Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:59, 22 May 2008

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

*If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

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

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

Exposed - Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can check what Honest Reporting has to say about Hari's reponse: ([1]). Because this is a matter of strong opinions, even the moderators should check their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.9.167 (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

More coverage here from the Jewish Week News: [2] -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Dr. Oboler and "Zionism on the Web"

I see that Dr. Oboler (cited in the HonestReporting link above) has also written on this subject in the Jerusalem Post's online edition ([3]), and his own Zionism on the Web project ([4]). I suspect his assertion (in the JP article) that "Electronic Intifada is ringing alarm bells, probably because those getting involved are Jews and supporters of Israel" will be met with less than universal approval.

The latter article is particularly interesting for its efforts to determine the real-life identity of User:Bangpound. I'm using the term "interesting" because there's currently a Wikipedia editor named User:Oboler who openly identifies Andre Oboler ([5]), and is actively participating in debates on this subject. I was under the impression that "outing" rival editors is something that we're not supposed to do.

I also find it interesting that Dr. Oboler once had a habit of adding "Zionism on the Web" links to sites that he visited ([6], [7]). Given that Wikipedia's article about the site was deleted as non-notable ([8]), some might be tempted to interpret this as spamming. Admittedly, these links were posted some time ago and there probably isn't anything that need be done about it now ... but it still strikes me as ironic under the circumstances. CJCurrie (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would welcome someone checking the links, they were mostly to copies of archived material related to academic boycotts in the UK. This particular set of materials is referenced in an academic paper by Prof Charles Small (Yale University) [9] (note I renamed the subdirectory when the boycotts came back for the second time, but the old link still works - also that link is to google so you can see the paper reference, else you need to pay to get access to the full text). It is also listed as a reference by the Jewish Virtual Library [10] who also acknowledge the use of copyrighted material (specifically photographs related to original research published at ZionismOnTheWeb) [11]. Other links are to pages with relevent original research including photographs and audio recordings of the counter boycott event. I believe there is an explicit provision to link to your own original research. Given I am posting under my own name, and I include the name in the link when it is material I wrote (rather than material I repost under fair use, or with explicit permission which I usually seek and get), I would have thought that was enough evidence of good faith on my part. I can't speak for the good faith of those above however.

If someone wishes to review whether Zionism On The Web is notable enough to be included (and wishes to write an article on it) that would also be welcome. I figured it was at the time and was told no, I think things have moved on a bit since then. Zionism On The Web has been given an award from the Jewish Agency, participated in the Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism (the premier event on the topic), you can see Zionism On The Web listed here... [12] but ignore the rest of my profile (someone messed up at their end), and has been mentioned a number of times in the press. The report on Antisemitism 2.0 published by the JCPA is cites all over the place, Zionism On The Web is listed there as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to factiva, try searching for "andre oboler" and you will get two hits now [13] (mentions my name and Zionism On The Web - misformatted though) and [14] (article by me, Zionism On The Web not mentioned). There will soon be another one for this new article [15] (which includes Zionism On The Web). Factiva seems to miss this [16] which has my name but not Zionism On The Web and this [17] which has both my name and Zionism On The Web, not to mention [18] and [19] (both news articles mentioning me and Zionism On the Web). All this said, the information regarding the Antisemitism Conference is in my opinion the most "notable", a quick look at the program and who the other speakers were will explain why.

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

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

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

Some of the material is originally published in the main stream media (written by myself or quoting me), some is peer reviewed academic work and published originally else where. Some it could be argued is self published, I've looked at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 policy re: Self published work and in the case where it could be said to be self published, (e.g. excluding original source documents now out of copyright that I've reproduced), the material I believe meets the requirements of being from an expert who is published else where on the topic. Looking at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it also says that "Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are welcomed", my site is reference by the history teacher site [20] (itself referenced very positively in the NY Times - see their home page), it is also used as a reference at the Jewish Virtual Library [21] which is itself run by an academic and is in many scholarly bibliographies. I've just edited the Jewish Virtual Library page to add references for this (the article said it needed references). Zionism On The Web is also referenced by Library at the University of Southampton [22].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses:

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

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

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

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

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

One wrong assumption is the capacity in which I attended the conference. I was there during a couple of days of annual leave and I was there speaking about Zionism On The Web. You'll note that Prof. Gerald Steinberg was also present and officially representing and speaking on NGO Monitor (so I was clearly not doing this). This was not purely an academic conference, it was a diplomatic event... which explains why notability should be treated differently in this case. As to expertise in the area, please see the press articles already refered to and the peer reviewed publication at [23] Please note the reference to Zionism On The Web in the text. Please also note the extensive review this item went through (with computer science, political science, and antisemitism experts). I was also introduced as CEO of Zionism On The Web (in addition to other positions I hold) in the radio interview earlier today [24], the actual interview can be heard here [25]. As for what is notable etc, I think neither you nor I are the right people to determin where that bar sits. Oboler (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moulton (un)ban

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

Given the recent dramaz relating to this user and the_undertow (see WP:RFAR#The_undertow), a fair bit of confusion has arisen as to if this user is actually banned or not.

Relevant links

Let's try and treat this the way we normally treat a ban/unban discussion and put aside the_undertow's antics for a bit. To get the ball rolling I promise we as a community unban (and subsequently, unblock) Moulton and allow him to resume editing. I say this because I see no significant discussion in the original ban discussion (ANI archive 297) and am willing to extend a second chance, over six months later.

But I'm not the community; we are. Comments, please. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's banned. Tagging notwithstanding, if there is someone willing to unblock, he's "blocked without consensus to unblock" not banned. I'm not prepared at this time to support an unblock, because I'm not completely sure that Moulton would edit constructively within our norms, based on his own communications with me, but I think there is merit in investigating the matter, especially the manner in which we got to where we are now. There may well be learnings here on how to deal with academics more effectively, in a way that doesn't sour them on wikipedia. Were I to get a positive committment from Moulton to edit within our norms that I felt was credible, I would support an unblock, with probation and monitoring, as we have done for other users. ++Lar: t/c 10:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that a probation and a commitment from Moulton would be necessary. naerii - talk 10:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't see enough "disruptive" behaviour in the original discussions to support a ban on Moulton. He's a bit of an oddball, yeah, but there was no consensus (unless a 'consensus' amongst a small group of editors counts) and I see no wider discussion. To be honest I've never really understood why he was indefinitely blocked in the first place, and would like to see him unblocked and given a chance to make helpful contributions. There is nothing to stop us reblocking if he does turn out to be disruptive, and I'm sure many eyes will be on his contributions should that happen. Moulton is obviously knowledgable on some topics and I think that if there's a chance that we could draw on that knowledge, we should take it :) naerii - talk 10:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the people who support a continued block lay out reasons as to why it is inadvisable. As is obvious, nobody wants to let a disruptive editor back on. Please try and avoid unnecessarily drama-causing statements such as "recruiting meatpuppets" as also content-free phrases such as "Civil POV-pusher." Reading the original statement at the RfC, I see that the statements that are reported as being disruptive are almost identical to those made by a dozen outside observers in the recent push towards consensus at Talk:Rosalind Picard. I'd like to see more specific complaints about misrepresentation of sources, or extensive POV-pushing. I'd also like to see MastCell comment on talkpage abuse, and Moreschi on what he saw as OR, since those are two editors that I generally agree with. I lean towards not thinking an unblock necessary at this time, but I'd like to see some actual reasons, not mad rushes to judgment. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given Moulton's experience with Wikipedia, I would be pleasantly surprised if he decided to contribute after this. An unblocking would be a reasonable manner in which to begin to try and resolve Moulton's case (for want of a better word). I believe Moulton's blocking issues stemmed from his opposition to the labelling of scientists (particularly Rosalind Picard) as supporting Intelligent Design on their biographical articles. Neıl ☎ 11:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors who interacted with Moulton and tried to meet his concerns, the evidence presented understates the tendentiousness of his talk page insistence on justifying his edit warring by rambling on about his own ideas of "standards" which are very much at odds with Wikipedia policies. There is also a question of whether he actually made any constructive edits, his emphasis was very much on removing properly sourced information on the basis of his own original research. He continues to campaign off-wiki for Wikipedia to be changed to accord with his ideas. Has there been any indication that he has changed? . . dave souza, talk 11:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As anyone whose spent as much time whacking fringers and POV-pushers as I have knows, "removing sourced information" is quite frequently a "constructive edit".

Campaigning off-wiki for changes to WP policy are also, IIRC, not considered inappropriate. Or are we going to ban Phil Sandifer for campaigning on the mailing list prior to trying to change policy on verifiability here? Or Doc Glasgow for doing the same at the Stalk Board?

If the central problem is that he goes on too much, a strict enforcement of WP:TALK should certainly be enough, IMO. I tend to be pretty strict on the subject, removing or blanking off-topic discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, I look forward to your support should I find it necessary to apply it. I disagree with your enthusiasm for WR. .. dave souza, talk 14:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What enthusiasm? You really need to try sticking a little more closely to what people actually write. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As some may know, I've chatted a little to Moulton, and will be chatting with him again tomorrow in a public conversation over at WP:NTWW (all are welcome, and if you'd like to speak with Moulton at all, it's not a bad opportunity). I think it's fair to say (without prejudice) that Moulton is quite angry at how matters played out here, and would like some assurance or recognition that something went awry in his case - I still haven't figured out quite what went on, despite having ploughed through an awful lot of material - it's very very muddy waters from my perspective. I personally would be happy for Moulton to be unblocked - particularly given the obvious level of scrutiny any and all edits would face - he's neither an 'under the radar' kind of guy, nor an irredeemable wiki-editor in my view. Privatemusings (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton was banned because he was trying to whitewash away some embarrassing facts about his colleague of his - Rosalind Picard - from her article. It took months of tedious work on the part of several knowledge editors in this area to debunk his claims (that the NY Times are not a reliable source, that they didn't really mean to include her, etc), and he never really did accept that he was flatly wrong. His contributions were not beneficial in any way - he was an SPA whose contribution was to simply waste everyone's time. And he was community banned for it. Now people who did absolutely nothing to deal with the problems he caused the last time around are proposing we forget all of the above, and pretend like he was a useful contributor, or had the potential to be. He was no such thing. Raul654 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I did nothing to deal with "the problem" when it took place—I wasn't aware of it at the time and am not pretending I was. But that doesn't answer the question being asked—is Moulton banned? And if not, why not give him a second chance? Admittedly, most of his work was done on the Picard article and in relation to other ID related issues, but he also made useful contributions to (to take a random example) Characterization. More of this, less of the undiscussed "whitewashing", and we have a good contributor. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, please back up your assertions with arguments, as I requested. Diffs about "whitewashing" that are substantively different from arguments independently made recently by those who have absolutely no connection with either Moulton, Rosemary Picard, or ID-pushers would be a start. Nobody is going to unblock the fellow without taking your concerns into consideration, but surely you need to demonstrate their weight first. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be asking me to provide a "substantially different" set of problem behaviors Moulton was banned for then was previously discussed on the Rosalind Picard talk page. That simply is a non-starter. He was banned for the reasons he was banned -- that he tried to whitewash the article. This is documented in excruiating detail on his RFC. Edits like this (linked from that RFC) are par for the course -- notice the hagiographic tone, the fact that he has completely removed any mention of the fact that she signed the petition (a total whitewash, as it were). Raul654 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul: When I compare the Picard article as it was then to the way it is now, I see a previous article that was a WP:COATRACK, because it gave undue weight to one episode in this person's life. That the event was properly sourced is not disputed by me. What is disputed by me is the slant the article had. It was at the time, in my view, a clear WP:BLP violation, and badly needed correction. Moulton went about it all wrong. But guess what? So do a lot of other people. See WP:DOLT for some tangential but related thinking on dealing with newbies that have issues. See also some essays on how the academic model of discourse may not be completely compatible here. In my view, Moulton's old approach wasn't going to work here. But if there is reason to believe he now realises that, and wants to change his approach, I'd support an unblock. At the present time, I don't see that. But a blocked editor that we are willing to unblock under conditions is not a banned editor. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had another round of communication with Moulton and I see no change in his position, which is (paraprhased and any inaccuracy introduced is mine) that he does not wish to edit here without a review of what occurred having happened first (in particular, he wishes that these concerns be addressed). I'm not sure that's going to happen. Therefore, I see no pressing need to lift the block at this time, but I however continue to state that he is not banned. There are conditions under which I, an administrator in good standing, would lift the block, therefore there is not unanimous consent for a ban, and therefore this user is not banned, merely indefinitely blocked. I have changed the template used on his user page to reflect that. It is a distinction with no practical effect on his ability to edit, but a distinction that matters nonetheless. ++Lar: t/c 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the original blocking admin, I am involved, but would like to state (possibly pointlessly) that Lar is correct: under these conditions "indef blocked" not "banned" is the accurate term. That said, I don't know anyone who hasn't accidentally used the wrong term once or twice, whether "block" when they meant "ban" or similar errors, and it would be nice if everyone overlooked any mis-statements or disagreements about terminology and avoided nasty accusations and ABF. It doesn't help the situation a bit and only introduces bickering about non-issues. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What ban? there was no ban - FM just randomly decided he was the community and added the template on his on initiative - but the template does not make it so. Viridae ^Talk 12:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H₂O, would you be willing to "keep an eye" on Moultan for a while if you unblock him? Your answer to this question is the same as mine to whether I'd support your unblocking him. WilyD 12:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am if he isn't. Or jointly, because I suspect I already know Giggy's answer will be yes. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a non-admin idiot who changed his mind about Moulton during the RfC, I wonder if the Arbcom decision not to hear an appeal of his ban (and it's worth reading the arbitrator's opinions) has any bearing on whether or not he should be considered banned.

I also wonder why we are having this debate now (other than the_undertow's actions). Is there any evidence that Moulton realises that anything he did was wrong, and if so, where is it? I just can't reconcile the view that he's going to contribute constructively with the view that Wikipedia is responsible for turning a respectable academic into a... never mind. Let's just say that, if the WR posts I've read are anything to go by, he's quite sure that any fault lay on the part of Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I suspect it goes without saying, I would also find this sufficient. WilyD 13:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In these more enlightened times, I'm pretty sure we can link to WR where relevant - Moulton's version of how he came to be blocked is here, which I think is relevant. If fifty percent of what he says is accurate, his block was unfair. Neıl ☎ 13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Banning policy, if no uninvolved admin is willing to overturn the block, he's banned. Maybe the undertow is in fact involved, but if another were to agree with his rationale and call for a review or unblock, would he not be de facto unbanned? Wizardman 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we're ignoring that it has been raised on Rfar, and we are currently waiting to see if ArbCom will clarify, whether their declining to hear his appeal changed the status of his case at all; it may be that changed his status from indef blocked to banned. It may be that it changed nothing, in which case as Wizardman notes the undertow is arguably involved, and is not the requisite "uninvolved admin". If a completely uninvolved admin were to state his/her willingness to unblock, then I agree, he would be de facto not banned - but he would still be indef blocked, with no consensus to unblock, as noted by Lar near the beginning of this thread. All that said, FM was justified in stating he was banned per the evidence available - no uninvolved admin was willing to unblock - and I find Viridae's attack on FM sadly divisive to no purpose. Viridae, I suggest you strike that accusation.

As Moulton is either indef blocked with no consensus to unblock, or banned, what is the best course forward? I concur with SheffieldSteel, nothing has changed regarding Moulton except that the undertow unblocked him, without, I might add, even bothering to post such a potentially disruptive unblock on AN/I, which is done for even fairly minor changes of block duration, let alone for unblocking indef blocked editors. This is insufficient rationale for unblocking - that a rogue, possibly involved, admin unblocked without community input. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly wrong in one point, and with it crumbles much of your statement. An admin deciding that they are willing to unblock does not make them stop being uninvolved. If they were uninvolved before they made that decision, they remain uninvolved after it. I have seen zero evidence presented that the undertow is an involved admin; the lack of such evidence is significant given that almost every other smear under the sun is being thrown at him. With no evidence for the undertow being involved prior to the unblock; he is and remains an uninvolved admin for the purpose of considering Moulton. So it is clear, solely from his action, that Moulton is not now banned. (It is debatable if Moulton was ever banned; I haven't yet concluded on that.) GRBerry 14:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you were at all accurate about my reasoning, you would be accurate, but as you are "clearly" stating my reason is that he's willing to unblock makes him "involved" and you're dead wrong about that, your whole statement is pointless. Feel free to ask any questions about my reasoning, rather than leap to such conclusion in the future. It wastes everyone's time to read such fantasizing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would perhaps say that if you were involved at the time, or now, it was not because of the block itself but rather because of previous history, if any, in editing in the somewhat contentious ID related area, which was a focus of some of the article disputes that lead to the block as I understand it. There are those that assert you do edit in that area, is that a correct assertion? ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, Lar? GRB and I are discussing whether the undertow is an involved or uninvolved editor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Lar's question, which is relevant to the overall discussion but differentfrom this subthread, I think this diff is sufficient evidence that KC listed himself as an editor in the intelligent design area. He remains listed as a participant in that project. GRBerry 16:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nod. to KC (the first reply :) ): I would note that in my imperfect understanding, ArbCom declined to review the matter (with one possible outcome being an overturn of a community banning), that is, declined to review the actions OF the community. If there is no longer consensus for a community ban, that overrides ArbCom's decline to review it, in my view. Unblocking him is, in my view, not going against an ArbCom finding. (but I see no pressing need for an unblock, unless we are applying something akin to a "we don't think we did anything wrong but we are unblocking you anyway so you can go away in good grace" reasoning that has been used with other WR regulars, given what I said above that he's not likely to edit constructively, or at all, for that matter, at this time) To GRB: I agree, I don't see 'tow as involved the way that others such as Raul, Fill, FM, etc are. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the unblock of Moulton, and don't believe a community of six involved editors have the authority to ban someone. Powers were abused in this case, and I believe Moulton deserves a second chance, as he did make constructive edits. I'd also be willing to keep an eye on his contributions and be available to answer questions for him. Lara❤Love 14:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Powers were abused? Really? Whose? Mine, as the one who indef'd? If not, then who? Please either be specific or retract that very serious accusation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to unblocking. Strongly. And a community ban remains a ban by definition: Wikipedia:BAN#Community_ban "Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" '". Moulton was not and remains not interested in collaboratively writing an encyclopedia, only in promoting a certain view on a single topic, consensus or NPOV be damned. The Arbcom recognized this when it rejected his request to be unblocked. As seen in his comments and efforts offsite, nothing has changed with Moulton, and he's simply unsuited to be editing Wikipedia, a fact the Arbcom recognized. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'd forgotten that, so yes, he's banned. No amount of discussion changes that. However, my point about bickering about terminology still stands - and I'm pleased to see that FM at least is not accusing those debating this point of BF. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, FeloniousMonk is misrepresenting what happend in that ArbComm appeal. Moulton asked the AbComm "to review the issues of due process that I am placing before the ArbCom" Wikipedia and the ArbComm doesn't do due process; so of course they rejected that request. The committee did not reject an appeal to be unblocked; the rejected a request for due process. As such, their decision there matters nought at all. GRBerry 14:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Further, a community ban requires consensus. Just as in the Mantammoreland case, in which a lack of consensus resulted in a reversal of a block, there is not demonstrated consensus for a community ban in this matter at this time. Certainly some are arguing for it, yes. And some are arguing against it. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think unblocking Moulton is a singularly bad idea. Aside from the actual edit warring at Picard's biography, and Tour's biography and at A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, which was considerable, and threats and other assorted bad behavior on the talk pages, the most fundamental problem with User:Moulton was his belief that a large fraction of the traditions, conventions, rules and policies of Wikipedia must be changed immediately if not sooner, by fiat issued by him. He has never renounced this belief to my knowledge and in fact continues to lobby for this position off-wiki extensively.

A more extensive discussion of my position is found here--Filll (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought about this a while, and reviewed more of the evidence than I had previously, I come to the following conclusions. 1) The original block and the RFC are quite problematic, because the articles he was accused of whitewashing or otherwise inappropriately editing were at the time egregious violations of our policies, most importantly WP:BLP, but also WP:NPOV. 2) The undertow's unblock was quite bold, but reasonable; in the original ANI thread announcing the block, the blocking admin said "Per usual, if anyone wishes to unblock feel free." As such, the unblock could reasonably be understood as having the explicit consent of the blocking admin, so no discussion prior to unblocking was needed. 3) There are conditions under which I would be willing to unblock Moulton. They are broadly similar to those Lar has described, namely editing within norms and being willing to work with our communal processes. 4) Moulton is not now a banned editor. (It is not worth concluding whether he ever was.) 5) I doubt that Moulton is currently willing to deal with the fact that this is encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but I could be wrong on this point. 6) It is unlikely that a consensus for an unsupervised unblock will emerge soon. 7) It would be best if his return was accompanied by supervision, but I expect the supervisors will have as much to do in educating those opposed to Moulton but in the wrong themselves as they will in educating Moulton. 8) If any admin receives any private indication of willingness to edit within norms, Moulton's talk page should be unprotected so he can make such statements publicly here. GRBerry 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to a certain extent with 1. I disagree with 2 -- when you have someone who has been indefinitely blocked for a substantial period of time, an unblocking should always be preceded by discussion. The block belongs not only to the original admin, but also to all those who did not unblock immediately. While the "one admin willing to unblock" standard is good for creating bans, it should not be interpreted legalistically when it comes to judging whether they should continue. I think the undertow had a significant lapse in judgment here.

With 4 -- the difference between "indefinitely blocked with no immediate prospect of unblocking" and "indefinitey banned" is very small. I would say, personally, that it is pretty much meaningless. Is he banned? Well, he can't edit Wikipedia from that account. That's the actual reality, rather than the theory, which can be highly misleading.

The question that needs answering is not "is this block valid?" (I say "block" rather than "ban" solely to avoid legalistic disputation) but "is this block right?" I would be interested in hearing from him -- he can feel free to email me (smoddy@gmail.com). Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I've been trying to say with my pleas to stop bickering about the terminology. Thanks, Sam. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton was blocked because of his behaviour. There's no indication that he has any desire to change his behaviour. So why should he be unblocked?

Moulton's problem is with the core principles of Wikipedia - he appears to be unable to grasp the fact that he cannot substitute his own experience for a reliable source. It isn't all that strange a situation for a new editor. I'm sure most people have read a newspaper article and thought "they got that completely wrong. And many of us have, early in our Wikipedia career, changed an article, despite it being sourced, because we "knew better". It's a typical newbie mistake. But it's explained to us, we accept it as "the rules", and eventually, we come to embrace sourcing because we see how important it is to the accuracy of the project as a whole. Moulton never made it past the first step. As late as his RFC, he still expressed surprise when he was told that Wikipedia is not the place to publish original thought - that despite being told that Wikipedia is not the place to publish original thought ~~for months~~ repeatedly prior to his RFC.

Moutlon was blocked because he was unwilling to adhere to our core principles. If there was some indication that he recognised the problem and was willing to change, then an unban may be in order. But he has done no such thing. So why unban him? Guettarda (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support unblocking him. I'm not sure whether or not his initial treatment was fair, but either way it's been long enough and he should get another chance. Everyking (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what has changed?--Filll (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we should never consider anyone beyond redemption. We block people who are actively damaging the encyclopedia, to prevent further harm to the encyclopedia. If Moulton returns and edits within our communal norms, then he's no longer damaging the encyclopedia. If he repeats offensive behavior patterns, he can be blocked again. So where's the harm? FCYTravis (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved administrator, I give notice here that I am willing to unblock Moulton, on the (standard) requirement that he edits within communal norms and policies. I will not do so immediately, in the interests of reducing Wikidrama, but will give time for those opposed to propose good reasons as to why this should not be done. FCYTravis (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that no one should be considered beyond redemption. However, this should be considered extremely carefully, given that someone who unblocks Moulton is most likely demanding the commitment of hundreds of wasted hours of other volunteer's time.

I also ask, are you in favor of discarding WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and WP:COI and WP:RS ? Are you in favor of unleashing someone who has repeatedly stated and continues to state repeatedly and aggressively he will not abide by Wikipedia's core principles, and summarily rejects them in favor of his own dictates and fiats and fatwas? If you are in favor of these things, then unblock/unban Moulton. Because that is what you will get.

Until such time as Moulton renounces his current positions and shows some acknowledgement of the part his own positions and actions played in this saga, I fear this will be a collosal waste, and a price that the person who unblocks will be visiting upon the community.--Filll (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FCYTravis states it rather well here. If he returns and is not disruptive, where's the problem? It's pretty much self-evident that Moulton was never banned but remains indefinitely blocked. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption to the project and right now, I'm not seeing him as being much of a risk. Having said that, I was not involved with this editor in the past, as many others here obviously are, so may not be aware of the entire history. If someone like User:Vintagekits can survive more than two indef blocks yet return rehabilitated, I daresay Moulton could too - Alison ^❤ 17:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the question of "why no?" I would direct people to MastCell's section below. He does not appear to have acknowledged that his blocking was in any way related to his behaviour, let alone resolved to change his behaviour. No one is beyond redemption, but there has to be, at the very least, a commitment to change. Guettarda (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deconstructing "recruiting meatpuppets"

What others seem to call "recruiting meatpuppets" actually follows a simple pattern - and one that involves no wrongdoing on anyone's part. Moulton says there is a problem with an article (he's allowed to have an opinion, and he's allowed to state his opinion, and this is as far as his actions go, full stop). Someone else, who is not banned and therefore who is free to edit articles, *gasp* _agrees_ that the article violates BLP or whatever, and makes an edit using their own judgement.

This is NOT meatpuppetry, this is not "proxy editing", this is nothing more than people fixing BLP issues with articles on people that for some reason a certain group of editors wants to smear as "anti-evolution". --Random832 (contribs) 13:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here Moulton calls for very specific edits to two specific articles: WikipediaReview, May 12, 2008 And here a new user, one who is engaged in the same behavior as Moulton in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose - Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets the very definition of a meatpuppet, making his first two and only edits in the article namespace matching Moulton's above requested content word-for-word within hours of Moulton's request: May 12, 2008 May 12, 2008 And here's the new editor acknowledging he acted in response to Moulton's call: [26] An editor who is engaged in the same behavior as Moulton and in the same context, and who appears to be editing solely for that purpose is by defintion Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets meatpuppetry. I have 16 more links of Moulton directing others, calling for certain edits. Would you like to go through each one as above? FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. If someone "calls" for an edit to an article by proposing text (on a talk page, in a blog, at some other site that I happen to read, or by mailing to me or whatever form the communication takes), and I happen to think that, after reviewing the article, that the text is good, or close to good, and thus use it verbatim or with little modification, that does not mean I am that person's meat puppet. It means that I am happy to take constructive input about ways to improve articles where ever I may happen to find it, and I stand behind the edit I made, not the other person. That was pointed out to you (in rather less detail) on your talk page, in the very diff you cite as evidence of puppetry. I think you may have overstepped a bit in your use of terms here. For the record, I am always happy to receive suggestions about improvements to articles, which I will act on or not, as I choose, and I am no one's puppet. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this does NOT contradict my stated intention to blanket mass revert the edits of editors who are banned and "singularly unwelcome" here. Mass reverting allows for someone else to then come in and selectively choose to incorporate material and stand behind it themselves. If I saw a sock of Moulton editing here I could very well revert all the edits that sock made without any inconsistency. ++Lar: t/c 15:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar speaks very sensibly here. A good edit should never be considered "tainted" because of who supports it. Content can be considered strictly on its own merits, without regard to who is on which side. Friday (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled. Are you saying it's ok to recruit meatpuppets if some editors in good standing decide to adopt the advice as their own? . . dave souza, talk 15:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's saying making a reasonable edit after noticing a blocked editor had suggested it does not amount to "recruiting meatpuppets" in the first place. If I see a blocked user point out a BLP violation on Wikipedia Review or anywhere else, my first instinct is to check it out, and fix it. I don't care if a blocked user was the first to notice it. I wouldn't consider myself to then be a meatpuppet for that user. Just in case I wasn't clear earlier, I support unblocking Moulton, as the circumstances of his indef block (not a ban - a ban indicates consensus - for which there is none, based on the above) were dubious, and as there's no doubt his actions would be monitored by more than one admin, if he does end up broaching policies, he can always be reblocked. Neıl ☎ 15:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would direct anyone who agrees with this line of reasoning to consider the recently forged and hard-fought consensus at Rosalind Picard which was almost immediately discarded by a new editor who admitted he was following Moulton's off-wiki direction. Is this the kind of editing environment you advocate? Where consensus stands for nothing?--Filll (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not remotely. Coming in and disregarding existing consensus is disruptive. This is true regardless of whether he was following some instructions or not. Friday (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure what this has do to with the discussion, really. I'm also not sure Moulton saying "I do not agree with the content of this article" can fairly be characterised as "off-wiki direction". Neıl ☎ 15:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Friday and Neil, but I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the consensus. Are you sure that the lowering of the amount of coatracking this article contains is due to your personal efforts, or is it more likely that it was a consensus reached against your wishes, that is, that the article is in a state you do not personally agree with is the correct weighting in that it doesn't emphasise the petition enough? The article in my view, still could stand improvement, even now. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I was on that talk page trying to get some discussion rather than the insult flinging and hate spewing I saw. I got threatened for my efforts with some sort of "outing". Consensus should not be built via wikibullying those who disagree with you away. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before, you were not threatened and that was a poorly stated post and a misunderstanding. I apologized before for any misunderstanding and I apologize again. That is off-topic in any case.--Filll (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. I will now disengage. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>I would dispute some of the characterization of my position and editing as recounted above. But is this really the place for such a debate?--Filll (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

This will be a bit lengthy, but please bear with me. I'm going to speak carefully here, recognizing that Moulton is a real and identifiable person with a real career and real feelings. There are a couple of issues here:

The legitimacy of his block/ban/what-have-you. Several editors have questioned this, some in more unfortunate and inflammatory language than others. The fact is that Moulton was indefinitely blocked after an RfC; his block was posted to WP:AN/I for comment; he appealed through numerous channels, from emailing various admins to unblock-en-l to Mike Godwin to ArbCom; and all of those lines of appeal were rejected. That was a legitimate and transparent block, according to Wikipedia's current standards - it was not unilateral, or unreviewed, or underhanded, or nefariously contrived by a handful of evil people, and anyone suggesting that it was is either ignorant of the facts or twisting this case to pursue a wider agenda (or both). The process of undoing such a block begins with discussion, not with a unilateral unblock, and I'd like to think that most admins have at least that much common sense. That said, there's clearly a feeling right now that this block needs to be reviewed again, so let's do it.
My views were expressed here back in 12/07, and haven't changed much. When it comes to unblocking someone, the most useful question is: "Has anything changed since the block? Is there any reason to think that anything will be different?" I see nothing to suggest that it will. Virtually all of Moulton's attempts to get unblocked, here and on WR, are couched in terms of smiting people he believes have wronged him. Nowhere is any acknowledgement that his own actions or behavior might have played some role in the outcome of the situation, nor an indication of a desire to contribute useful content. These absences makes it much harder to believe that an unblock will prove constructive.
I had no involvement in the whole Rosalind Picard thing; my take on the essential problem was that Moulton interacted largely in the form of abstract meta-diatribes. I hesitate to use the T-word, but I found his approach to be "trolling" in the pure sense - that is, editing with the primary goal of getting a rise or reaction out of other editors. It was a singularly unconstructive approach. Interestingly, my sense is that Wikipedia Review has been much more successful at handling Moulton's MO than we were. Many or most of his posts are simply ignored on WR, whereas Wikipedians, unfortunately, were unable to avoid engaging him on his terms with a resultant death spiral of argumentative silliness, to which Moulton was not the sole contributor.

