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

warning template for Hurricane Gustav

During Hurricane Katrina, Wikipedia had this warning template on the top of the page

ATTENTION: Residents of areas affected by Hurricane Katrina are advised to seek advice and information from local authorities through television and radio. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your area. Do not decide whether to leave your house, shelter, or vehicle based on Wikipedia information.

I placed one on the page for Hurricane Gustav but someone removed it. I think it should be there and want an admin's opinion on the issue. It may be against the rules but I think the rules should be allowed to be bent in an emergency situation. The page on Katrina had the warning up for days with no objections. One can see so in the edit history--Ted-m (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for medical advice, and I think in the same vein we shouldn't serve as a PSA system. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree. But that's the whole point of the template. So what's the objection?Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Then how come it was allowed during Katrina?--Ted-m (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cause we made a mistake in allowing it. We have this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer NonvocalScream (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer NonvocalScream (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be up there. Privatemusings (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(copied from User_talk:CrazyC83, who just reverted my re-addition of the box....)

On principle? How about the one that your opinion isn't the only one that matters Lar? I especially like your comment on my talk page. - auburnpilot talk 05:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't revert you, Crazy.. but I do think that it's worth having that box up there for a while. I certainly wouldn't worry about the Manual of Style in this context, because I think it's appropriate to bend the rules a little once in a while for strong reasons.... and our article is the second result in Google, so could well get quite a lot of traffic. Follow your conscience... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)this has been mentioned on WP:AN too, so I'll copy this note across there as well....

:o) I think it should not be up there.  :) :) Speaking of which, we have an applicable content guideline... over here! :) NonvocalScream (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. I see it now:

ATTENTION: "Those contemplating Liposuction are advised to seek advice and information from true medical professionals through their websites and in-person visists. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your procedure. Do not decide whether or not to get liposuction or other cosmetic surgeries based on Wikipedia Information".

Yeah, let's not. - auburnpilot talk 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

um.. Auburn... you're comparing a liposuction disclaimer with a note about a very dangerous Hurricane. I see a difference. Privatemusings (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

PrivateMusens, you are ignoring the content guideline I cited above. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lipo is a very dangerous elective surgery (1 death per 5000?). [1][2] In all seriousness, it was just an example of what some may see as equally valid, but most will see as showing how equally unnecessary such warnings are. - auburnpilot talk 03:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; part of the point of removing these things is that even at the most narrow scope there's a lot of articles that can be argued to be life or death.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Or worse:

ATTENTION: "Those considering a conversion to Catholicism are advised to seek advice and information from a trusted spiritual adviser. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your personal circumstances. Do not decide whether or not to change your religion based on Wikipedia Information".

-- Mr.Z-man 03:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) How about a reminder of/reference to the disclaimers added to {{HurricaneWarning}}? WODUP 03:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That still seems pretty ridiculous, I am sure that those affected are very aware of the storms in this date and age. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll be... the risk disclaimer is already linked from {{HurricaneWarning}}. WODUP 04:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And another...

ATTENTION: "Those considering a smoking cessation are advised to seek advice and information from a licensed practioner. Statistics on Wikipedia may not be current. Do not decide whether or not to change your smoking habits based on Wikipedia Information".

NonvocalScream (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not weighing in on the opinion at hand, but I think the main concern is that a Goggle search string for "Hurricane Gustav" shows it's Wikipedia page as the 3rd result. It seems that users are just concerned that someone may stumble upon the article and may take the information as fact, which could be true or false. I have a feeling that the concerned users are just wanting to make sure that the poor souls who are having to leave their homes, their jobs, their lives, and who could possibly get injured or killed understand that we are not a reporting service and that our content should not be mistaken for advice. This is an extraordinary case that is not easily comparable to other issues, beliefs, or surgeries. I respectfully ask that editors stop making parody templates of the above template and please be respectful so as to not mock the original poster of the template. Obviously s/he had the best of intentions and the joking and comedy over a very serious matter is of very poor taste. Can we please get to the issue at hand and seriously discuss whether the template should be placed or not? Thank you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is making light of "the poor souls who are having to leave their homes...". The template should not exist, and we've shown why through the use of examples. - auburnpilot talk 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not parody. It is contrast and comparison. Additionally, I don't think anyone will decide evacuation on this article, the PSA/EAS is the responsibility of local city/state and federal authority. We are building an encyclopedia, let us not lose sight of that. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, why add it it now? Gustav already hit Cuba quite hard and no one seemed to care. Because its entering the United States? What about WP:UNDUE? Its clear that all the commotion its because of the actual state that its going to hit, because I don't see such a haste when they go over Florida. Some users are being influenced by memories of Hurricane Katrina's destructive pass. Sorry it that seems harsh, but I call a spade a spade. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ecX3) Guys! All I am asking is that you just talk about it without being dicks and take the request made by the original poster as a serious request. Just be respectful of the situation. All I am asking is for comments like Caribbean's, which address the issue at hand without mocking the template. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a fucking douchebag. - auburnpilot talk 04:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thiz iz seriouz buzinnezz. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? Mr.Z-man 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Off topic: Am I the only one irritated by edit conflicts? The software really should resolve this automagically. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In any case, I personally do not believe the template should belong. I understand the reasons for adding it, but making this a special case just doesn't make sense to me. I have a feeling that the template would just be an eye-sore, and it could be argued that this is just systematic bias. Why don't we add templates like this to every big event? I think that the encyclopedia is fine with just reporting the information in an encyclopedic manner, and we should just let our disclaimers do the disclaiming. And yes I am hating the conflicts (especially the one I just had with your comment ;) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not use one of our other "current" templates, that already warn of such things? -- Ned Scott 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Because we have content guidelines that should generally be used. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. The current templates are article issue templates, not disclaimer templates. -- Ned Scott 04:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I am very clear. I am very clear that the pink boxes in this section of AN are in fact... disclaimers. Even if in the loosest form, they intend to warn and caveat. Don't call me confused please. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear, I think Ned is referring to the {{current}} templates. - auburnpilot talk 04:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Editors of articles such as Hurricane Gustav are advised to seek advice and information from ArbCom before placing a template such as this. Information in Wikipedia: space may not be current or applicable to your ArbCom's current mood. Do not decide whether to place a template on the article based on Wikipedia policies.

--NE2 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: There are hundreds of stupid arguments on AIV, and this is one of them.

Word. --mboverload@ 04:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Particularly when this was the shape of {{HurricaneWarning}}, a template that survived TFD several times, until September 2007. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we're churning out silly disclaimer templates, how about one for Wikipedia:

ATTENTION: Those considering using Wikipedia are advised to seek advice and information from a trusted reliable source. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your personal circumstances. Do not decide whether or not to use Wikipedia based on Wikipedia information.

