Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive146

Rollback help needed

I recently indef'd yet another sock of banned user Codyfinke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--namely, CodySupermarketSweep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I could use some help rolling back his edits--my clicking button is getting tired. Blueboy96 19:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

i've looked through some of the edits yet to be rolled back, and I know that as a matter of principle, we do not allow editing by blocked users, however some of the un-rolled-back edits; I can't see where some of them aren't improvements. I endorse the block, and agree it should stay, but do we need to rollback every edit, even those that are ultimately beneficial for the encyclopedia? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a question we've never really resolved: what do we do about good edits by bad people? Policy and practice say we revert - they are banned and leaving their edits up hardly discourages them. But what do we do where reverting is detrimental to the article in question? One suggestion, ludicrous on first glance, was to revert and then make the edits anyway. This works, but is insane. And it is "editing by proxy for a banned user". I can't see a good answer to this conundrum, but Wikipedia has assembled some of the finest minds in the entire world when it comes to collaborative editing... so someone here should know. I hope. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As Redvers said, it's a tricky issue. Personally, I'd say that if an edit is unquestionably beneficial, it should be allowed to stand; we should not cut off our nose to spite our face. However, if the validity of the edit isn't obvious, it's better to err on the side of caution; if the edit was really something that should've been made, someone else will eventually make it (or something equivalent) again. Some familiarity with the user in question is valuable here; users have been banned for a huge variety of reasons, ranging from using Wikipedia as a MySpace substitute to real-life stalking of other editors, and it's important to know which kind one is dealing with. (Specific users deliberately left unnamed; grep the list if you want examples.) For instance, if the reason the user in question has been banned is repeated insertion of hoaxes and subtle misinformation, it's probably a good idea to take even seemingly valid edits from them with a big grain of salt. Similarly, while in some cases a useful solution may be to revert the edits but note them on the article's talk page, for some banned users this will just serve as a form of validation. If in doubt, try to find someone who knows the history of the particular user in question and ask them (possibly off-wiki). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO, reverting an otherwise constructive edit simply because a banned user made it is illogical. Regardless of whether or not he/she was blocked, it doesn't change whether the edit was/was not constructive. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, some trollish sockpuppets of banned users have deliberately performed "good" actions such as removing BLP violations, in an attempt to trap other editors who revert their edits on sight. No, I'm not going to provide specific diffs, because that's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. The bottom line is really pretty simple: You are responsible for your edits, including reverts and rollbacks. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge history

Could an admin please history merge User:Serviam/Velites into Velites. I've been working on it for a bit on my userpage, thanks :-)--Serviam (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Done. You may consider editing the article itself, or copy/paste the new content you wrote (no copyright problem, I guess, as the attribution would be to you anyway) with a summary resuming the whole copyediting done. - Nabla (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thankyou. I wasn't comfortable editing the article itself as it was a complete rewrite, and I started with only one paragraph which would probably be reverted.--Serviam (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Buckman

Resolved

 – AfD already closed, admin already looked into it. -- Kesh

(talk) 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like an admin to check the talk for this AfD. I'm not sure where else to take this. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There may be some sock-puppetry at work there, but the first keep vote is User:Dhartung, who is most assuredly not a sockpuppet of anyone else. I don't see a need to bring this to AN/I, so I am going to close it as no action required. Horologium (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that Dhartung was a sockpuppeteer. And this isn't AN/I, it's AN. I've removed the resolved template. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Trees Rock

I've just issued a final warning to Trees Rock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for this joke edit. As I've issued multiple warnings to this user in the last couple of days [1], [2], [3] (albeit all in different areas), could someone else review this warning and let me know if you think I'm being too harsh, as I don't want it to look like I'm Wikistalking. (Consider this as express consent for any other admin to remove/reduce the warning). Thanks! — iridescent 00:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That was not a "joke edit". I ment it, but I withdrew it because I was instructed. Trees Rock^MyGoal 00:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And How is my Signature a "disruptive edit" as soon as I got that comment I changed It. Trees Rock^MyGoal 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you really the right person to be badgering people about their signatures? John Reaves 01:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

At nearly 700 characters, Trees Rock's signature was a bit much. - auburnpilot talk 01:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

After having to deal with Trees Rock, I do not think he is purposefully being malicious; rather, his inexperience with the project shows through his glaring mistakes. I believe he is well meaning and just needs to learn the ropes, maybe visit WP:BEHAVE WP:LOP and then WP:ADOPT before doing anything else. --Sharkface^T/_C 01:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, we run into a problem where I don't think this is bad faith, but regardless, highly disruptive. If Trees Rock doesn't think the diff in the RfA page is disruptive... then what more can we say? Irid was good to come here, and I hope other admins keep Tree on watch. Another obviously disruptive edit should resort in a short-term block, in an attempt to prevent more disruptive edits without a more serious reflection by the user. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

While I hate to be the one who brings this up, even if Trees Rock was able to become properly acquainted with Wiki-policy, inherent problems, such as maturity, could come into play. --Sharkface^T/_C 01:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The warning may be a bit rough. But the user is regularly in borderline violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE, and other concerns have already been raised. In case of further disruption, a short block may be in order. Adoption and the like have shown to have little effect in cases of maturity concerns. As for the biggest signature contest, it's getting ridiculous. Cenarium (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing this, I would agree that many of Trees Rock's edits seem very Myspacey and borderline disruptive. I support Iridescent's warnings, and would support a short block (to escalate if necessary) for continued disruption after this warning. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Trees Rock's Talk page, he has retired as an editor. Corvus cornix_talk 21:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RD/M vandalism

There's (probably bot-driven) IP vandalism/spam going on over at the Miscellaneous reference desk. It's from a large number of different IPs, but since they are either sock- or meatpuppets, an administrator might want to block them en masse. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 18:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Friday and Atlant are taking care of them. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for a few hours. If nobody does it before I do, I'll reset back to move=sysop before the protection expires. Looks like a spambot. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection reset. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Another spam attack. Only 1 IP (blocked), but judging on what happened earlier, they would probably just move to another, so I've protected WP:RD/M for two hours. Can someone reset the protection again when it expires? Thankee. Seraphim♥Whipp 22:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong with db-club and db-group templates

Resolved

Something has gone wrong with template:Db-club and template:Db-group so that they read "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject", whereas they used to read "about a club or group". The last edit to both templates was on 4 April, but I think whatever has gone wrong is more recent than that and is deeper in the template system, because on clicking "edit" I see the words "a club or group" still there. It is causing confusion - I have seen a speedy for a club objected to because "it isn't about a person". JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Those two are formed through transclusions of the main {{db-a7}} template, so it is probably a problem with that one. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 21:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It comes from this edit to db-bio. The question is: should we modify db-club so that it transcludes db-a7 again, or retarget db-bio to db-a7 ? Cenarium (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the template to transclude a7 again, changing db-bio would have wider-reaching consequences if people are now used to it redirecting to its current target. Also, double-transclusions have more impact on the server (yes, I know). After all, surely it doesn't matter what the template transcludes [in theory it won't be around for long] RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 21:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I also prefer this option. It has already been discussed on the talk page by the way. Cenarium (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please help with board and table game articles

Resolved

Since Barneca is away, could an admin take a look here, and especially at the new message that I left there. I don't know if this qualifies as vandalism, but as Barneca has blocked a bunch of sock puppets, and this is a new one with the same editing behavior, I would much appreciate if an admin could have a look. Many thanks! --Craw-daddy | T | 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad Old Ones tool - image deletion

After having used this tool Bad Old Ones tool for a bit, I did a test run and found out that it is giving many false "negatives" (images that are actually in use being shown as 'unused'). I've left a 'bug report' for the owner, and have informed DumbBOT to consider removing the tool from its generated new category pages (i.e. Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 22 May 2008). Just a 'head's up' to others that may be using this tool. Other suggestions on preempting use until the bug is fixed would be greatly appreciated. SkierRMH (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This tool is designed for commons use, but it's not designed for use for orphaned fair use. It uses a Commons-only tool called checkusage to determine if it's orphaned or not. Using it from enwiki will not yield good results. Maxim_(talk) 12:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then it definitely shouldn't be on any of the en.wiki...only image maintenance pages. It does have one option that should show images on a specific language wiki, but that apparently doesn't work as it's giving false reports. Also, it is stating that Image:X isn't used on any projects, which is clearly incorrect, as they're used here. I'll update my request with DumbBOT to reference this, and remove the use on the en.wiki only maintenance pages. SkierRMH (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the link from the "template starters", which are the templates that contains the text that is initially put in the category on creation. These templates are linked from User:DumbBOT/CatCreate. I have not changed the categories that have already been created (please ask someone with popups or similar tools if this is really needed). Tizio 12:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bromley Page - Can someone Please resolve this ??

---

user:Diamonddannyboy has been repeatedly adding Darren M Jackson to the Bromley page. Even though the source on the Darren M Jackson is unreliable and also for the following reasons.:

• 1) The actual source on the Darren M Jackson page, seems to be unreliable as i can`t find this anywhere on the internet. **see below. As per WP:SPS
• 2) I pointed out to the user that Darren M Jackson page doesn`t mention he came from Bromley, so he just added ``lived in the Borough of Bromley`` to the Darren M Jackson page as per edit [4]
• 3) When i pointed out the fact being from the Borough of Bromley is actually totally different from the Bromley page, he changed the statement on the Darren M Jackson page to ``Live in Bromley, Kent``, again without changing a source or amending a source. As per edit [5]

In short the user has been repeatedly removing the citiation, (as per edits [6] [7] [8] [9]) , from the Bromley page without a reliable source, And the name should be struck from the Bromley page. **Please also consider the source is unreliable as it appears the source (which i still can`t find) is some sort of news letter as per the following website, which is definatly unreilable As per WP:SPS. http://website.lineone.net/~rtfhs/journal5.html--Rockybiggs (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Now moved too Requests for arbitration. Pls ignore.--Rockybiggs (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Resolved

This is probably not the ideal place to report this, but I don't know where else to do to it... I have noticed that Michael Shermer (talk · contribs) has recently edited the article Michael Shermer. I certainly don't see anything wrong with the edits themselves, which are not inconsistent with WP:COI. However, should the user be politely informed of these guidelines? Also, does the user need to verify his identity in some way, to protect against the possiblity of impersonation? Gnome de plume (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Consider opening a report at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. There is no major problem but the article is like a resume, and needs shortening. Editors at COIN can advise on what to do. Leave a {{uw-coi}} notice on the editor's Talk page to make him aware of the guideline. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. Thank you for the suggestions - I wasn't aware of that noticeboard. Gnome de plume (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User: Altenhofen

Altenhofen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What is to be done about this user? Look at his talk page and recent contributions for reasons leading to this post. Something needs to be done here, and I'm not sure what. King iMatthew 2008 02:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

He's just being generally disruptive at this point. I say we drop one more warning on him, and tell him if he doesn't drop the matter, he should be blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I say he has been warned enough, and it is time to stop his disruption. Tiptoety ^talk 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just left a final warning at his talk page. We'll see where he goes with it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User has history of vandalism, as seen here, here, and here. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To see most of this user's attacks, please see this, this, calling East718 an idiot here, this, and nonsense here.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 03:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, he still hasn't edited since I warned him. We will keep a close eye on him. If he fires up again, blazow... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Honest Reporting" alert, criticising WP anti-wikilobby action

Thought people might want to know that the aggressive media-response alert site Honest Reporting has issued what it calls a communiqué, on the subject of WP's recent blocking of six users for wikilobbying:

Exposed - Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia

Given that the site claims 140,000 subscribers, a quick factual setting straight of the record on the piece's talkback page might be in order. Some of their readers do seem to take account of at least the first handful of comments there. Jheald (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The so-called "Honest Reporting" site appears to have some difficulty in understanding the difference between "subject" and "author". DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes you can ignore the rules, and sometimes you can not, if you want WP to have any integrity. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The cynic in me makes me wonder whether calling a website "Honest Reporting" is akin to a state calling itself a "Democratic Republic"... -- ChrisO (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The point of Honest reporting is to *expose dishonesty* in the media. Wikipedia's editors are not maintaining objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.146.205 (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Amazing how reliably words like "honest", "truth" and "fairness" have the opposite of the usual meaning when used by zealots. Anti-Israeli bias my arse. I was reading the paper while waiting for a taxi the other day, there was a lengthy article by a Johann Hari discussing this kind of crap, The Independent, 8 May. "The former editor of Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz, David Landau, calls the behaviour of these groups "nascent McCarthyism". Those responsible hold extreme positions of their own that place them way to the right of most Israelis." Anything other than uncritical adulation is unacceptable to these people, and we should wear their anger as a badge of pride, a sure sign that we are doing something right. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You can check what Honest Reporting has to say about Hari's reponse: ([10]). Because this is a matter of strong opinions, even the moderators should check their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.9.167 (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in what "Honest" Reporting have to say. It is wingnut drivel of the worst kind. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

excellent point, one does not have to read something to have an opinion about it. yes, i understand your npov. quite revealingDavidg (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

More coverage here from the Jewish Week News: [11] -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And Gershom Gorenberg in the Atlantic Monthly here. His conclusion:

But the Wikipedia affair is a hint at the psychology of CAMERA's advocacy. It aims at defending the story it already knows by presenting only what is necessary to bolster that narrative. CAMERA's story is an un-nuanced, hard line version of Mideast history in which Israel can do no wrong. It's a narrative that disturbs many thinking supporters of Israel. When CAMERA fights for "accuracy," what it really wants is for the media -- or Wikipedia -- to promote that narrative. In defense of such "fair and factual reporting," it might even recruit some volunteers to misrepresent themselves in the Wikipedia wars. Let the reader beware.

It appears Gorenberg did some independent investigation of his own, as well, attempting to speak to CAMERA in Boston. There are some very apposite remarks about conflicting narratives, consensus and speaking in Wikipedia's voice as well. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Oboler and "Zionism on the Web"

I see that Dr. Oboler (cited in the HonestReporting link above) has also written on this subject in the Jerusalem Post's online edition ([12]), and his own Zionism on the Web project ([13]). I suspect his assertion (in the JP article) that "Electronic Intifada is ringing alarm bells, probably because those getting involved are Jews and supporters of Israel" will be met with less than universal approval.

The latter article is particularly interesting for its efforts to determine the real-life identity of User:Bangpound. I'm using the term "interesting" because there's currently a Wikipedia editor named User:Oboler who openly identifies Andre Oboler ([14]), and is actively participating in debates on this subject. I was under the impression that "outing" rival editors is something that we're not supposed to do.

I also find it interesting that Dr. Oboler once had a habit of adding "Zionism on the Web" links to sites that he visited ([15], [16]). Given that Wikipedia's article about the site was deleted as non-notable ([17]), some might be tempted to interpret this as spamming. Admittedly, these links were posted some time ago and there probably isn't anything that need be done about it now ... but it still strikes me as ironic under the circumstances. CJCurrie (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• A lot of links (see linksearch). Is this the next candidate for User:JzG/unreliable sources? Guy (Help!) 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not able to conduct the linksearch for some reason, but I think it may be a viable addition one way or the other. CJCurrie (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome someone checking the links, they were mostly to copies of archived material related to academic boycotts in the UK. This particular set of materials is referenced in an academic paper by Prof Charles Small (Yale University) [18] (note I renamed the subdirectory when the boycotts came back for the second time, but the old link still works - also that link is to google so you can see the paper reference, else you need to pay to get access to the full text). It is also listed as a reference by the Jewish Virtual Library [19] who also acknowledge the use of copyrighted material (specifically photographs related to original research published at ZionismOnTheWeb) [20]. Other links are to pages with relevent original research including photographs and audio recordings of the counter boycott event. I believe there is an explicit provision to link to your own original research. Given I am posting under my own name, and I include the name in the link when it is material I wrote (rather than material I repost under fair use, or with explicit permission which I usually seek and get), I would have thought that was enough evidence of good faith on my part. I can't speak for the good faith of those above however.

If someone wishes to review whether Zionism On The Web is notable enough to be included (and wishes to write an article on it) that would also be welcome. I figured it was at the time and was told no, I think things have moved on a bit since then. Zionism On The Web has been given an award from the Jewish Agency, participated in the Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism (the premier event on the topic), you can see Zionism On The Web listed here... [21] but ignore the rest of my profile (someone messed up at their end), and has been mentioned a number of times in the press. The report on Antisemitism 2.0 published by the JCPA is cites all over the place, Zionism On The Web is listed there as well.

while I do thank you for the interest, references talking about editors and linking that to their identity and activites outside Wikipedia could be considered outing. Even when the editor like myself makes that particularly easy. Just a thought. Oboler (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on what is here, I'd say Zionism On The Web is notable enough for an article. I also think Oboler is making sincere efforts to be a productive wiki editor. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, it may be worth noting that Zionism on the Web gets a grand total of zero hits on the Factiva search engine (the phrase "Zionism on the web" appears in one article, but in an unrelated context). This strikes me as a not insignificant point to consider when determining the site's notability.

Without commenting on anyone's behaviour, I might also note that several of Wikipedia's ZotW links were to simple reproductions of articles already available on other online sources, including the databanks of the Guardian and the Anti-Defamation League. While I'm certain these links increased ZotW's traffic rate, I have to wonder if they really added much value to our project. (Some other ZotW links were to original essays of (IMO) dubious encyclopedic merit. To be fair, there were also a few links to transcriptions of archival material ... but even these generally came with non-notable introductions and commentary.)

I almost wonder if this could be described as an instance of "spamming, in effect if not intent".

In any event, I have yet to see any evidence that materials printed on "Zionism on the Web" are inherently notable or encyclopedic, notwithstanding that the project may have received an occasional award, citation or invitation. If a more established source (like the Jewish Virtual Library) chooses to print their material, a link may be in order. Otherwise, I would say not.

Btw, (i) it's permitted to link to one's own original research, but only until strict conditions that do not appear to have been met in this instance, and (ii) it isn't "outing" if someone's identity is already a matter of public knowledge. Cheers, CJCurrie (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The above actions, i.e. Dr. Oboler adding his website, seem to be trying to promote either the website, or its content or both. Thus, this may be a violation of conflict of interest.Bless sins (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, If see my talk page you'll notice I started talking with Rlevse after he warned me off for providing the evidence of Bangpound's identity (in the ArbCom evidence page) after he had been outed in the press. By your definition this wasn't outing, but by Rlevse's it was. I don't know which of you is right but the explanations don't tally.

As to factiva, try searching for "andre oboler" and you will get two hits now [22] (mentions my name and Zionism On The Web - misformatted though) and [23] (article by me, Zionism On The Web not mentioned). There will soon be another one for this new article [24] (which includes Zionism On The Web). Factiva seems to miss this [25] which has my name but not Zionism On The Web and this [26] which has both my name and Zionism On The Web, not to mention [27] and [28] (both news articles mentioning me and Zionism On the Web). All this said, the information regarding the Antisemitism Conference is in my opinion the most "notable", a quick look at the program and who the other speakers were will explain why.

I maintain that the links are to good quality references, much of which may not be available else where. If people want to redirect links to the newspapers archives (where such items are archived and still available, and where I did not link them directly), please feel free. The edits are an improvement to Wikipedia, and they are there since 2005. That they are accepted for years by the community might suggest something both about Zionism On The Web as a source for material on this topic (see my comments on this in my earlier post) and on the value of the information to Wikipedia. Then there are the links to original materials and these too have been maintained. This is looking more like a witch hunt on the admin board than anything else. Oboler (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that these links are subject to our citation guidelines in WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which are more fully explicated in Wikipedia:Convenience links#Existing policy and guidelines regarding convenience links. In general, we would have to make an independent determination of the reliability of your website. Wikipedia welcomes those who announce their affiliations and open it up for discussion, but in future I would suggest you exercise some caution in adding your own site as a reference. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Relata, thank you for the clarifications. I haven't added link to my site in articles on Wikipedia in some years. As mentioned above the 2005 academic boycotts were a topic for which Zionism On The Web was the leading resource. I'd suggest we are now also a leading resource on Web 2.0 issues affecting the Jewish community, but as predicted here Wikipedia:Convenience links#Existing policy and guidelines regarding convenience links, the best material is now published else where (academically or in the press) and then simply republished at the site. The discussion above has covered the issue of whether it is a notable enough site to have a listing (it currently doesn't have one), you've raised the issue of reliability. This was varified independently the Jewish Agency when they gave us an award, but I assume you mean independently by Wikipedia admins. If someone wants to go through the site that would be welcome.

Some of the material is originally published in the main stream media (written by myself or quoting me), some is peer reviewed academic work and published originally else where. Some it could be argued is self published, I've looked at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 policy re: Self published work and in the case where it could be said to be self published, (e.g. excluding original source documents now out of copyright that I've reproduced), the material I believe meets the requirements of being from an expert who is published else where on the topic. Looking at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it also says that "Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are welcomed", my site is reference by the history teacher site [29] (itself referenced very positively in the NY Times - see their home page), it is also used as a reference at the Jewish Virtual Library [30] which is itself run by an academic and is in many scholarly bibliographies. I've just edited the Jewish Virtual Library page to add references for this (the article said it needed references). Zionism On The Web is also referenced by Library at the University of Southampton [31].

I hope this information is of help and that someone has the time to review it. Oboler (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oboler: As mentioned above the 2005 academic boycotts were a topic for which Zionism On The Web was the leading resource. My response: That's not exactly right. I believe it would be more accurate to say that "Zionism of the Web" was used to convey the views of certain parties who were directly involved in the debates concerning a proposed academic boycott, most notably Dr. Oboler himself. It doesn't even come close to being a reliable source, though I see that this didn't prevent someone from referencing it several different Wikipedia pages related to the subject.

I might add that being referenced in a handful of academic sources does not make one an "established expert", and that none of the sources you've provided constitute "scholarly bibliographies" in the way that the term is normally used. CJCurrie (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oboler: CJCurrie, If see my talk page you'll notice I started talking with Rlevse after he warned me off for providing the evidence of Bangpound's identity (in the ArbCom evidence page) after he had been outed in the press. By your definition this wasn't outing, but by Rlevse's it was. I don't know which of you is right but the explanations don't tally. My response: I believe the situation is a bit more complicated than that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Bangpound's identity revealed in the press by Andre Oboler? This strikes me as somehow relevant.

Concerning Factiva, you might be interested to know that "Andre Oboler" actually gets eight hits, albeit that two of these are simple reproductions of a previously listed article (and one other is a letter to the editor). I'm not certain the JP piece will be showing up, though, as Factiva (wisely) distinguishes between that paper's print and online editions ... just as it omits the "Comment is Free" section of the Guardian's website from its archives.

I could add that the mere fact of attending a notable conference does not make someone inherently notable.

In any event, while it's possible that "Andre Oboler" may deserve his own article page, "Zionism on the Web" clearly does not, and its non-notable commentaries should not be used as authoritative statements for subjects covered in Wikipedia. I don't doubt that you've kept a careful record of your press clippings, but the handful of references you've provided cannot possibly justify the staggering number of external links that were added to WP in the last few years. CJCurrie (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, you seem to have an axe to grind here. You also don't seem to have checked the information I provided above. The references to an academic library (The University of Southampton) is I believe EXACTLY what is meant by scholarly bibliographys (I say that as a scholar), you can argue about the other two but they are highly used resources on the topic designed for educational use - hence are peer reviewed by experts on the topic (in anycase these are additional to the university library listing). The Jerusalem Post does not publish things online that are not in the print edition - so give this new article a little time. The reason the other searches give things for my name but not Zionism On The Web is due to (a) a fault in one article (which inserts a huge space in the middle of the name), (b) because the Jewish Week (respected paper with a large circulation) isn't included in the database, and (c) because you need to search for the URL not the name (with spaces) if you want to catch the jpost articles - the address and not the name is used. These are technical short comings and ignoring them by running the wrong search then claiming there are no results is not helpful. As for the conference, I wasn't attending, I was speaking. That makes a huge difference given people speaking at this conference are (by definition) notable on the topic of antisemitism. You may want to ask an experts in the field to varify this. I spoke specifically on Zionism On The Web. I'm about to be interviewed by RAM FM (if anyone wants to listen online or is in the broadcast range)(... I have a feeling Factiva won't pick that up either - it is a quick tool, not a replacement for other research). All the best, Oboler (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Responses:

(i) You may believe that the University of Southampton's list is "EXACTLY what is meant by scholarly bibliographys [sic]", but you'd be mistaken. A bibliography is a list of books, articles, &c., usually published at the conclusion of a scholarly work. The University of Southampton page you've referenced is simply a list of websites that might be of use to scholars, and it doesn't even link to any particular articles. The fact that one (1) university has chosen to highlight ZotW in this manner (and I trust you would have informed me if there were any others) doesn't make ZotW a reliable source, nor does it provide much evidence of its notability.

(ii) I'm afraid that "highly used/for educational use" isn't quite the same as "peer reviewed". Consider Wikipedia.

(iii) Let me first respond to your specific comments regarding Factiva, and then make a more general remark. Specifics: a) I grant that "www.zionism ontheweb.com" gets one (1) hit on Factiva, but this isn't the strongest possible evidence of its notability, b) The Jewish Week is a credible community-based journal, but it doesn't have a particularly large circulation, and one (1) further article here isn't much evidence of notability either, c) it turns out that Factiva doesn't cover the Jerusalem Post any longer, a development that I suspect neither of us was aware of until now, d) a search for "zionismontheweb" at the Jerusalem Post's website yields two (2) hits, both of which are articles written by Andre Oboler; in each case, Zionism on the Web is simply mentioned in passing. These two articles may be evidence of your notability, but not of your site's. General: Quibbling over these specifics misses the point. I'm not at all surprised that ZotW has received a few scattered references in the press, but this doesn't mean very much (and I find it instructive that none of the articles are about Zionism on the Web). Truth be told, I'm surprised that ZotW hasn't received more coverage, given the absurd number of links Wikipedia has provided to the site in recent years.

(iv) I took it for granted that you were speaking at the conference, and my previous comment stands. The conference may have been notable and may have featured many notable speakers, but that doesn't confer automatic notability on all presenters. Every academic conference I've been to has featured a diverse range of participants, but world-renowned to virtually unknown. Beyond which, (i) the fact that you spoke at this conference might be evidence of your own notability but it doesn't make you an "established expert" on anti-Semitism, (ii) I'm going to assume that you were invited as a representative of NGO Monitor, and not by virtue of the fact that you operate "Zionism on the Web". CJCurrie (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(iv) I took it for granted that you were speaking at the conference, and my previous comment stands. The conference may have been notable and may have featured many notable speakers, but that doesn't confer automatic notability on all presenters. Every academic conference I've been to has featured a diverse range of participants, but world-renowned to virtually unknown. Beyond which, (i) the fact that you spoke at this conference might be evidence of your own notability but it doesn't make you an "established expert" on anti-Semitism, (ii) I'm going to assume that you were invited as a representative of NGO Monitor, and not by virtue of the fact that you operate "Zionism on the Web". CJCurrie (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, I'm trying to be helpful in pointing out mistakes, but you came into this discussion with a conclusion (see above) then have tried to refute any evidence to the contrary. I had a quick look at your talk pages and see that you have some history of being involved in related disputes. You also keep mis-stating the facts about my editing (something you did from the start), I have explained myself and if you wish to continue maintaining bad faith that is you business. I maintain that most (read practically all) of my addition of links to Zionism On The Web were limited to the 2005 period when the boycotts were news (and I assert again that my site was the leading archive of material on this). To update Wikipedia on these matters required links. As my purpose in this discussion is answering questions to establish facts, and as yours seems to be something else, further discussion between us is I think no longer productive except to point out where you are making mistaken assumptions. I do however resent the bad faith assumptions and the attempt (on conceeding certain points) to raise the bar.

One wrong assumption is the capacity in which I attended the conference. I was there during a couple of days of annual leave and I was there speaking about Zionism On The Web. You'll note that Prof. Gerald Steinberg was also present and officially representing and speaking on NGO Monitor (so I was clearly not doing this). This was not purely an academic conference, it was a diplomatic event... which explains why notability should be treated differently in this case. As to expertise in the area, please see the press articles already refered to and the peer reviewed publication at [32] Please note the reference to Zionism On The Web in the text. Please also note the extensive review this item went through (with computer science, political science, and antisemitism experts). I was also introduced as CEO of Zionism On The Web (in addition to other positions I hold) in the radio interview earlier today [33], the actual interview can be heard here [34]. As for what is notable etc, I think neither you nor I are the right people to determin where that bar sits. Oboler (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Responses:

(i) What you define as "being helpful in pointing out mistakes" would be interpreted very differently by others. WP:CIVIL constrains me from elaborating on this point, but suffice it to say that I'm not convinced there's much point in carrying on this exchange either. If you seriously want to raise the calibre of discussion, I would request that you make an effort to engage with the concerns I've raised (as I've done for you).

(ii) Please read my comments more carefully. I've written that Wikipedia has provided an absurd number of links to ZotW over the last few years (and I stand by this), but I'm not arguing that you were personally responsible for adding all of them. I'm not "mis-stating the facts about your editing"; I'm indicating that some editors, yourself included, have linked excessively to a site of dubious encyclopedic merit.

(iii) ZotW may have been "the leading archive of material" on the proposed academic boycott in terms of quantity, but not in terms of comprehensiveness or notability (I'm not aware that it received a single mainstream press reference at the time). Andre Oboler was an active participant in these debates, after all, and it's hardly surprising that his website would convey a particular viewpoint on the matter.

(iv) I'll repeat that most of Wikipedia's links to ZotW regarding the proposed academic boycott were to non-notable essays, or reproductions of documents that were already available elsewhere. It's possible that you provided these links in good faith and without promotional intent, but the end result was still a situation that strongly resembles spamming.

(v) The conference agenda -- not the biography section, but the agenda -- identifies you as "Dr Andre Oboler: Legacy Heritage Fellow, NGO Monitor". You may have spoken about ZotW, but it doesn't seem that the conference organizers identified this as your most important project. I'll add again that your involvement in this conference doesn't make you inherently notable, nor does it grant you automatic "expert status" in discussions of anti-Semitism.

(vi) I'll end with a question: are you aware of any newspaper/journal articles, or academic sources, that discuss ZotW in any detail? CJCurrie (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to remove all links to Zionism on the Web seem a bit too opportunistic and ideological for my taste - a bit more of the "making political hay" out of the CAMERA case, which no doubt will be milked for every ounce of propaganda and editorial value possible. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your aversion to ideological editing is hereby noted. Regarding your specific concern, I've already noted that ZotW's reproductions of archival primary sources (mostly the works of early Labour Zionists) may serve a valid function ... though, unfortunately, they tend to come with non-notable introductions and/or dubious commentary. CJCurrie (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, you contradict yourself in various posts - others can see themself. There has also be a conflation of the issue of links, the notability of Zionism On The Web (re: creating a page or not), and attempts to attack me as an editor suggests a personal agenda. I don't know you, but you seem to have painted me as a target. When one attack doesn't work you move to another. I don't knwo how one is supposed to deal with this, but given this is already on the admin page advise (from others) will be welcome.

To make one correction and answer your question above... In (v) you fail to note that it also mentioned Zionism On The Web (why the ommission on your part?). That my employer wants to be associated with things I do outside of work is a matter for them and I, not for public debate. Its bad enough to make a wrong assumption, but to then defend it when it is an assumption about my life and I am here clarifying the matter is absurd (vi) I am aware of the references cited above, as are you. I don't believe there is a requirement for discussion of ZotW "in detail". The requirement is a non trivial mention. If it was your way I can generate a huge list of material that would need removal... and Wikipedia would be the poorer for its loss. Where an article has a substantive discussion about Zionism On The Web (as did the conference and the radio interview), or introduces me in relation to Zionism On The Web in a discussion of issues that Zionism On The Web deals with... that would I believe qualify as non trivial. See the Jewish week items for an example of this as well as the Jewish Chronicle item. That Jerusalem Post publish me on these topics it another indication. As we are both in agreement about ending this discussion between ourselves, I wish you good day. Oboler (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's no concrete action being sought here, let's all just move along here, this is all getting quite circular/repetitive. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ιερουσαλήμ

Why can't this be made a redirect to Jerusalem? Mallerd (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Because this is the English wikipedia. If you go to the Greek Wikipedia, I am sure they will be happy for your help. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The other option is to be bold and create the redirect yourself (although it would probably be deleted when spotted as being completely unneeded). ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the article title is blacklisted. nneonneo ^talk 21:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a horse of a different colour. Still, the subpoint stands: it would be deleted anyway as unneeded. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably blacklisted due to the use of non-Latin characters in Grawp's arsenal. Corvus cornix_talk 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that the Hebrew or Arabic name shouldn't redirect to Jerusalem? Nonsense and you know it, it's not like I am adding a Korean name of Jerusalem or something, the Greek names have historical value. Mallerd (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not nonsense, and I don't know it. Deep breath, please. ➨ REDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I added it and used {{R from alternative language}}. It's no big deal; redirects are cheap. Nihiltres^{t.l} 22:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt we need a grek language redirect to Jerusalem... is greek used as a local language in Jerusalem? If not I see no reason for it. We don't want redirects from every language, do we?. As in Paddo (from Dutch?), Muahahaha (??), Chữ Trung Quốc (??) also from this user - Nabla (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think every soft drug should have a Dutch redirect, it is legal here. Many foreigners come and ask what is this and what is that etc etc. Chữ Trung Quốc is another name in Vietnamese for the Hanzi symbols. There is nothing wrong with redirects. You bunch of tyrants. Mallerd (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's us told. — iridescent 15:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

michael

Resolved

User informed of WP:NPOV.

i am trying to make subsatial improvement to the michael jackson page but am having issues there!

Here is the statement I have attempted I was advised to see "new friends" in order to make these changes

Block quote

hi i thought i could outline the main changes we have to make to micheals page

remove word child sexual abuse and replace wiht sharing a bed with a child to watch a film remove plastic surgery and replace with diagnosed with vitiligo and lupus, the latter of which is potentially lethal but is in remission in Jackson's case add "and he loves children and would never hurt one" "he is loved by millions of people the world over"

change "Jordan Chandler, the son of former Beverly Hills dentist Evan Chandler, represented by civil lawyer Larry Feldman, accused Jackson of child sexual abuse." into "made an allegation that michael hurt him but actually michael was lookin after jordy and he was a sick child that michael took pity on and who turned on michael like a snake as soon as michaelhad done him so much good."

change long term financial difficulty and heath concerns to say "he is a kind man"

this is the best i have to start but we can wrok on this and make better and more soon

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDLexington (talk • contribs) 09:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we're not going to let you make those changes. Sorry. Wikipedia works to a set of important rules: edits must be from a neutral point of view and supported by reliable sources. The text above is not neutral and is not supported by any sources. It appears to be your own views on the subject, something we also don't allow. ➨ REDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 09:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is why i am putting it on here i have been reuqired to find some new friends after a previous discussion with an old friend who has no time for micheal any more HE IS A KIND MAN this is not just my own views and why i want you to help me! SDLexington (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The above doesn't make sense. Please slowly and carefully explain what you want to happen using plain English, bearing in mind that we are not going to let you make the changes to the Michael Jackson article that you are requesting. ➨ REDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 10:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

what so you are just TOYING with me?? and you were never going to print it anyway and you laugh your head off at me I know i am not a experinced editor but I am keen and I dedicated to the cause of michael.

1. change long term financial difficulty and heath concerns to say "he is a kind man" —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDLexington (talk • contribs) 10:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not going to do that. Is there anything else we can help you with today? ➨ REDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 10:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this is so far from being proper for this noticeboard that it should be marked as "Resolved - Question about article text insertion asked and answered". Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, both Redvers and I informed SDLex of policy and proper article talk procedure on his talk page. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

SDLexington (talk · contribs) was inadvertently caught up in this sockpuppetry case involving a disruptive troll, but checkuser found them not to be related, despite the similarity. Just adding this info in case it helps everyone resolve their Michael Jackson issues a little faster. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of the selection of changes you want made,the only one I can see that isn't wildly POV is about him being diagnosed with vitiligo and lupus.If you can provide evidence from sources that this is indeed the case,I'm sure we would happily include this.The rest is far too biased to be able to be included.Sorry. :) Lemon martini (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Hertzanderez

I have to go but there's something weird about this user. His first edit was labelling himself a sock of a banned user, he filled his talk page up with indef blocked templates, then started to tag articles with templates. Most of the templates have been appropriately placed, which is why I haven't just assumed "BLOCK HIM GRAGAGAGARHHH". Someone may want to keep an eye on his edits to see if he means well or not - I am going to the pub so can't do it. Ta. Neıl 龱 17:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Nakon 17:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Time to end the prohibition on biographies of people known for one event?

Murder of James Bulger is one example.

Who are we trying to kid? The article is on James Bulger. Adding "murder of" is wikilawyering to try to get James Bulger covered.

Why not delete the George W. Bush article and change it to "Pre-presidential life and presidential life of George W. Bush"? We are just creating episode titles like TV shows.

The debate should be whether a local murder is worthy of an encyclopedia, not banning people's names and wikilawying a compliant title.

BVande (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a proposal for a guideline being considered at the moment that would address titling and content issues like this. Have a look at WP:N/CA for the proposal on criminal acts Fritzpoll (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case, this sort of discussion would be better held at the village pump or on the relevant policy talk page. J Milburn (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with J Mil. There has been so much discussion on this topic in other forums. There are certainly valid non-wikilawyering reasons for having "murder of ...." titles. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• No thanks. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• While I agree with JzG's no thanks. I do think there is plenty of tabloid material in en.wikipedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Bvande is advocating here, exactly. I reviewed the article. It seems to be about a rather horrific crime. It includes biographical material on the victim, as well as on the two people convicted of the crime. It also includes information about the crime's impact on society (information about the press coverage, petition drives, and the like) and on the law (information about the Home Secretary's participation in the case and revision of the sentencing and the aftermath of that resulting in a prohibition on the Home Secretary changing minimum terms, and lots of other material). I do not see this article, even though it contains a lot of biographical material about the victim as primarily a biography of anyone. It IS covered by BLP policy, and it may be good to review it to see if there is material that could be removed (lessening damage to the victim and the victim's family, as well as to the perpetrators and their families) without impacting the article quality. But I don't see how this article is an example that demonstrates that we should change our approach in covering material such as this. Perhaps Bvande needs a different example. So I agree with JzG's "no thanks" as well as with Rocksanddirt's observation. ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lar. I am a little concerned about the length of the last section, which appears to detail absolutely every tabloid speculation ever about where Thomson and Venables now are (they're married, they're gay, they're Aussie, they're Irish, they're on cocaine, they have jobs, they're being supported by the government, etc etc).

Meanwhile, I had no idea it was so long ago. 1993! I could have sworn it was within the past decade. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the rest, I have to wonder just what a "local murder" is, and what sort of murder would not be "local". --Random832 (contribs) 17:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to write or change a "policy" or "guideline" to permit this--just start doing it and convincing others to do it. The so-called "policies" and "guidelines" we have now aren't prescriptive. If what people are doing changes, they will be changed. You're trying to go about it backwards. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed...

Resolved

Tim Vickers (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Archived discussion unrelated to administrative tasks.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:RFAR#JzG. Excellent timing, I'm off on holiday in a few days and have a three month project at work which has suddenly been telescoped to one month due to external events. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Meh, I wouldn't worry. They'll add it to that mistake of a Cla68 case which, since its scope requires everyone to substantially refight several previous ArbComs including Mantanmoreland, Durova, Jossi, and throws in the ID crowd as well, is extremey unlikely to ever get round to discussing you. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Don't forget that SlimVirgin's clique is also in the mix. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Maybe Guy could help us all by posting a timetable of when it would be convenient to him to have his behaviour scrutinized? DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC) But apparently it's only JzG who makes inappropriate comments? I'd suggest that you strike that last comment, Mr. Hill. Horologium (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC) I have never suggested that "it's only JzG who makes inappropriate comments". In answer to your suggestion, no. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC) The point I was making is that JzG is the subject of an Arbitration request due to alleged incivility, yet he is repeatedly subjected to "drive-by shootings" such as your first comment in this thread. If I was subjected to such behavior, I'd be a little testy, too. Horologium (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC) The fact that he always seems to be "busy", "retired", "in Cannes", "on wikibreak", etc, when something like this comes up, yet his actual editing never slows down, could in fact be an issue the arbcom case should look at. If he really wants to spend some time on an actual wikibreak I'm sure the arbcom would be willing to suspend the case until he returns. --Random832 (contribs) 18:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC) (ri) Ever heard of WP:AGF? I also wasn't aware that you spoke for Arbcomm. If I have any questions in future about Arbcomm I'll certainly come to you first. Cheers. •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC) And to whom is that polite and insightful statement addressed? --Relata refero (disp.) 19:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC) If you're talking to me - having opinions on what sort of behavior arbcom could or should be looking at does not require me to "speak for Arbcomm". --Random832 (contribs) 20:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat

Just a quick heads-up that I've issued a warning to 79.21.142.51 (talk · contribs) regarding legal threats (the page about which the threats are being made is this AFD). If anyone gets any further threats from him (he's made three so far from this IP), be aware. — iridescent 14:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Now blocked for 24hrs - don't want to block for longer as this will give him time to say his piece on the AFD before it closes, if he wants... — iridescent 15:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What a Bizarre AfD. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, perhaps the first time that interpol has been contacted to prevent an article deletion ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And people wondered why I stay away from AfD. I did like the Interpol comment, though. - auburnpilot talk 15:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You think the AfD's weird, read the article itself. Makes me wish we still had WP:BJAODN. — iridescent 15:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We do. Anyway, this IP looks like a sock of Torratte (talk · contribs), who has already been blocked for disrupting the AfD. Hut 8.5 17:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

See also Carol Johnson (artist) and its AfD. Corvus cornix_talk 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP Making Edits On My Userpage, Posing As Me, And Posing As Another User on Talk Page

[35][36] Edits on My Talk Page [37] Signing using Cookie Monster name. [38] Changing Another Name to Cookie Monster

Erm...<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

edits are over a day old, and there is no evidence (yet) that this is a single user-IP, so I don't see where a block will be effective at thiks point. Keep an eye open, and see if he returns... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Today's TFA: To Protect or Not Protect

Weymouth...check the history. To protect or not protect?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's some vandalism right there, leaning towards protect, but I'm not confident enough to make a final call. Articles should be protected in the cases of vandalism like this...but it is a TFA, and we should always be wary of protecting those. --Wikiacc (¶) 23:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the page history, semi-protection seems like a good idea (not full protection).-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sprotection now instated to expire at the end of the day.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Easily endorse this protection. Acalamari 23:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

RAS Syndrome _→AzaToth 23:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the alphabet soup (i.e. abbreviating "Today's Featured Article"), I was simultaneously writing this and patrolling Weymouth at the same time :P. Had to make it quick.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You could have saved yourself a 'T' and been even quicker ;p --Stephen 01:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• The vandalism started again within 1 minute of the protection expiring -- I've protected again for 3 days. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

AIV backlogged

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is backlogged, and the backlog is growing. Any help appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all who helped. DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review

Resolved

Could an administrator please provide the most recent non-vandalized revision of Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake for public observation at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 20#Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake? Thanks.   — C M B J   04:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but CMBJ, just look at the article's history and you can find this. --haha169 (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Super. I didn't realize that someone had already restored the article. Request dropped.   — C M B J   05:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Exceptional newcomer? User talk:Names of chief gods

• Names of chief gods (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

User:Nneonneo brought this user to my attention, after the user nominated [39] [40] Nneonneo for adminship. The user was unsure of what to do, and asked for assistance. I looked at the RfA, and discovered a user who had a red-linked username was the nominator. This made me think that the user was new, and lo and behold, at that point the account was less than 18 hours old. I looked at the contrib count, and saw a count of 52 - the first of which was a CfD relist [41], and the user has been using edit summaries right from the beginning - not traits I'd expect to see in a newcomer. I'd like to assume good faith on this, but I'm not entirely sure that this account is a person's first, but that's just instinct. I'd like to have a few more people look at this, and see what they think if that's OK. :) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We did have a user sock-nom their own RfA last month. Might qualify for an RFCU if Nneonneo accepts it. MBisanz ^talk 20:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I declined it, in case you were wondering. nneonneo ^talk 20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dereks1x has been exceptionally active the last few hours... This could be him... Maybe Alison should add it to the list to check? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems likely that this user is in fact not a sock of nneonneo, and if this is the case, I would advise the opposers in the RfA to refactor their comments as a courtesy after this is all sorted out. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a better solution would be to delete the RfA and pretend it never happened - there's no reason to keep it. Keeping may also prejudice distant-future RfAs for this user as they'd have to indicate it was a 2nd. This happened in another similar case a year ago when someone nominated a very new (good faith) user for adminship without their permission. Orderinchaos 18:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm currently sorting all mal-formed RFAs (from the old days before they categorized closed RFAs) and deleting ones like this where it was a mistaken nom, joke nom, etc, I've gone ahead and deleted it. MBisanz ^talk 19:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I recognize it as a sockpuppet for User:Names of gods, a SPA with a religious Truth to share, I think. I've blocked as such. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A message from Willy

Supposedly a message from Willy at User:Willypx2. Not that there is a request for action there. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not like anyone actually will listen to him or believe him. But I say give him a chance to prove himself. Rgoodermote  18:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If we decided to unblock, is there some .js code that could limit his edits/restrict his pagemoves? MBisanz ^talk 19:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)More likely to be Dereks1x - it's his current MO. Nevertheless, if the account edits peacefully and non-abusively, it can carry on. But the account has put itself on notice. Added: Not currently blocked, so no unblock to decide. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 19:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The only thing so far that has been done wrong was the addition of a historical template on an essay..dumbly I rolled back to his edit....good faith. As for a script...well I think there is a discussion at the Village Pump which refers to something like that. Rgoodermote  19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussing at VP:Proposals about page moves, and I find it amusing that Willy actually commented on it. No objection to letting him edit for a bit, as he actually claims to be repentant (apologizing to editors and the community, swearing off further page move vandalism, etc), which contrasts him with our friend Derek. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's relevant, but I declined an unblock request from User:Polly on Pills the other day, who most certainly is Willy. The user appears to be about. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that Willy is right. There are copycats. He has become some sort of E-Legend among the Wikis and forums. Rgoodermote  20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would a new user announce that they're Willy on Wheels and ask to be unblocked, unless they're looking for drama? If they were really interested in positive editing, they would just do it. Corvus cornix_talk 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no unblock request. The user actually just admitted to being Willy on the userpage. Rgoodermote  20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm of two minds on this. On the first hand, he professes to want to be a positive contributor. On the other hand, were that the case, he would have just created a new account and gone about his business. The fact that he professes that he is Willy on Wheels looks like a clear attention grabbing ploy "Hey, Look at ME!!!". Becoming a positive contributor involves simply contributing, not announcing your presence with fanfare... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• WP:DNFT naerii - talk 22:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, no action or response is required. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:AGF - if he wants to get it off his chest, let him. If he now contributes productively, brilliant. Neıl 龱 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A message from Willy/Actions

I have taken the boiler plate off of his userpage (it is a red link, and people don't change with stigma attached) and placed a note on his talk page. I'll watch his contributions for the next few days until I hit the road. I take this as rough intent from the discussion above. I'll take it upon myself, if the community is willing, to offer limited mentorship. No harm in a chance here, maybe we gain some good articles. [42]. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I'll keep watch as well, as I'm sure many admins will. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Deny recognition

Anyone interested in denying recognition of this? Here is a user name that seems to provide comparison commentary just like this blocked user name. This account is a dopplerganger account. This should have been a dopplerganger account, but other action may be needed to prevent impersonation. Here is a copyright vio user page. (note: that the link is to the entire user name and not a subpage of a user). You might want to check these as well. GregManninLB (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put it up for MFD, and am looking at the rest of that. That isn't a user page, IP addresses aren't permitted to have subpages. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I’m not aware that IP users are "not permitted" to have subpages, I don’t see a problem with it when the IP is static, and I don’t see anything related at WP:SP. Why delete these three with that rational, but leave 11 other subpages. (Saw it, request of Hu12 on the MFD)--Van helsing (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The interview transcript is a sub page (protected) of User:SushiGeek, now known as User:One. The source has indeed a shiny “© 2007 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.” at the bottom of the page. --Van helsing (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC).

User:Talyshli

Resolved

 – 02:14, 17 July 2007 Khoikhoi (Talk / contribs) blocked "Talyshli (Talk / contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet of banned user AdilBaguirov)

This user IS NOT BANNED. Hell, he isn't even a sockpuppet. Please fix his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.14.142 (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he is banned and he is a sockuppet; please see his block-log here. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Request To Block IP Adress 70.91.91.133

Resolved

 – No action needed CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

On some pages I have seen vandilism from an IP Adress from The Barrie Day Elementry School. I reviewed its logs and it has been typing nonsense and making personal attacks to people at the school. The talk page shows many warnings but only one block for one month or so. I think there needs to be a block for a year or better yet longer. I also think the school needs to have an email from a wikipedia admin. Thank You for your concern Plyhmrp (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Plyhmrp

A glance at the contribs shows that editing (and therefore vandalism) is sporadic. And some of the edits have been well-meaning, even if not perfect or even very good. On the basis that we attempt to encourage editing of Wikipedia (and on the slightly flawed basis that we have far worse IP addresses that we block sparingly), I'd be inclined to not block until there's evidence of prolonged abuse or nasty edits that would null the well-meaning stuff. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the logs but they reveal that more than half od the edits are random vandislim. That Ip Adress blanked one page and typed In comments like "I GET MONEY MANNY RULES" and they IP also says that people are so cool. There is also times where they typing gibberish and say hi. There have also been attacks to people who may be students. One of these edits to Rube Goldberg sayed "Willam Sucks" I assume Willam is part of that school. I think there needs to be more than one admin reviewing the logs like I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It's fine. No block needed. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No It is not fine. This IP needs a month long block. This IP disrupts wikipedia and has achived lots of warnings and two blocks. We need to issue a short block to show that we will block them if they are disruptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 20:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No edits now for 6 days. No edits for 6 days before that. No edits for 14 days before that. No edits for 6 days before that. And some - not all, not many, but some - of those edits were clearly well-meaning. This is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If we start throwing around month-long blocks of IP addresses probably used by dozens of people when there is no pressing reason for doing so then we're hardly fitting with our own motto. And Wikipedia policy doesn't allow for such blocks. Step One is to get a consensus to change a policy you don't agree with, not to demand that admins break the existing policy. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The editing is so sporadic that a block wouldn't have the desired effect. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and there's little to gain from a month-block to a school IP that only rarely edits anyway. And a month isn't a short block -- Kesh (talk)

Ok maybe not A large block but can we get a banner that says to edit login. This might help things. I think a one day block may help. More than half of the edits are meaningless. Need more warnings.

Can you please stop already? No more of this. This is a school with sporadic vandalism. Go find something else to do. There isn't anything to do here. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not tell me what to do Cwii! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please Block Me!

Resolved

User referred to blocking policy and a helpful JS script NonvocalScream (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please block me. I have been suspected of sockpuppetry, and I know where it will go. Please block me indef (and in the block log, put Requested By User). Goodbye. SimsFan^{Talk • Centre of Ops • Sign and Get Award} 16:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-requested blocks are not permitted. Nakon 16:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocking is not needed here as you can simply stop editing. Here is the Policy along with a reference to a JS you can use at your pleasure. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair I have occasionally seen an editor receive a self-requested block for the purpose of impulse control, but certainly not for the reason of making a point like this user seems to want. Dcoetzee 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiCrusading

User:RucasHost is most definately attempting to Soapbox around the wiki. You can check out his contributions and see what I mean. When I saw this diff [43], I just had to put it on the noticeboard. More people need to be aware of it. Hooper (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User has not edited in 5 days. What admin action are you seeking? You posted to the user's talk page. Did negative behavior continue after your post? Have you tried to communicate further with the user since your last post? It's not exactly clear to me what the purpose of your post here at AN is (instead of ANI, or Wikiquette alerts, or RfC).-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oddly and perhaps aptly, I find HooperBandP's contributions much more entertaining - he appears to be using wikipedia to promote his business interests. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? I've never once edited the Pepsi page, and thats how I make my contract money. Interesting conclusion. Hooper (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You are Hooper Booking & Promotion; you did write the article on Paducahpalooza, one of your own events, as far as I can work out. And you have some promotional or other involvement with The Wish You Weres, whose article you wrote. I don't give a stuff how you make your "contract money", whatever that is. I do care that you're prepared to treat us as fools and suppose that we cannot trace a connection between your self-declared interests, and your promotion of those interests on wikipeda against policy such as WP:COI. You may argue that Hooper Booking & Promotion is not a business. Frankly, that would not surprise me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't argue against your deletion on most, even agreed. If out of my contributions that is all you're worried about, then I'm not concerned. But I am concerned about more subtle crusading which is why I brought User:RucasHost to attention here. Where as I have indeed edited articles which I'm obviously aware and more knowledgable about, I could care less if they exist or not. This user is going article to article in a subtle attempt to shift POV. I'm much more concerned about that. Hooper (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I note that you and User:RucasHost have banged heads in an AfD, and possibly other places. It is always as well, in all circumstances, to declare your interests lest people take the impression that you are trying to game the system. The example you provided a diff for was innocuous, though - amusing, even, given his user-page confession of faith ... to change "evolution" to "creation" in the context of a discussion of the Commonwealth. Rest assured that as much attention is being paid to RucasHost edits as to yours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

Resolved

 – Backlog has been cleared. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a backlog at WP:AIV. Spencer^T♦C 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Tor proxies

85.178.226.74 (talk · contribs) and 91.78.115.171 (talk · contribs) have apparently been determined to be Tor proxies. Could someone block them, please? Is there a notice board for Tor proxy requests? Corvus cornix_talk 21:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:OP down the corridor second on the left, though both of these are checking negative, probably because they are both dynamic. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah, they were labeled by a bot, I don't know its reliability. Corvus cornix_talk 21:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock vandalism...

Okay, I know that the requests for unblock category is filling up with random pages because of a vandal... something on one of the templates? ... but I'm insufficiently 133t to find where the vandalism is. Could someone 133t3r take a look at it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Gone. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

New law in Missouri (USA): administrators and editors should be aware of, penalties include prison

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24673350/ Mo. lawmakers vote to bar Internet harassment

Don't think that this doesn't apply to you.

When you read the law and the state senate's commentary, it is more eyeopening. Conceivably incivility and blocking may be outlawed if the administrator or editor is particularly harsh or causes distress.

From http://www.senate.mo.gov/08info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=147 Under this act, the definition of "harasses" is modified to include conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose, that would cause a reasonable person to be frightened or intimidated, as well as emotionally distressed. ....

FYI only. Keep on keeping on.....

In another topic, Warren Buffet expressed fear that an American city will be victim of a nuclear terrorist attack. Maybe not this year, maybe not in the next 5 years, but he thinks it will have within the next few decades. Buffet is NOT making a Wikipedia death threat or even a nuclear threat against anyone.

Police sometimes give advice on crime prevention. Prevent rape, robbery, or murder, they may advise. This, too, is NOT a death threat, rape threat, or robbery threat.

With that in mind, the following is NOT a death threat.

It is very possible that eventually there may be a murder related to something that happened in Wikipedia. Let's not let this happen!!! Prevent this by acting kindly and not being incivil. Too often, experienced users, inexperienced users, non-administrators, administrators are rude and cause flare ups in temper. Don't let this happen. Listen to what the other person has to say! Make blocks with care!

Just 2 public service announcements. Somehow, I think that there will be opposition even to these 2 basic public service announcements!? Olop 2 (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Would the admin who encouraged the above user to register this self-confessed block-evading account, please clarify the grounds on which the advice was given and/or confirm that the block evasion is within policy in some way? Thanks. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There are 137 active admins who fit the criteria Olop 2 describes. MBisanz ^talk 07:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Then all 137 admins must go to prison ;). Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 07:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That admin told me that there is too much sock hysteria in WP and that if he unblocked me, he would have to pay for it. He said that it was ok to create a new account as long as I was not the person originally blocked as a sock, if I edited responsibly, and if I waited a few months before editing. Someone also mentioned that I should always use wifi, not my home internet, to prevent stalking. (This is wifi). Olop 2 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Also, what happens in Missouri really doesn't apply to any of us, if that's what you're implying. Wikimedia's main servers are in Florida. Only Florida and U.S. law applies. Oh, and I wasn't that admin. Grandmasterka 07:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Shame (re the jurisdiction issue - not being "that admin"!) , I was hoping that US tax dollars might be deployed in having me attend some Missouri court. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC) ps. I would hazard a guess that the original account was blocked for trolling.

• • • Strictly speaking that's not true. As an individual, you are primarily subject to the laws prevailing in the jurisdiction that you happen to be residing in. As a corporation legally based in Florida, the WMF worries about Florida and US law, but you as an individual may be subject to a different set of laws. In rarer cases, you might also be subject to laws in the jursidiction of someone whom you are accused of harming. Dragons flight (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Dragons flight is most correct. Criminal law is very different than civil law, and even civil law is different from country to country and from person-to-organisation to person-to-person. Given that the law discussed relates to criminal law, extradition is most certainly possible, unlike civil law where extradition naturally does not occur due to it being private law. As an aside, on the civil side of things, Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 is certainly a most interesting case to read, especially given that the main principle is binding on all Australian courts except itself. Daniel (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Remind me to avoid Missouri. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many other reasons to avoid the State of Misery, this law is not even in the top ten... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that was what I meant, but I was trying to be delicate. Relata refero (disp.) 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool; if this passes I'll be sure to check for Missouri IP headers on certain posts and incoming e-mails. :) Durova^Charge! 07:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Was anyone else expecting the post to end with "please forward this to everyone in your address book"? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The only COURT OF LAW I'll ever go to is the one in TRENTON, NEW JERSEY. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Missouri has much of a chance of getting me, which means I can continue to abuse my blocking ability as well as hurting the feelings of emos whose band articles I delete. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It'll be a cold day in Hell before I recognize Missourah!. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Here in Iowa some call Missouri the "Show me again, slowly" state. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll hold off on what folks from my home state, your neighbor to the North, say about Iowa. Sometimes it's funny though! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah. Next thing you know we'll be telling Sven and Ole jokes. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I only just noticed this. I've seen some ridiculous threads here, but this one takes the prize. — iridescent 19:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To my surprise, Sven and Ole redirects to Ole and Lena. I'd never heard of Lena, only Sven. Anyhow those jokes are funny. I've always liked the "rented boat" joke here. Those idiots! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Question, does this require a trial or can it be added to Arbcom remedies?--Cube lurker (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Votes on changing the assessment scale

Hi there. To get more input on whether the assesment scale should be changed, could users, both administrators and non-administrators head over there and comment on the propsals made. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the same thing I asked about before. So, can I add something to {{watchlist-notice}} about this or not? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

It has recently come to my attention that many users are dissatisfied with the level of abuse and inappropriate editing resulting from use of the anti-vandalism tool Huggle, and some would like to see its use discontinued. While I am reluctant to push for such a move, as I understand some people find it useful, it would seem that there is a significant problem which needs to be addressed.

I originally developed Huggle some 18 months ago for personal use. I made it more generally available four months ago in response to demand. Anyone who has developed software both for personal and more widespread use will appreciate that there is a significant difference between the two, and I spent a long time trying to make the software more suitable for general use, and even longer fixing bugs and implementing requested features. The nature of Huggle is such that it needs to make edits quickly and make many edits in a short space of time. While it does not require that the user work quickly, it allows them to work much more quickly than would otherwise be possible, and it would seem that some contributors do not take full care in doing so.

I would like all administrators to be aware that use of Huggle by a user can be prevented if necessary, and that they should not hesitate to do so in the event of abuse or inappropriate editing. Huggle requires a subpage in userspace named /huggle.css – for example, User:Gurch/huggle.css. This subpage does not contain a CSS stylesheet; rather, it is so named in order that only the user and administrators are able to edit it. Blanking and protecting this subpage prevents use of Huggle. Additionally, a list of all Huggle users may be found at Wikipedia:Huggle/Users; administrators may wish to use this list to evaluate the contributions of less experienced users.

If necessary, use of Huggle may be disabled completely, for all users, by blanking and protecting Wikipedia:Huggle/Config.

I would appreciate suggestions as to what should be done next – Gurch (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As (I assume) the user who prompted this post; while I'm now persuaded Huggle shouldn't be disabled altogether, I do believe we need to be more willing to remove it from users if there's any misuse/abuse, and not to give repeated warnings before doing so; the speed at which it operates means a well-intentioned misuser (or an outright vandal) can do significant damage with it if it's not immediately taken away. To save reposting huge blocks of text, my full thoughts on the matter are here. — iridescent 17:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC with above) Don't blame the tools for the person... If a user is being a PITA with Huggle, they would be one without it. It doesn't make users "bad users"... it only makes the bad users more efficient. If a user is disruptive via Huggle, they should be dealt with just as if they had been disruptive without it. Many many editors use Huggle appropriately, and we shouldn't punish them just because some trolls have found a way to make themselves more of a problem... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above — in fact, a post like this informing others of how to disable it is probably the most effective thing that could've been done. Don't be afraid to remove it from anyone messing around Alex.Muller 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be discontinued (but I do think that this page should now be protected since Huggle depends on it!!!); removal is simple and should be used. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with protecting that page is that I then can't edit it. It's been only semi-protected for four months with no adverse effects, and indeed wasn't even linked to until today -- Gurchzilla (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, you should either remove the links (!) or be given adminship just for that! —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that anyone who abuses/misuses Huggle should have the ability revoked immediately, and possibly be blocked, depending on the severity of the abuse [e.g. someone who accidentally reverts some non-vandalism edits should have the privilege removed but not be blocked as long as it is a first offence, but someone who goes on a rampage, reverting and warning 100s of users, and then making false reports to AIV should be blocked]. We do the same for rollback, [in severe cases] admin tools and AWB, why not Huggle? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 17:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Huggle is an extremely clever piece of work by an extremely clever person who was nice enough to share it with the community. I for one am grateful for that. That said, it's extremely powerful and I think we should not hesitate to take the ability to use it away from those who maybe aren't quite ready for the power... with great power comes great responsibility and all that. So I support the general sense here that tightening down who can use it and making it easier to take away temporarily or permanently if needed is appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 22:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If we could establish an administrator's reference page, listing the various automated and semi-automated editing tools such as Huggle, Twinkle, VandalProof, NPW, AWB, Rollback, etc, and how to disable them, I believe it would aid administrators in enforcing prompt sanctions proportionate to the type of abuse occurring. MBisanz ^talk 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

With regard to Huggle's main configuration page being full-protected, could we make an account for Gurch that is an administrator, but with the condition that he only uses it to edit the config page, if any other edits with the account show up, it would be immediately indef blocked? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think it needs to be fully protected, feel free to go ahead and do it. Just expect to be spammed with {{editprotected}} requests when I need to make configuration changes :) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just move the config page to something like User:Gurch/huggle_master.css and make the existing page have Huggle redirect its request? That way, you could still edit it, and no one else could. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Huggle is given a process similar to rollback. Users need to be screened beforehand and, possibly, must be recommended by an admin. Personally, I'd institute a stricter process for Huggle than for rollback, as a user without rollback (like myself) can still edit literally a hundred articles a minute with Huggle. --Sharkface^T/_C 02:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bah, since the general opinion regarding Twinkle was that if someone abuses it he must be blocked, I guess the same remedy can be done about Huggle (or *any* script for that matter). I don't necessarily agree, but there is no reason to hold people to a lesser standard for Huggle. Keep up the good work Gurch ;)-- lucasbfr ^talk 11:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Where Huggle has been used appropriately I am certain it has proven very beneficial, but where it has been abused... It is a powerful tool which in the wrong hands can create a great deal of damage, which means I am more concerned on the basis by which it is granted - perhaps there should be more checking, more detailed criteria for use, and even perhaps a more strictly qualified group enabled to grant user rights? I don't think removing Huggle generally is going to do anything that being more careful in its distribution wouldn't achieve. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that when I first started using Huggle, I made quite a few errors for about 3 or 4 days, as I was unaccustomed to such immense power. I have seen similar trends in a few other new Huggle users. I think that each new Huggle user should be put on probation for, say, a week. In that time, they would be cautioned to take it slow and learn the ropes. Too many mistakes in that time would mean that the user's Huggle privileges would be revoked and the user would have to wait a period of time before re-applying. I do not, however, think that Huggle should be removed from everyone completely. During peak vandalism times, Huggle can "filter" out most vandalism, and Twinkle users and people doing it "old-school" get the rest. Take Huggle out of the picture, and it is difficult to keep up with the vandals. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If use of Huggle is going to be restricted to those approved by a certain group of people, realistically that group of people would need to be the administrators (otherwise, anyone would be able to approve themselves). If so I need assurance that the administrators will respond to approval requests in a timely manner as it is me that is going to recieve complaints if they do not -- Gurchzilla (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why we're focusing on the tool and not the problematic user. There's nothing that huggle allows you to do that you can't do with your regular editing abilities the day that you got them. You can't fix stupid. If someone is going to revert changes, they're going to revert changes. How they choose to revert changes is up to them. It is the onus of the editor, not the tool, to decide what is and what isn't a good reversion to make. Taking away tools like Huggle and Twinkle aren't going to improve their ability to do it. The only thing it is going to do is reduce the speed with which they can do it. They can still look at two diffs and revert to the previous one, whether with rollback or with copy-paste. If a user is being stupid, then the answer is to help that user become less stupid, not dumb down or restrict the ability of other people to edit. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tools are fine. The people using the tools are not always fine, and sometimes they're a bit dumb. A giant red box saying YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR EDITS and DO NOT BITE THE NEWBIES and DO NOT TEMPLATE PEOPLE MAKING GOOD FAITH EDITS might help. taking it away from people (probably a small number) who just don't get it, and who continue to revert good edits, would be a good thing. Dan Beale-Cocks 18:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the users who use it and then sometimes, when they see vandalism, yet don't have a fast enough internet, and end up accidentally reverting User:ClueBot (like I did) or another reverting administrator/rollbacker, they accidentally revert a good change, yet then, after they revert the good change, they see the mistake, and then fix it immediately, are we simply going to ban users from using Huggle just for that? Cheers, Razorflame 20:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's where common sense comes in. We don't punish people for making a mistake and correcting themselves, that wouldn't make any sense. Mr.Z-man 20:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Although what I do think is an issue is those users who for whatever reason revert a correct edit and then post warning templates on the editor's talkpage (there's one on my talkpage as I write...). Twinkle opens the talkpage, which gives the opportunity to see that something's wrong, whereas Huggle just auto-templates without ever displaying the talkpage. While I, you, or any other experienced user treat these messages with the same respect with which we treat STBot templates, to a new user this could seem extremely bitey. I've had three Huggle warnings today; presumably if I get two more I'll be reported to AIV. While AIV will laugh it away, were I a new user that "You have been reported for persistent vandalism" message could easily drive me off the project. (I've just installed Huggle today, as I figure I should see for myself what it does, and am shocked at how fast it runs; I agree with Gurch, a long way above, that what's suitable for a very experienced editor like him is possibly not appropriate for general users. If that's elitist, so be it.) — iridescent 20:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if people mess up and don't correct themselves, then its a problem. Mr.Z-man 21:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why administrator refusal to look at problems in pseudoscience and alternative medicine articles is hurting wikipedia

The DanaUllman homeopathy case is coming to an end. Let's look at the time spent on it, and the evidence available at various times.

On 1 April, this section was posted, stating that a problem was occurring, and asking admins to look at it. Admins were contacted:

Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#pushing_articles_on_talk_pages

It was ignored, so I spent three hours or so documenting the problems.

Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#Misrepresentation_of_studies_by_User:DanaUllman

I asked several admins to look at this, on IRC and here. Noone was willing to act, they said it was too complex, they couldnt' follow it, and so refused to do anything.

So I documented it further, spelling everything out, and documenting it. This thread represents about thirty to fifty hours of work.

Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#An_analysis_of_Mr._Ullman.27s_claims_as_to_studies

Everyone still refused to act.

So I had to go to Arbcom. This section takes the above, and adds an aditional 20-30 hours of work, minimum:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#Dana_Ullman

It looks like he will now be blocked.

So, we have about 100 hours spent just to deal with a clearly disruptive editor. What could have been done instead with that time?

Here's a diff showing the time from first save of a new article to when I stopped in the day. It shows I spent maybe 5 hours on this:

[44]

After another five hours or so, you have this:

Creatures of Impulse

It is up for GA.

So, if I had been able to work on articles, not deal with Dana's nonsense, I could, perhaps, have made 6 to 9 GA articles.

Also, Dana was a highly disruptive editor. He brought up the same arguments over and over again, as a look at Talk:Potassium dichromate will show (that also contains the section where he tried to tell User:Scientizzle that Scientizzle actually supported him, and that Scientizzle was stonewalling by denying this. The time spent by many editors dealing with DanaUllman's constant disruption while I and others tried to make the community aware of the problem, and the community refused to act is also time lost for working on articles.

In short, the admin community's refusal to look at anything related to Alt med wasted DAYS of my life that could have been used in more productive things, yet had to be done because Dana Ullman was so disruptive that it STILL worked out to less time than he was wasting by his tendentious, disruptive behaviour.

This is untenable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Er - what exactly are you asking us to do? This is already at Arbcom. — iridescent 01:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a general plea (1) to enforce WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT and the rest of the alphabet soup with more vertebral integrity than we have been doing, and (2) to consider the effect on constructive editors when we decide to give borderline contributors a second, third, fourth, or fifth chance. Yes, this specific case has finally arrived at arbcom after hundreds (thousands?) of volunteer hours were wasted. But the matter could have been resolved with less cost to the community. Let's learn from this mistake. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Half the posts to the admin noticeboards are exhortations to be less timid in dealing with these situations, and the other half are exhortations to be more careful. I'm not going to learn anything from this unless you spell it out for me. Hesperian 01:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case, most of the evidence which went before arbcom was available for a couple months on the article probation page, but no admin would look at it, even after I did the second bit of evidence, with executive summaries so that they could understand it without having to read all of it. As Ullman is presumably about to be banned by the arbcom (six votes for, none against, last I checked) we can presume the evidence is compelling, but this case was a very clear-cut one. He necromancied discussions, substantially repeating things that had occupied pages of discussion (initiated by him) just a few days before. He misrepresented his sources, and was caught out doing this again and again. He talked about how civil he was being, or how he was assuming good faith, in the middle of attacks on other editors. He was a NIGHTMARE, and repeated requests to get admins to look at him were completely ignored, with no responses, or ones saying that they weren't willing to bother with complex evidence.

This was an editor who waltzed through an article probation causing disruption left and right, who tried to force his POV into unrelated articles, like Charles Darwin and Ludwig von Beethoven. And the system couldn't even deal with him until after it went to arbitration. I don't think there's any need for the admin community to block on scant evidence. But the evidence was THERE, and the admins ACTIVELY REFUSED TO LOOK AT IT, because it was to do with Homeopathy, and all the admins decided to shirk their responsibility because they didn't want to get involved in a contentious area - you know, the type of area that most needs admins to step in and uphold Wikilaw and order. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins should (and do) deal with disruption. But it sounds like you expect them to take sides on content disputes also, which they do not do. It looks like Arbcom is trying something new to deal with this sort of issue- see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Proposed decision. Friday (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

However, Friday's comment is particularly clueless as to the actual events being discussed. The issues regarding Ullman included willful (there's no way the example here could be accidental) misrepresentation of another wikipedian's words (which was also typical of his behaviour with sources), and Friday's comment is probably a good explanation of why the admin community failed in this case. The evidence that this was not a content dispute was there, but, Friday simply dismisses the complaints because the person happens to be a holder of a fringe view, falsely claiming that it's a content dispute, is a good way to cause frustration, to permit massive disruption to happen unchecked, and is a shirking of responsibility. As well, it also means that the holders of such views throw out all the core policies: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V, and WP:CONSENSUS, as not the duty of admins to look at.

Ullman, by virtue of being a fringe proponent, seems to have been allowed to make egregious personal attacks, to attack others while praising himself for his civility, to edit war for inclusion of material against consensus, and generally be a tendentious editor.

In the example I gave at the start, Ullman was he's caught actually modifying another user's words, in order to make it appear that the user supported him, at the same time as he accuses the editor he was misrepresenting of stonewalling, because that editor was strenuously denying Ullman's claims that said editor supported Ullman's views. (It must be said that incident was so over the top that he got topic banned for it, but very similar behaviour had been ongoing throughout Ullman's editing career.

I feel guilty about picking on Friday, and do apologise for using you as an example, but you basically gave a good, and sadly all too believable answer to my question as to why admins refused to look at the evidence. In the end, the purpose of this project is to build an encyclopedia. Saying that admins can never look at anything remotely related to a content dispute issue means that WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:CONSENSUS are being judged as completely unimportant, and that the core purpose of Wikipedia is not an admin's concern. Which leads one to ask, "What the hell is, then?" Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I kind of wish you had spent the time making 6 to 9 more GA articles. At least then I would have been able to read this noticeboard and not feel attacked for being part of "everything wrong with the current batch of admins". Personally, I've spent the past few days working on NRHP stuff, like the infobox generator and other queries, and I spent a fair amount of time trying to convert data from the IUCN database so I could check the correct categorization on protected areas. Oh, yeah, and I've also been involved in a Mediation Cabal case between an editor who's an expert in his field -- so much so that he doesn't have to cite sources -- and a random article tagger who barely had time to explain why he wanted citations in the article. But thanks a hell of a lot for lumping me in with every admin you want to characterize as doing a bad job because you're frustrated. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your point is valid, but it's worth remembering that you are lumped in with the rest of the admins, because it's one big project. Anyone could say, quite fairly and accurately, that you hold a position of responsibility and prestige at the world's leading encyclopedia of pseudoscience and quackery. It is probably not to anyone's benefit to respond angrily to an editor for getting frustrated at our failures to deal with these problems, of which we have been aware for a long time. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I also apologise that you saw my initial rant - I was frustrated, but had already removed those words by the time you posted. It is true that the admins as a whole failed in this case to deal with a majorly disruptive editor in a timely manner, and that there were systemic problems that caused this, including, possibly, a view that anything that had any whiff of a content dispute about it could be dismissed without looking at the merits of the case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to sophistry and pseudoscience, as well as all the disruption that comes from cranks at various "Alternative medicine" articles. However, I really don't want to get trolled all day with rhetoric, nonsense and five page rants, so I tend to avoid it. Aaron Schulz 04:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a good discussion going on about the fringe pov pushing problem viz dispute resolution/admin intervention, with some proposed solutions, at Raul's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654/Civil_POV_pushing -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This was never as clearcut as you are making it out to be, Shoemaker's. My interactions with Ullman have been limited, and negative, but I certainly can't say that the problems with Ullman boil down to straightforward pillar violations. For example, the WP:V issues with Ullman aren't about Ullman refusing to cite sources; they are about Ullman providing sources that others feel are disreputable. Furthermore, opinions on the reputability of Ullman's sources are aligned with opinions on the efficacy of homeopathy: if you are certaint homeopathy is bunk, you'll be suspicious of any journal that publishes a study in support of it. In situations like this it is extremely difficult for an admin to neutrally enforce WP:V. In fact, I suspect that it is not even possible to neutrally enforce WP:V in a situation like this, because nothing in WP:V leads us inevitably to the conclusion that one party to the dispute is in the right. Rather, you have to decide who has the stronger content argument before you can interpret the dispute in WP:V terms. Hesperian 04:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That was only true until the point that it was discovered that Ullman was actually lying about the content of the studies. Let's go with a simple example. It's not the BEST example of his misrepresentation, but it's able to be shown in two reasonably short quotes.

Here's an editorial from the Lancet, quoted in full. I've highlighted a few bits, you'll see why in a moment

“ If Petr Scrabanek were alive, we could expect to be chided for publishing this week's paper by Reilly et al. The basis for scientific thinking, he declared, is rational skepticism: "Irrational skepticism is characterised by an inability to accept the category of the absurd"[footnote here to doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(86)91055-X] And what could be more absurd than the notion that a substance is therapeutically active in dilutions so great that the patient is unlikely to receive a single molecule of it? Reilly and his homeopathic co-workers gave such substances to patients with allergic asthma and detected activity - even though hardly the activity that would impress a respitory allopathist. They invite us to choose between two interpretations of this activity: either there is something amiss with the clinical trial as conventionally conducted (theirs was done with exceptional rigour); or the effects of the homoeopathic immunotherapy differ from those of placebo. Yes, the dilution principle of homoeopathy is absurd; so the reason for any therapeudic effect presumably lies elsewhere. But, no, carefully done work of this sort should not be denied the attention of Lancet readers. How will they respond to Reilly's challenge? And will reilly now treat us to a comparison of high dilutions and low? ”

And here's Ullman's description of it.

“ Does a Lancet editorial count? Is the Lancet RS enough, or is it only notable if the editorial is antagonistic to homeopathy? Within hours (!) after I posted information about a pro-homeopathy editorial in the Lancet in the article on Potassium dichromate, Baegis insisted upon archiving the information, despite the fact that the discussion was active between parties. When I then posted a similar body of information at the user page of Tim Vickers, he too chose to archive the information shortly after it was posted, even though there were much earlier discussions that he didn't choose to archive. Whether you or others assert that there were "good reasons" to archive this information, I am still wondering why you haven't chosen to include this Lancet editorial and Lancet meta-analysis on allergic disorders in the article on homeopathy...or why you continually insist that there is no "notable body of evidence." It seems that some editors here do a good job at ignoring or archiving or simply insisting that studies in high-impact RS jouranls be not noted referenced in the articles. If the editors here who speak against me are truly interested in maintaining NPOV and RS information, it would seem that a Lancet editorial that accompanied a meta-analysis would be notable, and yet, despite several efforts to encourage its placement in the article on homeopathy, stonewalling happens. The Lancet's editorial was published in response to the 3rd trial Dr David Reilly's team had conducted on the treatment of people with various allergy disorders and found significant results each time, December 10, 1994, p. 1585. The editorial asserts, "They (Reilly, et al) invite us to choose between two interpretations of this activity: either there is something amiss with the clinical trial as conventionally conducted (theirs was done with exceptional rigour); or the effects of the homoeopathic immunotherapy differ from those of placebo." The editorial further says, "carefully done work of this sort should not be denied the attention of Lancet readers." In the article by Reilly, he says, "Either answer suggested by the evidence to date--homoeopathy works, or the clinical trial does not--is equally challenging to current medicine science." Later on, he concludes, "Our results lead us to conclude that homoeopathy differs from placebo in an inexplicable but reproducible way." (p. 1606) It seems a bit odd that the Reilly research is not mentioned at all in the homeopathy article. What you choose to do with this information will be revealing. ”

He claims it is a "pro-homeopathy" editorial; the editorial says "Yes, the dilution principle of homoeopathy is absurd; so the reason for any therapeudic effect presumably lies elsewhere." Homework: Continue to compare Ullman's claims about the editorial with what the editorial says. WP:CIVIL says that "Lies; deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page so as to mislead one or more editors." is a category of uncivil behaviour. Is Ullman's information about the content of the Lancet editorial false? Remember he says it is a "pro-homeopathy" editorial. Is Ullman attempting to mislead editors as to what the Lancet editors think about homeopathy? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that as close to "clearcut" as you can get? The Lancet publishes a study that concludes that "homoeopathy differs from placebo in an inexplicable but reproducible way.", then defends their decision to do so in an editorial that states "Yes, the dilution principle of homoeopathy is absurd... but, no, carefully done work of this sort should not be denied the attention of Lancet readers." Ullman wants to include it, and is guilty of cherry-picking the best quotes out of it, and ignoring the "absurd" one. On the other hand, Ullman's opponents are guilty of ignoring a study that the Lancet pointedly did not ignore. And you think a content dispute this complex can and should be resolved by an uninvolved administrator enforcing WP:V? Not a chance. Hesperian 05:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Dana cherrypicks everything he quotes, up to ridiculous extremes. He finally got topic banned when he misquoted an editor and then later claimed that the editor was wrong about his own opinions. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that; I've experienced it myself.[45] My point is not that Dana is right; my point is that it is unreasonable to expect admins to see this as a clearcut case where the required administrative intervention is apparent. On the contrary, this is an exceedingly complicated content dispute, and it is not at all clear to me where and when it would have been appropriate for an administrator to intervene. Hesperian 05:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if others are clearer. But it is nonetheless true that given quite a number of examples of that type, combined with Ullman's CONSTANT attacks on other editors for not quoting a sentence he likes, no matter how irrelevant in the context, it becomes very clear that Ullman thinks rules are for other people. Combined with the frequent low-level personal attacks, canvassing, and that his attacks on other editors extended to pages with completely different groups, e.g. Talk:Ludwig_van_Beethoven#Homeopathy, where, in response to people saying he must back his claims that Ludwig von Beethoven attributed the improvement of his health to homeopathy, or, indeed, ever used homeopathy at all, he instead attacks other editors:

“ First, I am sorry that several of the people making comments here have little or no knowledge of the life of Beethoven, and instead, they simply seek to UNDO what scholarly writing that I do in various articles. RDOLivaw seems to be one such person. S/he is also 147.171.255.159 and 147.171.255.140, and s/he has a strong POV, rarely provides NPOV references, and primarily seeks to UNDO the NPOV references I provide. My writing at this site is FULL of direct references to NPOV source material, and they link to the specific pages in Beethoven's "Conversations Books" (RDOLivaw seems to be not familiar with these documents). Unless you read the source material that I have cited and found that it is incorrect, please acknowledge that you are working in ignorance. Please note that I do not simply "claim" that Beethoven took homeopathic medicines, I show it to be true. Please also note that I purposefully choose not to reference my new book on famous people who used homeopathy due to COI. Dana Ullman Talk 15:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi, yes I have previously been those two IPs - as I told Dana this morning on his talk page. I registered an account today after realising that my IP address was not static. My edits speak for themselves, however that is highly irrelevant here. I agree with the content of the two posts below, and stand by my comment above. --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

”

As can be seen later down that section, he claims people are following him around - then is provided with hard evidence that all are regulars on the Beethoven page.

Likewise. Talk:Charles_Darwin#Darwin_and_Dr._James_Manby_Gully where he refuses to work with the reglar editors of Charles Darwin either, and Talk:Charles_Darwin's_illness#Darwin.27s_experiences_with_Dr._James_Manby_Gully where his misrepresentation of sources is also discussed, again, with a different set of editors. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Basically, Shoemaker is right. Ullman should have been stopped long before he needed arbitration. Too many people were guilty of not using common sense - of not realising that since homeopathy is bunk, homeopathy advocacy is fringe POV-pushing and should be dealt with accordingly. My original indefinite block of Ullman, back in November, should have stood, and I should not have consented to an unblock. Collectively, the admin corps fucked up pretty badly here. We need to spend less time wittering on IRC and a bit more time getting our hands dirty with actually fixing the various issues the encyclopaedia has. Because that's our job: we're supposed to administer - or, in other language, run the show. We can do it: we have the tools to do so and the backing of most of the community, plus ArbCom - so why don't we? The admin corps cannot afford to evade its responsibilities for too much longer. Otherwise we will become discredited. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker decided to spend this amount of time on this issue, no one forced him. I'd love to know what he found about the behavior of the science side editors. Too many people delve into the pseduo science/science debate looking at only one side. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides. One thing I will agree with, too many people, both admins and non admins, are sick of this issue because neither side will work with the other. Just like when someone gets blocked, there's usually another admin willing to unblock, so its gotten to the point that a lot of just don't bother anymore. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What sides? Science vs. psuedoscience? If so, then "plenty of blame" is pretty unqualified. Seems like another vague "everybody does it" statement which fails to account for the magnitude of difference and then just equivocates everyone. Aaron Schulz 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Moresci, though homeopathy is indeed bunk in my opinion and yours (I usually say a little more strongly, "dangerous nonsense"), it is very unfortunately somewhat more than Fringe and we need to give it the appropriate attention--this will at least let people not already with a fixed prejudice in favor of the theory see it clearly as nonsense.DGG (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree that we do need to cover these things. For example, in the case of homeopathy we'd give the background that in Hahnemann's time conventional medicine was likely to do more harm than good (the germ theory of disease was still in the future) so that by comparison an ineffective but harmless treatment was better. Lots of fringe/pseudo stuff is interesting and notable. The problem comes when people press the idea that nonsense is sense. How does one "work with" editors who absolutely insist that they can talk to ghosts using tape recorders and that the article must reflect this "fact"? How long do they get to hold article hostage with NPOV tags? How long do they get to tie talk page discussions in knots? Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually in the process of writing up the 6 painful months which culminated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Strider12 as a case study in how we fail to deal effectively with these sorts of problems. Here's are some thoughts:

• Admins should get involved, but leaning on one or two admins to police a troubled area is a recipe for burnout and disaster. We need more.
• The community can !vote at RfA for admins who have actually done good work in these areas, rather than holding involvement in any sort of controversy against a candidate. Guess who chose the current admin corps? It wasn't teh cabalz, it was you - either by !voting or by not !voting at RfA. If you support candidates with 3000 automated vandalism reverts and oppose those who engage in more controversial areas, then don't be surprised when admins seem unwilling or incompetent to step up to these sorts of issues.
• Yes, it would be great if we could tailor a custom-made remedy to each disruptive editor, using topic bans, mentorship, probations, and so forth. But it's absolutely not feasible on a large scale. Admin time is limited, and good mentors even more so. Yes, an indefinite block is a blunt instrument, but we need to balance the ideal with the realistic here.
• Be part of the solution. People willing to complain about admin abuse and unjust indefinite blocks are plentiful. People willing to see these blockees as more than an abstract cause and follow up by mentoring the blockee after the evil clique's abusive block is lifted are a much rarer breed.
• The "pro-science" editors need to do a better job. It's easy to belittle fringe POV-pushers, and they are undoubtedly hurting the encyclopedia. But here's reality: it's not enough to be right about those sorts of things. This is not just an encyclopedia but a collaborative project, and if you're constantly and wantonly uncivil then you're only making it easier for people to view the fringe POV-pusher as a sympathetic underdog and you as a rude bully.

Dana Ullman was a bit of a special case. He is an easily identifiable, relatively prominent person, and I think it's appropriate to proceed cautiously in such cases. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

These are very sensible, thoughtful comments. We need more cops, and we need more people mentoring, or at least following up on, difficult editors in these areas. I can think of several editors who push marginal historical or political POVs whom absolutely nobody keeps tabs on. About RfA, I must say I was shocked by one or two recent RfAs that failed in spite of - in fact because of a willingness to engage in these areas. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>My reading of this thread, is that Shoemaker is basically pointing out a situation where we are inefficient, that we have some problems, and might want to consider different approaches. Several others have responded to him, most agreeing with him that we are indeed inefficient and that we have problems, but essentially maintaining that no other approaches should be considered, or making other unusual responses. I think this all boils down to two questions:

• Folks, do you agree we have a problem?
• If you agree we have a problem, what should we do?--Filll (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a blog post overnight that relates to this thread--specifically regarding the systemic problems and how to solve them so our volunteer resources get used more efficiently. The link is available near the top of my user talk page. Durova^Charge! 18:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

One can also find the Durova blog post on this subject at [46].--Filll (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins, pseudoscience etc - Arbitrary section break (first)

This comment (from MastCell above) "The "pro-science" editors need to do a better job. It's easy to belittle fringe POV-pushers, and they are undoubtedly hurting the encyclopedia. But here's reality: it's not enough to be right about those sorts of things. This is not just an encyclopedia but a collaborative project, and if you're constantly and wantonly uncivil then you're only making it easier for people to view the fringe POV-pusher as a sympathetic underdog and you as a rude bully." is I think very perceptive. I would add that for me at least, it can become impossible to contribute when my contributions would be "supporting" editors who are "constantly and wantonly uncivil". That is to say, some pro-science editors can actually be driven away from articles by the poor behaviour of others. DuncanHill (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you actually demonstrate that the pro-science side is grossly incivil, as is being claimed here? Because that's a major assertion to make without proof. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that all pro-science editors are grossly uncivil - far from it. There are, however, a few prominent editors (including at least one admin) in this area who are regularly castigated for their incivility, yet never change and who, in my opinion, contribute to a poisonous atmosphere. DuncanHill (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To validate the two most prominent examples, read this ArbComm imposed civility parole for one anti-pseudoscience editor (and the evidence that underlies and requires that restriction) and the blindingly obvious consensus that another regular anti-pseudoscience editor has a civility problem at this RFC. GRBerry 12:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say there's more than enough to suggest the truth of the statement further up this very page. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence of incivility on all sides. And civility is something we should all be striving for, no matter what our personal views on any subject are. I believe that this is clear, but not because it "drives away editors" (can anyone show me evidence of that?) and not because it creates a more productive working environment (can anyone show me evidence of that?). I think that being the 7th most popular website on planet earth and the number one destination for information by many millions of people, our high visibility dictates that we must err on the side of extra civility. Otherwise, a public relations disaster is just a matter of time (and there are plenty of past examples of that of similarly high visibility figures and media slipping up, of course).

However, it is quite interesting how Shoemaker's very reasonable opening to this dialogue, which was picked up and expanded on a bit by Durova, is being derailed by this standard thoughtless finger-pointing exercise. Look, this thread is not about who is more uncivil than who. This thread is about disruption caused by those who decline to follow the WP:Five Pillars, civil or not, and the damage to our productivity as a result. Why must everything devolve into basically irrelevant arguments about civility? It is irrelevant, and the brainstorming about methods for coping with disruption uncoupled with civility issues is ongoing at these pages. If you have some ideas, please drop by and suggest them.--Filll (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility is not irrelevant. Incivility makes people less willing to help an incivil editor, and incivility by prominent members of the anti-pseudoscience camp makes admins less willing to do anything in the area. NPOV issues are often subtle, and almost never as clear cut as advocates for a point of view claim. Something can be bunk, yet the article go overboard in describing that it is bunk and need to be rebalanced. To really evaluate whether an article fairly represents NPOV requires doing as much research as writing the article well in the first place does - the reviewer really needs to read all the proposed sources for the article and do some independent research before any opinion would be meaningful. Even if I suspect that the person complaining about a point of view issue is right, why would I want to dig in and put that much effort into a topic I don't really care about (otherwise I'd already be an editor of it) with a fair chance that I'll come up on the other side disagreeing with somebody who is known to attack those they disagree with? If the regular editors who are opposed to pseudoscience would get control over their supporters, they might get more help from uninvolved editors. When they instead enable and encourage attack dog behavior by their supporters, they make themselves pariahs. GRBerry 14:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I believe with this mindset you will end up advocating decisions that are detrimental to the project. If you want to make assorted assertions like this, you need data. Not personal conviction. Data.--Filll (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GRBerry and DuncanHill here. I would be far readier to wade into some of these areas if there was not the risk of appearing to support those who are repeatedly uncivil. Filll, if you look just a couple of posts up, GRB has provided two data points which seem to support his arguments. --John (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to indulge this. If you have a problem with the bases of our civility policy, go and argue on that page. The policy was Jimbo's central contribution, and there are endless arbcom decisions attesting to the points that (a) a lack of civility drives away editors and (b) a lack of civility creates an unproductive environment. In fact, the latter is pretty much definitional. Raul's subpage discussion is a nice place to vent, but we already have WP:DE and that's all we need. Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you is not policy. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with John and some of the others. Those in the reality-based group have to do a better job on civility. The community expects reality-based editors to remain unfailingly civil in the face of ceaseless provocation, while expectations for the pseudo/fringe camp are far more relaxed. I'm not sure why that's the case. Perhaps the reality-based camp is held to higher standards because it's assumed they should know how to behave, while one can't expect much from the others. Perhaps there's latent sympathy for the fringers as the scrappy underdogs fighting the establishment. In any event there's a double standard that the reality-based types have to accept and deal with. Yes, double standards suck, but it's ridiculous to think we can change other people's mindset. Just accept it and behave accordingly. Letting the fringers use civility as a weapon against us is dumb. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I stopped participating in this area generally because of the constant name calling and lableing of other editors by (primarily a few) anti-non mainstream editors/admins. I love the pseudoscience ideas, the history of them, the current beliefs, but it's all crap. Stop calling the editors spades, and start using the spade to clean it up. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>This "FRINGE problems are all about CIVIL" theory is a nice fairy tale. However, I have heard it over and over and it still makes no sense. FRINGE proponents have been blocked for being uncivil. Pro-reality editors have been blocked for being uncivil. Both have been warned. Both are cautioned to clean up their acts. Both are doing better than they were a year or two ago in that department, which is good.

But then, even when that is all said and done, we still have problems that are not addressed even when everyone is being CIVIL. And maybe these problems should be addressed. It would be great if one could use WP:DE to deal with these problems, but the way the current zeitgeist of Wikipedia is and its current culture, one cannot effectively use WP:DE. It does not work, the way things are set up. Some claim they have special persuasive skills for dealing with these situations, and I have invited them to come in to show me, and they have never taken me up on my offer. Something needs to be done, and I am not sure what the best approach is, but I am willing to consider any idea.

