Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Did I violate WP:UNINVOLVED?

Can someone please give me their two cents on whether I violated WP:UNINVOLVED by protecting the page Phi Gamma Delta after I had expressed a strong opinion on the issue. I think this falls within the grounds of "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion", but I've gotten flack in the past for using sysop powers in a situation where I was involved, so I'm now pretty cautious about when I use them. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. It's clear and blatant edit-warring by what is obviously one person on a rotating IP address; absolutely a valid use of semi-protection that "any reasonable administrator" would have implemented. ~ mazca ^talk 21:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree — I'd be very hesitant to condemn you if you'd been the only one to revert continuous vandalism, but when several other people are reverting the vandalism, there's no question that you did what any reasonable administrator would do. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Good call, in my opinion. You last edited the article 4 days ago, since when there's been a lot of vandalism which was reverted by other editors. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see the frat I am looking into is getting attacked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems very reasonable to partial-protect even after voicing an opinion in this case under the "any reasonable administrator" bit.

Ktr101 - I don't see it as an attack, it appears simply to be some folk (or a single person) pushing the PoV that the Greek letters should not be used in a WP article, in keeping with the firmly expressed wishes of the fraternity.- Sinneed 15:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, everyone. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Need help viewing deleted image

Could someone try viewing this version of the deleted File:DPVAboutBoxWithImage.png? There are two files in this image's history: the newer I've just deleted because it's not in compliance with nonfree criterion F7, and the older (to which the link goes) may be corrupted. While I expect that it's corrupted, I expect that it's possible that my computer is having issues; if you try to view this image, please let me know of the results. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't see it either. Wierd. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I get a "File not found" message. Perhaps something is wrong in the database. Ucucha 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I just get "this link appears to be broken" from my browser. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Unlike text, I believe deleted images are eventually removed from the server, so that may be what happened. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

However, I just deleted the entire history of the image yesterday — you'll notice that there's only one deletion in the file's log — and anyway I had this problem even before deleting it. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Prior to (IIRC) mid-2006, no deleted image was stored on the server; afterwards, every deleted image was retained. --Carnildo (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? I haven't said anything about former deleted image storing. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BQZip01

There is a dispute which has extended for over a year, and which has spilled over into WP:AN/I several times. This is why I raise this issue here. I started an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BQZip01 nearly four weeks ago. In that time, I've seen considerable activity on other RfCs. However, on this RfC there's been virtually no activity. As it stands, there are no outside views by anyone. The other four currently active RfCs have an average of 7 outside views. I'm concerned that the basis of this dispute remains unresolved. I am not looking for yes/no people. I am looking for input, whatever your opinion may be. You are invited to participate in this RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• One problem with contributing to this RfC is the response BQZip01 added to my question dated 20:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC):

I believe the Conclusion I offered above provides the most viable interim solution. I am working on an RfC/U at this time with User:Fastily and have ceased any sort of interaction until it has been submitted. I believe an amicable solution can be reached through this process.