It just had to be said. MER-C 10:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be easier for Wikipedia to consider a help page about its own articles and making decisions based on one's trust in their accuracy. That's a question for the offices, most likely.Miquonranger03 (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

prelude to edit war

You lot are debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and thus miss the actual point. The style guide matters not, the general principle against disclaimers matters not. They're good ideas, but blanket prohibitions are bad. This is a situation where we may well be getting a large influx of readers who have no idea what WP really is about, and haven't the time or energy to go to the bottom of a page, and then realise they should read a general disclaimer to see if maybe there is something there they ought to read. IAR and add the damn warning template, and stop standing on formality about whether it's in accordance with general principles about not having disclaimers. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. ++Lar: t/c 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What he said. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IAR only works when it improves the pedia. I would posit that it does not, so IAR is not applicable. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." So, how does this help improve or maintain Wikipedia? It doesn't. We don't add such templates to articles, and this doesn't deserve an exception. - auburnpilot talk 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Don't stand on rules. And don't revert me for the sake of some principle. ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

echo Lar. Privatemusings (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the idea of it being there, either, but I think this is one of the cases where we can and should ignore the rules. People have the capacity for incredible stupidity. While I'm generally against the idea of keeping this like this around, not everyone is intelligent enough to realize that at any given point in time, Wikipedia could be hosting information that could result in some bad things if people were dumb enough to use it as a guide for emergency procedures, and that's really not something I want to think about. Remember that Wikipedia does exist in the real world. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would posit that it does improve the pedia, by sending away the users who really need the info to the proper place, hence making us be a more reliable source of info. That said, please don't edit war over this. This is an extremely unstable article, and hence protections are inappropriate here; I'll be handing out blocks instead of simply elevating the protection level of the page. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

echo Lar. WP:IAR. Do what you feel is right. --Duk 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Lar makes an excellent point above. Putting that up there, is simply the right thing to do. SQL^{Query me!} 07:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're worried about people who run around the Internet randomly trusting sites, and you think they should be warned away from Wikipedia so they find some blog to trust? You can't honestly say that you're helping people who can't be trusted to use the Internet wisely by warning them away from an updated fairly reliable source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so we note, this box violates some of our principles, UNDUE and NPOV. Also, the guideline is a good guideline, this is not what we do (PSA/EAS). NonvocalScream (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A guiding principle is "do no harm" and people relying on this article for decisions on evacuation can clearly lead to real harm. The disclaimer should be on the page. Apparently it is presently unprotected so that IP editors and newbies can have their way with it. An Ip editor changed the windspeed in the info box from the correct 115 mph to 390 mph, and it stayed that way for 26 minutes until I restored the correct information. The disclaimer should remain on the article. It is about a pending natural disaster affecting millions of people and tens of billions of dollars property damage, and if a vandal can introduce incorrect information, or if stale or incorrect information is in the article, it could lead people to take actions affecting their safety adversely. And the article should once again be semiprotected, because sufficient established and registered users are working on it that newbies and IP editors are not needed to keep it up to date while the storm is a few hours from landfall. Let the IPs back in when it is a historical matter in a day or so. Edison2 (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated on that talk page that protection would be extremely inappropriate in this case, but like I said above, I agree with the inclusion of the box. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I semi'ed it but feel free to undo that, I won't consider that any sort of wheeling. ++Lar: t/c 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We have principles, we strive to be an accurate academic institution. This type of thing should no go into our articles, for neutrality, and other reasons as echoed by me above. Incidentally, why are anons not permitted to edit that article? Please undo the prot. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Question, how does this violate undue or npov? I don't see it but I might be missing something ;) RxS (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As above. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the only reason that all this argument is going on its because Gustav will hit New Orleans, which received a lot of destruction with Katrina. The decision to add it is directly influenced by the psychological effect of the horrible events seen three years ago. If that wasn't the case a template would have been added when it passed over Cuba, which by the way has also been heavily affected by tropical cyclones in the last years. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. And perhaps it should have been added earlier. Better late than never. (and I'll say that I don't necessarily have a lot of confidence in the governments of the area and their ability to have learned from Katrina, but I digress). ++Lar: t/c 06:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So we if we didn't do something in the past (rightly or wrongly), we can't do it going forward? I know that's not what you're saying but that's the practical effect. Shouldn't we decide if something's a good idea and then work out the application afterwards? Anyway, it seems like a good application of IAR, and it's been worked out so it's all good. RxS (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a good principle. But sometimes exceptions are needed. This is one of those times. The harm to the encyclopedia from having this disclaimer for a day or 3 is slight. The harm if someone got hurt and it got into the media is immense. No brainer. All principles have exceptions. That's the real world. Deal. ++Lar: t/c 05:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll compromise here. Lets make sure the template goes away after the disaster subsides. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Back when it used to be a proper template, that was always the case. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NVS, 4 days from now (or whatever the right time is, it should be short, I agree) I'll baleet it out of there myself... This is a temporary thing only. ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The other option would be not to pretend to be posting "Current storm information" as if Wiki was providing the latest and greatest. Maybe Wiki shouldn't be a newspaper or public notice system? --Pat (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is not going to happen unless you intend to kill WP:WPTC and break my third law. Wikipedia has been lauded previously over our hurricane coverage, and even cited in government tropical cyclone coverage, so I don't think we're interested in changing that any time soon. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I myself find it interesting that there has only been interest in putting up this template as the storm hits the United States. I guess the human beings in Cuba, Haiti, Dominican, etc. just aren't as important? Perhaps the current hurricane template should have a link to the risk disclaimer, but putting up this red template only when a disaster happens to the USA looks very unpretty. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is the perhaps relevant fact that Cuba, the Dominican Republic etc. are Spanish -speaking countries, Haiti is French-speaking, and we are the English Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But Jamaica and the Caymans are English-speaking. Eleven deaths have been reported so far in Jamaica. -- Avenue (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite true. Perhaps the notice should be affixed to the article on Hanna now, as it seems to be aimed at the Bahamas. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no ulterior motives here. We used to have it last year; only this year it got edited/redirected to the bland current version (which was being used, by the way), {{current tropical cyclone}} due to the ambox change. As people remembered Katrina, they remembered how the red box, and asked for it back. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps {{current tropical cyclone}} should itself have a link to the risk disclaimer- maybe even highlighted in red. That way anybody in the path of a storm would be warned not to use Wikipedia for life-safety decisions and we wouldn't be in the position of having to judge when the people affected are "important" enough to warrant a red warning banner.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That box does include such a link, but we Americans are now in danger so it much be enormous and clearly visible. - auburnpilot talk 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So... by that interpretation you're saying that we Americans are too dumb to heed the regular disclaimer used for the rest of the world? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to be making light of things, but speaking as an American myself, I'd say better safe than sorry to your question. That can be read many ways, I know. rootology (C)(T) 06:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I do feel it's important for people to be reminded not to base life-safety decisions on our data, however things should be the same if the disaster hits Mexico or New Zealand as if it hits the United States. This red banner is a bad idea, the proper course is to make the standard current disaster template a bit clearer about our standard disclaimers. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not opposing this because of any guidelines, I'm opposing it because of the precedent it sets. Nobody bothered to respond to my question above, so I'll ask it again down here. And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? Do we put one up after an earthquake warning people there might be a tsunami? Why wait until there's a tornado warning, by then it may be too late, do we put up a warning for every severe thunderstorm watch? What strength of hurricane warrants a template? Do we put one up for a Category 1? A tropical depression? I normally agree with Lar, but I'm disappointed to see him simply dismissing all the opposition as based on formalities. Mr.Z-man 14:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)... I'm sorry if it seems like I was simply dismissing opposition, if I acted brusquely and more forcefully than I normally would. But I came to this discussion and what I saw was a lot of tomfoolery. Sorry, but that's what it looked like to me, despite those pointing out that the stuff being shown was shown to bring forth counterexamples... sure, maybe they were, but they were also funny. That to me suggests this matter wasn't being taken seriously. So I acted. That's what we are supposed to do, after all. Know when deliberation is needed, and know when quick action is needed, and know how to tell the difference. The subsequent discussion seems to show that the consensus, or at least a majority of voices, was in the end, OK with this temporary measure. (and it should be temporary!)