I wish Moulton the best in general, but I'm against an unblock on practical terms - I see no benefit coming to the encyclopedia, particularly given that Moulton is still filing Petitions for Redress of Grievances which admit no responsibility, and has given no reason for us to expect anything other than a repetition of the same issues if he's unblocked. I'd like to see a separation between the fundamental question - whether an unblock will help the encyclopedia - and subsidiary issues like block vs. ban, grievances about the community ban process, etc. If the community consensus is to unblock, then I'd like to see specific guidelines in place on appropriate talk page use, along with one or more dedicated mentors to guide him on working within Wikipedia's policies and structures and review of his contributions at set periods to determine whether he should remain unblocked. I'm happy to go into more detail or discuss this further, but I think this post is long enough, so I'll leave it there for now. Incidentally, as the admin who protected Moulton's talk page, I'm going to unprotect it so that he can post directly there rather than having to email or post offsite to participate. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would like to commend Dihydrogen for bringing this to the AN board for a review. I think we can all agree that this is the best manner to go about any controversial unblock. If we learned anything from Stifle's handling Iantresman case, its that these sort of things need to be explained in full view of the community, as he did. If the_undertow would have done this, a great deal of the drama would have been avoided. Since we can't live in the past, let’s look at the case. What this boils down to is should a user who exhausted the good faith of the large majority of editors he dealt with be allowed to return, as many have previously mentioned. We have to temper that with the knowledge that Moulton has actively attacked the entire membership of the WikiProject for intelligent design and additional editors that he feels are associated with the ID project. Of course, he is not the only person to attack this group on WR. He has also engaged in what could best be described as drive-by psychoanalysis of several of the members of the project. It was a little insulting, to say the least and I am sure the other members will agree, especially those who were on the receiving end of the doctoring. I guess you could say that I am involved with this because Moulton believes I am a sock puppet and/or a troll of some sort and has made his feelings public about this. He had also, during his very brief period, contributed nearly nothing of value to the project. So, basically we have some very respectable admins and editors asking for a good faith unblock for a user who has attacked other editors, showed no remorse for any of his actions, and appeared to be incapable of working within WP policies to construct an encyclopedia and would rather argue for his own ideas on policy. With Lar clearly stating that Moulton shows no change in his behavior, there is no way that this block can be overturned, without proper consensus. Also, someone previously mentioned how campaigning off-wiki is not always frowned upon. But we need to use common sense on this one. Are we seriously going to extend any good faith to a website that has entire sections devoted to vehemently attacking single editors? I am sure SlimVirgin and JzG would love to know that we think so highly of this sort of off-wiki canvassing, since they are some of the favorite targets. If there are editors wishing to mentor Moulton, as a few have mentioned they are willing to do, if Moulton agrees to stay away from articles in which he has a serious COI problem, and if he ceases his attacks on the editors who he has had previous dealings, the unblock could be considered. Short of these being addressed, I see no reason to overturn this block. Baegis (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Moulton hasn't done enough admitting that at least some of his problems are caused by his own improper behavior, and some of his views are mistaken or inappropriate. But the same can be said of some of those here who are fighting him; some of them still don't seem to admit that there was any problem whatsoever with the "coatrack" status of some of the versions of the articles in question. Perhaps some apologies and adoption of greater humility would be in order on more than one side. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully beg to differ. I was the editor who constructed the RfC. I was also the editor who volunteered to call Moulton and talk to him for several hours about his concerns about the biography and tried to help him resolve these problems, with repeated emails and phone calls to a variety of Wikipedians and others. I have never denied there was a problem with the biography on August 22, 2007; otherwise, why would I have devoted so much time and energy trying to fix it? There are reasons why it was in that state which I will not bore anyone with here. There are reasons it did not change to its current consensus state for a few months after, which I will not bore anyone with here. If you want a more complete explanation, contact me.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for instance, there's Raul654's comments way up on this page, "he never really did accept that he was flatly wrong". This exhibits a mindset of "he's totally wrong; we're totally right; we must never even think about un-banning him until he admits it and grovels before us." This excludes a position where both sides have made mistakes and have problems. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have to defend the behavior and attitudes of everyone else. I can speak for myself and relate the positions of those who have shared those positions with me. I do not believe that everyone maintains that "he's totally wrong; we're totally right". It is not a matter of groveling. It is a matter of writing an encyclopedia according to our accepted principles. Do you favor discarding the five pillars? Do you favor unleashing people who have not demonstrated any evidence of being able to work with others on Wikipedia and follow the principles of Wikipedia?--Filll (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do not speak for others who engaged Moulton in discussions, it has been my observation that many others were unhappy with its status on August 22, 2007 for similar reasons to Moulton. However, again, there is a lot more to this story. And just pointing fingers without any knowledge of the background or the facts is not helpful. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the ball is now in Moulton's court. There were real BLP problems with that bio (since improved by the community), and he made mistakes common to overeager new editors. He had the door closed on him quickly, and several of the accusations made in the RfC were simply unfair. But as MastCell outlines, his willingness as a new user to understand and edit within all of Wikipedia's policies was wanting. We're not a justice system; in the end, "what's good for the encyclopedia" must win out; he needs to put aside his bitterness and acknowledge that he will live within the rules. - Merzbow (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To go back to Dan's point, I think there's some validity there, in that these sorts of disputes are rarely purely one-sided. Moulton's not crazy - he had some legitimate points (though his manner of addressing them was unproductive), and the ensuing fracas didn't bring out the best in any of its participants. The more all of us recognize that, the better, and I understand the appeal to basic fairness. Still, the immediate question, to me at least, is whether unblocking Moulton is going to help the goal of building the encyclopedia. Even if we accept that the actions of others warrant individual scrutiny, I don't see the answer being yes. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the request that I back my claim that tools were abused. These are the ~~admins~~ editors that formed the "community ban":

Three are members of Wikiproject Intelligent Design, five participated in the RFC, which the result of was the basis for the block. The RFC was initiated by Filll. Among the certifying parties, FeloniousMonk was listed. The discussion was closed by WP:ID member KillerChihuahua, who had otherwise participated only in keeping order. ~~The block was then carried out by involved FeloniousMonk.~~ And then KC carried out the block. Lara❤Love 19:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with LaraLove here that the situation was handled in a less than ideal manner. I'd always rather see a neutral, uninvolved party enact "consensus", and I would have also liked to see greater participation from a wider array of editors before the actual block was ultimately enacted. hmwith τ 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was developed in a publicised RFC. The decision was posted to AN/I for consideration by the community. The decision was reviewed by the arbcomm. How do you suggest that one widen the array of editors involved? Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the WP:ANI discussion could have used more editors who did not have prominent roles in the RfC. hmwith τ 19:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? We can't force people to participate. Generally, if something is uncontroversial and uncontested, people don't chime in. The question posed with a block review at AN/I is, in essence, "anyone have a problem with this block?" I'm pretty sure I've posted blocks before that got zero feedback on AN/I. I didn't take that as an indication that I should undo the block, and I don't think that anyone else would either. Guettarda (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just talking about this type of situation in general. I didn't even say that I objected to the actions of any editors. However, in ideally, things would certainly be different. However, I readily realize that an ideal situation is not always possible, as well. hmwith τ 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, no, those are not the admins who "formed the community ban". Those are editors who felt that a block was appropriate, following a public RfC. The block was then posted for review on WP:AN/I, the most public and widely-read forum on Wikipedia. It was reviewed via an {{unblock}} template, by the uninvolved admins at unblock-en-l, by the Foundation legal counsel, and by at least one admin whom Moulton contacted by email. The entire situation was then reviewed by ArbCom. After all of that exposure, which goes well beyond "6 admins", no one was willing to unblock Moulton. It is reasonable to equate that situation - a block which no admin is willing to undo - with a community ban, just as it's reasonable to consider Moulton unbanned since there are now admins willing to consider unblocking him. This whole line of argument - that the block lacked transparency or was not properly reviewed - is completely at odds with the easily verifiable reality of the situation, and I'd suggest that further discussion be informed more by those facts and less by zOMG cabalism. MastCell ^Talk 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of those people are administrators. Not that they would have to be to comment on a block notice. Just trying to set facts straight, Lara. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at some rough numbers. About 17 editors expressed displeasure with Moulton's editing style at his RfC. In addition, Killer Chihuahua closed the RfC and has expressed her unhappiness with how Moulton was behaving, and this is still true, as can be observed above. Only 3 other editors supported Moulton at his RfC and expressed no reservations with his editing style, and 2 of those had not edited with him or interacted with him. Some of these clearly were doing so for ideological reasons, and not to do with the subject of the RfC, which was inability to follow Wikipedia policy. At the RfAr another 3 independent editors chimed in, of which only one thought that an Arbcomm examination of the situation was warranted. So if one adds this up, one finds in the two proceedings, about 20 editors expressed some misgivings about Moulton's editing style, and only one editor who had edited together with Moulton did not (while 2 further editors supported him, but based on limited experience and knowledge). This does not appear to be a particularly good ratio, at least in my opinion. What do you think?--Filll (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is, though, a tendency for some fairly tight cliques to develop and to gang up on people they dislike for whatever reason. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that does seem to be how WikipediaReview operates. Raul654 (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dislike Moulton, no matter what you have read. I would not have put so much effort into trying to help him otherwise. Unfortunately, Moulton showed no willingness to follow the principles of Wikipedia, and has stated repeatedly that he does not want to abide by the principles that Wikipedia is founded on. And that is why Moulton was the subject of an administrative action. It was not because he was ganged up on by a clique or a "cabal".--Filll (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the admins to editors. My issue is how the RFC closed and how an involved editor carried out the block. I believe an uninvolved editor should have done this. Lara❤Love 21:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying meatpuppetry edits and banned users

Just to clarify a running thread in this discussion (no opinion on the fate of Moulton from me). So... if a banned user says "Article xyxabc on Wikipedia has a problem with content A-B-C for reasons X-Y-Z," anyone here making matching changes is then editing on behalf of a banned user? What if they are good edits--removing typos, BLP violations, or just really good suggestions for a content change? If that is reversible, because it's on "behalf of a banned user", if we enforse this, all that is required is for the banned people at Wiki Review to just keep giving good suggestions. Am I misunderstanding this? Wouldn't it make sense to only apply this standard to BAD edits? If, for example, someone at WR says to say Abraham Lincoln had a pet elephant, and someone added that fact (beyond it being stupid vandalism) that would be bad. But if someone at WR says that the 7th footnote on Abe's article would be better with different wording--and gosh, someone agrees--and implements that wording: is this a bad act? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the example given above, a careful consensus was achieved by discussion on the article talk page, then at Moulton's bidding a new user (albeit one who says they had edited previously under a different account) effectively reverted the agreed version to a previous version which had not been accepted. Is that a BAD edit? Does that make it ok to recruit editors to make changes that disregard consensus on Wikipedia, to conform to arguments put on an outside forum? ... dave souza, talk 17:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case by case sorta thing. Considering Moulton's past and his attacks on the ID project, making edits he advocates are questionable at best. Baegis (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all criticism is an attack. This was the state of the article just before Moulton's first edit. If anyone thinks that this is an appropriate biography of a living person, we don't really have anything further to talk about. This is an attack piece containing nothing but criticism of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. When Moulton attempted to fix it, he was attacked by the ID project, who turned around and banned him. The vast majority of those commenting on the RFC are ID project members. The person who instituted the block is an ID project member. When someone does something worthy of criticism and is criticized for it, that is not a personal attack. The way that this "ban" was handled was absolutely terrible and is very much worthy of criticism. There comes a point where the differences are irreconcilable, even though the fault may be Wikipedia's not Moulton's and an unban isn't helpful to anyone. I haven't formed an opinion yet as to whether we are at that point, but I have formed an opinion that Moulton was wronged at least as much as he was in the wrong. --B (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B, saying that this was the state of the article when Moulton first editing it, as if that were the consensus on the article, is deeply misleading and prejudicial. Hrafn, then a brand new editor, had removed the unsourced material per BLP. What ensued was some heated between two new editors; one (Hrafn) who understood sourcing, but not the idea of (UN)DUE weight, and the other who did not understand the idea of sourcing. Neither of them properly understood sourcing policy. So what happened? They managed to hash things out to the point where the article reflected the sources that they had. Not bad for a couple of newbies. Then what? Moulton spent the next few weeks insisting that the article should explain that Picard signed a blank petition, that she didn't know what she was signing, that she wasn't a supporter of intelligent design (and that he could knew it as a fact because he knew "Roz"). And since then - Hrafn, like any newbie, refined his understanding of policy. And Moulton continued to complain about the system. Both started out with an incomplete understanding of policy. One editor adapted to the principles of Wikipedia. The other insisted that Wikipedia adapt to him. Guettarda (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, no disrespect intended, but did you even read my post above? If I did not feel the biography should not be cleaned up when I first talked to Moulton August 23, 2007, why did I devote many hours to trying to do so? I sent out emails and made many phone calls. Why did I do so if I wanted to keep the biography in its August 22nd, 2007 state? Your claims are not supported by the evidence.

As I offered above, I will be glad to give you some information about why the biography was in that state on August 22nd, 2007 and why it did not drastically improve until a week or two ago, if you want to contact me. Otherwise, I will not clog this page with trivia that most people are not interested in. Ask me if you want to know; do not assume.--Filll (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not unban Moulton, as I am going out of town shortly and will not be around to be responsible for the consequences. However, as giving difficult users second chances is SOP, and given the issues surrounding the article and block, it seems that a second chance is appropriate. Thatcher 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though the editor does not seem to be aware of the problem with his behaviour? That seems rather odd. Guettarda (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In brief, yes. The block button will still be there in the event it is required again. Thatcher 19:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Odd. Then why do we permaban anyone at all? It seems to me that there needs to be, at the very least, some sort of assurance that the problematic behaviour will change, a willingness to abide by our core principles, like WP:V. Guettarda (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have blocked or banned (for example) Hkelkar and his socks so many times that it is clear he will never be an asset. I'm talking about a second chance, not a sixth. Thatcher 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my current position on the situation: User:Filll/Moultonunblock. If you want more details about the Picard biography and why it was a mess and why it remained a mess for a few months, then ask me and I will be happy to help you out. This is not the result of some nefarious plot or an attempt to smear someone or to get revenge. This has a far more prosaic set of reasons, and in fact I suggested repeatedly that we just delete the Picard biography if it was going to cause so much rancor, but I was overruled.--Filll (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively to asking you for your view, one could just walk the edit history of the article and its talk. That's what I did. Why exactly several of the ID project members are viewed by many as apparently seeming to favor giving undue weight to this petition seems a different and larger matter, that may not be amenable to determining from the histories of the articles, so perhaps you could shed some light on whether that is an accurate impression, and why or why not, and if it's inaccurate, why it seems to be held by at least a few folk? As for deleting the article entirely I would probably now comment favorably if it were brought to AfD again. ++Lar: t/c 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why he was, and why he is, blocked

We seem to have different ideas of just _what_ he did "wrong" to get blocked. The RFC seems unusually focused on the blatantly false claim that he is anti-evolution and is lying about it and is lying about other people not being anti-evolution. To all accounts this seems to be what he was, at the end of the day, banned for. Yet now people are saying that his engagement style is disruptive. Well - maybe the two are related - maybe he was driven to it - to the "trolling", even, by people who were making false accusations about him and trying to keep BLP-violating stuff in articles. He can't commit to improving his behavior if he isn't even told that _this_ (whatever exactly "this" is) - rather than supposedly lying about his own and others' beliefs - is what he's doing wrong. And continuing with extremely tenuous accusations such as "recruiting meatpuppets" isn't the way to go - let's focus on what (if anything) he's ACTUALLY doing wrong, rather than trumped-up misinterpretations. --Random832 (contribs) 19:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. The fundamental reason he was blocked was that he could not work with others, could not work towards consensus, and disregarded the policies of Wikipedia like WP:NOR and WP:COI and WP:RS and so on. And announced frequently that he intended to do so and continue to do. And still does.--Filll (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In short - if he keeps being told that he is a liar and a creationist, then of course he's not going to accept that there are problems with his behavior, and of course he's going to think the problem is the people telling him that, because he knows that those are false accusations. I think that the ID project members in general, and Filll and FeloniousMonk in particular, need to post a retraction of those accusations before we can move forward. (or, if you still think he _is_ a liar and a creationist, we can redo the RFC - if your evidence of those claims is as good today as it was then, I should have no trouble refuting it.) --Random832 (contribs) 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe I ever claimed he was a creationist. I am not sure what I believe about his personal position, since he changed what he claimed often. He could have easily been "gaming" the system or testing us and our responses, as he claimed he was doing in outside publications documenting his experiences on Wikipedia.

I do not believe it is relevant, frankly. I think the only thing that is relevant is the reason the RfC was filed; inability or unwillingness to work with others and abide by the principles of Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition Moulton presented himself as a supporter of evolution, someone opposed to intelligent design, someone opposed to creationism and the agenda of the Discovery Institute. Moulton did this in private emails, on the telephone and in numerous Wikipedia postings (for example, [101]). However, this actually is incorrect, and Moulton was falsely representing himself and his views: [102] [103][104][105] [106], which became copiously clear." these being links that, to my reading, contain neither evidence that he was falsely representing himself and his views, nor that his views were other than being pro-evolution / opposed to ID/creationism / opposed to the DI which you all but explicitly claim. Still want to say you haven't claimed that? --Random832 (contribs) 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Random points out, the RFC did contain strong accusations that Moulton was an ID/creationist sympathizer (from several different editors). But the evidence presented did not back that up, and I haven't seen any statements from him since then that do. This doesn't change the fact he needs to promise to change his behavior, but in turn we as a community need to be more careful about what we do claim about another editor's real thoughts and intentions. - Merzbow (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you say NOW that inability to work with others was the reason the RFC was filed, but from what I can tell, calling him a liar is what the RFC is all about - and I wouldn't want to work with people who call me a liar either. --Random832 (contribs) 20:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are picking out one small section of the RfC to focus on. The actual complaint, without endorsements, has 95 links and is 18,430 bytes, and does not include this material at all, but only focuses on some behavioral problems. The "Inside View from Filll" has 12 links and 2755 bytes, and is not the main complaint but a small addendum to clarify something that I found dismaying that I felt I had to reveal and complain about.

The "Inside View from Filll" describes my experience at being manipulated by Moulton, which really took advantage of my assumptions of good faith. I have no idea what Moulton's personal religious positions and beliefs are, nor do I care. What I object to is being manipulated. I am not sure I would call it "lying" exactly, since from his later publications, he maintained that he was trying to cause disruption on Wikipedia on purpose to test Wikipedia's response to disruption so he could publish about it. This was certainly being disingenuous, and a misrepresentation of Moulton's purpose on Wikipedia, but I am not sure I would call Moulton a "liar".--Filll (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, if it's simply behavioral problems rather than anything wrong with his ideas, then it's not clear why he shouldn't be allowed to point out problems in articles for others to fix in their own way, and how this "recruiting meatpuppets" is even an offence at all (since despite you calling them meatpuppets there's clearly no-one that's offering to uncritically regurgitate any and all edits he suggests) --Random832 (contribs) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read this long thread, and do not find any convincing arguments to lift the block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Moulton would be willing to abide by Wikipedia's rules, if unblocked. I was engaging him in discussion on his talk page shortly before he was originally blocked, and found him to be pretty reasonable, once he had calmed down from his interaction with several members of Wikiproject intelligent design, which had left him a bit aggravated and confused, IMO. I don't know if he has much interest in editing beyond addressing the coatrack, undue weight, and BLP issues he ran into on Rosalind Picard and James Tour, but I do believe it's time to give him a real chance here. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense but that really is not particularly compelling since this is at best 2nd hand. --Filll (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His behaviour is closely tied to his ideas that WP should produce original research in some sort of "journalistic standards". The suspicion that he was claiming to be anti-ID while appearing to support their views was only part of the RfC which came in the context of his tendentious conduct on talk pages, and was not commented on or supported by all those taking part. Looking over the evidence now it seems to me that his expressed support for an ID proponent comes from some similarities in ideas and his use of buzzwords gave an unfortunate impression, but that's not the meat of the problem. The essential is that he conform to policies and talk page guidelines, but there has been no indication that he is willing to make such changes in behaviour. .. dave souza, talk 21:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after only a few exchanges with him, Moulton told me that "I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Wikipedia." [27] Also note in that diff that he had been confused by the use of sarcasm, and had not picked up on the misconceptions regarding his beliefs.

So of course his exchanges with Wikiproject intelligent design did not help him become a good editor. They didn't deal with his actual issues and attacked him for something he didn't believe in, serving to further confuse him. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You miss out the rest of his paragraph – "I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Wikipedia. Which begs the obvious question. If Wikipedia is not an instance of journalism, then what the devil is it? Is it sui generis?" That's hardly an agreement to work within the constraints of Wikipedia policies.

I assure you that I did my utmost to deal with his genuine concerns about biographies, but as stated earlier in that thread do not consider that Wikipedia should exercise censorship of reliably sourced non-defamatory information on the basis of hearsay evidence. His beliefs remain obscure, but his citing at least one ID proponent with apparent approval and his use of the common creationist claim that microevolution and macroevolution are distinct gave the impression of some sympathy with their cause. However, open creationists have been welcomed at ID articles when they discuss issues constructively and work within policy. My concern, and evidently MastCell's, was with his tendentious and extended arguments and failure to accept NOR. .. dave souza, talk 23:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying that the comment was the end of the dialog, but it clearly demonstrates that Moulton is not as inflexible as he's made out to be. He has been willing to learn and understand what Wikipedia is and how to go about it. I have also seen that he's learned a lot about Wikipedia's policies in the time since his block was enacted.

However, I don't see why he would understand policies at that time, when they were applied unevenly. It took intervention by far more experienced editors on two separate occasions in order to improve the undue weight, coatrack, and BLP issues on Picard's article. He didn't know policy, but he knew the article was wrong, so why would he accept policy when it was quoted in order to defend something clearly wrong? Now that he's got a better understanding of policies regarding undue weight, coatrack articles, and BLP, I believe he's likely to accept policies against OR as well. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a mischaracterization of the situation isn't it? After all, when did we finally get access to a statement of Picard's personal beliefs? Just last week, even though we and others had asked for it many many many times for months and months. If she supposedly thought that intelligent design was nonsense, then we had to have a source. Were we supposed to publish this with no sources based on nothing? You think that would have been reasonable and ethical, even even reasonable and ethical "journalism"? And the reason there were many editors involved was that a huge war erupted when people attempted to white wash the sourced material out of the article. And the reason the article became a "COATRACK", or violated UNDUE, was material that violated copyright, or was plagiarized was removed from it last August. And although assorted BLP warriors such as Moulton appeared, they were unwilling to actually write anything, but instead just wanted to fight. This could all be solved if people (1) followed the sources (2) actually wrote something instead of plagiarizing.--Filll (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is blatantly obvious that if an article has some content that was a copyvio, it should be removed; if the article then winds up blatantly lopsided and unbalanced, that should be corrected by further removal. None of this is unusual except, apparently, in this particular sector of Wikipedia. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. For example, see the history of Mike Cox. I found this version. It had copyvio, I threw up a notice, announced my intentions on the talk page and waited. I then removed the copyvio and unsourced/unreliably sourced text, what remained was massively unbalanced, so it went too, and we are left with a stub. This is standard practice in handling BLP articles. If the ID project doesn't do things that way, that's a matter for considerable concern, I'd say. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the ID Wikiproject is any different from any other in this respect. And I did not remove the copyright violation and I do not know if a current member of the project removed the copyright violation at that time, but it was removed. And it was unbalanced. So Moulton and I and others tried to address it. And things went downhill from there. And it was so contentious I suggested several times just removing the article completely, as you suggested. But others did not want to go down that route. And so it had certain things done that needed to be corrected, and there was a request to the parties involved to correct them since last August. And finally, the cooperation that had been requested repeatedly materialized, and then things moved to their present much improved state and continue to improve, with a small firestorm or two in the last couple of weeks that was uncalled for. So what is the problem?--Filll (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... "what is the problem?" That it took this long and caused this much contention to fix one coatrack that seemed apparently to be a focus of the ID project. Take a read through what Sam Korn says, below. His dispassionate review of matters draws significantly different conclusions about several matters about which you and other ID members have been asserting, and I for one am a bit curious as to why that is. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have already mentioned that the ID wikiproject is different in terms of BLP cleanup, so your basic premise is wrong. I note with amusement that the recent improvements, which were at the time attacked as meatpuppeting, are now being touted as a success. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for that matter - on the ground, Wikipedia _does_ have some elements of journalism. For example, these articles. Or these ones. Yes, it's not supposed to be, but in practice articles do violate that principle, more often than NOT. --Random832 (contribs) 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you claim that most Wikipedia articles violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and that these are standards we should discard? Do I have that correct? --Filll (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll: That is a false dichotomy, and I suspect you already know it, but used it for rhetorical effect anyway. To be precise: I can feel that there are some (who said "most" ??) articles that violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR without wanting to discard them., the two views are not dichtomic. If this is the typical level of your argument I can see why Moulton had trouble with trying to work with you, but I'm going to assume instead that you've overexcited by matters and it wasn't typical at all. Just as a tip though, if you want to be taken seriously outside your own project where everyone knows you, and make effective points, it may be more effective not to use such rhetorical flourishes when they are likely to confuse or distract. ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask you to spare me the personal attacks and to WP:AGF it at all possible and avoid such aggresive and tortuous argumentation. It reflects quite poorly on you. Just a friendly suggestion.

And I of course was asking this for clarification because I wanted to repeat back what I thought I had heard since it seemed a little hard to believe. Do you think this is not permitted? I was under the impression that was a good technique to avoid misunderstanding. Do you dispute that?

Also, I interpreted "more often than not" to mean "most". Do you dispute that might be a common interpretation of the phrase "more often than not"? How would you interpret the phrase "more often than not"?

Also, the aspects of asserting that Wikipedia should function as "online journalism" that Moulton was advocating that got him into trouble were pushing for the discard of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, among other principles. Now in a journalistic setting, you can argue a point or take some sort of editorial stance that is decidedly not NPOV. And you are expected to do your investigation and not follow NOR. But those are our principles here, at least at the moment. So I was asking for clarification, since I did not want to misinterpret what positions of Moulton's you were advocating we adopt, or what positions you were defending. Is this inappropriate? Please show me the place in policy where it shows that I cannot ask these questions to understand better what you position you are a proponent of. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"So you claim that most Wikipedia articles violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and that these are standards we should discard?" which is a quote of your statement, is the FIRST mention of NPOV and NOR in this section. So it's not clear who you are talking to, now that I think about it. Who were you asking that of, anyway? Random832? Note that his "more often than NOT" was a link to a section of what wikipedia is not, rather than just an assertion about probability. Couched that way, it's too clever, and thus both confusing and true. True, because WP:NOT says "never should an article be X" for a lot of different Xs, including "news story like". But it is true that there is at least one article in WP that is "news story like" (I could find one, and so could you). Hence that's more often than "NOT" (which == 0 by that reasoning, 1 is more than 0). But it is also confusing, because it does read, at first glance, like "51%" which is the conventional meaning of "more often than not". It confused you, it confused me, and it was a rhetorical flourish I wouldn't have used were I Random. So, apologies there for not spotting why you were confused and jumping on that point. But I still think your own false dichotomy wasn't useful. As to you or anyone asking for clarification, it is absolutely a good idea. I just don't think that it's a good idea if it's not clear what you were asking! ...which I don't think it was in this case... The way your phrase was worded, it read like you were only posing that as a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. I'm not Random, but I don't think Random, you, or I are claiming that most articles actually are news stories at present, although some are. Apologies if you took offense.

All that aside... I personally don't think that Wikipedia should be "online journalism". We have Wikinews for that. I also don't think that "journalistic ethics" are a perfect fit for our environment. SOME sort of ethics clearly are, though, in my personal opinion (some others disagree but I think they're wrong, an ethics free project is not a good project). And starting from some tenets of journalistic ethics to develop ours may give some value (rather than starting from, say, ditch digger ethics, which have far less in common with writing articles...) From journalistic ethics, I'd keep the part about not deliberately doing harm, and telling the truth, or at least reporting accurately on what others are saying, but drop the part about it being OK to have an editorial opinion (a POV, in other words) that is so common in journalism which is often written to persuade rather than inform. We don't have POV here, nor should we. We have RS and V rather than "truth" and we have NPOV rather than editorial opinion. Those are foundational principles, and no one can edit effectively here for long without editing within the lines they proscribe. One doesn't have to AGREE with them, you just have to abide. Moulton did not abide before. Until and unless he does agree to abide now, regardless of his personal view, he would get blocked again for straying, (you know lots of people would be watching for any straying), sooner or later. That being so, it is still completely seperable from whether he found a problem in some of the articles that ID was apparently perceived (at least by some) as "owning" at the time. He did. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for any confusion caused by "more often than NOT" - I saw an opportunity to use a pun to emphasize the issue, and took it. That said, while it's obviously not really a straight majority of articles, the problem is systemic, and we should be responsible in the way we - if at all - cover recent events and in particular real people that are related to those events. To put it in clearer terms, my point is that whether we should or not, we do often engage - irresponsibly in some cases - in what can only be called journalism, and that Moulton should not be faulted for calling it what it is. My post was specifically in reaction to the statement "I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Wikipedia. Which begs the obvious question. If Wikipedia is not an instance of journalism, then what the devil is it? Is it sui generis?" That's hardly an agreement to work within the constraints of Wikipedia policies. --Random832 (contribs) 07:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely think you are right. It certainly isn't such an agreement on his part. And until Moulton agrees to work within the constraints of Wikipedia policies, unblocking him would be a symbolic gesture, because as soon as he didn't, bzzt, that would be it. You know it, because lots of people would be watching. That's why my primary advocacy here hasn't been for an unblocking, it's been that there be some examination of how we interact with academics. Further on, Filll relates an excellent example of how his experiences and Moulton's presuably were very similar, up until the part where Filll apparently decided "OK, there's a lot here that's different but I am going to work within the system" and Moulton apparently decided "This is BS, this will never work, these people need to have some other principles explained to them" and flamed out. I posit that both Filll and Moulton are outliers. The vast majority of academics, I suspect, merely give up in frustration, quietly, and go away, and then have nothing kind to say about Wikipedia or working there to their peers and students. Successful participation here is rare. Too rare. That's the bigger problem than unblocking one academic who is by his own admission not likely to change his approach from one of "here's what you all need to do to change, embrace it now!" to "I'm here to work with you under the current terms, and as I work and build credibility maybe I can advocate for some changes". ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me just now. My original statements about the problems with current events coverage were, rather, a reaction to the statement by dave souza: <<"I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Wikipedia. Which begs the obvious question. If Wikipedia is not an instance of journalism, then what the devil is it? Is it sui generis?" That's hardly an agreement to work within the constraints of Wikipedia policies.>>, which I marked by placing in italics - you seemed to think I was talking about the statement of Moulton's in quote marks, and that souza's remarks were my own. --Random832 (contribs) 03:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that that argument -- WP engages in journalism [paraphrasing here] -- will gain much traction. But, I could be wrong. Nonetheless, even if you and Moulton are correct in that assertion, it certainly does not excuse his behaviour. Not sure what part of this is difficult. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not requesting an unblock

Note that Moulton is not requesting an unblock, which may moot some of the discussion above. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question should be asked rather than making an assumption. When I read his arbcom statement way back when, I remember thinking that while he was probably right more than he was wrong, it was a non-starter because it was all lawyering. If he is saying and attempting to prove, "I was blocked unjustly" as a prerequisite to "please unblock me", then that's fine and it deserves a legitimate review. But if he merely wants to point out flaws in the system and does not wish to return (If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve) then you are correct, it's time to move on with life. --B (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, before we possibly move away from the Moulton issue, a lot of important notions have been raised about what to do with a community ban/indef block, including the difference between the two, and how to go about bringing back a user if an admin is willing to unblock (which negates the community ban). While this probably should be expounded on in a new thread, this is something that does need to be addressed and, if possible, standardized. We have recently had two separate editors come up for block reviews that elicited a lot of response and confusion about the lack of a system that is in place. I know that these have been carried out on the AN/I board and/or on this board, but it seems clear the community is confused by the whole issue. Short of any guidance from ArbCom, maybe we could work this out somewhere. Thoughts on that? Baegis (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current practice is that an indefinite block must have the unanimous tacit consent of those with the ability to undo the block (administrators). In society outside of Wikipedia, such cases are tried by a selected jury. The problem with a decision based on a popular vote on the former community sanction noticeboard or on ANI is that it would be like impaneling your jury from whoever happened to show up in court that day. So if 12 of the prosecutor's best friends show up in court, the evidence doesn't really matter. So in order to demonstrate that a ban is a community ban, rather than merely a lynching, it needs to have unanimous consent or it needs to be determined by an impartial select group (Arbcom). --B (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there is obviously still confusion about the whole issue. Codifying it can't hurt. Baegisthesock (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@B: I was looking at his statement in the above diff: "I am not seeking to be unblocked." Of course you're right, this all may be a prelude to an unblock request, but I'm not sure how much more angst we need to expend on the unblock issue at present when he's flatly stated he isn't seeking to be unblocked. MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the next sentence, "Rather I am seeking a review of the circumstances surrounding my encounter with the WikiProject on Intelligent Design." If that review is for the purpose of saying "ha ha, told you so", we have better ways of spending our time. If that review is for the purpose of demonstrating that the block is invalid and asking to be permitted to contribute to the development of the encyclopedia, then it is more worthwhile. --B (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That he is requesting a general review of events, rather than an unblock, suggests to me that he really doesn't understand how Wikipedia operates at all, which is very surprising given the amount of time he spends on WR. I was sympathetic to unblocking him earlier, but now I agree that it may be best to just forget about him. Everyking (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to his statements in the NTWW episode below. He wants to demand huge reforms of Wikipedia, based on his whims, including discard of several of its core principles, and he wants to have bad things happen to all those who "wronged" him. And then and only then will he be interested in returning. Or at least that is how I understand the situation.--Filll (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is free to advocate whatever reforms they wish on the appropriate policy talkpages and off-wiki. I don't see the relevance of that. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I've advocated several myself, some quite radical indeed. That in no way shape or form means that I am "demanding" them as a condition of my participation here (and such a statement should be met with "ok, then, don't participate, then..." User:Mindspillage/userpages is a special case statement of that notion, and you'll find it on my user talk). But the issue I have is that I'm not seeing Moulton's statements before the block as "demanding" changes in governance. I see them as suggestions. To the extent that they interfered with his ability to edit effectively, with his ability to participate in article discussions, in policy discussions, etc, they were a self imposed hindrance. But I don't see them as a blockable offense in and of themselves or else we would never be able to propose any policy changes at all. So I see Filll as presenting a bit of a red herring here with this. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>I think there is no problem with advocating changes at Wikipedia. After all, what am I doing at User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing and User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal, among other places? The reason this is relevant is (1) it is expressed as part of the preconditions and (2) it is expressed as part of Moulton's goals, and always was, and was the root problem that Moulton ran into at Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole issue is surreal. Claiming, in essence, that Moulton was standing on principle in refusing to follow WP's various policies -- no he was flouting the policies -- and that his absolute abject refusal to cooperate, his extreme COI problems, his inability to either comprehend or abide by NPOV and NOR are also indicative of a principled stand, is singularly ridiculous. There are things I think are problematic (i.e., broken) at WP, but I don't go around wreaking havoc to make a point; and that, my friends is precisely what Moulton has done: wreaked havoc at every conceivable opportunity. And, in light of all this, some folks think that, despite his continued belligerence garbed as martyrdom, he should get a second chance. If at first you don't totally screw the project up, try, try again? Meh. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I care awfully, but a couple of examples of said havoc would be good. None in this entire thread. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim62sch speaks strongly. I think others come to different conclusions, including myself. I think Sam's analysis below rather belies Jim62sch's assertions. It will be helpful if Jim62sch internalizes that the fault in this case may not be entirely with one party. ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Lar, I didn't realise that you were involved with Moulton from the get go. Oh, you weren't? Those of us who were there remember the series of events quite well.