Cirt's response to your question states the simplest solution: that you two avoid each other. However, BQZip01 doesn't believe this would work (IMHO, I also suspect that this won't work -- both of you are equally interested in the same matter, so neither of you will manage to do this), so until he proposes his own solution, no one can offer any solution except that you two avoid each other. Which has been suggested already. No, there is one other option: both of you be banned from dealing with Fair Use issues, which is an attractive solution because neither of you will like that, & neither of you can say you "won". -- llywrch (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have no desire to 'win'. I brought the RfC to end the dispute, not to bludgeon someone into submission. I'm not after a pound of flesh here. I'm not looking to have BQZip01 blocked for prolonged harrassment of me. I'm not looking to see him warned. I'm not looking to have 50 bazillion people tell him he's wrong. By his own admission, BQZip01 stopped following my edits over the last month+. You know what? It's been (not amazingly, but predictably) quiet. If I were guilty of even a third of the things BQZip01 insists I'm guilty of, there'd be a horde of editors breaking down the wikidoor wanting to carry my head off on a platter. Yet, since BQZip01 stopped following me, nary a peep. For me, the solution is really quite simple. I stop following him, he stops following me. I haven't been following him since at least late last year. I've made a few mistakes in that I've responded to him on some occasions, especially when he's followed me. I'm trying not to repeat those mistakes. But, no matter how hard I try, it won't make a difference if BQZip01 doesn't make a similar effort. But so far as he's concerned, such an effort to avoid is against policy.
• If you want to ban me from anything to do with fair use issues, fine. The project will go on just fine without my efforts in that arena. But, 90% of my work here is in fair use because I believe very strongly in the free content mission. I don't write articles, or major updates to articles. I'm just not interested in that, nor frankly very good at it. If I were banned from fair use management issues, I'd just quietly leave the project. If the project thinks that's a 'win', so be it.
• I will say this; if after the RfC ends, BQZip01 resumes his hounding of me, I will continue the WP:DR process. That's not a threat. It's a lack of choices. I can't and won't continue on with having him as my personal adjudicator with no possibility of parole. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Then what is it you are looking for here? Things seem to be working out fine for you at the moment. If I had to choose between (on one hand) an RfC which attracted little or no comment yet peace & quiet from another editor, & (on the other) an RfC which attracted a lot of comment but no peace & quiet from that editor, I'll let you guess which of these pairs I personally would be happiest with. As for resorting to the WP:DR process after this RfC period ends if the dispute continues, that's what you're supposed to do. -- llywrch (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering going stale

I initiated this RFC last week, and I'm fairly sure it could be considered "certified" at this point and can move forward, but I'm unclear on whether the filing parties should be making that decision. Anyone want to take a look and either move it over into the certified section so we can proceed or let me know what it is lacking? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Looks ready, I moved it live. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Praxis intervention

Can someone take a look at this article, and its relationship to this thesis and this slideshow, both apparently written by the same person who created and wrote the article? I don't honestly know what to do about it, if anything -- is it a copyvio?, does it lack notability?, is it original research? -- but it certainly doesn't seem to be the kind of article an encylopedia aimed at the general public would have in it. It's more like the kind of survey article an obscure academic journal might have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There are more references to that usage in Google than just the one individual who did that article here, but I can't find any suggestion that it's more than 4-5 people who are actively using that terminology to define a field, which would make it pretty much out on the fringe even if they're practitioners in healthcare in good standing and not thought to be cranks.

Perhaps there are more references out there, if we find more evidence that can be revisited. But I think it's just a few diehard supporters of this model, and it's not really very notable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-used USA radio station codes

I have moved this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#Re-used USA radio station codes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming Changes to the User Interface

As many of you already know, the Wikimedia Foundation's User Experience team has been running a beta program focused on improving the user interface for over six months now. More details may be found here, but our main goal has been to reduce the barriers to participation in Wikipedia by making it easier for new contributors to edit.

Since the start of the program, over 635,000 users across all Wikimedia projects have participated in this beta program - testing and providing feedback on the new interface. Roughly 80% of the test users who tried the beta are still using it (view details). On the English Wikipedia, almost 270,000 users have tried the test interface and about 84% of those users continue to use it. On April 5, the beta features became the default experience for users of Wikimedia Commons, a wiki similar to Wikipedia that hosts the millions of free image and media files within our projects. The summary of feedback from Commons users may be found here. The WMF blog and the tech blog also provide more information on this project.

This new user interface will become the default for users of the English Wikipedia during the second week of May. We are currently scheduled to make the switch at 5:00am UTC on May 13. Once we make the switch, all users will begin to see the new features [1]. These features include an enhanced toolbar, a new skin (which we named 'Vector'), and a number of other features we're very excited about (FAQs may be found here). If you prefer not to make the change, there will be 'Take me back' link to restore the original features. Those who would like to experience the new interface sooner may do so via the 'Try Beta' link at the top of the page.