Now, I think our general rule against specific disclaimers is good. But I think maybe for anything that is worthy of a "current event" tagging, we need a more bold pointer to that disclaimer, right at the top of the article, where it is seen by everyone visiting, rather than buried in fine print towards the bottom (It is on the very bottom line of the page, in small print, after other stirring reads like the Privacy Policy and the About Wikipedia prose... how many people coming to a site when they're in a hurry are going to read that??? NOT MANY.) So I think after this tempest in a teacup about this specific box blows over (sorry!), we need to revisit the design of the current events box. Even if it just points to our general disclaimer, it's good to have that pointer at the top for current events. Tornadoes, fires, bridge collapses, earthquakes, hurricanes, wars, you name it. Anyone using Wikipedia for their first source for advice about hangnail cures is a fool. And the buried disclaimer is fine for them, they have time to regret their foolishness. But people in emergency situations, with not much time? They need a more clear reminder NOT TO TRUST this source for life and death info. What if the vandal who set the speed to 300+ mph for 20 min last night had set it to 15 mph and people made decisions based on that? Do you all standing on policy actually want that on your conscience? I don't. So let's work together to get that box changed while still hewing to our spirit.

I apologise to anyone I gave offense to last night. It was not my intent, and I'm sorry. But I felt this was important enough to override some of the norms I usually go by. Heck I even reverted something... once. That's pretty shocking behaviour for me! ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"...sure, maybe they were, but they were also funny. That to me suggests this matter wasn't being taken seriously." - skip on a bit - "So I think after this tempest in a teacup about this specific box blows over (sorry!)...". I hope that my point is clear enough. _TalkIslander 09:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actual disaster warning box

<-- Whats the actual "live disaster" template? I didn't know we had one? rootology (C)(T) 06:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Current disaster}}—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Heck, this is all silly then. Just to mock it up quick I flipped that to be the speedy type graphically instead of the notice type, and changed the image, to make this:

visible on this diff

Isn't that better? rootology (C)(T) 07:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. Anyone object to its use on the article now? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Editors considering sticking beans up their nose are advised to seek advice and information from medical professionals and/or horticulturalists prior to attempting to do so. Information on Wikipedia may not be applicable to your nostrils or the type of beans you may have in your pantry. Do not decide whether or not to shove foodstuffs in your bodily orifices based on Wikipedia information.

Had to be said... caknuck _° is geared up for football season 08:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you tell me... Kevin (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Um... you may wish to link pantry, unless you enjoy resolving pulse (legume)/lingerie issues (I know I do!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Current_tropical_cyclone&oldid=236230043

--Random832 (contribs) 13:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Looks pretty similar to what WP:SEVERE puts on severe weather outbreak articles (and I'm blanking on the template name there). Rdfox 76 (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Editors seeking medical advice on Wikipedia are advised to remember the old saying,
"He who doctors himself has a fool for a patient."

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: All the above warnings are in Wikipedia, and therefore unreliable. Waltham, The Duke of 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• This issue has been brought up at village pum p before (by me), and the overwhelming consensus is that disclaimer templates are not to be used. Medical advice, emergency evacuation advice, legal advice, etc. should be quickly removed from any article, and all article content should be clearly attributed to a third-party source. So we just do not need a template that says our advice may be wrong,,, we just don;t give advice. We say "The Governor said on Thursday: Get out now", and we do not need to say "Warning today might not be thursday, and that governor may not be your governor..." The general disclaimer covers us legally, and responsible editing (refraining from giving advice, attribution to third parties) covers us morally. Just say no to tags and templates. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jerry here. We do not need to include disclaimers in our articles, and it is beyond the purpose of this encyclopaedia to do it anyway. I do not mind the inclusion of the second sentence in {{Current disaster}}, as suggested above by Rootology, but anything more than that is excessive. And it is with a certain shock that I have just realised that there is an option to turn the template red (as in the second suggestion). I strongly oppose the by-nature highly selective and subjective treatment of the template and of the disasters in the articles thereof it is transcluded. Furthermore, I oppose the misuse of the template, which is called to serve a function entirely different from the one it is meant to. I seriously believe that the option to change the colour of the template should be removed. Waltham, The Duke of 02:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The only disclaimer function I see this template serving is by creating a more prominent link to our site-wide hazard disclaimer, otherwise it is substantially similar to our other current event templates. As for it's misuse, it's only transcluded into one article at present and will be removed once the event is past. As for the red option, I don't understand the rationale of your objection to it- the reason it was added was because in cases where life-safety is an issue, people may be reading the article in haste and not even see the template unless it is different from our usual clutter of maintenance templates. The red color is pretty subtle and well done in my perception- not over the top like the banners editors were putting on the articles before this option was added. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, I have no problem with the link and am only taking issue with the colouring here. "Subtle"? The template might not be as ugly and overwhelming as the page-wide banner that started this thread, but with the red sidebar it is still glaring. This is a maintenance template, and the specific colouring downright violates the colour-code on which the entire ambox system is founded, in this case imitating a template which means "this page is up for deletion". Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedent as far as disclaimers are concerned, because there is no reassurance that the usage of a template feature which is, after all, available to everyone, will remain restricted. In any case, arguments have already been made that it is impossible to draw a clear line between events which would "deserve" extra care of this kind and events that would not, relying on the type and intensity of a disaster; the measure can even spill into other areas implicating danger. We are an encyclopaedia; if people prefer to trust us and the Internet in general instead of their own authorities for information, or at least their local television station, that is their problem, and the many-times-more people around the world reading the article should not be forced to endure such distractions, which only seem to be afforded to Americans anyway. We should have priorities, and our mission is to be an encyclopaedia. We record, we do not advise—especially with geographic bias. Waltham, The Duke of 05:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Support}} {{Oppose}}

Hi, Is there any reason not to have templates for  Support and  Oppose? I really struggle to accept the 'server load' argument that seemed to dominate the TFD. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

They have them on lots of other projects. I'm sure someone will soon complain about voting, but I don't see the harm unless someone can prove there is a technical science/server reason not to. They were deleted by an ancient and probably not valid consensus from 3+ years ago: [3] I'd say its overdue for review. rootology (C)(T) 13:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a valid consensus at the time. But I suspect that attitudes have changed. I should probably be taking this to WP:DRV but I just thought I'd solicit some opinions here first. Thanks, Ben Aveling 13:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the main reasons was because it encourages the notion that we're voting on issues, when we're really trying to develop a consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how these might enhance debates and discussions on wikipedia? You ask "is there any reason not to have..?" can I ask "is there any reason to have.."". This is a genuine and not a polemical question.--Troikoalogo (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Consistency with other wikis; it's annoying to type {{support}} and have to change it to support. Also ease of vote counting. There are decisions made here that look like votes but aren't (AFD, for eg). But there are things that genuinely are votes. Maybe a compromise would be to have the templates there, minus the symbols. Personally, I like the added colour, but I understand that there are people who don't. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, looking over a discussion with those templates makes it easier to read, especially if we don't split into support and oppose sections. — Werdna • talk 13:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Easier to read"? Methinks, you mean "easier to count". Can't see how it helps me read the actual discussion.--Troikoalogo (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also easier to read selectively. Suppose one is closing an AFD, has made a decision, and wants to be sure that all the opposing arguments have been dealt with. Symbols make that easier to do. Cheers, Ben Aveling 14:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fun to have, but ultimately detrimental. We have enough knee-jerk supports and opposes breaking our processes without providing a set of templates to encourage more. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Redvers. Don't see a benefit for it (just my opinion). -- Alexf⁴² 13:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Er - do the little plus and minus symbols really impact how people participate? I see plenty of Support and Oppose comments without detailed rationales, is there is any reason to think we'd see a storm of such comments if we enable the templates? Avruch ^T 13:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If people from other projects are having issues I probably wouldn't be opposed to a template being created that consists of:

'''Support'''

that wouldn't change much from what people do anyway. –xeno (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have to say I like the look of them and the general idea behind them but, I think they may actually make things harder to read/understand if abbused in the same manner as '''support'''/'''oppose'''/'''keep'''/'''delete'''/'''don't delete'''/etc are at the moment. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a DRV not too long ago for them, and consensus there was still pretty clearly that we don't want them (but that they're kosher in userspace, so feel free to steal my versions at User:Lifebaka/+, User:Lifebaka/-, and User:Lifebaka/=). I'll go dig up the link. lifebaka++ 15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Link is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 17. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone with templatre Clue can code it so that there is an argument |reason, and if it's missing then the !vote is not bolded and a comment "(no rationale is given for this comment)" then I think it would add some value. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Try User:Ben Aveling/support. For eg:

• {{User:Ben Aveling/support}} gives support (no rationale given)
• {{User:Ben Aveling/support|Reason being...}} gives Support: Reason being....

