Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Current issues

Request for more admin eyes on an issue (RE:RfCU result)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland.

Broken process management on particular article

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Corey Delaney discussion

Indefinitely blocking vanished users

On the "Right to vanish" talk page on Meta there's been discussion about indefinitely blocking and removing all user rights from users who exercise their right to vanish. It seems like a perfectly logical step to take. The right to vanish is a serious thing that should entail serious consequences. The discussion is located here.

I'm thinking that we should adopt a standard practice when someone exercises their right to vanish on en.wiki that includes an indefinite block (including e-mail) and having any user rights removed by a steward. Thoughts? (Feel free to comment below or on Meta.) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. How is this a problem? Admins have left and come back. There's no need to kick them out the door on the way out. Corvus cornix_talk 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is, I presume, only for users who specifically indicate their intention to permanently vanish, and request deletion of their user page, and won't be applied willy-nilly to users who simply haven't been heard from in a while but haven't expressed any intentions regarding the future of their account? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Only upon request (regardless of what our blocking policy says) could be considered part of the right to leave. But not when someone just leaves. The same way some choose to leave with wikidrama, others may choose to return in silence. If someone really, really wants to leave forever, he would delete the email preference and choose a long random password which, by all means, is the same. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if there's been confusion. This is not for a {{retired}} template applied in a fit of anger or anything like that (inactivity, etc.). This is for the users who have their user talk pages and user pages deleted and have made a conscious decision to split permanently from the project. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would only support this as long as the user makes i very clear that they wish to vanish, and that they understand their account will be indef. blocked and will have all user rights removed. I do not see what harm this can do. Tiptoety ^talk 00:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. Vanishing an account is no trivial thing; it should be done only when someone truly wants to vanish forever. If someone's gone (or at least left their account behind) forever, then there should be no issue with a block. And if they don't really intend on being gone forever, then they shouldn't be invoking the right to vanish. -Amarkov moo! 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Amarkov, you made my point for me. нмŵוτнτ 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and it sounds great on paper, but I think it happens way too often that vanished users come back. I'm unsure of the need for this, unless it is simply to emphasize that vanishing is a serious thing. I guess this would be ok, given that the user could still log in and request unblock on the talk page, but I personally, I'd have to think about this.. -- Ned Scott 01:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Vanished users should not be coming back under the same account. Period. The process of invoking the right to vanish involves destroying many records of bad behavior; how can we go back and undo all the edits replacing the username with "Former user X"? Vanishing and coming back with the same name looks far too much like a free user history wipe, and that is not good. -Amarkov moo! 01:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I would agree with this as well. I think part of the reason is so that if they come back, they don't just start editing again, they'd be fully un-vanished first, to avoid people using RTV as a way to hide something by only vanishing temporarily. Mr.Z-man 01:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Where's the difference between a vanished user returning under his old username (with the bad behaviour records deleted) and a vanished user returning under a new username (with the bad behaviour records deleted)? The latter makes it even harder to spot any previous wrongdoing, actually. We would only make one of the two impossible if we'd block the vanished user, unless we treat such users as banned and block their new accounts as well. And I doubt anyone is trying to propose that. --Conti|✉ 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely support this. As Amarkov says, RTV should only be implemented when a user really is leaving....for good, so I see no reason not to block the account, and remove any user rights. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need for or value to taking this step, at least in the absence of very unusual circumstances such as a user vanishing in lieu of an impending indefinite ban for serious case. Otherwise, I see this as a solution in search of a problem, and a deterrent to once-valued contributors, having become temporarily disenchanted with Wikipedia but then changing their minds, returning to us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Giving people the option for a permanent RTV block could be a good thing, if they want to really cut the cord. If that happens, I can see also deleted their talk page and protecting vs. recreation. Gone with the option of coming back, vs. gone and gone for Good with a big G. Lawrence § t/e 01:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this is that there is no necessary correllation between how strongly a user believes that he or she wants to cut all ties to Wikipedia at the moment he or she is upset enough to vanish, and whether he or she might want to come back a few days or weeks or months later. People want to come and go for all sorts of reasons, both real-life-based and wiki-related, and if we eliminated from the ranks of Wikipedians everyone who at one point or another announced that he or she was leaving forever, we would be without the services of many, many decided contributors and administrators. Unless the "vanished" user had been a serious problem before departing, I don't see why we would want to add even slightly to the disincentives that face a departed user who is thinking about returning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Though they can always request a unblock. Tiptoety ^talk 01:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

People should not request RTV if there is any possibility that they will be returning. -Rjd0060 (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Many unhappy users simply don't always think that way. People change their minds. We shouldn't discourage people from coming back unless there's a real reason to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the RTV page on meta, suggests it to be a permanent solution, as it should be. There are other options aside from vanishing. Users need to weigh them, and if they do decide RTV is the best way to go, that should be the end of it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above, there is a real reason to. Vanishing completely destroys records of user history, and that is not good if the user isn't really gone. -Amarkov moo! 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is permanently lost. If a user un-vanishes, the records are easy enough to restore. --Carnildo (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

NYB has it exactly right. There are plenty of irritating editors, there are a fair number who vanish, there may even be some who irritatingly vacillate between vanishing and appearing. If there are too many in the last category (which I doubt), send some of them my way and I'll vanish them and resuscitate them as requested (as long as it's merely a matter of bog-standard deletion and undeletion). I'll even welcome them back with personal messages, not tedious boilerplate. And I expect that I won't be alone in making such an offer. Meanwhile, no need to turn up the menacing tone and add to the drama. -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I like the idea of indefinitely blocking departed users, but I had always assumed that the removal of userrights was standard practice. An unattended account with rights is infinitely more dangerous than a fresh vandal account. I could very quickly do a lot of damage with a compromised bot account; more still with an admin account. A compromised bureaucrat, oversight, checkuser or steward account would, of course, be disastrous. Even something like rollbacker or autoconfirmed is potentially more dangerous than a fresh account; and if the editor was well known in the community, their edits are more likely to pass unnoticed in recentchanges or watchlists than an unknown new account. An unattended account is much more likely to be compromised than a used and monitored account. And if an editor does decide to return, his or her rights can easily be restored if they left in good standing. So if removal of rights isn't already standard practice, it certainly should be. Happy‑melon 10:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Many administrators or other users with higher-level user rights often give up their extra abilities upon resignation from the project, however, there has never been any solid rule that enforces all those with special rights to resign them at once should they decide to leave. I don't particularly see how an unused account has a higher probability to become compromised in any form than one that is actively used, and accounts that have been compromised have often been detected quite quickly, as prior situations have demonstrated. Spebi 10:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should rephrase: of course the chances of someone guessing/cracking the password of an unattended account are no different to that of an account in use. But an unattended account, once cracked, can be used indefinitely by an invader, until it is realised that it has been usurped. The most common reaction to an admin account being compromised is, apparently, to edit the mainpage to a large and usually obscene image: this is a fairly good indication that the account has been compromised, and the time for them to be desysopped is usually extremely short (I've heard 3 minutes). I imagine, although I doubt it's happened, that a compromised bureaucrat account would be used first to desysop Jimbo or similar. This crude and attention-grabbing use of compromised accounts naturally results in quick identification and blocking. There are much more malicious uses a compromised account could be put to if it is possible to have some preparation time. You might be able to put a penis on the mainpage for twenty seconds with a crude edit, but if you took the time to bury it somewhere deep in the transclusion structure it could be five minutes before anyone worked out how to get rid of it. Every time I put my mind to this question I come up with more effective ways to damage the site with a stolen admin or bot account: I can think of ways to irreperably remove all external links from all pages, to slow the loading of 95% of articles to a crawl, or to place a penis at the top of all our featured articles. But with time to prepare, to make a number of edits which don't appear to be nasty until you hit the one edit that drops the lewd image, you can do more insidious damage. The point is that an active account will notice these edits: if you look at your contributions and see something you don't remember doing, and don't understand why, you would get suspicious. If there's no one legitimatley using the account, that's not going to happen.

In fact, it's fairly immaterial whether the compromised account is used or unused by its legitimate owner. We all know that accounts with userrights can potentially be dangerous: that's why we have RfA, RfB, RfBA, etc. If the owner of the account has left, they are not going to be using their userrights for the benefit of the project, so it makes absolute sense for them to be reset. Why have more potentially dangerous accounts lying around than are genuinely necessary? I'm not saying that, once removed, those rights should not be restored if the editor returns - as I said above, if the editor left in good standing there is no reason why they should have to do anything more than ask. But leaving admin/bot/crat accounts lying around when we all know their potential for misuse strikes me as an unnecessary weakness. Take them away automatically as part of RTV, give them back automatically if they return. If their account is compromised in the meantime, they'll have to stick to ordinary vandalism. Happy‑melon 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was longer than I expected :D! Happy‑melon 16:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It was pretty on the button, though. I would concur that any inactive account with a good pedigree - with extra tools or not - is a prime target. The good faith shown toward a returning editor of some standing may allow some of the less obvious malicious edits to survive much longer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats can't desysop people. Only stewards can. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, strongly. We have admins who "leave" the project only to come back within days. Some repeatedly. We have rules against admins blocking themselves or other users for "wikibreaks" - why are we wanting to block a user for a "rtv", which is but the ultimate "wikibreak"? Why is this, of all possible admin actions and consequences, to be the one thing you don't get to change your mind on? Yes, it's a serious act, but it's wholly in the realm of that users concern, not the projects. Achromatic (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• The point in all this that seems to be being missed is that 'right to vanish' is serious. When people use it to make a dramatic, pointy, disruptive exit, they are abusing the right to vanish, and that abuse is doubled if they return later. Please, if you want to leave the door open for a future return, blank your pages and use the {{retired}} template, or leave some other sort of message. There seems to be a need to leave a 'message' by having your user and/or talk page links in signatures turn red. Instead of asking for pages (especially user talk pages!) to be deleted, you can leave dramatic messages and departure essays on your user page, but using 'right to vanish' as a standard departure method is wrong. Most departures can be handled other ways, and there need to be good reasons for exercising 'right to vanish'. The main one being that you really do want to vanish, or you need to disassociate from your real name. The only way, regrettably, to discourage frivolous use of the 'right to vanish' is to make much clearer that if you do return, that everything that was done to enable the vanishing will be undone, except the removal of user rights. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I could not agree more with this. RTV is not a form of "wikibreak." Invoking the right to vanish means the user wants to leave permanently. Vanishing to create drama, only to come back a couple days later, should not be an option. RTV is a serious thing, and it should have serious consequences. --L. Pistachio (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Somehow, I can't help but feel that this is a solution to a problem we don't yet have. (There are too many people out there connected to the Internet to say definitely that any specific behavior will never occur.) What about a compromise? On the second exercise of the Right To Vanish, the user is also blocked indefinitely. If we agree to this, then let's keep a count of how many of these kinds of blocks were given, then revisit the issue in 6 months or a year. If the number of these cases are few or none, then obviously doing this is overkill; if there are a lot, then we should consider blocking after the first time this right is invoked. (And yes, I am being vague about the numbers. I would rather give this approach a try then argue if too many RTV incidents repeated, than delay the experiment because we couldn't decided how many is too many.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• This sounds like a really good compromise, llywrch. I agree that RTV is probably not being abused much, but since it has the potential for abuse, it's certainly a valid thing to have brought up. I also like the idea of leaving it at blocking the second time for good, to catch only people that it's likely to continue to be a problem with. delldot talk 19:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I like this idea as well. Basically, you get one freebie vanish, and beyond that, it's "enforced" with a block. Should help get people's attention and cut down on the the dramatic exits. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I think that indef blocking on the first RTV could work, provided that the block is made without prejudice, something in the lines of a username block, with a notice on the RTV page that the account may be resumed on request, but that the user's deleted pages will then be restored. I rather like the idea of an RTV block, not just to make clear to users that it is a serious decision, but also to ensure that they don't just quietly resume their activity with a "clear record". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've noticed this problem, too. I'm a little bit concerned about adopting an einmal ist keinmal attitude towards something as serious as RTV. As Carcharoth pointed out, this is supposed to be a rare and grave request designed to help people who need, for well-thought-out and significant reasons, to utterly disassociate themselves from their Wikipedia identity. It's grave because it's permanent, and total and rare because you need a good reason; GDFL contributions are for good, you can't throw a hissy-fit and demand back the rights to your donated free-content (on The Free Encyclopedia). Bottom Line: It's a major WP:POINT violation regardless of whether the person really meant it right then. I believe those requesting RTV should be indefinitely blocked in exchange for our willingness to waive our rights under the GDFL by allowing you to Indian-give your freely donated contributions. Evidence of repeated use of RTV on multiple accounts by the same user should be viewed especially harshly. I simply can't see the value of it for anything other than real, honest cases; this isn't some web forum, and we're supposed to be building an encyclopedia, not playing games. If you're stomping off in a grand huff so everyone can say just how much they're going to miss you, I don't think you deserve to gut a bunch of good articles on your way out, or cover up a bad history. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 14:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Improper RfC

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland.

Placing community ban on User:David Lauder et al

This is to inform the community that I will be adding the above named user to the list of banned users, and to invite discussion or to see if there was any dissenting opinions to this. I will explain my reasons below for this action, and the timeline of this situation:

End of 2005- Beginning of 2006: User:Robert I was banned by ArbCom in the ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I (this ArbCom case was courtesy deleted by the request of the person involved in August 2007. I have restored it solely for this discussion), for legal threats regarding an article about a politician in the United Kingdon who was identified either as a "traditional conservative" or a "right-wing extremist", depending on your point of view. (This article has since been deleted and redirected.) User:Robert I also posted via IP addresses, and self-identified as this politician when he edited via IP addresses. This ArbCom Case closed on January 31st, 2006.

7 February 2006: The account User:Sussexman is created, and goes on editing much in the same way as User:Robert I

11 May 2006: The account of Counter-revolutionary is created.

20 June 2006: User:Sussexman was indefblocked for sending a solicitor's letter to legally threaten another Wikipedian, on articles, amongst other things, the since redirected article mentioned above. The solicitor's letter was signed as the politican above. You can see the ANI Discussion here.

23 June 2006: The account User:Chelsea Tory created.

29 November 2006: User:David Lauder creates a new account on Wikipedia

October 2007: User:David Lauder and User:Counter-revolutionary were involved in the very contentious ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles.

Yesterday: User:Sussexman, User:David Lauder, User:Chelsea Tory and User:Counter-revolutionary were all found to be at times editing in ways that contravene Wikipedia policy. The CheckUser's comment on this finding was: I can confirm that they (being David Lauder, Chelsea Tory, and Sussexman) have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other. The first three are matched as hits.. the fourth, Counter-revolutionary, had edited from that same machine, but not as often. You can see the CheckUser result here.

At the time of the Checkuser User:Sussexman, User:Chelsea Tory was advocating that User:Sussexman be unblocked. User:Counter-revolutionary had previously advocated for the unblock.

So, this twice blocked user (once via ArbCom ban, once via ANI discussion, both for legal threats) has now apparently moved on to either using direct meatpuppets or sockpuppets to disrupt Wikipedia.

I am bringing this to AN to confirm what should already be obvious. The person behind this account is not here to build an encyclopedia. He first attempted to write a glowing puff-piece of an article about himself as a politician, and when that dream was sabotaged by other editors (including, admittedly, some people who had a bone to pick with his politics), he turned to legal threats and disruption of Wikipedia. He is therefore banned from Wikipedia, unless other administrators object. SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The person behind this account is not here to build an encyclopedia.

Just to be fair, under User:David Lauder this person has made substantial content contributions, including Lauder (where I has a run in with him!), George Lauder, Lauderdale, I could go on for a while. For all his misdemeanors he still deserves credit where it is due. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if true, his history far outweighs his contributions, no matter how laudable. SirFozzie (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying that of course, just trying to be fair. He can be perma-banned after all without a total Damnatio memoriae in addition! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points; while I certainly endorse a community ban on David Lauder, given the evidence to-date, including the now-undeleted ArbCom case (I was completely shocked by that one), I'd like a little more clarification on "et al". Specifically, who else of the editors discovered during the checkuser case should come under this ban? If that includes User:Counter-revolutionary, I might have a bit of a problem with that as I see him as being guilty of collusion and meat-puppetry but not as a sock or a major player here. Indeed, I'm still concerned about his indefinite block. I'd also note that David Lauder had a substantive history of constructive editing so to say he "is not here to build an encyclopedia" is a little unfair - Alison ^❤ 01:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If Counter-revolutionary is willing to leave off using multiple accounts (when I talked via email to him, he was asking to RtV and promised not to use any of the other accounts he had), and not edit as a proxy for User:David Lauder, I see why no reason he shouldn't be unblocked. I will ask him directly via email, now.

The et all was to indicate that the accounts directly controlled (Robert I, Sussexman, David Lauder, Chelsea Tory) and any future accounts should be blocked. I wasn't sure what account to log it under, that was the et all. (and I note that a LOT of the positive contributions noted by Deacon of Pndapetzim were about things that he could have a COI about, if they are related to his real-life identity.) SirFozzie (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I support a ban on Lauder and his sock-puppets. Counter-revolutionary I am not so sure about. My understanding is that most people intimate with the details are of the impression that he is probably a different individual, albeit one closely involved with Lauder and who has engaged in some tandem editing in the past. Thats not cool, of course, but its not really that unusual among editors involved in and around the Troubles. Therefore, if he is a different person, then I'm not sure there is any good reason he should remain indef blocked, much less banned. Rockpocket 02:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I User:Robert I may well be Gregory Lauder-Frost, or he's definitely someone closely connected to him. When Sussexman was indef blocked User:Morven said "I also strongly believe that User:Sussexman is Gregory Lauder-Frost, given the similar tone found in the excepts of the letter Ed Chilvers received". It's established that Sussexman, Chelsea Tory and David Lauder have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other. Counter-revolutionary has also edited from the same computer (but to a lesser extent).