We understand that the English Wikipedia relies heavily on custom user scripts and site-specific JavaScript. Information on how to test gadgets is included in the FAQ page. If you encounter issues using the new skin, please share your feedback.

We're looking forward to rolling out the new features next week. In the meantime, if you have any questions/comments, please share them here.

Howief (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation User Experience Team

It would be helpful to have a page with information about which of the most-used scripts - CSDHelper, AdminDashboard, CloseAfD, Huggle, Twinkle etc - are known to work (or known not to work) with the new interface. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I do believe most of the major scripts have been fixed to work in Vector. –xeno^talk 20:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've been using Vector with many of the common gadgets and scripts with no issues since it hit beta. — Coren ^(talk) 23:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Good. I hope on Thursday morning there will be a prominent notice for the benefit of users who may not have seen this announcement. One thing it will need to tell them is: "If you have scripts in a /monobook.js user subpage, you will need to make a /vector.js subpage (lower-case V) and copy the contents into it." JohnCD (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The trunk version of MediaWiki has had support for skin-independent user JS/CSS pages (Special:MyPage/common.js and Special:MyPage/common.css) for some time now. It would be nice if someone with the necessary access could deploy that feature (rev:63300 and rev:63338) to Wikipedia before the skin change goes live. (Disclaimer: I wrote the code for that feature, so I may obviously be biased about its usefulness.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ps. Filed as bugzilla:23438. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

CAT:CSD stats

tools:~betacommand/reports/csd_over_time.htm is the graph and raw data going back to 2009-10-19 00:10 UTC. Just a few highlights. 27:30:43 is the average oldest item. 2010-05-02 15:10 UTC has the record for longest queue at 145:43:01. tools:~betacommand/reports/CATCSD.html provides a listing of csd items based on when it was tagged. β^_command 23:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Nifty, thank you. I use your listing by timestamp whenever I am sorting through nominations that are not attack or copyvio. Is there any chance of sorting this by category? My impression is that we are pretty good at G10s (I think about half an hour is the longest I have ever seen, with less than five minutes far more common), but A7s can hang around a few days. I think this reflects well on our priorities as a community, and more data is always welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about AGF and Userpages

An editor whom I won't name (unless I am required to do so) has a list of editors on his user page, all of whom have apparently crossed him at some point. His wording is as follows: This is a list of editors I've observed or interacted with who are actively detrimental to Wikipedia. Most are unabashedly pursuing their own agenda, but a few seem to think they're contributing when they're actually being destructive.

I am not on this list, but it does include a couple of decent editors that I know. Is this kind of thing allowed? It seems to me to be an unsubtantiated attack on a number of editors who have no right to reply, and it hardly assumes good faith. I'd be interested to know what policy might be on this. Apologies if this is in the wrong place. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Such lists are pretty disruptive, and counter to the spirit of colleageality which is supposed to prevail here. Since the editor is retired anyway, I've been bold and deleted the list. (If the editor wishes to keep such a list, it can easily be done off-wiki without disruption.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll go further than that. Such lists breach WP:NPA. Who is the editor in question? Mjroots (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Found it! EeepEeep (talk · contribs), who claims to have retired at 23:59 on 7 May 2010. If this editor remains retired then no further action is required. Should they revert the deletion of the list, then they should be blocked for WP:DE, warning or no warning. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