The equivalent templates for Oppose, Neutral and Question can be created once the inevitable bugs are worked out. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No further comments? I guess that means that there is consensus that templates without icons, as per the example, would be OK? Absent further comments or objections, I'll take this to DRV tomorrow. Thanks, Ben Aveling 09:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 10#Template:Support. Thanks all for your input. Ben Aveling 00:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved. Looks like just a mistake based on a simple misunderstanding or misinterpretation of WP:AIV processes, there's no crisis or ongoing problem, closing thread. Dreadstar † 05:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Please don't inform the stewards of this thread. They've heard already, thanks. Kylu (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of this 'warning': User talk:THEN WHO WAS PHONE?#Warning

Please do not leave messages on the talk pages of IP addresses. Many IP addresses are public computers used by many people, and a warning against vandolism is pointless as it will never be read by the vandal. Moreover, all you accomplish is to create a new talk page for a user who does not really exist. I know you meant well but it was a mistake, just do not do it again. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

i.e. THEN WHO WAS PHONE was warning IP vandals, Slrubenstein blocked THEN WHO WAS PHONE for 15 minutes. This seems completely bizarre to me. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is bizarre, and seems to go entirely against common sense. Every IP vandal had to make their first edit at one time or another, and putting a warning on their talk page helps to establish the record of their activity (and warnings) in case it is needed in the future. What policy does this go against, exactly? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 01:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocking is completely inappropriate for the perfectly normal process of issuing warnings to IP vandals; if we don't issue warnings, we shouldn't block. Bizarre. --Rodhullandemu 01:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an entirely improper block, and Slrubenstein should resign his adminship. How else is any IP who repeatedly commits vandalism supposed to get through the warning tree before they can be listed at WP:AIV? There are so many things I want to say in outrage that I've redacted here. Gaaaahhhh. Corvus cornix_talk 01:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A very unhelpful and disruptive block. The notion that an editor could be blocked for leaving warnings on IP talk pages is unsettling. Moreover, many IP editors do read their talk pages and answer notes left on them. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein just placed the same warning at User talk:WadeSimMiser. Corvus cornix_talk 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And to User talk:Canis Lupus. Corvus cornix_talk 01:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I feel like every week I say "that's the worst block I've ever seen", but wow. Awful. Anybody mind if I note in his block log that the previous block was not supported by policy? - auburnpilot talk 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do, I had the same thought. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Unfortunately, somebody needs to counsel Slrubenstein. See the message he/she left on my talk page. Wow. - auburnpilot talk 01:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I have engaged User:Slrubenstein via talk page, and several have piled on, and of course there is this thread. Let's try to keep the discourse to policy and away from statements which can cause tempers to flare quickly. We've had enough wheel-warring for one week (at least), and that's coming from someone old enough to remember what "wheel" originally was - like my age has anything to do with it :-)

I think we can mostly agree that the warnings regarding editors who place warnings IP vandal talk pages are not in keeping with common practice, and that blocking an editor who does so is even less in keeping with common practice. We've alerted the admin in question...let's see what happens from here.  Frank  |  talk  01:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Cenarium ^Talk 01:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. I have to agree this was a bad play. I warn IPs all the time, because if they're vandalizing *right now* then they get the message and hopefully stop. That's how I was taught to do it, and that's really the right way to do it. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a block and emergency desysoping should be considered - I can't believe any admin would do something like this, which suggests the account may have been compromised or the admin is acting in bad faith. --Tango (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought of that, and I'm sure we're not the first to think of it. However, this is a long-time editor whose granting of admin rights doesn't even appear in the user rights log, and there isn't really anything unusual to be seen in the pattern of contributions of this editor. I'm certain there are a dozen people watching very closely; we can request more drastic steps when necessary - but I don't think that is required now.  Frank  |  talk  01:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Another problem seems to be that Slrubenstein is targeting and deleting IP talk pages where THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk · contribs) has left warnings. [4] That's not good. - auburnpilot talk 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a link to this discussion on Slrubenstein's Talk page, but instead of responding here, he's only dealing with people on his Talk page. His most recent edit on this subject: [5] indicates that he has no interest in actually stopping this bizarre behavior. Corvus cornix_talk 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my god. In that case, this seems to be a either a compromised account or worse. Should I put in an emergency desysop request on Meta? (actually, where do you do that?) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It would appear Slrubenstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) either has an incredibly bad misunderstanding of official policy in regards to WP:BLOCK, or this account has been hijacked. Either way, the safety of the project looks to be in danger and we should move accordingly. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's possible the account is compromised. Either way, this kind of violation of policy/common sense from somebody with admin tools calls for desysoping. Jamie^☆S93 01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You think this block is bad? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Insults_again_and_again_and_again. Outrageous. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, then contact a CU to see if it's compromised. But it may very well be a misunderstanding. Don't go summon the dragon yet. Cenarium ^Talk 01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The account has not been compromised, it's just an admin with a poor understanding of policy (to put it mildly). Back in February, Slrubenstein delete several talk pages where an editor left warnings for IP users. Tonight, he/she deleted another 10, where THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk · contribs) left warnings. - auburnpilot talk 01:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, bureaucrats can't remove sysop access. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(cross posted from user page) Please, folks - calm down. Slrubenstein has been engaged, and please note that none of the behavior in question has occurred since it was initially questioned. We are poking at a sore wound right now, and that is not going to help. If Slrubenstein begins taking actions again that are against policy, we can deal with it then, but there is no point in continuing to discuss it at this point. The behavior has - at least for the moment - stopped. Let's leave it alone for now.  Frank  |  talk  01:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur, there is no emergency. Calm down all. Cenarium ^Talk 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that admins blocking other admins for stupid reasons is so commonplace as for you to retain your composure.... (striked since TWWP is not an admin, much to my surprise) --mboverload@ 02:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

After I read more about this situation, it really does not appear that his account is compromised. And although I agree this isn't exactly an emergency, I still would support removal of the tools if he really plans to continue these actions as an administrator. Jamie^☆S93 02:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Rubenstein does have a point regarding the difficulty of meaningfully communicating with shared- and/or dynamic-IP users (not that warning templates are meaningful communication, mind you), However they are obviously not within the going definition of "nonsense pages" and this is a very stupid block, and I can only hope PHONE-guy doesn't take it personally. — CharlotteWebb 02:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This was a bad block, no doubt about it. But let's get one thing straight, while it's come up--Corvus comix and others have stated a couple of times that warning an IP before a block is required: that is not true and never has been. WP:AGF means of course that warnings must be given before a block if there's a reasonable chance of a person changing their behavior, but in cases where there is no such chance (such as renewal of a previous pattern of vandalism on a new IP), blocking on sight is not a problem. That doesn't mean that Slrubenstein is right here, it just means that the extreme opposite point of view is not right either. Chick Bowen 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin Slrubenstein has been engaged on this subject here, here, here, and elsewhere. What seems very much like closure from Slrubenstein appears here. Activity has stopped, and clearly a number of editors below will be watching. It does not appear there is any compromise or need for panic, and if it turns out that such is the case, we can panic later. Otherwise, nothing to see here (anymore).  Frank  |  talk  02:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

