Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive201

Looking to close Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates

Can we get an uninvolved admin to close this centralized deletion discussion? It's been going on for about 20 days now, and seems to have winded down. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice please article issues.

I am watching the pages of Cabuyao, Laguna (with major edits done bu User: Othanwiki2009), and Santa Maria, Bulacan (with major edits done by User:Secaundis), for almost months, and I noticed that the Santa Maria article grew into like a directory, list of dining places, telephone numbers, fare matrix for public transportation, resorts, recreational sites, transportation terminals and even directories for schools and emergency concerns. Earlier this day, I removed all possible failures that may not meet with WP guidelines: and put them all on its talk page. I notified the contributor Secaundis about this, and he said on my talk page (it is in Filipino, I warned him, and I said he should speak in English) that I am biased that I am tagging his pages not instead those long ones. I just want to know if I am doing good so far, and what action are intended for Secaundis. I am also in doubt of the authenticity of the data he inserted on the page, but when I asked him about it (I challenged him that I will insert {{fact}} on each unverified claims, those that need inline citations, but I used a generalized template {{nofootnotes}} instead so the article won't look messy; he on my talk page --still Filipino-- that he is lazy to do inline citations on those claims because primarily, they came from the official site of Santa Maria. What does it implies? Then, I am thinking if the whole article, is a copyright violation, sure plagiarism from multiple sources.)

On Othanwiki2009, he does good, but he is creating articles plagiarized, like History of Cabuyao (which I tagged earlier). I also tagged Imno ng Cabuyao, because other than the lyrics of the song, it has no information on the composer, the composer's death. Per WP:LYRICS, it falls into possible infringement. He removed the tag, and says on the article's talk page that he will look for the composer. I told him to use {{hangon}} instead, especially that the article is not on CSD but on PROD. Well, Cabuyao , Laguna, his article, turns to be copied from the sites on the Cabuyao's external links, and again, with no citation where it came from. When we say "you add the citation", does it mean that copying directly the statement/whole paragraph from the site then adding a citation falls into plagiarism?

I think they both ignored it. I tagged Santa Maria months before for its multiple issues like no footnotes, etc. but Secaundis removed it. In Cabuyao, too, Othanwiki2009 removed the tag without addressing the concern. I do believe too, that Santa Maria and Cabuyao were copied directly from a site or sites included on the external links section (since it is impossible to add figures-- where those came from?). The articles grow very long, too, and many things unnecessary appears there. I need advice what to do. Thanks.--JL 09^{Talk to me!} 09:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Secaundis was already reprimanded a few months ago for his use of Tagalog. As for his removal of tags, it may be an attempt to own, but stripping the tags when their issues have not been addressed is foul. --Eaglestorm (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is a mess and worse seems to have multiple sub-articles which seem to be copyvios - many many eyes needed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Secaundis says he's quitting and asked for his talk page to be deleted. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Spam problem

There could be over a 100 articles under Category:Internet television series and it's sub categories which are not notable/spam. If any admins could go through and delete some, it would save me flooding afd.--Otterathome (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If they qualify for speedy deletion, can't you just tag them?--Atlan (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of articles, too many for one user.--Otterathome (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot of these are not notable, such as Laugh Out Loud (web series), and probably would not survive AfD. However, judging by the twenty or so pages that I looked at, very few, if any, could be speedied under G11... The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 18:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a Mass AfD then? All the Best, Mifter (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Mass AFDs is that if someone finds one or two on the list you nominate to be actually notable, it will sink the whole mass of them. The best thing is to speedy the ones that lack any indication of importance, and AFD the ones that discuss their own importance, but lack secondary, independent sources required for notability. Of course, you should always do certain things WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion, so please do the due dilligence on each of these, and do not automatically assume that EVERY we TV series is automatically non-notable. --Jayron32 19:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Go with a mass of prods, watchlist them, and in the small chance someone cares, AFD then. No need to flood AFD either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take into account how many articles link to it when making your decision to delete. If you take the time to check 'What links here' first you won't run the risk of leaving behind a mess of redlinks in other articles. List of Web television series, to name the most prevalent one, would need cleanup after a mass delete. Anyways, I don't disagree that many of these aren't notable and don't deserve articles, I just want other editors to take their time with decisions to delete, take it case-by-case, and first take into account several other factors that may actually help in improving Wikipedia, like whether a topic needs coverage or would be of interest to readers. -- œ^™ 02:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I dislike sending articles like this to AfD, as most of the people who participate in them are the only ones interested in them. Case in point. So even if they fail all guidelines they don't get deleted unless a bold admin decides to do it.--Otterathome (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

a check of the AfD log for Aug 14 (selected as a slow day with a small log) showed: 44 delete, 23 keep, 19 merge/redirect/relist. My advice is to consider each article, look for refs, and then do what is appropriate for it, and not too many at a time--mass actions of any sort get complained about, on the assumption that one might not be giving them full consideration. Additionally, the fate of the first few is a guide for the others. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Close AfD

Resolved

Can a admin close this AFD? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkcops (talk • contribs) 07:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect link given, that AfD was from 2006, correct link is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia (2nd nomination). Hut 8.5 09:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry.... The Junk Police (reports|works) 07:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Closed as delete, with a narrative verdict. ➲ REDVERS ^{It sucks to be me} 09:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of admin privileges by User:Hu12

Wrong noticeboard. This is an incident, and belongs at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please read the text of the edit notice when posting here. Uncle G (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

External links noticeboard

Hi, I'm trying to start up an external links noticeboard, so I've set up a draft in my userspace. If anybody here is interested in issues regarding external links feel free to comment on the draft on its talkpage or edit it directly. For a noticeboard to work it needs editors to watch it and participate in the discussions on it, so I'm posting this around to try to probe if there are enough editors interested in this to get it started. ThemFromSpace 01:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense to link to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_External_links like the spam noticeboard. They already have a group of editors who are involved. See Wikipedia:WikiProject External links/Participants. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:By78

Like this?

The user is indulging in disruptive editing with [pages] including | INS Arihant page. In the Arihant class submarine page, launch is replaced with | Float-out. Bcs09 (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, and doesn't require the intervention of administrators. For my money, float out works just as well as launch, though I can see the argument that launching is the figurative activity and floating out is the literal practice which replaced launching. May want to ask the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships which term is more common in ship articles. Protonk (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The process was a launch. Then why is getting edited the other way? I don't get it.Bcs09 (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Literally launched like the picture on the right (or sliding backwards)? Protonk (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

this source describes a float out. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The sideway launch is done mostly for lighter ships of the U.S Navy and coastguard. The heavier ones are launched backwards. The articles explains about the testing for the launch and about the next event of momentous launch. There is no official ceremony in float out of a ship or sub anywhere in the world. In this case the sub was launched by Smt.Gursharan Kaur, wife of PM Manmohan Singh. The Indian sub launch ceremony is somewhat different. Remember the coconut.Bcs09 (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Also note about the explanation of the reactor on the sub and how the reactor criticality is achieved.

Over the next few months, it will commence a series of full system harbour trials. The primary system, a nuclear reactor, generates the heat which drives the secondary system, a steam turbine which spins the submarine"s propeller, are to be tested separately.

First, the steam turbine is to be jump-started with shore-based supply. The next significant step will be starting up the submarine"s nuclear reactor where the zirconium rods in the core of the submarine"s 80 MW pressurised water reactor will be slowly raised, allowing the reactor to become critical in slow degrees. It will take around three weeks to go fully critical.

Only after all systems are tested, will the primary and secondary systems be mated. If all goes well, the submarine will be allowed to sail out to begin sea trials next year. Weapon trials, including the firing of its arsenal of 12 K-15 short range ballistic missiles, are the last stage of the trials before the submarine is finally commissioned to the navy by 2011.Bcs09 (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I should tell you that you don't need to explain to me the details of starting up a submarine nuclear reactor. But there is no way you could have known that. :) I'm only going to say two things. the first is that the details of the launch are a content dispute and should be dealt with through the dispute resolution process. The second is that what india today seems to be describing is a boat in drydock and the drydock being flooded for the launch, rather than being slid backwards. Protonk (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The explanation is from the link you posted. There are a lot of videos on youtube that explains in detail about nuclear reactor refuelling. You can check it out. The launch can be done in any manner. Before the reporters were allowed in the sub has been already launched. So what they saw was the sub in water. This was later towed away to a facility about 1km from the shipbuilding center. Regarding the reactors you must read [1] that says After the first trial of the steam cycle and turbines, the Arihant will be hooked up to the nuclear reactor. The reactor"s fuel rods are currently locked and sealed. They will be unlocked and neutrons will be introduced to start up the 85 MW pressurised water reactor. The reactor will work continuously for anything up to 10 years till the fuel runs out. So I just want to point out that the reactor is sealed inside the sub and the ceremony was a launching ceremony which has been altered into something else.Bcs09 (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, check it now. It has been rewritten with new inputs and links. Bcs09 (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The user has again engaged in disruptive editing of the INS Arihant page. The users all edits are disruptive in nature removing contents from them, using harsh words against other editors and shows scant regard for others good editors.Bcs09 (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Community Ban for User:Drew R. Smith

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

---

While many users have expressed support for an indefinite ban, no clear consensus has been achieved. Drew has been reblocked for 30 days, with the understanding that once his block expires, he will be under close scrutiny. Any further misbehavior, or the revelation of non-confessed past behavior, will result in an immediate indef block/defacto ban. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 04:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Drew R. Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Drew has been a constructive editor to the project in the past who has run into some problems recently, specifically allegations of operating socks used for vandalism, a dubious "hack" into his account which resulted in some deeply troubling behavior regarding Jimbo's user pages and, most recently, a pretty serious accusation that he forged an image he uploaded as a source, which took hard work by several image experts to finally discover. Please see his talk page for discussion/details about all of these issues. Through all of this, Drew maintains his innocence until cornered with undeniable truth, then conveniently admits wrongdoing and asks that we ignore his bad behavior and allow him to continue... only to have another problem inevitably pop up a few weeks later. Drew has been mostly stoic through all of this, and while admitting his mistakes when he has no other choice, the admissions and requests for forgiveness ring hollow. We have tried to reach out to him, tried to find ways to bring him back into the fold while also assuaging our reasonable concerns about his trustworthiness. So far, I'm not sure these efforts will be successful. At this point, I find that my patience, and perhaps that of the community, has become exhausted. So I bring forth a proposal to implement a community ban against Drew R. Smith, in the interest of preventing further disruption to the project. I had hoped it wouldn't come to this. (I would ask that others who have been involved in this to provide additional diffs, comments and opinions. I would also ask that Drew's currently imposed block be temporarily lifted with the caveat that he only be allowed to comment here in his own defense.)

Respectfully submitted, with a heavy heart, to the community at large, Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 01:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bare faced liar, cannot be trusted. Support the ban. (but note that the faked image used as a source was done so to win an argument in the ref desk, not in the mainspace, but that doesn't excuse the conduct) Viridae^Talk 01:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This really shouldn't be necessary. I have blocked for a month, and any further violations after that can result in a unilateral indefinite block by whatever admin happens along. The "ban" will happen when no one cares to unblock him. Tan | 39 01:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

At this point, really, I'm not sure I am satisfied with a month-long block. Judging from the way Drew is responding to us at his talk page, I'm not sure a month is really going to do anything. I think a more permanent action is necessary, IMO. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 02:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably. But starting a thread for a community ban is declaring war when the local police could have mopped up the problem. Tan | 39 02:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Tan is right here. Let's not jump the gun on this one. He's under a 1 month block, let him serve it out. If he botches up again, it'll be indefinate, and if no one unblocks him (unlikely that anyone would) we can consider it a fait accompli. No need to drag this out in this forum. --Jayron32 02:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could someone install a transclusion template for Drew to comment here? FWIW, Drew and I are talking right now about image restoration (planning a collaborative FP drive for an Edouard Manet illustration of Edgar Allen Poe). Drew's got talent and may be coachable to be productive an area where the site's most seasoned eyes will be upon his uploads. Durova³⁰⁶ 02:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I will, of course, accept the consensus of the community. No intention to declare war. However, having seen the drama this user has caused recently, and (if you will excuse me) the coddling and additional chances he has gotten from well-intentioned editors in the past, it's gotten to a point where I think the community-at-large needs to be aware and have a say. I warned him after his last block that any further misbehavior would likely drive me here. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I support a ban of Drew. This is unbelievable behavior. Let's just recap:

• user asks a question at the Reference Desk
• Drew replies, but makes a mistake
• Other editors question his reply
• Drew (perhaps honestly believe this to be the the case) cites a book as a source
• Other editors question that source, noting their copies disagree

At this point, the obvious option is to check your book, if you haven't already. It appears Drew did this. But, instead of saying "Oops, you are right, I must have misremembered", Drew claims his book is different, and then forges an image to 'prove' it. The thought of someone going to such lengths to prevent admitting a simple mistake where there will be no consequences for being wrong is stunning. This is not something that someone who can collaborate with other editors would ever even think about doing. Working together sometimes means being wrong. Prodego ^talk 02:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban. For now, at least. Drew has made some unwise decisions - but I feel that this may have been more a case of him failing to understand the old 'when you're in a hole, stop digging' adage than a deliberate and malicious attempt to introduce misinformation to the 'pedia. He states as much himself. He faked an image to back up RefDesk claims that he didn't think that anyone would bother investigating - then instead of coming clean when editors took an interest, he attempted to talk his way out of it so as not to get into trouble (small lies spiralling out of control and all that). In my book, that makes him someone who screwed up and ended up looking silly in front of his peers - but I don't think that he's beyond redemption. When his month-long block expires, there will be no shortage of admins and experienced users keeping an eye on his every move. The slightest infraction or whiff of wrong-doing and I can't really see him being given another chance here. Let Tan's block run its course, then give Drew the chance to prove himself as a productive editor - or give him just enough rope to hang himself, depending on the breaks. I will unblock Drew temporarily to allow him to contribute to this thread, unless anyone objects to my doing so... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• In my Defence - This is, as kurt says, lies spiralling out of control. I got blocked for the disruptions awhile back, promised not to screw up again, and went on my way. Since then, I have done nothing but help, mostly doing antivandalism stuff. I was in the process of getting a fresh start namechange. Out of the blue, stevebaker APL finds a skeleton in the closet and questions me about it. I made the knee-jerk response of defending myself and the image. Later on, I realised I had screwed up again and come clean. - Drew Smith What I've done 02:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It was one month ago (to the day + 2 hours). It took a long time to discover it was fake, and you were defending the image's validity as recently as 2 days ago. Hardly a skeleton. Prodego ^talk 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And the sockpuppetry, the IP vandalism/sockpuppetry and the disruption from you accoutn which you claim is a mysterious hacker? Viridae^Talk 02:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've admitted to everything I have done. Jehochman AGF'd on the main account disruption when he unblocked me, and since then I have only been constructive. - Drew Smith What I've done 02:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• The "knee jerk" defense of your forged image is most troubling, and occurred AFTER your most recent block/warning. A simple "okay, I screwed up" would've been fine, but you dragged it out until several people had spent a LOT of time digging up proof that you had forged the image. You "came clean" only when forced to do so. This really does NOT give me great confidence in your trustworthiness or willingness to participate in this community in an honest manner. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 03:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• This, on top of the "hacked account" and the sockpuppet used for vandalism... there comes a point where I can no longer assume good faith, and can no longer assume you are here to be a productive member of the community. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 03:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Looking at the whole length of Drew Smith's talk page produces one major disappointment after another. It is hard to accept any assurances now about future behavior. Deception is hard to forgive, and it should be hard. I have no objection to Drew working with Durova offline on images intended for use in Wikipedia, so long as he remains banned from Wikipedia himself. I note that Drew has a Commons account which he might be able to use for image work even while excluded from Wikipedia proper. If he did some work at Commons, his ban might be reviewed in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I do? I just tried to log on at commons and none of the passwords I've ever used work there. I'm going to create a new account since I can't log onto the old one. - Drew Smith What I've done 11:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Creating new accounts in the midst of a discussion such as this is not wise. Jack Merridew 11:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Commons:User:Ender The Xenocide methinks ;) Jack Merridew 11:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • m:Special:CentralAuth suggests that Drew R. Smith isn't unified, but was created automatically, which is confusing. But I'm not sure I see what the problem is, if you are logged in at en:wp and go to commons your account gets created... as long as you don't fiddle with the password you should be fine, no need for a new account. A rename request at Commons:Changing username to usurp Drew R. from your new ID should get things sorted I would think. That's assuming you can behave yourself at Commons. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I'm the one who "Dug up" the Darwin image issue. I didn't go back to it intending to prosecute anyone, I just approached it as an outstanding mystery. The Mystery of Drew's misprinted book had bugged me, and when something reminded me of it, I decided to go back and try again to solve the mystery, primarily for my own curiosity. When I'd figured it out to my satisfaction I mentioned it to Steve and Kurt because I knew they had also put a good amount of effort into it and I thought it might be bugging them as well. I didn't mean to start an inquisition. APL (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban. Before initiating this discussion, Vicenarian posted a very generous rehabilitation proposal (an opportunity that few editors engaging in such misconduct would receive) on Drew's talk page, and Drew promptly and nonchalantly rejected the offer that he should have been grateful to accept. And just for good measure, he reiterated his insulting, overwhelmingly debunked claim that his account was compromised (yet another instance in which he wasted numerous users' time with a hoax intended to save face).
  Drew has made it abundantly clear that he thinks nothing of the continual disruption that he causes and isn't willing to change. Even now, he's arguing that his blatant lies from the past few days—which led to still more wasted time and effort—don't count because they served to reinforce an "old" deception from less than two months earlier (which he apparently believes to be grandfathered because it preceded his "final" warning).
  Enough is enough. —David Levy 03:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I wasn't being intentionally ungrateful, I just didn't agree with both the block and the mentoring. Having both seemed like overkill. - Drew Smith What I've done 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Support community ban per Vicenarian and Prodego. While Drew may have been constructive in the past, his current behaviour does nothing but bring the project into disrepute. IP vandalism, sockpuppetry, and faking references to make himself look right; this behaviour is totally unacceptable. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact and Drew has given us many reasons to distrust him. Not the least of these is the "hacking" of his account. →javért ^breakaway 03:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • My current behaviour? Since my block expired I have been nothing but constructive! I have tried to prove that I am trying to help the encyclopedia, not hurt it. While the forgery itself was unexcusable, defending myself really isn't much of a shocker. When confronted with damning evidence, any sane persons reaction is going to be to dispute it. I'm sorry I faked the photo, wasted peoples time and energy, and I regret my choice to continue the lie. If vicenarian is still willing, I won't oppose his/her first proposal to let the block run and then impose mentoring. - Drew Smith What I've done 04:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Actually, the mature person would react by saying, "You're right, I made a mistake, I am sorry," instead of going on and on defending himself with lies until he was backed into a corner. Honesty and "mea culpa" go a long way, friend, especially if you actually MEAN it. And no, I held out my hand with a carrot and you bit it off, so I'm sorry if my assumption of good faith is out the window. I will leave it to the community to decide what to do here. I wash my hands of this entirely. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 04:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support The checkuser evidence put forth by Lar on his page is damning, and the fact that he still hasn't completely owned up to what he's done is disappointing. The totality of his actions make me believe that this user is going to be causing more trouble in the future. AniMate^draw 04:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Vicenarian, I'm sorry if you saw my response to your "carrot" as "biting the hand that feeds", but I didn't mean it that way. - Drew Smith What I've done 04:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your apology. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 04:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban As Tan has stepped up here and blocked for one month (unblock for this thread is noted), I am content to trust the judgment of said admin. While the actions of Drew are certainly sanction worthy, a 30 day block does indeed have the effect of a 30 day ban from editing. Another long-standing editor (Durova) has offered to assist in educating Drew, and has a long history of bringing less than exemplary editors into conformity here. We claim to be a project that is open to anyone, and we need to be open to the fact that people make mistakes (a big one in this case). It's quite obvious that Drew would be on a very short leash upon his return, and I would hope that he will learn from this experience. I agree that it would be in Drew's best interests to drop ALL defensive mechanisms, with the understanding that many of us would try to explain themselves when faced with such deplorable actions. I think it behooves the project to stand behind the good faith efforts of our administrative corps, and not start dickering over points that can be addressed in the future. I support Tan's actions, and am comfortable with the sanctions currently in place, with the understanding that further action can be taken at a future date. — Ched :  ?  04:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• For the record, I never disagreed with Tan's block, which was perfectly appropriate given the circumstances. I have brought the discussion here for the entire community to decide if Tan's block is enough or if further sanction is warranted. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 04:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support — Enough is enough. Drew is only vaguely penitent, has not acknowledged everything, and will be further trouble down the road if allowed. The failure to fess to the "my hacked account filed the AC case" and the other July-bullshit is of serious concern. Two CUs debunked that. Just last week he was using a spurious "Vandalism reversion dance"^diff defense of his reverting non-vandalism. He's not here for much more than game playing. And Larry Sanger's revenge (talk · contribs); hmmm? Just post-block on his talk page he has spurned offers of mentorship with "ain't going to happen".^diff He claims to already know "pretty much everything ... that a mentor would be able to teach." Right. Mentorship is a gift that an experienced person offers and a foolish one snubs. Drew has pending requests to change his user name in order to 'start fresh'. Not-how-it-works. And the forgery? Appalling. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Have checked Drew's talk page. It seems he's long expended the community's good faith in him and his posts- including those in this thread - are not helping his cause. Can't be trusted to permanently reform when he's fouled up every opportunity to do so. If you've been constructive in the past, what made you go off the beaten track all of a sudden? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Only if it will help end all this drama-queen banter and get everybody back to doing something more productive instead of wasting time and resources dealing with an attention-seeking editor. -- œ^™ 05:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - unless user agrees to mentorship, gets a serious, good mentor, and is straightened around, user doesn't belong here any more. But user doesn't want that, and good faith exhausted, so cut losses, move on. ++Lar: t/c 11:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Jack Merridew is wrong about the "vandalism reversion dance", as can be seen both from reading the whole of the user talk page discussion at User talk:Drew R. Smith#August 2009 and reading the edit history of Damien Duff, the page that was being edited at the time. Unless one is going to suggest that Bubba hotep (diff diff), Dancarney (diff), Spiderone (diff diff diff), 213.86.244.72 (diff), Morry32 (diff), and Fernandosmission (diff) are all also sockpuppets of Drew R. Smith, since they were all making the same reversions, both before and after Drew R. Smith was making them, the more obvious and straightforward explanation is that this was one editor, 90.192.190.110/90.193.153.214, being reverted by multiple other editors for adding subtle POV-pushing and sports-team-boosterism to an article.

  As third opinions, we should be careful about the accusations made by some long-time involved editors here, and independently check them ourselves rather than rushing to judgement taking the accusations on their faces. Uncle G (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  Well this isn't a vandalism revert (end the others are about the same). Looks to me like a whole lot of poor editing and edit warring over it. He was cautioned about the editwarring and made his "VRD" comment. I called it out because it gets to Drew's view of dealing with vandalism as a game (or dance;). Anyway, that incident is small beer ;) There's lots more here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral about an immediate medium-term block, Strong Support for mentoring and a clear statement any further disruption of any kind will result in an unconditional, immediate and permanent block. I'm somewhat convinced that he genuinely wants to reform - and I think we can agree that he's done enough useful work around here to be of some value to the community. We simply have to make it crystal clear that this is quite utterly his last chance EVER. For those who don't believe that he genuinely wants to reform, well, don't sweat it - he's outta here if he makes even one more mistake. For those who believe he can do better - a crystal clear statement that his next mistake will (without debate or doubt) be the last time he ever edits Wikipedia in his entire life - should help to keep Drew thinking of the consequences each and every time he edits. As for a shorter term block/enforced Wikibreak...Meh...he either means it or he doesn't...I don't think a month off will make a difference either way...but on the other hand, there have been serious infractions, and perhaps it sends the wrong message to leave that unpunished. I don't really care either way. SteveBaker (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - Per Ched. Per Durova. He's willing to admit his mistakes. He came clean (even though it did take him forever). He is willing to make reparations. That is the sort of behavior we should encourage on the part of the people who screw up like this. One mistake should not lead to an indefinite ban, especially when the user is willing to make amends. NW (Talk) 15:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

One mistake? Lol. Tan | 39 15:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's multiple events, but all that stem from the original mistake and the lying to cover that up. NW (Talk) 15:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you really researched this issue, but you're entitled to your opinion, of course. Tan | 39 15:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)-

(edit conflict) Well, what did I miss? This is my understanding of events: He misremembered something when answering a ref desk question. When people questioned him about it, he photoshopped a fake quote. When others questioned him about it, he lied and said his edition must be different and dug himself into a deeper hole, because he wanted to save face. He claimed his account had been hacked, similarly, to save face. Tons of people wasted time trying to track down the book. Checkusers wasted time verifying his story. Did I miss anything else major (besides the sockpuppetry, which seems to be unrelated to this case?) NW (Talk) 15:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a ban discussion, I don't think we should focus on one incident, but rather should assess the editor as a whole. So, the sockpuppetry is, in fact, relevant. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 15:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)With all due respect, NW, don't forget the CheckUser-verified sockpuppetry, the vandalism under his IP, the filing of a bogus ArbCom case while his account was "compromised"... this constitutes more than one mistake. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 15:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the pointy MFD nom of WP:SERVICE and (arguably) DRV after the demise of the the Vandalism Patrol... But at this point that's just icing on the cake. –xeno^talk 15:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - falsifying data on Wikipedia is kind of like cheating on your spouse. It may not be a dealbreaker for everyone, but it destroys any trust you had earned. Given that our readers must be able to trust information on Wikipedia (for variable values of 'trust'), we cannot tolerate at any time anyone who demonstrably falsifies data to, and this is the sad part, win an argument that isn't even in articlespace. If he is willing to do that, whether or not he has done so in articlespace is immaterial; we cannot trust that he hasn't. → ROUX ₪ 17:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, support block. Tan had this just about right from the beginning, IMHO. In the absence of any indication that Drew actually thinks this recent refusal to admit a mistake was wrong, and in light of previous history, I think the 1 month block is a good idea, for Drew as well as Wikipedia. It gives everyone, from Drew to Durova to the rest of us, time to think calmly about what we want to happen in 1 month plus 1 day, instead of making hasty decisions. If he wants to work with Durova, it can be done on Commons, but he needs to get away from this place for a while. If anything untoward happens after the block expires, he's going to get indef blocked anyway, and no one will be lobbying for an unblock, so we'd have a de facto ban. Why go thru the trouble of this discussion, and trying to tease a consensus out of it, when it will be solved with minimal effort on its own? Except for my support of continuing the 1 month block, I agree with almost everything else SteveBaker says at User talk:Drew R. Smith#Modest Proposal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban. Falsification of data is bad enough to warrant some sanction, persisting in it when caught is worse, persisting in it when the horse is already glue to the point of disrupting other matters and continuing a campaign of denial at that level can only result in a loss of a sense of AGF for anyone who deals with him, leading to disruption and double-checking of anything he does. It does not benefit anyone to have the community shoulder that burden longer. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support It has long been my sense that the net effect on the project of Drew's presence is negative; he seems a nice guy, one whose deep knowledge of, for one, fish is surely a benefit, but his poor judgment prevents him from contributing constructively, a problem that is not readily overcome. Although I am not, contra Tan infra, convinced that this discussion will not produce a consensus for a ban, I endorse LHvU's proposal as a reasonable alternative should the firmer result not command the support of the community. Joe (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban if and only if Drew fess up and be held fully accountabilty for his mistakes. I would support this ban if it is discovered that Drew didn't admit everything, or he continued the disruptive behaviour. Although Wikipedia is not therapy, I don't think banning members who go through hard times is the way to show an open editing environment. The original thread that started this was very personal and I believe him when he says things just spiraled out of control. A Wikibreak is the appropriate course of action if one is unable to edit due to personal matters, and weighing Drew's positive contributions against this mess and he's a net asset to the project. I also support the compromise listed below as it seems well thought out. striking, as I didn't see Durova's objection. If one volunteers it is one thing, but editors shouldn't be forced into caring for others. ThemFromSpace 21:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, until he takes responsibility for his actions, and seeks out the guidance of a mentor. I would have supported LessHeard vanU's compromise, but Durova has made it clear that they will not be monitoring Drew Smith. –blurpeace ^(talk) 21:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Compromise sub-proposal