As far as anyone's analysis belying anything, that's really just a matter of interpretation, both on the part of the analyst (in what he chooses to present) and the audience (in how they choose to internalise the presentation). Jim62sch^dissera! 15:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, I don't have to be involved with something from the get go to be able to recognize when something is not completely one sided. Your recounting of things makes it seem like everyone else acted perfectly throughout and the fault is all Moulton's. Others come to different conclusions. Why is that? They're all confused and only you have the truth here? ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I am astounded about this drum you have decided you have to beat over and over about "one-sidedness" of culpability. A day or so before you posted this, Dave souza made a pointed admission that "mistakes were made". Baegis and others have also made the same allusion in this same thread. However, if it makes you happier, I have compiled my own evaluation of the mistakes made here.--Filll (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is sure not how I read Sam's analysis. And that is sure not how I read the RfC. To claim the RfC contains not one example of problematic behavior? My goodness. Incredible. And no one caught that? Not the Arbcomm during the appeal. Not the handful of editors supporting Moulton. Not the 20 or so editors who thought Moulton was problematic. That is quite a story.--Filll (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll: Sometimes I'm amazed at your perceptiveness (my comment made just before this one references your analysis of your experience and Moulton's as similar up to a point) and at the good work you do (such as User:Filll/AGF_Challenge ... were you ever going to do some rollup analysis on what was said?), and sometimes I am not sure you're reading what I am saying and/or twisting it around. This is one of the latter times. Focus on my last sentence... "It will be helpful if Jim62sch internalizes that the fault in this case may not be entirely with one party." That's what I see here. Certain parties continue to assert that the fault here is entirely Moulton's. I think the truth is more nuanced than that. I think Moulton went about a lot of things all wrong, and there is a lot of truth in that RfC. " To claim the RfC contains not one example of problematic behavior?" Please give me a precise cite where I say there is no fault for Moulton. I after all have been saying I didn't support an unblock without a commitment to adhere. (now it's been advanced that it could be symbolic... ok...) Filll, please slow down and read what I say more carefully. "may not be entirely with one party" != "is all with the other party" Unless of course you were talking to Relata??? In which case never mind... (this is where using the "to userX"/"@ userX" construction or sticking your remark above the other so it is below who you are replying to, but indenting it deeper to show it came later, might be effective) ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I choose to make vague comments on some occasions, undirected towards anyone in particular given the treacherousness of this environment. However, it is my perception, accurate or not, that some have maintained or suggested that there is no evidence of difficult behavior by Moulton. I would like to disabuse anyone who holds that position of any such notion; that does not mean Moulton could not reform and should not be given a second chance. And as stated by Dave souza and others repeatedly, "mistakes were made" on all sides. To satisfy your somewhat peculiar desire to see a partial compilation of some of these mistakes, I present this.--Filll (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure that everyone has done things that can be criticised, editors accept the need to negotiate towards a consensus and then accept that consensus or follow dispute resolution procedures. The problem I found with Moulton was that he would agree to a compromise aimed at meeting his objectives, then resume tendentious demands for changes,[28] while describing Wikipedia as a "profoundly dysfunctional" "rigidly rule-driven bureaucracy" unable to meet his ideas of "ethics on online journalism".[29] . . dave souza, talk 14:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation with Moulton

'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' has just finished an audio conversation in which Moulton participated. You can hear it here (episode 16). I believe it's fair to characterise Moulton's position as wanting / demanding some sort of statement that his treatment was not representative of 'due process' before he would be willing to re-engage in the editing processes. We had some discussion as to how this might work (an arbcom statement?) - or indeed if it is even possible. I would support an unblock as and when Moulton lets us know that he wants one. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea there. Demand a statement/apology for the way he was treated even though he contributed nothing to the project. So when can I expect his apology for calling me a sock and a troll? Or when can the entire ID group expect apologies, both to the group and many of the individuals? I demand an apology from him for his behavior. Since I have contributed far more to the project, I would hope my request is honored if his is honored. I also want the apology written out and certified by a notary. Maybe gold leaf printing, I will get back to you on that. Come on... Baegis (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baegis, I looked through your contribs and basically you created your account, went head on straight into Moulton (without editing near him before) Then after he was banned you went after others supporting a few counter to the ID crowd (reverting vandalism off and on but usually between 10 or so "rough" sounding "talk" with people that didn't agree with the Project ID crowd. Odd. 195.216.82.210 (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you are hiding behind an IP address I will take your flimsy accusations that I am either a sock (well, technically this account is, but in line with policies), a troll, a meat puppet or what have you with a big giant chunk of salt. Did you ever think that maybe I was watching a great number of these articles before I ever started editing? Probably not, because it is so much easier to hide behind an IP and throw around accusations. Methinks this whole thing is slowly becoming less and less about Moulton and more about attacking the people who work on the ID articles. Strange that they have been advocating this attack on the WR pages for some time now. Strange times indeed. And I do want that apology from Moulton with gold leaf lettering. Baegisthesock (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the ID group also owe apologies. I don't recall that _he_ ever demanded them, but specific blatantly false accusations were made. --Random832 (contribs) 03:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"He contributed nothing to the project" is bullshit - he certainly drew attention to BLP problems. But I guess that's not worth anything, nor is anything else he could have done in the past eight months had he not been banned. --Random832 (contribs) 03:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He created more BLP problems than he solved, NPOV problems too. In fact, the articles he campaigned on remain essentially the same, in fact are now more complete, than before his attempts to whitewash them. Furthermore, you have a strange notion of solving problems: tendentious editing, edit warring and ignoring consensus are far from best practices if your goal is solving problems; creating problems, certainly, not never solving them. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you waste several hundred hours of volunteer's time, and end up with an article that is essentially unchanged in the particulars you are complaining about, I do not see that you have really solved many problems.--Filll (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure everyone agrees with that characterization. I'm assuming you were talking about Rosalind Picard... here it is just before Moulton appears on the scene. The last section is a WP:Coatrack of unduly weighted, negatively slanted material about what is, after all, a relatively minor incident, and it is placed out of the proper context. And that's AFTER considerable editing, including edit warring, had happened. The way the petition section reads now is much better, it places this controversy in a larger context of her overall views, all appropriately cited. If that is your view of an "essentially unchanged" article, then I suggest you may not be the best person to work on BLP issues. Now, was Moulton the only person to try to improve the article? Hardly. Did Moulton go about it the right way? Hardly. (but go read WP:DOLT for some perspective here... we have a real problem with fitting academics into our processes effectively). Yes, it took the efforts of others to fix it. But how long would it have sat unfixed? Therefore, to say that Moulton did not contribute to the encyclopedia in a positive way is false, in my view. Bringing problems to the attention of those that can effectively resolve them is goodness. Oh, and strolling through the talk page briefly, I'm not seeing your positive contributions, but I may have missed them. What I see is that it took Kim Bruning to try to straighten this out and that a goodly number of the same voices here decrying Moulton's every word, decrying his very presence here, were the very ones that seemed to be advocating that the article stay all nice and coatracky instead of balanced. ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think before you make any such claims, you should know a bit more than you do. Because almost everything you just claimed is wrong or a misrepresentation of what the situation was and what happened. Is this really the time and place to rehash this? And how many times do I have to repeat myself? If I do it a couple times, and people exhibit WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, then it is clear that there is some other agenda being pursued here. And that is what starts to become apparent. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some other agenda? Yes, I suppose there is. I'd prefer that we not have even the appearance of projects exerting ownership over articles to retain problematic information. I'd prefer not to see so much difficulty and resistance in fixing one BLP. We have 250,000 plus of them after all, with conservative estimates that hundreds or thousands are problematic or highly problematic. I'd prefer we find better ways to deal with editors that don't understand our ways. I'd prefer that we not move from an RfC to an indefinite block quite so fast. I'd prefer that we learn to accept valid input even if it's presented in invalid ways. I'd prefer that we not let things fester so long but address them sooner. I'd prefer that ArbCom not summarily dismiss quite so many things but instead maybe put a bit of effort into explaining matters. Again, I found Sam's analysis quite illuminating. Why is he not on ArbCom any more? As to the suggestion that the claims I make are invalid, I gave the diffs. The article was a mess before Moulton arrived. Now, it's not as bad a mess but it still has issues. I only go by what I saw, and what I found on the talk page. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see Moulton make any statement that one, acknowledges his behavior was a source of disruption and pledging to not recreate the same situation, and two, expressing any interest in actually contributing to building a neutral accurate and complete encyclopedia. If that were indeed his goal, rather than returning to the same articles he's disrupted, he's be clamoring with guarantees and solemn promises that he would avoid those topics and edit constructively elsewhere, I'd think. Unfortunately, Moulton has made no such statements, so I see no reason to let him return to his old ways. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has, to my knowledge, yet explained exactly _how_ his behavior was a source of disruption in a way that was not intermingled with demonstrably false claims about the nature of his behavior. Could it not have been other users whose behavior caused the disruption? --Random832 (contribs) 04:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moulton is a good start. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention above, I find few article-specific diffs reported there that are different in content from what a dozen previously uninvolved (and unrecruited!) editors have recently argued at Talk:Rosalind Picard in that article's recent push towards consensus. So your statement is going to need something more than that link to be credible, I think. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that to be an absolutely amazing and fantastic claim.--Filll (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I aim to please. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind that they are polysemes of course.--Filll (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but I'm assuming the only meaning compatible with good faith and basic rationality. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 20:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that Privatemusings is so keen to give a platform banned users through this medium. Perhaps he should hand the microphone to someone with better taste in friends. Moulton was banned for good cause, and his whining and special pleading are simply offensive to the many users he attacked. I'm pleased that Moulton demands an apology before he will deign to grace us with his presence again, that makes it much easier to keep him away by simply not apologising for doing the unambigously correct thing. While we're laying down conditions, I'd not let Moulton back until he acknowledges that WP:TRUTH does not trump WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, since he violated the last three in pursuit of the first and without acknowledging the problem he's not going to overcome it. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Guy sums this up quite well and with much less sarcasm than my message about this apology. Since when do blocked users get the chance to demand things from WP before they will return? How asinine is that? And who even speaks for WP? The ArbCom doesn’t speak for the whole of WP. Arguably, Jimbo is the only one who does (maybe WMF), so maybe Moulton should take this up for him. Baegisthesock (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People can make whatever demands they like. But I would say that a statement of the form "I can't return to supporting the Republican Party until they drop their plank advocating school prayer" is not a demand to the GOP, it's a statement of principle. Moulton's communications to me highlight that he sees serious problems with project governance and other issues and that until they are addressed and corrected, he won't return. That's not a demand, it's a statement of principle. I happen to not agree, I see problems with WP but not such that I wish to withdraw, but to call it a demand , as Baegis and others seem to be doing, is rhetorical twisting, in my view. That seems actually less helpful to matters than making principled statements. To say that one would like one's case looked into is not unreasonable either, if one feels that the previous investigations didn't get to the root of the matter. It may not be one that ArbCom, the community, whatever, choose to do (my reading of the tea leaves says probably not going to happen in this case), but it also isn't a demand. ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Lar, I respect you as an editor and admin. But it appears as though you are just fighting for Moulton’s right to do and say whatever he wants and it appears you want to give him anything he so desires. Moulton claims he was not afforded due process. But he had an ArbCom appeal rejected regarding the circumstances of his block, in which he felt it was more appropriate to ramble instead of appealing his block and admitting any fault. Since I gather you may not have examined the serious details of this case, I can assure you that Moulton has been making these “statements of principles” for quite a long period of time. There comes a point where these are no longer “statements of principles” so much as they are declarations of ill intent and of a wish to be the center of attention. If someone continually harped on the same topic over and over and clearly stated their goals, especially when they are clearly not inline with the betterment of the encyclopedia, when can we call a spade a spade? Moulton has become a less prolific version of Awbrey, with his arguing tendencies (bet $ that comment gets mentioned on WR). This is nothing more than a user who was blocked continually throwing up the unblock template, looking for a sympathetic admin. Baegisthesock (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I've confused matters. I am not "fighting for Moulton’s right to do and say whatever he wants". (much less to give him whatever he wants...) No one has that right here. We ALL must edit within the project's boundaries and basic principles, and do so civilly, or we lose the right to do so. I can say both that Moulton still doesn't look likely to be willing or able to do that, and also at the same time decry the way that he's been portrayed by some of his detractors. He seems to have been railroaded, at least a little. See Sam's analysis, below. The thing is, the project doesn't DO due process. There is no reason to expect it. This is not a governance experiment, a society, or even fair. Asking for systemic correction is going too far and Moulton isn't going to get that just on his say so... When we see an out and out troll or vandal, we don't give them much other than a swift block, we don't have time for more. But still, that said, Moulton wasn't an out and out troll. Didn't fit in here? Sure. (the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is PR. It's more true that not just anyone can edit here for long, it takes a certain mentality and willingness to do things the wikipedia way to fit in and be successful) But his detractors paint too black and white a picture. I haven't changed my view that I don't see the absolute need to unblock him at this time, what's the point? We're not going to change things to fit his conditions and he's not going to edit if we don't. But I also don't see the harm. As many have said, if he DOES act up, that's it, second chance done, gone.

At this point I'm more interested in what could be done differently in future with the next very smart person who comes along and points out things in articles that really do need fixing, but who doesn't fit in here (again, as I said before, see WP:DOLT for some views on this, they are tangential but very appropriate)... rather than just rushing them off and feeling self satisfied that we blocked another troll, maybe flappers/consiglieries/editorial assistants, whatever you want to call it, are needed. Because we don't need the bad PR from treating academics roughly.

I'm also more interested in trying to undestand what is going on with the ID project. Why are there these things swirling around saying that "the Anti ID forces are taking things too far" and the like? What really is going on there? ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton has been advertising his intellect for some time now. I don't doubt that he is smart in many ways, but he showed a disdain for nearly every other editor he faced and dismissed them while basically trying to bore them to death the long meta threads about tangential topics. Awbrey was arguably a very bright person as well, but he was shown the door because could not properly apply his intellect to the betterment of the project. Frankly, it wouldn't matter how smart a person was who came to edit. The current president of Mensa could try to edit here. But if they can't adhere to policies, tough shit for them. The policies can't be bent to accommodate every editor that is "smart". If they could be, can you imagine the chaos? And we already have a somewhat questionable reputation with academics as it is. The supposed mistreatment of one very minor person in academia is not going to cause any great problems. The problems that academics see with us have been noted in a variety of other places so I will not explore them here. But this incident is just a grain of sand in that desert. And that is not a problem easily fixed.

As great as this entire conversation has been, including the large amount of space devoted to it, the simple fact remains that there is an editor who has expressed zero, zip, zilch, nada, no concessions that his editing created problems. He has made no statement that could even be considered to indicate a modicum of change. When has a user ever been unblocked when they have never even admitted fault for their actions? I am not against the unblocking as much as some others, as long as it is tempered with a full assurance from Moulton that he will avoid all areas in which he has a COI violation and his attacks on other editors will cease. But I have yet to see that statement. So, for however much longer people want to continue this, Moulton should never be unblocked if he shows no signs of change. It is as simple as that. And it really goes no further,

The "problem" with the ID articles is that the editors of those articles are constantly bombarded by a trolls, vandals, and POV-pushers who seek to change the articles. It is the same problem that occurs on creationism articles and evolution articles (among others). But some of the editors may have become a bit jaded because, I would wager, that at least 70% of what gets posted on those talk pages is nothing more than trolling. A number of those posts are reverted or archived on sight, per WP:TALK because they do seek to improve the article. I guess some people have a problem with how we carry out business on what is probably the most trolled/vandalized group of articles on the project. Of course those people don't edit the topic or articles, so it is easy to make a drive-by assessment of the problems. Baegis (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ID is only one of many different areas of this encyclopaedia regularly bombarded by trolls and cranks, and nowhere near the worst. (That changes from time to time.) We do not need special pleading on behalf of its overzealous defenders. May I note that the people "don't edit" but "who have a problem" might well be those whom your methods of "carrying on business" are likely to cause them to merely "drive by." --Relata refero (disp.) 13:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have edited in 3 different controversial areas. And several other areas. And the Intelligent Design Wikiproject editors operate no different than those in any other area.--Filll (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that it is possible that you genuinely believe that to be true. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Baegis: "But if they can't adhere to policies, tough shit for them." At one level I agree. At another level, I think that's why Filll is an outlier, an academic who can edit here successfully. Those are too rare, unless you think we don't need any academics here at all. For some topics we don't, but for many encyclopedic topics, we do. That's a much bigger problem. I think it stems from how very hard it is to get an understanding of how things are done here, really. There is a forest of rather impenetrable jargon and policy. Most academics don't get that adequately packaged up in a usable form. Moulton was an outlier too... an academic who had it all patiently explained (that's rarer than the more common, 3RR and you're out sort of interaction) and chose to insist on doing things as he personally thought they should be done. You can call that "disdains us", I guess. I've pled with Moulton privately to commit to edit within the rules and with guidance, and he has declined. I haven't yet pled with him to look within himself and admit the things that he could have done differently (that is, admit there is some fault on his side), but I suspect I know the outcome there too. So, unblocking would be symbolic. But the problem here, the reason I keep worrying at this, is larger than Moulton. If he stays blocked, it's not the end of the world, it's one small pebble (maybe a bit bigger than a grain of sand! but not much). I'll again advance the notion that maybe we need a more structured assimilation program for academics. Not bending rules, but working to help guide. Maybe even interpret and stage material back and forth or something. Because we do need academics. Badly.

(cont'd) As for the ID project, I think you put your finger on part of the problem. We don't as a rule suffer fools gladly, and when a project sees a lot of fools turn up, it may cause members to get a bit embittered and rigid, and then throw some of the wheat out with the masses of chaff. Perhaps your project needs some new blood. If that new blood gets in turn corrupted, or if the older members drive that new blood out, then there is a bigger problem. But I'm also concerned that some of the charges that are being levied (about pursuing those that signed that stupid petition by making their articles coatracky...) that either there is some validity to those charges, or you have a big PR problem. Again, it's a sign of siege mentality to say "the problem here lies ENTIRELY with the other side, not at all with anyone involved with the project, and we refuse to apologise for anything" which (it is my perception that) some of the ID members have been saying, right here in this very thread. Relato rightly calls you on the special pleading aspect. ++Lar: t/c 13:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing the need for academics with the need for academic experts. What the project does not need are academics, like Moulton, who come and and make no sincere attempt to understand our policies or to understand how things operate and instead would rather bellow from the top of the nearest soapbox about how things need to change because they say things should. The project does not need these kind of academics. We have enough as it is. We don't need people who will constantly tell us we are doing it wrong and apply their own personal standards. We don't need an editor who has mentioned, on numerous occasions (damned if I can't locate the diffs for this message) mentioned how his entire case has developed into something that he is planning to write about as a study. These are the people we don't need. What we do need and should address, and the conversation has been raging for years, most notably on the Expert Withdrawal page (link further up) is the lack of experts, specifically ones from academia. These are the people the project needs to apply their specialized knowledge within the areas in which said knowledge applies. Moulton never did that. But we need to attract experts to the project and retain them. These are the people who need to be taught how to work within WP policies to contribute. They will help the collective articles and total knowledge base grow exponentially. Moulton, for all of his vitriol, never made an attempt to edit within the areas he was most knowledgeable. I am all for bringing in and retaining experts. There probably aren't many who would be opposed to that general premise.

And with regards to ID, Relato's comment must be taken with the knowledge that, until recently, he never (maybe rarely) appeared on these article. He made one brief appearance a month or so ago and is now holding what will probably be the world's longest grudge because his case for a source being unreliable meet with serious opposition. He has constantly sniped at any and all he feels wronged him, so it is hard to take anything he mentions with any seriousness. Sorry, but if you are going to hold a grudge like that, your advice will go wanting.

But there is a problem with the whole petition issue you brought up, Lar. This petition that these people signed should always be mentioned in their bio and in accordance with policy. Undue weight should not be placed on it. But when does it become the entire ID project's fault when a number of these people have a bio so short that any mention of the petition places it in violation of undue? The bio's need worked on, that is true. But why does it come back to us to fix them because we entered relevant information about them signing this document. Moulton's goal was never to work on adding to the bio of Picard. It was to eliminate or minimize the references to her signing the petition. For a person who claimed to know Picard so well, he was able to contribute shockingly little to flesing out her bio. Moving away from the Moulton issue, I don't know if some of the people here properly grasp what signing this petition means. No matter how much some will try to minimize or distort the implications of the petition, especially since the ultimate use of the petition has been made quite clear, putting your name on this petition is akin to signing a petition declaring the Earth is flat. It is at that level of complete ignorance for everything involving science. Does anyone wonder why no prominent biologist or evolutionary scientists signed this petition? You don't see Dawkins putting his name on this. So, in the world of academia in which Picard and many of these people exist, where your name and work is the best form of currency, the signing of the petition will be mentioned. They, being consenting adults, put their name to a propaganda piece that is being used by a group to try to hijack science education in the States. But I do concede that it should be mentioned in the bio's in accordance to the undue weight clause. But this is an issue that should be addressed on each biography article. Some of the outside commentators on this case feel that we are, for lack of a better word, libeling these people by making prominent mention of these the petition. In reality, these people signed this petition and are fully capable of removing their names. Remeber, it is verifiability not truth. We can't parse their intentions, we can only report that they signed it and how the petition was used. Baegis (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response only to the bits addressed to me specifically: my dear chap, if you think a month is a long time to bear a grudge....! In any case, if I noticed that the manner in which doing some routine BLP cleanup was exceptional, I would have forgotten. If it appeared to be merely unusual, I would have not bothered. If I observed that it happened all the time but had no major effect on article quality, I would have not have given it a second thought. None of those things are true. However, I note that since then I have not even once brought up my own experience; and have, with one 48-hour exception, followed the order handed out on my talkpage to "stay away from our articles". I do wish that other people would stop bringing it up, though it does tend to poke a rather large hole in the claim that I am the one "holding a grudge".

As for the rest - "But why does it come back to us to fix them because we entered relevant information about them signing this document...'" and ", I don't know if some of the people here properly grasp what signing this petition means...They, being consenting adults, put their name to a propaganda piece that is being used by a group to try to hijack science education in the States" pretty much sums up why BLPs in this area, as in Middle Eastern studies, are unduly politicised. WP isn't anyone's weapon to strike back at those harming teh childrenz, thanks. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, for people who are constantly claiming that our goals are to be neutral or to be unbiased or not to take sides in any way, I find it somewhat comical that all of a sudden the signing of this petition is viewed as negative. Hey I thought we were not supposed to take sides? Do you think that the Discovery Institute views signing their petition as negative? Do you think that the Institute for Creation Research thinks signing a similar petition some sort of black mark? What do you think Answers in Genesis would say by the implication that standing up for what you believe in is some terrible slur against someone? This is the biggest load of hypocrisy I have seen in a long time. Whoever said signing was bad? Claiming it is bad stinks of bias and nonneutrality and assumptions, which we are forbidden to make. The only thing that is bad about stating a person signed the petition is if the person did not really sign it, or the subject does not adhere to the beliefs expressed in the petition and was tricked into signing. Then, the person has to ask to be removed from the petition, or to issue a statement rejecting the position of the petition, so we can use that as a source, which many have done. What is the problem?--Filll (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone wondering: yes, that is a genuine argument, not sarcasm, amused wordplay, or some form of irony. It has been made several times to support the retention of poorly-referenced negative - sorry "negative" - material in and about BLPs, by implying that it is a violation of NPOV to claim that such material is negative. The mind reels. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am stunned that you try to argue that it is negative necessarily. Huh? We are not here to judge. If they want to believe, what is wrong with that? You know there are claims that it is discrimination to not let people just believe what they want? I would agree. Don't judge. --Filll (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if I am not mistaken he has had his case looked into a few times and continues to do so in variety of fora. Am I wrong?--Filll (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. But the germane question is was it adequately looked at? Perhaps not. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets? Please elaborate, that is the first time I heard of that accusation... Why don't we toss around some more accusations... I'm sure he's a vandal, a terrorist (oh wait, WR makes you a terrorist automatically), and ... actually I'm not very good at fabricating accusations... I'll let the experts handle that, they're doing very well atm. 195.216.82.210 (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy's statement about how Privatemusings ought to find "better friends" brings to mind this exchange from the first Harry Potter book:

Draco Malfoy: You'll soon find out some wizarding families are much better than others, Potter. You don't want to go making friends with the wrong sort. I can help you there.

Harry Potter: I think I can tell who the wrong sort are for myself, thanks.

*Dan T.* (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from someone who was there

The episode itself primarily dealt with the present conflict as a springboard for a conversation about relevant policies and procedures. One observation raised in that discussion was that the community tends to deal with these flash point situations as if they were microcosms unto themselves: too much focus gets placed on evaluations of individual editors without enough attention to whether they may have been acting in faithful accordance with flawed policy. This very discussion about the episode--unfortunately--has become a demonstration of that dynamic.

When I recorded episode 10 I opened a thread at this noticeboard regarding one banned user who was part of the panel, and the responses were not only unanimous but somewhat indignant that a discussion was necessary at all. Now Privatemusings initiates a similar thread and the responses are radically different. I wonder why this dichotomy exists.

It's no secret that Privatemusings spent a short time as a banned editor and that he's made a legitimate return. He's one of a couple of editors whose bans I once supported and whose returns I also supported: both he and I are interested in finding out what works in these situations and how to replicate the success stories. We don't expect perfect success (or anyway, I don't) yet we've also observed that sometimes a voice environment is better than a text environment for communicating nuances and finding common ground.

That's not the only reason NTWW exists; we discuss plenty of other things also and try to provide a good menu of topics and guests for the community. If you'd like to see new items on the menu, please come over to WP:NTWW and propose them: this kitchen accepts requests. :)

Regards from Chef Durova^Charge! 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

moar evidence of meatpuppetry

See my self-accusation here [30]. Basically, all the section at ~~Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#Meatpuppetry_evidence_since_ban~~ Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#Meatpuppetry_evidence_since_indef_block is just an attempt to make User:Moulton guilty of meatpuppetry, using evidence that has undergone no review and has gone through no sockpuppet case. Notice that this same evidence is what caused the MfD on Moulton's user, and now it's being added to a page linked from there. If there is really meatpuppetry, then open a frigging case at WP:SSP even if the user is blocked, but don't post unproven unreviewed evidence on old unrelated cases. This RfC had nothing to do with puppets, and the timing is terrible. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Korn's review of the case

I mentioned before that I invited Moulton to email me with his side of the story and how he sees the situation. He has done so and, I think, has presented his views reasonably. I think he feels aggrieved that his ban resulted from his trying to help the encyclopaedia and to achieve the important goals that are set out in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There can, I think, be no doubt that his intentions were positive.

Furthermore, he is aggrieved that "due process" was not afforded him (he frames this as "I am not sure whether due process was afforded me, and so whether my treatment was systemic or accidental"). My impression is that this is, to a certain extent, true. The move from the RFC to an indefinite ban (I hold the distinction between an indefinite ban and an indefinite block without immediate prospect of unblocking to be spurious) was out of order. Indefinite bans should not be handed out so incautiously -- they are a big deal and they should be given with proper consideration. You should be very careful when considering a user in whose good faith there is no particular reason to doubt. The process by which it was affirmed was rather dodgy -- the brief conversation on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Moulton and a brief conversation on ANI were rather cursory (admittedly through no fault of the participants).

Frankly, I also think the Arbitration Committee got this one pretty badly wrong. This is exactly the kind of case where the Committee should be involved -- a good faith user who is apparently incapable (as I shall discuss below) of complying with Wikipedia's norms in a certain area. Community sanctions are a tool far too blunt to deal with situations like this: it needed the careful consideration of the Committee. As I shall explain below, I think there were ways in which this could have been more effectively managed with greater subtlty and care. Being so bold as to suggest the reason for the Committee's wrong decision, I would suggest that the wording of the request -- with its emphasis on "due process" -- would have been off-putting to the Committee members (had I been on the Committee, it would have been off-putting to me!); it would have made them think Moulton was attempting to rules-lawyer his way to an unblock. That said, the idea that the Committee should take on some kind of abstract "was the system wrong?" case is absurd: the Committee should make decisions that are entirely based on the future and ensuring the correct solutions are in place.

I have said all this in Moulton's defence to emphasise that his grievances have some merit. However, I do not wish to give the impression that I think there were no major issues with Moulton's editing. Moulton undoubtedly did engage in POV-pushing. I don't think he fully understands what the verifiability policy is about (in his emails to me he suggested that policies in this area were contradictory) means. This is a serious problem. Although the conflict of interest guidelines do not prohibit anyone from editing a particular area (and nor should they, as long as we have anonymous editing), they do rightly advise that anyone incapable of editing neutrally and without emotional involvement should recuse himself. This was a situation where that advice should have been heeded. Moulton's editing was not satisfactory and some remedy was necessary. The trouble was that the action taken was somewhat akin to knitting with a barge-pole.

The other policy violations that are alleged are somewhat spurious. The charges of edit-warring are, I think, accurate, but not particularly serious. The idea of "disruptive editing" is, again, accurate, but comprehensible, particularly as others in the dispute were also conducting themselves in an unhelpful manner. The charges of "personal attacks" are wholly unfounded -- while he may have (unreasonably) accused editors of malfeasance, I do not personally feel that his statements did indeed become personal attacks. The accusation of "disruption to cause a point" is similar if one makes a basic assumption of Moulton's good faith. The accusation of meat-puppetry fundamentally misunderstands what meat-puppetry is.

So what now? Moulton indicates that what he wants is some kind of statement that due process was not afforded. This is a problem because Wikipedia is not focussed on due process -- and rightly so. What it important here is that the action taken was not whollyy appropriate: that is indicative of the process being wrong. I don't know who Moulton would like to make this statement: I for one am happy to say "no, we didn't get this one quite right". From what he has expressed to me privately, though, he wants some declaration one way or the other: "this was the system as it should work" or "this was a malfunctioning system"; I am not sure we can give that declaration.

As to whether Moulton should be permitted to resume editing... As can probably be understood from what I have written above, I don't think the original block was correct. It could much more effectively have been managed with sanctions prohibiting the behaviour that earned the ban. Now, however, the situation is different. Moulton indicates to me (and I believe also in the NTWW conversation) that he requires the declaration of whether the system worked before he would continue editing: were the answer to be "yes", he would not want to; were the answer "no", he would want the system to be massively overhauled before he would consider editing again. Quite plainly, therefore, unblocking would have no practical effect.

That said, I advocate it in any case. A wrong should be righted. I advocate unblocking with a strict prohibition from editing in areas concerned with the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. We should, as a community, be prepared to say "we would like to see you editing productively", whether or not that will be upheld. We unblocked Lir and were right to do so. If Moulton is willing to return, there should be no obstacle preventing him from doing so; I see every reason to think he could be a productive editor if he was willing to engage with Wikipedia's policies.

Frankly, there is nothing to be lost from unblocking Moulton.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Sam - hear hear. Privatemusings (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your belief that arbcom got this one wrong, I hope that this is being discussed on Arbcom-L (which I know you are a member of) as well. Do committee members agree that they got it wrong? Or are you alone in this belief? Mike R (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I perceive there are two lists now, one for those currently arbitrators and one including alumni. Sam is an alumnus I believe. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct, Lar. This is very much my opinion; I have no idea what any other member of arbcom-l thinks. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is merit in unblocking on the basis that we (the community) may have got it wrong, because we can always reblock if we later determine that we were wrong about being wrong - we were right but perhaps for the wrong reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent analysis, Sam. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, this is greatly appreciated. Thank you. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he resumes editing Wikipedia, many people are going to emotionally experience first hand why the Athenian community finally told Socrates he had to leave one way or the other. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would bet on it.

So that is why, since we now know of a few areas in which Moulton has been unable or unwilling to contribute productively, we try to find some areas in which Moulton can potentially contribute productively. Just as we do here conventionally with hundreds if not thousands of similar problem editors. What do we do? We topic ban them. And we direct them to other places on the wiki to learn the principles of Wikipedia and to try to contribute.