While the editor claims to be retired, they are still editing mainspace pages and talk pages to argue against a certain page move (see Talk:Newman/Haas/Lanigan Racing#Requested move). Right now their attitude is starting to become a little uncivil... TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 11:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of list has been reverted. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I should add that that I am no longer uninvolved with this editor, since I am arguing against his obstruction of the above-mentioned page move. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Enemies lists" are not allowed, so I've zapped it and advised him not to put it back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well he is spot-on with a name or two in there, but yea, we can't have this. What's the procedure here, block until hr agrees to not restore it, or just goto MfD? Tarc (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's always a matter of opinion, as some editors get along with editors that others' don't get along with. If someone wants to maintain such a list, there's nothing from stopping them from doing so - on their own PC. But that would defeat the purpose, which is to slam somebody. Now, if he were smart, he could have maintained the list with the heading, "My Favorite Users", but again that would defeat his purpose. In any case, he hasn't edited since yesterday, but if he does it again, I think a lengthy block is called for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I hide my list in plain sight at Enemies list ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha! So he had a few wikipedia editors on that list, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker blocked

I've temporarily blocked CommonsDelinker for the duration of the disruption at Commons to prevent further damage to the local project. Q ^{T C} 01:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Just curious, what damage was being done? I can't see anything glaring at first glance. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The bot is a delinker, it doesn't re-link. While commons wheel-wars over the recent image deletions the bot removes all traces of it from the local project. So even the images that were restored have disappeared from all articles until somebody goes through and reverts all of the affected edits by hand. Q ^{T C} 01:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Julian, see WP:VPP#New Commons interpretation of policies regarding sexual content. and the resulting WP:VPR#Re-upload Commons artwork that's been deleted by Jimbo Wales, if you're not up on the current drama. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is thinking ahead too much, but once this settles I wonder if it wouldn't be possible for someone far smarter than I to write something to check all of Delinker's contributions since this began and see which edits, if any, removed an image now-restored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes if it keeps a record of all images it deletes. β^_command 02:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually came here to undo my post. http://toolserver.org/~delinker/index.php ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the block for now so that at least the redlink removals will be consolidated under one account. Instead of a few dozen when users come across redlinked images. Q ^{T C} 03:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

WOW

So I directly point out vandals after warning them and nobody seems to care. How many times can people deliberately mess up an article before getting IP banned? 10? 20? 1000? No wonder there's so much vandalism here!!!!!!!!!!!! This is why nobody views Wikipedia as a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr cleaner upper (talk • contribs) 02:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You reported them to WP:AIV immediately after issuing a vague warning—and in most cases without cleaning up the vandalism! I think every report of yours but one has been turned down for insufficient activity or insufficient warnings; the other one persisted in vandalizing well after your warning. Once they were given a final warning {{uw-vandalism4}} and vandalized again after that, I blocked them. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Mess up pages on any other website and you get kicked out. For some reason this encyclopedia seems to have lower standards. Fuck this. Have fun letting idiots ruin pages, I'm outta here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr cleaner upper (talk • contribs) 02:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and indef'd the reporting account as disruptive and bad faith. MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did you do that? This newbie correctly identified several vandals and posted to there page to that effect. He/he didn't quite know what they where doing but it was well intended. The uncivil rant here is hardly a cause to indef block them especially without warning. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Tend to side with SunCreator here: common frustration, poorly voiced. Not a reason for blocking.—Kww(talk) 17:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I'd like to know why Beyond My Ken thinks it's a possible sock.[1] EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically, the contribution history: rather than starting off slowly and building confidence, which I think is typical of a newly created account, they came on like gangbusters. It's nothing I looked into very deeply, just a feeling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So, it would appear that we may have lost a potential vandal fighter. The newby should have been encouraged and educated, not blocked. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at their reports to AIV, none of them (well, perhaps one) would have been eligible for blocking - they all had 1 or two edits (a couple had 3 or more) and no warnings. The reporter may think that we should block on the first edit that is vandalism, but that is not the way it works - unless it is necessary, we tend to give warnings (I'm typing this in case the reporter reads this) - s/he asked How many times can people deliberately mess up an article before getting IP banned? 10? 20? 1000? - none of these IPs were anywhere near that, almost all of them did it once or twice (and I looked at their deleted contributions too). I feel that the block was inappropriate, and as Mjroots says, they should have been encouraged and educated. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've asked MBisanz whether he would reconsider the block. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Support block. This is a common kind of troll, the overly aggressive vandal fighter. I refuse to believe that someone can go from the sandbox to AIV on their third edit without something odd going on. And follows up this request with a post to this post ANI (again, how do you possibly know how to find this within two hours of editing here). Either it's a troll or someone with such a short fuse at having to follow the basic protocol that either way I doubt they'd last long here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The behavior of this account, doing improper AIV reports on creation and then complaining they weren't being acted on, eliminated my good faith that this was a new user just trying to help out. MBisanz ^talk 20:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2

