Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction

Community enforced mediation

A proposed dispute resolution experiment would allow established editors to impose arbitration-like remedies on themselves with community approval. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Durova^Charge! 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems widely supported; is it time to move it to Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation? Picaroon 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean endorsed, not enforced. But fortune favours the bold. The page has been created, I think we should give it a chance as is, and see what happens. Maybe move it in a few days, or weeks, once we see how people decide to use it. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually enforced, because of the enforceable remedies. Durova^Charge! 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

But does just anyone enforce the decisions; isn't that something that only admins will be able to do? For me, the community role is in approving or rejecting proposed bans and sanctions. Sort of a public hearing for cases that are uncontroversial enough to not need an arbcom hearing. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope the proposal explains this clearly: the entire community decides whether to approve a proposed solution. Actual enforcement would go through WP:ANI. So to make an example, all editors in good standing would have an equal voice in deciding whether to approve a civility parole. If the community approved that solution a complaint for civility parole violation would go through ANI and an administrator would act. Durova^Charge! 23:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it is likely time to start a trial Cheers Lethaniol 01:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved. It already had a proposed tag, so it's time to start serious discussion. Chick Bowen 01:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Three people have stepped forward as trainees, so to keep things centralized I'll create a subordinate page for mediation requests (pending approval). Durova^Charge! 03:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Banning?

Unfortunately, the notorious Freemasonry vandal was just blocked indefinitely, so I can't put him up for banning here and all the other long term ones don't seem to be as ignored... 68.39.174.238 19:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought Lightbringer was crazy, not a vandal. By the way you should make an account. SakotGrimshine 22:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Crazy or not, he ticked everyone off, but that's old hat. 68.39.174.238 21:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Informal Arbitration

See here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geo.plrd (talk • contribs).

Not a good idea for more bureaucracy imo. Our current system is fine; to introduce one whole new layer with no power and to call it "arbitration" is, pardon me, downright dumb. You seem to be obsessed with creating new levels of bureaucracy in Wikipedia, but we don't need this. WP:3O isn't supposed to be binding, there's no real reason for this. – Chacor 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It does, at first glance, appear like a new level of bureaucracy to me... perhaps I am missing something. I have also notified Geo.plrd (talk · contribs) of this discussion. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that he initiated this, I'm fairly sure he knows of it. – Chacor 02:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So I am confused stand corrected, I see hagermanbot did not sign the unsigned. :P Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(Side comment: Has this page been signed up for Hagermanbot yet?) Newyorkbrad 02:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(Side reply: I understood, all I had to do was add the catagory, something else I missed?) Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this is a proposal. I am trying to create a step that will take care of cases that fall between the cracks. I mean, what good is a 3O, if one user decides not to follow it. If you have any suggestions to make it better, I would love to hear them. Geo. Talk to me 02:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:3O is supposed to be non-binding. If someone doesn't follow the measures, it can be considered a prior step in dispute resolution when going to ArbCom. I'm sorry, but I really think this isn't needed - at least not for this purpose. – Chacor 02:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

When you go to Arbcom, you tend to end up with somebody being sanctioned. This will clean up minor disputes without sanctions. Geo. Talk to me 02:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of levels of dispute resolution that don't give sanctions already. Just look at WP:MEDCAB, WP:MEDCOM, and WP:AMA. PTO 02:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Medcab is non binding, a user can agree to something and blow it off. Medcom sends rejected cases to Arbcom, blowing no sanctions out of the water. The AMA provides advice to users, and generally doesn't resolve disputes. None of these do what Arbcab will do. Geo. Talk to me 03:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• FYI - have cross-posted this to WP:AN for more input. – Chacor 02:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The basic idea of a small claims court is interesting. I don't think this idea is well enough developed. A few thoughts: what's small to one person is huge to another at Wikipedia. The scope of these binding decisions isn't defined and the bar for becoming a judge is set very low. Suppose, for example, that someone with 1000 edits handles a revert war and says You can revert five times a day just because they don't know the three revert rule. I'd set this on the back burner and let it percolate. Maybe it'll brew something good in time. Durova^Charge! 03:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is it would not be binding, unless ArbCom, or some new policy, made it so. It could be voluntary arbitration, which can can not institute remedies (blocks/bans), but can make an arbitrary decision on article disputes and such. That is probably a better way to do this. Prodego ^talk 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Without a binding quality it looks like very much like mediation or 3O. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the arbitration committee is hesitant to resolve article disputes, and almost never does, there is no way a lower body should be doing that. Binding determinations on content are bad because they contradict Foundation issue #3, as well as our belief in the value of consensus. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