In Moulton's case, this is what was requested in the RfC. This is what I have maintained personally for a long time and do suggest currently. And for those who are so loud and aggressive here on this topic, why do they not take Moulton into their own editing areas, and under their wing, and show him how Wikipedia works and why we have the principles we do, like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, which are the principles Moulton frantically wants to scrap or ignore. If you can turn Moulton into a productive editor on your part of the project, more power to you. I already tried. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Next!-Filll (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Sam: If all Moulton wanted was a statement that "due process wasn't afforded", he already has that: "there is no due process on Wikipedia"... (note that this was a quote of what I said back on March 20, which says what I've been saying here all along... I've been consistent the whole time) If there isn't any in the general case, then there wasn't any in his case. That comment of mine was meant to be in the context of what Wikipedia is not... it's not a government, not a system of justice, not something that is designed first and foremost to be fair... it's a project to produce something. We don't necessarily need due process, it's not necessarily relevant to projects. We need effective remedies that move the project forward. Which is for the most part what we get.

To Fill:I'll gladly take Moulton under my wing, if he first committed to work within our policies and guidelines, and I'd reblock him myself if he strayed and became a disruptive influence again. As to a topic ban, we've used it before. I'd support one to be reevaluated after some time. But this is all hypothetical, Moulton has made no such committment and I don't think he will. If he gets unblocked symbolically, without such committment, and then starts editing in ways not compatible with our ways, I'll block him myself. If I could beat everyone else to it. I think Sam's statement: What it important here is that the action taken was not wholly appropriate: that is indicative of the process being wrong. I don't know who Moulton would like to make this statement: I for one am happy to say "no, we didn't get this one quite right". is spot on (and I'd like to see more people acknowledging that the fault is not entirely in one place, that the block may have been hasty, etc.), but I don't think it will satisfy Moulton. He wants a systemic reexamination of quite a bit of our underlying culture and processes. Even if we agreed that was needed (and I'm not saying that it is or it isn't, I've advocated for changes, but I'm not sure the basic model is as flawed as he thinks), we don't do that as a precursor condition of unblocking one editor, nor should we. Perhaps at some future date if there are changes, he'll feel the conditions are satisfied, and agree to abide, and come back. I'd like to consider that the door is open here for him to do that. But meanwhile we do have other fish to fry. ++Lar: t/c 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to WAS 4.250) And the names of the Athenians who were no longer able to tolerate Socrates are...?

Fully agree that we didn't get this one quite right. A caution, don't know that there was a right way, the context was an accelerating waste of time situation and there's no way such a superior being could be satisfied. On the bright side it's provided plenty of material for a thesis or two on multi user internets collaboration systemic interaction failure and online ethics. Whatever :-/ . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak to the nuances of Wikipedia dispute resolution, so I won't try. What I can say is that various unretracted statements by Moulton commenting on the involvement of the Discovery Institute with the "Scientific Dissent from Darwin" are erroneous. Moulton has asserted that the list arose as a community effort around 2001 and was only misappropriated by the DI starting in 2006. In fact, the list was conceived, organized, and published as an advertisement in three national periodicals by the DI in late 2001. At this point, it seems doubtful that the one content area that Moulton has demonstrated any enthusiasm for editing could be improved by his apparent level of knowledge there. That, perhaps, is not the point in this discussion, but it seems to me that a good deal of the procedural wrangle that emerged had its origin in the persistence with with Moulton applied his misapprehensions on the topic to Wikipedia editing. While a statement that there has been a shift in Moulton's perceptions with respect to Wikipedia policy would be an absolute essential step (absent, AFAICT, at this point) in a process to re-admit him as an editor, it seems to me that without an acknowledgment that he was quite badly mistaken on the content, too, that the same situation would obtain as it did before. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Moulton disdains WP principles

It might not be obvious to those here why Moulton would be dismissive of the principles of Wikipedia. He is a lifelong research engineer and research scientist and academic. And frankly, although there is some similarity between Wikipedia and academic writing, it is far from identical, particularly in the sciences and engineering.

And I can say this with some authority, since my background and experience is quite similar to Moulton's.

When I first came to Wikipedia, I saw pages and pages of contradictory policy. I didn't read it. It was too long. It was poorly organized. And I was sure I didn't need to waste the time reading irrelevant drivel. Just like Moulton.

When I first encountered WP:NOR, I was stunned. No research? Huh? That is what academics and scientists are always seeking. That is the goal. Original thought. Novel interpretations. New ideas. Innovation. And it is forbidden here? I was stunned and dismayed and confused. I was sure this was a mistake. Just like Moulton.

When I first encountered WP:NPOV, I was shocked. First, the very name seems contradictory. How can something containing all views in proportion to their prominence be neutral; it makes no sense. Then, we are not allowed to advocate for one position or another? Or at least not supposed to? Even Encyclopedia Britannica does that in their articles, written by experts! What on earth? I didn't get it. I could not understand what the reason for this was. Just like Moulton.

The ideas behind WP:RS and WP:V were a little more clear, but still confusing. For example, academics often use personal communication as a reliable source, which is forbidden here on Wikipedia. Some of what is a reasonable source on Wikipedia would be unlikely to be accepted in academia, like the New York Times. After all, reporters are just basically boobs; they are not academics, or research scientists. They get stories wrong. They misquote. They are idiots, right? So I did not understand this either. Just like Moulton.

Even the principle of WP:SYNTH struck me as dumb when I first encountered it. Putting together two or three disparate sources to demonstrate a point is exactly what you are supposed to do and trained to do in academia and research. But you are not supposed to do it here. I was puzzled about WP:SYNTH when I first encountered it. Just like Moulton.

However, I had senior editors here mentor me and explain these principles to me. And after a while, I came to understand why the principles of Wikipedia were what they are. And to realize the wisdom of them. But I was willing to learn. Moulton has had decades of experience in designing and using online environments. He is positive he knows better. He has rejected any effort to coach him or tutor him. After all, why should someone with his experience submit to tutoring by someone who is probably a teenager or an undergraduate ? (or at least, this is probably what he thinks). Moulton has not been interested in learning, at least so far. He is sure he knows better. And maybe he does. But while people have tried to educate him, he was extremely disruptive.

Therefore, it was quite natural that Moulton rejected all the principles Wikipedia operates under. It was to be expected in fact; I did. I understand perfectly. And it is also quite natural that Moulton continues to reject all the principles that Wikipedia operates under. And it is quite natural that Moulton is resistant to learning about Wikipedia principles and accepting them. This is no mystery. I was the same way for a considerable time at first. But I was more submissive and willing to learn, and eventually I did. Moulton has not reached that point yet, and might never. But if Moulton is to learn how to operate in this environment, I would prefer that someone besides me try to train him, in their areas, rather than me and my associates, in the areas in which he has already demonstrated he has difficulty. Fair enough?--Filll (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I don't think anyone is going to necessarily believe your interpretation of Moulton's refusal to understand NPOV, V, OR, and SYNTH without specific diffs.

As far as I can see, he raised questions about those policies that other people on the mailing list and on the policy talkpages do all the time. See the old Covered Bridge discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I believe there is an RfC which has over 100 diffs. Did you not see it? (2)RR is not particularly credible in these matters given his past performance in interpreting these kinds of policies, IMHO.--Filll (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people have pointed out the problems with those diffs elsewhere on this page, perhaps you didnthearthat.

My credibility, of course, is another matter. I admit that I do tend to admit to being mistaken now and then, but in my estimation that does not necessarily lessen my credibility. You, no doubt, think differently about such admissions. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to read what was claimed about the diffs and the responses. And do you really think that so many would look at them and miss some huge mistakes? Check for yourself. Maybe you are suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

As for your credibility, I have seen 3 examples now. And just confirmed a fourth misrepresentation of yours by probing official channels. I won't embarass you by dragging it out here. But... what can I say?--Filll (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the diffs don't back up what they claim to. I don't accuse anyone of deception -- for most of them the mistaken understanding is actually reasonable. A lot of the diffs in that RFC do stand up, but a lot don't. I have addressed this in my statement. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with Sam) Official channels? Oh, my. I wonder what. I don't remember claiming to have had lunch with Jimbo, so I hardly think that "official channels" have any information on me. My dear fellow, I've told you before, endless gibes about the "credibility" of all the people who disagree with you over some trifling matter, and dark hints about the possession of damning private information are so tiresome. Nobody really listens beyond a certain point.

"..so many would look at them and miss some huge mistakes..." I believe that is an accurate, if extreme, statement of exactly the concern that most people have expressed. It is an understandable if regrettable consequence of editing in what can become something of an echo chamber. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. This is about Moulton, not about you, and I do not want to belittle you unnecessarily or expose past infelicities.--Filll (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to start a new section on this page with all possible exposure of past infelicities. I look forward to hearing them.

Incidentally, I believe what has caused a small proportion of the concern is the level of belittling considered "necessary" in these section of WP. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and may I draw everyone's attention to "me and my associates in the area..." etc. I note, again, nobody but he and his associates seem to be permitted in that area without being bitten.... someone really needs to do something about that sometime. Relata refero (disp.) 13:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In these areas new editors are welcomed all the time and edit productively. However, it is required that editors learn to abide by the principles of Wikipedia in these areas, as they are in all parts of Wikipedia. Is this a problem?--Filll (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, merely unrecognisable. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll: I think this is an excellent analysis, and as I said before, it highlights the "academic participation problem". I assert both you and Moulton are outliers. You figured the system out, he flamed out. Most academics, I suspect, just give up and go away quietly, or never even try to participate here, based on what they've heard already. That's a guess from anecdotes, rather than something backed up by study data but I think I'm right. That said, I think Relata makes some valid points. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming that Moulton will never be able to come to terms with the system. I just would prefer someone else do Moulton's training, not me. And not in my area, if possible.--Filll (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In his WR post of 6 May 2008, Moulton refers to his essays which conclude "Wikipedia is a rigidly rule-driven bureaucracy without sufficient responsible supervision to ensure that the chess games produces anything of lasting value to the general public (such as accurate stories that one can rely on). No wonder teachers don't allow their students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source. But Wikipedia does provide an interesting example of a good idea gone awry. And it provides a good example of how a rule-driven system becomes profoundly dysfunctional"[31] and "Not surprisingly, the ethical scholar or journalist would find Wikipedia a bizarre medium in which to craft a high quality article, especially on a controversial subject where competing factions are pushing competing points of view. To survive on Wikipedia, it helps to be mean-spirited, evasive, and allied to a powerful guild. The ethical and scholarly journalist need not apply."[32] "..putting a spotlight on the failings of Wikipedia. That's what the reformers of WR are here for." Has he changed his views? ... dave souza, talk 15:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC) clarify last quote dave souza, talk 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need to do some fact finding. I have asked him some questions at User talk:Moulton#Fact finding mission. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking Wikipedia is ridiculous is not a reason to ban someone. Frankly, I don't think Moulton will ever be a productive editor for Wikipedia. There is, however, an enormous difference between us holding him to be banned and him deciding that Wikipedia's systems are not good enough to merit his editing. Everything I have seen tells me that Moulton is a person of very high integrity; his issues come from having different philosophical ideas about how the encyclopaedia should be run. We don't, however, ban for the opinions people hold. Also, be careful lumping every critic of Wikipedia with the worst. There are many who are against the site on not unreasonable grounds and who don't carry out vicious personal campaigns. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton was not banned or blocked because he thought Wikipedia is ridiculous. I find many features of Wikipedia ridiculous, as I have stated repeatedly, and am working with others to try to change these aspects.

What happened to Moulton was that he was extremely disruptive and a net negative to the project. And he was disruptive and a net negative because he did not want to follow Wikipedia principles and policies and conventions. It was not that he was not told of these principles and policies and conventions. He was told what these are and instructed how to reach his goals within the system over and over and over. And he dismissed that approach, thinking he knew better, and became a disruptive element, unable to work constructively and productively with others in a consensus-driven framework. And that is what lead to him being blocked/banned.

Not that he "lied". Not that he had any particular view on some ideological issue. Not that he was not part of a clique or a cabal. Not that he was an academic. Not because he wants to change Wikipedia. Not for any of the myriad and sundry reasons I have seen posted to this thread. No, it was for something far more basic and far more fundamental and far more crucial. We have a way of doing things, and he did not want to do it that way, and did not want to follow advice. --Filll (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that was the reason he was blocked. It is, however, the reason a lot of people are advocating that he remain blocked. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason? Because he's academic? Part of a cabal? Ideology? "IT" is only of value when it refers to a specific antecedent. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

tl;dr. Can someone who's not part of the supposed "ID clique" summarise what exactly Moulton did to get banned? I know I'm going to come under fire for even using the phrase, but I have seen a bit of banding together from some of people opposing Moultion, and I (and I suppose many others) would like a true neutral summary. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am part of the purported clique, let me try:

neutral summaries do not exist
he didn't follow the rules and just fought instead--Filll (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral summaries can exist. Someone can just read the discussions leading to the banning and make a summary based on the reasons and such. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re neutral, see Rashomon effect. I gave my summary. --Filll (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, POV-pushing on a couple of BLPs (arguing that the presentation of facts related to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism was inaccurate and biased). He undoubtedly did have a point; however, he did not edit according to the standards we should expect. He did not conform, especially, to WP:V or WP:NOR. Whether this merited the ban it got is questionable. If you want to comment usefully on the matter, can I suggest you at least read the RFC (with care -- not all the claims it makes are substantiated) and my analysis above. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More like he "had" a WP:POINT, and took every opportunity to disrupt WP. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's your view, yes. It's not necessarily universally shared, or even where perceived to be correct as far as it goes, may not be perceived to tell the whole story. I sense that we're not developing new ideas here, though. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it not necessarily universally shared. Just by 18 of the 19 who encountered him and participated in the RfC. But that is not universal.--Filll (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call the question

We have talked about this for a while. I'd like to suggest that maybe we should look for a consensus here, explicitly. Sam Korn has suggested an unblock, with limitations and restrictions. How do we feel about that? (keeping in mind that it's likely that Moulton won't actually edit much if at all after he's unblocked, if we go by what he's said). Is there a clear consensus that the original outcome was correct, Sam's analysis was wrong? Or is there a consensus that maybe it was incorrect but there's no point in unblocking as it would likely have no practical effect? Or is there a consensus that maybe we should unblock to correct the bad outcome? Or something else? Please note, I'm suggesting a consensus check, not more discussion of an open ended nature... ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(bump) I think this needs wider input before any change from the status quo would be appropriate. At this point I think less folk have commented here than did in the RfC... ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's going to happen is that, since there is the group of editors and admins who have dealt with Moulton in the past who do not wish to see him unblocked, especially without any statement from him about his past behavior that gives a hope for a new future AND a group of editors and admins who have less actual on WP dealings with Moulton but have listened to him give his skewed version of the story on WR for the past few months, there will be a wheel war if he is unblocked and everyone will become even more embittered. Since WP doesn't do symbolic unblocks and he shows no sign of changing, we are left right at the same place. Moulton stays blocked, he continues his campaign on WR for whatever grandiose change he advocates, and we just move on. And, frankly speaking, thats probably what is best for everyone involved. Baegis (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if there is a consensus to remain blocked, you won't see me unblocking, and I don't suspect you'll see anyone else doing so either. On the other hand if there is a consensus to unblock, if I read you right, you are saying that there is some group of editors with long experience who would go against consensus and wheel war. I'm not seeing any such group, except for those that were at the start, the ID members... Am I understanding what you are saying rightly? I hope that I'm misunderstanding you. I'd strongly recommend against wheel warring to reblock, which seems to be what you're suggesting might happen. Sorry for replying but your statement wasn't a clear "I favour outcome X" sort of thing that we would use during a consensus check. Do you have such a statement? ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll break it down real simple like for you Lar. Let's just see if I have this right. You want to unblock an editor who has not made a net positive contribution, an editor who has shown a clear disdain for and attacked several members of ID Wikiproject, and an editor who has not made a single statement than can be construed that he will change for the betterment of this project. When in the hell has someone ever been unblocked when they haven't even acknowledged that their behavior needs to change in order for them to be a contributor here? You seem to gloss over that point. But please continue to talk to Moulton on WR, as opposed to his talk page which is currently open for editing. Double trouble! So, no, he should not be unblocked. Nothing should change and everyone should just step away because this entire discussion is nothing but a farce. You already decided to unblock him long before anything was decided. That's been clear. But please, continue to ignore the advice of the people who actually dealt with Moulton before in favor of him telling his side of the story. Next time I get into any sort of wiki trouble, I am going to use the scorned academic route to get out of it. It seems a very effective method. Baegis (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question about who it was you thought likely to wheel war... that seems a rather important point. You also give the appearance that haven't been reading what I've been saying very closely, since you did not acknowledge that I said from the start that I wasn't in favour of unblocking to make a symbolic point, and that I don't see where Moulton has acknowledged that he has to edit within our norms or not at all, so therefore I'm not in favour at this time, other than to leave the door open. What I did say was that IF he was unblocked, I'd keep an eye on him, take him under my wing as it were, and reblock him at the first sign that he was coloring outside the lines. I agree with Sam (an outside observer who came in after the fact to do a dispassionate analysis...) Moulton was not entirely at fault here. That's not the same as saying he's blameless. If this binary yes/no assertion style (rather than acknowledging there are shades of gray here) is the quality of the argument put forward by ID regulars (I've seen it now from you, from Filll, from Jim62sch...) I can see why people have concerns. Again, who do you think is likely to wheel war? ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anyone will wheel war, but I would think that the admins who have actually worked with Moulton will be very displeased to see such a move especially when the consensus on this will never be reached for an unblock. You are the one who keeps bringing up the symbolic nature of such an unblock. I am fairly certain that one could entertain the notion that the undertow already made the symbolic unblock and that just worked out super for everyone. You do keep ignoring the issue of his previous behavior through the classic "yeah, but..." line of reasoning. "He was disruptive...yeah, but it wasn't his fault." "He showed no concern for following policy...yeah, but he was just advocating for change." etc. The shades of gray are minimal at best. If Moulton really wanted an unblock, he would have asked for one at ArbCom. Since he has already said that if unblocked he will make an edit similar to Krimpets, ie plow right back into the same disaster he started last year, I really don't understand why you think this is a good idea. And with regards to the line of reasoning used by the "ID regulars" perhaps it is because we have actually dealt with him and we hold our particular thoughts. Just an idea. So no, he should never be unblocked until he makes a statement that shows hope for the future. Even then, I would have reservations. Baegisthesock (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sam - the last three paragraphs of his analysis I found to be particularly clear (and concise). Privatemusings (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam's analysis might be clear and concise. It is just inaccurate. But feel free to unleash a destructive force on your own project, if you feel so inclined. Just remember I warned you.

I see post after post from editors who have no experience edting with Moulton and who have not reviewed his record, or even the little bit of his record in the RfC. But they would do not seem to care about all the danger signals, or just want to ignore them. It is an interesting study in human dynamics alright.--Filll (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So there's absolutely no chance that anyone other than Moulton had the slightest bit of culpability, or could have done anything even the slightest bit differently? That's what I am hearing you saying, over and over. It's fascinating how every time anyone turns any attention to anything surrounding this, it always comes back to how Moulton is completely in the wrong.

Fiddlesticks. No one of us is perfect and I suspect the members of the ID project are no exceptions to that principle, despite their PR. Again, I don't expect anything to actually happen if Moulton is unblocked, despite repeated discussion, because he's continued to indicate he won't edit here the way things currently are construed. But if he gets too far out of the lines we color within, I expect him to last about 5 edits before reblocking happens. Maybe 6. Sorry for replying but your statement wasn't a clear "I favour outcome X" sort of thing that we would use during a consensus check. Do you have such a statement? ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am astounded at this Lar. Perhaps you missed Dave souza's acknowledgement and Baegis' comment and others that "mistakes were made" on all sides. Why would you expect that this would not be true? We are human, and just trying to do the best we can. But since this seems to be an extremely important issue for you, I have made a short list of what I believe the mistakes on "my side" of this issue are here. I do not think you will learn anything new particularly, since most of this is sort of obvious or has been said before in different ways, but since you keep bringing it up over and over (for what purpose, I cannot quite imagine), there it is. Enjoy.--Filll (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unblock per Sam's guidelines - I would rather see sam's analysis PROVEN incorrect. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've expressed my opinion above; to sum up, I think that unblocking a user disinterested in Wikipedia's core policies who has had absolutely zero evident change of heart and carries a chip on his shoulder over his perceived mistreatment is guaranteed to be unproductive. The block is not a comment on Moulton's personal integrity, value as a human being, or role in the cosmic soap opera. It's just a determination that his participation is unlikely to be a good fit for this particular website, and I think there's plenty of evidence to support that conjecture. But I'm one person and, quite possibly, a member of the ID clique (no, I'm not part of the WikiProject and I've never edited an ID-related article to the best of my memory, but since when has that stopped someone from being labeled as part of a clique?). I wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock if there was a strong feeling that one was warranted, nor would I wheel-war about it (that hopefully goes without saying). The only thing I ask is that the folks to whom he's an abstract cause at the moment help deal with him when he becomes an active editor. I appreciate Lar's offer in this regard, and I'd encourage as many experienced eyes on the situation as possible if he's unblocked, since much of the concern over the initial handling revolves around the limited response to the RfC, AN/I, etc etc. MastCell ^Talk 04:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say I agree wtih Sam K here, and I've found myself disappointed about the actions/behavior of a group of editors I had expected more from here. SirFozzie (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "group of editors" you mean, is it those who've tried working with Moulton? Stereotyping editors as "groups" is not a good idea. .. dave souza, talk 12:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblocking On the basis that Sam's proposal is "unblocking with a strict prohibition from editing in areas concerned with the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. We should, as a community, be prepared to say "we would like to see you editing productively"," then ~~I'm willing so see~~ it would be possible to consider unblocking on these conditions with close and effective monitoring. Moulton is not disinterested about policy, he appears passionately committed to changing BLP so that information from reputable sources is overridden by personal anecdote and speculation about improbable potential harm. Expect extended and tendentious discussions in that area, and care should be taken to ensure that these views do not unduly override community consensus. ... dave souza, talk 12:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Amended after reading User:Filll/Moultonunblock which refreshed my memory. Any unblocking is likely to lead to grief as well as being an enormous waste of time . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advise against unblocking/unbanning until Moulton at least expresses an interest to play by the rules here, no matter how ridiculous he perceives the rules to be or how how ridiculous the rules actually are. As I have stated repeatedly, if you absolutely must unblock/unban Moulton, then at least be prudent enough to topic ban him from the areas and articles on which he produced nothing but disruption. If he has something to contribute, it is not in these areas in which he has no expertise and potential conflicts of interest. Direct him to contribute in areas in which he has expertise, if his expertise is so important to have on Wikipedia. Otherwise, the argument to remove his restrictions makes no sense. A more extensive discussion of my position and experiences is at User:Filll/Moultonunblock.--Filll (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MU This is a more complex question than whether or not Moulton should be unblocked. I think any admin considering this question should instead consider the following sequence of questions:

If unblocked, do you feel strongly enough about this that you would wheel war to re-block Moulton?
Are you prepared to mentor Moulton and if so (see my comments at his RfC) do you think he would respect your opinion?
In the event that Moulton is unblocked and in your opinion his contributions are disruptive, would you be prepared to block him unilaterally, rather than seek consensus?
If (in the above situation) no consensus can be determined, would you consent to Moulton being re-blocked or would you unblock him again?

In my opinion, we need zero admins to answer yes to Q1, one or more to Q2, zero to Q3, and zero answering "wheel war" to Q4. Unless we can get consensus for all that, we're just stirring up a big ol pot of wikidrama. Just my 2p SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A) To answer the questions Lar posed: I don't feel strongly about Sam's proposal, but would like to see it given a try. I strongly believe that the original outcome was incorrect. I predict that unblocking will anger the participants of the Intelligent Design wikiproject - but even talking about it appears to have already angered them - and I make no prediction as to the other practical outcomes of unblocking. B) To answer SheffieldSteel's questions: 1) I might unblock myself, I certainly won't wheel war to reblock. 2) If Moulton actively seeks my advice, I'll be glad to give it, as I would for any other editor. Having never discussed anything with him, I don't know if he respects my opinion. 3) If I had been the one to unblock him, I'd be willing to reblock. If I'm not the one to unblock him, I'm not likely to reblock him. 4) I believe that if there is a discussion, we need consensus to block a user or keep them blocked - however, you'll note that I haven't yet unblocked Moulton from this discussion. GRBerry 14:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I am not angry. And I doubt if anyone else is angry in the ID Wikiproject. It might even work out fine, but it is a bit disconcerting to see someone so sure of their beliefs based on complete avoidance of the available information. But be my guest. This is a fascinating example of human dynamics. [33]--Filll (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ~~probably~~ help mentor ~~(probably, 1 open issue)~~. I proposed to Moulton that it might be useful to edit in an uncontentious area first 'till he gets his sea legs. He has agreed, and he will be acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I think that this would cover most of the concerns above, for now. ~~I'm still waiting for word back from 1 editor who I hope will help out as well, before I commit.~~ --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mentoring: I can commit to mentoring. I have asked an editor whom Moulton trusts to help Moulton get started on some non-controversial articles (especially at first). Later we can try to expand the range, but in this way, I don't think much can go wrong. :-) Moulton has also agreed to this arrangement. Remember that Moulton only had 2 weeks on wikipedia before. We can give him a chance to work in a safe area, and he can improve his understanding of how wikipedia works in practice in places where folks aren't writing BLP's about his friends (which tends to be a rather nasty sticking point, you know :-P ). If he doesn't like it, we can all part as good friends. For the paranoid among you, Lar will be watching too, as will several other people. AND I know where to find Moulton IRL, that's always a good motivator <innocent look> --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (Eh? What were you thinking? I'm totally going to use that address to send him a nice cool beer of his choice, when he hits FA or GA, of course!)[reply]
Support unblocking I frequently am limited as to how much time I have to edit, but I'm also willing to help Moulton, as I did before his block. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any point in unblocking Moulton. Is there any indication that he plans to abide by policy or contribute to the project in a constructive way? Kim Bruning has offered to mentor him. I have more than three years of experience observing Kim's "mentoring" and "mediation". Kim's intervention usually precipitates a worsening of the situation (e.g., in the Picard article, where Kim's intervention sparked another day or two of heated debate, after which I posted the solution I was working on when he intervened...and which everyone accepted). And he tends not to follow through with his promises of mentoring. Promises of mentoring or mediation from Kim are, at best, hollow. And since Kim campaigned on IRC to have me blocked because I was "behind Wikipedia Review" a year or two ago...I have absolutely no cause to trust Kim. There are actually few people I have less cause to trust. Guettarda (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, to clarify - I'd like to see some commitment by Moulton to abide by our rules and policies, and I would like to see a credible mentor. Guettarda (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been tracking me for 3 years? That's interesting, a lot of things I do are not very visible. The "intervention" you mention was just a single post on the talk page. That wasn't actually the intervention I did on the Rosalind Picard article. What I did was that I invited a skilled FA-level editor to come and help me, and to talk between several people. The result was a large amount of new text (with exception of the section on faith) , thereby reducing WP:UNDUE weight in the article, simply by adding a lot more to the *rest* of it. It would have been hilarious if we had gotten the page up to good or featured quality even while people were edit warring on the single section, but unfortunately someone ended up protecting the page.

I'm not sure you can lay the heated debate on my shoulders by the way. Heated debating tends to require some level of voluntary participation. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what trouble Guettarda and Kim Bruning might have had. However, I did observe the recent situation at Picard's talk page. It was clear to me that Bruning's "intervention" with one post, imprudently worded and located, did destroy a developing consensus and lead to considerably more conflict. It was the exact opposite of what a mediation is supposed to do. I have told Bruning this before. It is also true that Bruning has apparently recruited User:Ottava Rima to work with Moulton. Ottava Rima has introduced some of the material finally produced by Moulton, some 10 months after it was first requested (and repeatedly requested since that time, to no avail), into the main body of the Picard biography, to widespread approval of all sides. I do not know Ottava Rima, and I do not want to rely on assorted rumors that many tell me, but I am a bit skeptical of his ability to "supervise" and educate Moulton, given (1) Moulton's current stance on the rules under which Wikipedia operates and writes its articles, and (2) given Ottava rima's own history here (not to say people cannot reform themselves and do not deserve a second chance). My best prediction for this right now, knowing what I know from all sides, is that this action has a high probability of producing considerable unproductive conflict. On the other hand, I could be wrong, and in any case it will be an interesting experiment in human dynamics and the ways in which Wikipedia can malfunction.--Filll (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of Firewalled Ottava Rima and Moulton from each other so far (to prevent either party from being accused of meatpuppetry, etc). But yeah, somehow when they cooperate they do tend to get positive results.

Now as to people who decide to get themselves into a kerfluffel over a single section, especially when they're supposed to be experienced wikipedians. Hmph, the less said the better.

Is Lar a credible mentor to the both of you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"destroying a developing consensus"

Filll, you keep saying things in these terms, as if having a consensus - any consensus at all - is more important than having a sourced, verifiable, and most importantly of all NPOV article. And that's ignoring that if a consensus is so fragile that one person can "destroy" it, it never really was a consensus in the first place. --Random832 (contribs) 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take umbrage at this comment for the following reasons: (1) I do not believe you are even aware of the situation we are discussing (2) I disagree in the strongest possible terms that I have repeatedly advocated following WP:CON over WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Please provide diffs if you want to make such accusations. (3) I do not believe you have sufficient experience on Wikipedia to weigh in on such matters. (4) Your opinion is at the odds with those of several other experienced Wikipedians. I will thank you to try to WP:AGF and stop your semi-veiled attacks on me. Do you think that might be possible for you? Thank you.--Filll (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Random's first edit with his current account was on January 13, 2004 and he has edited since in some of the more drama-prone sections of WP. I dare say the rest of what you say is as accurate as that implies. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that Filll should probably reread the consensus policy. Consensus does not lock an article into its current state, and challenging consensus, even a "fragile" one, is not against policy. Stop lawyering by selectively choosing sections of policy to cite at people, Filll. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course consensus does not lock an article into its current state. Where did I ever state that? (diffs please) Consensus changes all the time of course. Of course challenging consensus is permitted. Who said it was not? (diffs please) There are consequences of challenging consensus of course; it can trigger a dispute that can rage for hours, or days, or weeks, or months, or years. And it can lead to all kinds of other problems, incuding preventing the editing of the article, which is somewhat counterproductive, as it was in the Picard case. Also, the consensus finally reached in the Picard case was not much different than what was forming a day or two earlier, and then was disrupted, or what had existed on the page for months and months. So what really was the point? Just another chance for unproductive talk page warfare I guess. What fun! And what parts of policy am I misquoting or selectively quoting? Please tell me so I can stop misrepresenting the policy. As before, diffs please.--Filll (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without even going to where you have said similarly on other pages: [34] [35]

You have repeatedly described "destroying consensus" as reflecting badly on editors. It does not. As for causing "talk page warfare," it is not a person's fault for that if they brought valid concerns. If you considered the talk page arguments so unproductive, perhaps you should re-examine your part in them, and how you might make future arguments more productive. Speaking of unproductive arguments, this one has been wandering into that territory as well, so, having said my piece, I will now disengage. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are engaging in a clearly unproductive argument and it is good of you to notice that. Even Bruning himself noted in the Picard talk page thread that he wanted to understand how his actions had caused such an undesired end. It happens and I will not vilify anyone for such a thing, as you seem to want to claim I am doing. I am afraid your diffs do not show what I had asked for, so I am underwhelmed by the seeming credibility gap here. As for the claim that editors who bring "concerns" that cause days and weeks of talk page warfare that ends with the same result that was there at the beginning, I am not sure that in that case I would classify them as "valid concerns". But you can do as you like. By the way, if the concerns were so valid, why was the goal to discard the text you yourself had written and agreed to some months earlier? If they were so valid, why were they dismissed by the overwhelming consensus? Hmmm...--Filll (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked questions, I'll give you a short answer: Just because I agreed to something previously doesn't mean I consider it a permanent solution. In addition, characterizing me as completely satisfied with the text at the time is quite a misrepresentation. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll the idea that those who came with BLP concerns to Talk:Rosalind Picard "caused" the talk page warefare is a convenient inaccuracy. Quick recap: 1) Several uninvolved editors came to the talk page because of a concern that the existing language was a BLP violation (most of these editors were pretty much "uninvolved" with ID entries generally, with this particular entry, and/or with each other). 2) Various members of the ID WikiProject very quickly upped the ante suggesting and supporting an alternative wording that even more strongly supported the claim that was at the heart of the BLP concern and to boot was (and remains) unverifiable through reliable sources. 3) After hours wasted in heated argument, a compromise was suggested and agreed upon that was and is notably similar to the original language, but for a few minor tweaks, and a significant amount of contextual information surrounding it that clarifies the BLP concern. A substantial amount, if not most, of the talk page "warfare" was in direct relation to the more extreme afore mentioned language authored by KillerChihuahua and backed by you (Filll), Odd Nature, Dave Souza and later Merzul. At the time of the compromise I expressed feelings of being "had", because of the ease at which you all dropped your, now apparently red herring argument, for the "not too different from the original" compromise version. It is without doubt that this red herring, and the unwavering support it garnered from you, share at least half the blame here (though in my mind they are much more culpable). Anyone interested in seeing this detailed but not wishing to wade through the archives of the entry talk page please refer to User_talk:Filll#Glad_to_be_of_service and particularly to User_talk:Filll#Response. Why on earth does someone who participates so causally in creating an undesirable condition go around accusing others of doing so?PelleSmith (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if you were allowed to do whatever you wanted, there would be no disputes. Well duh. But that is not how Wikipedia works, is it? You think I get to do whatever I want? Guess again. Lots of my suggestions have been dismissed. Lots of my writing has disappeared into the bit bucket.--Filll (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only 400 mainspace edits per year over the duration. And 100 mainspace edits per month since he started being more active in January 2007. Look at the ratio of mainspace edits to AN and AN/I edits and compare it to other editors. About 10,000 total edits in about 4.5 years. Enough said.--Filll (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude, Filll, but I think arguing that someone's disagreement with you has no validity because their edit count doesn't reach some arbitrary limit is a bit, well, low. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do it all the time. How much respect do fresh IPs get or newbies get when they try to lecture others on policy? This is not that different, frankly. But you are free to disagree. Provide me the evidence that those with low edit counts (particularly edit counts devoted to article-building) have a superior knowledge of Wikipedia policy. I would be quite interested to see that.