This arbitration case has been closed. The following remedies have been enacted:

• User:Alastair Haines is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2.
• Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
• To assist Alastair Haines in disengaging from Wikipedia, the case pages relating to this arbitration and all related pages have been courtesy blanked. As appropriate, other pages reflecting controversies to which Alastair Haines was a party may also be courtesy-blanked, particularly where the discussion is no longer relevant to ongoing editing issues. In addition, if Alastair Haines so requests, his username (and hence the username associated with his edits in page histories) may be changed to another appropriate username other than his real name. Editors who have been in conflict with Alastair Haines are strongly urged to make no further reference to him on-wiki following his departure.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Proposed community ban for Carl Hewitt

for persistent self-promotion, ban and block evasion, and soapboxing (using Wikipedia to present his own version of history across dozens of articles). Hewitt is under a mild self-promotion restriction after WP:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt, a crazy arb case from 2005-2006 stemming from activities that according to Chris Hillman burned out at least one good Wikipedia contributor.[2] (Hillman himself eventually quit over too much crap like this).

I'm proposing that we upgrade Hewitt's restriction to a full-scale ban (i.e. revert everywhere, block on sight like Willy on Wheels instead of requiring content evaluation like the current restriction, which often results in doing nothing). Hewitt has a long history of block evasion (WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt#Log_of_blocks_and_bans) but response has been somewhat half-hearted because the amount of pure disruption he causes is not that severe on the scale of daily ANI drama. The real issue as I see it is more serious: Hewitt IMO is seeking to create an Alma problem in Wikipedia's coverage of computer science and its history by overstating the importance of his own work—see the arb case about the Actor model, and notice that Hewitt's socks are still battling in that subject as recently as a few hours ago.[3][4] CS is one of Wikipedia's more reputable subject areas, and I feel that its reliability has been diminished in topics Hewitt has messed with. It's going to take a significant content cleanup effort to fix that. I don't feel terribly hopeful about the cleanup, but can we at least stop the problem from getting worse?

I'm involved in the article Gödel's incompleteness theorems which is currently semi-protected for the second time since February because of tendentious self-promotion by Hewitt. Gödel's incompleteness theorems are foundational results in mathematical logic from the 1930's, taught in introductory logic classes the way Newton's laws of gravity are taught in introductory physics classes, but which don't have much to do with computers. Hewitt has been disrupting this article for months trying to insert material that is at best tangentially related.[5] My guess is that this has something to do with the article's high search rank compared with other articles like Paraconsistent logic where Hewitt's stuff is actually not so objectionable. If you look at Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems you'll see a lot of sourcing research in February (mainly by User:Wvbailey with some contributions by myself and others) in preparation for writing a new section about the history of the theorems. This new section was added by User:CBM just a week or so ago. The 1+ month gap in the talk page is cruft now archived at Talk:Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems/Archive_8, showing a big digression created by Hewitt where he promotes his own work by arguing with us about Ludwig Wittgenstein. Work on sourcing the history section didn't get under way again until the semi-protection. I know there is no deadline and we're writing about events from 80 years in the past, but still, prolonged interruptions in article development like this are unnecessary and annoying.