Compromise I propose the community ban takes effect upon the next sanction, after this one expires, should there be one. Durova is willing to keep an eye on the individual, and there are those who oppose the community ban for other reasons, so there is unlikely to be the absolute consensus for the ban now, but there is recognition that the next block will be indefinite with little chance of it being lifted. I suggest we formally declare that the next sanction constitutes a ban, therefore requiring consensus to have it removed rather than the de facto indef block/ban, and move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I support this, assuming the one month block is reinstated when this discussion is closed. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 19:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• As do I, same provision. ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• I support this also, per Lar and Vicenarian. →javért ^breakaway 19:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support LHvU's compromise with Vicenarian's addendum. I think that Drew has really abused the community's trust, and am leaning more towards an outright ban, but I'm willing to give him one more chance. If someone finds another skeleton in the closet from before the recent kerfuffle, that should also be considered grounds for imposing the ban, unless Drew admits to it before he's caught.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - it took an expert quite some time to find the deception here, and Drew only came clean about all the misbehaviour when forced to by overwhelming evidence. We have absolutely no good reason (and don't bleat AGF at me; we are past that point) to believe there has been no other falsification. → ROUX ₪ 19:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Um, I'm not sure what you're saying here. You seem to be indicating that the editor may have engaged in other falsifications, and saying he shouldn't be banned because of that? Maybe you could clarify a little, please? John Carter (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• He's opposing the compromise, not the ban. Tan | 39 20:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• What tan said. Bad indenting. → ROUX ₪ 20:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Undeclared falsification? If Drew R. Smith admits to same during the current block then we go forward as I propose. If they do not admit to such matters by the time the block ends and is later found out, then they are blocked and community banned per my proposal. This provides both the necessary incentive in coming clean now, and the consequences of hiding it should they not. As I don't know the editor I can still AGF that they intend to be a positive contributor from now on, and this is the manner in which to ensure it. Of course, they may indeed be no further reason for concerns.LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• (three ECs later) Roux: That's a good point. (I'm not opposed to an outright ban. I just support this as well as a way to not founder on lack of consensus, mind you) If I may suggest, perhaps require Drew to come clean now, during the time period of the 1 month block, and anything found afterwards, whether done before or after the block, would be one of the things triggering expiration of Drew's final chance? ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that's what LHvU said too. :) ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• My issue is the falsification. He didn't actually come clean; he was proven to have done it and then admitted to it after overwhelming evidence was presented. Without going through every single contrib one by one and checking them, there is zero chance he will come clean on anything else (if there is anything else), and there is no reason to believe that it won't happen again in the future unless there is someone checking each and every contribution. Neither of those things is practical, so as a very simple matter of expediency he must be permanently disallowed from editing because none of his contributions can be trusted in any way. → ROUX ₪ 20:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Seems a reasonable proposal. Endorse. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly object. At no time have I offered to 'keep an eye' on this person. LessHeard van U ought to have consulted before attempting to speak on my behalf. He misstates the matter. Durova³⁰⁶ 21:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• When you said "FWIW, Drew and I are talking right now about image restoration (planning a collaborative FP drive for an Edouard Manet illustration of Edgar Allen Poe). Drew's got talent and may be coachable to be productive an area where the site's most seasoned eyes will be upon his uploads", above, I suspect some read that as possibly an offer to work with the editor and maybe even "keep an eye" on them but given a reread I can see how that's not what it says. Please forgive LHvU for having misconstrued you. I'm sure it was an honest mistake without intent to offend. ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• To Lar: in light of this it's a bit of a challenge to extend that much good faith. Durova³⁰⁶ 00:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I obviously misinterpreted your earlier comments. Such misunderstandings often have regrettable consequences, so I am glad to quickly note I had not intended to cast aspersions upon another editors choice of language. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I, too, was under the apparently mistaken impression that Durova was amenable to something like that, given the repeated offers to help and the lemonade analogy. Like Lar said, "oops..." Tan | 39 21:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• An offer to coach technical aspects image restoration is nothing like an offer of general mentorship. LessHeard vanU might at least have left a notice at my user talk, to mention what he was proposing. Let's hope the confusion LessHeard caused doesn't further harm Drew's chances of retaining editing rights. Once this restoration is finished we might have a tricky time nominating it for featured picture. In future, please consult in advance before putting an offer on the table. Durova³⁰⁶ 21:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Durova. It looks like this won't work unless another editor decides to keep an eye on the editor. hmwitht 21:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• @ Durova (after several edit conflicts) Perhaps I took liberties with your comment here as well - if so, I apologize. Perhaps it's just a matter of wording. Would it be a fair evaluation to say that you are willing to work with Drew in the future, and perhaps teach him some of the proper methods he should be adhering to here? Hopefully that wouldn't leave you feeling "responsible" or burdened with the task of overseeing his edits in the future. — Ched :  ?  21:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC) - clarified who the comment was in response to after several edit conflicts. — Ched :  ?  21:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Due to existing commitments such as leading the technical and creative team for the media portion of the upcoming Tropenmuseum exhibit, the commitment you request would be impossible. I would certainly be willing to correspond with a mentor if one steps forward. What Drew has is trainable talent. If he focuses on developing that and putting it to good use, wonderful. Durova³⁰⁶ 21:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thread closure proposal

I don't mean to step on toes here, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Also, I am certainly an involved admin here. But I think it's clear that we aren't going to have a solid ban endorsement, and any "compromise" won't have much official binding authority. What's going to happen is that Drew is going to serve his month, as there certainly isn't consensus to unblock him. After that, I'm pretty sure that there is enough spotlight that people will be checking contributions, references, etc - and if there's another violation of any kind, he'll get unilaterally indeffed, which will be a de facto ban endorsed by the community as no one will unblock him. None of this needs to be official, and I think the business-as-usual approach to this is the best. Technically, he'll be getting another chance, which should mollify the lenient editors here. There's no need to waste time on him any longer; let's revisit when/if we need to. Who knows if he'll even return. while I don't want to be the one to do it, someone should resolve/archive this. Tan | 39 20:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see a lack of consensus regarding a ban. Sure, take with a grain of salt given that I support the ban, but I only see four people opposing it. → ROUX ₪ 20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, plus Durova, and probably some others found at Drew's talk page who haven't chimed in here yet. Plus, endorsement of The Compromise makes everything even more fuzzy. I mostly support a ban, too, Roux... I'm just trying to take the route that wastes the least editor time and ends up with pretty much the same outcome, whatever happens. Tan | 39 20:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, I think a lot more editor time will be wasted if he is allowed back in a month--people will have to be checking all his contribs. If he's not here, no contribs to check. Frankly I am astonished that a discussion even occurred. Falsifying data, abusive sockpuppetry.. what exactly does it take to get banned anymore? → ROUX ₪ 20:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If I didn't have to go through an "admin abuse" merry-go-terror every time I boldly indeffed a net-negative user, I'd do it a lot more often. Tan | 39 20:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is that. Sigh. → ROUX ₪ 20:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems many of those opposing the ban were in support of you, Tan, and your original sanction. However, it sounds like you're leaning towards a ban yourself. If I may be so bold, I think there's consensus for a ban, and I would like to ask an uninvolved editor to close this thread and enact the sanction. Enough is enough Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 20:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you know, this has been bugging me since this whole sorry thing started the morning after (depending on time zone differences) the "false" Drew filed an RFArb against several editors (including Jimbo) – a "new" Drew turned up and said the account was compromised before, but "it's OK now, I've regained control". Don't we block indefinitely for that fact alone, pending cast-iron proof to the contrary and if there's any doubt remaining, the account stays blocked and they start a new one to be on the safe side? Why didn't that happen in the first place? How do we know the person who has defended this massive photo fraud is the "real" Drew. How do we know another Drew won't turn up saying "You won't believe this... I've just logged in for the first time in 6 months and..." Isn't it time to say, "Will the real Drew Smith, please stand up"? – B.hotep •talk• 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. You have a point. If, well, lying kept him from getting banned once, ... . Or, alternately, if he is in such weak control of his account that it could happen once, there's no really good reason to believe that whoever hacked his account once might not be able to hack it again and create similar havoc. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. The account(s) should be indeffed on that basis alone. However, he should not be allowed to create a new account, due to the other issues.

It is also worth noting that those supporting LHVU's compromise were (apparently) doing so on the basis of Durova's involvement. Since she is not involved, there seems to be little/no support for that. → ROUX ₪ 21:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just FYI, I don't think a single administrator on his talk page believed his "account hacked" or "my brother/housemate/dog did it" excuses, so that certainly isn't what kept him being indef'd at the time. –xeno^talk 22:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why wasn't he indeffed for the abusive sockpuppetry? Seriously, what does it actually take these days? Death threats against Jimbo? → ROUX ₪ 22:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, he was extended a "last chance". –xeno^talk 22:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Which based on my reading, was approximately the eleventy-billionth 'last' chance extended. At what point will we learn? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. → ROUX ₪ 22:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Endorse ban-can't be trusted to be a good editor, even with a mentor. I don't think time alone with a mentor is going to give hime an ethical compass to follow, and this seems to be what he's lacking.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support of the ban per Heironymous Rowe. No mentoring, no time restraint or anything of the like is likely to change this user. He's finished here.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Full Disclosure I created an account at commons the other day. Today I went to en.wp and found myself logged on as the name I used at commons. I have accidentaly created a sock, User:Ender The Xenocide. Any sanctions that happen to me need to happen to that account as well. - Drew Smith What I've done 00:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How does one accidentally create a secondary account? (I note this was today, 8/25). Tan | 39 00:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think my creation of an account at commons automatically created one here. After creating the account at commons and uploading some pics I went to sleep. This morning the account was logged in here at WP. - Drew Smith What I've done 00:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This thread is going on and on and off into tangents. Any possible way we can resolve it to everyone's satisfaction? Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 01:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You might consider posting a new thread at the bottom of the noticeboard asking for an uninvolved admin (who has not participated here) to close the discussion and state the result. I think the opinions are in general not satisfied with only a one-month block but there are several votes against a complete ban. I do not see any consensus for an immediate unblock. If the closer were to read all the votes and average all the desired block lengths, it might be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Post closure

Well, this has been closed... but what's the resolution? Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 01:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Tony Sidaway closed the thread, and asserted that consensus exists for the ban. Per EdJ's comment, I think he's previously uninvolved, although he's not an admin. I guess if no one reverts that close, it was a good call, and some admin needs to go reblock. If someone does revert it, then off we go again? That's my guess. Me, I think it's as good a call as any. After factoring out the mentorship proposal I think we're left with many more folk feeling a ban was justified than those feeling that one last last last chance needed to be given. ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So... since you are an admin... volunteering? Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 02:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If no one else wants to do it, I suppose. I'm pretty involved though. Might make sense to wait a few minutes/hours to see if the close sticks. ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was damned if I did, damned if I didn't I guess. If I continued lying, I would've been blocked. I tell the truth, I'm blocked. And there was one final warning, one. I don't know why people keep saying things like "last last last warning". - Drew Smith What I've done 03:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Or you could jus not lie and sock in the first place... Viridae^Talk 03:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What a shocking concept. → ROUX ₪ 03:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see consensus for the ban, though I do support it. I've blocked the admitted sock, but certainly don't feel comfortable enacting the ban. AniMate^draw 03:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I reblocked for thirty days; if someone feels like being bold and indeffing, have at it. I've kinda had enough of this for now. Tan | 39 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This really shouldn't have been archived. Strong support for a ban, maybe, but what ban? Prodego ^talk 03:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I see strong support, but I also see reasonable objections. We're in no hurry here, as Drew wasn't editing outside of this thread. I agree with Tan's move, for the record. It seems the least controversial, though I'd like to see Drew under the watchful eye of a mentor if the block length isn't changed. AniMate^draw 03:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's where we are, and here's where I'd like to close this out. We can't come to an agreement on a ban/indef block, but we are in agreement a substantial block is in order. Consequently, Drew has been reblocked for 30 days. I'd like to again point to my proposal. Drew is encouraged to admit any past transgressions that have not come to light on his talk page, if there are any. Upon the expiration of his block, I (and I'm sure a number of others) will be watching Drew very closely. He is strongly encouraged to seek mentorship, but that is up to him. I think we have consensus that ANY further misbehavior will result in an indef block/de facto community ban, and any past misbehavior we find that has not been admitted to will have a similar result. However, until the expiration of the 30 day block, if there are no objections, I consider this matter closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicenarian (talk • contribs) 04:04, 26 August 2009 (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.

Vandalism of a page that is likely to continue by many IPs

Main page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard § Will Buckley

The Will Buckley page has been repeatedly vandalised. Thanks to the subject being in a controversy at the moment this is unlikely to stop. I've been monitoring it but am about to go to work!

• Will Buckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a BBC/Observer sports journalist

almost-instinct 11:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I semiprotected for a few days, hopefully the folks who are vandalizing will have seen a shiny object and been distracted by then. In the meantime, maybe you can turn up some sources and expand the article? =) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually I'm of the opinion that the subject is pretty non-notable, just a hack. Why I cared about the vandalism, Lord only knows ;-) almost-instinct 22:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletions requested

Resolved

Today, I marked four images for speedy deletion under G8. All the images in question were used on articles that relate to a non-notable band made up of teenagers at a school. The band and related articles have been repeatedly deleted, and the creator was even blocked once for re-creation. See editor's block log. Examples of repeated deletion of articles: example 1 and example 2. You can see a slew of deletions and other warnigns at User talk:Bsbfan.

After tagging these images for G8, administrator Xeno declined the speedies (example) saying the images were not entirely dependent on the deleted articles. I fail to see how these images could be used on any other articles, and any non-article use would be self promotion. So, I queried Xeno on this, and he suggested I take it to IfD. The action of taking it to IfD seems silly, overly bureaucratic and pointless. It's a foregone conclusion these images should be deleted.

Would another administrator please step in and delete these please?

• File:BLADES 2009.jpg
• File:Jadujadu123.png
• File:Soldierblades.jpg
• File:Bladezhero.jpg

Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:DRV is thataway. "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion." → ROUX ₪ 16:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I know what DRV is. This isn't about DRV, but thanks anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think DRV is not for declined speedies, that's what xFD is for. –xeno^talk 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you simply go to IFD as I suggested? That's the correct venue for having an image deleted outside speedy criteria (G8 doesn't apply as far as I can tell) and would've taken less time than making this thread. Note also File:BLADES 2009.jpg has been declined twice before (once by me, once by User:Woody). –xeno^talk 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Xeno, thank you for your time and attention to this. But, I was looking for input from another administrator? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And I'm sure you'll get it. My question remains... –xeno^talk 16:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, this is probably more "bureaucratic" than taking to IfD. Here, we'll have some six-hour drag-out discussion about what rationale to use for deleting some pictures of kids trying to act cool. Look at that first one, by the way - the kid on the left. Awesome. Tan | 39 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any need of answering your question Xeno. I'm not looking for your input. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

An admin's declining a speedy suggests that there is some dispute over whether a page meets with the CSD; because our presumption is against speedy deletion, which the community requires be construed strictly, the proper venue when established editors disagree about whether a page is speediable is XfD. (In any case DRV is probably inappropriate; it has long been our practice that declined speedies go to XfD, not DRV [with the exception, I guess, of BLP1Es on which G10 is sought; I recall two that went from decline to DRV straightaway].) 99.154.83.106 (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think the photos could probably be deleted per WP:CHILD, given that we only have explicit permission from one of the minors (the uploader).
• For the record: I have no issue with an admin deleting these per this, or another reason, without further comment from myself. –xeno^talk 16:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, you policy stickler. I was kinda sad to delete that first one. Tan | 39 16:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WEST SIIIIIIDE !! –xeno^talk 16:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:In the news

Keep discussions together. Moved to ANI. ÷seresin 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Explanation about abuse filters please

I was doing my blocking vandal routine, when this report popped up. Apparently it had triggered an abuse filter. I had a look at the contributions, but there was nothing there (not even deleted). The report mentioned something about a banned user; the IP address was ultimately blocked indefinitely.

I'm not questioning the actions taken against the IP address; clearly an indefinite block was expected (going by the comment left to my query). However, as I have never come across this sort of case before, I thought it best to ask here if someone could explain to me what was going on? Please use words of less than one syllable though... it is late and I am tired! (grin) Stephen! ^Coming... 22:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter 166 is apparently set to disallow, meaning it stopped the ip from making the edit, repeatedly--Jac16888^Talk 22:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm still none the wiser. I think I'm gonna have to sleep on this, and hope my brain recharges overnight, and can make sense of any explanations! Shame abuse filters were never covered in my admin coaching... LOL! Stephen! ^Coming... 22:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically, The IP tried to make an edit, and the filter wouldn't let them. But the filter keeps a record of the attempts so people can see whos trying to make edits they shouldn't--Jac16888^Talk 23:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So where does the banned user come in to it, and how come the IP address gets blocked indefinitely? Stephen! ^Coming... 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't know anything about this filter in particular, but it seems its set entirely to stop a banned sockpuppeteer, who probably makes distinctive edits. As for the indef block, didn't actually notice that, no idea why that is, could be a mistake--Jac16888^Talk 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I started checking diffs and contribs to see if the suggestion (given by the bot) of the IP being a banned user was correct (after the fact), and I couldn't see the similarities. I reduced the block to 48 hrs, for repeatedly setting off the abuse filter. Again, my apologies. And yes, this filter was set to "disallow" those edits, so none of them would show up in contribs or deleted contribs. Killiondude (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

When processing these sorts of AIV block requests, you can see the attempted edits that triggered the filter by looking at the edit filter log. Here is the one for the IP in question. I do not know of an 'easy' way to see the EFlog, so I just click the "contribs" link and then the "filter log" link at the top. — Kralizec! (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Still more questions, I'm afraid! Cluebot automatically reverts suspect edits, and these are still visible on the history. What is it about the edits that trigger the filter abuse that means they are removed from the page history? Also, how can these abuse filter triggering addresses be blocked without apparent warning, whereas all other users (anon and registered) need to go through due process? Stephen! ^Coming... 07:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Cannot answer the second question, but the first is simple: the edits are pre-emptied before they can be saved, which is why they never show up in the edit history. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the second question, some of the filters are only triggered by sockpuppets or vandal memes, so we know they've seen all the warnings. The list of filters which are reported immediately by bot to AIV is at User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js. When we see one of these accurately reported, then we generally block the sockpuppets without any further warning. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

On exception is 58 where the filter only triggers on the most egregious childish vandalism - being ridiculously vulgar in giant capital letters with exclamation points, etc. Those don't require a lot of due process either IMHO. If someone needs to be told that such edits are vandalism, then they shouldn't be editing here anyway. Wknight94 ^talk 14:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As a bit of explanation, this particular filter is designed to stop an uncommonly stubborn harassment vandal, whose easily recognised signature is his IP range(s) and the fact that every edit he makes is a random revert of his victim (me). He's been doing this for over half a year, almost every day, and he's quite easy to spot if you know the pattern. Before getting the abuse filter tuned as it is now, the only means of stopping him was to keep large IP ranges permanently soft-blocked, or to semiprotect every page I touched. But of course, the resulting blocks shouldn't be long or even indef; he hops across a large dynamic IP range. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for everyone's explanations; it is starting to make more sense. Is there anywhere where these explanations are written up, and how administrators should deal with it? I've had a look around, and nothing really leaps out. Stephen! ^Coming... 16:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know so much about explanations, but you can get a general description of the filter at [2], that might give you a bit of an idea what they're trying to do. In this case, it would have at least let you know who the banned user was. Sodam Yat (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that! It would be handy to have some form of explanation in the blocking section of Admin Coaching; I think I'll raise the question there. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Request for comment I've popped a comment in the admin school for blocking about abuse filters. However, as there is not much traffic there, I thought I would ask here for anyone to come and contribute. Thanks! Stephen! ^Coming... 09:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK announces flagged revisions

Related articles

flaggedrevisions

Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Wikipedia literature
26 March 2012

Studying German flagged revisions, French library agreement, German court case
12 April 2010

Financial statements, discussions, milestones
8 March 2010

BLP deletions cause uproar
25 January 2010

Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news
28 December 2009

Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
28 September 2009

WikiTrust, Azerbaijan-Armenia edit wars
31 August 2009

An extended look at how we got to flagged protection and patrolled revisions
31 August 2009

Misleading media storm over flagged revisions
31 August 2009

Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
24 August 2009

New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
25 May 2009

End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
30 March 2009

Commons, conferences, and more
9 March 2009

Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more
16 February 2009

Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
8 February 2009

Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on
31 January 2009

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions
24 January 2009

News and notes: Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones
10 January 2009

Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
12 May 2008

Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled
29 October 2007

Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
2 April 2007

The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
4 December 2006

Wikipedia in the news
2 October 2006

Single-user login, stable versioning planned soon
7 August 2006

More articles

Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Wikipedia literature 26 March 2012 Studying German flagged revisions, French library agreement, German court case 12 April 2010 Financial statements, discussions, milestones 8 March 2010 BLP deletions cause uproar 25 January 2010 Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news 28 December 2009 Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more 28 September 2009 WikiTrust, Azerbaijan-Armenia edit wars 31 August 2009 An extended look at how we got to flagged protection and patrolled revisions 31 August 2009 Misleading media storm over flagged revisions 31 August 2009 Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 24 August 2009 New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews 25 May 2009 End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more 30 March 2009 Commons, conferences, and more 9 March 2009 Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more 16 February 2009 Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs" 8 February 2009 Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on 31 January 2009 Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions 24 January 2009 News and notes: Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones 10 January 2009 Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia 12 May 2008 Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled 29 October 2007 Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 2 April 2007 The Seigenthaler incident: One year later 4 December 2006 Wikipedia in the news 2 October 2006 Single-user login, stable versioning planned soon 7 August 2006

As reported by the BBC [3]. Now call me old-fashioned, but shouldn't that be announced prominently on-wiki? Or has it been announced prominently in a place that no-one will notice? DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the bbc is exaggerating slightly, all that's happened is they've added flagged revs to a test wiki, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-08-24/Technology report--Jac16888^Talk 16:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Mike Peel (who he? - ed.) told the BBC it would start in the next couple of weeks. DuncanHill (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Missed that, User:Mike Peel apparently. Seems unlikely they would start the trial when they haven't even run it on the test-wiki yet. It probably is just the bbc misinterpreting, I'll ask Mike--Jac16888^Talk 16:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This was in NY Times as well, and reported by many other news outlets.[4] Siawase (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And the NYT is attributing it to Foundation officials - do the Foundation not realise that they can talk to us here, instead of having to rely on the press to let us know what they are doing? DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia techblog notice, which I suspect would be considered more or less official. This might be a good chance to see how they work and provide constructive critique. Risker (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, they did announce it prominently where no-one would notice it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an old story that's cropped up again due to the NYT article (which was unprovoked by the WMF, as far as I can tell). Wikimedia UK have certainly not been pushing it, or announcing it - the press have been coming to us. As I've been saying, the trial 'will start in the next "couple of weeks"' (based on information from Brion on wikien-l). Mike Peel (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask that next time you give a quote like that to the BBC you could mention it on-wiki as well? DuncanHill (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Could I please second this? It is not particularly helpful to get these announcements in the press, filtered through so many levels of abstraction that one is left guessing what the original announcement was, when the press statement (or some equivalent announcement) could have been made available here. I'm not singling you out specifically, Mike - but too often I read in the press that "Wikipedia WILL be doing X, according to Wikipedia", when I've never seen X discussed onwiki in the slightest. Far too often, in fact, it is specifically on the subject of flagged revisions. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Where? Mike Peel (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suspect that might not be practical -- how often would such a notice have to be given, and where? Sounds to me like the media took a quiet "we're sorta testing this" and turned it into "WIKIPEDIA ROLLING OUT FLAGGED REVISIONS TOMORROW"... admittedly, the latter is a more eye-catching story, even if it doesn't seem to be the case. Testing of technical features is not a policy announcement; even if we don't want flagged revisions, there are doubtless other MediaWiki wikis that do. Granted, of coruse, that I could be missing something and haven't been interviewing any "officials" lately. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you thoroughly read the thread and links above? The Wikimedia techblog notice (something of which I was previously unaware) says "...before we prepare to deploy these extensions on English Wikipedia in the coming weeks". DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

...good point. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I should explain that nothing I've said today is new - it's all been based on what information I've gathered from on-wiki, and also from the mailing lists. There was no announcement of any sort. I've also basically been fire-fighting - the press have been phoning the UK press phone, and I've been answering their questions to the best of my ability (and coping with their various misunderstandings as to what role I have/WMUK has with Wikipedia). I'd also add that the decision to trial flagged revisions is an en.wp decision by the community. Mike Peel (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So the techblog announcement isn't an announcement? Could it be that careless wording there triggered these stories and enquiries? DuncanHill (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sort of. Brion has been periodically updating for a while now, saying that things would be rolling toward implementation around this time (it actually fell a bit behind schedule). So in that context, the meaning was clear; the community made the decision a while ago to do a trial, so it's just an announcement that it's actually going to be implemented soon. But much of the press seems to have the idea that this was a top-down decision.--ragesoss (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The community has approved Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions (almost) as written, that is: globally passive and 'active' (i.e., with precedence of the latest flagged version) only when admins specifically 'turn it on' (flagged 'protection'), which is subject to the protection policy, and nothing more: no flagged revs for all blps as much of the press says. Maybe a communication glitch ? Cenarium (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Mike, sorry about not answering your question ("Where"?) earlier. Needless to say, there are about a dozen random "announcements" pages scattered around, almost all of them are totally obscure, and most are unmaintained and unwatched - which makes your question tough to answer at present. Probably we need someone to start a new page for such announcements, and since I am someone, I'm going to see about mocking up a suggestion for an appropriate noticeboard. I'll make a prominent announcement when I've got something worked up. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Where will you make this announcement? --John (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest the Signpost suggestions page a good place to announce breaking news?--ragesoss (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's breaking news, it should go on a wiki-wide Watchlist notification or top-banner. Not that many people read the Signpost compared to the number of editors or even active editors. Regards SoWhy 19:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if we something like this or not, but it might be nice to have a page (similar to the ArbCom announcements page) for announcements from Wikimedia Foundation folks. These could include formal announcements like "We are now doing X...", but also responses to press reports that might confuse editors here. Obviously press stories about Wikipedia (and a lot of other things) can sometimes be a bit "off" (for a variety of reasons), and it might be good to offer a space on en.wikipedia where Wikimedia spokespeople can weigh in and/or clarify certain press reports. Lots of people would watchlist such a page, but we could also obviously cross-post important announcements to this noticeboard, the village pump, etc. Just a thought. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think that it's a fine use of a site notice. Although I never miss an issue, The Signpost isn't read by most. hmwitht 21:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

For community announcements that aren't important for readers, I think a talknotice would be optimal. Cenarium (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions was approved by "80% of 259 users" according to the BBC piece. That's 207 users, out of thousands, who are responsible for mucking up Wikipedia. Just saying... -     allstar▼echo     01:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thousands of users are responsible for mucking up Wikipedia? More like hundreds of thousands, or millions, actually. Yes, we have that many vandals. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

At the very least someone official could have put it up on {{cent}}. And when exactly did the community agree to this? I thought we only agreed to a trial run. Maybe there was something in the mailing lists. I don't watch those :( . Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What is being discussed in the press is in fact a trial run, as J. Wales remarked here, "It is a test." There is a lot of support for flagged revs being implemented in at least some form, so presumably if the test is at least somewhat successful we will continuing using them in some fashion. If, for whatever reason, it proves a major or medium-sized disaster, I don't believe there is anything which precludes the en.wikipedia community from saying "this is absolutely terrible, shut it down now." I'd say the most likely outcome is that flagged revs won't end up in the trashcan, completely unused (as some editors want), but nor will they be turned on for the entire project (as some other editors want). We'll end up somewhere in between those two extremes, but there will be a lot of debating, anger, and doomsday predictions before we get there. I'm sure it will all be perfectly goddamn delightful! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's a test. FlaggedRevs is still an affront to IP users and new users alike and isn't going to do anything but provoke more "vandals", who were formerly good-faith users whose sourced information is now being obligated to run thru Azorius-style crap before it gets made live, thus acting as an effective discouragement for new editors. Flatly, there isn't gonna be enough editors to make FlaggedRevs viable on large projects (such as en.wp). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 07:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How is allowing IP and new editors to edit pages that they can't current edit (semi-protected/full-protected pages) an affront to them? Have you read the proposed configuration, which is simply to replace or augment current protection with a flagged protection system? This is why it's been so long coming, as I understand it, because the extension has had to be rewritten to work in the way we've asked for it to work. It's just a trial, it isn't (zOMG) FlaggedRevs in its conventional sense - don't really see the issue. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh cool thanks for clearing that up. Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added the Signpost series template to the right for those editors fuzzy on what happened when.