In any case, if I am not interested in NPOV, or RS, or V, please show me the diffs. I am waiting.--Filll (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting.--Filll (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's going to waste their time on it, Filll. Your behavior so far in this thread has provided enough information. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What part of working in a collegiate manner towards consensus don't you folks understand? If you like creating wikidrama by upsetting things, don't complain about the drama afterwards. .. dave souza, talk 18:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, who is that addressed to? --Relata refero (disp.) 21:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One might make the same evaluation of your behavior on this and other pages. I would gladly compare mine with yours any day. But I think it is best that I not stoop to such levels.--Filll (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate, then, that you already have :) --Relata refero (disp.) 21:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, Dave, they have reached a consensus that creating teh dramaz is good. ;) Jim62sch^dissera! 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, Filll might not quite get some of the finer points of wikidiplomacy, it looks like, but as far as I can tell at least he's trying to be honest. That's going a long way already. Be nice! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC) That and I recall something about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar :-) [reply]

User talk:Moulton

I asked at User talk:Moulton if he was willing to even try to edit appropriately and he would not even say "yes" (he said "mu" meaning that the question is invalid). He should be allowed to edit his user talk page, but he seems determined to play by his own rules; so I do not recommend an unblock. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he may have misread your question. I've asked him to think about it more carefully. I'll give my final recommendation after 23:59 UTC today. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was on a Not The Wikipedia Weekly episode with him, where he talked at greater length about his position. His belief is that Wikipedia is fundamentally broken, with contradictory policies that are impossible to follow and lack of proper due process for those accused of violating them. His response is to make "ultimatums" (ultimata?) that Wikipedia needs to change first before he would even think of participating in it. My advice to him on that show was that he at least admit that his own behavior caused some of the problems (even if he's right about there being some other problems outside himself) and that he agree to attempt to follow the spirit of Wikipedia policies to the best of his ability (even if they can be bizarre and contradictory at times). He didn't seem to be interested in that, however. Thus, although I have sympathy for his side, I think he's unfortunately undermining his own position by refusing to be constructive and cooperative, something that it's possible to do even with people and policies one disagrees with. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, that’s disingenuous to say that he misunderstood the question. Mu is his answer and it obviously struck him as appropriate, even though WAS has spent quite some time trying to help the situation. Can we end this farce and just archive this discussion please? It has taken up far too much time and we are right back to square one. Baegisthesock (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Baegisthesock here. This is a pattern with Moulton, as can be seen from the RfC. Over and over editors have tried to help him achieve his goals and educate him about Wikipedia. Me. Hrafn. FeloniousMonk. Ornis. Avb. Kenosis. Dave souza. ZayZayEm. SheffieldSteel. KillerChihuahua. Durova. And now Lar. And WAS 4.250. And Kim Bruning. (I am sure I have left a few out here). And eventually, all realize something is amiss with Moulton's mindset and goals and agenda and attempts to meet his goals and agenda.

Some have invested dozens of hours dealing with Moulton. Some maybe hundreds of hours in this. And the result is the same. Even at "that other site" some are lecturing Moulton that he is going about it the wrong way and has to change his way of thinking.

I have posted a short bit of advice to Moulton here. Otherwise, this is a completely wasteful exercise in futility. And we are just spinning our wheels here.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Murder of James Bulger is one example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry

Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by .

Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Betacommand2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BetacommandBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today, I noticed an edit that drew my curiosity. [36]. I mentioned it later to MBisanz, and, we discussed whom it may be. After going over the contribs, it became obvious to us, that it was Betacommand. The account talked the same way, and, even made a mistake or two. After discussing this for a couple hours, we came to the conclusion, that it was likely a sockpuppet, and, was being used at least [here to participate in an edit war, and skirt WP:3RR. So, we decided to get the opinion of a checkuser, Dmcdevit, whom confirmed for us that the two accounts were likely the same. It is with a heavy heart, and much disappointment today, that I ask for a sanity check, on an indefinite block on Betacommand (and associated socks), for prolonged sockpuppetry, and incivility. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this findings and have performed the blocks. MBisanz ^talk 07:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. But what about Beta's bot(s)? —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is blocked along with the other accounts, I have removed its rollback rights. The Bot right is inoperative due to the direct account block. MBisanz ^talk 07:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are blocked, and will be deflagged soon. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm the CheckUser findings. The match is extremely conclusive, and it is unlikely to be possible that it is anyone else. Dmcdevit·t 07:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should roll back the thousands of bot edits to DEFAULTSORTs he just made with his main account, a considerable number of which were clearly incorrect. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they didn't do harm, do not mess with them. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the one (hybridism) I looked at, I believe it is a MediaWiki bug where leading spaces don't work in DEFAULTSORT. I mentioned this in Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive 6#DEFAULTSORT with spaces; I'm not sure if it's been listed on MediaWiki's bugzilla. --NE2 07:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse than that. [37] [38] He just went through and set a DEFAULTSORT on anything whose categories ~~are all currently sorted the same~~ currently share the same sort key or none, even based on a small number of examples with sort keys. (And even if the sort key was the special case " ".) I found two of these mistakes in a cursory check of 25 contributions, and again, he did thousands of these. These are going to subtly mess up category pages for months or years unless we mass revert. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it also ignored categories with no sortkey. I remember AWB used to do that, but it was fixed a while ago. I definitely support the reverting. --NE2 07:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If need be, I will be able to help revert the additions. Let me know if it is needed. Nakon 07:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems correct. Ordinarily it would be sufficient to merely block the sockpuppet accounts and make clear that he must restrict himself to one, but Betacommand has a long history of poor behavior, so I think the block should be of significant length and possibly indefinite. Everyking (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why indefinite? A year seems like forever enough, without being forever forever, if you know what I mean. Hesperian 07:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Beta is/was a determinedly nasty user IMO, and if they'd be willing to wait a year, the chances are they'll create socks before the year's up! —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is why he wasn't blocked a year ago. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do that, don't talk down about someone whom can't respond, please. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a point there. It may have sounded more like an attack because of the way I hastily worded it, unfortunately. (It's hard to really think through edits at the moment, with all the edit conflicts.) The point was we've seen that a year passing is not enough to stop Betacommand from causing disruption. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't support an indefinite block if he responds to this appropriately, but I still think it needs to be a while. He's got quite a history. Everyking (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely he could never be trusted enough to use a bot account for a long period of time. I would certainly only suppot unblocking after one-to-three months should there be a restriction limiting Betacommand to one account only, and that would obviously mean no bot accounts. Given the contentious nature of his use of bots in the past, coupled with the sockpuppetry, I would regretfully support such a restriction should it be proposed if he is unblocked anytime in the near future. Daniel (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord. I never expected this. Presuming this is correct, if Betacommand owns up to the sockpuppets and says how many there were, and apologises for any abuse, and limits himself to one account (permanently) and no bots (for a longer period of time, but not indefinite), I would probably support an eventual (though not immediate) unblock. I do remember him saying that he had another account that he was intending to switch to, but if he was using an alternate account abusively, that is never acceptable. I do hope we hear something from Betacommand at some point, though. His bot pages and talk pages do need to be kept, regardless of what eventually happens. Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand's edit to the bot policy page as Quercus appears to have been made during the course of a session of rc patrol using huggle. It is not inconceivable that the edit might have been an honest mistake caused by being too rash to use the proper account. Edits under the Quercus account appear limited to rc patrol, awb formatting edits, and a few trivial afd votes (with no double voting under the betacommand account). Now I've had my share of disagreements with Betacommand's actions, but this appears to be a relatively benign, if undisclosed, alternate account. Block the sock, there's no dire need to shut down the main account immediately and indefinitely. Suspicions of sockpuppet activity should at least be disclosed to the suspect to offer an opportunity for admission or explanation before the matter is escalated to an AN/I notice and block. As for the defaultsort tagging, well, I'm not too surprised. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]

The defaultsort bot edits, for one, were completely hypocritical (considering how strongly he insisted that nobody could run a bot without the BAG's approval, by which he generally meant his own approval). Also, his running of an unapproved bot because it seemed like a good idea to him at the time is a kind of abuse that he had done before, reluctantly apologized for, and promised not to do again. (In particular, I'm referring to when he spammed the main page history to "prevent it from being deleted"). It's also not very credible to defend his sockpuppet's reverting of the bot policy (a significant dispute that he is involved in) as an "honest mistake". How many more apologies and second chances would you give him? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever apologizing for Betacommand and I do take issue with his reckless automated tagging. There's a difference between not trusting him with a bot, or even administrative tools for that matter, and blocking his main account outright before he's had a chance to respond. If the edit to the bot policy was an accident then it was a monumentally stupid mistake - but an understandable one. I'm just not seeing indisputable evidence of malicious sockpuppeteering. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even have any particular animosity towards this user but every other week there's a big heap of drama surrounding this user. He doesn't seem to want to operate according to the same rules we're all expected to follow. One or two or even three issues, okay, I can see a short block. But history has shown that short blocks have accomplished nothing. A one year block will accomplish nothing. If this was anyone other than the person in question, they would have been indef blocked eons ago and long forgotten. I'm sorry to say this but in the end, when someone cuases this much disruption to the project and even goes so far as to use a blatantly abusive sockpuppet, it's time to end the drahmaz. Like upper management everywhere says: nobody is irreplaceable. And that's how it should be. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Wait a moment people. I haven't yet seen evidence here that he was using the second account abusively. Double voting? Taking part in the same debates? (other than apparently by accident, as SQL seemed to be saying.) Faking an impression of larger support for an opinion? Those are the definition of abusive sockpuppetry. In the case of a high-profile account with lots of enemies, as Betacommand always was, an attempt at branching out part of his activities into a secondary account may be well on the side of legitimate secondary account usage. Before people (especially those with old grudges) rush to get Betacommand sanctioned here, I for one would like to see a more thorough discussion. It is indicative of the lynchmob atmosphere that is about to be forming here how Rspeer above jumped in calling for mass rollbacks of a series of edits – while those may well have been of questionable value, there is absolutely no evidence they were done in bad faith, and even less they had anything to do with abusive sockpuppetry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. Do you disagree that the mass rollbacks need to be done? Do you consider it good faith for a guy who goes on profanity-laden rants against anyone who suggests that bots can run without approval to run an unapproved bot? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's not anyone go on mass-rollback sprees. Many of these edits are correct and useful; many more are harmless. My brain's fried enough that I need something mindless to do for a while; I'm willing to take responsibility for checking all 5000+ of them. —Cryptic 09:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If we assume an honest mistake was made, there is no violation of 3RR on Wikipedia:Bot_policy. I count three.[39][40][41] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to all above) If you edit war on [[Page X]] with two different accounts, the burden is on you to self-revert the edit by the second account if it was an accident. If it wasn't an accident, then it's abusive sockpuppetry. Daniel (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I'm kinda disappointed he didn't (but I can understand that he doesn't want to draw attention on an alternate account). After a quick look, I see one instance where both users edited the same page (the instance everyone is discussing: rv1 rv2). Are there any other instances where that happened? (It could be a "oh crap I forgot to log out my alternate account" instance if it only happened once). A block could be in order (even if there is no 3RR violation, which makes me uncomfortable in this case). But indef? Seriously? I see grudges here (Or I'm gonna be much more harsh when patrolling WP:RFCU)... -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) In any case, an immediate indef block on the main account, before discussion here had even properly begun, and before BC had a chance to even respond, was way way premature. Blocks are preventative, there's no danger in waiting at least until the guy can tell us his side of the story. If I don't hear a good reason why we need him blocked now, I'm going to unblock in a couple minutes pending further discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object, it is well known that Betacommand has special technical tools that can edit up to 700 times per minute. Given the ironclad nature of the CU confirm, he can request unblock in the normal manner. MBisanz ^talk 07:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A block was appropriate. He can request an unblock like everyone else. Considering some of the recent mass edits, we should be thankful that the block was made quickly. Enigma ^message 08:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Is abuse of sockpuppets not enough? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. I'm not at all 'proud' or 'happy' about this situation, but, let us wait until we hear beta's side of the story, PLEASE. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Came out wrong, was responding to future perf SQL ^{Query me!} 08:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not indefinite, but going around the bot policy with a sock is a blockable offense. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an indef block. Abusing sock puppets is awful for anyone to do, especially an experienced user like Beta. I would strongly disagree with any premature unblock and I would highly recommend against unblocking at this point. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 08:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also object - he has just been through arbcom, let them handle this and the use of an unapproved bot on the main account (see ANI) Viridae ^Talk 08:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you may gasp and faint at the idea of anything good coming out of CSN, but bear with me: one of its best practices was to offer blocked users a chance to participate in sanctions discussions: we used a template to transclude a statement from the editor's talk page to the general thread. It was usually helpful but I'm no coder, so would somebody graft that template for use over here please? I'd like to hear Betacommand's side of this. If there's a rational explanation he'd be the best one to provide it. Durova^Charge! 08:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do people think the minimum/maximum block should be? Maybe that would be useful to establish. I say min 18 months, max indefinite, as now. —TreasuryTag—t—c

Sentence first, verdict afterward? Durova^Charge! 08:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova I've transcluded the non-template part of Betacommand's talk page below. His comments will appear there if/when he makes them. MBisanz ^talk 08:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 08:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea, only messes things up and leads to confusion. If people want to chat to BC, they should be using his talk page; if we want to hear BC's view here, we should unblock him and let him edit here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a chat though, is it? It's a ban discussion and his neck's on the chopping block. Please approach this with an open mind: if someone is banned for abusive socking do you think it's more or less likely that the socking would end if the person gets the boot without a meaningful way to present a defense? Durova^Charge! 08:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who keeps saying the chopping block was carried in a bit early. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when an editor uses the opportunity well it sometimes sways discussions. If the editor abuses it the thing's easy to disable and that also sways discussions (by making a hard choice easier). Durova^Charge! 08:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following edits by User:Ryulong may be relevant: [42], [43]. Ryulong also carried out the following deletions: [44], [45], presumably to avoid the creation and tagging of the page and category prejudicing the discussion. I've asked Ryulong if he would be happy to comment here on these actions. Carcharoth (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments at User talk:Nobody of Consequence is all I have to say.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in that discussion on WT:BOTS, and even when I saw the edit by Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs) in this sequence, it was obvious to me it was Beta working from one of his alternate accounts. Between the two accounts Beta did exactly three reverts, same as his opponent. Gimmetrow 08:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding my 2c here - support block for now unless a very good reason is provided, but I am loath to support any indefinite action against a user who, despite extreme moodiness and occasional strange or vindictive behaviour, is essentially a good faith user and not here for the purposes of harming the project. Essentially concur with Daniel's view above. Orderinchaos 08:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommandbot is now deflagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:INSPECTOR (more harm than good), block him for a short time, and then block him for evey instance of incivility. This may amount to an indefinite block, but while we're all watching him (and his socks?) now is the time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I recommend an RFAR. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~...assuming BC returns to defend this. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)~~ Actually, I don't. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(For the record, Confirmed Quercus basaseachicensis = Betacommand. Someone might want to have a word with him, and tell him it's going to work out better if he takes their advice on what's being asked of him in all this. This isn't really a good thing :( FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC) )[reply]

Aside from the fact that this was obviously him (no checkuser needed), exactly how did he use this account to circumvent WP policy? He never presented or defended this account as an independent entity. How did this justify an indef block? Gimmetrow 09:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Lucas and Gimmetrow here. This is absurd, if it had been any user other then Betacommand then the main account probably wouldn't have even been blocked: it would have been asked for an explanation. This looks to me like an innocent mistake, he had an alternate account, presumably to avoid the baying wolves. I saw more restraint from the Rangers fans in Manchester on Weds night. Woody (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite - had this been any other user, I'd have blocked him without even bringing it up here, just for the unauthorized and incorrect bot edits from a non-bot account. —Cryptic 10:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be wrong. Bot policy does not forbid users from running an assisted editing script from their regular user account. A script only needs bot approval if it's running in automatic mode, and otherwise maybe if its running "fast" or doing a very large number of edits. Since Beta has been doing the defsort work for a few days it's possible he's up in the "very large number" range, but it's a grey area. He's definitely not been doing the defsort edits "fast", and there are some edits where a defsort key is chosen when its not the only one present. This rather suggests he's making a choice for each one and not running in automatic mode. (He could have programmed some heuristics for an automatic decision, but I doubt it.) A new account might not get much leeway, but we do not block established users simply for running assisted scripts on their user accounts. Such edits are the responsibility of the users; if the edits are controversial the user should be approached and asked to stop, and only blocked if the user refuses. Gimmetrow 10:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through not quite 500 edits so far, and have not yet seen one where any but the first sortkey was picked; no human would approve an edit like this; and nobody can inspect and approve forty edits per minute. There is no way that this was an assisted editing script. —Cryptic 10:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did he do 40 edits per minute? In the sequences I've checked, it's typically 3 to 5 edits per minute. Gimmetrow 10:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a run of 42. —Cryptic 10:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be using a heuristic of "if all category sort tags are the same, replace with a DEFAULTOSRT". Doesn't AWB do this anyway if you set it up that way? Seems fairly straightforward, but would be more efficient to submit a bit request and do those ones at high-speed. Carcharoth (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno on AWB, though it should be fixed if it does it too. Where there's more than one explicit sortkey, the others are preserved correctly; but where a sortkey is omitted intentionally, it gets trampled on anyway. (Unless you accept that articles in Category:Science museums should be sorted as "Science Museum".) —Cryptic 11:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If it were just "if all sort tags are the same replace with defsort" it wouldn't have any effect and wouldn't be much of an issue. But in edits like this, three categories do not have sort keys, so defsort changes things. And 40 epm seems rather high, even with maxlag. Agree the defsort tagging needs its own thread, as I can see someone making an argument about aspects of it. Gimmetrow 11:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. I said earlier that people were forming a lynch mob, and now that mob has lynched Beta. Great. I hope you're all proud of yourselves (especially TreasuryTag, yet again there with the piano wire). ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 09:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)That was completely uncalled for, and I would ask you to justify your comment about me, remove it, strike-through it or apologise. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, this is too harsh. OK, confirmed he had alternate accounts, and the account was 'used' in edit-warring (though strictly, even in combination, there is no violation of 3RR, and I don't see any real abuse from the accounts, except the incivility). And that is now punished with indef blocks and de-botting/de-rollbacking of the bot-account, which were not involved in this. Indef the alternate account(s) (if needed, indef the bot), but I would suggest returning the flags, and to unblock the main account (so Betacommand can participate normally in this discussion). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now he's just blocked and we're holding a discussion. This is a controversial editor and it's not too surprising that a discussion is taking place. Redvers, please give reasons and evidence for your position and refrain from characterizing the people who disagree with you. The heat and speed of this discussion decreased quite a bit once the transclusion template went up; most people are waiting to hear Betacommand's side of things. Durova^Charge! 10:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still willing to unblock pending any further consensus forming here. I've told him I'll unblock as soon as he asks for it, on condition he refrains from mechanical / bot-like edits for the time being. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, we usually do not ban good faith editors for the first offense of sockpuppetry. It is usually 1 week to 1 month. As this is definitely the first case and the harm is relatively minor I would suggest 1..2 weeks. Obviously sockpuppeting is incompatible with the positions of trust including his participation in BAG. Otherwise the problems with the overzealous bot writing are completely separate. I was not aware the latest surge of BCbot activities were so bad (all defaultsorts on my watchlist seem to be put correctly), we might want to deflag the bot and in future apply more scrutiny to his changes, still no need to block it permanently, IMHO. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked WP:SOCK, having an account for trivial wikignoming so that your main account does not get bogged down with edits, was acceptable - especially if you can't log on without the orange bar lighting up, as I'm sure Beta can't. You can hardly call Betacommand2 a deceptive use of an alt account. It looks to me as if animus against Beta's unfree image tagging is the major reason for blocking here, since with the exception of one edit which could be an honest mistake, there is absolutely no evidence of deception. Betacommand has 54,000 edits, an indefinite block for using trivially identifiable alt accounts hardly looks like the kind of thing to justify bannination. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't possibly agree more Guy. naerii - talk 13:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking through Quercus basaseachicensis's contributions, and it does just look like an alternate account, not an abusive sockpuppet. I had thought Betacommand2 was the only alternate account. I don't see why this should be labelled a "mistake", and the only evidence that has emerged so far is the single edit to do with the edit war. If Betacommand acknowledges that was a mistake, I think we can unblock. The DEFAULTSORT stuff is a concern, and I would hope Betacommand would not do that again without testing stuff. Any human editor checking their edits would have spotted this. Anyone else reviewing a trial set of edits would have spotted this. Betacommand should have spotted this. It is good of Cryptic to offer to go through the thousands of edits and fix the ones that need fixing, but a bot would be much better suited to finding the wrong DEFAULTSORTs. See my ancient proposal (taken up by Quadell) at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 3, plus User talk:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run. There is a lot of biographical stuff that needs doing, but poor bot work could make things worse. It needs a lot of human oversight. Carcharoth (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that any unblock not be performed until Betacommand actually comments here (ie. on his talk page, though the transclusion doesn't seem to be working). Future Perfect's comment above seems to imply that Betacommand is talking with others about this off-wiki. This is fine, but if Betacommand respects the community, he will say something here (ie. on-wiki) as well. If he posts here and acknowledges the single inappropriate edit identified so far, I will personally unblock based on the discussion here so far. Carcharoth (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify: No, there's been no off-wiki talking that I'm aware of. I was refering simply to a talkpage note I left him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah right, sorry about that. I do tend to assume lots of off-wiki talking goes on. If anyone does chat with Betacommand off-wiki, could they ask him to respond on-wiki before any unblock? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DEFAULTSORT stuff probably needs its own thread. Betacommand doesn't seem to have been responding to conceerns raised about it. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grnngh. Hadn't realized he'd been doing it so long; obviously I'm watching entirely the wrong sort of article. (Though I'd thought it was weird that he started in the middle of the G's.) —Cryptic 11:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: Ever since I've known Betacommand (starting with him blocking me in one of his username-blocking bot runs), he has constantly been under fire for performing poorly thought-out bot actions (a number of which are documented in his first Arbcom case). In several cases, time-consuming mass reverts have had to be performed to clean up the damage (such as his massive removal of valid external links documented in the Arbcom case, and the current DEFAULTSORT episode). His one bot task that actually helped the encyclopedia was the image license checking feature, but that has now been taken over by other bots such as the NFCC compliance bot. This means that now, Betacommand's bot runs either do aesthetic changes that have no real advantage, or actually damage the encyclopedia. The Wikipedia community has to constantly make adaptations to ordinary processes in order to accommodate Betacommand (bending rules that would have had other editors blocked, creating a separate noticeboard for Betacommand issues, and modifying the BAG approvals process so that Betacommand would not have to pass a community request for membership that he would obviously fail). This means that large amounts of volunteer time are spent controlling Betacommand, rather than improving the encyclopedia. Based on this, combined with Betacommand's chronic incivility which has not changed at all since the first Arbcom case, I am of the opinion that Betacommand has exhausted the community's patience. At the least, he should be indefinitely prohibited from running bots. Is he back? (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very valid point. His behaviour (spec. civility issues) hasn't improved at all. If copius amounts of editors come up and say: "Hey, you're being mean!" - Surely you're gonna get the point eventually? You don't keep saying: "It's not me, it's them. They're all just nuts." - He hasn't heeded any sort of constructive criticism. I think this sock fiasco is the final straw. He knew he'd get caught. Perhaps he was relying on his allies and advocates to bail him out? Or his ability to get away with everything? I don't care how much crap he's taken for his bot, he isn't granted any special rights. If I, or anyone else for that matter, had a sock and was being naughty then I'd certainly be indef blocked. In fact, I'd support the block as a consequence of my own foolishness. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 12:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that IMO, a lot of the "crap" Betacommand received for his bot was caused by him giving poor explanations in his bot's messages, and not being willing to answer even legitimate questions about the bot, thus frustrating people who got their images tagged with "bad rationale per WP:NFCC#10c" without understanding what was the issue. When these people then asked Betacommand politely what was wrong, they got either no response or short responses like "read WP:NFCC and stop bothering me", instead of a simple explanation like "You need to link to the article where the image is used". I think that a less combative bot owner with better communication skills would have been able to run BetacommandBot without receiving a tenth of all the "harassment" Betacommand uses to justify his actions. When the bot started the task of checking images for article links, I contacted Betacommand in order to suggest a better wording of the bot's messages, but received no response. Is he back? (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually quite an incorrect characterisation of BC's responses. A few weeks back I went and put together a list of examples of BC responding to questions on his talk page in a perfectly acceptable manner and found (to my surprise, considering the amount of hatred for the guy) that he responds satisfactorily nine times out of ten. You know, I've never seen anyone provide diffs to back up these claims of BC being horrifically uncommunicative, whereas in about 5 minutes on his talk page I could pick out plenty of diffs that show the opposite. And to be honest, people who don't understand NFCC probably shouldn't be uploading fair use images in the first place. naerii - talk 13:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really talking about indefinitely blocking an established editor over what is effectively one bad edit? Even assuming it was intentional (which we shouldn't) it seems like a bit of an over reaction. Propose lifting the block (time served) with bot rights remaining suspended pending further discussion. Guest9999 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the block should be lifted. The rush to get the knives out for BC here is simply astonishing. naerii - talk 13:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this alternate account has been editing since October 2007. Since that timeperiod, Betacommand has been blocked on four separate occasions and experienced an RFAR. Per the good hand/bad hand account standards, how is this compatible with our Alternate Account policy? You can split up editing in areas to avoid overlap (something he hasn't done here, both accounts edit the same things), for security (thats what Betacommand2 is for), for mass edits (what BetacommandBot is for), or if your leaving one identity for a new one (but you stop editing under the old identity). Going 8 months with one account "clean" and another account under blocks, sanctions, etc, does not seem appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 14:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand's response

~~[Beta's talkpage is transcluded below. When comments are made, they will appear here.]~~

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.

Preserved as a record of BC's userpage at the time of unblock MBisanz ^talk 14:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to start over under a new username, I was every careful to avoid editing the same pages, and the edit at WP:BOT was an accident. I think this issue has been taken far far out of context. WP:SOCKs may be blocked for being abusive, how as that sock be used abusively? see this for a listing of all overlaping pages. other than random cleanup there is no overlap except for the one error on WP:BOT β^_command 13:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed unblock

I'm satisifed with Betacommand's response here. If there are no substantive objections, I propose to unblock later this afternoon. I'll give it two hours from this timestamp, and I'll let the blocking admin, User:MBisanz know. Please limit replies here to how to handle any unblock and any objections. Carcharoth (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea, the block was an extreme overreaction in my opinion. Kelly ^hi! 13:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per my comment above. Guest9999 (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I don't want to rush to judgment about the rush to judgment, but perhaps it was a rush to judgment. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal request is give Betacommand a second chance, considering his good contributions. I agree he is very aggressive but not a purposeful vandal -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't give him a second chance that was done years ago. 10th perhaps?Geni 13:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Providing the bot remains blocked, with its botflag removed, and he doesn't use a bot on his new account without clearing it - properly - with the BAG, no objections to an unblock. If he is attempting to start over with a new username, should the new name be unblocked, or the old one, or both? Neıl ☎ 13:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best step forward is an unblock for BC here. naerii - talk 13:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x2)Support unblock in manner proposed by Carcharoth, agree with Relata refero. Added: Unblock all three, request that Beta choose one. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 13:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - starting over cleanly as an established user is hard - mistakes happen, and I see no evidence of maliciousness. Wily D 13:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - BC may have been a casualty of ZOMG DHRAMA Week on the Wiki - is it something in the water lately? Either way, no concerns about the proposed unblock. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'll defer to the community's wishes in the unblock, although I would urge moderation along the lines Neil describes. MBisanz ^talk 13:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, plus returning bot rights on User:BetacommandBot. The withdrawal of the bot-rights has nothing to do with this block (which was in itself an overreaction), the bot has been very useful, and still is. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many times is he going to run poorly-thought-out and unapproved (one of the reasons for approval is to run the idea by someone else so they can point out problems) tasks, though? --Random832 (contribs) 14:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The bot policy is crystal clear:

“

Administrators may block bot accounts that operate without approval, operate in a manner not specified in their approval request, or operate counter to the terms of their approval... A block may also be issued if a bot process operates... logged in to an account other than its own

”

I think we've established that an edit series running at fourty two edits per minute is not a manually-supervised script. This is BetacommandBot operating on an unauthorised, unflagged account, in clear violation of bot policy; for which the bot may be blocked indefinitely, never mind for a few days. Happy‑melon 14:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblocking User:Betacommand, or whichever single account Betacommand wishes to edit from for the time being. Conditional on the other accounts remaining blocked for the time being, and BCB remaining unflagged until we've sorted out this mess. Happy‑melon 14:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Agree with Happy-melon, I mean are we seriously going to condone this type of behavior from him when he has so clearly had a track history of abuse? If the other account wants to be unblocked than it needs to go through BAG like everyone else, just because it is BC does not mean he does not have to fallow the rules. I will only support a unblock if certain terms are met like Neil describes above. Tiptoety ^talk 14:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Re Happy-melon: Yes, he was running a script, probably botwise on his own account, as he has done before. But that was not what this block was about, nor was BetacommandBot used for that (and if this was an automated script, then still; loading 40 pages and hitting "Save page" 40 times in a minute might be possible). Hence I suggest unblocking Betacommand for this so-called sockpuppetry, and returning the bot-flags to BetacommandBot. If there is an issue with these edits, then that is a separate issue. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, he's only had more than five edits per minute six times (I've only looked at edits April 20 and later): six at 17:11, 15 May 2008; six at 18:07, 15 May 2008; six at 19:17, 15 May 2008; eight at 19:49, 15 May 2008; fifteen at 19:40, 15 May 2008; and forty-two at 19:39, 15 May 2008. Even stretching WP:AGF to the breaking point, though, there's runs of dozens of harmful edits in a row, all harmful in the same way; if this is a manually-approved script, he's not competent to run it. A generous estimate is 10% of these edits being useful; 70% harmless; and 20% actively harmful. I think blocking him for the alternate account was probably an overreaction, but can't condone allowing him to continue like this. —Cryptic 14:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the DEFAULTSORT edits need to stop. Some really bad ones there. Carcharoth (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - As MBisanz has replied (I've also discussed on his talk page), and there has been a lot of replies above, I'm bringing forward the unblock point. I'm only going to unblock Betacommand (the main account). There is a lot of other stuff that needs doing (pages undeleted and bot flags possibly returned), and at least two alternate accounts to consider. I'm going to let others handle that, and I suggest this is done on the basis of the case Betacommand himself makes for what should be done. In other words, an unblock based on this discussion and Betacommand's explanation, and to allow Betacommand to present his case about the other accounts and the bot account and flag. I'll still be around for another few hours if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand has a long history of violations of policy, including assumption of bad faith, incivility, personal attacks, drama and abuse of automated tools. This case of sockpuppetry is merely the tip of the iceberg. An arbitration case concerning his behaviour closed about one month ago, with no actionable remedies, though one remedy indicated that "further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time" if Betacommand did not improve his conduct. I would only support an unblock if such a review takes place, leading to actionable sanctions against Betacommand. The way we handle misconduct by Betacommand reminds me of a political cartoon from a source-based question in a History exam I took, which shows a dictator walking on a road with signs that say "WARNING", followed by "LAST WARNING", then "ABSOLUTELY FINAL WARNING" and subsequently...you get the idea. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to say no to an unblock - on the basis of once again violating bot policy and the recent incivility (see RfArb talk page). This needs to go back to arbcom. Viridae ^Talk 14:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support requesting the ArbCom to take up that further review and oppose the return of bot flags for the time being. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. I've now unblocked the main account, as I said, because Betacommand's explanation satisfied me and because there was only one instance of possible abuse. Predictably, people are now opposing since I left this thread. Still, I've left the bot account and the two alternate accounts blocked. I think it is only fair that Betacommand be allowed to participate here to present his case concerning the other accounts. There is still a lot of tidying up and discussion needed (I may have forgotten to do some of the stuff needed after an unblock), but that will have to be for others to do. I'll be around for the next few hours if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the unblock is appropriate. Also, I dont think that this needs to go to arbcom again. I would like to see Betacommand agree to not run a bot for a month, and to steer clear of bot related discussion. The suggested break is in order to let the dust settle, and to start things back on the right foot when he does request to run bot tasks as before. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He needs to be watched closely, he's been warned multiple times. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on the matter is that this sockpuppetry hasn't been disruptive enough to warrant a block in itself. Other factors have obviously motivated this block, but the decision to block should be left to the community, or possibly be deferred to Arbcom. So I support the unblock, but this business isn't going to stop. Cenarium (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose the unblock, as long as the "further review" by ArbCom takes place and we stop giving Betacommand infinite "last chances". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to be long winded. the reaction and actions taken by some admins was uncalled for. what should be done is Betacommand2, BCBot unblocked, BCBot flag is returned and "Quercus basaseachicensis" will no longer edit. I will also agree to a 30 day halt on BCBot edits, except for ant-spam related reports and the article by size see WP:DABS which are run on cronjobs. β^_command 14:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the sound of that. I think those two tasks, and any others which maintain specific pages in the project namespace, should be left running as suggested by Betacommand. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do be long-winded. Reasonable concerns about the DEFAULTSORT edits have been raised. It would be helpful if you were to address them. The chance of your bot being unblocked, and no new arbcom case being opened, is directly proportional to the clarity and frankness of your replies. So far, I'd give ~~you~~them poor marks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While a detailed response about the DEFAULTSORT edits would be useful at some point, above BC committed to a 30 day break from running any but the most mundane and non-controversial of bot tasks. Also, he would need to request BAG to run any new bot tasks, and I expect BAG would be very cautious in what tasks they approved BCB from now on, especially as BAG members were party to this block. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Betacommand has violated the conditions set forth in his latest Arbcom case, more precisely "(B) To operate BetacommandBot and other bots only in accordance with all applicable policies and within the scope of their approvals by the Bot Approvals Group;" (my emphasis) Is he back? (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also recently violated the civility conditions as well. This needs to go back to arbcom. Viridae ^Talk 15:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand how the fresh start rule applies here, per WP:SOCK:

If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner. Note that the "right to vanish" does not cover this, and repeated switching of accounts is usually seen as improper.