HOLD ON a second

Why are we discussing meta-wikipedia viewpoints when an admin is pulling this shit? Maybe I'm the last person who things that BLOCKS ARE NOT SMALL THINGS. They are HUGE. I've been blocked once and I still regret it 3 years later. Someone tell me I'm freaking crazy, cause I sure feel like it. --mboverload@ 02:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you're freaking crazy. (hey, you asked for it!)Seriously, though, can we cut it out with the over-reactions and the RANDOM CAPS? Things are happening. The wheels of justice grind slow, but they can grind mighty fine. SirFozzie (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thread closure

I'll note that there are two editors attempting to mute discussion. I will not revert another closure, but it is disruptive. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I will also note that topics can change in any given thread, however, templates tend to disrupt the normal discussion flow. Off topic (or change-topic) discussion is not a good reason to add these templates. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If I may, I wasn't concerned about a compromised account, I was concerned because putting a warning on an empty IP talk page is something I do as a matter of course numerous times almost every day, and I don't want to get blocked! I'm glad to see that most folks here seem to agree that this admin's take on it is not normative. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For my own part, I reject the characterization of closing the discussion as attempting to mute it. The point of this thread was to discuss the specific warning and block actions of a specific administrator. That issue has been resolved and deserves to be listed as such. If there is subsequent wikidrama debate about what the exact correct procedures are or should be (good luck with that), even if it was sparked by this thread, that doesn't change the fact that it is peripheral and doesn't belong as part of this thread. This one deserves to be closed as resolved simply for the sake of organization.  Frank  |  talk  03:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The admin in question has agreed to stop these actions, so I think the matter is closed unless he decides to try and change the policy, but that wouldn't happen here anyway. I think this thread can be closed for good now. --Tango (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Response to Chick Bowen's comments in the section above

Please read WP:AIV:

Important! – your report must follow these three points:

1. The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism.

2. Unregistered users must be active now.

3. The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.

If I (or anybody else who is not an admin and is reporting vandalism at WP:AIV) list a currently-vandalizing user on WP:AIV, if they have not been given the sufficient number of warnings, the listing is always removed with no action being taken. Corvus cornix_talk 02:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That applies to AIV. In any case, AIV is not a policy page. Wikipedia:Blocking policy does not specify that warning is necessary. Once again, if there is evidence that a new IP is actually a returning disruptor with a new IP, there is no need for a warning, nor is one routinely given. I'm just describing current practice here--I'm not stating an opinion or, really, anything new. Chick Bowen 03:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So how do I get a new IP blocked without going through the warning tree? Post it here or on ANI? You get told "take it to AIV". If I take to AIV without going through the warning tree, the listing gets deleted. Should I admin canvass? Corvus cornix_talk 03:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI is usually best for the clear-cut stuff--our friends who like to put filthy pictures into prominent articles, that sort of thing. I admit I haven't worked on AIV for quite a long time, but I believe the idea there is that for ordinary schoolboy vandalism the warnings should be gone through. Chick Bowen 03:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I am thoroughly confused. You yourself said above Corvus comix and others have stated a couple of times that warning an IP before a block is required: that is not true and never has been. Now you tell me that I do have to go through the warnings. I think I'll just continue what I've been doing, since to do anything else will just cause me too much frustration when my listings at AIV get removed without the vandals being dealt with. Corvus cornix_talk 03:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is my perspective as an admin who has processed AIV reports nearly every day for the past nine months ... WP:BLOCK's statement that "efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines" meshes nicely with both WP:AGF and WP:BITE. When it comes to unregistered users, if we do not warn them that their vandalism will not be tolerated, how will they ever learn otherwise? In my experience, a very large fraction of anonymous users receiving talk page warnings quit vandalizing after their first or second warnings. Since most of these "experimenting" vandals are scared off by the warnings issued by our dedicated vandal patrollers ... Slrubenstein`s idea that only admins should deal with these IP users (and only via blocks!) is laughable at best. As if admins are not already busy enough (to say nothing of the fact that is would idle one of our most powerful anti-vandalism tools: our corps of patrollers)! --Kralizec! (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me just add that as far as I am concerned, there is far too much assumption of bad faith on AIV that the people listing vandals are the bad guys, and that the vandals themselves are just misunderstood. Corvus cornix_talk 03:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that's true. Chick Bowen 03:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Corvus, that's not quite true. Whilst I'm less likely to block an IP that hasn't been warned completely, if I look at the contribs and see that it's clearly an IP on a vandalism spree and isn't likely to contribute positively any time soon, then I'll block anyway [6] [7] [8] [9]. However, what I won't do is block if an account is insufficiently warned and appears to be a clueless newbie editor or content dispute (in fact sometimes I won't block these even if they have 4ims). I know a number of other admins work like this too.

Whilst 90%+ of reporters on AIV are good, there are always people, especially those with semi-automated tools, who are too quick to judge things as vandalism. For example, I have seen reports for people "vandalising" the sandbox, or their own user pages, and once for someone who put "I f*cked up that last edit" in an edit summary. A lot of AIV reports could be prevented by instead of a massive automated boilerplate on their talkpage, just a "Hi there - it's probably a good idea if....". Just my thoughts. Black Kite 12:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does Kralizek misrepresent me? She writes, "Slrubenstein`s idea that only admins should deal with these IP users (and only via blocks!) is laughable at best." which not only sounds snide, insulting, and an attempt to bait me, it is just not true., Nowhere have I ever written that onlhy admins should deal with IP users, and only via vlocks. In fact, my position is the opposite. I have stated that when the vandalism is of the juvinile sort, and is a case of one or a few edits ove a very short period of time from a public, shared adress, editors 9any editor) should just revert the vandalism. Please tell me where I said only admins should do this, and only via blocks. If I expressed myself unclearly or incorrectly I will apologize immediately. Otherwise apologize for lying about what I wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad-faith accusations of me being insulting or lying ring rather hollow as we can all readily see the proof in your edit history:

• • At 19:24 you said [10] to THEN WHO WAS PHONE?, "Please do not leave messages on the talk pages of IP addresses. Many IP addresses are public computers used by many people, and a warning against vandalism is pointless as it will never be read by the vandal. Moreover, all you accomplish is to create a new talk page for a user who does not really exist." Note that you made zero distinction between static, shared, or public IP addresses in your instructions to this editor.
  • Then 56 minutes later, you said [11] on your own talk page, "If it is an obvious case of vandalism, and it is a shared address, an admin can block the address for six or twelve or twenty-four hours without giving a warning."

Taken together, it appears that you pretty clearly told a vandal fighter to stop warning IPs and that admins should just block the vandals without ever trying to educate them. I am sorry if this is not what you were meaning, but all we have to go on is the face value of what you wrote, and what you wrote is dangerously out of step with current guidelines, policies, and community consensus. While I have the utmost respect for your long history of contributions to the project, I suspect that your dated understanding of our guidelines and policies means that you would have great difficulty passing a modern RfA. (And for reference, my username is Kralizec! and I am a "he" - and have the wife and three kids to prove it!) --Kralizec! (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, I appreciate the chance to clear up the misunderstanding. I fear you took two statements out of context. The first statement was indeed a criticism of the creation of new pages for IP addresses. But I did not say that non-admins should not deal with vandals. In fact, I have on several occasions applauded PHONE and others' vigilent reversion of vandalism. That is a way of dealing with vandals that is necessary, tedious, and valuable and I am grateful to any editor who does it, and I certainly do not think that one has to be an admin to do this.