it is supposed to be voluntary, yet binding. The bar to become a judge is open to discussion. To prevent the scenario that Durova brought up, there would be a Community Advocate who would ensure that, say in that scenario, 3RR is brought up. Geo. Talk to me 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that people will flock to the idea of voluntary sanctioning. I imagine that people, when given the choice, will choose voluntary and non-binding mediation over voluntary and binding. PTO 03:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am actually in (as a 3rd party) dispute right now in which the parties probably would have agreed to some type of non blocking/banning arbitration (as in article content only in decision). WP:RFArb#Free Republic. It would be rare though. Prodego ^talk 03:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be like a gentleman's agreement, not voluntary sanctioning. This will not be mediation. Geo. Talk to me 04:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think one needs to look up the definition of arbitration. The difference between mediation and arbitration is that mediation is non-binding, and arbitration is. If it wouldn't be binding, then it's not arbitration. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

it willi be binding Geo. Talk to me 02:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Who will enforce? Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. As noted above by Chris Parham, the Foundation does not make binding decisions on content. And that seems to be exactly what you want this to do. – Chacor 02:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to this proposal for many of the reasons mentioned. Do we really need another dispute resolution layer? Honestly, dispute resolution is confusing as it is. Users often don't use it because they don't know where to start. And yes, since the arbcom doesn't make binding content decisions, this couldn't either. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 03:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

this is supposed to be like a binding third opinion. The sysops would enforce it. Geo. Talk to me 03:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It holds no authority. None. If a user breaks the "remedies", sysops cannot enforce anything. Unless the remedy comes from ArbCom, which sources its' power from Jimbo and is considered by Jimbo to be governing over all Wikipedia, people cannot be bound by the decisions. I oppose this, and it seems like yet another attempt to "grab power" by Geo: 1 2 3 4. Daniel.Bryant 21:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's time to open your wallets...

Apparently Wikipedia might "disappear three or four months from now absent a major infusion of cash donations", according to Slashdot. The post quotes an article which quotes a blog which quotes Anthere as saying:

“ At this point, Wikipedia has the financial ressources [sic] to run its servers for about 3 to 4 months. If we do not find additional funding, it is not impossible that Wikipedia might disappear. ”

This has also made it to fark.com. Some more comments are made here, here and here. MER-C 11:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs here. This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#It's true?. --Ideogram 11:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• And Jimbo calls BS: [1]. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And even of Jimbo didn't dispute the claim, it goes without saying that the Foundation is not even coming close to its fund raising potential. There is one little unobtrusive thing that can solve WMFs fund raising and societal goals to the tune of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of USDollars per year, and that is advertising. I am serious. The Wikimedia Foundation should utilize advertising on its websites. Period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that this isn't an unusual situation for a non-profit. From what I understand wikipedia has been 4 months from bankruptcy since it's inception. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I also think this belongs in the village pump. This is more of a place to make decisions about the community as I understand it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Rocinante9x changing "that" <-> "which" in gramatically inappropriate situations

Sorry if I'm in the wrong place; please move as appropriate. After following an edit of Falkirk Wheel I noticed in some of User:Rocinante9x's edits that he/she is changing words here in there in many articles to make them gramatically improper and/or inconsistent. For example, this edit to Hentai creates the gramatically inconsistent "works (noun) that feature... and those which feature...". I'm reporting it here because I don't have time to look through his/her edits and fix them (in fact, just posting here is taking too much of my time!), but thought that it should be brought to the community's attention. --RealGrouchy 03:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: (from Talk:Falkirk Wheel) How the hell does this make sense: "...the amount of water leaving the caisson has exactly the same as the boat." The same what? (weight).

This uncommented edit introduced this error (although it wasn't clear in the previous version, either), and also replaced "that" with "which" in two places that went against the definitions/preferred uses in Wiktionary's entries for that and which.

I reversed the that/which error (which User:Rocinante9x changed in a number of articles), and clarified the "exactly the same" sentence, only for User:Calton to "revert" my "misguided" edits back to the improper and unclear version by User:Rocinante9x! If my understanding of the English language is incorrect, I would encourage someone to reference a source that says so! --RealGrouchy 19:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What you're doing is called "which hunting". Here's a blog full of linguists, Language Log, decrying it; they explain in several ways why real English makes no grammatical distinction between "which" and "that" in restrictive clauses. Your edits don't introduce anything incorrect, but I agree that your reason for making them is misguided. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:FLC

...seems like something of a graveyard at the moment, could do with some more eyes and reviewers. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for community ban

Starwars1955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) first showed up as an anonymous user on 9 December 2006 (here) on the Brett Favre article talk page, requesting unprotection so he could edit the statistics. His changes resulted in removing references (here) and overall just seems to be very confused about WP rules. Long story short, a bunch of violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA ended up getting him indefinitely blocked. This has not stopped him.

• Widescale creation of sockpuppets (list of socks used by him) used to edit the Favre article and try to trick administrators who aren't completely aware of the situation into "helping" him (here)

• Continues with personal attacks here, here, here, and my personal favorite, where he brings my age into the picture for some reason

• Disrupts Wikipedia to make a point here by adding a sixth link on Peyton Manning, so that he can cite that page as "evidence" here

• Simply will not stop reverting to the same edit he made months ago here, here, here, and here (with misleading edit summaries too)

He has been nothing but a nuisance; I am suggesting that he be banned from the wiki community. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As an admin who tried to reason with Starwars1955, eventually blocked him indefinitely, and have blocked at least two of his socks, I support a community ban. He's shown absolutely no variance in his behavior despite both counseling and warnings from multiple users, including at least two admins. I see no evidence that the user intends to reform. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I support as well. He has leveled accusations of policy violations at multiple editors but has refused to follow through, leading me to believe he doesn't actually understand the policies he's citing but rather issuing empty threats. At the same time he violates those same policies and, when called out for it, accuses editors of being biased against him. The behavior King Bee evidenced above clearly demonstrates a persistent user who has no desire to change his ways despite being given several clear suggestions as to how to do so. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, at this point I've had a couple of conversations with the editor in question under various accounts he has created and he just doesn't seem to get it. I've laid out explicitly why the editor was blocked and what the editor should not do if they want to avoid being blocked in the future. The editor's latest incarnation was extended a wide lattitude of WP:AGF and when I advocated letting him edit Talk:Brett Favre to discuss these changes, his response was basically that he was right so there is nothing more to discuss. I think at this point it is clear the individual in question has no intention of changing their behavior so a ban is the appropriate next step. I pretty clearly warned this individual that this was the next step if they did not stop being disruptive. Beyond that it should also be mentioned that the editor has edited extensively from 4.245.XXX.XXX IPs to make these exact same changes.--Isotope23 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Um, if everyone is discussing a ban, why does it say on Starwars1955's userpage that he is already banned? That template on his userpage is the incorrect template, unless Starwars1955 was banned by decision of Jimbo Wales, the Arbitration Committee, or community consensus. Acalamari 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is incorrect, as far as I know. Jaranda added the template a while ago, but the user is indefinitely blocked, not banned. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I had to bring this up, as an administrator and I got in trouble about three weeks ago for the banning of a user when we should have discussed a ban with other users and administrators. I just wanted to make sure you didn't fall into the same problem. Acalamari 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not true, all these people are trying to do is ganned up on him and revert ebery edit he made, all that is trying to be proved is that the edits by BeverlyHills85 are verifiable, and PSUMark2006 did that, and they belong, I'm a friend of starwars1955 and all he wants is for the info to be added, but he can't get a fair shake people admit that the info is verifiably, but won't add it, MRDarcy banned malibu55 for sock with no proof and I'm diffenatly not a sock, just a friend at a firrerent location, starwars1955 also requested to be unblocked and user Yamla reverted the unblock request which he had no right to do and fully protected the starwars1955 talk page, he's not getting a fair shake and all the people her are the ones that have ganned up from day one, and it's wrong, the only issue its whether or not the info belongs and is verifiable, it is and as far as the sixth link on Peyton Manning, there were 5 to begin with, so what's wrong with adding the sixth ans final, Thanks, GrowingPains1 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)GrowingPains85

Community enforced mediation

A proposed dispute resolution experiment would allow established editors to impose arbitration-like remedies on themselves with community approval. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Durova^Charge! 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems widely supported; is it time to move it to Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation? Picaroon 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean endorsed, not enforced. But fortune favours the bold. The page has been created, I think we should give it a chance as is, and see what happens. Maybe move it in a few days, or weeks, once we see how people decide to use it. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually enforced, because of the enforceable remedies. Durova^Charge! 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

But does just anyone enforce the decisions; isn't that something that only admins will be able to do? For me, the community role is in approving or rejecting proposed bans and sanctions. Sort of a public hearing for cases that are uncontroversial enough to not need an arbcom hearing. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope the proposal explains this clearly: the entire community decides whether to approve a proposed solution. Actual enforcement would go through WP:ANI. So to make an example, all editors in good standing would have an equal voice in deciding whether to approve a civility parole. If the community approved that solution a complaint for civility parole violation would go through ANI and an administrator would act. Durova^Charge! 23:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it is likely time to start a trial Cheers Lethaniol 01:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved. It already had a proposed tag, so it's time to start serious discussion. Chick Bowen 01:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Three people have stepped forward as trainees, so to keep things centralized I'll create a subordinate page for mediation requests (pending approval). Durova^Charge! 03:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Banning?

Unfortunately, the notorious Freemasonry vandal was just blocked indefinitely, so I can't put him up for banning here and all the other long term ones don't seem to be as ignored... 68.39.174.238 19:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought Lightbringer was crazy, not a vandal. By the way you should make an account. SakotGrimshine 22:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Crazy or not, he ticked everyone off, but that's old hat. 68.39.174.238 21:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Informal Arbitration

See here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geo.plrd (talk • contribs).

Not a good idea for more bureaucracy imo. Our current system is fine; to introduce one whole new layer with no power and to call it "arbitration" is, pardon me, downright dumb. You seem to be obsessed with creating new levels of bureaucracy in Wikipedia, but we don't need this. WP:3O isn't supposed to be binding, there's no real reason for this. – Chacor 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It does, at first glance, appear like a new level of bureaucracy to me... perhaps I am missing something. I have also notified Geo.plrd (talk · contribs) of this discussion. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that he initiated this, I'm fairly sure he knows of it. – Chacor 02:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So I am confused stand corrected, I see hagermanbot did not sign the unsigned. :P Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(Side comment: Has this page been signed up for Hagermanbot yet?) Newyorkbrad 02:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(Side reply: I understood, all I had to do was add the catagory, something else I missed?) Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this is a proposal. I am trying to create a step that will take care of cases that fall between the cracks. I mean, what good is a 3O, if one user decides not to follow it. If you have any suggestions to make it better, I would love to hear them. Geo. Talk to me 02:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:3O is supposed to be non-binding. If someone doesn't follow the measures, it can be considered a prior step in dispute resolution when going to ArbCom. I'm sorry, but I really think this isn't needed - at least not for this purpose. – Chacor 02:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

When you go to Arbcom, you tend to end up with somebody being sanctioned. This will clean up minor disputes without sanctions. Geo. Talk to me 02:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of levels of dispute resolution that don't give sanctions already. Just look at WP:MEDCAB, WP:MEDCOM, and WP:AMA. PTO 02:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Medcab is non binding, a user can agree to something and blow it off. Medcom sends rejected cases to Arbcom, blowing no sanctions out of the water. The AMA provides advice to users, and generally doesn't resolve disputes. None of these do what Arbcab will do. Geo. Talk to me 03:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• FYI - have cross-posted this to WP:AN for more input. – Chacor 02:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The basic idea of a small claims court is interesting. I don't think this idea is well enough developed. A few thoughts: what's small to one person is huge to another at Wikipedia. The scope of these binding decisions isn't defined and the bar for becoming a judge is set very low. Suppose, for example, that someone with 1000 edits handles a revert war and says You can revert five times a day just because they don't know the three revert rule. I'd set this on the back burner and let it percolate. Maybe it'll brew something good in time. Durova^Charge! 03:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is it would not be binding, unless ArbCom, or some new policy, made it so. It could be voluntary arbitration, which can can not institute remedies (blocks/bans), but can make an arbitrary decision on article disputes and such. That is probably a better way to do this. Prodego ^talk 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Without a binding quality it looks like very much like mediation or 3O. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the arbitration committee is hesitant to resolve article disputes, and almost never does, there is no way a lower body should be doing that. Binding determinations on content are bad because they contradict Foundation issue #3, as well as our belief in the value of consensus. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

it is supposed to be voluntary, yet binding. The bar to become a judge is open to discussion. To prevent the scenario that Durova brought up, there would be a Community Advocate who would ensure that, say in that scenario, 3RR is brought up. Geo. Talk to me 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that people will flock to the idea of voluntary sanctioning. I imagine that people, when given the choice, will choose voluntary and non-binding mediation over voluntary and binding. PTO 03:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am actually in (as a 3rd party) dispute right now in which the parties probably would have agreed to some type of non blocking/banning arbitration (as in article content only in decision). WP:RFArb#Free Republic. It would be rare though. Prodego ^talk 03:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be like a gentleman's agreement, not voluntary sanctioning. This will not be mediation. Geo. Talk to me 04:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think one needs to look up the definition of arbitration. The difference between mediation and arbitration is that mediation is non-binding, and arbitration is. If it wouldn't be binding, then it's not arbitration. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

it willi be binding Geo. Talk to me 02:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Who will enforce? Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. As noted above by Chris Parham, the Foundation does not make binding decisions on content. And that seems to be exactly what you want this to do. – Chacor 02:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to this proposal for many of the reasons mentioned. Do we really need another dispute resolution layer? Honestly, dispute resolution is confusing as it is. Users often don't use it because they don't know where to start. And yes, since the arbcom doesn't make binding content decisions, this couldn't either. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 03:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

this is supposed to be like a binding third opinion. The sysops would enforce it. Geo. Talk to me 03:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It holds no authority. None. If a user breaks the "remedies", sysops cannot enforce anything. Unless the remedy comes from ArbCom, which sources its' power from Jimbo and is considered by Jimbo to be governing over all Wikipedia, people cannot be bound by the decisions. I oppose this, and it seems like yet another attempt to "grab power" by Geo: 1 2 3 4. Daniel.Bryant 21:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's time to open your wallets...

Apparently Wikipedia might "disappear three or four months from now absent a major infusion of cash donations", according to Slashdot. The post quotes an article which quotes a blog which quotes Anthere as saying:

“ At this point, Wikipedia has the financial ressources [sic] to run its servers for about 3 to 4 months. If we do not find additional funding, it is not impossible that Wikipedia might disappear. ”

This has also made it to fark.com. Some more comments are made here, here and here. MER-C 11:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs here. This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#It's true?. --Ideogram 11:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• And Jimbo calls BS: [2]. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And even of Jimbo didn't dispute the claim, it goes without saying that the Foundation is not even coming close to its fund raising potential. There is one little unobtrusive thing that can solve WMFs fund raising and societal goals to the tune of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of USDollars per year, and that is advertising. I am serious. The Wikimedia Foundation should utilize advertising on its websites. Period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that this isn't an unusual situation for a non-profit. From what I understand wikipedia has been 4 months from bankruptcy since it's inception. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I also think this belongs in the village pump. This is more of a place to make decisions about the community as I understand it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Rocinante9x changing "that" <-> "which" in gramatically inappropriate situations

Sorry if I'm in the wrong place; please move as appropriate. After following an edit of Falkirk Wheel I noticed in some of User:Rocinante9x's edits that he/she is changing words here in there in many articles to make them gramatically improper and/or inconsistent. For example, this edit to Hentai creates the gramatically inconsistent "works (noun) that feature... and those which feature...". I'm reporting it here because I don't have time to look through his/her edits and fix them (in fact, just posting here is taking too much of my time!), but thought that it should be brought to the community's attention. --RealGrouchy 03:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: (from Talk:Falkirk Wheel) How the hell does this make sense: "...the amount of water leaving the caisson has exactly the same as the boat." The same what? (weight).

This uncommented edit introduced this error (although it wasn't clear in the previous version, either), and also replaced "that" with "which" in two places that went against the definitions/preferred uses in Wiktionary's entries for that and which.

I reversed the that/which error (which User:Rocinante9x changed in a number of articles), and clarified the "exactly the same" sentence, only for User:Calton to "revert" my "misguided" edits back to the improper and unclear version by User:Rocinante9x! If my understanding of the English language is incorrect, I would encourage someone to reference a source that says so! --RealGrouchy 19:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What you're doing is called "which hunting". Here's a blog full of linguists, Language Log, decrying it; they explain in several ways why real English makes no grammatical distinction between "which" and "that" in restrictive clauses. Your edits don't introduce anything incorrect, but I agree that your reason for making them is misguided. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:FLC

...seems like something of a graveyard at the moment, could do with some more eyes and reviewers. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for community ban

Starwars1955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) first showed up as an anonymous user on 9 December 2006 (here) on the Brett Favre article talk page, requesting unprotection so he could edit the statistics. His changes resulted in removing references (here) and overall just seems to be very confused about WP rules. Long story short, a bunch of violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA ended up getting him indefinitely blocked. This has not stopped him.

• Widescale creation of sockpuppets (list of socks used by him) used to edit the Favre article and try to trick administrators who aren't completely aware of the situation into "helping" him (here)

• Continues with personal attacks here, here, here, and my personal favorite, where he brings my age into the picture for some reason

• Disrupts Wikipedia to make a point here by adding a sixth link on Peyton Manning, so that he can cite that page as "evidence" here

• Simply will not stop reverting to the same edit he made months ago here, here, here, and here (with misleading edit summaries too)

He has been nothing but a nuisance; I am suggesting that he be banned from the wiki community. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As an admin who tried to reason with Starwars1955, eventually blocked him indefinitely, and have blocked at least two of his socks, I support a community ban. He's shown absolutely no variance in his behavior despite both counseling and warnings from multiple users, including at least two admins. I see no evidence that the user intends to reform. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I support as well. He has leveled accusations of policy violations at multiple editors but has refused to follow through, leading me to believe he doesn't actually understand the policies he's citing but rather issuing empty threats. At the same time he violates those same policies and, when called out for it, accuses editors of being biased against him. The behavior King Bee evidenced above clearly demonstrates a persistent user who has no desire to change his ways despite being given several clear suggestions as to how to do so. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, at this point I've had a couple of conversations with the editor in question under various accounts he has created and he just doesn't seem to get it. I've laid out explicitly why the editor was blocked and what the editor should not do if they want to avoid being blocked in the future. The editor's latest incarnation was extended a wide lattitude of WP:AGF and when I advocated letting him edit Talk:Brett Favre to discuss these changes, his response was basically that he was right so there is nothing more to discuss. I think at this point it is clear the individual in question has no intention of changing their behavior so a ban is the appropriate next step. I pretty clearly warned this individual that this was the next step if they did not stop being disruptive. Beyond that it should also be mentioned that the editor has edited extensively from 4.245.XXX.XXX IPs to make these exact same changes.--Isotope23 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Um, if everyone is discussing a ban, why does it say on Starwars1955's userpage that he is already banned? That template on his userpage is the incorrect template, unless Starwars1955 was banned by decision of Jimbo Wales, the Arbitration Committee, or community consensus. Acalamari 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is incorrect, as far as I know. Jaranda added the template a while ago, but the user is indefinitely blocked, not banned. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I had to bring this up, as an administrator and I got in trouble about three weeks ago for the banning of a user when we should have discussed a ban with other users and administrators. I just wanted to make sure you didn't fall into the same problem. Acalamari 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not true, all these people are trying to do is ganned up on him and revert ebery edit he made, all that is trying to be proved is that the edits by BeverlyHills85 are verifiable, and PSUMark2006 did that, and they belong, I'm a friend of starwars1955 and all he wants is for the info to be added, but he can't get a fair shake people admit that the info is verifiably, but won't add it, MRDarcy banned malibu55 for sock with no proof and I'm diffenatly not a sock, just a friend at a firrerent location, starwars1955 also requested to be unblocked and user Yamla reverted the unblock request which he had no right to do and fully protected the starwars1955 talk page, he's not getting a fair shake and all the people her are the ones that have ganned up from day one, and it's wrong, the only issue its whether or not the info belongs and is verifiable, it is and as far as the sixth link on Peyton Manning, there were 5 to begin with, so what's wrong with adding the sixth ans final, Thanks, GrowingPains1 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)GrowingPains85