:::Oh, I didn't realise that, but regardless, hasn't this gone on long enough here in ever decreasing circles? --[[User:Zeraeph|Zeraeph]] ([[User talk:Zeraeph|talk]]) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Oh, I didn't realise that, but regardless, hasn't this gone on long enough here in ever decreasing circles? --[[User:Zeraeph|Zeraeph]] ([[User talk:Zeraeph|talk]]) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I fully endorse what [[User:R. Baley|R. Baley]] just said, and also feel it's a ridiculous waste of time. That is senseless, and will actually go nowhere. [[User:Zeraeph|Zeraeph]] still hasn't made any apologies whatsoever for insinuating other editors are stalkers here, a situation which is quite appalling. "Respectfully suggest" [[User:Zeraeph|Zeraeph]]? I "respectfully suggest" you stop making ludicrous stalker accusations / insinuations against other editors, as they're unwelcome here. [[User:LuciferMorgan|LuciferMorgan]] ([[User talk:LuciferMorgan|talk]]) 22:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I fully endorse what [[User:R. Baley|R. Baley]] just said, and also feel it's a ridiculous waste of time. That is senseless, and will actually go nowhere. [[User:Zeraeph|Zeraeph]] still hasn't made any apologies whatsoever for insinuating other editors are stalkers here, a situation which is quite appalling. "Respectfully suggest" [[User:Zeraeph|Zeraeph]]? I "respectfully suggest" you stop making ludicrous stalker accusations / insinuations against other editors, as they're unwelcome here. [[User:LuciferMorgan|LuciferMorgan]] ([[User talk:LuciferMorgan|talk]]) 22:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::I strongly urge all editors to stop provoking Z, and for Z to stop responding. Since there is an ongoing Request for Arbitration, Z, SG and others are free to enter their statements there, and if the case is accepted, their evidence. But please stop posting accusations and counter-accusations here — this is counterproductive, and only fans the flames. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 22:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello all, I was just wondering what you thought of things like this and this? I know we've had people's personal shops before, but not multiple people like this. Seems like instruction creep to me...just wondering what people think. Regards, Keilana01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Unless I'm missing something, this is just a witty approach for offering to help others. Strikes me as good natured and constructive, and goodness knows we could use more of both qualities around here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be helping users, but I think the dollar stores are coming to Wikipedia. I've "purchased" items from one of them before, and, to clarify things, I AM NOT AN EMPLOYEE AT CHAMPION MART!!! —BoL@04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really doing much at all, in fact, it's doing harm to those who receive Christmas cards that are "bought" from these shops and displayed in dark green on bright red. Even though they claim to be helping users by making them feel cheerful and happy about contributing, but in my opinion, they appear to make the whole place look like a social networking site and end up getting people blocked for social networking. My two cents, anyway. Spebi21:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But looking at the positive side of these shops, you don't really have to buy anything, just copy the code from the source and the owner's can't come to your talk page complaining of "card theft". Spebi21:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. This is a valid discussion topic, especially considering the fact that some users are now talking of "friend requests" – [1], [2]. Spebi04:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(undent)Yeah, so do I. I think Vintei and I are speaking for all shop owners (there may be more) when we say that the shops are easier to use for newcomers because all they have to do is copypaste the source code. I'd rather copypaste a premade design or request a design from a more experienced user than have to continually reference the userpage design center if I wanted a unique userpage. --Gp75motorsportsREV LIMITER 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
:Look, just drop it for now. If you two start flaming about it, it will be dealt with. —BoL@ 02:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC) You know what? Scratch that. I have nominated both their shops for deletion. Looks like they're going too out of the edge, I mean, Gp75 copied the src from Vintei, so I'm doing it. —BoL@ 02:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Wait, scratch that. I'll file a request for comment. —BoL@02:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me again why having "a unique userpage" is essential to building an encyclopedia? Shouldn't we be helping newcomers learn how to improve articles and not how to have gaudy userboxes, signatures, and user pages? Metros (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't really work for anyone, really. I mean, checkout? You got to be kidding me. So, I'm just going to kick back and relax and see how this goes. I may merge your stores into one and have you guys work together. Seems cherry? I didn't think so. Anyway, I'm not sure whether this is the right place to report it, but UAA is backlogged. —BoL@05:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(this is a copy of my comment from here) I say that we should be able to keep shops in some way or form, whether it be a wikiproject or hosted on someone's userpage. I don't know why there are so many delete votes when something like this passes. I mean look at their keep rationale, all of their rational apply to shops as well, if not more. If you think shops are a waste of disk space, what do you have to say to the huge lists of userboxes we have up? Although shops will probably be deleted anyways, I would like permission to have a wikiproject or a WP: page, where there is no competition. Thanks -- penubag 23:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean an alternate account that's not used for editing and is solely used for shops. But, I don't think that's needed because if the shops are deleted, there's a Wiki that just started in Wikia. Just can't remember what the title of that Wiki was... Happy Holidays from —BoL00:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question- So if I offer helping people make sigs, that's not allowed? or does it have to be a subpage dedicated to that before it gets deleted? I have a userpage2 just with ASCII art and facts and if I offered to design ASCII art for a user, should it be deleted? How far does it go before it get's deleted? I can list 10 users that have sig shops and others, but I don't see theirs deleted. -- penubag 03:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this thread could be resolved, all shops have been deleted. Not only that, I think the shops should be restored for two minutes so I can retrieve the source code and transwiki over to wikia:codesnippets. —BoL06:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Sorry, i haven't seen any existing shops which you all are talking about. And the examples cited at the top of this section have now been deleted. could anyone please point me to some examples of these? thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, that got deleted. But you can kinda view an example here. —BoL00:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that's the user behind it. See the edit to my talk page, which links it pretty clearly to 767-249ER in my book. Doubly since I blocked that user for personal-attack comments he made toward J Bar; his unhappiness about the block would explain the venom directed at me. —C.Fred (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems totally uncalled for. I have left a note for the blocking admin, and am willing to unblock if there is any support here. Ceoil was not quite as gentle about it as he might have been, but nothing he said seems blockable. DGG (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears excessive with very little history to provide any reason. Blocking admin should have bought it here for review at the least. Support unblock at this time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Copied here at his request). We now have 4 admins above supporting unblock (block is now 12 hours old) and blocking admin is offline. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC):[reply]
The initial indefinate block shows that Jmlk17 was being reflexive and did not look into the situation.
Ditto for Ryanjcole's septic "Get over yourself" comment on bettacommandbot's talk. Do these people have any substance?
The block is transparently punitave.
The phrase "driven off wikipedia" has been diluted through overuse, but if you want to find a good example look at the broken bones and dust left in this bot edit history. I sincearly think he does way, way more harm than good, he is consistently incivil, remote, and unresponsive. This needs to be stopped. Ceoil (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to propose a better way to protect us from copyright hell, please do. Ignoring for a moment the current case, we already know that serial uploaders of found-it-on-the-web-somewhere images dislike Betacommandbot, as they have disliked every other editor, admin or bot who has worked to enforce WP:FUC and WP:C. Some of these have indeed been driven away because they are unable to upload their images without being challenged. It may be an unfashionable view, but I say we can do without people who are unwilling to work within policy on unfree content. As far as I can tell, most genuinely valuable contributors fix the problem by adding a proper fair-use rationale rather than hurling invective at Betacommand or leaving in a huff. Maybe instead of beefing people could help word better talk page messages for the bot? Guy (Help!) 13:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can block Betacommand bot and not worry a thing about copyright. For one thing, it tags images based on more restrictions on fair use than is legally necessary. It's all about Betacommand's personal belief in "non-free" content. He's going to force us all to be free by deleting all of our "non-free" images. It doesn't matter if they're fair use (i.e., legal). I can understand why you don't mind the bot screwing up all of our images because you never upload any content. This bot is in my opinion a vandal bot, but buddies of Betacommand like you keep on unblocking it.--Temp54 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is fundamentally a free content project; what one calls "fair use", another could just as easily call "stealing" -- if we can't make it, we'll take the hard work of someone who did and call it our own. There are cases where this can be justified, and cases where doing so is harmful to the core goals of the project. Note also that the Foundation's policies are more restrictive than is legally required (because Wikipedia is, again, fundamentally about free content). The problem in this particular case seems to have less to do with fair use policy, and more to do with an argument between frustrated people. Also, is there some reason you're posting under a throwaway account? – Luna Santin (talk)23:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a free project. Anything we're free to use and view is free content, in my opinion. I disagree that it's stealing since no one has been deprived of anything by using it here. I'm not sure how you can say that we're calling it our own work when we have to spell out every detail about the image including who made it, where it came from, and under what legal and policy rationale it can be used. Even after doing those things, the bot still tags images because it's written to find excuses to delete images. We have to remember that we're an encyclopedia, not a political organ. As for your second question, I was angry, so didn't want to look like a troll.--Temp54 (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the bot does do screwy things sometimes, e.g. [3] this tag was my last experience with it. But it was easy enough to say to myself "stupid bot" and make the upload compliant. -- Kendrick7talk23:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not the principal of copyright that I have a problem with, its the indiscrimanate, sanctomonous (remember his 'fucktard' reply), insulting, 29 actions per minute, unthinking robotic patronising attitude that I find insulting, wanton, and almost autistic. Ceoil (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An established, productive featured article writer was indef blocked for apparently insulting a bot? What have I missed, what justified the indef block, and the spirit of "don't template the regulars" is that we attempt to sort out the random copyright violators, trolls and vandals from our valued and productive editors before we punitively block them, adding to the graveyard of bones and dust referred to by Ceoil. I should disclose I admire Ceoil's work because there are less than a handful of editors on Wiki willing to dig in to a featured article review to get no credit for salvaging someone else's work; it's a thankless task, and Ceoil does it all the time. I'm concerned about how fast this admin's fingers were on the block trigger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to put this list up here, for the record; sometimes editors who quietly go about the business of improving Wiki and who stay out of trouble get overlooked. A quick review (I know I've missed some) of other people's articles restored to featured status by Ceoil includes Augusta, Lady Gregory, H.D., Heavy metal music, Imagism, Punk rock (one of Wiki's five oldest continuous FAs, featured since 2004), Representative peer, Royal Assent and William Butler Yeats. I'm sure there are more. Of note, he restored several of these with Outriggr (talk·contribs), who recently left Wiki, possibly explaining some of Ceoil's current frustration. The reward for restoring a featured article to status is no entry at WP:WBFAN, where Ceoil has six articles listed nonetheless. I'm not saying doing this amount of work excuses any possible violations, but trigger happy bot and admin actions are a concern if an established, productive editor is treated on par with trolls and copyright violators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly re treated on par. The issue is vandel fighters having more buttons than content people; we dont trust each other (with good reason), they think we are extendable cogs, we wonder why the fuck they are here and what they get out of it. Bad state of affairs. My preference is that this block baloons into a wider discussion.Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an excessively broad generalisation. There is, however, an inevitable tendency to develop tunnel vision when dealing with specific areas of abuse, such as non-free content abuse, and forget that non-free content is actually allowed, albeit with caveats and used in moderation. Every now and then I come across a user whose talk page consists of nothing but dozens of unfree content warnings, and I had for a while an image on my watchlist that was recreated once a week or more often with precisely the same problem, no FU rationale and no copyright information, each time by a "brand new user". Guy (Help!) 17:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad yes, and maybe unfair to the specific people involved. There is a wider issue; I'm not sure if its that a small pool of admins are overworked, or that the inherent distrust between content people and power people is getting to the stage that it just cant be ignored. I was indef blocked, thats no small thing, something is wrong here. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse? Abuse. Please, leave that kind of projection at the door. I'm not a fucking idiot, don't treat me like one. Conjectiour is cheap; that is why Im protesting. Ceoil (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
T'was the block before Christmas and all through the house Ceoil could not edit 'cause Jmlk17 clicked his mouse
Gosh. It is insulting to have one's record sullied by a block log, blocks should be taken very seriously, and it's common for some discussion to ensue before the tools are applied, particularly with an indef. It is not something to be taken lightly; I hope all admins understand the seriousness of adding a block to someone's record. Ceoil is now forever labeled as threatening and harassing other users. Kendrick, the poem was cute and funny ... unless you happen to be the person who now has that charge on your record. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Ceoil had made the same edits as a newbie, he probably would have been indef blocked, and no one would have thought twice; he just got lucky with the timing here. Those articles never reached feature article status, George, and all the men on that transport died.... -- Kendrick7talk 18:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC
Maybe you should take a more substantive view before you but in with moral openions. I WAS indef blocked. I said first that this was a reflexive admin action; thats my central point. This attidude is the problem Ceoil (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense finally prevails, so it's nice to see Wikipedia isn't totally off its trolley. I'm also extremely happy that SandyGeorgia hasn't let Ceoil's contributions go unnoticed. Wikipedia would be much greater with more editors like Ceoil. :) LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy about that. If he did comment, I think I'd have another block to my account (a lengthy one indeed). I run a music website, and record labels encourage me to put the album covers up. I even have PRs from the record labels sending me the covers via attachment. Not once have I needed to use a fair use rationale. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not, because you have permission from the record label. If Wikipedia had such written permission, you wouldn't need one here either. Because of our licensing, though, that's very unlikely to happen.BLACKKITE19:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very clever Black Kite, but what you said has fuck all to do with this agrument. Thanks, you exclempified my point. We are ruled by a disinterested oligarcy who are interest first and foremaost with having bits on a top 10 website and building an Encylopedia second. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia yes, but you will notice that the word "Free" appears in front of it in the top left hand corner. Also, I was only replying to LucfierMorgan's point about record companies. Oh, and WP:CIVIL. BLACKKITE20:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to an earlier comment, I hope we all would have responded just the same if it had been a newbie. It might however not have seemed quite so obvious. DGG (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been.? You remeber !!, right. Rember I am now a 'haresser'. I am a very open person IRL, i talk to people I like about articles I am working on. Harress is now just a click away. I uploaded a picture of my face. Not very fucking funny. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, I think we all know you're unjustly blocked and you're angry about it. We get the point. But can you please, um, tone down your statements? We do have a civility policy here. You're not endearing yourself and helping us sympathize with you by throwing uncivil comments in our faces. —Kurykh20:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that Ceoil right now is justifiably and significantly upset, on top of already being concerned about Outriggr's departure from Wikipedia and ugly business recently including the !! Affair. The commentary on Ceoil's block log was severe. As fas as I understand about block logs, that commentary isn't ever going away. Am I wrong? Any discussion that downplays right now how it feels to have that kind of block log commentary will probably only succeed in making Ceoil more upset. Addressing the underlying issues might be more helpful than telling Ceoil to be glad he was only blocked for 48 hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that Ceoil doesn't have the right to be upset. Ceoil has every right to be. But some of these comments, from the standpoint of someone who is uninvolved and hasn't commented earlier in this dispute, are toeing the line. Otherwise, I agree with your statements. I'm not downplaying Ceoil's statements and sentiments; I am trying to tone down the flames so that more constructive dialogue can take place. —Kurykh20:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can you try the tactic of not asking Ceoil not to be angry, when he is very obviously very upset? Asking him not to behave like he's angry (particularly without addressing the underlying issues) when he is angry isn't going to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking him to tone down his statements, and no more. Why are people so intent on misconstruing my statements? We're not resolving the dispute here if we have all heat and no light. —Kurykh21:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, if you think that Ceoil is the only person who's really really frustrated with the way administrators are treating other editors on this project then you are incredibly mistaken, Kurykh. "Helping us sympathize with you"? I'm stunned that you would make this sort of comment. It's actually a terrifying sort of attitude. Admins and editors are all in this together. You know that, right? --JayHenry (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But only an administrator could possibly be unsympathetic to Ceoil in this situation! Is that the lot of mere content contributors? Write some of the project's best articles, make one frustrated comment, get indef'ed with no discussion, have no right to be upset about it because it was changed to 48 hours? It would be hilarious if we weren't losing our best contributors because some admins continue to behave this way. --JayHenry (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kurykh, seriously why are you commenting here. The last few posts above, and in paticular yours, sunstantiate my claim. These last few posts are drive by, ill-judged, ill-informed, random excuses by admins who missed the cusp of my argument. I'm not really interested in talking to you. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think some admins need to be more hesitant to pull the block button. A bad block can easily do a lot more damage than holding off on the button. If Ceoil would have left the project over this, the project would have lost quite a bit more than it would had everyone watched and waited. Has the blocking admin apologized yet? Gimmetrow21:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't watch this page and noticed this thread by accident. I am posting just to back up the comments above that Ceoil is one of the most valuable editors on this project. I understand fair use issues, and I see it's important, but if the process of enforcement leads to blocking an editor like Ceoil for a fairly mild expression of irritation, then I think it would be worth reconsidering the methods used to enforce fair use. Please think about the long-term effect on the project of losing Ceoil; we gain editors like him rarely and lose them far too easily. Mike Christie(talk)21:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
here is my two cents, comments such as there will be a holy war personally bring up a scary parallel to terrorism and hint on a threat to my life. Using terrorist like terminology, along with abusive language, increases the similarity between the two. most admins would see that action and indef-block because of the obvious nature of the user, and possibility of physical harm. βcommand21:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, now im a terrost. Im Irish, not american, terrosist means very different things here, so dont try and bully me with retarded insults. Funny, I did not expected a more sophistaded argument from you. Did I already mention BC's use of the the word 'fucktard' the last time there was an icident like this. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? What is meant by the obvious nature of the user? Do you honestly want us to believe Ceoil was threatening your life? This is quite a dramatic charge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on. That was a rather silly comparison, BC. You definitely know how your fair use work can be perceived , and handing ungraceful comments is something that goes along with that job. We can't have situations like this blowing up every other week forever. henrik•talk21:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree with that, Mike. The people who spend so much time writing content definitely deserve better than this from us admins. At the very least, before blocking an experienced and established editor in good standing (like Ceoil) where there is no immediate harm being done, they deserve a thourogh discussion on AN/I. But with that said, mistakes are made and will continue to be made, and a block certainly isn't the end of the world.
I think there is a fair amount of disconnect between some content contributors and some admins, and a bit of understanding and good faith from both sides is needed. We all need to recognize that no-one is perfect, mistakes are made, and the best we can do is try to fix them and move on. Holding on to grudges and staying mad will just make this project less pleasant for all. henrik•talk21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Light at last. I don't upload images for these very reasons, but now that I've seen how the person behind the BetaCommand Bot responds to other real people, I'm wondering if we can't get this bot assigned to a person with more advanced diplomatic skills and level headedness? By nature, this bot's work leads to hard feelings, and the person behind it should be careful, responsive and considerate. I'm wondering if its duties are in the best hands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This editor was blocked for deliberately trying to provoke a "war" [5]., and since unblocking he has continued to do everything possible to bring such warfare down on our heads. Why was he unblocked? --Tony Sidaway21:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus. The first four people to comment thought the block excessive with regard to the reasons given - and I did exactly what Jmlk17 did; act in what I thought was the best interests of the project.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there appears to have been consensus on unblocking. Let me clarify. On what grounds was it decided that condoning Ceoil's loutish attacks was likely to be good for the project? --Tony Sidaway23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the grounds of freedom of speech. Furthermore, "this editor" as you call him actually contributes ten times more to the project than Betacommand ever has. Let me ask another question: on what grounds was it decided that condoning Betacommand's loutish, absolutely stupid behaviour on Wikipedia is likely good for the project? Betacommand has driven away more editors singlehandedly than anyone I can think of. Ceoil's comments were truthful, and I 110% agree with them. Before you start questioning what Ceoil said, perhaps you should start questioning why image taggers are deemed more valuable than content writers. It's about time someone spoke up for the majority. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was that the block was inappropriate - that does not mean that the comments by Ceoil were condoned. I was one of two who said that the duration was excessive, which implies that some sort of sanction may have been justified; perhaps a stern warning would have sufficed, giving an opportunity for Ceoils supporters to have voiced any misgivings prior to any action. In the matter of loutish attacks being grounds for such harsh blocks, other parties to this discussion have not been so remanded for language that was found offensive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Violent"? Are you a little slow or something? Or do you actually believe Betacommand's demented claim that his life was being threatened? When he threatened holy war, he meant it metaphorically. He meant that he would take tell Betacommand where to get off (and rightly so), and not roll over and die. So.. people here think Ceoil's the latest member of Al Quaeda now then? I mean, really. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original block was indefinite, but was changed within a few minutes to 48 hours. The block that was discussed was the 48hour block, which was considered excessive. Had the indef tariff remained it would have likely been referred to in much stronger terms. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly unfashionable but seasonal statement by LessHeard vanU
It is very easy to take sides in an argument - so that is what I am going to do; I have never come across Ceoil before, but it is obvious that they are a well regarded editor who does a thankless task in keeping Wikipedia flagship articles (the FA's) concurrent and up to scratch. Betacommand(bot), who is familiar to me since I have both WP:AN and WP:ANI on my watchlist, is a perhaps less well regarded by some (but not all) editor/bot(operator) who does a frequently thankless - to the point of dislike - task in attempting to keep the images that populate Wikipedia concurrent with the licensing and useage policies that exist. True to my wishy washy liberal outlook I support both sides of the argument (but prefer there wasn't the argument in the first place) since both parties are here for the betterment of the encyclopedia.
I would also wish to comment that I note that Jmlk17 is getting quite a bit of stick for their actions. It is part of the admins lot that they are often going to make decisions that will make people unhappy, and that from time to time that they are going to make mistakes (that is, a decision or action they thought appropriate but is considered by others to have been wrong). Whatever the circumstances of Jmlk17's block of Ceoil I cannot believe that it was done in any other consideration than that it was in the best interests of the encyclopedia. It was, perhaps, a mistake of Jmlk17 to have blocked such a contributor as Ceoil for the type of comments made toward Betacommand, but it should not be taken as an example of a poor sysop. It was likely just a mistake. It is not in the interests of the encyclopedia to lose such valued contributors as Ceoil or Betacommand or Jmlk17.
Thats not the point. The point is comments like "Getting mad over a block just proves the block was correct in the first place", or "Just be glad you were only blocked for 48 hours", and "Why was he unblocked". Distintersted blocking, and shallow follow ups. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the sanity injection. There are some fellows in this world who will not forgive their fellow Wikipedians as they ought and I HATE PEOPLE LIKE THAT!!!
All for seasonal peace. This is more about a personality clash than fair use policy. Righteous indignation is a poor defense mechanism. ˉˉanetode╦╩22:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the blocking admin graciously and robustly apologized. Kudos of respect. But seeing BC's posts here, the source of the initial friction is now more understandable. A bot that is performing a chore that is by nature going to generate heat should be in the hands of a diplomatic user. "Fucktard", asking us to believe his life was threatened and Ceoil's words could be equated with a terrorist: can this bot be reassigned or do others have suggestions for how to deflame that situation ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is a great illustration of the split between admins who think they should support contributors in building an encyclopædia and admins who think the content-providers are untrustworthy and need to be ruled with a big stick. The comments, and the admins making them, are entirely predictable. I doubt that this debate will change anything, but it is inevitable given the profound lack of accountability and consensus about the use and misuse of admin tools.DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I'm a bit confused. I see that Ceoil seems to have called Betacommand a "prick", then gone to point out having done so, then threatened a "holy war". Hardly outstanding behavior, but I get a feeling I'm not seeing the whole picture. What precipitated this? – Luna Santin (talk)23:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Humor aside, it seems probable. Wouldn't be the first person Betacommand has pissed off with his trademark abrasiveness. But I'm hoping to see a more specific progression, if possible. Easier to understand a reaction in the context of the inciting action, so to speak. – Luna Santin (talk)23:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is going to be brushed under the carpet again. Ceoil is asking admins to pay attention. If you look at the top featured content additions by editor at WP:WBFAN, that list alone raises questions. Several of those editors are weighing in here (I guess they follow Ceoil's page), but oh, by the way, where is Yomangani these days, and how is the Project treating its top contributors, scholars and gentleman like TimVickers? Anyone noticing? WBFAN tells only half the story; there is only a handful of editors like Ceoil who work both ends of the equation, bringing new content to WP:FAC and restoring someone else's older, deteriorated featured content at WP:FAR. Off the top of my head, Ceoil, TimVickers, Qp10qp, Yomangani, Marskell, Casliber, DrKiernan, Yannismarou, JayHenry, WesleyDodds, a few others. Lose one of these editors, and it bites; they're adding and fixing content at amazing rates. Wiki needs to ask how these editors are being treated and how they feel about the Project. And pay attention when they answer. If we can't treat our top content contributors well, it's frightful to consider how the other editors are treated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What precipitated this is using a bot to enforce a sensitive policy that is bound to irritate people who work in good faith but do not understand the policy effectively, or who have been careless about it. This needs to be done by people who are sensitive, responsive, and available. Editors unhappy with it need to be told that it is not their fault, but that the policy must be enforced, and given a chance to correct their misassumptions about it. Betacommand's manner does have a GF explanation: dealing with all the complaints over the bot would drive anyone to some degree of exasperation. All the more reason for not using a bot, using a very friendly template, and adding personalized messages, apologising for the inconvenience, but explaining the necessity. "We're going to have to remove your image, if you do not explain exactly why it is appropriate to the article. I'll personally help you do it if necessary" is the sort of thing that needs to be said. Sure, there are tens of thousands of images to be fixed, but the feds are not about to shut us down tomorrow, and there are hundreds of experienced editors who can competently and politely explain image policy--and hundreds of polite admins. No one person has to adsorb it all.
So as a minimum, until we get rid of the bot, except for using it to make a list of suggestions that need looking at by humans, admins dealing with complainys arising from this ought to be as tolerant as possible, and calm down, not inflame the situation. Blocks are not intended to be punitive. Admins who use them insensitively should be informed by their fellows that they need to do it differently, or switch to admin tasks involving less personal contact. (but in this case it was just a single mistake, not a pattern of insensitive use.)
This applies equally to experienced and inexperienced editors. The job of an admin is to protect both editors and the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth reiterating how bizarre Betacommand's sole comment on this thread was, with the terrorist comparison and ridiculous suggestion that his life had been threatened. DGG's comments are well-stated—but suggestions of that sort will have little impact unless the bot operator engages with people sensibly (as the blocking admin did, after being taken to task). Marskell (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps instead of directing dozens of confused and sometimes angry editors to Betacommand's talk page, we create a fair use noticeboard/help desk/FAQ where people can respond to queries in a more organized format instead of leaving Betacommand to do most of the work. I don't think "friendlier" templates is the way to go, that might just seem patronizing to more experienced Wikipedians. Mr.Z-man00:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sayings admins are reflexive, dont look at the context of a situation; and here you are suggesting we streamline the process, for a bot? Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that Betacommand not handle almost all the complaints and questions about fair use tagging by himself. Maybe then people wouldn't get uncivil responses to their complaints and situations like this wouldn't escalate to the point where a block would even be considered. Mr.Z-man01:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea - Betacommandbot certainly needs a Diplomatic Corps, and if other people were closely involved it would be easier to form a picture of the overall usefulness of its thousands of edits, and hundreds of complaints. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have so many noticeboards... But the idea might be explored and I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand Ceoil, as you've asked for feedback on how to avoid these problems. I agree simply having a friendlier template will only patronize. Marskell (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Betacommandbot talk page - archived every few minutes - needs the sort of queen-ant attention the Jimbo talk page gets - the traffic is busier than there. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
That was me. I meant the message exchange betwixt you and Tony Sidaway, as it was a little on the uncivil side. I just used the wrong word. Sorry for inciting any paranoia. The telepathic mind witches of the CIA are not reading your mind. These are not the droids you are looking for. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell)02:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get involved in these sort of things and haven't looked deeply into the situation, but I just wanted to say that Ceoil is a valuable editor and without Ceoil I would probably have at least 1 fewer FA. Don't block editors who've been around awhile without prior discussion. Wickethewok (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is fairly bad form, from Tony Sidaway' who came into the discussion, unsolicited, uninformed, made awful remarkes, and obviously feels they are above reproach (note the non edit summary, and minor edit marking). [6]. Ceoil (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a good example of the reason why there is anger on the ground. I took him up on several insults he made towards me, and I was rv'd with a minor edit that did not carry an edit summary. Ceoil (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked some pertinent questions, and made some pertinent observations. This is normal. It's how Wikipedia works. I'm sorry if you felt insulted by my opinion that you had deliberately and egregiously baited an administrator. --Tony Sidaway04:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you did not. You asked no questions, just offered openion. You took a snapshot view, and have been consistently onnixious and dismissive since I called you on it. This is normal. It's how Wikipedia works?? Dear jesus, do many other editors know about this? Breaking news, I imagine they would be alarmed. "Deliberately and egregiously baited an administrator" - So so false; what admin? BC? He was desyspoed, no longer an admin. Jmlk17? S/he had the integrity to apologise on his next edit, impressing all that took the time to look into it. My whole issue with you is that you did not look into this, reacted in a bitter and judgemental manner, and took no responsibility, begging the question - why do pontificate, is it you just like the sound of your own words, or what do you get from this. Ceoil (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fallacy of a syspo being a janitor entrusted with a mear mop - no big deal - is patently redundant. IRL, janitors don't have the power to fire, or belong to higher collectives. But, yet on wiki they do. Adminship no big deal? On this webside IT IS a big deal, and it's inciivil to look a spade in they eye and say: spade. Ceoil (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I asked why you had been unblocked was because (and I know this must come as a bit of a surprise to you) I wanted to know why you had been unblocked. --Tony Sidaway23:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone else take on the work the Betacommandbot does, realistically?
The work done to deal with inappropriate nonfree image use is very important and needful. Anyone saying differently is in my view, misguided at best, to put it mildly. The volume of work well nigh demands a bot to do it. Anyone saying differently doesn't really have a firm grasp on the volume, in my view. But it seems there are a lot of people who feel that Betacommand's approach to questions, issues and complaints could be improved, that someone else ought to be handling this, that in general things could be done better than they are. I agree. But I'm not in a position to volunteer to devote most or all of my Wiki-time to doing this task (and that is what it would take if one person did it). Is there someone (or some committee) among those pointing out the issues that has/have the bandwidth to do what Betacommand does in his stead? If not, then maybe the calls for Betacommand's head are misplaced. Remember our ethos here, don't just complain, be willing to be part of the solution. ++Lar: t/c15:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The User:Betacommandbot page has this; "BetacommandBot will be an ongoing bot, run whenever I can run it, or feel like running it." It's embarassingly close to masochistic to accept being spoken to like that, even as part of a group; especially in a voluntary project. I say "Ban the Bloated Bot!" Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.grantevans2 and LuciferMorgan: Since you are responding to me: Do you acknowledge the necessity and importance of the work done? Are you volunteering to take on the operation of a bot and the fielding of the myriad questions and comments, including some quite incivil, and some quite lacking in understanding of the nature of copyright and fair use, that ensue every day from its use? ++Lar: t/c16:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Bot does an important (and numbingly tedious) job, which benefits Wikipedia. I echo SandyGeorgia's comments regarding the operator. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC) (addendum) Lar, has the question of replacing the operator been asked at WP:BAG? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know. But that seems a possible good place to start asking, indeed. With no aspersions, and all best wishes, to Betacommand, who I think means well, has done a thankless job for a long time, and is doing the very best he is able at the task, perhaps it's someone else's turn in the barrel? I suspect those spending some time there might come away with a new appreciation for just how difficult, tedious and thankless of a task it is. ++Lar: t/c17:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Lar, but your kind words towards Betacommand are not felt here. I thank people who deserve to be thanked, and he does not. Furthermore, he is not doing the very best job he can. Don't lie here - he treats article writers like they're excrement on the bottom of his shoes, and barks orders at them like he's Adolf Hitler. I 110% do not acknowledge the necessity and importance of the work done - unless you forgot, this is an encyclopaedia. I acknowledge that writing articles is important and a necessity, though Betacommand's work (or waste of time crusade rather) does not fall into that category. It is not important at all, and it is not a necessity. I am 110% not volunteering to join the Fair Use Gestapo, and am quite shocked you thought I would want to. As concerns you mentioning Betacommand receiving incivil comments, then what about the incivility he has given others? Let's not shy away from that at all. Betacommand has driven away many editors from the Project, and will drive away many more if his tyranny continues. I repeat, ban the bot. Kill it. Exterminate it. Banish its existence. Wikipedia doesn't have many article writers as it is, so Betacommand driving them away certainly doesn't help. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Banning the bot isn't wrong at all, in actual fact. Therefore, it isn't two wrongs. Betacommand and his bot run riot on Wikipedia, and nobody batters an eyelid. When people complain, it falls on deaf ears. As concerns allegedly losing the debate Beckett, just because I've said that Betacommand is like Hitler doens't mean I've lost the debate. That's according to Mike Godwin, and I do not subscribe to his opinions. Don't any of you get the picture? Are you all deaf, or being deliberately ignorant? Writing articles is what's important to this project, and this clown is driving people away. Less content writers = less quality articles. When all the FA writers like Ceoil have been driven away, who's going to write FAs instead? Are you all volunteering to? Or perhaps you think Betacommand will? Get real. Betacommand and his bot are pests, and nothing more. Ceoil was definitely right in what he said. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, let's not. Civility blocks never work. LuciferMorgan is as wrong as can be on several different levels but I don't think that blocking him for expressing his views would be a good approach... I do wish he'd internalise why Fair Use images are so problematic for us and work to devise a better way of addressing the issue instead of polemicising, though. ++Lar: t/c20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, you're referring to fair use images generally. I am referring to album covers specifically, which in my opinion do not need a fair use template. You keep referring to "polemicising", but the truth is you keep ignoring the fact that Betacommand drives editors away from the project. That's problematic, but I don't see anyone mentioning that. If Ceoil had walked away, that's an editor whose written six FAs the project would've lost. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Album covers are not somehow exempt from the requirements for fair use rationale because they are album covers. Every fair use image needs a fair use rationale, without exception. That's not a matter of your opinion versus mine. It is a requirement, as spelled out by the directive to all projects that the WikiMedia Foundation has made. Every image that does not have a valid fair use rationale is subject to removal, and except for newly uploaded images, we have to be in compliance by March 2008. That date is fast approaching. You may propose different approaches if you wish, but it's not really a matter of debate, in my view. I have acknowledged that there are difficulties with the approach being used now, but I am also making what I think are constructive suggestions on what might be done better. You on the other hand are raising all sorts of issues, but not acknowledging that FU images have to be dealt with. Until you do that, you statements read like polemicising to me. I do not think that this process ought to drive good editors away from this project, and if it in fact is doing so, it needs adjusting. But the process, or another process that achieves the goal mandated, is needed and you are not helping improve it. As for Ceoil, I'm willing to discount the outrageously inappropriate way he has conducted himself in this matter as due to the fact that he feels insulted, but his approach is not likely to be effective at effecting change either. Our FA class editors are very important to the project but no one gets a free pass, and he could have achieved quite a bit more with a different approach. Don't confuse that with my supporting a block of him, by any means, because I do not, I would have lifted it myself. But I highly recommend reading and internalising meatball:ForgiveAndForget as carrying grudges doesn't work very well. ++Lar: t/c03:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Outrageously inappropriate"? That's according to you, but I support that action even now. He hasn't apologised for it, and I am glad he hasn't. The next time Betacommand calls someone a "fucktard", I hope you're there to call that inappropriate too. He did not "feel" insulted, he was insulted. Furthermore, no FA editor has asked for a free pass. Did I mention a free pass? No. So why say it? I'm asking for a bit of respect for the people who write FAs here, but I don't see it yet. As concerns achieving "quite a bit more with a different approach", that's simply untrue. He would not have, since Betacommand's actions are still being excused even now. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As concerns carrying grudges, I do not carry a grudge. That's you grossly misreading the situation, and not even properly understanding what I am saying. I'm sorry, but I have a right to get pissed off whenever good editors are driven away from the project. You might not get pissed off whenever that happens, but I do. I'm fed up of Betacommand driving editors away, so that's why I've spoken up. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a final note, I don't find you're being constructive. Saying you do "A, B and C" to help, and I don't do anything, is just blowing your own trumpet. Furthermore, I find that incivil and quite insulting too. Trying to categorise me as some unhelpful thorn in people's sides doesn't help, and is very unconstructive. I may be more abrasive than the average editor, but I do try to help. Betacommand's authoritarian approach doesn't help. In my opinion, it's time to rid of him and his bot. Then, someone, properly suited of course, should take over the reigns. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of battered eyelids is slightly nauseating, though. I would suggest that if LuciferMorgan does not accept the project's policies on unfree images he may be in the wrong place, per WP:FREE. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're trying to suggest that I retire from the project, then no I will not. Furthermore, I am fed up of people just using "per WP:Article0159" blah blah blah to justify themselves. Can't people even be bothered to express their opinions without acting like solicitors who have to quote this section, or that section? WP:FREE is just an article a few editors wrote anyway, and who is it that began that article? Essjay, a person outed as a fraud on Wikipedia. Also, the project as a whole didn't vote on the image policy - I didn't, or wasn't aware of it. As far as I am concerned, it's being forced on people. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. It IS being forced on this project, by the foundation. It will soon, in my view, become a condition of participation here that you adhere to this policy. I hope you choose to, but sooner or later, you may find that resistance to implementation of this foundation policy may be viewed by some as disruption. We didn't get a vote on it. Because this is an encyclopedia, not a democracy. ++Lar: t/c03:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't as clear cut as you think. The war on album covers is ridiculous and entirely unnecessary - a boilerplate rationale would satisfy the legal requirements, and there is considerable precedent throughout the publishing world for using album covers liberally. Furthermore, the Board of the Foundation is elected and policy can change. Having stood in the last elections and fielded many questions on this it seems to me the average editor does not feel the same way on this issue as the small clique which run this place. Finally, unlike most people commenting here, Lucifer Morgan is actually a useful editor with several FAs under his belt; it is people like him that actually matter here because they write the articles. --kingboyk (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expressing views is fine, but using personal attacks ("Betacommand is like Hitler", "Betacommand and his bot are pests, and nothing more.") is unacceptable. If he's emotional enough right now to be making such attacks, a cooling off period could work. ChazBeckett21:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unacceptable according to you. A "cooling off period" as you call it won't work since I will still hold those very same opinions afterwards, and I have a right to hold them. If you don't like my opinions, I don't care. Referring to my block history is a rather sneaky attempt at getting others to approve your recommendation too, and one that is rather unoriginal too. If you wish to take potshots, come up with some new material so that I can at least be entertained. What I have said is the truth, so you can keep moaning about civility all you wish. Betacommand has driven editors away, a fact a block can't change. I am not in the minority here, but the only one willing to speak up. The reason why they aren't speaking up is because editors like you keep calling for blocks. And for what? I'll still hold the same opinions after, as I just said. It was a block to curb Ceoil's opinions that instigated this ANI in the first place, or hasn't anyone realised that yet? LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I am not in the minority here, but the only one willing to speak up", how could you possibly know that? Are you somehow in contact with the inner mind of all the other editors? Omnicience is rarely a valid claim on a resume. JERRYtalkcontribs17:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have every right to hold whatever opinion you want on anything at all. Where there is a line is when you act on the opinions in contravention of policy, or if you repeat your opinions so stridently or incivilly that you are being disruptive. I don't think that is the case here, at least not yet, but I urge you to participate in working constructively to find ways to ameliorate the problem rather than to make polemical statements. We are here to collegially work together to a common purpose, or should be and I'm not finding your contributions of late to this as very helpful yet. ++Lar: t/c03:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, to be honest, I don't find your contributions to this discussion helpful either. You keep repeatedly using the word constructive, as if to wind me up or something. I am not being disruptive, but merely keep repeating a fact that you and the rest of them here keep trying to brush under the carpet. Furthermore, you make statements like "We are here to collegially work together to a common purpose, or should be and I'm not finding your contributions of late to this as very helpful yet." Are you trying to say that I should step in line and not have my own thoughts now? The truth is, "we" as you keep referring to them is everyone here willing to brush Betacommand's tyranny under the carpet. There are others who feel the same way as me. My opinion is the bot needs to be killed, and it doesn't work. Whomever handles fair use images etc., it shouldn't be him. Find someone else to take over, and someone who actually takes the time to talk to editors. Someone who takes the time to kindly tell people about fair use. Someone who doesn't bark at them Someone who doesn't bombard editors pages with dozens of notices at a time. Someone should create a new bot, and then someone else should handle this new bot. Whichever way, keep Betacommand well away from it. To be fair, fair use annoys me but that's something to deal with. Betacommand's bullshit demeanour isn't something us editors should have to deal with. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not uninvolved parties comment: We are discussing if Betacommandbot does a worthwhile job, and if Betacommand is the appropriate operator, what (if any) are the alternatives, and not if LucifierMorgan should be sanctioned for voicing the frustration and anger felt by a section of the community which have lead to these questions being asked in the first place. Silencing those who complain (no matter how incivily) does not start to begin to address the crux of the problem being faced. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't think that calling for blocks is at all helpful. Calling for positive input on the other hand... that is. LM needs to help solve the problem. ++Lar: t/c03:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bot talk page needs a number of editors who spend some time there & respond to complaints - most of which I'm sure are unjustified, but which usually get the same non-response whether they are or not. They should also be able to improve the quality of the edits the bot makes. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would you replace it with? "nothing" is not an acceptable answer. There is a real problem to be dealt with and unless you have a better approach, taking shots at the basic concept is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a bot is necessary, someone in the community will step up to make it. Betacommand's approach often creates problems in the course of providing a solution to the fair use image concern. These problems fit in a few general categories:
Poor communication - Although many volunteers monitor BC's talk pages, he often neglects the responsibility of explaining the reasons for tagging an image. Also, when tagging images BC often falls back on WP:OMGWTFBBQ, which leads users to posit confused pleas to his talk page, which are then unanswered, etc. etc.
Extreme immediate solutions to long term problems - This is actually damaging to the project as thousands of viable images are flushed because admins don't have the time or want to sift through the hyper-populated deletion queues which appear after BC runs his bot.
Poorly thought out experiments - Most bot operators have to deal with difficulties when implementing any new task, but BC has a history of running unapproved tasks with poor results.
BC means well and appears to be an able programmer, but these problems, coupled with occasional lapses of civility, continually lead to drama. Many admins appear inclined to overlook such instances since BC's bot gets results and in most cases BC is clearly within policy. However that approach fails to address the fallout of disgruntled editors and the deletion of useful images. Mindless tagging will never completely solve the fair use problem and I don't think giving BC carte blanche is ultimately a good thing. I doubt BC would be willing to voluntarily cease any controversial actions, as he is fervent in enforcing WP:NFCC to the letter (and beyond). I equally doubt that BC's bot is irreplaceable or vital. ˉˉanetode╦╩19:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if he was the programmer but someone else was the operator, and a team of someone elses fielded questions, updated the FAQ to point people to, etc? ++Lar: t/c20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would address the communication concerns. If this team also kept a clear schedule for bot runs and reviewed the deletion queue, I think the resulting process would eliminate most of the discussed problems. ˉˉanetode╦╩21:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've discussed this issue with a very small number of my fellow administrators and we share the concerns of editors here, we appreciate that there is a perception that BCBot is evil and needs to be killed, but realistically, all that will happen is replacement bots will be introduced. One of the most chronic problems does appear to be the tagging of images as "orphans" that should not ordinarily be orphaned, and this is an issue that is outwith anybodies control, the problem occurs when an image with a well thought out rationale, detailed source is replaced, on a whim, with a different image, quite often, a higher resolution image taken from the day's press, and frequently uploaded without source or rationale. This can take several days to be resolved, and by that time, the image can end up being deleted. One proposal I am keen to push in this area is that a new, dedicated OrphanedImageBot is created and has it's own database so it can record, initially, which images are used in articles, and what articles those are. The bot would then run (continually, once every 24 hours, once a week, or whatever is deemed necessary) and if it notices an image that was previously used in an article is now orphaned, it informs the uploader and perhaps places a small template on the article talk page informing users that the image, if still orphaned after 7 days, will then be tagged for deletion. A second, totally seperate bot should run and look for images without source or Fair Use Rationale and tag those images as necessary, and ideally, list images once weekly in a central location together with details of where the images are used. Volunteers could then make the necessary fixes to prevent the image from being deleted. I'd also like to see Polbot with it's rationale fixes being used, it could be used by volunteers to automatically add a fair use rationale to images after a review, so it could look for a template placed on an image by a trusted user (a bit like the Commons Flickr review scheme) and if it finds a tag added by a trusted user, it would then automatically add a fair use rationale to the page. Details about the rationale could be changed by variables in the template. We also need make the warnings and notices much easier to understand, it's fine if you've been to Harvard and studied law, or been at the wrong end of Wikipedia dealing with image licences and copyright policy for many months or years, but a new user trying to upload a useful image will end up angry and frustrated at incomprehensible user warnings. Any comments, there's probably something I've meant to propose but haven't. Nick (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the orphaning of images, the major problem seems to be is that the checking for them does not occur often. There might be images that are orphaned for days that are not tagged, but some images will be tagged if orphaned for just a few hours. I still think we should seek out what images are orphaned, but we need a more stable way to do it. An idea me and other administrators I spoke to want to have some sort of database of images, then scan that for oprhans maybe once a week. This will allow discussions, vandalism replacements and other stuff. As for running it, I am not technically skilled to make one, but if I was given the code and allowed to execute said bot, I will do it. The problem with BCBot is that people will always assume he is an admin, though he is not. There is still a lot of core issues with BCBot that still exist, but I feel like a change of hands could make things better. Also, more precise messages could help too. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)21:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best approach would be to have lots more people answering the queries thrown up by BetacommandBot's work. To do that would require Betacommand to give advance notice of tagging runs, so the 'team' can get ready to answer queries. Would Betacommand be willing to do that? Also, there needs to be a serious overhaul of the wording of the tags. Generic references to NFCC don't really help. An example is the 10c tagging. Most images fail 10c for one of three reasons: (1) No rationale at all; (2) Rationale fails to refer to the article by name; (3) Rationale doesn't make sense. A short, clear set of instructions advising people on how to fix the images, would do wonders. The problem then is if everyone fixed their images, we are back with the same problem of having to check all the images for NFCC#3 and NFCC#8 compliance. And that can't be done by bots. I'll repeat what I've said before - all this NFCC#10c stuff (most of the current work) is redundant to the work that will be needed for NFCC#3 and NFCC#8. But that's beside the point, because BetacommandBot can't (reliably) do NFCC#3 or NFCC#8 stuff. Carcharoth (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the usability front, at the moment BetacommandBot is actually repeating stuff in the tags, which is doubly confusing. Compare the following:
Long-winded and unclear:
This file has a non-free use rationale that is disputed because of the following concern: invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use..
Unless concern is addressed by adding an appropriate non-free use rationale, or in some other way, the file will be deleted or removed from some uses after Sunday, 30 December 2007. Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern.
Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed. If you think the image should not be deleted, please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image. You can also place comments on the image talk page.
Administrators: check the image talk page for comments before deleting the image.
Usage: {{di-disputed fair use rationale|date=12 August 2024|concern=invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.}} Notify the uploader with: {{subst:di-disputed fair use rationale-notice|1=Administrators' noticeboard}} ~~~~ Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption|Sunday, 30 December 2007|CSD}}
Shorter and clearer:
This file has a non-free use rationale that is disputed.
Unless concern is addressed by adding an appropriate non-free use rationale, or in some other way, the file will be deleted or removed from some uses seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern.
Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed. If you think the image should not be deleted, please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image. You can also place comments on the image talk page.
So yes, I agree that more people working on this has always been needed. What was wrong with just having a team of 10 people tackle 100 images each a week. That's a 1000 images a week and 52,000 images a year. Scale up as needed. Should have had a system like that operating years ago, rather than using bots. Carcharoth (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am. If you review my recent contributions, I think you will see that I do a fair amount of work on images. I would be happy to be part of a team handling the work BetacommandBot does now. Of course, with only three months or so to go, this sort of proposal is a bit late in the day. but still, I intend to be doing my bit in the run-up to March 2008, identifying and rescuing historical images. Carcharoth (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Current BCBot practices were influenced in part by the inability to scale admin activity to properly deal with the problem image load. If we were to implement a more careful and scheduled approach, this could be corrected. That, and I can't think of many admin tasks which aren't tedious :) ˉˉanetode╦╩21:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not going to happen. The only reason the backlogs are manageable now is because several admins secretively run powerful adminbots to delete images - at my count, Misza13's one nuked around 60,000 orphans and unsourced images this past week alone. east.718at 21:32, December 24, 2007
These adminbots delete the good images with the bad. Further, deleting fair use images does not guarantee future compliance, e.g., deleting an album cover because of an incomplete rationale will not stop other editors from re-uploading the same cover under a similarly flawed rationale. The backlogs are only a concern as far as scheduling goes, as long as the problem images are identified, admins are made aware of the total workload. The difference between cleaning out a backlog in one week or two is of negligible impact to the project. ˉˉanetode╦╩21:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BetacommandBot Section Break
As everyone knows, handling non-free content and the abuse related to it wears down on anyone, Ive been talking to Several users, Kmccoy, and FT2 most notability. I have a multi-phase, multi-part plan for the future. One major part of that is giving the NFCC tagging task to a separate bot account and stepping back from direct NFCC interaction. I am working on getting a team of users who are willing and able to field all those questions. I hope that I will be able to reduce my role to merely a code writer and bot host service. (back end service) I was hoping to wait until I had most of the details worked out and that I was able to announce that it was just going live. As for concerns that I dont care about "the article writers" is bullshit. I personally dont write articles for several reasons. due to real life concerns what ever I write about would give my real life identity away. that said I have written and or improved some articles using alternate accounts that cannot be traced back to my main account. (which is allowed under policy) I value all of our editors, everyone from the random longterm good-standing IP contributers to article writers, to vandal fighters, to our FA writers, to the stub writer, to the wikinome, to the non-free uploader (those who follow policy and dont abuse NFC), to those editors who create, upload and use free content. As for the messages that the bot leaves I have always asked for suggestions and improvements . (at one point I posted here on AN looking for suggestions). I am sorry that I am un-civil at times but the long term abuse (all the "fuck you" and "your a Nazi" and other similar abuse) and constant threats tend to wear down a person. βcommand01:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand, if you want you can direct all inquiries about the bot, or its activities, to another editor. It might be a good idea to put a line of defense between the people who run the both, and the public — that way, a front-end "staff" can filter the good complaints and suggestions from the dross. They will get burned out less quickly, since there would be more of them and they would be "fresh", while you can focus on actually running the bot. I know that I would volunteer. --Haemo (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that is my goal, to have a group of editors field those questions, and phase out my direct interaction. any other volunteers are welcome, and Ill give a heads up when I make the switchover to the new account, and start the implementation of my future plans. βcommand03:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shut down BetacommandBot
BetacommandBot was blocked many times because of bugs. The way it works also bites many newcomers and drives away article writers. For example, it does not explain clearly why it tags an image and how to provide a proper fair use rationale. Also, Betacommand is an irresponsible bot owner and he was desysopped by ArbCom because of that. Please shut down BetacommandBot. If not, at least file an RFC against it to decide what to do with it. We cannot ignore the problems with the bot. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bot runs at a remarkably low error rate, and the one time it really went off the rails and caused serious damage, it was because the Wikipedia API malfunctioned and caused all bots that rely on it to break. To address the second issue gentler templates can be used, such as the ones Carnildo currently employs. Also, just becase Betacommand went Sideways with adminbots once doesn't mean that he's an irresponsible bot operator. I'm sure with BC pledging to take more of a backseat role, these concerns will be addressed in the coming weeks. east.718at 04:30, December 25, 2007
Doesn't the bot violate WP:POINT, though? For example, the bot tagged some images of mine because they did not include a man-made link to the page in which they were used, even though such links are created automatically on each page. I understand that someone put that detail into the image fair-use policy page, but is it worth deleting an image over details such as these? Let's not discuss that one loophole, because Betacommand can figure out as many such loopholes as he wants. And it is a loophole, rather than a valid rationale for deleting an image. When I removed the tags the bot was putting on the pages, Betacommand reverted me and called my edits vandalism. He did not tell me why the bot was putting the tags on the pages. If he really cared about the policy loophole, he would have made the image compliant himself. But he didn't, which is a pretty clear indication that he was looking for an excuse to get the image deleted, because he dislikes Fair Use.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a requirement to have the article explicitly named in the rationale, and for good reason. The automagically generated Mediawiki link changes as the image is put in and out of articles, regardless of whether the image is valid for use in those articles or not. I agree that fixing is a better approach than deleting in such cases, but there is currently no obligation for anyone to carry out such repairs. Theoretically admins should do that instead of deletion, but that doesn't always work in practice. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The bot runs at a remarkably low error rate." Nonsense. Look at the block log. I agree that "gentler templates can be used". Another problem is that there are like 100 rules about fair use and there is no page which explains all the rules. You don't expect everyone who uploads an image to know all the 100 rules. If someone follows 99 rules but forgets 1, the bot will still tag the image. A bot is not a good way to check for image problems. I still think that if you don't want to shut down the bot, an RFC is the best way to think how to fix all the problems. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the original suggestion in this sub-section completely. i've had my own problems with this bot, and it seems somewhat excessive and problematic. thanks.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem
The real problem is not the bot; it has a very low error rate and is doing a necessary task. The problem is how complaints/concerns/questions are handled. Most go to Betacommand's talk page where they receive a response that is often not very helpful as it uses the same jargon as the tags and may be uncivil. Or they go to ANI, the bot gets blocked, and drama ensues. I would suggest that we create a fair use help desk with a FAQ in language that will be clear to new users where people can go to ask for help and assistance and it can be staffed by more than 1 person.Mr.Z-man21:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And so am I. And I also wish to note that images are being deleted per board resolution, but there is no problem with helping fix them. --Maxim(talk)14:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to do something. The more general problem is that we have multiple bots which don't fix problems, they generate to-do lists for humans. We need to have requirements for bot smartness - any bot which demands unnecessary work from humans more than 1-2% of the time needs to be shut down.
There's also a policy problem in image space. The general policy in Wikipedia is that once you've made an edit, you have no further responsibility for maintenance of that page. But in image space, Wikipedia takes the position that the original uploader has responsibilities that continue long after the upload. It's the reverse of WP:OWN - you upload it, you're responsible for it. This needs to be addressed. Maybe we need a time limit - once an image has been up for 30 days without objection, it's no longer the uploader's responsibility to correct licensing problems associated with it. --John Nagle (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nagle, the problem users were having earlier is not enough notification. We have increased the notification procedures, but we do notice that many users who were contacted about image problems are not longer editing on Wikipedia. With images, the only reason why we say it is your responsibility is that it was up to the uploader to say that all sourcing and licensing information is correct. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)20:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with John. In the United States, we call new laws that apply to actions already committed ex post facto and have banned them in our constitution. This bot is tagging images for some pretty trivial reasons, loopholes in the policy really. Those things change all of the time.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Z-man has put his finger exactly on the problem: it's not the Bot, but the operator. I have little sympathy for people who abuse the concept of Fair Use, but I have far less for BetaCommand. From the first moment I encountered him, about a year ago (on an entirely unrelated matter), he has been brusque, condescending, & relies on obscenities to make his point -- which is why he lost his Admin bit. Contributors in good faith who find their contributions chewed up & mangled because of nit-picking mistakes in their Fair Use rationale end getting chewed up & mangled when they complain about the rought justice they've received -- unless they happen to be lucky enough to attract the attention of a level-headed Admin. His actions & language show that he thinks he is doing God's work in running his bot, & is not answerable to anyone except the Foundation.
If people believe this bot is doing useful work, its operation & responsibility ought to be taken away from BetaCommand & given to someone who can be far more civil -- which, IMHO, would be practically anyone else. I believe the best step now would be to move this discussion from this page & open an RfC to determine whether this -- or any -- solution has a consensus, but after reading the steps on WP:RfC, it appears that using that mechanism for this purpose would only lead to useless wikilawyering -- & returning this chronic problem to the pages of WP:AN or WP:AN/I. -- llywrch (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is finding loopholes in policy and using them as excuses to delete images useful? Is the issue of manually versus automatically linking an image to the article it's used in pivotal enough to warrant deletion? Is it important enough to warrant widespread disruption?--Gnfgb2 (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is, in its simplest form, that non-free images should be used as little as possible. The disagreement between the various schools of opinion is what "as little as possible" means. One party believes that this means almost none -- if that many. The other party (to which, I admit I am a member) believes this means that if it would be unreasonable or unexpected for an article not to have an image, & it is difficult to impossible to obtain a free one, then a non-free one may be used under the rules of Fair Use. I agree with you that there should be a non-disruptive path to resolving this disagreement. However, I think assuming good faith in the members of the other faction would get us there much more quickly, which means both that we try to use temperate language -- as well as finding someone with better interpersonal skills than BetaCommand has demonstrated. -- llywrch (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning for not relying on the automatically generated Wikilink - it changes - was explained to you above by Carcharoth. Betacommand has stated (again, above) that he is working on passing the user interaction aspect of bot operation off to other users. If you have an issue with the fair use policy (i.e. loopholes, complexity, etc.) address it at the fair use policy talk page. Avruchtalk18:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The account was blocked for a myriad of reasons, and most can agree on "username violation." Arguing about hypothetical alternative reasons for blocking is less than productive for an encyclopedia. —Kurykh01:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen this--nobody mentioned to me that I was being discussed here. I have indeed removed obvious spam links a number of times from this article over several months; there appears to be a need to pay considerable attention to this one, and others on the general subject. People keep inserting links to their favorite projects. I see the article has just come under attack again, by User:Certified planner, whose contributions are limited to adding duplicate links to this article; there were earlier editors named User:Urbancity and User:Nighttemper doing just the same. DGG (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Apologies on my part as well for taking part in this thread and not notifying DGG. Following talk page discussion, I agree that it would be best to change the title. I'll do that now, and then we can let this thread archive in peace. Carcharoth (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User DGG has REPEATEDLY ABUSED his/her administraror privileges and deleted USEFUL external links from Urban Planning. To top that, he/she offers NO SOUND LOGICAL REBUTTAL to my arguement [below]. He/she is in the habit of LURING editors-at-large into discussions and talks over minor edits. Frankly, most editors-at-large have better use of their times, but User DGG is acting like MONKEY-WRENCH for us editors-at-large.
Note that User DGG claims to be a librarian, NOT a planning professional. Therefore, according to his/her OWN ADMISSION, he/she has ZERO DOMAIN EXPERTISE in this subject- planning.
(cur) (last) 04:10, 25 December 2007 No i wont talk with u (Talk | contribs) m (41,504 bytes) (Undid revision 179920031 by DGG (talk) don't be a jerk. top links are very relevant as they represent the sum total of what is in vogue.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 06:56, 24 December 2007 DGG (Talk | contribs) (41,007 bytes) ("top links in google" is irrelevant here. Discuss on talk page.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 00:43, 23 December 2007 No i wont talk with u (Talk | contribs) m (41,504 bytes) (?External links - These are all top links in Google for this domain, and therefore useful. Please do not remove them.) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by No i wont talk with u (talk • contribs) — No i wont talk with u (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
DGG is correct - ever heard of Google bombing? Just because they are the top links Google returns doesn't make them reliable or even useful. This looks and smells like a content dispute; AN/I is of no use here. Sorry.
(edit conflict) I'm afraid that you're wrong here. DGG and the other administrators that keep removing the links from the article are just in doing so. One of the things that Wikipedia is not is a repository of links. "Top" Google links have no value here as they are for advertising or promotional purposes, and are not encyclopedic sources. Please do not continue to add those links to the Urban Planning article or you risk having your editing privileges revoked. Thank you. Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly)04:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. We usually don't just take top links, we look for the few that are solid reference material, ideally of a neutral informative kind in many cases. That's usually not top links. DGG is most likely right. And addressing content issues that way is usually normal editorship, not "administrator privileges". FT2(Talk | email)04:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm an architect. I'm an administrator. I've looked at the external link. It doesn't appear to add much to the article. Top links via Google don't count for very much - we are looking for solid reference material, not links to opinion pieces. Are you saying that only people with a degree in the field can evaluate the validity of links? If so, you're in the wrong encyclopedia. Acroterion(talk)04:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? indef? Surely I'm missing something...Who was he a sockpuppet of? The block reasoning was that he created a sockpuppet to violate 3RR, at no point were there 3 reversions in 24 hours. Or anything remotely close to that - it's been 16 days since the last one. So this is an indef ban for adding external links to a page twice. That's not even against policy! Whatever happened to Don't Bite the Newbs?--CastAStone//(talk)14:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a suicide pact??? Indeed. I thought for a second we were going to have to pull the plug on the entire project because this newbie added external links to a page twice. Thanks Jebus some admin came along and blocked this user with a completely non-sensical rationale before he struck again, or all would have been lost. -- Kendrick7talk17:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Look, WP:SPA specifically makes an exception for newcomers, and again, he didn't violate any policy. I disagree with any ban, but an indef ban for being brash with your first edits (who among us wasn't) is exactly what biting the newbs is defined as, imho. This is the first ban I've complained about in my 2+ years. It just seems harsh.--CastAStone//(talk)17:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I read between the lines (with ALL CAPS and !!!), this is not someone who can contribute constructively. I'll leave issues of content for elsewhere: he's made it plain that he'll add links over any consensus or discussion, because he possesses The Truth TM, and we're all against him, unworthy to even discuss matters on his level. While I would have personally opted for a lesser initial block, the latest talk page comments indicate that a permanent block is highly likely. However, I am willing to babysit this guy, if Zscout's willing to unblock. I suspect it won't take long to return to the current state of affairs. Acroterion(talk)17:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would, however, ask that I have a chance to set some ground rules on his talk page first: the reaction to those terms would determine whether any unblock is feasible. Acroterion(talk)18:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave it be. Perhaps the best thing for this user, assuming good faith, it that he/she go read our policies, and then request a new account and get a fresh start. He/she would only lose a sum total of 3 edits from history aside from those made here, so not too bad of a loss. We do not need to coddle him/her or in-fight over this, it is not the heat death of the universe. JERRYtalkcontribs18:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, not really. They'd simply be blocked as operating "more" socks. If we want to permit them to return after a week, we should just make that explicit per WP:BURO. -- Kendrick7talk18:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To assume that this is a genuinely new user requires rather more of a stretch of credulity than I am prepared to contemplate, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm just glad the project is blessed with administrators with psychic powers, because I know you didn't just endorse WP:ABF, right? So, if you could just please indef block such users before they make any edits at all next time, rather than all of four or five, you'd be putting your powers to much better use. His use of capital letters has, frankly, scarred me for life. In fact. we should preemptively ban all new users -- they are way more trouble than they are worth. If they were ever going to be good contributers, clearly they'd already be here. -- Kendrick7talk21:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the current climate, I hope we can agree that a "new" user named "No I won't talk with u", who makes 2 disruptive edits and immediately goes to AN/I to claim "admin abuse", is properly indef-blocked. MastCellTalk21:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to pretend we can divine sockpuppetry. Inappropriate username. Block for that reason alone. As for blocking accounts suspected of being the same person, three edits is not really enough evidence for that, unless another account tries to make exactly the same edits or self-identifies, so yes, the person behind that account could come back with another account, and no checkuser worth their salt will grant a checkuser if the suspected new account is editing productively. End of story. Carcharoth (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) Have we gone collectively effing mad?! Why are we even considering brandishing AGF and BITE in a case like this? We're already so repeatedly lenient and "forgiving" with obvious trolls (just in case!) that we, collectively, long ago moved from "naive" to "suckers". And don't think the trolls don't fully take advantage of this!
Let's presume, arguendo, that is really was a new editor. We do not want that kind of editor here! I'm tired of seeing people rush to place welcome mats at the feet of trolls; because that makes welcome mats of us all! — Coren(talk)01:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Well enough said as to make Raul's words of wisdom page. I'd add it to my userpage... if I had one. Seriously, are we still discussing this? Half the WP:DFTT factor is watching people trip all over themselves to argue how much of a troll the troll is, and whether we should have banned him or just blocked him temporarily. This is the wrong response. The right response: "spurious argument, case closed, stop trolling, period."The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. So why are you and Coren responding? And regarding what Coren said "We do not want that kind of editor here!" - that can be said about a lot of people, but it is not a license for indiscriminate blocking based on presumption. There is no harm in waiting until the evidence becomes overwhelming that there will be no change in behaviour, and a lot of harm in acting too soon. I can't stress enough how harmful the attitude of "must block on sight to save Wikipedia from trolls" is. In 99% of cases, strong warnings followed by blockings if the behaviour continues, is all that is needed. The correct response to bad editing is better editing, not blunt use of admin tools such as blocks and page protections. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This caught my eye as I was removing some redirecting links. A pattern emerged as I was going through the links, they all (200+ at the time) seem to have been added by a single user, Splamo (talk·contribs). This raises several policy issues, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. On the surface all of this users activity seems like it might be good faith, however, all the links that i came across were added to wikipedia by Splamo to cruisecritic.com, adsense account (pub-4131962432578484). The big question is, does this apear to be someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests?--Hu12 (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just restating what I posted at User talk:Hu12 regarding the above information:
I agree that the Adsense issue is a concern. Unfortunately, I believe that the alternative is for WP to not link to any cruise ship reviews. The Cruise Critic star ratings, based on their reviews, are utilized by multiple travel sites (Orbitz, Travelocity, and Expedia, are three of which I'm aware) so they seem to be viewed as a standardized rating tool within the industry, and I've seen them referenced as a source on NY Times articles about cruising. The only other review sites of which I'm aware tend to be more biased, or are directly owned by various travel agent sites and would certainly be inappropriate.
Barek, I think you have missed the reason and point of this inquirey. It is not the content of the links that interest me by the time it has got to this stage. Wether they are "referenced as a source on NY Times articles about cruising' or not, is irrelevent and does not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site.. as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links..--Hu12 (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Splamo, a high-school student, has done Wikipedia a valuable service by starting dozens of articles on individual cruise ships, as shown by the differences shown above and the histories. In those articles he relied on information from CruiseCritic.com. Some of that information can be problematic as I mentioned here, but that does not mean there should be a search-and-destroy mission to remove the links. Personally I prefer to use more direct sources (and in some of these articles I have added references to those sources) but the site can be and is a useful source of general information, and apparently was used by Splamo for those purposes, as I mention here. We should assume good faith on the part of the editor who relied on that site to make infoboxes and add content; the edits linked above demonstrate that. Kablammo (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not only spammers who concentrate on particular types of articles, or make multiple additions from a source. it is a perfectly feasible and even desirable way to work, to find a good neutral reliable source that is applicable to improving a number of different articles, and add it, and then go on to the next source. People working this way with particularly useful online or printed content could greatly improve our sourcing. The assumption of good faith extends to instances like this. DGG (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think semi-protection may be in order, if you are correct. WP:RFPP may be best. WP:AIV will ensure that these IP addresses are constantly blocked for sensible amounts (they are IP addresses, so it's not really possible to block them for a long time). x42bn6TalkMess21:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Chinese)用常理去推理就知道是假的,Tom & Jerry只有一部movie(1993年製作),之後的都是direct to video,This guy還說Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning是made by DreamWorks Animation(with Nickelodeon Movies, Rainbow S.p.A., Amblin Entertainment, Phoenix Pictures, Spyglass Entertainment, 4kids Entertainment, National Geographic Society, O Entertainment, Sony Pictures Animation, TriStar Pictures, Columbia Pictures, The Kerner Entertainment Company, Walden Media, Castle Rock Entertainment, Revolution Studios, Imagine Entertainment, Universal Studios, The Weinstein Company, & Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer),這根本不可能.Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(anyway, in english) He says that he wants the items semi'd for 6 months by an administrator and something else semi'd for one week to one month, while the other one gets semi'd for 6 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blow of Light (talk • contribs) 21:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, No, No, I mean I agree with x42bn6 and I want the items semi'd for 6 months by an administrator, but administrators seem they don't want to do this , they semi'd the items from one week to one month only , it's no useTom & Jerry Fan (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec; my attempt at translation) "I went to WP:AIV asking for semiprotection for 6 months, but the administrator there only protected for 1 week to 1 month. This is not long enough; six months is better." "Common sense will tell that it is false, there is only one Tom and Jerry movie (made in 1993), the rest is direct to video. This guy also says Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning is made by (list of production companies); this is impossible." —Kurykh21:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with (semi-)protection for that long as well. One does wish anyone can edit articles. Protection for that long prevents that. I only know how to speak and listen to basic Chinese, by the way. x42bn6TalkMess21:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. There is no need to protect such a wide swath of articles for minor vandalism for such a long time. Semi-protection is not preemptive. —Kurykh21:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we protect for six months that guy will come back too. We'll see after the protection is over. Reverting (for admins) is a one-click task, and so are blocking and protection. —Kurykh21:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that vandal does seem persistent. I'll give you a hand here and watchlist all these articles, reverting when necessary. Just like Tom & Jerry, vandal fighting is, unfortunately, a lot like a cat-and-mouse game. x42bn6TalkMess00:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have fully protected the above until midnight/now (or a few minutes ago, knowing my habit of over-verbiage) to stop a nascent revert/wheel war. If a previously uninvolved admin or two could keep an eye on matters to stop this spiraling out of control I believe the community would be well served. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC) (bingo!)[reply]
Unfortunately, immediately after the protection expired, the wheel war started again. A request has been made at WP:RFPP to reinstate full protection; however, as at least two of the wheel warriors are administrators, additional warnings may be appropriate. Merry Christmas everyone. Risker (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible idea, unfortunately: one is supported by policy, the other by wishful thinking. Ideally, of course, we would not need a policy ro guideline, since publishing the contents of a private email is a dickish thing to do. It's also problematic re copyright, and has led to censure in several ArbCom cases. The competing version says, in effect, just do it and take the whacks. That's not smart, not least because anybody with a shorter history than Giano would be in deep shit for posting the contents of a private email, and also because where we've seen such publication there have been instances of forgery, as with the recent IRC logs. The appropriate people to deal with private data are the arbitrators, and they have said they will do so. They can contact the purported senders and original recipients, validate the contents, cross-check the headers without risking revealing private IP data, and come to some conclusion. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protecting was right, though longer would probably have been better given that the edit war was almost certain to break out again. Yet another ridiculous episode that could've been avoided; some of those involved should really know better. BLACKKITE00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No wait, wrong page -- ah yes, agree with BLACKKITE. Intentions were good but protection should have been longer, and especially some of those involved should really know better.Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After the 13 minute protection expired, edit warring resumed. At this point, User:SlimVirgin, User:MrWhich and User:Crum375 have all reached three reverts, all of them hitting their third after the brief protection. Fortunately, Alison has fully protected the page for a week before anybody hit a clear fourth revert and garnered a block. Four other users also reverted once each. Protecting for such a short time wasn't effective. If Allison hadn't already protected, I would have blocked all three of those who did a third revert after the protection, as they clearly knew that they were edit warring, 3RR is an electric fence not an entitlement, and intentional edit warring deserves blocks. GRBerry00:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted back once after Crum375 to the short-lived protected version. I'm assuming Alison saw my request for protection on the protection noticeboard. The first protection was fine, but should have gone longer. Lawrence Cohen00:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found this commentary now. I'm a regular WP:RFPP patroller - one of the most active - and happened to see the request going up. I have protected the article for a full week due to edit-warring and, as ever, have no interest or preference for whatever arbitrary revision has been protected - Alison❤00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Process question....some of the users (many actually) of those involved in this series of policy edit wars on the use of private type information are admins. Is there a mechanism to prevent their editing the protected version anyway? or just good will? And what (if anything) could/should/might be done if folks do edit through the protection 'inapproprately'? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sysop tools do enable an editor to bypass page protection, however one of the criteria that is considered in the request for adminship is whether the powers conferred would be abused. Being able to edit protected pages is allowed to both maintain the page, and to make edits that have consensus. I suspect (no evidence - but such a facility might exist in the case of virus infection or similar) that there is a further level of protection which may only be applied at Steward or Dev (or Founder?) level, but I doubt it forms part of the normal community processes.
The only thing that keeps sysops from abusing the tools is the personal sense of responsibility to the community, and the knowledge that as admin is a position of trust the effect of having the tools taken away is to have it known that the community believes you untrustworthy - this, more than the fact that desysopping is possible, is what keeps admins from violating their position. That is not to say that abuses do not occur, but it is not by the majority and is extremely rare (and often a matter of error) in those who have. Admins are just people, with some extra buttons, and are thus fallible. My request for review is a case in point; I violated the letter of policy in protecting an article to which I had contributed, in pursuit of the spirit of the policy on not engaging in edit wars. I then placed my actions for review - seeking permission to violate policy after the event - so to determine I had not abused my position. If consensus is that I had abused my rights then I would need to review my being granted the tools. Some admins have signed up for a process called recall to enable the community to question if they are suitable to continue using the mop. I haven't, because I don't think a process will be necessary to determine it - my actions and my actions alone will provide the basis on whether I continue to have the trust of the community.
Short version. There is no regular way that admins can be stopped from editing protected pages, except by their own sense of responsibility to the applicaton of policy. Abuse of the tools can lead to sysops having the tools taken away, either voluntarily or non-voluntarily. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be determined largely by the nature of the edit. Non-controversial edits, such as correcting typos or formats, removing previously missed vandalism, etc., or editing per consensus reached at the talkpage are expressly allowed. Controversial edits are expressly not permitted, since it negates the premis of protecting the article and also means that only a certain class of editor seems permitted to edit according to their viewpoint. There might be some temptation to make such edits, since protection is not concerned about which edit is "correct" but to stop edit warring (or other vandalism) and therefore any subsequent edits should not be reverted - which wheel war also disallows. Of course, a sysop that gets into the habit of controversially editing protected articles runs the risk of being sanctioned and the tools removed temporarily or permanently - a single or couple of instances will most likely earn a rebuke. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of mechanisms to prevent admins from abusing their privileges to edit protected pages...JzG edited the page in question and this was brought to Alison's attention on her talk page. JzG then self-reverted. That informal process seemed to work in this case. Cla68 (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes admins edit protected pages accidentally, overlooking the protection notice at the top. I've done that once or twice. It's akin to banner blindness. (This is just a general comment; what happened in this case obviously went beyond that.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put that page on MfD as soon as protection lapses. As should be obvious from the talk page and from this, no consensus will ever emerge from that train wreck, much less a useful policy or guideline. Jtrainor (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let people know that in light of the above discussion, I've gone ahead and created the above Image copyright help desk for users to ask for image copyright help and to ask questions concerning BetacommandBot. All users with image copyright and fair use experience are welcome to fulfill help requests from those users needing help and advice. Nick (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be helpful if someone well versed in image issues would swing through WP:FAC twice a week; this issue has been coming up for well over a year, and we still don't have anyone regularly reviewing FACs for image issues. WP:FAR too, but articles are there for at least a month, so twice weekly wouldn't be necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice initiative, this has the potential to alleviate a lot of the problems with BCBot. My only concern is that there seems to be an overlap between this page and WP:MCQ. Is the new help desk intended to field only bot-related image questions? ˉˉanetode╦╩03:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mean to be negative, but I'm a bit skeptical about this in relation to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. MCQ is for queries, primarily questions, both about general issues and specific images. The only non-redundant use I see for the new Help Desk is (to quote the BCB talk page) "complaints [regarding BetacommandBot's operation]." Betacommand does get a great many complaints, but I don't think it makes sense to move them to a "help desk" -- it's effectively like moving the whole user talk page to project-space, except for some barnstars and the like. If I had a genuine complaint against BCB, I don't know if I'd respond positively to being redirected to a help desk. It sends the message of "you're wrong; post here if you'd like someone to tell you why." I just don't see why it's needed. — xDanielxT/C\R04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree that some users have been unsatisfied with Betacommand's responsiveness, and I don't exactly blame BC considering how many redundant complaints he receives (not that that necessarily makes the complains unmeritful). But other users already hang around his talk page; I don't see what moving the discussions to project-space would do (well, except for users who refuse to talk to BC, as you pointed out). I guess it can't hurt to try, anyway. — xDanielxT/C\R04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes people are right. Hopefully there will be feedback mechanisms in place to get the bot, the tags, and the overall message improved. I suggest a summary section on the helpdesk page titled "suggested bot improvements", or something. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It gives the message "you're in the wrong place," not "you're wrong." We constantly direct people away from AN and ANI to AIV, RFPP, and other alphabet soup boards, but the "you're wrong" connotation doesn't exist if it is not explicitly stated in the redirection. —Kurykh04:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone minds being told that there is a better forum for what they're posting, so long as it is done in a reasonably polite way. My concern was separate from that, though. Post location is just a triviality; I think upset users would respond differently when genuine complaints are redirected to a "help desk." It's a bit like telling them to read some section of List of common misconceptions. — xDanielxT/C\R04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the problem is the name of the board. But then, we have Wikipedia:Help desk, which last time I checked wasn't the Black Hole of Ignorance of Wikipedia (I know I'm exaggerating, perhaps a bit too much). Getting back to the serious point, it seems like you don't have a problem with the concept per se, but the naming. —Kurykh05:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally all taggings by BCBot would be explicitly guided by policy. If that were the case then you could simply redirect users to the relevant policy. Unfortunately, BCBot's management has not been that consistent and uploaders are often intimidated by the weighty set of Wikipedia image use policies. In either case, any opportunity for greater oversight is welcome. The name could be simpler though, something like the "BetacommandBot Question Center", to clearly set it apart from WP:MCQ. ˉˉanetode╦╩05:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a couple of concerns with naming the board directly after BetacommandBot, mainly, I don't want to drive users away who are struggling with image issues highlighted by, but not directed related to BetacommandBot, so users really struggling with writing fair use rationales, image size, and so on, and the problem if the bots functions are split and or the bot is renamed, as has been proposed elsewhere, so I thought I'd try and see how a fairly generic sounding name went down first. Nick (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a content contribution on my part but I'm quite happy with "Image copyright help desk" - I occasionally get questions about rationales, which I'm not too skilled on (I just copy other ones usually) and it would be nice to have a place for people to go who can field such questions with some knowledge. WHat I'd suggest too is building an easy to read FAQ collection to assist volunteers at such a help desk who can link people to answers on the FAQ (or paste them in as Wikicode) in response to most common questions. Orderinchaos23:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
experience is that most people understand better if there is some attempt at a personalized answer, not just a referral to a policy page. DGG (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is part of the problem. Its written so we can understand it, but other than copyright lawyers, about no one else can. Mr.Z-man01:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason Betacommand needs his own help desk is his lack of responsiveness and helpfulness to legit concerns. We should not encourage this by ducking the issue and making a help desk to handle complaints about him and his bot, he should do that himself. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable block, since it pertains to a request not to repeat uncivil behaviour which was ignored and the tariff is not excessive. Obviously preventative rather than punitive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a fair block, especially considering the backdrop that this whole mess has been to arbitration twice, we're not exactly talking a common-or-garden content dispute or editor conduct review (I give this by way of background, as the AE was not cited as a block reason). Orderinchaos12:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was this fellow warned that if he persisted in his accusations of a someone being a sock he could be blocked? How long is his block for? I do see his point in that he perhaps didn't violate an actual policy, but we must remember that the lines between admin and editor is blurred when we are all encouraged to police each other. I use twinkle to issue warnings, report people for suspected sockpuppetry, vandalism, etc. But then again while bringing it up again and again may be annoying and not assuming good faith, is it really worthy of a block? I tend to be very lenient and prefer counseling before blocking. Bstone (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Worth looking at the backdrop here. Two arbitration cases, massive edit-warring, sockpuppetry, and incivility - and we still get these whopping great threads at ArbCom enforcement. We're all fed up of the never-ceasing conflict in this corner of the encyclopaedia. Checkuser has said that there is no connection between Ehud and Adil, and Fedayee's evidence is simply not good enough on its own. Under these circumstances Fedayee's conduct becomes disruptive. MoreschiIf you've written a quality article...20:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is more likely a cause for the gnashing of teeth and the donning of sackcloth. But I will take Rick up on the offer of a Guinness. All the better to drown our collective sorrows at this "achievement". Alansohn (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, why the pesimism? at least now we can say that we have a average of 1000 admins per 1,000,000 vandals that has to be a improvement. - Caribbean~H.Q.19:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We hit 1000 active admins on December 15th, but then we took a dip back down until today, perhaps because some were busy due to the holidays. But now we have our free time back again - a boon to Wikipedia :-) NoSeptember 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
To expand my views from the above statement a bit, I have felt for some time that it is far too easy to become an admin and too hard to remove problematic ones. Thus, a 1000th admin is not a cause for celebration to me. Jtrainor (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The temptation to block you for 1 second was almost overwhelming - but blocks are preventative and I couldn't be certain which second would stop the spree... oh, too late anyway! LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow very nice! I just noticed this ... I was scratching my head trying to figure out where my twinkle SALT button was and why I had a "protect" button on a deleted page. --B (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The interface still needs some work for this, but it should be the end of the bagillions of #if's on SALT. Once done we should migrate them to normal protected redlinks. — xaosfluxTalk01:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on a standard time to leave them protected? Is there any server overhead (in other words, we want to expire them eventually) or should pages that will never exist (like "Jimbo Wales on wheels" or something) be protected infinitely? --B (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, I've begun migrating some of the lists, and copied over the indef protection, but for most pages this isn't really needed, and new articles (or other migrations) can have a limit placed on them. Most of these pages are the results of media attention, spammers, or specific vandals--that eventually go away. Just out of the hat, 1 year should be more then enough time for most of these. — xaosfluxTalk02:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great new option to have. By the way, the protect button is not available in the Classic skin (unless I'm blind) -- but I was able to invoke it by changing to MonoBook. Antandrus (talk)03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is not the usual place to post format problems but since most of these templates are protected my guess is that the problem's source is the work of a admin. The thing is that several reference templates that have been in place for months are sudenly reading "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name cannot be a simple integer, use a descriptive title" in bold red, I have encountered the problem in Daniel Santos (boxer) and Elite (Halo) and in both cases extending the title didn't appear to to anything in previews, this is probably affecting the entire project seeing how many references use this reference format. - Caribbean~H.Q.22:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of refeerences that have worked previously have been replaced with Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name cannot be a simple integer, use a descriptive title. Is there something wrong with the reference tag, or has someone vandalised it? Sorry if this is the wrong place, but I wasn't sure where to put it. Please move if appropriate. StuartDDcontributions22:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
King David Isle of Man BLP
This WP:BLP is not being written an edited with any consistency for NPOV. I've attempted to do my best to bring issues back to NPOV including discussing the issues with some editors but, myself and other editors have pointed out on the talk page, it has slant towards a negative bias and does not seem to follow WP:BLP. It's a very new article and has a lot of contention about it. I feel it requires Administrator intervention. Thank you.--Lazydown (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing that appears to require admin work, all the issues can be resolved by doing cleanup and adding reliable sources, there is no edit warring or sufficient vandalism to warrant a protection either. - Caribbean~H.Q.23:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid New Admin question
(Or, possibly stupid question from new admin ;-) ) So, when I delete a category page for a now-empty prod category page (I cleared out the last of the prods), do I also delete the talk page? The only note on the talk page is that all articles were checked to see if they met prod criteria. Thanks. - Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫03:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends, if the category was renamed or merged into another I would suggest turning the talk page into a sub-page of the current title's talk page or a separate archive. - Caribbean~H.Q.03:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I meant! Thanks! The page listing the prodded articles, not a category that was prodded. :-) Right now the text on the prod category pages reads: "Once this category is at least 5 days old and it no longer contains any articles it should be speedily deleted." I think we should change the text to add, "Also delete the corresponding talk page." Do you know how we do that? (I'll go delete the talk page, if no one else has.) - Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫04:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I thought so, but I've also seen some cases where talk pages were left, and I wasn't sure which ones are the exceptions to the rule. Actually, are there exceptions when the talk page of a deleted article or category should be left standing? Or have I just been seeing mistakes? - Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫04:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, the only exception of CSD G8 I can think of is user talk pages of established editors who are blocked or banned indefinitely. —Kurykh04:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions that aren't located anywhere else should also not be deleted (although we had a purge of those recently). east.718at 04:31, December 28, 2007
There are no dumb new admin questions. :) If you have any questions, I am always available. I've been an admin for almost 2 1/2 years. I sometimes know my stuff. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo!10:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Code shops
There are currently three "shops" on MFD at the moment.
Vintei has 230 mainspace edits out of 1350 edits. Runewiki777 has 1489 mainspace edits out of 3188 edits. IXella007 has 29 mainspace edits out of 345 edits. This is a dangerous pattern here. These users are spending way too much time with their shops and whatnot instead of working on the encyclopedia. In the past, these pages (autograph books, signature shops, secret pages, etc.) have been discussed on a case-by-case basis. We seriously need to come up with some sort of policy dealing with these unencyclopedic pages and unencyclopedic contributors soon. A user with 29 mainspace edits with the rest to his/her userspace that make up several hundred edits total should not continue to waste resources such as these MFDs and their non-contributions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two of them have been already been deleted and I doubt the third one will survive for long, if a user is using Wikipedia as a host space I see no reason why these sub-pages can't be just directly deleted instead of consuming time on MFD. - Caribbean~H.Q.04:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely and totally agree (which is why I nominated several of these for deletion). See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart which was basically the same situation. In addition to the users who create the shops, there are also those who frequent the shops and who work at them. These are basically walled gardens of non-encyclopedia contributors. Something does need to be done. Metros (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not good. 10.5% of your edits are to userspace, whereas only 0.2% of mine are - and that's only towards a place where I collect sources for article writing. east.718at 04:24, December 28, 2007
If pages such as these aren't helping expand, edit, or maintain the encyclopedia, then I would agree that they need to be deleted. However, I don't think that a sweeping policy is warranted, since many "shops" of these types would already fail existing policies, and would be (justifiably) deleted. I'll also add that there are contributions made outside the mainspace that still contribute to the maintenance of the encyclopedia, and that raw numbers of contributions aren't necessarily a clear indication of a user's willingness to improve the project. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence14:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the gist of these. Code shops are very much an embodiment of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - however, by the same token I'm planning to create a page in my userspace about creating infoboxes - would that be allowed under policy??
True. We can really use an example on that new codesnippets wiki, that should put the shops to rest forever. If someone comes to Wiki to build a shop, immediately delete it, but only after you transwiki the source code to the new wiki. —BoL00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now. Today's log is always transcluded due to some of the #time: functions on the page, but since the following days need to be updated manually, it displayed December 28, 26, and so on, but not 27. I have a solution to prevent this from happening in the future, though. Spebi09:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to know what the IP address has done in the past, click on it (i.e. the contributions). That particular IP made edits in 2006, disappeared for a year, made a dozen edits recently, and is now blocked for a good long while. You should also maybe explain why you need to know what this IP has been doing. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 10:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Issue with user Blowdart
I created a wiki for XCritic and user Blowdart is very quick to add the speedy delete note. If you look at his talk page there are a number of people who have had issues with the his speedy delete requests [100]. He then went to my bio and marked that all up. I think there has to be some level of tolerance for newbies and rather than having the door slammed in their face, have constructive notes given on how to improve or modify a wikki. I'm quite concerned this conflict is now between editors and not about content —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkleinman (talk • contribs) 11:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article doesn't look like a CSD, but it's certainly AfD material. As for his edits to your self-aggrandizing biography, well, they weren't strong enough. I've just been in and deleted 80% of the article, as Wikipedia is not an advertising service. I'll take the CSD off the XCritic article and send it to AfD for discussion. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 12:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, talk about harsh. Is there any room here for welcoming and working with newbies?! How about comments to HELP with entries rather than chop and ship to deletion? And the cuts to my bio were way to severe. You cut out all the history of where i've been and what i've done. Wow. it really smarts having this kind of smacking rather than helping.
Gkleinman (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen that every time someone disputes your editing in any way you wave WP:BITE at them. But that policy is not a licence to use a non-profit encyclopedia funded by donations in order to self-aggrandize and promote your business interests. You can comment on the AfD of your article here. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 12:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've commented there. My intent isn't to self-aggrandize but to put information that's relevant in the Pedia. But please do take the point, that there's a way to do this with newbies where it's more collaborative and directing towards making good articles rather than being rather stern. Again I'm learning and working to make the articles I submit in spec. Thanks for your understanding Gkleinman (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be curlish to point out I didn't actually touch his autobiography aside from marking it with COI and Autobiography, hardly marking it all up. Nor should a user who's first edit was on 17 December 2005, and who hides behind an IP to attempt to bypass COI being claiming newbie status. But, meh. --Blowdart | talk12:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FisherQueen - yes. After getting past this mess I was going to create a page for Stoya who is an adult performer and doesn't even have an article in the pedia about here. I'm also planning on adding info on Sundance Fest which I'm attending and Adult Expo. I don't recall when I registered, but I am a newbie and still learning about creating articles. So I don't want to wave be nice to the newbie again. But please be patient. I'm learning. So here's what I ask... Constructive feedback on how to improve things, and I'm going to work with that. 12:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkleinman (talk • contribs)
beyond this article and this editor editor, there have been over the last day or two an unusually high number of unfinished articles nominated for AfD with a hour or two after creation. Sometimes they are just lacking sources--sometimes they are clearly in the process of being written. There is no requirement that an article be written in one go, and we should tag such unfinished articles if they have any possibilities, not delete them immediately. I can't account for the sudden decrease in tolerance, except possible as a byproduct of coming down after the holidays. I suppose we should be aware of the possibility of this increasing further with people recovering after New Year's Day. DGG (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be viewed at the link above. The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.
I am sorry to admit it but this has been done before and it didn't work, both parts are to strongly attached to their points of views, I'm under the impression that this case will repeat itself down the road. - Caribbean~H.Q.15:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well, there will be additional arbitrators available. The alternative is that the broader community does tackle the problem where it has its root, which is the inflexible wording at WP:NOT. Personally, I would downgrade almost the entire page into guideline status. DGG (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's it? That's the decision? I don't follow ArbCon cases too much, but telling the editors to "work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community" seems ridiculous to me. The case made its way to ArbCom because the editors were unable to do exactly that. Wow. I expected a more defined response. But again, I don't typically follow ArbCom rulings so maybe this is the norm.↔NMajdan•talk16:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems from the actual page that there was consensus that there was bad behavior going on, but the failure of arbcom to rule on it is troubling. I support the suggestion that WP:NOT gets downgraded. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with fake-IP vandal
Um, I know this page is for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on the English Wikipedia, but an administrator from the Vietnamese Wikipedia is asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Dealing with fake-IP vandal for advice. His particular problem is vandalism by someone in Vietnam using fake-IPs, who keeps replacing acticles' content with insulting words. We've been dealing with this vandal by locking IPs, but I found that locking fake-IPs is quite useless since the vandal uses a different one for each series of attacks. So, I was wondering, what is the experience of the English Wikipedia, and how has it dealt with such issues? It's probably best to respond at the village pump. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, I tagged Webling Elementary for AFD, since it's plainly not notable. In the discussion, the creator left the following comment: "I created this article before I read WP:NOTABLITY, so please delete and speedy close, thanks". As a new administrator, I'm not sure of the procedure: should I just delete it and close it, as it's author-requested? Or must we wait for a few days until the discussion time is over, since two other editors have edited the article? Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither editor made any significant contribution to the article so I would say you would be fine to speedy delete as an only substantial author request. Davewild (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The unblock of Zeraeph I view as magnificently unwise, given her onsite and offsite stalking and multiple attacks on SandyGeorgia. I ask that close eyes are kept on this user. Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that my questioning on the unblock of an account that has harrassed SandyGeorgia and a number of others on site and off site has decended to (ahem) Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with, too. Small world. Now fuck off. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Dear, oh dear, oh dear. Ceoil (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moving from LessHeard vanU's talk:
'I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms'
Please, am I supposed to be impressed this; I dont brush streets myself, and not that it matters or is anyway relevant. And I impressed that you are 48? My mother is 63. So what, actions speak louder than years. Please take regard of the substance, and the background. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why should I care that you wish to involve yourself in discussions between two other parties?
Well, the thing is that Sandy is a friend, has been for a long while, and has helped me enourmosly during my 'career' here . She was harrassed. For months, on and off site. The account that harrassed her was unblocked. I asked why. I was given bullshit reasons, and told, authoratively I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms. What the fuck? Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was explaining why I was using the terminology that I did. Simple. That is how I wrote to members of the legal profession back in the day. That is my personal style in these circumstances. If you don't recognise that you were getting an explanation, in much the same manner in which I was conversing, then I doubt there is any point in continuing this conversation. Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with, too. Small world. Now fuck off. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with"; Now fuck off? Oh boy, it gets interesting now. So I can cut to the chase now right?? Because I know whats going on here. I was just too much of a gentelman to say it out loud. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember this: [101]. watch your lip. So you won't mind if I reply in kind; "Fuck off until you learn not to piss on your neighbours lawn!" LessHeard vanU 17:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC) ??????? Funny how history repeats. Oh boy. Ceoil (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You told her once to fuck herself, you were not sactioned; so now you can do it at your pleasure? My god, man, thats fairly corrupt. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflicts)I said, "Fuck off" (for which I later apologised - which was accepted) which means go away in rather violent terms, per your own example above, whereas "fuck (her/your)self" means... something different altogether. Please try to be accurate in your comments, it really does help the reader. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, I don't know what your interest is in this. I've not seen your name on any of the articles in question, though I've not looked at everything, so maybe I've missed it. Regardless, the situation seems to be that there are allegations from a number of sides about harassment. It's hard to work out where the blame lies, so the best thing is to move on, if at all possible. If we find more harassment (coming from anyone) in future, we can deal with it then. In the meantime, let's try to get the protracted content dispute at the heart of this sorted out. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)02:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the thing is that Sandy is a friend, has been for a long while, and has helped me enourmosly during my 'career' here . She was harrassed. For months, on and off site. The account that harrassed her was unblocked. I asked why. I was given bullshit reasons, and told, authoratively I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms. But whatever. Out. Enjoy. You wake up with the fleas you sleep with. Enjoy. Out Ceoil (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never harassed User:SandyGeorgia on-Wiki, let alone off-Wiki...and as she is not saying anything herself that is all I need to say right now. (Except maybe to ask that the language be toned down a little?)--Zeraeph (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also add that I am a little scared and threatened by User:Ceoil. I have never interacted with this user, yet he is becoming very personal and heated, I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me. --Zeraeph (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LHU, did you write "fuck off" at the end of your legal memos? It was in response to the rather mild comment "..don't do it again," [102]. I respect your work, and i recognize that you have been the target of abuse from time to time, but if you use that kind language again here, i will block you, if anyone is willing to support me. DGG (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's an awful lot of cross-posting about this issue, so that it's getting hard to see who said what and where. I hope everyone can just forget about previous allegations and focus on sorting out the content dispute. Anyone who wants to help is very welcome at Talk:Psychopathy. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)02:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice deflection SV; pity you are talking to adults and not children. This IS NOT about content. This is about stalking, and harrasment on WR. Ceoil (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concern, I really do. I'm on record as strongly opposing harassment. But this is your 39th post about this issue in four hours. You've made your point, and it's well taken, but please leave it now so that we can move on. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict - reply to DGG) Well, let's see... 10th February 2007... 29 December 2007... Hmmm, you might have to warm up the old banhammer mid October 2008. Oh, and don't worry about any others, you just do what you feel is right - it works for me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved party, I hope I'm not the only person who finds Zeraeph's ".. he also seems to live within 30 miles of me" comment somewhat grave. Is Zeraeph implying Ceoil is a stalker? That's quite a serious accusation, so I hope others refrain from making such hyperbolic comments. We need to remain firmly rooted in reality here, and not make such off the wall comments. Such comments can be deemed personal attacks. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting anything, I just feel genuinely scared to see so much completely groundless vitriol, from a total (I hope) stranger emanate from such a nearby geographical location. Forgive me if I find this unnerving, with a potential to be seriously so. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say you're not suggesting anything, yet make the comment "..from a total (I hope) stranger". Please feel free to expand upon why you used the words "I hope" in brackets. Do you need to hope? This is a clear cut personal attack in my opinion, and I will repeat again that you should refrain from such personal attacks. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little troubled at SV's questioning about how Ceoil came to this matter, when the order of events is plainly visible on WP:AN, where the unfair block of Ceoil is discussed directly above discussion of an off-Wiki attack on me on a site that is less than friendly to SlimVirgin, for which apparently the next step was SV's premature unblock of Zeraeph. My response is on my talk page; I want nothing to do with another circus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your post, Sandy. I come to this dispute without knowing the background. I've advised Zeraeph to stay away from you, and not to respond to, or comment on, any post you make about her. My advice to you is to do the same. Everyone needs to turn down the heat here. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those who want more background, you may wish to review this thread from last year, the diff noted by Newyorkbrad several paragraphs down, the discussion linked by that diff, and the additional links in that discussion. Z mistook a stalker for SandyGeorgia, made scurrilous and false accusations against Sandy which were proven wrong, yet Z inexplicably continues her mistaken vendetta against Sandy. Look at Z’s first contributions on 27 December after she was unblocked: Everyone else is at fault; she is the victim.
This situation should have been firmly and finally dealt with a year ago. It was not; it has recurred; and it will continue to recur until it is properly ended. Kablammo (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So this confirms Zeraeph has a history of insinuating that certain editors are stalkers then? She has done the same above as concerns Ceoil; "Can I also add that I am a little scared and threatened by User:Ceoil. I have never interacted with this user, yet he is becoming very personal and heated, I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me." Such accusations need to be frowned upon, unless cold, hard evidence can be given to prove such allegations. Otherwise, accusing others of being stalkers is a very serious personal attack. Can Zeraeph please refrain from calling others stalkers per the reasons I have given? Thanks very much. LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The background that I can see is that Zeraeph was being stalked off wiki. She then ran into SandyGeorgia, who she feels was pursuing her around Wikipedia. She put two and two together, came up with five, and assumed SandyGeorgia might be the user name of her offline stalker. She was wrong. Since then, so far as I can see, she has not engaged with Sandy, and indeed has tried to avoid her. Sandy, however, continues to post long comments about Zeraeph, while saying she doesn't want to get involved. I can understand Sandy being very upset at being accused of stalking, and this is why she continues to post about it. But the very act of continuing to post about it is a large part of what's causing the problem to persist. I've therefore asked Sandy not to mention Zeraeph again, and I've asked Zeraeph not to respond to any of Sandy's comments about her. This situation was combined with anon IPs leaving insulting posts on Zeraeph's talk page while she was blocked. The toxicity needs to be allowed to drain out of this situation, and if people would stop posting about it, there'd be a better chance of that happening. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)03:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The background that I can see is that Zeraeph was being stalked off wiki. Wrong from the first sentence; actually, there's not a sentence in your analysis that's correct, but let's not worry about the facts. Z claims a lot of stalkers; I've seen the "evidence" and it's bogus. SV, you might have done the homework before you unblocked an editor whose history you clearly haven't followed and don't know. It could have prevented a lof of speculation at a time that you say you want to turn down the heat. I don't think adding speculation on top of speculation ever serves to turn down the heat. Please, inform yourself of the facts beforehand next time. This looks like a COI unblock because of the clear chain of events on WP:AN and the off-Wiki attacks on me on WR. I suggest you let uninvolved admins step in; mentorship of Z has already been tried. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, precisely what ARE you doing, on this thread, right now, misrepresenting and slandering me if not trying to stalk me off Wiki? I want no more of your false insinuations in the hope that nobody will check the facts. You actually confirmed YOURSELF that I was being stalked [103] and then refused to turn that evidence over to me or anyone supporting me [104]. Since tat time you have mercilessly tracked, harassed and misrepresented me. You refuse to bring this to mediation, you refuse to enter dispute resolution but you persistently jump in and lie to discredit me at the smallest opportunity. This is just wrong. --Zeraeph (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zeraeph, I have repeatedly told you not to accuse people of stalking. Zeraeph has repeatedly accused people of stalking now, yet nobody has intervened. Can an administrator please tell Zeraeph that repeatedly accusing others of stalking her will not be tolerated? These are serious personal attacks, and shouldn't be allowed. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no COI, I have no idea what the clear chain of events was (obviously not as clear as you think), and I am an uninvolved admin -- so uninvolved that you say I don't have a clue what I'm doing. You may be right, but I'm going to keep a close eye on the situation from now on, and time will tell. In the meantime, please AGF. I'm going to take my own advice and stop posting here about this, unless someone raises a fresh issue. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)04:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the language and attitude of user:Ceoil shocking, frankly. I don't agree with NPA blocks, but this user is behaving viciously. LuciferMorgan, who has a long history of getting in trouble for uncivil language and attitudes, is meanwhile lecturing both LessHeard and SlimVirgin on how to be a good administrator. SandyGeorgia, who I have seen nibble at a person until they say something bonkers, is the only one whose statements sound like old times, as she's being the victim. Poor, pitiful SandyGeorgia, who is utterly powerless against a lone editor.... What we need is for SandyGeorgia to document the "real life" harassment, and there would be an instant ban for Zeraeph. Otherwise, I'm inclined to believe that actually people are back to their scripts, that LuciferMorgan is not the dispassionate, friendly user of legend, that SandyGeorgia has a grudge (and I should know about that), and that Ceoil is on the verge of being blockable for disrupting conversation with excessive rudeness. Geogre (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to keep up with all these posts; I missed that one. Yes, the day we accept that regular editors can't question an involved admin's unblock and are told to fuck off by an admin because they questioned is the day we should all give up here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not say again that I'm an involved admin without saying exactly how I'm involved. I had no background knowledge of this situation at all, as I've told you repeatedly, and which I think is obvious. So please explain what you mean or else stop posting conspiracy theories.
I see no other option, because whatever I do User:SandyGeorgia will find ways to harass, stalk and discredit me, and to attack anyone who shows any support for me. In September 2006 I sincerely mistook her for a sockpuppet of a woman who has stalked me since 1999. I made this mistake for the very simple reason that User:SandyGeorgia behaves just, uncannily, like her. I knew that then, and it is proved to me many times over since.
I am proud of the way that I have behaved on Wikipedia, in spite of all the abuse thrown at me by a (sadly powerful) handful of people who are ruining this project for everybody else. It is not easily to be civil when constantly subjected to a constant double standard imposed by the efforts of a bully like User:SandyGeorgia. It is not easy to pick you way around a constant stream of slander and insult, day after day, and KNOW that even though you are the only one telling the truth you cannot win.
I stayed with this so long simply because Jimbo showed me that he is one of those very rare people who is exactly who he says he is, and abides by his own stated principles. That meant something to me, something worthy of respect and acknowledgement in the form of staying with the project against all odds and against all malice, without breaking the rulesw MYSELF, however bad it got. I also want to thank User:DeathPhoenix for his "cowardly lioning", User:LessHeard vanU, for staying up so late with this, and most especially User:SlimVirgin who, in spite of a normal run in or two (and a tiny bit of unjustified maligning on my part that I never did apologise for) deciding to treat me as the equal of anyone else on the project and actually LOOK at the facts, instead of complying with the volumious insinuations.
Zeraeph, you have just made serious accusations against SandyGeorgia without evidence. You've had multiple chances, as evidenced by your block log. You've received warnings. Be careful. I suspect that any further incidents of this nature will result in a lengthy block. Now go in peace, and feel free to return in peace. JehochmanTalk05:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second that comment. I'm a close wikifriend of Sandy's, and have respect for SV's role on WP. Forgive my cynicism: Zeraeph's track-record strongly suggests that the turbulence she has been associated with will re-emerge. I'm sick of having to deal with it, either directly or as a bystander. I have no reason to disbelieve Sandy's claims on this matter. And since Sandy has taken on a critical job at WP, in assisting Raul654 in directing the FAC page, we cannot afford to distract her from this task. I trust that SV's warnings to Zeraeph, if Z returns, will be heeded. I'm watching this matter closely, as are a number of other key people at policy and guideline pages. Tony(talk)05:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we taking this to personal? SV is an established administrator in this project and I trust that if Zeraeph ever makes a wrong turn she will be watching closely and will know what to do, even users that have a disruptive past have a chance of becoming good, if not great contributors lets just give Zeraeph a chance to prove that her intentions are good if she decides to come out of retirement. - Caribbean~H.Q.05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you aren't following closely, Caribbean H.Q. This is Z's third "retirement" in about two months, and she's got others before that. Each time, she departs leaving a personal attack on me in her wake. She "retires" as regularly as she accuses people of being stalkers. And, the post above pales in comparison to what was standing on her talk page about me at the point that SV unblocked her. SV prematurely unblocked someone she supposedly knew nothing about and had had no previous interaction with because she just happened across her, apparently without reviewing the standing attacks on her talk page at the time she unblocked, including referring to me as a "madam".[105] When mentorship has already been tried, you're asking that we extend yet another chance and trust that SV is going to be "watching closely" when she doesn't appear to have been watching closely the first time, and when Z began a content dispute within hours of being unblocked ? The question is still, why was Z unblocked to begin with, and how long is this going to be allowed to continue? Mentorship has already been tried; Z has never stopped being involved in content disputes, and when she shows up on AN/I again and again, she claims it's somehow my fault, even when I don't even edit those articles or usually know the editors she wars with. Z has never stopped this pattern, in over a year. She has already demonstrated she is not able to do otherwise. Why did SV happen across Z and happen to decide to unblock her just after an attack against me was lodged at WR and highlighted here at WP:AN? It would be helpful if editors unfamiliar with the history here would stop speculating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if the editors involved calm down and let the community dicuss the topic as well, both of you are quite upset and that is never good when trying to find resolution. - Caribbean~H.Q.16:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support community ban. Or at least beginning the discussion of one. "In September 2006 I sincerely mistook her for a sockpuppet of a woman who has stalked me since 1999. I made this mistake for the very simple reason that User:SandyGeorgia behaves just, uncannily, like her." Right, and my postman looks like my dad so maybe my dad's come back from the grave. The serious disruption that Zeraeph's editing brings—especially the persecution complex—needs to be put an end to. Marskell (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need to give additional chances to editors who repeatedly cause trouble and then make bad faith remarks: "To cap it all, as I found out this year, your apparently impeccable content isn't so good at all if one looks closely, you just politic a little clique of people into providing consensus (largely either as a quid pro quo, or because they are too scared of your malice to refuse you). You are a poisonous little Madam...and I have needed to say that for a very long time..." [106] (emphasis added)JehochmanTalk07:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's a reason not to community ban her, Jonathan, and that's that she's just been unblocked, and I'm going to watch the situation. There were some appalling attacks on her talk page when I came across it, which is why I looked at her case. Whatever has happened in the past, when I saw her page, she was clearly being bullied. This is a situation where a number of strong-willed people with strong views about their subjects have had personalities clashes, and the whole thing has escalated to the point of people feeling harassed and stalked. It's time to calm it right down. From what I can see of Zeraeph's editing, it is good, and so I hope her energy can be channeled into producing good material without the accompanying hullabaloo. Perhaps she needs to learn more about collaborative editing or something, but I don't see huge problems beyond that. I've also not had a chance to speak to her mentor about the situation, which I intend to do tomorrow if he's around. In the meantime, two admins are dealing with it (LessHeard VanU and myself), and hopefully between us we'll come up with a way forward. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)07:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec reply to JE) You and I discussed this before, when I was unhappy about how fast and how unfairly community bans were being imposed at the now defunct Community Sanction Noticeboard. I believe that discussions of bans should proceed as they did in the discussion of a community ban on Z.[107] That discussion was brought by uninvolved admins, unbeknownst to me, while I was traveling and had limited internet access, but because the discussion was civil and occurred over a long period of time, I was able to weigh in even though I was traveling. The mentorship ultimately failed, but we can all say we tried our best. I agreed to the mentorship even when others admins were insisting that they were sick of seeing Z show up at An/I after walking out on 3 mediations and that they would take her to ArbCom if I wouldn't. During and since her mentorship, Z has continued the same attacks, the same content disputes, and the same edit warring, going on blanking sprees, and making incoherent, unfounded charges against me and any one else who happens to cross her path. The situation now is worse, as she has canvassed against me off Wiki and against Wiki articles, in addition to the WR attack. Yet, she has made it clear in many places that she operates with Jimbo's blessing, so I don't see the point in having a community ban discussion when the conclusion is apparently foregone. If Wiki can't deal with Zeraeph, something is wrong. But I suppose people can just keep telling me and anyone who defends me to fuck off no matter how hard we work to turn out featured content. Thanks for asking, Je, but methinks this decision has already been made, and Z will be allowed to continue as she wishes. Mentorship failed. I have edited articles Z edits, and I have never seen a valuable contribution she has made or a good article she has written (in contrast to the last person she has disputed with, Mattisse, who has numerous GAs and DYKs). For SV to claim this is a clash with two stong-willed people is patently insulting, because Z has never gotten along with anyone long term, has had disputes with numerous editors, and the IPs "bullying" her on her talk page are evidence of that from off-Wiki sites. Her editing is not amenable to Wiki, but she is being protected here. I'm quite sure this is a done deal, for reasons that will not see the light of day. Nothing "escalated" to the point of accusations of stalking and harassing; that has been Z's standard fare on and off Wiki for as long as I've been aware of her presence here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You talk about Z making unfounded allegations, but you are doing it too. E.g. "I'm quite sure this is a done deal, for reasons that will not see the light of day." There is no "done deal," and I can't even imagine why there would be, or who it would be with. What happened is very simple: I saw her being attacked, I felt bad for her, I wanted to help, and Mikka said I should feel free to unblock if I wanted to. I looked at her contribs, and saw a good editor dragged down by having difficulty collaborating, which is a common problem on Wikipedia. I've advised her by e-mail that she needs to try to care less about the topics she edits, because I think that's what's at the root of this situation.
I'm one of the last people on Wikipedia who would condone harassment, having been a target of it, so the idea that I wouldn't take that seriously is far-fetched, and if I see any such thing in future, I assure you that I'll deal with it firmly. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)08:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It is a done deal; it only takes one person to overturn a community ban, so it was a done deal by the time I weighed in. Curious; why is it that you think you'll be successful when Deathphoenix wasn't? You're saying all the same things he said, only he was aware of the issues he was wading into, and wasn't making opinions based on partial knowledge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, since you say Zeraeph is a valuable contributor, would you humor me by providing a selection of diffs to demonstrate that assertion. Also, could you ask her to strike all recent insults and unsupported accusations. Thank you. JehochmanTalk08:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at her edits today, they looked good to me. She seems to be keen on using good sources and sticking closely to what they say, which is the essence of good editing here.
Sandy, I don't know that I'll succeed where Deathphoenix didn't, and I think that's the wrong way of looking at it, because what happens is up to Z and the people around her, not any admin or mentor.
What happens a lot on Wikipedia is that people get pushed into bad behavior by getting into conflicts in areas they care too much about. What you have to do as an admin is look at that behavior and try to make a judgment about the extent to which it's context-dependent. In other words, is this someone behaving badly who would have behaved well in other circumstances? Or is this someone who's likely to behave badly no matter what's happening around him? The former deserves second (and third, and fourth) chances; and with the latter, there's no point.
Having looked at Z's contribs, I see an editor of the former type. What needs to happen now is for people to turn the heat down, so that we can see how she manages without being the focus of this vitriol. Sandy, she would like you to stay away from her. That is her request and I hope you'll respect it. And you would like her to stay away from you. So you both agree on that one thing, and it's easy enough to arrange it given the size of Wikipedia. Therefore, I'm asking you again to stop posting about her, and if she posts about you, ignore it. My guess is that, if everyone backs off, things will turn out very differently this time. And if I turn out to be wrong, I'll deal with the situation. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)08:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "I'll deal with the situation" from SlimVirgin supposed to be an acceptable answer for Sandy? I've already unpacked it on your talk, so I won't do so again, Slim. I hope you've read the previous community ban discussion that Sandy's linked to. Marskell (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm asking is to be allowed to do my "job," as it were. I've made a judgment that Z is a good editor and will make a good Wikipedian if given another chance (a real chance, with no sniping from the sidelines, which she obviously finds highly distressing). If I turn out to be wrong, I will deal with it. I won't cut and run and leave others to pick up the pieces. That's all I meant. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)08:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SV, you are still commenting in a partial way and based on no factual understanding of the situation. " ... she would like you to stay away from her". Are you reading your words? Do you realize she brings her issues to me, not vice-versa? Do you realize her major issues are not with me, but with others? Do you realize your solution has nothing to do with the problem? Do you realize all of her recent disputes are on articles I don't edit, or because she asked me to mediate her disputes? Do you realize Z only edits articles she is strongly vested in, and there is no such thing for her as editing an article just for the sake of editing, without having a strong emotional investment? Do you not see she immediately returned from a block to go on an editing deletion spree? You "think" her edits looked good? I've seen her editing on topics I know and where I carefully had to read the sources to remove the inaccuracies. Are you going to read every source when she disagrees with Mattisse, a credentialed professional? I have seen her edits; I'm not guessing like you are. No, you've given me no reason to think you even understand the situation, much less can deal with it when a very competent editor fully aware of the issues couldn't contain Z's tendencies even with the best intent and effort. You seem unable to recognize that Z has harassed me for well over a year, and that you've offered no proposal whatsoever for how you intend to change that in any way that Deathphoenix couldn't, nor any reason to want to be in this position yet AGAIN another year from now, still dealing with Z's fantasies, when I have work to do. I lost all evening of reading FAC articles. Are you willing to agree that you will community ban Z the first time she goes on another editing deletion spree, edit warring, or engages in a personal attack against anyone? And are you *really* going to be watching, because so far, you haven't even caught up on the basic facts of the case. The situation now is that you unblocked her, you're willing to take responsibility, fine; agree that you'll support a ban as soon as she re-engages in the same behavior she has engaged in for years. And since she has canvassed against the autism-related articles off-Wiki, get her to agree to stay away from them, because the last time I left them alone to avoid her, Asperger syndrome ended up back at FAR in worse shape than ever. Produce one good article she's written. Then review the entire talk page and edit history of alexithymia, the article she asked me to mediate just before she went on a blanking spree. Please, inform yourself before saddling all of us with a premature decision, again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that she seems to edit in areas she's emotionally invested in, which is not a good thing. I also agree that she's made inappropriate allegations against you, and you're rightly angered by them. But I also saw you continue to post long comments about her when she was blocked and wasn't responding, and hadn't been editing any articles you were interested in. So you've inadvertently prolonged the situation, and made her feel she was being victimized. That's why I think this may just be an ugly dynamic that has somehow gotten out of control.
Untrue. I had a long conversation with Mattisse before Z was blocked, and when Z was blocked, I told Mattisse that I expected her to show good faith by leaving those articles alone while Z was blocked, and then I took Mattisse to task for her own block record. That was the long conversation. And I took an admin to task for siding against Mattisse without knowing the facts. My long conversation with Mattisse was about Mattisse's behavior. Please take care with the idea that something is true because you say it is. It's not. Z stirs these issues up, Mattisse came to me totally by chance because I've encountered her elsewhere, she didn't even know I knew Z, and then Z posts to WR that I planted Mattisse? Honestly, do you realize how off that is and what it's like to live with that kind of paranoid ideation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a first gesture of goodwill, Z has removed some material critical of you from her user page. I hope you'll respond by, at least, toning down your comments about her, and preferably not commenting any further. After that, I hope Z will consider striking some other comments she's made about you. And bit by bit, maybe relations will thaw.
Please take one point seriously -- rightly or wrongly (and I'm stressing this: rightly or wrongly), she feels you are bullying her, and she is very upset about it. Therefore I'm asking you, please, to disengage. Please show that you're not bullying her by just stepping back. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)09:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SV, you are being naive. DO you not know that bullying is Z's main topic, on and off-Wiki? She thinks everyone is bullying her. No one is responsible for her fantasies. Relations will thaw? SV, please catch up with the facts. Relations did thaw; Z asked me to mediate her disputes with others. That's the only reason I got drug back into her sphere. This is how it goes with her. Please, SV, get up on the case before you make opininions and judgments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Z has done some legit anti-vandalism work,[108][109] but is a recurring center of drama. If she's serious about "backing off", she should start by removing the comment on her user page about "one editor" stalking her. Otherwise, it's a standing personal attack. Gimmetrow08:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Five hours ago Zaraeph announced her retirement from Wikipedia,[110] but instead of following through on that promise four hours later the same editor announced she wanted to initiate an arbitration case openly. Another hour has passed, yet this editor has made no attempt to initiate such a request. A previous consensus already agreed to community ban. This editor can barely make a post without adding to the volume of unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct against SandyGeorgia. I strongly support a community ban (first choice), or (second choice) if no ban is forthcoming at this time I request the intervention of a different mentor other than SlimVirgin. DurovaCharge!09:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for that hours ago, and now we are way past the point where someone needs to tell SV to back out of a situation that has all the appearance of a COI on her part, and she is clearly worsening an already bad situation. She unblocked Z after Z attacked me on WikiReview and after that was highlighted here on WP:AN. Her unwillingness to see and understand the most basic facts of this case is, again, prejudicing me and dragging me through having to defend myself now against SV's misstatements. Someone please get SV to back out of this. Z has already refused to strike her attacks on me; what else need be said? It's clear, and to those of us who have followed this for a long time, it's always been clear. SV enabled more of the same by unblocking and empowering Z, evidenced by Z immedately returning to the last article she left and edit warring. Enough. I lost all evening at FAC and tomorrow I'll be behind. This is nothing but an insult, and worse, from someone who should know what it feels like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether COI is the word for it, but it's clear that this is someone whose strengths lie elsewhere. Good intentions don't necessarily generate positive results. Slim, please bow out gracefully. This site has many excellent mentors. You've tried your best. DurovaCharge!10:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly surprising given this pile-on. If people would just disengage, and allow me, first of all, time to read the history thoroughly, and more importantly Z time to calm down, there might be a different outcome. Could you show me please where a community ban was decided? I can find no such discussion. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)10:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The normal course of action is to do such research before unblocking. My advice is that you withdraw; I will not complicate that with anything that might appear to contradict it. I now withdraw myself. Best wishes, DurovaCharge!10:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's hardly reasonable to expect her to file an RfAr within a couple of hours. It'll likely take her days to get that together. The other thing that confuses me, Durova, is if a community ban was already agreed, why didn't it go ahead? Mikka only blocked her for a month, I believe, and said he didn't mind her being unblocked. Where is the discussion agreeing to a community ban? SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)09:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with a community ban. Do we have any reason to believe that the user interacts poorly with other users (I mean other than those going to tell her how evil she is to SandyGeorgia)? Do we have patterns of bad action throughout, or do we have a user who really can't stand another (Sandy really not being able to stand Zeraeph) and one who gets pushed over the edge by the other? A community ban should be for someone who is bad in the community. (By the way, I don't count LuciferMorgan in this. I've never seen that user disagree with Sandy, and I've seen him go to be virulent where Sandy is merely aggrieved, so Z being miserable with LM is not evidence of bad action in the community.) Finally, let me remind everyone involved here that community bans take place, like prod, only if there is no dissent. SlimVirgin dissents. I do, too. If we want a solution, we tell SandyGeorgia to go to an uninvolved administrator when she has an issue with Z to take up, and we tell Z to leave off talking about or to SandyGeorgia. There: community served. As for Ceoil, I'd caution him to never be so insulting, angry, and inflammatory when dealing with a person who believes herself injured, and never talk to the rest of the community the way he did, above. Geogre (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very wrong
I deserve a fair shot at clearing my name against all these false accusations. So far I have never had one. Let's take it to arbcom, once and for all. --Zeraeph (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Filing at ArbCom is easy. Getting them to accept the case is a bit harder. I suggest you bear with this discussion and see whether a consensus forms or not. You may be satisfied with the result here. Would you be willing to strike out any of the remarks you've made to help de-escalate the conflict? JehochmanTalk08:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not fair to ask me to bear false witness against myself without a gesture of goodwill. In the event that SandyGeorgia is prepared to strike all her personal attack against me, leave me in peace for good, and desist from all personal attacks in future, I am happy for the whole thing to be deleted and a fresh start made - but not without a gesture of goodwill. I did that before and got it all thrown back in my face, with interest, as it is now. --Zeraeph (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be completely satisfied with Z striking her accusations from her user page, from her talk page, and agreeing to sanctions if she ever lodges those kinds of attacks again against me or any other editor, or if she ever goes on an edit warring/blanking rampage again. Of course, SV now has agreed to police that, and since Z has never gone more than a few months without edit warring, that will be a chore. If Z agrees to cease these activities, I'm happy. The other things SlimV is suggesting (that I stay away from Z); well, SV hasn't caught up on the facts yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you offering to do about the far more numerous, dishonest and unprovoked attacks you have made on me in a variety of places, including in the above comment?--Zeraeph (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the previous ban discussion for all the reasons this shouldn't go to ArbCom, and then factor in the time that Z already lost by walking out on 3 mediations, and ask me how I'm going to invest the time to see her walk out again. The community either deals with this ... or it doesn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you forget to mention is that I walked out on those mediations in the sincere belief that you were a person who has (to your certain knowledge) stalked me for 9 years, and if that were so I would have been very ill advised to engage in mediation indeed as her sole motive is to hijack my attention for as long as possible.
What I know with certainty is nothing, because you're all a bunch of screenames to me. What I've seen in e-mail is very friendly correspondence between you and your alleged "stalker" who isn't a "stalker" at all, but a friend that you accuse of stalking whenever she disagrees with you. Don't presume to say what I know when all I know of all of you is the strangest e-mails I've ever seen (and never responded to). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I am as terrible as you repeatedly claim all over Wikipedia (with impunity) the arbcom would just be a small formality and a rubber stamp, so why would you have a problem with that? --Zeraeph (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already answered; if Wiki wants to allow you continue to harass me, and can't find a means of stopping it, it's not up to me to invest any more time into resolving this when you've already walked out 3 times. Wiki needs to deal with this; not me. You are SV's responsibility now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deserve a fair shot at clearing my name against all these false accusations. So far I have never had one. Let's take it to arbcom, once and for all.--Zeraeph (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
S that was a sincere and unintentional edit conflict, I have no idea how it blanked...as you ask, indeed, why would I delete any single one of your posts, after all they are all equally dishonest and abusive of me, why pick just one? --Zeraeph (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zeraeph, you're more than welcome to file an RfAr. If there have been failed RfMs, the ArbCom will almost certainly hear the case. Or you could consider filing a formal request for mediation between you and SandyGeorgia. Or you could both just agree to stay away from each other. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)08:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage I do not think it is fair to ask anyone to mediate. It certainly isn't realistic to "agree to stay away from each other", that was tried before, I stayed away, but at the slightest hint of any trouble anyone wanted to make, or even a content issue I needed to bring to WP:AN/IUser:SandyGeorgia popped up like something on a wire to exacerbate it. I was truly sorry for mistaking her for the person I did, it was a genuine mistake, but when I see her behave exactly like her, lying about me, and making trouble for me, month after month, I cannot go on feeling sorry, I don't have that kind of masochism in me. (signing late for clarity) --Zeraeph (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may think you were truly sorry, but you never retracted it and you never apologized to me, and you continue to make false statements about me off-Wiki and to advocate that my edits are overturned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AS a matter of fact I did apologise to you recently (you cannot read my mind, you do not know what I am, and am't sorry for...you just know the lengths you have gonme to to "make me sorry"), but I am happy to do so again, I am extremelly sorry that I mistook you for a person who has stalked me since April 1999. However that was a sincere mistake, apart from which I have never made any false claims about you on, or off Wiki...though you have cold bloodedly and deliberately made many about me, even today. Also, I do believe many of your edits should be overturned. The reasons why are various and have validity...but what editor here could not say the same about any other editor? THe one exceptional reason why I think some should be overturned is that you consitently prioritise "personal control" over "validity", but there are other reason. I do not think I should need to become your meatpuppet to be allowed to edit here in peace and on equal terms. --Zeraeph (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Zeraeph allowed to continue attacking SandyGeorgia? Can someone please put a stop to this? How many times does this editor need to be warned? —Viriditas | Talk09:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, these days, I get blocked so that I cannot publicly request an arbcom hearing, that is why I am requesting it now. I dread it, but it is better than the alternatives, certainly better than trying to go on subject to a double standard, where people can lie and abuse me to their heart's content without censure, but I cannot even defend myself honestly without being threatened with a community ban. That is just terrorism, and it is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. --Zeraeph (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not investing time in ArbCom to see you walk out halfway through all that work just like you did in mediation, where you even had the nerve to close the cases yourself (including cases I opened, and then come here and say I've never allowed mediation, which is a bold lie). I will not be dragged through my time being wasted again, with someone who has a long and established history of walking out midstream. There is nothing to arbitrate; you either cease this kind of behavior or you don't. You have never ever not once produced a diff showing any issue with or from me; why should I invest the time? Produce a diff showing something I've done to deserve this, and then we can talk about something to arbitrate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you forget to mention is that I walked out on those mediations in the sincere belief that you were a person who has (to your certain knowledge) stalked me for 9 years, and if that were so I would have been very ill advised to engage in mediation indeed as her sole motive is to hijack my attention for as long as possible.--Zeraeph (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even when blocked you can email ArbCom to request help or file an appeal. I strongly urge you to back away from the conflict by striking your hostile remarks directed at SandyGeorgia. If you do that, I will ask her to reciprocate. That will be the fastest and least stressful way to resolve this conflict. JehochmanTalk08:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there is no permanent record of emails to arbcom, there is of public appeals. Jehochman, this may seem very strange to you but I have an aversion to lying that makes striking any of the remarks I have made with a sincere effort to be scrupulously truthful (no more, no less, whether it suits you or not) absolutely impossible. That would be tantamount to pretending I lied when I have only told the honest truth. I should not be asked to bear such false witness against myself. I got myself into this position by following the rules and letting the truth be pushed aside. I will not do that again.
I also find it very strange that, as her remarks preface mine by some time, you do not ask SandyGeorgia to do this first rather than me (surely not a "double standard" at play?)? If I am all the terrible things you personally claim, an arbcom hearing should be no more than a small formality, a rubberstamp, I fail to see why you would have any resistance to that. --Zeraeph (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Z, if you want an ArbCom case, the only people who can stop you are the ArbCom themselves. So that is always an option for you, and they will examine everyone's behavior in this.
In the meantime, I do advise you to strike through any negative comments you've recently made about Sandy, as a gesture of goodwill. Then hopefully she will do the same. One of you has to make the first move toward more peaceful relations. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)09:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stike? As far as I recall, the conversation on my talk page is not about Z but about your premature removal of her block without being informed of the issues, and LHvU's telling Ceoil to fuck off. Honestly, it's really not all about Z all the time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, before the unblock. You posted at least one long very critical comment about her, but I forget where I saw it.
The bottom line is that both parties feel harassed. Z, what upsets Sandy is that, feeling she has been harassed by you, she sees the unblock as an insult. I understand that. I've had people who were harassing me be unblocked, and it feels like a kick in the stomach.
The other side is that Z feels harassed too, and every time Sandy posts about her, or anyone else posts in support of Sandy, she feels that kick in the stomach too. The result is two very upset women. I hope both will try to respect the other's feelings, even if each feels they're not based on facts -- because regardless of the facts, the feelings are obviously very real. Sandy, it would go a long way to making Z feel better if you could locate any recent negative comments you've made about her, particularly before the unblock, and strike them. It's late where I am, BTW, so I'm going to have to resume this tomorrow. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)09:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well this [112] (taken at random) apparently was about me. I am sure there plenty more since, shall I post them all or can people read for themselves with an open mind?
Slimvirgin, I would love to comply, but I cannot bear false witness against myself by striking remarks that I ensured were only scrupulously honest, and there are no others. After all the months of lies and abuse from SandyGeorgia, I am capable of being neutral, but without apology and amends from her I am honestly incapable of feeling goodwill...would it not only be revolting and ridicluous of me to pretend it? --Zeraeph (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to pretend. You can strike the comments as a gesture of goodwill, even if you don't feel it. That's not dishonest; it's just a sign that you're willing to do whatever it takes to mend fences. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)09:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot, the only honest answers to the lies and attempts at sophistry still being thrown at me here exist in even stronger terms...it would be idiotic to strike as I defend myself. And what about the NEXT person she bullies? When they go through edit histories frantic for ways to defend themselves against a flood of calculated vitriol and all they find is that the truth has been voluntarily struck out? --Zeraeph (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the attacks. Never, once, through dozens of AN/Is, 3 mediations and a checkuser have you ever produced a single diff to back up a single thing you say about me. I'm such a terrible bully that you asked me to mediate your dispute at alexithymia and awarded me a barnstar for doing it. That is what you call a "bully". Produce a diff of "vitriol" from me such as when you called me an "erotomanic stalker" or LHvU told Ceoil to fuck off. Won't find it, doesn't happen. Stop. This is enough already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is an outright lie...only today I produced two diffs above that prove you were consciously, deliberately lying when you claimed something I said was "bogus". You just deny that anything that doesn't suit you happened and then bury nit under so many words no-one has the energy to challenge it. Does it ever penetrate your skull that when I asked you to mediate that situation on the Alexithymia article I was holding out a very sincere, and respectful olive branch in the form of requesting the assistance of what I then believed were your strengths (I have seen reason to doubt since, because that is what you chose to show me), and that I gave you recognition it choked me to give (after all you put me through) as part of that? I even trusted you to answer a question about something dear to me, another, stupid gesture of sincere conciliation I should never have been daft enough to attempt. And that you have done nothing with any of that but find ways to throw it back in my face ever since. Sandy, has it ever crossed your mind that I, and others see you as an unscrupulous, controlling bully simply because that is how you choose to treat us? And that I mistook you for someone else simply because you were choosing to behave exactly like her? Because bully me as much as you like, tell as many lies, for as many hours a week as you can, that is the simple truth here. --Zeraeph (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Z, you're very upset now, so my advice is to get some sleep, maybe even take a couple of days off, and come back refreshed. If there's no other way of settling things, you can file an RfAr. But I think right now, continuing to comment is not a good idea. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)09:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, you asked for an example of a post from you that could be called vitriolic. This is one, from before the unblock, and indeed I believe from just before the block. You write at great length saying you don't want to be involved, but that long post clearly constitutes involvement. It upset Z a great deal and it fed into her feelings of being victimized, just as her comments about you have fed into you feeling she's harassing you. One of you needs to make the first step toward stopping the dynamic by just disengaging, which you've said elsewhere, Sandy, is your preferred approach in other situations. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)10:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Slim and I reverted again at the same time. Thank you very much, Slim. I sincerely appreciate the enforcement of policy to remove vicious attacks against respected editors. Jeffpw (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a conflict of interest in that Sandy is a close Wikifriend. Even so, I want to record my feeling that Zeraeph's participation in the project has been overwhelmingly damaging. I have no confidence that her destructive behaviour will change this time around. I appreciate that Sandy's reactions to her may appear to be over-emotional at times, but I can see why the emotion has crept in. In any case, I do not believe that that Sandy's reactions are relevant to the issue of a community ban. I ask that the ban proceed for the sake of the project.Tony(talk)10:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support community ban based on extensive block log concerning personal attacks and disruptive editing. This has been going on for too long and needs to stop. Sandy is not the issue here. I am at a loss understanding why Zeraeph is allowed to edit. —Viriditas | Talk10:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse Tony's call for a ban 100 percent. Wikipedia does not need this kind of drama and upset, and editors who attack other editors, do not discuss their edits even when they're contentious, and take up the community's valuable time in endless discussion of their indefensible actions are absolutely not an asset to this project. Jeffpw (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not yet convinced. As with Sandy's thoughts about the old CSN, I think this should not be a rushed process. I hope no admin issues an indefinite block without a bit more time to mull it over. Cool HandLuke11:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In “another place”, within the past three weeks Z has called SG “a prolific and unscrupulous bully” who “persistently abuse[s]”, claimed that SG is a “voluble head wreck” who “just plays wall to wall mind games” and “has become a law unto herself, as well as something of a personal Mafia”. According to Z, “SandyGeorgia is an identical kind of bully” to Z’s stalker. Z also refers to SG as “the "b*tch”.
Z called another editor “stark raving bonkers and no more a psychologist than I am a garden snail”. She also claimed an editor involved in this thread had OCD and Tourette syndrome; those comments apparently were removed.
Z called an administrator involved in this thread “an arrogant pain, but there is a LOT more to being decent than just standing up to her...does it not cross your mind that the only way to stand up to people like [the administrator] and win is to be WORSE than they are.”
Z’s on-wiki conduct over the past three days is little different, as shown by her very first edits (now redacted) upon lifting of the block.
Z has stated: “my only interest in participating in Wikipedia at all was to protect some psychology and abuse related articles from being distorted into vehicle for promoting some very questionable and exploitative online agenda of which my stalker is an active part.” The way Z carries out this personal interest is to harass and abuse anyone who disagrees with her, make false and unsubstantiated accusations against respected editors separated from her by an ocean, and claiming to be victimized by those subjected to her attacks. Enough is enough. Kablammo (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're all over the place (again... welcome to AN, Geogre), but No ban from what has been presented. Arbitration would be the best way, if people think that this is insoluble. If SandyGeorgia feels that she must pick at Z, and if Z has to have "justice" for what she believes Sandy has done, then RfAr is the way forward. Personally, I see poking with a stick by Sandy and exaggerated and inappropriate response by Z. I don't know whether to blame the person with the stick or the person reacting, so let's leave that for the Arbs. Geogre (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I will not be supporting a community ban, although I can see that there needs to be a singular change of attitude by Z in the non article spaces (and sometimes in) when interacting with some editors. A RfAr will allow many aspects of the matter to be investigated, including the actions and conduct of related parties (that should be interesting), in a far more restrained and decorous atmosphere than is apparent here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Community retirement
A number of people have pointed out problems with Zeraeph's repeated retirements. I suggest that if Zeraeph retires before July 1 2008, the retirement be enforced with a one-year block which begins when an administrator places the block (if no admin notices the retirement then the block might have a longer effect than can be calculated, but this clause also deals with situations such as no admin noticing an announced retirement until after a return). -- SEWilco (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enforced behavioral restriction
Can we set up a community enforced behavioral restriction?
Zeraeph is banned from posting any sort of remarks about SandyGeorgia, except she may go to any administrator via talk page or email to request help for legitimate grievances. This provision may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator via a block up to one week. After five such blocks, Zeraeph may be blocked up to one year.
SandyGeorgia is asked not to involve herself in Zeraeph's editing. If SandyGeorgia violates this provision, the agreement is suspended. Note: if the two editors come to the same article by any means other than following each other, that is allowed. If there is an editing dispute between them, they will go to an administrator for help, rather than engaging with each other.
I will never agree to a double standard, for which there is no justification, but if it is altered to impose the same, equal, terms on both of us I think it is worth considering thus:
Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from posting any sort of remarks about each other, except they may go to any administrator via talk page or email to request help for legitimate grievances. This provision may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator via a block up to one week on the offending party. After five such blocks, either editor may be blocked up to one year.
Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are asked not to involve themselves in each other's editing. If either violate this provision, the agreement is suspended.
Note: if the two editors come to the same article by any means other than following each other, they will go to an administrator for help, rather than engaging with each other. (I do not think it is a good idea any other way, it is too open to abuse from either side) --Zeraeph (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The catch here is "legitimate grievances." In the eyes of the supposedly aggrieved all their concerns will be legitimate. That's just human nature, not necessarily a comment on the two parties here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict so I pop this here:The beauty of that Raymond, is that AS SOON as a "legitmate grievance" is posted it will involve a third party Admin to ajudicate legitmacy. However, personally, with an agreement in place, as above, that has not been broken, I do not see that either of us should ever need to mention the other. If the agreement is broken it becomes and whole other matter again, so perhaps that clause could be dispensed with?--Zeraeph (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why they have to go to an administrator, rather than straight to ANI. The administrator will determine if the grievance is legitimate and proxy post at ANI if required. This will hopefully filter out non-legitimate grievances and remove any personal attacks. JehochmanTalk16:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is one valid argument Jehochman, but the other is still that, unless the other party has breached the agreement, there should not be any need for that exception at all, as there are plenty of people to comment on "valid grievances" and plenty of other "valid grievances" for us both to comment on without ever mentioning each other again. --Zeraeph (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Ec) My proposal is not symmetrical because SandyGeorgia has never been blocked before, therefore warnings should be given before any block. Blocks are the last resort when lesser measures fail. If this matter goes to Arbitration, I am confident the committee will not provide symmetrical terms either.
Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from posting any sort of remarks about each other, except they may go to any administrator via talk page or email to request help for legitimate grievances.
Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are asked not to involve themselves in each other's editing. If the two editors come to the same article they will go to an administrator for help with any disagreements, rather than engaging with each other.
This agreement may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator via a block up to one week against Zeraeph, or by warnings against SandyGeorgia followed by blocks. After five such blocks, either party may be blocked up to one year.
Either party may cancel this agreement by filing for arbitration.
Yes, the idea is right, but the specifics will require wordsmithing of the sort ArbCom does. As evidenced by all the past cases, Z's idea of "legitimate grievances" aren't always in line with Wiki policy or others' ideas. Further problems with the current wording. Z has a long block log, including two blocks of a month's duration. This proposal lowers her block duration to a week, and allows her to attack editors five more times before more serious sanction. We should already be past that point; it should stop now. One more chance at a block for a month, then next block for a year. Next, the proposal doesn't even address the fact that she has attacked many more editors than me; it shouldn't be restricted to me. I have been drawn into the last four fiascos because she took on others (Psychonaut, A Kiwi, Mattisse, and Soulgany101). The restrictions should make clear she needs to stop *all* attacks; I am a very minor piece. Next, it doesn't even mention her 3RR edit warring and blanking sprees. And finally, it doesn't effectively deal with the fact that I edit autism-related articles, always have, and am frequently asked by other editors to peer review or comment in that area. I don't edit MOST of the articles Z is involved in (personality disorders, psychopathy, bullying and her other articles), but I do edit all autism-related articles and help maintain two FAs (Asperger syndrome and autism), where the off-Wiki canvassing against those articles is an issue. Finally, the proposal allows for a continuation of the long-standing issue of forum shopping. I have no problem agreeing, but the proposal does not address the issues. Of greater concern is that I see no indicatoin of anyone asking her mentor (Deathphoenix) if he thinks any of it will be workable. And he has seen the off-Wiki evidence, because I e-mailed it to him. The other issue which is glaringly overlooked here is that Z can go to any admin, but we already have admins inappropriately involved in the case when they are involved parties, and we have something going on off-Wiki when Mikka said he had "brought wrath upon his head" by his block of Z, when there is no on-Wiki evidence of that, so there needs to be some clarification of uninvolved admins. Multiple edit conflicts in trying to post this, so it may be outdated by subsequent posts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, you keep saying that there are involved admins, but who are they, and how are they involved?
I will not agree to anything that is not totally equal and symmetrical, anything else places me at too great a disadvantage and will make things worse, not better. It would just be a charter to goad. The voluntary undertaking, of itself, serves as a warning.
Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from posting any sort of remarks about each other, (consider removing following) except they may go to any administrator via talk page or email to request help for legitimate grievances.
Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are asked not to involve themselves in each other's editing. If the two editors come to the same article they will go to an administrator for help with any disagreements, rather than engaging with each other.
This agreement may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator via a block up to one week against either parrty. After five such blocks, either party may be blocked up to one year.
Either party may cancel this agreement by filing for arbitration.
Further, I would have thought it was slightly obvious that the agreement means that we should BOTH cease all remarks and attacks concerning each other, fairly and equally. But if you will not agree to it, fine, I am more than happy to go to arbcom and have it all out in the open instead. --Zeraeph (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that aspect of the proposal; I'd be very happy if your name would stop popping up on my talk page. The proposal doesn't address your attacks on others and your disruptive editing, and it actually lowers the sanctions you would currently be exposed to. You have no more reason to continue to accuse A Kiwi of wikistalking, when you exchange friendly e-mails with her and have a long-standing on-and-off friendship, than you do of accusing me of being your stalker. The stalking accusations need to stop. And mistaking me for A Kiwi doesn't excuse your refusal to adhere to Wiki polices and guidelines and submit to mediation; even if I had been A Kiwi, you still should have mediated the issue and adhered to Wiki policies. By the way, in the flurry of posts last night, I neglected to thank you for finally apologizing for the egregious things you said about me a year ago. I would be further relieved if you would stop the off-Wiki attacks on me, but that's not Wiki's problem. For the record, Zeraeph, I don't have Tourette's, I don't have OCD, I have never said I do (as you claim), I don't have the conditions of any of the articles I edit (if I did, that would be quite a mix), I don't "neglect my children" and I don't plagiarize. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely at variance with the facts about the situation with A Kiwi (Knowingly or not? I'm not psychic? Who knows?) and if you don't have Tourettes, perhaps you shouldn't have kept claiming you had on the AS talkpages, us Aspies are very easily mislead that way? (I'll find the diffs myself before it gets to arbcom). But if you feel that either Tourettes or OCD is in any way a pejorative I am happy to apologise for using the terms in connection with you. --Zeraeph (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A modest proposal
There's clearly huge issues being dealt with here, which can be dealt with far easier than realized. Let's say there is no consensus for banning of User:Zeraeph when this is said and done, or that there's a consensus to not ban. (since if banned this propsal is moot) What she should do, if serious about contributing to the encyclopedia, is just come back under a new username and have a fresh start. Then SandyGeorgia won't bother her is she doesn't make herself known, and ideally she won't bother back either. I don't know if this is a good idea or not, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Wizardman16:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how that stands with policy Wizardman, but it is something I would feel worth considering myself. The only reason I have not done it before is that it would, effectively, lock me out from the articles of interest to me, because too many eyes would be watching them, and I feel there would be goading, to the detriment of the quality of those articles. Most of my "watches" are for OR, and self promotion and to sustain WP:RS in areas where I know the subjects and the "players" only too well. That is, by far, the most useful purpose I have ever served here, and possibly ever will. --Zeraeph (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's not workable. Z only edits specific topics that she is heavily involved in off-Wiki, she brings off-Wiki detractors, issues and baggage, and her posts are instantly recognizable wherever she makes them. Changing names won't be effective for her, and particularly since her largest issues aren't even with me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am fascinated Sandy, perhaps the agreement should make an exception for you to give me a daily bulletin on all the other things you know about me and my life that are news to me? --Zeraeph (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipia Review, you said virtually the same thing that Sandy posted above. Don't you remember? it was in that long post you made there, attacking her. Jeffpw (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another modest proposal
I am not involved but have just read through this. How about the next time either party mentions or contacts the other they get a 1 hour block, the next time a 1 day block, then 1 week, then one month, then 1 year, then one century? It is abundantly clear that the on-wiki disruption being caused by this issue would be resolved if these two people just stopped talking to and about each other. Regardless of how it started both parties seem unwilling to give this up which is the current source of disruption to the encyclopedia. Opinions on this solution please. 1 != 217:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again. It doesn't appear you've read and understood the entire history. Z's most recent issues have all involved editors other than me. And her attacks on me and other editors are aleady well beyond the 1 hour, 1 day block level. She accuses everyone of stalking her, and most recently referred to me as a "madam". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it. I have also read it all being repeated over and over. If what you say is true then breaking off contact will be easy. Z will certainly be held accountable to any behavior issues that may happen elsewhere. 1 != 217:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am prepared to consider any equal, mutual, undertaking to end this...the only thing I will not consider is an unequal agreement. The truth, from my point of view, is if SandyGeorgia ceases to discuss me I will have absolutely no justification in discussing her. The only actual content dispute was of the kind where there is probably, ultimately, some merit on both sides (judge for yourself the difference between these two versions [113] I prefer one, Sandy the other). I walked away from that, and left her to it.--Zeraeph (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is an unworkable solution, as it penalizes a contributer who does wondeful things for the project, and puts them on equal footing with one who has caused massive disruption and been blocked several times for harassment, 3rr, etc. Jeffpw (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how preventing a person from contacting someone they do not wish to have contact with is a punishment. I would think that someone wishing to avoid Z would embrace this idea. 1 != 217:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Z, you will not likely get a symmetrical agreement from ArbCom, and ArbCom will see the confidential evidence I won't display publicly. I suggest that settling something now is your best shot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I will also expect to see, and be allowed to defend myself against, that mysterious "off-Wiki" evidence, as is only reasonable, arbcom it is...that was my original preference but I thought Jehochman made a good suggestion if you agreed to it on equal terms--Zeraeph (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just filed a request for arbitration. There have been many informal attempts to resolve this dispute. They have failed. I do not believe that further discussions will be fruitful. JehochmanTalk17:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think your proposal was pretty good actually. Even simpler -- both women should agree to stay away each other to the fullest extent possible consistent with their being able to edit articles they want to work on. When the latter means they have to meet somewhere, each should ask an admin to keep an eye on the interaction, which both should strive to make as brief as possible. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me that is perfect SlimVirgin, as long as all sanctions are equal, and we both agree not to mention each other at all except to an admin for grievance resolution in the event of a default. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not resolved. There was solid unanimous community consensus a year ago that an ArbCom case would benefit no one (least of all Wikipedia and Zeraeph). Nothing has changed for the better. And no one has yet, as far as I know, spoken to Z's mentor, who argued unanimously along with everyone else that having Z's behaviors examined before ArbCom was not in her or Wiki's interest. I requested that this discussion proceed with careful deliberation, and the move to open an ArbCom case was exactly not that. A workable solution was emerging when this preemptive move was made. What is the hurry? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, you won't agree to stay away from Z, you won't agree to stop posting about her, and yet you want to stop an RfAr. With respect, that's a position not likely to work. If you agree to stay away from her, an RfAr won't be necessary, but if you don't, then it certainly is necessary, because there'd be no other way to proceed. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)19:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please stop adding to the speculation here? Where have I said I won't stay away from Z, where have I said I won't stop posting about her? I said the proposal wasn't workable for other reasons (such as decreasing sanctions she would otherwise be exposed to, not recognizing her attacks on editors other than me, allowing her *five* more attacks, not addressing her edit warring), which I detailed. I said I had no problem with that aspect, since I've never been the one to seek her name constantly dropping into my talk page and I'd be happy for it to stop. Please read and respond to what I said, not what you think I said. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I can see is that you keep posting about her. You did it before the block, after the unblock, you've accused me of being an "involved" admin, which is utterly bizarre. You've posted some theory about how you were attacked on WR, and I immediately stepped in to unblock, as if I'm an editor who might do something to please WR. You've either asked your friends to come here and comment against Z, or you haven't asked them not to, so we've had the most amazing pile-on over what was actually quite a simple issue. In other words, you seem to want escalation, yet when it reaches the highest point it can -- ArbCom -- you suddenly don't want it anymore.
As I said above, what is needed from you is some common sense and some empathy. First and foremost, you need to disengage because, rightly or wrongly, your continued involvement with Z is like a red rag to a bull. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SV, I must ask you again to please try to stick to facts. That I was attacked on WR is not a bizarre theory; with the exception of the portion of the attack they removed at my request, anyone can see it. You are now accusing me of asking my friends to come here, an obvious breach of good faith; my friends coming here and all the shouting and distraction in the world will ultimately make no difference, because the diffs will speak for themselves. It has been suggested that you are the person who needs to disengage. Please let other admins handle this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, wanting a licence to go on harassing me without me having equal redress is not a resolution. You have chosen to deliberately make my life a misery for over a year, unless that improves, and the only realistic way that will improve is through an equal, unconditional undertaking that we both enter into to stay away from each other, under identical sanctions, I have nothing whatsoever, to lose, and everything to gain, by going to arbcom (where YOU supporter has chosen to file), because on those terms arbcom IS my only chance of ever being allowed to edit Wikipedia in peace and on equal terms. That is the choice you are giving me, a small chance with arbcom, or no chance at all. Which would you choose? --Zeraeph (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this issue is being handled through arbcom then I don't think this venue is needed anymore. Though calling it resolved is not really accurate, more accurately it has moved to a more structured location. 1 != 218:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my hurry, it was Jehochman's, he "filed", I heard about it when you did, so if you don't like it take it up with him, not me. Though I must state this is what I wanted myself. If you want to backtrack and accept an equal undertaking instead, fine with me. As long as it is equal I will support you in that.
Until, the only thing I saw as "resolved" is this particular discussion, which is superfluous now best to get back to life and let it be dealt with in due course. --Zeraeph (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideas on the table
I've put forward two proposals. My experience with Arbcom is that a case can be pulled before it opens if the parties come to an agreement. The proposed agreement covers Sandy and Zeraeph. Other disputes can be resolved one by one, or we can take the whole matter to arbitration. I am indifferent. It's up to the parties to decide how they want to resolve things. JehochmanTalk19:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get a neutral party on board to monitor Z's edits and keep her from attacking anyone (not just me) and edit warring anywhere, and I'll agree quickly to anything within reason (lowering the sanctions she would currently be exposed to for these behaviors, from one month to one week, and allowing her five more attacks, is not reasonable—I have no problem with most of the rest of your proposal, but it still troubles me that no one seems to have consulted Deathphoenix yet). Z attacked me on WR, in a discussion mostly about SV on a forum mostly about SV in an incident that was openly discussed right here on AN just before SV prematurely unblocked her. SV involved herself in the issue without informing herself completely of the history, according to her own posts above, where she asks for time to review the history. SV is not an uninvolved party because of the WR aspect of Z's most recent attack on me. By the way, am I allowed to post a link to that here? WR already had the courtesy to remove significant portion of Z's attack, so that evidence is already gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on. This is completely irrational. "SV is not an uninvolved party because of the WR aspect of Z's most recent attack on me." I am an involved admin in this case, because Z recently attacked you on Wikipedia Review, and because I am often attacked on Wikpedia Review? :-) SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)20:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my last edit, unless there is a totally equal agreement by both of us, my only realistic chance is with arbcom anyway, so as you opted for it (thank you, and I mean that), I will take that last chance, it's the only real one I have. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Sandy, please take my proposal, Version 2, modify the parameters to your liking, and then post it. If two month long blocks instead of five one week blocks is agreeable, that's fine with me. JehochmanTalk19:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I hope I have the right version. I've equalized some of the sanctions and statements to include both of us, because basically there is no chance I will edit war or engage in personal attacks, because I don't do that, so I don't mind including myself in the sanctions. I am not a good writer; it will need tweaking, but it would be something like this:
Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from referring to any poster previously mentioned in any case involving the two of them or articles they edit as a stalker, harasser, "madam" or any other term intended to defame, malign, demean or attack. Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from posting any sort of remarks about each other or other previously mentioned parties in the cases involving them, except they may go to any neutral administrator via talk page or email to request help when violations of Wiki policy or guidelines occur.
Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are asked not to follow each other to any article, discuss each other edits, or involve themselves in each other edits. If the two editors come to the same article they will go to a previously uninvolved administrator for help with any disagreements, rather than engaging with each other. It is acknowledged that they both edit autism-related articles; if there are any disagreements on those articles, they will go to an administrator and not engage with each other.
This agreement may be enforced by any previously uninvolved administrator via blocks or warnings according to policy. After two such blocks, Zeraeph may be blocked up to one year and SandyGeorgia will be blocked according to blocking policy.
Zereaph is banned from any personal attack against any other previously involved or uninvolved editor.
Zeraeph is admonished to confine her requests for assistance to one forum or one person, and to avoid forum shopping.
It's a draft. I have clearly put myself on relatively equal footing with Z, in spite of my clean record. The intent of my version is to also cover the other people Z has attacked. My family wants my attention now to play Monopoly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Jehochman, my only real chance is either bilateral agreement with equal terms, or arbcom, you chose to file arbcom, Sandy refuses equal terms, so arbcom is my only option. --Zeraeph (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I now agree that ArbCom is best placed to look at this, because the behavior of all parties needs to be examined. People have been poking Zeraeph and she has overreacted, which made the poking even worse, and provoked the next overreaction. The personal attacks I saw from anons on her talk page while she was blocked were unacceptable, and this pile-on -- plus the strange conspiracy theory about Wikipedia Review that I still haven't understood -- would seem to confirm that there's a serious problem here with the dynamics. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)20:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree SlimVirgin, I might not have a GOOD chance with arbcom, but I do not have any chance anywhere else. Unless arbcom can work a miracle SandyGeorgia will never leave me in peace to edit here, anyway, so i have nothing to lose at all by at least trying. --Zeraeph (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any negotiated settlement will be imperfect, but I think Sandy's proposal is more than fair. Zeraeph, I strongly urge you to consider it because at ArbCom, you are likely to face much stricter limitations. Please listen to me. If you accept Sandy's proposal, I will withdraw the case, or you can suggest changes, but you will have to accept that the terms will not be symmetrical because the two of you do not have symmetrical editing histories. Otherwise, ArbCom goes forward, and I am confident you will not get such a good deal, nor such quick and pleasant service. JehochmanTalk21:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sandy's proposal is no more than a charter for Sandy to abuse and interfere with me at will, even worse than at present, without sanction and with my consent. Why on earth would I agree to that? I would not longer be realistically able to edit here anyway. I have stated, clearly and in small simple words, several times that the only agreement that will not leave me open to further abuse by SandyGeorgia is a totally equal one, on both sides. In reality, whatever you believe, how ever many nlies have been told, I am the innocent party here, and there is always a chance I will be able to prove that at arbcom. I want to take that chance. --Zeraeph (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I am prepared to agree to, a totally fair and equal proposal, if Sandy intends me no further harm she has no reason to refuse it:
Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from posting any sort of remarks about each other, (consider removing following) except they may go to any administrator via talk page or email to request help for legitimate grievances.
Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are asked not to involve themselves in each other's editing. If the two editors come to the same article they will go to an administrator for help with any disagreements, rather than engaging with each other.
This agreement may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator via a block of one week against either party. After five such blocks, either party may be blocked up to one year.
Either party may cancel this agreement by filing for arbitration.
No, I am afraid that won't work, it must be specific and equal, just to make sure that nobody is ever tempted to try and manipulate the concept "blocking policy" in their favor. If both of us are sincere and intend to stick to the agreement it shouldn't make the slightest difference to either of us. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Sandy's block record is clean and Zeraeph's isn't, any escalating block procedure cannot, obviously, be equally applied. Otherwise, the proposals aren't too far apart. But I would another couple:
User:Zeraeph clearly and unequivocally retracts STALK accusations against SandyGeorgia, and any other editor similarly accused, or else produces evidence to substantiate them.
Although not strictly enforceable, editors are strongly discouraged from disparaging one another on other websites, as Zeraeph has done recently. Marskell (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only an equal proposal has any chance of resolving the situation, therefore I will only agree to and equal undertaking. Otherwise this should proceed to arbcom. I will be presenting evidence at arbcom, I am sure you are welcome to read it then.--Zeraeph (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retraction of accusations is not strictly necessary. If either party informs me of inappropriate comments that have been made on wiki, I will consider removing them, as allowed by policy. We should not attempt to regulate off wiki conduct. JehochmanTalk22:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was an easy way to deal with all of this drama before the fact
Slim Virgin should have discussed this with Sandy Georgia before ever unilaterally unblocking Zeraeph. What was the all-fired hurry to stir up all of this drama? What's wrong with pre-action discussion? Try it some time. Corvus cornixtalk19:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I have discussed it with SandyGeorgia? I had no idea about this vitriolic background. I saw that Z had been blocked after a dispute with Matisse, an editor with a history of sockpuppetry. I also saw that anon IPs were leaving abuse on Z's talk page. I expressed concern about the block, and the blocking admin, Mikka, said he had no objection if I looked at the case and decided to unblock. So I did. When a new admin responding to an unblock request, and the blocking admin, get together and agree to a review, there's no need to involve other people.
"Kick up this fuss"? What is your statement as regards Zeraeph making repeated stalker accusations against others? As regards Ceoil: "Can I also add that I am a little scared and threatened by User:Ceoil. I have never interacted with this user, yet he is becoming very personal and heated, I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me." Yet another insinuation: "I am tired of trying to find ways to be co-operative and diplomatic with one editor, who has stalked me, "off-wiki" quite ruthlessly since 1999 (and frankly, is only here to continue the job), while also finding ways to be co-operative and diplomatic with another who seems to be making a life's work of WP:GAMEing the system to try and find ways to ensure that I am forced to submit to a double standard where other people have rights but I must submit to her control and micromanagement." You have said that you are mentoring Zeraeph, so I would like to know what course of action you are taking to prevent such unfounded accusations from occurring in future. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy hasn't kicked up a fuss in the slightest. Ceoil has, and I wish he'd been more temperate about it, even if I sympathize. And Zeraeph has by leaping right back into her last content dispute and reiterating her stalk allegations. Sandy is only commenting on threads that are about her. Anyway, perhaps we should leave off to see what the arbitrators decide. Marskell (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SV, there would have been no fuss; your unblock enabled Z to continue her previous behavior, empowered her to continue attacking me, and encouraged her to continue edit warring. Your unblock sent a clear message that she had carte blanche. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, what happened here is that you rushed in wanting to control the situation, and it's the control issues that caused this in the first place. Mikka, LessHeard VanU and I were the admins dealing with the situation. What was going to happen was that one, two, or all three of us would have talked to Deathphoenix, Z's mentor, and between us we would have worked out how to proceed. Instead, I've had to spend literally hours dealing with posts triggered by you, instead of finding a way to move ahead. And then you accuse me of not knowing enough about the case, and of not having spoken to DeathPhoenix, when you're the one taking up all my time. I've also had to put up with personal attacks from you about me being "involved" because you were criticized on Wikipedia Review. Well, it's enough. I think the ArbCom should deal with this now.
The bottom line here is that your harsh words about Z have hurt her just as much as her harsh words have hurt you. If you would recognize that, it would go a long way to resolving the issue. As I said above, what's needed here is some empathy, and that it's not forthcoming is very sad. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slim, you unblocked Z a full 2 weeks before her block was set to expire, without, by your own admission, having really examined the situation. At best it was an ill-considered action, even if you did consult the blocking admin first. What I am reading here in the compromise that was offered was both Sandy and Z being sanctioned for remarking about the other. That is absurd on the face of it, and signals a desire on the part of admin to just dismiss this with both parties sharing the blame. From everything I have seen, Z has been posting multiple personal attacks against Sandy, both on and off wiki, at an attack site. That she was unblocked after doing that is just plain wrong. I also don't see that arbitration is the way forward, as if this was some simple dispute between two editors. What I see is one editor in good standing being attacked by an editor who has been blocked multiple times for behavior problems. In my eyes, arbitration just validates the offending editor's position, and provides another venue for that editor to continue attacking. I would simply reinstate the block that was lifted, based on the disruption this editor has caused since being able to edit again. I'll be frank: Sandy is a productive contributer without which Wikipedia would significantly suffer. Z's absence would only be noticed by the peace it would bring. Jeffpw (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled at the reluctance to let the ArbCom deal with it. The admins who were dealing with it have been prevented from doing so. SandyGeorgia was asked many times to disengage and declined. She opposes any compromise that treats both editors on equal terms, and Z opposes any that doesn't. There have apparently been aborted mediations. Therefore ArbCom is the best way forward. There's no point in simply reinstating a block that will expire in 12 days times, or whatever it was, because this will simply blow up again then. Best to have it dealt with once and for all. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)21:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled at your insistence at treating 2 editors, one who has given her all to improve this project, and one who has continually disrupted it, as equals here. Surely there is some sort of assumption of good faith for the party who has been contributing productively for years, when in dispute with an editor who has made multiple personal attacks, both on Wikipedia and on an attack site against this project. It's strange that some here want to view this one particular conflict as an isolated incident, and not as a pattern of abuse on Z's part. Jeffpw (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always very in favor of giving good contributors a lot of slack, and the benefit of the doubt. But there's a limit to how far that can extend. Z has been editing for two years and has made 5,000 edits. The ones I've looked at have been good -- she seems to care a lot about using good sources well. What has happened is that she responded badly to being criticized, which prompted more criticism, which caused more bad reactions, and on it went into a downward spiral. Even just before Z's recent block, SandyGeorgia continued to post criticism of her, in a way that was completely unnecessary because Z wasn't interacting with Sandy. And yet I believe SandyGeorgia knew that Z has Asperger's (which Z has posted here too), which may make it harder for Z to cope with other people's emotional responses. So it's a downward spiral that a bit of empathy might have prevented. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)21:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slim, do you have diffs for these unprompted attacks from Sandy when Zeraeph wasn't interacting with her? For months Zeraeph's user page has constituted an attack on Sandy. (Of course she doesn't name her, but to suggest she's not referring to her strains credulity.) "I'm always very in favor of giving good contributors a lot of slack, and the benefit of the doubt." You're not doing so here. Jeff says it very well in his last. Marskell (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do [114]. It is also, to use the politest term I can, wildly inaccurate and so is this [115] What kind of chance have I ever had to edit in peace here with such poison being spread about me? --Zeraeph (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read that at the time, I read it earlier today, and I re-read it just now. That's by no means a personal attack. You may not agree with it, but that does not make it a violation of WP:NPA. Sandy was entirely civil, and expressed her extreme frustration in a remarkably polite way. In contrast, your attack of Sandy on your talk page today had to be refractored due to it's violating policy, and an admin had to revert you after you reverted my refractoring of it. Jeffpw (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, telling lies about people to incite conflict is not usually considered "civil", and by her choice of words, any statement I have ever made about SandyGoergia was just as civil, and arguably more so. You cannot have it both ways. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a blockable offence, and I would like an explanation by administrators as to why they have failed to do so. Editors have been blocked for much less incivil comments. Why are such attacks being constantly ignored? SlimVirgin ignored my queries, and still hasn't answered them. I'll repeat them again: Since you are mentoring her SlimVirgin, what are you doing to prevent such attacks / false accusations in future? I'd like an answer, since these delusional stalker accusations have to stop. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there not an admin reading this who will block? Z has earned it many times over. Going to Arbcom is ridiculous, if only because it wastes everybody's time. Insisting that Sandy be treated with the same repercussions as Z is ridiculous. I support a community ban on Z and have watched in amazement, as a block has not been forthcoming and ongoing personal attacks have not been promptly removed. R. Baley (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad, Arbcom has now accepted, I now respectfully suggest that all other discussion be archived and cease, because it is senseless and going nowhere. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully endorse what R. Baley just said, and also feel it's a ridiculous waste of time. That is senseless, and will actually go nowhere. Zeraeph still hasn't made any apologies whatsoever for insinuating other editors are stalkers here, a situation which is quite appalling. "Respectfully suggest" Zeraeph? I "respectfully suggest" you stop making ludicrous stalker accusations / insinuations against other editors, as they're unwelcome here. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly urge all editors to stop provoking Z, and for Z to stop responding. Since there is an ongoing Request for Arbitration, Z, SG and others are free to enter their statements there, and if the case is accepted, their evidence. But please stop posting accusations and counter-accusations here — this is counterproductive, and only fans the flames. Crum375 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Patrolling and WP:BITE
Recently I learned about New Page Patrolling and I tried my hand at it a tiny bit. I also looked at what others were doing and, frankly, found it disturbing and, IMO, not beneficial to the project. Here are a few examples:
Crazy paving - Just a little stub that found itself littered with tags - see.
This was just a few that I encountered very quickly. I am not here "going after" the editors that did this as they were all different and that indicates a more general problem. The problem seems to be a very WP:BITEy system wherein editors are rushing to mark new articles, often with speedy delete tags, instead of asking nicely that the author expand them a bit or even finding a reference or two themselves. This is a bad scene, no? --Alfadog (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What admin action are you seeking here? Being an admin doesn't actually give you any extra status to deal with this kind of thing. You should address your concerns with the editors concerned. Cheers SpartazHumbug!20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue that feedback on the use of the delete button in the context of new articles might be of interest to all – or a substantial subset of – administrators. Reminding admins to look into new articles just a bit before giving them the axe might not, in some cases, be a bad idea. I presume that Alfadog is concerned about a general pattern (of which he gave only a few examples) rather than about the specific cases he mentioned. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that the revision of Thomas Evan Nicholas (Niclas y Glais) tagged was technically speedy deletable in that form as either A1 or A7. If it was tagged a minute after it was created it might be inappropriate, but the creator had over half an hour to come up with more info than name and place of birth (the version previously deleted, created 18:54 was identical). National Coalition for Child Protection Reform read as if it was written by the group. Notability may have not been a good reason for deletion, but a speedy deletion does not prohibit recreation in a better version. Mr.Z-man21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that I've had to deny way too many speedys. A1 and A7 are possibly the most abused of the criteria. I admit I tried using A1 once to get rid of an article, but I've changed face since then. If you understand clearly what the thing is, it's not an A1. And A7 only applies to people, bands, groups, and web content, but I see people regularly use it for TV shows, songs, and other things. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict - reponse to original post)The best way to ensure that as many articles are treated fairly (according your viewpoint) as possible is to continue to newpage patrol - everyone works that task in the way they think best serves the encyclopedia. The more people doing it means that more time is available to check things over. Hmmmm... I think I will spend the bulk of my evening doing just that! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've also noticed that some newpage patrollers can slap a speedy deletion tag on an article without giving it enough review. There are indeed some hopeless cases out there, such as people writing articles about their garage bands or their classmates. There are other times when people apply a speedy delete tag within minutes of an article's creation, even though the subject matter appears at first glance to be notable and the article is still under construction. I prefer to be a little more conservative when using the speedy deletion criteria, and to apply a dose of WP:AGF when necessary. --Elkman(Elkspeak)21:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of CSD taggings are correct. The exceptions are what stand out, but you can't adjust our CSD policies based on exceptions. The chief bad-taggings are made by new New Page Patrollers and by (oh yes) TWINKLE operators who run riot at these things and never accept responsibility for their tagging.
The real problem lies hidden in the original post - the misuse of tags in profusion ("tag and run") by (oh yes) a FRIENDLY user. More automated crap editing. Clean-up "tagging and running" is worse than tagging for deletion in many cases - I've had it done to me when I've created an article and, honestly, you just look at the tag in complete disbelief. Tags are often needed, but automated editors never follow up with a welcome message to the article creator, let alone any advice - they just tag and run. Even when they're tagging "for clean-up" a perfectly well written article from an experienced contributor.
So, again, and there is consensus for this, if you come across someone mistagging articles using automated tools, pay a visit to their monobook.js, blank it and protect it for a few days. It's not punitive, it's just protecting the 'pedia from this type of editing. Chop chop. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've been here before, and recently. The tools are being used by people whose intentions are good, but haven't the experience to distinguish between a nascent, but notable topic, and a no-hoper. When I use NPW, I will Google for notability if it's plausible, but not asserted. OTOH, if it's a loser from the start, I'll tag it. Conversely, I've untagged allegedly NN articles which clearly assert WP:N, and have tagged "wikify", etc., articles which have turned out to be copvios, and again used Goggle to do that. NPW is not meant to be used without thought. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally the majority of taggings are correct. Normally I check that page once or twice a day, deleted a dozen or so articles, and decline one or two. (a higher proportion of declines than truly representative, because I try to work on the more difficult ones that are not immediately removed). Over the last few days, it's becoming declining one out of three. Equally careless in the other direction, there have been an increasing number of obvious copyvios which have not been spotted. I admit i never thought of doing as Redvers suggests, but it sounds like a good idea. Did inadequately prepared editors get the bots as a christmas present? DGG (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently refused a number of expired prods for much the reasons as above. (Examples: Fire It Up ! (EP) is a mediocre article, but it's a real release by a notable artist; Icho Larenas wasn't much, but the 1st Google hit brought up usable information; Ben Olson is the starting QB for a major college football program w/ plenty of sources, and another admin tagged is for deletion without doing the simple sourcing that immediately makes the subject plainly relevant.) At least with prods, it's not gone in a flash...but the solution for middling quality articles is to improve them, not delete them.
I, like DGG, find most CSDs to be fully burninatable, but there's always an example or two of a completely salvageable article that needed 4 minutes of love and attention rather than a TWINKLE slap upside the head. I may have to start blanking monobook.js pages of repeat offenders! — Scientizzle17:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most, if not all, of the respondents here have grasped my point. This is a New Page Patrol issue, not a normal problem with CSD tags. The problem is that NPP has no prequisites for participation, no prerequisites for "common sense", if I may be blunt. Actually, it is less common sense than a degree of maturity and a sense of where an article might go combined with a willingness to do a bit of work rather than just "tag and run". Tag and run is only a big problem, IMO, in the case of the speedy tags because then some, not all, admins may, most likely in the effort to clean up backlogs, go ahead and do the delete without themselves exercising the maturity and effort required. That is understandable but I simply point out that if NPP can be done by editors without the required maturity and sense that is only tolerable because they cannot actually delete anything and the actual deletion is done by someone that has, supposedly, demonstrated that maturity and sense. --Alfadog (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem as I see it, is worse than that. Many new articles slip through CSD because they, for example, assert notability, and the lucky ones get a "wikify" tag or a stub template slapped on them; but without the original editor having either the time or inclination to expand, we are left with a huge backlog in Engine Room B; and for an editor who has no expertise in a particular subject, tackling that backlog has to be cherry-picking merely to ensure some sort of reliability. That leaves a pool of articles that are hard work to sort out, and for volunteers with limited spare time, even here, and other agenda(s) to pursue, it seems to be asking a lot. More up-front advice from NPW might limit this, especially if it were seen as being more of a responsibility to the, er, encyclopedia. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anthon01(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) joined us in October 2007 and has spent virtually every day since advancing alternative and fringe medical ideas, attacking those who promote the mainstream, and in particular attacking the Quackwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. Ilena(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), banned from the project for much the same, has a mentor and partner, Anthony Zaffuto, who is a notorious kook and is also part of her humanitics foundation. I've been watching Anthon01's edits pretty much convinced that he's a sock or meatpuppet of one of several banned users with an agenda against Quackwatch, I only today looked back at his history and found:
20:37, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wheatgrass (disambiguation)
20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Wheatgrass (moved Talk:Wheatgrass to Talk:Wheatgrass Juice)
20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Wheatgrass (disambiguation) (moved Talk:Wheatgrass to Talk:Wheatgrass Juice)
20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wheatgrass (moved Wheatgrass to Wheatgrass Juice)
20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wheatgrass (disambiguation) (moved Wheatgrass to Wheatgrass Juice)
03:27, October 3, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wheatgrass (Undid revision 161619050 by Healthfood07 (talk))
11:59, October 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Wheatgrass
So: edit number one was promoting the wheatgrass health meme, edit number two was to use the Undo button, edit number three was a page move, edit number four used the Minor checkbox, edit number 7 created a disambiguation page. This does not loko like a genuinely new user.
Suggest you present more evidence to support the claims. If you can make a convincing case that this is the meatpuppet of a banned editor, then her ban applies to this account as well. Other than the Quackwatch focus this appears to be editing other areas of alternative medicine, so the matter isn't open-and-shut. Unless there's a different banned account that you can link to this as a sockmaster. DurovaCharge!01:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After comparing and contrasting the contributions of Ilena and Anthon01, it appears that they do have similar article interests and editing patterns. Most of Anthon's edits were to Quackwatch, a website that actively goes against unscientiific medicine use; most of Ilena's edits were to Stephen Barrett, who is the webmaster of Quackwatch. Also, they both have a habit of adding POV edits and citations to those articles.[116][117] It is therefore likely that the two are related. However, even if Anthon is not a meatpuppet, he is still the cause of several disputes on that article, and has not been a constructive infuence on the project. Maser(Talk!)22:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please unblock this user, or at the very least, allow this user to state the case as to why they can be unblocked.
THe user only blanked one page that was not their own. This user received a warning, then it was deleted by the user. I (sorry about that, people) and others then proceeded to unblank the page. Others started to add more and more warnings, only to have the page blanked. THis then resulted with the user being blocked indefinitely. I do not know if a notice was put on the page about the blocking. There isn't one there now, so the user cannot appeal. PLease can someone intervene? StephenBuxton (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sets a new record for number of CSD categories I've ever nominated a page for at once (I managed four at its TfD). Someone might want to have a look at this one - I'm certain it's not something we want lying around the encyclopedia. Happy‑melon23:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There doesn't appear to be a problem here, other than that of a Single-purpose account being a bit disruptive, making a complaint without merit. Any admins who feel this isn't resolved are welcome to revert this, but I doubt that will happen. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BigHaz is being uncivil (see his talk page, contributions, and activity logs). He is telling a user very rudely that they have been blocked. I know it's OK to tell someone that they have been blocked, but isn't this going a bit too far? He was even giving a threat - see here: [118]. Please block him. 58.168.147.119 (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An, now that looks better. But I think you should have created a sub-template with that. I think I kinda liked the lime green better, but, eh, —BoL05:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I tweak it a bit further? I can make it green without making it obstusive (It's now transparent). Also sizing could do with a little tweaking. — Edokter • Talk • 15:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own it — all I wanted was to remove the horrid lime-green background. I'm partial to transparent (because it will then take the light tinge of non-article namespace), but not attached to it. — Coren(talk)16:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For about the past ten days, people have been complaining about apparent inaction of the RfC bot at the RfC talk page, and no one has been responding to complaints/queries. Can someone knowledgable about the bot review these comments and respond? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk13:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please block BigHaz - I don't want him to get away with those nasty comments that he made on his talk page, contributions, and activity logs. 58.168.147.119 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This file has a non-free use rationale that is disputed because of the following concern: invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use..Unless concern is addressed by adding an appropriate non-free use rationale, or in some other way, the file will be deleted or removed from some uses after Sunday, 30 December 2007. Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern.Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed.
Resolved
Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. There is no need to protect such a wide swath of articles for minor vandalism for such a long time. Semi-protection is not preemptive. —Kurykh 21:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3A1794_Half_Dime_Obv.jpg&diff=167383516&oldid=129700652){kind=link}
![[46]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Seabourn.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=53057376){kind=link}