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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 16, 2005

Some time ago, a user created several hundred pages about a day (e.g. Dec 16 2005, as opposed to our regular articles like November 1). These articles are redundant and ultimately unmaintainable, so it was suggested that they be deleted. Rather than creating several hundred noms, Fram (talk · contribs) created a single nom listing a handful, as linked above.

Now the point is that the arguments, and most people who commented, support removal of these articles. But, several people have argued that this is out of process. The problem with this line of thought is, that no matter how or where you want to discuss potential removal of these articles, there will always be people arguing that it was out of process. If you do it on AFD, people suggest CENT. Do it on CENT, and they'll request the village pump. And the village pump will ask you to get your {{shrubbery}} at AFD.

So I propose we look at the arguments rather than at whether or not it conforms to Da Rulez, close the AFD and remove these poorly thought-out articles. Thoughts please? >Radiant< 14:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Damn, we've had this transclusion debate before with WikiProject Cricket. I'm sure there's a policy somewhere that says we don't transclude in the article name space. My initial thoughts are that we cut out the forum shopping, but maybe run this one over for another week making that point clear and hope to develop a strong consensus. I'll try and find all the cricket discussion, it's about 18 months ago, I remember archiving it all together. That was one that spilled out onto the pump and cent as well, from what I remember. Steve block Talk 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just make them go away, Radiant!, please. --Doc^g 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha, Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace#transcluding_prose and Wikipedia:Template namespace. My gut is to push towards a merge and redirect to the monthly articles. Steve block Talk 14:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Analysis suggests that a redirect isn't necessary because there are little or no incoming links, and a merge isn't necessary because nearly all the relevant information is already in the more general articles like July 2. >Radiant< 14:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, I've had a look at a couple and seen incoming links, maybe ten an article. Protected redirects might stop future occurrences. Steve block Talk 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

These pages are probably in the main namespace because Portal:Current events used to be in the main namespace. Several of them are still transcluded on other pages. I have suggested to move them all to subpages of Portal:Current events, as they might be archives of that page. Individual month pages like December 2005 (a page consisting mostly of transclusions of articles included in the AFD) could also be moved out of article space. Kusma (討論) 14:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• • This might be the best suggestion. They do seem to be part of the current events format as was, and they get pushed out of the article space where they clearly don't belong. Steve block Talk 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • yeah, they are a part of the current events portal, see January 2007, that's made up of transcluded pages from the portal namespace. I'm leaning towards closing as moving to portal namespace on that basis. Steve block Talk 15:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This does seem like the best solution, and is unlikely to be controversial or require further discussion since it matched the current practice. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Yay. Proto has now closed the debate, stating that there is consensus to delete them, but we must nevertheless tag every single article and discuss it further in some other forum (which will undoubtedly also reject it as "out of process"). I find this a rather bureaucratic approach, and it will likely not be productive. >Radiant< 15:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As stated on my talk page, someone will see a page is deleted they didn't know about, take all 1400 pages to DRV, and enough people would ask for them to be restored based on them not having been AFD tagged for them to be restored (as DRV is based on headcounting, inexplicably). If you want them to go through AFD, then tag them for AFD and do it properly. If you didn't want them to be AFD'd properly, why bring the articles to AFD? If you want them moved to the portal namespace, be bold and just move them instead of complaining about bureaucracy. I won't mind. Proto::► 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • DRV is not based on headcounting, but on policy. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • This is not what people who close DRV discussions have told me. Proto::► 17:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        • As Wikipedia:Undeletion policy says, Undeletion requests for inappropriate items do not succeed.. What "inappropriate items" are is an exercise for the closing admin to decide, but WP:ILIKEIT is not an appropriate reason. There must be policy to support the undeletion, majority rules is not policy. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Does your back hurt? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that since I started this thing (the AfD, not the articles), I'm willing to take every step deemed necessary, be it starting a WP:CENT discussion, posting on the Village Pump, or starting a new AfD with all (some 1,400) pages tagged: I'm also prepared to merge all articles into the month articles if that is the preferred solution, and to change all links to these pages (coming from article pages, not from user pages or talk pages) to better links (splitting in two parts usually). If any of these needs to be done, please drop me a note, and please also be patient since it is quite a big task obviously. I'm of course unable to do any of the needed admin tasks, be it deleting pages or merging histories. Fram 09:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, one thing you could do right now that probably wouldn't be controversial is to just move datedatedate to Portal:Current events/datedatedate. On the plus side this wouldn't require any more discussion. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • But that would create cross-namespace redirects which would need to be deleted: further we would still need to decide what to do with all the redlinks this creates (in some cases correcting (i.e. dividing) the links, in some cases moving the parent pages (month/year) to the portal namespace as well. The latter would then necessitate the correction of several hundred redlinks per monthpage (e.g. December 2005 has approx. 600 incoming links). All this may be what eventually needs to be done, but I'ld like this to be quite certain and agreed upon before I embark on such a move / delete / correct party (which I'm still willing to do!). Fram 12:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oden (talk · contribs) and WP:STALK

User:Oden is doing useful and unthankful job of enforcing our increasingly more strict policies of the fair use image by patrolling old images. It is a delicate task there it is critical to explain users that how their images that were celebrated catch just a few months ago now are considered shameful policy violations. Obviously, the users should receive all the explanations over the policy changes, be encouraged to find the free equivalents of the fair use, there should be an honest dialog over their reasons while the free images are unsuitable for the articles. The most important the users should not feel that tagging of their images is a sort of a personal harassment or a vendetta. I am not sure Oden is doing a right thing in this respect. He has chosen to patrol the fair use images based on the uploader. Often he has a disagreement with a user, then "review" all his her image over years. As a result the uploader feels harassed and persecuted even if Oden's claims are valid. From the point of view of stimulating the search for free images mass tagging of images by a single uploader are counterproductive: if tagging one..two images per week stimulate users to find free substitutes or releasing the images under free copyright licenses, mass tagging just lead to apathy.

Oden was many times warned by different admins not to violate WP:STALK and to be more thoughtful about user's feelings see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. I have counted at least five different admins and two prolific users in good standing. Still after all this warnings he behaves exactly the same. E.g. after a mild personal attack from [[User:Kuban Kazak] [11]. Oden within minutes started tagging Kuban's images: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. He never had any ineterest in Kuban images. I wish to apply WP:AGF but it is difficult not to see the usage of copyright issues as a weapon in a personal conflict, the thing a few admins including me specifically asked Oden not to do. Very similar methods are used by Oden in his personal conflict with Irpen. Irpen is not a problem user out of hundreds of the images he uploaded only a couple were found wrong but he does not take the stalking lightly. I specifically asked Oden to leave irpen's upload log along. Still after all these warnings Oden is still bragging about searching this log [17].

Guys, Oden is a very hardworking user and I do not want to block him, but the warnings do not have any effects so far. Can somebody talk with him and persuade him to change his modus operandi? Alex Bakharev 13:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Following a trail of contributions to find more violations is not stalking, in my opinion. Again, IMO, it is pure and simple that Oden is not in the wrong here; generally, people who breach WP:FU once do it again,and so looking back through a user's log is beneficial to the encyclopaedia. It seems, well, silly that you would consider blocking someone for it. Jimbo Wales and WMF take a dim view on bad FU images, and so should we - it doesn't matter how you find them. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. If it appears to Irpen/Kuban/whoever as though they are being stalked, this will probably be because Irpen/Kuban/whoever is repeatedly uploading unfree images in breach of WP:FU. Proto::► 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment.As I've said before, Oden is one of the relatively moderate folks in the anti fair-use group. But it does seem more than a bit disruptive to specifically target the uploads of individual editors as he appears to be doing. Daniel: Jimbo's opinion on the matter is just another opinion. Jimbo himself has said that trying to support something with "Jimbo said" isn't a fair argument. The argument here isn't about bad fair use images but in how people are going about tagging them, and Machiavellian tactics aren't going to help promote goodwill and community in Wikipedia. It's rude and disruptive. Proto: By this logic, then if the police go and beat someone with truncheons and haul him off to jail, that automatically makes him guilty of crimes. It's not proper in a modern society to assume that if someone is punished, it automatically means that person was guilty. And regardless of whether an editor has uploaded fair use images, WP:AGF asks that we assume good faith, which you're not advocating. As has been mentioned many times and subsequently pooh-poohed by folks who want to implement RfU, a category page with an automatic list of all fair use images should be created and then whoever wants to go throug them can do so one by one. This would eliminate this semi-wikistalking thing, and if nothing else, would give the RfU taggers an out when someone complains about their image being tagged. Instead, folks seem to insist on doing it the hard way, making people angry, making them feel stalked and persecuted, causing disruption and seriously affecting efficiency and community. I don't know why this is, but it's very backward. TheQuandry 16:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you consider uploading fair use images after they have been removed and deleted because of breach of fair use to be vandalism, then there is no problem with his actions. When you find someone adding inappropriate external links to articles in your watchlist you usually check the user's contributions to see what else he has been doing. While I do not like "revenges" (in example, removing images because the editor who uploaded them has a conflict with you), if the images are correctly removed according to existing policy and the contributor reinserts them, he is also disrupting Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 17:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

TheQuandry: Are you aware that WMF/Jimbo may decide to step in and reform this process to reduce the number of FU breaches, as a Foundation edict? I was speaking to him yesterday about it, and if he does this, then his opinion does matter, very much so. It actually matters more than anyone else's, really. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel: If/when WMF and Jimbo step in and make an executive decision, then I suppose there will be no more room for debate. Until then, Jimbo has only shared his viewpoint and Jimbo himself has said many many times that it's not proper to invoke him like that. And as of this moment, neither Jimbo nor WMF have made a Foundation edict. TheQuandry 17:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

1. It's possible to stalk by making edits that would be perfectly reasonable under other circumstances, but which are being used to target and punish certain users. I'm not making any claims about this case, but just pointing out that if, for example, I were to be in conflict with ReyBrujo, and then trawled through his edits, correcting all his typing errors, placing (perfectly justified) wikify, cleanup, etc., templates on articles he'd created, and so on, I'd be behaving badly. My edits would be being made, not with the intention of improving Wikipedia, though they might do that, but with the primary purpose of harrassing ReyBrujo. This has been (rightly in my view) condemned as wikistalking in the past. It's not always easy to distinguish from the perfectly proper business of following up a problem user's edits to tidy up after her — though when it follows immediately upon an attack in either direction, it's hard to give the benefit of the doubt.
2. As I said, I have no real view about oden with regard to the stalking charge — but he has often carried out his purge of fair-use images insensitively and out of process, removing images from articles with vague edit summaries, and no previous warning message about the replacement of such images with properly licensed replacements, etc. He seems to have started taking his job personally, and that usually leads to problems. I don't think that he should be blocked or anything like that, but he does need to be talked to, and persuaded to slow down and behave towards other editors with proper consideration, and within Wikipdia policies. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oden's actions are definitively not stalking as per the letter or spirit of that policy. If a contributor doesn't understand image policy, it's likely that they've uploaded other images incorrectly and thus reasonable to go through their contribution history and take the appropriate action. Image tagging is quite thankless work, yet essential to the project both legally and in the spirit of a free encyclopedia. Alex, I would suggest that you focus your efforts on helping affected users understand the image policies rather than disparaging Oden, who has done nothing wrong, imho. It's neither rude nor disruptive to correct users who violate Wikipedia's image policies. If they upload 100 images incorrectly, then all of them should be dealt with in as polite a manner as possible. Oden should use appropriate edit summaries and notify users, but he doesn't necessarily have to "slow down" (i.e. only tag one inappropriate image per user per day). Savidan 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that you either ignored or dismissed what I said about stalking. Also, why do you think that "slow down" means only tagging one image a day? The point is that his lack of courtesy and proper explanation of his actions is probably the result of trying to do too much; if he slowed down, he'd have time to do things in a way that didn't put people's backs up.

In response to what was said in response to a previous discussion of this, I probably am a little out of date concerning the hysteria with which this issue is treated in Wikipedia now. Perhaps the hysteria is justified by the U.S. obsession with litigation, I don't know.* Still, the idea that, for example, an image that depicts the subject of an article is inappropriate for an encyclopædia, being "merely decorative", is so at odds with every encyclopædia that I've ever seen that I wonder if those involved have lost sight of what we're supposed to be doing, at least in their explanations of their actions.

*The Nac Mac Feegle bear swords that glow blue in the vicinity of lawyers... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion here may have turned away from the topic at some point: we're not debating the right or wrong of RfU, we're questioning the behavior of an editor who, to my eyes, is pretty clearly using this RfU issue as a way to get back at perceived enemies. According to comments towards the top, if someone has uploaded one or two fair use images that can be replaced, they probably have uploaded more. Out of hundreds of images uploaded by Irpen, Oden found a whopping TWO that were questionable enough for him to tag.

I STRONGLY disagree with Savidan telling Alex I would suggest that you focus your efforts on helping affected users understand the image policies rather than disparaging Oden... This is a misguided and out-of-touch argument. Just because you think Oden's results are in line with RfU, it justifies wikistalking, Alex should shut up and we should happily allow good editors with multitudes of mainspace contributions to be subject to retribution when they criticise someone's political motives? This whole thing is completely ridiculous. Apparently, the folks doing the "thankless job of tagging images" are incapable of doing wrong. TheQuandry 08:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Oden for 48 h after the new incidence of stalking. He was blocked by User:Cburnett for the 3RR violation. I have unblocked Oden, since he promised not to edit war. In minutes after my unblocking Oden started "examining upload logs" of CBurnett (see User_talk:Cburnett#Lists_of_episodes) and started a lot of other activities harrassing CBurnett (just see the last seven sections of CBurnett's talk page). This is an exact definition of WP:STALK. Since Oden was warned by a number of admins (see my starting message) and since this sort of behavior was already discussed on a number of fora (see [18], [19], [20] something should be done. Alex Bakharev 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I wasn't aware that Oden has such a history of basically the same set of actions, but I think he took it too far with me. If his actions against me aren't considered stalking then I hate to be the receiving end of real stalking. Cburnett 22:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the behavior has been overlooked and defended because Oden is seen as "implementing an unpopular and thankless task". Whether or not you agree with the implementation of RfU as per Oden and others, we must not ignore other problems or misbehaviors by someone just because they're seen as implementing an unpopular policy. Hopefully, Oden will take some time to reflect on this and implement RfU in a more evenhanded manner. TheQuandry 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Myriad articles on bootleg albums

Filthy113 (talk · contribs) is creating dozens of articles on bootleg releases (kind of an oxymoron) from the band Cradle of Filth. Since bootlegs are generally neither terribly notable nor really verifiable, they're getting tagged for deletion right and left, though I'm not sure there's really a speedy category that applies. Anyone have any thoughts on action that should/could be taken? Doesn't appear to be responding in any way to notes on User Talk page. Fan-1967 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nuke the lot. Bootleg albums are by nature almost without exception undocumentable per policy (WP:V) and guideline (WP:N). Guy (Help!) 02:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Neither WP:V or WP:N are speedy criteria. However, WP:IAR may be applicable here.--Doc^g 02:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, there are rules? Guy (Help!) 02:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm waste time in AFD or invoke "Speedy per SNOW"? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 09:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the answer is in the question. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Some bootlegs are notable, but one should be able to present sources about them. 75.84.99.10 21:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC) (this was me; somehow I got logged out. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

Pretty sure this is a case where {{db|custom reason}} can be applied. Admins can use common sense to judge whether articles so tagged can be speedily deleted. Gzkn 03:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Return of the editing of hexspeak articles

Hexspeak (talk · contribs) has been returning a variety of articles that were redirected per a previous issue as cited in WP:AN. I suspect that BlakeCS (talk · contribs) is probably a sockpuppet of this person, but I cannot say for certain, and I am not totally keen on going through with a check.