As can be seen by my comments here, I was expecting "discussion on the other [Counter-revolutionary] possibly on TER, especially with regards to COI". I wasn't in favour of an indef block (although I wasn't necessarily opposed to it), more a possible COI restriction on the High Tory related articles he has a very close connection to based on his image uploads, in particular the images of Gregory Lauder-Frost taken in various countries over a ten year period (see Sussexman checkuser for details). Counter-revolutionary is not an "innocent bystander" in all this. He's clearly involved in the whole situation up to his neck, he knows what has gone on and who is who. If he's prepared to be honest and open about this I'd support an unblock under certain restrictions. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the ban of [politician]'s accounts. The David Lauder account has made useful contributions in Scottish history, as Deacon of Pndapetzim observed. There may be mild COI implications in his insistence on Victorian histories and genealogies as the last word on scholarly material, but I am uneasy with the notion that his contributing to Lauder, Lauderdale, etc., is ipso facto a COI — similar accusations have been voiced in Troubles-related cases, IMO more for the purpose of bludgeoning those foolish enough to reveal their real-world identity on Wikipedia that for any encyclopedic purpose. All that said, it's clear in retrospect that even before the checkuser, there's a remarkable convergence of editing interests between David Lauder and [politician]'s previous incarnations; I'm a little surprised no one familiar with the previous case didn't call for a checkuser long ago. Given the legal threats and various other unpleasant circumstances surrounding the original ban, compounded by the sockpuppetry and vote-stacking practiced by the current incarnation, I don't see any reason to lift the ban, even for positive and apolitical historical contributions. As for Counter-revolutionary, he's aided and abetted some quite disruptive quarrels on behalf of someone whom Wikipedia told to get lost a while ago. Blocks are not punitive, but any conditions for his return need to address his own COI issues and proxying. Choess (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I supported this block in the discussion at WP:TER, but there are a few things I would like to note here:

1. As Deacon of Pndapetzim noted, David Lauder (talk · contribs) did make many positive contributions. Sure, there were also some suspect contributions too and persistent unwillingness to consider world-views other than his own, but DL's misconduct should not be used to obscure the positive contributions he made, including writing several well-written and well-referenced articles.
2. Lauder insists on his talk page that checkuser is simply wrong. I understand that checkuser has some limitations, but it seems to me that changing IPs cannot account for the pattern of behaviour shown here. So I have two suggestions:
   • Can someone else with checkuser powers but who was not in any way involved in the Troubles arbcom case recheck Alison's tests? Personally, I have full trust in Alison, but for the sake of avoiding any accusations directed at her, an independent confirmation of her checkuser results would remove any scope for accusations of bias.
   • How robust is the checkuser system? It seems to me to be an inherently rather simple system (IPs are logged, database is scanned for IPs used by particular users, matches are reported), but given Lauder's outright denials, it would be useful to have confirmation that the code has been checked for robustness.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. For the record, I have absolutely no problem with anybody else running a checkuser on the accounts and coming to whatever conclusions they see fit, indeed I welcome it. In terms of RFCU work, it's a pretty straightforward case, really - Alison ^❤ 08:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"It's established that Sussexman, Chelsea Tory and David Lauder have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other. Counter-revolutionary has also edited from the same computer (but to a lesser extent)." That section I have highlighted says a lot in my opinion. They are up to their gills in it, and should be treated the same. I don't mean to sound hard, but I'm sick sore and tired of the disruption this causes. They have made it difficult because of their carry on to assume good faith, when new accounts pop up (with a detailed knowledge of our policies) and start editing on Troubles related article. I been made to feel like a thick, the number of times I've had editors gang up on me only to discover it was the same editor. Thats just my opinion anyway. --Domer48 (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Lets get this clear. I am no saint - infact I am a sinner. My sins are wide and varied, I have caused a lot of trouble in my time and spent months blocked. There were plenty on here that wanted me out and only for the storng voice of a few I am sure I would be gone.

Must of my trouble has stemmed for arguements with a group of editors - usually the same ones, they appear to adopt the moral high ground and have got me in more shit than I care to remember. I always thought that I was dealing with a group of editors and this got me in a lot more trouble as on a number of occasions it looked like

The WHOLE Troubles arbcom would have been avoid if this editor was not editing for months from different accounts and that is what pisses me off the most.

I could go on and on about this issue but I wont as I dont really want to get involve but I just want to end by showing you this AfD which I believe was the kick off of the Troubles issue that roared for many months. If Lauder et al had been acting honestly and in good faith from the begining then we wouldnt have had the month and months of hassle with resepct to these issue and we would have saved a lot of editors and admins a lot of grey hair. ((The previous comment was posted by User:Vintagekits.. I'm surprised that Sinebot didn't get him)) SirFozzie (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks to be in order with me. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What we are discussing here is adding a community ban to an existing ArbComm ban. The first remedy in that ArbComm case, unless we have evidence that "all legal disputes have been withdrawn or resolved either by settlement or final judicial resolution including payment in full of any costs and judgment" then the user is already banned by ArbComm. We don't have any evidence that the multiple legal disputes are withdrawn or resolved. I don't know if we need to add a community ban to the ArbComm ban, but I don't object to doing so. GRBerry 14:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Someone below makes a good faith argument that the ArbComm ban may have lapsed. With that argument made, and the additional evidence I've seen since, I now support a community ban. At this time, it doesn't seem clear that Counter Revolutionary is a sockpuppet, so I would exclude that account. If the evidence on that question changes, so may the result. GRBerry 14:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I was closely involved with the article on Gregory Lauder-Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (see AfD and deletion review), and with Sussexman and Chelsea Tory as well as the numerous anonymous friends they brought wiht them. Personal legal threats were made to Wikipedia editors whose real identities were inferred, including at least one solicitor's letter. We fixed a serious problem with that article despite their involvement, not because of it. I don't know why they were not banned at the time, other than that a "fishing expedition" would have been rejected by RFCU. It comes as no surprise to learn that they are all if not related then at least working in very close collaboration. I suggest that interested parties ask William Pietri for input, as another closely involved participant in that dispute. If people want to question indefinite blocking in this case, I suggest arbitration - the sockpuppetry, legal threats and other abuse, including apparent ban evasion, would seem to me to be at the very least worthy of a trip to ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• I was only peripherally aware of the Troubles ArbCom when it was on, noticing merely that it seemed filled with some extraordinary bad faith. However, I saw at the time nothing to distinguish it from several other ArbCom cases involving difficult hyper-nationalist editors. Recently I began editing some of the articles over which these accounts have established a pattern of ownership, including Western Goals Institute and Lord Sudeley. I was met with considerable resistance and some great incivility, though I've been subject to worse. At some point one of the account left a 'note' on another account's talkpage warning them of the wild-eyed Bolshie who'd turned up to vandalise their articles. There was certainly a touch of tag-team reverting involved; and I was 'reported' for my 'vandalism' to AN/I - the complaint is still up there. (Where, entertainingly, it was speculated that I was someone's puppet.) It was only after I did some poking around in edit histories, discovering some puzzling deletions and so on that I asked a few discreet questions and discovered the history, which was plainly shocking. (Turns out there's an off-wiki mirror as well.) It was becoming obvious that these accounts were closely connected, and that they were using their artificial consensus to disrupt editing across a swathe of articles to which they had undoubted connections off-wiki. (Judging by image uploads.) This is unacceptable.

If an indefblock is considered too harsh, I would strongly recommend a community ban from editing any and all articles related to the right-wing of the Tory party, the House of Lords, and republicanism. If their energy can be redirected to safely apolitical genealogical research and COI-free articles of pretenders to Eastern European monarchies, it will probably not be disruptive. However, having viewed the ArbCom, I can certainly understand if we simply don't want this person - or two people, at most - around. Many - perhaps most - people who have been community banned have been banned for less obvious disruption. Relata refero (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support unblocking Counter-revolutionary, or well reframing his block to being something less than a month. I also agree with BHG that check user is pretty unreliable (and indeed should be overhauled but that isn't for here) but it is better at proving guilt than innocence. I would also support unblocking Lauder with the agreement that he doesn't edit political articles relating to the UK (which includes the Troubles, of course). Thanks, SqueakBox 20:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Lauder... heck no. he's been blocked/banned TWICE for legal threats (not just.. "If you don't do what I want I'll sue you". type idle threats on WP (which is bad enough), but actual legal threats from his solicitor, sent to an editor's home address. (See the Sussexman discussion linked above). Technically, as said above, he's already banned, because he never fufilled the first ban's requirements (a full apology and payment of any all legal fees incurred as a result of the threats) SirFozzie (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• support ban - after reading this and the ssp report I think a community ban is in order for the DL and directly related. I'm not sure about User:Counter-revolutionary, and would support topic restrictions and similar restraints discussed above. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Ban - This question pretty much answers itself. By the time you've gotten to the point of socking/meating to avoid an Arbcom block, you're as valuable to the Project as a hand-grenade in a china shop. Throw away the key and lets move on. As for counter-revolutionary, at best he's a WP:SPA and a Checkuser-proven meat-puppet of a disruptive indefblocked user. At worst he's just another David Lauder sock. Even his user-name touts his political agenda. How precisely does any of this indicate that we should give him the benefit of the doubt? Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Bans Certain individual(s) having been waging a campaign for over 2 years attacking anyone who gets in their way, all the accounts are inexplicably links --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 01:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban - two things say it all: "The WHOLE Troubles arbcom would have been avoid if this editor was not editing for months from different accounts" - VintageKits, and "Personal legal threats were made to Wikipedia editors whose real identities were inferred, including at least one solicitor's letter." - Guy. Lauder has got to go. I do believe that I also may have had some experience with this user (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Astrotrain; looks like I guessed wrong), and thought the user should be banned simply on this brief encounter (which, to date, no one has mentioned that I can see). You cheat this badly, for this long, then you are not responsible enough to edit here, and this block sure is heck is a preventative one if I ever saw one (for all the disruption caused). The Evil Spartan (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban As per my previous comments. In addition, they were already banned! --Domer48 (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose- Firstly Fozzie and Alison are biased against David Lauder. Secondly, I find their position strange given their support for the Vintagekits sock/meatpuppet account. Astrotrain (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support banAs per evidence provided. BigDunc (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Queries

As User:David Lauder is blocked and so unable to answer any of the accusations here at all, might someone point out to him:

• How anything he has edited has any connection whatsoever with Chelsea Tory & the blocked User Sussexman.
• If User:Counter Revolutionary was originally the same person/sockpuppet how is he not so?
• How is David Lauder suddenly responsible for 'The Troubles' ArbCom which was initiated by the indefinite banning of User:Vintagekits?
• User the checkuser can we be absolutely certain, looking at User:Sussexman's edits (and he has been blocked for 20 months has he not?) that David Lauder' ISP is exactly the same as Sussexmans?
• What would you say the actual connexion, offensive or otherwise, is between David Lauder and User:Chelsea Tory (who I see has now decamped)?
• How can David Lauder be connected with anything which happened on Wikipedia 18 months or more ago when it appears he wasn't with us then and has never edited anything in that political zone?

As I don't wish to be involved I am asking these questions generally. I hope you will consider them. 86.155.190.74 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed by checkuser to be User:David Lauder evading block.  IP blocked - leaving questions up in the event anyone would like to address them - Alison ^❤ 07:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking each point in turn:

• "How anything he has edited has any connection whatsoever with Chelsea Tory & the blocked User Sussexman." Per the checkuser, David Lauder, Chelsea Tory and Sussexman "have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other". Asking for anything else is a red herring, the connection is right there.
• "If User:Counter Revolutionary was originally the same person/sockpuppet how is he not so?" Per the checkuser Counter-revolutionary "has also edited from the same computer at the same time and place as the above [David Lauder, Chelsea Tory and Sussexman] but not nearly as often. This points more to collusion and meat-puppetry than they being the same individual."
• "How is David Lauder suddenly responsible for 'The Troubles' ArbCom which was initiated by the indefinite banning of User:Vintagekits?" - the confirmed sockpuppetry and evidence of off-Wiki collusion/meatpuppetry was a key factor in the whole dispute beginning in the first place.
• "User the checkuser can we be absolutely certain, looking at User:Sussexman's edits (and he has been blocked for 20 months has he not?) that David Lauder' ISP is exactly the same as Sussexmans? " - I won't comment on the checkuser side of things for WP:BEANS reasons, should a checkuser wish to comment that is up to them.
• "What would you say the actual connexion, offensive or otherwise, is between David Lauder and User:Chelsea Tory (who I see has now decamped)?" Per the checkuser, David Lauder and Chelsea Tory "have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other".
• "How can David Lauder be connected with anything which happened on Wikipedia 18 months or more ago when it appears he wasn't with us then and has never edited anything in that political zone?" - Per the checkuser, David Lauder, Chelsea Tory and Sussexman "have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other". David Lauder is connected, it's that simple.

I suggest that if David Lauder wants to appeal his indefinite block/community ban (delete as applicable) this goes to ArbCom, where I will be happy to provide evidence that I can't provide on-Wiki for privacy reasons. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

David Lauder using another block evading sock to chance their arm here? Why am I not surprised. Counter-revolutionary has also edited from the same computer at the same time and place as David Lauder, Chelsea Tory and Sussexman. They are just as much apart of David Lauder little mess IMO. --Domer48 (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Another look at this

There are some aspects of the current perception and solution, which I'm not comfortable with and which I raise somewhat reluctantly, especially in the light of David Lauder's intransigence in dealing with this matter. My comments are on the basis of Robert I, Sussexman, Chelsea Tory and David Lauder being socks of one user, which seems clear-cut.

1. ArbCom ban. The remedy was "Robert I is banned from Wikipedia pending resolution or formal withdrawal of all legal disputes with Wikipedia and its users. When all legal disputes have been withdrawn or resolved either by settlement or final judicial resolution including payment in full of any costs and judgment, the ban may be lifted." The ArbCom case was closed over 2 years ago. There are no ongoing legal disputes on or off wiki, so they are resolved. The ban only remains in place as a technicality and could easily have been lifted. Per WP:Legal, such a ban only applies while the legal matter is ongoing. The whole issue is moot as the material over which Robert I made the legal threat was deleted, along with the rest of the relevant article, nearly a year ago.
2. "he never fufilled the first ban's requirements (a full apology and payment of any all legal fees incurred as a result of the threats)". The ArbCom remedy does not stipulate either of these. The "payment in full" relates to the final judicial resolution, which is not relevant as no case took place (we would undoubtedly have heard if it had done).
3. ArbCom noted (Finding of Fact 7), "Robert I is a relatively new user who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing. Thus he has misunderstood certain Wikipedia policies and possibly inadvertently entered into a legal dispute."
4. The other ArbCom ban is "Robert I banned for one year from editing articles relating to Gregory Lauder-Frost". That is academic as the ban expired a year ago.
5. Apart from a technicality, there has not been a violation of a specific ArbCom ban.
6. A relevant ArbCom remedy was, "Robert I is required to edit only when logged in and to use only one user account". This has been violated.
7. If we take this to be a "ban", then the ArbCom enforcement is "Should Robert I violate any ban, he may be blocked for a short time, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year." This is comparable with the Troubles ArbCom enforcement.
8. Certain accusations about David Lauder are not just:
9. According to Vintagekits: "The WHOLE Troubles arbcom would have been avoid if this editor was not editing for months from different accounts." David Lauder was a contributing factor to the situation, but was not alone in his viewpoint, which was generally shared by a number of other editors, including Major Bonkers, Astrotrain, Kittybrewster, W. Frank, and the late Gaimhreadhan, none of them labelled as socks of David Lauder. The case involved problematic behaviour on both "sides". The Troubles ArbCom only started, when Vintagekits was indef blocked for "making clear threats regarding another editor's home address",[1] namely W. Frank's (nothing to do with David Lauder) and had previously sent a threatening email to Rockpocket. Vintagekits' attempt to exonerate himself and shift the blame is not very convincing.
10. "(David Lauder) is not here to build an encyclopedia". He's made 9,000 edits, and most of them have not been in dispute. He has contributed to many Scottish-related articles with knowledge and resources, some relating to personal interests, but this has not been problematic (since Robert I's early GLF legal threat debacle). George I, Earl of March, for example, is a sound achievement, almost entirely his own work. His other contributions[2] include subjects such as Warmia and Masuria plebiscite, Yalta Conference, Baltic Germans, Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel‎, Imperial Russian Navy and List of ships of the Austro-Hungarian Navy. He has, as some other editors have pointed out, made substantial contributions.
11. He has certainly used socks abusively, notably for vote stacking, as pointed out at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman. Even so, when everything is taken into account, I feel that an intermediate solution in line with the stipulated ArbCom enforcement would be more appropriate than a ban, which seems disproportionate, when compared to the enforcement applied to other users recently, such as W. Frank and Vintagekits (see WP:TER).
12. These comments are made on the basis of visible evidence (including deleted material), so if there's anything I'm missing, perhaps someone could email me.

Tyrenius (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking you're missing plenty based on the evidence available. Robert I was banned by ArbCom for legal threats, and by the look of it immediately created the Sussexman account which was indef blocked for more legal threats. So immediately you've got evasion of an ArbCom remedy in the ban until legal disputes were settled.

Sussexman and Chelsea Tory both edited articles "which relate to Gregory Lauder-Frost and his political activities", inside the one year ban. Further evasion of ArbCom remedy.

Per the checkuser "All of the three accounts below appear to have logged out to edit at various times", and that's in addition to the use of more than one account. Evasion of ArbCom remedy that Robert I is only to edit while logged in and using one account, which has no time limit.

Current block evasion with IPs - documented above.