Note that the proposal presented to the community states "there is no consensus to use an active implementation (in which new edits are not shown to readers unless made by or flagged by trusted users) for all biographies of living people or an arbitrary subset of them, preemptively." It certainly sounds to me from the media coverage that someone in the Foundation is intending to 'use an active implementation for all biographies of living people, preemptively.' If that is the case, then the community has been deceived and the Foundation is simply hiding behind the poll to do whatever it wants. But let's see what the actual implementation is before we break out the pitchforks. - BanyanTree 09:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Banyan, I got the same impression... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

New Wikimedia blog post on flagged revisions. Relating to my above stated concern about a disconnect between what the community approved and what the media says will be implemented, Erik Moeller states:

This post originally said that all biographies of living people would be “flagged protected”. This is not correct. The current proposal is for for articles that are currently under normal mechanisms of protection (where new and unregistered users cannot edit) to be eligible for the new protection model, which allows for more open editing. I apologize for the confusion; thanks to Sage Ross for the quick correction.

I am satisfied. - BanyanTree 01:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Northwest Airlink Carriers

this template has been on speedy for a couple of days and no one has assisted it. HereFord 20:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I redirected it, to preserve the history as best as possible. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

AbuseFilter

We really need to set up a system for monitoring the people creating these. Dragons flight and I have been doing it, but with DF away I am becoming overwhelmed. There needs to be a process to review the filters. For example, there was a filter blocking from linking to uncyclopedia, a task which a) has no consensus and b) is a job for the spam blacklist. There absolutely must be a process created to review filters, perhaps similar to the bot approvals group, except the filters would be reviewed post fact, not pre-approved. Does anyone have any ideas? Trying to keep edits from hitting the condition limit (the point where the filters give up because there are too many checks being applied) requires removing checks, but removing filters is like trying to stem a massive flood single handedly, and every time you remove on, it's sponsor is going to want it back. I need there to be a process. Prodego ^talk 21:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Clear case of the general idea of abuse filters being applied before any real though was put into the overall impact of their being implemented. Some front-loading of this application would have been far, far preferable. Now we're left with a serious mess of a situation. Good luck fixing it. It's not going to be easy. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, the blacklist disallows all insertions of uncyclopedia. The filter (103) however, was designed to only block the insertion of uncyclopedia links by not-autoconfirmed editors. XLinkBot would not see these links (when in templates), or ignore these (when used as 'references', e.g.), so the editfilter could certainly help there. It is unfortunate that the system is so sensitive that its use is seriously diminished. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• IMO, totally inappropriate to disallow adding a link by non-autoconfirmed editors, while admitting that there are legitimate uses and allowing autoconfirmed editors to add them. Prodego ^talk 12:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that new filters should be discussed first if possible (which leads of course to a problem on how to discuss non-public filters effectively). A group of pros like DF or Prodego that work similar to BAG and review new filters first is quite a good idea to avoid bad filters screwing up the 'pedia. Maybe Werdna (talk · contribs) can code some sort of more sophisticated comment system to the whole thing which can then be used to discuss those filters with other AF editors; the current way to communicate in filters using the "notes" field is not really a good way to do it. Regards SoWhy 12:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Physics

Resolved

 – Semiprotected for 1 week. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been vandalized by ip address users for the past few days and I have no clue why, but I think it's enough to protect the page. --Fire 55 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

School's back in. Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. If you'd like, you can take requests for protection here in future - sometimes it's quicker, sometimes not. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright footer change

I'm proposing to add microformats to the Copyright footer we have at the bottom of the pages. This would help make the pages detectable as Creative Commons freely licensed content to search engines that support this (Google advanced search for instance). The proposed change is listed at MediaWiki_talk:Wikimedia-copyright. I will execute this change soon, unless someone presents reasons why the change is a bad idea. Next, there is also some discussion on the Village pump, on wether we should add a CC badge icon, and wether we should add further microformat credentials. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

AIV??

Resolved

 – Blocked. Another reason I should be mopped... ;) Vicenarian (talk · contribs) 19:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been beating back a persistent vandal for ten minutes now... Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 19:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Database issues?

Good afternoon. USS_Beverly_W._Reid_(APD-119) article seems to be appearing and disappearing each time I click on it. There is no deletion log and the history page disappears too. Wikipedia acts like the article has never existed. I initially noticed the problem when I saw a link in recent changes for a new page. I clicked it and Wikipedia said the page doesnt exist. Not that it had been deleted, only that it didn't exist. I clicked back to Recent Changes, found the link again and clicked it and the article appeared. I then clicked History and it said the article didn't exist again. So I clicked the article link, same thing. I hit refresh several times and the article appeared again. Clicked refresh again, it was gone, again and it was there. Since this time, about 2 minutes ago, it seems to stay. Is something going on with the database?--TParis00ap (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

 Works for me –xeno^talk 20:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I am seeing edit histories disappearing. The top two items on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hotmail&action=history disappeared for about 2 minutes.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Works for me too. But it is so weighed down by unnecessary date links that it's probably sunk. I suggest you clear your browser cache and - if your machine is anything like mine tonight, reboot. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's cache because on the [[5]] page, the first time I saw the page it had the 2 reverts. It wasn't until a later time that 1 revert disappeared from the top. If it was cache, it would have been the other way around. I would have seen 1 revert, then 2, then 1 again.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever issue the database was having appears to have been cleared. Probably just an overload. You might have more luck at WP:VPT next time, where some of the more tech-savy users hang out. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps try WP:Village pump (technical). hmwitht 01:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Way too much of a burden!

User:God — "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:God. If in doubt, please verify that "God" exists." @harej 08:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

But well...God has been blocked indef:

20:10, 27 January 2006 Xy7 (talk | contribs | block) blocked God (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (username) (unblock | change block)

So we won't see Him (or Her) edit Wikipedia under their name I guess SoWhy 08:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Is blocking God a form of sacrilege? @harej 08:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because She can still edit anonymously. Rd232 ^talk 09:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't block someone that doesn't exist. ➲ REDVERS ^{It sucks to be me} 09:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This block appears appropriate under both Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names and the Third Commandment (second for those of the Catholic or Lutheran faiths). --Allen3 ^talk 09:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And also the 2nd Commandment (Catholic 1st) if you consider a User:God to be idolatrous. @harej 09:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki is too wishywashy on the topic. Cygwin is much more authoritative:

$ su god
su: user god does not exist

++Lar: t/c 10:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

But my compiler tells me that GOD is real... at least unless I use IMPLICIT NONE. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 15:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the older generation tends to be more religious than their younger counterparts. @harej 23:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's simply the wrong username. Everyone knows that our supreme pastifarian would use User:FSM or User:Flying Spaghetti Monster —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Durzo Blint redirect

Can someone create Durzo Blint and redirect it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_from_The_Night_Angel_Trilogy#Durzo_Blint ? I got a local/global blacklist error. Archer1742 (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done by Ricky81682 (talk · contribs). Killiondude (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

GFDL-only image and media uploads

I am proposing that GFDL-only image and media uploads after a certain cutoff date be speediable. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#GFDL-only_uploads, and not here. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

3D-holoshow

Resolved

 – Article deleted per G11 -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. This article appears to have been created solely for promotion of a product by Ryrocks, which looks like a spam-only account.

I guess I should have filed an AfD, but the process looked a bit too intimidating. :)

—Nailbiter (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted per G11. Tan | 39 16:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles: ChildofMidnight topic banned

By motion of the Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification,

Remedy 9 in the Obama articles case is replaced by the following (timed to run from the date the case closed):

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 12:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this.

Doctor Steel (band)

Before I put myself on a Toy Soldier hit list (which would suck, a good friend is one and he knows where I live), I'd appreciate some other thoughts on this please. We seem to have a Doctor Steel article - again - this would be the tenth different title, since the others have all been salted. (The title Doctor Steel was salted as well, I believe, but Ched Davis (talk · contribs) edited through the protection to create a redirect to the new name, stating that he felt the band has improved in notability.) Background: the Toy Soldiers (Doctor Steel's fans) have been trying to get an article on Wikipedia since 2007. Notability has always been an issue; he's an underground performer, with some glancing blows such as an appearance on Leno (his name wasn't even mentioned) and a couple of bloggy interviews. This deletion review is the best indicator of what's been going on, and recommends userspace drafts before recreation. That was bypassed here. The new article has one reference that might actually be a reliable source; the rest are blogs or from the artist's own sites. The creator has worked on nothing but Doctor Steel articles, and the other major contributor requested in a deletion review today that a deleted and salted article on one of the good doctor's albums be userfied, noting the request came from a "representative of TSU" - likely "Toy Soldiers Unite," the fan club. Because I've been watching this, and involved with it, for quite a while (and because I have work to do), I think I should probably not be involved in dealing with this. Mostly because I've got an itch in my deleting finger. I'd appreciate if some other admins could look at this and see if I'm being too harsh, or if this is something we should look at more deeply. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

First, I want to thank Tony for asking me to comment here. Now, admittedly I don't have a strong preference one way or the other on this subject. The redirect that I created was done so upon request, when another respected editor asked me to speak with the person who was requesting it. The request was actually for about 4 or 5 different redirects, of which I created only the one that I thought most relevant. I looked at some of the history, some of the sources, and looked through several "Google searches" before doing so. Now, that said, I admit that most of the sources for the article are ... ahhh ... less than "prime" sources. It's also a ... ahhh ... rather ... ahhh .. unusual genre of music in my own personal views and tastes. However, I believe in this project as a "sum" of knowledge, so I did recreate the redirect. It appeared to me that it had been about a year since the last deletion discussion, and consensus can change. Looking at WP:BAND, I personally believe this is a borderline case, and have no objections to us having an article on him/them. Most likely, WP:AFD would be the place to continue the discussion, but I certainly wouldn't CSD it. All that said ... I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other on the article, although in general I would prefer to keep any content that wasn't a violation of policy. (NPA, etc.). — Ched :  ?  19:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Every AFD run on articles related to this person/band have been about copyvios. There has not been a full AFD run (near as I can tell) which addresses the issue of notability. Looking at old (now deleted) versions of this article, this article looks substantially different from others, based on that, and the fact that no full AFD has been run which has addressed the issue of notability, the best option would be to actually run a new AFD. Old AFDs under any name should be linked to it. Be as detailed as you can in analyzing the sources, so people know about the reliability of such sources. If you want to make a final decision on this, a fresh AFD seems the best way to handle it. --Jayron32 19:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Jayron's suggestion for another AfD is probably the best idea. Also, I've moved Doctor Steel (band) to just Doctor Steel, the "(band)" being unnecessary. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 21:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with an AFD - despite the long-term campaign of spamming Wikipedia, the latest version of the article still lacks independent and reliable sources which cover the topic of the article in any detail. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'd rather that someone else take on an AFD, but there seems to be some opinion it's needed, so I'll see what I can do. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism on List of former Muslims article

Resolved

There has been persistent vandalism on the article by a user Dhard2009. He has been warned many times in the past, to no avail by myself in his talk page. He keeps re-inserting a non notable figure Charles Wardle to the list, even though this contravenes WP:LIST. Someone please block this guy. SantiagoMatamoros (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• He's certainly persistent, I'll give him that. Blocked. Black Kite 11:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of talk pages

A user has taken to using the talkpage of Hindi, Talk:Hindi as a forum for asking for Hindi translations and spellings.[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. While I realize that the motives of the user are good, these comments do nothing to contribute to the article Hindi. If the user wants to find people able to provide translations of transcriptions, the first step would to be to post such requests at the talk pages of the articles where the Hindi version is needed. Another possibility would be to use WP:LANGUAGE or perhaps better, WP:INDIA. The user could also get in direct contact with Hindi-speaking users. If we start to use talk pages for articles of languages as places to request translations to or from that language, we could soon see the talk pages of larger languages turning into translation forums. Even if the translations are to be used at Wikipedia, I would say that any of the options I've mentioned are better than using talk pages of language articles. In my understanding, talk pages should be used to discuss how to improve the articles to which the talk pages refer.Jeppiz (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Either that, or use the language reference desk. Graham87 13:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That is an even better option, thank you. At any rate, I feel that the requests should not be posted at talk pages of language articles.Jeppiz (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that it is a collaborative encyclopedia. So collegiality and cooperation are important. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is a little backed up. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when you wrote this, there were only 114 pages there - the number is frequently higher. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've hacked away it for a bit, there should be a little less than 75 there now. TNXMan 15:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Eek, I didn't realize it was pretty small then.  :) Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove hardblocks from ALL London schools and libraries

Resolved

 – Unblocked ahead of the start of the school year with the optimistic hope of attracting constructive contributors... –xeno^talk 13:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're getting persistent vandalism from IPs, I expect that you'll block them. What I don't expect, is that you would hardblock IPs from pretty much all London schools and libraries. This is a farce.

What is Wikimedia doing? What is it always doing? It's teaching users about the power of wiki-collaboration. It's reaching out to new users, whether through usability projects, or direct education. Indeed, one of Wikimedia UK's Initiatives is their Schools outreach project. What it shouldn't be doing, is hardblocking hundreds of thousands of users, killing of any write access from public computer terminals which may be the user's only access online. What Wikipedia should be doing, is encouraging these users to become active productive contributors. Not pointing out what beans can be ingested nasally. If the first thing users see when they wish to contribute, is a bit fat Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix telling them how they aren't trusted, they're not going to take to it kindly.

London schools and libraries access the internet through teh London Grid for Learning, and their traffic is routed through a dozen or so IPs. Given the broad scope of the London grid, it is inevitable that you will receive heavy doses of vandalism. There are ways to mitigate, softblocking, block account creation, heck - flagged revisions. There is no adequate reason as to why this range, and this many people should be hardblocked.

Incidentally, the entire range was blocked because of the actions of one vandal who targeted high visibility templates. Maybe you should start protecting those, or maybe lighten up and stop nuking entire ranges for posting "Happy Birthday" messages. Compared to hoax, slander, libel and copyright violations - I'd say it was pretty low on the list of priorities.

Although the block on this IP has expired - there will be many more at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix which are still blocked. 82.198.250.4 (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Would support lifting some of these to see if the vandal has given up. –xeno^talk 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Might as well since the blocks expire in about a month anyway. It wouldn't hurt to run it by Thatcher though. John Reaves 15:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Meh. The template has specific instructions on how legit users can register and contribute. Still, if you want to lift the blocks early, go ahead. Either the vandal has found someone new to bother or he'll be back. Synetrix and its various clients (London Grid for Learning, etc) has a block of 255 addresses but the template vandal only used the 20 or so addresses that were specifically blocked. I would suggest keeping a list of the IPs so that if he does return, you don't have to block the entire range. The template vandal also uses open proxies, but last year, at least, leaving the school unblocked was too much of a temptation for him. He never used his home IP though, presumably he didn't want his parents finding goatse on his hard drive. And, one final comment, despite all the complaints from anonymous users over the year about this block, no one official, such as a headmaster or IT person, has called us about the block. Thatcher 18:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher. You can unblock the Synetrix ones, me and KnightLago had talks (ask him if you like) and I don't do that no more, even though ArbCom and Newyorkbrad have still failed to unblock my account even though they promised to. Also, to clarify, I NEVER did the goatse crap, that was grawp. I was Avril Lavigne obsessed (and still am ^_^ but I have better outlets now for my obsessions). Anyway, as I said I don't do that any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with letting this expire in due time then re-blocking as needed. The template provided is professional, informative and direct. The block is obviously necessary and although a collateral damage exists, it doesn't seem worse net the gains. Protonk (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

let them expire now. this is the sort of very extensive school block that should be a last resort, and be used for very limited periods. With the abuse filter, we now have a very wide range of alternatives. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The template is rubbish, and the block was unnecessary. When you hardblock and tens of thousands of users, many of whom have no other access to the internet, just to get to one vandal - the vandal wins. You need to understand that. Hardblocking for an entire year was totally unreasonable.

As clear as the template is, it's also useless, and kills off any contribution from public machines. The template claims that users must send an email from a non-webmail address, and then edit from home in order to "prove" themselves trustworthy. Do you really think schoolchildren and people who use libraries for internet access have any other means of access to the internet? Who doesn't use webmail?

It may be necessary to soft block these IPs if there is a continuous stream of vandalism. But long term hardblocks are never the answer for these public ranges, allowing these users write access to Wikipedia, promoting growth, is a greater good than the negatives from fucking Avril Lavigne. Shownplus (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with DGG here, in that the blocks should be lifted. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 13:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• I recall a number of occasions when the AV person has said he'll give up, and didn't. However, I trust that this time either he'll keep his word, or we can swiftly block him again. It's probably worth a try - either unblock them or let the blocks expire. But I would recommend no one unprotects the RefDesk :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there wasn't much swift blocking last time lol, but I will keep my word. As for the reference desk, I've been trying to help out there since last spetember, answering questions and stuff, to make up for my past :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• I believe there are also rangeblocks outstanding on other Synetrix clients - I know sub-ranges of the EMBC range (92.43.64.0/21) which serves all educational establishments in seven counties, certainly were hardblocked at some point. Black Kite 13:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Having one admin unblock them all at once will also provide us a useful series of log entries that we can use for future reference. –xeno^talk 12:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Some are already expired. Here's the main ones with their block expiry dates:

• 82.198.250.2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 20 August 2009
• 82.198.250.6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 20 August 2009
• 82.198.250.7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 20 August 2009
• 82.198.250.11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.13 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.15 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.65 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.66 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 20 August 2009
• 82.198.250.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.68 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 19 August 2009
• 82.198.250.70 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.71 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 20 August 2009
• 82.198.250.72 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.73 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 20 August 2010
• 82.198.250.74 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.75 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 20 August 2009
• 82.198.250.77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 20 August 2009
• 82.198.250.78 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.79 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009
• 82.198.250.80 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 20 August 2009
• 82.198.250.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 28 September 2009

-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If you aggregated the data to simply 82.198.250.0/7, you might be able to make a more executive-level decision, but you would have to live with the ambiguity of collateral blockage because you would then be addressing the issue via the reality of a shared IP pool.--75.36.189.192 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We can't block ranges larger than /16. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Can someone do something about this now? - Right now, it's luck of the draw as to whether the PC you log in is hard blocked or not. Can we please remove the hardblocks before the start of the school term. - Shownplus (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and unblocked 22 of these, [14] the others expired 20 August 2009 and one was already renewed by Wknight. No prejudice to swiftly reblocking if vandalism re-occurs. –xeno^talk 13:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Djdela

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by Jake Wartenberg

This user has continually made the same page over and over again for the past 20 min and it keeps getting speedy deleted and he keeps making the same page it's getting very annoying another user did report him under vandalism, but it's taking too long.--Fire 55 (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Fire 55 (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest "Profound Intent" Coatracks/Spam...

The band "Profound Intent" has tried for a long time to get articles on their band, their members, etcetera on Wikipedia. Some of the articles had been created ten or more times before being salted/protected against recreation. See [15] for the last time I saw them pop up. It now seems they're attempting to WP:COATRACK their way into having an argument about being able to recreate the article on the band.

Could someone look at the four articles and determine if they are A) Notable enough to have an article, or B) If the section on the band should be removed as not being relevant to the subject.

Larry Pretlow II (The article on his music career, LaPret was deleted ten times, before being salted.

Associated Society of Youth Engaged in Politics (see section at bottom which mentions the band (with "Profound Intent" being a redirect to the Larry Pretlow II article). I'm not sure the article as a whole is notable, but we can take that to AfD if necessary.

Rasi Caprice. again, the Profound Intent is a redirect to Larry Pretlow II, plus "Associated Acts" has LaPret/Larry Pretlow II there.

John Capozzi The whole DC Statehood thing is one big PRofound Intent section.

More eyes would be appreciated, thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

John Capozzi probably meets WP:Politician, being listed at Shadow congressperson. For the rest there is precious little evidence of notability. Given the previous history, it would be tempting to speedy delete them, and also to remove the reference to them at John Capozzi. Rd232 ^talk 22:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have placed CSD's on the first three, and removed the Profound Intent section at the John Capozzi article. SirFozzie (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I declined the speedy requests, as these clearly do not qualify for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion (A7) is only for articles which do not make claims of importance. These clearly do make such claims. Whether such claims of importance amounts to the subjects being notable is up for debate, which is why that debate should be had. Please start WP:AFD for each of these. They will likely be deleted via AFD, but if it is done the right way at least once, it will make it that much easier to enforce a speedy deletion (G4) in the future. --Jayron32 02:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is being handled in OTRS as well, although I'm not sure of the ticket number because it's gone to the Legal queue. My advice is to let the office handle it for now. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive edits

User By78 is indulging in disruptive edits. This is happening repeatedly even after warning has been issued by the Administrators. In the Arihant class submarine page Disruptive edit the word harbor trial has been replace with float out.Bcs09 (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you attempted to discuss this issue with the editor? Also, have you notified By78 of this posting? TNXMan 16:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0

I'd just like to bring to people's attention the recent creation of a draft Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0. I think it's easy to see how a really good article creation wizard could help with a number of things that end up on admins' plates, as well making it easier for newbies to contribute constructively, and reduce the likelihood of them getting bitten by anti-vandal/anti-spam/anti-junk procedures. So I'd like lots of people to chip in with bringing the wizard to a version good enough to put live, sooner rather than later (and by live I mean linking to it from lots of places, from welcome templates to relevant mediawiki interface, etc). Discussion is here Wikipedia talk:Article wizard2.0. PS Sorry for cross-posting, I've already noted on WP:VPR, but I think done right it could be a great thing, and doing it right needs lots of input. Rd232 ^talk 01:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that this looks pretty good. I'd advocate its being disseminated as Rd232 suggests, with possible revision in accordance with any minor quibbles. Deor (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

An overview of Outstanding issues is now available at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard2.0#Outstanding issues. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 18:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Pop quiz

How many indefinite mutual interaction (i.e. Editor A may not discuss/interact with/antagonize Editor B) bans are active right now? No looking at RFAR histories or WP:SANCTION. And no, this is not an invitation for editors under these topic bans to tiptoe around them by mentioning the topic ban, thus provoking a stupid meta discussion and/or a block. Protonk (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1, 2, . . 5! 3, sir? 3! TNXMan 03:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Um... 60? 90210? Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me}   04:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Too many? Too few? Uhh... 42? 867-5309? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Shoot the hostage. Livewireo (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it count if one or both parties are no longer active on Wikipedia? -- llywrch (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would assume so; a restriction can remain active even if the parties are inactive at a particular moment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this a question to which you have an answer? Or are you looking for someone who does? Horologium (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A more interesting question besides just a pure number could be a "trend line". That is, at what rate are the number if interaction bans occurring? Is it possible to project ahead, and compute the approximate date by when no one will be allowed to contact anyone? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• If I had to guess off the top of my head, I'd say less than three dozen(ish). If I can take the liberty of reading between the lines, if your concern is that these are nearly impossible for the admin corps to track, I wouldn't worry. I guarantee the other editor in the MIB will be more than happy to report an infraction, and link to the ban discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat from a vandal

Wrong noticeboard. This is an incident. Please read the emphasised text in the edit notice when posting here. Uncle G (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

I've recently got involved in mediating a topic I've not previously been involved with, a heated one subject to prior ARBCOM case. This seems generally to have been going fairly well, but strangely I've been having problems with one editor in particular (oddly, or perhaps not, he was one of two editors whose ANI block/unblock thread prompted me to get involved). Now the editor does engage in some constructive debate, whilst at times also being highly dismissive of others' attempts to debate, and it seems this has contributed to some editors withdrawing from the topic. My attempts to try and move things forward - let bygones be bygones, let's focus on content, sort of thing - seem to have increasingly led this one editor to view me as an opponent, and responding with a sort of wikilawyering where he seeks to find fault with my actions instead of responding to the points made. This has got to the point where a user talk reminder to properly indent talk page replies was deleted without comment, and when I left another message saying that wasn't very helpful, he deleted that too and complained elsewhere of "harassment"!

So my question is this: does anyone have any suggestions? I'd like to avoid making a federal case of it if possible... but what appears to be a WP:Battleground mentality is making that extremely difficult, unless I just give up, which would be an option of the attitude was only directed at me, but it isn't. But nor is it general - he's capable of focussing on and discussing content when he wants to. Anyone? Rd232 ^talk 14:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

PS On a related note, is a consistent refusal to follow talk page indentation practice, despite reminder, considered disruptive? It seems so to me. I pointed to Wikipedia:Indentation and WP:Talk, and he said the former was just an essay (which is true); and I note now the latter was the wrong link (Wikipedia:Talk page has a section on Indentation, WP:Talk has one sentence). Nonetheless he's been around long enough to know how it works, he's no newbie (2 years, 13k contributions...). Rd232 ^talk 14:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered a request for comment on user conduct? Also, you're always welcome to post mediation related questions on WT:MEDCAB. PhilKnight (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support your suggest PhilKnight, in light of Rd232 very one sided view outlined above. Is it not also correct to provide diff's to support claims and accusations? Thanks again Phil for the suggestion, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation certainly would be a good idea if both sides would agree to it. There was a proposal up recently that didn't get accepted. Since then it seems the editors have worked out at least part of a framework that both sides agree is fair. Without favoring either Rd232's or Domer48's view of the matter (the dispute appears to have nuances regarding loaded phrases which escape the comprehension of this Californian), past experiences with other long term disputes have turned up two consistent patterns, one or both of which usually happens when an administrator steps in and attempts to resolve the matter:

1. The administrator either has or develops a preference for one side of the dispute.
2. The administrator is totally unbiased, but one or more strong partisans attribute bias to that administrator and repeat the allegation until it gains traction.