What should we do about this person who is just repeating the same stuff over and over again? The weird thing is that the person is applying the {{sprotected}} and {{protected}} tags on there to deter anyone from editing them. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Check through contributions reveal that most of them have already been re-redirected back to the main article (user talk page shows that VoA Bot II did most of the work). I did laugh on the userpage: "They contain tigers. They are semi-protected. They are not vandalism." Hbdragon88 06:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I ended up reverting his edits and warning him not to continue and to discuss his ideas here. I really don't see why he is doing this, as the magic numbers topic is good enough. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the ones which are not referenced on the target article. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What can you make of BlakeCS' user page? He seems to have all of those hexspeak articles preloaded on his user page. I saw an edit to his user page, and thought he had redid all of the articles. But in fact, after changing one of his pages to a redirect, I realised it was a sub-page. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 15:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I ended up putting them up for MfD. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't he break some sort of rule by recreating deleted content? Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Threatening language on user page

Cindery (talk · contribs) has some vague threats on her user page... I realise I'm not neutral in the matter, so I'm bringing it here to get a neutral view and to let someone who isn't in a dispute with her pursue the matter further. Here's what it said on her user-page (It's in the third person)

"If you vandalize Joshua Clover or Barrington Hall, someone will probably send her an email--and she will probably deal with you off-wiki." [21]

Now, no one likes vandalism, but is making threats of (fill in the blank) is a good idea? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would endorse a good length block, but I cannot make it, since I am not uninvolved. User has been blocked before for making personal attacks against me and for sockpuppetry. She has already stated that she does not want to contribute any more to the encyclopedia, but wants to ensure that I get desysopped. She continues her disruption to this date. – [22]. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well... Nether of us are unbiased so I'll just leave it at that and let someone else evaluate if the user-page comment is OK or not. I invited Cindery to the conversation to either take the intuitive and change it on her own or offer a defence for keeping it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 09:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that's a little too vague of a threat for us to act on it. It's so vague that I'm not sure it's even a threat. But I'll let others chime in. I will say that I'm not familiar with her behavior, so this might be her way of threatening people. Just my 2 cents. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't recall the exact nature of the past disruption -- I remember that there's been a (confirmed) checkuser case or two, some AN/I threads, and such. The language of current relevance isn't exactly friendly, but unless it seems to be directed at a particular person, I'm not sure if doing something about it would do anything besides inflame the situation (if similar language were used on a talk page, or especially user talk, my story might be different). Will give links if/when I dig up any pertinent information. Luna Santin 12:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree. Or if it was something more substantial such as a specific threat. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery is certainly not a calming influence. Look at WT:EL for example. I would say that this is a direct threat aimed at Nick and Dmcdevit. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It refers entirely to User:Swkap and his alternate IPs, with regards to Joshua Clover (who is also mentioned at Barrington Hall). It is something you should email Sam Blanning about. (which is what I have done and will do again if Swkap reappears.)-Cindery 18:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So that's two problems then. First, threatening language on your user page; second, it's clumsily written so the target is not obvious. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Only one user has ever been blocked for vandalizing Joshua Clover--it's pretty specific. Naming him on my userpage isn't a good idea, because I think he could be encouraged by such attention, and it would draw unneeded attention to the sad case of Swkap. (About which, the less said the better.) Leaving a vague notice that my absence doesn't mean he is now free to vandalize Joshua Clover preventively protects not just Joshua, but Wikipedia (I think he does look at my userpage, but doesn't read ANI, etc.) It is not a good idea to discuss this on-wiki, and I urge to you to email Sam (the admin who blocked Swkap, and with whom Swkap has corresponded via email) if you would like to discuss it further.-Cindery 20:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just say nothing, on the basis that everyone who needs to know, already does. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Sam indef blocked Swkap as a vandalism-only account, and then accidentally unblocked him because he didn't notice that Swkap's email requesting unblock on the grounds that he wasn't Swkap came from Swkap. Sam stated that he couldn't re-instate the indef block until Swkap struck again, but would reblock immediately. In the absence of a permablock of Swkap, there's cause for concern. It is to the benefit of all that Swkap knows I will not abandon concern for that article, even if I left Wikipedia entirely.-Cindery 20:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but why the vague threats of off-wiki retribution? That seems totally inappropriate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it discourages Swkap from misusing Wikipedia to try to hurt/get attention from/harass people he knows in real life, which is what he was doing. If promised response to him is off-wiki, email straight to Sam etc., he doesn't get any on-wiki attention/there's nothing in it for him to abuse/vandalize Wikipedia again.-Cindery 21:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that using threatening language for off-wiki retribution is/was good judgment on your part. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the evidence that it was good judgement is that Swkap has not returned, even though I have posted a wikibreak notice. But speaking of good or bad judgement, is there some reason you are ignoring the Foundation:[23], after you removed 70+ links with AWB yesterday, citing "licensing information per EL"?-Cindery 16:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't speak for Nick, but he's not "ignoring the Foundation"; the quote you linked from Barberio is cherry-picked to support his/your position (see the full thread in question). MastCell 18:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Problematic userpage

Dwain has been asked by admins to remove polemical pages, and also had a sockpuppet that he claims was unintentional User:Pitchka. He has since moved said material to free hosting and has linked to it from his user page. Inclusive of this is a list of Wikipedians who he believes are Masons (self-identified or not), and a whole lot of disinformation and propaganda (which, he lists as "BANNED ON WIKIPEDIA" as if it were a personal issue rather than a policy violation on his part). I would also imagine that the other subpages he had here, which were also full of the same, have also been moved. Is there a way to do something about this officially or otherwise? MSJapan 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove the link? The userpage is still being abused, regardless of whether the content is hosted on it or linked to externall.y -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You would think so, but said user did exactly what I expected, which is rv your link removal as "vandalism by another user." So what's the next step? MSJapan 17:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he may have cleaned up the page, removing the things about freemasonry, paganism, and whatnot. If you still want to, or if he steps it back up, you'll probably want to take it it WP:ANI or follow the dispute resolution guidelines. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. He edited Badbilltucker's title on BBT's comments regarding the subpage deletion to add in a link to the Geocities page, both on User talk:Dwain and User talk:Pitchka, which I have removed. If it comes back, I'll go to ANI. MSJapan 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, on December 13, 2006 I added a link. Ms Japan I can see that my page of notes on Freemasonry has upset you greatly. That's too bad. I didn't realize that quotes about Freemasonry by the likes of Albert Pike, The London Daily Telegraph, and John Salza; a list of religions that find masonry opposed to Christianity; and a list of Wikipedia Freemasons who all identify themselves as such and who even list themselves under a Freemasonry category would cause so much angst for you and yours. The page no longer exists on Wikipedia so your problem should be over. You believe that you are teaching me a lesson, I guess because you feel that you are so superior to me. Actually, you have taught me a lesson. Some Freemasons are very afraid of exposure! Good luck in your cause. Dwain 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dwain, please do not release any personal information about other wikipedians, on or off the wiki. It is rude and a violation of privacy. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What personal information are you talking about? The fact that he is a mason? The fact that he has written about me learning a lesson or the apparent fact he is afraid? I'm confused. He has been going after me for awhile now. I'm not releasing any personal information on anyone it is already on record in Wikipedia. Dwain 16:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If the information was already public then it is not a violation of privacy. But really, what does it have to do with writing an encyclopedia? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much you know about the whole issue. But as far as my page on Freemasonry went I had some collected notes on freemasonry. Some were quotes and some was info on what sects declared it incompatible with Christianity. I was hoping that some of this material would be allowed some inclusion in some of the various articles concerning freemasonry. However, I discovered soon enough that several editors of these articles were determined not to allow this information into the articles and would remove it. So I left it on my page. After noticing that these editors seemed to be defending freemasonry and trying to put it in a good light I started to see exactly wo they were and discovered that most of them claimed to be masons themselves. Now everything I learned about masonry says that they will not reveal what they profess and do within their temples. Further members are said to swear that tey will lie to protect the craft. This would seem to explain why any negative info that gets into an article is down played or refuted within the article. This explains why they won't allow links to webpages that were created by former members who tell what freemasonry is actually about. They try to discredit people and remove info they don't like even on te userpages. If they are deliberately shhaping articles to down play any negative info and to put their organization into a good light, then this is very apropos to my questions. They successfully removed my page which pointed out that members are sworn to lie to defend the organization. Did you know that members of Scotland Yard are not allowed to be Freemasons? This is because they are suppose to do the things I just outlined and are therefore not trustworthy. Apparently, Wikipedia admins don't care whether the information in these articles are accurate. Because I was reluctant to remove my Freemasonry page, my userpage was attacked by vandals like this: LOOK HERE! Whenever I wrote to and admin asking for guidence Ms Japan would follow and leave messages. These articles do not reflect reality, but reflect Mason propaganda. I think it is improtant to note this. They think it is important to prevent this info from coming out! Why? I don't stop people critizing my edits, or the Pope or Bishops. But they will not allow me to bring up that Masons swear to lie and that the lower level masons are lied to as to what their symbols actually mean, so even if they break their oaths they might not be putting down accurate info. This is why even with all the harrassment from Ms Japan and the anons who have been vandalizing my pages is not going to stop me from getting the word out. In fact, it is making me more determined than ever. Dwain 20:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dwain can believe whatever he wants, but the arguments have been disproven in numerous sources, even those written by non-Masons. It is the obvious desire to push that POV on others and disseminate incorrect information (with other people's names on it) that concerns me. To say that whatever a Mason (or anyone in any group, for that matter) says about his or her own group is obviously a lie or propaganda because someone else doesn't believe it is a tautology. However, as Dwain isn't open to discussion on the matter, things end up here. MSJapan 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been caught lying twice now Ms Japan! Here you say I'm "not open to discussion," here and on December 13, 2006 you say, "I attempted to open a discussion with said user about this page, and the end result was that my comments were removed from his talk page with no dialogue being opened." These are both false statements. For discussion and dialogue was forth coming from me here: User_talk:MSJapan#Your_userpage on November 7, 2006. Both are lies! And you wonder why I would question your edits? I tried to placate the numerous anonymous users as well as Ms Japan by editing things out of my note page on freemasonry but that wasn't enough. I moved my page off Wikipedia and still he's obviously afraid, hence this listing. It's funny that Ms Japan should fear the words of Albert Pike and John Salza both having been masons!!! Dwain 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What to do about images tagged for 7 days and deleted, then re-uploaded

I'm talking about images that are tagged as having no fair use rationale, no source, no copyright tag, etc. that are tagged for a week and deleted, then re-uploaded without satisfying the conditions required for keeping. An example I found is Image:Dabf162.jpg, which was recently deleted as being tagged without a fair use rationale for over a week and then re-uploaded (by a different user), under the same name as the original, still without a fair use rationale. This would technically not be speedyable from my understanding since recreation of deleted content is only speedyable after an XfD, which images that are deleted via this process do not go through. On the other hand, if we allowed this it would be a loophole people could exploit to repeatedly upload an image and not have it deleted for a week. VegaDark 11:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It was uploaded more than a week ago originally, correct? And no improvement has been made to its licensing statements in that time, correct? In that case, WP:CSD#I6. --tjstrf talk 11:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is easier to extend that logic in this particular instance since it was re-uploaded under the same name. But what about a different name, or an almost identical picture but technically different one? VegaDark 11:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

We regularly speedy delete articles that are things like My semi-plausible idea I made up and then reposted as Semi-plausible idea of my own invention. Images should be the same way. The title is nothing but what filename it's being stored as on the server, it's the same content. If the image were slightly different, that might be policy grounds for waiting a week, but if the uploader is being incorrigible just speedy delete it anyway. --tjstrf talk 11:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If it was a recreation of a speedy delete, you can't delete it under G4 "recreation of deleted material", but you can use another criterion to delete it, including the same one that speedied it in the first place, if the conditions are still the same. Tyrenius 12:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember that 'speedy' deletions of images involve a seven-day delay. So, the question is,do we have to let the 'speedy' deletion run its course for a re-upload of the same image? -- Donald Albury 14:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. Tyrenius 15:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Unwatched pages

Approximately how many pages are there in Special:Unwatchedpages, or is it kept empty? James086Talk 12:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Heh! What a lot of redlinks I got before I purged the cache... Guy (Help!) 14:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Only the first thousand are viewable, and lets just say that that doesn't even get through the '1's. ;-) Prodego ^talk 01:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow I would have thought it would be much smaller. Haha someone should make Wikiproject unwatched. James086Talk 02:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I occasionally entertain myself by culling the pages that begin with symbols (which are usually garbage), either deleting, redirecting or moving them. I tend to lose faith in humanity by the time I've gotto the start of the '0's, but that first part is pretty well patrolled. Personally, I would allow unwatchedpages to be seen by everyone, as 90% of vandal fighting is done via recent changes, anyway, and the benefits of getting some of these cleared up (a lot of the unwatched pages are also garbage) would outweight the risks of letting people know which pages aren't watchlisted. Proto::► 13:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If everyone can see it then I would suggest only after 4 days like the ability to move pages. I'm quite interested by that list and I might put in an RfA soon so I can dive in. James086Talk 03:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

For those who are curious, when I just looked, the 1,000th (and last visible) page on the list was 1964 (emulator). It's on my watchlist now, so don't even think of vandalizing it. :-) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for opinions on block

There's a discussion at the moment at WP:AN/I#Callous personal attack on which I'd be grateful for admins' input. The "callous personal attack" which appalled the original poster was:

"Its about time you had a weekend off, its all you ever seem to be doing(going on wikipedia)."

This, together with a few other examples, most of them no worse, some even more innocuous, has led User: HighInBC to issue JFBurton (talk • contribs) with a four-day block. That seems to me to be outrageous. I'm inclined to lift the block as unwarranted, both in fact and in extent, but I'd like to get other opinions first. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm looking at the block log, and I see that said user has been blocked four other times for personal attacks and/or disruption. Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

All in a period of less than two months. --Majorly 17:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but for what? I haven't done all the work necessary to find out, but if the earlier blocks were as poorly justified as this one, I'd say that they were also unjustified. Anyway, the main point is that nothing he's said this time warrants a block, in my opinion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh this is here too. Just for the record, the block was for the compounded reasons that the user was fully warned(warning which were removed), had been blocked for the same thing in the past couple months 3 times, the several example of incivility were all from the last few days, and the fact that the user was uncivil right after being warned, while I was reviewing is contribs. Is 4 days really such a long block? It seems minor considering the week long block the user received in December for the same thing. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Removing warnings from a User's Talk page is not a blockable offence.
2. It doesn't matter how many times someone has been blocked for an offence; even if the earlier blocks were justified, the new block has to be too. The definition of incivilty doesn't get weaker just because someone has been uncivil before.
3. Given that the comments are so mild, barely uncivil at all, the fact that they were made right after a civility warning is irrelevant. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Per point 1, I agree, however it does reveal if the person was knowledgable of the policy. Per point 2, I disagree, a user being block for the same thing over and over is a clear indication of unwillingness to follow policy Per point 3, I disagree again, continued incivility past warnings is a blockable offense. You seem to be of the opinion that someone can be just a little bit uncivil as long as they want, I do think the amount of incivility plays a part.

My point is that a user that is ignoring warnings and continuing to violate policy needs to be blocked. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your view of point two goes against Wikipedia and natural justice. You seem to have misunderstood my third point, though, so perhaps you misunderstood the second point too. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've just left this on his Talk page:

The block, I still hold, was unjustified on the basis of the evidence offered. However, User:FisherQueen has explained the background of this, with regard to your behaviour towards her (and I've seen your edit of her User page, and although four days is a lot, I don't feel like helping you out over this. I agree with Asterion that you need to start behaving and writing like a considerate adult. Perhaps when the four days are up you'll rethink how you interact with others. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Curious behavior on an article on AFD

Yesterday evening, I placed Daigacon on AFD. This morning, while I was checking for related changes in Category:Anime conventions, I noticed that Silentsam84 copied the entire article to his talk page[24] with the comment "For use if deleted." added to the top.[25] This is a rather strange thing to do for an article on AFD and gets me wondering if he plans on recreating the article later. --Farix (Talk) 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not really that odd - he could be doing it because he feels that in it's current state, it's sure to be deleted but he wants to work on it so that he can try and recreate an improved article some time down the road. Have you actually asked him about it? --Larry laptop 18:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Not unless I restore his original talk page, which he blanked while copying the article. --Farix (Talk) 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a community sanction

Mugaliens (talk · contribs), formerly (to a very high degree of probability) Dr1819 (talk · contribs) seems to be just fine as long as he does not go anywhere near high-heeled shoe, skirt and dress or any other article related to the wearing of skirts and/or heels by men. See also Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mugaliens. I'd suggest we simply ban him from those articles and their Talk pages, because past experience indicates that he will never give accept consensus that conflicts with his rather firm views. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also some experience with this individual and his... idiosyncratic... opinions on male fashion, but I don't think what you propose is by any means necessary. He hasn't made any objectionable edits lately, it seems, and appears to by and large abide by consensus on the contents of the pages you mention. My advice would also be to just ignore Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mugaliens; it's going nowhere and is a waste of your time. Sandstein 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Will someone please reinvite Germanium?