Even under it, you only get one account at a time. MBisanz ^talk 15:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written section, hastily cobbled together in response to ArbCom's setting of policy in the PrivateMusings case. It is merely advisory. And I really don't know who sees repeated switching as "improper", like socks with sandals. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No "start over" can be appropriate here. BC is nearing a community ban, after years of unhelpful conduct that has failed to improve. Starting over under a new account to escape well-deserved scrutiny is not a sensible option. Friday (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as he remains in good standing, he is entirely free to do exactly as he pleases about a new account. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider it good standing to be under an ArbCom remedy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the question is if his attitude will improve if he's no longer facing the wrath of image uploaders? If BC chooses to "start over" and focus on editing alone, without the drama his bots create, I see no harm in it. I'm certain various admins will be aware of his new identity, so while he might start with a clean slate, his new identity will still face the scrutiny his ... aggressive ... past has earned him. Reso lute 15:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as long as both users contributions don't overlap, there is nothing preventing a user to have an alternate account. The way I read the "avoid scrutiny" part of WP:SOCK is when both users are used to do things that would raise questions if done by a single account. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't been facing image uploaders for months (thankfully). It hasn't really helped. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible that Betacommand can get away with all of this? He was desysopped in his first ArbCom case for bot abuse, yet continues to abuse bots, and nothing happens. He was instructed by ArbCom to remain civil, continues to be incivil, yet noone could be bothered to do anything. Now we have sockpuppetry, and he can still get away with it. Seriously guys, what would Betacommand need to do to get blocked? When will you draw the line? How much more obvious does it need to get that Betacommand is unwilling to comply with anything or cooperate with anyone? A ecis^Brievenbus 15:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take a nice cup of tea and read the thread? Many people here don't think this is abusive sockpupetry. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is chocolate milk okay as well? ;) I read the thread, that's what had me baffled and caused my reaction. How many more second chances/final warnings are we gonna give him? A ecis^Brievenbus 15:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the terms BC has set here. There will be a number of people monitoring his edits. I will also be watching closely, and will block him myself if he violates any of them. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock BetacommandBot

I propose to unblock BetacommandBot, based on this pledge by Betacommand, on the condition that the bot will be blocked if it edits outside those areas. I would, however, encourage Betacommand to continue to propose new BetacommandBot tasks, ready to be implemented at the end of the 30 day voluntary self-imposed ban. This will help the community in deciding if further Arbcom review is needed. I'll leave it to the bureaucrats and WP:BAG to decide about reflagging BCBot. I'm still here for the next hour, so as before any objections, say so below. I really will stick to the hour, or extend it and let someone else handle the unblock. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per what I have said above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the unblock, with the express condition that if BC starts to use an account (bot, or not) to perform unsupervised automated tasks with no prior formal approval, he will be blocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, with the promise of the block being indefinite. Reso lute 15:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock in order to perform approved tasks. Kelly ^hi! 15:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the terms BC has set here. There will be a number of people monitoring his edits. I will also be watching closely, and will block him myself if he violates any of them. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but prefer lucasbfr's revised unblock proviso. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. He can't be trusted with bots. You can't just keep giving him second chances for the same thing. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a probation than a second chance. Carcharoth (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it's insane to allow him anywhere near a bot. However, if there are enough people babysitting... Friday (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't the remedies of two ArbCom cases enough probation? A ecis^Brievenbus 16:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being that Betacommand has violated the restrictions on bot use set forth in his most recent ArbCom case, I believe that an unblock should be cleared with ArbCom. However, if consensus is to unblock, I agree with the conditions set forth by Betacommand and lucasbfr. Is he back? (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. Betacommand's comments upto this point have neither explained, nor apologized for, the DefaultSort issue. Though he's made consessions regarding the next 30 days [46], he's also failed to make any commitment to follow bot policy beyond those concessions. The sockpuppeting issue was an overreaction, but the concern over the way he operates scripts is nonetheless justified. If we are going to give BC his (X+1)^th chance, then we ought to expect some evidence of contrition and commitment to improve. So far, I don't see that. An apology for the script-related problems documented above would be a good place to start. Otherwise I fear we will just end up back here again in a few more weeks. Dragons flight (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This will be short and to the point, to avoid losing my temper at the moment. due to the harassment and stalking that follows me even simple bot task request involve a large amount of hostility and disruptive editing by certain users, I wasnt in the mood for more trolling, and did not want the hassle and harassment. having trialled the script for several thousand edits without any issues I finally made it automatic. But to the known harassment that would come I just avoided BRFA. Ive been quietly attempting to fade out of the spotlight. for now -- β^_command 04:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to leave Wikipedia if you are sick of the trolling and harassment that you receive (some of which you deserve). We will throw a party when you leave, as there will be less assumption of bad faith, newbie-biting, incivility, personal attacks, drama, abuse of automated tools, harassment and abusive sockpuppetry on Wikipedia without you. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest Betacommand, that simple bot task request you linked to is a very good example of what I see as the problem with your behaviour: people are bringing up valid questions and concerns, and you respond by ignoring the concerns, arrogantly dismissing any opposition without answering the factual questions asked, and insulting people. The only harassment, hostility and disruptive editing that I can see in that BRFA is coming from you. Is he back? (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to unblock for 36 hours, then re-block, review every contribution for its value in itself, and whether it stuck to Beta's pledge, and then re-approve for more open editing. Note that I did disagree with the unblock of Beta at all, but consensus struck and my opinion on this issue has changed accordingly. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to reblock; I will be happy to put in a few hours at roughly the 36 hr mark to review every single edit by all of his accounts to confirm he has kept the pledge that I asked for. I am sure others will be willing to do the same. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If this were to happen, I feel it would take a great deal of time to review every edit by BCBot, as a bot that edits at a very high rate. Whether I agree with this idea or not, well.., but I can't see how reviewing every edit is practical, if even feasible. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, the bot tasks that he has requested to keep running do not involve a high number of edits, and any review of his edits on his main account would need to carefully consider if the edit rate was feasible without a bot - if he went over 10/min it would be a cause for alarm, and if he went as high as 20/min for any sustained period within the first 36 hours, I would probably call foul and block him for having broken the spirit of these unblock parameters. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I said I'd unblock the bot after an hour pending discussion, but based on the discussion so far, I'm not willing to unblock, particularly give Dragonflight's comment, which on reflection I agree with. I do think that an eventual unblock may be possible, but it looks like more discussion is needed. OK, that's me done for today. Over to someone else. Carcharoth (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at this time. Betacommand was instructed by the arbitration committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Remedies (at 1, B), to operate bots "only in accordance with all applicable policies and within the scope of their approvals". He has not complied with this instruction. It may be advisable to remit the matter to the arbitration committee, particularly if Betacommand remains unwilling or unable to articulate the reasons for his non-compliance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to take any action one way or the other myself as I've had runins with BC in the past so might not be neutral - but I'd support leaving the bot blocked. While it does save everyone else a lot of time, in my opinion the time taken cleaning up its mistakes, plus the (unquantifiable) loss to the project of good-faith new editors driven away by the combination of the bot's "kill them all and let God sort them out" approach to deletion-tagging and BC's rudeness, more than cancels out the benefits of the bot. I agree with the assorted people above that this really needs an enforceable decision by Arbcom or it'll keep festering. — iridescent 16:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (ec) Agree with Lucasbfr, provided that the block is considered a ban. All bots, all socks, ~~all editors that are in favor of letting him run unsupervised~~ </sarcasm>, etc., should be blocked. As this more like his 20th chance, "starting over" does not seem fair, unless the Arbcom explicitly allows it. If anyone else had made this many clearly incorrect bot or script-assisted edits, he would have been placed on a timer parole, probably limited to 2 edits per minute. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment I'm not entirely familiar with the whole situation, although as far as I am aware, he was blocked for his bot going out of control, and incivility, but since I'm not really up to speed on this, please can someone fill me in?? I hear that there was a separate noticeboard about this. Anyhow, maybe if ArbCom looks at this, it would be a solution, but whether it'd work is anyone's guess... Ta, --1qx (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I am completely confused. Since when is it illegal to use a second account? That has never been a blockable offense. Corvus cornix_talk 17:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, he's had far too many chances on the bot front. Good faith eroded. Stifle (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few months back, there was a reluctance to block Betacommand and all his 'bots because there was a need to finish the non-free-use image tagging job, and his 'bot was doing that. But that job is done, and other 'bots, from less controversial editors and with better track records, have taken over that task. Betacommand has already been disciplined by ArbCom in two separate arbitrations. At this point, there's no essential task being performed by any Betacommand 'bot. So I suggest he be denied the ability and privilege to run 'bots and restricted to one (1) existing user account for ordinary editing. He also should continue to play no role in the Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group, from which he was previously removed. --John Nagle (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am utterly fed up with adding to what is now pushing half a gigabyte of discussion over Betacommand's continued inability to use automated editing tools sensibly, within the confines of policy and the two ArbCom cases to which he has been a party, and most importantly, without breaking just about everything he touches. I've learnt the hard way: if you do things with bots, you make mistakes; if you don't do trials and tests, and get approval first, you break things. Why Betacommand hasn't been able to accept this after god knows how many incidents is quite beyond me. There is no justification here for blocking Betacommand himself, but User:BetacommandBot has utterly exhausted my patience, and (I think) that of a large swathe of the community. Happy‑melon 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose BCB unblock for now, if only to shut up those who say that BCB does indispensable work. I think a month off will show that if we dispense with the BCB bot work, then we can dispense with BC's vitriol as well. ➪HiDrNick! 19:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose bot unblock for now. I support the unblock of Betacommand but I don't support unblocking the bot at this time. I pretty much agree with what Dragons flight has said above in this section. I also feel the problems with Beta and his bots have been going on for way too long and taken up far too much time of too many people and I don't see any need to rush to unblocking the bot without ensuring a proper resolution is in place first. Sarah 01:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:BetacommandBot unblocked: Whether or not a block is appropriate for bot-related work, civility concerns, or anything else, what is clear is that Beta did not use his bot account as a sockpuppet. I truly don't the intention of jumping into this foray – if the community decides action needs to be taken, so be it. However, blocks should be done appropriately. This particular block was inappropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just for my own clarity and hopefully for others, the preceeding title means that MZMcBride has actually gone ahead and unblocked BetacommandBot, not just that he feels it should be unblocked

((Block log); 21:04 . . MZMcBride (Talk | contribs) unblocked BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (inappropriate block) )

Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- A very bad move. The only reason Betacommand keeps getting away with stuff is because no sanction ever sticks to him. There's always someone unaware of the magnitude of his disruption who is willing to undo it. And then he just assumes that everyone who criticized his actions was evil and wrong and he doesn't have to change the way he operates in the slightest. (Update: ... He's making that assumption right now. Nice job, MZMcBride.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is against unblocking. I propose that MZMcBride be whacked with a trout the size of Singapore. Repeatedly unblocking Betacommand and BetacommandBot when they are blocked signals to Betacommand that he can get away with anything. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus can go sexually pleasure itself, fact remains that BC did not abuse multiple accounts. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. If using two accounts to edit war on policy pages is not abusive sockpuppetry, what is? His long history of assumption of bad faith, newbie-biting, incivility, personal attacks, drama, abuse of tools and harassment already warrants an indefinite block, if not a ban. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's uncivil is using a misunderstanding as a way to attack an editor in good standing (who's under the microscope and far more criticized than the average Wikipedian). I don't think BC is perfect, far from it, but in no way is he deserving of the kind of comments that is coming out of your mouths. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I think it would be a shame to lose our automated image checker, but right now I feel that the issue Dragons flight brought up needs to be addressed. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's with this thread's fixation on the image checker? That task was de-approved a month ago! There are now several better-managed bots that perform the task of checking fair use rationales. Betacommand's current interactions with Wikipedia, whether constructive or disruptive, have approximately nothing to do with image copyrights. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...It occurs to me you might mean the task that looks for duplicate images between en:WP and commons. That task is replaceable and not urgent, though. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a sock, end of story (for this block). -- Ned Scott 06:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::Please feel free to leave Wikipedia if you are sick of the trolling and harassment that you receive (some of which you deserve). We will throw a party when you leave JLWS, that comment is way out of line. For the record - I have had a problem or two with Betacommand's BOT, and yes, I lost my temper. However, the error was mine and not his. Was he a bit curt, sure, but I don't blame him for that. My messages to him were anything but civil. In short - mind Civil please. F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 13:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After further consideration, I admit that the comment about throwing a party was incivil and wish to retract it, though I must comment that it pales in comparison to the incivility Betacommand and his supporters have been known to dish out. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed partial sanction

John Nagle makes an interesting suggestion:

Unblock Betacommand.
Restrict Betacommand to 1 existing user account for ordinary editing.
Withdraw Betacommand's bot operation privilege.
Endorse Betacommand's restriction from Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group.

I'd be willing to review after 3 months if there are no new problems and he's doing useful work. Durova^Charge! 18:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Account restriction is unnecessary, there is no suggestion of deceit or abusive sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with JzG, I wanted to think about this overnight (it was well after midnight local time when the thread started), but by the time I got online today it was mostly resolved. If the other account was really an abusive sock, I would expect to see a little more ... abuse from it. And its not like its a secret who User:Betacommand2 is. Mr.Z-man 18:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify my comment, I endorse the other sanctions. I would reword the second to require all alternate accounts to be clearly marked as such. Mr.Z-man 19:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- JtZ, how has he not abused the sock accounts? He used his bot on another account to avoid the scrutiny that he would have received from his main bot account, its no different from a POV pusher who has a different account to make the same edits, but for the reason that the second account is not watched so heavily. I feel that using a bot on a unauthorized account is abuse. Tiptoety ^talk 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many people intend to scrutinize his edits. They should be in one place for scrutiny. When his human edits are mixed between Betacommand, Betacommand 2, Quercus basaseachicensis, and even occasionally BetacommandBot, it makes them very hard to check. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Any defense of Betacommand and his actions has been predicated on the assumption that his automated tasks are indispensable to the project, that they are a net gain. Three months without bot activity from any of his accounts could prove to be a valuable sanity check for Betacommand and the community. His sense of entitlement to run whatever script seems like a good idea at the time needs to be curtailed until he develops some sense of personal responsibility for executing poorly thought out runs, angering people, and wasting everybody's time. I think the sockpuppetry concerns has been adressed, limiting Betacommand to one account is now a matter of practicality. With the exception of the recently uncovered sock, all alternate accounts he's used so far were created to handle specific types of semi-automated edits and bot runs. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Werdna has volunteered to re-implement any bot task that is considered to be indispensable. --Random832 (contribs) 19:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think BC needs a serious sanity check: when he's on form, he's a bloody brilliant editor, but he is so good at shooting himself in the foot... Happy‑melon 19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and I echo HM's sentiment above. BC's bot work is generally useful, but the constant incivility needs to end, and the abusive sockpuppetry just tears it. Since ArbCom did not sort this out properly last time (or the time before that), we can do so here and now without their help with Durova's reasonable proposal. ➪HiDrNick! 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the last three. I had blocked this user a month ago for a spree of incivility and personal attacks that would have landed most users with a week, not to speak of any user under arbcom restrictions. Was frankly a joke, but he seems to be a special case. The community can leave Betacommand unblocked without any attempt to address his problems if it likes, ignore arbitration after arbitration, but it'll just have to deal with more stuff later. So I guess that's that's something that can keep the idle busy at a later stage. I'm guessing some people must just like this kind of thing. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they call it Bunker Mentality or Us vs. Them. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse with caveat that no bot work remains in place indef - no review, not now, not ever. He hasn't used his bot responsibly the first 30 times he was told off, there is no indication that will change. Viridae ^Talk 22:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand is unblocked now, so 1 is moot. Point 2 may be unnecessary as JzG says. Fine with 3 and 4. But surely we need to have no involvement with bots at all. Definitely no more unauthorised ones, no asking for authorisation for new ones, and no AWB either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partial endorse Point 1 - restrictions on edit speed? Or will the same automated/semi-automated ops happen on the main account with the same attendant outcomes? Point 3 - per my point 1 and what is the timeframe/procedure to reintroduce bot activity, or is this indef/never? Point 4 - given some incivility(!) on bot associated pages, does this extend to a topic ban? Franamax (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I'll clarify: common sense applies. Actions that common sense would interpret as gaming the bot restriction--or as incivility--may convert a 90 day trial into a permanent restriction, and may bring forth additional blocks and restrictions. If Betacommand intends to embark upon a gray area, I expect him to open a noticeboard thread to explain his intentions and reasons in advance of acting upon them, and seek consensus for the step. If he acts in good faith and demonstrates that he can adjust to feedback, then I'd open a point-by-point discussion of each restriction after 90 days and the community can decide by consensus whether to keep or lift those measures. Durova^Charge! 04:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - With the notation that "common sense" often includes the argument that one can perform many edits per minute using tabbed browser pages, so beware; and with particular approval of GRBerry's comment below, in light of this clarification, fully endorse. Franamax (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Common sense also says that if he intends to embark upon edits that could reasonably be confused with bot editing, he should seek the community's consent in advance and explain his reasons. Durova^Charge! 07:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Frankly, I think "no bots" in this sense has at a bare minimum to mean "no fully automated tools at all and the only semi-automated tools he may use are those available in the Gadgets tab of Mypreferences". (Since I use none of the tools, I can't say if there are any that he should be restricted from using.) One account only is a needed restriction for the no bot restriction to be meaningful and for the review at the end to be meaningful. The problems have been going on far too long for us to not conclude on some sort of additional restrictions, and I haven't seen a better proposal. GRBerry 04:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose BC didn't violate a single part of WP:SOCK, and giving him any account restrictions related to that incident is retarded. For parts 3 and 4, leave that to the Bot Approvals Group, that's what they're here for. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of the wording of WP:SOCK, I'm uneasy about the use of an undisclosed sock account to alter a policy page that a recent arbitration decision had instructed him to adhere to, and that he made no attempt to seek consensus for the change or to apologize for the mistake, if indeed it was an honest one. Taken in isolation that would not necessarily be something the community would act upon, but in fact this is not an isolated instance, and the supportive statements that have been offered on his behalf leave me both sympathetic and unsatisfied. Shall we interpret this instance of socking by a narrow parsing of the sock policy and ignore its intent? Shall we pretend that--because this is his first confirmed use of multiple accounts--he deserves the full breadth of lenient good faith the community accords to a civil new editor? I say no: reluctantly and with a heavy heart I say no. This is someone who has been asked to play nicely many times. We have reached the point where failure to act either renders policy meaningless meaningless or feeds the rumors that Wikipedia is all about which friends you make. I bear Betacommand no ill will; I also mean business. Durova^Charge! 06:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, with reservations; I think it should be toughened up. He needs to have absolutely nothing to do with bots anymore, and he needs to be restricted from engaging in any kind of incivility or poor behavior. Everyking (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse restricting Betacommand to one account and banning him from using bots or other automated tools, with additional requirement that in six months, he must write three GAs, as well as fly to Singapore and stalk five Singaporean celebrities to take photos of them. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and suggest careful monitoring of civility. Maybe a group of three or four named admins could be formed to mentor/keep an eye on him? —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:There is nothing to sanction. Beta was the subject of an accusation of abusive socking, which was later determined to be incorrect (in that the socks weren't abusive). The folks who oppose BCB & Beta in general have used this as a coatrack for all the complaints they've ever had about him - which is just plain wrong. Frankly, were I in Beta's position, I would have told the project to f-off some time ago. My advice to Beta is and has been for some time, to abandon all of his NFCC tainted Betacommand accounts & edit with a new, unconnected identity. He was in good enough standing to pass RfA before, which suggests to me that he's quite capable of being an editor in good standing - absent all the vultures and their persistent attacks. --Versa geek
Oppose. This is inappropriate. The thread was started because of alleged socking, not because of alleged bot abuse. The alleged socking was false. To nevertheless block the bot is at best fruit of the poisonous tree. Further, it's ineffective, because standard bot policy allows a user to do assisted edits from a user account. The bot account should be unblocked. The community could, however, require beta to do any bot or assisted edits from the bot account only; part of the reason the problems with the defsort edits weren't noticed is that the edits were not done from the bot account. Gimmetrow 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think this is a good compromise. Enigma ^message 03:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot reblocked

Note: I've blocked BetacommandBot per the proposed sanction. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (to be unblocked pending a review in a period of a minimum of thirty days, as suggested by Betacommand's concession ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

What disruption was he causing just now that caused the need for the bot to be blocked? What were you preventing? There was never any discussion to block the bot in the first place. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read over the section you've just commented in. I've also detailed the reasons behind the block at Betacommand's talkpage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to block, as well as abuse of the blocking policy. At the very least, if you had consensus, all you would need to do is tell BC to not run the bot, and only block if he did not comply. It doesn't get any simpler than that, and I'm saddened to see even more admins simply don't understand that blocking is a last resort. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC channel

It’s just been brought to my attention that Betacommand runs a secret channel on IRC. It’s for things that “can’t be discussed in the admins channel” and for things such as blocks and deletes – precisely the things that shouldn’t be discussed on IRC. Apparently there was quite a rush of early supports to the recent BAG memberships as well as they were discussed in the channel... Now... I’ve tried hard to clean up the image of IRC, so if Beta or anyone else with access here would like to elaborate further on this, and preferably passing full logs to ArbCom, it would be much appreciated. This is sort of a joke. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, I may have to kill you for that. Or at least whack you about the head repeatedly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that's Freenode. Arbcom has no jurisdiction over it. Beta and his friends can do as he please in there, you really have no methods of stopping them. Maxim_(talk) 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do if people are making blocks because of discussion in these channels. I'm guessing this means you have access? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while ArbCom may not be able to influence off wiki behavior, any off wiki behavior can be sactioned here. For example, if I canvass via email, my RFA, I can expect to be blocked, or otherwise sanctioned. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - if you issue a block, you're accountable for it, but whether you've consulted an IRC Cabal, the FBI, an old episode of The Honeymooners or an astrologer is neither here nor there. Wily D 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't be against the community's interest to know who does and doesn't chatter there, esp. given the subversive purpose it apparently holds. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, no, I do not. I only found out by your post. You seem to misundestand a vital concept, and that is that arbcom does not have the power or authority to stop people from talking to each other. Maxim_(talk) 21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I must have misunderstood Jimbo when he said ArbCom can sanction for IRC conduct. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Arbcom can pass some silly bureaucratic, they don't have much of a way of enforcing it. And IRC logs are highly unreliable, it's very easy to manipulate them and have a few users back you up. Maxim_(talk) 21:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The channel in question, which I idle in (pitchforks!!), begins with a "##" sign. This means that it is outside the jurisdiction of the wikimedia group contacts, thus outside the jurisdiction of James and Sean, thus outside that of the ArbCom. I'd venture to say that AC can't prohibit discussion wherever it takes place. Martinp23 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I once discussed Wikipedia over lunch in a completely non official venue. We discussed all the things that can't be discussed with sandwiches, like protections, deletes, blocks, you name it. I fear I may have tainted the image of lunch permanently. Sorry guys. And I binned the crumbs unfortunately, so I can't send them onto ArbCom. Will (aka Wimt) 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you didn't block someone over it though. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, you're making a lot of heat and noise over this. What solution, causing minimal disruption, would you like to see? Martinp23 22:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to know exactly who got blocked, and who was involved. I've been told people did get blocked through discussion in there, so I think it's fair we can now open it up to community discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, you're asking for private logs of private communication in an off-wiki unoffical setting (less official than #wikipedia-en-admins ). I'ts not gonna happen. Martinp23 22:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to know who got blocked, because if there was some user who was blocked by Betacommand and friends in the channel, then it might be useful to check that the blocks were not placed abusively. However, I feel that it is unlikely that any blocks that still stand would have been placed inappropriately, and as it's unlikely we will find out, why don't we just let the IRC part of it just blow over? Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a start there's no proof anywhere that anyone has been blocked in there, other than what Ryan is saying, and he could indeed be mistaken. On the other hand we have the users of the channel, including me, who don't remember anyone being blocked in there. Now who to believe - those who were there or those who weren't. In either case, I'm surprised such flimsy grounds can act as such a seemingly sturdy base for this teapot of storms we see swirling angrily before us (cunningly disguised as a wikipedian or two - what's new there?!). I *can't wait* until the "I hate IRC" brigade come out. Martinp23 23:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but you wouldn't know if I had, in the same way as you have no way of knowing (or stopping) a whole host of different forms of off-wiki conversation. The fact that this channel is on IRC, as opposed to MSN or real life or email or whatever should really be irrelevant. Will (aka Wimt) 22:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I personally despise IRC and its use, ArbCom has absolutely zero authority over its use, or where I or anybody else choose to discuss Wikipedia. None. - auburnpilot talk 22:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one on wiki has control over the channel except for the channel operator. no blocks were created there. any and all blocks are the sole responsibility of the admin who places the block. Ryan Im sorry if you like throwing mud, but the egg is on your face. the logs will not be released due to privacy issues. things have been said in private that should not be made public, due to the ability to link them to real life identity. β^_command 22:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ermm - is that a comment on the contributor, not the content? Franamax (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not one to jump to support Betacommand of late, but I must say that the fact that certain users seem to believe that they can regulate off-wiki discussion is absurd. As long as this discussion is not represented as consensus-forming for any group wider than the membership of the channel, it's perfectly fine. If I ask martin and frana about potentially protecting a page via email, and they both agree, I can say "martin and frana support my protection". I cannot say "the community supports my protection". Until there is evidence of the latter case taking place, no action should be taken regarding these off-wiki discussions. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, off-wiki groups will form all the time. But if someone questions me and I respond that they're throwing mud and egg is on their face, feel free to suggest that I should calmly respond to their substantive issues. And if I habitually respond to people raising issues with me by questioning their motives, knowledge or mental capacity, feel free to call me on that too - and please don't excuse me because I've been provoked or the other person is wrong or I'm so valuable. Just tell me flat out when you think my ideas are wrong. Honest, I'm a big boy :) Franamax (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HOLYSHITSECRETIRCCHANNELOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGLOL. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah a secret channel, big deal... ...so what's the channel. Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of reason people please understand that no secrets is the same as no privacy. If people want to consult about their decisions in private it is their right to do so. Hold them accountable for their actions and that will be enough. This whole IRC thing is a witch hunt. _{1 != 2} 17:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion-Betacommand rap-sheet list to be created

Settting myself up for the obvious response of WP:HARASS, but frankly, I'm fed up of beta getting off on the ill-informed basis of his previous contributions or record. Several of the commenters in the above discussion seem to be under the impression beta is a one-off violater, or that he does enough good work to get off, or that even that the recent issues are something to do with NFCC (which ended a month ago) and are no longer an issue. I propose a dedicated page be created to actualy list the facts behind betacommand's mistakes, every bot mistake, every example of (spectacular) incivility, every example of a lack of cooperation, every mistake by sock. etc etc. This would be a diff verified list, nothing more, nothing less. I believe this would help the community, because frankly, parts of the community are starting to believe the hype in these long winded discussions, when some of the facts are present in discussions just two weeks prior, let alone two pages above the current drama. So if another incident occurs regarding beta, this list will serve as an indisputable record of past actions, and will prevent some of the more bizarre comments above regarding what people have and have not seen, or do or do not believe. MickMacNee (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a rap-sheet also called an RFC here on en:wiki? Make one then. Franamax (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is far outside of community norms to maintain a laundry list of an editor's missteps or others' grievances against them outside the context of dispute resolution. east.718 at 01:51, May 17, 2008

its just yet another example of MMN trolling me, provoking and being disruptive. β^_command 01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aggregation and collation of relevant information is not disruptive. Unless you really want to suggest your numerous and long standing contentious actions are easily summarised and recalled by every user in each ongoing debate about your conduct. It can be plainly seen that many of the above contributors have little idea of beta's ongoing behaviour or actions, and others make claims about what he has or hasn't done before based on memory alone. MickMacNee (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, this is what beta chooses as only his sixth contribution today, inspite of this ongoing thread about him. I guess we know where his priorities are, to attack others rather than defend himself. It is no more than typical behaviour in my mind given my long exposure to his opinions, but without a rap-sheet on record, this is not so obvious to your casual AN/ANI contributor. MickMacNee (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that RFCs are over a short time period, and result in an actionable outcome. In this case, that would seem pointless. I propose merely the retention of an accurate record of infractions, over time, such that all commenters in future discussions can work from fact, rather than belief. MickMacNee (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in that proposal, you are wrong. Do whatever you want on your own PC; or do it here and use it or lose it. We don't start up ongoing rap-sheets, even on you. Rely on the people who care what is going on - they all have good memories. But feel free to keep your own list, in private. Wikipedia is not a BADSITE. Franamax (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is where you are wrong, there are plenty of contributors above who have clearly not recalled the facts correctly. The system is broken, no-one is willing, after 2 failed attempts, to continually go through the rigmarole of collating the existent piles of evidence for arbcom, so as a result, the facts of at least three recent threads here in the last few days get forgotten over time, let alone the past two years of numerous actions, and serve to support the vague arguments that betacommand is an overall assett. Surely you can see the people above talking about NFCC in respect to this particular thread, and the past two, are completely wrong, because the NFCC tagging ceased a month ago. Due to the lack of factual information, facts are being distorted. MickMacNee (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If people are completely wrong or clearly don't recall, you can easily present the diffs and entire threads to show that, right? If there are facts, you can easily show them, right? If it's all so bad, you don't need recruits, you can do it yourself. If it's so clear, you can bring all the occurences together and everyone will say "gee, that guy is right". Go for it. Franamax (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the last arbcom farce? Yeah I'll get right on that. MickMacNee (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that intended as a convincing argument? Or an expression of cynicism? Franamax (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A convincing argument? Of course. Have you ever gone through the arbcome evidence/proposed decision cycle? Or are you just telling me I don't know what I'm talking about? Are you telling me that even with the evidence of the past three threads and the above comments that people aren't still referring to NFCC as an exccuse? Are you telling me that if I created a record page of diffs off my own back without AN approval that beta wouldn'nt be screaming harassment? Heck, you've got what you wanted already, the calls for a topic ban are already in full swing below. Well, I'll leave you all too it. I trust you can deal with beta and socks in future because you all recall the evidence of previous incidents unfailingly based on the current thread (stifles laughter). A good read is beta's failed attempt at regaining sysop status in 2007. I presume I don't have to link you up, experts that y'all are. MickMacNee (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every time one turns around, there's a BetaCommand thread going on and that is enough to block for disruption of the project - period. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 02:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly no, but you'd think people might get the idea eventually. But then again, as I said above, some defenders in the last few threads are actually still talking about NFCC, cleary not aware that that has finished, or of the current problems. MickMacNee (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mistaken edits

Can someone explain to me the apparent gap of use of the sock account, which was first used on 8/9 Oct 2007, and then resumed in Feb 2008. And also, if someone can succesfully use a sock from February, that their first mistake is 3 months later, and just happens to be to the bot policy. MickMacNee (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The alternate account use is just a mistake, go back through the contribs and look at the timing, it was just a mistake, one session was set up for automated edits, one wasn't, shit happens, wrong window. Much as I hate using the phrase, this is an instance where you have to assume good faith. I nuked a company product line that way once. Show the pattern. Franamax (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just find it highly dubious that this happened at exactly the same time as a BAG edit war. And just which alternate account was beta using between October and February? (by MMN 'til he signs)

The reliable CU editor above would presumably have found the other account(s). The fact that there was an edit war is precisely significant - war in the first available window; dammit, wrong window. That's called a mistake. The other usage of the alternate account seems uncontroversial. I don't agree with it, but many others have endorsed it, so I'll stay quiet. Franamax (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another human mistake no less. Pop quiz, as you are seemingly an expert, list all the 'human mistakes' beta has committed in the past two years. Quickly now, you only have the couple of days it takes for an AN thread to dissappear into the archives and all is forgotten again. MickMacNee (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tried to answer your questions from the opening of this thread. Thanks for your input. Nitey! Franamax (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Shit happens, move on. You must be blind to the hundreds of comments above then. Sleep tight. MickMacNee (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for drama reduction

I propose that User:Betacommand and User:MickMacNee are prohibited from interacting with each other. Since MickMacNee can't seem to resist provoking Betacommand, and Betacommand can't seem to resist obnoxious replies, the best solution would be for them to not interact. If either of them comments about the other, or replies to a comment by the other, they should be blocked. --Carnildo (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extremely sensible suggestion. Kelly ^hi! 03:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very sensible and I agree there is some baiting and charging going on. Is this accompanied by a topic-space restriction? Franamax (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already stated barely one day ago that it is absolutely pointless trying to get betacommand sanctioned in anything like an equal standard to anyone else here (I laughingly suggested he had to be caught breaking a major rule), so do you honestly think that I think my presence/absence in this matter will mean any (non)action will proceed differently? I really need to get some bandages, because this whole thread has my sides splitting. MickMacNee (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~If it's pointless, why are you still trying? sho y 03:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

You are confused, I am not attempting to achieve any sanction here, that is what I know is fruitless, but I am giving a suggestion to help future discussions, as current ones are often full of errors, due to the time lapse and complexity. MickMacNee (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we will then still be left with the problem of beta's interactions withe all the other members of the community. Drama down 1%, the problem remains. DGG (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the noise from the perpetual Betacommand/MickMacNee fighting gone, we'll be able to tell for sure. I suspect it'll be more like 50% of the Betacommand drama. --Carnildo (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent> I think the point remains that not all of the problems lie with Betacommand; much of the issue lies with editors who who prefer not to bother with Wikipedia's copyright policy and who intentionally troll him as a result. Kelly ^hi! 03:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that NFCC tagging stopped like a month ago?, and that at least the last three complaints against beta came after it. Like I said, misinformation is occuring in this case, which would definitely benefit from a definitive rap-sheet. MickMacNee (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, MickMacNee is actually spot on here. None of the recent issues have had anything to do with copyrights, because Betacommand has not worked in that area for at least a month. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse much of what MickMacNee has been saying. When the point is reached where MickMacNee makes valid points, and people clamber out of the woodwork to call him a troll or disruptive, then people are losing their objectivity and looking at the contributor and their history with him, not at his comments. Rather than ban MickMacNee from interacting with Betacommand, what is needed is for Betacommand to: (a) respond to the valid criticisms being made (I still don't see Betacommand acknowledging the shocking mistakes made with the DEFAULTSORT script - rather, I see Betacommand ignoring that and making unhelpful comments); and (b) stop calling people trolls when they are not (and that goes for others as well as Betacommand). MickMacNee is beginning to show that he has a better grasp on what is going on around here than some of the commentators in this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think MMN has said all that he needs to say thus far - he is falling into the trap of hyperbole and, in some cases, personal attacks as he continues to comment here. I would urge him to take a step back and perhaps leave this discussion and leave what appears to be his vendetta against BC. I'd also condone blocking him and/or Betacommand if he/they continue to occlude this process as we've seen so far. Martinp23 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick has made some excellent points. Like many of us, he is frustrated that Betacommand seems to get away with anything, hence his tone. Other editors have also made harsh criticisms of Betacommand; why single out Mick? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many times has it been now?