Either scenario hinders resolution. So if it's feasible for all parties to focus on content rather than conduct that would be best. Durova³⁰⁶ 19:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Durova I think you represent the situation fairly well, so thanks for that. The initial issues was with this editor here I provided a brief review here and another report was produced here so this in my opinion is not a case of moderating but IP Abuse. While I do not have a problem at all with the “moderator” now appearing on any and every article I edit however when they become a participant in a discussion it is another story. I’ve suggested they file a WP:RfC, but in the mean time, they should refrain from making accusations unless they are willing to support them with diff’s. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I suppose I should have anticipated Domer48 finding this post and deducing that the question was regarding him. But in view of the fact that I was pointedly not making "claims and accusations" but asking for comments without specifying the editor I was asking about, I'm slightly surprised that he finds it helpful make any comments here. Incidentally two points made do need addressing: first the notion that the IP I placed under 1RR restriction for a variety of problematic edits can be characterised simply as "IP abuse" (no); and second the notion that I'm "appearing on any and every article I [Domer] edit". I appeared on a couple, in the course of investigating the behaviour of the IP which Domer (and another) had asked me to address! I got stuck on a couple, attempting to move the discussion along a bit. Again, if one were seeking to build a case that Domer views WP as a battleground, he seems happy to continue furnishing evidence to support that. Finally, Domer continues to fail to indent his comments when they are replies. What exactly is up with that, Domer? PS Filing an RFC is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to avoid - that's one of the options my "federal case" remark was alluding to. I'm focussed on trying to move content discussion forward - a point I believe you've heard me make before. Rd232 ^talk 21:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors here are no fools and your comments are directed towards me! Now this is heading for a WP:RfC, as your continued disruptive accusations have continued. Admin's can review the edits of the IP and make up their own minds on it and act on it if they wish. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no wish to go through the rigmarole of an RFC, but Domer's response above, and his response to my comment at Talk:Irish Volunteers suggests a determination to force a confrontation. I have come to this topic with no prior engagement and little interest, and I have tried my best to move things forward, including sanctioning some problematic editors. It did not initially seem that Domer was a problematic editor, but as I've seen more of the topic, it's become evident that in some respects he is; although in view of a record of some useful contributions in what I've seen, and a very long history on Wikipedia (2 years, 13k edits), I'm unsure how to proceed. Here are the problems I've observed:

1. An apparent unwillingness to engage constructively in discussion on the basis of being open to changing his mind. This takes the form either (eg Talk:Irish Volunteers#First Volunteers meeting) of ignoring key points made, whilst repeating variations of his point, making the whole thing rather circular; and when the position becomes untenable, retreating into sarcasm and tendentiousness. Or else bluntly refusing to engage (and declaring an editor "a troll") [16] or else just not engaging substantively with the issue (Talk:Peter_Hart#Article_is_entirely_unbalanced; eg in that discussion)
2. A willingness to engage in wikilawyering, citing policy that everyone is evidently aware of, to some extent in lieu of actually responding to points others make. Example: [17] Another example: a reversion of his deletion of another's talk page comments led to this unedifying exchange about a previous exchange where he'd left me a comment on an article talk page, and I'd removed it as the substance was recorded elsewhere and it wasn't relevant to the article, and responded to his point on his user talk page. This had satisfied him at the time, but suddenly it became an issue!
3. Willingness to take offence at nothing. For example a reminder to indent replies [18] was deleted without reply or comment, but the fact of having reminded was used as part of this comment accusing me of "being very hypocritical" (because I'd remarked that his previous citation of sourcing policy was unnecessary). When I responded to the deletion without comment, he claimed "harassment" [19] Rd232 ^talk 00:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Deleting others' talk page comments. [20] Albeit the comment accused two editors (including Domer) of gaming the system, I considered deletion inappropriate and unconstructive, particularly by one of the editors in question. My reversion of the deletion (together with a "let's move on and AGF" reply) was met with this outburst.
5. Fairly consistently failing to indent talk page replies appropriately. As demonstrated in this very thread.

Well I guess that's it - and that's basically from a few days at just three article talk pages (Talk:Irish Volunteers, Talk:Peter Hart, Talk:Dunmanway Massacre) and his user talk page; but in addition one editor had remarked that his behaviour contributed to him leaving [21], and he has a substantial block log (padded somewhat by unblocks). So what course of action can be taken here? I'd love to see Domer do some soul-searching and appreciate a certain need to be a bit more forgiving, a bit more open-minded in terms of being able to change his position in the face of evidence, less eager to seek fault in others and and generally more willing to be collaborative. I've seen no sign of that being at all likely, but it's by far the most preferable outcome. I'm not sure what else would be an appropriate course of action. Comments? Rd232 ^talk 00:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that there's a better framework for discussion than during the last mediation request, would you be willing to undertake another try at mediation? Durova³⁰⁶ 00:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand - what was the last mediation request? Also I'm not really sure what there is to mediate; the specific content disputes I've seen don't seem to need that. (Or insofar as they do, I've been trying to do that, notably for PIRA by use of a subpage draft, User talk:Rd232/PIRAlededraft.) Rd232 ^talk 00:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you're involved and playing a game of "I didn't hear that." You have strong differences with one of the editors involved. If you want to participate in editing the article and in discussion that's great, but to suggest that you're in a good position to mediate and administrate seems pretty preposterous to me without even looking into the specifics of the dispute. I'll take you at your word that you mean well, but when the role you're trying to play isn't working you need to change tacks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect, our differences on unrelated topics, ChildofMidnight, make your contribution here less than helpful, especially since by your own admission you haven't looked at the specifics. I do not in fact have strong differences with Domer on content; you could not possibly reach that conclusion if you'd bothered to read the talk pages in question. The most text-heavy dispute (Talk:Irish Volunteers) revolves around whether the first meeting of an Irish organisation I've never hard of took place in October 1913 or November 1913! Do I give a monkey's either way? I do not - I'm merely trying to mediate in a discussion about sourcing. Rd232 ^talk 11:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a mediation request on the disputed lead sentence filed within the last month, but not all parties agreed to it. Formal mediation would be better than informal. When one side isn't confident about the mediator's neutrality that usually stands in the way of resolution (whether or not the mediator actually is neutral). There's an art to effective mediation; for a long term dispute it's best when that's in experienced hands. Durova³⁰⁶ 06:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Durova, "the disputed lead sentence"? The lead of what? And I have had no indication that anyone else has had problems with my attempts to help, quite the contrary - primarily at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army and User talk:Rd232/PIRAlededraft. (Some words of thanks here - User talk:Rd232#Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army). I appreciate I'm not experienced at mediation, but I thought I was doing OK, and I'm not about to give up because of one editor who exhibits the behaviour noted above. Rd232 ^talk 11:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ack, apologies. Admin name of letters plus three number combination, confusion about what was said to whom. The basic suggestion of formal mediation (generally speaking) still stands on the lesser grounds of how longstanding the disputes in the general area have been, and the advantage of getting the most experienced individuals to help broker a solution. Durova³⁰⁶ 02:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I’m not about to waste Admin’s and Editors time here with one of my robust defences complete with diff’s, though it appears to me that the ones offered as an indictment have made a good start for me. To avoid the drama of a WP:RfC all I’d insist on is that editors remain WP:CIVIL refrain from making personal attacks and abide by our talk page guidelines. If at all possible, I like it if editors could confine themselves to using verifiable and reliably based sources during discussion and not offering long rambling posts based on their own personal analyse. While I’d like that, I’ll not insist on it. I don’t think that I’ being at all unreasonable here and I’d hope we could all agree and support this request. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Rd, as you know I've had endless drama dealing with this case and this particular user in the past. If you open a request for comment on user conduct, then I would give my account on the interaction with this user and be one of the two requisite parties to certify the report. Although not experienced in this particular dispute (like you and I), I am sure both User:Rockpocket and possibly User:SarekOfVulcan would also be able to describe their encounters with the user. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In view of Domer's typically wikilawyering response above, I reluctantly conclude an RFC is probably necessary. I'll have a think about it. Rd232 ^talk 14:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked, shocked I say that you haven't been more successful as a mediators. Your calm, rational and helpful approach is clear for all to see. Perhaps the RfC should be on your bullying and inappropriate behavior? I'd be willing to certify. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to say about that. I'm suddenly wondering if an WP:RFC/U against you would be appropriate, but given our previous exchanges on unrelated topics (which seems to be your sole motivation for commenting here, considering you've by your own admission not bothered to look at the details), it would be better not to. However if somebody else were to propose one, I would consider whether it was merited. Rd232 ^talk 16:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You claim you have no idea why you're not an effective mediatior, yet even here you go on the attack bullying those who disagree with you. I comment where I have something helpful to say. In the case of this thread, it seems obvious and worth noting that your attacks and bullying aren't constructive to building an encyclopedia let alone helpful and collegial approaches to being a mediator. That you engage in this sort of behavior as an admin is troubling. Yes, I have a history with you because I've seen similar behavior from you elsewhere. Shape up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply such nonsense, except to remark that you should really stop disrupting a thread which is nothing to do with you. File an WP:ANI or separate AN post or an WP:RFC/U or whatever it is you feel the need to do. Rd232 ^talk 17:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Please keep in mind that it is a collaborative encyclopedia. So collegiality and cooperation are important." -- CoM, about thirty seconds earlier Tan | 39 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was being reasonable with my suggestion above, obviously not? It appears that there are a couple of Admin's with axes to grind, and I'm to be the sharpening stone. If I could just make one suggestion, Nja247, you seem very eager and hot to trot, so instead of pushing and poking Rd232 to have a pop at me, why not do it yourself? You obviously got the green light from User:Rockpocket and User:SarekOfVulcan to be putting their names forward like this otherwise it’s very inappropriate to be doing that IMO. A bit like using an editors block log to bolster a weak argument. So if editors would not mind, could they please let me know how far back they want to go with my WP:RfC, will we be all working together on this, like a group action, or is it one at a time? Is it the case that my suggestion above has no merit at all? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Making general comments about policy is not "being reasonable" in this situation. Being reasonable would involve some kind of comment showing that you understand you have made mistakes and that you can improve (as no doubt we all can). At the very barest minimum, it would involve finally responding to the point about indenting comments! Look, I'm not going to jump into an RFC just because an editor with an unrelated beef (ChildofMidnight) disrupts this conversation. But to in good conscience leave the matter here for the time being, I need some sign from you that you understand why I said the things I said above, and that there are things you can do better, and that you will seek to do them better. Rd232 ^talk 17:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're not allowed to discuss policy. That is strictly prohibited. Rd232's idea of mediation is that he tells you how things should be and that's it. Numerous editors have suggested with various levels of subtlety that his approach isn't working, but instead he's concluded that they are all wrong and the solution is to take his dispute to the next level. That's, apparently, what he thinks mediators do. I don't have a beef with rd232, but his disruptive bullying is not conducive to encyclopedia building. He calls someone a wikilawyer, which is a personal attack, and threatens anyone who disagrees with him with RfCs, yet thinks he's an effective mediator. Domer, I would jsut disengage as best you can. Rd232 acted the same way on Yusuf Irfan where there were grotesque BLP violations and distortions and refused to help the subject of the article. Finally they had to take legal action so they could get some effective response from Wikipedia. That kind of thing shouldn't be necessary, but with admins like Rd232 it is unfortunately. They only hear what they want to hear and ignore anyone who disagrees. We're all wrong, so that's the end of the story. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yusuf Irfan? (actually Irfan Yusuf) ROTFLMAO. An article I edited in April from a WP:BLPN request (AFAIR - and probably from you). Whilst I was just trying solve BLP problems and generally follow relevant policy, no doubt it seemed to you that I was on your side there - except that when you posted a section on the talk page "Administrative action needed" I told you that wasn't the way to do it, and also said I thought that wasn't going to be helpful. You raising this here and now in this way is hard to respond to without falling over laughing. PS Nice work on misrepresenting my comments and actions (did I use the noun "wikilawyer"? no); I'm not going to bother responding in detail, but if an RFC is filed against you, I may come back to it. Rd232 ^talk 17:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it humorous that an individual had to take legal action to get a biographical article about them cleaned up because of your flawed judgment and failure to take appropriate action. Here again we see you causing disruption and wasting the time and energy of numerous good faith editors by refusing to recognize that you are not in any position to be a mediator in this situation. You are at odds with one of the parties involved. What is it that isn't getting through? This isn't rocket science. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

CoM, there is no indication of legal action at Talk:Irfan Yusuf or in the history of Irfan Yusuf, an article I unwatched long ago after dealing with the problems that prompted the original BLPN request (AFAIR). What was left was AFAIR fine, WP:BLP-wise. And the only one disrupting things is you - has the topic ban blown that big a hole in your wikilife? Rd232 ^talk 19:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion above is directed at you and the editors on the talk pages. Now are you willing to insist and agree that editors remain WP:CIVIL refrain from making personal attacks and abide by our talk page guidelines. Are you going to encourage editors to confine themselves to using verifiable and reliably based sources during discussion and not offering long rambling posts based on their own personal analyse? Now, are you going to stop presenting yourself as a moderator and accept that you are an active participant in these discussions? Making general comments about policy is "being reasonable" very reasonable in this situation. Please look are your indenting here and you keep going on about it? civility in my book is more important. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course I understood that Domer - it's probably not clear to anyone else why you cite those particular policies but it is to me. And of course I will seek to get everyone to abide by relevant policies, and by and large they do, and when they don't I have responded to that in what I thought was the most appropriate way. I'm not going to stop presenting myself as a moderator, because that continues to be what I'm trying to do. I'm not substantially editing articles on this topic, and I'm trying to limit my talk page comments to moving things forward in content discussion and so forth. I think I've asked you this before - but what exactly do you expect of a moderator? For example, at Peter Hart I pointed out problems on Talk:Peter Hart, but didn't do anything apart from posting at WP:BLPN (and then someone else did something about it). Finally, your habit of finding fault in others instead of addressing your own seems to be popping up again - though on this occasion I don't see what your link above to my indenting is supposed to demonstrate. Let me just say pre-emptively that in 15k edits I've probably not correctly indented every comment I've ever made. Mea culpa; but I do try. Your turn. Rd232 ^talk 18:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That you will "seek to get everyone to abide by relevant policies" is about the best I'm going to get so I'll accept that. Based on your comments and opinions on the articles you have currently inserted yourself into, I see you as an active participant in these discussions, and not as a moderator. Your conduct and comments here illustrate that also. Now unless there is anything else, I'll take my leave of this discussion. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 18:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is something else. As I indicated above, the barest minimum for letting this go is that you (a) accept that you've not always been indenting comments properly and (b) will try do so in future. This is an unbelievably trivial thing, and I've mentioned it probably a dozen times to you, and still no acknowledgement or reply. Rd232 ^talk 19:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been indenting my comments and I will continue to do so. Your right though, you are being unbelievably trivial. Please do not post any more comments on my talk page. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly support an RFC/U on this user. Although I've only rarely interacted with him, I've watched many of the topics that this editor is active in for quite a few years. He seems to be a classic example of the sort of editor that Wikipedia is very bad at dealing with. He has very strong views on certain issues and consistently treats Wikipedia as a battleground to promote those views. He knows how far he can push the rules while avoiding repercussions. He manages to be sufficiently civil that he's highly unlikely to get a warning from an unfamiliar admin; but equally, the collective tone of his talk page edits contains a far more insidious form of incivility. Wilfully misinterpreting others' comments, constant wikilawyering, highly repetitive posting and posting in large volumes, bizarre indentation or formatting styles, selective application of policies (particularly with respect to citations), refusal to answer questions — these are all forms of incivility, and they're more insidious in that they are much harder to tackle. Were an admin to block a user for any of these, they'd certainly be accused of over-reacting. And, in general, once an admin has become sufficiently acquainted with the editor to appreciate the problem, they've also interacted with the editor enough that they get labelled an "involved administrator" and any action they take is deemed inappropriate on that ground.

Domer48 is far from unique in his behaviour; nor is he the worst of offenders. This behaviour seems endemic to almost any Ireland-related article, and comes from both "sides"; and I dare say it happens in other areas where nationalistic fervour runs high. But that shouldn't be a reason not to address the problem. If anything, we should aspire to a higher degree of talk page civility in such areas. I don't know what the solution is. Do you, for example, take action against one specific editor pour encourager les autres? Whatever, I don't believe doing nothing is the correct solution, and so an RFC to further explore the issue seems like an appropriate first step. —ras52 (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Could an Admin please suggest again to this editor to open a WP:RfC, as an alternative to just coming here and making all sorts of accusations. They came here looking for advice, and they were given it. Rather than strongly supporting a RFC/U, why don't they just do it? Are they waiting for someone else to do it for them? I really don't know what to make of this latest outburst. Their comments above are starting to appear to me a least to becoming very irrational bordering on the hysterical.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I may well open an RFC/U myself, but my reason for commenting here was to try to gauge the enthusiasm for such an RFC. Preparing an RFC takes a fair amount of effort, and I before committing to that, I would be curious as to whether any involved admins (for example, Rd232, Rockpocket, Alison, SirFozzie, Masem, SarekOfVulcan, and many others) shared my opinions. — ras52 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears Ras52 you are trying to muster up support if you feel you have evidence of any wrong doing you don't need to list admins who are probably not even aware that you are doing it. Or is it an implication that each admin named are going to say bad things about Domer and as such you are trying to muddy the waters. BigDunc 15:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea what views the admins I named might have: that's why I said I would be curious to learn their opinions. However I do know that they have a lot of experience dealing with him (and other similarly disruptive editors) in a relatively neutral and constructive manner, and because of that I respect their opinions. Perhaps they disagree with me, and if so, I will likely heed them. But I'm really not interested in the wholly predictable outpourings of shock that Domer48's sycophants yes-men are likely to produce; nor, for that matter, the equally predictable support from the other "side". Both camps are equally bad, and had it been someone's name from the opposing camp that caught my attention on this page, I would be saying the same about them. — ras52 (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And who are you calling sycophants comments like that just prove your motives to me so go try kick up a storm somewhere else and while your at it read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA BigDunc 15:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Sycophants"!? Ras52, that's outstandingly inappropriate in general, and particularly in this context, where you use it as part of a pre-emptive WP:NPA on anyone disagreeing with you! Really, really not helpful - not to the credibility of your remarks, and not to the debate. Rd232 ^talk 19:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Accepted, that was an inappropriate word to use. Having just looked it up in the OED, I meant it in the sense of "an abject flatterer"; I'd not been aware of some of the other meanings given to it. I've struck it from my comment and replaced it with "yes-men" which better describes what I had in mind. Yes, it's not meant to be a flattering term, but neither was it intended to be especially offensive. My apologies. And it certainly wasn't intended in as a blanket attack on anyone who disagrees with me. Do you have any comments of my first posting here? I would be interested in them. — ras52 (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I appreciate your apology, though "yes-men" is almost equally bad. (Though in fact the terminology is only part of the problem - it's also that the sentence implies factionalism as a motive for anyone who might support Domer, which is surely a violation of WP:AGF; perhaps that was not your intention, but it can easily be read that way.) Anyway, I had already decided to do an RFC for Domer; if I had to point to a single contribution that tipped me over the edge, it would be this. Now I just have to find the time, which I don't relish, seeing as this is hardly the sort of thing that I want to be doing on Wikipedia; but at this point looking the other way would be a dereliction of admin duty. :( Rd232 ^talk 20:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, tribalism is part of the problem. Certainly not everyone who supports (or opposes) Domer48 is doing it for nationalistic reasons, but equally I'm pretty sure that some people must be doing it largely if not wholly for that reason, though I wouldn't necessary like to speculate which users they are. I'm willing to assume good faith for any specific individuals, Domer48 included. The problem is one of continued escalation. The level of incivility and general bad behaviour gradually rises on both sides. But when all involved parties are acting the same, and in the absence of a sudden deterioration in behaviour by one person, it's very difficult to act. — ras52 (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ras, you and Rd232 have repeatedly violated the assume good faith guideline in this discussion as well as various civility guidelines (which I just reviewed as they are being formatted and revised). An RfC over the way an editor indents their comments? If it's really a big issue, why not ask here for clarification on it (in as neutral and non-hostile a manner as possible) here or in another appropriate forum? I remain very concerned that Rd232 seems to willfully disregard suggestions and comments from others even as he insists those he is in dispute obey his whims. I understand the dispute may be knotty, but Domer has been quite civil and patient in this discussion despite repeated accusations and high level threat and hostility towards him. I suggest he ceases to push for an RfC, which seems to be a kind of baiting that will result in a process that (judging from this discussion) will only add to the drama). Everyone in the dispute needs to step back and refocus on making comments that are focused on content and sourcing issues. Please avoid commenting on other editors or their motiviations. A break from the disputed article might be helpful. It's also worth considering engaging with other editors at the content noticeboard to get outside opinions that might also be helpeful. Please do so in as collegial and neutral a manner as possible so as not to inflame the passions any further. Good luck to all parties involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So wrong, yet so patronising. I suggest you clean up your own mess before worrying about what to do about other people's mess. Rd232 ^talk 00:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Domer48. Rd232 ^talk 02:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Since when is the improper username policy changed to "It doesn't matter if the user name is improper, we aren't going to block them till they edit"? Several admins on the WP:UAA page are refusing to block obviously promotional or even offensive user names because the Users haven't edited yet. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't WT:UAA would be a better venue for this? Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me}   02:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

blocks are preventative, not punitive. For the case of a so-called promotional username, for a username that appears to be promoting an entity (Say "Ilovethebostonredsox") but gives no indication that the user is actually spamming or otherwise attempting to use wikipedia to promote the entity that shares their name, its not a real major violation. Also, see Wikipedia:Usernames#Dealing with inappropriate usernames. There is usually a glut of usernames at WP:UAA which do not need immediate blocking, and it tends to overwhelm any admins that would otherwise help over there or mask real problematic usernames. If users could restrict reports there to ONLY those names which were so over the top that they needed immediate blocking (swearing, racially offensive stuff, gross or patently offensive usernames) then they would be dealt with much better. 95% of the usernames reported there could be dealt with without blocking, if someone just dropped a note on the users talk page which stated "Sorry, but your username does not appear to meet our username policy. Do you think you could pop on over to WP:CHU and request a change so it does?" Even users which have spammy usernames and which are also spamming should be blocked for the spamming alone, since even mentioning the username as a reason for blocking tends to make them think "If I just had an obscure username, I could spam all day long" It confuses the issue. UAA should be reserved for the really disgusting stuff. --Jayron32 02:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that User:FcdallasisthecoolestteameverSUCKIT is not an offensive user name and should not be blocked until they actually edit? Why, then do we have bots who report User names before they've edited? Should those bots be modified to wait until the offensive user names have actually edited before they report those names? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because if the name was YouAreAWhoreSuckIt, then we'd like the bot to spot it regardless of edits as I'd block that for being a violation. The example you give isn't a blatantly obvious or serious violation of policy. Until there's an edit showing some sort of bad faith there's nothing to be done, except possibly asking them about it on their talk page and encouraging discussion or changing it. This is all covered in the UAA listing guidance.

Generally, a lot of the ridiculous reports could be avoided if people read the guidance at the top of UAA, which consists of a small introductory paragraph and five bullet points. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As the admin who marked this one with "Wait until the user edits", let me explain myself. First, Jayron, I would say we deal with the vast majority of these reports exactly the way you suggested ... with {{uw-username}}. Second, as for the spamming, {{uw-spamublock}} makes it very clear that the blocks are for both spamming and username (Block for the spamming alone, and you send a message that the username is OK). Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This username isn't immediately blockable, in my opinion. I left a note on their talk page; if they fail to respond or address the concern, then further action may be taken as appropriate. This seems like the best way forward. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, if they don't respond then guidelines at UAA say to take it to WP:RFCN. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I won't bother reporting names from people who haven't edited, even though there's always the likelihood that an inappropriate user name will wind up in an article's edit history, making us look bad once again. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You know what makes us look bad? Blocking new users the moment they do one thing that irritates us, without even bothering to talk to them. Note that, for comparison, having an unsavory name in an edit history has no tangible negative effect on Wikipedia, while the fact that our pool of contributors is shrinking is easily and widely observed. rspεεr (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The operative term there being "tangible". Wait till the Guardian runs across edits made by an inappropriate username. They're just drooling for such an opportunity. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously proposing that we should block people based on what the Guardian might say? They will hate Wikipedia no matter what we do. Why should we give them any say over our blocking policy? rspεεr (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I give a shit about what the guardian has to say. Protonk (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

See below. Since quite a few of these accounts never edit (I suspect they're sleeper accounts whose owners realize they got caught), I doubt the Guardian will find them since you would specifically have to be searching for inappropriate usernames, not one of the more interesting things to do here even for us (and then even harder if there's no user page or talk page). And any inappropriate username that has edited a lot (and is later blocked) can easily be changed by a bureaucrat (this is done sometimes even with some usernames that are outing attempts that never edit), and the edits oversighted. Daniel Case (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am bewildered by the fact that a reference to "blocks are preventative, not punitive" given above appears to be used as an argument against blocking before any editing; or have I misunderstood? "Blocks are meant for preventing unacceptable behaviour: editing from an unacceptable username is unacceptable behaviour, so we block to prevent it happening" seems to me reasonable, whereas "Blocks are meant for preventing unacceptable behaviour: editing from an unacceptable username is unacceptable behaviour, so we stand back and let it happen, and then block" seems totally crazy. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We'd like to see whether the user means to be disruptive or not. Some users of that nature may be deterred from any editing at all simply by the warning. Really egregious usernames get {{uw-uhblock}} without a chance to edit. But what do you do about some people (and we've had them) whose edits seem like good faith efforts to be constructive and yet don't seem to have read the username policy? I have seen some of these editors either change name or start another account and edit constructively with a properly-named account. Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

To respond to JamesBWatson directly above, the issue is that blocks are always the last option in any situation. If the admin reviewing the situation has reason to believe that username can be changed without blocking the individual in question, then why not just ask the user to file a request at WP:CHU and voluntarily refrain from editing until the username is changed? Same final result, without actually issuing a single block. If the same results can be had without issuing any blocks, then why block except to be capricious? I would agree that at the face value, some usernames are eggregious enough to block on first sight, as it becomes impossible to AGF for someone with some names, but these names are a small fraction of what is normally reported at WP:UAA. --Jayron32 21:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that blocks are often the first option at UAA. It's like a big game of whack-a-mole, where there is such a rush to stomp out the egregious spammers and disruptive trolls that bewildered newbies get clobbered with the block-hammer before they even knew what hit them ... Shereth 21:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Question (though maybe this is better taken to WT:UAA), is there any way to do some sort of bot-watchlist thing for the Special:Contributions on inappropriate usernames that haven't edited yet? Let's say there's some User:Wikipediacansuckit who has never edited, he gets reported to UAA. You put some sort of flag on his account that if he edits, a bot automatically reports it at WP:UAA. Is that feasible?