He was banned for editing an article and saying that the definition of one thing divided by nothing (1/0) is that it is an absolute and perfect non-cancelling combination of + and - infinity, something that is self-balanced and united as in the spirit of everything unified together, ala a theory of everything. Much like the complete and dynamic corrolation held in the eastern idea of yin and yang. Germanium would like to be reinvited so that he can teach us more about this line of thinking which leads to a perpetual source of energy and absolute abundance - a wonderful and unignorable chance for peace on earth— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.185.27 (talk • contribs)

Looking at the edits from your IP address, would I would wrong to assume you are Germanium? --Larry laptop 00:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am he— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.185.27 (talk • contribs)

from the sound of it (and looking at your contributions), that's just a recipe to add various bits of wacky original research. What's the purpose of an unblock, if the intention is to carry on as before? Is the intention just to carry on adding your own theories on things? --Larry laptop 00:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As you were told, you were banned for posting WP:OR - you clearly were posting your own theories. If you would acknowledge Wikipedia's policy on the matter, and promise to stop, you could certainly be unblocked. -Patstuart^talk|edits 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

History of earlier actions can be found in this archive of this page in the section entitled "Gödel's incompleteness theorems". Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law of no laws. Author in question seems unable or unwilling to accept the basic principles of Wikipedia:No original research. I see no reason for unblocking Germanium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and think blocking 68.114.185.27 (talk · contribs) may be appropriate. Fan-1967 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's our answer folks - I suggest an IP ban - no point continuing this conversation. --Larry laptop 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Good name for a group, that. :) Tevildo 04:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. He's so convinced of his rightness that Wikipedia rules are irrelevant to him, and he has no intention, or even consideration, of respecting them. Fan-1967 01:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to see this talk page fill up with OR. -- Donald Albury 01:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Gone. -- Steel 01:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Another possible POV to watch for

We've got the corporate PR types trying to put their spin on their corporate articles, it looks like labour has discovered the same - might be a good idea to keep an eye out for POV'ness and WP:V on any article where labour disputes are underway -- Tawker 03:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's fairly blatant. Dandy. Would that kind of work fall under the COI guidelines, considering they're suggesting focusing on the union message in labour disputes? Tony Fox (arf!) 06:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox is a policy of long standing. Uncle G 12:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I also notice they seem to get the impression we're a "company" (However I may have misread that). 68.39.174.238 13:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Aren't we? Wikimedia Foundation :P Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing images on sight

I have started removing images which I tag as copyright infringements or policy violations from the article pages. The reason for this is that our hard-working administrators sometimes forget to remove the images from the article pages before deleting them. Ever so often I encounter dead links to deleted images (diff diff). Leaving a red link for a month is not very pretty, and certainly must appear confusing for some of our readers. There is also the possibility that the deleted media will be uploaded again by a user following the red link.

This matter was also discussed at WP:AN/I (here). I will continue removing tagged images on sight, while still staying within WP:3RR if the deletion is contested (except for egregious errors). --Oden 07:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And I quote from WP:3RR#Intent of policy:

It does not grant users any right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique, it is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence".

Emphasis is not mine. Cburnett 16:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Who authorized you to "have started removing images which [you] tag as copyright infringements or policy violations from the article pages"? Isn't that the job of the Administrator who closes the IfD debate on a particular image? I think you are too bold in doing so. -- Jeff G. 22:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference desk (Misc)

I do not want to single any individual editors out but I'm a little concerned (maybe that's too strong of a word) about the Reference desk/Miscellaneous (the others could be similar I haven't looked) and what could be developing there. There seem to be a number of editors who seem to post only to that board and in a manner more suitable for general forums than an encylopedia. Not asking for any particular course of action but if a few people could keep it on their radar... --Larry laptop 10:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is a long-standing problem. I am also rather surprised that we tolerate the "sandboxians" who engage in anumber of behaviours explicitly forbidden within the project, such as writing original fiction. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We should probably dump original fiction on MFD. >Radiant< 12:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe that JzG is talking about the people whose sole activity here is to use Wikipedia:Sandbox itself as a chat room or a free wiki hosting service. But yes, there are other pages such as Wikipedia:Sandbox/Poetry/One more time, Wikipedia:Sandbox/video game ideas, and Wikipedia:Sandbox:DavidNoi that appear to have no benefit to the project whatsoever. However, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Poetry. Uncle G 12:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Since there appears to be a concerted effort to ruin my argument by deleting my examples, I shall trawl Special:Allpages/Wikipedia:Sandbox again, to turn up Wikipedia:Sandbox/Bands, Wikipedia:Sandbox/Arguments, Wikipedia:Sandbox/Flash Game Contest, Wikipedia:Sandbox/Poetry/Peices, Wikipedia:Sandbox/Random Vandalization Page, Wikipedia:Sandbox/Thesandboxisgreat, Wikipedia:Sandbox/scienter, Wikipedia:Sandbox/lkd, and Wikipedia:Sandbox/revert war. So there! ☺ Uncle G 17:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

RfCs

I have archived an RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell. Durova had already provided a summary. I made {{rfc top}} and {{rfc bottom}} from the AfD templates. I think we should do more of this; RfCs that ramble on for ever and never reach closure or a conclusion are a problem. Is this a thing worth doing? Guy (Help!) 12:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't recall ever seeing an RFC that had a useful conclusion or a constructive result, other than blowing off steam. So probably not. >Radiant< 12:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich reached a conclusion. But why would it be a problem to archive stale RfCs rather than leave them open indefinitely? Guy (Help!) 13:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Guy: it should be made clear when an RfC is closed via some templates (or, preferably, templates plus an explanation that provides some closure for the participants, but that may be impossible). "Closing" RfCs will stop people adding to stale RfCs when they should open a new one instead. Kusma (討論) 13:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

just as a general comment - I've never seen much of a purpose for RFC (in regards to editors) as the actual practice seems to be "Request to whine like fuck and drag up all and every little slight in the history of wikipedia and allow everyone with a grudge to leap on and try and beat the editor around the head" (I've never been the subject of a RFC by the way). --Larry laptop 14:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a valid criticism. So what do we do? We could make it more like ArbCom, requiring difss etc., but that would make it more adversarial (which would be bad). Guy (Help!) 15:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggested once somewhere that RfC could benefit from having a group of neutral coordinators or clerks who could monitor ongoing RfCs, keep them civil, close them at some appropriate time (perhaps after a week without edits, or some other similar time period), and perhaps produce a summary of the comments made that could serve as a "result" of sorts for all parties involved to make use of. The way I see that, it wouldn't be an arbitration or a trial, but a sharing of thoughts that could benefit from someone helping to keep it tidy. Right now, as it's been indicated, it's a bit of a battle royal. With someone generating a summary at the end, it would at least have a product to be looked at. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree. Let's make it happen. Where do we start? Village pump? Guy (Help!) 22:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say WP:VPR would be a good starting point. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• There have been several suggestions to amend RFC to enable it to actually create remedies and enforce them; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcement, Wikipedia:Request for solutions and Wikipedia:Community sanction. Not everyone agrees that this is a good idea, but if people are looking at RFC reform this is an angle to consider. >Radiant< 09:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Interwiki map

Request help in cleaning up this page, in particular removing sites that are (1) defunct or (2) inappropriate external links. >Radiant< 12:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Küblböck

I've added a section which is considered for speedy deletion. And please I want you to remove this article completely from Wikipedia because Daniel Küblböck is not famous enough to create his article. Morris Munroe 15:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Küblböck is famous enough to have an article on Wikipedia. You linked to an unrelated AfD, so I have reverted your edit. Apparently Daniel Küblböck has (correctly) never been considered for deletion. Kusma (討論) 15:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, he is not famous enough and I'm rather unsatisfied with your act. I mean there are several American actors who are not available on Wikipedia but Daniel Küblböck, that German punk does exist, that's unfair. Where can I post my request? Morris Munroe 16:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

He has a number one single in Germany, thus meets WP:MUSIC. To nominate the article for deletion (which won't succeed), please use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you want to request articles on American actors, please go to Wikipedia:Requested articles. Kusma (討論) 16:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

<personal attack removed - User:Zoe|(talk) 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)> And thanks for your answer. I will request it. Morris Munroe 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

IP address 24.147.72.135

Hello! The IP address 24.147.72.135 has been warned numerous times by several people. Yet, they continue to vandalize articles by adding speculation or rumors to those articles. Everyone has become extremely frustrated regarding this person because this IP address has not been blocked. Several people, including me, have used the correct procedures and policies. Yet, nothing is being done to stop this person from vandalizing articles. I am a senior trainer at SeaWorld Orlando and I am ensuring that the articles regarding SeaWorld remain accurate. It is rather difficult when you have an individual constantly adding speculations or personal thoughts not backed by reliable sources. Something needs to be done because this is rather annoying and taking up too much of my time. I reported this individual on WP: AIV and they suggested that I post this user on WP: ANI instead. Can you or anyone else help me with this particular situation? Thanks! SWF Senior Trainer 16:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've given a 24 hour block. Follow up if problems resume. Durova^Charge 03:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Need help sorting out a badly initiated AfD

There's a minor problem over at WP:AfD: an editor nominated an article for AfD last night... or rather, tried to. Apparently they were unclear on how to proceed, and instead of using the normal (and admittedly somewhat complex) method for doing so they simply tacked it onto the end of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_14. I pointed out that this was not the way to do an AfD and the user attempted to do it the right way, but apparently modifying the "log" page has created a badly formed AfD sub-article anyway. (Which I've tried to at least make functional) The contested article itself has the proper template, so at the very least the notification to editors is working fine, but I'm not sure what kind of mess this might cause for the AfD side. I think an admin, ideally one with serious experience with the behind-the-scenes workings of AfD, should take a look at this and make sure AfD isn't going to explode when this is closed. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you got it fixed. Article has been created properly, AFD tag on the article properly points to it, and it's properly transcluded in the 14 January log. I've taken off the "HELP" note, because everything looks proper. Fan-1967 18:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sealand page just gone.

I have checked, and I can load any other wikipedia page, but the main article for Sealand is just gone. I don't mean blanked, it just won't load. I've done cache clearing, and all that. Could someone else just check and see what the heck is going on? Thanks. NipokNek 20:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope sorry seems to work for me--Markie1234 20:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Works for me too. alphachimp 20:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have bothered you all then. I still can't get to it, but it must be me somehow. NipokNek 20:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I servers regularly do things like that. Try editing it and see if the text loads in the editbox. 68.39.174.238 14:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Help in the article Savage Islands

There is a war of edition in this article. I din´t do changes only revert the edition of Pedro because he was adding fake information and I show that is true in the discussion page. The answer of Pedro are things like that:

hã? que estás para ai a dizer seu anormal? --Pedro 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The translations is "What are you saying, retarded?" He is menacing me with be banned also but he is not administrator. Please help. Noviscum 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to use this page for dispute resolution. See WP:DR. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Help needed on "American Conservatism"

One editor has moved the main article American Conservatism to a new title without any discussion on TALK, let alone consensus. HELP needed. Rjensen 21:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Appearently, it has been discussed on Talk:American liberalism and Talk:Liberalism in the United States. --Edokter (Talk) 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation

I do believe that this user User:DominiquePonchardier is impersonating wikipedia staff by placing notes on sandbox and other pages claiming it is a message from WMF. --Markie1234 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• 22:25, 15 January 2007 Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "DominiquePonchardier (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Troll)

Looks like it's taken care of. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark McGuinn AfD

I was looking through the 5 day old AfD's for any to comment on or close (as obvious Keeps) and I found Mark McGuinn who looks to pass WP:MUSIC and have a consensus to Keep but is included directly on the Log page with no subpage and no AfD template on the article see [26]. Since this is a rather unusual situation I thought I would bring it up here for an administrator to deal with. Eluchil404 22:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

First thing you should do it move the debate to a sub-page.

As for moving from there... You could... 1. Relist properly and let 5 days pass. 2. Close it as a "techinical keep" and let someone else re-nominate it if they feel strong enough about it or 3. Close it as a SNOWBALL keep with the slight risk of being overturned in WP:DRV. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:USERNAME

User:Ken Fogarty has the same name as Ken Fogarty. He even contributed 4 times on the article.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I filed a request on WP:RFC/NAME. Let's wait and find out. Hbdragon88 00:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sorry for posting my request in the wrong place, but some admins at IRC told me to go here.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 00:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a violation if he's the same guy. Then you just have to worry about WP:COI. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

1 month block of 88.104.202.232

I have blocked 88.104.202.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for this thread: [27] and a string of sneaky vandalism. Since it's a long-block I thought I'd bring it here for community review or reversal. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have gone with a smaller, 96 hours one, however I am not against a long term block when there is a willingness to disrupt Wikipedia. However, account creation blocked? This is where I object. The reverse DNS goes to 88-104-202-232.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com which makes me think we can have some collateral damage there. -- ReyBrujo 22:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit long for a first block (I might have given a 1-weeker). Honestly, though, I think it's your call, J. smith. If you feel it's appropriate (and certainly sneaky vandalism is quite bad), by all means do it. We're probably not served by having this character editing. alphachimp 22:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm maybe 1 month was a bit long. I didn't see any edits from the address other then the recent sneaky vandalism... that's why I blocked account creation. If anyone wants to reduce the length or remove the AC block, feel free. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection

Why does cascading protection do about images on Wikimedia Commons? I can't really imagine it protecting images at Commons, but I'm also finding it hard to believe the cascading protection would automatically upload a local copy of an image. Does anyone have any insight into the answer? -- tariqabjotu 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It does nothing, the images remain on commons and unprotected. Prodego ^talk 00:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling that was it... just wondering... -- tariqabjotu 00:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC admin channel

Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops, with a specific mandate to keep Wikimedia IRC channels polite and courteous. Behavior on the IRC channel may be taken into consideration with respect to arbitration cases if it results in disruption on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder for the Arbitration Committee 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not enough. The worst offenders are themselves chanops, as demonstrated by logs submitted to the ArbCom. IMO, their removal from the channel is the very least the ArbCom needs to do for the abused community and mistreated individuals. (The fact that the chanops in question are not actually admins should make the removal all the simpler.) What I see in Fred's message, however is not even a proposal to remove their chanop privileges. Are you serious? Bishonen | talk 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Indeed. Without some community involvement regarding who the IRC chanops are, this is unlikely to make much difference. I'm not sure who the worked-with "leaders" in Fred's message are; is it a secret? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was a proposal to speak of, where is this being discussed? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid, when arbcom have constantly declined to address rank and obvious incivility on-wiki, they forfeit all credibility in any attempt to extend themselves into IRC. Send out out strong signals that incivility stops on-wiki and perhaps that will filter through to IRC. Until then.....showing teeth isn't going to convince.--Doc^g 02:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's no different to the claim "we have article X which is clearly rubbish, so we cannot delete article Y" often raised by n00bs at AfD. If the Arbcom feel that these relatively simple steps will reduce incivility in IRC, then they should go ahead, not stop because they haven't solved everything on-wiki first. the wub "?!" 02:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. If arbcom have shown a total and continued failure to deal with incivility on-wiki, threatening to come down hard on off-wiki incivility just isn't credible.--Doc^g 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

how often have they been presented with on-wiki incivility to deal with it, though? Considering the issues that the channel has apparently given in past/current cases, it seems like they're simply doing what's asked of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the issue actually being raised here, in full public view, and not in private with the parties concerned though ? There's already enough disruption on-wiki concerning IRC channels (and this channel in particular) and as nobody outwith the sysop pool (and a few selected others, I'm led to believe) can see what goes on in that channel, posting about it here is perhaps a little overly transparent. I heartily support any promotion of civility however. --Kind Regards - Heligoland ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume Fred brought it up here to notify us of a change of policy. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

All this will start is anoth shit-storm (sigh)--Doc^g 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should work to fix incivility on-wiki too. These proposed remedies are more strict than how misconduct has been handled on-wiki as of late. --Cyde Weys 02:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is becoming a joke. Judging from the title of the heading alone shows that we are no different from Legislative Yuan. - Mailer Diablo 02:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I find a regulation of off-wiki activities by a panel with jurisdiction ONLY over this wiki somewhat disturbing. — Werdna talk 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

They aren't claiming jurisdiction, note Fred says they have been working with the IRC leadership. They are simply stating that IRC activity may be considered in on-wiki cases if it is relevant. the wub "?!" 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but why is this being discussed now? Efforts have been made in the past few weeks to put a stop to whatever negative activities are occuring in the channel. Frankly, I think most of us support the shutdown of the channel entirely, rather than creating more mess with the same parties, which is what's happening right now. —Pilotguy (ptt) 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to shut it down. RxS 02:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is shut down or not, the behavior we are trying to stop can easily continue through other means if people really want to do things subtly, but nonetheless I think that shutting the channel down is a poor move. The channel has its uses for immediate issues and things that require administrator intervention. Rooting out the behavior that would not be suitable even on-wiki is definitely a positive step in making the channel more useful so that there is less cause for disruption in the future, though. Cowman109^Talk 02:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but discussing administrator intervention issues there is what started all this in the first place. Sensitive foundation/WP:BIO stuff can find a new home, sometimes it's easier to shut something down and start over then trying to fix ongoing systemic problems. But maybe all it needs is an influx of new users/admins with these conversations in mind. RxS 03:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone point me to the discussion that everyone seems to have read, because I am lost here, what is everyone so pissed off about? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, ignorance is bliss. Just slowly step away and never look back. --Cyde Weys 02:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC comes up from time to time...buried in WP:AN and WP:ANI archives. Some admins are firm believers in it, some editors (mostly non-admins) are vocal against it, and others such as myself qualify to join but decline to do so. The civility aspect dovetails with another recent hot button topic not necessarily confined to IRC. On January 5 I set off a firestorm (quite inadvertently) after I left a civility warning on another admin's talk page. If I'd anticipated how heated some reactions would be I would have handled the situation with greater circumspection, yet the admin I warned wasn't offended and two other editors awarded me barnstars. It sprouted some threads in my most recent user talk archive and the top of my current page if you're curious. Durova^Charge 03:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is not sufficient, in my view. Lest I be counted merely among the "burn it down" camp, let me delineate:
  1. Additional ops would be enough if there were a suggestion that there were too few. In fact, in this case, the ones with "ops" have been implicated several times in the incivility.
  2. Additional ops are also not going to answer the glaring problem that at least two people with "ops" are not administrators on en.wikipedia. One of these was implicated in using that IRC channel inappropriately in September of 2006 and then again in December 2006. This is not a one time problem but a serial problem with two or three people.
  3. The channel still has no justification, as it is populated by non-administrators as well as being a place only a small fraction of en. administrators ever go.
  4. The channel will not be capable of behaving properly unless the people with control of it understand what it is that they have done that is not proper. So far as I have seen or heard, they still are in the dark about how calling for someone to be "killed, slowly" is bad, and there is no hope at all for them to understand how "let's start a pool on when X will be banned" is improper.
  5. The central problem remains undefined. If no one knows what "civility" means, then we're going to have more boots and blocks for someone using a wordy dird while detailed character assassination is cheered on. There is no actual guideline yet for the ops or users to employ for determining when they're acting improperly. In fact, one of the most hostile and reductive and bullying editors I've encountered is up above crying about on-wiki "civility" not being enforced. Obviously, what he means and what Fred means, and what I mean, are different things. He seems to hyperventilate about calling a he a she or a jerk an ass, while I care about trying to get people blocked so that their voices are no longer heard.
• I do think the whole thing should be disbanded, as I cannot see any room for it to help Wikipedia and built in ways for it to damage Wikipedia, but that would be merely philosophical if it weren't for the fact that ArbCom cannot act here and now because the people "in charge" are the people in the dock. They do not admit wrong, cannot conceive that they could be wrong, and will therefore not do anything differently, especially in the long term. If this is merely round two of a three round fight, if we have to wait for yet another horrendous case of star chamber blocks and rallying to destroy users, then that's a disgrace that proves that it's not what you do, but who you know. Incidentally, that is the charge trolls make all the time, and it's disgusting that we would make them right. Geogre 03:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, I think it's apparent that there isn't a definition of civility that everyone agrees on. Your comment above, "a he a she or a jerk an ass," illustrates the problem nicely. You didn't think anything of it, and still don't, but several people regarded it as one of the meanest, nastiest things ever said by one user about another, and the fact that you don't agree does not for one moment diminish the effect that it had. Mackensen (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• And, on the other hand, many people see absolutely nothing wrong with spending hours talking about users who aren't present and talking about how they're all "idiots" and how they should be banned. They see nothing wrong with it still. So, if we were to balance out the two, where would we be: one person saying, of another who says frequently that she is pleased to be able to identify either way, one particular thing about gendered speech, versus three sitting about every night with an enemies list and coordinating provocations, blocks, and actions to generate a ban? You're right, Mackensen, I don't see that there is any comparison at all. One is being disagreeable and the other is trying to interrupt Wikipedia. One is where all sides may defend themselves (or take revenge, which seems to be the preferred reaction), and the other is where only like-voices can be heard as revenge. That you could be such a blushing violet and see these as anything like the same is strange to me, you are correct. Geogre 13:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Geogre, you seem to be taking the same line that Giano is: incivility on the encyclopedia is justified by perceived off-wiki conspiracies. Let's say you're right, just for the sake of the argument: Kelly Martin and other persons are conspiring to drive you and Giano off the encyclopedia. How does that, in any way, justify you making the aforementioned statement? An eye for an eye, Geogre? If I allege an off-wiki conspiracy against me by User X, on flimsy evidence, may I start trash-talking them in public? Mackensen (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• No, Mackensen, I'm trying to illustrate to you the difference between being unpleasant (me) and disliking someone (as I do) and character assassination with the intent of blocking. I am justified in calling you a worm, if I want. That's my opinion, to which I am entitled. I would probably hope that you would be affronted, but I would have no expectation that you'd block for that, as no policy says that anyone may be blocked for expressing an unpleasant opinion. On the other hand, if I spend hours with only my friends in Wikipedia Divine Actions IRC, and we talk non-stop about how horrible Mackensen is, how he lies all the time, how he spends all his time complaining, how he's corrupt, how he's a hypocrit, etc., and then, when new people come in, that's all they see. If they protest, we all take turns telling that person that she should not be at our channel, because she may get blocked. Now, suppose, Mackensen, that you actually saw a log of that. How would you feel if I got sanctimonious about it? How would you feel if I threatened to block you (or did it) for telling anyone about the log? As for me, let them conspire. They've been doing it, and they'll do it still. I'm a big boy and am not threatened by pufferfish. The issue is much more concrete, much more precise. We are all free to be unpleasant, disagreeable, cantankerous, and ill humored, but we are not free to conspire to block other users. Or, in simpler words: we have to obey policy, not our inner rage. Geogre 00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, call me a worm if you like. That's not very collegial but I suppose if it floats your boat I won't argue. I wouldn't block you either, but I might start bringing up next time you ran for arbcom. I don't like civility blocks, and I'm on the record stating this numerous times, so let's move on. For all I know there are IRC channels where my name is mud; certainly there are talk pages on this encyclopedia that fit said description. I can't say that those bother me either. People of sound judgment can tell the difference between intelligent criticism and prattle, and I know whose opinion I value. Now, as it happens, I've been in a position where private evidence of someone bad-mouthing me was presented to me. I didn't do anything about it because frankly I didn't give a good damn. You're quite right that we have to obey policy. Last I looked WP:CIVIL was a policy, although not one with much weight any more. You talk about character assassination: why don't you look down below, where Giano is making slanderous remarks. You wanted to be an arbitator: is this your idea of handling a dispute? Mackensen (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe in ignorance is bliss, that has always seemed like a myth to me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom has discussed this at great length. Clearly there is a problem. However, with an issue this complex, involving this many actors, there is no solution that will please everyone. On one extreme is people who advocate shutting the channel down, and on the other is people who advocate doing nothing. I think the solution Fred mentioned - working with the structures currently in place to enforce civility in the channel - is a fair compromise. Raul654 03:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What structures? Is there any clear methodology for who and who isn't a chanop there? Who are the "leaders" Fred Bauder mentioned? It's a wild-west free-for-all where the most entrenched clique wins in there. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but how can you confess ignorance at the leadership structure and then characterize it? Mackensen (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin IRC? Is that the place where admins rubs their hands saying mwhahaha? -- ReyBrujo 03:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You joke, but I'm left with the impression that some people think just that. That's what happens when you cherry-pick from a log file. Sure, you'll find something objectionable, but extrapolating from that and coming up with the idea that the whole channel is rotten to the core is just bad propaganda. One should never build law on outlier cases or personalities, but we seem to be headed that way. Mackensen (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me point out, specifically, that I acknowledge the existence of specific abuses in the above comment. Mackensen (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never set foot ... err ... keyboard ... in the admin IRC channel. Is it any different from the regular one? On there, people ask for help. They bounce ideas off of each other. They talk about non-wiki things. They point out funny/silly/ludicrous things they've found while editing. Sometimes there's profanity or other rudeness. It's pretty much like life in general. Is the admin channel any different? --BigDT 04:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, except that the people in there discuss administrative actions too. The controversial nature of any admin action is squared if "IRC" is breathed, since it implies a conspiracy. Mackensen (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On the whole, the incidents which have prompted this constitute well under 1% of all traffic. Unfortunately, they also represent between 50%-100% of some users total experience with either this channel, or IRC in general. This is a problem, but I think it's a problem in search of a targeted solution. Mackensen (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, replying to Mackensen at 04:00) Thankfully, my knowledge about IRC is limited to /connect, /join, /alias and /quit, so I am pretty neutral here. Hmm... I once tried to download some movie through a channel, but it said something about being at position 5,000 in a queue, and after half an hour I was 7,000, so I turned the computer off and bought the DVD.

I know IRC is necessary to discuss in real time, but undoubtedly, it creates a separation between administrators, just like Category:Administrators open to recall. There are those that can/want to connect through IRC, and those that can't/won't. It is inevitable. Even I feel that difference when someone reports a user at AIV stating "sockpuppet of blocked XXX", and when reviewing XXX's block, I find a "[Un]blocked per IRC talk" or similar. However, I must assume good faith, especially without logs. Others just can't (because of personal experience or anything), and raise in arms. It is a real pity that we do not have a Special:Irclogs where to check the public conversations in the channels, available only for admins, that would make things much clearer for everyone. -- ReyBrujo 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There's the rub: you don't why an administrator is acting period, regardless of what discussion took place. Even when an administrator cites a specific policy, it still came down to the functioning of various processes in his or her head. There's a thousand IRC channels out there, and most of them prohibit logging. It only comes up with #wikipedia-en-admins because a) some things said there really aren't for public consumption because there are privacy issues, and b) the relative size makes it possible to enforce the rule. Mackensen (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course! However, if an off-wiki action (as in, a IRC chat) brings a on-wiki reaction (in example, blocking a user), I think it would be just to include at least some information about that, just like you would point to the AFD when deleting an article, or the external link when deleting a copyvio. Ok, so full logging is not a solution, but at least consider some way of IRC board where to post the juicy parts (as in, the statements that were used to build consensus about something). We can quote an AFD, a URL or a report, we can even quote a mail to the mailing list, but we can't quote an IRC conversation? As I said, I assume good faith even though a vandal has broken two test4 warnings. However, others are less patient, and you need to comprehend them. I would even say that everyone's priority is to open the process as much as possible. -- ReyBrujo 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I've said before, I see no reason to invoke IRC at all; every administrator is responsible for what they do. Heck, every editor is responsible for every edit they make. Whether it was discussed on IRC or not is frankly beside the point. Anyone should be able to give a rational accounting of their actions. The problem is that the mention of IRC often leads to an assumption of bad faith--not always, but it happens. Mackensen (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not that different from, in example, asking to review a block here, is it? I mean, some users may bring a review here (like #1 month block of 88.104.202.232), others may feel more comfortable with reviewing there. You are right, if you do something, you take responsibility. But if they can't and use some IRC chat as justification, that chat should be made public.

No need to reply, though, we will keep going in circles like the Line Rider avatar :-) -- ReyBrujo 05:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of this seems a bit moot. Even if the admin channel was shut down, it is technically impossible to prevent private communication between any group that decides to communicate privately. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The admin channel also serves as a place a lot of newer admins with questions go to get their questions answered. They hang out there, and see how abusive behavior is tolerated and encouraged. In short order they may come to believe such behavior is the correct and expected behavior for administrators. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point grapes, I went there when I was new at the mop for advice and it was very helpful. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It's a good use for IRC. We don't need an #admins channel for it; were there very many highly-sensitive issues you were asking about, that couldn't have been as easily asked and answered in #wikipedia-en? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you go where the people are. If you have a specific question about administration, you go where the administrators are. I find #wikipedia a bewildering place; I never got the impression that #wikipedia-en was highly patronized. Mackensen (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with private communication, some questions need to be asked in front of experienced users, instead of everyone. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but no reason to not ask a few well regarded administrators privately via email for the same advice or direction. Rarely, is something so immediate that it can't be resolved via email.--MONGO 06:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In camera (aka arbitrary section break)

It's been asked a few times, but I'll ask again: What discussion with whom? Would it not make more sense to have the whole thing conducted "in public" as it were? The easiest questions to answer are:

• Who are the "leadership of the IRC channels," and
• Who has been "appoint[ed as] additional channel ops?"

brenneman 04:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• The channels are under the control of James Forrester. The leadership is best described as James and Essjay, with help from others. The chanops on this channel in question include the following: FloNight, DavidGerard, Sannse, Fennec, Danny, Mackensen, Morven, Mark Ryan, Jimbo, Essjay, Angela, JamesF, Kelly Martin, Uninvited Company, Mindspillage and Dmcdevit. Mackensen (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good questions. Please, don't assume everyone knows what you are talking about, I only have a vague sense of what is going on here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm a bit thick I like it when things are spleed write out: this channel in question is the admin channel? JF is "in charge" of #wikipedia and #whateveritis-admins, and that list are the chanops for #admins? And "include the following" is hazy to me. Sorry to be pedantic, but can we have a complete list of

• Existing/previous chanops for vanilla wikipedia channel,
• Existing/previous chanops for admin channel, and
• Whomever are the "additional" chanops and what channels they are assigned on?

The more I read that response the less feeling of security I get... "with help from others" leaves a lot to be desired as well. Was this discussion conducted via mailing list, IRC, something else, and is it written on water or is there something that Morlocks like me can refer to?
brenneman 04:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, #wikipedia-en-admins is the only channel under consideration here. Latent abuses in other channels remain unexplored pending someone of importance getting wronged in one of them (no, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm quite serious about that). New chanops for #wikipedia-en-admins are: FloNight, David Gerard, Mackensen, Morven, Uninvited Company and Dmcdevit (thereabouts, anyway). JamesF, as I understand it, is controller of at least all English-language channels because of chaos at freenode following Rob Levin's death. There're numerous chanops on #wikipedia, too many to list here. The information is publicly accessible if anyone wants it. This was discussion on the mailing list of the Arbitration Committee, which happens to include the people responsible for the IRC channels. A happy coincidence proving that no good deed goes unpunished. Mackensen (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. I appreciate you having patience while I catch up. No, I'm not being sarcastic. ^_^
  brenneman 06:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Mackensen, a minor point about your list of 16 #en-admins chanops above. You say that the list "includes" these people; does that mean it's incomplete? I ask because a couple of weeks ago I was kickbanned from the channel by somebody who's not on the list. I won't inflame matters here by naming him, but you certainly know who I mean. Was he an op? Or temporarily opped in order to kick me? Is he an op today? I'm over it, but the action was random and remains unexplained, so I think the answers are of some general interest. Bishonen | talk 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

• I omitted all level 10s in the interest of brevity. It was also late and I knew I'd miss somebody. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Bishonen, that was awhile ago now. I think it's best to just get over it and stop constantly bringing it up. IRC channel actions really don't mean a lot. --Cyde Weys 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I have placed a copy of the access list, obtained via ChanServ, in my userspace (User:Bbatsell/IRC) so as not to clutter up AN. I have removed all those under accesslevel 10, which to my recollection is the level of CMDOP in the channel. If anyone objects to this list (although it is freely available in IRC), then I will remove it. The names there are registered nicknames, and may or may not correspond with Wikipedia usernames. —bbatsell ¿? 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am glad to see other syops on the channel will have the ability to boot those that are being incivil, but what level of incivility is needed before this happens? The problem as I see it has less to do with incivility than with the channels being used to speak a bit too openly about other editors...that should be reserved for private email only. I recognize that IRC would have usefulness if the sole purpose was to expedite a block on a troll, but all decisions to make blocks on established editors should be determined by consensus on wiki, not off it....so what pupose does it serve? Really now, are we a chat forum or are we a collection of encyclopedia writers?--MONGO 06:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Chatting vs. Encyclopedia-writing" argument is moot on IRC. IRC is for discussion of all types, and WMF has nothing to do with Freenode. Those who use IRC are not using Wikipedia as a chat forum, they're using IRC as a chat forum, whose initials, by the way, stand for "Internet Relay Chat". —bbatsell ¿? 06:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the chatting has led to blockings and has led to reverting blocks made by established admins and has led to formulating abuses that have taken place on wiki on established editors. I am well aware of what IRC stands for...I never use it however and won't.--MONGO 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it has. But it's very easy to pick out singular events that happen every so often, paint all of IRC with the same brush, and in so doing lose sight of what actually happens the majority of the time, which is positive discussion. I know that I personally have been talked down from blocks that I was ready to make when I asked for second opinions, I know that discussions take place that are very positive. I know that sometimes it's okay for someone who has been blocked to be able to get on IRC, get a one-on-one chat with an admin, and explain their side of the story that often doesn't come out on-wiki. The {{unblock}} template is great but sometimes it isn't very conducive to an in-depth review of a block. If an unblock happens based on that discussion, then it is absolutely the responsibility of the unblocking admin to monitor their contributions to ensure that they were not being disingenuous on IRC. Admins make mistakes, and discussions about what we do or about Wikipedia process or about the general goings-on can almost never be bad, in my humble opinion. I guess I just don't see the basis for the "OMG EVIL!" attitudes that some people (not you, MONGO) harbor towards IRC. Do people sometimes get into heated discussions? Sure, I got into one last night. Do sometimes administrators make bad judgments? Of course, that's true with or without IRC. I just think that people are looking at a very tiny subset of what goes on and are ignoring what goes on 99% of the time, which is very positive for Wikipedia. Anyway, just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary, etc. etc. —bbatsell ¿? 07:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course...the point is, I see that IRC allows less transparency than we should have. I don't have time to bother with IRC and am simply encouraging all admins and ArbCom members to do all they can to discuss matters on wiki and use IRC for non-harassing chat.--MONGO 07:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC

• My experiance with the plain olde #wikipedia channel is almost universally positive: People collaberating on articles, rational discussions of policy interpretation, etc. When the atmosphere turns poisonious there are enough people around to either tell the person to can it or for the offender to get the boot. (Once it was me, and I deserved it.) #admins I lurk in all the time, and the ratio is reversed: There are too many like-minded people there, and the toxicity gets multiplied. I have never, not even on one occasion, seen anything discussed there that would not have gotten a better airing on the main channel. More ops isn't going to solve this, when the list supplied above has listed as ops several of those often painted as "unrepentantly uncivil." - brenneman 07:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• You really need to try the channels again. #wikipedia is pretty much universally acknowledged as a cesspit. #admins at least has well-reasoned discussion, although it's going downhill a bit what with the recent influx of teen admins who don't seem to realize that it isn't for extended off-topic chatter. --Cyde Weys 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• The one thing I have never understood about the admin channel is that it appeared to me, on my infrequent visits, that people weren't using their Wikipedia username as their nickname. I guess I'm probably a little dense, but I never understood why. Steve block Talk 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How many people have access to the channel who are not admins? How many are former admins who resigned their sysop status, or were forcibly de-sysopped? Because not one of those should have access to the channel, yet they do. Proto::► 12:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've yet to hear why an admin who voluntarily relinquished adminship is no longer trustworthy. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Not to kick salt in someone's eyes when they are down, but if the ArbCom has said that you _must_ re-apply for adminship if you want it back there is clearly a grey area with regards to trust. - brenneman 12:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Plus at least some of those who voluntarily relinquished adminship jumped before they were pushed, so to speak. Proto::► 13:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Fred Bauder says "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behaviour absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops" Fred gives sufficient reasons for closing down the channel but then shows the complete lack of understanding of the problem by failing to say that some of the existing channel ops are not only the worst offenders but at least one is a member of the arbcom. He then goes on to say "we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels " again the self proclaimed owner of the channel; is not only a member of the arbcom, but yes, you've guessed it - one of the worst offenders. Well done Fred we yet again see that this arbcom is beyond redemption. However, I am glad that after so long of being told by Wikipedia's hierarchy that I am imagining these things, they do now seem to be completely unacceptable gross incivility even though the IRC logs show them to be far more serious. Bullying and intimidation are just two words which immediately spring to mind. It should also be remembered that the deplorable events which have been permitted on IRC (certainly in my own experience) are 100% to blame for any incivility which has happened on-wiki. However I must be careful what I say or Fred, Jim and Dm will be RFArbing me again for even thinking such things. Giano 12:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're still responsible for your actions on-wiki. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well of course that is true, and entirely why IRCadmins has been such a successful harassing operation, goad and plot against editors in secret, and then ban than when they respond it public. Thank you Mackensen for pointing that out so clearly. Giano 12:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• You're free to allege that; I've seen the evidence and it looks more like a comedy of errors than some deep rooted plot. How do you justify your incivility towards editors who do not use IRC, or who do use IRC but have never been a party towards comedy or malevolence? Feel free to ignore my earlier statements denouncing incivility towards other in IRC. It's also worth mentioning that as an ex-arbitrator I had a hand in drafting Fred's statement and fully endorsed it. There are no free passes here. Mackensen (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Of course it's fair to add more channel ops to combat incivility and personal attacks, but if some of the older channel ops are in fact party to making those attacks, it makes a lot of sense to replace them with friendlier ops. Otherwise, this will just turn into a rehash of "both parties are incivil but we're going to point at one of them and ignore the other's behavior". >Radiant< 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but this would seem to be wikidrama for the sake of it. Is there a point to this wikidrama? Is there a point to the admins channel? If something needs sorting out, AN and ANI exist for a reason. If something needs sorting out privately or you want a private opinion, as MONGO pointed out email should be perfectly adequate. If you are worried about privacy, IRC will hardly assuage your worries, as there would seem to be log leaks left, right, and centre. Does and has the admins channel caused harm, problems, and unnecessary wikidrama? That does not seem to be in dispute. The obvious solution is to nuke the admins channel and every other Wikipedia IRC channel with the exceptions of #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en, where on occasion I have had some enjoyable conversations that have benefited the encyclopedia. That will certainly put a stop to the wikidrama. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Mackensen, some of your arbcom colleagues have had a fee pass for far too long. I concur with Moreschi, any new channel ops will still be under the old disgraceful management? The arbcom's credibility can only be restored if this channel is abolished and its self proclaimed owner de-sysoped for bringing Wikipedia into disrepute along with the other admins involved. It must be remembered that leading members of the arbcom have known and approved of this deplorable situation for years. Now it is in the open heads have to roll for Wikipedia's reputation to be restored. Giano 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Then by all means bring an arbitration case, or appeal to Jimbo directly. I certainly don't consider myself JamesF's "agent," I can think for myself and act independently, for better or worse. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

First, Mackensen is arguing pretty vociferously, and he's one of the ops for the channel, so I'm not sure he's uninvolved. There are so many bad arguments being made that it's hard to know where to start.

1. First, is there "cherry picking logs?" What is the difference between "cherry picking logs" and "citing evidence?" Of course you're going to "cherry pick" because you're going to cite the dang evidence. The :15 when no one is there is not going to be cited. Sheesh. That's a Karl Rove like argument. The point is that the abuse is taking place by the same few people, who are chanops, on several occasions and arguably regularly. The evidence is clear enough for "several occasions," and "regularly" is what's in dispute.
2. That it's the same few people no one seems inclined to discuss. That these people are not administrators is similarly not being argued. As far as "giving up" status and having it stripped goes, an ArbCom decision said that Kelly Martin "left under a cloud." It demoted Tony Sidaway. Both are at en.admins.irc, and Greg Maxwell is simply not an administrator at en.wikipedia. He's a meta administrator, but I'm not aware of his being an admin at en.wikipedia at any point. However, people who give up their status give up their status, and being at that cursed channel is part of the status. If it's not, then why not open the channel to people who one day will be administrators along with people who once upon a time were administrators? I'm not being vindictive, here: it's simply built into the very definition of the thing. The arguments for its creation were that administrators needed to speak of sensitive materials. Well, why? So they could act. These people who are not administrators can't act. This isn't me being petty: I never supported segregating the beautiful people from the hoi poloi, but it's what the channel was supposed to do.
3. Go where the people are is, in fact, the critical feature. Admins are all over the regular wikipedia irc channel. Go there, because there are enough people there to turn the conversation away from abuse. In fact, the admins.irc channel is nasty precisely because it's not where The People are, but where only a small group is from time to time. The more populated the channel, the less commonly it goes into abuse. Every log I have seen of abuse has been when there are few people there, mostly like-minded about the central issue that admins are superior to users, that "clueful" people run things. They are philosophically inclined to believe it their right and responsibility to do what's "right" without policy.

Finally, the people are the problem, but the medium gives them their freedom to abuse. It's like LSD: the sane people will have a slight entertainment, while the mentally unstable will make a very bad trip. Geogre 13:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of one active non-admin wikipedian who requested "admission" to the channel and was last I heard roundly ignored. If that makes ay sense, it's a bit late and too hot for thinking. - brenneman 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Start an on-wiki procedure to appoint channel operators, so that we don't have clique accusations later. Remove all the non-admins from the channel. Seems like the best solution. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

First, Geogre, if you'd read the discussion you'd note that I'm a newly-appointed chanop, which makes me part of the solution, not part of the problem (note: this presupposes that the arbcom is sane). I don't appreciate the comparison to Karl Rove and wonder whether it was necessary. I mean, you score some points but it hardly helps matters. I say "cherry-picking" because there's an indictment on the channel as a whole based on the selected behaviour of individuals. That does not make sense. As you rightly note, certain individuals are the problem. That's cause for individual condemnation, not some broad-based approach. If you're going to indict the "medium," you have to actually prove that the medium is corrupt; to assert it is simply not enough. Mackensen (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the comparison to Rove, but it's a Rove argument. It's exactly the kind of rhetorical flourish he's famous for. When evidence is presented of abuse, he says, "They cherry picked it." Well, how much would it take? The reason this is an issue, to answer the question the people who haven't followed all of this keep asking, is that on-wiki actions have been orchestrated on the "invisible" and unaccountable medium of that IRC channel. Each one of these actions has been quickly, if not instantly, reversed, but they just keep coming. Yes, the people are this problem, but there remains no rationale for the channel that shows any advantage to Wikipedia. What purpose does it have? What purpose does it actually serve that is not better served by media already in place that are already regulated, like AN/I? I asked that question a month ago and, unless I'm really biased, didn't get an answer that stood up. If, therefore, we have people who have to be "worked with" to get permission to change that channel and if these very people are demonstrably problematic, then what the heck are we doing? This is especially the case if they violate the very elitism the channel was set up to create.

I've tried to be helpful, to offer positive solutions, as well as to condemn what exists now. My essay was an honest effort at working out the inherent strengths and weaknesses. Although some of my points are getting repeated, the hatred and scorn poured out on me by the problem users will prevent their ever admitting that there is a problem.

Finally, I remind you of what we're talking about here. The subtext is not "play nice." That's lily livered. The subtext is "don't team up to beat on people in a private clubhouse." It's far more pointed than someone like me being obnoxious to Kelly. It's about blocking. It's about harassing. It's about pretending to be powerful. It's about encouraging new administrators to run roughshod over the project because they are important people. It's about learning to show some respect for the people who make Wikipedia, as those people are not the chanops who spend their lives on IRC. Geogre 00:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Geogre: Greg Maxwell is an admin on Commons. We need as many Commons admins in #admins as we can get. Yes, technically, English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are separate projects; in practice, they have a lot of related issues, and we frequently need actions taken on Commons (such as nuking shock images being used for vandalism). --Cyde Weys 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 2

Some insight into the reasoning:

• the AC has no jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins. Really, it doesn't.
• The channel was originally set up as a hotline for admin help being requested, particularly by Jimbo or Danny, and it's damn useful for that.
• It's not just for admins, it's for "trusted Wikipedians" of all sorts. There's Alphax on there as a Commons admin, Greg as a developer, etc. (That someone here may feel they have conclusive proof that a given chanop is a minion of Satan out to destroy Wikimedia is irrelevant to this - it's not yours to decide. I don't care. Really.) *and Greg is on as a Commons admin too, of course.
• It's also a good place for admins to sanity-check their personal decisions (or find another admin to deal or not with a matter they feel would be a conflict of interest to deal with or whatever). I'd like it if all new admins were invited onto it and someone should write up some suitable how-to process page.
• Many of the IRC logs received from the AC have clearly been edited and even when not don't include a metric shitload of off-channel communication that serves as context.
• There are admins already avoiding the channel because the cries of the torch and pitchfork toting mob above are making them afraid of what people would do with an out-of-context quote. So the AC going over the last six months of logs sent in from viewers looking for people to bring the vengeance of the Lord down upon really just is not likely to happen.

So the course of action chosen is to try to improve the tone of the place by leading from the front, hence the current /topic: speak like the person you're discussing is reading. And my frequent strong suggestions to behave better. YOU'RE ADMINS, DAMMIT, YOU WERE CHOSEN FOR YOUR GOOD JUDGEMENT. Mostly the channel shows that, by the way. Anyone characterising it as a festering snakepit that must be abolished is IMO smoking crack and I really can't take them seriously.

Note: I am an ex-arb and still on the AC list to kibitz advise. I have level 40 on #wikipedia-en-admins because Jdforrester landed it on me. I'm in there a bit lately, when I'm home and my laptop is on and I remember.

Any questions that show evidence of a shred of good judgement? - David Gerard 13:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "It's also a good place for admins to sanity-check their personal decisions (or find another admin to deal or not with a matter they feel would be a conflict of interest to deal with." Is there a reason why AN, ANI or even email cannot be used for this? Why the insistence on spurious - spurious, because this is clearly not happening - privacy that is only ever going to feed accusations of a cabal? Given that this channel seems to be causing far more wikidrama than it's worth, is there really a compelling argument as to why this should be kept? Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Because sometimes one wants a quick answer, because sometimes one is dead wrong and when ten people say HELL NO one gets awareness of it, because in many cases it creates less drama than ANI. Though I prefer ANI as well. Saying "we decided it on IRC" on admin matters is not a good way to do things, way definitely. Your point is a really important one and one to keep in mind: transparency has to be consciously worked for - David Gerard 14:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And I want the channel kept because it's damn useful for what it's damn useful for, and abolishing it would lose that without, my psychic powers predict, diminishing the dramatists' valiant and assiduous defense of the wiki or whatever they're doing one iota - David Gerard 14:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know is David Gerard making the above comments with the sanction and public approval of the arbcom, or are they just using him as a barometer of our opinions. No, I'm afraid a comment alone from Fred will not suffice, something a little more concrete from the arbcom is required. 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC){{subst:unisgned|Giano II}}

I'm not speaking for the AC (I'm not on the AC, as noted), I'm speaking for me, though the matter is in a lot of discussion at present and I've asked the AC to stop by and clarify if any of them feel I've misrepresented things - David Gerard 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain your role in regard to the arbcom mailing list? Giano 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I did, above: "I am an ex-arb and still on the AC list to kibitz advise." Ex-arbitrators stay on the AC list as they choose - David Gerard 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's really very simple. It is said there are too much nasty remarks on the channel, and that the solution is to make more people channel ops. That makes sense. Then someone points out that the nasty remarks are in part made by the older channel ops. No solution for that has been proposed, but the obvious answer seems to be to de-op those. Note that I have never used the channel, nor do I believe it should be nuked. It's appears simply to be a case of two parties being incivil, and only one party being examined for that. >Radiant< 14:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If it was that simple it would have been resolved centuries ago, ergo it's not that simple. If someone wants someone removed from being a chanop on #wikipedia-en-admins they get to convince Jdforrester, because I'm certainly not going to, I can tell you now ... - David Gerard 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not just incivility, it is bullying and harassment and attempting to "get rid" of editors. This been condoned by the arbcom, by their assenting silence, - the only solution is to abolish the channel, then no-one has to worry about tackling Jim Forrester (I'm not frightened of him anyway) Giano 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest it is unlikely you're going to get the lynching you're after. I also suggest you're barely on Jdforrester's radar - David Gerard 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I think you'l find our Jim knows exactly who I am - and I think you know that too! Giano 14:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're the one I blocked for egregious personal attacks that no other editor making would be tolerated. If you read what I wrote, by the way, you'll note the AC does not have the power to abolish the channel. I don't know if you've ever heard of "diplomacy" or "assuming good faith", but you could give them a go and see if they give you more results you want rather than less - David Gerard 14:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And the solution is not just to make more people ops, it's to ask people to be nice and use their admin-given judgement more. These are smart people, and if they have bursts of stupid then the first thing is to try really hard to stop those. This is the diplomatic solution and lacks the emotionally-satisfying and crowd pleasing character of a really good 'Bungee Saddam' Christmas special, but I submit is more likely to make things actually better - David Gerard 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are so disgusting as to mention "Saddaam" in this context is indicative of the behaviour and level of rubishing anyone who opposes that channel receives. I have been on the receiving end of long enough to know every nasty little trick used. You are going to have to find new depths to sink to now. Giano 14:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Any other questions? - David Gerard5 14:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've already implied that I'm among those who in your opinions "are smoking crack" and can't be taken seriously, so I suppose it would do me little good to ask a question, O your excellency. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I was speaking as someone who's actually on the damn thing and knows precisely what the usual content is, against those who characterise it in a manner bearing no resemblance to what I see. Of course, it may just be that my crack supplier is much better - David Gerard 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question - who is it that leaks all those logs to Wikitruth? Proto::► 15:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, but the best course of action I can think of is to treat it as a working-channel-with-chat like a sensible admin - David Gerard 15:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrrmm — if we knew, we'd definitely have done something about it already ... Cyde Weys 15:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• So to sum up,
  1. People should not be nasty on the channel,
  2. If you see someone nasty, you can ask a channel op to kick that person, but he is not obliged to comply,
  3. If you see an op being nasty, you can ask Jdforrester to deop that person, but he is not obliged to comply,
  4. The arbcom can request that certain people be opped, deopped, kicked or unkicked from the channel, but the channel ops are not obliged to comply,
  5. Being nasty on the channel can be taken into account in arbitration cases, and
  6. The cabal puppy eating contest is next wendesday.
• That broadly correct? >Radiant< 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Any chanop is no more obliged to take an admin action than any particular en: admin is obliged to take an admin action, i.e. not at all. People should not be nasty on the channel because it's bad for what is after all supposed to be a working-space-with-chat rather than a cesspit being a working-space-with-chat rather than a cesspit; and I think I'm asking nothing unreasonable by asking admins to act with GOOD ADMIN JUDGEMENT AAARGH. You can indeed and James is actually pretty approachable (if busy) and not insane and stuff. Not only does the AC have no jurisdiction over the channel, the Wikimedia Foundation specificially disclaims jurisdiction over the #wikipedia-xxx channels for reasons of possible legal liability, so bitching about it here does nothing and annoys the pig. Being nasty anywhere that affects the wiki can be taken into account by the AC. The puppy eating contest is Thursday. And NO CANNIBALISM - David Gerard 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• K, fair enough. >Radiant< 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 2.5

A somewhat more-to-the-point explanation, perhaps: the operative issue here is David's first point. The ArbCom does not have any power over the IRC channels. We cannot shut them down; we cannot replace the ops; we cannot, as a group, force anything to happen on IRC (except insofar as some members of the Committee happen to be ops on some channels). The ArbCom simply lacks that ability, and no amount of indignation—justified or otherwise—is going to magically grant it to us.

(As for anyone wondering why there's no desysoppings, etc.: well, the ArbCom has decreed, in the past, that off-Wikipedia matters were not its concern. This is likely not to be the case in the future—hence Fred's note—but it would be quite crass of us to extend this retroactively to past events. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.)

(And, on a further note, for anyone wondering: no, the ArbCom does not have Secret All-Seeing IRC Logs(tm).) Kirill Lokshin 15:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Further on this note: the AC has no power, but currently James, Mackensen and myself (arb and two ex-arbs) - not James very much in practice, he has plenty of other stuff he does - are working to make the place sweeter and happier for all concerned. i.e., we'd like it not to suck kthx and consider such important for the wiki - David Gerard 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You, Mackensen and Forrester - who do you immagine has any confidence in you? This is a joke! Giano 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that my judgment and capacity to serve were in question. I have always served at the pleasure of the community and if my services are no longer deemed necessary I will happily withdraw into private life, as it were. Mackensen (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you are aware. But compared to the unremittingly combative David Gerard, there's still hope for you. 88.198.5.138 16:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Joyous news, I am not a complete failure yet! Prithee, when did thee supplant our Fair God-King? Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So ... is this IP Giano? Or someone else? --Cyde Weys 17:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're definitely failing the community by consistently Cyding with the IRC gang, against all reason. But that is neither news nor new. 88.198.5.138 17:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde why not ask one of the secret channel to do an ilicit check user - and find out, that does happen there doesn't it? Giano 17:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I've just seen "Cyding" that really is very funy, I wish I had thought of that Giano 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You should withdraw that, if you had any concept of decency. Mackensen (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is indecent? I have seen far worse(far far worse) said by your heros on IRC, so is it vecause I'm saying it in public? Giano 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You are publicly insinuating that checkusers are breaching the Foundation's privacy policy, and possibly local law, by making unauthorized disclosure of private information. You are publicly accusing someone of an incredibly dishonourable, if not illegal, act. If you can't back it up then you should withdraw it. Mackensen (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Who knows what has been buried and concealed concerning that channel - nothing you people get up to there would surprise me. Giano 17:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I will ask one more time that you retract that statement. I'm quite serious. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Read what I wrote - "that does happen there doesn't it?" why not stop shouting and answer the question Giano 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Having to deny such accusations is degrading. I might as well ask whether you beat your wife. It does not. It would be a grave breach of the trust if it did. That you blithely assume so speaks volumes of the utter contempt you have for all concerned here. I wonder why you stay, when you're surrounded by such fools. Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I stay Mackensen, because in spite of the frequent clumsy and very obvious attempts by your colleagues to get rid of me, I know I am of use to the encyclopedia - a progect to which i am totally committed. You are quite correct on one point though "Having to deny such accusations is degrading" - I'd change my friends if I were you. Incidentally, why would saying "No! Check user has never been abused" be "a grave breach of the trust"?. Please Mackensen don't start clever games with me that you cannot finnish, because I see everything through to the end no matter how bitter (for some) that end may be. Giano 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Without wishing to cast aspersions at any users with checkuser access, it is certainly possible for checkuser privileges to be abused. I understand that there has been at least one complaint regarding checkuser being used outside of policy. Perhaps I have misunderstood what I have read (I can't guarantee that I could find a link if asked) but I understand the relevant person admitted that they undertook the checkuser complained of, "could not remember" why they did it, and that person subsequently lost their checkuser access. As I understand it, there are checkuser logs, but they are only available to other uses with checkuser privileges. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you count banned trolls and sockpuppets we get complaints all the time. Some of these were deemed important enough for investigation, but the checkuser was cleared in each instance. I am not aware of a direct link between any investigation and any loss of privileges. I've seen that story floating around too, but I've never seen it substantiated, and I first saw it months ago. Mackensen (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that IP and I are acquainted. It's a webserver in Germany with open ports. I had to deal with a nasty privacy violation coming from it just a few days ago. Could be anybody using it. Mackensen (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP troll blocked for 48 hours (not his first offense, either). And Giano, you shouldn't be cyding with trolls. --Cyde Weys 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, block duration changed to indefinite as open proxy per Mackensen's findings. --Cyde Weys 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's right Cyde, knock em senseless if they say something you don't like. Giano 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, how shocking that Cyde should follow policy! We can't have that. Mackensen (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How unshocking it is that when Cyde breaches the civility and personal attacks policies, Mackensen, David Gerard, and the rest of the IRC gang are nowhere to be found. Looks pretty one-cyded to me. 88.198.5.138 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello open proxy! France, this time. Mackensen (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello! It may surprise you, but I admire your work. I just hope you can find it in you to internalize these criticisms without becoming reactively defensive. [p.s. please block this latest open proxy silently] 88.198.5.138 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 3

"Behavior on the IRC channel may be taken into consideration with respect to arbitration cases if it results in disruption on Wikipedia" Fred, does this mean that the door is now open to launch RFA's relating to the orchestrated blocking incidents and use the logs as evidence? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deep breaths everyone. To sum up;

• Fred's statement
  1. ArbCom recognizes that a problem exists and has been discussing ways of dealing with it
  2. New channel procedures and operators are being pushed in an effort to increase civility
  3. Comments made on IRC may have 'on Wiki' consequences if they cause 'on Wiki' problems
• Outstanding concerns
  1. Channel continues to exist and thereby damages 'faith in Wikipedia'
  2. No punishments for past abuses - banning from the channel and de-sysoping were suggested
  3. Non en-wikipedia admins on the channel
  4. Failure to enforce civility on Wikipedia itself / double standards
  5. Lack of details about new channel operators/procedures that Fred mentioned

Disclaimer: After long avoiding IRC (ick, ptooey!) I requested access to the admin channel when this blew up about two weeks ago, and (after not hearing back) asked again and got access yesterday. This likely makes me either 'an evil insurrectionist mole', 'irredeemably tainted by IRC toxins', or both.

As to my opinions; I'd say that the changes Fred described all sound like good things. On the concerns/complaints: I have no doubts that if the channel were removed another (or several) would be set up - without any sort of civility requirements or access to people who might object to 'cabalism'... the same would be true for removal of the non admins. It has been de facto policy until now that 'what happens in IRC stays in IRC' - retroactively applying IRC bans and Wikipedia de-sysopings would thus seem improper to me (not to mention rather vindictive). Incivility on Wikipedia itself certainly has been a major factor here, but we have existing procedures for that which generally work - despite glitches and disputes over application. Finally, I would like to hear more about who is being asked to help operate the channel and what sort of guidelines / directions for civility are being contemplated.

My impression based on one whole day would be that the channel was 60% silly, 25% productive admin work, and 15% complaining about things... the last including occasional incivility which I'd consider on par with what is normally seen amongst admins on Wikipedia. One person was called a 'clown', there was a joking suggestion to ban everyone who supported a particular featured article, an old major dispute was discussed and one of the primary participants complained about, et cetera. Not perfect and surely not the worst which has taken place, but nothing which couldn't be managed. There was markedly less nastiness than this discussion for instance. --CBD 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• CBD has the thread here. It's part of the last 15% that we'd generally like to deal with, but sometimes it can't be avoided–especially when this very topic came up and partisans from both sides were in channel. On the other hand, as you rightly note, nothing was said there that wasn't said here, and it's also my impression that the conversation on IRC was more polite. This may be because on IRC you can be kicked for being a jerk. Mackensen (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you CBD, for actually investigating on your own and not just believing the mindless hype. The way some of the way people on here talk about it, you'd think #admins goes through a dozen kittens a day, and that's just the ones used for sacrificial purposes (feasts not included). --Cyde Weys 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• So how do you propose we deal with people on Wikipedia who are jerks? I'm not thinking of anyone in particular but this place frequently turns downright nasty. >Radiant< 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, blocking used to work, but recently this whole place has become downright partisan that the blocks are overturned even when the person really deserves it. As a result, the person feels vindicated, and continues on with the bad behavior. --Cyde Weys 15:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Obviously the answer is to delete WP:AN and subpages and salt them. Also, if we make a rule against incivility, that should stop it in its tracks - look how effective m:Don't be dense is - David Gerard 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, we definitely a board where people can come complain to mommy that "that nasty person hit me after I kicked him". >Radiant< 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• This always confused me. Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over the IRC channels, fine. If they were closed down people would only find other ways to communicate, yes, that's all well and good. But Wikipedia currently explicitly sanctions use of these specific IRC rooms, by pointing people to them on WP:IRC and meta:IRC. If Wikipedia wishes to bear no responsibility for these rooms, and insists that what happens in there does not relate to what happens on Wikipedia, then they should not be plugged on-Wiki, right? Proto::► 15:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we tone down the discourse and look at this in cost-benefit terms? Sure the channel has uses, but noncontroversial alternatives seem to exist for all of those uses. Wikipedia is almost entirely a volunteer operation. Part of the reason why millions of people have joined up is because it's an open meritocracy. Admin-only IRC introduces a degree of opaqueness. Although the overwhelming majority of that may be responsible dialog, a small number of serious problems can discredit the undertaking. I doubt effective fail-safes can be implemented. If ArbCom doesn't have authority then I'd like to see that formalized by disaffiliating the channel from Wikipedia. It's a recipe for trouble to have a secret-but-leaky chat that 1000+ people can visit that lacks firm admission criteria and that putatively has a formal connection to Wikipedia outside the reach of ArbCom. I'm an eventualist on this issue, which means I've always suspected the channel will sink under its own weight but maybe the folks who like it can patch the hull. Durova^Charge 15:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly for you Cyde the logs show it is not "mindless hype" and that is why we are all here. According to you Mackensen above - there is no problem of huge concern? No wonder they chose him to be chan op! It's going to be another "let's wipe it under the carpet and save the arbcom" - He is of course on the arbcom mailing list. I think we are having our intelligence insulted here by Cyde, Mackensen and David Gerard, I expect as we speak they are rounding up further little IRC admins to come here with their 10 pennies worth - it is truly amazing - what are they going to come up with next? Watching these peole on the run is truly wonderous Giano 15:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Your support is appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Giano, much as I am really enjoying the humor value in the implication that I am a 'little IRC admin in cahoots with David, Mackensen, and Cyde' (ROTFL)... 'not a battleground' comes to mind. Yup, people have done things they shouldn't have. Welcome to the human condition... you need to get over it. 'An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind', 'forgive and forget', and all that. If everyone insisted that every wrong be punished we'd spend all our time fighti... <looks around> oh wait. You haven't been above reproach either and in expecting such lapses to be forgiven you should also understand the need to do so for others. People agreeing to 'try to do better' is a victory for everyone... and insisting that 'there will be no peace until vengeance is satisfied' a loss for all. --CBD 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I in no way support you. You have been a member of that chanel and known full well what has been going on for ages, so suddenly why have you decided to do something about it, you have condoned it for ages with your silence. You just want to save the "club" at all costs, and when this has died down it will be just as it was before. Giano 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

For all of one day. It's that dangerous, is it? Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 4 - ArbCom mailing list

It seems to me that the main issue here (other than the incivility that brought the issue into the open, and that official policy seems to be to sweep past indiscretions under the carpet) is that use of IRC is encouraged, as a quick and dirty way for interested parties to discuss issues as they arise, but there is no official relationship between Wikipedia and IRC (by design, it would seem, on account of legal concerns). There is no clarity about that the #admin channel for, and who should have access to it. Should it be limited to current admins? Should it be available to ex-admins too, or indeed any editors in good standing? And if it is being used to formulate consensus for taking admin actions on-wiki, shouldn't it be logged and transparent?

Reading User:David Gerard's comments above, I have a second concern: he says he is on the ArbCom mailing list, as a former arbitrator. I had forgotten that non-Arbitrators have access to the ArbCom mailing list (I seem to remember User:Kelly Martin calling herself an "arbitrator emeritus". And someone is bound to ask for a diff now). Who else, other than the current members of ArbCom, have access to the list (is there a list somewhere?)? Should they? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I beleive there is over 20 of them, and when somthing interests them they all but in and have a say, which is why they can't reach concensus on this problem at all, they say they can't abolish the channel, but they could easily abolish the admins who use it, and of course the members of their own comittee who like to make such questionable use of it. Giano 16:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

All former ex-arbitrators in good standing are permitted access, as are certain other trusted persons (people with oversight, checkuser). I should think the committee is capable of cleaning its own house. Mackensen (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The committee have proven themselves far from capable of cleaning any house let alone their own, in short they appear incompetent. Now, how many are on that list, precise number please? Giano 16:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a list-admin so I don't have the exact number, but I suspect you can count as well as I can. Take the current committee, add all former members plus Jimbo, throw on a checkuser or two, subtract Kelly Martin since she unsubscribed when she resigned her adminship and other offices, and you have your potential list. Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No No NO we don't want throw in one or two, we want how many, and perhaps who, then we could amuse ourselves laughing at how many use the "secret channel". Why not ask David Gerard he runs the list doesn't he? He's bound to know. Giano 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure the ArbCom is capable of looking after itself, but then we peons have an legitimate interest in knowing who is copied in on the internal ruminations of what is essentially Wikipedia's highest decision making body, and which is privy to the most sensitive information about all sorts of topics.

There is no mention of an ArbCom mailing list at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, or indeed m:Mailing_lists/overview. But, given what you say, it seems rather odd that there are more people on the list who are not members of ArbCom than those there are (12 current members listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, compared to 21 former members on the same page - less one - plus more from Wikipedia:Oversight and "one or two" from m:CheckUser policy). Given the overlap between the various categories, presumably the list at Wikipedia:Oversight is quite close? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the names of those participating in the arbcom mailing list and the arbcom IRC channel should be public. Most input is useful. Although occasionally former arbitrators can weigh in with old issues I would rather not revisit. Fred Bauder 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The committee's internal mailing list is private, as is the committee's IRC channel. Subscriber lists for neither are published. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But why can't we just know who the recipients are? Surely that can be transparent - I know who the director of MI5 is so I'm sure the members of the ARBCOM mailing list can demonstrate similar openeness to the wiki community. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was not aware that there was an ArbCom IRC channel too. Something else that is not mentioned on any of the ArbCom pages. Anyway, I'm not sure why the names on the participants need to be kept "secret". For example, m:CheckUser policy mention a similiary-sensitive closed list, checkuser-l.

Fine, the contents of the ArbCom list e-mails are private, and I am not asking to be able to read them or for them to be logged publicly (although it may be interesting to look back on them in 30 or 60 or 100 years) but Mackensen (who, I understand, participates on the list as a former arbitrator) has essentially told us the answer anyway: "All former ex-arbitrators in good standing are permitted access, as are certain other trusted persons (people with oversight, checkuser)." plus the current members of ArbCom, of course. So why not have a public list of people who are on the mailing list? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they have very good reasons ALoan, why the names of those who govern us are on a peice of paper known only to he who guards the list, and incidentally decides not only what is allowed to be on it, but even more crucially WHEN! These things are not to be discussed openly, but I do happen to know "he who guards the list" did a check-user on me very recently, while performing himself yet another wrong and again reverted block of me. Obviously he felt I was a serious risk to the Encyclopedia, on the other hand perhaps he was just curious - who knows! Giano 19:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 5

why are we discussing IRC? IRC is off-wiki. AC has no jurisdiction there, we have no jurisdiction there, case closed. If there are problems, spell out in giant letters somewhere that IRC channels, even if called "wiki" have serve no official function on wikipedia, whatsoever. I've been an admin two years, and I've never been tempted to look into IRC. It's not part of Wikipedia, period. The AC must be out of its mind considering accepting evidence from IRC logs. Are they bored? Have they considered the difficulties, such as identity-theft and verifiability? Leave IRC alone, but crack down on anyone that takes IRC-feuds onto Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify a few things for the purposes of this discussion:

• There are 272 people with access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel which constitutes about 25% of all English Wikipedia administrators. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia administrators asking for access for the very first time and not being given it (however I believe there have been instances where channel occupants have had their access revoked due to abuse).
• These days there are usually between 40 and 50 people in the channel at any one time.
• James Forrester is not the "self proclaimed owner of the channel". He is the IRC Group Contact for the Wikimedia Foundation, and in that WMF-sanctioned role he is the person authorised to deal with Freenode on behalf of the Foundation.
• If Wikimedia/the ArbCom requested (e.g. through James Forrester) that the admins channel be shut down, then there would be absolutely nothing (apart maybe from goodwill on the part of Freenode) to stop people from creating an identical channel and picking up where they left off. The IRC channel is not a service of the Wikimedia Foundation, and as such the Foundation only has peripheral authority through the fact that several of those with high-level access on IRC are also deeply involved in one way or another with the Foundation or Wikipedia.
• I think I got given operator access in this channel because I asked for it, to fix some faulty channel mode:s or something like that. From there, I have just done the occasional access-giving to admins new to IRC. Rarely have I had to use my operator access to op myself in order to diffuse a situation. I am more hesitant to kick or ban people from the channel, or remove their access, because they are admins. But I've always been a devotee of civility, as some on the WikiEN-l mailing list might know, and I'm happy to enforce a stricter level of civility in the channel into the future.
• The channel is more useful than some people are giving it credit. At least twice in the last week I have found the channel useful to discuss extremely sensitive matters, which would be entirely inappropriate to discuss in larger, more public channels like #wikipedia.
• I would like to know what this new position of the ArbCom means when it comes to IRC logging. At the moment, public logging of #wikipedia-en-admins is strictly prohibited. How are the ArbCom going to take into account statements made on IRC if such logs which they take into account cannot be posted as part of their decisions?

I hope some of that made sense to someone. - Mark 16:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: arbcom... Logging and showing the log publicly isn't allowed, however private logging and mailing the logs to the private arbcom list is acceptable. (eg. many users probably have automatic IRC logging turned on for all channels) --Interiot 16:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But they're not exactly good evidence, since they can be so easily redacted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let alone altered or falsified outright. On-wiki the diffs do not lie. There is no such guarantee with any logs, especially when logs are furnished by parties with vested interests. The last logs I saw being circulated were three statements by James taken entirely out of context. If that's all that's being distributed, why in the world would ArbCom get involved and try to mete out punishment when they know so little of the situation? --Cyde Weys 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Because folks who think they've been wronged are threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue because it's unfair to them. SirFozzie 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It applies to both sides. Everyone just needs to let it go. However, there's one person in particular who can't seem to do that, and as a result, it just goes on, and on ... Cyde Weys 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue" - Cyde are you really suggesting that this is all a terrible fit-up and the ArbCom have been mislead? Hardly credible - I'd like to know why Freenode prevent public logging, perhaps there's some means by which they will make an exception for us - we could then release the logs in something akin to the 30 year rule - except 30 days perhaps, this would bring transparency to the channel, but preserve the immediate effectiveness of it for private deliberations. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Much worse things have been said on-wiki than anything the ArbCom has looked at from the #admins channel. ArbCom didn't seriously take any actions against the on-wiki stuff and they aren't seriously taking any actions against the #admins stuff either. This is just an advisement message. And no, the thirty day thing wouldn't work. Some of the stuff dealt with is stuff that needs to stay private over legal lifetimes — that is, decades. The only possible way for public logging to work would be for someone to go through and redact everything that cannot be said in public. I don't see that as being workable. Alternatively, #admins could be opened up and a new channel for dealing with private issues could be started elsewhere. I don't think that would solve the accusations of cannibalism, however. --Cyde Weys 17:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the leaky nature of the channel I would have thought anything that sensitive should be confined to emails anyway. What other arguments are there against publicising the logs? --Mcginnly | Natter 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If much worse things have been said on-wiki then where are the law-suits?--Mcginnly | Natter 18:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're conflating two separate and highly different issues. One issue is common incivility against other Wikipedians (which happens on and off wiki). There are no legal ramifications. The other issue is stuff that must be discussed privately to avoid legal complications. This is not ever discovered on-wiki. As for the leaky nature of logs — yes, that is why, largely, other channels are being used to handle the tricky legal issues. --Cyde Weys 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is all getting very nastily near to the truth for Cyde! Giano 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that Freenode no longer uses the concept of "group contacts" for channels with no official relationship to the thing being discussed. I don't believe that any change to the logging policy is being proposed at this point. While I could be mistaken (and would welcome a link to the salient Freenode policy if I am) I believe that the logging policy is a tradition carried over from #wikipedia rather than a Freenode matter. I would hope that everyone involved in the channel would adhere to the highest standards of Wikilove. Be excellent to one another and to those not present. If there are any current and ongoing problems with misuse of the channel, I would welcome any logs emailed to me privately. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would hope so too, but this has demonstrably not been the case - so, in your opinion public logging is possible? I'd be a lot happier with a published, unredacted log for everyone to see and comment and be judged by. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that additional logging is warranted unless there is still a problem. I am unconvinced that there is a present or ongoing problem at this point, since the users of the channel largely cleaned up their act in the wake of the recent public criticism of the channel. I repeat my offer to investigate any logs emailed to me privately that show a present and ongoing problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but the point is I'm still in a position where I, and every other non-admin - just has to take your word for it. What I've seen over the past months, leads me to believe that there are personalities at wikipedia, in positions of trust, that abuse that trust. with 1000 admins you'd expect a few rotten apples - but when ArbCOM are implicated - you'd expect resignations really. It seems they are unable to police even themselves, let alone the rest of us - I'd prefer to be in a wikipedia, where behaviour like that isn't condoned by the authorities. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Step right up to WP:RFA; if you ask I'll probably nominate you myself. Got a problem with the process there? So do I; visit Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship and make yourself heard to help get it fixed. Want to join the channel but not an admin? Become one of the trusted non-admins in the channel by making your case to any chanop. I'm not convinced that the arbitration committee is implicated in anything other than inaction brought about chiefly by jurisdictional concerns. Until recently we treated IRC as completely outside our jurisdiction. Obviously, this is changing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom isn't implicated. There's one person making lunatic claims that are wholly unsupported by any evidence. The channel is being watched by a multitude of people. --Cyde Weys 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you wont mind the logs being made public from now on then. I think I'd like to be one of the multitude --Mcginnly | Natter 18:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Any chance you'll open up your correspondence? I'm certain you've nothing to hide either. How about the other commentators on this thread? Come on, give us your emails. Phone conversations would be good to. Talk to your wife about Wikipedia before bed? We'll need that to, thanks! Please transcribe private thoughts on a section of your userpage as you have them as well. This is an open project, after all. Call it reducto ad absurdum if you must, but where does it end? Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Even #wikipedia doesn't allow logging. It would hardly make sense to have the private admins channel logged, but not the general users channel. Go try to get logging allowed in #wikipedia first, and then we can talk. --Cyde Weys 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, you know damn well there's evidence - it's been submitted to the ArbCom - again, do you think it was a fit-up? Your mates got caught conspiring in the most reprehensible way, and the best we can come up with is "people have been quite naughty on both side - please stop. For those of you looking on we're going to keep the doors shut for legal reasons, but just trust us everything is going to be ok from now on." mmmmm -And for that matter - no, I'd have no problem with any of my wikipedia business being made public, in fact, wait a minute - it has! I don't use back channel communications.--Mcginnly | Natter 18:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And we're just going to have to trust that last assertion? Mackensen (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I think if this damning evidence of conspiracy that you spoke of actually did exist, the ArbCom might take some action. As it is, all they're talking about is minding civility on the channel. Stop repeating this hurtful, false, and unsupported accusation. It's not helping anything. You haven't even seen this so-called "evidence", merely blindly repeating something you've heard from others. It's wrong. Stop repeating it. It's little more than vicious gossipy rumors. --Cyde Weys 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You should assume good faith until it is proven that doing so is untenable yes. My point is that I can't do that now with certain individuals. I'm not looking for complete transparency (from your comment above Mac) - I see the necessity of private communication - but this channel has been abused, to correct the public perception of it, no amount of assurances are really going to work and the scramble to protect it just adds fuel to the suspicion that there's something wrong with it. Let's make a clean breast of things, lets have some openeness, frankness, honesty and integrity. --Mcginnly | Natter 19:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, no amount of arguing to the contrary will convince people of the innocence of the accused. Mackensen (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 6

"But this channel has been abused" — Can you please, please, offer up some evidence to support this assertion? And especially the assertion of, "Your mates got caught conspiring in the most reprehensible way." These are very bold statements, but they also happen to be unsupported. It's not a good idea to make damaging and controversial assertions without evidence. Until you have more to go on than "But someone else said it", please desist. --Cyde Weys 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, I'm not here to trade insults or argue semantics with you. I have seen the logs and we could argue whether conspiring to remove an editor from wikipedia might be considered grossly uncivil. - The whole problem with substantiated arguments is precisely what I'm arguing - make the logs public, and everyone gets to see the behaviour, remove the rather convenient - "you can't substantiate that accusation" because no-one can publish the log. --Mcginnly | Natter 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please forward these logs to me then, so that I might review the evidence (and compare it against my own logs to make sure it is accurate). --Cyde Weys 19:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Or at least clarify what it is that you're talking about. If these are the logs regarding Giano's block, well yes, I've seen them and I'm dismayed by them, and steps are being taken. This, I believe, has already been discussed. If you have something new, say so. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's still not very clear. That could be any of a dozen times. Which block are we talking about? I at least want to go through my logs and see if I can find any of this evidence of a vast conspiracy. --Cyde Weys 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the best thing now is for Cyde to become cylent, and allow the arbcom to finish their deliberations. Giano 19:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And I think the same would apply to you as well. SirFozzie 19:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, fun. Cyde's back to the "I demand evidence! (If you give it to me, I will block you.)" <sigh> Then we get to "if there were evidence, ArbCom would do something" from one head, while another announces dismissively that ArbCom can't do anything and that no one on the channel has to give a rat's fig what ArbCom says about who is or is not an op there. This kind of spirit of cooperation, this level of self-examination, this desire to make sure only the highest standards of behavior are upheld by administrators is, in fact, what keeps this "drama" ongoing. If the actors would only leave the stage, we might at least get a new play. Geogre 00:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm honoring Cowman's closing of this thread (even though it's been overturned by Fred) and I'm refusing to continue with this mudfight. It's as plain as day to me that this isn't going anywhere productive. --Cyde Weys 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Wikipedia talk:Off-wiki policy discussion is probably a better place for this, although Wikipedia talk:Off-wiki discussion would be a better name for it. Can I ask that those involved here mosey over there so that we can try to acutally work out a stable solution?
brenneman 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Harassment from another editor

Administrators, I have a current problem with a wikipedian named John Reaves. We got into a disagreement today over the kidnapping of Shawn Hornbeck then went to my talk page. After discussions and his "warnings", I expressed to him the desire that he does not contact me any more on my page. He continues to come back and respond, after warnings from myself on this matter. He even challenged me to report him. I want nothing to do with this person, and do not have a high regard to him after reading of some of his past encounters with other editors. Please see that this person no longer has any contact with me, as I now consider his behavior as harassment. Kerusso 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I went to this editor's talk page to discuss the incivility and the personal attacks they made on Talk:Michael J. Devlin. They posted things such as

"Seems you think too highly of yourself here. This John Reaves goes around issuing people "warnings" and such, and after looking at his profile, he has no authority to do so. Just a over jealous poster who thinks way too much of himself. I would not place much crediance in what he says."

and

Well considering I have checked your comments on various articles and you clearly seem to think you are above all else, that is a sign of someone who thinks too highly of themselves.

. John Reaves 04:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that after all this has been pointed out to me, I pointedly made it clear to him I wanted no more comments from him, and this person has continued to keep coming. THAT is why I am here. Where I am wrong, I am wrong, and have not comment further to this person in that regards. I ended it in regards to him, and he decided he could not stop. I ask that he be requested to stop. It is simple as that, which this person can't seem to understand or comprehend. Kerusso 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This user thought they could "end it" by accussing me of stalking. There's no policy that says an editor may not defend his character against slander such as this. You can't "end" something by leaving open-ended personal attacks. John Reaves 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I will await an answer from the administrators. Also if this person posts on my talk page again, I will notify the administrators here. Kerusso 04:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like John Reaves has Wikistalked or harassed. It would have been better to have used a boilerplate template for the talk page warning because the wording was pretty vague. Better still, a few polite words asking Kerusso to be more civil might have been all that was needed. To Kerusso, any editor can post a warning to another editor's talk page. I consider this a level 1 caution - which is supposed to be a polite tap on the shoulder. Not much to worry about. Have a breather and best wishes to both of you. Durova^Charge 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Durova. Kerusso 04:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I just realized this is in the wrong place. Should this be moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? John Reaves 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe Durova made a decision and ended it, or do you see some need to keep it going even further? Let it drop! Kerusso 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, stop freaking out. I was just asking if it should be moved since you commented in the wrong place. This is for discussing administrative stuff, incidents are supposed to be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. And no, I see no reason to continue this as I was proved right. John Reaves 05:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically, yes, this matter should be at WP:ANI, not here. But since the matter has ended, there is really no point moving it there, and there is no point continuing it there (and here). --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

system template edit requested

I already brought this up without opposition at Wikipedia Talk:Categorization:

New users seem to have the idea that you add pages to categories by editing the category page itself. Could we add something to the boilerplate for editing Category pages, so it tells them not to edit in an article, but to add the category wiki-text to the given article? This would save me and many others a good deal of time in reverting mistaken edits to categories, and would therefore allow us to focus further on articles.

Can an administrator please implement this? Thank you, --Urthogie 04:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that falls into the reign of the devs here. I think BugZilla is the way to get the idea implemented. Hbdragon88 04:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But admins can edit such messages according to Wikipedia:Administrators. I've done a search of past BugZilla requests, and ones such as these are often considered too specific to enwiki to be even considered.--Urthogie 04:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You can also try to give the idea at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) to get some feedback from other community members and developers. -- ReyBrujo 04:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If I do bring it up at both pumps and it gets double approval, would you be willing to edit the template? Or are you just sending me there? Thanks, --Urthogie 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, can you point which template? -- ReyBrujo 04:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I see it doesn't exist as of yet, but couldn't an admin create it? It would be very much similar to MediaWiki:Talkpagetext.--Urthogie 05:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah... hmm... well, not sure which template is the one that appears when editing a new category. You should go to proposals asking for that template name and the modifications you want. -- ReyBrujo 05:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki pages are listed at Special:Allmessages. I don't think there's a separate page for the category edit window, but I'm not the most knowledgeable about such things. Chick Bowen 08:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Categories? -- Agathoclea 12:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Journalist seeking assistance

If an administrator could take a look at this Request for Comment and assist in answering this request from User:Edwardlucas (husband of Cristina Odone) it would be appreciated. Catchpole 13:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish more people disclosed their potential conflicts of interest as candidly as Edward Lucas and handled disputes as well. I've left my response. Best wishes, Durova^Charge 14:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Tyrenius 01:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Admin 100b and others

• Template:Admin 100b
• Template:Admin 1000d
• Template:Admin 2000d
• Template:Admin 200b
• Template:Admin 500d
• Template:Admin 500b
• Template:Admin 5000d

Would anyone object if I went rouge and just deleted these as being potentially divisive, in making blocking and deleting seem like a big fun competition, or will I have to take them to TFD?

Not that three are not used at all, with Blnguyen using two of the seven (500b and 5000d), and PinchasC and Moondyne using one each (200b and 1000d respectively). If I do have to go via TFD, is there any way to link multiple TFD notices to the one discussion (as with AFDx)? Proto::► 13:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe suggest he moves them to his userspace? yandman 13:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I'm suggesting they be got rid of, not shifted to userspace. Proto::► 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

They serve no useful purpose (and sort of imply that someone's worth as an admin is in how many blocks, etc, they've imposed). I won't deny that I've considered speedying them myself before. -- Steel 14:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy the unused and {{subst} the used ones. No one will complain, and if they do tell them Aaron "save the userboxes" brenneman suggested it. - brenneman 14:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• I say delete the lot of them, and make yourself a nice template that says "this admin has deleted at least 7 templates on enwiki", then delete that as well. Repeat as necessary. >Radiant< 14:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I killed the 100b one, now we just need a few more other rouge admins to take out the lot. --Cyde Weys 14:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone is deleting them before I've had chance to subst them appropriately.(ahem!) Proto::► 14:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I thought of that afterwards. Just C&P the text. -- Steel 14:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

All done now. :) Proto::► 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how many deletes I have to my name, but I do enjoy the irony of so many templates boasting these statistics now taking their destined course.  :) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not far off the 5,000, and approaching a thousand blocks. I need to get out more. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not far off 50, and approaching twenty blocks. I need to get out less, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

There are changes in question at the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest guideline being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#'Administrator conflict of interest' regarding the extent to which our guideline should reflect conflict of interest in general (example: admin power use) or should be resticted to the recent consolidation of the former vanity guideline and the former paid-editor guideline. WAS 4.250 16:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

archive comments

Administrator Gurubrahma gave me a link about archiving comments. I hardly understand anything because I'm from a foreign country and my English is not well. Can you please summarise this link? Please leave a comment on my talk page if you agree. Thanks. Morris Munroe 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page shortly. Sandstein 18:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Free Republic

There's a real mess over at that page. It's been the focal point of a hot dispute for long enough that I've considered opening an arbitration request. User:Carolyn-WMF performed some deletions recently that included cited material, which has created confusion. The editors are presumptively respecting it as an office action but wonder why it was done. Jossi seems to be the most active admin. I looked into things today after I opened an e-mail from one of the disputants that contained a serious allegation and a broken hyperlink, which I've tried to chase down in the page history but haven't verified yet.

I'm not sure what to make of this whole situation. If it weren't for Carolyn's edit I'd contact Jossi and probably start drafting an arbitration request. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Durova^Charge 19:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, straight to arbitration would be skipping a few steps. Has anyone tried mediation? Or maybe an RFC? --Cyde Weys 19:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to look up some old diffs to be certain, but I think I pointed them in that direction two months ago. Durova^Charge

This mess is about to get huger now... And I am probably the most active admin. Prodego ^talk 21:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not certain I have a good solution. That's why I'd like to discuss it here. Any ideas? Durova^Charge 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think Merzbow is doing an excellent job as a stabilizing factor, and essentially a mediator, and that over time that should calm things down. However, it is possible, as you suggest, some more immediate remedy be preformed. Prodego ^talk 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not the impression I got when an editor petitioned me by e-mail. I'm on thin ice here because I was asked to treat it as confidential, yet I'd really like to see the page get some fresh eyes and additional feedback. Durova^Charge 21:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not so much content disagreements at the moment (I've found the long-time editors on this page intelligent and very willing to compromise), but the actions of a notorious banned user. I'm not going to speculate anymore on the alleged actions of this user (at least until the Wikimedia people clear some things up), but all the bizarre details are at the article's talk page. In fact, I doubt there is anything more any of us can do until Danny et al respond. - Merzbow 21:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it help if I did an investigation the way I did with BooyakaDell/JB196? Some old fashioned gumshoe work proved that Booyaka was a sockpuppet of a banned account that had been dormant for too long to get a checkuser. I'm sure you've got other irons in the fire. Yet I'm here if you need me. I've already been on this case for part of the history and I think I know who you're talking about. Durova^Charge 22:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd welcome your input Durova. Jossi was doing a GREAT job mediating until a notorious sockpuppeteer (now banned) started creating numerous sock puppet accounts to sway consensus and 'vote'. Although this user is banned, he is still affecting the article, and I believe he even might have contacted the foundation impersonating someone else and asking a Wiki employee to edit the article. Most unseemly. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a very serious accusation. Level it with caution. Durova^Charge 23:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're familiar with what's being discussed? The banned user's claims here were proven to be completely false here - Fairness And Accuracy For All 00:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with them, but they're pretty tough to encapsulate in a short request here. Please accept my apologies if I oversimplified. Bear in mind that, although your accusation may be meritorious, frivolous charges of that sort far outnumber real ones. The safe course is to be slow about making such a charge unless you're absolutely certain and ready to back it up with page diffs that connect all the dots. Durova^Charge 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good advice. Once I confirmed that the user's claims regarding authorship were bogus, I did speculate as to how it happened that a foundation employee ended up editing the article. Better to wait. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Presumptively respecting" something as an office action is insanity. If something is aWikipedia:Office Actions it needs to be clearly and explicitly stated as such. Have we learned nothing from the past stupidity (including dead-minning) with respect to this? There are "vanilla" edits as well from this account, like where she's listed herself as bookkeeper. Her removal of the section with citations should be treated just as any other user's would be.
brenneman 23:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is this edit, in which she says she works at the office that causes some speculation. Also, she actually removed herself from the employee list in the edit above??? Prodego ^talk 23:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're correct of course. Not that it matters, I simply meant it as an example of a "normal" edit, I could have used another example. I do note that the request for clarification has gone unanswered. We cannot and must not be put in the position where we are afraid to make straight-forward edits based upon random speculations. I am going to examine the removed section as I would if under normal circumstances, and if I'm satisfied by the reference I'm going to uncomment on it. - brenneman 23:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've uncommented out the section, re-written it since it was copyvio in the form of a long quote easily summarised,added details to the bare html reference, and noted on the talk page that I've done so. I stress this here again: Verification is not negotiable. In teh absence of either a real source saying Walker didn't write the piece or some real indication that this was "official" then the citation must stand. It is worth noting that the Walker part of the article is only very small, and the came citation could easily be used without mentioning the guy. - brenneman 00:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I posted here is because of the confusion about whether something was or was not an office action posted by a Foundation employee in the normal course of work, or a hoax, or something else. It deleted referenced material on a page with a longstanding edit war without explanation, which is definitely something I'd like to see the longstanding sysops comment on. Durova^Charge 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Eguor admins

Some events from the past couple of weeks inspired me to create a new category and populate it with myself. Join me if you think this is cool. If you consider it a horrible idea then tell me why: my flameproof suit just returned from the dry cleaners. Cheers, Durova^Charge 21:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Responded on the category talk page. Chick Bowen 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Something new to watch for?

Can someone identify or explain what this edit was? Spam? Vandalism? Something really nasty? Or a mistake--note that the previous edit by the same IP was a good edit--no it wasn't; I misread it as the other way around somehow. Perhaps this was just simple vandalism, then, in which case, I'm sorry for taking your time. Chick Bowen 23:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like just a new user playing around, light vandalism/spam. -Patstuart^talk|edits 00:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems to be the latest fashion in vandalism. I saw one like this the other day. Not quite sure how it's done though. Tyrenius 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The part that messes up the page display is the unclosed <div style="position:absolute;left:15px;top:110px;width:100px;height:31px;"> near the end of the added content. Most of the rest is simply dumped on the page verbatim. (BTW, I added diffonly=1 to the diff link above — doing that is probably a good idea when posting diffs to something that messes up the page.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotr Blass

I feel that my page Piotr Blass is being vandalizes and targeted for deletion Please look into this. Thanks Dr Piotr Blass www.pblass.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pblass2002 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

No problem here: it's being discussed at WP:AFD. If the article is worth a keep, it will be kept. If not, then deleted. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, again, Dr. Blass, but his article, always an autobiography, has been deleted many times, and was recently allowed to be undeleted because it's {{deletedpage}} status was removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion log—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As a question, isn't courtesy blanking (as was done for his first AFD) intended for people who wish to go away? It seems he doesn't want to leave, he just wanted to remove the first round of embarassment. Fan-1967 03:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the result was delete before it was courtesy blanked. Check the log history (not providing a link, as it defeats the purpose of the courtesy blanking). -Patstuart^talk|edits 03:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. It just seems that for him to request the AFD be blanked, and then recreating the article, is gaming the system. Maybe I was wrong. I viewed courtesy blanking as an extension of right to vanish. Fan-1967 03:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Misunderstood your comments. Patstuart^talk|edits 03:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the AFD as Dr. Blass has shown no attempts to actually leave. I will contact Jimbo about my actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Addtionally, if someone feels that I was out of line, I will not object to its reversion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the opionion that Dr. Blass has been gaming our system. The new article offers little of substance beyond what was deleted before in the prior version and the user appears to be canvassing for support. My comment at the deletion discussion reflects that. Durova^Charge 04:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot Piotrek Blass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Piotrus Blass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Groan...salt the earth if possible. Durova^Charge 04:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It was. Centrx went out deleting {{deletedpage}}s. That's how he remade Piotr Blass—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, let's not extend any more courtesies. Fan-1967 04:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive135#Piotr Blass for a former discussion that I brought up.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And User:Piotr Blass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), the original account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see Dr. Blass's IP address was blocked for a month last year for a threat.[28] He's started four different threads on Jimbo's talk page today. How much do we tolerate before discussing a community siteban? He doesn't raise new points, just repeats himself. Durova^Charge 05:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, sock of banned user, recreation of deleted pages. Why are we even continuing to discuss? Fan-1967 05:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Have any of his accounts actually been banned? Durova^Charge 05:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought Piotr Blass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) had been. So why's he using the sock Pblass2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)?

Just as recreating a page automatically contests a prod, recreating a page implies waiving your right to a courteousy blank. Savidan 05:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotr Blass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been speedied and salted. Fan-1967 05:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

<devil's advocate> Anything to suggest this the the real Blass other than his claim to that end, and does it make any differance? Just exploring the possibilities here...
brenneman 05:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He's invited me to one of his lectures, at some point. Also, it's hard not to tell its him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's inconceivable that anyone other than him could duplicate that level of vanity. Besides, the argumentative writing style is inimitable. Fan-1967 07:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ban time?

Based on Dr. Blass' constant abuse of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and the community, I propose that we ban him from contributing to Wikipedia because he has clearly exhausted our patience. His only contributions to the project are his autobiography, the article on Zariski surfaces, Jimbo's talk page whenever his article is up for deletion (appealing to a "fellow Floridian"), and the talk pages of those who oppose him, because they are not knowledgeable in the fringe area of mathematics. This would include a ban on Piotr Blass (talk · contribs), Pblass2002 (talk · contribs), and the IP 69.163.189.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well as any others he may use.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Move gone really bad.. Intel Pentium III & friends..

I tried to switch places on 'Intel Pentium III' and 'Pentium III' however it seems wikipedia engine won't let go of 'Intel Pentium III' redirect page so the move is screwed up. Could someone please move the Article 'Pentium III tmp' -> 'Intel Pentium III'. And put a link from 'Pentium III' -> 'Intel Pentium III'. Please help with this..! I feel really bad about this screwup, but the database management software seems to have been caught in a momementum 22. Will not try this again, as it seems the database simple can't handle article switches. Again.. HELP! ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Electron9 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Fixed. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!, btw could you swap 'Pentium Pro' and 'Intel Pentium Pro' ..? Electron9 07:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus for this move. It was decided a long time ago that microprocessor articles should not have the manufacturer's name in the title. A while back, some guy decided to move all such articles, and those moves were reverted. This move should not have been made. jgp ^T_C 07:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh crap. So I have to fix it back? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. Not your fault, really... jgp ^T_C 07:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved back after a bit of deleting. No big problem. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

funnypop12 and Muhammad

Well i had just asked to give me sources for "medieval christian veiw of Muhammad". And want answer about those diputed pics of Muhammad. Give it and i'll be satisfied. I have different point of veiw based on reasons. Stop this anti-funnypop things please. Thanks. Funnypop12 09:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)