Also the whole Troubles situation didn't start with the ArbCom, that was the end result. The battle lines were well and truly drawn during Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill, where the sock and meatpuppetry began. If VK hadn't been faced with a drawer of socks and associates acting in concert, everything else might never have occurred. That's when the articles became a real battleground. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Lauder should be unblocked to allow him answer these accuasations. Vintagekits was allowed the chance to answer his critics when faced with more serious accusations. Astrotrain (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, he shouldn't. There's a second checkuser confirming it's all true. They aren't accusations, they are facts. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the checkuser thing says, there are a whole series of accusations against various editors that need to be answered. The original checkuser was biased and unreliable, and now there is a second one- DL should be allowed to respond to the accusation. It is only fair that DL be allowed to present a response. Astrotrain (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. He's been caught bang to rights now and, like other abusive accounts, can stay blocked. He has the right to appeal to ArbCom, however he has yet to answer any of the direct questions put to him. He's been caught and caught twice now. Since he's been putting all the blame on "the Irish", maybe now he may look on it in a different light? - Alison ^❤ 13:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I also note Christchurch also voted in Giano's ArbCom election, in addition to votestacking in an AfD that David Lauder, Chelsea Tory (and Counter-revolutionary) and a David Lauder linked IP voted in. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) And for the record, I note that David Lauder voted NO in various guises in Giano's ArbCom election no less than four times in the space of about 90 minutes. Tell me that's not abusive - Alison ^❤ 13:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Thatcher has been absolutely uncompromising, and included User:Immanuel can't and User:Christchurch, which Alison originally chose not to mention because she thought they edited in separate areas. (Not sure that's always been true, though, according to this exchange.) I think the evidence is now overwhelmingly for long-term abusive sockpuppetry and harassment, and it seems hard to answer the case that this entire sockfarm should be banned. Relata refero (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If Lauder really has some excellent reason why these accounts are showing up as linked, he can email Thatcher with his explanation. I think that's good enough, unless Thatcher's also Irish, or Scots, or Polish, or some other unacceptable nationality. Relata refero (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

From a technical point of view, all 5 accounts are clearly linked. I generally take a dim view of the brother/wife/housemate explanation, and if he chooses to make such an explanation I would prefer not to be the sole evaluator of it. I also note that his talk pages are unblocked, so he (they) can post explanations there and his (their) friends can paste them or link to them here. Thatcher 14:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Its got to be better than that, right? Five housemates? And not college kids either, but rightwing Tories? No, that's why I said, it would have to be exceptional. Relata refero (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are all of the accounts being blocked? --Domer48 (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

They are not blocked yet. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Immanuel can't and User:Christchurch, which Alison originally chose not to mention because she thought they edited in separate areas. (Not sure that's always been true, though, according to this exchange.)

Oh ... I should have known User:Christchurch was a sock. See comment in support of David Lauder made during a content dispute [with me] on Talk:Lauder. Not among the worst of Lauder's transgressions, but still I guess I now feel he's used sockpuppetry "against" myself. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• IMO, every ban should be evaluated as follows:

• Was there a pressing problem needing fixing, such as disruption or POV-pushing on multiple or high-profile articles.
• Was the user a ringleader or key fomenter of said debate.
• Will the encyclopaedia suffer from their loss, or will a source of bas be removed witout reinforcing systemic bias
• What's the possibility of reform? They should be given a review date. Arbcm typically does not impose enduring restrictions,
• Would an article ban do?

Make of this as muc or as little as you will. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The possibility of reform is nil. Let's examine the evasion of remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I:

• The original one year ban on Robert I was evaded almost instantly. Not only that, but he made further legal threats, which is what got him banned in the first place!

• The one year ban on Robert I editing "articles which relate to Gregory Lauder-Frost and his political activities" was evaded using the Sussexman and Chelsea Tory accounts, and doubtless some IPs as well.

• Robert I being required to edit only when logged in and using one account (which has no time limit) has been evaded, using IPs, and four different accounts.

And in addition to those you've got - votestacking in ArbCom elections, AfD debates and other discussions. You've got the evasion of Sussexman's indef block, you've got the evasion of David Lauder's indef block, you've got the vast amount of sockpuppetry that clearly isn't covered by WP:SOCK etc etc

This person has shown nothing but contempt for the way Wikipedia works, so is there really any hope of reform now? If you restrict his editing, will he accept it? He's never accepted any restriction yet has he? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Pending deletion script (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a bot account unused since 2005 and it appears to have admin powers (there are logs of it deleting things although there are no rights logs for it). I think it would be a good idea to desysop/block this account. -Nard 02:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The name "script" indicates it is probably part of one of the Mediawiki (the software running Wikipedia) update scripts, that was used in a previous update (possibly the Phase III update). There is no need to touch it. Also see User:Conversion script. Prodego ^talk 03:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The user page says its a holdover from when Admins couldn't delete articles. Its controlled by User:Tim Starling, so I'd start there if I had questions. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear to have administrator rights, although it does run with a bot flag. Nard, did you intend to say that its userpage gives the impression of it being an administrator account? AGK (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That takes me back--there were a few articles we couldn't delete because of some odd bug in the database. The bug was fixed ages ago; I'm pretty sure the account is dormant. Mackensen (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:MediaWiki default is another good laugh. :-) Anyone have any more? Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How to handle the WMF non-free image deadline

I'd like to start a discussion on how to handle the upcoming Wikimedia Foundation non-free image deadline. I've notified various people and posted a notice at WT:NFC. Please see the WMF resolution here. Despite the unclear wording there, it has been confirmed by others that the deadline of 23 March 2007 does apply to project with an Exemption Doctrine Policy (for Wikipedia, the EDP is WP:NFC).

The relevant wording is: "As of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well." and "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted"

What I want to get clearly laid down here is how things will change after this deadline. What I don't want to see is mass bot taggings and deletion of non-free images without discussion. Please note that the license resolution uses the terms "unacceptable license" and "lacking an exemption rationale". Betacommandbot (to give an example) is incapable of determining whether an image lacks an exemption rationale. It is capable of determining the quality of a possibly existing rationale (ie. whether or not it names the article the image is being used in), but that is not the same thing.

My basic question is this: Is it possible to determine which images should and should not be deleted after 23 March 2008? I fear that it is not possible to do this, and that chaos may ensue if people see the passing of the deadline as some free license (pun intended) to arbitrarily delete non-free images because they feel that they are "unacceptable" or "lack a rationale" (when the definition of "lack a rationale" is disputed).

Thoughts on the central question (bolded above) and how to manage this and avoid huge amounts of drama? See also the section below, but please comment in this section as well! Carcharoth (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this 23 March 2008 deadline even exist?

these comments split off under new title. Carcharoth (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What you've quoted in the "by March 23, 2008" section is from point #6 of the resolution, which is expressed as applying to projects which do not have an EDP. We do. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I know. I pointed this out many months ago. Others have pointed it out. But it seems that the resolution was poorly worded. Point 5 only has a 2007 deadline. I suspect it should have had a 2008 deadline as well, otherwise the "discussion" bit is essentially open-ended. If you really want to get agreement that there is no deadline, and that the last year of drama has been a misunderstanding, please get some official word on this. I've written to various people with no responses. One example is at: User talk:Mindspillage#Licensing policy clarifications ([3]). I've left another note as I think she was away at Wikimania the time. Any suggestions as to who else to write to would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes left for WMF Board of Trustees - Please see here, here, here and here for the notes I've left for the people listed here (Is that up-to-date? I've linked to the current version). The en-wikipedia page for Jan-Bart is not active. Looking at that list, I now get the feeling that I should actually be contacting members of the staff. Who are likely to be more responsive to this plea to clarify the deadline, the Board of Trustees or people like Sue Gardner, Erik Moller, Cary Bass and Mike Godwin? Who should I be asking my questions to? Carcharoth (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Erik Moller here, as I believe he was on the Board of Trustees at the time the Resolution was passed. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Commment. It seems to me that our deadline passed as of last year. We should also be enforcing very strict limits on the use of non-free images, as expressed in the Foundation policy and at WP:NFCC. Images uploaded after March 23, 2007 without a valid EDP license (appropriate non-free license and rationale) should be deleted. Images uploaded before that time should be given a chance to be placed under an appropriate license and have an appropriate rationale, if they fit under the limited circumstances. I believe a lot of the "drama" has more to do with a serious resistance to heavy limitations on fair use images, than anything else. There may be some ways to minimize the problems, but the underlying issue is simply that some users are (to be kind) reluctant to adjust to the Foundation's policy. Short of changing people's minds, there's not a whole lot that can be done to ease the pain and drama in the community. Vassyana (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually tend to agree. So why does Betacommand (and others) have 45 days left at the top of his (their) user talk page(s)? Carcharoth (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is because of a misunderstanding of the policy, specifically accounting the deadline for non-EDP projects to EDP projects such as en.wiki. As an additional thought on the whole matter, I think that in the interests of minimizing drama that we have been exceptionally lenient when it comes to points 8 and 10 under "Policy" at WP:NFCC and on point 3 of the Foundation licensing policy. I tend to think that is a mistake, as instead of reducing drama, it appears (to me) to have muddled the issue and weakened the community perception of the policies. Vassyana (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You say "Images uploaded after March 23, 2007 without a valid EDP license (appropriate non-free license and rationale) should be deleted. Images uploaded before that time should be given a chance to be placed under an appropriate license and have an appropriate rationale, if they fit under the limited circumstances." - so why is Betacommandbot not discriminating between the two? The older images are being given the same amount of time as the newer images. I think any images uploaded after the 2007 March deadline should get only 7 days to be fixed, period. Everything else (the older images uploaded before then) should be tagged now and given until 1 April 2008 to be fixed. And Betacommand and others should be told that after 01 April 2008 things will not change dramatically. The way I see it, the tagging and 7-day deadlines for newly uploaded images will still apply indefinitely, and this 7-day deadline will now apply to older images as well. Carcharoth (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the answer lies in the lack of distinction in local policy and missing/disputed rationale templates. There's a lot of misunderstanding about the Foundation policy and the local EDP. A solution might be to make variant tags for images uploaded before March 23, 2007 and to work out consensus language regarding the distinction between "old" and "new" images either at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Implementation and enforcement or in the policy itself at WP:NFCC. Vassyana (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found an old discussion I had with Durin here and here. If this is a misunderstanding, it extends all the way up to Board level! I don't know which Board member Durin was referring to. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be simply be that the document is very poorly worded, but as worded our deadline was last year, not the upcoming one. I agree it would be good to receive clarification from the WMF. Vassyana (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also rediscovered a clearer way of putting this, which I will quote here:

"The matter of this deadline of April 2008: I had a closer look at the WMF Licensing Policy, and it looks like the layout of the document is confusing. The deadline is the third subclause of bullet point 6, and thus appears to be only referring to projects without an EDP. Bullet point 5 contains a date for projects with an EDP, but the date only refers to the point from which the policy applies to new images. There appear to be no deadline for the discussion of old images. I'm convinced this is a layout typo, but it is rather sloppy." - Carcharoth 22:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've said above, I have contacted four members of the WMF Board of Trustees. I would like to contact those that actually discussed and voted on the Resolution, but who voted on this resolution is not clear from their documentation. I hope there is some response from the Board, and I would like to ask those with accounts on meta to leave the Board members brief notes about this discussion, or those subscribing to the WMF mailing list to leave a brief note there mentioning this discussion, if possible. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Couple points: the resolution wording is weird because if you read it strictly as written, projects without an EDP in place before the resolution have to get all their images in appropriate order by March 23 2008 (Clause #6), but with those with existing EDP effectively can be read to have no deadline (clause #5) which is extremely unbalanced. One could argue that en.wiki, while having a written EDP, did not have one that was enforced or possibly failing #2: Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users., and thus en.wiki is subject to #6 as well. (The act of BCB going through to validate article names gets us some way to start #2). BCB did discriminate between older images and newer images in that he only recently took off the bot's restriction that only looked at articles after a given date, thus giving the older images the time outlined in the resolution (but of course, this is why BCB is getting so many complaints now).

Regardless, I think even without a deadline, we should bite the bullet and allow BCB to continue, allowing for more time for correcting the rationales for this period only (14-21 days if we allow BCB to burn through the rest of the images before the end of Feb). Once we get that done, the amount of noise that BCB will generate thenon (in maintaining such a state) should be very minimal and we'll never have to worry about it again. If we allow BCB trickle its way through the images, we're going to get a BCB once a week until he's done. The only thing I would change about the process is to make sure the BCB message points to the image help desk, make sure that's a box, very top of the page "If you have received a notice from BCB, please review the following..." to cut down the number of the complaints that are generated. --MASEM 14:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the question of who voted the resolution, the answer is "absolutely everyone" (Kat, Erik, Anthere, Jimbo, Oscar, Jan-bart, Michael). The resolution was in majority written by Erik, with rewording by Kat and Oscar. It may be indeed unclear, sorry about that.

When things are unclear, it is good to try to see the spirit of the decision. I tried to take a step back, and if the wording is unclear, to read beyond it, the substance of the concept. The way *I* read it, in march 2008, non free content on project without EDP must be deleted. Non free content with no rationale on a project with an EDP must be deleted. It does not matter really whether it is old images or new images, the one year delay was mostly to 1) get people used to the idea, 2) give the time to discuss and adopt an EDP, 3) give time for uploaders of old images to think about adequate replacement or rationale.

My two cents Anthere (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. See my reply below. Carcharoth (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Deadline does exist (spirit of resolution)

Thanks, Anthere, that is very helpful. One other small request: would you be able to make sure the other board members I contacted (and Erik) are aware of this, and possibly the former board members you mention if you think they would be interested)? I know some of them may not check their en-wiki pages very often, and I don't have accounts on the other projects. Anyway, I take this to mean that there is a deadline of 23 March 2008 (or 1 April 2008 in some interpretations) for en-wikipedia. But this still leaves my question above unanswered: Is it possible to determine which images should and should not be deleted after 23 March 2008? I think the only practical way to do this is to use the current system where images are detected by bot or humans and tagged with a seven-day deadline, and then deleted at the end of that period. What I fear is that people will take the arrival of this deadline as some excuse to go on a deletion spree and unilaterally decide what is not acceptable and use speedy deletion criteria to just delete stuff as they find it. I think keeping the seven-day waiting period will still work - after all, it has worked OK so far this year. My worry is that people may start to use (or increase their use of) WP:CSD#I7 (the 48-hour clause) for images missing a rationale, when they should be using WP:CSD#I6 (the seven-day clause). 48 hours is not really enough time for experienced editors to become aware that an image is about to be deleted. If an experienced editor has the time to become aware that someone has uploaded an image without a rationale, they may be able to fix it and offer the uploader advice on how to handle this in the future. Anyway, I will leave you with my question, which I would love to get a clear answer to:

Is it possible to determine which images should and should not be deleted after 23 March 2008?

Anyone? Carcharoth (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll send a message to the board. Regarding delay... to be honest... I do not think there is much harm in waiting 7 days rather than 2 days. Anthere (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope others agree with you. Carcharoth (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently working through Category:All disputed non-free images adding backlinks to justifiable fair-use images under the assumption that unless it gets done, everything remaining in the category is sure to get deleted on or shortly after March 23 if not before. I'm not sure if I'm right about this, but I don't want to see thousands of decent images erased. English peasant 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer Carcharoth's question, it doesn't seem possible. WP:NFCC 10C is not decidable. The bots (not only the troublesome beta) cannot solve the issue. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer Car's (I can't even pronounce your name, but look who's talking) question, I'd expect that on March 23, all images in DFUI more than 7 days are hosed by a deletion script run by a admin. On a going foward basis, items spend 2 days (I think) in DFUI and are then deleted per the warning template. I'd be ok with extending it to 5 days, since, from a legal point of view, I don't think a jury would ever say "You kept the image 72 hours extra after you questioned its copyright and did 10,000,000$ additional in dilution damages". MBisanz ^talk 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The 2-day deadline is for newly uploaded images. What I don't want to see is old images (those not uploaded within the last few days) tagged for 2-day deletion. Those should be done with the 7-day tag or be taken to WP:IfD. What I am most concerned about is that people may use this deadline to try and force through some CSD allowing "invalid" images to be deleted on sight. That would be a disaster. There are a variety of possibilities, but the reason I'm bringing this up a month beforehand is to get people thinking of the possibilities and to decide on something now, with discussion, rather than argue about it later in the heat of the moment if some people get the idea in their head that the passing of this deadline means things are changing and deletion will be "easier". I also kind of hoping that the amount of disputed images will be small enough that it is possible for everyone to review every non-free image if they want to. In other words, have people and bots working together to patrol the new images, much as people patrol new pages at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding drama with Betacommandbot during March 2008

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Avoiding drama with Betacommandbot during March 2008. 15:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Page move / delete cleanup

This is a list of all pages in the User: namespace that don't have a corresponding user in Special:Listusers. Some of the pages are deletable under WP:CSD#U2, however, it seems that most are users who mistakenly created a page in the wrong place. User:Zizai:LY18 vs. User:Zizai/LY18, User:EricRodenbeck vs. User:Ericrodenbeck. Seems other pages are from when the Rename extension wasn't able to move subpages. Some of the other pages are apparently attempts at users "renaming" themselves. Still some other pages are tagged with "sock" tags, however, it's pretty difficult to have a sock puppet account if you've never created an account with that name. The last category of pages seems to be people who "created" doppelganger accounts (however, without registering the account, creating just a user page is pretty useless).

Quite a large mess. Any help cleaning up the list (specifically appropriate page moves and deleting the newly-created redirects) would be great. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel like this would take forever. --PeaceNT (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Goodness me :) AGK (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. I went to the link, and I was too overwhelmed to even start doing anything (for now). Who has motivation? We need you! нмŵוτнτ 19:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I had to click on the links at random and fix them one by one, and there're nearly 4000 of 'em. Are there any tools that can help? :-S --PeaceNT (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh my. Each one is practically a unique case. The first set, the "^pirate" pages, are leftover from a username change, but it's depressing to track this down to find the user had a change of view on WP. Gimmetrow 03:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking we're gonna need to come up with some standard procedure here, like maybe a bot notifying anyone whose ever edited these pages that their going to be deleted at X date? Or a bot that compares page names to users and guesses who it belongs to, and copies it to their userspace? MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Two ideas:

• I'm reluctant to move monobook pages. The users who created them often have such a page, and if not the misplaced one may have bugs. The original creator can get a notice. I thought the software wouldn't let anyone edit a .js page in another user space, or does it check if there is a user? Seems like a potential security issue in various ways.
• Could automatically move a page if the user who created the page has over X% of the edits. That could clear a good amount. Gimmetrow 04:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, only admins can edit code pages outside a user's own space. CSDWarnBot uses a similar system I believe to decide who it warns of a CSD nom. I'd say any user whose made more than 25% of the edits to a page, assuming no user has made a higher percentage of edits, should be the one to "get" the page in their userspace. Shall I file a WP:BOTREQ? MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So any .js page must be from when the user of that name existed, before a username change? If so, then the user either didn't want it, or copied everything useful. On the percent, I was thinking more like 50%, and the first cut needs to consider the page creator heavily. I saw one page which had a ton of bot edits. If that doesn't catch enough, then start dropping the cutoff. I don't have time to write such a script, so go for the botreq if you want. Gimmetrow 05:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Request filed at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Userspace_errors, feel free to edit the request requirements. MBisanz ^talk 06:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that the monobook pages would be there because the original owners couldn't do anything about them after getting their names changed, not because they didn't want to, because they couldn't edit them. For example, my old one is on that list. (Anyone who wants to delete it should feel free). I can't move it, mark it for deletion, or do anything else to it.--Dycedarg ж 20:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted! --Stephen 00:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would think it would be quite reasonable to delete all .js pages for nonexistent users. After all, they don't work, so they serve no usefulness, and they can't be missed, because they're not doing anything now. If any user later goes looking for an old one, it can be easily undeleted and moved to the correct name. Chick Bowen 06:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

They can be read and copied. Does it hurt to leave a note for the original owner before deletion? Gimmetrow 06:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No; I'm just saying I wouldn't lose sleep over it if it simplified the process--I doubt very many of them are missed. I wrote that before I read MBisanz's bot request, which makes it fairly simple, though. Chick Bowen 06:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kahooper (talk · contribs) and links to hisher website

Kahooper (talk · contribs) has linked to his website, FantasyLiterature.net, repeatedly, despite the link being removed by multiple editors. Kahooper's opinion is that it should be included because of the review content on the page, done by individuals identified only by initial, with no evidence that they are notable or professional reviewers. I have mentioned this to him on his talk page, and placed a {{uw-coi}} on his page, but I thought a broader input from administrators might be more convincing - that several individuals have moved the link does not seem to be indicative of a problem to him. If I'm being overzealous, please let me know, but I think my interpretation of WP:EL is quite mainstream. WLU (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Kahooper is a woman, actually. I am one of those who have been deleting these links, which have been inserted in multiple articles by both User:Kahooper and User:139.62.165.173, whose IP resolves to the University of North Florida, where Kahooper is an adjunct faculty member. Kahooper has admitted here that she is the owner of the Web site in question, and I view this as a clear case of linkspam and have treated the links accordingly. Deor (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Which was my reading too. To date, apparently neither myself nor Deor have been sufficiently convincing. WLU (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers are identified by name, city, occupation, photo, and other information on the website (http://www.fantasyliterature.net/reviewers.html). They were all invited by me because they are well-educated and write excellent and thoughtful reviews. Most of them are also writers. They are not random idiots. And, this is the reason I started the website -- to have a resource where people could find reviews that are interesting, informative, well-written, and neutral (i.e., not Amazon).

The main reason I think the links belong is that for most of your articles about fantasy authors there are links to several sites that are less informative than mine. Many have google ads (or other ads) and I saw one or two that were even portals (e.g., RealityEnds.com). Many have links to Amazon or other book sellers. It seems that the real rule is "no NEW links" and that some editors are zealous about reverting people's contributions. I am not meaning to sound obnoxious, but I really am trying to be reasonable. I am not promoting products and the website does not make money. Rather, I am, in good faith, trying to offer a resource that it useful for people who are interested in these authors. We have spent hundreds of hours preparing a resource that we feel is unique. We honestly review fantasy literature and just as often as we promote a book, we warn against another. We very often suggest borrowing books from a library, or PaperbackSwap.com and NOT purchasing them. I consider "spam" (as you call it) to be for the purpose of making money. Again, we are NOT making money. The small amount we receive does not cover our expenses, so I resent the implication that we are trying to sell products. If you take a look at the link I gave above, you'll see that this is not the case. I realize that you don't know me and that there are a lot of people who abuse Wikipedia, but I have good faith intentions and sincerely believe that the links fit the content and your guidelines. Kahooper (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

I've briefly looked over the site and do not see any especial issues in external links to it. Mangoe (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPAM states: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed" (emphasis added). The standard spam template advises the recipient to ask on an article's talk page for the link's addition if they have a conflict of interest with respect to the Web site in question. I came upon this situation while RC patrolling. Do you really think there's no problem with a site's owner's creating an account and immediately using it to add links to her site to multiple articles in quick succession and then, after being warned, doing it again as an anon IP? Deor (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What occurs in other pages is irrelevant to this page - if anyone objects to the external links in those pages, they can correct them. The problem isn't so much the initials as it is who the reviewers are. Are they professional reviewers? Are they paid? Are they recognized for their ability to review the books, beyond on that particular website? Otherwise, how is it different from linking to any publicly-editable websites or fora, which are not allowed. Who is responsible for editorial oversight? Is it you? In which case, what is your claim to expertise in this area? Are you a professor of literature or professional reviewer, with experience and recognition for your reviews? Is it the authors, which would mean the web page faces considerable conflict of interest from their oversight body. In order to be included when the addition is disputed, there must be indication that there is merit to the page, that there is a good reason to link, that something noteworthy is added to the page. Otherwise, we will be linked to every single individual with a fan page, book reviews and a web fora, which on the rather stubby fantasy author pages, will quickly overwhelm the actual text. The COI concerns preclude you, Kahooper, from adding the links, but the comments I am making here would restrict anyone from adding them. We don't link to amazon.com for pretty much the same reasons - it's a sales site, and the reviews there aren't professional ones, they're essentially random opinions. Reviewing your list of reviewers, I see a lawyer, a former high school teacher, a real estate broker, a masters student, a guy working for a financial corporation, Kahooper (an PhD in psychology), a national guardsman, an undergraduate student, the owner of a photography studio, another lawyer, and another master's student. None are professional reviewers, only a couple have education in literature or english, only one appears to be published in any way (and it is not his reviews that are published) (and most criminal of all, I see some positive reviews for Terry Goodkind and Christopher Paolini : ) shame on you!) Interviews to authors can be linked, but the reviews can not, in my mind.

Here is a partial list of other sites that we would open the door to linking to if Kahooper's were added, five out of six million showing up on a google search:

• • • http://www.geocities.com/fantasticreviews/
    • http://www.fantasyreviews.com/
    • http://www.fantasybookspot.com/
    • http://www.booksforabuck.com/sfpages/sfreviews.html
    • http://dannyreviews.com/s/fantasy.html

There are a lot of book review sites, a lot of people who manage to get interviews with authors (I've corresponded with Ms. Wurts myself, about her wikipedia page. Nice lady, very appreciative); as a minimum for WP:EL, I usually look for WP:RS-type concerns - "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Your webpage might be third party, but it's not published beyond it's page, I don't think it would be considered reliable, and fact checking and accuracy aren't much of a concern on a review site. But still, there must be an element of professional recognition. Anyone can publish anything on a web page, WP:EL helps determine what is worth linking to. WLU (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the content of the linked site, not the ownership. The interpretation of WP:SPAM as forbidding one from linking to a site that one owns/participates in is incorrect. So what I think is that Kahooper was badly bitten. The discussion should be redirected towards a civil discussion of the contents of the contested site. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mangoe's interpretation of this situation. I think Kahooper is just unfamiliar with all the intricate little guideline hoops and such that we require people to jump through, and people removed the links simply because they were added with summaries like "adding link to my site". I checked the one added to the Brandon Sanderson page, and found no reason to exclude the link to the book reviews. I think people need to assume good faith here and assume that Kahooper is actually just trying to help the articles improve by providing additional reviews. The site seems to be reasonably extensive, and it never hurts to have additional, decent reviews. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In context, Kahooper repeatedly linked to her site, on a number of author's pages, and after the links were repeatedly she re-linked them. This is after having warnings placed on her page. It took a while to get her attention. Further, the discussion on Kahooper's page seems civil - though re-reading my own comments, they could have used less bolding and been more elaborate. I shall try to adjust accordingly in further discussion, thanks for the prompt Mangoe. WLU (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

--

First, I did relink the pages that were removed and explained my actions on a couple of talk pages and often in the edit summary. I used a different IP address when I was at work, not to try to fool you (I’m a webmaster – I know you can see where it comes from), but because I was at work and it didn’t automatically log me in on the computer I was using in the classroom where my students were taking an exam. While I have used Wikipedia for years, I did create the account (which sounds like my own name) in order to add the links properly. I have not tried to be deceptive as you have implied. I sincerely didn't realize that this would be considered "spam."

Second, while this may not matter, I reiterate that the reviewers were chosen for their excellence for the purpose of creating a superior review site. A couple of them are highly ranked reviewers on Amazon and participate in their special reviewing program (Vine) there, one is paid for reviews in fantasy literature magazines (I can provide evidence), a few of them are published writers of short stories, two are lawyers, one is an English teacher, one is an English Literature masters student studying to be a literature critic, and I am a published college professor who teaches scientific writing. About Goodkind and Paolini, please see the pages and actually read the reviews before you “shame” me! We – shall I say it? – hate Terry Goodkind (I couldn’t even convince any of them to read the last book) and the only one who likes Paolini is the one who reviews for children and writes from their perspective.

Third, I understand your point that any review site could link to Wikipedia (really I do), and I completely understand and sympathize with your desire to link sites with merit. But, since one of the guidelines for external links is that reviews SHOULD be linked, I am hoping to convince you that we have more merit than most and ARE worth linking to.

Fourth, the question of whether I’m actually allowed to put in links for my own site is a different and legitimate one. According to Deor, I am not allowed to do that, but according to Mangoe, I am. I find it hard to believe that, if this is a rule, it is actually enforced. But, if we all agree that it is, I am willing to ask our readers to link to the site (if you’ll allow the links). I know that some of them have, but I’d rather do it myself so as to have them all consistent and make sure pages are linked correctly.

Lastly, I actually admire your desires and efforts for creating an excellent encyclopedia. I wouldn’t have the stomach for doing what you do. But, I think I have been perceived as being in bad faith and now I’m paying the consequences. I do not have much experience editing Wikipedia (though I use the site a lot), so I realize now that I did not use the proper procedures. I hope you’ll see that this was done out of ignorance of the culture, not out of bad faith. Kahooper (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

• We understand, don't worry - it's a very common newbie error. I'm sure that you'll have learned from this and I hope we can encourage you to add content to articles, which is what we're here for after all. I would strongly encourage you not to add your site to articles, but you are welcome to suggest a link on the talk page of any article, if you think the link satisfies our link guidelines - the content linked should ideally have some evident authority, be subject to some kind of editorial review process, and contain information of a level of detail inappropriate to a general encyclopaedia. In other words, it should support and extend the reader's understanding of the subject, and that should be evident to independent editors reviewing the link. As long as you let others do the deciding, and focus on expanding Wikipedia with content supported from reliable independent sources, you should avoid future problems. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

SNOW Request at AFD

A WP:SNOW request is requested by another administrator to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Girls 1 Cup as it has no chance of passing. — Ocatecir^T 06:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Any user, not just a admin can close an AfD as keep per WP:BOLD. I went ahead and closed it as such. Tiptoety ^talk 06:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I substantially disagree with this extremely premature closure (little more than 24 hours have passed since its nomination) and have reverted it. There are substantive arguments made for the deletion of this article, and AFD is not a vote. FCYTravis (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The SNOW request is not due to the number of votes but because the article clearly meets Wikipedia's policies and the AFD does not have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. — Ocatecir^T 09:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We have deletion discussions for a purpose, we gain community consensus as to if an article meets wikipedia's standards (including the inclusion standard which can be somewhat dynamic) and in the process our polices, guidlines etc. develop. We don't let one or two people just decide --81.104.39.63 (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And no one is trying to let one or two people decide. But when you have one editor trying to force an issue through despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the nomination has no chance of passing and is clearly way off mark, that is the criteria for a early closing due to SNOW.— Ocatecir^T 15:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"when you have one editor trying to force an issue through" it's best to let one or two others push it the other way? There are several editors indicating that it should either be deleted or redirected (not a such an AFD outcome, but certainly an opinion that it doesn't warrant it's own article), it isn't merely one person, this isn't a speedy keep. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there are users who disagree with WP:SNOW closer, than it does not meet WP:SNOW standards. We should let it continue. Apologize for the "incorrect" closer. Tiptoety ^talk 05:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:DawnOfTheBlackHearts.jpg

I must recommend that Image:DawnOfTheBlackHearts.jpg be added to MediaWiki:Bad image list since they may be attractive to vandals because of its explicit nature. — Save_Us † 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest not to; it would be a violation anyways to add it anywhere else (since the image is fair use). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting vandals care about fair use policy? :) — Save_Us † 19:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, linking to a fair-use image is not a violation. But I think vandals can find better images to do their thing then some graphic album cover. — Edokter • Talk • 20:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly my eyesight isn't the best, but it just looks like a heap of smudges to me. What is it supposed to be a graphic image of? --Tony 20:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like some kind of vaguely gothic massacre. Mackensen (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oi, I would get your eyes checked and your close Mackensen ;) This image is of the album cover of Dawn of the Black Hearts, showing the real life suicide of Dead (the musician), having slit wrists and a shotgun wound to the head, brain matter coming out. Understand why I recommended it? In reply to the above, sure vandals can find other images, but I would rather them not have the chance to use it, likewise with other graphic images. — Save_Us † 20:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the imagery, but I just don't see it worth adding to the bad image list. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the amount of squinting and background research required to produce a "shock" response, I would have said that the scenario you described is beyond the outskirts of likelihood. However now that you've brought it up on WP:AN, nothing would surprise me. At any rate we have apparently been advised "for performance reasons" to keep the bad image list "fairly short, say less than 10 KB", so we should probably not be adding everything that might (in the most imaginative sense) be used for vandalism. And trust me, there are a lot of god-awful album covers out there [4]. — CharlotteWebb 20:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd think I would have done that for a shock response from editors, unfortunatly it's true. — Save_Us † 21:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sounds like you are assuming that I was assuming bad faith. Actually I was referring to the potential of the image (if ever used for vandalism) to shock passerby readers, which is low when the mind can't quickly and easily determine what the eye is looking at. — CharlotteWebb 21:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I know your not. It's just my eyesight is pretty good (darn :P) when I stumbled across this image again and that is why I came here to recommend it. If the majority of you feel it shouldn't be added, then it shouldn't be. — Save_Us † 21:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even sure WHAT it was until Save Us described it. It looks cutesey enough to be a painting, almost surreal – it isn't a graphic, unedited, real life photograph of Dead that immediately shocks me. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikileaks

I'd like to request another set of eyes at Wikileaks. The main site is offline, supposedly because of legal action, or a fire at a hosting company, or both, or something. Nothing in the news that I can find, but various anonymous IP addresses keep adding back unverified tendentious speculation in one form or another. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've semiprotected it for a few days, to encourage these things to be brought to the talk page in case there are actual reliable sources somewhere. How does that sound? MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. If there really is a court order it should be easy enough to substantiate. Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mass tagging ip ranges with ISP tag

Can this be done? I tagged a few manually but figured maybe an admin has the ways to mass tag. IP 165.21.154.XXX are from singnet. see Template:Singnet.--165.21.154.92 (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like we used to have a bot that did it ... --Kralizec! (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo indepedence

Kosovo has declared independence.[5] This is obviously going to lead to additional heat in an already very heated area of the wiki. Keeping a few extra eyes out in related articles is probably going to be needed. Vassyana (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sure didn't take long. Going to be some crazy editing for a while. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the user as well and have gone ahead and watchlisted the article. SorryGuy  Talk  00:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The inevitable edit war has started. I'm headed out for the night ... I don't think this has reached protection-needed status yet, but I would be willing to bet that it will soon, for any who are watching it. - Revolving Bugbear 00:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see also WP:KOSWATCH for a public watchlist of Kosovo-related articles. Problematic editing is affecting more than just the Kosovo article. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that link has been useful. As for the actual article, though, it seems to be getting worse with the introduction going back and forth. SorryGuy  Talk  01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding article probation, request for admins to watchlist it

Reminder/request: Please watchlist Waterboarding. Due to a recent RFAR at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#Article probation this and all related articles/pages are under indefinite probation. Discussion is underway for a US-centric fork of this, and at long last activity has resumed, sliding right back into the same old circular arguments with the same people again pushing certain points of view. Please watchlist this page. Uninvolved admins have a free hand due to probation to enforce things liberally here. Thank you.

Resumed activity primarily takes off at Talk:Waterboarding#Dispute_resolution. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 00:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wild ARMS

User Norse_Am_Legend has been repeatedly vandalizing the pages for the Wild ARMS games, with his unproven theories that the games take place in seperate worlds. Various parties have contacted the game makers, who have confirmed that there is yet no correct answer to that belief, making it nothing more than a theory. I deleted these, saying that, but he continues to undo my edits and is threatening me with banning. I don't know if he can actually do that, but it worries me, especially as he is the one who is doing the vandalizing. It took us months to get the Wild ARMS pages back on track after the last time people pulled stunts like this, and some of their are still in need of a lot of work. Someone, please, do something!24.3.180.166 (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is you who is misguidedly removing random amounts of information stating flimsy reasons that amount to original research and complete nonsense. I'd also like to note that you have no idea what a talk page template is, and that you claim to have helped "get the Wild Arms pages back on track" when only a handful of users, most notably Nall have even touched them, and I highly doubt you're him seeing as how you're removing information he put in. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no original research. If you can provide proof of your claim that the games take place in different version of the world of Filgaia, instead of the same one, please, provide it. The game makers themselves will answer anyone who asks the same way-as of yet, there IS NO OFFICIAL ANSWER TO THIS MYSTERY. Thus, those are nothing more than theories and should not be there. If you can provide proof, then fine, but if you cannot, you have no right to keep claiming your beliefs as fact.24.3.180.166 (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys should take it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I would personally suggest WP:3O. Let a neutral third-party see it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Countdown to a tell-all book begins now

Read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence presented by G-Dett.

