiving and suggested constraints: "no subheadings." Proofreader77 ^(interact) 00:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Note, this was originally held on the article talk page. The discussion has been removed from this thread by the nominator. Sorry, I'm tired, this is not the case, the comments are still in the thread. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Based upon Tbsdy's behavior at Talk:Blenheim Palace particularly--and towards Giano in general-- and commentary both there and across several other pages, I propose that Tbsdy be banned from editing Blenheim Palace and interaction-banned from Giano. Clearly, from his commentary at that talkpage, nothing else will get him to disengage. Scottaka UnitAnode 18:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support (topic/interaction ban for Tbsdy). Scottaka UnitAnode 18:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This is basically already the consensus, but I suppose formalizing it with a poll might be the only way to get it enacted. If you'll take a look at WP:ANI#Bounty board template and article ownership and Talk:Blenheim Palace#A compromise, you'll see that it has been recommended to Tbsdy, by nearly every editor that came to comment, that he refrain from editing the article in question and that he stay away from User:GiacomoReturned. He stated in no uncertain terms that he actually plans to pay extra attention to this article and Giano's edits. We'd therefore like the de-facto ban formalized. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:16, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - for the record, I think that given the circumstances, I have been extremely civil towards Giano. Giano has told me to shove a olive branch up... somewhere. He's told me that I'm a liar, has already banned me from the article (see the talk page), has threatened to have me banned as a vandal, has informed me that I'm incompetent, has been harassing another editor I wanted to collaborate with and basically intimidated them so badly they left the article for good and has categorically rejected suggestions for improving the article. The one who has submitted this ban proposal recently started edit warring with Jeni to remove the bounty box from the talk page, and eventually when they were asked why they removed it were pretty much forced to readd it back in. You'll have to forgive me for feeling that all of Giano's proponents have popped up and want to lynch me! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  You really need to put down the stick about the bounty box. It's a hackneyed, tired argument, and Equa and I reached a suitable compromise, of which you had no part. You've been a problem at that article, and all surrounding Giano for several days now. It needs to stop. Hopefully this does it. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Well, you did edit war, and you did make a claim that the editor was being WP:POINTy about the bounty box, in other words you accused them of being disruptive, when they did no such thing. I note that the admin discussion that was ongoing there was shutdown by one of the supporters of me being banned, this seems to me to be no coincidence. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Put down the stick. This is about you, and your actions surrounding that article and Giano in general. Stop trying to deflect and dissemble. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  You started a thread here about him. Do you expect him not to participate? Beach drifter (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not, I'm merely stating the fact that you are not what I'd call an uninvolved party. In fact, your edit summary was almost precisely the same as Giano's when he removed the template. Every one of your assertions against that editor proved to be false. The editor was not violating WP:POINT and the template was not cluttering up the page (you moved it down the page - your actual reason was you didn't like the picture of the pirate). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I can't speak to anything else here, having had little to no experience with Tbsdy or Giano outside of one page, but I have to say that on that one page Giano is really being an A$$. he's contributed nothing except a protracted string of 'this is a stupid idea' type comments mixed liberally with open or veiled complaints about Tbsdy, administrators, and wikipedia in general. If I had to choose which editor I wanted to deal with, it's a hands down no-brainer in favor of Tbsdy. you are all seriously worrying about the wrong person here. --Ludwigs2 20:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Structure of this thread

• I hope you don't mind, but I got rid of the poll structure. It's really not necessary and encourages factionalism. Tbsdy, my advice to you from the ANI thread still stands. NW (Talk) 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Er, why is this showing a collapsebox? I'm confused. So confused. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I collapsed the portion of this thread that dealt with moving it off the talk page, as it's already been moved. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:10, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see. And into the drama pit you enter I also see. Nice :-) Thank you for doing this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
        • What point do these type of comments serve, other than as baiting other editors? Placing smiley's doesn't ameliorate your actual commentary, Tbsdy. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Er... I thanked you for taking this here, even if you think it's a drama pit. Nothing untoward there. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
            • I don't think it's appropriate to hide these comments. I do feel they show that UnitAnode is taking everything I say, even polite things, fairly badly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about interaction on Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks

• So a question is - if I am not allowed to interact with Giano (nothing would give me more pleasure), then does this mean that I can still shepherd in the Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks proposal? Giano has basically camped out there, and it was really at his invitation that I reviewed the Blenheim Palace article. I think it might be a little unreasonable to stop me from using the incivility blocks talk page, given that I've been driving it through. Really, Giano has said some horrible things about me, and managed so far to derail discussion at every turn on that page. Would it be reasonable to ban me from Giano's article but allow me to edit the proposed policy page? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  No. Your moving his comments around as "shepherd" of that page is part of the problem. If it's a good policy proposal (in my view, it's awful), it will be fine without you "shepherding" it. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I believe you made this point before, to which I responded and you then told me I was harassing you. Did you wish to discuss this now? I can if you would like. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Would someone get this guy to let it go? I'm tired as hell of dealing with his continual deflections. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Er, you raised the point about the move of the talk thread, not me. My question is whether I get to continue editing the Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you for bringing that up; my take on that proposal is that it is clearly intended to be a mechanism that is to be first-employed as a schedule for blocking Giano which, of course, requires an incident to invoke it. Who's involved in all of this? Jack Merridew 20:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Not at all - in fact, if you look at my comments in the start of the talk page you'll notice that when his name was brought up I couldn't work out what was being talked about. I more had editors like Nothughthomas in mind. I guess this might apply to Giano, I don't know as I'd not block him myself. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I know that you've had a few years at a lower level of participation and that you've probably missed stuff. There's enough on that page, that you now know where to look. You guess this might apply to Giano?? It seems tailor-made for a down-on-Giano agenda. And there are all those ANI threads someone ought to post a list of. I guess this page needs clerks. Anyway, I'm glad that you see that you're not one to be doing any blocking of our bear of an editor ;) Oh, I vaguely recall Nothughthomas, but not the details; I note that the user is blocked, but didn't look at by who or why. I'll assume it's for the best. Anyway, I'm not signing above as I hope you'll be agreeable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC) (see today's userpage;)

  You are rather seeing a conspiracy that doesn't exist, or at least I have not been involved if there is one. The only thing I remembered about Giano was how upset he was when years ago I took his article to FARC, because I thought it more like an essay than an article. I distinctly remember him insulting me then, as he does now. But really, the incivility block proposal has nothing to do with Giano and I wasn't targetting any one editor. I was genuinely surprised when his name was mentioned. If I knew the drama that would ensue, I wouldn't have asked for clarification, believe me on this one. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Could be; I've not stepped through those pages in detail. You say above that you're tired, and I see why. Take NW's advice, below, and get some rest. I'm pretty sure this isn't going to stick but if you persist, something will. Overall, I'm not much fussed about language; they're just fuckin' words. See my new userpage; it's dynamic like my talk page edit notice, but *moar*. Come back in 8 hours after sleep and then caffeine. Jack Merridew 20:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I freaking love that talk page notice. I'm seriously going to steal it some time, if you're OK with that. Time for bed - I can't believe I've stayed up all night because of this! Damn. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Ya, you can use my code; any time after I hit 'save' at least. Use other quotes, though; LotF is mine ;) Jack Merridew 21:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Subheaders in this thread