And to have people who have minimal experience in this area claiming no problem exists, or the problem is all on the pro-science side, or that the problem is only that we are not civil enough, shows how hard it will be to make progress here. If people do not understand the problem and its nature, it will never be fixed. --Filll (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of names here that have worked extensively in keeping fringe theories off Wikipedia, so I think there's enough experience speaking. Also, there's no reason provided as to why WP:DE, our basis for judging content disruption is not working - not to mention no evidence. I'm afraid you're John Terry-ing your penalties. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow - talk about a timely analogy... :) MastCell ^Talk 22:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't see such deep experience on these sorts of articles in this thread, aside from Shoemaker and possibly Raymond arritt and Durova. As for some reasons why WP:DE is not that useful, at least currently:

• DE is a behaviorial guideline, first created by User:Durova
• A guideline or policy is only useful if it is enforced
• It is not that clear how to enforce DE
• Only uninvolved admins are allowed to enforce this kind of thing, and so it does not get enforced
• it is often difficult to convince an uninvolved to spend enough time to get up to speed that they can enforce it
• Administrators have to know they will not be punished for enforcing this, or dragged into extra drama
• There is a fairly clear line for CIVIL and NPA and 3RR, but not for DE.
• Any enforcement of DE is met with howls of protest from many quarters on WP that we have to be more lenient to FRINGE editors. --Filll (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My dear chap, John works in categorisatio and race: GRBerry, among other things, worries about politics and identity in the Caucuses. If you think those areas aren't full of exactly the same sort of problems, you should leave your little enclave more. (Long enough to at least not say "possibly" Raymond!)

As for your concerns about DE, its a behavioral guideline, yes, like all our others. If you want it enforced more strictly, bring discussions here, with diffs that aren't misrepresented, and uninvolved admins, if persuaded, will take of it for you. OK? (Oh, and a diff of someone saying we need to be more lenient to FRINGE editors would be so much fun to see. Like a unicorn.) --Relata refero (disp.) 08:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you are skeptical. Fair enough. I understand your request for evidence and data. Also very fair. We need to approach this in a systematic careful quantitative way. And that is how we should proceed. I agree with you completely. But I will just note as an aside that there is a reason that User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing exists. Should we try to measure the problem, as you suggest? Absolutely.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If I might refocus the discussion - Incivility happens on both sides.low-level incivility (see arbcom evidence), Peter morrell, god bless him, has a horrible temper.[47] I don't think, however, that anyone reasonable can argue that incivility is the cause of, say, Ullman's lying about the content of sources, or of POV-pushing.

Incivility is, by and large, a symptom, not a cause. With no administrators to sort out disputes, even when one side is clearly in the wrong, the disputes are going to fester, boil over - and... incivility! Worse, because dealing with a problem editor is made so difficult, dealing with them is a source of major drama. In short, the refusals of admins to step in on the other problems causes incivility. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker is quite correct. CIVILity problems are symptomatic of underlying root issues that are not being addressed. And many featured content editors on Wikipedia are currently at their wit's end over this. By us changing the conversation away from the core problems to the symptoms, we are playing into the hands of disruptive editors, who are able to use CIVIL policies to their advantage.--Filll (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit chicken-and-egg. Incivility alienates people who would normally be on your side. The more civil you can be in the face of disruptive editing, the more effectively you will be able to advance the goal of an accurate, respectable, fringecruft-free encyclopedia. I enjoy hypothetical discussion as much as the next Wikipedian, but that's reality on a collaborative project staffed by fallible human volunteers. On a practical level, if you point me toward any area where you believe a disruptive editor is abusing WP:CIVIL to promote fringery, then I will do my best to address it. The regulars at the fringe theories noticeboard are also very helpful in this regard. MastCell ^Talk 00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"This "FRINGE problems are all about CIVIL" theory is a nice fairy tale" - well, I'm not sure anyone is actually claiming that fringe problems are all about civil. Maybe Fill would be good enough to provide a diff where someone actually does say that. DuncanHill (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, as I stated above, you want evidence of this problem with the culture? Well of course you deserve it. And therefore we will have to compile it, right?--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am asking for evidence to support your contention that some editors are "claiming no problem exists, or the problem is all on the pro-science side, or that the problem is only that we are not civil enough"", or that anyone is claiming that "FRINGE problems are all about CIVIL". DuncanHill (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins, pseudoscience etc - attempt to refocus (second break)

I came on here to discuss a systemic failure of administrators to deal with a very problematic editor, and this thread got hijacked - and evidently is going to continue to be hijacked - into complaints about civility. I'm afraid that I don't see what WP:CIVIL has to do with admins ignoring repeated, but polite requests that they look into a situation, nor with the problems caused by admin refusal to deal with editors who could be described by, say, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, or WP:TEND. I understand civility. But I don't see how it has anything to do with the case at hand, which is why thousands of user hours are being wasted by editors who are offering little or nothing to the project, and which administrators refused to even look at the evidence of their disruption. This has nothing to do with any WP:CIVIL issues; I want to know what went wrong that caused so much time to be wasted, and work out systemic fixes that will assure it doesn't happen again. Unless you're trying to tell me that you refuse to go into incivil environments to deal with problems, in which case I would like to ask you to grow a spine, given that you are administrators. You're meant to deal with problems. (Yes, yes, there's also all the bureaucratic stuff, and admins who just, say, close AfDs or handle page move requests are also useful, but they also aren't the type of admins I intend this to be directed to). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I watch this noticeboard, and am yet to see a well-presented report demonstrating user disruption across several articles that is 'ignored' unless its from a newbie or in an obscure historical topic. So some examples would be nice. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the situation described at the top of this thread, that is, the User:DanaUllman situation. You might also want to look into the history of the Joan of Arc article and talk to some of those who participated and their frustrations. They can give you a blow by blow account, in great detail. There are lots of such examples, frankly, of admins not wanting to help, or admins actually making the situation worse. And given our current culture, I cannot say I blame them for not wanting to help or misunderstanding the situation and inadvertantly making the situation worse.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of administrators don't want to become directly involved in this problem areas. You know what? I don't blame them. I topic banned DanaUllman under preexisting structures and gained support to implement a topic ban on Mccready. You should see some mails that hit my inbox from both sides, yet I've barely touched the surface of the area and those were both fairly clear cut cases. It's not a matter simply needing a "spine". It's world of potential harassment and drama to delve into an area containing highly-dedicated (to be kind) editors on both sides.

While I agree that both the community and the sysops need to step forward and seriously say "enough is enough", I don't think approaching the matter in this fashion is going to yield any productive results. For example, I believe that relying so heavily on the Talk:Homeopathy subpage alone was a fundamental error, in relation to DanaUllman. It's off the beaten track, so to speak, and that is almost always a Bad Thing for such intractable disputes. If nothing else, a few messages on AN and ANI asking for a few outside admin eyes on the reports could have helped resolve the issues. If worse comes to worse, you can also find admins here and here that can be approached by way of user talk or email to deal with problematic editors in controversial areas. I believe that while part of the problem is that the community and admins are not stepping up to the plate, a fair portion of the problem is also that complainants are not fully utilizing the avenues and approaches available to them. On a related note regarding complainants, most reports (that I've seen) about problem areas in wiki are high in arm-flailing distress and low in useful description and evidence. In addition, many discussions about particular editors in problem areas are often sidetracked by accusations about opponents and other editors. Except for a rare number of occasions I can easily count on one hand, exhortations to present evidence, avoid presenting cases with insulting and unnecessary commentary, etc etc are never followed. One of the best things that can be done when an editor is seriously a problem is to present evidence with minimal commentary or characterization. The more complete the evidence and more neutral/non-confrontational the presentation of that evidence, the more likely it becomes that someone will take action on the matter. All in all, those are just my own thoughts and you're welcome to some grains of salt with them. Vassyana (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this completely. We need a more regularized structrure making it clearer what is disruption, and how to recognize it, and how to catalogue it. It has to be easier for complainants, and it has to be easier for admins to look at. Easier is better. Then we might have a chance to change the situation.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In practice, "victory" when it comes to a confrontation does not go to the side with the best underlying merits: the best sourcing, or the best article-writing, or the fairest presentation. It goes to the side which can keep its temper the longest. Beyond the unfortunate consequence that the people on the right side of the argument can be the ones who exhaust everyone's patience, there is a certain degree of deliberate attempt to try to get the opponents to misbehave, so the misbehavior can be exploited. This can be seen not just in the escalation of a conflict, but in the skilled efforts to keep just under the threshold of an immediate block, giving an attitude where everyone aims at 2.5RR, or an effort to get the article so the version that is protected will be one's own. Added to the feeling that the other side are fundamental evil, or bigoted, or stupid, it produces a chronic tone than inevitably leads to these problems we are discussing. I am among those who will not edit much in pseudoscience, because I can not deal with my embarrassment at the hostility and foolishness from my own (science) side of things--I will never forget that, in my first weeks here, one of the people on my side explicitly called me a traitor because I was cleaning up a creationist argument so it could at least be coherent enough to be answered. Another though I was instead an infiltrator, deliberately posing as pro-science to edit from a creationist perspective. Those who cannot edit in a cooperative spirit have no place here, no matter how great their subject expertise or their writing skills. Their loss will be compensated for by the incoming good editors who presently stay away because they cannot manage the atmosphere on these topics, or the general editing manner on Wikipedia generally. I continue to feel the first step is to mark BRD as depreciated--BRD, a built-in method to ensure there's already a hostile feeling by the time it gets to the D. A childish device for those who think discussions means arguments, rather than collaborations. For the immediate future, it would help to have the willingness to enforce the normal requirements on all editors. DGG (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with most of this. And do we really want to write an encyclopedia where somehow the views represented are governed mainly by who can hold their temper the longest? Does not seem like it is a formula for accuracy, given my experiences in academia.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You look at DGG's statement, and that's the bit you pick up on? Please read it all. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I've had the same experience. I'm pro science in my opinions, but I couldn't deal with the other pro science editors, so my foray into editing the subject lasted less than a month. I guess what they've gone through has been so horrible it's made them this way, but when uninvolved pro science editors can see the problems, we know we have a problem. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also agree with DGG's observation that some on the rationalist side or pro-science side feel that if they silence the arguments of the other side, then they win and the encyclopedia will be better. Now I am a fierce supporter of science and rationalism, as anyone who has encountered me in a debate / argument knows. However, I have also much to my regret had many kilobytes of article that I wrote describing the position of the other side in detail, flushed away (as I have whined to DGG before). I am disgusted by the anti-rationalist side, but that does not mean I do not want to describe their antics in detail. And just removing it really serves no one.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Filll's sentiment (as I understand it anyway), if not the way it is expressed. The well-meaning people on both sides of this who have through their tactics made this such a battleground need to stop and either change their behavior or just go and do something else. I am a volunteer here like nearly everyone, and I have better things to do than fight with crusaders for "truth", whichever side they are on. All we need to do to improve these articles is to fairly enforce our policies on everyone. That there is little appetite for doing this among admins probably betrays a weariness for the undergraduate zeal prevalent in this area. As with the 9/11 articles, those who think they are doing the project a favor by aggressively attacking views they do not like are highly misguided and are helping nobody. --John (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Uga Man

Uga Man was blocked for sockpuppetry a week or so ago. Just yesterday, one of the same-IP-users (blocked Southern Texas) requested an unblock, claiming that his/her account had been hacked by his/her younger sister. If this is true, a good established user has been bOlocked for something that he/she didn't do. User talk:Uga Man as well as User talk:Southern Texas have been semi-protected, and therefore a request to unblock cannot be made by any of the suspected sockpuppets. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you'll find administrators willing to unblock here. You're always going to have these sob stories with bad hand, good hand accounts. "Oh the vandals moved out, so they won't be back," "oh, I broke up with that guy so he won't be editing on this IP ever again," "oh I talked to the vandals and they said they'll stop, so I should be unblocked." This is just like that. Metros (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just new at this game, but perhaps just seeing how things go with Southern Texas. If there are any problems or contrevercies, just block him. Isn't that why admins have their powers? Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 03:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem won't be with the Southern Texas account. It'll be with the bad hand accounts that he creates. I don't think we need to be running check users frequently to find out if anything's going on. Metros (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as an administrator, "my little brother/sister did it" is one of the sorriest excuses we run into. I probably reply to a dozen or more unblock requests a day, I would say almost 1/4 of the (3-4 per day that I do) use some form of this excuse... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My standard message in this situation is:

Given that we can't see into your home as to who is as the computer at a given moment, either this account still may be compromised or you did vandalize and are lying. Therefore, I cannot unblock this account.

MBisanz ^talk 03:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that its somewhat standard procedure to block compromised accounts. Mr.Z-man 06:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Qxz/Redlinks

Seems that most (though not all) subpages of User:Qxz/Redlinks were deleted a few weeks ago for no apparent reason. Would it be possible to restore them? They were sort of useful. If you need to move them somewhere else so that your adminbots don't get them again, that's fine. Thanks -- Gurchzilla (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The criteria used was "orphaned subpage for indefinitely blocked user", but I don't see any reason to believe that that is the case. If we had to move them elsewhere, do you have a preference? User:Gurchzilla/Redlinks would work well, I imagine. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is the case, but that doesn't change the fact that the pages are useful. If you're going to leave them in my userspace, put them under User:Gurch/Redlinks. Thanks -- Gurchzilla (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So it is; Gurchzilla, however, is not - which is where I looked. Give me a few minutes, and I will move everything over to User:Gurch, as you say. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've restored and moved everything. Please let me know if I missed one. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWNership of Larry Gales

I placed a tag on Larry Gales asking for more refs, and the author User:Chubbles removed the tag saying it was the wrong tag, so I replaced it with the explanation that it was asking for more refs and his response "'fraid not...the tag asks for primary sources to be supplemented with third party sources. This article cites one third-party source and no primary sources" appears to be serious Wikilawyering and trying to avoid having his article tagged. The wording may be inexact, but the fact remains that the article has a single source from AllMusic.com. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, and would like someone else to take a look. I went looking for references, but frankly for an article I'm not writing, I'm not paying $3 a shot to read the articles on Google News Archives on the guy to make sure they are about him and not just things that mention him in passing. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I added two references to the article, about him in full; one is a review of his performance with another musician, and the other is sort of a chronicle of his musical history. Most of the other available news references are trivial mentions. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre slow-speed revert war at Constellation Brands

Not sure how / where to deal with this. Someone seems to be engaged in a long-term revert war to add peculiar derogatory material into the Constellation Brands article. It's a giant worldwide liquor company that has apparently run into assorted trouble with antitrust and liquor laws, in this case in New Zealand. That fact may or may not be appropriate per relevance and weight concerns, but the editor has been introducing it again and again as a series of ungrammatical scribbles plus a growing list of WP:external links. Oddly, nearly every time the editor does this they have created a new throw-away WP:single purpose account: User:Crazybeer[48], User:Newsupdates[49], User:Newsreports[50], User:Webbchecker[51], User:Omanras[52], User:Americanchick[53], User:Kingstorm[54], User:Wikitester01[55][56] User:Wikitester02[57][58] User:Wikitester03[59] Plus some IP accounts that are obviously the same editor [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]. What to do? Wikidemo (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That is one disgruntled investor/customer... I have semiprotected the article for a month. — Edokter • Talk • 16:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest a checkuser and put a stop to a lot of this. One it's clearly a single user, it's a lot easier to point to. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ήλιδα

I was directed here because I attempted to create a redirect page to Elis. It was the Greek name for the island, Ήλιδα. I was unable to create the redirect because the name has been blacklisted. This seems like a logical redirect to create. Is there any way it can be unlisted from the blacklist? Neelix (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, such requests belong at Requests for (un)protection, but from what I can tell the title you've linked is not protected and never has been. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The title is most likely blacklisted due to Mediawiki:Titleblacklist. Nakon 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Nakon is right. I'll log back into my main account and make the redirect for you. Hersfold non-admin (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

....Or Nakon could beat me to it, either one.... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Any title including the Greek letter "Ή" appears to be blacklisted. --Carnildo (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

...due to someone looking for Hogwarts. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 03:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's now a 10-edit minimum requirement for autoconfirmation. So let's wait a month, and if Grawp has realized it's a waste of time to vandalize, let's relax the blacklist again. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The limit's slightly better than useless; Grawp has attacked from accounts that made good-faith edits until a few months before the pagemove vandalism. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 03:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* you know, what we should do is just remove the blacklist restrictions entirely because all it's doing is making him be more creative in his vandalism while preventing real contributions. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the above. As I said in the poll for increasing autoconfirm, this doesn't really do anything. Farming simple edits (even 90, the most extreme option taken in the poll) is an extremely trivial process. As an experiment, I wrote a bot in perl that would scan for lack of capitalization following a period; the whole thing was about 80 lines of code; more than trivial for anyone with access to the appropriate wikibooks, which is...everybody. That aside, since there's obvious consensus for implementing that, this blacklisting of unicode needs to be undone; it hurts legitimate contributions, and that's a big no-no. A determined vandal like Grawp with some basic knowledge of CS isn't going to be affected by regexen blocking any redirects or move starting with Unicode 'h' characters. He'll just come up with something else, or barring that, move onto another topic. On the other hand, we have legitimate contributions that are being hurt. What if the OP wasn't familiar with the bureaucracy of Wikipedia and didn't know that he could post here and ask for some help? What if he had just given up? We never would have had that contribution. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Could the Grawp-related regexes on the title blacklist be implemented to only prevent moves, as opposed to the creation of new pages? --Iamunknown 07:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, yes — I recently committed such a feature to the title blacklist extension, and it looks like it's live now. I've edited the blacklist to make use of it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

woot! (Oh and thanks for revision 35197 too! :-)) --Iamunknown 10:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unban notice: Rootology

The Arbitration Committee has granted an appeal of the ban on Rootology (talk · contribs). Rootology is unbanned subject to two conditions, namely:

• a topic ban with respect to September 11, 2001 attacks and related articles, and Encyclopedia Dramatica and related articles; and
• a ban on interacting with MONGO (talk · contribs).

For the Arbitration Committee, bainer (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to the ArbCom on their recent unbannings and assumptions of good faith; the net result should be positive. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't MONGO (talk · contribs) retired? --Dragon695 (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Contribs should answer that one. Viridae^Talk 09:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bainer, and everyone, thank you. I won't disappointment all of you. rootology (T) 12:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hold on a sec, wasn't he one of the major contributors to harassment on ED? If so, then why are we letting him back? I can extend good faith a long way as most people know, but not as far as the dirty tricks he's played in the past. This is one of those editors we can do without. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Probably best to contact the unbanners; ArbCom. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 13:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Ryan, I take your point, but I think you need to extend good faith just a bit farther... Yes, all that stuff in the past was very problematic but Rootology was away for a long time, and has said he has a sincere desire to reform. Given the specific topic bans, and the number of people likely to be watching him closely, the risk to the project if he was shining us on is low, he would be reblocked swiftly I would expect. And the potential gain in contributions and in good will is very large. Seems a good gamble to me. Support the unblock (not that unblocking needs my support per se, just wanted to say so.) Best of luck, Rootology. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... are there particular people you are intending to disappoint? Actually, if some of those you are intending to disappoint are those critics who believe you will not be a useful contributor then I am all for a little disappointment! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Civil war in Iraq

There are some very strange goings-on at Civil war in Iraq and its associated talk page. The talk page shows a number of threads calling for the deletion of the article, due to it being outdated and requiring a major rewrite. They all have a vaguely similar style and structure to them, but have been contributed by a various crowd of anonymous editors and single-purpose accounts. The most recent of these discussions, at Talk:Civil war in Iraq#Article is massively outdated; needs major updates., has resulted in a number of content deletions and revert tussles, which can be seen in the article's history.

The anonymous editor calling for the deletion/rewrite and removing the "outdated" content is on a dynamic IP in the netrange 204.64.0.0/14, generally in the 204.65.x.x area. Interestingly, this range is registered to the State of Texas General Services Commission. I am at a complete loss for what to do; I'm posting here in the hope that some ideas on how to proceed will be forthcoming. However, I have a real fear that this could become a much larger-scale edit war, and as I voiced yesterday, I think that a period of semi-protection would not solve the problem, given the long time-span of the "delete/outdated/rewrite" contributions. haz (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Looking on the web the General Services Commision provides an integrated purchasing system for state agencies, maintenance and repair services, operates a central telephone system and a mailing system for state agencies, constructs state office buildings. No opinion on the content question but i'd say the IP is probably just a state worker with an opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrator User:OhanaUnited

Few weeks ago I nominated my own image of a green turtle to be delisted because a better one was taken. Administrator OhanaUnited voted like this: "Keep. Wikipedia is not a place to advocate your personal views. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)".I was more then surprised because I could not understand what personal views I was advocating. So I asked him. Here's his response. Today I nominated the second image at Commons FP without delisting the first one.The image got opposed because the other image is already featured, so I left a message at Administrator OhanaUnited talk page.I hoped that he will admitt that I was right,when I tried to delist an old image in the first place and apologize for blaiming me in POV.His reaction was more than strange, but what has followed was even stranger.Administrator OhanaUnited has deleted my message from his talk page with the edit summary: cleaning out some garbage.He also protected his talk page from my editing, which IMO is using his administration power for a personal purposes.I understand that Administrator OhanaUnited has the right to blank his talk page.I do not believe Administrator OhanaUnited has the right to call my message a garbage.IMO administrators should be a sample of politeness and fairness.IMO Administrator OhanaUnited has none of these qualities and cannot be an administrator. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

though there is no reason not to have both images, and Ohana is right about that, the whole sequence of responses seems rather unhelpful to a contributor.DGG (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Notified him. Ok, I'll admit that the protection seems a bit strange (full protection on a talk page?) but I want to see if he has an explanation for his comments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Ok, per this comment, OhanaUnited says "per his gut feeling", he thought Mbz1 was just trying to start an argument so he's going to ignore. Well, I guess that's an explanation, but I still don't like an admin full protecting their own talk page after a single comment from a user they don't want to talk to (I don't particularly like the "I will not respond to anonymous editors' comments. Go create an account!" on his talk page but that's for another time). I really expect better conduct out of fellow admins but I'm not sure it's sanctionable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's my time to present my views. I chose to vote "Keep" that image as Featured picture because there's no guideline against having multiple images of the same subject. The image he attempted to replace with the already-featured is his own creation. Although there's no rule against being the nominator of your own image, but my gut feeling tells me he's trying to discredit someone else's picture so that his can showcase his image here. Also, at that time, his reason for demotion is "because I like this image better"[65]. Doesn't that statement looks like POV-pushing and falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It's totally his opinion and does not relate his decision to any technical aspect such as contrast, noise, composition, or focus. (Actually, this is a grey area. Neither the policies on commons nor wikipedia explicitly mention about allowing/disallowing multiple pictures of same object. However, the actual practice allow such occurance. For example: Image:Daisy1web.jpg and Image:Pollen.arp.750pix.jpg describe the same subject, Osteospermum, yet both are featured pictures. This proof, along with more, tells me that in Wikipedia, it's ok to have more than 1 featured picture on same subject. He even admitted this fact and found supporting evidence himself.[66] )

Then a month later, Mbz1 is upset at Commons regarding Featured pictures. He nominated the green turtle image that he took on Commons. Someone opposed his nomination because the same image Mbz1 attempted to replace with on FP on Wikipedia is already featured.[67] So Mbz1 came back to my talk page and dig up the argument that I thought it was over. Look at what he said.[68] He blamed me because he took my "advice" and nominated his image on Commons, which faced an opposition. Clearly, he's trying to find a culprit for being upset.

The reason why I removed the comment is because:

1. I am not the person who opposed Mbz1's nomination on Commons. It's another user. I am totally uninvolved in the Commons' nomination. I have no rights, nor the power, to change that user's mind.
2. It's on commons, not here, and they may have different criteria than wikipedia. He's trying to bring his displeasure back to wikipedia and unleash it on me.
3. Digging up a month-old argument puzzles me. Honestly, it's a month ago, give it a break!
4. I was exercising WP:BLANKING, yet Mbz1 ignores this official policy as if it's not there.
5. I don't want to be blamed for being the person who suggested something and someone else took up the suggestion but failed while trying to do so.

yet Mbz1 keeps coming back, adding the stuff I removed. In addition, his edit summary of this entry [69], which says "removeone it one more last time to show your incivility once again" tells me he's being pointy and willing to get into edit war just to illustrate his point. This is my reason to protect my talk page to stop this situation from escalating.

In my opinion, he is disappointed because he got 2 differently opposite response under the same situation in the featured picture nominations in Commons and Wikipedia and decided to rant it out. We are all humans, and sometimes we got angry because of setbacks or didn't get what we anticipate would come out fine. Hence, I ask the closing admin not to issue any warnings or blocks on Mbz1. (It's past 2am here in Toronto and I'm going to bed. Please don't anticipate a response or clarification from me again for at least next 6 hours.) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I am afraid OhanaUnited does not know what he is talking about. I've never blamed him that I nominated the image in Commons. As I said earlier I simply hoped that he will admitt that I was right,when I tried to delist an old image in the first place and apologize for blaiming me in POV. I left him a very polite first message and very polite second message, and after he told me he was going to ignore me from now on, I left him a very polite third message. Then he deleted my mesages with the edit summary: "cleaning out some garbage". I would have never restored them, if the edit summary were polite or there were not edit summary at all, but I hope you would agree that removing messages is a bad practice in the first place and removing messages with the summary "cleaning out some garbage" is first of all rude and second of all pointy while protecting his own talk page (it still is protected) is using Administrators' power for a personal and absolutely unjust purpose, and is also pointy. IMO what could be forgiven to a Wikipedia user cannot be forgiven to a Wikipedia Administrator. The bottom line is that OhanaUnited is impolite, incivil, ignorant and very rude. IMO a person with such qualities could be still a good contributer to Wikipedia, but cannot be a good administrator.I ask the closing admin to issue at least a strong warnings at the Administrator OhanaUnited. I said everything I wanted to say and I am not going to post anything more here, but may I please mention that, if I am issued a warning or I am blocked, or the Administrator OhanaUnited is not issued at least a warning, I would consider this to be a very, very big unfairness. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

n.b. I've interacted briefly with the participants here. That said, I do not think anyone needs to be blocked and jumping to that conclusion would be highly drama-inducing. After looking at the situation, I do not think anyone is at fault here. To set the facts straight, there is no actionable issue (in my opinion) regarding the nomination of the images etc. People differ on opinions and that is okay. However, there is a slight issue with the communication between the two. Mbz1 should realize that if asked to cease posting on a user's talk page, it might just be best to not post. Also, that editors can simply remove messages. Once removed, it can be assumed that they were read. OhanaUnited should realize that fully protecting his or her talk page and calling good-faith efforts to talk "trolling" is not helpful. A simple message stating that you disagree, etc. and explaning that you routinely remove messages would have been more helpful than simple reverting and then protecting. Also, the protection issue happened today, not a month ago.

At this point, I would simply ask Mbz1 to apologize for repeatedly posting the message and escalating this, and not to bring this issue up with OhanaUnited again, and OhanaUnited to unprotect his page and apologize for calling Mbz1's messages "garbage" and "trolling". I think we can all just move along and avoid further escalation if both sides can apologize. I realize this might be a lot to ask. Any takers? Mahalo to the both of you. --Ali'i 14:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone unprotect his talk page already. Seriously, WTF? ➪HiDrNick! 18:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not wheel-war on that so I will just highly suggest Ohana unprotect it himself and reduce the drama. Mbz1 now knows he isn't interesting in continuing the conversation and so, don't further annoy him in a useless effort. Thus there is no need for the protection in my view (and I really find it highly inappropriate). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

He can't hear you as he's got his index fingers in his ears while saying "lalalalalala"... at least that's the equivalent of an administrator fully protecting his own talk page. Not a mature or proper use of the sysop tools, in my opinion. Someone might want to also let him know this notice on his talk page "I will not respond to anonymous editors' comments. Go create an account!" is not very welcoming. --SimpleParadox 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that both me and Mbz1 are cooled off, I will now unprotect the talk page but I sincerely hope Mbz1 stops digging up old arguments when I thought it was resolved. I formally apologizes to anyone who is affected by this incident. Here's my question: Does Wikipedia and Commons allow more than 1 featured picture per subject? If anyone knows, please let everyone know so this won't happen again. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page) Frankly, I haven't the faintest idea. The criteria don't seem to say anything about it: the closest WP:FP? comes is to say that featured pictures should be "among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer". Commons:COM:I says that "normally there should never be two featured pictures that are just different versions of the same image, so if a better version exists the original version should be delisted", but I don't think the two turtle images are quite similar enough for that to necessarily apply.

In this particular case (and this is really more addressed to Mbz1 directly), I'd suggest bringing the issue up at commons:Commons talk:Featured picture candidates; I'm sure the folks there will be more familiar with the process. If you ask me, though, one possibility might be to try a special "nomination to replace", with voters asked to express the preference to either keep the currently feature image, replace it with the ostensibly better one or, possibly, to feature both. Or just let the current nomination run its course; things may sort themselves out on their own now that the issue has been brought to wider attention. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(now very confused) Let's look at commons:Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds. There are 2 FP of Anas platyrhynchos, a whopping of 6 FP on Cygnus olor. And that's only the bird category, more of this in other categories such as mammals. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We do not explictly forbid more than one featured picture per subject. Essentially, it's just another "other stuff exists" type of argument. MER-C 08:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Section Break (Administrator User:OhanaUnited)

I'm not going to comment on the dispute itself, but this message on User:OhanaUnited's talk page "I will not respond to anonymous editors' comments. Go create an account!" is simply unacceptable. Wikipedia admins are by definition going to have interactions with anon IP editors. Discouraging/disallowing communication from anon IPs is extremely counter-productive not to mention a violation of WP:BITE and WP:AGF. To be blunt, if you're not willing to engage with anon IP editors, you shouldn't be an admin. Exxolon (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there's no harm in saying publicly now that I was dangerously close to starting an RfC on OhanaUnited, based on that comment and other significant judgement issues. I request the statement be removed immediately (and apologise if it has been as I type this). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Could another admin not just simply remove it per WP:USER? —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's on the talk page and Ohana is an admin. I'd say it'd reflect well (or not) on his judgement to see what his response to these requests are, rather than just taking it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides, it's not like removing the warning will magically change how he interacts with others. Frankly, if he doesn't want to deal with those editors (and I surely don't like the idea of admin basically violating WP:BITE), I think it would be better if he announces it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If he is unwilling to deal with anonymous users, he should not be an administrator. Neıl 龱 08:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Neil said it best, "If he is unwilling to deal with anonymous users, he should not be an administrator". Also, a review of the protection policy is in order, his talk page should not be full protected, short of serious abuse. There is nothing actionable here, but if an admin were to form a pattern of such behavior it would likely end badly. _{1 != 2} 14:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the wording according to User:Ali'i's suggestion. But just to let you know, some foundation staff do semi-protect their talk page, preventing any IPs and new editors from even editing their talk pages, which is way beyond than just a notice saying "I don't respond to anonymous editors". For those who wonder why this notice was there, a detail explanation can be found here. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

His page is no longer protected, OhanaUnited has apologized, and he has now changed the warning to anonymous users. I think all is done here. --Ali'i 15:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• May I please thank you all for the responses? I'd like to clarify my position please. I strongly agree that there could be few FP at the same subject. I nominated my image for delisting becase I knew other users might think differently. Now may I please ask you to forget about FP? The matter of my complain is absolutely different. I disagree that Administrator OhanaUnited first blamed me in POV with no reason whatsoever, second told me that he was going to ignore me with no reason whatsoever, third removed my message with the edit summary " cleaning out some garbage" and at last protected his own talk page using admin power for the personal and absolutely unjust purpose. That's why IMO OhanaUnited cannot be an administrator on WIKIPEDIA. IMO he does not deserve such honor. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hate to say this but if that was enough, a lot of admins would be gone here. Unfortunately, I can't really pinpoint what conduct it takes to lose adminship (short of reverting Jimbo or an WP:OFFICE action) but most would say basic uncivil conduct isn't sufficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here's one more thing, which shows that OhanaUnited has no idea what he's talking about. He said: "Although there's no rule against being the nominator of your own image, but my gut feeling tells me he's trying to discredit someone else's picture so that his can showcase his image here." without ever realizing that both pictures the featured one and the new one were taken by me. He knows now that it is tha case, but he even did not bother to cross out his stupid and false acusation.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Mbz1, you should just let this go. OhanaUnited has already apologized and unprotected his page. Please also see my comment before the section break. A lot of drama can be avoided if everyone just drops it. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Apologized? For what? He's never apologized for calling my message a garbage, he's never apologized for falsely blaiming me in POV, he's never apologized for falsely blaiming me in trying to discredit someone else's picture. There were no apology about any of my complains directly to me, but you are right in one thing, Ali'i, I should let it go and stay as far away as possible from OhanaUnited simply because it is really hard to communicate with a person, who never knows what he's talking about. Thank you all for the responses.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

His talk page now strongly implies he is going to simply ignore IP msgs. He shouldn't be an admin. Simple as that. If he's not committed to communicating with other editors it's doubtful he's even on the right project. I think we should empower bureaucrats to enforce "no big deal" and simply desysop people without prejudice when they demonstrate a point of principle incompatible with their duties, or indeed a grasp of the project, as in this clearcut case. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your post, 86.44.28.186. Agree with you 100%. I do not consider the matter resolved at all.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sexy ass not being watched enough

For more than half an hour, the state of Rhode Island became known as "sexy ass u boys out there better watch out im out here" on Wikipedia[70]. Clearly, not enough users are watchlisting this important article. Please consider adding Rhode Island to your watchlist, it's not the first time I see flashing vandalism sitting there for an unusually long period. Thanks. Húsönd 00:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, and I've watchlisted accordingly. However in fairness Rhode Island is the smallest state, so it is somewhat more difficult to spot vandalism there.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm always interested in watching sexy ass, especially when it is smaller. ;o) Resolute 03:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Anything involving sexy asses is liable to get my full attention. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We've had some surprising lapses of attention lately — Talk:Internet recently stood for half an hour with the sole content of "É uma merda". Which might be true, of course, but still... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, when I saw this section header I thought "Honey, we've ALL got problems." (adds RI to w/l)Gladys J Cortez 16:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That made me laugh. Thank you. :) Rudget (Help?) 16:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I'd much rather watch an actual sexy ass, I've added Rhode Island to my watchlist. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WTF? Does someone realize that the Sexy Ass article has been incorrectly called Rhode Island for something like 5 years? Please more watch listing. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad username: EXTEREME ASS ANAL PAIN CRY TORTURE BDSM SADISM

Resolved

 – Blocked in 2006, it seems. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 22:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This username appears to be bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 21:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Fortunately, it doesn't exist. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 21:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

!!! EXTREME ASS ANAL PAIN CRY TORTURE BDSM SADISM (talk · contribs) blocked 14:31, 15 October 2006 by Misza13 (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 22:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That'd be the fella then. Very bad username. And very blocked. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 22:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Another Bad Username: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MY NAME IS SANGO! I LIKE TO FUCK TREES

Resolved

 – Blocked by Misza -- Alex Muller 22:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This username appears to be bad. Need admin action. Plyhmrp (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Plyhmrp

Also already blocked by Misza13.[71] Please check blocklogs before posting here. Also, inappropriate user names should be posted on WP:UAA. - auburnpilot talk 22:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Also blocked by Misza13. Plyhmrp, please check the block log before posting any more of these: it is very unlikely that a usename as obscene as these will escape our notice. Go to Special:Log/block and enter the user's name (with the "User:" prefix) in the "title" field. Hit 'go', and look for any relevant blocks. That said, of course, if you do find any inappropriate usernames what haven't been blocked, we would be very grateful to you for finding them. Happy‑melon 22:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible Socks and bad usernames

Resolved

Here are the bad usernames

!Linuxbeack is a faggot !Linuxbeack is an asshole !Linuxbeak is a cocksucker !Linuxbeak is a cunt !Linuxbeak is a faggot !Linuxbeak is a fucker !Linuxbeak is a fucking faggot !Linuxbeak is a hypocrite !Linuxbeak is a transsexual !Linuxbeak is an abusive admin !Linuxbeak is an asshole !Linuxbeak is gay !Linuxbeak smells like an arse! !Linuxbeak sucks dick !Linuxcunt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 22:56, 25 May 2008

All blocked in 2005. Please stop posting about usernames here. - auburnpilot talk 23:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Check their block log and if NOT blocked, report to WP:UAA. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Autoconfirm change (sort of)

The autoconfirm level has been changed from 4 days to 4 days and 10 edits. There may be future changes (per this bug) but I'm not really sure. As a reminder, the consensus was here and some instruction guides/ help pages might need updated to reflect the change (Would it be wise to let the change settle in first?) GDonato (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Let us hope that the second change does not take place, as it will cause more cut and paste page moves. Zginder 2008-05-21T00:28Z (UTC)

I think it's kind of excessive, too, but there is a very clear consensus for the 7d20e requirement. WODUP 05:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - the 7/20 option was by far the top choice, with 92 respondents picking it as compared to only 58 for all of the other options combined. 4/10 had only 25 people supporting it; the bug request should have implemented th e7/20 option. What happened? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I spoke to Brion Vibber and he said that he would implement the half-way option until we were actually sure what the consensus was, GDonato (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a bad idea to run a poll on a question that was considered and debated by a large number of editors, and then have a very small number of administrators decide that these editors in fact chose an option preferred by only 14% of the people involved. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't informed at all (I would probably have voted for an even stricter one than 7/20, but my point is it didn't see a wide enough audience) - where was it advertised? --Random832 (contribs) 19:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mailing list, community portal (I think there was also something on Village Pump or similar earlier too) GDonato (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and The Signpost too, GDonato (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally - how hard would it be to require mainspace edits? In particular, for edits to the sandbox or one's own userpage to not count. --Random832 (contribs) 19:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know but it is not currently possible. I think debating issues which are not presently technically possible was avoided intentionally, GDonato (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine anyway. If I see a "new" user who has been making 10 sandbox edits, it's the equivalent of having done no real edits. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I had updated a couple of guide/help page yesterday to reflect the change. KTC (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

First results from this sockpuppet and this sockpuppet. Seems to slow them down a bit, and might even contribute to vandal RSI, but this won't be a replacement for flagged versions. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't slowed down User:Scibaby at all: [72][73] Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MTC

The page Wikipedia:MTC redirects to the user page User:Betacommand/Commons. This is intentionally deceptive to users and is the most blatant violation of WP:OWN imaginable. In effect the user is saying "I am the wikipedia policy." --Lemmey talk 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

its a fairly common practice see for example WP:DOUCHE (no offense meant, its just the first example that came to mind) β^{_{command 2}} 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"This is intentionally deceptive to users and is the most blatant violation of WP:OWN imaginable" Uh, have you read WP:OWN? This implies no ownership whatsoever, and is not in any way deceptive (unlike your signature, Lemmey, which links the word "talk" to the article It's Obvious You Won't Survive By Your Wits Alone). For another example of a WP link that points to userspace, see WP:BRC. - auburnpilot talk 18:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRC and my signature (which abides by all requirements) are obvious jokes. WP:MTC contains no such disclaimer that it is not policy like WP:DOUCHE does. --Lemmey talk 18:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

its designed as a tool, and thus is not a joke. β^{_{command 2}} 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And doesn't claim to be policy either. It's nothing more than a description of how to properly use a tool, just as the desriptions on WP:TWINKLE and other tools are not policy (but for no reason must say "NOT POLICY!!"). This is a non-issue. - auburnpilot talk 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPRF is another example. β^{_{command 2}} 19:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Lemmey, I don't really see your sig as an 'obvious' joke. Few people will look at the status bar to check the target of a link when clicking on something that they expect to be a simple link to your talk page. Oh, and no, I don't think that the redirect is 'deceptive' or a vio of WP:OWN. It is a useful shortcut to avoid having to type out the full name, not a declaration of ownership. RichardΩ612 Ɣ

ɸ *** 19:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To say nothing of that sig directing to a REALLY weakly-written article. I went to the edit history (to make sure I wasn't going to insult anyone here if I spoke my mind) and I swear I half-expected to find "Catbert" as the main contributor. ...Putting THAT one on my "improve" list...Gladys J Cortez 00:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Since BCBot's MTC function is currently suspended, it makes sense to temporarily replace the redirect with a brief explanation of the process that links to Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:Why was the image I uploaded moved to Wikimedia Commons? (as per {{commons ok}}). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fortune Global 500

Resolved

I thought I would bring it to your attention the edit war on Fortune Global 500. Beenlaw (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Both users have been blocked. That was some edit war... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest a talking with User:Signsolid because doing things like this and this is a violation of WP:SOCK. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Time to request for a checkuser? seicer | talk | contribs 01:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Betacommand

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Given the comments here, the community has decided to place Betacommand under an editing restriction (the sam korn solution). He is banned from using an automated program to make edits, either on his main account, or bot account. He is also placed on a civility parole, and any edited seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of the restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry, I am proposing a community ban of Betacommand (talk · contribs) and all known aliases/sockpuppets, for a period of three months. If enacted, and per our banning policy, if he tries to evade the ban the block timer will be reset and his ban will start anew. Please see my statement there for my reasoning. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Based on the positive evidence of abusive sock puppetry, continued abuse of bot privileges, harassment of blocking administrators as detailed in my statement, continued incivility and continued failure to recognize and correct his behavior, I support the proposed ban. MBisanz ^talk 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, clearly exhausted community patience. I'd go for indefinite ban, but that may be considered too harsh by others. Seriously one of the rudest editors I've ever encountered on here. I cannot understand why this hasn't happened long ago. Al Tally (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• slow down someone will surely unblock, and that will be the end of the ban. I'd love to see something happen here, but only more moderate action will have general support.DGG (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose this action but support escalating sanctions under individual admin discretion. Ryan P already had this ball rolling, then the universe exploded. Beta needs a series of steps applied by the entire community to realize the consequences of unmodified behaviour. Franamax (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, did you miss Betacommand 2? Specifically, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Betacommand_instructed, where he was already told to remain civil, and violated that, and was told to only operate his bot for approved tasks, and violated that as well? The balls been rolling for a couple of months, but nobody will pull the trigger. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually I haven't missed a heartbeat, Ryan made an unequivocal notice, that looked like a good line in the sand to work from. I'm not unaware of previous history ;) Franamax (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You're saying the ArbCom remedy wasn't a line in the sand? If we keep up with giving out warnings without taking any action, we might as well change the Wikipedia:Blocking policy to the Wikipedia:Warning policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah it was, but there was some beach volleyball being played at the same time. ArbCom draws lots of stuff in the sand, some of it sticks, some of it melts. RyanP was poised on action, the Arb decision was there to back him up, the patent evidence was there - now we're getting on to several MB more server space without resolution, and many are focussed on the sock allegation and NFCC, which are far from the point. However, events are lately pointing toward a resolution, which is encouraging. "Mene mene", right? :) Franamax (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
          • This definitely isn't about the sock issue (and definitely not NFCC, that's sooooo two months ago), it's about the overall effect his actions have had, and his totally unapologetic attitude (in fact I can't think of a time during this whole situation where he's apologized for his behavior, only that he's tried to skew discussion towards unblocking his bot, his alt and returning to a mostly business-as-usual status). "Mene mene" indeed. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 06:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
          • It looks like the only thing ArbCom has done in the sand was to piss its name in Chinese characters: very impressive at first glance, but in the long run useless. ArbCom instructions are useless when ignoring them goes unpunished. Betacommand has ignored just about everything he could possible ignore. Bullzeye's description of Betacommand is the best I've ever come across: "a nuclear powered icebreaker with the throttle stuck on Flank and the Captain asleep in his cabin with his iPod on and a GO AWAY sign on the door." Aecis^Brievenbus 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• This proposal, along with the rest of this recent Betacommand drama, strikes me as an extreme case of overreaction. I too was taken aback by the sudden revelations everywhere that BC was sockpuppeting, since malicious sockpuppetry by anyone is completely inexcusable - but then I read into it for myself and found that his "puppetry" was limited to a single alternate account that had only crossed paths with his main one once? Please, let's just calm down and let this small incident pass. krimpet✽ 23:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Betacommand is blatantly violating the ArbCom remedies from Betacommand 2, and you believe this is an "overreaction"? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Would support individual escalating blocks for continued incivility, but this proposal is far too draconian for my taste. Incivility needs to be stopped, but this sort of response is out of proportion to the offense at hand. I would support sanctions, just not this sanction. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Ugh...More overreaction. Looking at it, I guess I am not surprised. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, clearly overreaction, the community was expecting far too much by thinking he would abide by the Betacommand 2 remedies. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Question A few days ago I proposed one week, and some people thought it absurdly short and others thought it absurdly long. I propose it again as a basis for discussion. DGG (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• It was noted above (or on what has forked onto a separate page) that BC has communication difficulties. He tends to do the more drama-prone jobs around here, compounding any communication difficulties which may exist. I'd suggest that none of the commentators here would be able to comport themselves any better than BC has done, if they were to be placed under the same workload as him. We shouldn't be aiming to get rid of Beta, but more to provide him with more support. Much as we appear loath to refer to ourselves as such, we are a community and we need to care of one another, indeed more than we do already. We don't kick people out of the fold for being imperfect. Martinp23 23:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  This, by the way, is complete nonsense. If someone were somehow forcing him to work in this area, it might be valid, but he chose this work. If he knows he can't handle drama well, it's his responsibility to find areas that he can competently work in. His failure to do so only indicates that the problem is indeed him. Friday (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Sam Korn solution

I strongly disagree with this action. As in strongly. While I won't call it precipitous (for fear of causing death through hilarity among certain members of the community), I will call it unnecessary. I totally agree without the slightest hesitation that concrete remedies are necessary. I would imagine them to function along the lines of these:

• Betacommand is not permitted to run bots

  Running bots should be a position of trust. It is plain that Betacommand does not have that trust. Criticism of his bot work has frequently unheeded and met with incivility. This is not good enough. Betacommand has no right to run bots. Any unauthorised bot activity should be met with blocking. I would suggest a minimum of a week.

• Betacommand is placed upon civility parole

  Betacommand's response to criticism has been totally unacceptable and must change. Any incivility should be met with an appropriate block. I would suggest that a month should be the outside; I do not expect anything less than three days to be the minimum. Unblocking should only be done with great care: I would be horrified if people continued to think that Betacommand can get away with incivility after the events of the last few days.

I don't see the point of a restriction on the use of alternate accounts. If they are abusive, that is already covered. Abuse would include attempting to evade the restrictions of this kind of decision. If they are not abusive, and Betacommand manages to get to a point where he has an account that is not identified with him and behaves acceptably, all the more power to him.

I feel this kind of set of provisions would be more useful than the considerably blunt instrument of a ban. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on his defiance of the BAG ruling related to the nature of his bot's messages, his continued abuse of bot privileges on multiple accounts, and continued incivility, this is also an acceptable sanction. MBisanz ^talk 23:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Scrap anything else I've said - Sam proposes an unacceptable solution, but it's better than all the alternatives. Churchill would approve. Franamax (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. DGG (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Support It seems like there's a new thread about BC's behaviour, civility, unauthorized bots, and now sock puppets? His supporters continually say he's being provoked..but that's the problem. If he could control his temper we wouldn't be here. An angry response to a stupid comment is never acceptable. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Sam Korn's version. Escalating and calculated sanctions are what are needed here, not a 3-month ban... Sam's sanctions (no bots, civility parole) is perfectly reasonable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• We'll never agree on a complete ban. Forbidding Betacommand to run bots may be acceptable for a week, but a lot of people think that some tasks of BCB are very useful. I propose this as a longer-term alternative :
  • Betacommand is forbidden from bot tasks on any account except Betacommandbot.
  • All the tasks of Betacommandbot must be BAG-approved.
  • Betacommand is on civility restriction.

For, say, three months, then see how it works and discuss again. Cenarium (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I also support Sam Korn's proposal, but we should find an agreement on the duration. Cenarium (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am reminded of a conversation I had with Betacommand, in which he indicated he had a special relationship with the WMF and/or developers. He indicated that this special relationship permitted him to be granted SUL accounts for him and his bot, among other undescribed privileges, despite not having an admin flag on any WMF wikis. I therefore contemplate if there is an existing WP:OFFICE or m:Developers ruling that would prevent the community from stopping Betacommand's operation of his bot. If an authorized individual could respond to this comment, indicating whether or not the community has the authority to impose such sanctions, it would help clear up this situation. MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as being a bit too extreme here. However, Support Sam Korn's proposal - Alison ^❤ 00:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment with regard to BCB's useful tasks: it is incumbent on the community to identify the BCB tasks with attention to mission-critical and other tasks and effectively "de-task" BCB with preferably open-sourced alternatives. This would at least defuse the argument over how important the bot is. Franamax (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Carnildo, his tasks are not significant or important, and even if they were, I disagree that his contributions are somehow relevant in the clear violation of policy. Even Betacommand says his bot won't be performing any tasks for the next thirty days, so a bot restriction wouldn't do much. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with the botops being un-needed, if some relevant authority would confirm that, so much the better. If indeed all BCB tasks are redundant, then BCB should under the circumstances be permanently blocked. If BC wishes to resume botops (which is not evil, a lot of people/projects come to him for help), then there should be some clear parameters, such as defined tasks amd separate bot names for clearly separate tasks, rather than the loosey-goosey "my code is too complex for you to understand" status-(no longer)-quo. But let's quantify where exactly BC/BCB is too valuable to block and eliminate those roadblocks. Then we can address the actions of this editor of themselves. Franamax (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The "civility parole" part of Sam Korn's proposal is reminding me of Roman legal history where the most unobeyed laws are the most restated. Besides normal wikipedia civility rules, he's already been placed under further civility restrictions by ArbCom. Unless I am misreading the date, this was only last month. Recommend restating to "Betacommand may actually have to adhere to his civility parole and some related wikipedia policies". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support with fire - I support the community ban. Enough is enough. Not only was it proven he violated 3RR with his sockpuppet, but the fact that he has virtually ignored the issue is repulsive. Thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread involving BC also amounts to disruption of the project. I for one am tired of the "Defend Betacommand At All Costs Cabal" and it must end now. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 00:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, a 3 month ban is an overreaction. Sam Korn's idea works for me. naerii - talk 00:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes us think he'll change this time? He's been to arbcom twice and it's had little if any affect. If Sam's proposal is adopted, it has to be his absolute last chance; if that doesn't work, I won't hesitate to support a ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Hesperian 00:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• While I believe Beta's work is quite irreplaceable, a line needs drawing. I'm in favour of Sam's proposal; Beta currently doesn't have the community's trust to run a bot. However, I think, he demonstrates that he can be trusted after three months, I don't see why not to give him back his bot privileges. The biggest issue here is the incivility; if you treat others with respect, they'll treat you the same. And if they don't but you do, they'll get blocked for disruption/incivility/harassment. Maxim_(talk) 01:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sam Korn's version. Enough is enough. ➪HiDrNick! 01:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Nothing will happen here. BC has deserved a ban for a long time. But even if the community coalesces around a long block, or an outright ban, one of his bodyguards will overturn it unilaterally. It always happens. Why should this time be any different? Bellwether ^B_C 01:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why do you always have to assume an evil cabalist will always do something you won't like? Evaluate the situation without flamethrowing towards someone who supports Beta. Frankly, your communications aren't exactly better than his. Maxim_(talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support your assertion that my communications are no better than BC's or retract it. It's ludicrous on its face. There's no need to "assume" anything. It's evident that BC has bodyguards that ride to his rescue every time he faces any sanction for his actions. Bellwether ^B_C 01:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• You just proved my point. You're making unfounded accusations again... Seriously, why can't you be nice to Beta for a change? Trust me, he'll be nice too. Maxim_(talk) 12:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sam Korn's version. I would support a bot ban for a year. It's not a basic human right be allowed use of a bot. Allow him to only use his main account. And have him on civility probation, although I don't think that will stick... --Pesco (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Absolutely positively hell no to the community ban. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sam Korn's version. I'd like to note, however, that the vast majority of the previous complaints about Betacommand have been either people unhapppy with our image deletion policies (which is not Betacommand's fault), people unhappy with the way the bot works, or people unhappy at Betacommand's incivility. Has anyone in the BC lynch mob forming here had any issues with incivility from the now-blocked alternate account? BC is stuck in an awkward position, only part of which is of his own doing. He cannot turn over a new leaf (because he'll be blocked if he uses a sock) and he can't escape the past because of a group of users who will not let go of the past. Horologium (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I just want to note that Betacommand has already stated that he will not use BetacommandBot for a month, except for one specific, uncontroversial task. See that statement here. I've spoken to BC about this and he said he does indeed have a list of tasks that he will hold off on, for this thirty day period. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment A ban of a user who has contributed much in the past seems a bit cruel and draconian. --Sharkface^T/_C 01:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that the value of an editors contributions allows him to violate personal attack and sockpuppet policies (amongst others)? That's a slippery slope that nobody should want to go down, but I keep seeing that attitude in discussions about Betacommand and his behavior. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: Blah. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose full ban, support Sam Korn's version. It's important for us to remember that blocks and bans should be preventative, rather than punitive--a major point brought up during the initial blocking was that Betacommand has a number of high-speed editing tools at his disposal. By banning the use of these tools for a reasonable amount of time, we ensure that the community has sufficient time to discuss their further use. While I personally have no reason to think that Betacommand is anything but sincere in his offer to refrain from bot editing, the fact that a full-on ban is being seriously discussed tells me that we need something a little more formal in nature. --jonny-mt 01:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn's version of it. Something has to be done. Enigma ^message 01:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support the burning with fire of any plan which would prohibit a user who participates only in bot work from operating bots, and then masquerade itself as a less harsh alternative than an all out ban. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you also support encouraging said user to make substantive article-space contributions on his own initiative, in areas of his own interest, by manual means? If so, I'll help as best I can. The sole focus of anyone on Wikipedia shouldn't be just to make the computers run faster. Franamax (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose :| CWii is not pleased. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I'll support graduated remedys here. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• He technically can't be banned now, so let's just concentrate on Sam Korn's remedy. Wizardman 02:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - overreaction Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of Sam Korn's remedy? Franamax (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support This goes on and on and on. Betacommand hasn't shown any self discipline and inspite of his contributions he needs to understand that, like everyone else, he has to respect the rules and other users. Instead he has a long track record of repeatedly breaking the rules and abusing others as he sees fit. That his work has made him a target is no excuse - he should have expected that going in and found more appropriate means to repsond. It seems like nothing applies to this guy and his bot work is a perpetual get of jail free card. Otherwise, someone might just want to get down to it and start work on WP:ßcommand immunity and just lay down some policy that makes it plain that he can do whatever he wants, to whoever he wants, however he wants to do it without fear of sanction or all kinds of wasted discussion. His behaviour is consistently appalling. It is fundamental that the folks who enforce the rules have to follow the rules themselves or face the consequences. Wiggy! (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of Sam Korn's remedy? Franamax (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I could have sworn we deleted CSN so that we could have discussions here and not do votes for banning. Silly me. I oppose the ban. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of Sam Korn's remedy? Franamax (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sam Korn's remedy Community banning Betacommand is an overreaction. There are specific problems with Betacommand's behaviour that can be addressed with the proposed remedy and I'm pretty damn sure there is an admin willing to unblock anytime so community banning won't work. If you want him banned you'll need to convince ArbCom to do so. EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn's remedy. A complete ban would just polarize things more, as Betacommand's defenders would go to even greater lengths to find him a way out, but Sam's remedy is reasonable, appropriate to the situation, and has a chance of resolving the issues. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Counting here with my trusty hacksaw, support = 3; oppose = 6; comment/indeterminate = 6; Sam Korn = 16. No consensus maybe, but a pretty clear preference. All figures +/- 4, 95% of the time. Franamax (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC) If anyone disputes my count, please comment and do not change my signed statement, thanks, or just do your own count, thanks. Franamax (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Absolutely not. We've already been over this, and BC hasn't even remotely violated WP:SOCK. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently you missed the proof? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 05:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• At best you have proof that BC was edit warring and breaking the 3RR, but the use of the other account is obviously a mistake. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Betacommand says it was a mistake. The things that Betacommand says to avoid scrutiny are not always true. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• (EC with allstar, response to ned scott)I'm not sure this is about a single incident, but rather a pattern of behavior over a long period of time. For the record, I don't believe that there has been any sockpuppetry here at all, but the pattern of incivility needs to be addressed and remediated... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to addressing those concerns, but the proposals in this thread are based on the SOCK accusations. That is what I am opposing. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• So, because one thing he did wasn't bad enough for you, he should be forgiven for all the others? His violating 3RR with a hidden sock doesn't bother me as much as his violating his ArbCom restrictions with a run of thousands of unapproved, disruptive bot edits on his own account, or any of the frequent uncivil and disruptive edits he has made in the past year. I'd say it's pretty clear that Sam's remedy is mostly about his misuse of bots, not his sockpuppeteering. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not opposing Sam's remedy. I take no comment (for the time being) on how to handle the bot issues and the civility. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I understand your concerns Ned, but please look at MB's RFArb subpage where he clearly documents that BC had his rollback revoked on one account and then proceeded to deceive the RFR admins into granting it for his other sock. If that isn't abusive sockpuppetry, I don't know what is. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, WTF? Locke Cole had conflicts with BC in the past, he shouldn't be the one who propses the ban. Sam Korn's propsal makes some sense, but was made at the wrong time, because many people seem to support is as an alternative of outright banning, not because they really feel like that. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 05:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • When I say I support Sam Korn's remedy, I mean I support Sam Korn's remedy. I imagine this is is the case for the others as well. Anyone who supports Sam's remedy in preference to a ban but would actually prefer no sanction at all is free to say so. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

    Such effect doesn't need to be conscious, in fact, we may see an example of Good cop/Bad cop effect. (I don't mean that Sam and Locke are acting together, but a softer proposal as alternative of a harsher one will always make such psychological effect, and I feel that even Sam's proposal is too much, although something certainly needs to be done). MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Well nobody else seems to be willing to step up to the plate and propose something with teeth. As you can see at the subpage discussion there was consensus that something should be done, though unfortunately it seems I overestimated the support for something that might actually get his attention. May I remind everyone that he's been grossly incivil (long after ArbCom "instructed" him to be civil), that he's abused a sockpuppet to evade 3RR (now you can take that two ways: 1) it was an accident, in which case he shouldn't have gone on to revert a fourth time and keep his alt a secret, or 2) it was malicious, in which case the reaction we should have should be obvious, but in either case, his use of that alt account was very inappropriate, and his attitude since then (unapologetic, wishing to brush it all under the rug seemingly) should not be tolerated or encouraged. Anyways, yeah, I'm involved, but something needs to be done with clear instructions on the results if he fails to abide by whatever is chosen (not vague references to "escalations", spell it out). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: We shall have no conspiring with the Forces of Darkness.--Hu12 (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - there were sanctions proposed in the original thread that were far more appropriate as are those that Sam proposed above. Mr.Z-man 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. He's been given far too many chances already. Everyking (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn's version, but oppose a complete community ban. The second would be an overreaction. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support either version. This has dragged on far too long. Leithp 06:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Ok, not going to bold my stuff, cuz votin is evil and all that, but.. WTF? There's a lot of folks who believe that a 1 week block was more then necessary, considering it wasn't actually sockpuppeting, but one mistaken edit.... and now we're going for a "community" ban, or other significant restrictions, with no further mistakes by BC? Are we going Argumentum Ad Nauseum here? Seriously? SirFozzie (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support the 3-month proposal due to repeated gross incivility, marginal sockpuppetry, disruption and abuse of bots. —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• He did not violate WP:SOCK "marginally", or at all. I have no comment on the other rationales you've presented. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps I didn't explain that well - I mean, given that Beta was already "in a hole", on ANI every other pico-second (a splendid phrase I borrowed from White Cat!) and on an ArbCom civility ruling that was clearly being broken, running a separate account without at least notifying ArbCom, privately, was a dumb idea, really. Beta must have known that if/when he made a mistake such as he did, it would be looked down on pretty badly. —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• He did violate WP:SOCK, he used an undisclosed alternate account to evade violating WP:3RR. This is a violation of WP:SOCK. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sam Korn's version, or at the very least a "bot parole": any rapid editing except that which has been explicitly approved by the Bot Approvals Group is grounds for blocking. He's had far too long a history of unapproved and disruptive bot-like editing. --Carnildo (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Sam Korn option. Betacommand has been given numerous "don't do it again"s for more than a year, and has systematically disregarded any criticism. His bots are now giving no real benefit to the project, only problems (messing up articles, adding large numbers of edits which then need to be reverted), and we have plenty of bot coders who actually can handle people and follow the rules. Betacommand therefore should not run any bots ever again. That said, I am concerned that this community decision will just end up amounting to nothing. His unapproved DEFAULTSORT bot violated an arbcom ruling only two months old, so how is he going to react to any conditions set forth by mere editors, whom he considers to be trolls and drama queens? Also, given past events, I see it as highly likely that any blocks instituted for violating the conditions will be summarily undone within hours. But I am willing to give it a try. Is he back? (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose (god I am so tired of these two), I disagree with the findings of facts above. I have no opinion on Sam's proposal (I have mixed feelings about it). -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn's proposal. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose blocking Betacommand. Support banning him from operating bots, either on other accounts (ie, BC2 and BCBot need to be blocked) or on his main account. Neıl 龱 08:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, but only because it's never gonna happen; thus, support the Korn Plan. However, sad to say, Sam's proposal can be translated at its core into "The community will now tell Betacommand that we really, really, REALLY mean it this time, and we're NOT kidding. Don't MAKE us turn this Wikipedia around...." We'll find ourselves heading back here soon, I'm afraid, wagging our multiple megabytes of discussion behind us...Gladys J Cortez 09:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't think that's true. As far as I'm concerned, my suggestions would mean that Betacommand would not be running bots at all in the foreseeable future. Not just "only uncontroversial bots" -- no bots, no bot flags, no running bots on the main account. That is one of the major problems with Betacommand's editing. As to the incivility point -- the existing remedies have no teeth. This proposal has teeth and I for one would be outraged if people continued undoing blocks of Betacommand without very good reason. I don't see why the options have to be go ahead and do what you like and extreme ban with a kick as you go through the door. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • To clarify my concern (and please excuse my snark of last night--no more editing after bedtime for me!): Beta has been told--in a freaking ArbCom decision, for Pete's sake, which (even if the findings and remedies haven't any teeth, like in this case) generally amounts to AT LEAST a wake-up call for the individual on the receiving end to alter his/her behavior immediately--to only run bots acceptably; to act civilly, to do A, not to do B. If THAT hasn't stopped him, I question what will--especially since he seems to hold sway over the BAG.. Sam, I think your plan is by far the best-constructed option made available to the community, but I just don't trust that Beta won't find a loophole somehow. Gladys J Cortez 15:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC).
      • Eternal optimism is good for the soul ;-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support the Korn plan - no involvement with bots - either running them or as part of BAG. Viridae^Talk 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Betacommand has himself already 'banned' his bot for any tasks except two uncontroversial, that is enough. I am again stating, I believe he is helpful (at least in the way I have always communicated with him). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Do it SKorn's way. An outright ban is just not appropriate here... I think BC's intentions are good, but his communication difficulties often make this hard to see. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• oppose even thouigh we love drama, this has gone way to far. _→AzaToth 12:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• This needs to be an arbcom action. Lynchmobs of whoever shows up are not how we determine whether or not someone may edit. I think the time has come that despite his outstanding work with non-free images, Betacommand is too much of a liability. But a neutral arbitration committee needs to make that decision. --B (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. No bloody way! Betacommand has done far more good than harm. He is no longer on the front line of the fair use management, and is going to stay away from BAG and bot policy. Any ban would be because of past issues. Yes, the community really means it this time; but we do not need to demand a pound of flesh to prove we mean it. If in a month he has kept breaking community expectations, it can be sent to arbcom for review. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, but how many times do we have to keep saying "if in a month"? I've ran out of "if in a month"s long ago and have had to take out a mortgage on new ones - and the economy has gone to hell so all these new "in in a month"s are losing value every day that passes. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 13:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'll read through everything tomorrow and get all my facts up to date but for the moment Oppose --Chris 13:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support The total bot ban in Sam Korn's version. I don't know that the civility patrol will actually accomplish anything, but it might in theory help. I'd prefer not to go to a total ban, but I would prefer a total ban over allowing Betacommand to continue running bots as he has been doing. GRBerry 13:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose any sort of ban, or bot restriction (which in Betacommand's case amounts to the same thing). I think the community's treatment of him is pretty shabby considering the invaluable work he has done for the project in the past. Protestations aside, I don't think this conversation would be taking place if Betacommand hadn't stepped up to do the Foundation's dirty work in regards to image tagging, and he's become the scapegoat for everyone who disagreed with either the policies or the methods. Kelly ^hi! 13:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• A big troutslap to those who continue to defend BC's childish and disruptive nonsense. If you don't want to be involved in solving this problem, so be it, but get out of the way of those who are willing to try. He's had myriad chances- the only thing we know for sure is that he's unable or unwilling to behave like a reasonable adult. So, our only recourse is to forcably minimize his involvement here. The details of how we do this aren't very important, as long as that's what we're trying to do. Friday (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC) PS. Sam's specific plan seems reasonable to me, but good luck keeping BC's little fan club from unblocking him. This will amount to a re-vote any time he's blocked.. a really awful solution, but probably better than any of the others than have been thought of, as pointed out above. Friday (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support the Kornplan, though I do have doubts about the willingness of some admins to respect any community-agreed sanction with regard to Betacommand. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support a community ban lasting at least three months. Betacommand has a long history of assumptions of bad faith, newbie-biting, incivility, personal attacks, drama and abuse of automated tools. Contrary to what some claim, Quercus basaseachicensis is indeed an abusive sockpuppet. A week after Betacommand had his rollback privileges revoked due to abuse, he requested and was granted rollback rights on the Quercus basaseachicensis account; he also used both accounts to edit war on a policy page and violated 3RR. Lesser measures, such as those proposed by Sam Korn, will not work. Betacommand continues to be incivil and abuse tools despite the recent arbitration case concerning his conduct and almost all blocks of him or his bot are quickly reversed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support KoЯn. Would people please stop saying BC is irreplacable! He is just as disposable as the next editor. Also, there are quite a few people who believe his image work is not helpful, but rather lazy disruption because many of the images could be fixed if he {{sofixit}}'d them. His default sorts shit was the final straw for many, and I agree. No more bots, he can edit and do good work like everyone else. Just because a task is tedious doesn't mean that special care shouldn't be used when doing it. It would serve him well to see how much time and effort normal people have to go through. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn's plan, makes sense. However, oppose a community ban, there is no need for any chickens without their heads here. BetaCommand has taken a lot of flak for his imagebots and the work they do, and everyone here is human. Although, BC has been given lots of chances: I feel that it should be made very clear that this is the last chance that the community will give him. BC's bots can be run by anyone, and he should not feel that doing valuable work gives him immunity. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 15:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. Betacommand has shown repeatedly that he doesn't respect our policies and believes himself above the law. He does nothing that can't be done by someone else-- indeed, a number of such replacements for his bot were produced during the last arbcom case concerning him. No man here is indispensable. The fact that he recieves some flak is no excuse for his ongoing deplorable conduct. I would also support a community ban for some of his vocal supporters-- people who insist there should be exceptions to policy because WP:ILIKEHIM are of questionable value to the project. Jtrainor (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm no fan of BetaCommand or his bot but starting some kind of witch hunt against editors who support him and suggesting they should be banned for expressing an opinion that differs from yours is a draconian idea. Exxolon (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. Neutral to Sam Korn's. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 16:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn sanctions. Last chance only. Rudget (Help?) 17:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Not convinced yet. Garion96 (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn Remedy generally, but with a view to unblocking the bot as soon as is practicable or necessary. We do need to experience whether we can live without the bot, but should not deny the appropriate use of the tool even if it were found not to be essential. WP's relationship with the bot and its use may also provide Betacommand with a new perspective regarding his standing in the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn, even though I believe it to be a Big Waste of Time. Any resolution that begins with "Community" anything, whether it end with "ban", or "sanctions", or "solution", or whatever, will fail. As long as he is doing "important work", there will never be consensus to enforce any community solution. --Kbdank71 20:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Sam Korn's proposal appears reasonable to me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn Solution - this seems the most surgical option available to us. I don't think anyone who fully understands the history of this situation can argue that Beta can ever really be trusted to run a bot again. His pledge to only do "mundane" tasks is pure Crambe bis cocta, and frankly, I feel a bit insulted by his tone. Since when has "Fine, whatever...I'll stop doing whatever the hell it is you're mad about for awhile, alright? Ya happy now?" been an acceptable rationale for a user staring down a community ban? Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 06:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Addendum - Just to clarify, the "writing on the wall" reference referred to the silent but inevitable downfall that often awaits a user if they dare to imperiously tip some ancient Wiki-Deity's favorite cow. Based on the number of Reject votes given without any pretense of explanation, I'd say he's about a medium-sized one. Note also that this isn't a statement on his character, merely his status in the community. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 06:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sam Korn Solution - This seems reasonable enough to me. A ban may be unnecessary at this stage. The main problem lies with his bot, so we should be looking at remedies to that rather than banning Betacommand himself at this stage. .:Alex:. 16:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn solution but oppose a community ban. I have had concerns about BC's behaviour for a while, and expressed those at the RfAr and elsewhere, but am convinced he is a good faith user with serious issues rather than a malintentioned user. The socking issue in and of itself was a red herring in my view. Orderinchaos 17:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

There is clearly no consensus for a community ban. Rather than people continuing to "support" or "oppose" the initial proposal for a community ban, we should be moving forward on the issue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no support for a community band. There is substantial support for limiting Betacommand's automated edits. I've already blocked Betacommand's bot account to enact a set of sanctions proposed by Durova that are compatible with the first part of Sam Korn's proposal. A ninety day break from running a bot seems like a reasonable compromise, let us figure a way to fairly review Betacommand's actions during this period and decide how to give him a chance to re-implement bot tasks afterward in an uncontroversial and error-proof way. If successful, we may retain a prolific bot operator and allow ill-will to subside on both sides of the debate. The civility parole may be moot as all editors are expected to maintain a respectful tone in their on-wiki correspondence at the risk of being blocked for profane insults and other childish behavior. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

-

the civility part is not moot, as the "general expectation" doe snot seem to have accomplished anything. The point of it is to give a warning to beta that he is not exempt from it, and that a final warning has been given. Yes, it should be unnecessary, but experience seems to show otherwise.DGG (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, I only meant to say that the danger of being blocked for gross incivility is a no-brainer. The concept of "civility parole" seems redundant given the circumstances. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think civility parole, at least when used by arbcom, is generally taken to mean "no warning necessary" - that any uninvolved admin can issue a short block if he is uncivil. Mr.Z-man 20:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Suffice to say I wasn't clear on the process entailed by civility parole and I agree wholeheartedly with its intent. Thanks to you both for the elaboration :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I'd support a community band. It could be called "Anetode and the Beta Blockers". I'll play drums. :) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Durova's suggestions are sensible, though I do not see the need for the account restriction. That seems nothing short of vindictive. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sam, if you're going to call my proposal vindictive in public, please give the courtesy of a heads up. It isn't helpful when someone of your standing posts such negative speculation. Fortunately other people haven't picked up on the tone, but in a heated discussion such as this one there's a distinct possibility of it being taken the wrong way. Durova^Charge! 22:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I phrased that really badly. I am certainly not saying that your proposal or the desire to restrict Betacommand's accounts is rooted in vindictiveness -- it was a terrible choice of words and I apologise for it. I was trying to say that it disputed that the accounts have been used abusively (certainly there was no intent to do so) and therefore that the proposal to restrict the accounts seem more rooted in general emotions towards Betacommand than in necessity. I would, however, urge anyone to follow MBisanz's advice below. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Several users objected to account restrictions on similar grounds. Right now the Quercus basaseachicensis and BetacommandBot accounts are blocked, Betacommand and Betacommand2 are not. Since both proposals require an end to bot runs, I don't see any reason to unblock BetacommandBot and the Quercus account is still under some amount of controversy. Surely two accounts (including one for use on public computers and rc patrol applications) are enough. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Sam is leaving open the door that Betacommand, could, if he wanted to, exercise his RTV and start a new account, unconnected to his former activities. My opinion would be that if he did so, he would need to stop using the Betacommand account, per WP:SOCK:

If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner. By "discontinue", it is suggested that the old account is noted as being inactive, in order to prevent the switch being interpreted as an attempt to abusively sock puppet.