The second comment was a direct response to another editor who claimed that policy required that one provide a warning before blocking. I quoted the policy that stated that one need not provide a warning before blocking a vandal. That was my only point: that the editor criticizing me was misquoting policy. Note: the issue has to do solely with whether a warning is required prior to a block (and policy explicitly says not always). The issue did not have to do withe whether only admins can block vandals, or whether all editors can block vandals. I simply did not address this particular issue. Now, Wikipedia may have a policy that only admins can block, and if you do not like that policy you can propose to change it. But I di dnot create that policy, and nothing I wrote was a defense of the policy. The conversation at that time was not over whether admins or non-admins could block, it was whether Wikipedia policy required a warning. One editor said it did, and I quoted the policy saying it did not.

I now understand why you misunderstood me and am willing to grant that you did so with good intentions but you were not assuming good faith on my part. In both instances, I did assume good faith - one can assume good faith in another editor and disagree. In one case I explicitly said I knew the editor was acting in good faith but I though what s/he was doing was a mistake. In the second, I simply assume that the editor was acting in good faith when s/he misquoted policy; I did not question his/her intentions, I just asserted that s/he was mistaken and quoted policy.

So with all due respect, and acknowledging now your intentions were good, you were mistaken to take two different comments I made to two different editors concerning two different matters, and infer by connecting them that I think only admins should deal with vandals.

You are right that my view about the pointless or even counter-productive creation of new pages by warning IP addresses is out of step with the community. I hope you will acknowledge that once this was clear to me I stopped doing what I was doing. I do this to defer to the will of the community, not because I agree. But i do agree that neither i nor anyone else should revert these warnings unless - if ever - the community consensus changes. I think there is a need for new discussion on how we handle vandalism, especially from IP addresses. I mean just what I said and i am sincere and it in no way means I question the value of the hard work many editors do in reverting vandalism. I hope it is crystal clear to you and everyone else that I appreciate any editor who reverts vandalism, and thank them for their efforts. Is it possible for us to open up discussion on our policies in this regard while assuming good faith on one another's part? I certainly think someone can disagree with me in good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective; we all have a much better understanding of your intentions now. Please accept my apologies for being unnecessarily snide, as I see that your intentions were good. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kralizic, I canot tell you how much this means to me - thank you. I hope everyone else who was active last night understands that I really thought it was clear that my actions were well intended and I deeply regret the grief I caused so many people. I will wait for things to cool down a bit more before inviting a discussion on our vandalism policy, but when I do it is precisely because I do respect and value the views of the community, and respect wiki process enough to think that we can have a frank discussion while assuming good faith on the part of peoploe with whom we disagree. I realize that people may feel it is noit worth discussion, or the discussion may lead us right back to what I know see is the status quo. I have always valued in Wikipedia the hope that, however difficult, consensus can be balanced with an open, never-ending discussion about a work that will always be "in process." Anywa, I apologize to you and others if I expressed myself unclearly or inappropriately - I know that at least a few times I was curt and eliptical and I know that didn't help things and I regret that. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I may have missed something, but I don't think I have seen either an apology to TWWP for the block, or an understanding that blocking someone for issuing warnings was clearly contrary to policy. DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like a straightforward explanation as well, and a clarification of the policy on warning vandals. This vandalism fighter is chilled to the bone by Slrubenstein's action. I thought I was doing the right thing. This could have been me. I could have been blocked. This is not minor, despite the premature archive and the "move along nothing to see" attitude shown by many on this thread. I've never been afraid to edit here before now. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Slrub has been brought up to speed on current practice and won't be issuing any more "read me" blocks to vandal fighters, and vandal fighters should continue with their good work and continue warning IP users as usual. @Duncan, I believe this is what you are looking for. –xeno (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

13 minutes after I asked where it was it gets posted! DuncanHill (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Query about User:Crommorc

Hi! I'm a newbie admin, so I would appreciate advice as to what should be done here. I was patrolling the New User's contributions, and I noticed one name cropping up time and time again, that of User:Crommorc. This editor's actions appear to consist soley of removing references to anything barefoot, and the edit summary is almost always the same: Removed barefoot fetish vandalism.

I have no experience of the topics of any of the articles this person has edited, so I don't know if this is genuine vandalism revertion (although there doesn't seem to be any pattern to it), or if this is someone going through censoring Wikipedia from anything to do with bare feet. I know WP:BITE and WP:AGF should apply, and if this is genuine reversion, I don't want to stop it. If it isn't, I would like this nipped in the bud before there is too much to do to revert it all. What should be done? StephenBuxton (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I saw someone else going through and starting to revert the edits, having dropped a query on the talk page. I then decided to help go through the list, and then drop a level one censor warning on the talk page. I'll keep an eye on Crommorc, I think. StephenBuxton (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is, apparently, a "barefoot fetish vandal", indefinitely blocked for disruption, who launches socks from time to time. If someone could provide the SSP link, and review the accounts that Crommorc was reverting, it may be that these are more of the same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

They are back as TheBoneWoman (talk · contribs)--118.93.81.226 (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of Crommorc (talk · contribs), who is apparently a sock of DownTownM (talk · contribs), who is a sock of Seasideplace (talk · contribs), who is a sock of...who? - auburnpilot talk 02:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct of administrators on Sarah Palin

Since protection, numerous administrators edited this page without talk page consensus. This of course led to heated discussions, reverts and so on. I had to admonish four administrators until now. I request that other administrators help to take care of this issue. I may report this to the current arbitration case on Sarah Palin. Thanks, Cenarium ^Talk 16:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war could apply loosely to your claim. Though maybe it doesn't, I havent followed this super closely. Wizardman 16:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cenarium, providing diffs would be helpful to understand what you find objectionable. Ronnotel (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already submitted possibly incomplete evidence on this to the current case. Please feel free to use my talk if you wish anything to be added to that evidence. 86.44.21.70 (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[12], [13], [14], [15] and others more minor or older. Discussion on this happened on the talk page and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Massive change to Sarah Palin made without consensus. I won't be around until tomorrow. Cenarium ^Talk 16:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Since the full protection was last reinstated 2 days ago, there's been more than 50 edits. That's about 50 times more than most full protected articles. If this isn't a sign that extended full protection of high-profile current event articles is a bad idea, I don't know what is. Mr.Z-man 16:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A few of the cited edits are minor proofing edits, and while probably not a good idea, also not a big deal. People need to step back and calm down--Tznkai (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Cenarium. Looking at the diffs one by one, 1) i'm not sure about the state of consensus at this time 2) already listed at arbcom case 3) without reading up, my instinct is that rmving blatantly nonconsensual edits is fine, even if it feels a bit disruptive on the talk page when modification of the addition is approaching consensus 4) seems like an honest mistake. Further discussion welcome tomorrow, of course, should you wish it with me. 86.44.21.70 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, people do not need to calm down, people need to get very very concerned as this sets a very very very very very very bad precedent for wikipedia editing on contentious articles. These admins need to be held accountable for violating Wiki policy, and their admin privileges stripped. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've requested the arbs put in a temporary injunction to stop admins from just arbitrarily editing this extremely contentious and hostile protected article here. There's not really any other way to get everyone to calm down besides telling everyone by force to stay hands off that I can see. rootology (C)(T) 16:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Shall we start taking bets on when the devs will implement a new protection level? [edit=crat], anyone? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

bugzilla:15499. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG!!! Now we can officially kick those pesky habits of self-control and critical reasoning! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please note that Kevin chose to revert Bogdangiusca's, but not Moreschi's nonconsensus edits. Bogdangiusca actually put back material Moreschi removed. I would very much like to be informed of how I, a non-admin, can go about requesting sanctions against Moreschi. I feel that when the dust clears, Moreschi's edits will not be viewed favorably even in the context of this fiasco. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • You can propose sanctions or anything else here. D.M.N. (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Moreschi altered her political philosophy to say she was a "classical libertarian" who was endorsing the "minimal state" which is a redirect to Night watchman state. Read what it says at Night watchman state! Moreschi's synthesis is a worse violation of BLP than people recognize. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
      • If she is indeed a classical libertarian, then she does indeed believe in the Nozickian concept of a night watchman state. Nothing wrong with CM's edit. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Nice work with the if there. Can I point out the disruption to the talk page various admin edits caused. The talk page was where us peons tried to edit the article. It was most dispiriting, it lead to increased contention, and it made it difficult to suggest to editors credibly that "this isn't 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules". Not exactly helpful to undermine the concept of consensus so blatantly. 86.44.24.95 (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Also want to thank the admins who monitored edit requests. 86.44.24.95 (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection requested