Well, I suppose that could be done, though most names that get reported usually either change their names or are never used again (There are some strings the bot is set to flag only if they edit). Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

To answer the questions about why usernames aren't blocked before the edits... Think about it. What harm does a bad username do if it's not blocked? If the editor never edits under that name, that just means that the next joker who wants to use that name can't. It's a pseudo-filter for that particular name. So just leave it alone, I wouldn't doubt that many people make offensive joke accounts and never actually do anything with them. -- Atama頭 23:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Pages created with maintenance templates

Resolved

 – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I often see many pages that are created with maintenance templates. These are usually reposts of deleted pages, copy paste moves, or other abuse. Is there anyway to put some tracking system on these templates to track the original page they were put on? Triplestop x3 21:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there might be an edit filter in place for this; if not, it shouldn't be too difficult to add one with a tag you can search for. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem there is one. If there were, it'd go something like (article_id == 0) && (action == "edit") && containsany(added_lines, "{{cleanup", etc...) Some of the syntax is probably wrong there (aside from etc...) but it should give you the general idea. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Done - Special:Abusefilter/237. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which template that Triplestop may be referring to, but whenever I see a page created with a {{hangon}} tag on it, it's a pretty sure sign it's a repost of a deleted article. Killiondude (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Question... Would this block making a page that has Template:Underconstruction on it? I've used that before when creating a new page before I've fleshed it out properly. -- Atama頭 23:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sam Leeson

I mentioned this on the #Wikipedia IRC channel on freenode and they suggested I go here, just in case why anybody is wondering. This may be a situation where we are "too little too late", so to speak, since this was an incident that occurred in 2008. But it just kind of sticks out since I don't think anybody noticed this pattern of events:

• Article Sam Leeson is created on May 26, 2008 [22] by User:Sam leeson with the content:

• "Early Life: Samuel Leeson or "Little Leeson" as his friends call him, was born on the 19th of August 1994. He grew up as a normal kid. At the age of 3 he started school at Beech Green Primary School, in Gloucestershire were he was born and raised. At the age of 4 he was put into hospital for a serious blood transfusion which he needed 2 of. After he carried on life as normal. At the age of 11 he started Severn Vale Secondary School in Gloucestershire. He is still going there to this day and has still got 2 years left."

• Sam Leeson, 13, commits suicide on June 5, 2008. [23]
• User:Cricket07jack recreates the article on Sam Leeson to say:

• "Sam Leeson (1994- June 5th 2008) was a Severn Vale Schoolboy who commited suicide when he had been cyberbullied over sites like Bebo and Youtube as they called him a Emo. The Severn Vale Pupil lived in Tredworth, Gloucestershire and was a popular and well loved child. Sam's Mum sally cope who is 45 said that she only knew he was being bullied after she looked on his bebo profile after his death ( His Profile on Bebo has been Deleted)"

• Lastly, I proposed the article be deleted today, as an unnotable biography, unbeknownst of the history page.

I wasn't really sure if we should or shouldn't say or do anything, it just seemed puzzling to me when I saw that. — ℳℴℯ ε 18:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• What, exactly, are you finding puzzling? The deletion log can be found under sam leeson, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sending it to AfD -- or marking it as PROD -- was the appropriate thing. (Although the work on nominating this is not complete -- aren't you supposed to add the article to the list at AfD? Nevermind, I now understand this is a PROD.) As tragic as his story is, it's not a notable event for the rest of the world. -- llywrch (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked the language on the prod from "Biography of an unnotable deceased teenager who was cyberbullied." which if you are not familar with wikipedia terms sounds fairly harsh to "Biography of an deceased teenager who was cyberbullied but is not sufficiently notable in regards to the sources need to meet our criteria for an encyclopaedia article." let me know if this is a problem. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My subconscious has been nagging me about this specific incident: this is an article about a Wikipedian who was cyberbullied & killed himself. This subject may not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article, but it now is of (at least some) interest to the rest of us. Any objections if I simply move this to the deceased user's page instead of deleting it? We can then treat the matter as befitting a deceased Wikipedian -- IIRC, protect the user page & block the account. -- llywrch (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking, but now the prod template to the article was removed.. — ℳℴℯ ε 18:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL refers to this exact situation, "Whilst using user space to create a memorial is generally not acceptable, limited exemption applies to the user space of established Wikipedians who have died." -- Atama頭 23:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> I've deleted this under CSDA7] and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It is optimistic in the extreme to call the guy an established Wikipedian, since his only contribution seems to have been a cry for help, and I think his family would prefer to remember him in happier times. Re A7, he would not have been notable were it not for his sad and unnecessary death. I will say, however, that had his death resulted in reliably-sourced changes in government or local social policy, my view might have been different. Absent that, it just isn't. If you happen to disagree with this analysis, please feel free to take it elsewhere. Meanwhile, an essence of WP:BLP applies, in that we should be cognisant of human dignity. Rodhullandemu 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

New codification of incivility

Since managing incivility is an important role of admins, I'm advising here that the way in which the various aspects of incivility are codified in the policy on civility has been completely re-organised. Each aspect is now identified by number.

This re-organisation may be of assistance to admins when it comes to citing the policy when dealing with possible instances of incivility. In addition, five key factors that admins might take into account in judging whether an editor has been uncivil are listed in the lead.

The discussion that led to these changes—which included two arbitrators (Carcharoth and Casliber)—is here; that section sets out the old and the replacement text in clearly marked boxes. Tony (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So now we can say "Sir! Your comment violates the civility policy, section 1 criteria a!" An interesting approach, I'm curious to see how it will work out. Nathan ^T 15:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for having a whack at it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Good; per Gwen Gale. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I hope there will be feedback—from admins in particular—so that if necessary the wording can be refined over the next ?month or so. Tony (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Since enforcement is completely random, what's the point beyond a virtual paper shuffling exercise? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's worth noticing how the civility policy has crept and covers judgmental edit summaries, with a definition that is so broad as to require a great deal of groupthink doubleplus good language modification before committing anything to an edit summary; and the spectacularly broad ill-considered accusations of impropriety which can cover just about anything anyone chooses it to cover. No wonder ANI of late has been brimming with people screaming that others have been incivil to them by, er, disagreeing on an AfD or not dancing on the head of a pin in an edit summary. Well done to all involved! (Unless sarcasm is now incivil, in which case I withdraw the sarcasm and replace it with irony). With such broad definitions, no wonder its enforcement is so completely random. How could it be otherwise? ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 10:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're quite right, and whilst the revision is undoubtedly well-intentioned (like all these things) it does head in a general direction where WP:BUREAUCRACY starts to become an issue - except that these things are surely impossible to codify effectively enough for them to be well-implemented bureaucratically, creating inevitable unevenness in application which may well be more taken advantage of by bad faith editors than good faith ones. Two other thoughts. 1) Some of the specific points seem more to fall under, say, WP:GAME than "civility". When did misleading others (including deliberately giving false information) become "uncivil"? Or misquoting others or quoting out of context? Surely that's like saying a drive-by shooting is dangerous driving. 2) Defining civility too precisely just invites wikilawyering and the needless, tactical taking of offence to suit a particular purpose. It encourages wikidrama, rather than collaboration. Or to put it another way, it encourages "OMG that wasn't entirely nice! Something must be done!" instead of "Hey, that wasn't cool, but that's OK, we're none of us perfect and maybe you didn't mean it that way or come from a different cultural background or were just a bit pissed off, never mind, let's move on." In sum, I think a listing as is provided in that section is quite dangerous (although the whole policy suffers from the issue I make in point 2), and it should be made clear that these kinds of behaviours may be taken into consideration by admins dealing with allegedly uncivil behaviour (when acting qua admins!), but aren't a listing of Things To Take Offence At (WP:BEANS?). Rd232 ^talk 22:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Any large-scale semi-/automated article creation task require BRFA - needs discussion as to implementation

Could an uninvolved admin please review the below and determine the result?

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 66#Proposal: Any large-scale semi-/automated article creation task require BRFA

If the result is "proposal carried", how shall it be announced, implemented, and enforced? –xeno^talk 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clear that there is broad community support for the idea of community input being required before mass article creation. But it's also just as clear that there isn't a consensus for how such a requirement would be implemented or enforced. Many seem to think WP:BAG is the way to go; at least one person pointed out that this is already a function the BAG performs and no proposal is necessary. I think many of the participants want another method. The question of how to make sure editors are aware of the rule has barely been addressed. And one comment brought up a strong point about enforcement which hasn't really been discussed: do we punish mass-creation without consultation by deleting the articles? What if they are borderline or appropriate ones? Does blocking really address the problem? No, it comes too late. So I think a new discussion is needed on these points. Mangojuice^talk 17:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was in the process of closing it. I've called "carried"; because the objections were in a clear minority and split on what was objectionable— but this does not preclude further discussion on the implementation details. — Coren ^(talk) 17:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I still think BAG is a good fit for this without creating Yet Another Committee. The other points though, I am certainly looking for input on. –xeno^talk 17:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Other than mass deletion, what would correct the bot-like inappropriate addition of thousands of low-quality stubs? Debating each one at AFD does not seem feasible. The removal should not take orders of magnitude more editor and admin time than the robocreation did. Edison (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That was my principal objection. Hopefully something gets hammered out in implementation that won't result in a policy which is easily gamed and/or unpalatable for the members of the community who didn't participate in the discussion. Protonk (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps when the article clearly serves better as a redlink - i.e. it has no more information than the list and redirecting to the list would be inappropriate because it would create dozens of links-to-self... –xeno^talk 02:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

someone else's picture via email

Hi. I want to put a picture of a person inside her own article and i've got a photo of her trough email. how can i get it a license in Commons?Bbadree (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission should help you get the required permission from the original copyright owner. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Denaldin Hamzagic

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football; please continue the conversation there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I create an article on footballer Denaldin Hamzagic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjecnobordo (talk • contribs) 19:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is the consensus of the community that Mr Hamzagic does not meet the inclusion criteria for an article in the encyclopedia. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denaldin Hamzagic. You may also wish to familiarise yourself with the inclusion criterion for athletes at WP:Athlete and the general notability criterion at WP:Notability. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, Mr. Hamzagic has recently signed with FK Sarajevo (a professional club) and has already played for the team in the UEFA Europa League. Would probably pass WP:ATHLETE now. As a football manager would say: "The boy done good". Fribbler (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, might well pass WP:Athlete although the deleted article was about a Denaldin Hamzagic who had been living in the USA since 1999 and was with New England Revolution in the Major League Soccer so I'm uncertain whether this is the same chap. This conversation would probably be best over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football; I'll move it across. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Something smells fishy

Resolved

 – doh, already blocked :) nevermind

Just thought I'd put it out there, I'm highly suspicious of this 'new' editor Mamasasa (talk · contribs) and his sudden interest in Bambifan sockpuppets.

"He will frequently self-identify his own socks and appears to take serious offense if any badly editing account is misidentified as him and will quickly make a new sock to point out the error. He has even been known to tag his own socks as vandals." - from Long term abuse - Bambifan

-- œ^™ 03:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser bagged a couple of socks, so thanks for reporting. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed User

Hi. Can an admin please make me a "confirmed user", so that I can upload a couple of fair use pix (that can be uploaded to wp, but not wiki commons)? This is time sensitive, as it relates to a band that is up for an 2009 MTV Video Music Awards in a few days. Many thanks.--VMAsNYC (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Make sure you're aware of our fair-use image policies - happy editing. ~ mazca ^talk 12:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Gaelen S.

Resolved

 – The User rollback access has been suspended due to misuse. --David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 18:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaelen S. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[24] I been helping this User out. Can someone review User:Gaelen S. rollback rights. I'm finding the user reverting good faith edits.

Reverts such as these, [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] All in one day. The user received there rollback rights on September 1, 2009 [32] and they only have 240 Article edits. [33] I don’t think there ready for rollback rights. Don’t get me wrong, They revert Vandalism. Its just that I don’t think they know what there doing. Yes, I know we all make mistakes. I just want someone to check it out. That's all. --David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 21:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I too noticed a revert to a good edit (not just good faith) to one of my watched pages, so I informed Gaelen, and Acalamari (talk · contribs) (who granted the request). While we seemed to agree that no further action was necessary, I find the number of diffs you have brought up a bit worrying. Thanks for expressing your concerns. As a courtesy, you should consider informing the user when you bring up their edits on a noticeboard (I have now done this). Regards, decltype (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You, Decltype. I forgot to do that.--David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 22:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I'd like to thank you for bringing this up, as it seems to become serious. However, this is what WP:ANI is for; don't worry about it for now, though. Second, reverting good faith edits is just as bad, if not worse, than edit warring. Driving off a potential user cannot be treated lightly. That said, I really think we should give the user another chance. If (s)he makes more mistakes(?), then removal of rollback is in order, followed by a block if the behavior is continual. Hopefully, it won't come to that. Cheers, I'^mperator 23:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that I have been a topic of conversation. I was just wondering what specifically I am doing wrong. Somebody just took my rollback permissions and I am wondering what specifically is the problem. If anybody could give me some insight I would be very appreciative Gaelen 00:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed you rollback because of misuse despite warnings, and failure to respond to those. Edits such as this one or that one do not qualify as vandalism and may not be rollbacked, read WP:RBK more carefully. You may revert them manually and explain why you do so, based on policies like WP:V and the like for example, but not revert without explanation. Revert edits manually or use Twinkle for the time being, if you do it well, you'll be granted the rights again. Make also sure to comply with WP:SIG by linking your userpage and/or talkpage in your signature, as requested several times. Cenarium (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A side point - your signature should conform to WP:SIG and include a link either to your user page or user talk page.

I think the big problem here is that you are using rollback in cases that are not clear vandalism. David has given some examples above. What I take to be the general rule is that you should not revert w/o an edit summary (that is, an edit summary that's different from the standard boilerplate one) unless the edit was indisputably vandalism. (Huggle does have an "Advanced" option for customizing edit summaries, which I use to revert good-faith WP:NOT/WP:MOS violations or more complex vandalism cases, etc.) Heck, despite the edit summary of the edit I reverted, two different admins have declared this a bad revert, which is why I'm taking a break from HG right now. Tim Song (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think my big question is whether or not you can rollback someone's edit if it looks suspicious and does not provide a source at which you can check it at? My other question is whether or not you think my rollback rights should be repealed over this? I understand if you think they should be, but I just want everyone to know my reasoning for those edits. the WP:RBK does not really specify on the subject. Gaelen S. 01:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The guideline says blatantly unproductive edits, so if it just looks suspicious, it shouldn't be rollbacked, but if reverted, manually reverted with an edit summary. Rollback rights are removed when misused despite warnings, sometimes even without warnings, the guideline says that too. If you revert well in the coming days, you'll have them back, it's no big deal. And again, please modify your signature in your preferences, so as to comply with wp:SIG, by providing a link to your userpage and/or usertalkpage, reset it if it's broken somehow. Cenarium (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (again!) Well, at the very, very least, you have to explain that in the edit summary. That's the whole point. Since rollback's edit summaries are normally automatic (I think there's a script somewhere out there that allows you to customize it), you can't use rollback for those. And BTW, you really need to change the signature. There has to be a link. Tim Song (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 1) yes. WP:RBK is specific - rollback is only for edits that are "clearly unproductive"; "suspicious" is not remotely "clearly" anything. 2) yes, because you've been using rollback quite a bit with a mistaken idea of when it's applicable. That doesn't mean you're an evil person who should be whipped through the streets of Edinburgh (so don't be that discouraged by this whole affair), just that it'd be wise if you were a tad more contemplative when undoing edits that might well be in bad faith, but might well not be. We probably all should, really. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Closure needed for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images

Resolved

 – Fritzpoll looking at it. –xeno^talk 15:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite 30 days, but the RFC hasn't been edited for about a week. Could someone look into closing this?

A thorough closing statement would be worthwhile. Thanks, –xeno^talk 15:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, if that's ok Fritzpoll (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate it! Take your time. –xeno^talk 15:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban on Landmark Education SPAs

Proposed topic ban on Landmark Education SPAs (archived)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Landmark Education and related articles have long been dominated by socks, WP:SPAs and conflict of interest accounts. This can be seen most easily by the massive sock investigation which resulted in indef blocks by checkusers on at least 17 accounts: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. These accounts have a singular focus with regard to the topic of Landmark Education and its predecessor company Erhard Seminars Training, which is to monitor the articles for any and all possibly critical information about the organization and then disruptively remove it. These accounts should be topic banned from this topic. Accounts already indef blocked for socking Eastbayway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Julia1287 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Kimberlyhobart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Gilbertine goldmark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Gilbertine goldmark 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Triplejumper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Oneoneoneoneone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jjaberwock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ftord1960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sailor1889 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Saladdays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Belladana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wisdum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) FreedomByDesign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Littlebutter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ebay3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Barnham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Multiple editors with a single voice 8) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor. (Based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood) Passed 6 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC) From Arbitration case, COFS The Landmark Education articles are similar to the articles from COFS, so this principle could be applied here. Proposed topic ban on the following accounts (Note: top edits for each are on topic of Landmark Education/Erhard Seminars Training.) Mvemkr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Spacefarer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Note: Spacefarer was previously blocked as sock of FreedomByDesign [34]. AJackl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Note: AJackl has been warned by four different administrators for disruptive conflict of interest editing on this topic: Garden 22:15, 1 June 2008, Jehochman 07:22, 23 October 2008, John Carter 18:50, 24 August 2009, and finally Georgewilliamherbert 19:49, 24 August 2009 DaveApter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Theeld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Aclayartist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Buddysystem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Roccoconon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Ratagonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Sm1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Nsamuel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits WiseWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Dante C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits WBLman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Dexton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits Spruceforest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Top edits I am not an uninvolved administrator in this topic area, and as such the action itself should be carried out by another administrator. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC) First let me say that I would welcome a comprenehsive review of all the matters raised here and their ramifications. I would hope that this review is carried out by administrators who are genuinely neutral and impartial in respect of the issues of Landmark Education in particular, and of the Human Potential Movement in general. I am astounded and apalled to be accused of being a SPA with a "focus which is to monitor the articles for any and all possibly critical information about the organization and then disruptively remove it." I regard this accusation as a clear personal attack and ask for it to be withdrawn. No doubt my contribution record will be scrutinised and the adjudicating administrators will draw their own conclusions, but I would like to make the following points: I am not a prolific editor on Wikipedia - over the past year I have made maybe a hundred or two edits - of these about 3 or 4 have been on the Landmark article itself, and maybe a couple of dozen on the LE talk page. My focus in the talk page has always been to further a constructive debate about the direction to move in order to improve the article. I have never been blocked, warned, reprimanded, or accused of disruptive editing. I see my editing in the Landmark article as being legitimate attempt to restore balance in accordance with the NPOV policies in the face of a concerted attack by editors wishing to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote their own viewpoints. Cirt generously acknowledges that he is "not an uninvolved administrator", but this is something of an understatement. He was - under a previous username - one of the most persistent, disruptive and abusive editors on this and related articles. My comment on the LE talk page this morning was suppressed from visibility by Cirt within 25 minutes of my posting it: [[35]] . Is this a legitimate use of the tags employed here? DaveApter (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that Cirt is involved in this dispute under a different account? For that matter can you also provide evidence that he was "persistent, disruptive and abusive" with this account? Chillum 18:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I have plenty of evidence, but am unsure as how to proceed, as I have already been threatened for attempting to bring this up. Numerous wikipedia users and administrators know of Cirt's previous identity and behaviour, and expressed reservations at the time of his/her RfA. DaveApter (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Accusations not backed up by diffs are a violation of WP:NPA and thus a blockable offense in itself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I'd support topic ban for all notified accounts who don't care to defend themselves here. For those that present some defense, a more throughout review is needed. This case ended up in ArbCom once, and it is possible it may need to go there again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC) A small number of recent edits to Landmark Education have been improper (removal of appropriate sourced material), but I don't think there is currently a big problem on that page (not sure about the other related ones). Many of the accounts proposed for a topic ban haven't been active for at least a year, in some cases two years. Regarding DaveApter: one could make the case that there is a conflict of interest -- though he is open on his user page about the connection and rarely edits LE itself (once in all of 2009, an edit that was not reverted), sticking mainly to the talk page. Ajackl might be a different matter. I know that the history of these articles (and Scientology) has been very difficult and I sympathize with the frustration that leads to this kind of proposal, but I'm not sure a slew of topic bans is necessary at this stage; normal vigilance on the articles themselves seems to be sufficient for now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC) What is the case that I have a conflict of interest? DaveApter (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC) (nb I will not be online for the next 12 hours or so to continue this conversation). Note first that I didn't say such a case would be convincing. It's a matter of how far one wants to read between the lines. You say you are not an employee of LE -- but it is well known that LE uses large numbers of "volunteers" instead of paying people to do much of the work associated with running their courses. Have you been a volunteer for them? Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't matter: even if you come to the LE article with a conflict of interest, in my view the way you contribute to the article meets the requirements placed on editors with a conflict of interest. If you don't have a history of volunteering, all the better -- but either way I don't see a problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, a proposal of this nature would deserve either a full presentation or none at all. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer Chillum's question

I returned to this section today to answer Chillum's question, but find that Cirt has now made it into an archived discussion.

Cirt's previous identity was smee

At the time of his RfA [[36]], acknowledgement of this former identity was supressed, allegedly on the grounds that he was at risk of real-world harrassment. I and others found this explanation implausible, and felt it was merely to sheild this information from voters in the RfA.

However, Cirt's supporters held this line very strongly, and I was myself threatened by Jehochman for attempting to discuss the matter later here [[37]].

Apparently the obstacle is now moot, as Cirt seems prepared to acknowledge the identity: [[38]]

Here are some wikidashboard links that give some flavour of the editing patterns. You can decide for yourself whether smee is the disruptive one, or the editors Cirt was seeking to ban.

[[39]] [[40]] [[41]] [[42]] [[43]] [[44]] [[45]] [[46]] [[47]] [[48]] [[49]] [[50]] [[51]]

A number of users and admins expressed reservations about whether Cirt's apparent "reform" was genuine, or was a tactic in a long-term strategy to promote the POV-pushing agenda evidenced earlier. Perhaps in the light of recent activity, is is time to review that question?

I strongly request that this whole matter is examined by some non-involved impartial administrator DaveApter (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Those links show nothing more than volume of editing. I don't see any indication of abusive behavior there. Chillum 22:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry for not giving adequate detail. I guess the most direct evidence of disruption is the fact that he was blocked no less than seven times in the space of eight months for edit warring:

Three here: [[52]] And another four here under yet another different username: [[53]]

And a random selection of his edits over a two week period in May 2006: [[54]] shows 500 edits with over 400 of them on topics related to Landmark Education or Werner Erhard, all pushing a particular Point of View. And this is someone who accuses me of being a disruptive SPA and seeks to have me topic banned for making a fraction of that number over a four year period? What's going on here? DaveApter (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dave. As an uninvolved administrator, my advice is to let this drop. It's been gone over again and again with the same result. I see no convincing evidence of long-term foul play here. Blocks given out that long ago have no real relevance today, as they're preventative measures, not punitive. I move that we close this post, as it's been gone over more than enough and the community has already reached a firm decision. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood - did you actually read the collapsed post above? We are not talking about "blocks that long ago", but a proposal a couple of days ago to topic ban me and about 16 other accounts. I was merely defending myself (see the collapsed thread), and then answering the questions that other admins had asked for me to substantiate the comments. I request that Cirt withdraw the unjustified personal attack on myself and others, and apologise. DaveApter (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a serious and legitimate ongoing abuse incident regarding these pages. I have reviewed independently and while I feel that your account (DaveApter) is being used appropriately and with any potential COI disclosed, many of the others are not. Cirt is not wrong in bringing this up for uninvolved administrator attention, though he's taken the specific sanction proposal down.

I'm sorry if you feel that you were singled out inappropriately. I believe your inclusion in the list was a mistake, but the concerns and existence of the list were not mistakes. There is an issue. We will probably have to have uninvolved admins take some corrective action in the not too distant future. Cirt was not acting improperly to bring the issue up. I don't see your inclusion as a personal attack; a mistake, but not an attack. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I too have been singled out inappropriately. Thank you DaveApter for sending me a note or I would not have known. I rarely contribute to Landmark Education articles anymore, or any others for that matter, because of my frustration level with the negative POV that Cirt (formerly smee/smeeglova) and Pedant17 have been pushing on the Landmark related pages for years. It has mostly turned me off to the whole notion of wikipedia. I don't find this on an of the other topics I have contributed to. Sometimes I think they are SPA's of each other. I don't know for sure but I would be that their individual (and certainly combined) edits to Landmark related pages are greater in number than all of the accused editors combined. Mvemkr (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Today DaveApter posted notices to every one of the accounts which was named in the request which was withdrawn five days ago, without informing them that it had been withdrawn by the proposer.[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69] Perhaps someone ought to follow up and clarify that there is no outstanding accusation or proposal. Durova³¹⁰ 19:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well please excuse me if I am out of line. If it is indeed the case that "there is no outstanding accusation or proposal", then it would be as well if the proposer would make that clear rather than leaving it ambiguous as it is at present. Certainly Georgewilliamherbert's statement two paragraphs above seems at odds with this interpretation. In any case, it seem to me to be outrageous that this entry was made in the first place without informing the accused of it so that they had an opportunity to defend themselves. Similarly, it would surely be civil to inform them if the accusations were being withdrawn. DaveApter (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The avoidance of confusion was why I attempted to add DaveApter's comments to the already-collapsed thread when he renewed discussion on August 30. It is very odd that he would wish to renew discussion upon a proposal which was already closed by the proposer; in such instances other editors might reexamine the proposal and find merit in the concerns. Without comment on the merit (or lack thereof) on either side, may we close this thread by mutual agreement since there has been no new incident or additional evidence? Durova³¹⁰ 20:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, by all means close it - it plainly isn't going anywhere. There are so many things about this proposal from beginning to end that are downright fishy. Perhaps sometime someone will join up the dots or perhaps they won't. DaveApter (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Socks

Can someone please deal with the new bunch of socks, per CU results here: [70] Thanks. Grandmaster 05:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved, sock accounts blocked. Grandmaster 10:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Page move warring at Break, Break, Break

Resolved

 – Page name issue settled, and behavioural issues under discussion at WP:ANI. Rd232 ^talk 09:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Archive - unconstructive discussion ("evil" motives??). Use dispute resolution if necessary.

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

I have been working on a set of Tennyson poems with Shoemaker's Holiday and Juliancolton. After finishing, I moved them to mainspace. Break, Break, Break, now at Break, Break, Break (poem), was to be moved to Break, Break, Break. It was moved there with the aid of jdelanoy using admin ability to move over a redirect after I asked him at IRC. An IRC user that has a long history of not liking me and causing problems, User:Jeni, decided that she would move the page to Break, Break, Break (poem) and put text on Break, Break, Break so it would not be moved back.

As per MoS, disambiguation pages are not necessary in cases where there is a primary use. The Tennyson poem is one of his most heavily anthologized short poems, whereas the only other use Break, Break, Break (movie) is a very obscure silent film. There is no question as to which is the primary use, and there is no one that bothered to dispute the primary usage. When confronted with her actions on IRC, she responded "[19:55] <Jeni> if you link something in an IRC channel, what do you seriously expect?"