For some further background, please see

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#Carl_Hewitt,

an incident report from February (written by me) that summarizes some past history. At User:Trovatore's suggestion I also have an SPI report open: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/CarlHewitt documenting some recent activity. The logic editors like CBM are doing a good job keeping the problem under control in logic articles, but they generally don't monitor computer science articles. CBM has correctly said large range blocks would cause too much collateral damage to stop this volume of socking.[6] But I think a very unambigous ban would be of significant help in being able to revert the crap without worrying about 3RR, sourcing discussions, arguments about Wittgenstein, complex incident reports to get simple blocks, etc. Part of the problem is Hewitt is a genuine notable figure in CS who did good work before this lunacy, so people sometimes engage him on-wiki as if he had a collegial relationship with Wikipedia instead of a predatory one (with us and our readership as the prey). So we should be clear about what is going on.[Yuck].

It would also be good if 63.112.0.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) could be blocked while we're figuring out the other stuff.

Further reading:

• WP:Articles for deletion/Logical necessity of inconsistency
• WP:Articles for deletion/Direct logic
• Hewitt's Knol rant "Corruption of Wikipedia" (his version of The Truth).
• WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt/Evidence

If anyone thinks I'm overreacting to this 4+ year-old saga that doesn't seem to be letting up, feel free to say so. Thanks.

69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• I support this, although the practical effect is probably going to be nil. Edits using many IP sockpuppets. Maybe someone can figure out how he's managing that. One observation was that he often goes to conferences and edits from those locations. There are some WP:AE reports about him, and also some IPs were blocked and logged on the arbitration talk page. The talk page of Denotational semantics is another classic of what an article that CH messes with looks like. Anyone using that many sockpuppets should have been formally banned a long time ago. Pcap ping 22:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note some of the IP's like 71.198.220.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been pretty persistent. I wonder if he has convenient access to some static addresses (like in an office) and less convenient access to dynamic ones (Stanford campus network). Blocking the longer-lived ones seems useful. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

While the editing patterns here are far from ideal, I think that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt#Post-case clarification is adequate for handling them via semiprotection and reverts. Also, it isn't possible to be sure that the IPs involved are actually Carl Hewitt; they could be students or other random admirers. So there's no reason to focus on Hewitt specifically with an editing ban. The issue isn't Hewitt, it's the pattern of promotional edits. And, it's significantly preferable to simply revert and protect a few articles than to block a large number of IP addresses from highly-used dynamic ranges on the US west coast. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that massive range blocks are not on the table. I'm proposing longish blocks against 2 or 3 addresses that have been used for a while, and shorter (1-2 week) blocks against new addresses as they pop up. More important is to be able to revert under the rules of banned edits, rather than having to treat them as legitimate edits subject to mind-numbing arguments with the socks. It is traditional in situations like this to treat all sock/meatpuppets the same way, so whether those IP's are Hewitt personally editing is immaterial. I'm sure if those are Hewitt's students, they would stop this nonsense if he asked them to. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe they already can be reverted. The section [7] does include the word "ban". I do agree that the mind-numbing aspects need to stop. But simply not responding to them after a while is probably the best solution. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You just indefinitely semi-protected Actor model without blocking 63.112.0.74! Maybe it's necessary for that article, but I just don't see any upside to letting these socks continue. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(To be fair, the actor model protection was before I was aware of this thread.) My concern is that there's really not much to do about IP socks; I don't think that blocking these would really make much difference. The number of articles is low enough that just semi-protecting them ought to be enough. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the list of articles in WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/CarlHewitt and that's just in the past few weeks alone (and I probably missed some). Semi-protecting them instead of blocking those IP's as they appear is inappropriate. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xeno^talk 01:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on LS

Drama over. NW (Talk) 03:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The actions of LS in regards to Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia and the alleged omission of "pedophiles operating on Wikipedia" has been subject to community disapproval. In light of the recent indef block for disruption and subsequent unblock of LS, I am putting this matter for community discussion. Personally, I have no opinion on this issue. Please discuss. —Dark 02:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I think a topic ban on articles about Wikipedia should suffice. He's obviously ignoring WP:COI by insisting that his own criticism (even if reproduced by mainstream media) should be included in some article here. Pcap ping 02:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Lets not escalate this pissing match.--Tznkai (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC) With Pcap on that -- topic ban him from Wikipedia-related articles. That is, unless there's evidence that he's causing problems elsewhere. He seems to have a clear axe-grinding mission on Wikipedia-related articles. Equazcion (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Oppose - When you're in a hole, stop digging! -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I have an opinion, and it's this: another fucking disgrace. When will you clowns ever learn that the way to deal with criticism is not to suppress it? Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC) You mean the same way you've learned that the best way to convince people is to insult them? We can't all be that quick to learn sir. Equazcion (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I mean the same way I've learned that arse-licking deceit is the only currency of value here on wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I see no evidence that you've learned that. Equazcion (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Stay on topic please? What Malleus did/did not do is not relevant. —Dark 03:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I sure hope not. I'll be brief: Wikipedia should be open to criticism, even on the site itself, since external criticism often isn't taken well by Wikipedia editors. I hate this "you're either with us or against us" mentality. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC) No no. Lets not play that game. This isn't about "criticism," this is about a grudge.--Tznkai (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC) This isn't even about a grudge, it's about a competitor slinging FUD allegations of felonious acts by Wikipedia as a way of promoting his competing project. Unfortunately, a siteban won't fix this, and guys like Seth Finkelstein will just use it as an excuse to bash us, so it would be counterproductive. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)  Note: I can already predict in advance that this thread will not be productive or end well. MBisanz talk 03:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC) We really ought to just close it now... NW (Talk) 03:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Hell, I could predict that just from the thread title. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) What's going on at wikipedia? Jimbo is almost desysoped, and now that... Oppose the ban.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Maybe the founders should stop acting like they still own this place? Pcap ping 03:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Maybe some administrators ought to consider the wisdom of extracting their heads from their arses once in a while. Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Strong oppose Horrible idea, unless we want a Fox News report on Monday turning him into a martyr to a cause, "S objected to Wikipedia hosting child pornography. The project responded by banning him permanently". All this accompanied by pixelated images from Commons, interviews with outraged experts from Family Research Council, Jimbo and Foundation donors being asked to explain their support of (child!) pornographers, and FBI spokesmen questioned on whether a formal investigation has been started. Are we ready to let pique and lack of common-sense sink this project ? Abecedare (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Strong support. --Larry Sanger (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• What a pile of shite; We are a free content encyclopedia. This does not imply any form of free speech. In particular, we do not, and should not tolerate, any form of disruptive editing that is only directed towards making political points. That is why I blocked User:Larry Sanger indefinitely, and I thought I explained why I had done so, in the clearest possible terms. However, my block was reverted, with no particular reason being given for the continued reason for his input here. If you do not want me to continue to be an admin here, please make it plain; otherwise, please feel free to take the appropriate steps. Rodhullandemu 04:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not want you to be continue to be an admin here Rodhullandemu. Uncle uncle uncle 04:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I DO want you to continue to be an admin. I just don't want you to indef block Larry Sanger. The project can take the criticism. Or, if it cannot, that would be good to know too. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not want you to be continue to be an admin here Rodhullandemu because I see no understanding that the block was wrong--Mbz1 (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I do want Rodhullandemu to be an admin around here cause Larry Sanger has tested the patience of Wikipedians with his run to Fixed News and his lying we support child porn. That is some shit we hear out of ED members, not our own. His disruptiveness needs to go and fast. I wholeheartedly agree with with Rodhullandemu's block of Sanger as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Well, if you don't want me to continue to protect this encyclopedia against abuse, from whatever direction, please take the appropriate steps. We are here to provide knowledge, and I stand by my record on that. I think it stands up to any analysis. Up to you. Rodhullandemu 04:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)