It appears unprotection has now been requested.... D.M.N. (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What was the reason for forking my request here? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

To keep others above updated. I noticed you hadn't left a note above saying "I've requested unprotection", so I thought I'd better do it, for clarity. D.M.N. (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had not planned on a note here, unprotection requests belong over there. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I declined the request, as more wheel warring is not the answer. Any admin who unprotects this page will be subject to sanction. - auburnpilot talk 17:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make a point now, that is is not fair that I can't edit, yet the administrators can. What kind of message does that send? That admins are better judges/editors? No self control here. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is not to wheel war but rather to build a consensus around whether now is a good time to try reducing the protection level. During the initial AE, today was suggested as a target date and a number of people agreed with that. Given the current state of affairs, it might still be too early to unprotect, but since we need to do it eventually, it is worth discussing what the right time is. What the right forum for that discussion is, I'm not sure, but I think it is premature to say that unprotection is not an option. Dragons flight (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be unprotected, as it is profoundly unfair that only admins are allowed to make complete and utter fools of themselves on that article. We are getting a very limited view of the lack of responsibility of Wikipedians, and the impossibility of achieving consensus by restricting editing to trusted and respectable editors. Why not let us untrustworthy and irresponsible ones see if we can do an even worse job? I know the bar has been set to a very high level, but I'm sure there must be one or two non-admins up to the challenge. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

*lol* I laughed, at least :-) henrik o talk 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Any and all dicussions on protection or non protection should take place here.--Tznkai (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC) _{Subscript text}

Cascading protection?

Should we set the cascading bit to stop vandalism? ffm 03:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem going on now? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be a preventitive measure. ffm 03:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need as of now, welcome to explore it later. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, looked like it happened. ffm 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me semi-protecting all currently unprotected templates transcluded on Sarah Palin? I did this with John McCain and Barack Obama, and no one challenged me, but in light of the current ArbCom case surrounding this article, I would like to get a second opinion before acting. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, two more templates got vandalized, so I started semi-protecting. Then Mr. Z-man cascade-protected Sarah Palin. Should I semi-protect the templates anyway so that when the cascade-protection is removed from Palin's page, we're still good? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

protection of User_talk:Peter_Damian

Jimbo recently banned PD, and his userpage and talk page are currently protected. I think the talk page would be a good location for discussion of issues related to this, and think it would be a good idea to unprotect. I've dropped a note on Jimbo's talk page, and am inviting feedback (and hopefully a small 'unprotect' action :-) ) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Damian is not welcome to post. Also, we should not be taunting him by posting to the talk page. If you wish to propose an unblock, do so here. I endorse the talk page protection. Incidentally I've asked Wales to clear up the blocklog. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

discussion with the protecting admin indicates that this may be a jimbo / arbcom decision in some way (hopefully we'll get clarification in due course). I still think it's a good idea to unprotect the talk page. Privatemusings (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The user is no longer welcome to commit posts to the wiki. In this way, the talk page can remain protected. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From WP:BAN: "Unlike editors who have been temporarily blocked, banned users are not permitted to edit their user and user talk pages". - auburnpilot talk 04:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding to that from Wikipedia:BAN#Decision_to_ban Jimbo Wales retains the authority to ban users., and since Jimbo is our Constitutional Monarch/god-King, I'm really really not seeing the point in trying to push an unban dialogue at this time. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is still policy, untill Jimmy abdicates that authority or the community takes it. Which will not happen anytime soon - no need. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, ok! - I see PD's very very banned! :-) I still think it'd be healthy to unprotect, and for reasons beyond an 'unban' discssion, but will think on it a bit more... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Healthy for who? Certainly not for whoever does the unprotecting. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 05:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

for the wiki of course! :-) (your comment made me smile though - and seems accurate at this point!) - my views on this relate to the thinking that 'we' (the en wiki community) are depressingly good at creating, and sustaining 'enemies' in all sorts of ways that we really don't have to pursue.... that, and the fact that it's almost always good to talk :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

<- While we're here would someone be kind enough to add him to the list of banned users? Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} :) NonvocalScream (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The community needs to discuss this openly, and it won't do to simply say that Jimbo does what Jimbo wants. We need an explanation about this block, and we need to discuss whether we, as a community, feel it was the appropriate solution. Many people, myself included, admire Peter's article work, and that alone should be enough to cause us to a consider other approaches. Even though Peter left of his own accord immediately before the ban, he might decide to return if this ban wasn't in place; furthermore, to slam the door behind a contributor like this adds insult to injury and denigrates all his work. Everyking (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

According to him, he scrambled his password. The chances that he will return again as Peter Damian therefore seem low. He's demonstrated in the past that he's capable of registering another username. Maybe what you should seek to clarify is whether he is allowed to do so, and under what circumstances if any. It appears as though its left to ArbCom to determine that, so perhaps RfAr is what you want? Avruch ^T 06:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please be so kind to explain (NPOV'ishly?), to an outside sometimes-journalist observer, just what this guy did so as to suffer The Wrath Of Jimbo? Note I'm not taking sides at this moment as to whether the action was right or wrong, only trying to figure it out -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He had been in a dispute with FT2 on some content matters. And he posted this which there was some off-site speculation may have been an aggravating factor--threatening to go to the Sloan Foundation in regards to their pending donation of funding to the WMF, or something like that. rootology (C)(T) 06:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A good guess, but the block log leaves us in the dark: "User says he is leaving. Good timing. Please do not unblock without approval from me and/or ArbCom." Not only does it not give a reason, it's insulting. Everyking (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - is there any evidence other than speculation, that the donation was a factor? The comment also discusses other issues. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was entirely unaware of that comment, and so it was no factor whatsoever.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Beats me. I know Damian had a bee in his bonnet to make the Neurolinguistic programming and pederasty related articles totally compliant with WP:NPOV. Your guess is as good as mine otherwise till Jimmy says whats up, since you know as much as I know. I just know this guy was a far above average content editor. rootology (C)(T) 06:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least in this instance there is no question about Jimbo's ego being involved; he is demonstrating no fear of appearing very uncool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what we need most of all is: A) an explanation from Jimbo about why he imposed this ban; and B) community discussion of whether Peter should be allowed to edit in the future if he wishes (under whatever account), and whether this ban was appropriate. Everyking (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely disappointing to see Jimbo making such bans (explicitly invoking godking authority in the block notice) but not even posting any explanation anywhere. That's not something the community should tolerate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect, knowing Jimbo, that he will make some kind of statement when he feels able to phrase it without compromising the privacy and dignity of those involved. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm constantly surprised that people seem to assume there is some sort of God-given right to edit Wikipedia and that the removal of said right is potentially a major outrage. The fact is that we are all here by permission of the management, and if the management - in this case Jimbo - decides to withdraw that permission, they have an absolute right to do so, for any reason. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo will explain when he has worked out a reason that he thinks will satisfy just enough people. I have no opinion about Peter Damian, but I do feel that it is time that Jimbo started acting like a constitutional monarch (something he has claimed to be) instead of acting like an autocrat. DuncanHill (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

DuncanHill, it is one thing to disagree with my decision. It is another thing to claim that I am working out an explanation that will satisfy "just enough people". Please Assume Good Faith, eh?