How many times has it been now that we've wrongfully blocked an established editor for sockpuppetry before talking with them, only to find out that the block was wrong and to find that all it did was generate tons of drama? It's been more than four times in the last year or so, I know that much. Unless it's necessary to block, for the love of God, wait and talk to the user.

tl;dr - blocking == last resort. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but but but Ned, they love the drama. β^_command 05:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is the comment of someone whose ignorance is only over-reached by their arrogance; two arbcoms, a seenmingly weekly appearance at an admins noticeboard, a reputation for incivility when not failing to communicate, and the exasperation of a significant faction of the community... and it is all the fault of the dramah-mongers...? Never mind bots, with blinkers like that you should be running a racehorse stable. Incredible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point painfully stands, some admins need a kick in the ass and it slammed into their heads, blocking is a last resort. I have no doubt that the other issues we're talking about would also come up eventually, but regarding the sockpuppet accusation, the drama from that, that at the very least, could have been avoided. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to start an RFAR?

Given that MZMcBride has unilaterally unblocked BetacommandBot even though there seems to be a large amount of support for prohibiting Betacommand from using bots, it seems to me that the community is unable to come to a decision on this issue. Should a request for arbitration be started? Also keep in mind the fact that Betacommand has violated the conditions set forth in his last arbitration case, namely remedy 1B. Maybe someone who knows the arbitration process well could comment. Is he back? (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told one will be filed at 10:00 UTC over my failure to unblock, I've prepared my response in my userspace since I won't be around much tomorrow (moving), but should be around to copy it over once its filed. MBisanz ^talk 06:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Betacommand 2 case closed about a month ago with no actionable remedies. One remedy stated that if Betacommand (or other parties) continued to misbehave, "further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time", possibly leading to severe sanctions against the offender (Betacommand, in this case). A month has passed and Betacommand is still incivil; he has even resorted to abusive sockpuppetry. Thus I believe that the further review should take place and appropriate punishments issued. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be initiating action, I have merely been informed it will be filed by another user due to my failure to comply. MBisanz ^talk 08:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz, what are you referring to? Has someone threatened you with an RfAr for not unblocking one of Beta's accounts? That sounds unlikely to go far. I think we should bring this back to JLWS's point: ArbCom decided that they would reconsider their Betacommand decision after a reasonable time, and perhaps it's time to remind them that they decided that. It's true that MZMcBride, and maybe you, might end up mentioned in such a reconsideration, but I really don't think it'll be a big deal in either case. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On May 17 I was instructed by Betacommand in a private IRC message to unblock his bot within 24 hours or he would file an RFAR against me. MBisanz ^talk 08:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this never eventuated though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't happened yet, but I've got my statement ready at a moment's notice! MBisanz ^talk 08:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rspeer, for keeping the discussion on-topic. Could someone file a "clarification or other request" regarding Betacommand at the arbitration page? If nobody does, I will do so over the weekend. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here for instructions on requests relating to previous cases. --bainer (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why stop with an RFAR? Why not hang, draw and quarter him? The debate above shows that it was a defensible, if wrong, decision. Leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why let Betacommand stop at assumptions of bad faith, newbie-biting, incivility, personal attacks, dramamongering and abuse of automated tools? Why not let him run a vandalbot that fills all articles with expletives, harass everyone off the project and drop a nuclear bomb on the Wikimedia servers? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really an answer to that, is there? I might frame this and hang it on the wall as a classic example of taking rhetoric just a teeny little bit too far. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call it beating JzG at his own game by meeting sarcasm with more sarcasm and meeting rhetoric with more rhetoric, through a parody. (Someone else misunderstood my comment above, hence the clarification.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call it beating a dead horse. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new suggestion

Rather than get into drama, shouldn't a civility parole be enforced?? Whether another ArbCom case will work only time will tell. Blocking him for a year could work, but some people here probably wouldn't like that. However, I agree with JzG/Guy's take on things in this situation. On a side note, however, the Quercus account has inspired me to edit the article of the same name - a stub that needs expansion anyway. Ta, --1qx (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there exists a group of Wikipedians who will reverse every block of Betacommand, such a civility parole would never be properly enforced. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More empty rhetoric. "Every" block? {{fact}}. This block, yes, because as noted above it was unjustified, but we don't know what might happen in the future. Input such as yours, which looks very much as if it is actually based on opposition to the Foundation policy in respect of unfree images, does not seem to me to help in analysing or resolving this situation. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... Betacommand hasn't done anything to do with non-free image tagging since April 1 2008, with any of his accounts. Check BC's and BCB's image namespace contributions. All of his work in the image namespace recently has been to do with images eligible for moves to commons - about as far from NFCCC as you can get within ns:6. If there's one thing that arguments in this particular chapter of the Betacommand saga can't be about, it's non-free images. Happy‑melon 13:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check Betacommand's block log. He has been blocked eleven times and the only block that was not reversed was a one-second block. The last sixteen blocks placed on BetacommandBot were all reversed; the most recent non-reversed block was in November last year and for 15 minutes. To be honest, I only checked the block logs after posting the comment and did not expect the percentage of reversed blocks to be that high. Why do you think that my input is "based on opposition to the Foundation policy in respect of unfree images", when all my comments here have been about Betacommand's conduct? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to do more than that. You have to examine each block and unblock and determine their individual validity. Admittedly, that gets boring very quickly, but if that had been done at the ArbCom cases, people couldn't keep waving the length of the block log around as reason for anything other than needing a close look (which would have been done). Carcharoth (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the blocks were inappropriate, but I assume that most were valid (if not, our admins are horrendously incompetent). Why would all blocks be indiscriminately reversed? If only bad blocks were reversed, most blocks would not be reversed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know they were "indiscriminately" reversed? Have you checked the circumstances surrounding each one? This one has been discussed quite a bit now, I would hardly call it "indiscriminate." Mr.Z-man 06:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pledge confirmed and Betacommand2 unblocked

I've asked Betacommand about the pledge he made here. Betacommand has confirmed here that he agrees to the terms he had previously suggested, and will not use the other alternate account again. Based on that, I've unblocked User:Betacommand2. I know this doesn't quite tally with the proposal here, but I don't think a self-identified alternate account used on public computers is too much of a concern as alternate accounts go. Anyway, the pledge in full:

"what should be done is Betacommand2, BCBot unblocked, BCBot flag is returned and "Quercus basaseachicensis" will no longer edit. I will also agree to a 30 day halt on BCBot edits, except for ant-spam related reports and the article by size see WP:DABS which are run on cronjobs." - User:Betacommand, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, 14:58, 16 May 2008 [47]

I would suggest that we be flexible about this, and allow other uncontroversial updates as well, such as the updating of User:BetacommandBot/Free Template Useage and User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage and anything else done automatically in Wikipedia (project space) and User space. Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only a bookie would take bets on Betacommand screwing up those "uncontroversial tasks"... --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious you are frustrated at the way things are going, but your comments are not really helping. Please try and make constructive suggestions, not ones where you set someone up to fail. Carcharoth (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see what BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) has been doing since this unblocking. Looks like several thousand edits have been made, mostly undoing bad edits by MyBisanzBot and JohnBot. There was the removal of an old RFC [48]. All these actions violated Betacommand's pledge "I will also agree to a 30 day halt on BCBot edits, except for anti-spam related reports and the article by size see WP:DABS which are run on cronjobs."

Now let's look at Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs). For a few hours, that account was unblocked, and hundreds of edits were made, at a rate that suggests 'bot usage, or at least semi-automated tools. and despite the pledge "Quercus basaseachicensis" will no longer edit."

Any questions? --John Nagle (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Quercus basaseachicensis hasn't been unblocked. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you are pointing to are from before this started. Dragons flight (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Said edits occurred ~~after~~before the recent "pledge" [49] (timestamp 14:58, 16 May 2008) by BetaCommand. --John Nagle (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they occurred before the blocks and before the pledge. John, please recheck your timings and if you agree you have this wrong, please strike out what you wrote. Carcharoth (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What may be confusing you is that the timestamps in peoples' signatures are UTC, while the timestamps in the block and contribution logs are in your local timezone. --Carnildo (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That's crazy. Please tell me there is a bugzilla thread about this? Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it's designed; timestamps provided in the interface can be changed on the fly according to user preferences, but timestamps saved in a page's wikitext are just that - text. —Cryptic 23:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its called setting your preference time to UTC and getting used to seeing weird times in the watchlist. The dev I spoke to made it seem like a WONTFIX sort thing. MBisanz ^talk 23:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Gadget in the prefs that shows a UTC clock at the top of the page in Special:Preferences. It's been an incredible blessing ever since I've enabled it. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward with Betacommand's use of bot tools

One thing I must say is: unilateral action kills discussion, as has happened here: although I do personally disagree with the arguably legalistic actions of a few (actually one) editor in this episode, I am more disappointed that said action has effectively killed this discussion and compelled a return to the status quo in disregard for whatever direction consensus might have been heading. Now I'm honestly not sure whether the threads above are moving forwards, backwards, or sideways with respect to Betacommand's right to use bots and automated editing scripts on en.wiki. Three of BC's accounts (User:Betacommand, User:Betacommand2 and User:BetacommandBot) have been unblocked, but BCB remains without the bot flag. Above, we have a group of twelve editors (including myself) who support banning Betacommand from using any and all bots and automated editing tools for a period of at least 90 days; and one editor who has expressed opposition. Betacommand is currently suspended from the Bot Approvals group. What are we going to do here? Should discussion about BC's use of bot tools and scripts be conducted here, or moved to WP:BON, or to somewhere else? Ditto for BC's membership of BAG: move to WT:BAG or decide here? I'd like to think we're capable of sorting this out ourselves without running to the ArbCom... Happy‑melon 15:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the community's confidence in BC using bot accounts has been sufficiently eroded that he should not be permitted to run them for the foreseeable future. I am less certain of the BAG membership - he is certainly technically minded and would do well as a member, but am not sure whether he would generate more light than heat. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few Wikipedians continue to blindly back him up. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands I really will not be using BCBot for 30 days (except for the spam and daily stat updates that are set on cron jobs). BCBot's flag should be restored as there was no reason for removal in the first place. as it stands my only plans for BCBot are the current approved tasks, I dont see anything else in the future, if I do Ill file a BRFA. one thing I would like to point out is that personal attacks and other trolling towards me never seems to get the users so much as a warning. β^_command 15:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly true that there should be no causal link between your block and BCB's deflag (although in reality it does appear to be the case). This episode has been confused by two incidents occuring almost on top of one another: I think we've established above that accusations of "sockpuppetry" are weak, and that no real harm was done. However, the DEFAULTSORT issues are serious and add to what even you must admit is a very long line of incidents with your use of automated editing tools, which have twice already landed you in front of the ArbCom. What I am most disappointed with throughout this discussion is some editors' preference for strict interpretation of policy over the application of common sense. You were operating a legitimate second account which you accidentally revealed through a genuine mistake; yet you were blocked for violating a strict interpretation of WP:SOCK. By a similarly strict interpretation of policy, MZMcBride unilaterally overturned a growing discussion and unblocked BCB. The knee-jerk reference to NFCC work somewhere above is about as lacking in common sense as you can get :D. But only by a very strict interpretation of WP:BOT, and the suspension of just about all common sense, can we believe that this incident had nothing to do with bot operations. You are a bot operator (and at times a very good one), who is known to have methods of editing at fantastically high rates. You use a number of accounts with a variety of flags and features, and you have used (and, regrettably, misused) these automated editing tools on most if not all of them. Any judgement on whether or not you should be allowed to use account X for action Y with flags Z is completley pointless, because you are just one user, with one brain and one keyboard: which account your edits are attributed to is a technical detail. It's what those edits entail, and how you made them, that is important; and I'm afraid my personal opinion is that you've proved yourself incapable of avoiding the mistakes that we all make when editing quickly... and the only way to stop you doing more harm than good is to prohibit you, for a while at least, from editing faster than you can with your bare hands. Happy‑melon 16:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with that, I made over a thousand manual defaultsort edits by hand I never noticed any issues and none where brought to my attention, I have kept my edit rate low (~5) edits a minute other than the recent group of 42 which was caused by a feature of pywikipedia which will not save a page if maxlag is over 5. In total I have had thousands of edits with just the recent issue that was brought up. as I stated BCBot will be inactive except for basic functions for 30 days, so that should meet your thoughts. β^_command 16:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], and so on ad nauseam. Would you care to reconsider your position? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're doing something seriously wierd with pywiki, I can't think how the throttle is going to bunch edits up like that. That said, it's entirely besides the point. 42 edits per minute is only significant because it proves to us beyond any doubt that you were using an automated script, and weren't just very bored one evening and decided to do the same edit 4170 times :D. Whatever you're doing and however you're doing it, you are responsible for whatever comes out of your computer onto en.wiki, and it's just depressing how often those contributions are doing more harm than good. We all make mistakes, and if you'd been doing those defaultsort edits by hand, someone would have pointed out what you were doing wrong while the number of corrections needed was still in two or at most three figures. As it is, someone had to do almost five thousand reverts just to repair the damage. If you'd asked for bot approval for that task, then there wouldn't have been any problems: your error would have been spotted in trial, you'd have fixed it, and then you could have run it on BCB and not spammed a thousand watchlists and flooded RecentChanges. As it is, you circumvented the BRFA system that, as a BAG member, you should have been enforcing, ran an automated process on an unflagged account, and managed to screw up four thousand mainspace pages before you got stopped. And this is incident #X, where X is now at least in double figures, and most of them fit almost perfectly onto the framework of "looked like a good idea at the time...". What are you going to do next? What's your next bright idea going to be? Because if you don't start talking about big projects before you start them, and get more eyes to spot your errors before you make them a thousand times over, we're going to be right back here in six weeks time, with yet another WP:AN thread which begins "I've blocked Betacommand(bot) for...". Happy‑melon 17:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pywiki has a function called page.put_async() which places the page saves in a queue to be saved. if maxlag is high it will wait for it to lower. I started doing this very slowly manually several months ago, and the recent issues (last 48 hours) are the the first issues to be brought up. β^_command 17:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the recent issues (last 48 hours) are the the first issues to be brought up" Are you serious? <quietly fumes in extreme irritation> I made it very clear to you that you had unanswered questions about this issue. I've spent some time composing a post on this, but I'm pasting some of it in here, as you cannot get away with saying that these are the first issues: see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here here. All those edits were before the block. Five of them (from the same person) were from April. That is nearly a whole month ago. You response so far to that has been im sorry it got lost the first time in other stuff. As far as I can see, you have not lifted a finger since then to actually respond to the concerns raised by User:Snowmanradio. Carcharoth (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as I stated before I missed Snowmanradio prior posts or I would have addressed that. the others are very recent. β^_command 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm sure you won't be shocked to know that if the code was wrong now, it was also wrong in the past (e.g. April): [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]

However, I get the sense that you may have intentionally or inadvertently changed the population of articles you were applying this script to. Early on it appears that nearly all of these edits were to Living People articles, which by their nature usually get resorted (e.g. First Last -> Last, First). Your script seems to have had very few errors at these. For whatever reason, in the most recent run your script appears to have targetted a broader collection of articles and consequently to have more frequently generated bad edits. Dragons flight (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nearly finished going through these edits, and I haven't seen a population change at all. See, for example the run of 17 "Gulf of _" articles from 01:18-1:25 10 May 2008, and the species articles have been a problem since the start. —Cryptic 23:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said somewhere that you thought he had started at "G" before you realised that he had been doing this for a long time? Is the order alphabetical or something? Betacommand, is there any order to the edits, or any list you are working from? Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen the edits on April (Greenhouse Mafia and earlier); but they seem to have started at the start of G on April 4. At least, unless he started in January and took a couple months off in the middle; I stopped looking 15k edits back. —Cryptic 23:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure what numbers you say where changed I dont see any that have been changed. β^_command 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now comes the difficult bit, Betacommand. When are you personally going to do to review the edits you made and fix them? Or do you intend to leave the clearing up work for others? And when will you see that you can avoid all this if only you submit such scripts for approval before you run them. Or do you still insist that you personally checked all those incorrect edits (see the diffs by Angus McLellan) and approved them? Carcharoth (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

id offer to mass revert but I no longer have the ability to do so. β^_command 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Submit a bot approval to find and correct the edits, or revert them if they can't be fixed. But that is only a partial solution. The issues run deeper. You need to sort out the attitude that makes you think you can do stuff like this and trust others to find and fix mistakes. You also only undertake the most cursory of reviews of your own editing. The redlinked categories issue never got fully sorted. Please, please build reversability and accountability into what you do. Carcharoth (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting is not the answer - it's just the easy solution. By reverting, and thereby undoing what good edits you did do, you're actually doing more damage - all that's left to show for the time and energy expended is an extra ten thousand rows in the database tables, and wikimedia needing yet another server. If you can fix the script such that it can identify false positives in the future (and as Carcharoth says, if you intend to carry on with this, prove that it's fixed at BRFA), it should be easy for someone of your coding skills to apply the same code to your own edits and identify which ones are good and which ones are bad. Treating everything as a binary decision, and reverting the whole lot of edits, is rather short-sighted. If you'd thought this through a bit more in the first place (and, most importantly of all, got other people to think it through as well through BRFA), and not torn through the pile at such a rate, you wouldn't be in the position of having to look through so many edits to find the bad eggs. Since you have very little else you can do, and the community is going to descend on you like a pack of wolves if your edit rate so much as touches 10epm, I suggest you spend a few hours looking through those 4170 defaultsort edits and sort the whole bloody mess out by hand; because I think I speak for a substantial section of the community when I say that we have no intention of letting you do anything new with automated tools until you've cleared up the mess you've already made. Happy‑melon 19:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward: Proposal

In my opinion Beta should be allowed to continue using bots. He's done good work in the past and it's central to what he does as a Wikipedian. However, he needs to stop doing large tasks without prior testing and review. Just throwing the idea out, but the community could require beta to do any bot or assisted edits from the bot account only, and only with a suitably-discussed BRFA for the task. Any automated edits on the user account, or any unapproved edits on the bot account beyond 50 edits for testing before a BRFA, results in a block. Thoughts? Gimmetrow 19:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is acceptable. We don't want BC doing anything unapproved. Really. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds perfect... we should really note that down somewhere, just in case we want to use that again... how about at Wikipedia:Bot policy... oh wait, that's already taken... :D. In all seriousness though, this is, almost word for word, exactly what we require of every other user on en.wiki who works with automated scripts. No large tasks without review and approval, no bot tasks from the main account, any violations result in a block. I'm not joking, this is the status quo. Now why can't we enforce it? Happy‑melon 21:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things - the bot policy was rewritten rather recently to address a loophole, so the dust may not have settled on this point. Also, the way I've phrased the above includes a restriction beyond bot policy. Gimmetrow 21:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Happy‑melon 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair to expect BAG members to know and follow the Bot policy. I think the best solution would be to have the Arbcom gently remind Betacommand of the Bot policy without need for any sanctions and what not. I'm sure Betacommand wouldn't ignore the Arbcom. 96.15.106.42 (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow you: BAG members should be setting an example with regards to the bot policy: they are responsible for enforcing it, so they should know it inside out, and follow it fully. Happy‑melon 21:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tihnk the BAG comment was sarcastic. I too agree that Gimmetrow's proposal is a good one. If Betacommand won't accept it, it should probably just be enforced anyway, as part of the bot policy. Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melon, bot policy allows users to run assisted scripts on their user account. You should know this, since one of your BRFAs was ended on the grounds it was an assisted script and didn't need approval. This meant users could perform large numbers of edits without approval, so long as they could be called "assisted". The problem is that after a few thousands of these unapproved edits, they can form a critical mass and become a de facto norm. Bots should not be used in this manner for resolving disputes. I would expect, were such tasks proposed for approval as bots, they would be denied. Coren's recent rewrite to bot policy, possibly based on some of my suggestions, made it clear that some assisted scripts are subject to bot policy and do need approval - namely ones editing "fast" or doing "a lot" of edits - due to the effect mass edits can have. Someone who wants to use AWB to split a category with 200 articles, and does it at a "slow" 3 edits per minute, shouldn't really have to deal with a BRFA though. What I've proposed above is that Beta not do any bot or assisted editing from his regular user account, which is more than bot policy requires. If we can keep Beta's future BRFAs from becoming a circus, I think this might be workable. Gimmetrow 22:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea! CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would only support this proposal if the restrictions would actually be enforced. Admins seem to be afraid to block him and when any of his accounts are blocked, the blocks are almost always quickly reversed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many past restrictions have been uselessly vague. The idea here is less vague and removes the big loophole. Gimmetrow 03:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not require him to link to the appropriate Bot Request for Approval in all edits made on BetaCommandBot, and restrict him to an edit rate of X edits per minute on any unflagged accounts? — Werdna talk 04:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be acceptable to me. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. BetacommandBot is a loose firehose. It is operated irresponsibly and has caused so many problems on Wikipedia I can't list them all. Betacommand is unwilling to follow proper bot procedures and is unresponsive to complaints. It would be absolutely irresponsible of us to continue to allow BetacommandBot to operate. This block should have been done years ago. Kaldari (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I told him about a problem he would stop the bot and fix it. The number of errors were very much a minority, but BetacommandBot was so incredibly active, on so many different tasks, that it gives a false impression of a higher error rate than the average bot. -- Ned Scott 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, BetacommandBot is blocked, and no essential tasks seem to be undone. Other 'bots are now tagging non-free images, and don't seem to be generating complaints. Effectively, BetacommandBot has been phased out as obsolete software. Let's leave the current situation as it is for a month or two and see if there's any remaining need for BetacommandBot. --John Nagle (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there are a dozen task BCBot could be doing right now that have not been replaced, I am asking that you let me do what I do best, write and operate bots. Ive got a dozen more bot ideas that Im working on that Id like to get done. having BCBot blocked only does one thing, harm wikipedia. β^_command 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, no editor or bot is essential or needed, but to reject the work BCB can do is moronic. By your logic we shouldn't unblock anyone unless they're vital to the project. My point, on the other hand, was that BCB's error rate is just as low, if not lower, than any over given bot, but people blow it out of proportion due to the high amount of work BCB does. Not only that, but to call BCB obsolete software is totally off. Even without the account running, the code is still being used, right now even. facepalm.jpg -- Ned Scott 06:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand's communication issues

Sub-header changed; was inappropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)On reflection I agree and support the change MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt this will trigger the immediate response from beta of trolling/personal attacks, but let's be clear about this, betacommand has a fundemental problem with communication. What is the point in continually debating what usernames he can and cannot use, what bot functions he can and cannot operate, whether he is or is not of good enough standing to be a BAG member. He is simply prepared to operate on wikipedia as close to the line as he can manage within his own wikiphilosophy, which departed from the mainstream long ago. He will take temporary blocks accordingly, as an annoyance, not an impetus to change. There never is, and never was, any change in behaviour in this user. Ever. Look at the contributions of this 'new start' (really?) sock account - are we seriously going to call this 'new' user, an invaluable member of the community in these endless debates? The fact is, take away a couple of bot functions, and beta is just an incivil and disruptive user, who has never ever learned from any block or warning. His time has run out. If only there was an admin with the balls to realise this. MickMacNee (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, this is getting to be a pain. This is an on-going conversation. I do not see any willingness to sweep this all under the carpet or forget things. A vast amount of this conversation has been your aggression. It isn't helpful and it makes the conversation both unpleasant and difficult to read. Please stop your inflammatory comments: if you can't comment in a helpful and productive manner, please do not comment at all. (Hint: the above comment is neither helpful nor productive.) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I think MickMacNee does have some valid points here. Betacommand does repeat the same problems time after time, and he does have some communication and civility problems. Let's not lose sight of that. Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't doubt that for a moment. As I say, This is an on-going conversation. I do not see any willingness to sweep this all under the carpet or forget things. I am purely trying to take some of the venom out of the conversation. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen just about enough of your personal attacks, assumption of bad faith, disruption, attempts to create more unnecessary drama, MickMacNee. I strongly suggest you find something else to do here, and stop commenting on anything about, or related to Betacommand. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to disprove any 'personal attack' made above. Feel free to give me any reason to assume good faith to betacommand any more (just ignore all the above users while you do that, AGF has a limit as just about anyone knows). Feel free to point out how or where I created any of the last three 'drama' incidents about betacommand. You can't, but never mind that, you won't even want to either. I understand why my attempts at pointing out some basic facts to people might be unnacceptable to you, but to be honest, we might as well file you under /Redvers and /LaraLove in terms of objectivity in this matter, and don't even try to pretend otherwise. I would point anyone looking at this comment from you, to the input you made at the last request for approval of another betacommandbot task. MickMacNee (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned you. Do what you will with the warning. I'm not the only one who has had enough. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, he is not saying anything I wouldn't say. Please talk to him instead of threatening him with a block. Carcharoth (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that you manage to say things without being offensive. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If any of this drama was actualy about actions for being offensive, betacommand wouldn't even be a wikipedia editor anymore. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A warning has to be justified with evidence, otherwise it looks like exactly what it is, a threat. Do what you want, I feel confident you recent edits show that any action by yourself will be biased and unjustified per any reading of any policy. I await the names of the conveniently unnamed supporters, assuming they aren't the obvious users. MickMacNee (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Sam, you manage to tell MickMacNee that without overt threatening such as "I've warned you. [...] I'm not the only one who has had enough.". Mick, please don't take my defence of you as justifying the tone you are using. Just tone it down a bit and people are more likely to listen to you. Carcharoth (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, you know (I think you know) there is a long history with MMN and this type of behavior. People only get so many warnings. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The core issue being, do you honestly seriously believe that the standard of conduct to recieve a warning has been the same between me, betacommand, and any other user? He is untouchable, and what's worse, when he is ever even near being actioned, people's attentions suddenly switch to other people. You cannot expect every person who has ever been pissed off by beta to never contribute to a thread about him, in that case there will eventually be no-one allowed to comment on him. Hence my call for a definitive record of his actions. A perfectly reasonable request in the eyes of anyone remotely unbiased. MickMacNee (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"there is a long history with MMN and this type of behavior" - no more so than with others. I think this is something that is over-exaggerated. Surprisingly, on a place like Wikipedia, when you have all the evidence to hand, people tend to go on "reputations", and mud sticks sometimes (for Betacommand and MickMacnee, as well as others). For some, for instance, Giano has been built up to be something he is not. I think the same happens with Betacommand and (to a lesser extent) MickMacNee (and, more similar to MickMacNee, Betacommand's reactions to edits by Locke Cole). I personally don't find MickMacNee's behaviour excessive. I do find those the behaviour of those who jump on him excessive, especially when I find myself agreeing with lots of the things he says. I think Betacommand's reaction to seeing MickMacNee's edits is like a red rag to a bull - and it is Betacommand who needs to take a deep breath and calm down before typing out things like "troll", and it is others who need to stop and think before leaping in to defend Betacommand, or following his "lead". Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess you don't know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do. The page that got deleted after an MfD as an attack page? I was there and I saw what happened. And no, I don't think it was an attack page. Carcharoth (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Beta is not untouchable. However, some are sympathetic because they think the current dynamic is not all Beta's fault. He's been under attack for a long time, and that's conditioned a defensive posture and a way of working. Unless the goal is to drive Beta of Wikipedia, it's going to take some effort to undo the dynamic that's developed. Some ways of addressing problems are geared to trigger a defensive response, and those continue to play those triggers are not helping matters. That's why I think people are hard on anyone who uses a certain tone against Beta. Gimmetrow 19:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the obvious fix is for beta to change his behaviour in recognition of blocks/bans/comments etc over 18months-2 years. My point is, he frankly never seems to do this. While others might like to continualy wikilawyer round this issue on a case by case basis, or continualy extend good faith, I would hope the majority actually see it for what it is, intransigence, leading to an impasse between those who accept him whatever, and those who hold the rules are equal for all, but it actually needs admin with the cojones to do something to break this impasse. As said numerous times in just the above case alone, the guy has more lives than two cats. It doesn't help with admins throwing around threats, when as he quite rightly says, Charcs has seen everything that has occured since I first encountered beta, and personally I don't know how he is still surprised when he is greeted with silence from beta on some issue or other. But what is interesting for myself, and something others should know, is that beta was like this well before even I arrived on the scene. Seriously, some of the reservations expressed at his failed second Rfa in September 2007, held around about the time of my joining, are as true today as they were then. No change in behaviour, xero, nada, nip, none. If he actually changed then I would turn the other cheek, as I presume would everyone else. MickMacNee (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Charcs"? That's a new spelling! :-) C.A.R.C.H.A.R.O.T.H. 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC) PS. I agree entirely with MickMacNee that some change needs to come from Betacommand himself. He might want to see changes in others, but I think if he changes the way he does things, he will see those changes come and the "attacks" on him will decrease. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, Betacommand has been blocked 11 times and the only block that was not reversed was a one-second block. The last 16 blocks of BetacommandBot were all reversed; the most recent non-reversed block was in November last year and for 15 minutes. These statistics suggest that Betacommand is indeed untouchable. Some of the blocks were inappropriate, but most were valid; why were they all undone? Repeatedly undoing blocks is considered wheel warring and is strongly discouraged.