• Hey, why is this being subdivided up again? Another admin took out the divisions - I don't really think we need an unofficial artificial section header. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What is your problem? I'm trying to offer the thread a bit of organization with some subheaders. Why are you removing them? I've left the discussion subheader removed, but the others can stay. Why have you removed them? Equazcion ^(talk) 20:40, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    • It's not really long enough to subdivide. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
      • And if I think it is? It might not be all that long, but it is confusing to look at, especially to those who aren't privy to the situation. Do you have any particular reason for objecting to some subheaders? Equazcion ^(talk) 20:42, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't think section headers will cast any real light on the situation. Perhaps you might like to rewrite the summary to make it more clear why you are proposing the ban? Wouldn't that make things clear to the uninvolved editor? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Do you have any reason to object to subheaders? I didn't ask if you think they'll help. Will they hurt the situation in some way, even if you don't agree they'll help? Why have you reverted them? Or are you just being difficult? Equazcion ^(talk) 20:46, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
            • I've re-added the subheaders. There's no reason to remove them. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:48, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
              • People are adding more and more comments to the bottom of the thread. I do hope you will be maintaining a new section heading for each comment, or this could get confusing. Up to you, it's your baby! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
                • Dude, I was about to reply to Ludwidgs, but you are moving comments around so much I can't find them! Can you please remove the subheadings? They are getting in the way of discussion. Seriously. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. Tbsdy, I know this isn't really your fault, but can you please go off and do something else for a while? Fixing this one page isn't really that critical of a matter. If this thing can die down, we can resolve it amicably in a few days or weeks. NW (Talk) 20:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm actually about to go to bed. But, uh, I didn't start this ban proposal! It's really got nothing to do with me... others decided that they wanted me banned, so I don't really think there's much I can do about this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nodar Kumaritashvili

I'm on my way out for the rest of the day, but I just fully protected the article on Nodar Kumaritashvili, the young man who died on the luge course in Vancouver. I expect there to be a lot of requested edits, and there is at least one user who already wants to AFD it, so the more eyes on this while I'm off at the local homebrew competition the better. I'll check back in when I'm over my hangover tomorrow. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Page abuse

This page seems to be having a problem with repeated malicious and/or nonsensical editing (nonsense, being, for example, the thing I just deleted that said underneath a factual paragraph, "i would say this is probblay true... pagans celebrated new year on april 1st" (untrue) (more badly written, un-wiki-ish stuff). I cannot report this for protection because I am unsure if it warrants it. One already-reversed edit I saw said, "april fool's day is gay." A lot of recent edits are pointless or abusive, but they are not happening every hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day

                     ~Rayvn 16:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:FPC closure request

Featured picture candidates normally close after seven days. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/French_mutilé,_1918 has remained open more than three weeks, mainly because most of the closers reviewed it. Anyone could close. Seeking closure, please. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 04:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Closed as promoted. Will need some help updating all the pages that need to be updated at closure; feel free to chip in or guide me on my talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. Will ask for a review at FPC talk. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 17:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A Change of Hands

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

So I'm going to go to bed soon (It's been a long day) and I'd like for this to see the right eyes. A simple and short summary of what has transgressed so far. A new user creates an article in his/her namespace and then moves it into the mainspace and then I came along and moved it back into the namespace and requested a delete of the resulting redirect. The move was because of the low quality of the article in question. I'm not entirely sure I have done a very good job of informing the user of the reasons behind the move and resulting CSD request as I currently dead tired. So just passing this along so I can get to sleep and not have to worry. Rgoodermote  21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the mainspace redirect (and talkpage) and noted the existence of the article in the editors userspace. I find that giving the full address to new editors more helpful, since they might not know to click on the blue linked "here". I also note the welcome template you provided, and have suggested they review the "help" links while they continue adding to the content body. I would hope that what we have done is sufficient to allow the editor to continue contributing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In my experience (and from memory) all it takes is a small kick in the right direction and the rest comes second nature. They have the amount they need (plus the helpme template). I don't think there is much more we can do. I thank you for your time. Rgoodermote  01:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:UAA

Resolved

WP:UAA has a very large backlog of 29 names, and really needs tending to. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 05:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleared now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:91.198.174.201

I think one of the AIV Helperbots is editing while logged out. Jus' sayin' caknuck _° needs to be running more often 05:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I know this might sound a little drastic, but have we ever considered anon. blocking the toolserver IP, but allow logged in accounts to edit? This would stop this sort of thing. Not sure it's a huge issue though. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Though, even when logged out, the bots edits are still useful. Moreover, the IP's userpage is suitably tagged, so anon blocking strikes me somewhat as a solution in search of a problem; so long as the bot doesn't malfunction any further than that. What would be more useful is seeing if an IP could be flagged as a bot, to avoid cluttering up the recent changes. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think someone commented a couple of months ago that the standard Pywikipediabot code checks whether it is blocked in a way that would be triggered by a block on the IP. That is, it was claimed that blocking the IP would disable many useful tools. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate article move, after discussion with no clear consensus at Outline of the Palestinian territories

Resolved

 – Inappropriate for WP:AN Tan | 39 00:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A contested move just went through (Outline of Palestine --> Outline of the Palestinian Territories), even though there was no consensus on the matter. ] -- please see the move discussion. This clearly should have been closed "no consensus" per WP:RM, but [User:Ucucha] went ahead and did the move anyway. (I'll also note that I did not notice the move discussion until just now, and didn't take part in it, but would have voted "Oppose" myself as well, for many of the reasons given there.) I think the move should be undone, until a move discussion results in consensus about this. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not the correct page to report a specific problem you have. Breein1007 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock review request

Now at RFAR. Spartaz Humbug! 06:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User_talk:ChildofMidnight#Request_for_posting_a_review_on_Administrators.27_Noticeboard GerardPFAW 23:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC) CoM was blocked for these two diffs; [51][52]. On a personal note, I find CoMs commentaries to be extremely unhelpful and certainly not inline with a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. He seems to feel the need to comment on every single controversial issue on the project. If something's kicking off, you can be sure to find CoM somewhere close by offering his advice. I'm sadly of the opinion that CoM is nothing but a drama loving troll (and with first edits like this and this, I'd bet my last penny that this isn't his first account). That being said, I wouldn't have blocked him for those two diffs - I don't find them to be particularly uncivil - I probably wouldn't warn for them. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I cannot see the need for this "protective" block (for what other sort is there?), the need for it to be so severe, so sudden and without warning, or for the unblock request to be so vehemently denied. ChildofMidnight was uncivil and deserved a warning, maybe a sanction if they kept it up afterwards, but not this. I wouldn't disagree with any of Ryan Postlethwaite's comments either, but a block like this is unwarranted. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Overturn. While the tone was less than measured, there is no way to interpret CoM's comments as "personal". Rather, they are specific criticisms of an administrator's use of the administrative tools. Wikipedia should not censor critics of those who have tools that are supposed to be "no big deal" and are not supposed to be unilateral policy makers. Bongomatic 00:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Comment - My god, again? ChildofMidnight has a penchant for attacking admins and ArbCom members in a over-inflated plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people fashion. If this is to be lifted I'd like to see some sort of prohibition of this lashing out in the future. If there is a dispute with an administrator with allegations of abuses, then it should be brought to a public forum for discussion. If we start to see repeated filings that turn out to be frivolous, then that can be dealt with as appropriate. I will remind all here that we went through an RfC on ChildofMidnight recently where this sort of behavior was discussed. The end result? CoM attacked the closing admin. I'll leave it at that. Tarc (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Unblock. I disagree with CoM far more than I ever agree with him. But this hair-trigger blocking surrounding anti-AGW editors is just beyond the pale. It has stop, or soon enough arbcom will need to become involved. This was a pathetically ill-considered block, and should be overturned right away. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC) (ec)Seems rather than a block, some sort of long term restriction on the types of disruptive behavior Ryan Postlethwaite describes above may be in order. The two diffs provided as triggering events for the block by themselves were simply examples of long term behavioral problems. See the recent Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ChildofMidnight RFC closed last month and his response to the closing note. ChildofMidnight's response to the current block has been to attack the blocking admin rather than focusing on his own behavior immediately after saying he would "... apologize and refactor if it will shorten my block". Whether or not the current block is upheld, the disruptive behavior and personal attacks need to stop - and I see little evidence that will happen without some sort of community sanction or ban. Vsmith (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Comment. Tabula rasa, the comments in question are pretty trivial. But CoM has a very long history on AN/I, with ArbCom, and on RFC, and has at each instance chosen to interpret the results as not his fault. This is a problem, and given the problem the block is not out of order. PhGustaf (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Note, see Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#ChildofMidnight for a recently filed topic ban request and the evidence contained therein. Vsmith (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC) What I'm seeing here seems to be that most of us have issues with CoM, but not the particular edits that led to this block. Since it seems this is finally reaching the level of ArbCom, I am going to unblock him so he can speak in his own defense and let them deal with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC) The block should have been directed through the General Sanctions for community input. The editor should be free now to respond there. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Comment. I've fine with lifting the block, but something really needs to be done here to address the general situation. We also need to separate the ongoing problems with global warming articles (about which I know little, but where there seem to be behavioral issues galore) from ChildofMidnight's behavior in particular, which has been a problem all over the place. I agree with Vsmith's point above that we need to deal with this given the strong consensus that there was a problem at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight, C of M's complete dismissal of that effort at dispute resolution, and the continued problematic behavior. Beyond the two diffs cited as reason to block, see also the following recent comments by C of M [53] [54] [55] where we see phrases like: "Get the fuck over it and move on. Your disruptive nonsense is absurd"; "I'm more than happy to give you an example of a personal attack Cool Hand Luke, but I'm 100% the trolls and disruptive monkeys will use it against me,"; "childish jerks," etc. Or see how C of M responded to a perfectly polite note from another editor here (that conversation is very telling). The problem here is that if you look at just one or two diffs one might say, "that's not so bad," but this has been going on for a year or so, and there seem to have been a bunch of problematic comments just in the past couple of days. We need a long-term strategy for getting ChildofMidnight to stop with these constant ad hominems and incivilities and stick to the business of helping the project of which he is quite capable. Discussing the general problem of the global warming articles should probably happen elsewhere. Unfortunately I have no good ideas as to what to do about C of M. Banning from noticeboards (as has been suggested before) won't do much given that a lot of the worst comments happen in user or article talk space. Fresh eyes on this problem would probably be good. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I also feel the need to point out that kicking off this thread with the comment that one editor was a "drama loving troll" was a pretty terrible way to start the discussion. Let's try to avoid labeling others and just deal with the issues at hand. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Unblock without restrictions The two comments cited by BozMo were within a gray area of incivility (and don't approach personal attacks or violations of any other policy or guideline). Editors subjected to an admin's actions (like warnings) need to be able to criticize that admin on the admin's talk page. These editors naturally get upset when an admin action takes place in connection with a long-running, heated dispute like the AGW area. So when we've got a gray area, where a comment might be interpreted as a serious violation of WP:CIV or just as easily might not, lean toward leniency. The fact is, numerous comments made against CoM in this overall thread could be just as easily interpreted as a violation of WP:CIV, but admins traditionally give people some leeway because it's more important to the project to allow criticism. The behavior restrictions on AGW-related articles don't apply to admin talk pages. It was a bad block all around, therefore it should be completely overturned. If CoM's other behavior is at issue, this is not the best time or place to discuss it: the issue is too clouded by the bad block, especially for this page or AN/I, and this thread proves it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Reply and explanation regarding civility, hounding and admin abuse, what this is all about Thank you all for having the decency to recognize that bad blocks should be reversed. It took a while, it's cluttered up my block log with more abuse, but at least I can edit again, which in theory is what we're all here for. I would just like to reply briefly with a few points: Ryan Postelwthaite's statement that "I'm sadly of the opinion that CoM is nothing but a drama loving troll" is ironic on many levels given the bogus nature of the block I just endured. As to the allegations that I stick my nose in when there are controversies, he should have taken the time to look at my proactive comments even in the last few days before spouting off with a heaping pile of hateful attacks. This thread might be worth reading and reflecting on for admins big and small:[56]. The admin enforcements that followed it have gone a long way to feeding new disruptions, incivility and disgruntlement. And here's another OUTRAGEOUS comment by me[57] that if it had been heeded would have prevented a whole lot of drama and wasted time. But I don't expect RPG to be blocked for his uncivil personal attack. Blocks are for the meer peon editors so they can be bullied according to the whims of abusive admins who can then invoke their "lengthy block logs" as they engage in further abuse down the road. And if anyone wants to know what this conflict is really about, it's about an editor who has a clear COI involvement in the climate change subject area and who operates an advocacy attack site off-wiki against his ideological opponents, using this encyclopedia to push his personal beliefs on everyone else. If you don't believe me go read our global warming article and then read the encyclopedia Brittanica's article. Go read the entries on Dictionary.com (including the one from a science dictionary at the bottom). What you'll find is that we've narrowly redefined the whole subject of global warming to give the impression that it has only ever existed in the 20th century. Yes, despite the fact that understanding anthropogenic warming and greenhouse gas impacts needs to be understood in historical context, including how recent changes differ and are similar to past warming events, a group of editors and their admin allies have completely thrown out the science. And that's just one example of the distortion. In a push to make an argument, they've abandoned common sense in favor of misleading and distorted article content and have used awkward and innaccurate titles like Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. That's the convoluted description we use for events related to unfavorable disclosures of collusion, insular exclusion of opposing viewpoints, and illegal violations of the freedom of information act by a group of climate scientists in England that has resulted in an independent inquiry, people stepping down, apologies, and further investigations into grossly innaccurate information, unscientific reporting, bogus data, and new independent bodies being established that aren't tied to the wrongdoers. Yes, these editors and their admin friends including BozMo, who when he's not making improper blocks is defending an editor calling others "old fruits", and 2over0, who's passed out a half dozen blocks and bans but not a single one on the most disruptive uncivil and antagonistic editors in that subject space, are working to chase off anyone who disagrees with them. So don't let the real trolls and abusive stalkers fool you with their smears. The rot goes pretty deep on this one ladies and gentlemen. But if we stick together we can root it out. That's what this block is about. It's about abuse, intimidation, censorship, and bias. I will not remain silent about it, and it's incumbent on every member of this community to stand up to the bullying and intimidating abuse that is corroding the editing environment at this encyclopedia. It's destroying any semblance of collegial collaboration, but it can be nipped in the bud if we just say no to it. No more abuse BozMo. No more abuse 2over0. ENOUGH. STOP IT! NO MORE! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Ryan's comment was not okay in my book, and you're right that comments like this stemming from the global warming imbroglio are uncivil and unacceptable. But can you not see that your comment above has the same problems? You object to someone calling you a troll (as you should), but then turn around and complain about the "real trolls and abusive stalkers," which unfortunately is very much part of a long-term pattern for you. I'm not defending what Ryan said or what WMC said, but how do you defend yourself when you speak in exactly the same manner? I'm asking this in seriousness, because you may not realize how incongruous it looks to many observers who watch you complain about a certain behavior and then engage in it yourself. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Bitimepeace, Tarc has been hounding me and stalking me for months now and you haven't said boo about it. I didn't mention him by name, because if I call someone a troll I'll get blocked for it. But other editors are allowed to make bad blocks, attack me, and make all kinds of insinuations. Did you read some of the comments I posted below the block that have been directed at me and other editors by the AGW acolytes? They're outrageous, but no one says anything about them. There are trolls and abusive stalkers, but I'm not one of them. So if you want to help get rid of them PLEASE BY ALL MEANS DO SO! I'm here to work on articles with editors who agree and disagree, but are willing to work together in good faith without disrupting or abusing their status to enfore their will improperly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I think it would be a good idea for you and Tarc to avoid each other, and quite recently I told Tarc that would be a good idea via an e-mail. If at some point you ask for some sort of mutual interaction ban between the two of you I would probably support it. But that's beside the point I am making above and I'm not going to get sidetracked by it. You notably did not answer my question, and I think you should. If it's not okay for others to call you a troll, why is it okay for you to call them trolls? (And above you basically did do it by name.) Please note that "because they are trolls!" is not the right answer. I'm genuinely trying to get a reply from you on this, because it seems you truly do not see comments like the above to be problematic, when most others do. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC) BTP, I don't believe in interactions bans, they are ridiculously bureaucratic, red-tape laden responses to user conduct issues that fill the boards with never-ending "can I comment here?" "can I go there?", "what if he/she is already in this article?" eDrama and nitpicking. We all saw that in the aftermath of the interactions bans (of which I was not a party to, for the record) following the arbcom decision. I have done no more than you, or 2over0, or Sandstein, or Connoley, or any of the dozens of other users and admins whom Com has savaged over the last year; I weigh in whenever this user is dragged to yet another policy or enforcement page because I truly believe him to be a detriment to the project. I do not post on his user page, wiki-hound any edits to any articles I do not usually edit...hell, I only have the slightest input into the whole global warming imbroglio, there is no conflict between him or myself there. So please, do not single me out for seeing how much of a problem ChildofMidnight is; as we can see above, that is becoming a near universally held point of view. As for the e-mail, I have not seen it, as the account attached is one I rarely log to. Perhaps I should note that somewhere on my talk page. Tarc (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Bigtimepeace has a long history of going after editors who don't share his leftist agenda. He promised repeatedly to stop harassing me and to cease interacting with me. He has no involvement with me on any articles and has no dispute with me, yet he was the one who launched an RfC for his buddies Tarc and a few others who had to be restrained from stalking and harassing me. Basically, he played the same role on the Obama articles that 2over0, BozMo and a couple other admins are fulfilling on the climate change articles. He has promised to leave me alone repeatedly, but continues to pursue me relentlessly including with an RfC. When the spammers and the abusive POV pushing editors needed a go to guy to push their agenda they shopped around until they found someone with his aggressive, disruptive and abusive approach to enforcing their viewpoints on article content. He's been more than happy to engage in abusive conduct and intimidation. These actions are inappropriate and wrong Bigtimepeace. Stop it. Don't seek out conflict with me any more. We don't work on any of the same articles, so you need to cease bullying me and chasing after me. If you want to be proud of yourself that you were the go to guy for POV pushers who distort our article content to your favored perspective and stalk, harass and chase those they disagree with, so be it. But this dispute doesn't have anything to do with you (or your buddy Tarc) so maybe you should start keeping your word for a change and leave me the heck alone. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Point of order - I thought CoM was unblocked to defend themselves at ArbCom. [refactoring my strike-through satire at Durova's request? :-)] [Why all this here?] Proofreader77 (interact) 04:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC) The unblock notice didn't give a direct link to the arbitration subpage. CoM has commented at his/her userpage that s/he didn't realize where to respond. Which is a reasonable confusion because the wording of the unblock seemed to suggest an arbitration case request rather than an enforcement request. And CoM is accepting feedback: per a request s/he refactored the worst part of the comment above. It is counterproductive to allude to it; would you consider a real refactor in place of the strikethrough? That said, one alternative worth considering is instead of unblocking an editor solely to respond to a discussion at one page is to use a transclusion template. That mechanism allows a blocked editor to participate directly in one discussion without resuming disruption elsewhere. Durova409 05:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC) [Note: I have refactored my strike-through satire element, but the stricken element shall not always be stricken in upcoming discussions of civility and rhetorical fouls etc] Proofreader77 (interact) 05:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Obviously C of M's comment wasn't an answer to my straightforward question, but okay. I'm not going to bother rebutting all the accusations above, but if anyone wants to look into the "promised repeatedly to stop harassing me" claim please see the first paragraph in my reply here. The RfC speaks for itself and was originated by me and no one else. No offense to Tarc, but we aren't particularly "buddies" (nor "enemies"). A further comment from C of M to me and my reply on my talk page can be read here. I'm going to disengage from this direct interaction now, but there is a need for a discussion about how to handle some of the problems with ChildofMidnight's editing, so I'll start a new section on that and leave it for others to comment if they so choose. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Note on the unblocking Sorry all if I wasn't clear, I suppose I assumed everyone was following this conversation as well. The above linked ArbCom motion/discussion/whatever I was supposed to call it at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#ChildofMidnight is what I was referring to, it seemed only fair to let him speak in his own defense, and also the conversation here seemed to indicate that there was a general feeling that the particular edits he was blocked for did not merit that reaction. The unblock is not intended to be any sort of ArbCom reply only conditional block, it is a normal, full, unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC) We need a remedy I'm going to start this conversation (hopefully) and then largely step back from it. There was a clear consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight (which closed a few weeks ago) that there are some issues with ChildofMidnight in terms of editing behavior. As the summary said the perception for many was that "he has difficulty interacting in a productive manner, especially on project pages and with almost anyone in a perceived position of authority." Those problems have continued since the RfC closed, resulting in a couple of blocks which were overturned but where the comments upon which the blocks were based were clearly problematic. I mentioned some other recent troubling remarks by C of M above. This is a long-term problem, dozens of editors commented at an RfC in an effort at dispute resolution but that yielded no mutually agreeable solutions, and the issue is clearly ongoing with no end in sight. What are the appropriate next steps in terms of dealing with this editor's behavioral issues? I'm not sure there are easy answers, but I think we need to start thinking of some possibilities. Personally I'd most want to hear from folks who have relatively little involvement with ChildofMidnight since they might have a fresh take on the situation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Please stop seeking out conflict with me Bigtimepeace. You have promised in the past and since we aren't working on any articles together there's no reason for you to continue hounding me with your intimidating threats. Please stop this activity here and on the Climate change noticeboard where you have no history of involvement and have just now "appeared" to antagonize me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC) CoM, please stop accusing Btp. In my experience, Btp is not a problem at all. Not everyone who has a problem with you is "seeking out conflict" with you. I didn't support Bozmo's last block of you, but your accusations against Btp are just out of line. Scottaka UnitAnode 05:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC) In my opinion CoM's style seems strikingly akin to WMC, a well known climate change editor who can be equally productive, verbose and drama prone while skirting admin action in many noticeboard cases. Ironically, these two might be considered on opposite sides of entertaining a POV. Whatever solution is found for transforming WMC for the better, may likely have an equal impact following on to CoM. (Bigtimepeace, you remind me of me in pursuing peace.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Please refrain from ascribing a POV to me. I would like our articles to be clear, accurate and to reflect the most notable aspects of their subjects according to our long standing policies regarding weight and neutral point of view. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying your intentions. My applogies, I tried to avoid assigning a specific POV. It's best to leave a specific POV out of this. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Okay, no worries. Take care of yourself and stay out of trouble. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC) In response to BTP, what is required is something similar to the remedy that was recently enacted against Tothwolf - another long time very productive user who has issues with civility and seeing conspiracies everywhere. In otherwords a prohibition about being uncivil, ascribing motives to other users actions and making baseless personal attacks. Something along the lines of CoM is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should CoM make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, CoM may be blocked for a short duration not exceeding one week. After 5 such blocks the maximum duration of any block shall be increased to one month. In particular CoM is reminded not to cast unfounded aspersions without providing detailed diffs to support their claim While draconian, I have to say that CoM's behaviour has really gone too far now and they seem to be unable to engage in any discussions on wikipedia right now without importing a battleground mentality that is far from helpful. Spartaz Humbug! 07:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC) My recommendation would be a site ban of ChildofMidnight. I have frankly never come cross this editor's name except in the context of massive drama caused by his apparent difficulties to interact productively with others. I am of the opinion that we should not allow our time to be wasted by people who do not have the skills to work without massive friction in a collaborative environment. (Though to be fair one would have to apply the same remedy to some of the editors in the climate change area he seems to be in conflict with, but - one thing at a time.)  Sandstein  07:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I have to say that a site ban goes way beyond what I think is needed here. I don't doubt that you've only come across ChildofMidnight's name in the context of massive drama, but if you look through his contributions you'd see he is doing a lot of article work (it's not an excuse for poor behavior, but to suggest that he's only involved in drama is simply not true). We have not really tried anything in terms of a community-imposed remedy, all we've had are some sanctions from ArbCom in one topic area (Obama articles) and a number of blocks, some of which were clearly problematic or at the least controversial. We should not be jumping from there to a site ban, or even to a long block. The goal should be to limit or put an end to the troubling behavior so ChildofMidnight's positive contributions will be all that we see around here. Personally I like the sound of Spartaz's suggestion. It's not ideal, but it could be effective, and there seems to be some precedent for it. I'm curious as to what others think about that idea. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Jeesh I'm just coming off ANOTHER bad block in a long line of them. Let this thing die. If any sanctions are needed they're against BozMo who continues to make a series of poor judgments. You don't get to play the, well he wasn't guilty but let's make some new shit up and punish him anyway game. If I make a personal attack, I'm sure I'll be blocked. It should be for 24 hours, and a warning and an opportunity to fix things would really be appreciated. That's a courtesy that's never been extended to me, and I am human. What also needs to stop is the abusive and disruptive hounding by Tarc, Mathsci, and now Bigtimepeace whose abusive antagonistism and intimidation I thought was over and in the past. It's very frustrating and upsetting to see him stalking me and hounding me to new forums again. I'm here to do aritcle work, and if these abusive and harassing actions would stop I'd really like to get back to it. Please leave me alone and let me write articles. It's something Tarc and many of the rest of you should give a try. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC) CoM, Denis Healey famously said the first thing you should do when in a hole was stop digging. This comment is the complete oppposite of this. Please do yourself a favour and stop adding fuel to the flames. Spartaz Humbug! 08:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC) As completely uninvolved, the length of time and the breadth of venues this guy has played you all in is a breathtaking example of how bad you all are at grabbing the nettle. The guy is here to be a disruptive timesink (well, that and occasionally writing about disgusting bacon confections). Just restrict him to only articles involving bacon (or siteban him) and be done. Or keep doing this, over and over and over, which i must admit is more amusing for those of us in the peanut gallery.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Bali, you're a left-leaning editor who makes sharp comments on a bunch of pages (and I'm a right-leaning editor who's done that, too). I can recall some sharp comments from you I saw just within the past few weeks. You're "completely uninvolved" only in the narrowest way -- if you haven't been in the "breadth of venues" with CoM it's by chance. And CoM points out that he's been attacked by editors who themselves haven't been sanctioned. A site ban seems out of place, especially coming from you. The whole AGW mess is inevitably difficult to deal with because of the nature of the controversy and the difficulty in getting consensus there. You, of all people, should understand how frustrating these things can be, and that should be easier to see the less involved you are. Back in the day, you made similar comments on my talk page, and you were pretty much on the money. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC) John -- You really don't know my politics. CoM is just here to fight, whatever his politics. I can't remember ever making any comments on your talk page about global warming (I don't think i've commented on global warming here at all -- my opinion on that matter is that wikipedia as governed is incapable of dealing with global warming and many other topics in a competent matter, given the nexus of obsessives, fringe politics and the need for nuance in areas where at least some of the key science is unsettled. But this complaint is a structural one).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC) No, you didn't make those comments on my talk page (not about global warming, but about this kind of frustration). My mistake. No, CoM is not just here to fight. When he points out bad behavior and points out admins allowing that behavior to continue, he can be on the money (although I don't see how his comments on 2=0's talk page are accurate), and that information can be valuable. And he's been given bad blocks, including this one. My main point stands: You know exactly how frustrating it can be to participate in hot political topics on Wikipedia. That's not irrelevant here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC) The whole thing is more involved than an A/N discussion can get to the bottom of, and RfC has been done. It would be better for CoM and for the project if he walked away from AGW-related edits and complaints, as long as everyone realizes that CoM walking away won't come close to fixing the general problem there, and it would do no good to ban him from there -- because it looks like it would reward the people goading him. It's almost impossible for someone who hasn't been following the AGW situation to figure out if admins have been lenient to one side and harsh on the other without just reading the whole damn archives. Maybe this whole thing should go to ArbCom. Are the AGW general sanctions working out? If not, it should definitely all go to ArbCom. When this general sanctions regime was set up, I said it would be better to have ArbCom appoint admins to deal with it. Those admins would be directly answerable to ArbCom and would be less likely to make a block of the type we see here (and maybe more likely to make other, necessary blocks). Self-selected admins are naturally going to be open to more suspicion, and this is a really difficult area. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I think it's important to separate the issue of ChildofMidnight's behavior from the issue of AGW-related articles. From the little I've seen the latter are clearly a (large) problem, I personally don't feel like getting remotely involved as an admin given the level of vitriol there, and you could be right that ArbCom needs to help sort things out. But that's a general issue of which C of M is just a small part (it was a problem well before he ever got there). There is also the undeniable issue of ChildofMidnight's editing style, which was found to be problematic in the recent RfC. Leaving the AGW stuff to the side (it's not the topic of this sub-thread), we need to have a way to deal with this problem. Simply saying C of M cannot edit global warming articles won't do the trick—the problematic behavior goes back many, many months across multiple topics and in multiple forums, and we need a general way to handle it. If you want to pursue a discussion or form of dispute resolution about AGW articles (which is probably a good idea), you should probably start that afresh somewhere separate from this much more focused discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Support the editing restrictions proposed by Spartaz above. Such a restriction would allow Child of Midnight to concentrate on writing content and help him avoid the drama minefields where the civility problems arise. Vsmith (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Personal attacks and disruptions that need to be addressed These were uncivil and antagonistic comments were made just in the last few days by vaious AGW acolytes: "..."old fruit" is categorically inoffensive."--BozMo talk 09:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC) This relates to WMC calling other editors "old fruits". BozMo came in to defend him because, you know, calling people you disagree with old fruits is a really good idea and should be encouraged, especially from someone who considers "Will" a personal attack when used in reference to an editor named William. He "is deliberately misusing this page." He "has made similar capricious, clueless and offensive edits just to make a WP:POINT against a perceived opponent. " He "should refrain from manufacturing events " If "he has nothing sensible to contribute, he should be banned from posting on this page or its talk page. Mathsci (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)" "At the moment he is gaming the system and misusing this page. Mathsci (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2010 " "Absolutely. Another example of baiting and gaming the enforcement system based on very little knowledge of the facts. I think. --Nigelj (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC) " "On the other point there is a difference between calling an editor malicious or an edit malicious. Compare "foolish". I make foolish edits sometimes and would not consider having an edit called foolish a PA. Calling me foolish would be quite another matter (I may be as well but it is a PA to say so). But I do not think this request is other than good faith. People do feel that WMC is offensive sometimes and some of the reason why it keeps coming back as an issue is a sense of frustration which is better aired, up to a point. --BozMo talk 09:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)" In this diff Bozmo defense William Connolley's personal attacks and uncivil disruptions. What remains is the same trivial mudracking we've seen before. It's a spurious pile-on request and should be discarded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Calling trolls and POV morons trolls and POV morons isn't incivil, it's the truth. Truth is the ultimate defense to defamation. -- 166.135.160.248 2over0 calls another editors work "tendentious and unproductive"- 2/0 (cont.) 20:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC) This is just a small sample of the nastiness and incivility that editors working in that subject area have to put up with constantly. It needs to be addressed. Admin 2over0 and BozMo have only encouraged it by going after editors they don't agree with and protecting the William Connolley crowd. It really needs to stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC) And it should be noted that in addition to the relentless trolling of my contributions by Tarc, who isn't involved in any articles I'm working on, and the harassing intimidation engaged in by Bigtimepeace, who's also not working on any articles with me and isn't involved in any disputes with me except those he's now seekign out here and elsewhere, I'm also being taunted by sock puppets like User:संपादक who was just indefinitely blocked, and PhGustaf, who had no edits today, suddenly popped up to taunt me when I was requesting review of my block. So if we want to deal with abusive trolling and harassment, I'm all for it! Let's get started on it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC) The phrase was 'old fruit', not 'old fruits', and is British slang, similar to 'old bean'. It is possible but hasn't been demonstrated that the reference was meant to mean an old gay person. I guess I should also point out that this was discussed ad nauseam by a number of editors, not just BozMo. It came up in a request for enforcement against WMC at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement by Mark Nutley, but I've just noticed that Mark actually struck through that particular complaint. There is now a request for enforcement against CoM there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC) CoM, I was the individual referred to as the "Old Fruit", and I certainly didn't get the "pip". Under your specious arguments, it is very fortunate that WMC did not conclude his comment by saying "Tally Ho!" I shudder to think what your reaction to your understanding of the meaning might have been... To mix a British and an American term; stop walking around with your fanny in your hands. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I have no idea why CoM has included my comment above. It's another instance of the comments made about his project space edits on the recent RfC/U. His edits do seem to be disruptive at the moment, following this unblock. Mathsci (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Question for BozMo Bozmo, you blocked CoM at 18:32, 12 Feb, citing Disruptive editing: offensive language, assumption of bad faith etc on the block log [58] and referring to CoM's comments that RyanPostlethwaite links to at the top of this thread. But nine hours a little over a day before the block, you made this comment on the "General sanctions" report page [59], defending a comment William Connolley made -- against ChildofMidnight: On the other point there is a difference between calling an editor malicious or an edit malicious. Compare "foolish". I make foolish edits sometimes and would not consider having an edit called foolish a PA. Calling me foolish would be quite another matter (I may be as well but it is a PA to say so). But I do not think this request is other than good faith. People do feel that WMC is offensive sometimes and some of the reason why it keeps coming back as an issue is a sense of frustration which is better aired, up to a point. --BozMo talk 09:23, 11 February 2010 What I don't understand is how you could decide that Connolley's statement about "malicious edits" (which, in fact, can only be made by a "malicious editor"), directed to an editor Connolley knew might get upset, were acceptable, while CoM's similar comments to an admin were blockworthy. It looks suspicious to me, but perhaps you have a reasonable explanation. (I don't think Connolley's statement should have gotten him into trouble either, because implying that an editor is acting maliciously in a particular situation is in the gray area of possible incivility on the AGW-complaints page where Connolley made the comment. We need to allow some leeway on complaint pages -- just as we need to allow it when editors are complaining on an admin's talk page -- where angry editors need a little allowance in making a complaint.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I, too, am interested in seeing his answer to this. It appears to me as though his hand has been caught in the cookie jar. Jtrainor (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC) It seems unlikely that this question was raised after any serious examination of CoM's remarks, or of the reasons given for the block. CoM made several inflammatory edits for which he was correctly blocked. I have also said on Wiki that the block of Connolley was correct. However in the two cases the level of inflammatory language etc. was completely different. 2/0 has been widely thanked as an outside admin who dared come into a difficult probation area, where we are trying hard to calm things down. On principle accusing him of bias is possible and kind of freedom of speech, but the language in "grotesquely biased and damaging. It's played a large part in contributing to the frustrating and toxic environment" is gratutious, the technical accusation could have been made in a considerably politer way, and the language was inflamatory. 2/0's talk is widely watched by people of both sides, and neutral ones. The statement about "disruptive propagandists" was made in the context of a known group of good faith admins and editors who were engaged in various disputes with CoM. It was clearly written acknowledging that those he was refering to was known to him, 2/0 and readers of the page in general. The fact he does not give a list of names in my view is irrelevant, the comment was clearly intended to provoke. --BozMo talk 07:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Actually, the question was raised after a serious examination of CoM's remarks, and an examination of some of the remarks made to and about CoM, but I certainly haven't looked at everything. Please extend to me the same WP:AGF I'm extending to you. You haven't answered my question on whether you were applying a higher standard to CoM than to Connolley. You state: the language in "grotesquely biased and damaging. It's played a large part in contributing to the frustrating and toxic environment" is gratutious, the technical accusation could have been made in a considerably politer way, and the language was inflamatory. I agree completely. Having looked a bit at the AGW general sanctions page, I've seen quite a few statements, going months back, about which you could say the exact same thing, and yet which don't seem to have resulted in blocks, so we're really no closer to understanding why you singled out CoM (does anyone want me to provide diffs of these edits from other editors?). An editor who comments on an admin's talk page about that admin's actions, particularly after the editor has been subjected to the treatment CoM got on that sanctions page, should be given some leeway. CoM's comment sounds about as bad as others I've seen on the AGW reports page. You write, where we are trying hard to calm things down. Great! I think admin work there is very difficult, and I appreciate the efforts of admins who do it. This block didn't help, though. CoM was complaining about admins taking sides. Blocking him for behavior roughly similar to what those on the other side are getting away with kind of supports his point, doesn't it? [60] (tendentious to the point of outright disruption [...] That POV-pushers keen to misrepresent reality have been allowed to continue like this for weeks and weeks without sanction is, frankly, outrageous. [...] The constant insistence that this article be renamed to accommodate these non-neutral terms is highly disruptive, and serious consideration should be given to handing out topic bans. That's not from the complaints page, but from the article talk page on Feb. 5). I don't see a bright line that CoM crossed here (although when this thread is closed, I plan to have a friendly chat with him about civility and prudence). Back to my original question: I don't see how your comment about Connolley is consistent with your block of CoM, so would you please explain it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Further discussion ←Since his unblock, ChildofMidnight has copy-pasted the same list of comments to the CC probation enforcement page that he posted above here. However he has unwisely added the following comments: “ These are all comments from editors aggressively promoting AGW and seeking to censor to anything they disagree with no matter what how well sourced. Sadly, these comments weren't objected to, and instead we've seen a pattern of one-sided enforcements from 2over0, which is what I was objecting to in some of the above diffs. William Connolley was finally block after 7 or so filings and dozens of diffs by at least a dozen different editors, so I hope there is some hope going forward and that we won't see more abusive and disruptive incivility from Mathsci, Tarc, Nigelj, or Stephan Schulz, and that disruptions will be stopped no matter who the editors is engaging in it. ” Since I do not edit GW articles and have expressed no view on WP whatsover about the topic, what he has written as applied to me is a malicious and deliberate lie. Possibly the same applies to other editors mentioned. This kind of wild and unreasonable personal attack on good faith editors must stop. It is one of the worst examples of disruptive editing by CoM that I have seen so far. He appears to think he can write anything he likes, no matter how nasty and how unsupported by fact. Perhaps if he wrote like this when blocked on his talk page, venting his anger; that might possibly be overlooked; but this appalling behaviour cannot be condoned on project pages. If he is incapable of controlling his tone or being careful about what he writes, he should be indefinitely banned from participating on project pages. This is not a form of censorship: it is the straightforward consequence of his flouting the views of the community, unequivocally expressed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight. I don't have a grudge against CoM, who is capable of being charming and of making good points occasionally on project pages (eg his suggestions about unblocking Peter Damian); however, on climate change he seems as unruly as he was in Obama articles and, as evidenced by the above passage, regards WP as a form of WP:BATTLEGROUND where he is above all rules. It's hard to see how this can continue. Mathsci (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Mathsci, you seem to have had an animus against CoM. [61] [62] Is it really necessarily a a malicious and deliberate lie that CoM is telling about you simply because you do not edit GW articles and have expressed no view on WP whatsover about the topic? Isn't it a pretty small point that you haven't edited those articles, and isn't it his real point that you are repeatedly provoking him with your over-the-top language? You complain about his tone, but your tone in so many comments about him or to him doesn't exactly set an example. When you say, If he is incapable of controlling his tone or being careful about what he writes, he should be indefinitely banned from participating on project pages. Couldn't that description apply to your interactions with him on that page? What's the nature of your relationship to William Connolley, who was in a conflict with CoM, apparently for some time? Could that have some affect on how you view CoM? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Certainly CoM posts rapidly and does seem (deliberately or accidentally) to get facts wrong in his favour. For example [63] where stating to another admin there was a consensus in his favour of unblock he states that [64] "until I requested review of my block and then "popped up" almost immediately to comment" whereas a quick check reveals the editor to have 2390 edits steadily back until 2007. Off course we all assume good faith and don't check most of the time... --BozMo talk 09:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Issues like that (and I'm personally extremely familiar with the "getting facts wrong," aspect see here for just one recent example) are the reason for the "remedy" thread above where a concrete proposal has now been put forward. I hope some more people can weigh in there and we can come to some sort of agreement, otherwise we'll be back here (or somewhere else) discussing these same issues at some point in the future, and this has really gone on far too long as it is. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I don't think people who are upset should be expected to get every fact right, especially when they're embroiled in something. I think when this is pointed out to them they should be expected to correct themselves later if they haven't already been corrected. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I definitely agree with that, but the problem of "getting facts wrong" has been a long-term one for C of M. To take just one example (already linked above so maybe you saw it), this recently happened quite blatantly on my talk page. C of M claimed I made a statement (which was actually made by another editor on my talk page) and accused me of lying as a result, I corrected him, and he then removed his statement without acknowledging its inaccuracy, instead replacing it with the comment that he "just wants the abusive harassment to stop" (this is also inaccurate, but whatever). Surely you can see how that would be quite annoying, and this is not a one-off incident—for many months ChildofMidnight has been complaining (all over the place) about "things I've done" which simply did not happen, I correct him, and he continues to say them. For the most part I stopped correcting quite some time ago, and it really does not bother me on a personal level since his claims are basically ridiculous and admins have to expect complaints, both legitimate and not. But there are many editors who have had similar experiences, and really no one should have to endure persistent attacks with little or no basis in fact. Understand I do not at all think that C of M is willfully misrepresenting the truth, but often when he gets it in his head that person X did bad thing Y he won't drop it but rather repeats it over and over, the facts be damned. Again I'm sure you would agree that this is a problem, and it's part of the larger concerns about general incivility and battleground mentality which had consensus in the user conduct RfC. I'd actually be very interested to see if you have any ideas on how to address those concerns going forward. I think maybe ChildofMidnight would view you as a good-faith arbiter, and personally I'm just interested in whatever keeps these kind of incidents from cropping up in the future, which might require someone whom ChildofMidnight sees as trustworthy pointing out that there are legitimate concerns here which means some behavior has to change. Voluntary arrangements along those lines are much more desirable than formal restrictions as far as I'm concerned, but unfortunately we've been forced to start entertaining the possibility of the latter at this point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC) By the way, during the embarassing amount of time I've spent looking into this (and just scratching the surface of most of it), I haven't found that you've acted badly anywhere, BTP. And I have a lot of respect for you, based on reading your comments and interacting with you in the past. I completely disagree with CoM on that. There's been a bunch of constructive comments friendly editors have added to his talk page over the past few days. (This wise one is worth laughing through [65].) For the short term, that's going to help more than anything I can say. He obviously finds it more difficult than most of us to put up with the bad behavior associated with POV pushing, and to a degree I share his frailty/outrage there. He also has higher expectations than I think are realistic about admin professionalism. And he obviously hasn't had, shall we say, a perfect reaction to all that. And about his conduct, I think I'll leave it at that for now and try to have a discussion with him in private if he'll allow it (his emails were off the last time I tried using them, and he told me then he wasn't using email). Maybe that would help for the long(er) term. Ultimately, any editor here has to accept the (very real, very annoying, very difficult) limitations of this place and either decide to live with it, try to change it, walk away, go rogue or be kicked out. I don't get the impression he wants the last three options, so I'll try to talk with him. While his (and my) frailties in dealing with the Wikipedia Zoo are personal responsibilities, good unbiased admin work in monitoring the AGW general sanctions is a social responsibility. I appreciate your reasons for not wanting to engage in AGW as an admin -- at present I don't want to engage in it as an editor for much the same reason -- but experienced, level-headed admins who monitor their own POV and who are willing to put the time in could make a difference there. It's a pity Wikipedia makes this so difficult for both the administrating and editing tasks. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comment, and I tend to agree with the points you make (and not just the nice ones about me!). It seems there's a good chance this while thing will end up in ArbComs lap now that a case has been filed (which is fine if regrettable), and if that's the case I could easily see you being very helpful in terms of making suggestions and observations on the case pages. Of course the sane thing for you to do would be to avoid an ArbCom case completely, and instead pursue more pleasant tasks like digging deeper into the interactions between Alexander Pope and his interlocutors, though there are few things on earth nastier in rhetorical terms than 18th century European (and "American") pamphleteering.  :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Here's the problem. CoM gives the appearance of extreme missionary zeal against the scientific consensus view of global warming. Every debate with CoM over conduct relating to this ends up being framed by CoM in terms of long rants about how AGW is evil and therefore any Wikipedia user or admin who takes action against any opponent of AGW is evil. The issues of behaviour are never addressed, it's always framed in terms of sides in the war. Long experience of this kind of user indicates that it is extremely rare for them to be able to contribute productively in areas where they feel this deep emotional commitment. Topic bans are only partially successful since the most determined do not edit in other areas and will spend endless hours debating whether a given article is or is not within scope, when the edits in question always are about the problem topic. This is a natural consequence of the fact that Wikipedia is now perceived as the single most important place to have your POV reflected. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC) This really is the heart of the matter; it isn't the topic that is the problem, it is the editor. Replace every mention of "global warming" there with "Obama", and we have the same situation that presented itself back in March of 2009. Editors who become repeat offenders in different topic areas need more than a topic ban to curb this sort of behavior. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Speaking of editors, Tarc, you're one of the ones CoM claims are misbehaving toward him, and there do seem to be a number of diffs to show his concern is justified. Just last week, I brought up your own overall uncivil behavior toward a number of other editors, including CoM and me, and that resulted in an admin giving you a civility warning. [66] When CoM says a number of editors are repeatedly treating him badly, well, he's got some of your diffs to put up as evidence. [67] [68] [69] If CoM is brought to ArbCom anytime soon, I'm sure your interactions with him won't be ignored. Does anyone know if CoM had major conflicts outside politics? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC) No, Barber, an admin closed the discussion, and another admin came after the fact with a "suggestion", which I rejected. As I noted there, you don't get to troll through other user's edit histories and cherry-pick things you don't like; if any of those editors in those conversations objected to something I said, then they were and still are perfectly free to seek redress in the Wikipedia'a appropriate venues. YOU are not, as you have no standing or claim. If I say something to you, then by all means file a complaint. Do not advocate for others; it isn't your place. As for ChildofMidnight, his behavior is verging on the disturbingly pathological ; nearly every comment of his, here and on other user's talk pages, is filled with "please do something about User X, User Y, and User Z harassing and abusing meee!!!!" (X, Y, Z change from time to time) rhetoric, yet it is clear to most commenting here that he is the one who is doing the harassing and abusing to others. Remember, we have the two shining examples; the attacks on the RfC closer, and the wonderful episode that we call ChildofMidnight's Nazi Incident. Tarc (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Guy, focusing solely on personal responsibility on CoM's part explains very little about a bad block nor promote personal responsibility among a range of editors on both sides over at the AGW articles, a broader problem that keeps coming back to the drama boards. From what I've seen, CoM doesn't look like the description you're giving. Please see my reply to BTP at 18:35, 15 Feb. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I saw what you did there. I don't think it's a bad block, any more than any block of a determined POV-warrior and serial timewaster is bad. Bring a set of evidence against an AGW proponent who has been as tendentious and who has been as consistent in framing every attempt to address conduct as being about taking sides in the dispute. Of course we have the usual WP:FRINGE problem; as has been noted before there are basically no scientific review articles which dispute the two base premises of increasing CO2 and consequent warming, and no scientific body of national or international standing that maintains a contrary position, but around half of all discussion in the non-scientific media presents an overall sceptical view. There are strong overlaps between opposition to AGW theory and opposition to evolutionary theory; both are dominated by the US right and are of much less significance elsewhere in the west; both involve people with deep emotional investment demanding that scientists prove a negative, both involve a largely non-scientific group opposing a strong consensus formed over time within the scientific community, an essentially liberal body of thought. I find it interesting that Pascal's wager, which is logically incomplete in the case of the existence of God, applies far more closely to the issue of AGW. But here again we stray onto the issue of content; fundamentally the problem is CoM's behaviour not the content he advocates - obsessive personalisation and factionalising of a dispute. Topic ban or site ban, I don't care, I've just seen one rambling conspiracy-based whine-fest too many from this user. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC) But here again we stray onto the issue of content, What do you mean by "we", Kemosabe? You strayed into the issue of content. I've mentioned some similar behavior by other editors above, but I'm not concentrating on it here. This discussion was about the block of CoM and whether it was justified. Broader issues about CoM were brought up (which isn't an improper thing to do) and I made the point that certain editors, on and off AGW-related issues, were part of the problem. That ain't climate science. It's typical, if we're going to talk about an editor's behavior, to talk about the behavior of those fighting with him. That's what I did. I wouldn't mind discussing some aspects of AGW somewhere else with you, but I'm not a skeptic and don't claim to know the science. The part that interests me is the part I understand -- the coverage and the scandal -- and frankly, by now I'm pretty rusty on that because I haven't kept up on the issue recently. I know enough to know the WP article doesn't do the subject justice. What I've been keeping up on instead is the early 18th-century equivalent of trolling -- the nasty pamphlets and satire exchanged between John Dennis (dramatist) and Alexander Pope (not to mention attacks against him from Jonathan Swift and John Gay). Fascinating stuff. At one point, Pope was the equivalent of a sock-puppeteer in The Spectator; he goaded poor Dennis for years and got his (Pope's) friends to form a cabal to gang up on Dennis and others. You'd have banned them all from English letters! But the funny thing is this: Dennis, the dullest of the bunch, actually larded his attacks with some very good literary criticism of some of Pope's work (which apparently Pope took into account when revising some of his most famous poems). Dennis also tended to stick to the "discuss the edits, not the editor" approach and was probably the best behaved, although all sides engaged in WP:NPA. Pope's Dunciad, one of the greatest poems in the language, was intimately part of the controversy. And you'd have banned them! Had they been on Wikipedia, it would have been better to find some better way of dealing with them, if possible. Anyway, that's what this discussion has interrupted for me, much to the loss of quite a few "[year] in poetry" articles. RyanPostlethwaite has taken this to ArbCom. I'm fine with that. I see a lot of suspicious behavior by a lot of people, and that's an ArbCom subject. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Request for Arbitration As I believe the Arbitration Committee are in the best position to handle the behaviour of ChildofMidnight, I've filed a request for arbitration which can be viewed here. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.