Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

Moulton (un)ban

Discussion on a potential unban of moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Moulton. Ryan Postlethwaite

Admin review needed at Taser

Could neutral admins familiar with NPOV policy and especially POV Forking review the discussion on the Taser and Taser controversy articles at Talk:Taser#RFC:_Criticism? There are only two or three regular editors of the article, all relatively inexperienced, so if an experienced admin could weigh in it would help us proceed.

Advice

I've just blocked Admin User:Arthur Rubin for 24 hours for edit warring on the Alex Jones (radio) article. He made 4 reverts in 24 hours. Is my block justified or not? I also feel slightly miffed by blocking an admin. Thoughts? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. There's no need to warn him because he's an admin. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Arthur's been blocked I see for 24hrs for edit warring, it's nice to see the same standards applied to admins as to us lowly editor peons. So all in all a good block. RMHED (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the block. Even though Arthur Rubin was discussing the edits on the article talkpage he should know enough that there should be a max of two reverts before going to dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Two comments: That article seems rather contentious. There has been a lot of reverting for at least several months related to whether Mr. Jones is a "conspiracy theorist" or otherwise. Perhaps an RFC with more than the regular editors would be beneficial? Also, this is the third time Mr. Rubin has been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule on that article. Something more than a block might be warranted. --Iamunknown 02:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, is this trash still going on? I previously bombarded the lede with about nine citations of sources calling him a conspiracy theorist, but apparently that wasn't enough for those of his fans who are disrupting the article. WP:3RR is policy, so is WP:NPOV, and editors who are clearly determined to break the latter should also be blocked. <eleland/talkedits> 10:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In particular this fellow is clearly a WP:TEndentious editor and needs more than a series of wrist-slaps for 3RR. <eleland/talkedits> 10:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did only have 3 reverts, but I have no objection to the block. Nonetheless, if I could have found an appropriate tag to put on the infobox, I would have done so, rather than reverting. Any ideas. knownfor={{improperly-removed-inline}}? Also, the editor Eleland mentioned has been blocked for 3RR 6 times, at least 3 on that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban - User:MickMacNee regarding User:Betacommand

I'd like to propose a topic ban by MickMacNee (talk · contribs) in regards to actions by Betacommand (talk · contribs). It's apparent that Mick has a real animus toward Betacommand, as demonstrated by comments in the recently-archived massive thread about Betacommand and in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Edit count, as well as all of its predecessor threads in various forums. I'm not saying that Mick's concerns are without basis, but his obvious animosity, forum-shopping, and refusal to heed the advice of others is disruptive. Betacommand is under close community scrutiny, and I don't think that Mick's particular close attention on Betacommand's contribs is required. I, and others (including Until 1==2 and AuburnPilot) have tried to discuss this with him (most recently here) but I'm afraid the advice is falling on deaf ears. Would appreciate the community's opinion on this. Kelly ^hi! 16:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support My patience has been exhausted, as has a lot of peoples I suspect at that MFD. It is clear that Mick is blinded when it comes to Beta. Perhaps a forced withdrawal will help. Woody ([[User talk:Woody|tal16:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban on MickMacNee towards issues relating to Betacommand. In my past experience with Mick I have noticed 3 things: 1) He perceives people disagreeing with him as a form of attack, 2) He will never stand down when he is sure he is right and 3) He has his own way of interpreting policy and no amount of consensus to the contrary will change that.

I think it is in the interest of the community to ask Mick to not deal with Betacommand. Other people who don't have an ax to grind can handle that situation. _{1 != 2} 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. --Conti|✉ 16:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - seems to always be around alleging conspiracy. —TreasuryTag—t | c 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not forum shopped. Please expand this claim if you want it to stand. And it is demonstrably clear that that an Mfd of that page was the next logical step (and only valid step), as identified by many other editors who followed the events surrounding that page. As for 1==2, 1) is wrong, please prove, 2) and you would? 3) Again wrong, please prove. Yes, other people are dealing with the larger situation (you will note I had no hand in the initiation or voting on that solution), so please demonstrate what you hope to achieve going forward by this action? (bar plain censorship of legitimate actions such as commenting at an Mfd) MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

proof for 1 and 3(your behavior on this page), and proof for 2. _{1 != 2} 16:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please show exactly where "I perceive people who disaree with me as a personal attack". Please show an exact diff where I accuse someone of a personal attack without justification. A link to an entire page is frankly insufficient if you want to make such claims, and shows this issue for what it is. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I am tired of arguing with you, I never get anywhere because you don't seem to take anyone else's opinion into account. I will let others decide if my links are enough or not. _{1 != 2} 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering. It's really annoying and part of the reason why we're discussing a topic ban. Maxim_(talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You want the truth then? 1==2 and Kelly can't accept that an Mfd of a page owned by Beta is acceptable, despite numerous independant calls for one, so they come here, because they can't convince me that what happens at an Mfd in user space overrides what happens in wikispace, and they think they don't have to argue their point because my past history with Beta is enough for their views to count by default, because they can't reconcile the fact that the highlighted inconsistencies in their arguments go against the accepted principles of how wikipedia works. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would we resort to conspiracy and backended attacks when it is clear that the MfD is not going to have any effect? Pretty much nobody agrees with the MfD and it will be closed as Kept. No this is about the way you are presenting yourself, and it goes well beyond just the MfD a quick look at your talk page shows that this is about you going after Beta for anything you can find. _{1 != 2} 17:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As if you even know what the last issue was about (or would even take a side that doesn't support your current one). MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"He perceives people disagreeing with him as a form of attack"... I actually did follow the original discussion and I do know what it was about. It was about something unrelated, yet there you were going after beta. _{1 != 2} 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Beta cannot be wrong in two separate issues. Impossible. MickMacNee (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support the topic ban as proposed above, Alex Muller 17:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT springs to mind. EJF (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but 21 keep voter in an Mfd does not override the stated wishes of 31 editors in wikispace, whether they were made a day ago, or in this case a few months ago. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you asked for more proof, "has his own way of interpreting policy and no amount of consensus to the contrary will change that" describes that last post of yours very well. _{1 != 2} 17:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