I agree that the main problem with Betacommand is how he communicates with other members of the community. Any questions about his bot or criticism of his actions, no matter how well-intentioned, is, to him, trolling, harassment and drama. If he was more receptive to good-faith criticism and more willing to politely answer queries and discuss his actions, many problems (such as abuse of tools) could have been avoided.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, this page is long enough already... is this section really necessary? By the way, MickMacNee, I take great offense at your blatant personal attack on my balls... ;) –Alex.Muller 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol, redacted conditionaly per admin upon demonstration of record. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with MickMacNee's statements. Betacommand is unwilling to respond properly to complaints about his Bot edits. He has a loooonnng history of problematic behavior with running unapproved bot tasks and causing big headaches for other editors, but 99% of these problems could be forgiven if he would just be better at communicating and responding to complaints when they are brought to his attention. Kaldari (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loose ends

A few more loose ends

User talk:Quercus basaseachicensis - the notice should probably be changed.
The block log entry for Quercus basaseachicensis should probably be updated, possibly during an unblock (see below).
Given Betacommand's pledge, User:Quercus basaseachicensis should probably be unblocked to allow Betacommand to put a {{retired}} template on it, although a notice should be left so that people with questions about the edits made by this account can go to User:Betacommand.
The DEFAULTSORT issue, which has now been raised elsewhere on this page. Again, should probably have its own thread.

That is most of the loose ends I'm aware of. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to User talk:Quercus basaseachicensis, I'm not sure which version you saw, but it previously used Template:Checkuserblock-account, which was not an appropriate template for the situation. (After consultation with a CU) I updated it to use a simple {{notice}} that was far more helpful and relevant. But, I have no thoughts / opinions about what should go there in the future. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a good Idea Carcharoth. Separates the facts from the drama :D CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed this version I was referring to. The current notice here is much better. It would be tidier to unblock and retire the account, but if Beta is not bothered, I'm not. My main concern here is if someone, months or years later, comes across an edit made by Quercus basaseachicensis, and wants to ask the editor who made it why they made that edit, they can still go and ask BC about it. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quercus basaseachicensis should remain blocked, both to prevent him from breaking his promise and to prevent him from accidentally editing from that account. If a notice (or redirect) needs to be placed on the userpage, other editors can do so. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not very logical. He could just as easily make another account if he wanted to break his promise. BC made good edits with that account, and it's not fair that it has this block being attached to those actions. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has too many "alt" accounts as it, and I for one am getting really sick of things getting missed because of it (case in point: that he actually violated 3RR on WP:BOT, but it went unnoticed in part because of his use of Betacommand2 (talk · contribs) to perform his first revert). If I had my way, he'd have one account, Betacommand (talk · contribs). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understood BC's comments, the BC2 account is because his main account .js causes error messages on non-Firefox browsers which are "annoying". Thus a need for a second account(?) The BC2 account has caused confusion in the past (diff's on request) and has questionable utility. The Quercus account was intended to "make a new start", although there is a many-month overlap in the usage compared with the BC account. That account is obviously compromised as a new start, and in fact was never viable if Beta wished to continue operating BCBot, since the owning account must be identified. Neither of Quercus or BC2 are particularly justifiable at this point. Franamax (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's for BC to decide, not us. Hell, you're allowed to have an alt account so you can pretend to be godzillia and talk differently. If you're really that confused by BC2 then maybe you're thinking too hard. Most editors who make a fresh start aren't going to do so over night. There's lose ends to be tied up with the old account, and you don't actually have to stop editing with the old one as long as you're editing different pages with the second account. Regardless if it's used now or not, BC's good contributions as Quercus should not be tied to a standing indef block that wasn't justified in the first place. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something we all missed

Please see here. It turns out that Betacommand had breached 3RR despite at least five people above claiming he hadn't. There was an earlier edit by his User:Betacommand2 account that no-one seems to have spotted. Unfortunately, the other editor (User:Locke Cole) had three unblock requests declined despite pointing out Betacommand's edit warring with socks. Locke Cole was eventually unblocked, but he had retired three minutes earlier. He was understandably aggrieved at the seeming double standards and the lack of proper review, and the disinterest in his pointing out of the edit warring by Betacommand. Could we all (myself especially included) please try harder next time? I've left a strong warning for Betacommand about the edit warring and his use of multiple accounts in this way (it leads, as we have seen, to a lack of scrutiny, no matter how genuine the need is to use an alternate account). Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole's statement

I've proposed a community ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_of_Betacommand, feel free to continue discussion there.

I'm annoyed that people are bending over backwards (and likely making chiropractors rich) to "help" Betacommand, all the while ignoring the obvious and continual disrespect for community consensus and community policy. Someone even went so far as to transclude a portion of his talk page into this discussion so he could effectively violate his block and make a statement visible here. We're talking about someone who has abusively used a sockpuppet in a dispute to evade 3RR (and he's seemingly gotten away with it too, while I was serving a 55 hour block for openly violating 3RR, he was helping folks craft his "punishment" (despite a consensus view that all his alt accounts be blocked)). Someone who has made obvious and unapologetic personal attacks and simply gotten yet another warning (YAW). He calls what's going on here "progress", I call it "a step back". When will the community say "enough is enough" and implement a community ban of Betacommand (or hell, actually let a block expire without admins tripping over themselves for the chance to unblock)? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Locke Cole. The above discussion (which I read in it's entirety) is simply "sound and fury signifying nothing." Nothing ever changes. Betacommand does what he does, misuses his bot, "mistakenly" uses his alternate account in an edit war, is grossly incivil, and--after some ducking and dodging, and some help from his friends--emerges on the other side, unscathed. Meanwhile, many editors he encounters choose to simply fade away. When will this end? Most likely never. How many editors will choose to simply fade away? Who knows? Bellwether ^B _C 08:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with much of this. I agree that his attitude in this thread has been pretty much devoid of understanding of the very real issues that have been taking place. His offering a particular "deal" is especially demonstrative of that: it gives the impression that it is his condescension that is imposing the limit, rather than the irritation of others. This is out of order. I think there are major issues with the manner in which he conducts his on-wiki affairs to the extent that he should not be permitted to operate bots. (This is the community's decision, not the Bot Approvals Group, if the community wishes to make it.) On the other hand, it is quite absurd to say that allowing Betacommand to make a statement on this page is "block violation" as you do. This is no different from anyone receiving an email from him and posting it on this page -- which would be entirely proper. There is a medium to be found between saying "yes" to the behaviour that has been going on and instituting a community ban: Betacommand does not need to be banned, but the abuses that have been taking place absolutely need to stop. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The page transclusion, taken together with the other circumstances, is the issue I'm trying to bring to light. By itself I would agree that the page transclusion isn't a big deal. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above as well. Whenever Betacommand does something wrong, nothing happens. I don't wanna come across as Dr. Phil, but Betacommand still hasn't owned up to anything he's done wrong. It's always everyone's fault but his. And if we continue to act like clawless and toothless tigers, nothing will change. Betacommand has had two ArbCom cases, there are now two Admin's noticeboard subpages devoted to him. How much more credit and patience are we gonna give him? A ecis^Brievenbus 10:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Locke Cole. Especially in light of the fact that BC actually violated 3RR to edit-war on that policy page after all. His friends were so quick to get him exonerated that they failed to noticed his abusing yet another of his socks. In summary, the original charge of Abusive Sockpuppetry was indeed Valid. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And hence, BC should be banned, if he isn't already. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur except that I don't think Beta was sockpuppeting abusively, I think he got his windows mixed up while trying to do too much at once. The edit-war and 3RR violations stand, and LC was disproportionately punished (oops, prevented) for their part. The part I do agree with is that in my view Beta shows no intent to modify his approach in a meaningful way beyond the short term, shows no advancement in communication, and still seems to think that it's someone else's fault for "trolling". Franamax (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was an accident through, why not admit it, self revert and deal with it? Instead he proceeded to revert a fourth time (from his Betacommand account) without any indication at all that he'd just used an (as yet unknown) sockpuppet to revert. Worse, once he was found out (and ultimately unblocked) he did nothing to try and rectify the situation with me (of course given all the issues he and I have had, I guess that's to be expected, but the community should expect better); instead he proceeded to engage in self serving discussion, proposing remedies that wouldn't cause him any real inconvenience. Someone who has been through two ArbComs and numerous AN, AN/I discussions should be on better behavior you'd think. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why? He knows he has bodyguards to protect him. Bellwether ^B_C 21:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - C'mon guys - why would he not admit it? Because that is Beta's apparent style. There's no need to jump to abusive-sockpuppetry when there's so much evidence of simple inability to communicate, which is the real problem area. In any case, as was pointed out elsewhere about a different editor, we are talking about a real person, so speculation on their presumed methods and motivations is not appropriate. Lets just talk about the impact on the wiki, OK? Franamax (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Locke Cole. Up until this point I was generally sympathetic to Beta's situation, but I had a nagging feeling that there was more evidence that would come up. Very upsetting, but sadly unsurprising; this is the inevitable human cost of a Wikipedia career spent as a nuclear powered icebreaker (with the throttle stuck on Flank and the Captain asleep in his cabin with his iPod on and a GO AWAY sign on the door). I'd suggest a remedy, but we all know nothing will come of it. If 4 years of daily noticeboard viewing have taught me anything, it's that sacred cows are very real, and any sort of protracted public attempt to discomfort them gets you ignored at best, and MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN scrawled next to your name at worst. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 21:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll bite here, mene, mene, tekel, parsin - I just have to know? Franamax (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See The writing on the wall :) Stannered (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I should get ready for the "mene, mene, tekel, parsin" – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_of_Betacommand. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - "You have been measured and found wanting", is that the gist of it? Wow, the bible has a saying for everything :) And LC, I won't write it on a wall, I'll disagree up front (over there), Beta has not yet been faced with systematic escalating discipline, no-one yet has systematically addressed de-tasking BCBot, you are right that BC has essentially been getting a free pass - but that's the issue, nothing has been done to positively modify BC's behaviour. So I'm doubtful that proposing a community ban is helpful, as opposed to proposing lesser sanctions (yeah, I know, it's been tried in this incident). But let's see how your thread plays out, I'll "mene" for now (that's the weighing part, right?). Franamax (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"No-one yet has systematically addressed de-tasking BCBot" - I started a section below on that subject, listing all the approved tasks of BetacommandBot. Most of the tasks, and all the critical ones, are now being performed by other 'bots. The de-tasking of BCbot seems to be going well. --John Nagle (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this type of transclusion was routine while CSN was active. It fits in with normal commonsense fairness to give a person a voice in the discussion when his/her head is on the wiki's chopping block. Durova^Charge! 07:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. How long are we going to tolerate such abusive behavior from Betacommand? Our rules should be enforced uniformly. Kaldari (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get off the stage BC isn't going to get banned, live with it. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current block status

What with all the blocks and unblocks, it seems necessary to summarize the current block situation.

Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indef blocked as sockpuppet by Versageek (talk · contribs).
Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Unblocked by Carcharoth (talk · contribs). Hundreds of semi-automated or automated edits since unblock.
Betacommand2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Unblocked by Carcharoth (talk · contribs). One routine edit since unblock.
BetacommandBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Blocked by Anetode (talk · contribs).

--John Nagle (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically he's using his main account as BetacommandBot now? Wow. Just wow. Bellwether ^B _C 19:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, according to User talk:Betacommand/20081201#Clean up using... ?. He's trying to clean up a previous mess he made with one of his 'bots, he's using a customized version of AWB to do it, and his own personal version is buggy. He writes "(Im using a SVN copy of AWB I think I accidentally changed the edit summary)". Several hundred edits were made with the buggy version, and have edit comments of "(clean up using)". --John Nagle (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if an AWB dev could weigh in here. AFAIK, the only way to disable the "using AWB" appendage, is to run AWB in Bot mode instead of in Manual mode. MBisanz ^talk 20:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the raw source code which I compile, thus SVN, also you cannot do typo checking in bot mode. I have only make 144 edits either typo fixing or fixing default sort so please dont say its hundreds. β^_command 20:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the release version of AWB? Until one minute ago you could even use the bot setting on your main account (no idea where that came from, given that BCB is listed as a bot as well). I think all things considered, the only way you can make yourself perfectly safe from criticism here is to do whatever you're doing for the forseeable future the 'old fashioned way'. Certainly using an automated script of any sort would be foolish in the extreme - I'm glad to see that you haven't been making large numbers of edits; but that begs the question of what you're doing with your custom version that you couldn't do with a regular (and bug-free) copy of AWB. Happy‑melon 21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SVN allows easier updates and allows me to get bug fixes easier. β^_command 22:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking an avid technology user why he's using the latest code instead of the last stable release? Really? Who here has beta software on their computer? -- Ned Scott 23:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His username is Betacommand, right? Kaldari (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was really asking why he was taking the latest version and screwing around with it, rather than using a more stable version. Of course using the SVN version over the older release version is his prerogative, and to the technically competent it can be a good idea for the reasons BC notes above; but I don't see anyone else on-wiki using edit summaries including "(using )" - so it's not (AFAIK) correct to say that Betacommand is just using the SVN version - it's the SVN version with a few added bells and whistles (and, clearly, a few amusing coding errors :D). Happy‑melon 11:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tasks performed by BetacommandBot

There have been some questions as to what BetacommandBot actually did. This was its list of approved tasks.

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 1

No such task on file.

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 2

Change {{s-off}} to {{s-gov}} for specified list of categories.

One-time job; done in 2007.

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 3

WikiProject Biography newsletter delivery.

Could be performed by other 'bots, such as DeliveryBot (talk · contribs).

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 4

Orphaned fair-use image tagging.

Function now performed by BJBot (talk · contribs).

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 5

Tagging of images without fair use rationale.

Function now performed by BJBot (talk · contribs).

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 7

Moving of free images to Wikimedia Commons, with appropriate reference updates.

Useful but non-critical function

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 8

Search talk pages for a pre-existing assessment and then add the same assessment to the other project tags on the same talk page.

Useful but non-critical function.

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 9

Replacing all images on en.wiki with commons versions that have the same SHA1 hashes.

Related to Task 7.

--John Nagle (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you missed some. β^_command 05:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a helpful comment. Anyway, I've located some of the ones that John Nagle missed. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot contains the following four approvals (we can retroactively call them tasks 1a through 1d):

(1a) Collecting external link statistics for WikiProject Spam
(1b) Substing templates listed at WP:SUBST under "Templates that should be substituted" and "Templates that must be substituted"
(1c) Adding WikiProject banners to article talk pages
(1d) Removing or renaming categories according to the decisions of CFD.

(1a) and (1c) were still active up to the time the bot got blocked; I don't know about the others. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we missed a few unapproved tasks, such as flooding the Main Page with useless revisions. Could you please point us to any approved tasks we missed? Tasks 1a and 1c could be easily done by another bot. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Move to Commons tasks (7 & 9) are not "non-critical". Moving those images is an important task that benefits other Wikimedia projects, and it saves time of people wanting to move these files to Commons to create media collections on a topic of interest. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly non-critical to Wikipedia, although task 7 may be critical to Commons. (Furthermore, I think there were GFDL history problems in the moved articles, and related problems that, if Commons doesn't agree it's free, it gets deleted without being moved back to Wikipedia.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thus question the usefulness of moving images to Commons. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not critical for enWP, but it is an important task for other projects. Part of the Wikipedia mission is to have useful articles in all languages. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MTC task was useful and efficient, but the bot did not actually select the images to be transferred. Individual users still have an opportunity to transfer images using User:Krimpet/CH2.js and there is every opportunity for another bot operator to work on the compiled to-be-transferred list using similar methods. Not to mention that Commons and en.wiki have differing standards for allowable images or the fatal flaw of MTC not accounting for the presence/lack thereof of source information necessary to validate free license status. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those problems are not the bots fault; MTC has a list of approved users, and it is those users who sign off on each transfer. It is much simpler for approved editors to approve an image than it is for them to do the transfer. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, a critical task would stop Wikipedia's normal operations. Not moving images to Commons, while important, doesn't really affect the way Wikipedia operates, it only slows down an interwiki process that can be done by operators on Commons as well. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I think those who defend Betacommand can stop saying that he does good work. To be honest, I think he is no better than Odex. Odex got their just deserts; Betacommand eventually will. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the personal attacks. yeah I never said that what BCBot does is critical. there is one other task that I never filed a BRFA for, WP:DABS and related stats. what BCBot does is provide very useful stats and tasks. β^_command 12:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hildanknight, enough is enough. I've skimmed this discussion (ie. what's happened since I last commented) and Betacommand has been more civil than you. Please stop. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can agree that moving images to Commons is not a vital task. I don't think a bot should be doing it full stop, but that's probably another story. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You missed some" - the issue as always is that Beta has no idea what is even wrong with that reply, and never will. He does usefull stats tasks like prolonging edit wars over users' wishes not to be included in edit count lists, and duplicating lists that already exist in wikipedia space, in user space. This is how Beta spends the time he has been given to prove he is a valued contributor even without a bot. MickMacNee (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee, you dont know what your talking about. the WP space list only has the top 5000 humans (they remove bots). The list I maintain contains every account that has at least 5000 edits. Also please note that my edits are within policy and that the user who filed that report got warned not me. β^{_{command 2}} 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know I don't know what I'm talking about, that would be why the wikipedia space list includes bots would it?. MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is listed as #1? its not cydebot the account with the most edits. the information presented there is for humans, not all users. the list I created does not filter the information, and contains all users with over 5000 edits compared to WP:WBE that only has the top 4-5k users. β^{_{command 2}} 15:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list as I see it today has: 1-SmackBot (bot) 1193884, 2-Cydebot (bot) 971146, 3-WP 1.0 bot (bot) 726999, 4-BetacommandBot (bot) 674179, 5-Kingbotk (bot) 437167. So smackbot has more edits than clydebot. Or am I missing something? AKAF (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same. They are clearly bots, although they are not numbered (to be fair to users), but they are still definitely bots. .:Alex :. 15:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cydebot has 1.2 million plus edits and BCBot has 920,000+ edits so that list is not correct. Also it does not include bots in the counts thus squewing the results, unlike the list that I created. β^{_{command 2}} 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With 920,000 edits and a questionable edit rate of say 5% means 46,000 potential errors. I don't know what the real error rate is, but we are talking about a lot of confused or angry Wikipedia editors. You should expect to get more than a few angry notes on your talk page. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In case you hadn't noticed...

Resolved

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

Archived discussion unrelated to administrative tasks.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

WP:RFAR#JzG. Excellent timing, I'm off on holiday in a few days and have a three month project at work which has suddenly been telescoped to one month due to external events. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I wouldn't worry. They'll add it to that mistake of a Cla68 case which, since its scope requires everyone to substantially refight several previous ArbComs including Mantanmoreland, Durova, Jossi, and throws in the ID crowd as well, is extremey unlikely to ever get round to discussing you. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that SlimVirgin's clique is also in the mix. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Guy could help us all by posting a timetable of when it would be convenient to him to have his behaviour scrutinized? DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But apparently it's only JzG who makes inappropriate comments? I'd suggest that you strike that last comment, Mr. Hill. Horologium (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never suggested that "it's only JzG who makes inappropriate comments". In answer to your suggestion, no. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making is that JzG is the subject of an Arbitration request due to alleged incivility, yet he is repeatedly subjected to "drive-by shootings" such as your first comment in this thread. If I was subjected to such behavior, I'd be a little testy, too. Horologium (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he always seems to be "busy", "retired", "in Cannes", "on wikibreak", etc, when something like this comes up, yet his actual editing never slows down, could in fact be an issue the arbcom case should look at. If he really wants to spend some time on an actual wikibreak I'm sure the arbcom would be willing to suspend the case until he returns. --Random832 (contribs) 18:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ri) Ever heard of WP:AGF? I also wasn't aware that you spoke for Arbcomm. If I have any questions in future about Arbcomm I'll certainly come to you first. Cheers. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to whom is that polite and insightful statement addressed? --Relata refero (disp.) 19:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking to me - having opinions on what sort of behavior arbcom could or should be looking at does not require me to "speak for Arbcomm". --Random832 (contribs) 20:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request To Block IP Adress 70.91.91.133

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed community ban of Betacommand

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

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

It was noted above (or on what has forked onto a separate page) that BC has communication difficulties. He tends to do the more drama-prone jobs around here, compounding any communication difficulties which may exist. I'd suggest that none of the commentators here would be able to comport themselves any better than BC has done, if they were to be placed under the same workload as him. We shouldn't be aiming to get rid of Beta, but more to provide him with more support. Much as we appear loath to refer to ourselves as such, we are a community and we need to care of one another, indeed more than we do already. We don't kick people out of the fold for being imperfect. Martinp23 23:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This, by the way, is complete nonsense. If someone were somehow forcing him to work in this area, it might be valid, but he chose this work. If he knows he can't handle drama well, it's his responsibility to find areas that he can competently work in. His failure to do so only indicates that the problem is indeed him. Friday (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sam Korn solution

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

Betacommand is not permitted to run bots
Running bots should be a position of trust. It is plain that Betacommand does not have that trust. Criticism of his bot work has frequently unheeded and met with incivility. This is not good enough. Betacommand has no right to run bots. Any unauthorised bot activity should be met with blocking. I would suggest a minimum of a week.
Betacommand is placed upon civility parole
Betacommand's response to criticism has been totally unacceptable and must change. Any incivility should be met with an appropriate block. I would suggest that a month should be the outside; I do not expect anything less than three days to be the minimum. Unblocking should only be done with great care: I would be horrified if people continued to think that Betacommand can get away with incivility after the events of the last few days.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose Hesperian 00:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong oppose, WTF? Locke Cole had conflicts with BC in the past, he shouldn't be the one who propses the ban. Sam Korn's propsal makes some sense, but was made at the wrong time, because many people seem to support is as an alternative of outright banning, not because they really feel like that. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 05:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When I say I support Sam Korn's remedy, I mean I support Sam Korn's remedy. I imagine this is is the case for the others as well. Anyone who supports Sam's remedy in preference to a ban but would actually prefer no sanction at all is free to say so. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Such effect doesn't need to be conscious, in fact, we may see an example of Good cop/Bad cop effect. (I don't mean that Sam and Locke are acting together, but a softer proposal as alternative of a harsher one will always make such psychological effect, and I feel that even Sam's proposal is too much, although something certainly needs to be done). MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well nobody else seems to be willing to step up to the plate and propose something with teeth. As you can see at the subpage discussion there was consensus that something should be done, though unfortunately it seems I overestimated the support for something that might actually get his attention. May I remind everyone that he's been grossly incivil (long after ArbCom "instructed" him to be civil), that he's abused a sockpuppet to evade 3RR (now you can take that two ways: 1) it was an accident, in which case he shouldn't have gone on to revert a fourth time and keep his alt a secret, or 2) it was malicious, in which case the reaction we should have should be obvious, but in either case, his use of that alt account was very inappropriate, and his attitude since then (unapologetic, wishing to brush it all under the rug seemingly) should not be tolerated or encouraged. Anyways, yeah, I'm involved, but something needs to be done with clear instructions on the results if he fails to abide by whatever is chosen (not vague references to "escalations", spell it out). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: We shall have no conspiring with the Forces of Darkness.--Hu12 (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there were sanctions proposed in the original thread that were far more appropriate as are those that Sam proposed above. Mr.Z-man 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He's been given far too many chances already. Everyking (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sam Korn's version, but oppose a complete community ban. The second would be an overreaction. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either version. This has dragged on far too long. Leithp 06:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not going to bold my stuff, cuz votin is evil and all that, but.. WTF? There's a lot of folks who believe that a 1 week block was more then necessary, considering it wasn't actually sockpuppeting, but one mistaken edit.... and now we're going for a "community" ban, or other significant restrictions, with no further mistakes by BC? Are we going Argumentum Ad Nauseum here? Seriously? SirFozzie (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the 3-month proposal due to repeated gross incivility, marginal sockpuppetry, disruption and abuse of bots. —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving forward

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The real problem - competence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just fyi

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

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

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

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

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

Worth noting, for the record, that Betacommand's main account is not currently blocked. [64] ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's just all be exactly clear about this. What you demon and presumably Redvers are saying, that no matter the arguments made in discussions like this[65], you would always unblock beta. Why? Just put some thoughts here that illustrate why you would go against the well put and endorsed thoughts of Durova, just so we can adequately assess just how deadlocked the 'community' is with regards Beta and any further violations, because as sure as eggs is eggs, and based on his own actions and statements, change in his attitude or behaviour is not coming, and never will, and good will banked by NFCC tagging is being extended indefinitely. Similarly, any actual actionable incidents are clearly going to continually be treated in isolation despite repeat final warnings, as seen by the above proposal, and even worse, any subsequent blocks thus recieved are actualy watered down, rather than be increased, as happens with other persistent repeat offenders. Even even worse, people have completely ignored beta's apparent solution to all this, to dissapear, and run unapproved bots on user accounts. With comments like this section, I can only see one outcome, an extension of the second arbcom case to force the standards and expectations already stated, to actually be linked to real and descriptive consequences, and to take the issue of how to deal with beta out of the community's hands altogether. MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The lack of action was apparently down to no the case not having anything to 'enforce'. I requested clarification here [66], as well as at ANI at the time of a beta civility alert 5 days after the case closed, but there was no response to either. So the next step imo would be to extend case 2 to include enforcement, in light of beta's behaviour since the close of case 2. MickMacNee (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

But the ArbCom set precedent [67] that a sufficiently large number of edits is more important than adhering to ArbCom restrictions. BetaCommand has a very large number of edits, thus restrictions do not apply to him. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request that betacommand updates his user pages

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

However, I would also point out, bar the current 30 day restriction, this appears to be by his own choice, and not through any official unapproval, [68]. Therefore, with a number of people proposing to monitor the bot's actions for this 30 day restriction, I would request that beta is also asked to update on the bot's user page User:BetacommandBot with what it is approved for for the 30 day period, and what it will still be approved for after that, i.e. an accurate summary of these pages [69] in regards to which he considers active and likely to be resumed after the 30 days. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm sure enough people are watching to make sure than no lines are overstepped, but I do

SuPpORt with a capital 's', 'p', 'o' and 'r' the removal of the nasty talkpage templates. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brief comment and question from a non-relevant user

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

Exceptional newcomer? User talk:Names of chief gods

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

User:Nneonneo brought this user to my attention, after the user nominated [70] [71] Nneonneo for adminship. The user was unsure of what to do, and asked for assistance. I looked at the RfA, and discovered a user who had a red-linked username was the nominator. This made me think that the user was new, and lo and behold, at that point the account was less than 18 hours old. I looked at the contrib count, and saw a count of 52 - the first of which was a CfD relist [72], and the user has been using edit summaries right from the beginning - not traits I'd expect to see in a newcomer. I'd like to assume good faith on this, but I'm not entirely sure that this account is a person's first, but that's just instinct. I'd like to have a few more people look at this, and see what they think if that's OK. :) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ιερουσαλήμ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#pushing_articles_on_talk_pages

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

Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#Misrepresentation_of_studies_by_User:DanaUllman

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

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

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

Everyone still refused to act.

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#Dana_Ullman

It looks like he will now be blocked.

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

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

[73]

After another five hours or so, you have this:

Creatures of Impulse

It is up for GA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“

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

”

And here's Ullman's description of it.

“

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

”

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

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

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

Yes, I realise that; I've experienced it myself.[74] My point is not that Dana is right; my point is that it is unreasonable to expect admins to see this as a clearcut case where the required administrative intervention is apparent. On the contrary, this is an exceedingly complicated content dispute, and it is not at all clear to me where and when it would have been appropriate for an administrator to intervene. Hesperian 05:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

“

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

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One can also find the Durova blog post on this subject at [75].--Filll (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, pseudoscience etc - Arbitrary section break (first)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I might refocus the discussion - Incivility happens on both sides.low-level incivility (see arbcom evidence), Peter morrell, god bless him, has a horrible temper.[76] I don't think, however, that anyone reasonable can argue that incivility is the cause of, say, Ullman's lying about the content of sources, or of POV-pushing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator User:OhanaUnited

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

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

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

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

It's my time to present my views. I chose to vote "Keep" that image as Featured picture because there's no guideline against having multiple images of the same subject. The image he attempted to replace with the already-featured is his own creation. Although there's no rule against being the nominator of your own image, but my gut feeling tells me he's trying to discredit someone else's picture so that his can showcase his image here. Also, at that time, his reason for demotion is "because I like this image better"[77]. Doesn't that statement looks like POV-pushing and falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It's totally his opinion and does not relate his decision to any technical aspect such as contrast, noise, composition, or focus. (Actually, this is a grey area. Neither the policies on commons nor wikipedia explicitly mention about allowing/disallowing multiple pictures of same object. However, the actual practice allow such occurance. For example: Image:Daisy1web.jpg and Image:Pollen.arp.750pix.jpg describe the same subject, Osteospermum, yet both are featured pictures. This proof, along with more, tells me that in Wikipedia, it's ok to have more than 1 featured picture on same subject. He even admitted this fact and found supporting evidence himself.[78] )

Then a month later, Mbz1 is upset at Commons regarding Featured pictures. He nominated the green turtle image that he took on Commons. Someone opposed his nomination because the same image Mbz1 attempted to replace with on FP on Wikipedia is already featured.[79] So Mbz1 came back to my talk page and dig up the argument that I thought it was over. Look at what he said.[80] He blamed me because he took my "advice" and nominated his image on Commons, which faced an opposition. Clearly, he's trying to find a culprit for being upset.

The reason why I removed the comment is because:

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

yet Mbz1 keeps coming back, adding the stuff I removed. In addition, his edit summary of this entry [81], which says "removeone it one more last time to show your incivility once again" tells me he's being pointy and willing to get into edit war just to illustrate his point. This is my reason to protect my talk page to stop this situation from escalating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section Break (Administrator User:OhanaUnited)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

michael

Resolved

User informed of WP:NPOV.

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

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

Block quote
hi i thought i could outline the main changes we have to make to micheals page
remove word child sexual abuse and replace wiht sharing a bed with a child to watch a film remove plastic surgery and replace with diagnosed with vitiligo and lupus, the latter of which is potentially lethal but is in remission in Jackson's case add "and he loves children and would never hurt one" "he is loved by millions of people the world over"
change "Jordan Chandler, the son of former Beverly Hills dentist Evan Chandler, represented by civil lawyer Larry Feldman, accused Jackson of child sexual abuse." into "made an allegation that michael hurt him but actually michael was lookin after jordy and he was a sick child that michael took pity on and who turned on michael like a snake as soon as michaelhad done him so much good."
change long term financial difficulty and heath concerns to say "he is a kind man"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please Block Me!

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

User:Hertzanderez

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

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

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

[82][83] Edits on My Talk Page [84] Signing using Cookie Monster name. [85] Changing Another Name to Cookie Monster

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

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

A message from Willy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A message from Willy/Actions

I have taken the boiler plate off of his userpage (it is a red link, and people don't change with stigma attached) and placed a note on his talk page. I'll watch his contributions for the next few days until I hit the road. I take this as rough intent from the discussion above. I'll take it upon myself, if the community is willing, to offer limited mentorship. No harm in a chance here, maybe we gain some good articles. [86]. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

WikiCrusading

User:RucasHost is most definately attempting to Soapbox around the wiki. You can check out his contributions and see what I mean. When I saw this diff [87], I just had to put it on the noticeboard. More people need to be aware of it. Hooper (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today's TFA: To Protect or Not Protect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AIV backlogged

Resolved

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

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

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

Autoconfirm change (sort of)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deny recognition

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

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

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

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

Deletion review

Resolved

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

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

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

User:Talyshli

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tor proxies

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

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

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

Uga Man

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

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

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

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

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

My standard message in this situation is:

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

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

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

Unblock vandalism...

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

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

Bizarre slow-speed revert war at Constellation Brands

Not sure how / where to deal with this. Someone seems to be engaged in a long-term revert war to add peculiar derogatory material into the Constellation Brands article. It's a giant worldwide liquor company that has apparently run into assorted trouble with antitrust and liquor laws, in this case in New Zealand. That fact may or may not be appropriate per relevance and weight concerns, but the editor has been introducing it again and again as a series of ungrammatical scribbles plus a growing list of WP:external links. Oddly, nearly every time the editor does this they have created a new throw-away WP:single purpose account: User:Crazybeer [88], User:Newsupdates [89], User:Newsreports [90], User:Webbchecker [91], User:Omanras [92], User:Americanchick [93], User:Kingstorm [94], User:Wikitester01 [95][96] User:Wikitester02 [97][98] User:Wikitester03 [99] Plus some IP accounts that are obviously the same editor [100] [101] [102] [103] [104]. What to do? Wikidemo (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,383: / Line 1,383: @@
 :::Hate to say this but if that was enough, a lot of admins would be gone here.  Unfortunately, I can't really pinpoint what conduct it takes to lose adminship (short of reverting Jimbo or an [[WP:OFFICE]] action) but most would say basic uncivil conduct isn't sufficient. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 :* Here's one more thing, which shows that OhanaUnited has no idea what he's talking about. He said: "Although there's no rule against being the nominator of your own image, but my gut feeling tells me he's trying to discredit '''someone else's picture''' so that his can showcase his image here." without ever realizing that both pictures the featured one and the new one were taken by me. He knows now that it is tha case, but he even did not bother to cross out his stupid and false acusation.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 15:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
+:::Seriously, Mbz1, you should just let this go. OhanaUnited has already apologized and unprotected his page. Please also see my comment before the section break. A lot of drama can be avoided if everyone just drops it. Mahalo. --[[User:Ali'i|Ali&#39;i]] 15:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 == michael ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards