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. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

RegentsPark allegedly using admin powers to further his content opinions

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

There is still insufficient evidence of RegentsPark being "involved" (his arb case statements linked somewhere below are not enough) such that this matter requires further discussion or action here. After 3 days' discussion, this means it's time to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. That said, admins are reminded that virtually every editing-through-protection causes time-wasting controversy, regardless of how appropriate it was; and this should be taken into account in deciding whether it's in the best interests of the encyclopedia to do it. Rd232 ^talk 10:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

---

[1] [2] mikemikev (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this case not still at ArbCom? I think an admin making a single edit through page protection is hardly something that needs reporting here. Why not just discuss the edit on the talk page, reach a consensus, and then use {{editprotected}} to get an admin to edit to the preferred wording? Fences&Windows 20:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The protection policy explicitly permits admins to revert protected articles to older versions predating an edit war. The rationale given in WP:PROT is that "protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision." The protection did initially establish a contentious revision, which included heavily disputed material. RegentsPark reverted back to a version predating the edit war over this contentious material. It therefore appears on first review that RegentsPark was acting within the scope of the protection policy, to avoid rewarding Mikemikev and others who had edit-warred to insert this material. It's not an action I would have felt comfortable taking, but neither does it violate policy. MastCell ^Talk 21:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My intent was to revert the article to its state prior to the edit war. If consensus is reached on the talk page that the material referenced above ([3]) should be inserted in the article, then the editors can do so by placing an editprotected request on the article talk page with a pointer to that consensus. This issue has been brought up (at length!) on my talk page as well here but I personally don't see the big deal. If there is consensus, add it. If there isn't don't. That's the way wikipedia works. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The important question, which I’ve raised on RegentsPark’s talk page, is whether he was sufficiently uninvolved in the dispute over these articles to make this decision. Actions like this are supposed to be made by uninvolved administrators. RegentsPark is listed as an involved party in the arbitration case for this article, so I think it’s doubtful that he could be considered uninvolved here.

Incidentally, I don’t have an opinion either way about the content that RegentsPark removed; this is only about whether he used his sysop powers properly. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

While I empathize with your concerns, do note that I'm not actually listed as an involved party in the arbitration case you refer to above. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn’t noticed you’d been removed from that list now. I’m pretty sure you were on it when the case was being requested, before it opened. A few editors stated that they wanted you to offer a statement for this case because they considered you involved in it, although I’m not able to link to the exact comments because I can’t seem to figure out where the discussion about the case from before it opened has been archived.

In any case, the more relevant point is the opinions you’ve expressed about article content in the evidence you presented for the arbitration case, as well as on talk pages for the articles (particularly the Snyderman and Rothman (study) article) and in the various AN/I threads about these articles. As I pointed out on your userpage, the viewpoints you’ve expressed about the content of these articles demonstrate that you have strong opinions about it, despite your claims to the contrary. Since your action while editing the article through page protection is consistent with the opinions you’ve expressed about article content in your arbitration evidence, I suspect that your opinion about article content influenced this decision.

Are any completely uninvolved administrators able to offer an opinion about whether RegentsPark used his sysop powers neutrally in this case? --Captain Occam (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved in this. this should answer your question. Now I'm going back to being uninvolved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What is a “dummy edit”, and how does it answer my question? I’m not familiar with that term. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A "dummy edit" is an edit that doesn't otherwise affect the article (e.g. it changes the amount of white-space). They're typically used to communicate via edit summaries. In this instance it appears that HJ Mitchell was using a dummy edit to indicate that they concurred with RegentsPark, i.e. a non-involved admin stated that they felt RegentsPark's action was correct. I too am hitherto uninvolved, and I too now return to being uninvolved ;-) TFOWR 09:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The point of the edit was to assert that, as an administrator with no involvement (or interest, quite frankly) in this, I believe RegentsPark acted properly. That phrasing was highly inflammatory. No comment on the underlying issue or any of the rest of the mess. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Highly inflammatory? Did you look at what the other option was (i.e. the version reverted to)? It essentially says the same thing. Mike comes across looking bad here, because (a) he was the only one reverting to this version and (b) the title and non-statement to open this thread is less than endearing. However, this isn't an obvious case of "that clearly should not be in the article ever" (or else Mike would have been blocked by now). Neither, in my opinion, comes across as particularly inflammatory; rather, they both seem like valid attempts to present an apparently factual, albeit controversial, statement in a manner that doesn't come across as racist.

Another editor, for example, has posted a reasonable comparison of the two, noting they both have their drawbacks and advantages. And I think a valid point made by Vecrumba is just because he (or anyone else) didn't join Mike in edit-warring doesn't mean he disagrees with Mike's version. The funny thing is, had Vercrumba joined Mike in the edit war, I imagine RegentPark's action would have been less likely to occur as then it would have come across as a more balanced dispute in the article history. But we should be encouraging editors not to edit war. If there's something very clearly wrong with the edit, okay, it definitely should be reverted despite protection, but if there isn't, it shouldn't just be reverted during protection because the edit war was three against one. As I said on WP:RFPP, I don't think RegentsPark's move qualifies as an abuse of power and shouldn't lead to much drama. However, I stand by my original position that this was not the best approach. It also seems to be sending the wrong message to a few editors to this article who don't seem to understand how protection usually works. -- tariqabjotu 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't hard to search the editing history of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case for early June. Captain Occam helped Rvcx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) add names to the "involved parties" list.[4] RegentsPark was never on the list for the ArbCom case.[5] Mathsci (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The action itself is judged OK, and the "possibly involved" claims don't seem to amount anything. If there is a broader history of such issues, then go to WP:RFC/U. Otherwise, everyone go and do something useful. Rd232 ^talk 13:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the ArbCom has repeatedly stated that administrators must avoid even the slightest hint of conflict when it comes to protected articles. Additionally, they've said passed resolutions indicating that there is no shortage of admins and to have one of them review issues. It's pretty clear that RegentsPark did not avoid conflict and did not turf this to another administrator. His edit was improper and unadminlike. Is there any indication this is part of a larger issue? Basket of Puppies 20:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"It's pretty clear that RegentsPark did not avoid conflict..." - if evidence has been presented here to support that, I've missed it. Since the point of discussing this here is to get uninvolved opinions, it behooves those who want to argue that there is a problem to explain and evidence it adequately. Rd232 ^talk 20:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am completely uninvolved and from my reading of everything it's clear that Regents missed his admin bit. If there are other incidents of this happening then I would be in favor of more review, but this appears to be unique. So we file it away and hope it was just a momentary lapse of good judgement and move on to more important things. Basket of Puppies 22:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear about "uninvolved" - it wasn't about you. I just meant that those involved understand the situation and can comment straight away; everyone else needs it clearly explained and evidenced. Rd232 ^talk 07:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You do realize the suggestion that RegentsPark was involved is unsubstantiated and appears to be mistaken, right? -- tariqabjotu 22:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was mistaken when I said that he’s listed as an involved party in the arbitration case, but he’s still participated in both it and the debates over these articles fairly actively. He’s submitted both a statement and evidence in the arbitration case, in which he expressed strong opinions about the content dispute over these articles. He’s also been involved in the debates over the articles on their talk pages, particularly the Snyderman and Rothman (study) article (i.e. this section).

“If there are other incidents of this happening then I would be in favor of more review, but this appears to be unique.”

There was another example of something similar to this around a year ago, which I discussed with another administrator (Dbachmann) here, eventually resulting in Dbachmann undoing RegentsPark’s action. The previous issue also involved page protection on a controversial article involving race: Race and crime in the United States (which at that point was just called “race and crime”). In 2007 and 2008, the article had two AFDs, the first of which reached the consensus “keep with cleanup” and the second of which did not reach a consensus at all. A few months after the second AFD, RegentsPark indefinitely protected the article as a redirect to Anthropological criminology, with this edit and this one.

I wasn’t involved in whatever discussion resulted in the indefinite page protection, but since I disagreed with the idea that Wikipedia should be permanently prevented from having an article on this topic, I asked RegentsPark under what conditions the redirect would be unprotected so that the article could be recreated, in this discussion and this one. His response was that I should create in a draft for the article in my userspace, and that he would unprotect the redirect when and if I’d created something good enough that there was a consensus to recreate the article. Around two months later he told me here that he had changed his mind, and would not ever be willing to unprotect the redirect, so that if I wanted the article to be recreated I would need to get someone else involved. (Which I did, hence Dbachmann’s eventual unprotection of the page.)

Do any uninvolved admins think that RegentsPark’s action in this case was unusual? Dbachmann obviously thought so, and it seems that way to me also. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) Just a quick note to say that I am following this discussion with (bemused) interest and will be happy to respond to any meaningful queries. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Are (uninvolved) administrators going to offer any more comments about this? If not, this thread will probably be archived soon, although there hasn’t yet been a consensus either way about whether or not RegentsPark has used his sysop powers inappropriately. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:UNINVOLVED and stop beating this dead horse. Can this please be closed by an "uninvolved" administrator, especially since CO has started canvassing for more input. Verbal chat 16:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I contacted the two admins whose comments I’d just replied to, because they didn’t seem to have noticed yet that I’d replied to them. Care to explain how letting someone know that you’ve replied to their comment is “canvassing”?

RegentsPark supported your side in your edit war with Mikemikev, and I know you’re glad that he did, but this isn’t an acceptable reason to try and shut down the discussion about whether or not his actions were appropriate. So if the only thing you intend to do here is toss around baseless accusations and try to disrupt the discussion, please stay out of this. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What is unclear in all of this is that by July 15 four arbitrators had agreed on the workshop page of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence that a 1RR rule applied to Race and intelligence during the ArbCom case. On July 17 Mikemikev made this starting edit.[6] Then about quarter of an hour later this edit. [7] Then five hours later this edit.[8] Captain Occam has been defending Mikemikev here. And David.Kane on WP:AN3 said that Mikemikev's edits were justified by material on pages 234-236 of Mackintosh's book IQ and Human Intelligence. This is what David.Kane wrote on July 20:

Which specific "valid rationales" are you referring to? As best I can tell, Mikemikev wants to include average brain size data by race. Brain size data is discussed extensively by secondary sources, see Mackintosh pages 234-236. Mackintosh even cites (approvingly!) Rushton. As best I can tell, Mikemikev has addressed the arguments raised. It is not clear to me that the editors who argued about this last week remain unconvinced by the subsequent discussion. So, to make progress, we need a list of the editors that, you claim, still object to this edit and the reason(s) that have for objecting.

I have my own copy of that book. The treatment there is not extensive in any sense (1 1/2 pages). It does not contain the statements that Mikemikev inserted. Mackintosh is extremely non-commital about the known correlation between IQ and brain size, indicating that it tells us very little at all. As he writes, "At the end of the day, the establishment of a correlation between brain size and IQ has actually done rather little to advance our knowledge of IQ—let alone g," He also notes that brain size can change as a result of environmental factors (he mentions experiments with rats, not surprisingly since he is an expert on animal behaviour). Mikemikev was aware of the 1RR rule even before all 4 arbitrators voted. He made a failed report on July 7.[9] In view of that, I can't quite see why Captain Occam and David.Kane are supporting Mikemikv; or why in these circumstances Mikemikev has brought this complaint here. Mathsci (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I was really hoping this wouldn’t happen here. Every time anything to do with these articles comes up at AN/I, editors like Mathsci can’t seem to resist dragging in tangential issues which completely cut off the discussion on whatever the original thread was about. And now it looks like the same thing is in danger of happening at this board also.

This thread is about RegentsPark’s actions as an admin—nothing else. I have no opinion about whether or not Mikemikev’s edits were justified, as you might have noticed from the fact that I didn’t participate in the edit war or content argument about them; nor does whether they were justified have anything to do with whether RegentsPark was sufficiently uninvolved to revert them through page protection. So let’s please keep irrelevant issues out of this discussion. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. However, the issue has been in plain view on AN for over three days (a long time here), and all I see is support for RegentsPark. Yet, WP:CPUSH continues ... even the smallest obstacle to establishing a certain POV in race and intelligence must be overcome. Johnuniq (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Basket of Puppies has said that he thinks RegentsPark misused his power, and Tariqabjotu seems ambivalent about it. (Not an actual misuse of power, but also a poor choice.) Once I explained what the question was in this thread, the only admin who expressed clear support for RegentsPark was HJ Mitchell. So that’s one opinion in favor of, one against, and one somewhere between the two. I don’t see how you’re getting “nothing but support for RegentsPark” from this.

And as I just said, this discussion has nothing to do with content, or whether Mikemikev’s edits belong in the article. So what does it mean to describe this discussion as indicating that “even the smallest obstacle to establishing a certain POV in race and intelligence must be overcome”? --Captain Occam (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I missed the view from Basket of Puppies, although it included "So we file it away and hope it was just a momentary lapse of good judgement and move on to more important things." Re your question: are you saying that your interest in this report is purely for the benefit of the encyclopedia, with no regard for your interest in race and intelligence issues? Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close of RfC overdue

Hello,WP:BLPRFC3 could use closing by an uninvolved admin. Between the talk page and the main page there is a lot to read. Have fun! Hobit (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Should be an easy close... look at the talk page where there seems to be general consensus (even among people with differing views) that there is no consensus except maybe for J0hn's minor wording tweak... but beyond that, should be easy.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I didn't know if saying that was appropriate in such a notice... Hobit (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is still kicking around at the weekend I'll look it over. Skomorokh 16:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Harassment

I've not brought this here before because the issue has been handled by various people reverting and the like but after a nest of accounts was blocked on July 2 by Versageek and the IP hardblocked, the user has returned and it's pretty clear that this is likely to see ongoing abuse - hardly a surprise since the behaviour has been going on for a couple of years now but mainly not on Wikipedia.

The person started out using the Usenet nick "Nuxx Bar" and has also used "Guy Cuthbertson" and a number of others. The history is at on my website if anyone wants the background, but it includes crank calls, visits to my house, abusive email, cyberstalking and so on. I don't really want to give the individual any more exposure (I think he craves it) but this is getting really old.

The following is probably not a complete list.

The accounts blocked by Versageek:

• Just zis Lie, you know? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Just zus Guy, you know? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Just zis Guy, u know? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Just zis Guy, ya know? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Just zis Guy, y'know? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Polly Parrothead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guy Andre Chapman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jus zis Guy, you know? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Others:

• Car-Hater Chapman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lou Knee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IPs blocked so far:

• 86.151.152.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.145.66.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.132.248.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.130.81.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.157.102.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.105.168.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 58.168.167.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Latest account:

• Brian Brackfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to consider this person as banned, as a formality to facilitate requests for checkuser backup on future socks, and also to encourage any passing admins to block any account or IP that makes comments of the same nature. The style is pretty distinctive, if only due to its extreme lameness. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban. No further comment necessary. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban. Harassment of any sort is flat-out unacceptable. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 22:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban. "Visits to your house"? Extra creepy... Doc9871 (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Cripes. Ban and get a restraining order or something. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Support ban. This is definitely the kind of contributor we don't need around here. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - Easy choice. Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Support not even a question...and agree on restraining order. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 15:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per above, especially the visits to the house and crank calling. Also agree that a restraining order might be a good idea. Vedant (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Support ban Clearly WP:RBI is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes (2nd nomination)

Could an admin please take a look at this AfD and maybe close it? The AfD has run since 13:07, 16 July 2010 so it's been almost seven days. There has been a great deal of fairly obvious socking (as well as canvassing) going on there, and the page is becoming a bit of a circus. Nsk92 (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean AfD? --mboverload@ 05:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do mean AfD, sorry. Nsk92 (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with letting it run through. Only another day and it looks pretty certain to be closed as delete. (On a side note shouldn't this really be on WP:ANI not WP:AN? Mauler90 _talk 05:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's about 5 hours to having run full seven days, so closing it now would essentially be on time. I don't think any groundbreaking new information is likely to come out in the next 5 hours that might sway the outcome. Regarding WP:AN/I, I would have posted there if I wanted a more formal SPI investigation, with possible blocks of sockpuppets, etc. In this case the sockpuppeting is so silly and transparent that I don't think this is necessary, at least not yet. It's just that the AfD looks to be a bit of an eye-sore and a circus, with new spa socks continuing to pop up. Nsk92 (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

7 days = 168 hours, and any deviation from this is a slope that will soon slide to 6 days and downwards. there's never been an AfD that has gone 160 hours that will be harmed by 8 hours more. DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Closing early will just give an excuse to take it to DRV and prolong the circus. JohnCD (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that is the main reason not to close early. I agree it's a mess. Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, now it has been over 7 calendar days since the start of the AfD and all proper forms have been observed; the SPAs/socks still keep coming. Nsk92 (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I closed the discussion. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

76.66.193.119 (talk · contribs)

Apparently, I've been reported to WP:SPI as a sockpuppet, but I can't find the relevant discussion. Can someone indicate to me where it is? (see Talk:Python II ) -- the person who says s/he reported me refused to tell me who I am supposed to be a sock of. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be the investigation you are looking for. Mauler90 _talk 06:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Refused? Where exactly did I refuse? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 06:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You accused me of being a sock, without pointing out who that would be, then when asked who that would be, your reply didn't address that point, followed by another reply, which you didn't bother to answer. I even waited 10 minutes on a relatively active discussion thread up to that point. Since you replied to my reply in less than 10 in the previous post-reply. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OMG, I didn't answer for 10 minutes and somehow I'm refusing to answer you? Dude, I'm sorry if its 1 am my time and maybe, just maybe I was doing things like brushing my teeth and getting ready for bed. Nor was that an "active" discussion. Just because I reply once within 10 minutes does not mean I will continue doing so. Talk about impatient. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 06:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You had already filed an SPI report, but did not deign to tell me who I was accused of being. You didn't bother to tell me directly, I see no reason to not expect that you'd have not informed me, since I asked directly before you filed, who you thought I was supposed to be, at Talk:Python II - it's the first reply to your reply to my message. After which you replied but did not answer. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You've been notified now. This should always be done by the filer: it's "procedure". Whatever. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification is definitely not mandatory and in some cases is accepted as something that probably should not be done. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, sir! It's merely "courteous" to do it; never meant to imply it was policy. I know I'd want to know if I was reported to any board whatsoever, and I always inform an editor if I do so to them. "CYA" helps when in doubt. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I normally use auto tools to do SPI reports, so notifications happen automatically. In this case, he was just added to the existing report, so didn't think about it. There is no requirement to tell him, though I would have answered his question on the talk page had he bothered waiting more than 10 minutes for a freakin answer. The original report was filed back on the 19th, so it isn't as if I "filed" the report first. I just added him to it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you notify them, then they have no "cause" to report it like this. Isn't that the actual reason this is here? Just read the beginning of this quacking thread. Doc9871 (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Noted :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, those who yell "I was never told! The admin is a bad person" are typically guilty as hell and looking for any excuse not to be held accountable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Al Jarreau article might need watching

Hi! News item has just come in about Al Jarreau being critically ill in hospital. I've added a spot of information and referenced them (not very well, I'm afraid!). I haven't protected the page, as yet there is no activity there. However, there may well be there before long, so you might want to keep an eye on the page.

I know this next question shouldn't be asked here (I am aware of WP:HELP!), and being an admin, I really should know how to cite correctly... but I'm here now. Could someone point me to how I should be referencing things properly, and is there an idiots guide on how to do it for someone who finds the WP:CITE page too complicated to follow? Stephen! ^Coming... 11:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

On topic: I've watchlisted it, thanks for the heads-up.

Off topic: Reflinks! I ran it against Al Jarreau to fix up the refs you added. That would pretty much be my "idiots guide" - do it as you did it, then get reflinks to fix it. TFOWR 11:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

On and off topic - thanks! Stephen! ^Coming... 11:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Graham87 11:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Relaxing or rescinding of community-imposed restrictions on User:Betacommand / Δ

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

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

Wikipedia:A/R/CL#Request for clarification: User:Betacommand (perm)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Δbot

The Bot Approvals Group is currently considering a request for bot approval filed by Δ (talk · contribs) (formerly User:Betacommand). The request is for a low-key clerking task that is unlikely to cause any issues. However, there are community-imposed restrictions in place that would prevent this bot from operating -

Community consensus placed editing restrictions on Betacommand during late May, 2008. He is prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or his main account. He is also placed on civility parole; any edit which is seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of these restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week at the discretion of the blocking administrator. These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate.

• Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.
• Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.
• Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.
• Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking.

I am neutral on the matter. The bot task on the table seems uncontroversial and useful. The above restrictions could be entirely rescinded, or perhaps relaxed. If the community favours the latter, perhaps something along the lines of -

Δ is prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated) and from undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages without prior approval from the Bot Approvals Group or the community.

Δ is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking.

This restriction replaces and supersedes the community*-imposed restrictions listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2 (*Arbitration Committee remedies remain in effect unless amended or rescinded by the committee).

Thoughts? –xeno^talk 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

...well, a username that's actually easily typeable would have been nice :-) Is this how one shows that they want to play nicely with others? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Deltabot has been registered as doppelganger. –xeno^talk 14:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I support the loosening of restrictions so far as is required to allow Δ to operate an approved bot. I've no opinion on the remainder of restrictions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have seen the area where the bot will work in and I agree that not only should there be a bot operated by him but he should also have his restrictions lifted in order to help clerk with us eventually. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • No way is BC/Symbol a suitable candidate to do clerking anywhere where there is likely to be tension. Scary! Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Except he isn't actually doing any clerking. Or any interaction with anyone on the SPI pages. Speaking as an SPI clerk active for over a year now, I would support loosening the restrictions to allow this one highly restricted bot through. NW (Talk) 18:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
      • My response was to Kevin's comment he should also have his restrictions lifted in order to help clerk with us eventually. That kind of comment scares me as there is no evidence that BC/whatisname has learned anything about why we have a whole massive sub-board devoted to dealing with him. Encouraging (and enabling) him to delve into areas where he is going to get into trouble really isn't helping anyone. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Firmly Oppose The restrictions were a response to BCs inability to play nicely when queries and issues were raised and their recent behaviour over the name change, the incorrect labelling of a non-vandalism revert as vandalism and their extreme resistance to putting a proper link between the old and new account show that getting along with other users and responding appropriately to criticism remains a significant challenge to BC/whatshisname. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose BetaCommand cannot be trusted with bots or any kind of automated edit, as he has repeatedly shown. I'm disturbed that he has changed his name and even placed this request without noting his previous name. He should be restricted from even making these kinds of proposals. Verbal chat 18:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose He's already (too) many opportunities to reform and he has burned us too many times. ElKevbo (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems too good to be true. --Rschen7754 19:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • If the restrictions were kept in place, with the exception of a SPI bot, I might reconsider. The proposal is too loose as it is. --Rschen7754 21:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm still very confused. How is it that editing only SPI pages (actually, only a SINGLE page right now) could ever lead to a large amount of disruption? There are a number of SPI admins and clerks who along with a few checkusers essentially handle the process entirely by themselves. They could use the help, and I cannot see a reason for him to be barred from helping, as he is the only one willing and able to help out. NW (Talk) 19:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of modifying the restrictions in place, a simple exception could be made for this case:

Notwithstanding prior community-imposed restrictions, Δ (talk · contribs) is permitted to operate an approved bot for the express purpose of clerking WP:SPI and its related pages.

SPI is currently without a clerking bot and those who work there are left wanting. –xeno^talk 19:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is precedent for users running bots written by others. That could be a solution? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems like this bot will be a "work-in-progress", as it were (i.e. features being added in gradually, etc.), I'm not sure that would really be at all convenient. The exception route seems an easy enough pill to swallow, especially if one doesn't work at SPI. –xeno^talk 19:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

imo its the start of a slippery slope. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

He will only be editing pages in Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Any further approval, such as for userpage tagging, even if granted by BAG, should go through here as well. I think that's a fair restriction. NW (Talk) 19:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Because Betacommand is well known for honouring restrictions? Resolute 20:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose exception. BetaCommand is not the only person able to do this and is not indispensable to the project. If SPI people want a bot, great. They should find a trusted member of the community to do it. There have been too many previous second chances and recent poor behaviour indicates nothing has changed. Verbal chat 20:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he is the only one willing to do this. We have been searching high and low since almost this time last year when Nixeagle disappeared, with no luck. NW (Talk) 20:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And you still haven't found anyone. I suggest you keep looking. Verbal chat 20:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I hold no view on this (except that I highly respect all work that is done at SPI; I still sometimes stuff up something when filing a SPI, if not for a SPI clerk checking what I do). But I wanted to ask a question because it's not clear to me from this discussion (and it might not be clear to others) - is it that no one else is presently able to do the task or is it that no one else is presently willing to do the task?? In the case of the latter, is there any reason why? In the case of the former, would I be correct in assuming that is because no one else has the technical know-how or the tools for doing so? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• This little incident happened just last month. His cfd was denied, so he decided to move the page to his userspace, then request deletion under u1. Creative, certainly, but perhaps not so reassuring from someone who has, in the past, used bots to attack people and been a sockpuppetter. 96.15.54.101 (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - the folks at SPI want the assistance of a clerking bot, Δ is clearly willing to provide such a bot and is willing to work within the strictures of BAG on gradual upgrades to cover other features sought for SPI clerking. Some major issues Δ has had in the past have centred on communicating with editors following user talk page tagging, but this specific bot task should not produce similar problems. Using a bot for unapproved tasks has also been an issue in the past, but I am willing to assume that Δ will not repeat those sorts of actions. As far as I know it is unquestioned that Δ's coding skills are at least sufficient to carry out the proposed task. Consequently, and following the philosophy that blocks / bans (and by extension, restrictions) are preventative and not punitive, I believe that the SPI area should be able to benefit from the assistance that Δ is willing to provide. EdChem (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support. SPI workload skyrocketed since the old bot went down. The new bot has nothing to do with slapping notices on user talk pages warning them about potential deletion of non-free media due to insufficient rationale. I don't see any COI (whether currently or potentially) because Betacommand (or his bot) doesn't initiate any of the SPI requests. The bot only performs a set of instructions and actions of what clerks have to do by hand at the moment because we lost the bot. There's no room for any abuse of process. Besides, will anyone want to opt-out when someone files an SPI case and mention you as part of the investigation? Very unlikely. In fact, I believe such notifications should be considered as essentials. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support - We need an SPI bot. We NEED an SPI bot. WE NEED AN SPI BOT. And I'll say it again. WE NEED AN SPI BOT. Beta is here. He is willing to run it. No one else is. I think we should embrace it. (X! · talk)  · @920  ·  21:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • why don't you run the bit if BC/thingymajig writes it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "No one else is" Please show some validation of that claim? I have yet to see a request for one ont he bot requests board, which is the general avenue where people/groups wanting bots to automate tasks ask for them and is constantly monitored by alot of the bot owners and operators. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 00:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Someone asked 6 months ago, no takers. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support - On general principles, this would be a strong oppose, but the adamancy of the SPI folks convinces me that they really need this and see Betacommand as their only available choice. Given that, I'd say make a very tightly focused adjustment in his restrictions to allow this, and let's see what happens. Yes, it's definitely putting his foot on the slippery slope, but doing this will provide the community with the chance to see if Beta has changed. My caveat would be that if things work out, we should deliberately avoid the impetus that will come to rush willy-nilly into relaxing his restrictions overall: each step should be a carefully considered one. Beta's decline took years, there's no reason that his rehabilitation (if it ever happens) shouldn't play out on the same time scale. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • BetaCommand is not the only person who can write bots. One of the SPI people can do it without overturning the will of the community. Verbal chat 21:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
    • And who would this person be? Seriously, if hu exists, just give me their name and I'll do the rest. NW (Talk) 01:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is a task which doesn't require interaction with other users (one of Δ's problem areas in the past), does not have the potential to disrupt the project (which was one of the accusations leveled at him in the past), and would dramatically benefit from a bot doing the drudgework. I'm not likely to support a wholesale removal of the restrictions on him, but for this I don't see any problems. Horologium (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Qualified support for second proposal - SPI clerking is the only area BC may operate a bot, and the issue will be reviewed at AN in 3 months time, then 3 months after that, and then 6 months after that. Minor issues found will stop the clock (that cycle needs to repeat), more serious but not major issues will reset the clock back to the start, and any major issue will result in the previous restrictions being reapplied over all of WP. If BC gets through a year (15-18 months) then he might have a case for a review of all restrictions, plus SPI has a bot it feels it needs. The review system allows oversight by parties not as desirous for an SPI bot, so there is less tolerance for "a mistake or two" too many. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per usual rather low quality opposes. Honestly, if you're going to oppose, at least make it convincing .... really. Oh, and consistently good BC work. Opposers, ask yourselves if your work here has been more productive. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as currently worded. We've been down this road with Betacommand before, and he has abused the community's trust ten times too many for me to accept any proposal that relies on his honour not to abuse Wikipedia's policies or any restrictions placed on him. I would support only if an amendment to his restrictions makes it plain that his bot is to do only what it is explicitly approved for and that any abuse of a script, or any use of a bot on his main or bot account that does not fall within very clearly defined parameters of use would result in an immediate indefinite block/ban. That means no excuses, no justifications, no equivocation and no testing the limits. Betacommand has proven the honour system does not work on him, and I wonder if this community, especially his supporters, have the will to keep him under control? Specifically to his SPI supporters: Would you make excuses for him if he abuses the community's trust (yet again) because he sells you a convenience, or are you willing to enforce any restrictions that remian on him if that trust is abused? And this question is asked under the strictest definition of "zero tolerance" that you can imagine. Resolute 21:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support An SPI bot is desperately needed since the old one has been dead for months now, and the developer seems to either be gone from Wikipedia or just busy with other things. Betacommand has demonstrated his ability to edit helpfully and collegially since his unban and his unique abilities can be a huge asset here. Let him create his SPI bot. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Has he heck! You only need to look at his behaviour over the rename to see that all the old issues with BC/thingy are still there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Spartaz, Verbal, ElKevbo, Rschen7754, and Resolute. This user still does not play nicely or exhibit good judgement.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how this final warning to Δ as a result of removing two external links was not WP:POINTy in any way. –MuZemike 00:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: Per Jeff G. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment – if the community will not allow Δ to run a bot for one project that does not touch anywhere else, then SPI will permanently go botless, and the community can figure out what to do with SPI. I will have no part in helping out as far as coding/testing a bot is concerned. –MuZemike 00:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per many others, This user has been given plenty of chances which usually ending with heated debates (Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand For some of the AN ones) or arbitration. Which in some cases were results from not abiding by the policies such as the bot ones or civility when he didn't get his way or if users questioned something. He isn't the only bot operator out there that can do this, I'm sure if the SPI clerks asked around (such as at Bot requests noticeboard)they would be able to find a willing body or so. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 00:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I asked six months ago, and rather gave up after that. I tried putting out some feelers to people I thought might be willing to help, but no bites. Since this mythical bot writer who would be willing to help just isn't turning up now, and hasn't for the past year+, can we just focus on the current request? NW (Talk) 01:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, lets focus on the current request. Which leads me to wonder: Why are we basing support of this request exclusively on the desire for a bot with apparently no consideration for an editor who has a long history of incivility, socking, running unauthorized bots, etc? He was desysopped for basically abusing the tools, and later community banned. I'd like to see some assurance that you guys are willing to shut him down if he does what he does best and oversteps his boundaries. I well remember how much shit he got away with because people deluded themselves into thinking his bots were indespensible. Turns out Wikipedia survived just fine with out him. Can we trust that interested parties in SPI won't turn a blind eye if previous abuses resurface? Resolute 04:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The previous SPI bot stopped editing back in December of last year, prior to that there where issues with its stability for months prior. Its been over a year and a half since Ive done bot work on this project, There is little room for errors here, and the only place where errors would occur are on the SPI pages. which leaves the community at very little risk. The SPI team has been seeking assistance for replacing their old bot since before it stopped editing. What better way than a very limited scope is there to demonstrate that I have changed? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support - I don't know how much my opinions matter here as I am neither an admin, a checkuser, or even a SPI clerk.. but regarding the amount of backlog there is(and I have seen the page this bot would be creating(it is currently maintained manually)), we really do need a bot here. I may not hold a right or title, but I have been working in SPI a long time, maybe not as long as others, but still a long time. I don't see how this bot would interfere and create disruption.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support SPI bot = needed; betacommand = willing; blocking = easy Assume some good faith, and let this proposal through. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Hmmm. During the time Betacommand was blocked, wasn't he WP:SOCKing? I see a potential problem here if his bot can affect checkuser reports. I don't think he'd set up his bot to remove an SPI report against him, but I don't think the possibility should be ignored. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • As a checkuser that has blocked Betacommand's socks and publicly announced it on this noticeboard before, I would like to formally request some of what you are smoking. --Deskana (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support whatever modification/relaxation that is necessary to allow Delta/Betacommand to run the SPI bot. The SPI clerks and checkusers, many (and for checkusers, all) of whom are experienced administrators, are more than able to keep the situation in check if necessary. T. Canens (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Qualified support based on that he really can't hurt much with it editing one page under the watchful eye of the SPI admins. Deskana's idea below also would be good. MBisanz ^talk 05:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support It is difficult to overstate the needless mess and pain ßC caused over the full course of his bot fiascoes. However, it has been equally clear that the bots he operates make wikipedia run much better (when they aren't causing problems) and it has become clear that he has worked to change some of those habits which caused the problems in the first place. We need a clerking bot, ßC is willing to operate one, let us extend an offer. Protonk (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: As I said below, I am all for the bot, but I think Beta/Triangle should remain on the outer fringes doing technical work while a trusted admin/bot op (X! came to mind) operated the bot on their account. If, at some time, Beta/Triangle seems to be worthy of the position, then I say we give it to him, but not while he is under restrictions. Let those expire first. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Those said restrictions will never expire, thus I cannot wait it out. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 09:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I support this user being able to run bots again. I had even asked him on his talk page if he'd consider reactivating some of his previous bots, like BetacoomandBot. We should be more open to automating all these tedious functions that nobody wants to do. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose and WP:TROUT to those who're focusing on the task instead of the troublemaker. There is absolutely no guarantee that anything but trouble will be forthcoming from the user formerly known as Betacommand. The 'pedia will be a better place if we write him off entirely and completely, and instead focus on recruiting a new bot coder who can actually play nice with others. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support lifting restrictions. ßetacommand, or Δ, has done good work and my recollection is that the core of the objections was that many who upload WP:NFCC flaunting stuff simply wanted that good work not done. Development by working via waldos is not at all practical, although others might also run stable code, if it's offered. And we need this sort of work done, that's the bottom line. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

  That's not entirely absurd, but it's not entirely correct. He's done good work, but (for example) refused to admit that his interpretation of NFCC#10c was clearly wrong, although possibly the best that could be expected from a bot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

  I don't recall the specifics; I'm hard-core on 10a; specific links, or no dice. Simple redirects per moves count, but complex situations probably not. We've huge amounts of non-compliant nfc about and that's a problem. "Δ" means change and ß-tools are good. Jack Merridew 09:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The end does not justify the means. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I have always felt the spirit of WP:AGF allows folks a second chance, a third chance, and so forth, so long as someone continues to show reasonable evidence of good faith. Betacommand has certainly utilized a few of those aforementioned chances, but I do not believe "bad faith" is a good description of his attitude towards Wikipedia. Therefore, I support any reasonable modification of his restrictions to allow the operation of this bot, or future bots as approved by the community or the bot group. jæs (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• I oppose lifting any restrictions, but I support allowing Delta to use that one single bot for that one single purpose, and nothing more (yet). Let's see how that works out. --Conti|✉ 09:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • That is a lifting of restrictions. Verbal chat 12:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It's adding an exception. The restriction remains in place. –xeno^talk 13:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
      • If you are adding an exception you are weakening the restriction. Verbal chat 16:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support: BC/Delta is willing to take on the bot-building challenge. As stated earlier, no one else seems to be except maybe X!, who is already maintaining a couple dozen bots. The specific bot we are discussing here doesn't need to interact with anyone other than Checkusers and Clerks. I think this represents and opportunity for BC/Delta to show he can be a net positive to the community. If he makes a good bot, SPI can run more quickly and effectively without the clerks having to do as much tedious, repetitive busy work. I don't think there's much he could do with the code (pretty hard to hide "if:casename=betacommand"; code doesn't lie). Furthermore I think the individuals he'd be working with (CU and SPI Clerks) are...uhh...well versed in detecting and responding to fishy behavior. Isn't that what SPI is designed to deal with in the first place? I think he's under enough scrutiny to prevent these kind of issues from occurring. Let him make the bot. If he does a good job, the community wins. If he does something fishy, block the bot (and him) and move on. There's no opportunity for net gain if the community does not provide a chance for it. N419BH 13:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support the adding of an exception to allow Δ/Beta dude, how do you type that? to run this specific SPI bot as approved by the bot approvals group and the code being made available as per the note for review. After reading/watching this go back and forth awhile, I'm not seeing much meat to any of the opposes beyond "its Beta" and "because of his past" without any diffs, etc to show any recent issues with socking (which would obviously result in his being blocked), policy violations, etc. He has not, in fact, been blocked in nearly a year and clearly as he is not banned, the community is willing to accept him. I think this particular operation is something that can easily be added as an exception to his current restrictions, and frankly it is desperately needed (as are more CUs but thats another whole issue). SPI is floundering like crazy right now and despite what some of those who oppose this have said, it is NOT an easy thing to code up a bot. I am a programmer by trade, and I took a look at the bot stuff, and said "hell no." Coding up an eCommerce web application is easier, by far, IMHO. And, as has already been noted, even among those who are crazy enough (no offense) to both enjoy coding bots and good enough to do one of this nature, not ONE has stepped forward to do it in almost a year. And in this thread, despite some of the unsupported and barely civil remarks made, in my opinion Beta has kept his cool which speaks more towards his sincerity than anything else. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 18:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Yes there is understandable concern about letting operate a bot. But if someone wanted to give a user another chance, and was asked to carefully define a task that would be appropriate, one could hardly design a better task. It affects a single page, one under constant watch, and doesn't require notification on user talk pages, plus it will be under the watchful eye of some of the most clueful editors in WP. Not to mention, it is sorely needed and no one else is stepping up.--SPhilbrickT 00:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose Betacommand has shown repeatedly that he can't be trusted to handle automated tools in a responsible matter, or for that matter, even handle himself in a responsible matter. Have we all forgotten the months and months of drama and multiple ARBCOM cases already? Apparently so. Jtrainor (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Just a quick tally. As of this moment, we have 20 supports, 10 oppose (+ 1 IP oppose) and a handful of people sitting on the fence. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Redux

What we have here is a simple question: Should an editor who has been known to abusively use multiple accounts (sockpuppet) and who is know to have abused automated editing and bots, be allowed to run a bot on sockpuppet investigations pages? I'm generally skeptical of the poacher turned gamekeeper theory, but in this case it seems to be poacher turned poacher and gamekeeper. There is no way this should be allowed, based on his very recent sockpuppeting and problematic behaviour. Verbal chat 12:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please check your facts, "very recently" is not accurate. Your poacher/gamekeeper analogy is also flawed in several different areas. If there future SPI cases involving me, it doesnt matter what actions I take the report cannot be suppressed, there are just too many eyes involved. If you read the whole discussion, one of the checkusers used the phrase I would like to formally request some of what you are smoking, meaning that the idea is crazy. Also depending on your field there are a lot of people who jump the fence, take a look at Kevin Mitnick, Chad Davis and others. So please review your information before making claims that are incorrect. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like clarification of the checkuser's statement, myself. I thought, at first, it was referring to the allegation that you could be trusted to act properly on the SPI page. For example, your indexing bot could be written to fail to index or even to de-index a sockpuppet case involving you. I don't think you'd do that, but I felt it should be brought up for consideration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

My "claims" are entirely correct. You have not jumped the fence, but want the keys to safe anyway. Verbal chat 14:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, my comment was made out of frustration with respect to the fact that you would think Betacommand could possibly code the bot to remove an SPI case about him. I think the suggestion that Betacommand would do that is nothing short of insane. Aside from the fact that we've got a whole team of clerks that watch the SPI pages, Betacommand would essentially be burying himself alive. Betacommand may be a lot of things to a lot of different people, but he's not stupid. If you don't think that he'll do that (which you've now indicated you don't), then that's fine. Irrespective of Betacommand's past, his current situation, and what might become of his future, we desperately need an SPI bot and I trust him to run it. Bear in mind, this statement is coming from someone who has ran checks on him, blocked his socks, and even asked mailing list admins to have him removed from mailing lists. --Deskana (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Idea

Have Beta/Triangle create the bot and an already exsisting bot operator run the bot. Beta can provide technical advice, but the bot op would have the bot on their account. Beta would have no access. An SPI bot might be a good thing, but I feel it would be better if a trusted bot op were the one calling the shots with the bot than Beta/Triangle. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume that, as a checkuser, I would be a no-brainer candidate for this job. I'm willing to volunteer, if people like this solution. I'd need some technical help on exactly how to run it, though. --Deskana (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but i think a pre-exiting bot owner would be better, purely from the point of view they have the technical know-how and can understand the code to see what it actually does before running it and can quickly fix issues should they arise. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 01:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I take offense! No, not really. That works for me too, mainly because it means I can be lazy. :-) --Deskana (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Most users would need a fairly major crash course in my code design, If said bot operator existed why did they not step forward already to create this bot? Looking at this from a practical standpoint this just doesn't work well, in order for me to test new code I would need to write the code, email it to the operator, have them run the code, have it crash/error, have the operator email me their exact computer specs, full traceback, and any other related data, I would need to review it and then create a patch. This on a good day would take about an hour. On a typical day it would mean that there is a 12+ hour gap. If Im testing/running my own code this process goes down to about 20 minutes. When coding there are often stupid mistakes, missing ; unbalanced parens or something just as trivial that prevents a program from working. By forcing someone else into the normal loop it just makes it impractical. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend User:X! for the job. He runs a bot already (and some Toolserver stuff), so he has the technical know-how, is an admin and a 'crat, so he is trusted, and I think worthy of the position. That is just someone I picked off hand, not someone I know well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure he has the time right now. He's working on a project. Certainly, you could ask him though. --Deskana (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of whipping a quick one up. (X! · talk)  · @118  ·  01:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how good an idea this is. First off, what are we trying to accomplish? The bot behavior itself would manifestly by determined by ßC's decisions. Operation would just mean that some other editor would have the social right to stop the bot, as opposed to all admins having the technical right to do so (which is true either way). Debugging or improving the bot would still fall to ßC, unless the operator were basically advanced enough to write their own clerking bot. Protonk (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually no. Since I haven't seen how the Beta's bot work, I will comment on what the old bot did. Basically the bot detects a new case is filed and transclude the case page onto main SPI page pending queue. Then goes all the comments and the clerk will determine whether to accept/decline CU, which this step can't be automated anyways because it's a clerk who makes the call and not the bot. Once the decision is made, clerk updates a field in the SPI template and prompts the bot to either archive it (in the case of decline) or move the case page from pending to CU-required (in the case of acceptance). When CU is finished (plus all the blocking & tagging), clerks will add the keyword "archive" in the template. When the bot detects this keyword appearing in the template, it will archive the case. Nowhere can I see Beta personally intervene with the process. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Protonk's point is that BC/Delta still has full control over the bot's code under this system; thus, the bot's behavior (i.e., what it does in response to instructions etc.) is still controlled by BC/Delta's programming decisions. T. Canens (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I have no doubt that a reasonably competent programmer could grok the code itself, but we would only be using that person as a custodian. Protonk (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would Support this option as well - in fact I suggested it yesterday. I don't mind BC/thingy writing the code if another user takes responsibility for the actions of the bot. This is the perfect solution as the issue is the way the BC/thing interacts with other users whern criticised not his bot writing skills. And some of those opposing because they fear he would use the bot to suppress reports on himself need to get some perspective as there is no way that could pass undetected. Kudos to Deskana for offering to take this on. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Please take a look at deskana's response above about any possible COI/removal of cases about myself. As for user interaction the only users I will be really working with are the SPI clerks, and checkusers (which most have stated their favor for me to run the bot). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 09:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry but I simply don't trust you to do this without direct supervision of the bot. Only last week you were edit warring with me and labelling me a vandal. This is the kind of activity that erodes trust. Otherwise, I'm happy for Deskana to look after the bot and monitor its actions as I trust him. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Delt/BC can write the bot if he likes and then donate the code to wikipedia and it can be reviewed and run by someone else. Verbal chat 10:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As a bot operator myself, I know that this simply isn't practical. Writing a bot is often an interactive process, and sometimes you need to code on the fly while the bot is actually running. –xeno^talk 13:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In view of that (almost certainly correct) note, I lean more against beta/delta as an operator of this bot, without a requirement that all bot code, including interim code, be published for review. (As far as I'm concerned, it could be run immediately after being published, before review, but publication needs to be required.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have always had an open door policy with regard to my code, I dont publish it publicly for security reasons. When I write code its designed for a very specific purpose, those who are not familiar with my code and attempt to run it could cause a lot of problems. What my policy has always been, and will continue to be, is I freely give my code to those users who I know will not mess with the code or attempt to use it without knowing exactly what they are doing. (Basically I can trust the person not to fuck up using my code). Those users who want to see my code are always free to contact me about any program that I have developed. If you want to get a group of users together who know python and are willing to take the time for a crash course in pywikipedia and a fairly large custom framework we can try to work something out. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In re: to Arthur's concern and further to Δ's comment, we could add a stipulation. –xeno^talk 13:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding prior community-imposed restrictions, Δ (talk · contribs) is permitted to operate an approved bot for the sole express purpose of clerking WP:SPI and its related pages. The source code of this bot shall be made available to the Bot Approvals Group and any administrator or trusted user who requests it.

And how would we ensure the code he is running is the same as that he discloses? And why all the secrecy anyway? What is a trusted user (plenty of admins fail that category!) Verbal chat 17:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In the wrong hands the tools I develop can cause a lot of problems. When my NFCC bot was running it reached over 5000 edits an hour, now that kind of tool in the wrong hands can cause a major disruption, and I prefer to not give the vandals any more tools. I have other tools that would let vandals place goatse's on the main page if they where abused. I dont just hand powerful tools out to everyone (neither does wikipedia hand out sysop tools to everyone). Its a matter of trust. There are some children (age 9-13) that if you gave them a firearm they would probably kill themselves or a friend, however there are others that use firearms daily and can be trusted with them because they know what they are doing (hunters and others). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Your hands are the wrong hands, as has been shown repeatedly. Verbal chat 19:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I have absolutely no argument that the bot is needed. I have no argument that <random-GreekLetter>Alpha|Beta|Gamma|Delta</random> has the programming skills to create/maintain it (and therefore also be able to completely eff things up badly). Personally, I currently run a bot that was programmed by someone else ... so that is, indeed, doable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • If I might ask, which bot are you referring to? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    • This one :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Solution

User:X! has stated above that they are working on a bot for this. That makes this entire discussion moot, and there should be no weakening or lifting of BC/Ds restrictions. Verbal chat 17:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

what X is doing is creating crude replacement for part of what the bot will do. Ive spoken with him, and I know he is working on another major project. (CheckUser rewrite) So this is not moot. All he is doing is creating a stopgap bot until someone as the real time to develop a fully functional and fully featured bot. So its not a resolution, but rather a finger in the dyke. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Which still makes this moot, as you cannot run a bot and it addresses the concerns of the SPI folks who want to ignore the community consensus. Verbal chat 17:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Again you are making claims that you know nothing about. This will not address all the concerns. All X! is doing is filling in step one of a dozen plus step process to replace the down bot and make the SPI process better. You do not know what X! is developing, nor do you know what the SPI team need, so how on earth can you say it addresses all the things they need? You cant. What ever happened to assuming some good faith? You obviously intent to hold my past over my head forever. As I have stated, Ive changed and want to move on, Ive been away from automated processes here on en.wp for close to two years, and Ive been above board on everything for the last year, how much longer will it take to show people that I just want to go back to gnoming and be left in peace? This is a very very limited scope project and has little chance for disruption, and is the perfect way to demonstrate those changes. What else do I need to do? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this another example of the new leaf you've turned over? It has already caused too much disruption. Verbal chat 17:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What ∆ said. This is not a permanent replacement. I have no intentions of writing the full-fledged SPI bot. Rather, I whipped this one up in about 2 hours last night. The table is but one part of the SPI bot process. What more, ∆ has been the one who has been working on this for the past howeverlongitsbeen for all the SPI team. He knows what needs to be done. I don't. Any amateur coder could look at the source and find tons of stuff to improve. It is just barely stable. ∆'s bot is (probably) much more stable, and he is dedicated to maintaining it. (X! · talk)  · @774  ·  17:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ee/c) This style doesn't help. I can confirm that User:X! is indeed working on the CU project, and I'm inclined to accept and agree with BC's suggestion that it's unlikely he would also be able to devote the time needed to write and fine tune an active bot for the SPI clerking process in any urgent way. Can we draw a calm line under this thread and return to the issues? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC) (disclosure: I was asked to review this thread)

What more, my time is much better spent going to a "certain other project" for the "certain user group" that is active at "certain sock blocking place"... (I bet FT2 knows what I'm talking about) (X! · talk)  · @778  ·  17:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; the next step is for an uninvolved admin to determine if there is consensus on whether ∆ can proceed. If not, the other options can be looked at. –xeno^talk 17:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

BC has misrepresented me. X! is working on a stopgap solution. Great. Use that to find someone that has the communities tust (or at least hasn't repeatedly abused that trust). Verbal chat 17:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Closure

My analysis indicates several strong arguments for approving the bot, along with a few arguments for maintaining the status quo. I will qualify by stating that I have !voted "support".

Supporting Reasons (22 supports in my quick count):

• SPI clerking bot sorely needed
• User is willing to code it and maintain it
• User will be closely watched by CheckUsers and SPI Clerks
• Note: Many Checkusers and SPI clerks have expressed support of this proposal
• Bot will not be interacting with users

Opposing Reasons (10 opposes in my quick count)

• Past civility issues
• Past socking issues
• Bot could be coded to suppress evidence of additional socking

Conclusion: I believe the community has expressed a consensus toward the following:

"User:Δ is allowed to develop and operate a SPI Clerking bot. He is to continue conversing with the Clerks and CheckUsers to ensure this bot fits their needs. He will provide the bot's code upon request to any administrator, SPI Clerk, or CheckUser. All active remedies concerning User:Δ and User:Betacommand remain in effect."

Have I summed this up correctly? Can we close the thread? N419BH 18:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose No, it shows that there is no consensus for lifting or relaxing the sanctions. BC/Delta should not be allowed to run this, or any other, bot. Also, the code should be supplied at the very least to any trusted user, and there should be a mechanism to show it is the same code as is running - independent of BC/D. There is no consensus at all for your wording..Verbal chat 18:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

By !vote count, it's a rather substantial majority. Not enough if this were a RfA, but this isn't one. By arguments presented, I'd say it's a clear consensus, though as I am not an admin and am furthermore involved I cannot close this. What's the worst he'll do? Screw up, make a mess, and one click of rollback along with a script will undo everything the bot ever did after a certain point. I think he's smart enough not to mess around on the page where all the CheckUsers hang out. N419BH 18:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You're ignoring the rather large consensus that applied the sanctions and restrictions in the first place, and the fact that this editor is a known abuser of bots, editors, and multiple accounts, who claims above his tools could cause havoc and only he can be trusted. It's a shame he can't be trusted. Verbal chat 19:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Support closing with proposed wording. Consensus is emerging. This isn't an RfA. It's AN. Consensus can happen at 69%. (X! · talk)  · @820  ·  18:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No comment on the consensus, but the proposed wording is fine with me. (X! · talk)  · @801  ·  18:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC) original reason removed, final decision added

Third oppose reason should be discounted, it's fairly absurd. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 18:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It was nevertheless expressed by several individuals, and therefore needs to be mentioned. N419BH 18:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I didn't mention anything about it. (X! · talk)  · @820  ·  18:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that consensus seems to be emerging to allow Δ to proceed, but I see no reason to introduce new verbiage; the latest boxed exception seems clear enough. –xeno^talk 18:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - While agreeing the task (no-brainer) the conditions may be over-broad leading to concerns. But... the bot is not responding to arbitrary templates and edits on-wiki. It's patrolling for fixed events in the SPI subspace such as new cases or well-defined tasks required by templates, and commands given by SPI clerks and checkusers who monitor the bot's actions. It is not a bot that is likely to run rampant.

So one option might be to simply agree that BC will be given an exclusion for the purposes of developing and testing this bot, and subject to the condition that its behaviors and substantial changes to its operations must be endorsed/requested by Checkusers and not just "his own whim". However if conditions are required or the existing ones relaxed, these might be worth a look:

Conditions suggestion

Betacommand's (Δ's) conditions are amended to allow Δ to suggest and operate automated tools, under the following conditions:

1. The exact expected behavior(s) of the bot are to be well defined on-wiki, so that the community can be clear exactly what actions the bot will take, and any automated or semi-automated decisions involved.
2. The proposal must ensure that edits will be of a good quality and that user communications by the bot and responses to issues will be appropriate and timely,
3. Code and specification must be kept free and open source (except as agreed for project benefit, in which case free and disclosed to all Bot Approval Group members),
4. Variations to the specification or operation after approval (including changes by Δ to messages, templating, and user interaction) must be specified and well defined, and require approval on-wiki with at least 24 hours for consultation and consensus.
5. Tools that require human supervision or decision-making must have their editing decisions supervised or directed by another user than Δ unless the community agrees. (An exception is more likely to be made for slow or infrequent rates, non-contentious, or clerical tasks, where supervision is largely mundane and does not require much judgment, or where risk is low.)
6. Any new or modified tool (or use of an existing tool for a new task or in a modified manner) must be approved on a case-by-case basis on each occasion. (Modification here means any change to its functioning and actions on the wiki). Failure may lead to a revoke of this permission.
7. Δ's civility conditions are unaffected.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong with letting this sit a bit more. AN has (quite pleasantly, actually) morphed into a lower traffic board. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree; let's not unnecessarily rush to a conclusion.

And do I understand correctly from the above that X! is working on a bot to accomplish this same task? If so, doesn't that make this a moot conversation? ElKevbo (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Only a subset and as a stopgap, but that should give enough leeway for a suitable candidate to be found - so yes it does make this moot. Verbal chat 19:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Best don't assume any work or input on the SPI clerk side from User:X!. He hasn't committed to that and has his hands full on other rather more complex code-writing for the project. What he's done on this is a small part of what's needed and even on that it's only a crude stopgap. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, we have said this many times. We already attempted to find a candidate 6 months ago. 6 months passed since then, no volunteers. Unless you want to call the 6-month period as "not enough time given" for discussion, it's time for you to drop that argument and move on. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

And you still haven't found anyone. It's time you drop the argument of lifting well justified and supported community applied restrictions imposed against a frequent abuser of editors, abuser of multiple accounts and abuser of bots and automated edits. X! has offered a temporary solution, while you try harder to replace the bot. Verbal chat 21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The idea that someone would try to do something underhanded or untoward with an automated process while under the watchful eye of an entire team of people devoted to rooting out sneaky behaviour just strikes me as bizarre. And finding someone with enough personal time available that they are willing to donate towards developing complicated automated processes for areas that probably don't interest them is not easy. At this point, I think you have made your position quite clear - it may be best to step back to see if consensus has been achieved yet. –xeno^talk 21:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that angle is a bit of a red herring. Even if BC tried to hide an SPI against him for whatever reason, the initiator of that request would likely be at ANI a half second later, while other problematic behaviours would already be evident. FWIW, I would support FT2's conditions proposal though I remain uneasy with how easily past transgressions are overlooked because SPI wants a convenience. Resolute 22:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

We spend 6 months and you still think we didn't try hard enough to replace the bot? Not convincing at all. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth I spent a year trying to find someone to do some improvements to some code, and it isn't easy even if you ask everyone, all the time. On other tasks I'm going to have to teach myself coding because free coders who can implement these kinds of sophisticated tasks aren't hanging round waiting for the doorbell to ring and a year to learn will be quicker. It isn't necessarily easy to fill a competent coding gap. Low risk bot, close supervision, little harm due to ease of "pulling rug", close scrutiny, and well defined clerical tasks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about you, Ohana, but BC's history. The question is not "do we need this bot?", the question is "can we trust this user?" As I said, I'm willing to give him the chance under the right terms, but surely you can understand why people are uneasy given the history. Resolute 02:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I remain uneasy with how easily past transgressions are overlooked because SPI wants a convenience - that very accurately describes my view although I fall on the side of not wanting to allow this proposal to succeed. We're compromising our principles for the sake of expediency and that's a terrible path for us to go down. ElKevbo (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Betacommand does good work, I'd support lifting the ban entirely - it is easy enough to put it back if things don't work out. This sounds like a type of bot that has little chance of causing controversy, and so should be the perfect first step to removing the ban. Prodego ^talk 21:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Support N419BH's motion to close, and their closing statement. I'd add that this gives Δ a clear way to demonstrate to the community that they have been "rehabilitated", without substantial risk to the community. If it works out, great: SPI benefit, the community benefits. If it doesn't work out, SPI suffer but the damage to the community is limited. TFOWR 22:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support motion to close per N419BH. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support motion to close This covers all the supports and a lot of the opposes. --Rschen7754 01:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support closing as specified. I really don;t see how it can cause us any harm. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support closure per N419BH. The need at SPI greatly outweighs any concern I may have that this user will try to do malicious things with his bot, especially with a whole team of sockpuppet investigators watching him. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support closure per TFOWR. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I see no reason to trust this user or to override community consensus. Verbal chat 09:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban of abusive user (User:Yattum)

As posted on ANI here

User:Yattum who has been indefinitely blocked is an abusive troll who has consistently been reverting my edits. He has threatened to take legal action against me as I have been reverting his anonymous edits (after his indefinite block). In addition, he has wiki-stalked me and has engaged in extremely offensive personal attacks such as this. He has then posted defamatory material on numerous user pages such as this, this and this. In addition, a sockpuppet of his launched a frivolous SPI investigation into me. As such, given that this user is extremely abusive, I was wondering if a) the community would consider a ban against the user and b) a rangeblock to prevent further account creation and disruption. Vedant (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A ban won't really help you here - everyone's aware of the incident and reverting and blocking IPs as they abuse.

What we can do - and I just did - is to put a moderate time (1 week) block on 88.106.0.0/16 and see if they give up and go away.

If not, we can rangeblock for longer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm aware that we are reverting the IPs edits. What I wanted to do here was propose a community ban on the user (I have struck-out the rangeblock request). Vedant (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Determined wikistalkers should be shown the door. Plus, as has been said before, a ban will allow editors to revert the socks edits without running afoul of 3RR. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I've certainly seen editors banned for legal threats like this (esp. when coupled w/an indefinite block for socking) Maybe a "year-ban" is appropriate, if it's proven? Jus' sayin'... Doc9871 (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support simple block - It's an IP, simple policy violation. Block for 6 months - 2 years. Shadowjams (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia cannot continue to allow "AGF" to enable such stalking and harassment, or continue giving such people just "one more" chance. It is complete hell for the victims, and only serves to lower the pool of good editors here when it is the victim, not the stalker, who ends up having to leave to get peace. Coupled with the defamation and socking, this guy needs to be shown the door permanently. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Per, edit warring, threats of legal action, socking, personal attacks, and wikistalking. --GabeMc (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal (User: NatDemUK)

User: NatDemUK has expressed some very disturbing views on Wikipedia, both on his own userpage and in other namespaces. Other users, including Fourdee and Jerry Jones, have been banned in the past for expressing similar sentiments, due to the fact that most Wikipedians find such views offensive and disruptive, as well as the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Examples of NatDemUK's unacceptable behavior include: [10], [11] (in which he claims that Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitic), [12], [13] (saying Stormfront has "no official ideology", which is obviously false), [14], [15] (spamming Pantheism with an unrelated article by a neo-Nazi author), [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and [21]. In addition, he has been blocked twice already and his behavior has not stopped. Therefore, I am proposing a ban for User: NatDemUK. Feel free to post any supports/opposes below. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - This should be a no-brainer. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral - Neutral but willing to support conditioned on evidence that this edit history is disruptive. I will switch to support if there are violations of policy here, but to be clear, I do not support blocking editors on the basis of their personal views, however personally repulsive. Shadowjams (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • There's plenty of evidence that he's been disruptive and has been violating policy; see AmnaFinotera's post below, which presents evidence that NatDem has been making death threats and using socks to edit-war. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral - as per Shadowjams. Off2riorob (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose — this ban proposal appears to be motivated by the user's opinions. There's no good reason to ban based on opinions alone, and I don't see enough reason here to ban for the edits. For three examples:
  • I don't see why you cite this edit as evidence — yes, it's not sourced, but you're not trying to get him banned for simple unsourced additions.
    • Well, "mass immigration" is a buzzword usually used by far-right extremists. I can't think of any mainstream political figures using the term. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This edit that you cite is good except for the summary: the article doesn't say anything about neo-Naziism, so he shouldn't have been in the category or had that see also link.
    • The uncivil edit summary is the reason I cited this edit as evidence. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This edit that you cite is likewise not a content problem; sexual orientation and ethnicity are totally different issues. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Again, read the edit summary; using the term "abnormal" to refer to LGBT people is not the kind of behavior we want to see. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral - while I personally find his views appalling that is not a reason to ban. However, he has shown some civility issues, I'm not entire sure that he has "exhausted the community patience" at this point. He only has two blocks, both for edit warring and the latter for a threat that was apparently never redacted.[22] I also don't see any evidence of previous ANI threads about him. Inclined to support a topic ban and, if violated, increasing blocks. If he does any more threats like the one above, or gross incivility, also increasing blocks. However, I am also curious/concerned that this editor is also operating as an IP to edit war, from his seemingly random "first comment" in May 09 telling someone to "Will you fuck off????? How many more times??? Andrew Brons DOES NOT believe in Nazism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"[23] He had never edited that article before, however in the days proceeding it, 194.80.178.253 (talk · contribs) had been edit warring over the same issue[24][25][26][27] then again after NatDemUK made a second revert.[28] This IP is currently on a 3 month block, and has three more blocks to his name[29]. If NatDemUK is still using that IP, it would seem to be a far larger case of disruption. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral: We usually don't ban based on personal beliefs alone. We might be able to speedy his userpage as an attack page though. As for an actual ban, we would have to base it on violation of policy, and though I see edit warring I don't see enough to justify a ban. N419BH 16:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: I would be delighted never to encounter such views, but we should not be banning people merely for their opinions, if they are able express them in a non-disruptive way, and to edit broadly in accordance with policy. Rd232 ^talk 16:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, he's been expressing his views in a very disruptive way (as the diffs show), and has violated editing policies quite a few times. Generally, most people with strong ethnic or racial biases tend to have little to no respect for policy; while it's theoretically possible with someone with views like Fourdee's or NatDemUK's could edit non-disruptively and in accordance with policy, in practice it almost never happens. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose at this time (based on wiki norms and not his beliefs) I dealt with a chunk of this user's writings and gave him a clear talk page explanation of the problem and site/community editing expectations on 12 July link. He hasn't edited in the 12 days since. I'm not seeing any current activity requiring a ban, nor any evidence of edits to show he has continued to ignore editing norms. The diffs above are indeed a concern but they are old and predate the warning. If he returns and restarts these issues then deal with it then, and I would probably endorse. Either way he now has the expectations set out for him and has his chance. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- No editor should ever be restricted, blocked, or banned from Wiki based on their personal belief system. In this case there are some clear examples of civility issues, edit warring and arguably, disruption. In this example here [30], the user appears to be advocating murder, and here [31], the user apparently threatens an editor with assault/attempted murder over a revision disagreement. These behaviors need to be addressed immediately, but not via a community ban based on the user's political beliefs, IMHO. --GabeMc (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, if he has been making death threats, isn't that in and of itself grounds for issuing a ban? Also, as AmnaFinotera pointed out, NatDemUK has been using socks to edit-war, as well. Both of these are clear policy violations which seem to justify banning, even if the user's views don't (although I stand by my original view that there is a precendent for banning people with particularly extreme views, as was established during the Fourdee case). Stonemason89 (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Weak Support - I agree with GabeMc that we shouldn't be punishing a user based on their personal beliefs or opinions (however prejudicial they may be). However, given that the user has been using socks to edit-war and has made death threats, I support a ban of this user. It should however be made clear that this user is not being banned for his personal opinions but for his repeated violation/disregard of WP policy. Vedant (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support: the user is, quite simply, a braindead idiot (and I'm sorry to offend three major newspapers and one and a half million people, but anyone who supports the BNP or UKIP is), but we don't block people for being braindead idiots. However, giving that he's advocating mass murder, and threatening violence on another user, can someone explain why he hasn't been blocked? Sceptre ^(talk) 04:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have. But to sum up, because Wikipedia gets written by people of all views, and even someone with extreme views should be told how we work before assuming they can't or won't. Since having that clear explanation about 2 weeks ago (politely, courteously, supportively, and without threats or incivility) NatDemUK actually hasn't edited. If he returned showing he has learned nothing that's one thing. But banning him for actions several weeks ago, with a warning 2 weeks ago and no misconduct since is assuming too much negatively (AGF doesn't mean giving endless chances, it means until you see otherwise, assume they may have good intentions as an editor or not know better). It may of course be that he does need a ban, but at this time it's premature and against community norms. Normal criteria and ways of thinking for warnings, blocks, and bans still apply exactly as normal. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - per the concerns raised above. -Oescp (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Per FT2, extremely reluctant Oppose, with an unpleasant taste in my mouth. Any repeat of their prior "bad behaviour" (fuck it: racist, fascist crap) should be met with an immediate and permanent ban. TFOWR 09:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Per these statements on his user page. People that threaten to kill other people because they politically disagree with them has no place on Wikipedia, regardless of their ideologies. Seems pretty straightforward to me. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Advice please

A sockpuppet recently created List of accidents and incidents involving the DC-3 in the 1980s and List of accidents and incidents involving the DC-3 in the 1970s. The first has been redirected to one of my sandboxes, where I have been working on that list for the last three weeks or so, and it is nearly ready for release - I'll sort out the R2 deletion when I've finished that list later today or sometime tomorrow. Can the 1970s list be deleted under G5? The 1970s list, when created properly will just have links to individual year lists due to the number of accidents to cover in each year. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the best thing to do about very old subpages of a indefinitely blocked user?

Resolved: Deleted. DrKiernan (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Rktect (talk · contribs) had a long history of original research, much of it still around as subpages here [32]. I think it's time for them to go, what's the appropriate method? Mass MfD? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I've not thought of this guy in ages; not surprised that he was indeffed. Seems to me that we could just delete them under IAR; he won't object, and it's not the sort of information that could possibly be kept at MFD. Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Erroneously Banned from Editing Religious Topics

Wild Admin Black Kite (t) recently arbitrarily expanded my topic ban to read:

You are banned from making any edit broadly related to race, ethnicity or religion; this includes all pages and talkpages in all namespaces. This ban runs for a period of 6 months (i.e. until 13 January 2011).[33]

When I asked for further clarification as to why I was banned from editing religious subjects, fellow-traveller and topic ban initiator Stonemason89, piped up and said that he personally misconstrued this solitary edit of mine [34] on a talk page into an 'attack on christians' and that that was the reason why I was banned from making edits to religious subjects for six months. I hereby request an immediate unblock. --Wittsun (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with the Admin in question? Oh, by the way, referring to them a "Wild Admin" probably does not help your situation here ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The rewording of the ban appears to be the result of a discussion at WP:ANI and so was hardly 'arbitrary'. The recent discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive627#Wittsun topic ban. The original ban discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215#Propose Topic Ban. Nick-D (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Making edits like this: [35] won't help Wittsun's case, either. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I see no problem with Black Kite's action here, and I endorse it. The edit on that talkpage appears to stir up religious conflict using a derogatory term "christian come-latelies". You were already in trouble due to your insistence that coverage indicating that racism is largely considered immoral must be "balanced out" with coverage saying that racism is a virtue. I would not be surprised if any further disruption results in a full ban from Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

'Come-lately' is historically accurate and at best unflattering. Topic banning me for six months is way out of line. Your synthesis of my position is a misrepresentation. I did not get into the morality or immorality of racial issues. I simply stated that anti-racism is as equally biased, if not more so, than racism per se.--Wittsun (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You were already topic-banned on race, ethnicity and religion for six months ([36]). The only alteration that the re-written topic ban made was to make it clear that the ban extended to all Wikipedia namespaces, not just article and talk. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not disputing the race or ethnicity ban yet. I am disputing the ban on religion.--Wittsun (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will have another look at the original discussion and your contributions though that may not be until tomorrow now. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Clear endorse After reading a whack of crap, especially included Wittsun's responses inside the WP:AN thread noted above, I cannot help but support Black Kite's actions. Not sure why Wittsun's still allowed 'round here at all after that display. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Clear endorse: "Wild admin" is totally within mandate. You might consider reading WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED. N419BH 16:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disclosure: I !voted in both threads; however, I endorse Black Kite's action and support a short block of Wittsun for disruption. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse I supported the original ban, and endorse this fairly minor change which was adopted via the usual procedure of a discussion at ANI. I still also support blocking Wittsun and am surprised that this hasn't happened. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Black Kite's revisions as appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Creating and Editing Sapt Kosi River

While trying to create and redirect the Sapt Kosi River Page to Koshi River, following message encountered,

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions: Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page.Thank you.

I tried to first create Sapt Kosi River as it is displaying with red font in the article Kunauli and then redirect it with #REDIRECT [[37]]

Please resolve the issue.

Angpradesh (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Sapt Kosi River -> Koshi River -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Huge SPI Backlog

SPI is backlogged beyond belief, there are currently 25 pending non Checkuser cases, some of which have been open for over three weeks without any action. Any admin help at all would be appreciated. There are also 13 CU cases, but seeing as there are only about three active Checkusers, it might take quite a long while for them to be gone through as well. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 18:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone close a ridiculous CFD?

The discussion for Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets is clearly a SNOW keep. Can someone close the discussion and warn the nominator to quit screwing around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.134.208.225 (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to say who you are when you're logged in? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I !voted "keep" in that discussion (which is actually about Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets), but it doesn't look like anywhere near "snow" status to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been closed as "snow keep" now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Prince Louis, Duke of Anjou

Resolved: Histories merged. DrKiernan (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Could an admin lend a hand? Another User apparently unintentionally blanked the page twice, I asked them what they were doing but they didn't respond, so I unblanked and archived the entire page except for the last discussion which was going on. The other User has said they were having computer problems and weren't trying to archive, and asked me to move the archive back to the full page, but I can't do that since to copy and paste would lose the edit history. Could some kind admin please move Talk:Prince Louis, Duke of Anjou/Archive 1 back to Talk:Prince Louis, Duke of Anjou? Thank you. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick block review (again)

I blocked Shouko0624 (talk · contribs) after a report at AIV. (Although the block was for edit warring and disruptive editing.) I only blocked for a day, which is standard for the first time offenders. I"m fairly sure the block was appropriate, but I"m not sure about its length. Can a editor more involved in administrator intervention in content disputes take a look? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A review of the most recent 20 and an additional 10 random diffs shows no obvious vandalism. Basket of Puppies 08:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree there's no obvious vandalism, but there's edit warring over this (which looks to me like some kind of WP:ADVOCACY issue). 24 hours for that seems fine to me. EyeSerene^talk 09:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)