God was this response ever ironic... Resolute 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To 1==2, You are incessantly backflipping, one minute you think 21 keep votes is consensus, now you don't. It is obvious that the Mfd is not the place to discuss a previous wikispace arrangement, despite the fact you really want it to because the diversion and subversion suits the current agenda. You haven't got the balls or the integrity to take the issue to the correct venue. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about the MfD not having consensus, it clearly does. "He will never stand down when he is sure he is right"... You are actually re-enacting each of the reasons I supported this topic ban. This is tragic. _{1 != 2} 17:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• yes, I fully support this proposal. We clearly have issues to sort out with Beta's behaviour but we aren't going to be able to do it in the background of constant harping on about previous events from MickMacNee. I personally feel that this is a sanction that should be used more frequently to take the heat out of other disputes that are fuelled by personal animus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - A definite need for this. asenine ^{say what?} 17:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• I've blocked MickMacNee for 24 hours for incivility, provocation and personal attacks. I've, with a note, listed three examples of such in the last 2-3 hours on his talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 17:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Extended to 48 hours for repeating the same behaviour on his talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 18:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sceptre ^(talk) 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Just becaue he's sometimes right about Betacommand doesn't mean he's allowed to act the way he does. --Carnildo (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• My point of view precisely. —TreasuryTag—t | c 18:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - (ec) There are definite issues regarding BetaCommand's behaviour. However, constantly prodding and poking involved parties and then attacking them when they reply is probably the worst way of going about resolving them. He is complaining about BC's incivility, and then goes around doing the same [and arguably worse] things himself. The words kettle, pot and black spring to mind! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:06, May 25, 2008 (UTC)
• Support - if there's any evidence to support it, a reciprocal ban would be appropriate... however every incident in which the two came to blows that I've experienced has been precipitated by MickMackNee. Happy‑melon 18:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I sympathize with some of Mack's views, but I think he has gotten so burnt out and frustrated on Beta related topics that he can't effectively contribute to discussion surrounding it. Maybe he is right in how upset he is with the community's actions on these issues, but simply acting upset time and time again over it in a incivil manner isn't helping his cause, only disrupting things. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - MMN is entirely unable to stay civil in matters related to Betacommand. His participation in discussions almost always has the effect of inflaming the dispute and increasing the drama. However, given the combative attitude he often displays, I'm unsure how effective this will be in avoiding more drama and blocks. Mr.Z-man 18:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with this, if anything, I imagine banning Mack on this will result in him just leaving the project, where, outside of a lot of this drama, he does good work. Of course, this is not to say that topic/ban or a block of incivility shouldn't happen if the community demands it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that barring any sudden influx of contrary opinions that it has been decided that MickMackNee is banned from topics related to Betacommand due to past behavior. _{1 != 2} 18:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose MickMacNee has been a much needed balance to the "BetaCommand Can Do No Wrong Cabal". - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"1) He perceives people disagreeing with him as a form of attack, 2) He will never stand down when he is sure he is right and 3) He has his own way of interpreting policy and no amount of consensus to the contrary will change that" would apply at least as well to Betacommand. If MickMacNee has become burnt out because of the ongoing problems with BC, then perhaps those who have done so much to defend BC from criticism should examine their consciences. DuncanHill (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that Betacommand needs attention, I don't think what Mick brings is "balance". _{1 != 2} 19:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The protection of his talk page just looks vindictive, in my opinion. DuncanHill (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support unprotecting his talk page and making some kind of transclusion so his comments there can be seen here. Kelly ^hi! 19:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To be completely frank I think that unprotecting his talk page will lead to him saying something that will get him in more trouble, see [1]. Give a guy enough rope... But I don't oppose the unprotection because he may surprise me and act appropriately. _{1 != 2} 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I am by no means a member of the "BetaCommand Can Do No Wrong Cabal" (as Allstarecho put it), but MickMackNee's actions are bordering on harassment. It's time we force a separation between these two editors. - auburnpilot talk 20:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support The way MMN is making his points has been more than unhelpful, and his argumentative behavior only make it harder for everyone to take seriously the other "BC opponents". -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Especially after the latest 48 hour block. Will also support a reciprocal ban, if needed. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The 34 comments Mick made on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Edit count were excessive and, IMO, badgering. Couple that with the 30+ comments that he made about BC on this page the other day, and it's clear he just can't stop at this point. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. About time too. MMN's hounding of Betacommand, pushing BC beyond human endurance and then shouting loudly when BC snaps has been some of the worst behaviour I've seen on Wikipedia. MMN's trolling and similar behaviour toward anyone who speaks up for BC or takes issue with him (MMN) is also appaling. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 21:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• This has been a long time coming. naerii - talk 21:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I think this is an appropriate restriction. MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• I have no problem with this proposed topic-ban. MickMacNee has gone far beyond the bounds of acceptable decorum and is simply inflaming an already inflammable situation. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose Whilst I also get irritated by the number of people who bring up complaints regarding Betacommand and his bots, I am absolutely against the principle of silencing them by topic banning. Topic banning a complainant is not going to encourage anyone else with a legitimate (or even nor so legitimate - but something that can be resolved) issue with BC to use the admin boards as resolution process, and may permit BC to believe that they can continue in the contentious style as they have previously. Betacommand has serious issues regarding his communication skills with both the use of his bots and his reaction to criticism of them. If we wish to reduce the number and variety of complainants in respect of BC I suggest that BC is the party that needs to be actioned. If MickMacNee has violated WP policy/guidelines then pursue that avenue, but lets not sanction the malcontent for simply bringing up the issue. If exasperation and irritation were the basis of considering sanction then Betacommand would not now be editing WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, Betacommand has already been sanctioned. --Conti|✉ 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am aware of that. However, my point is that removing the critic is not the way to deal with the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If this were a case of somebody "simply bringing up the issue," that would be perfectly fine, but Mick has taken his opposition to Beta to a level that can only be described as stalking and harassment. Mick doesn't just bring up the issue, but badgers Beta and anyone else who disagrees with his (Mick's) stance on the issue. Civil discourse is fantastic; Mick's obsession is not. - auburnpilot talk 00:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support: This has been a long time coming; there are enough issues dealing with Betacommand already; MMN doesn't help things and has a tendency to make things a lot worse. I feel that taking him out of the picture will help the overall situation. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• This situation needs to deescalate, and Beta has enough critics to keep him sober. I'm not convinced MMN's presence here helps, and I'm quite certain it hinders. --Haemo (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose BC has been out of control forever and if he'd displayed half a lick of sense or self control over the past year the reaction to him wouldn't be so extreme. He's slipped the noose more times than he deserves and there needs to be critics on him and challenging his supporters. I'm looking forward to seeing if sanctions on BC actually stick. Wiggy! (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Mick made several excellent points during the previous discussion and although he could have presented them better, he was more civil than Betacommand. Why do Betacommand supporters single Mick out, while failing to acknowledge Betacommand's misconduct and communication problems? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Mild support. MickMacNee's frequent and relentless criticisms of Betacommand often seem to hold back productive discussion. Yes, Betacommand has earned the criticism in many ways, but MickMacNee has the tendency to keep hounding Betacommand about something long after the point has been made. Mick has been quite adept at finding problems, but now we all know about the problems and need to find solutions. That said, it will be a shame if a topic ban is successfully applied to MickMacNee but Betacommand's sanctions fail to stick, just because Betacommand has more friends in high places than MickMacNee. So it is very important that community consensus works both ways. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. When the way in which a user expresses his very very good points, and the frequency with which he expresses them, begins to annoy people more than the original problem he was attempting to solve, then the "solution" has become a separate, yet equally vexatious, problem. Mick has been asked repeatedly to slow down, to cool off, to disengage, and to back away from Betacommand--in fact, he's been asked, begged, cajoled, warned, and threatened (and topic-banned once before, IIRC)--and yet he persists in the behaviors the community has requested to end. A topic-ban would allow the Beta conversations to continue with a little less heat and a little more light, and would free Mick up to contribute to the encyclopedia--which is the whole point of this endeavor, after all. I find myself in agreement with Mick more than otherwise, but if he can't moderate his own modes of expression (and regrettably, that seems to be the case) then a topic ban will have to serve the same purpose. Sorry, Mick. Well, I was regretful, until I read this; now all I am is curious, as to why people insist on shooting themselves in the feet. Jeebus. Gladys J Cortez 03:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. User's contributions in regard to this area have become unhelpful to the point of disruption. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support, Mick left us no other choice. Whenever I see him posting here or to ANI, I know it will be about Betacommand or bots in general. He had been disuptive in this topic for the last half year. Several blocks din't help, so another measure needs to be taken. Topic ban is the kind of restriction that allows the user to concentrate on contributing to encyclopedia, instead of harassing Betacommand. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 04:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, per all above. Note that Mick is on a 48-hour ban for incivility and might not be back here to respond for a while. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, fails to address the cause of the disruption, which is the behaviour of BC - all of the behaviours criticized in Mick are directly comparable to behaviours of BC, which certain editors and admins have been enabling and even encouraging for a long time. Smacks of "shoot the messenger", and may have a "chilling effect" on other editors seeking to raise concerns about the behaviour of prominent editors. DuncanHill (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• He's been over-the-top sometimes. However, BC's behavior is an ongoing problem that has yet to be solved. Someone pointing this out isn't a bad thing, and Mick (sometimes) makes valid points. Friday (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose This is a blatant attempt to silence someone who has done possibly more than anyone else to bring Betacommand's misbehaviour and bad conduct to the attention of the community. The fact that some people are even talking about bans for him clearly proves this. Jtrainor (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Whenever an issue regarding Betacommand crops up, Mick has to throw in his two cents. We all understand that he doesn't like BC, but his dislike is rather extreme and often crosses the boundary of WP:NPA. Horologium (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Point of order: Can admins issue topic bans?

I'm having trouble finding mention that the creation of a topic ban is something which Administrators should do. At the top of this page is stated Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. Wikipedia has a dispute resolution procedure editors should follow where possible. Assorted Administrator instructions do not mention topic bans except as enforcement of ArbCom decisions. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators acting alone can't issue topic bans unless an arbitration remedy allows them to (eg. the remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia), but the support of community consensus can. See the bottom section of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions only states that ArbCom can issue topic bans, and at the bottom is tacked on a list of non-ArbCom restrictions. There is no explanation there of the authority under which Admins can impose restrictions. Have the dispute resolution procedures been followed? -- 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on this specific case, and responding solely to this "point of order," it's been done before. The community is able to completely ban a user from the project, should consensus emerge to do so; it stands to reason that lighter but similar remedies fall within that remit and will sometimes be preferred. If need be, treat the partial ban as a community declaration of a final line that will trigger a ban or block with teeth if crossed. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you'd really like to see it in black and white, Wikipedia:Banning policy contains some relevant text. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It would seem entirely bizarre, and even a bit irrational, if admins can impose a full prohibition from the wiki without expiration (an indef block) but cannot impose a prohibition from a single area of the wiki (a topic ban). Just a thought. Vassyana (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Exact wording re topic ban of User:MickMacNee regarding User:Betacommand

I propose:

MickMacNee shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Betacommand, on any page in Wikipedia. Should MickMacNee do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

Taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar and various other cases. Daniel (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I would propose a caveat; that MickMacNee may contact an admin in instances of policy violations against themselves where the above wording might otherwise restrict their ability to bring such notice. If it is to be a topic ban, let it be a topic ban and not a shooting gallery for any individual(s) with a score to settle. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's needed. If something's bad enough, another user will take it up. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I second LHVU's suggestion; as rspeer noted above he has been good as spotting problems, not so good as helping to solve them though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dreadful. Should at the very least add "Nothing in this sanction is to be taken as in any way implying that BC's behaviour is acceptable, nor may it be taken as in any way dismissing the substance of Mick's (or any other editor's) concerns about BC's behaviour", as well as adding LHvU's suggestion. DuncanHill (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're to do this, a caveat to the caveat: one of the topic ban's functions is to try to wean MMN off from closely watching BC's every move to find small errors and blow them up. The topic ban will work less well if he can keep doing this by reporting every small error to a passing admin. Thus I would add that he only make such reports where the perceived error impacts directly upon him (ie, his image uploads or articles where he has made significant contributions). Although actually I agree with Stifle: if it's serious, others will notice. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 11:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I specified that it would be for policy violations against himself relating to BC, not policy violations by BC generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, agree it should only apply to stuff directly affecting him. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This proviso sounds good to me. Kelly ^hi! 17:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The wording is fine. If Beta needs attention then he will get it, we don't need Mick to point it out to us. _{1 != 2} 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I am going to have to be blunt; if, during this topic ban, MickMacNee get BC related related harassment from anyone, then he should be able to contact an admin without fear of the consequences and without anyone needing to dog MMN's contribution history. As much as MMN is judged oversensitive about BC's actions, there is also an element within BC's supporters that are more intolerant of BC related criticism than may be considered as being appropriate. I should love to AGF to all parties in this recent series of events, but I am unable to do so for a small minority under certain circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this topic ban notice going to be on MMN's talk page? If so, then it should also prohibit other users from discussing BC or BC-related issues on MMN's talk page. MMN should also be allowed to contact an admin if he notices uncivil comments about himself re:BC elsewhere on wikipedia. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 20:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent cuz I can't keep track of how many ":"s to type) LHvU, your bluntness is apparently falling on a yet-blunter object, to wit: my head today, because I still feel the need to ask this question: does this caveat also cover baiting from BC himself? IIRC most offenses on BC's part have been in response to things started by MMN, but in this conflict, as you said, I've seen so little good faith on all sides as to send AGF flying squarely out the window, and necessitating an explicit wording for even the most common-sense notions. Mick should have recourse if Beta chooses to interact with him. Mick may be irritating, but he's irritating about legitimate concerns, and we shouldn't lose sight of that as we attempt to influence his future behavior. Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 21:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It goes without saying that, when MMN is topic-banned from the whole BC subject, anybody - anybody - who uses that ban to taunt MMN will be subject to sanctions to protect Wikipedia from such behaviour. The topic ban is not an endorsement of either side and is certainly not a weapon for anyone to use against anyone else. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 21:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We are not planning on putting common sense on the shelf. This is a measure to diffuse the situation, and if someone tries to twist that to a contrary end then that can be dealt with as we always do. _{1 != 2} 03:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Gladys j cortez) By, or on behalf of, BC. I suspect that it is the latter parties that need reminding - since BC is already on a civility parole and even a civil appearance on MMN's would raise eyebrows. In reply to Redvers and Until, it is not the appropriate response to any taunting, which is assumed, but that the editor concerned may bring it to an admins attention without violating the terms of the topic ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense. So barring any objection I am going to post to Mick's page "MickMacNee shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Betacommand, on any page in Wikipedia. Should MickMacNee do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week." as well as add "If you feel you are being taunted, baited, or otherwise placed in a position where such sanctions would create an unreasonable position, you can make a report of the situation to an admin you trust and let that admin handle the situation without being in violation of the terms of this ban". _{1 != 2} 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Was a limit suggested? I don't like open-ended bans, as sometimes just a period of quiet is all that is needed. Open-ended stuff can get dragged up years later, even when some of the people are no longer around. It also wastes time when people insist years later that an appeal is needed to overturn the stale topic ban. The length can still be appealed of course, but not setting a length is sometimes just being lazy on the part of those imposing the topic ban (this would apply to whatever topic ban was imposed on Betacommand as well - I was just leaving when that started, and was mildly surprised to come back and find a consensus had been reached). Carcharoth (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree that a limit seems to be needed, for any remedy of this nature. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well we can continue this discussion to determine any duration. I agree leaving it forever is not productive. _{1 != 2} 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Duration

I suggest 2 months as a duration to start with, we can re-apply the ban if it is needed again after that. I don't think leaving the topic ban in place forever is the best idea. Any other opinions? _{1 != 2} 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Two months sounds fine. I looked up the Betacommand one and saw that it says "These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate." That doesn't seem entirely right to me, but I'm not really prepared to start that up again. Betacommand is perfectly capable of appealing at the right time himself, though I must admit that limits of blocks, bans and suchlike are rather arbitrary. There is a well-known civility restriction of a year, and other lengths of various bans and blocks seem rather arbitrary as well. I just normally like to see a specific length mentioned if at all possible. Makes thing simpler at the other end. Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification - of course Betacommand can appeal the restrictions himself, the wording simply says that the community has to agree, and until they do, they stay in place. Nothing in that wording states that he's banned from appealing. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite, have the dispute resolution procedures been followed? -- SEWilco (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, for who? Ryan Postlethwaite 10:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand2 edit to BetacommandBot page

It's my understanding that User:BetacommandBot is blocked. Is this edit appropriate, then? ~Pesco^{Say it!} 17:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not the end of the world. It is not even the account of a person. Either way. _{1 != 2} 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand2 (talk · contribs) has removed the notice that BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) is indef blocked. That seems inappropriate. BetacommandBot remains blocked, as it has been for over a week. Wikipedia operations seem to be going along well without it; other 'bots have taken over the more important functions, and nobody seems to be complaining that essential functions are not being performed. --John Nagle (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we really need the indef block tagged. A better idea would be to have a short statement directing users to the result of the community discussion and state that the account is no longer permitted to make edits. The indef block tag suggests the user is also blocked, which is not the case here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the bot user page here. Hopefully it's slighty more descriptive than the indef block tag. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Good solution. --John Nagle (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, although it's not a blockable edit, I'd say it's bad form (if anyone uses that phrase anymore). If the information is incorrect, then BC ought to ask one of his friends (or advocates) to correct it to prevent the appearance of impropriety. Otherwise given the abundant emotion around the whole matter, his changing it will only lead to another chapter in the Wikidrama. -- llywrch (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose a topic ban of "Betacommand is not permitted to edit any pages relating to his subsidiary blocked accounts." DuncanHill (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose that and I found his edit to be perfectly correct. He was not blocked. The tag that is there at the moment sums it up well. Drama ended. Woody (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Duncan I don't think a topic ban over a single incident makes sense, if there was a pattern of this then perhaps. _{1 != 2} 18:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Bring it back to the table only when it becomes a chronic problem. One incident isn't enough to require a topic ban. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea, topic bans are for continued abuse of a specific topic, not seeing that here. MBisanz ^talk 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Other BetacommandBot functions

Resolved

 – great! Thanks -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for posting this here, but I lost track of the threads while I was away. John Nagle says above: "BetacommandBot remains blocked, as it has been for over a week. Wikipedia operations seem to be going along well without it; other 'bots have taken over the more important functions, and nobody seems to be complaining that essential functions are not being performed." - well, the following functions seemed to have been missed: the updates to User:BetacommandBot/Free Template Useage and User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage - could someone arrange for those to be taken over or restarted? Were any other functions missed? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can add those two lists to AWeenieBot's tasks without too much trouble. - AWeenieMan (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:AWeenieMan/Non-Free Template Usage and User:AWeenieMan/Free Template Usage - AWeenieMan (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You don't need to do the updates as frequently as that. Once a day will be fine. Many images (correctly) get deleted before they contribute to those totals. Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Block review of Bart Versieck

Resolved

 – Block reduced to three weeks, but with a final admin warning. Blueboy96 20:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate more input into the recent block of Bart Versieck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Canadian Paul (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked him for three months for what I'd consider very minor misconduct. Bart has been altering other users comments in discussion, although they are certainly not changing the meaning of what someone is saying. These are the specific edits he was blocked for. He has been blocked for editing other users comments before, but three months for such minor behavioural issues strikes me as excessive. I'd have no problems with a block of up to a week, but no more than that really. I'd appreciate thoughts because me and Canadian Paul have had a friendly discussion about it, but we just can't come to agreement. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tough call. On one hand, that block log is genormous. On the other hand, three months is simply too excessive. He was blocked for a week before and he kept it up ... I say knock it down to three weeks. Blueboy96 18:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, three weeks still strikes me as a tad excessive, but I do agree his block log speaks a thousand words here. Three weeks is certainly better than three months. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support three weeks. I don't think it's too excessive when considered against the warnings and block log. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this has been discussed at ANI before. Definitely a long-standing problem. I'm going to cut the block down myself, but leave a stern warning that if there's a next time for this, the block will be much, much longer. In my view, a community ban won't be out of order if he does this again. Blueboy96 18:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Three weeks is better than one week, and I could live with it, but I really don't think it's going to do anything. Bart's been blocked half a dozen time on both the English and another Wikipedia (I forget which, I can't find the link anymore, but if I do, I'll let you know) and on this one, at least, makes promise after promise to modify his behavior, but fails to do so. Maybe those particular edits aren't that bad, but changes "comments" to "irony" is certainly not particularly useful, especially not after you've been warned to not edit people's comments numerous times - after all the warnings, you would think the last thing you would want to do is anything that could even be construed as editing other people's talk page comments. I really believe that people not directly involved with his behavior do not have a clear grasp of his entire editing history and his refusal to accept the way Wikipedia runs.