Gary Weiss is a writer and some people here question whether or not he is capable of talking as if he were someone else. Well, duh. Writers do that all the time. Gary is an investigative journalist. Some question whether he would lie or be sneaky. Well, duh. That is a prerequisite for being an investigative journalist. Some wonder about motivation. He has written books. To sell books, you need a topic people care about (like wikipedia) and a hook or two.

"Tombstone’s most famous tourist site is the Boothill Graveyard, where many of its legendary gunslingers and historical personalities are interred. Boothill has within it a Jewish section, which went unnoticed for over 100 years; a memorial was added in 1984. [148] [149] The small Jewish burial ground has no remaining headstones, and only one grave – that of a child. [150] He died in 1889, when he was one year and four days old. There is still a small stone marker for the child in the burial ground today, next to the memorial. His name was Sam Harris. I would like to be able to say that User:Samiharris was created one year and four days after Mantanmoreland was created, but he wasn't. He was created – for what it's worth – one year, three days and ~three hours after Mantanmoreland.

You guys were so set up. He's gonna make a lot of money with his next tell all book called Corruption at the 'Pedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know this guy. Are all his books this thin, with mostly blank pages?--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Who are "you guys", other than all of us, including you? You seem to be very pleased about all this, WAS 4.250. Do you have a stake in Corruption at the 'Pedia or is this just Schadenfreude? ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Long story short. It appears that a long running feud between a group of administrators, and folks who were banned here on WP, is about to boil over the stove into RL, and it's now a matter to see whose hands get burned. SirFozzie (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just giving a "heads up" to those who started with AGF and wound up with an "us vs. them" attitude. Maybe he'll name it Shootout at the OK 'pedia. In any case, people need to remember what all they confided to an investigative journalist and act accordingly. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The ones whose hands get burned are always the ones who don't know when to let go. That's true here, and in RL. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User 203.206.217.223

Resolved

 – Blocked

This user needs a blocking. Had a final warning before vandalizng Herbert Hoover. Footballfan190 (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months. This IP is only being used to vandalise. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Replacing WP:ACC with a mailman list

I've proposed that WP:ACC be replaced by a mailman list, further input would be very helpful. The thread in question can be found here. Thanks, SQL^{Query me!} 03:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Special:Unwatchedpages

I am a relatively new admin and wanted to use Special:Unwatchedpages to add (at least) unwatched Pennsylvania and Ohio municipality articles to my watchlist. Without giving away too many details, I found it less than helpful in its current state. My suggestion is to split it into multiple subpages based on the first character of the article: i.e. one for each letter of the alphabet, one for each number 0 through 9, plus whatever special character(s) would be needed (all in one page, one page for each?). After discussing this at Wikipedia talk:Special:Unwatchedpages, there were two other excellent suggestions:

1) A page or pages of unwatched Biographies of Living Persons. If the article is unwatched and has Category:Living people attached, it makes another protected list (from Nmajdan).

2) A page for recent changes in unwatched articles, i.e. Special:Recentchangeslinked/Special:Unwatchedpages - at this point, to actually _watch_ them, you'd have to either add all the pages to your watchlist, or make a page with links to all of them (which would disclose the list) (from Random832).

Despite the excellent work of RC patrollers and bots and other anti-vandalism measures, I catch a fair number of minor vandals just through my watchlist. I know there are unwatched articles I would gladly watch if it were just more practical to find them (and assume others would do the same). What do others think of this (and what must be done to implement these changes (if they meet with approval here)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This looks to me like a request for a new feature in the software, see WP:BUGZ for how to request it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll just throw my two cents in here, speaking as a non-admin who does not have access to Special:Unwatchedpages, but is serious about editing. These are exactly the kinds of pages I would gladly add to my watchlist; I'd probably add a couple hundred of those pages tomorrow if I could. As with many of the other articles I have on my watchlist, they'd be my pool of pages to work on when I don't have a specific objective in mind - add a reference, do a bit of copy editing and so on. Bottom line, though - I'm not willing to subject myself to an RfA for the sole purpose of keeping an eye on articles that are susceptible to vandalism because nobody's paying attention. Non-admin rollback seems to have gone far more smoothly than even its most ardent supporters would have predicted; perhaps it is time to consider a similar process for non-admins to have access to Special:Unwatchedpages as well. After all, we outnumber admins by a ratio of...whatever it is... --Risker (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's for a larger discussion elsewhere, but for the record, my irrelevant opinion is that the unwatched pages list is almost useless without a search function. I'm not an admin on here, but I am on several Wikias (woo hoo), so I know how the page works. Cheers, SexySeaBass 06:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think a whole new process to grant access to one page that isn't very useful by itself is necessary at all. Although many will disagree, I don't really see how we will benefit from continuing to hand out parts of the whole package. IMO, it should be all who get access, or all who don't, however, this isn't the right place to discuss it. To non-administrators: it's not a very useful tool without a search function, and at the moment it only displays article space pages. As for the BLP list and the Special:Recentchangeslinked/Special:Unwatchedpages suggestion, it sounds like a great idea. I'd be looking forward to see it be implemented. Spebi 06:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

An idea could be to have a bot run by an admin parse the list and check the categories, then put them in a deleted page to prevent non-admin eyes ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For those non-admins who have an account at the Test Wikipedia, you can satisfy your curiosity there. I had a look at the source, the only parameters it takes are a limit and an offset (as in what index to start looking at). It's Bugzilla time, see also bugzilla:12272. MER-C 07:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any particular need to be coy about why the page is useless - it only has 1000 titles on it (going past 1000 says "no results"), which, as you can probably imagine, doesn't even get it to the A's. —Random832 18:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I will open a MediaWiki account and try a Bugzilla report / request (or three, since it seems each suggestion would be separate). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, the requests are in at bugzilla:13062, bugzilla:13063 and bugzilla:13064 - I have never done this before, so hopefully these are OK. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jasonsingerling

• Now, this user has only been here a few days, and I would normally be able to grant him that, but he keeps causing problems with New Edition-related articles. He continually removes maintenance tags without improving the article, and he copies already existing articles and putting them under virtually the same name but copyedit-ed (for example, if a person copied the Around the World article and pasted it into a new article called Around The World). Comments and warnings have been left on his talk page from users (myself included) as well as from bots, but he still continues what he is doing. What can be done here? Anthony Rupert (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Start with the warning templates, if he moves into 3RR, report him at WP:AIV? That's the typical procedures. If you want help here, you have to much more specific (which articles, diffs, etc.), because, personally speaking, I'm not going to bother to even try to figure out what the world of New Edition-related articles could correspond to, and where in that he is messing around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • What does it correspond to? Just look at his contributions (as well as his talk page). Anthony Rupert (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD closure script

I have developed a script which can be used to close an AFD discussion as keep, and remove the AFD notice from the corresponding article, in just a few seconds by pressing a single tab, under the following restrictions:

(1) The script is only known to work under a Mozilla Firefox browser

(2) Only one article is being considered for deletion, and it is directly linked via the code produced by substitution of the standard template:afd2, or is otherwise linked by the first instance of template:la in the AFD discussion (if multiple articles have been nominated, the script will only remove the notice from the article identified by the first use of template:la)

(3) Presently, the script does not prompt the user for a closing statement, and should therefore only be employed where the rationale for the tenor of the closure is obvious. However, with a minimal modification, the script could produce an additional tab that would display a dialog prompting the user for a closing statement before effectuating the closure.

The script is found at User:John254/AFD closure/monobook.js‎, and can be installed either by adding importScript('User:John254/AFD_closure/monobook.js'); to one's monobook.js file, or copying the code directly. The code for tab placement found in User:John254/Addtabs/monobook.js is a minimal modification of a script written by User:Voice of All. The functions for AFD closure themselves are loosely based on User:Voice of All's User:VoA/monobook.js script (which, of course, was written for an entirely different purpose). The AFD closure script is activated by pressing the "keep" tab which will appear while viewing an AFD discussion. A slight modification of the script would allow its use for the closure of AFD discussions that will result in deletion. John254 04:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It also appears that the script should not be used to close AFD discussions whose page titles contain any non-latin characters or accent marks, until its parsing of unicode characters submitted as url parameters is improved. John254 04:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And it adds a parameterised {{oldafdfull}} to the article talk as well, I believe. --Stephen 07:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does the "keep" tab go? I can't seem to see it. нмŵוτнτ 07:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The keep tab should appear at the top of a window, only when viewing an AFD discussion, assuming that one is using a compatible web browser. It may be necessary, however, to reload one's main monobook.js file after installation to activate the script, which can be accomplished by pressing control F5 while viewing the monobook.js script. John254 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that it removes the sort template by deleting the "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AFD" plus four characters (for the |, the code, and each "}"), but does it catch if there is a non-standard input in the category? For example, if the category code is "B", there wouldn't be a problem - but if the nom put "Biographical" instead, as happens frequently, would it cause the script to hiccup? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The "len - (matchstring.length + 4)" figure is simply a boundary in the search for the category template. Once the template is actually found, the script ascertains the location at which the template call is closed by means of the following code:

         n = 0;
         for(k = j; k < len; k++)
         {
           if(t.value[k] == "}")
           {
             n++;
           }
           if(n > 1)
           {
              break;
           }
         }

The final value of the variable k is used to specify the endpoint of the string being removed. Thus, the script will remove any text between the opening of the template call, and the closure of the template call as indicated by two "}" characters. John254 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, but the above was (no offense ;) clearly coded by a C programmer. there are more efficient ways to do this in javascript. —Random832 18:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Need some comments

In an effort to allow readers (Note, not editors) to have easy access to an "in universe" view of various fictional article, while also attempting to discourage "fan-craft" I have created a new template. It is in my userspace at the moment, and I have only put it on one article. I wanted to get some opinions on it. The main reason I created it is because people come here (to the wikipedia) expecting the find the sum of all human knowledge, as Jimbo once said. I understand that we cannot provide in-universe details for the fictional items, so this seems like an good half way point that satisfies readers as well as editors. Apart from the example on the Everquest 2 page, here is another (For a star trek article):

What do people think? Fosnez (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the intent, but I'm concerned that it's basically giving undue prominence to a given external link. Also, I'd suggest that the village pump might be a better place than here to propose this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please place all further comments here Fosnez (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Karabakh

I'm in two minds about this WikiProject, so I've come to AN to see if we can get consensus on what to do with this WikiProject. I forcibly shut it down a month ago (redirected it to some other WikProject) and then protected the redirect for said month. The issue here stems from WP:ARBAA2: what we have here is a de facto independent republic, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, de iure part of Azerbaijan, that this WikiProject is dedicated to promoting. The population of NKR is, by and large, composed of ethnic Armenians, and so is our WikiProject. NKR is a very hot-button topic in that part of the world: Nagorno-Karabakh War explains why. It's not hard to see why this project is a red flag for our Azeri users, and we've had quite a lot of conflict over NKR already. My gut instinct is to say the project is a bad idea - certainly as currently set up, seems designed to stir up trouble. I'm rather inclined to shut it down again, albeit permanently. Or is that not acceptable? Thoughts? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...}

And I already know what the participants in the Armenia-Azeri wars think, so please don't contribute to this discussion, you chaps. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User JoshuaGrant12 sockpuppetry

JoshuaGrant12 (talk · contribs) has created some odd thing in the templates, categories and wikipedia namespace. Particularly, Category:Cireta need move pages, Template:Edit this page, Template:Tennis-poc, Template:Tennis-icon, Category:Curret Pages that has ridrects, and Wikipedia:Tennis-icon which redirects Wikipedia:Tennis icon. It's hard to discern the intent of these because of the funny language. They might be for personal use, so they may need to be userfied. Can and admin take a look at talk to this user? --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked a little deeper appears to be a sockpuppetry case with various usernames of joshua grant and maybe some ips like 70.236.8.153 (talk · contribs) . If you look at the contributions by those they are similar. I haven't actually dealt with sockpuppetry, so could someone give me a hand with this? --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 18:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi DeadEyeArrow, accounts JoshuaGrant1 to JoshuaGrant14 have now been blocked - refer to the note on user talk:JoshuaGrant4.--Addhoc (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Do you think you could do something about the all the subpages and whatnot those user accounts created. They're mostly just copy and pastes of pages and are a waste of namespace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadEyeArrow (talk • contribs) 19:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked troll, User:AFI-PUNK continuing to edit via IPs

I had received a message from User:Timmeh regarding disruptive editing by that particular editor via multiple IPs on several articles. The editor via multiple IP addresses was repeatedly changing the music genre of several articles without explanation. The account was blocked for sockpuppetry after a Checkuser was made. However, on the message I've received, he is still doing the same edit pattern via IPs address from Deutsche Telekom AG which has a long IP range. Among the articles targeting were Papa Roach and AFI but looking at contributions from some of the IPs used by the editor, it was several other articles that were also affected at varying degrees. I did re-protected Papa Roach and eventually if he continues on the same pattern, we will have to contact the network provider, so we will have to watch the 79.xxx contributions for now--JForget 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been dealing with this serial vandal since about the time they were blocked in May 2007. AFI-PUNK's user page has a lot of evidence on it but if individual diffs are required then I'll provide them.

I know that AFI-PUNK has been indefinitely blocked and not banned, but I have continually reverted their edits on the basis that they are disruptive vandal edits. I hope that my course of action has been appropriate. The question that I have been considering is, "How do we deal with a recurring vandal, who has been indefinitely blocked but who is not formally considered banned?" Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 19:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, we would have to wish (either if a user is blocked indefinitely or banned) that the user will one day stop - one day he will be tired of doing disruption (just like the Quebec vandal).--JForget 15:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Onion

How true! BTW it was actually this guy who works for Hearst-Argyle Television. Jimmy Bimmy (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And this guy did the "was". Jimmy Bimmy (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay I have to admit - that's funny. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'm actually the third person to congratulate the IP.... Relata refero (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Best read today, thanks JB! 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Baley (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot V

There is a BRFA for ClueBot V and Martinp23 has asked for community input. Please take the time and take a look at the BRFA and comment. Thanks. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Teamwork

Right. My core skills are diplomacy, tact, a light touch and a friendly demeanour.

Oh,wait, those are the skills I'm lacking.

So: who here is really good with being warm and fluffy to people? Who here is really good at spotting patterns?

Applications are invited for a multi-skilled posse. Ideal candidates will be Wikiholics, European, ethnically diverse (I'm a WASP male). Some young, some old. I want William Pietri on my side and in an ideal world I'd have David Gerard.

I am serious about this. More eyes is good, but a tea that works regularly together will recognise and develop its strengths. Volunteers, send me enail. Ploughing a lonely furrow is a Real Bad Thing. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking for here. I'm also a WASP. But I'm also fluffy. Where do you need help Guy? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'll add that I do not have email activated, nor will I in the near future. Still, I'm ready and willing to help with whatever it is you're actually asking for...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. One thing that is good to build up team spirit is to work on an article together. That way, when you are out in the trenches doing triage on articles and editors, you have things in common other than just wielding a mop. Carcharoth (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You lost me at the word right. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit desysopped

Since Archtransit became an administrator on January 10, 2008, a number of issues have been raised concerning his blocks, unblocks, and other administrator actions. His conduct has been the subject of a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archtransit, where the views of Archtransit's conduct have been generally negative and his responses generally deemed unsatisfactory. Substantial community time has been expended in commenting on the disputed actions and seeking to improve Archtransit's performance as an administrator, including on ANI, on the RfC, and on Archtransit's talkpage. An admin mentor has expressed further concerns on his approaches [6], and it has appeared that the situation may lead to an arbitration case being presented with a view to desysopping.

Separate from the above, the Arbitration Committee has also received checkuser findings and extensive analysis of editing histories, and has independently concluded by an overwhelming weight of many types of credible evidence, that User:Fairchoice, User:Whoaslow, User:Bqwe123 and User:Lethte, who were variously blocked, unblocked or in on-wiki debate with Archtransit, are in fact sockpuppets of Archtransit himself. Archtransit was asked to comment on this finding privately and his answer was felt to be quite evasive, focussing on why it was better that an accusation should not be made, rather than evidence which might help refute it. Archtransit stated essentially as his defense, that if puppetry had occurred it would still not be a problem since (he felt) no false consensus was created. We do not agree with this reasoning. We conclude that abusive and disruptive sockpuppetry has taken place, involving at times gross misuse of tools. Our conclusion parallels the apparent view of the community that even apart from this, there is insufficient communal confidence in Archtransit's abilities to appropriately use the tools recently granted by the community.

Accordingly, Archtransit is desysopped. He may not seek to regain administrator status without the approval of the Arbitration Committee. All of the sockpuppet accounts will be blocked. Additionally, Archtransit may only edit Wikipedia through one account and any change of account name shall be reported to the committee.

The committee is continuing to investigate whether Archtransit himself may be the sockpuppet of any other user. Evidence bearing on this may be presented either below, or privately to the Committee. Further action will be taken if developments warrant.

By agreement of the committee

evidence summary:

1. Archtransit and the named accounts edit exclusively from the same dynamic range in the same metropolitan area.
2. (Point of information): There are four accounts with significant edits in the relevant area (Archtransit, Fairchoice and two others), as well as a significant number of accounts previously blocked for trolling and socking.
3. Archtransit edits only during certain times of day and claims to have no internet access at other times. Each of the 3 other significant accounts on this range also edits during the same time window, and none has any edits from any other location.
4. A number of the users blocked and unblocked by Archtransit are also within the same relatively small metropolitan location. This is considered very unlikely to be chance. The administrative actions of Archtransit included unblocking related accounts that had been blocked by others for "trolling".
5. Further information from checkuser indicates that despite the confounding effect of the dynamic IP, these different accounts are still strongly evidenced as editing from the same connection.
6. In January, on one occasion, Archtransit and another account (Lethte) edited from the same IP within 2 minutes of each other Lethte@21.40 Archtransit@21.42. These two edits were on the same IP. The IP is rapidly reallocated, but the gap between post and block is suggestive even so, because of the extreme brevity of the two minute time period. Additionally, some 9 minutes before Lethte, Archtransit was posting on that same IP [7].
7. On January 22, 23, and 30 Archtransit blocked or amended existing blocks of Lethte, Bqwe123 and Fairchoice. These blocks were notable for having autoblock deliberately disabled. Other blocks for cause of other users (other than username blocks) did not have this setting.
8. The edit windows and interleaving strongly support sockpuppetry rather than friends or strangers.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Confirm and endorse. This is as serious an abuse of administrator tools as has ever been encountered. I would like to thank all those who tried to work with Archtransit, even though unsuccessfully, and thank the checkusers who determined that the problems were even more serious than originally thought. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I knew there was.. problems to say the least, but.. just.. wow. SirFozzie (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I knew this was coming much before this. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:57, 19 February 2008 (GMT)

Is there a way for a checkuser to make sure there are no irregularities at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 747? I'm fairly certain it's OK, but I had one heck of a time with Archtransit on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, there was a strange support early on, when the article was nowhere near featured status; if that's a problem, it's pervasive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Which user names? Thatcher 03:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Checked again, there were two supports that kept the thing going well before it met criteria: Dwarf Kirlston and Brískelly (who has a long block record on the Italian Wiki). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Both unrelated. Thatcher 03:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatcher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic. I've been really very troubled about this account since I learned about the block of Jeh and my suspicions about it only increased throughout the RfC to the point that I raised my concerns and suspicions with an arbitrator a week and a half ago. So I'm really relieved that ArbCom has investigated it and stepped in to desysop without us needing to drag it through Arb, which was an almost certainty. It's a shame that it took so long to get to this point and that we allowed him to continue trolling us in this way. Kudos to those who tried to assume good faith and tried to to help him, Ryan you don't owe us an apology at all, you're a good dude who tried to do the right thing by trying to help someone. Sarah 04:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry guys - I tried to help him through the RfC even when most were calling for his head, in retrospect I should probably have let this go straight to ArbCom. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ryan, you and Riana rock for giving it your all... ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)There's no shame in making some extra effort to help somebody out. Hopefully we can learn from this- apart from the above open question, there's also some broader questions: How did this happen? What can we do to prevent it happening again? Friday (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A while back, I suggested that we start offering a 30-60 day probationary period, with new admins encouraged NOT to use their new abilities willy-nilly during this first period, and to perhaps set up an experienced admin as a guide for the probationary period to explain things and to ease the new admin in on their path. SirFozzie (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• This was in my gut instinct well before his RfA, and from my earliest interaction with him over the Boeing FAC, but how can I oppose an RfA on gut instinct? As an average user (not an admin), I'll tell you that I'm extremely reluctant to oppose an RfA; it's not in the "no big deal" culture. I think the more important question is how can we more effectively desysop when problems surface? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per gut instinct. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Ryan and Riana. R. Baley (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Archtransit's RfA was successful with unanimous support. No issues were brought up at the time, so there wasn't any need to think he wasn't going to be like every other administrator. Unless you're suggesting we revamp the entire RfA system, Friday, I don't think there's any way we can determine the rogue-like capabilities of one or two editors who previously had perfect track records as non-administrators. There are, of course, ways to handle troublesome users once they have the administrator tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We could surely borrow the COS's testing machine and patch to "determine the rogue-like capabilities of one or two editors who previously had perfect track records as non-administrators". Daniel (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Another idea might be to require all RfA candidates to submit to a checkuser. Yes, it wouldn't prove their not sockpuppting, but it might prove if they are. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, COS? The only things fitting that acronym that I can think of are the Church of Scientology and Chamber of Secrets. The former seems to be a more logical fit. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely the former :) Daniel (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Would be good to explore RFCU for all RFAs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think RFCU for all RFAs is a good idea. False sense of security. ++Lar: t/c 03:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of performing a checkuser on all admin candidates. For one thing, m:CheckUser policy says, "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects." I don't like the idea of using CheckUser as a fishing expedition, no matter how good our intentions are. Another consideration is that we might find evidence through CheckUser that's irrelevant. For example, Appraiser (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (who I've met personally) has been caught in several autoblocks related to Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and sockpuppets. Apparently, Appraiser works for a large company that funnels a lot of users (both registered and anonymous users) through a firewall/NAT connection. Any evidence found as a result of such a CheckUser request would be irrelevant at best, or harmful at worst. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Endorse Holy shit. That's rediculous. This was FAR worse than I suspected. I am shocked, as his RFA showed NO potential problems. This was clearly planned from the outset. As an aside, I see no reason to change or alter RFA. This shit happens, like any other system sometimes this stuff gets through. RFA is not to be held responsible as a process when someone clearly intentionally games it like that. Any system can be gamed, by anyone willing enough to do so. This clearly shows that, and any attempt to add a checkuser requirement to RFA will be pointless, since that will be gamable as well. Hot damn. I still can't believe this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that's probably a good argument for not adding a checkuser requirement to RFA. Better that people game RFA and then get blown up like this than encourage them to think up ways to game checkuser... Choess (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the "gut instinct" strategy outlined above is that the people following their guts tend to catch flak for it. This case with Archtransit is the perfect example. Not to say "I told you so", but I knew something was wrong with this block ... it just didn't feel right. I couldn't explain it, though, because it wouldn't have occurred to me that an admin would block his own sock (although I have seen the drive-by-self-vandalism tactic used before). I was not the only one to express concern over this block, but, without anything concrete to support it, I backed out of it.

So the question then has to be, what good is gut feeling if it is rejected by the community? - Revolving Bugbear 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Investigation

• I recommend looking at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Onequestion. After I requested this checkuser, which included Archtransit's sock Fairchoice, Archtransit reacted by blocking me, the first event that raised concerns about Archtransit's judgment. My initial suspicion was a connection between Fairchoice and Profg, or those supporting that account. I recommend following up on this lead. Jehochman ^Talk 03:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Silly question - Fairchoice has been checkusered at least twice, once in the case Jehochman mentioned and once at my request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Profg. The obvious question - why didn't this show up sooner? --B (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to say too much about this, but the Onequestion case was a blatantly obvious case, whereas Fairchoice edits from a completely different IP range, over a number of different IPs. It wasn't immediately obvious until the other case changed the focus. I think that's all I can say here as I was involved in both - Alison ^❤ 04:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the "uninvolved editor" Republic of One (talk · contribs)? He doesn't edit for 4 months, and then shows up to comment on this one case? I think I hear quacking? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cue the epic "QUACK... QUACK... QUACK... QUACK...". нмŵוτнτ 04:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Another one? Compare Whoaslow (talk · contribs) (already identified as a sock per above) and Keepscases (talk · contribs), who commented on Archtransit's RFA. What caught my eye here was their userpages. Again, not sure if I hear the quacking or not. Maybe I am reading too much into these... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - the account wasn't checked the first time but since then, Whoaslow arrived and subsequent edits proved the link. There is also other evidence which I won't discuss but yes, confirmed - Alison ^❤ 04:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Which ones were confirmed? Whoaslow, Keepspaces, Republic of One? Which ones? All of them? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoaslow was already confirmed in the ArbCom statement. Republic of One is now also  Confirmed. Keepspaces is  Unrelated here. Ok - I think that's enough from me - Alison ^❤ 04:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

• By User:Zscout370, in case anyone missed it[9] - Alison ^❤ 05:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• This needs to be undone. We're far from concluding this discussion. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed. While I have endorsed the ban above, this is FAR to short a time to conclude that we have achieved consensus on this one. Even AFDs get 5 days. This is WAY too fast, and should be undone. Even people like me that have endorsed the ban can still be convinced to change our minds, and Archtransit needs to be able to comment on this, if he chooses. This is overstepping... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Alison, I already posted when I blocked. The link to the block log shows what I done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yep. I know, but it was being skipped over. FWIW, I endorsed the ban but feel this was too early as consensus was far from being established here - Alison ^❤ 05:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• • (ec)I am sure she knows, just making sure everyone else did too. This needs to be undone now, like Ned said, no consensus has been formed. Lets take it slow. Tiptoety ^talk 05:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I've asked Archtransit by email to make a statement to me, or by his user talk that can be copied here - we really need some comments from him. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Or someone needs to unblock him. There was no consensus to block in the first place. Tiptoety ^talk 05:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• No notice of block has been placed on his user page as of this writing; I trust that Ryan has conveyed this information to Archtransit. I would have preferred that this discussion continue long enough for Archtransit to have the opportunity to comment. While I believe a community ban is likely at the end of the discussion, there is no rush. Risker (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've emailed him, but yeah, a talk notice would be good. That said, I would prefer he was given a chance to comment himself here - as many have said, there's no rush. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• There was absolutely no reason to jump the gun here. R. Baley (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I believe there is a consensus to unblock because the user does not pose an immediate threat, and because it might help if they joined the discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 05:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• (e/c)The block was too hasty - there are reasonable concerns which have not been adequately addressed (not the least of which because we simply haven't heard from Archtransit yet). --Iamunknown 05:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• (e/c) Endorse Unblock No rush, where was the consensus to block.....indef? Tiptoety ^talk 05:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And I unblocked him: [10]. Lets not wheelwar over this. Like I said above, I endorse a ban, but I am also willing to let the discussion carry on so that we can reach a conclusion over time, not to block after only 2 hours of discussion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I think Archtransit should be allowed to respond, I also think it would be advisable to have his editing at least voluntarily limited to dealing with this matter until resolved.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Ban from projectspace - though, I have a sneaking suspicion that we may not see Archtransit again. Black Kite 10:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• More discussion - A complete ban is hasty at this point. A ban from projectspace might be a better approach. Agree with those that say that some scrutiny of edits may be needed. Agree with those that say that having more experienced editors really participate in RfA's may be a good thing. To my dismay, I supported this candidate based on his apparent zeal. I suspect I'm not the only supporter feeling a bit foolish now. ++Lar: t/c 11:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please see evidence provided below. Tiptoety ^talk 15:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Come on guys, no need for admins to do anything silly here - let's have a discussion about what we're going to do. I've asked Archtransit to comment, maybe we should take a step back until he has (or given time to do so). Ryan Postlethwaite 05:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Lets give Archtransit time to talk, and maybe he will change my mind and others, but at this time i still endorse a ban. Tiptoety ^talk 05:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I also like a ban. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Archtransit has had his "time to talk." He's said a mouthful, and little of it was good (see the RfC). As someone who was recently threatened with a block for "trolling" by AT, simply for posting to his talkpage with a legitimate question for his mentors, I fully support a ban, and immediate, indef blocking for any accounts shown to be associated with AT's. Bellwether ^B_C 13:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree 110% with Bellwether's statement here. Immediate indef block. Immediate community ban. He's had his time to talk. The distraction and abuse are one thing, but the divisiveness that he singelhandedly created between other editors (including Bellwether and myself) is enough to make me want to puke. 110% support your statement Bellwether. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Though I don't like to be paranoid, I feel that we should probably review the integrity of his main space editing. Our system of content editing is built on trust, and edits are generally not scrutinized in depth for their accuracy. Since there seems to be little doubt about the extent of misbehavior occurring with the socks, I see no reason to assume that his content edits were as good as we initially believed. If we examine his work and there are no problems that'll be splendid, but I think we have to check. --JayHenry (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the community ban discussion, can I draw everyone's attention to the statement, towards the end, which says "The committee is continuing to investigate whether Archtransit himself may be the sockpuppet of any other user"? This investigation is ongoing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I believe Archtransit had some DYK's in the pipeline over the last few weeks, though I'm not sure how many were successfully posted to the main page. If we are to review content contributions, that might be a good place to start. Good lord, did his socks submit DYK's? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I believe Fairchoice did, and this was presented as "evidence" of his being rehabbed by Archtransit's unblock. There may have been others, but I don't know. Bellwether ^B_C 13:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

At least one did. Look at Fairchoice's contribs. He created and/or edited the articles Dana Telsey and Anna Loginova as Fairchoice, and then as Archtranist, worked them through DYK (see for Anna Loginova and for Dana Telsey. Considering that helping at DYK was his expressed reason for becoming an admin, it makes one think. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe that this was all an effort to earn a little Template:DYK-icon to stick on his userpage... But stranger things have happened, I guess. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to DYK patrollers, creating several DYK-worthy articles is something that very many disruptive editors do to appear responsible and respectable. I can name three of the top of my head, and one of them has about fifty. (And no GA-standard work.) Relata refero (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Does someone want to ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation to do a random check on Boeing 747? Most of the Support at FAC for that article did not come from Aviation Project members. I was tied up elsewhere when the article passed, and I'm not sure how much scrutiny it got from the Aviation Project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I went over the article history of all of the major editors of that article. I found nothing. Archtransit did collaborate with another editor, but looking at that editors contribs list, he's clearly not involved in this mess. I didn't see anything from THAT article, going back to December, that raised any alarms... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayron. Just so I'm clear, are you also saying that we don't need a spotcheck that text accurately represents sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his sockpuppets submitted DYKs. See this old revision of Fairchoice's user talk. I don't know about the other sockpuppets; it appears their edits were very limited. Getting back to the broader subject of Archtransit and his impact on the community, I think this situation on a par with the embarrassment of the Essjay debacle. (It's worth noting that the Fairchoice account was created just three days after Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Archtransit passed.) I'm disgusted with this incident. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly a horrendous situation—apparently his entire adminship was an exercise in trolling and wasting people's time from beginning to end. That is why the committee acted immediately by an announcement, as opposed to going through the process of opening a case—because we did not want to see any more time squandered on efforts to turn things around once we had definitive evidence that it was not going to happen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you also going to desysop my other administratorship? Archtransit (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What's your other account? Majorly (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Another sock?

Weasdog (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has the similar characteristics of the other confirmed sockpuppets of Archtransit‎. Considering Archtransit‎'s is interested in aviation articles, Weasdog's contributions are very suspect, as his only mainspace edits are to Fokker F.VII, Currie Wot, Avro 618 Ten and Ford Trimotor, all aviation articles. The only other contributions this editor has is giving Archtransit a barnstar And also like another confirmed sock of his, User:Bqwe123, Weasdog was also indefintely blocked (eventually unblocked) in his short time here as a [11] vandalism only account. — Save_Us † 16:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Confirmed Thatcher 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked and tagged accordingly. Woody (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit responds

1. The Arbitration Committee has never asked me to respond or even asked me a question. Newyorkbrad is an attorney, I believe. He should know that this is denial of due process.
2. There is a reasonable explanation. Someone said that I was evasive. I was never asked by ArbCom anything. A user asked me but they are not entitled to everything.
3. I am not responsible for the sockpuppets.
4. Wikipedia is harmed by this. Do you expect me to contribute more if abused by Wikipedia?
5. There are valid concerns raised by outsiders about Wikipedia which we Wikipedia insiders never seem to address. For example, several months ago, there was a discussion about possibly writing down what things administrators should never do. They seemed like sensible things. The user was prompted indefinitely blocked and his/her comments removed.
6. There is cabalism in Wikipedia. Maybe it's human nature. Unblocks are so controversial that now you know an administrator should never do it. Look at Ryulong. He's removed comments on ANI and blocked people indefinitely, nothing happened. I read somewhere that an ArbCom request for arbitration was filed against him and he reverted it, indefinitely blocked the user and ArbCom did nothing (they could say that they didn't know about it).
6a. This tendency for cabalism is demonstrated by my later blocks and unblocks. There was a consensus that they were correct. Look at the RFC and nobody could explain why they were wrong. That shows that they just didn't like unblocks and want to kill any administrator that does so.
7. I have no intention of contributing to Wikipedia again if this matter is not resolved. Making the 747 article into FA was serious work. Looking up references. Socks and trolls don't do this. They don't create articles like I have. There is a reason why I did not create these socks but why explain if ArbCom will not listen?
8. A few months ago, I saw a letter to the editor in a major technical publication about Wikipedia. It was unflattering. I have contacts with the editor. If this matter is not resolved, I plan to write a letter to the editor. This is not a threat but merely reporting unfair treatment and other things that happen in Wikipedia.
9. If ArbCom seriously will grant me a fair process and not just desysop without letting me respond, then I will respond. Otherwise, it's so time consuming to write a response. That's the ethical thing to do.
Archtransit 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Are you saying that FT2, an arbcom member is lying when they say "Archtransit was asked to comment on this finding privately and his answer was felt to be quite evasive," From what I can gather, you were asked to respond to the allegations, and you didn't respond adequately. Is that not the case. Woody (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. (Lying according to Woody). No ArbCom member contacted me by letter, phone, email, on Wikipedia, in person, or any other way. Archtransit (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not lying according to Woody. Lying according to you, AT. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice he tried to play a nice litle semantic game with 1 & 2. He wasn't contacted by an Arbcom member. He was contacted by an Arbcom clerk on behalf of Arbcom. Which in my book means you were contacted by Arbcom.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I contacted him as a checkuser saying, "This looks bad; can you explain before I take this to a higher level?" Thatcher 17:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Noted, still wikilawyering i'd say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube lurker (talk • contribs) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• • FT2 is definitely not lying. Archtransit was contacted by User:Thatcher regarding these allegations, and Archtransit's reply was very evasive and didn't help convince us of innocence. --Deskana (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't buy that. I know and trust FT2, and he's not a liar. Stop trying to pretend you're in the right here, AT. You've been caught. ♠PMC♠ 17:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Frankly, if arbcom members have seen the communication, then it is you (Archtransit) who is lying. It seems that you are once again trying to put up a smokescreen to deflect the attention. You have been caught. If you really want to carry on editing at Wikipedia then explain to the arbcom the circumstances surrounding these incidents. Face up to the issue, don't hide from it or else get a new hobby. Woody (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• You say you didn't use sock puppets, so what is the explanation for some strong checkuser evidence, coupled with very damning evidence when you look at editing? You're trying to suggest that everyone else is in the wrong and you've been hard done by - sorry but there is evidence to the contrary here and you need to start talking rather than critisising every one else as always. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • • Seems to me he is trying to deflect attention from his own actions. We should stop him carrying on with this game right now. David D. (Talk) 16:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan, our checkusers, arbcom members and evidence are not the suspicious things here, Archtransists conduct is. — Save_Us † 16:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that he's continuing to troll by claiming that he has another admin account, he's lied repeatedly in his responses above, and he's making threats (I'll tell my editor friend what a nasty place Wikipedia is if you don't let me come back), I don't know what more we can do with him. Until he presented his comments here, I was willing to accept a ban from Wikipedia-space to allow him to make article contributions. Now it's clear that has has abandoned any pretense of interest in being a positive contributor. He obviously has serious problems, and Wikipedia is not therapy. He's wasted too much of our time already. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Future complaints by Archtransit about cabalism, Arb/admin abuse, criticism from unnamed outsiders, etc. should be directed to Wikipedia Review where they will join similar company. There is an emerging consensus above regarding a community ban, and it should be implemented given the lack of a substantial reason to the contrary and no satisfactory response from Archtransit (as per usual). Avruch ^T 16:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just get out of here already Archtransit, you're not wanted. John Reaves 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit is correct that the arbitration committee did not ask for comment. As it happens, that was not the statement made (see: Straw man). The actual statement made can clearly be read above. It states, "Archtransit was asked to comment on this finding privately". This was 100% accurate. The request, and its response, was made via the checkusers who presented their investigation to arbcom as concerns for review, and they (quite correctly) had anticipated the inquiries needed, and already made them. They presented their concerns, and asked essentially identical questions to what any editor would have asked. Following this the lengthy response was analyzed by two checkusers, then forwarded to arbcom, and the entire findings, and correspondence, and responses, were then again rechecked from scratch by multiple arbitrators (also with checkuser access), to look for flaws. Instead, additional evidence was found, namely two more of the three unblocks cited above.