I would ask the following:

• 1. That an admin uses the tools to move the page Break, Break, Break (poem) back to its primary usage Break, Break, Break, and
• 2. That Jeni is blocked for outright disruption as she is intent on causing problems in relationship to this set of articles, as verified by her comments above on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel I even need to respond to this tbh. Not sure why you don't expect people to click links when you spam them on IRC. Jeni ^(talk) 00:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between "clinking a link" and purposefully move warring out of spite. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeni, if you don't feel the need to respond, why respond at all? Ottava, have you tried WP:RM? They might be able to help you over there. Might take a little longer than you would like (maybe 30mins to an hour depending on who is working RM) but it will get done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It wont satisfy the problem with a user purposeful moving things to be disruptive and spiteful. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I honestly can't see what your issue is, and why you feel its necessary for an ANI thread? Given your disruptive history I'm guessing you are just trying to cause trouble. And for what its worth, what goes on off wiki, has nothing to do with on wiki, as Peter Damian found out to his detriment. Jeni ^(talk) 00:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This is really a matter for WP:RM as I'm unconvinced there were malicious motives behind Jeni's actions. But since we're here, could you provide some evidence that the Tennyson poem is the primary use? Nev1 (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of google hits, 1056 book hits, and the poem is by one of the most famous poets in the English language. There are many, many more hits from databases like Jstor and the rest. Just about every major biography and critical work on Tennyson discusses the poem. Break, Break, Break (movie) has no claims to notability, is a 1914 short silent film, and probably worth deleting at AfD. There is really no comparison. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Right then, go to WP:RM with that and make the request. That's some very convincing evidence, but so far no one else in this thread has jumped up and said "dammit, you're right, it's obviously the primary subject"; I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I didn't is because of my ignorance of both subjects. With that in mind I'd assume that Jeni saw the two articless and, since neither seemed obviously to be the primary use, created a disambiguation page rather than maliciously set out to cause disruption. Nev1 (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There have only been two responses, so I wouldn't expect anyone to think that right now is enough to determine if anyone would be "jumping up". But yeah, from the normal crowd of Brits, they all instantly agreed. As I pointed out, Jeni override what jdelanoy did merely because she saw me ask an admin to move over a redirect in a chat and because she has a history of not liking me. If anything, she would have had to ask for some sort of consensus before undoing the action of an admin and acting in such a manner as she did. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's a third response: when someone moves a page with edit summary not primary usage, then converts the redirect to a disambiguation page, I do not expect to see it described as "page move warring", "outright disruption", "intent on causing problems", "move warring out of spite" and "moving things to be disruptive and spiteful". You are interpreting a prima facie good faith move through the lens of whatever petty crap you and Jeni are involved in on IRC. Don't do that. Leave that crap on IRC. Deal with it over there. How do problems like this get dealt with on IRC? I don't know, call her a poo-head or something. But don't bring it here. Hesperian 01:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian, did you even read the first entry? Jeni is someone who has attacked me constantly in chat. She made it clear that she was doing it simply because I linked it in chat. I already copied and pasted it. The move over the redirect was made by a well respected admin, jdelanoy. It was her obligation to start consensus before undoing his admin action. Your response is completely incivil and inappropriate. Not only does it show that you were unwilling to actually read the above, but that you were unwilling to actually respond to the fact that she is edit warring actions originally created by an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

jdelanoy is an administrator, not a god. And the only thing "incivil" in the above is my characterisation of whatever petty crap you and Jeni are involved in on IRC as "whatever petty crap you and Jeni are involved in on IRC". Hesperian 02:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Can I suggest you cool it and take a break from this thread? You are starting to turn very offensive and are making a fool of yourself. I'm not sure what your issue is with me, I'm not about to start pasting here logs from IRC, its irrelevant. You seem to think people are not permitted to click links give in IRC discussions, I do it all the time, everyone does it. If you don't like that fact, simply don't post the link, do it in a private discussion. The way you are acting I should be calling for you to be banned! Jeni ^(talk) 02:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My dear, the only one with a problem here is you. Your actions had an instant response by most people in the chat saying that your actions were 100% stupid. They all know that you did it to troll. By the time people like Ironholds comes back around tomorrow he will make it clear like he did earlier that you have to be nigh insane to think that the silent movie is even close to the notability of the poem, let alone that you, of all people with your motives, should have edit warred against jdelanoy, a highly respected admin, simply to spite me. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Check your definition of edit war, please :) Jeni ^(talk) 02:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:EW#WHATIS first sentence: "Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches." That is 100% what you did. You undid jdelanoy's actions without -any- respect for consensus, discussion, or anything else, and you made it clear that you did it because it involved me. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For someone who didn't feel the need to respond, Jeni, you sure are responding alot. Jeni, you aren't making things any better...might be time for you to find some other part of Wikipedia to post on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well points keep getting raised now that I do feel the need to respond to. I am going to go to bed now anyway and let Ottava keep digging! Jeni ^(talk) 02:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Should't this be on AN/I? hmm the leads in the film where fairly significant in their day so a legitimate case for the disambigation page can be made but I don't know enough about the area to really comment.©Geni 00:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

See above. And I felt like putting it at AN because it is the same difference with slightly less drama. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I listed it at RM, but I am disgusted that I had to list a page that someone clearly moved in a disruptive pattern and a page that was originally put there by an admin. Not only was there no obvious claim that this was -not- the primary usage, but there was no query at all. The above user, Jeni, should be blocked for clear disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22break+break+break%22&fp=3aa7f458acaa2672 seems to be rather conclusive about whether there is a primary topic here or not. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. This seems extraordinarily non-controversial; there is a slap-you-in-the-face obvious primary usage and one that's, well, not. I'll leave any hatnoting to you folks. Tan | 39 02:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• The dispute seems overblown (and is now posted on ANI as well). The move is undone. If something is likely to be controversial discussion first is probably a good idea, but is certainly not required. The heat from both parties didn't help anything, but this looks like a misunderstanding exacerbated by tit for tatting. Hopefully the editing issues can be resolved with colelgial discussion and without any more attacks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a misunderstanding. I can provide a lot of people that will testify that Jeni has done stuff like this against me for the past five months. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought we weren't supposed to be using IRC to conduct Wikipedia business? Whatever, Ottava clearly has a wider issue with Jeni and reacted out of all proportion to the simple revert of a move, which per BRD is not edit warring in any sense of the word. And by the way, I think this Afd is pretty pointy. MickMacNee (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee, there is no such thing as "BRD" when you are undoing an administrative move action and not bothering to seek consensus first. Your understanding of the above is as incorrect as your claims on the Afd here when you attempt to claim that there is some kind of notability even though there are no sources as proof of notability. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Arrant hypocrisy. You demand we see an evil motive behind Jeni's actions, but expect us to ignore the obvious evil motive behind your own. Make up your mind, Ottava. What's it going to be?: Either we should infer the motive behind the action, in which case you should be blocked for a blatant WP:POINT violation; or we should judge the action alone, in which case you owe Jeni an apology for making such a fuss over a simple page move. Hesperian 13:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

An evil motive for nominating a clearly non-notable page for deletion? Please, find one source. My nomination came out of my search and jdelanoy's search for anything on that movie. It is only a "point" violation if you can prove that the movie is clearly notable. You need third party sources for that. If you cannot find such, you can be blocked for inappropriate accusation. You can be certain that I will follow up on such unless you immediately strike your comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I just learned a whole lot about what kind of a person you are, Ottava Rima. You go ahead and waste as much time as you want trying to subdue me. Hesperian 14:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You accused me of evil intention. I would like you to prove that I am acting out of malice by showing that there is indeed sources on the movie. You need evidence before making such claims. My evidence that that the movie was clearly not even close to as notable as the poem and her comments from IRC. You must provide evidence in turn. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it is wrong to accuse someone of evil intention without proof? Hesperian 14:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I already provided evidence from her reaction that her action was not done for the betterment of Wikipedia but as an attack upon another editor. I have also already proven that she did not follow consensus procedures, nor has she proved the notability of the page. To the contrary, it was proved that the page was not notable in doing her job for her. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2009 (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.

Protection template issue

A thread on the wikiEN mailing list highlighted a problem with the protection templates.

Protection templates should always add their pages to either Category:Wikipedia protected pages or Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages. They can also add the page to other specialist categories such as Category:Wikipedia pages protected due to dispute, but that's optional and varies by template.

In fact this isn't the case for some protection templates - look at pages tagged with Template:Pp-dispute for an example. Other protection templates may also be directly or indirectly affected.

I'm not sure at what level to fix this - is it an error in the main Pp-meta protection template, that it doesn't always add pages to one of these two categories, or is it an error in templates generally that some templates omit one of these two?

There's some complex coding involved on a couple of these templates, and the issue affects many pages. Can someone familiar with this template area take a look?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

{{pp-meta}} doesn't use either of those categories, so I assume the simplest solution would be to change the code there. lifebaka++ 15:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And why is this a problem ? If you don't give some reasons, then we certainly won't change anything. Traditionally on Wikipedia, and for good reasons, we don't put a page in a surcategory when there's an available subcategory. Category:Wikipedia protected pages contains all fully protected pages with no further information in the template, and you can check subcategories as needed. The syntax of those templates is extremely intricate, it can't be 'fixed' at one level. If there's really a technical need for this, we could put them all in a category of all pages semi, and full protected (like with disambiguation pages, but there's a real need for them and we had no alternative to categorization, while we have for protected pages), but I don't see how it could be actually useful, this won't contain all protected pages since they don't all contain a protection template, so better use Special:Protectedpages. Cenarium (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For your information, the only template adding the page to Category:Wikipedia protected pages or Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages is {{Pp-protected}}, based on the protection level of the page, it's the generic template. When we'll be able to detect protection expiry, we'll be able to categorize by indefinite and temporary protection, so the two main categories will only contain subcategories. Cenarium (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Also note redirects are counted in Special:ProtectedPages, there are many of those. Cenarium (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at DRV

Please could someone oblige? Thanks—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Unless there were many more open before I looked it wasn't quite a backlog. It's not uncommon to "relist" DRV debates by just leaving them open if there isn't a real consensus either way. I closed one, commented on another and removed the backlog notice. Protonk (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, interesting. I hadn't previously noticed the "relisting" of DRVs.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Unless someone would like to object, I did non-admin close one of them in the spirit of WP:IAR. MuZemike 20:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't care, but you're gonna get burned closing stuff early. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Also, why aren't you an admin? Protonk (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I used scare quotes because they aren't so much relisted as left to sit well beyond 5 (now 7) days. Part of this stems from the fact that many DRVs don't represent the immediate threat to content that XfDs do (more than half are petitioning to restore content). The other part is that the debates tend to turn into sprawling meta debates (c.f. our discussion about the NZ combat engineers) which tend to take more time than "this has sources ZYZ". Protonk (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Bible Institute of Los Angeles

Hope I'm posting in the right place. I don't have a clue why I'm blocked from creating a page for "Bible Institute of Los Angeles" (BIOLA), but I think that such a page should exist, and should consist solely of a redirect to Biola University, which is now its common name. I've come across a couple pages that have red links to "Bible Institute of Los Angeles". If there's some other reason why users are blocked from creating "Bible Institute of Los Angeles", I'd be curious to hear what it is. Adam_sk (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really the right place - but in any case, Bible Institute of Los Angeles has existed as a redirect to Biola University since 2005. Are you sure that's what you're seeing as a redlink? — Gavia immer (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Adam, here is the link that shows the redirect: [71] Pastor Theo (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines for SPI patrolling admins (WP:SPI/AI) revisions

First off, I'd like to direct everyone's attention to the current state of WP:SPI, where, thanks to some hard-working clerks, checkusers, and admins, everything has been cleared out.

With that said, the only way to ensure we don't get such huge backlogs in the future is additional participation and patrolling by the rest of the admins out there. As with improving the SPI header recently, I have also started to plan revisions for the WP:SPI/AI page, which is supposed to be instructions and guidelines for patrolling admins (the "rest of the admins out there"). A working draft of the revisions can again be found in my sandbox. If anyone sees any mistakes or has suggestions for improvement, feel free to edit my sandbox and/or discuss at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations#Guidelines for patrolling admins (WP:SPI/AI) revisions. Regards, MuZemike 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has had nothing whatsoever to do with sock investigations, I find your guidelines very clear and helpful. Great work, Mike.  Skomorokh  20:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Worth noting as well that we've recently made some changes to the SPI main page, aimed at making it easier to understand and use. Any suggestions on how to improve the process for both efficiency and ease of use are welcome at the talk page. Thanks, Nathan ^T 20:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I made my first-ever request for a sock puppet investigation yesterday and was very impressed with how smooth and user-friendly the process was - great work. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Aubad

Resolved

Hi! I already created this article yesterday and it is considered for deletion. Can you please help editing this article or just delete it, thanks. BigKing197cm (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I expanded it a bit and deprodded it. Articles for deletion is the next step if anyone wants to take it there. By the way, this isn't the correct forum for posts such as yours; next time, try asking a relevant WikiProject for help. Deor (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ;) BigKing197cm (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed unprotection of some contentious articles

See List of articles in question

Editor Tony Sidaway has proposed that several articles with a history of sometimes public problems be unprotected. See Special:Contributions/Tony Sidaway from UTC 19:58 September 4, 2009 on for details. Posting here so that editors with knowledge of the articles in question can share their thoughts. Discussion of individual articles on the relevant talkpage please.  Skomorokh  19:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• He can go to RFPP like everyone else, IMO. Protonk (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed, WP:RFPP has a section for unprotecting articles; the standard procedure is to request unprotection there. Tony should be made aware of that proper procedure... --Jayron32 19:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It's also a good idea to petition directly to the protecting admin first, as they are likely to be more familiar with the circumstances that led to the original protection, and whether or not unprotection would be an appropriate act. –xeno^talk 19:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. For your information I'm going down the list of semiprotected article talk pages starting discussions with a view to obtaining consensus for unprotection of the talk page and, if relevant, the article. In some of these cases unprotection might be unwise, but in many it may be time to lift protection because the passage of time has cured the problem. Just going to RFPP may not be enough because that could result in a decision being made by someone without detailed knowledge of the original case. If there is consensus (or at least, absence of objection) then the next step would be RFPP. The protecting admin will also be consulted. --TS 19:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Speaking as an arbitrator here, I will point out that four of the articles Tony has requested unprotection for are specifically under an arbitration article probation remedy as part of the Mantanmoreland case. These are Naked short selling, Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne and Gary Weiss. There have been indications (some of it involving private information) that these articles, as well as perhaps some other finance-related articles such as Securities fraud, are still in need of some level of protection. Perhaps the best way of managing these particular articles would be to unprotect the talk pages but leave the articles semi-protected for now, and reassess every 6-8 months. I will look further at Tony's list of requests for unprotection to see if any others are specifically mentioned in Arbitration case remedies. Risker (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Another article is involved in an Arbitration case remedy: St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine, from the St Christopher case of 2006. Several attempts at lifting semi-protection have occurred over the intervening period, but semi-protection was reinstated within about a week following all attempts. Again, I would suggest unprotecting the talk page first and ensuring that the SPA-related Arbcom remedies identified at the top of the talk page are strictly enforced before considering opening the article to editing. I would hope that any administrator who unprotected the article would continue to watch it closely given its long history of repeated problems every time protection has been lifted in the past. Risker (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Great minds think alike... I had already unprotected Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine in response to a note there from Tony. I was unaware of this thread until, well, right now. I agree with Risker's assessment, and was planning to defer unprotection of the article itself for now, and probably leave it to a more uninvolved admin (I have edited the article in the past). I'll watchlist the page - I have for awhile - but given my involvement would probably need to bring it to someone else if protection is required again. And I'm not going to touch the naked short selling stuff with a ten-foot pole. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• One more under Arbitration Committee probation: Ancient Egyptian race controversy, which had a name change subsequent to the time that the article probation was initiated. Should an admin choose to unprotect, again I would suggest starting with the talk page and monitoring for problematic behaviour for a period. This one seems to have had fewer problems requiring protection than the St Christopher one did. Risker (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, who is it that will be making sure these pages are "watched with great vigilance" (quoting from Tony's edit summaries on some of his notifications)? Tony? And what if they're not? Just hope for the best? Protection is a poor substitute for actual flagged revisions, of course, which we don't have and don't seem likely to get anytime soon, but still. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought flagged revisions might actually be around soon, even if it is effectively replacing semi-protection. (Signpost covers it a bit this week.

In terms of these pages, only after consultation with the admin who initially placed the protection should the protection be lifted. I have seen it far too often before where someone empties the protection category and 1 week later some editors are still sorting out the vandalism. I am not saying this is happening here, indeed it seems to be quite reasonably introduced, but we need to make sure this isn't handed down unilaterally. Regards, Woody (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe what is close to being trialed is flagged protection and patrolled revisions. Not at all the same thing, it's a poor substitute for actual flagged revisions like de:wp has. ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• As the protecting admin I am quite happy to unprotect (keeping the page move option listed, for different reasons) and did for the first two talkpages noted to me. I have kept a weather eye on all these articles, looking for rapid editing/reverting rather than the content, and would say that editing of articles and talkpages have been infrequent. I would be happy to keep a watch over them under the same basis. Unless my talkpage banner starts flashing - or my account is Arb'ed into stone - I shall unprotect the remaining two articles drekkly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In order to "watch [an article] with great vigilance" one would of course use the watchlist function which many of us use routinely for keeping a close watch on many hundreds of articles. The protecting sysops have all been informed and some 30% of the requested unprotections have been performed. I'm not clear why this routine process of requesting unprotection should be considered to be in need of discussion here. Surely the editors of the articles and talk pages in question, and the relevant sysops, are more likely to watch those talk pages and their own user talk pages. --TS 23:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The "editors of the articles and talk pages in question" are often the very reason the protection was put in place. So, then, I take it you have no plans to spend time watching these articles? ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The annoying thing is for some high traffic large articles like Emperor Penguin, Blue Whale, Penguin and Lion when there are a succession of IPs and cleaning up afterwards. I find semi prot makes for better use of time and article deterioration prevention in the long run. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I second this. Cla68 (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that semi-protection just to make cleaning up articles easier (i.e. reducing the amount of IP editing) is not what semi-protection was intended for. For all the unhelpful IP editing you eliminate, you risk having a casual reader (without an account) wanting to make a genuine improvement to the article, thinking that they are not welcome to edit. This especially holds if the "large article" (I would say "general, high-level topic article") has not gone through any formal review process (such as good articles [GA] or featured articles [FA]). When it has, the question is whether we want new editors trying to improve (say) featured articles (this is when they are not on the main page), or whether the standards of the review process justify such articles being (for IPs) "set in stone"? On balance, I would say the standards for semi-protection should be the same for all non-BLP articles. i.e. high-traffic vandalism would justify semi-protection, but not merely a succession of unhelpful but good-faith attempts to "improve" an article. Carcharoth (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and this is not even a matter for debate here, it's clear in the protection policy, but some admins just don't care to follow it. Too often, the protection system is abused for WP:OWN reasons. And if an admin gets a few pals to agree, it doesn't make a consensus for those protections that are against a policy supported by the community at large. Being large or featured is no reason for protection, either. And anyway if we would like to set FAs in stone, no one should be permitted to edit them without consensus, we shouldn't be discriminatory to anonymous and new users. But the community expeditiously rejected the idea any time it was presented. The issue is rather that the global monitoring tools at our disposal, mostly recentchanges, and specific for users, mostly watchlists, are not effective enough. Patrolled revisions should allow an easier and more efficient monitoring, as well as proposals like this. Though this is not really related to the protections/unprotections we're concerned with in this thread. Cenarium (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon

Would an admin be so kind as to lift the full protection on this article? While some discussion is ongoing, a compromise has been worked out and agreed to broadly for some time now. The protection was controversial to begin with and the admin who enforced it hasn't responded to a request to lift it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is the venue for this. This page is not for generic problems with specific articles.  Skomorokh  16:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Cognition

Resolved

 – Ban appeal declined, checkuser found a large number of ban-evading accounts. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This user has had an unblock request up for several days. He has agreed to terms offered by Hersfold, one of which includes having a WP:MENTOR. But no one has volunteered to be a mentor; Hersfold specifically declined. I believe the mentor ought to be an admin, since this is not a typical WP:ADOPTion situation. I also am getting the feeling that no one is actually willing to mentor him. So, any takers? Mangojuice^talk 06:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This editor is a follower of Lyndon LaRouche, and has been extremely troublesome on those articles, as well as on articles about individuals, including BLPs, who have criticized LaRouche, or whom LaRouche has criticized. I'd therefore like to make sure that, if he's unblocked, he'll be topic-banned from LaRouche-related articles and talk pages, and also from making LaRouche-related edits to other pages. He kind of agreed to this on his talk page, but it was a little ambiguous. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at that situation a bit before deciding I didn't want to touch it. Here's the problem. Anyone who could mentor Cognition and stop him from putting a LaRouche spin into articles would have to be aware of a huge number of obscure details surrounding LaRouche and his politics. Anyone with that knowledge would either have to be another LaRouche follower -- which would of course be a disastrous conflict of interest -- or a well-versed foe of LaRouche, in which case they would not want to have anything to do with Cognition. This is presumably why nobody will mentor him. rspεεr (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There are editors familiar with LaRouche who could watch his edits and report to a mentor if he breaches the agreement. Not that I'm arguing in favour of Cognition being unblocked, because I don't think he should be. His edits were so far from Wikipedia's standards, and his ideas so extreme (e.g. the Queen is a "dope-pusher" [72]) that I see no possibility of his becoming a regular editor. But at least if he were kept away from LaRouche's favourite topics, it would limit the potential for damage. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking over his edits, I'm not convinced an unblock is wise but I'm willing to give him a chance. He should certainly be indefinitely topic banned from the Larouche Movement topic broadly defined (i.e. any article that has anything remotely to do with Lyndon LaRouche) - I'm not sure he'll be willing to participate under that topic ban but the ball's not really in his court on this. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and just to note, I'll take him under my wing if the topic ban is put in place. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he could be asked a few basic questions, such as, "Do you still believe the Queen is a dope-pusher?" If he says "yes" or some version thereof, then he can stay blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If he agrees to stay away from Larouche Movement articles (broadly defined to mean anything that discusses the movement or LaRouche himself) I'd be happy to mentor him. Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Meh, not really a valid question. The wikipedia community could care less whether a given user believes, for example, that Obama was born in Africa, as long as that belief doesn't effect their editing. (no, that isn't my belief, just FYI) Cognition's beliefs have obviously influenced his editing, so a more valid question would be "do you agree to edit under a ban from all LaRouche-related topics, including discussions and talk pages?" The real question of course is whether he would contribute anything positive to the encyclopedia if he were allowed to edit under such a topic ban. If all evidence points to Cognition being unable to avoid such topics, or unable to contribute positively in unrelated areas, there is no point in unblocking him. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be an excellent question to ask, and would likely be a show-stopper, as he's probably a single-purpose account. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've asked him if he's willing to accept the broad, indefinite Lyndon LaRouche topic ban. If so, I'll unblock him under Ryan's mentorship, otherwise I think we can decline the unblock. Mangojuice^talk 14:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks like the perfect occasion for a link, possibly two links. Primarily WP:EARTH, secondarily WP:TURNIP. Durova³⁰⁸ 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please nobody unblock him until he's responded to my question about alternate accounts, and I've had a chance to respond in kind. Since it is one of the conditions of his unblocking, I want to see what he's been up to during his block if anything. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive198#User:Cognition_requesting_unblock   Will Beback  talk  03:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not unblock Cognition without confirmation from a checkuser. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a great idea. Larouchian viewpoints impact almost every single issue that one can think of. Moreover, there's a general problem here: NPOV in order to work at all relies on some form of consensus reality. We might disagree on some of the details of that reality, or might disagree on the values and implications of that reality but at the end of the day, there is some general consensus. Given Cognition's remarks [[here as well as edits such as in mainspace such as this one labeling 50 Cent a "synarchist agent" I'm not sure that this user is either willing or able to operate and interact within the consensus reality. If this user is allowed back, at minimum, we will need complete bans on any edits to articles related to politics, religion, music, math, Great Britain, economics, trains, history, drugs, health care, HIV, LGBT issues, Zionism, Islam, Judaism, astronomy, psychology, and philosophy. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be concerned, JoshuaZ. Cognition's ban appeal is summarily declined, due to a laundry list of ban-evading accounts that checkuser found. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is an ongoing discussion here. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

but it happened elsewhere too!

Resolved

I am often asked this type of question from some users:

"you blocked him (in some other discussion on some other talk page). how come you aint similarly blocking this guy here?"

or

"Why didnt you act similarly on that page? The same thing here happened there too!"

or

"If youre gonna protect this page, then you have to protect that page too."

Didnt there used to be an essay or guideline (or maybe even policy) that said: "Just because this has happened elsewhere (in some article) doesnt make it valid here (in this article)." or something like that?

I cant find the link anymore. Anybody know of the link whereabouts?--Zereshk (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Skomorokh  23:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That said, why didn't you is a good question to have an answer for though. Explain why you didn't. Prodego ^talk 23:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Got it. thnx.--Zereshk (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

admin Nightscream

Resolved

 – I'm going to tentatively mark this resolved; it looks like a misunderstanding of when it is appropriate to flip the switch. As I commented to Nightscream at their talk page, "Almost as important as avoiding impropriety while using the tools is avoiding the appearance of the same. Even if the same action would be made by an uninvolved admin, you should not make that action whilst you are involved. The various noticeboards are always open..." and that "Sometimes it's best to err on the side of caution." –xeno^talk 02:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time for Nightscream (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to lose his administrative priveleges. I first got to know about Nightscream back in February when I was reviewing his block of User:Asgardian. The resulting community discussion took place here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive184#Block of User:Asgardian. This is after he was substantially criticized for a previous block of Asgardian in late 2008; see User talk:Nightscream#Your block of Asgardian and User talk:Nightscream#Asgardian. See also User talk:Nightscream#Black Bolt & Living Laser and User talk:Nightscream#Non-constructive conduct. I haven't seen that Nightscream continues to abuse his blocking capability but he has certainly abused his protection tool since then. He semi-protected Towelie for 1 year, after being heavily involved in editing there. (He also had fully protected it indefinitely but reversed himself). Note User talk:Nightscream#RE: Towelie for a discussion that took place prior to that protection. He semi-protected Pandemic (South Park) for 1 year also after being involved in editing there. In both of these cases, the protection was designed to stop contributions that Nightscream didn't like -- ones I too don't like and think should have been removed, but I will not classify additions to a "cultural reference" section as vandalism. And he has protected Red Hulk twice; today it was full protection. This is one of the articles where Nightscream is deeply involved in a dispute with Asgardian. Asgardian is a troublesome editor. He's stubborn, and he has edit warred in the past. Still, it seems that no amount of warning Nightscream to avoid using administrative tools in situations he is involved in has any effect.

I may be interested in taking this to WP:ARBCOM but first I thought I would see what the broader admin community thinks. Mangojuice^talk 18:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is the RFA? Has this been to WP:RFC/U yet? –xeno^talk 18:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nightscream and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nightscream 2 are the two RfAs I see. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Have not taken it to RFCU; I can do that if people feel it would be helpful. The (successful) RFA is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nightscream 2; there was a previous self-nom when Nightscream was very new. Mangojuice^talk 18:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, over-reliance on tools that don't seem to be working today! RFCU is usually a necessary step in the DR process. –xeno^talk 18:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive405#User:Angry Christian 2, Nightscream wrote "I'll make it a point from now on not to mix conflict participation with administrative actions. I apologize for failing to do so up until now. Nightscream (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)". Perhaps he needs to be reminded that he needs to avoid conflicts with all of his administrative tools, including protection... –xeno^talk 19:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As a number of the links given in the original post show I have discussed various issues with Nightscream in an attempt to help resolve any problems. From what I've seen it seems like their frustration at the speed things have moved has resulted in them making use of admin tools in disputes they are engaged in. Clearly where if there is an obvious problem it is easy to move fast and hard on it but in some of the issues I've been helping them deal with a slower more cautious approach has been needed and (esepcially as some of this has been going on for years without a proper resolution) I understand it can be frustrating. It is worth noting that, in the cases I've been involved in, Nightscream's actions are usually the next best move it is just that they shouldn't be the one making it. I know mangojuice has been offering to check things over for Nightscream and advise where they can but they also appear to not have had the time for this recently and it might be the solution is for a few other admins (outside of the fields he edits in) to act in a similar capacity. Of course, Nightscream will have to also learn to be more patient as other people aren't as active as they are. (Emperor (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

I don't understand where Nightscream or Emperor gets the idea that I have offered to check things over for him. I have no particular objection, but in the AN discussion I linked to it was my advice, and the advice of several others, that he should post a request on a general noticeboard like this one or WP:ANI for review by whoever happens to read it. Mangojuice^talk 20:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Xeno, that we should see an RFC/U, and if there is support to be found there, an ArbCom case. Nightscream may have been warned about certain things, but was it in an official capacity? If an admin is going to lose his tools, I'd like to see him first reviewed through fair and due process, as with User:A Man In Black. BOZ (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In Nightscream's defense, please note User_talk:J_Greb#Looking_for_input, wherein Asgardian's long history of provocation is being discussed; this is clearly an ongoing matter for him and Nightscream, and he has a long, long history of this sort of behavior against numerous other users. ThuranX (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my memory of our discussion this past February is wrong--if so, I'm sorry--but thought I remembered Mangojuice telling me to contact him if Asgardian's behavior becomes an issue again.

In any event, this is what transpired: On numerous occasions, User:Asgardian has attempted to completely remove all references to comic book titles, issue numbers and dates from the bodies of articles, leaving them only in the ref tags. Typically, I and/or others opined that some occasional use of them is fine, as on the Black Bolt Talk Page. Back in February, I started a discussion the Comics Project Page in which I related Asgardian's claim that he and others had devised a format for such articles, and that this lack of issues and dates anywhere except in the ref tags was a part of it. The others there said that this was not true, and when I proposed the matter to them, three editors: Emperor, BOZ and J Greb, agreed that some use of such info is good, and that they should not be entirely removed. One person, Peregrine Fisher, said Asgardian's version read more smoothly. I tried to continue that discussion, but no one responded. Nonetheless, we had a consensus of four people, I thought.

On August 28, I left a message on Asgardian's Talk Page, because he was again removing that information from the Red Hulk article. He did not respond to my message, and continued to revert the article.

On August 30, I started a discussion on Talk:Red Hulk on four points on which Asgardian and I were in dispute. I contacted over 20 people to invite them to it (adhering to WP:CANVAS), but only three showed up, not counting Asgardian. All four of us agreed on three of the four points, one of which was again, the issue of issue numbers and dates. These were myself, Emperor, ThuranX and Peregrine Fisher, who now stated that he was also okay with some dates and issue numbers. This was four (or six if you count the discussion on the Project Page in February). On the fourth point, I was essentially outvoted, and I'm fine with that. I was hoping to wait it out until more people showed up, but ThuranX and Asgardian began editing the article again on August 31 (perhaps they thought the discussion ran its course), but in doing so, Asgardian again removed issue numbers and dates from the article. He continued to do this even though discussion on the Talk Page continued, a behavior for which he had previously been blocked. He again provided his position, which was that he didn't want a "laundry list" or "minefield" of issues numbers and dates that was impossible to read. I tried to point out to him that no one was advocating this, but merely an occasional mention of such things for important issues, as everyone in that discussion had stated, and that it did not have to be an all-or-nothing question. He did not respond to this point, but he continued to revert the article, and made statements regarding his work on other articles that the others found profoundly disturbing. They are discussing what actions to take against Asgardian on JGreb's Talk Page, with JGreb suggesting a "long block" for him.

I'm not privy to the matter of those other articles, but because he continued to revert Red Hulk during a discussion, I decided to protect the article from everyone but admins for (IIRC) a week. This was not to push a particular version. It was only a one-week protection intended to hold off until the discussion could be resolved, since, as everyone knows, edit warring during a discussion is against policy, and is what his last unreversed block was for, IIRC. I normally would've preferred not to do this myself, but since Mangojuice had not responded on my Talk Page I felt I had no options. I also did not know that merely protecting a page pending resolution to a dispute in which the admin is involved is considered to be as inappropriate, as blocking an editor is. Only after this, however, did I discover that Mangojuice did respond, but on his Talk Page, and to say that he was not active enough to intervene.

Despite this, Mangojuice has apparently found himself active enough to opine two things: That information has not been presented that Asgardian has misbehaved (despite my furnishing him with all the aforementioned information), and that my protecting the page was an inappropriate misuse of admin tools for which I should be de-sysoped, both of which I find to be assertions of breathtaking inanity. Regarding Asgardian, his recent behavior is just the latest in a long history of policy violations for which he has had four unreversed blocks imposed on him. Mangojuice is aware of this, and I certainly illustrated his recent misbehavior.

As for my page protection, I apologize for breaching a guideline that I was not aware of, but doing so is not the deliberate misuse that Mangojuice tries to portray it. Just as Wikipedia is a constant work in progress, so too is learning about all the various permutations of all the guidelines and policies, even for experienced editors like me. Now I know that even protection is considered inappropriate in these matters, so from now on, I'll make more frequent use of these Noticeboards. Taking away admin privileges for such a harmless Good Faith error is drastic, and unnecessary.

Complicating Mangojuice's bizarre viewpoint is that in illustrating his position on my Talk Page, he made a number of other accusations that he conflated with this matter, including some false statements in violation of WP:AGF, and even cited a comment by another editor, ThuranX that Thuran made in a completely unrelated matter. I have responded to each of these accusations in greater detail on Mangojuice's Talk Page. If anyone would like to question me further on this matter, please feel free to do so. Nightscream (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is some direction at WP:UNINVOLVED. The community is still grappling with the idea of involvement, but hopefully one day a comprehensive guideline will be written (or a quick course written for NAS). Perhaps with this greater understanding, we can mark this matter resolved? –xeno^talk 00:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I will make sure to read over that policy more carefully. Thanks to everyone here, and you especially, xeno. Nightscream (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Turian

Resolved

I cannot leave a message at User talk:Turian, since it is protected. Is that appropriate for a user with rollback rights? 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It is, since vandals had fun getting mad because I removed their crap. Just respond on your talk page. –túrian^patois 05:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Then do you watchlist every user talk page of every user you revert? 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

By default, yes. I have well over 800 pages on my watchlist (most likely 600 are talk pages). –túrian^patois 05:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, though, how long are they kept on your watchlist? Since many users don't work on Wikipedia more than once a week. (though this would depend on how long your talk page is protected, and whether it is subsequently reprotected, at a time when such a user is online again) 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It will be on my watchlist for forever. And my talk page is only protected until the 8th or so. –túrian^patois 05:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Many wikipedia editors watchlist the pages they edit, including talk pages. That's nothing out of the ordinary. Dayewalker (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The page was only protected for a few days because of disruption. Nothing out of the ordinary here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Launchballer (talk)

What do you think of my new talk template? 17:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a violation of WP:NFCC. You can't use non-free images outside of article space. Resolute 17:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Informed user of WP:SIG#Must not be used. Now I see the sig uses a template: {{Launchballer}}! Speedy or MFD? Rd232 ^talk 17:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the images per policy... I guess it would techincally go to WP:TFD, and if it does, I expect it would WP:SNOW. Resolute 17:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think in the spirit of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, it could just be deleted immediately, under WP:IAR. Rd232 ^talk 17:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: I listed it on TfD for the time being. GrooveDog (oh hai.) 19:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

PovWatch

There is a proposal for the installation of an extension, PovWatch, that currently has unanimous support at the village pump. Your input there is appreciated. — Jake Wartenberg 02:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Raul654, William M Connolley, and KimDabelsteinPetersen on the Lawrence Solomon BLP

Raul654 has just full protected Lawrence Solomon ostensibly because of the edit warring that was occurring there over whether to include a properly sourced statement that Solomon is an environmentalist. Raul has previously edit warred himself over this very same topic (see [73], [74]) in WP:TAGTEAM fashion in support of User:William M. Connolley. The current dispute involves a number of members from "team" User:William M. Connolley notably including User:KimDabelsteinPetersen along with their other usual supporters who shall not be enumerated here. Both User:William M. Connolley and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen are strongly resisting the inclusion of a properly and adequately sourced statement that Solomon is an environmentalist. Given that Solomon had published public accounts of his interactions with both User:William M. Connolley and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen which were of a seriously critical nature, I believe it is fair to say that these two editor's have a conflict of interest on this BLP and should not be obstructing the inclusion of properly sourced material.

UPDATE: The publications related to WMC and KDP include but may not be limited to the following:

1. Wikipedia's Zealots: Solomon
2. Hide your name on Wicked Pedia: Solomon
3. Wikipropaganda

I seek a discussion and a decision on the following matters:

1. Regardless of whether this particular page protection is appropriate, or not, it is clear that Raul654 was involved in this specific content dispute and he should NOT be using his administrative tools to lock the content of this page AT ALL. I seek appropriate sanctions against Raul654 for his use of administrative tools while involved in the dispute.
2. Both User:William M. Connolley and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen have sufficient reason and desire to disrupt the on-going development of this BLP to the detriment of the subject and their actions there are demonstrating that they intend to do so. They both have a clear conflict of interest with respect to this particular article and their objectivity there cannot be assumed. As such I seek a page and talk page ban against each of them for the Lawrence Solomon BLP so that we can avoid future disruptive actions on their parts.

--GoRight (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have placed notices on the talk pages of Lawrence Solomon, User:Raul654, User:William M. Connolley, and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen. --GoRight (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you include me? I feel unloved. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't have a conflict of interest on that page. --GoRight (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cos no-one loves yah, bebe :-). In the unlikely event of anyone thinking that GR is an uninterested party in all this, be aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley, and the tedious cabal nonsense; GR's request here is yet more water-muddying. The current dispute is over the inclusion of the word "environmentalist" or not; it is not at all clear how inclusion, or exclusion, of this word can be to the detriment of the subject. Since [75] in 2008-09-26 I have precisely one edit to this page; GR's allegations of intent to disrupt are absurd William M. Connolley (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to the page are readily available in the article history. They speak for themselves. --GoRight (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So are Raul's. Why don't they speak for themselves. What are you on about? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, why don't GoRight's own edits speak for themselves? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Both Raul's and my own edits also speak for themselves on our respective levels of involvement and whether our edits are good faith attempts to improve the article, or not. I'll trust the uninvolved here to decide for themselves. --GoRight (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight trusts the "community" when that community involves himself and a whole lot of Scibaby sockpuppets which he can use to falsely claim consensus. Raul654 (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

By my count, zero Scibaby socks have contributed here. Cool Hand Luke 17:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

← I guess I see a few issues here:

• Was protection appropriate? There was a full-blown edit war going on. If I saw a request at WP:RFPP with that sort of page history, I'd almost certainly protect the page. One could argue that un-aged sockpuppets were contributing a huge amount of the edit-warring, and that semi-protection would be more appropriate upfront - I suppose that would be reasonable as well.
• Should Raul654 have taken action here? Don't know. The definition of "involvement" keeps changing - between written policy and ArbCom findings, we have at least 3 or 4 mutually contradictory definitions, some of which Raul654 violated and some which he clearly did not. His last edit to the page was nearly 1 year ago, but it did involve the same issue of the "environmentalist" descriptor.
• Conflict of interest. I'm sorry, but I completely and utterly reject that. Someone is unhappy with an editor's work on Wikipedia, and publishes their unhappiness in a sympathetic venue - OK, it's happened before. But that doesn't disqualify said editor, unless their edits are objectionable in and of themselves on grounds of our policies. Let's say that a vitamin salesman encourages people with a deadly disease to abandon effective treatment in favor of his products. I edit an article on the subject on Wikipedia, with reference to appropriate sources. He doesn't like it and attacks me on his website in moderately threatening terms. Hypothetically, of course. Have I just acquired a "conflict of interest"?

I'd be curious to hear some thoughts on these points. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Call it a conflict of interest or whatever else you wish, but given these accounts which were published in national media, not someone's WP:SPS website with no readership, their objectivity and judgment with respect to Solomon can reasonably be considered clouded and thus their objectivity can be reasonably called into question. Based on that alone a page and talk page ban would be appropriate for this single article. As for whether their edits are objectionable under out policies, or not, there are a number of editors who believe that they are. The discussion on the talk page makes that clear enough. --GoRight (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious about your charge that your fellow editors "have sufficient reason and desire to disrupt" the Solomon article. How do you know they have the "desire" to disrupt? Have they said so? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Their edits to the main space page combined with their commentary on the talk page. --GoRight (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So your view is that a preference for objective third-party references rather than op-eds and self-published sources constitutes a desire to disrupt? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that their respective edits and comments indicate that they intend to obstruct the introduction of appropriately sourced material into the article which could be considered positive towards the subject of the BLP, and in that sense they are being disruptive. That they freely undertook these actions speaks to the issue of their desire. That they were publicly chastised by Solomon speaks to their motive, and therefore to the need for a page ban to prevent further disruption of the article. --GoRight (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight's concerns seem to be quite legitimate. Raul, WMC and a couple of others seem to be very involved and opinionated on the subject matter involved yet they haven using their admin tools in relation to the subject. This seems very improper, not to mention the problems with the apparent POV pushing that's going on. If they want to work and collaborate on the article I think that's fine, but using their admin tools to advance a position is totally unacceptable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

3 questions (simply because i've been mentioned as an involved party by GoRight - otherwise i will try to stay out of the dramah..):

• How exactly have admin tools been used to advance a position?
• And what exactly is improper in the discussions?
• What POV pushing has been going on?

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Um, for starters, protecting the page when he has an interest in the dispute? Thatcher 19:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Arguable, as argued above (not by me). However, do you think CoM might perhaps be a bit more careful about flinging around plurals? Unless I (or someone else?) is supposed to have used admin tools here? And, just to be clear, the "POV pushing" that we're arguing about is whether LS gets to be called an env or not? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't help it if some editors try to throw the kitchen sink into every dispute. In my view, Raul654 is so partisan on the issue of climate change that he should not use his admin or checkuser tools in this area. This is a general position and people are free to disagree. In this specific case, protecting an article where two of the editors involved in the dispute were yourself and GoRight (given Raul's participation in your Arbitration case and his repeated calls for banning GoRight) was not appropriate. And this is not the first such incident. Thatcher 20:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What position was Raul advancing? I'm rather confused here, we have a plethora of scibaby sockpuppets here, which seems to be the main reason for the protection (and btw. for Raul's participation both in 2008 and in 2009). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

He appears to be advancing the position that Solomon is not an environmentalist, something that he personally fought for last year. (This is, by the way, a particularly idiotic form of edit war, since it relies on both sides heavily relying on the fallacy appeal to authority. I can call myself an environmentalist because I recycle my pop cans and use a water filter instead of bottled water. What difference does it make in reality if American Spectator calls Solomon an environmentalist? None, of course. His claims and writings stand or fall on their merits. But you folks are fighting over a label because you perceive that the label conveys more authority than his actual writings. I've seen a lot of fighting over labels and appeals to authority on the ethnic geopolitical disputes. Funny to see it here among a bunch of scientists.) Thatcher 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm? You seem to have misunderstood the discussion.. I am not opposing an inclusion of the description that Solomon is an environmentalist, in fact i have yet to see anyone do so. What is asked for is a reliable source, that isn't an opinion article or a self-published whatever, (ie. something that is reliable for BLP info without the "X describes Y as ...") to establish this particular factoid. I was of the impression (apparently mistaken) that if asked, we must document/reference information? Or have i for some reason completely misread WP:V? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As an involved editor, I would like to throw my own 2 cents into this discussion concisely, give my full support to GoRight's motion, and then withdraw.

1. COI concerns: the case is stronger against William Connolley than it is against KDP because not only has Solomon written against Connolley but Connolley has responded in kind against Solomon, and has argued in a page still available in his blog (here), that Solomon is essentially a fraud, and not an environmentalist. KDP claims not to be offended by Solomon's writings against him, and I am inclined to believe him. Still, conflicts of interest are not, in normal situations, resolved by asking the potentially conflicted individual about how they feel. :)
2. Concerning Solomon & environmentalist: we have a large amount of source material giving S and an environmentalist. Twice, I have take sources to the RS/N and the verdict was that KDP's & WMC's reasoning against the material was invalid (in the first case it was slightly more complicated than I present here, but my summary is accurate). On the instance of the Financial Post biography, KDP & WMC continue to insist that it is a WP:SPS, apparently in outright contradiction of the WP policies. It seems to me, therefore, that the two editors are ignoring both consensus against their position, and the rules.
3. Concerning the page protection, that's just bizarre; there was no edit warring occurring as far as I know (I certainly wasn't editing the page).
4. Finally, I may not have helped the situation as I must admit that my frustration over the many days I've spent in this argument has erupted into my comments on the page; sorry. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight (again)

Previously discussed: [76][77][78]

In addition to the above issues mentioned by WMC and Boris, there are several thing that bear mentioning.

First, GoRight's diffs to claim my "involvement" are ancient. I have not edited this article in almost a year. His claims of involvement are completely without merit. Using his ridiculous interpretation of "involvement", admins would be prohibited from taking administrative actions on any article they have ever edited. This is not an accident - GoRight frequently claims involvement by the admins most familiar with his misbehavior in order to avoid being sanctioned for that misbehavior. (Abd proposed something along these lines in the on-going arbitration case, and it was rejected almost unanimously by the community as a transparent attempt to disqualify those most suited to deal with his disruption)

Second, as the one adding the material, the onus is on GoRight to provide sources to back up his claim. The sources he cites have repeatedly been debunked on the talk page as op-eds or self-published sources. Thus, he is in violation of WP:BLP.

Third, the current edit war is yet another instance of GoRight proxy editing for banned user Scibaby. GoRight's edits: [79][80]; Scibaby's edits: [81][82][83][84][85]. This is the 6th or 7th incident of GoRight acting as a proxy for banned users in as many months, and the 3rd or 4th in the last few weeks. (He does it for Scibaby quite a lot, and recently has taken to doing it for Abd)

Fourth, related to the above, when I protected the page, I gave two reasons -- edit warring and sockpuppetry. GoRight conviently omitted the latter from his description.

I think a substantial block for GoRight, for repeatedly and willfully violating the 'no proxying' policy (Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. --Wikipedia:Banning policy) is in order.

When a previous community ban discussion was mentioned here, GoRight outright lied -- he claimed he would adhere to a self-imposed 1rr, a promise which he promptly ignored as soon as the discussion was over. I think a topic ban from global warming articles is also in order, as he contributes little or nothing of value while causing much disruption. Raul654 (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul leaves out, of course, that I have been working in good faith on the talk page to resolve this issue and that I am NOT the only editor asserting this material so any claims of my meat puppeting are absurd, unless he wants to level the charge against ALL of those asserting this material as well which, as you will note, he has not. He is being selective for an obvious purpose given his history of seeking sanctions against me and being rebuffed each time. His previous attempt at this meat puppet accusation was investigated and rejected, [86].

My previous pledge of adopting WP:1RR served its purpose between when it was made and now. I hereby rescind that pledge moving forward. --GoRight (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, when did you make the 1RR pledge? Was it recent? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

See this. He made the promise on August 7 of last year. As soon as the discussion was over, he promptly ignored the promise, and participated in the many of his revert wars 12 days later. Raul654 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate to rescind the pledge *before* breaking it rather than *after*? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes. The part being left out here is that the pledge was to make a good faith effort, not to be 100% perfect. I believe that my editing record since then will support the assertion that any violations between then and now are exceptions rather than the rule. --GoRight (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that my editing record since then will support the assertion that any violations between then and now are exceptions rather than the rule. - your editing record disagrees. Raul654 (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, exceptions ... not the rule. But please DO read Raul's WP:ATTACKPAGE and then read my edits in context to judge for yourself Raul's veracity in such matters. --GoRight (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight's sole purpose for editing Wikipedia seems to be to sabotage our coverage of global warming and to denigrate editors in good standing. Why on earth has he been tolerated for so long? A ban is richly merited so that we can get on with improving Wikipedia instead of wasting our time humoring his attempts to harm it. --TS 17:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and the continual tit-for-tat that GoRight has been engaging has worn the community's patience. seicer | talk | contribs 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion of this issue below. Please voice your opinions there. Raul654 (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony, "sabotage" is a pretty serious charge. I'm sure you have links supporting this, right? ATren (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Tony, but I sure do. And note that that page only covers the September 2008-April 2009 period. If I updated it for his behavior since April, it would be about 5 times longer. Raul654 (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(note, I have added my signature to my earlier edit, above). Raul, that evidence was presented in the RfC you started on GoRight, right? If he wasn't banned then, what new information do you have to justify a ban now? As I recall, when I looked at that evidence many months ago, I looked at 10 links from your evidence, and none of it backed up what you were claiming. I gave up looking after that. ATren (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it was not. As the first sentence says, everything there is stuff he did after the RFC and the community ban discussion last August. I looked at 10 links from your evidence, and none of it backed up what you were claiming. - that's because you have a history of defending his misbehavior. Your incredulity is hardly convincing counter evidence. Raul654 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What I find concerning is that GoRight has been on Wikipedia for very nearly 2 years, as made around 3500 edits, but only 12% of them in article space.[87] Moreover, as far as I can figure out from the edit counter, he has not made one single edit that is not either connected with global warming or global warming and fringe science conflict resolution - invariably pushing the fringe side. This does not look like somebody who is interested in the project except as a vehicle to push his own POV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Already addressed in previous discussions. I am a self-acknowledged single purpose account which does not disqualify me from participating on the project. My purpose here is to address what I perceive as being a systemic bias on the global warming pages and to move those articles which are affected into a more WP:NPOV position. I believe that this is a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. I also seek to remove bias from the BLP's of the global warming skeptics in support of not only WP:NPOV but WP:BLP as well (with this discussion being an example of a WP:NPOV concern rather than a WP:BLP one). --GoRight (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that the issue of proxy editing/meatpuppetry was presented in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby and the people who reviewed Raul's argument there did not agree with his conclusion that GoRight had violated the BAN policy. As Raul notes above, the BAN policy allows editors to redo edits made by banned users as long as they take responsibility for the content. At that point the question is not whether they are replacing edits by banned users, but whether or not the content of the edits themselves is problematic. That may be the case in other edits by GoRight, but I don't think the proxying/meatpuppetry claim has merit. Nathan ^T 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As Raul notes above, the BAN policy allows editors to redo edits made by banned users as long as they take responsibility for the content. - almost, but not quite. It says you can restore edits if you take responsibility for them, and they are verifiable, and you "have independent reasons for making them" (--Wikipedia:Banning policy). If you make an edit because a banned user did it first, you are not making them independently, and you do not qualify for that exception. Your action is simply proxy editing. This totally demolishes claims that GoRight's edits were OK. And, in the Scibaby discussion above, not a single person other than myself ever addressed this issue. Raul654 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess since we're quoting policy, it is important that we be accurate. The text of the policy as of this moment reads: Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. and also Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing. So not "make them independently" - have independent reasons (i.e. don't put them back based only on who made them). I think that we did discuss the meaning of the BAN policy and the MEAT policy, and we came to a conclusion at odds with your own. Nathan ^T 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (Note that my comment here was in reply to [88] this version of Raul's comments directly above; he modified his comment before my reply was posted, and I didn't notice the change).

Your position is absurd. When was the last time someone reverted with the edit summary that they were restoring an edit because person X made it? Has that ever happened? Because you are saying that is the only condition under which someone would be guilty of proxy editing. Otherwise, they could always claim to have independent reasons for making the edits. Raul654 (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the plain meaning of the policy as written, and not unreasonable - it means that we judge non-banned editors based on the content of their edits rather than who has made similar or identical edits previously. This standard does nothing to protect an editor (GoRight or anyone else) from being blocked or banned based on the content of his or her edits or other behavior; the purpose, as it appears to me, is to allow positive content to remain in the encyclopedia even if it was initially added by a banned user. Nathan ^T 22:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Should we consider deleting "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban" from the policy? That's the bit that appears to be the sticking point. You and others are arguing that it's generally OK to reinstate such edits, so perhaps policy doesn't reflect current practice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the plain meaning of the policy as written, - no, it's not. The plain meaning of "have independent reasons for making them" means you are making it independent of the person who made it originally. If your reason for doing it is because someone else did it first (which can be inferred easily from editing behavior and does not have to be explicitly stated), then you are not independent.

and not unreasonable - I stand by my above comment. Under you interpretation of the policy, the only way someone can ever be guilty of proxy editing is if they post an edit summary saying they were restoring an edit because person X made it first.

it means that we judge non-banned editors based on the content of their edits rather than who has made similar or identical edits previously. - this is absolutely, 100% wrong. If you see that a banned editor makes an edit that you happen to agree with, you are *not* permitted to restore it. Being banned means just that -- not permitted to participate on Wikipedia. Otherwise, we send a signal to every banned user that it's OK to flaunt a ban, because someone might agree with you and edit war in your favor.

This standard does nothing to protect an editor (GoRight or anyone else) from being blocked or banned based on the content of his or her edits or other behavior - this is irrelevant. Of course if someone does other bad things in addition to proxy editing, they can be blocked. The issue at question is whether restoring edits by banned user is permitted. And the plain reading of the policy shows that it is not.

the purpose, as it appears to me, is to allow positive content to remain in the encyclopedia even if it was initially added by a banned user. - Absolutely not. The purpose is to discourage banned users from coming back and violating their bans in the hopes that someone will side with them -- which is exactly what is happening here. Raul654 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In the case of my restoring ANY edit my independent reason for making the change is that I believe that it improves the encyclopedia, and as I have stated many times I take full responsibility for the content that I restore. If the content I have restored is a problem then block or ban me based on that, not based on the actions of someone else and over whom I have no control. --GoRight (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it improves the encyclopedia - thank you for proving my point, that under Nathan's interpretation of the proxying policy, it's basically impossible to violate because no matter how damaging the proxy edits are, the person will always claim to be doing it for the good of the encyclopedia. Raul654 (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And as I have made perfectly clear, I accept full responsibility for the content I add to the encyclopedia. If that content is damaging then block or ban me for that, if not then your argument is moot. --GoRight (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul, I previously suggested that you drop this theory. As I pointed out at the PD talk page, every uninvolved user shares "Nathan's interpretation." The community does not think that the policy means what you claim it does. Because policy is derived from community norms (rather than vice versa), it flatly does not mean what you claim. Instead, focus on how GoRight's editing is bad; trying to catch him in an absurd technicality tends to turn people off (as you can see above). Cool Hand Luke 15:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry" from WP:BAN, as it appears no longer to reflect community consensus and to be producing needless confusion. By obviating disputes over this wording we should have one less source of conflict. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that goes a little too far. I think we all agree that editors must take full responsibility for the content of such reinstated edits. I've revised it. Cool Hand Luke 17:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that you added "Users should generally refrain from knowingly reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of their ban" in light of yours and others' comments here, which state that editors are free to reinstate edits made by banned users as long as they take responsibility for the content of those edits. I think it's important for the policy to be clear. It has caused too much conflict and misunderstanding. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I re-added that because editors do in fact tend to avoid restoring these edits. I think it's a best practice. But at the same time, I don't think restoring comments should be sanctionable as long as they take full responsibility for the edits—its' sanctionable if they're personal attacks, DE, and so forth. Probably needs more work; should ask folks on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 17:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight community ban

Previously discussed: [89][90][91]

Proposal: GoRight is banned from global warming-related articles and talk pages.