And why has someone reduced the blcook while this discussion is going on? Neither I nor Moondyne got to make a comment here before things were changed. Not, as I mentioned above, that I really want to fight it, but I feel that it was very premmature to take any action before the other side had an opportunity to respond. Cheers, CP 18:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Actually, if the next one promises to be stronger, with the possibility of an indef, I can support that. Cheers, CP 18:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Wikipedia block logs here. John Nevard (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading that correctly, it looks like he's been blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia (dating back to 2005) numerous times for the very same problem. 3 weeks may not be enough. - auburnpilot talk 00:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In recognition of repeated vandalism despite numerous blocks on more than one Wikipedia, a block of three weeks is the bare minimum he should have been given. While 3 months may be a little excessive, only 3 weeks isn't going to detract him from vandalism as much... Lradrama 09:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see less than two hours from opening the discussion, the block got reduced by Blueboy96. I think given the length of the block discussion might have been left open a little longer before boldness got involved. 1 week is very generous, 3 weeks very tolerant, 3 months ... well, the guy should be at permaban stage by now, surely. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate WikiProject?

Resolved

 – Brought to MFD. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Fancruft

This two-member project seems to exist entirely to attack other projects' articles (it aims to trim "most, if not all, Doctor Who articles" - though many Who articles are good and/or featured); its template {{WIKICRUFTWARN}} has been unilaterally placed on numerous project talkpages and is currently up for deletion - also see my reasoning there.

What should I do about this? —TreasuryTag—t | c 11:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it meets any CSDs, but an MFD would easily be justified. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

MFD definitely. D.M.N. (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)OK, I'll do that now, then you can !vote :-) —TreasuryTag—t | c 11:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone may want to remove the links from other pages to this project. D.M.N. (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate for me to do it using Twinkle? Should we wait for the TfD to be dealt with? —TreasuryTag—t | c 11:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain how this differs in principle from the League of Copy Editors? A project whose goal is to remove cruft isn't a project that is attacking other projects, it's a project whose goal is to improve the output of other projects. Kww (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The MfD is probably the best place for further discussion of the group's merits. —TreasuryTag—t | c 12:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Faizaguo

Ok, I'm not sure this is against the rules, but User:Faizaguo is using some kind of automation ok, might be humanly possible, and it doesnt seem too harmful, at up to 7 edits per minute to spam post to new user's pages with a premade welcome message. See contributions here he has made over 300 edits like this.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I may have been overeacting. Probs just an overenthusiastic user with friendly.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

He's welcoming users that have registered for two minutes and which have had no contributions [2], and he is not signing with ~~~~ but with a copy paste of his signature, so all welcomings have a date from before the account was registered. I warned him about that. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Offensive user

Resolved

 – Blocked 2 days

Now if it was up to me, people like this (note the edit summaries) would be denied even the recognition of a warning, and simply be blocked immediately. He's got two warnings now anyway, so I don't see any reason to let him carry on.--Kotniski (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I reported the user to WP:AIV for racism in his/her edit summaries. Rgoodermote  21:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 2 days. Rgoodermote  21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at 'crats noticeboard

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Temporary bureaucrats --Maxim_(talk) 22:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Corrected link. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for revision of my 3RR vio nom status

Resolved

 – Editor's reputation is intact

Sorry if this isn't the right place, but I couldnt decide of there is a better place.

Bacically, the issue is that I have been nominated for a 3RR vio[3] that didnt take place at all by a suspected sockpuppeteer who didnt understand the 3RR rule. But he has been smart enough to hide the edits done by his sockpuppet(and my subsequent reverts) and deliberately reported me as doing 6 reverts(which took place in a week and ont in a single 24-hour period).

An admin has taken a look and changed the status to "stale". But the fact it that it isnt a 3RR vio at all. Just look at the reverts mentioned. they are not mine. I request someone to take a look at it and change the status if possible. I had contacted the admin who changed the result to stale and requested him to do it but he/she has not responded. It is only fair that a wrong nomination should be closed as such and not treated as stale. It gives the impression that I had actually violated 3RR which I havent done. Please look into int. Thanks--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's already marked as "Stale. No vio anyway". What more do you want? --Stephen 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for letting me know :-). It must have taken place while i was writing the message above. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

List of discretionary sanctions

Is there a list anywhere of all the topic areas that have ArbCom discretionary sanctions applied to them? I seem to remember Digwuren and something Balkans-related, but am a bit hazy on the others. It would be useful to have. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandalism

Just a quick note - we had a page move vandal again this morning, he moved around 50 pages before being spotted and blocked. The initial page moves looked legitimate, but were actually disruptive. If editors see anybody moving more than one or two pages, please alert an administrator - and please don't assume because the username and talk page isn't a red link, that the account can be trusted - double check any moves, see if the introduction to the page matches the page title and so on. Please see Special:Contributions/HyperBeamR9K for an indication of the sort of activity you should be looking out for. Thanks folks. Nick (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Note the first 10 edits all to his userpage to bypass the autoconfirmed limit. Has this guy been CUd? I doubt he's a newbie. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that will be necessary... Happy‑melon 11:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I was too busy looking at the other contribs. Point taken. Can we please find a way to have the autoconfirm limit set to mainspace-only? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just writing up a bot now to making the reverting side of things easier --Chris 11:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, please do CheckUser it - I don't think it's the real deal. Happy‑melon 11:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Another one; see Catch the Breeze (talk · contribs). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And blocked; anyone got a mass pagemove revert tool? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

They were all Bots, including Special:Contributions/Hyper_Beam_9000, Special:Contributions/RomaniWedding and Special:Contributions/The_German_Lesson, it will be better if the CU's try to find a trend rather than just blocking and ignoring, we already have grawp to deal with now this new problem all --Cometstyles 12:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Another: The German Lesson (talk · contribs). *sigh* This is such a waste of time - I have much better things to do (oddly enough, it's cleaning up after more vandals) and my (deleted) edit count doesn't need any more padding. MER-C 12:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, estoopid question here, but: Isn't there a way to invoke a limit on how many pagemoves a given account can do in one period of (x) hours? It could be set to infinite for admins, for example, and maybe started at 0 for newbies, increasing with mainspace edit count? Is this even possible, or is this my writer's mind overriding my tech's mind? Gladys J Cortez 14:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Scaling by mainspace edits would be hopelessly inefficient (under the current database layout, the user's entire edit history would have to be loaded, and then filtered by namespace, before every edit) but I expect pagemoves could be throttled according to user-rights with minimal difficulty. Is it time to resurrect the Page-move-throttle discussions? Happy‑melon 14:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, surely there can't be many circumstances where it is necessary to move hundreds of pages in a short space of time, so i can't see the harm in setting a throttle--Jac16888 (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure enough, if an editor needs to move a lot of pages, then he must have a really good reason for that, which means that he can easily convince an admin to help him --Enric Naval (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPR anyone? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:33, May 27, 2008 (UTC)

There already is a page move throttle (I think it's 8/minute, excluding talk pages). I ran into it several times when reverting this yesterday. It was annoying. MER-C 05:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We could make groups such as rollbackers and account creators exempt from a pagemove throttle, so if a trustworthy non-admin wants to move lots of pages they can just apply for one of those usegroups. A pagemove throttle is an excellent idea. Hut 8.5 17:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Another one: ZapdosThunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Hut 8.5 16:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey...apparently this is already an open discussion. Shall we adjourn to there? Gladys J Cortez 17:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a few suggestions: 1)Install thisimportScript('User:Mr.Z-man/moverevert.js'); in your monobook and 2) if you notice suspicious page moves the logs, check when the account was created. If the account was created several days ago and the moves/sandbox edits were its first edits as of the day you are checking, its a pretty good indicator.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning without any reason

Resolved

User:Mojska has warned me with out any reason. I split List of atheists into different list after talking with fellow editors. List of atheists is too long and I split it. I split it into:

• List of atheists (Activists and educators)
• List of atheists (Authors)
• List of atheists (Film, radio, television and theatre)
• List of atheists (Music)
• List of atheists (Philosophy)
• List of atheists (Politics and law)
• List of atheists (Science and technology)
• List of atheists (Miscellaneous)

I did not blank any page. User:Mojska was never involved in the discussion. I split the list after discussion with fellow editors. See: Talk:List of atheists.

Can any administrator look into this matter? Please remove warning from my talk page and take some actions against User:Mojska. Thank you. RS1900 11:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You are allowed to remove the warning from your talk page. I haven't looked into this in depth yet, so I won't comment on that yet. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I dont see that RS1900 has done anything wrong. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 12:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore I suggest you remove the warning from your talk page, and all the involved have a civil conversation on the talk page of these articles about the changes and see if we can reach a consensus. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 12:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at both talk pages, it appears this was resolved before you even brought it here. The only issue left was the template warning on the talk, which you can remove yourself. Resolved? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I removed the message. I think it is a vandalism, but the user created some subpages (look at the page talk). Mojska ^{all you want} 12:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

@RS1900: the next time can you give us a motivation of your "bold" edits in the edit summary? :) Mojska ^{all you want} 12:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with User:Mojska. I would like to thank User:Mojska for removing the warning. RS1900 13:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Could I just make a suggestion that both of you should take into account? Before carrying out major edits like splitting lists etc, it is a good idea to discuss on the talk page and also when you actually issue a warning you should issue a "Level 1" polite warning at first not the Level 3 like what has been seen here. And I suggest now that both of you put this behind you and continue to edit. Dont let disagreements over edits cloud the air at another time. Thank you. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, just don't use a template warning. Typing something out yourself often works better. Good to see you guys resolved this OK. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Hu12 apparent abuse

Toward the bottom at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Hood My reply is: "Please remove Hu12's Libel and Vandalism above and please report this user's abuse to Wikipedia administration. Also, Hu12 of the "google results" you searched most are in support of Dan Howitt, with tons of his official summit photos on Rainier, Adams, Hood, Shasta, and listings of his timing officials. You strangely give weight to the abusive chat-site gossip and unsupported libel, and your own post above is of that nature. Chat-sites with this sort of conduct are sad. I'm reporting your libel and abuse to the wiki administration."--Saffron1x (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 writes: "After going through the "google results" (a disturbing education of sorts), there appears to be a long line of aliases for Dan Howitt, posting over various websites and forums promoting himself and besmirching the characters of fellow climbers and related. Appears this is an attempt to use wikipedia to import offsite conflicts and further an adjenda. It has been removed. I'd suggest that Dan Howitt read the following, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world and Law Of Unintended Consequences — Saffron1x (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC).

This is a content dispute in which Saffron1x appears unhappy with Hu12's actions. Hu12's actions look to be in line with policy, and, to me, sensible. There appear to be no obvious grounds for a listing on this page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Tagi. I reviewed that article's talk. Looks like there was healthy conversation going on there over this issue. 8 Hours late Saffron brought it here because he saw some form, of admin abuse. I'm not seeing any of it, Hu (and the rest of the lot over at that talk who are agreeing with him) was in line with policy, Saffron's edits were not. I would suggest Saffron continue the discussion in that article's talk, there is no real incident that needs to be further discussed here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

...what administrator action is required here? Or really any action? seicer | talk | contribs 15:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See - Special:Contributions/Saffron1x

• Source soliciting
• Wikipedia is not a vehicle for Self-promotion
• Persistent spamming (of Dan Howitt on Mount Hood)
• Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption
  • Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.

Saffron1x (talk · contribs) is an Self-promoting and Source soliciting (WP:SPA) account pushing the mention of "Dan Howitt ", for inclusion on Mount Hood. Additionaly Saffron1x has made no other edits outside pushing inclusion of "Dan Howitt ". The account (Saffron1x) exists for the sole or primary purpose of promoting "Dan Howitt " in apparent violation of Conflict of interest guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Talk:Mount_Hood#Hu12_administrator_apparent_libel_and_abuse
• User_talk:WJBscribe#Hu12_administrator_apparent_libel_and_abuse
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Administrator_Hu12_apparent_abuse

Can we get a block, this is blatent WP:CANVASSing and Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption from this account, which meets several criteria for such a block. Clearly meets Spam / advertising-only account. I'd do it but, i'm involved--Hu12 (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Now is using IP 71.193.192.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the account indef on spam and harassment; will examine IP next. I anticipate there'll be an unblock request. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 16:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked 24 hours as a sock. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I expect he'll try to come back under another IP.--Hu12 (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

interesting edit, looks like a small linkfarm.?
Frothh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
67.160.129.153 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (note the edits to Mount Whitney
Iger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Appto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
--Hu12 (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Saffron1x (talk · contribs) is also DanHowitt (talk · contribs), and has just registered the new account R44r (talk · contribs). It is likely that the same person is 77ty (talk · contribs) and Appto (talk · contribs). Iger is on a different ISP though possibly a proxy (needs checking) and Frothh is stale. Thatcher 18:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

File:Stuffed tiger wearing a sombrero.jpg

The whack-a-mole stuffed tiger prize goes to sysops to tirelessly reblock returning sockpuppets at Carnival Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 19:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Hu12 and Thatcher for their work here. Have a stuffed tiger. :) Durova^Charge! 19:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can an IPA range be blocked on specific articles where disruption is occuring?

• Can an IPA range be blocked on specific articles where disruption is occuring? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • IPs can't be blocked from editing specific articles, although they (the articles) can be semi-protected to stop them from editing. Is this a purely hypothetical question, or is there an ongoing spate of IP vandalism? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:59, May 27, 2008 (UTC)

ðɪs ˈkwɛsˌtʃʰʌn ˈfɹikˌwɛnt.li kʌmz ʌp æt ðʌ ˈvɪlˌɪdʒ pʌmp, bʌt ˈjuzˌŋ ˈaɪ.piˌeɪ ˈsɪmˌbɨlz hæz gɑt tu bi ə nu twɪst. — ˈʃɑɹ.lɨtˌwɛb 19:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's easy for you to say.... --Rodhullandemu 22:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Specific cases. See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Disruption by IP user 199.125.109.XXX. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

SUL / cross domain logins

I could not find the bugzilla number, but I thought this might be interesting. It appears that with the exception of meta, any SUL unified account, visiting another wikimedia site while logged in to the home wiki, will have an automatic account creation and automatic log in to the other wikimedia site. :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It also appears that SUL has been enabled for all users. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Woot! Lets see how much drama results... ffm 17:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what it's supposed to do. What's the problem ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not post on ANI because there was no problem. :) This was an announcement. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Aaah, right. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to work for me. I'm not logged in when I go here, for example. --Conti|✉ 17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it did. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, but the automatic log in doesn't seem to work, which is a feature I'm very much looking forward to. :) --Conti|✉ 17:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

m:Help:Unified_login#What_it_doesn.27t_change it is still necessary to log in --Hu12 (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the automated login works for me. Perhaps the bugs are being worked out. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like everyone's giving it a go :). Seraphim♥Whipp 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the people on that list are en.wiki admins. If I had to guess I'd say that global accounts have to work their way through a global job queue or some other delay before the global login feature gets fully configured; and that new local accounts are automatically created whenever the user visits a particular wiki 'logged-in', be that using xx:wiki:Special:UserLogin or from the global login. Most of the people clicking on the link you've posted, Seraphim, will find themselves at the top of it, because they just created a local account by looking at the list! Happy‑melon 18:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed that you have to login at least once to each domain (.wikipedia.org, .wiktionary.org, etc.) before MediaWiki creates an account on other sites for you. So, if all you've done is visit en.wikipedia.org, you'll be able to create accounts on any Wikipedia (but not Wiktionary) by just browsing to other Wikipedia sites. You can manually login with your en.wikipedia login anywhere, though. :) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It uses a different cookie than the normal login based on the domain, you may have to log out, then log back in to get the new cookie. If you log in normally to a Wiktionary site, you will be able to autologin to other wiktionaries and so on for the other projects. Mr.Z-man 19:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

On another look, it seems that you only need one cookie, logging into any project gives you a cookie that can log you into any other project. Mr.Z-man 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is also necessary to unify your accounts before any of the SUL stuff works for you. Admins may be a special case - I recall SUL was tested with their accounts. Normal mortals need to do the legwork first. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a silly question. I am User:B on Wikipedia. There is another active user with this name on Commons - Commons:User:B - this person is NOT me. I am Commons:User:UserB. Is there a way that I can tell the system that I am Commons:User:UserB or does it not care? Am either I or the other User:B going to lose our accounts at some point in time? --B (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not silly: see the answer to "Someone is using my name on another wiki, how can I get that account?" on the FAQ --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm assuming then that my commons User:UserB and my Wikipedia User:B are not going to be linked. Presumably, Commons is not going to rename an active good-faith user (nor would I expect them to) so I'll just continue to have two separate accounts. --B (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• If you guys are interested in spamming logs, see Special:Sitematrix. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• So this means that anyone who is blocked here with autoblock enabled can simply create an account on another wiki and return here? Is there any way to do global autoblocks to prevent this? EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it is kind of defeating the point that I now have two global unified logins? ;) Woody (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how it works. Does autoblock also prevent automatic account creation when foreign users visit us? EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If an IP is blocked with account creation blocked, automatic account creation is disabled for people on that IP. Mr.Z-man 19:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

QUestion on account creation

Patrolling the account creation log, I came accross a few issues that may need addressing, or at the least, explained to me. Consider these recently created from the log (culled from the bigger list, I included only the questionable ones):

17:17, May 27, 2008 WuBot (Talk | contribs | block) Account created automatically ‎

17:17, May 27, 2008 Totenmontag (Talk | contribs | block) Account created automatically ‎

17:16, May 27, 2008 QuickCatBot (Talk | contribs | block) Account created automatically ‎

17:13, May 27, 2008 Artstar04 (Talk | contribs | block) created new account User:Artstar87 ‎ (Talk | contribs | block)

17:11, May 27, 2008 FelixBot (Talk | contribs | block) Account created automatically

Now, what does "account created automatically" mean, and are these newly approved bots? And if you look at Artstar04, they have a null contribs list, what does is mean when a user with no other action creates a new account? Are these red flags for a problem? Or am I just an idiot? There has been a spate of these recently, not just these few I have pulled... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"account created automatically" means that the Single User Login functionality has created an account for this user on this wiki using the same details that they used when they registered their original account on their home wiki. This stops vandals registering names of good users on wikis they don't visit, and then tarnishing their reputation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's global accounts that visit the English Wikipedia, and who have an account created transparently for them in their first visit (just enabled today). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah... so what about the situation where a user creates another account for themselves, such as where Artstar04 creates Artstar87... That has been going on from before now..., not just as part of the SUL stuff, as far as I can tell... Is that something else? The first account has an empty contribs history, and creates the second account? What's up with that? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As for Artstar04/87, that just means they logged in as Artstar04 and then, without logging out, went to Special:Userlogin/signup and created the Artstar87 account. May be worth taking a look into, but it's not as if the user is doing a very good job of hiding the fact that these are socks, if they're even trying at all. (There seem to be several accounts starting with "Artstar" — though, mildly oddly, no User:Artstar — created at different times, each with one or no edits. Maybe they just can't remember their password?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You get a lot of account-created-account when people signup, then change their mind and immediately sign up under a different name. That and WP:ACC are the main reasons why those particular log entries come up (and they're normally easy to tell apart, by looking at how experienced the creator is). --ais523 12:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Rename

Resolved

Please rename my account from Max sonnelid to M.M.S.. Max sonnelid (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Visit Wikipedia:Changing username --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User has filed a request at CHU. I'm calling this resolved, there's nothing more to be done @ AN. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:45, May 27, 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with admin action privately?

I have been contacted by a user that contacted me via email to look into a matter involving another editor. Due to an off-line presence this other appears to have based on the first user, the first user has asked me to keep the specifics in confidence though to seek out what can be done. Is there a method of which other admins can discuss this matter in a private matter as to respect the user's wishes? --MASEM 21:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins —Travis^talk 22:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Talking about it in -en-admins is about as private as posting it to Foundation-l. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check

I have just blocked TheScotch (talk · contribs) for 31 hours following this edit. This follows a slow edit war as evidenced by [4], [5], [6], [7], and, following the diff at the top of this section, [8]. I had attempted to discuss the matter at User_talk:TheScotch#McCartney in the midst of the editing dispute, where I noted that the claim of co-founder had established a consensus within the article and that the consensus needed to be changed before the text might be altered.

Since I am involved in the dispute, and am a long term (though largely historic) contributor to the article, and enacted the sanction I am requesting review of my block and the use of my sysop bit in this matter. Should a consensus form that the block was inappropriate in regard to the dispute then I have no objection to it being reduced or lifted, or if it was inappropriate owing to a conflict of interest it being lifted (and re-imposed at the original or other tariff if considered appropriate), and if my actions were not in keeping with the role of admin that a seperate thread be commenced.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm seeing things, but it would appear that you blocked an editor with whom you are in a content dispute. It appears as if you used rollback to revert in that content dispute. It would also appear that TheScotch (talk · contribs) wasn't even near a 3RR violation (let alone disruptive editing). Looking strictly at the history of Paul McCartney, it's a bad block in my opinion. - auburnpilot talk 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like AuburnPilot is right on all counts. I'd recommend undoing the block and letting someone else take action during a WP:ANI thread or the like. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock endorsed. It’s not a good idea to use the sysop bit in an editing conflict in which one is involved. —Travis^talk 23:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Contributions/LessHeard vanU, it appears that LessHeard vanU is offline, so I've unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh.

Okay, seems I need some wet trout applied - I thought I was distant enough and the edits violated policy sufficiently, but it seems I was wrong. Perhaps I was too close to my bedtime to focus properly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Guitar problem

Resolved

 – Not our problem, anyway. Bencherlite^Talk 23:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why every time I visit the Wiki Guitar page about octaves, I am instantly redirected to this page: http://www.thestringery.com/ ? It's rather annoying and I can't maneuver anywhere else on Wiki Guitar without still being transferred to that site. Mikhajlovich (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you mean http://www.guitarwiki.com/index.php/Octave I'd opine that your computer has a virus. Their page has just two lines of text, so you're not missing much. The GuitarWiki site has nothing to do with wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a virus or some sort of adware or spyware, I’d guess. —Travis^talk 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, I believe he's talking about http://www.wikiguitar.net/, which appears to have an HTTP redirect to http://www.thestringery.net/. However, that doesn't change the fact that it isn't a Wikipedia issue, and I don't think there's much we can do. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Community ban discussion - Jovin Lambton

I'd like to propose a community ban of Jovin Lambton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After going through his contributions, I found some quite significant pro-pedophilia POV pushing. In fact, a quick look through his mainspace constributions shows the majority are simply reverts of other users. In the Wikipedia space, his edits show large amounts of wikilawyering and attempt to turn the project into a battleground. Add to that using an IP to get other users sanctioned and I've come to the conclusion that the project is better off without his edits. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I support a community ban. He's certainly POV pushing, and he seems to only be working in inflame the situation here, on WP:PedMen, and other various places. hmwithτ 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? That is exactly the charge that I would aim at the other users on WP:PedMen. Can you please take a better look at who made the initial accusations in these arguments? J-Lambton ^T/_C 01:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want inflammatory, just look at PetraSchelm's behaviour on WP:PedMen. I have a right to defend myself against that kind of bile. J-Lambton ^T/_C 01:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this isn't saying that anyone else is faultless. However, this specific section is currently discussing your actions. hmwithτ 01:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Very strong support. Ever thus to people who threaten me, however veiled and indirect. Googie man (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Very strong support Not here to build an encyclopedia; adds nothing to articles. Only here to troll, upset people, and cause conflict. Strong concerns that he uses socks. Cannot improve because he never takes responsibility for his actions--he is always the victim, and everything is someone else's fault. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I never threatened you. I instructed another user that encouraging you to edit is legally risky, as you accused another editor of being a pedophile. J-Lambton ^T/_C 01:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jovin - I can assure you this isn't the only community sanction request I'll be making this week. There's some very questionable behaviour on these pages that needs to stop now. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes you did. You told me that if I keep up my behavior, I'm putting myself in legal and PERSONAL jeopard. If that's not a threat I don't know what is. In 4 years of editing Wikipedia, I certainly have never been discussed on an Administrator's noticeboard, nor have my edits alarmed independent watchdog groups who track Wikipedia edits. You threatened me - now deal with it. Googie man (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Googie - you accused another editor of being a pedophile. This may put you in legal or personal trouble (just an observation, based on the seriousness of the charge, not a threat from me). J-Lambton ^T/_C 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

How altruistic of you to be so concerned with my legal and personal welfare. I'm ready for you to stop worrying about my legal and personal welfare, OK? I simply asked a question and made a joke. If you or anyone else here asked me the same question, I wouldn't care, at all. Anyone can ask me any question, at any time. They can imply or come out and say that I'm a murderer, rapist, pedophile, genocidist, tax evador, all of the above, anything, *I don't care.* I'm none of those so why should I care? I'm a grown man, and I don't go to my attorney's office every time someone says something on Wikipedia I don't like. So my advice to people who get bent out of shape for me asking a question is to grow a thicker skin. Let's talk about you now Lambton. All the while you insist leaving messages on my talk page when I tell you to stop, you address me on Wikipedia when you say you're not interested in my ideas, and you threaten me. The day I'm discussed on the Admistrators Board, then let me have it with my bad behavior. Otherwise, I'll paraphrase your words - I'm not interested in you at all, The only thing that interests me is that you leave me, and the friends I've made here, alone. Now one thing I am very interested in is real life, and not wasting one more second of it on this incosequential drek. Googie man (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I have noted a decided lack of constructive contributions, and the user's tone to be generally argumentative rather than collaborative. Indeed, his counters are rarely relevant or even address a question directed at him. I have yet to witness a single instance of compromise. His edit records are exclusively restricted to articles relating to pedophilia and similar, and noticeboards to file complaints, with few exceptions. While it is fine to disagree with someone, one should at least have the decency to state why they disagree, not simply "No, you're wrong, I'm right." I cannot speak for this user's motivations, of which there could be many. But his actions serve to bolster a harmful platform whether he intends it or not. If that is enough for you, then it is enough for me.Legitimus (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am always involved in arguments because others have goaded me. I have a right to defend myself, and respond to attacks that others have made against me.

My counters are always directed towards defending myself, or asserting logic over lack of understanding. Can you provide evidence for your claims, please?

"No, you're wrong, I'm right." is not my language. I challenge you to find any evidence of this. This perception may come from exactly this kind of response - asking someone to back up an allegation. I am not here to be accused.

Why are you expressing support for a ban that you have shown absolutely no will to push through, after conversing civilly and sensibly with me in the past? J-Lambton ^T/_C 02:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked my opinion, so I gave it. While your more argumentative statements tended to be directed at specific users (who granted could be argumentative back), such statements are not helpful at all to constructive editing. Further, while users such as PetraSchelm were also being pushy, they at least had intellectual material and frankly the general consensus of medicine to support their stance. I think you fail to realize how harmful the platform you are supporting could be. I do not necessarily support an permanent block. If you were to give up editing these articles, that's fine. Take them out of your watchlist and resist temptation to read them. I did this myself for a week to see what it would be like, and it can be something of a relief.Legitimus (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. User:Jovin Lambton has caused significant ongoing disruption, with incivility and tendentious editing from the moment the account was created. It's been a single purpose account from the start, engaging in rudeness, sarcasm, baiting, trolling, edit warring, and inserting pro-pedophile fringe theories with undue weight in many articles; and as has been pointed out already, adding nothing of value to the text of any article. The disruption caused by Jovin Lambton has wasted many hours for many editors; created a generally unpleasant, contentious and unwelcoming atmosphere on every page he's edited; and shows no sign of improvement on the horizon.

User:Jovin Lambton has caused so much trouble and so much waste of editing hours, that he inspired me to start collecting diffs of his behavior to send to ArbCom, since they have requested that pedophilia-related editing problems be directed to them privately. However, now that this discussion is already in process, that information is directly relevant, so I have posted it in a new section:

• disruption and incivility diffs list on the pedophile topic mentorship page.

Maybe all those diffs aren't even needed. Clear illustration of User:Jovin Lambton's methods can be found right here in his comments in this report. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Lambton is one of the very few editors willing to risk their reputation by countering POV in paedophilia articles, and his continued participation is vital. PetraSchelm and SqueakBox, probably the most active editors on these topics, both supported a revision of Pro-paedophile activism stating that pro-paed activists wish to legalize child porn "in order to deliberately humiliate publicly the children they sexually abuse for the rest of the child's life."[9] [10] Let's not give these people more proportional power, please. I'll comment more extensively later but now I have to go. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In after non-arbcom member bans Jovin because...: "Contact Arbcom for further appeals / information." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This topic is one that is particularly sensitive, and subject to longstanding established special policy. Those who appear to be advocating pedophilia are subject to immediate and indefinite blocking by administrators. Arbcom is the direct route for appeals of these blocks.

I don't particularly want to be seen as supporting Squeakbox' behavior of late, but having gone back and looked at hundreds of Jovin Lambton edits over the last few months, back to the accounts' creation, it clearly is a problem. The edits go beyond merely attempting to find NPOV on the articles, though they are playing it smart and have found discrete issues and specific edits by others which were were unreasonably biased the other direction. Other editors have successfully pushed back against extremism in anti-pedophilia editing here without appearing themselves to be supporting it. My independent and uninvolved review of the edit history finds apparent advocacy. With apparent advocacy, both in specific edits and in a consistent overall pattern, and a focus only on that one topic for several months now, the special rules apply. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. There's been plenty of heat on both sides of the ongoing pedophilia brawl. Jovin's behavior must be considered in the context of constant inflammation from others. Given his willingness to depart from this terrain completely, I don't think a ban would be the best option right now. If the combative demeanor continues we can reevaluate later, but I suspect it will change for the better if he and the other WP:PAW editors are isolated. Disclosure -- I found my way here through an email from Jovin. I don't blame him for (hopefully) minor canvassing given the circumstances, but I thought I ought to mention it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I oppose this process, nobody should have a community ban on this subject without specific arbcom sanction. Ryan's comments to propose further bans would be even worse and the policing of this subject needs to be left to the arbcom, we can each and all of us address them. I propose we delete the mentorship page for the same reason. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems sensible in the sense it would take the 'grudges against SqueakBox' factor out of things. John Nevard (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fret no more

You will not see me editing WP:PAW articles again. I've decided that fighting anti-pedophile bias and hysteria and displaying any knowledge of the pro-pedophile movement is dangerous and likely to be misunderstood, in light of others' support of anti-pedophile hysteria.

I will continue to defend myself here, and welcome others to defend me against those who cannot properly read WP:NPOV, clinical and critical literature on CSA related topics or my contributions history.

This account has been an utter disaster for me. I have been accused of pedophilia and of being multiple puppeteer by unrepentant POV warrior, hysteric and sock-puppeteer, SqueakBox - who'se latest CU puts beyond doubt that he owns one of the accounts he is using to poison me - creating it during a ban of his, long ago.

I have been harassed, had my IP shown around for all to see by PetraSchelm, a provocative, manipulative anti-pedophile POV pusher who falsely accuses others of incivility frequently, yet on far less occasions than she actually engages in it herself.

I have seen the ludicrous arguments of editors such as Jack-A-Roe who use civility to hide blindness to other perspectives, bias that reaches as far as absolute adherence to only one medical-pathological model of phenomena related to children, sexuality, trauma and pedophiles. This user actually believes that we need a source to describe arguments espoused by pro-pedophile activists as "perspectives", "opinions" or whatnot. Enough said.

I see articles on any number of these subjects descending into prejudicial, ethnocentric, tabloid bullshit under the protected pedophile-obsessive condemnation of advocacy editors who would rather forget that WP:NPOV ever existed. What good is there in doing this? In a year's time when any semblance of neutrality has been pushed out of WP:PAW, we should go about comparing some of these articles to any mainstream encyclopedia of sexuality, sociology or medicine. And with that grand revelation, we will know exactly why we were wrong in banning endless users - some of them not even preoccupied with WP:PAW articles - who were brave enough to enforce an editing pattern, that in its opposition to moral-bias, could be seen as being radical - even a display of advocacy. J-Lambton ^T/_C 03:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, let's hold on a second: the latest checkuser request on SqueakBox (talk · contribs) does not put it "beyond doubt" that he is utilising secondary accounts for abusive purposes. The currently pending checkuser request (it has evidently yet to be handled on requests for checkuser) has not yet received a response, and all previous checks came up negative. I'd suggest that you revoke and/or rephrase that section of your statement: it is somewhat inaccurate, and casts an unfair light on that editor. We go by "innocent until proven guilty" on here, if you please; not vica versa.

Anthøny 08:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to my Case

That the majority (but by no means all) of my edits go against the tone of certain others does not make them POV pushing. An extremely disruptive core of editors has taken to making disgusting accusations towards others, betraying an unhealthy bias that is shown in their editing (SqueakBox on Child Porn and Pro-pedophile activism, PetraSchelm's crazy argument about Ethical Models on the latter's talk page are just a couple of examples). In this environment, the push towards a more neutral article naturally consists of NPOV edits and sources/adjustments that the editor may not actually value as opinions. That is certainly the case with myself, and I urge all other users to check my contributions before coming to a conclusion.

Thus my behaviour would only be suspect, if the articles and general tone of editing were neutral in the first place. But analysis reveals that both are often ridden with hysteria, bias and misinformation.

The accusation of attempting to turn the project into a battleground is extremely biased on the part of Ryan Postlethwaite. I challenge him to provide diffs that clearly show that I have started arguments. I have been extremely thorough and vociferous in defending some of the most awful and incredible accusations and goading aimed towards myself, but I have always urged other editors not to fight with one another. J-Lambton ^T/_C 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan is incorrect, when he says that a majority of my article edits are reverts. Editors will also have to assess the content of the reverts. In my opinion, they are all valid - mainly NPOV or consensus type edits. J-Lambton ^T/_C 00:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of Socking

Here

This is also false - based upon my failure to log on at the start of sessions. Before any link between myself and the IPs was publicly suggested, I disowned one IP by telling editors (on its talk page) to ignore me, as I was failing to log on. With the other IP (which I thought was the other as well), I simply overwrote my mistaken edit. I did not want to reveal my IP on pedophile articles, so I made my admission subtle, but by no means untraceable. If I was socking, this would have been self defeating and suicidal behaviour. Not to mention that I didn't reset my IP - something that is possible with my ISP (again, suicidal, unrealistic). J-Lambton ^T/_C 00:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What we should be focusing on: PetraSchelm

This user was told by Swatjester that she would be indef blocked if she continued in her disrespectful and disruptive behaviour. The admin concerned disappeared from the scene, Schelm escalated her behaviour with a series of unfounded attacks in all kinds of fora - including the contrivance of legal threats from normal discourse, and she still remains unblocked.

Another user, SqueakBox, known for accusing other editors of harbouring pro-pedophile agandas and pedophilic fantasies is getting away with murder right now - with what appears to be an almost certain sockpuppet:

Requests for checkuser/Case/SqueakBox J-Lambton ^T/_C 01:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This thread isn't about these users, but don't worry, I'll be proposing sanctions for others later this week. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Per prior enforcement policy and precedent, I have blocked Jovin Lambton. There seem to be no non-pedophilia related edits in some time, and there are a number of edits which move beyond NPOV into at least noticable if not strident activism.

This is enthusiastically not support for edits or actions of Squeakbox, PetraSchelm, or others of late - I suggest other administrators review those.

While I am sympathetic to the complex issues involved with maintaining NPOV on pedophilia related articles in the face of strident anti-child-abuse editors, the situation as a whole picture paints a picture of another subtle POV pusher not a neutral editor. Wikipedia has a recurring problem with pedophile activists attempting to slant these articles. They are most specifically not welcome and subject to ban on credible detection as such.

I filed a brief incident note with Arbcom via email. Per prior precedent, appeals should go to Arbcom. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

George, this seems like a poor move to me. You've blocked an editor for a narrowly-defined behavior pattern immediately after he pledged to stop editing in the "problem areas" entirely. Doing so in the midst of a very young community discussion seems especially unbefitting.

To date there has been no real arbitration proceeding; arbitrator actions in these matters have not really been committee operations, but individual ones. There's quite an extensive history involving questionable blocks, unanswered emails and so forth. Referring back to Fred's very old statement as inviolable "precedent" does not seem wise given past experiences. I suggest you reconsider both the hasty block and your statement regarding ArbCom. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Given its sensitive nature, having ArbCom handle things quietly is the opposite of hasty. What do you hope to achieve by blowing things up publicly? --Calton | Talk 07:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Note an unblock here would not have to go through arbcom; just because George says it does, does not make it so. Terrible block, strongly recommend unblocking. Neıl 龱 07:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What concerns me is that if this editor wishes to return, even respecting the self-imposed topic ban and editing elsewhere, he is still technically in defiance of a block - it seems a little pointless to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs) 08:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the status quo for editors who are perceived to edit in a fashion that promotes pedophilia. They are blocked and told to contact the arbitration committee if they wish to appeal their block.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Neil, what is unclear about this series of diffs indicating the Arbcom has asserted full jurisdiction over conflicts related to this field [11], [12], [13], [14]? MBisanz ^talk 08:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova, in particular "Responsibility" and "Prior approval", may be of interest. From my understanding of prior events, only pro-pedophilia-related blocks enacted by current and former members of the Arbitration Committee were given the status of only being reversable after discussion privately on arbcom-l. I may be wrong, but I somehow doubt they'd want to delegate the authority to block without public discussion to simply any administrator. Remember that the context of the blocks made where Fred made this statement was that there was previous discussion on arbcom-l before the block happened (to the best of my knowledge). Daniel (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

On a more general note, considering that --

• there have been no formal ArbCom proceedings regarding these matters, only individual promulgations from editors who were members of the committee, and
• the arbitrators making these promulgations are for the most part long gone from the committee, and
• past experiences have shown that the process advanced by these promulgations plainly didn't work out as intended, and
• our banning policy has always maintained that ArbCom-sanctioned bans are to follow from arbitration requests (as opposed to informal decisions from arbitrators), and the arbitration policy creates no exceptions to this

-- I think it is reasonable to resume standard procedure unless the current committee clearly and formally tells us otherwise. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If Lambton stops editing in the "problem areas", where is he going to edit? I don't think the MinGW Developers Studio pages can really do with his kind of help. Personally, I think if this issue has to be discussed publicly in order to get the pedophilia articles the extra committed attention they deserve from editors without a fringe point of view on the subject, the Wikipedia community would prefer that any reporting took the form of 'for the past four years, pedophiles have successfully disrupted the Wikipedia articles on their crimes... parents should remember that Wikipedia can be...' than 'pedophiles continue to disrupt the Wikipedia articles on their crimes...Wikipedia is known for being a haven for...'. John Nevard (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as there is some confusion, let me quote Mr. Bauder on behalf of the Arbcom

Please direct all communication regarding blocking of pedophilia advocates directly to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org Fred Bauder 12:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee.

I see that as a statement by a member of the arbcom, acting on behalf of the arbcom, telling all people that any communications related to blocks of pedophilia advocates should be sent to the arbcom. In the past, such as with NSLE and JoshuaZ, the arbcom has acted without formal public proceedings and has never indicated that past arbcoms should be given less wait merely due to the retirement of their members. MBisanz ^talk 08:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to delve this deep into the lawyerificness, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova was more recent. It stated that unless the person was undertaking an "official task as authorised by the Arbitration Committee", that they "must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner", and "[i]f a user feels that they cannot justify their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee". The Durova case was both more recent and a case where a majority of arbitrators publically approved of the principle I quoted above. The Committee is not bound by its own decisions, and can repeal them by a contradicting decision (as they did in Durova), especially when this is contradicting a statement made by one arbitrator in a specific dispute, which wasn't alluding to establishing itself as a general principle (unlike "Responsibility" in Durova, which was passed as a "priniple"). Daniel (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am going to be brief here, for once. Firstly, I'm not convinced that this block is necessary, and indeed, it seems rather penal to me. Blocks should be preventative. Secondly, an unblock request would not, under normal circumstances, be handled by the Arbitration Committee (there's a finding in the Durova case, which may be relevant). Anthøny 09:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is all a bit silly. You are treating pedophilia as if it's any other controversy, like US politics or pseudoscience. You'll get nowhere trying to debate the policy of of something that does not exist in writing anyway. The purpose of the many past instances in which appeals of bans of this type—by arbitrators or non-arbitrators—have been directed to the arbitration mailing list is identical here. All the public drama here and inane arguing over who is allowed to do what when is exactly what appeals ArbCom avoid, and exactly when we need to avoid it, for sensitive topics like pedophilia. Let's all direct any reasonable appeals we have to ArbCom's mailing list (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org) and close and archive this thread, before ArbCom does it for us. Dmcdevit·t 13:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirect

I just lost teh game (talk · contribs) has made his userpage into a redirect to article space, and keeps refusing to change it & reverting it back. I've temporarily changed it to redirect to his talk page & protected it; while this seems to me to be patently disruptive editing, he is technically correct in that Wikipedia:R#DELETE does only mention redirects to userspace and not from it. Can someone else review this one, and either confirm that the redirect shouldn't be in place, or confirm that it is allowed and lift the protection? Thanks! — iridescent 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that this editor is attempting to use the letter of the guideline in an attempt at bypassing the spirit of it. Perhaps a viable alternative is to transclude that article to his user space if he so desires his userspace to mimic that article? Resolute 00:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT overrides any other guidelines as written. It is disruptive to link your userpage to an article, as it renders your user talk page inaccessable from a signature for those not highly capable in navigating Wikipedia. Daniel (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This loophole has irked me for a while now. Anyone know why it exists/want to change the wording to explicitly forbid this action? faithless (^speak) 05:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why we want to forbid it, to be honest. It doesn't seem too terribly disruptive to me...if you were trying to get to someone's talk page, most signatures and history/RC/log type pages include a talk page link. Quite a few admins redirected their user pages to Never Gonna Give You Up on April 1st, and I never heard anyone raise a stink about it. This isn't really a big deal, in my opinion. If someone wants to redirect their userpage to articlespace, ok, that's sort of unusual, but it's not compellingly or maliciously disrupting the standard operations of Wikipedia...why outright ban it? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention there are several people, including admins, who have article space redirected to their userspace. Nothing wrong with his userpage being redirected to an article as long as his talk page isn't. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 08:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The user's made some good edits, but also some iffy ones, which seems relevant in a discussion regarding borderline "for the lulz"-type behavior. I'm not comfortable with the redirect, but not comfortable prohibiting this sort of thing outright, either -- I'm very much reminded of the UI spoofing controversies we sometimes see with fake "new messages!" bars and such. Easy access to user talk is a concern I'd call important, though it's worth noting the user's signature links to their talk page. Might be worth discussing at Wikipedia talk:User page, if it hasn't been already. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Kansas City

Resolved

 – Wrong forum. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time with the Kansas City page. When you do a search for "Kansas City", the "Kansas City Metropolitian Area" is the result. This is not the case when I do a search for "Boston", "Chicago", "Omaha", "Topeka", or "Seattle". The list actually goes on, the majority of cities around the country, including "Rio Linda" are directed to thier corresponding page, the one exception I've found so far is Kansas City that takes me to a Metro Page instead. Check out Minneapolis, that doesn't take you to a Metro page, in fact, it gives you the option at the beginning of the article! I've tried changeing it, but it will not hold, I need to take this to the next step please. SakuraAvalon86 (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a content issue; specifically, over naming. Discuss it on the talk page; it's not an admin issue. --Haemo (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Haemo than AN is not the proper venue. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate fair-use image?

Resolved

Could an admin more versed in image policy take a look at this? We have two identical images of Troy McClure (Image:Troymcclure.png and Image:Troymcclure.jpg). Ought one be deleted? Cheers, faithless (^speak) 05:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The second one is not used in any articles and can be deleted as an orphaned fair use. (CSD I5). --Haemo (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and ordinarily I would have just done that. But as the article is today's FA, together with my relative lack of image policy knowledge, I figured I'd play it safe. Thanks for the response! :] faithless (^speak) 05:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If the image is unused, it being TFA shouldn't affect anything. Deleted now, but just for the record. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

I'll note the following backlogs in need of experienced users:

1. 31 Users seeking adoption at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user
2. 50 Users seeking review at Wikipedia:Editor review
3. 48 Users seeking an admin coach at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching
4. 33 Images needing uploading at Wikipedia:Images for upload

MBisanz ^talk 05:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And here's a fifth: 35 days' worth of possibly unfree images to delete. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHU

How often do admins/beaurcrats patrol WP:CHU, I've been waiting for 3 hours (or something) for a username change. SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please and get Award} 10:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Name changes can only be done by bureaucrats, not any admin. Once a day is probably a reasonable expectation. Thatcher 10:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Three hours is not a long time to wait at all. When there's a backlog, request sometimes take a week to be looked at. The thing is, it's not that important a task, so it doesn't matter too much how long it takes. Just carry on editing and it will happen in the not too distant future. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge history

Could an admin history merge User:Serviam/Hastati into Hastati? I've been working on the article in my subpage and I'm now finished. Thankyou :-)--Serviam (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done - great work! Neıl 龱 12:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)