Likewise the description was not that the answer "was" evasive, but that re-reading the case, "[the] answer was felt to be quite evasive", a correct statement of fact; that was the feeling at the Committee. An explanation of why that was so, the exact qualities which led to that feeling, is also given above.

The desysop is standard procedure for users where there is a conclusion of gross abuse of tools. You will notice, for example, that the sample of evidence cited above, which includes specific diffs, names, and block logs, and a summary of the checkuser findings related to them, is completely sidestepped by yourself, in favor of (effectively) 1/ This isn't valid, 2/ How dare you, 3/ I am not responsible for the sockpuppets, 4/ Cabalism, and so on. This is in fact what we characterized as "evasion".

Specific evidence is presented, twice now, in enough detail to respond. The willingness to misuse tools to create blocks with autoblock disabled for sockpuppets, may indicate why we have desysopped at the same time as (rather than after) this thread.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Archtransit's response to these allegations is "I don't have any sockpuppet accounts" and "I have another sockpuppet admin account and I am not afraid to use it". Um, what the fuck? The rest of his response is not a defense of his actions, but a complete and utter deflection by attempting to claim that he's being ganged up on. Well no shit Sherlock! You're likely to create a large group of editors who act against you given this pattern of abuse. If there is a cabal against Archtransit, he created it himself. Also, attempting to deflect criticism by bring up OTHER admins is the hallmark of the guilty. He shows NO sign of directly confronting the allegations, no explanation for the checkuser results which clearly show that he and he alone managed this sock farm, and he continues to display the same lack of character shown for the past month. While I was clearly leaning towards changing my endorsement of his community ban given arguements to wait it out, and go slower, now my mind is made up. Archtransit has made his defense, and it shows that my initial gut reaction was right. I personally see no need for the community to allow him to continue to edit. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to waste any more time with this. Gone. east.718 at 17:29, February 19, 2008

Our long national nightmare is over: Thanks to east for taking care of this. Lets leave it to ArbCom and get on with ourselves. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could say I didn't see this coming. endorse community ban for what it's worth. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Other sysop account?

See this. Can we get some additional attention to this comment where Archtransit claims to have "another administratorship"? Avruch ^T 17:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's most probably just trolling, don't think it needs looking into too much. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I wouldn't take that claim too seriously. As was stated above, this is likely to be trolling on his part. Ronnotel (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Per Ryan. Rudget. 17:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but considering he gamed RfA the first time... Seems worth some further looking anyway. Avruch ^T 17:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, this is typical Archtransit. Also, CU isn't for fishing - there's only so much the CU's can check and I'm guessing they've done a thorough investigation already. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• (per loads of edit conflicts) I wouldn't pay much attention to that. Thatcher has not been able to find such an account during checks. He's probably messing us about. Majorly (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is he active on any other wikis? Could be what he is on about. I think it might just be the last words of someone going down on a sinking ship. Woody (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Mandatory CU on RFA

Why would this be bad again, for prospects? Lawrence § t/e 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fishing is the usual response. If all admin candidates are subject to CU, then CU needs to be subject to much more stringent and careful selection (he said with complete respect and high regard for all of our current checkusers). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Easy to evade if you prepare, so will create a false sense of security. Thatcher 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can think of many legitimate reasons why an admin would want conceal on-wiki activity from his RfA. Having one troll get the mop out of 1500+ doesn't strike me as a broken process. Ronnotel (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a perfect tool, but it's still useful as far as it goes. Suggest making this a kind of litmus test, meaning optional for RFA. I'll be opposing anyone who refuses, but the rest of ya'll can do whatever you want. Friday (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that it's the m:Checkuser policy that would need to be changed. The m:Privacy policy needs no amendment, as it does not cover the actual use of the checkuser tool, just what data is released from it. My point is, the community does not have the authority to change the checkuser policy to allow us to check users with no prior evidence of disruption. --Deskana (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Violates the privacy policy of the Wikimedia Foundation, of which this is only one project. Gives a false sense of security. Would require several additional checkusers. Low risk situation - every action an admin takes is reversible. Easy to game; dedicated trollers can easily manage to beat this system. Mostly though, it's way outside of the Foundation's acceptable use of checkuser. Oh. What Deskana said. Risker (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Unrepentant Vandal"?

I've been troubled for a while by a posting on Wikipedia Review by "Unrepentant Vandal" on January 6, 2008. He wrote the following:

I know I've been silent for a while; mostly that was through work but it was also to conceal the groundwork for the following: I now have three admin accounts (utterly untraceable) and a trustworthy friend who will check user on demand (and is aware of what I'm doing, amusingly enough).

Users I "know" and trust enough on WR can private message me with details and for proof.

I haven't decided whether to rampage or to go for ArbCom... watch this space :)

Yesterday, being unaware of the current discussion about Archtransit, I searched through the past month's worth of successful adminship candidacies. I didn't find anything. All of the admins appointed in December and early January appear to be legitimate, and I feel sorry that I had to cast a shadow of suspicion on any of them.

However, at the precise moment that Unrepentant Vandal made his posting on Wikipedia Review, Archtransit's RFA was passing at 42/1/0 and was on a fast track for success. Assuming that Unrepentant Vandal's claims are true (and, having read the entire thread, I believe they are very credible), it's plausible to believe that he was celebrating early, knowing that Archtransit was going to become an administrator in the next few days.

I would encourage the Arbitration Committee and the checkusers to investigate the possibility that Archtransit is "Unrepentant Vandal" and is still operating two other administrator accounts. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Far-fetched, surely. Archtransit now looks like a professional troll, yes, but two more admin accounts? When would you find the time for that? You really would have to have no life. Wikipedia Review, and its more foolish users in particular, like nothing better than make us chase our own tails. They know full well we read that forum. And even if this is right, so what? We've properly nailed Archtransit, haven't we? If those other accounts go batshit crazy, we'll deal with them as well. Quite apart from anything else, I find it hard to believe you could maintain 3 different admin accounts on what would have to be 3 different (and geographically separate) IPs without using open proxies. I guess it might be worth checking to see if any suspicious admins are hiding behind proxies, but even if we do find some people doing that, there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation for them to be doing so...meh. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Does sound like hot air, "trustworthy friend who will check user on demand" except of course checkuser activity is logged. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We're aware of the claims and giving them due attention. Nothing else to report so far. Thatcher 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

But even if we do find a couple more admin socks here - sure, we'll desysop and block - but what do we do from there? I really don't think we can checkuser every RFA candidate: it'll be too easy for people to evade the check by preparing in advance and then we've lulled ourselves into a false sense of security. Besides, that's just not what checkuser is for - even admins and prospective admins have a right to some sort of privacy.

I know what you're thinking as you read this - Moreschi must be Unrepentant Vandal! Caught him! Well, no - but that's the problem, you see: we start following up every piece of shite posted on Wikipedia Review and our trust in each other is gone - everyone starts looking over everyone else's shoulders for banned users, checkusers, whatever.

Forget it. We're getting too worked up about sockpuppetry. When a problem user comes up, we need to deal with that problem user without wasting hours of valuable manpower wondering whether they're the sock of another problem user. Deal with accounts on an account-by-account basis. Ultimately, checkuser cannot solve all our problems for us, and we'd be foolish to think it ever could. The result of this may be that we start assuming less good faith of people like Archtransit. It was clear Archtransit was either a troll or terminally incompetent. It shouldn't have mattered as to which. We can't know the other guy's motive. But when we saw he was terminally incompetent, we took the soft option because we had to assume good faith - that he wasn't a troll, that mentoring could solve his problems. More time wasted. Sooner or later we're going to have to start treating incompetence as if it were trolling - because how on earth do you tell one from the other? This'll mean more desysops and blocks, done quicker - a small price to pay for infinitely less time being wasted. Ultimately, Wikipedia is no more a place for fools any more than it is a place for trolls. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why bother looking? Just wait until they out themselves. The worst they can do is try and sway consensus, and if they are so wrong it would not happen anyway. David D. (Talk) 18:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The "trustworthy friend who will check user on demand" makes me skeptical. This is likely just a troll. - Revolving Bugbear 18:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisting of AfD discussions is getting ridiculous

Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 19. It's ridiculous to see how many discussions have been relisted on this one day alone. Make a decision, people. Either come down on one side or the other, or call it a no decision, don't just leave these things hanging for weeks. AfD's are supposed to last five days, not ten, not fifteen. Corvus cornix_talk 04:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, as a frequent closing admin for AfD's, unless you rather see a lot of "no consensus" AfD's even for articles that is suppose to be deleted, I don't think it is a good idea to make 5 days a hard rule, a lot of deletion debate do need input from experianced editors to point out whether if the article should be deleted or not, and I don't think the process needs to be rushed. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

so what happens if there's no difference after relisting? Does it get relisted ad infinitum until it gets to a point where it's at the point a particular user wants it to be, at which point they pounce and say, "closed"? Corvus cornix_talk 04:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On discussions where no one participates, I'll relist it twice at most, and then close it as no consensus if no one participates. If only a small number participate and there's no clear consensus, I'll relist it twice before closing it no consensus. Just my little personal rule, others may do differently. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want them relisted, vote on them! Give admins something to work with! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I do no think that admins are purposefully "looking the other way" and ignoring closing AfD's, they are just busy and there are a lot of AfD's. Give it time. Tiptoety ^talk 04:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If I see an AFD that has been resisted more than once, with only delete votes or only a nom, I'll usually close it as "Delete" based on no one caring enough to try to keep it. Mr.Z-man 04:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OMG! Really! That's quite disturbing. Just because people aren't watching over articles like a mother hen so they see one has been AfD'd they could be deleted. As someone who has been sidelined from working on articles only to try to rescue an article at AfD I find that highly problematic. Not everyone who I looking for information is also watchlisting every article worth keeping and many are not here every day or even every week. I would much rather err on keeping something borderline that needs improving rather than deleting something because the right set of editors hasn't shown up to fight to keep it. Very discouraging to creation of articles in my opinion. Benjiboi 05:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If an article could go two weeks on AFD without a single vote, that means it could have been PRODed without opposition anyway...Someguy1221 (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The hope is that if the subject is truly encyclopedia-worthy, there will be more than a couple users in the pool of about 5000 active ones that want to see it kept. Mr.Z-man 06:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)I understand your objection, but disagree that repeated relisting is a bad thing. If you read the time stamps on many relisted AfDs, you will see they are busy in the first few days and then completely drop off. In these cases, you can suspect that relisting will lead to further discussion and consensus can often arise. Yes, at some point no consensus has to be concluded, but five or six people disagreeing is not enough to determine that consensus on the issue is impossible to come to. SorryGuy  Talk  04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Falls Police Department. It's been relisted twice now. How many !votes does one discussion need? And relisting things doesn't make the number of AfDs go down, it makes things worse. Corvus cornix_talk 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with it though? If it makes the consensus clearer, then so be it. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

i don't think that is what happens. I think people will just harden their positions, the discussion will become heated, or else people will just say, "how many times do I need to repeat the same arguments," and drift away because they're bored with the whole thing. Corvus cornix_talk 04:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, a lot of times, the relisted debates are the ones with so little comments or a debate with a nomination statement like "WP:N" with absolutely nothing else on it. I don't think people will "harden their positions" if there isn't any position there to begin with. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As it currently stands, there is no clear consensus (or even a slightly muddy consensus) in that discussion. If, after relisting it twice, no clear consensus is reached, I would lean toward closing it as no consensus myself, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't relist ones like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Falls Police Department. I only relist if there is no quorum, e.g. a nom. and one keep or just a nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I likely wouldn't have relisted it the second time. I'd have to think about the first one. I think there was enough discussion after the first relist to close it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• If you want to fix this, try spamming AfD at the village pump and elsewhere. What's needed is more people participating, as noted above. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisting should only be used where the debate is so sparse that it is not even possible to see that there is not agreement over what should be done (or if there was some other causal reason for restarting things). Merely having a split debate is fine - it means there is no consensus, which is a logical outcome of a process that tries to determine whether there is consensus to delete or not. Relisting just because making a decision is tricky is not correct; unless there is a consensus to X, the result is no consensus, and to answer Yamamoto Ichiro's question at the top: yes, more no consensus closures are fine if the community has not reached a consensual position on what should be done. Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Falls Police Department was unnecessary the first time, and just wrong the second time. Admins are charged with calling the community's position on the debate, and if there is no consensus over what should be done, then they must say so, not re-spin the wheel until faced with an easy closure. Splash - tk 10:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just closed that onewith a merge and redirect to the Great Falls, Montana article since there is more then enough discussion even after the second round of discussion (after the first relisting). The majority didn't want to keep the article and many of the arguments on the Keep side was weaker then the Delete/Merge side. It is now merged and redirect although those who to fix/add/remove stuff can do so if necessary.--JForget 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, I had always considered that 4 or 5 votes (or more of course and even sometimes 3 when it is 3 delete or 3 keeps or 3 redirects) in 5-7 days is more then enough for an AFD discussion to be closed without re-listing it.--JForget 15:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that nobody votes at AFD. If an AFD gets relisted, it's because there's 3 votes, all of which conflict with each other. A solution would be if after one relist, if there's something like 4 delete, 2 keep, 2 merge for example, an admin makes a call based on the article's merits rather than consensus or lack thereof. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good example of when a relist is the thing to do - with 3 divergent opinions being the only material, it's not really possible to even see if argumentation might make a difference, and so a relist is ok. But relisting in the example given above was unnecessary even after the first time around; as in some other cases, relist was used (in good faith) despite the fact that it was apparent that there was no agreement on what the disposition of the article should be i.e. there was 'no consensus'. Splash - tk 16:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

help please with category abuse

Hi, I'm not sure where to turn for this but Category:Chick Publications is set-up as a sub-category of anti-Catholicism. The articles in the Category:Chick Publications don't seem to provide reliable sourcing that they are indeed anti-Catholic but I'm not sure how to correct the situation. Chick Publications is a well-known US entity probably best-known for distributing thousands of "Bible tracks" so they could be a religious or Christian publisher. Jeff Godwin article was just gutted for BLP violations and I've just tagged Jack Chick for similar issues. Any help/guidance appreciated. Benjiboi 05:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Chick Publications is anti-Catholic and they don't make any secret of it. They teach that the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon. Their tract list has a number of anti-Catholic tracts that you can read online should you feel so inclined. They are not representative of most evangelical Christians. --B (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

See "The Death Cookie" and "Last Rites". Does this count as "anti-Catholicism", though? Perhaps the category would be better named as "Criticism of Catholicism", which Chick undoubtedly fits into. Ral315 (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a "recovered Catholic" (born and raised, now SERIOUSLY lapsed), I'm gonna have to say referring to the Catholic Church's major sacrament as "the Death Cookie" pretty much counts as "anti-Catholicism". (I think I came across that tract on a CTA bus one day, and giggled all the way to my destination.)Gladys J Cortez 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be easy to substantiate Jack Chick's specific views with citations to the tracts and articles published on his website. All these tracts are widely distributed by his organization under his name, so there shouldn't be any BLP concerns here. *** Crotalus *** 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. If several reliable sources have called Chick's work or Chick himself anti-Catholic, we can put the category in, otherwise not.

I do hate these anti- categories. So prone to misuse. Relata refero (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

203.161.75.161

This user needs to be blocked. Had a final warning before vandalizing Lent. Footballfan190 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please go to WP:AIV.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unauthorized Bot

Saw this guy when I was looking through the sandbox history working on something totally related. Couldn't find anything relating to any sort of BRFA or approval anywhere, left him a message. Q ^{T C} 06:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly looks like an unauthorized bot. The user that runs it has less than 50 total edits on their whole contribs history. Certainly worth investigating. Take some care; I have accidentally blocked a bot in the past that was actually grandfathered in (it was a bot run by a Dev even. I had egg on my face over THAT one). However, this one has a certain quacky tone to it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the bot as a precaution based on its creator's edits and talk page, its seems that he did inform [12] of the bot's existance but it never received the flag or at least no one told his creator if they did. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but on the other hand at the top of the page which he *should* have noticed was: All bots must follow the official bot policy. Q ^{T C} 06:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, he is new user so its possible that he tried to follow policy and botched it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

True, hopefully I get a reply from him to help steer him in the right direction. Q ^{T C} 06:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

He started a request for approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/kwjbot, but it's not linked from anywhere - can someone who knows more about the process help him list this in the right place? —Random832 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Next BCBot phase

One of the BCBot issues isn't getting enough attention. Please see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Next BCBot Phase

I support this next phase in principle, but it does need to be discussed more. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Griot

Griot (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for extensive and abusive sockpuppetry per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.139.36.105. All sock accounts have been indef blocked and tagged. All IP socks have been tagged and anon blocked for three months (with {{anonblock}} on the talk pages). See the checkuser case or Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Griot for a complete listing of socks. I am posting this so my actions may be reviewed by other sysops and to invite others to determine if a range softblock is warranted and necessary. Vassyana (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs)

1. Forum shopping
   • The suitability of using http://www.prem-rawat-maharaji.info/ (and other links) as "external link" in the Prem Rawat article was discussed here: Talk:Prem Rawat#By website
   • Momento brought it to WP:BLPN, see WP:BLPN#Prem Rawat links. OK, I'm fine with that one (it is an appropriate forum): nonetheless the advise given there included "The matter is being discussed on the article talk page. It has not been determined that the sites in question are derogatory, and that linking to them violates policy. Let's find a consensus on the article talk page." (Will Beback's comment of 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
   • Nonetheless, the issue was brought to yet another forum, WP:ANI, by Momento - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive370#Francis Schonken. That's forum shopping. Complaining about me I can live with. Finding another forum to raise, again, the same issue for which he gained no general approval elsewhere (branding the use of certain sources as "external link" in the Prem Rawat article as being a BLP infringement) is another.
   • Momento warned by me about the forum shopping: User talk:Momento#Forum shopping (note, Momento asked as a concequence of that warning not to post on his talk page any more [13] - that is why I move this to this noticeboard)
2. Disruptive editing on a Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title issue (which somehow Momento seems to make into a BLP issue for reasons unfathomable by me).
   • Issue explained at Talk:Prem Rawat#Balyogeshwar: in short Balyogeshwar is an incoming redirect to the Prem Rawat article. It was not explained in the Prem Rawat article that Balyogeshwar is an alternative name for the same person, yet one of the footnotes uses this name [14].
   • As a result of the discussion at Talk:Prem Rawat#Balyogeshwar I had put this alternate name of the same person in the lead section *WITH A REFERENCE* [15]
   • Momento removes, stating it is unreferenced [16] (BTW leaving the reference that in fact is not a reference for the part of the sentence he has left)

I'd like an uninvolved admin to look into this. There are more instances of "slightly disruptive editing" by Momento, which if requested, I'd flesh out. Don't know whether I should mention this, but Momento has received two 24H blocks for 3RR on the Prem Rawat article not too long ago (block log). The last of these was a result of my reporting at WP:AN3, after a warning given by me on Momento's talk page: User talk:Momento#Prem Rawat (II). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time you bring Momento's editing behavior to ANI, without making any comments about the general disruption that has taken place in that article, including edit-waring, SPs, anon disruption, dormant accounts, and more. Mediation has been proposed, but so far there are no takers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't WP:ANI, this is WP:AN

Before this one, I didn't bring anything to WP:AN for as long as I can recall.

The last time I brought a new topic to WP:ANI it regarded anonymous editing on the Prem Rawat article,[17] so, yes anon disruption as listed by Jossi.

And yes, I replied to the WP:ANI thread Momento started on me. I gave the link above: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive370#Francis Schonken.

I hope the notion of "uninvolved admin" is not unknown to Jossi.

Do I have to elaborate on other & similar disruption by Momento, as I suggested above?

Or on the uninvolved admin's opinion on Jossi's actions following my listing of Momento on WP:AN3? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Article probation - proposal

As the community knows, I've recused on editing Prem Rawat at this time, but one would expect that in this situation experienced contributors would know better. Should the editors there be encouraged to to engage in WP:DR in a constructive manner? It do not think it possible to make progress in improving the article in an environment in which edit-war is the rule of the day. I ask uninvolved admins to take a look, and assess if article probation may help restore some normalcy to the editing process there. I ask the community to consider article probation -- 1RR per day, or per week, NPA, and talk-page disruption probation for 30 days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so that's what article probation means. I've been applied it recently, actually! El_C 16:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes.... see Wikipedia:General sanctions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Never! El_C 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd support an indefinite probation. It can always be revisited later and changed if nothing else goes wrong. Lawrence § t/e 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet situation needing more research

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Smerdyakoff established that Standshown (talk · contribs) and Smerdyakoff (talk · contribs) are related in a case of abusive sockpuppetry. The time of creation for both accounts is indicative that they are both sockpuppets, rather than one being the sockmaster.[18][19] The older account demonstrated a working knowledge of Wikipedia early on. Taking the situation as a whole, it appears that the two accounts are sockpuppets of an unidentified sockmaster predating either account. Further research and evidence is needed to fully resolve the situation. Vassyana (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoever ends up checking into the situation should probably start with the following:

• Velebit (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Velebit

There are also a bunch of anonymous IP edits by this individual, but it would have taken forever to report all of them, since this is a very determined and persistent POV-pusher, sock puppet user and vandal. Spylab (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In case you were not aware...

WMF has started receiving death threats in respect of the Muhammad images. As ever, this issue calls for weapons-grade tact: if, like me, you can't do tact, don't go near it, and we should be willing to consider rapid topic bans and blocking for any editor who inflames the situation. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Tact, what the fuck is that, some sort of tang? Let those of us who are anonymous handle it, maybe? El_C 11:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How's that for tang? El_C 12:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we put Muhammad, Depictions of Muhammad, etc on article probation? MER-C 12:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent idea. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We all think its an excellent idea because we have no idea what article probation means! El_C 12:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It means it's somebody else's problem! Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm someone else! El_C 12:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a cigar. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always found this remedy very entertaining, so I appreciate its being used again as I need a laugh today. It means that all admins are empowered to do exactly what they were always empowered to do, and everyone is warned off doing everything they were always warned off doing. It is used by the arbitration committee when it cannot think of an actual remedy, but they are certain that one must surely be applied. The fun bit is that people then go on to think that this will make some actual difference, particularly to new editors to the page who will no doubt go and read the committee's promulgations prior to hitting the edit button for the first time. Splash - tk 13:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. It means that everybody does what they should do anyway and - the important bit - if they insist on doing something else, we stop them there and then rather than gazing at our collective navels for a month first. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with probation in this case- it does encourage admins to step in earlier over the articles concerned perhaps, also I would say it discourages editors on the articles from acting daft to an extent, where things could get heated such as the Scientology articles it has encouraged people not to slag each other off I believe, to an extent. Merkinsmum 15:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, we should be watching articles? I'm amazed. I thought my job was to argue with people from Eastern Europe! Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yes! El_C 16:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true that it might in theory cut out the shall we/shan't we in favour of "we shall", but although that's a nice theory, I'm not sure it's really ever made a dramatic difference when specified as a remedy. But I suppose it cannot hurt to try, as long as we don't accidentally think that mentally applying probation to it takes all the inflammation away just like that. Splash - tk 16:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is really important to keep from inflaming the situation where you can. Please consider protections, kind warnings and blanking of trolling, baiting and inflammatory posts rather than being quick on the block button. WilyD 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that content-focused action (i.e. protection) is probably better for both PR and drama coefficient here. But we also need to make sure that the "not censored" evangelists don't make matters worse; it is important to display sensitivity towards the concerns expressed, as several people have done very well during this dispute. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend everyone have a quick look at the mailing list, where Jimbo is laying down the law about how we think about the matter quite effectively, along the lines Guy suggests above. He correctly says that we have to find some moderation here. An interesting suggestion has been proposed that involves clickable drop-down images. Relata refero (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Help - user fighting to include original research in vacuum permittivity and other articles

Hello fellow editors, this is a plea for help.

If you look at Talk:Vacuum permittivity, User:Brews ohare has been fighting to get the following original research claims (or things that imply one of these claims) included in a variety of Wikipedia articles (from vacuum permittivity to vacuum permeability to relative static permittivity):

• That it is possible to measure the linear permittivity of vacuum (as opposed to its being ε0 by definition of the units, as sources like Jackson say); this is equivalent to the claim that it is possible to measure the speed of light in vacuum (which authoritative sources state as impossible because the vacuum speed of light defines the meter, and hence is c by definition).

• That there is more than one kind of vacuum, a "hypothetical" vacuum in which the speed of light is c vs. a "physical" vacuum in which the speed of light may differ. In particular, he wants to propose a (circular) definition of "vacuum" as the medium in which the speed of light in vacuum in c.

There are lots of logical problems with these claims (essentially, they are impossible to measure because there is no reference unit to compare against), which I tried to explain to him on the above Talk page, but ultimately the objection from Wikipedia's standpoint is that he is unable to provide sources, hence the above claims are original research. (There are, of course, references to the contrary, but he claims to understand electromagnetic units better than the referenced sources, e.g. better than Jackson, author of the canonical graduate textbook Classical Electrodynamics, or otherwise he redefines "vacuum" in a nonstandard circular way to claim that the references are irrelevant.)

The problem is, I can't keep up with him on my own (especially as I'm about to leave town on a trip), nor do I want to be in a one-on-one revert battle, nor can I continue to correct him without violating the three-revert rule. Please help, and look carefully at his [contributions] to see the variety of places he is trying to insert the above (or things tantamount to the above).

(Another problem is that these issues are subtle and many readers will not notice the errors.)

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. There is a separate argument as to whether the vacuum permittivity article should be called "electric constant". Standards organizations have begun to prefer the latter name, but have not stated that there is only one official name or that the older name (which they continue to list as a synonym) is deprecated or unofficial, and the former name (and variants) remain far more popular (as measured e.g. by literature searches). My understanding of WP:NAME is that, in such cases, our longstanding policy is to use the most common unambiguous name, but a couple of users (including Brews) feel we should promote the term preferred by standards organizations and have been changing all the links in wikipedia to point to electric constant. However, this is merely a matter of convention and terminology, so in my opinion it is not very important compared to the above question, which is a question of fact (of the mathematical implications of the unit/constant definitions). I mention it here only so that you don't confuse one dispute for the other. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think you probably need to bring in the Science Wikiproject team. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• These worries are overblown. I am not trying to insert original research. I had hoped to clarify the way vacuum was used in these articles, and even exchanged e-mail with Barry Taylor (coauthor of the CODATA report on fundamental constants) at NIST on the subject. I quote his e-mail:

Dear John,

You raise an interesting question that I must confess I have not thought about previously, nor do I recall ever reading a discussion about it. Off the top of my head, I would say that Maxwell's equations in their SI form in vacuum apply to a "hypothetical" or "conceptual" vacuum where c = 299792458 m/s exactly, mu_0 = 4pi x 10^-7 N/A^2 exactly, and c = sqrt(1/[mu_0 x epsilon_0]) exactly. If one could achieve such a vacuum in practice, then one would presumably find, if one could actually do such an experiment, that the relative static electric permittivity of vacuum was exactly 1 (and similarly for the relative static magnetic permeability) of vacuum. On the other hand, we know that the modern picture of the vacuum is that it is a frothing sea of virtual particles coming into and going out of existence in times consistent with the uncertainty principle. Thus, in this sense, the "hypothetical" or "conceptual" vacuum can be viewed as not really a vacuum at all. With this view in mind, see my two brief comments in red below, but I would perhaps say that the key measurement one should make to determine if a given "vacuum" is really our "hypothetical" or "conceptual" vacuum is that of the speed of light.

With best wishes,

Barry

My view is that Steve has gone overboard on this one, and is forcing his personal agenda on the articles. In any case, I have no intention of pursuing this matter except on talk pages. Wikipedia is welcome to be illogical (one step worse than inaccurate). My latest edits on these pages are innocuous. Brews ohare (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you both need to start talking to the Science Wikiproject guys :-) But I don't see anything for the mop and bucket brigade here. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

An unpublished personal letter is not a reputable source for Wikipedia, sorry. And as he says, he's writing "off the top of his head." I provided a Rev. Mod. Phys. reference that includes quantum electrodynamics effects and still states that the linear relative permittivity of vacuum is (exactly) unity.

The reason I asked for help here is that it was turning into an edit war, and by policy this is not something I can handle on my own (nor do I have time). —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• No idea on my part that unpublished source is suitable for Wikipedia. Does show though that a well-established expert doesn't find the idea of "vacuum" quite as Steven does.

In addition, reduction of the argument to whether "vacuum" has relative permittivity 1 is a complete misstatement of the issue, as I agree with this statement 100%. Brews ohare (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Brews, you "agree" with that statement by redefining "vacuum" (circularly), as I pointed out. And the question is not my opinion or your opinion or an unpublished opinion "off the top of his head" by a guy at NIST, but published, refereed work. And all of the published, considered analyses that I can find contradict what you are saying, nor have you been able to find any that agree with you. The problem here that you think we should base the article on your arguments rather than on published references, and you seem willing to suck up endless amounts of time in a pointless debate about unpublished speculation.

Guy, I did post a note on WikiProject physics as well. You're right that someone with physics training is better equipped to evaluate this case, but the pages on edit wars said to leave a note here, and it was turning into a clear-cut edit war where Brews kept trying to insert his opinion that he has been unable to back up with published sources.

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nonresponsive and inflammatory. Brews ohare (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

CAT:CSD is highly backlogged again

CAT:CSD has over 120 pages currently, need help clearing it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Down to 15 now. Hut 8.5 17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested Block

Spot the difference! User:Police.Mad,Jock this account has obviously been made to make me look bad by users confusing the two, chances are its a sockpuppet. Would it be possible for this user to be blocked idenfinatly? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Username blocked. Keegan^talk 17:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I really appreciate that =). Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Growing penis picture uploads (npi)

Resolved

 – People uploading pics willy-nilly? Politely explain WP policies to them and don't be a dick about it. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been discussed before.

Problem: Wikipedia allows individuals to upload uncensored images of themselves, including pictures of genitals and sexual practices. Wikipedia allows people to be contactable through either their talk page, or the email mechanism. Wikipedia therefore provides the basic features of online services such as AdultFriendFinder, whose primary focus is not in writing encyclopedias.

Tentative proposal: Any account that uploads pictures of their own genitals or those of their partner, or themselves or their partner engaging in sexual practices, should have their email, user page, and talk page disabled. If the user then opens another account, they may not, under threat of blocking that new account and deleting the appropriate edits, make it clear that they are the uploader of the controversial content. Ditto for previously existing accounts. This way, users can continue to upload pictures, some of which may be encyclopedic, but Wikipedia cannot be used as a vehicle for arranging exchanges of sexual services.

Further study: We need to consider limiting uploads for certain categories, probably including penis pictures, which may grow out of control and beyond usefulness. A rating system operated by trusted users could help, but would require a development effort that cannot be met with current resources. I hesitate to endorse rabid deletionism w.r.t. controversial content that may be useful, but we're going to be faced with this problem, and will have to deal with it.

Regards,

Samsara (FA • FP) 17:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this is being used in this way? This sounds like a solution (and not a very good one - forbidding making it clear that they are the uploader, in principle, violates their right to attribution under copyright law) in search of a problem. —Random832 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NOT#MYSPACE cover this well enough for me. People who use Wikipedia for social network get blocked, whether they network with their genitals or not. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware that we can monitor their use of the email function. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The technical aspects of such a limited upload system would be interesting. I could upload an image named "left shoe.jpg" that might emphatically not be a left shoe, for example, and I might upload it on a page that does not typically deal with, er, "left shoes". We can compare uploaded images bit for bit with other images, but I don't know that there's an easy implementation of a "penis filter" that would catch an image of that type as it is uploaded. We can't filter for flesh tones, as we'd probably get too many false positives (a headshot would probably have the same proportion of flesh to non-flesh tones as... well, as other parts of the body, for example). I concur that both WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NOT#MYSPACE cover the problem for now. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your concerns. What is wrong with a user uploading an "adult" picture and is then contacted on his or her talk page? Would you have the same problem if someone said on their user page "I like cars" and someone contacts them ("Hey I like cars too") and they get together. Wikipedia is not a social networking site and I have no problem blocking accounts created only to socially network. But this does not mean that a user cannot leave a message on another's user page that is not strictly "encyclopedic". Why do you think that users who upload "adult" images are more likely to only use the accounts to socially network? has that been your experiences? can you cite examples? Jon513 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If these images are being uploaded specifically for the user to network themselves, then there may be an issue with that particular user than we need to address. But to make it a starndard that constructive editors can't upload such images is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. There's nothing that says constructive editors who contribute to the encyclopedia cannot form relationships, sexual or otherwise. List an example of where this has been an issue, perhaps it (if it exists) is something to deal with. Otherwise, I don't see a necessity to make any changes in operation. Lara❤Love 18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that editors' relationships, acceptable as they are, need to be based on the characteristics of their genitals. Leaving that aside, the problem here is that we may not be aware of this going on, until someone leaks it, and sombody else goes to find some evidence that we weren't aware existed. This has the potential to be Wikipedia's biggest scandal yet. I've made a proposal above that does not limit people's ability to participate in the project, but makes it a little safer for everybody. Let's not argue about whether parents should be supervising their children etc. You know it goes wrong sometimes, and you know we don't want to be involved when it does. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people really do make a big thing out of nothing dont they. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talk • contribs)

I agree. This all does seem to be getting blown out of proportion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be better to archive this discussion before someone violates WP:DICK. Black Kite 18:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole thread is about editor's violating other editors', well, er, um. You said it first. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)