MBisanz ^talk 20:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dubious. The Korn Solution is running at nearly 2:1 support. Let's not squeltch the discussion here prematurely. ➪HiDrNick! 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think much will come out of this discussion. However, I think it is very fair to say that there is wide support for (a) placing BetaCommand on civility parole and (b) giving him less leeway even if that means being harsher with him than with the average user. There was little made of the block he received on April 22nd, just a few days after the end of the arbitration case. Not only was the block lifted inappropriately soon, it was also lifted despite BetaCommand's absolute refusal to admit he'd done anything wrong. Sure, anytime BetaCommand slips up, all the people he's aggravated over the years want him to go down but, hey, that's the hand he's been dealt and it's not like he's got no responsibility in this. So if you're BetaCommand, no alternate account for you, no quick unblock for any civility-related block, no reverts except in cases of blatant vandalism, no putting yourself in conflict situations. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well he's aggravated me, & I don't have a strong desre to see him go down. I just want him to act more civil & be more careful with his automated edits. (And if he did so, maybe Carcharoth would find the time to do less stressful things than constantly mediate this ongoing forest fire.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The real problem - competence

As someone wrote above, "There is substantial support for limiting Betacommand's automated edits." Yes. Whether or not there is a community ban, this editor should not be running 'bots. As a programmer, he's just not good enough and nowhere near cautious enough. For his latest botched effort, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry#Current block status. He was trying to undo some damage he did with a previous bot, and tried to use a self-modified version of AWB to do it. His modified version was buggy, but by his own count, he did 144 edits with it without noticing that he was creating bogus edit summaries. His edit history does not show him trying any edits with his new program on a sandbox article or something in his own user space; he just started editing live articles.

It's this lack of caution that's the real problem. This can be trained out of beginning programmers, but this editor has been making mistakes like this for several years now and doesn't seem to be improving. So he should probably be making them somewhere else. The cleanup costs are too high here. --John Nagle (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not using bad software, so please stop the attacks and insults saying I was. I was looking that the edit summary function of AWB, because I find it annoying that it always appends that to the edit summary. it was not buggy software but rather a typo in the edit summary. I was examining every edit that I made and there where no problems with the edits, just a minor typo in the edit summary. β^_command 13:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem, really. It's "annoying", so you disable it. It couldn't possibly be there for a good reason. Rules are for other people. --Random832 (contribs) 14:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

no where does it say that edit summaries made by the tool requires that using WP:AWB is in the edit summaries. In fact there is an option avaialble for bots that allows that to be turned off. Also AWB is released under a GPL license which allows others to modify the code at their will. so Im not sure what "rules" Im violating. β^{_{command 2}} 14:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably no rules beta, just common sense. Non-sensical edit summaries are not helpfull, especially not 144 of them before you even realise you made a mistake. MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I could swear we've had this conversation before... I don't object to Betacommand's work but he has shown no will to let others help him fix his bot or even acknowledge that the bot has problems that one simply wouldn't accept in any mission-critical software. The closest we got to something that looked like co-operation was when he explained how it works but he never accepted our offer to help him fix the bot. That said, those who are making a career out of continuously baiting him and pushing his buttons shouldn't feel too safe either. The way I got him to finally explain what his bot does from a programming point of view was by changing my attitude and be nice to him. Unfortunatey it wasn't enough. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

yes all bots do make mistakes, but I fix all the bugs that are brought to my attention (the few that popped up). I may have not implimented every feature request, but I dont like giving extreamly powerful code to just anyone. β^{_{command 2}} 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you put a lot of work into this and try to help out where no one else would but when you make a mistake like this which really boils down to you not spending enough time hacking the code to figure out why it still left half of the edit summary you wanted to remove it really doesn't look good in the eyes of others. I've tried this out myself Betacommand, it isn't hard to do if you just spend the extra minutes it takes and look what it is doing before you make over 100 edits. You can do this on a test wiki without much hassle. Can you see why this was unwise? EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To the refusal to share, I would state that John Nagle is not just anyone. He's someone with significant programming experience which includes, among other things, major contributions to fundamental TCP/IP functionality which we all take for granted today. I suggest that his criticism of your programming methods is spot on. Furthermore, should he think it helpful, I would suggest that he be given full access to all of your source code in order to evaluate its suitability. If you won't take advice from the community, at least take advice from a genuine expert. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And here we have the great myth: That your code (rather than, say, your ego) is extremely powerful. I could probably code a bot in a day that could make 100 edits per minute or more. Those edits would likely be page blankings, but still. Being able to edit quickly is not something that code has to be "powerful" to do. --Random832 (contribs) 14:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just fyi

A community ban exists when no administrator is willing to unblock. I am willing to undo any indefinite block on Betacommand. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Me also. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is fine, because then the editor is simply indef blocked until there is a consensus to unblock. In this instance, should any admin unblock against consensus I would re-impose the block, block the admin, and open a RfAR to have the admin desysopped. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The point is not that I am threatening to wheel war over a block (and I know you're not either). The point is that a community ban on BC is not possible because there are admins who are willing to unblock - thus nullifying a community-imposed ban. If a ban is wanted, Arbcom will have to impose it. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I got the point - BC cannot be community banned because there are those who would be willing to undo the block (but will not because were there is not yet consensus to do so). I was making clear that, following previous misunderstandings, that non-consensus to ban is not consensus to unblock. In what appears to be developing into a potentially divisive matter I was attempting to draw a clear line over what actions admins might be able to take in pursuit of their position in the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting, for the record, that Betacommand's main account is not currently blocked. [74] ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, yes, but we are talking about how the community may act in trying to resolve the problem (after gaining consensus there is in fact a problem) regarding BC. As you say, and last time I checked the wording was such, that a community ban is broken as soon as there is one admin that is willing to unblock. Unlike some other correspondents below, I feel that the above is a timely comment that stops the community enacting such a ban because it is immediately invalidated. The community can therefore decide to enact a block for a length of time or for an indefinite period, which is then open for anyone to try to form a new consensus to get it lifted. This is appropriate. However, if anyone is sufficiently emBOLDened by the non-consensus to enact a ban to attempt to lift any agreed block before a consensus (created over days rather than hours, and a range of opinions rather than the first few agreeing respondents) then there should - and will, if I consider it appropriate - be consequences. If, per the statements by Demon and Redvers, there cannot be a ban then we are left with discussing if and what type of block is considered appropriate, and the result of that discussion is not invalidated by the actions or opinions of just one (or a few) admin(s). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these disruptive admins are indeed a problem. Thank you for identifying yourselves. Do you care to explain why you have a particular user you would unblock regardless of the circumstances? This is quite a surprising and bold statement to make. Friday (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I don't particularly care why. It's enough for me to know that a couple of admins would promise, before the fact, to actively interfere with admins in the performance of their duties. Would you guys mind resigning your tools in advance rather than wheel warring? Betacommand has been "untouchable" for a good while now, and we've gotten a good look at what this accomplishes. It's not pretty. So, it's time to try something else now. If you don't want to help, don't help, but don't get in the way, either. Friday (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say I "would unblock regardless of the circumstances"? Please point to where I said that. Go on. No? Also "If you don't want to help, don't help, but don't get in the way, either": don't threaten me, Friday - you're not entitled to bulldoze those who do not agree with you out of the way like that. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Did I interpret "I am willing to undo any indefinite block" incorrectly? That's what you were "me too"ing, right? I'm not trying to threaten anyone (with what?!?) but you're not entitled to interfere with those trying to solve an ongoing problem, either. Those who keep unblocking BC are a big part of the problem here. You've had plenty of time to try your "let him off no matter what" approach, and we can all see how well it works. Don't continue to be part of the problem. Friday (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider that some people might think your assertions above mean that if you're not part of this lynch mob, you're not welcome to be involved. Telling people who do not agree with you that they are interfering with what you are attempting to do is a travesty of our consensus government and you should be ashamed. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll just say that Demon did not accurately paraphrase what we have writte on community ban. It sort of suggests that if just 1 admin out of 1,500+ would unblock a candidate, a community ban can never exist. This is not what the policy says. Rather, what I think Demon and Redvers are suggesting, is that there simply is not a consensus to impose a community ban, therefore if an admin imposed one, they would undo it. Correct me if I am wrong. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there some confusion here with a de facto community ban, which exists when no admin is willing to unblock, as opposed to a community ban which is effected by consensus of the community? Franamax (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with the application of the "I would unblock" rule in this situation. See my thoughts expressed in a lame graph here: http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/1953/banningza1.jpg Cheers, Daniel (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A community block is block that imposed per consensus of a majority of the Wikipedia community (I say majority because obviously not every user would participate or possibly be even aware of such a situation). That consensus imposes the block and cannot be lifted without another consensus to lift the block. Yes it works both ways, in case you weren't aware. As said above, just because one or two admins, out of however many hundreds or thousands there are, does not agree to the ban and is willing to unblock a user, that does not mean they can override the block or that it cannot indeed exist. That is not how consensus works. Here's a little bedtime reading that you might be interested in. .:Alex:. 16:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just all be exactly clear about this. What you demon and presumably Redvers are saying, that no matter the arguments made in discussions like this[75], you would always unblock beta. Why? Just put some thoughts here that illustrate why you would go against the well put and endorsed thoughts of Durova, just so we can adequately assess just how deadlocked the 'community' is with regards Beta and any further violations, because as sure as eggs is eggs, and based on his own actions and statements, change in his attitude or behaviour is not coming, and never will, and good will banked by NFCC tagging is being extended indefinitely. Similarly, any actual actionable incidents are clearly going to continually be treated in isolation despite repeat final warnings, as seen by the above proposal, and even worse, any subsequent blocks thus recieved are actualy watered down, rather than be increased, as happens with other persistent repeat offenders. Even even worse, people have completely ignored beta's apparent solution to all this, to dissapear, and run unapproved bots on user accounts. With comments like this section, I can only see one outcome, an extension of the second arbcom case to force the standards and expectations already stated, to actually be linked to real and descriptive consequences, and to take the issue of how to deal with beta out of the community's hands altogether. MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I am an admin and I personally oppose a community ban (and at this stage anyway I seriously doubt one would get off the ground), I would make the general comment that in my view threats or indications of future action are unhelpful. If a process goes to the conclusion and people war it just because it meets their personal definition of "wrong" rather than some objective standard, they're making a rather big statement of how they see their own role with respect to the community, and how they see the community's expressed views. Regrettably I think it's going down the ArbCom road again, although what good it will do I have no idea given that we're still arguing over enforcing the last one. Orderinchaos 18:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The lack of action was apparently down to no the case not having anything to 'enforce'. I requested clarification here [76], as well as at ANI at the time of a beta civility alert 5 days after the case closed, but there was no response to either. So the next step imo would be to extend case 2 to include enforcement, in light of beta's behaviour since the close of case 2. MickMacNee (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There being nothing to enforce provides something of a clue as to why the calls for enforcement aren't working. The "punishment first, verdict later" idea has little merit. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We all already know you think there is nothing to enforce, but this is simply not the case. In fact your repeated one line assertions and silly links in light of pages of contrary views only support the case being made that community action is no longer appropriate for dealing with anything beta does. MickMacNee (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

But the ArbCom set precedent [77] that a sufficiently large number of edits is more important than adhering to ArbCom restrictions. BetaCommand has a very large number of edits, thus restrictions do not apply to him. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Request that betacommand updates his user pages

Right now, beta is prevented from doing anything but a few tasks with betacommandbot for 30 days, so I would request someone requests beta to change the large WP:BITEY boxes on top of his talk pages here User talk:BetacommandBot and here User talk:Betacommand, to actually reflect the current status. Their persistence there, despite beta not having done any image tagging for ages, might explain why some people in the above discussions were not even aware he has stopped doing this.

However, I would also point out, bar the current 30 day restriction, this appears to be by his own choice, and not through any official unapproval, [78]. Therefore, with a number of people proposing to monitor the bot's actions for this 30 day restriction, I would request that beta is also asked to update on the bot's user page User:BetacommandBot with what it is approved for for the 30 day period, and what it will still be approved for after that, i.e. an accurate summary of these pages [79] in regards to which he considers active and likely to be resumed after the 30 days. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable; I've always thought that they were a bit rude - but then I entered into dialogue with Beta :-) No, seriously, if they're BITey and inaccurate (worse, misleading), then they ought to come down pronto. That said, the bot info isn't essential to update IMO, that just creates un-necessary confusion.

I'm sure enough people are watching to make sure than no lines are overstepped, but I do SuPpORt with a capital 's', 'p', 'o' and 'r' the removal of the nasty talkpage templates. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

how about you take a look from my point of view, Im still getting questions that happen from edits BCBot made over a year ago. those notices clearly address 98% of all the common questions. Id rather not have to go back to being a broken record when those messages answer the questions. β^{_{command 2}} 20:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As someone who promised to do image work in his RfA and then was foolish enough to do some, I can plainly and completely vouch for Beta here. The FAQ at the top of his talk page is required, is sensible and is useful. It will cut down vastly the number of complaints he gets - and he will still get them, even if he never touched an image for the rest of his life. Anyone who works with Wikipedia image problems knows that it gets you stupid complaints, ad hominem attacks, death threats, legal threats, email bombs and threats of banning from powerless twerps with nothing better to do. And you get them for the rest of time. And that's after you put up an FAQ. If you don't have one, you might as well pin a $50 bill on your ass and scream "victim here, victim here!". And there are plenty of people trying to do that to him already. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 20:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair point actually; ongoing issues are... erm, ongoing. However, I do have some specific points to make. 1: "Read this talk page and its archives before registering your complaint" - it is unreasonable to realistically expect newbies who don't understand why they've been templated to read through over 50 pages of (let's face it) uninteresting dullness. 2: "I do not want to see images deleted" - asking for trouble; while I appreciate the point, it's going to cause more trouble than it's worth to say it! Could perhaps those points be actioned? —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

the reason that #7 exists is because I always got those "you want all NFCC images deleted" messages, I dont want to see images deleted what I want is for all of our images to be compliant with policy, that means some will be fixed and others will need to be deleted, not delete all. As for the read the archives, at one point it pointed to a specific archive, not sure when/how that changed. as for your over 50 pages of (let's face it) uninteresting dullness the same could be said about our policy pages, people are still required to follow policy, even though its dull and uninteresting. β^_command 20:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

True, but policy can be easily explained to a user if necessary, by templates or the first paragraph of the relevant policy page. If they require more technical details, then they can read deeper. Expecting users to wade through 50 pages of drivel before posting a simple (and tbh, frequently justified) question to a more experienced user, is totally unreasonable. What's more, no-one ever does. I bet you. Not one single four-day old account will have read each and every one of your talkpage archives - so why continue to have the notice there? —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be too long on my talk page, otherwise I would use the same (or similar) box. Especially since I am working again on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images and Wikipedia:Copyright problems. When dealing with copyright, you actually need something like that. Garion96 (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed about two since 1 April, from editors logging after months long absences from wiki, amongst what must be over a 100 non NFCC related queries. I seriously doubt these types of editors are ever assisted by the boxes, but more to the point I think you revel in the continued defence it allows, per Redvers above unsurprisingly, of your right to be incivil because you once chose to image tag, and the confusion in others as to whether you still do it. They always were a violation of BITE and POINT, but now they have no practical use they should be gone. MickMacNee (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Brief comment and question from a non-relevant user

Hi. I usually find little interest in cases from ANI, however this one got me quite interested, mainly due to the "size" of this debate/boxing match. I also looked up previous cases as well, such as this user's arbitration case for bot abuse. At this point, my question is: if this user was me and did not have all that power (or priviledge as many here like to call it), how long would it take to ban him? In other terms, would I, for example, be able to get away with this? Do you? ^yes...|_{or no} · 01:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Would you (or almost anyone else) be able to get away with incessant incivility, disruptive bot edits, sockpuppetry, biting newbies, running a bot on your main account without authorization, and repeating most of the above after an arbcom case told you not to? In a word: no. 166.128.57.118 (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That, sadly, is actually one of the clearest summaries I've seen of the problem. Orderinchaos 20:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that we've talked it to death...

...what, exactly, have we decided to DO??? Gladys J Cortez 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. What can be blocked is blocked and there are admins willing to unblock the main account so this needs to go back to ArbCom if you want him banned. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I, personally, want him banned; I just wanted to know what was the result of all that sound and fury.Gladys J Cortez 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I was being unclear. I mean those advocating a ban. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

An arbitration request has now been filed so nothing further is going to be achieved here. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Requiem

By my highly unreliable count, in the above thread 66 editors made an indication of !voting. 48 commented on the ban, 40 on the Sam Korn solution, 20 on both. (I'll leave that discrepancy of two as an exercise for the reader). ;) Of the 48 commenting on the ban, 8 for, 36 against, 4 neutral - a pretty clear indication. Of the 40 commenting on Sam Korn's remedy, 34 for, 1 against, 5 neutral. I submit that the community has made its wishes clear. Sam has well expressed the community sentiment, combine that with Durova's earlier proposal, which also gained approval - there is a way forward which doesn't have to include ArbCom. Franamax (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2008 (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.

Secret Pages

Hihi...wondering if we can start talking about these Secret Pages things. I was wandering around New Pages and saw a strange user subpage, so I followed...this user is building a HUGE (like 20 or 30 pages) sub section of his page as a 'maze' that you wander through to earn a Barnstar. I looked into the history and saw that he'd made a couple of edits and then found someone else's secret page and after that, nearly all of the WP contributions were to his own secret pages. I don't think any of us wants to be the jerk that tells people to stop having fun on WP, but at what point does this help the project? It seems like there are bunches of these things out there...are we getting so big now that we just have to let the kids be kids as long as they aren't disrupting the article side? It's not like the "you have new messages" prank that made people actually think they had WP business to deal with...Any thoughts/ideas? Its frustrating when you see someone putting that much thought into a game you wonder what they could do with an article! Anyway...feel free to tell me to go away if this isn't something that anyone else is worried about. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 16:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you've missed the drama, which is a plus for you Legotech! There have been several discussions about this recently. Check MFD, check the ANI archives, the AN archives, then the other DRV.....if you want links I'll get 'em. Generally, it was determined that secret pages are the purest form of evil incarnate. And also ironically, harmless. Very deletable, also very non deletable. Complete wastes of time, and also helpful and fun. A big fat no consensus that ended in a resounding Meh. if I recall...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Found the most pertinent link anyway, here. Happy reading! Warning:According to the Surgeon General, reading that MfD may cause premature death by drinking, random twitches and other seizure-like behavior, and a general sense of hopelessness. Also, may cause birth defects in unborn fetuses, even if you're not pregnant. Just random unborn fetuses. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So was it just coincidence, or an act of the cabal to have Secret close the discussion about Secret pages? In either case, the matching of actor with topic brought a smile to my face. -- llywrch (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeat after me Llywrch....It was a coincidence....it was a coincidence...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there are legitimate differences of opinion. The best that can be said for such stuff is that it might be a honeypot (computing) for the kiddies who would otherwise be running amok, touching important things like articles. The worse that can be said for such stuff is that as long as we're content to let children play here, we'll continue to attract children. It'd be best if Wikipedia were seen by these children as boring, rather than as a fun myspace-like place to play. If this userspace nonsense attracts children and keeps them out of the way, it's a bit like a bug zapper- sure, it zaps bugs, but it attracts them too. So, does it do more harm than good? I see no clear answer to that quesiton. Friday (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[ec]Here is the relevant ANI thread on the subject. If my brain is working right, it seems that the general idea was to look at these things on a case-by-case basis as there is such a wide variation in their style and content. My opinion: generally pointless but harmless, the particularly egregious/complex/sprawling ones should be deleted. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 17:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, interesting reading! I went back to the one that sparked this interest and the last 100 contributions for this user are JUST the secret pages and his userpage. I don't want to call him out in public tho...and I'm not sure how to approach without him getting really upset about it...maybe someone could drop me an email and I'll point them to the user? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

While WP:PERF may be relevant here, so is WP:NOTMYWEBSPACE, WP:NOT#HOST. I say we delete the maze and block the user if he persists, this isn't his personal playground. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...perhaps a friendly note on the user's talk page first, asking why/what they intend to do with them would work. However, given that they are the user's first contributions and that they created 30+ of them... delete the lot and warn the user about MySpace-y behaviour. There are other places for that kind of thing. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 18:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And also perhaps a reminder about what barnstars are and how giving them out for this tarnishes their value. --bainer (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed, bainer. Barnstars are explicitly not earned, they are received, and unexpectedly at that. Once they are "earned", they've completely lost their value. I've seen the "Original Barnstar" severely misused. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Legotech, any word on the secret pages? Have you managed to contact the user? If you want me to do it [you mentioned above that you weren't sure how to go about it] you can email me the username. Just thought I'd try to sort this out. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 17:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)