Support

• Long overdue. Raul654 (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Far overdue. The proxy editing alone should have been grounds for a longish block. --Calton | Talk 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Are you alleging that GoRight, an account since October 2007, was editing the article at the direction of Scibaby, and not from their own interpretation of Wikipedia's rules? If you are, then you need to provide evidence. If not, or are unable to provide such evidence, then I think you should retract the above statement and apologise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• This is ridiculous. Raul has been pursuing GoRight for over a year now. His latest was a completely unfounded "Scibaby meatpuppet" accusation that was quickly closed. This continued pursuit of GoRight by Raul must stop. Just because GoRight doesn't agree with Raul, doesn't give Raul the right to repeatedly try to chase him off. ATren (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  Do you have a registered account? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. ATren (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Any question of a ban should be directed toward Raul654 and his persistent targeting of GoRight, and his use of sysop flags within articles where his adversary opinions well known. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think encouraging a tendentious editor's paranoia is a good idea there. Note also who, exactly, brought the complaint here and the ludicrous rationales offered for it. --Calton | Talk 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  I am not scibaby sure what you scibaby mean by scibaby rationales - that scibaby WMC and RaulSCIBABY do not have well scibaby known opinions on certain scibaby issues. You may scibaby have noted that they scibaby have not really responded to scibaby the allegations that scibaby they are using sysop scibaby flags within articles that scibaby they have some scibaby investment in. There scibaby seems to be scibaby a meme that they scibaby keep uttering in an scibaby diversionary tactic - although I scibaby can't bring it to scibaby mind at present. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC) not scibaby

Good for you that you find that funny. I've blocked about 2-3 Scibaby socks per day for the last 3 days, and an CU had to verify those identifications. I can very much use this time for other things, both on and off Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Hmmm, interesting. So you are of the opinion that scibaby doesn't exist? Or that the edit-war in question didn't have scibaby sockpuppets involved? Were the (4 in the current edit-war) editors then blocked for spurious reasons? (btw. not by Raul, but by various admins and confirmed by User:Nishkid64) Wouldn't that be an extreme abuse of WP, and in such a case require that you took it up immediately? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I will spell it out; the question is whether or not Raul654 and WMC used admin tools in an area where they are known to have strong opinions and to have had concerns raised previously, in violation of WP:Admin. To bring up the meme of scibaby as a smokescreen is not remotely funny - it is obtuse, wearisome and irritating. It also avoids answering the question; is using the flags appropriate in areas where the admin is deemed to have an interest and has already had concerns raised? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. But now you are ignoring that scibaby was involved in this particular instance. Btw. i am unaware of WMC using any tools here? Was he? There are btw. to my knowledge two CU's who are on the scibaby edits - one of these seem to be Raul, and the only instances where he's been involved in the article has been in connection with scibaby, so what is specifically wrong about the use of tools here? (did he advance a position on the article?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The other CU working the Scibaby stuff is User:Nishkid64. He has occasionally edited global warming related articles, and his edits generally reflect the prevailing scientific view of the subject. Should we find a different CU to work this? In looking at the current list of checkusers there are perhaps only two who are completely and utterly detached from the topic and personalities involved. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not ignoring, but considering it irrelevant to the matter as complained of. Per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Editing on behalf of banned users ("Proxying") GoRights inclusion of the disputed term and the sources that were also being used by scibaby socks are allowed by policy provided that he was prepared to take ownership of the edit and sources. From his known viewpoint there should be no reason to doubt GoRight would not find these sources and thus the descriptive phrase appropriate. Therefore Scibaby is irrelevant to whether GoRight should have used the term, but is regarding who protected the page and in which version. I would note that the accusation of proxying by GoRight (disregarding the rejection of previous claims that GoRight is a Scibaby meatpuppet) has not been withdrawn by various parties, including Raul654 who only dropped it to try and make the article ban find consensus faster. To me, this appears to be a concerted effort to have GoRight removed because of his point of view - and the constant mention of Scibaby is being used to smear GoRight by association. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Seems excessive given the evidence presented Fritzpoll (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, though I would support Raul being restricted from taking administrative actions on the same, broadly interpreted. Viridae^Talk 21:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons I opposed Keepscases ban - for turning a community ban discussion into RFA style. Everyone's been here long enough to know that's now how it works, nor should it change. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• GoRight is a partisan and can be a problem. I would probably support a 1RR restriction due to occasional edit warring in the past. But if we really want to stop abusive partisan involvement, Raul654 should stop using his tools in this area. Cool Hand Luke 15:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  Well, if "involved" admins are not supposed to deal with abusive socks on the articles they watch, may I suggest that you volunteer and watch all the GW articles yourself, and promptly deal with abusive edits? Don't worry, after a day or two you will be "involved" as well, and can pass on the baton, and after 18 months we will be through "uninvolved" admins and the socks can have their playing field. Or, maybe, we can all agree that dealing with obvious abusive socks is not inappropriate use of admin tools. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  Can we also agree that checkusering everyone who disagrees with you is not "dealing with obvious abusive socks" and is in fact an abuse of the tool?

  It's possible for admins to protect pages and block socks without becoming a partisan in an edit war. Raul has never been able to do this. Other admins have been much better at showing restraint, and that the area would get along fine without Raul's administrative participation. Cool Hand Luke 15:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  We can also agree that 2+2=4, or that the moon circles the Earth. Is there any but a rhethotrical reason to suppose that any Checkuser "checkusers everyone who disagrees with them"? I've by now blocked about 10 Scibabies myself, and reported probably the same number. IIRC, all have been confirmed by CU. If I can recognize them, so can the Checkusers, and checkusering a user for which a reasonable suspicion of socking exists is not abusive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are non-rhetorical reasons to suppose that every new editor (or nearly so) who expresses a skeptical point of view on global warming gets checkusered. Expect to hear more on this soon. Thatcher 15:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that you either put up or shut up? And, given that we have somewhere around 500 identified Scibaby socks, "nearly" every new editor on the GW articles is a Scibaby sock... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of making personal attacks, you might consider whether might actually know what I'm talking about. This is not the time or place to go into detail, but Luke might not actually be talking out of his ass. Thatcher 21:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but either you have something to say or you don't. Making unsupported insinuations is not acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you chastising yourself? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Have I been unclear? I find it deplorable is someone in a privileged situation says "I might know something about X, but I'm not telling". Either keep it confidential, or spill the beans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you were unclear, but now you have clarified things enormously. I was under the mistaken impression you might have a valid question or concern; now I see you are merely incredibly rude and pushy, or else obtuse. No one has even remotely taken the attitude you suggest; however, you have managed to be very insulting. I suggest you moderate your tone. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Um. CHL said Raul was "checkusering everyone who disagrees with (him)" and Thatcher implied that there was evidence that this is so. If Raul (or anyone else) is indeed abusing CU, then the community needs to know and action should be taken. But I have to agree with Stephan that making such intimations without disclosing the evidence for them is not especially helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this part of Thatcher's statement? "Expect to hear more on this soon." --GoRight (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only "expect to hear more" but also, and I'm guessing here, if there is a sock army whose modus operandi includes disagreement with a certain editor, or making a particular point, that would be a flag to check, would it not???? And giving any more details than that would be violating beans. This demand to know all the hairy details is inappropriate, given the nature of CU; we choose CUs carefully because they will know things everyone shouldn't. If there is concern, state it - but try to restrain yourself from making demands because you cannot bear not knowing what is, by its very nature, private and protected information. Otherwise we'd all have CU; surely you see the sense in that? And I reiterate; Thatcher has indicated more information will be forthcoming in the future. I suggest we AGF a little and show some patience. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. One of the issues in the current RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley has been the effect of consistent factions, involved over a spread of articles, on community bans or other discussions, particular over issues of administrative recusal, as started this. In considering a discussion like this, it should be noticed that many editors voicing opinions does not equal "the community" if that sample is heavily biased. WP:BAN requires a "consensus of uninvolved editors," and the difficulty of judging involvement does not negate its importance of. What's remarkable here is that more apparently neutral editors are being attracted, such that what might have been merely ambigious, and thus arguably sustaining the factional position when it is over an admin action, is actually snowing against the faction. I support an RfC on Raul654 for long-term abuse of tools and behavior unbecoming of an administrator and damaging to the project, including the original manufacture of the Scibaby affair through use of tools to block an editor with whom the Raul654 was edit warring, and many, many other examples; GoRight could be a certifier; the more editors who participate who don't have a POV agenda the better. For some history on Raul654 and William M. Connolley v. GoRight, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight, filed by Raul654 and WMC, and the evidence page I compiled for that, User:Abd/GoRight; this was my first encounter with the faction, and my POV on global warming is opposite to that of GoRight, near as I can tell. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose a ban on GoRight seems excessive. Perhaps a 1RR restriction per CHL? ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - looks exactly like another case where Wikipedia is unable to control people with a clear conflict of interest, and witch-hunting those who seek to have articles edited properly. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Other

I oppose any ban of GR for proxying. -Atmoz (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, in the interest of reaching consensus I've removed that part of the proposal. Raul654 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Who is making this proposal? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul. There's a history tab up top, ya know. Tan | 39 18:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So an editor complained that Raul is involved in the article dispute and shouldn't have been the one to protect it, and now Raul is proposing that the same editor be banned? Jeesh. This seems to me to epitomize bad judgment and a lack of restraint. Why not step back and let cooler heads and uninvolved parties assess the situation and help resolve it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot support this proposal, as I don't see adequate evidence for it. I do see adequate evidence for banning Raul from using his administrative and functionary tools from anything to do with the political dispute over global warming, and I really don't believe we have a single global warming article that is not contaminated by that political dispute. Raul has demonstrated on more than one occasion that he lacks the self control to avoid inappropriate behavior in this topic area, so I conclude that we need to impose some external controls. GRBerry 14:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with GRBerry... Raul's many positive contributions notwithstanding, he has a blindspot in this area. support a ban as GRBerry outlines. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd support both a advance function restriction on Raul, and a community 1RR on GoRight as above—both restrictions in the topic of global warming. I suspect it would lead to less AN issues from both camps. I think this discussion has run out of momentum though. Cool Hand Luke 03:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • 12 months after the last restriction was imposed for comments and problems concerning the same area of conflict, merely 1RR? Might as well let the momentum die altogether. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

      What for you mean "same area of conflict"? My editing restriction is related to William M. Connolley (not to be confused with User:William M. Connolley). I have not once done anything to violate my current restrictions. --GoRight (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

      The comments and problems came about from the wide area of conflict relating to you, GoRight. For the purpose of imposing simple sanctions, I split the area into narrower areas (which came in the form of proposals). The restriction imposed on you (proposal 3) attempted to address the most serious of the issues at the time, and the narrowest area. 1 year later, apparently it is the (narrower) area covered in proposal 2 that is in need of attention. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Note to the current edit warriors

The next person who adds or removes other people's postings in this section will be blocked. Enough, already. SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's refactoring of the discussion turned it into a soup that was entirely unreadable. Most salient of which, LessHeard vanU's oppose read as a support for the ban. –xeno^talk 21:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So if I revert any more of Tony's totally inappropriate removal of material, I'm getting blocked? I don't think so. Tan | 39 21:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How about we close the whole damn thing? This is going nowhere and has broken down into mutual recriminations between the usual suspects. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that I can get behind. Tan | 39 21:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That also works for me. Tanthalas, I'm not going to take sides on this, despite the antipathy I hold for Tony.. it looks like squabbling kids throwing mud at each other. I'm not going to take sides, both of you stop. SirFozzie (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted an inappropriate removal of material, once. I would appreciate it if you didn't call me an edit warrior or compare me to a kid throwing mud. Tan | 39 21:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Boris, this debate has little to nothing to do with the original issue. Anyone like to think about the amount of article space editing that could be accomplished in the amount of time that gets spent here? (And I didn't even invent the "please stop the flame-war" flame.) Awickert (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please try to avoid turning this discussion into a vote. This isn't new policy and since most of the people using this page should be aware that voting is harmful to consensus there really shouldn't be any surprise about the edits I made. --TS 22:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Have no problem with you SAYING that, Tony. I do have a problem with you unilaterally removing many posters comments because you disagree with them. Just like I disagreed with Tan for restoring without even a request on Tony's page. It doesn't do rational discussion any good. SirFozzie (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

Is the page going to stay protected until Sept. 10? I don't know if the dispute over whether he's an environmentalist will sprout up again, but I've proposed a resolution I think is reasonable on the talk page. I'm hoping it can be worked out amicably. I've also noted some other edits that I think would be helpful in improving the article that I don't think will be especially controversial. If anyone violates 3RR or edit wars there are appropriate venues to address that and certainly there is attention on the article now. And I would think this discussion serves as warning to all involved to obey the speed limit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• It will stay protected until an admin is satisfied the edit war won't continue if unprotected at which point they should unprotect. –xeno^talk 22:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really looked into whether there was edit warring or not, but one of the issues raised in this discussion was whether the protection was appropriate and helpful. I think with the close supervision that is in place now it would be good to see if we can edit the article collaboratively. I don't think any changes to the environmentalist bit should be made until some agreement is reached. But there are plenty of other areas that can be worked on. I should note that I'm totally new to the article so my hands are clean. :) I'm just a good faith editor looking into the issues raised in this report and trying to help work out differences so we can improve our article content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether or not the protection was appropriate, I think the article could use some cooldown time still while the point of contention is worked out. Perhaps Raul would like to self revert without prejudice to himself and another admin can reprotect if edit warring continues. –xeno^talk 23:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

By "self revert" do you mean unprotect? Raul hasn't edited the article in almost a year, so there's nothing to revert in the usual sense. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. –xeno ^talk 23:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the Lawrence Solomon article history, and I don't see anyone violating the 3rr rule, or any vandalism, or violations of BLP. I would say that the full protection was unnecessary, and should be removed. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No-one mentionned 3RR. But there was clearly edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Err, Cla, from the 23 to the 27 of August there are several edits that are only about inserting or removing "enviromentalist":

• 14:36, 23 August 2009, insert, Alexh19740110 [92]
• 21:14, 23 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen [93]
• 21:52, 23 August 2009, insert, Alexh19740110 [94]
• 08:35, 24 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen [95]
• 02:07, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (Grossekopf) [96]
• 02:18, 25 August 2009, remove, Vsmith [97]
• 02:21, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (Grossekopf) [98]
• 02:36, 25 August 2009, remove, Vsmith [99]
• 03:06, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (Stopange), [100]
• 03:29, 25 August 2009, remove, Short Brigade Harvester Boris [101]
• 05:10, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (Do You Tweet?) [102]
• 06:52, 25 August 2009, remove, Stephan Schulz, [103]
• 07:47, 25 August 2009, insert, Oren0 [104]
• 16:49, 25 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen [105]
• 21:40, 25 August 2009, insert, Scibaby range 173.116.44.213 [106]
• 00:36, 26 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen [107]
• 00:56, 26 August 2009, insert, Oren0 [108]
• 22:55, 26 August 2009, remove, William M. Connolley [109]
• 23:08, 26 August 2009, insert, GoRight [110]
• 23:20, 26 August 2009, remove, Stephan Schulz [111]
• 00:24, 27 August 2009, insert, GoRight [112]
• 00:42, 27 August 2009, remove, Short Brigade Harvester Boris [113]
• 03:14, 27 August 2009, insert, Scibaby (A Prose Narrative) [114]
• 04:44, 27 August 2009, remove, Splette [115]
• 05:14, 27 August 2009 protection [116]

Several auto-confirmed editors edit-warring among each other, even if 3RR was not technically breached, and two socks three socks from the same sockmaster in the middle. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A Prose Narrative is scibaby as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of highlighting the fact that Scibaby interjected here? Does this not illustrate User:LessHeard vanU's point from above? I think that Enric's chosen highlighting is completely backwards. As the banned user in all of this, Scibaby's edits should be in normal font and all of the NON-banned users should be highlighted. Let us focus on what the NON-banned users are saying and downplay that the banned users are saying, or is that NOT what we are supposed to be doing with the comments of banned users? Enric has just accomplished the exact opposite. --GoRight (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is, that the protection reason wasn't just "edit-warring", but "Edit warring; sockpuppetry" both are clearly evident. Or do you suppose that we should completely ignore the reasons for protection - and simply close our eyes on the fact that scibaby was responsible for 20% of the above edits? Why?--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I fail to see how that matters. The simple facts are: (a) even if you completely ignore the Scibaby edits there is STILL edit warring, (b) Raul had himself edit warred over the exact same content, and (c) Raul used his administrative tools while in a content dispute. This Scibaby discussion is a distraction from those pertinent facts, and including it doesn't alter them in the slightest. --GoRight (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

173.116.44.213 is from a Scibaby range. Cool Hand Luke 16:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Bolding reversed. There you have, a bunch of autoconfirmed editors edit-warring, now explain how semi protection would have avoided that. And please notice that Raul reverted that content for the last time in September 2008, 11 months ago [117]. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice bit of evidence Enric Naval compiled. How you present evidence can depend on what you are trying to prove with it, if you have an axe to grind. Enric, I suspect, wants to prove that the protection was reasonable, and isn't a lot of sock activity a reason for protection? Actually, no. Semiprotection, at most. The sock activity here is largely moot. If we take out the socks and a single revert for each sock edit, following Enric's list, we get:

list of edits and reverts

14:36, 23 August 2009, insert, Alexh19740110 [118] 21:14, 23 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen [119] 21:52, 23 August 2009, insert, Alexh19740110 [120] 08:35, 24 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen [121] 07:47, 25 August 2009, insert, Oren0 [122] 16:49, 25 August 2009, remove, KimDabelsteinPetersen [123] 00:56, 26 August 2009, insert, Oren0 [124] 22:55, 26 August 2009, remove, William M. Connolley [125] 23:08, 26 August 2009, insert, GoRight [126] 23:20, 26 August 2009 , remove, Stephan Schulz [127] 00:24, 27 August 2009, insert, GoRight [128] 00:42, 27 August 2009, remove, Short Brigade Harvester Boris [129] 05:14, 27 August 2009 protection, Raul654 [130]

This is a classic "Constantly Affiliated Block" ("Cab") sequence. The editors removing have been revert warring on global warming articles for years, supported by administrators, always the same administrators, in what I've seen. (KDP isn't listed in the faction described in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, but is a very frequent editor on the Cab side in global warming articles and in some other places. Stephan Schulz, WMC, SBHB, and Raul654 are, of course, listed.) The issue is not whether there was or was not edit warring, there was such, as the above shows clearly. Rather, the issue is whether or not Raul654, highly involved historically and always intervening on the side of the Cab editors, never the reverse, should have been the one to spontaneously protect. It creates an appearance that perhaps he protected the article into his preferred version? Historically, when an independent admin has protected one of the GW articles, WMC has unprotected, even if he had been part of the tag team edit warring, if it was the Wrong Version.

In the above sequence, the struggle is over "environmentalist." Is Solomon an "environmentalist"? There is RS saying that he is, and no RS saying that he is not. Hence the arguments over relative reliability of sources are red herrings. (RS can be biased, by the way, claims of bias in a reliable source are likewise red herrings.) Solomon is an unusual writer: an environmentalist who is a global warming skeptic. And the GW Cab doesn't like this, it's obvious, and KDP makes personal charges against Solomon on the article Talk page as arguments that he couldn't be an environmentalist, since he "supports damaging the environment."

So they act to keep "environmentalist" out or de-emphasize it. However, Solomon has apparently earned the sobriquet with his past work, and his most recent article was indeed written from an environmentalist -- or "conservationist" -- perspective. The editors will work it out, I'm sure, if allowed, but GW articles probably need discretionary sanctions even more than Cold fusion, with involved admins strictly hands-off those tools. --Abd (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just add two letters to your cute little acronym? Protonk (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Responses to 3 items:

1. It was above noted that those socks were autoconfirmed. If that is indeed the case, full protection is fine. If not, the semi is the way to go. Also, edits should be allowed by admin proxy after discussion on the talk.
2. The only reason that I can see to describe factions is to destroy chances of collaboration by disqualifying others opinions. This is useless and damaging and 100% WP:ABF. Please strike it.
3. Despite not caring one bit about Mr. S., I will check the sources and weigh in.

Awickert (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Despite not caring one bit about Mr. S., I will check the sources and weigh in." - But this is precisely what makes you ideal for the task at hand. --GoRight (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. Ah, the sweet sound of agreement. Awickert (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)

I note in Raul's ban proposal against me above that two users, User:Viridae and User:GRBerry, have expressed general support for some type of restriction on Raul's use of administrative tools on global warming pages, broadly construed. Is there any additional community support for such a sanction or something of a similar nature? --GoRight (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Life seems fairly confusing at the moment. I think it would be best to finish off your original proposal first (which I think looks like being rejected - or is this new start intended as a recognition of the original failure?) before we start a new one William M. Connolley (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Might be better to let things settle down, then approach this more formally. Thatcher 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of this as just a continuation of the discussion from above (I thought that was what the section heading moving forward was intended to be). Two user's had expressed support and I merely summarized it here to query if more support existed, or not. If so then it should be pursued, if not then the matter can be dropped. That was my only intent, but I'll just let things unfold at this point. --GoRight (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of elephants around here. Pity we're not allowed to mention them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher had promised us some news "soon", somewhere above. Before this thread drops off the face of the AN noticeboard is there anything to report? --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There were some distinctly unpleasant allegations that need to be substantiated or withdrawn; "soon" has now passed William M. Connolley (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher has nothing further to contribute to the matter at this time.  Skomorokh  15:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"nothing further to say" was what he actually said. I think that is regrettable; but apparently he is busy. Perhaps CHL isn't quite as busy? (not that CHL promised anything, but Thatcher appeared to be implicating him with This is not the time or place to go into detail, but Luke might not actually be talking out of his ass) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should have remained silent; I spoke out impulsively in response to Stephan Schulz's assumption that an Arbitrator was acting in bad faith. And "soon" is unfortunately a subjective term that depends, in part, on factors outside of my own control. Thatcher 15:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you and perhaps a few others have been working on something along these lines for some time, and will present you all's findings at the appropriate time. Cla68 (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If I may just make one statement: Let's not get into this "Edited a year ago = COI" horsepucky. That happened in the Matthew Hoffman case. You know, the one theArbcom threw out and apologised for the gross unfairness of? Highly productive editors like Raul cannot be expected to remember every page they edited a year ago. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 02:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody take a look at my abuse filter?

Resolved

 – Filter fixed. –xeno^talk 23:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Every edit I attempt, no matter what page it's on, is being blocked by the abuse filter. I then waited a couple of minutes and posted to my Talk page, and that let me edit. But I can't even edit the false positive page for the abuse filter to let them know that I'm being rejected. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I can edit. But there was absolutely nothing wrong with anything I was attempting to edit. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I just got a message from User:Hersfold on my Talk page indicating there was a problem with the abuse filter and not only was I blocked from editing, but my autoconfirm was revoked. There may be a large number of very unhappy editors. At least, I'm hoping it wasn't just me. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A total of four editors, yourself included, were affected. The mistake came from a badly written regex that I didn't test well enough. Those users who were affected have been notified, and their autoconfirmed status should have been restored. Again, I do fully apologize for this, and I'm taking steps to make sure this won't happen again. If the filter is re-enabled, it won't have any advanced actions associated with it, and I may delete it entirely if it proves to be too prone to false alarms. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the most obvious lesson here is that no edit filter should block additions to Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives - filtering on blanking that page is probably fine, but anything that would prevent adding a false positive report has the potential to spiral out of control like this. Likewise, no edit filter should prevent users from editing their own main talk page; if it's necessary to prevent editing talk pages, they can be protected. Of course, we don't currently have any mechanism to enforce such requirements, so it's moot to talk about requirements in the first place - but this still ought to be a standard. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea to suggest at WT:EF, it would probably require some clever code though, to override the filters as written. –xeno^talk 23:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In order to be effective, it would have to be written into the extension's code, as adding a condition such as this to every filter could prove problematic (every edit would trigger one more condition per filter - hit 1,000 triggers, and no filters are tripped at all for that edit). The other downside of this would be vandals would quickly pick up on this, and just target the FP page instead. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Associated Content being blocked by spam filter

Resolved

I am getting the spam filter notice when trying to add an article from the Associated Press Content to Universal Health Care. This seems to be due to a blocking starting with a b on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist that I can't even post here due to the restriction of even partial references to a blocked url. Why is any url with the same portion as a blocked url blocked? This seems overreaching.--Jorfer (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Associated Content =/= Associated Press. I believe the former is for self-published content (doesn't meant WP:RS standards). –xeno^talk 23:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What if there is a reliable contributor or notable argument? What if I just want to reference it in a talk page discussion? The list is a spam list; it is not an unreliable source list. It is not even the url on the list, however; it just has a common segment. This could happen to a reliable URL and many contributions could be lost. The software should be limited to detecting url with the same base urls rather than an identical segment, which I think is what was originally intended with detecting partial urls.--Jorfer (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: I did make the mistake of originally thinking that Associated Content was material from the Associated Press.--Jorfer (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how flexible this tool is, but if the rational is that it is not a reliable source then it should be limited to article space. Chillum 00:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You can post the URL by removing the http:// or obfuscating the name somehow. If there were something that might be deemed reliable there, you can make requests at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist to have a URL whitelisted. There was a discussion on Associated Content here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jul#Associated Content: another, bigger Suite101.com?, I gather it was this that lead to the inclusion in the blacklist. –xeno^talk 00:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If the blacklist cannot distinguish between namespaces then perhaps it could be converted into an abuse filter? Chillum 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying to use Associated Content in talk page arguments is not a good idea either, and there is still the issue of people using it to generate revenue from clickthrus. If there is a reliable source it should be whitelisted, I see there is one such entry. –xeno^talk 00:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

\bassociatedcontent\.com/article/159596/acs_exclusive_interview_with_nicholas\.html\b

I didn't pick up that the actual url is without the "b". Don't know why it is imputed with a "b" at the beginning. I do understand the dilemma of pay-per-click urls being linked from Wikipedia. I didn't realize that was the problem. I didn't need it after all for the article, since what I was looking for could be found from a reliable url.--Jorfer (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's just regex magic. =) Cheers then, tagging resolved. –xeno^talk 02:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we delete user talk pages still?

What's the standard practice if a user adds {{db-u1|rationale=permanent leave }} to their user talk page? I know we used to delete the pages if the user was truly invoking their right to vanish, though I seem to remember some sort of controversy about the practice at some point. Can anyone clarify? (This is regarding this page.) Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion criteria U1 says "Personal user pages and subpages (but not user talk pages) upon request by their user." -- so I guess that deletion needs to go via Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion Mike1024 (t/c) 09:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's disputed. I have done so in earnest cases of RTV as an exception to U1 but others have disagreed. The last such discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#User talk if I see correctly. Unfortunately, there was no clear consensus on this case. You might want to raise it at WT:CSD to see if there is one to add it to U1 as an exception. Regards SoWhy 09:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with SoWhy - it generally seems to be a case-by-case judgment thing at the moment. I don't personally have a problem with U1 deletions of user-talk pages if and only if it's part of a good-faith complete effort to vanish. If the user returns, they should be restored - and in any other situation I'd generally decline them. It probably is indeed worthwhile to get a consensus one way or another, but I'm pretty sure the whole problem is there wasn't a consensus last time. ~ mazca ^talk 10:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Started a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD U1, user talk pages, and the right to vanish. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• How about an admin deleting his own talk page because he's tired of it? Is that allowed? DuncanHill (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no exception for admins in the policy, so no. Regards SoWhy 10:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, well, actually I knew that already. Not all admins do though. DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: This time there seems fairly quickly to have been a consensus: user talk pages shouldn't be speedied, even citing WP:RTV, and should only be deleted, in exceptional cases, via WP:MFD. RTV was amended appropriately [131]. Rd232 ^talk 08:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)