Please review the users' block log, history of harassment, and off-site attacks. I am drawing a line here in the very strong hopes that the rest of community will feel supported to follow suit and insist that such behaviors are always unacceptable. When we tolerate people who engage in bad-faith personal attacks and sniping and off-site attacks, we poison the goodwill of the community. We are a simple charitable effort to share knowledge, and as such, we often allow ourselves to be victimized by people who are here more to attack us and sow discontent and drama. Let's all get together and say: enough. It's one thing to say "I don't agree with this decision, can we talk about it?" It is quite another thing to say things like "All hail, chief of security and protector of the community, FT2. The bodies of the guilty and the innocent burn together with that sweet sickly smell of death, in the pit, in the morning." Such behavior is absolutely unacceptable and people who do things like that are, quite simply, not welcome to continue in the community. There is a small group of very vocal users (a few of whom you can find in this very thread, complaining about this ban) who seek to defend every trollish user, no matter how bad, to the point that good admins have at times lost the patience or courage to do what needs to be done. I am here to say: ignore the handful of wikianarchists, and let's keep this community healthy by insisting that people who behave that way are not welcome.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did he post that rant you're quoting? Didn't see it anywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did Jimbo state to be a constitutional monarch? I totally love that idea! Perhaps admins should be renamed 'Lords of the Wiki'! :) --Cameron* 11:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He (=Peter Damian) posted that on WR. – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, see here. - Face 14:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that does make it appear in a different light. Still, I'll echo DuncanHill's comment below; I'd expect some explanation for such a step to be given without prompting, at the time it was made. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is one example (of Jimbo using the "constitutional monarch" phrase) from Wikipedia, [16]. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very recently, there was In the English Wikipedia we have a system of "constitutional monarchy,". Actually, English Wikipedia is more like a barbarian kingship, where the tribal chief occasionally personally puts offenders to death. Constitutional monarchs don't go around dispensing King's Justice. This is not to assert that "Jimbo I" :-) is a bad king, per se. But the system sure isn't one with much check on supreme executive power. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That comment is pretty disgusting. If Peter Damian had a less problematic history I guess there might be more of a tendency to forgive or at least try to understand and de-escalate, but his behaviour over the NLP business, over which we assumed good faith, combined with that kind of comment, gives a strong appearance of being here solely to pursue a vendetta - and God knows we have quite enough trouble without that kind of thing. So, for what it's worth and to the surprise I guess of nobody, I support the ban. And yes, I feel rather let down here as well, since I had engaged with peter over the NLP issue and generally supported is attempts to scale that back somewhat. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh bollocks, Jimbo. It was not only quite poetic, but was heartfelt and in line with what his view in how best Wikipedia should be served (that would be Good Faith comment, that it would). Not only that, but he later apologised to FT2 - publicly, in the same forum - for his language. Nor did I see FT2, to his credit, take any offence at the language but rather seek to explain further his position. At that place, at least, there is an ongoing dialogue. For what it is worth, I too have been arguing over there against PD's viewpoint; as ever, I am in the minority and am being refuted - but always politely (within context) and in the expectation of being allowed further dialogue. Perhaps you may wish to join the debate? You certainly are more likely to be allowed to express your opinions there than some, many or most of the correspondents there would be here...

By the way, "bollocks" is simple British English usage meaning rubbish - not vulgar or derogatory. Ask Guy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Bollocks is still considered quite vulgar and derogatory. See BBC report. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. Which bits are poetic? The WR comment quoted above? For what it is worth, some people may be missing an undertone here. When I read "that sweet sickly smell of death, in the pit, in the morning", I think of bodies in pits, and book-burning, and I think of the Nazis and the Holocaust (where bodies were cremated in open-air pits - I should say here that I'm no expert on the Holocaust and my Googling unfortunately brought up a mixture of Holocaust history site and Holocaust denial sites). Not quite sure where the "in the morning" bit comes from. Now, if some of the people here are reacting that way (interpreting this as Holocaust imagery), they should say this upfront, and not just call it "disgusting" and assume people know why it is possibly more disgusting than using other imagery. Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing this out. I definitely got the same association reading it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a healthy community would be in the position of having to ask for explanations of your actions - a healthy community would be one in which explanations of extraordinary actions were seen as routine. Both you and arbcom should be aware by now that unexplained acts of this nature serve only to stir up discontent and make it harder to trust people. If you feel the need to exercise your powers as an autocrat, OK, but at least explain at the time. DuncanHill (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed Damian's entry on WP:BANNED to something more descriptive, see here. Cheers, Face 12:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether Peter Damian was justifiably angry or not, I doubt that somebody who threatens to use his off-wiki influence to prevent donations to WP because it's a place filled with "book burners and hooligans" can be expected to contribute constructively from that point on. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Very few websites would welcome into their community someone which is actively trying to undermine their funding efforts. But that's not the real issue here, it's more that he has essentially declared himself at war with another contributor, one who is in good standing. We have enough disputes already without people coming back after absences to stir up new ones. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The comment linked above (see here) was made 8 days (over a week) ago. Why is it only being brought up now? If the block is justified, then those who saw the comment at the time, and did nothing, should be apologising for their inaction. And Guy, people in good standing can both lose and regain that good standing (cf. WP:CCC) and those who come back after blocks shouldn't have that fact alone held against them. It is their actions now that matter. Whether they came back after a break or not is irrelevant. And please, can the article issues be resolved? The important things here is to not ignore valid criticisms (if they are valid) merely because the person who raised the criticisms has been banned. If the criticisms are not justified, can we please have an open and clear response explaining why the criticisms are not valid? And I agree that Jimbo's wording in the block log "User says he is leaving. Good timing." (he went on to say more) is open to many interpretations, not all of which will be charitable. Maybe it would be best if Jimbo clarified what he meant there? Carcharoth (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jimbo, or anyone else in this thread, has said Peter's criticism of some articles were not valid. Consensus on the deletions has shown that they are. But valid criticism in that instance doesn't excuse behavior beyond the pale in many others, which is I think the point Jimmy is trying to make. And the book burning comment above is from a bit ago, but the comment from Peter on WR further up (bodies burning, all hail chief of security) is from yesterday. Avruch ^T 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Jimmy to unblock and reblock with a clear reason... of course I don't think any admin will be desysopped for unblocking and immediately reblocking indef with a clear reason AND Jimbo's instructions. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like process-wonkery to me. Simpler to just wait for this discussion to be archived and then link to the archive from his user page. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This will be the second time in a week I have been told that I was process wonking, I'm sick of it. Waiting for a discussion to conclude is more wonkery than actually going and doing it, no? Please be more careful in the future, calling someones good intentions "wonkery" is offensive. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would add that adding links to a user's page is less useful than the block log. User pages of banned and indefinitely blocked users are routinely deleted. Admins (and this includes Jimbo) really must give reasons in the block logs and deletion logs for their actions. Failing to do so makes it harder for people to carry out independent reviews now or later. Carcharoth (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To Jimbo Wales: (previous three words added by comment mover) Well, thank you for the response ... But ... THAT WAS IT??? That's a key reason you cite? The 265th post, on a site which often has a large amount of ranting and raving in discussion threads (sorry WR'ers, it's true), significantly moves Jimmy Wales, (co)Founder of Wikipedia, President of $70 million valuation Wikia Inc., to personally ban the supposed miscreant? i.e., a trivial flame-war, which the guy says he's apologized for. I'm not sure which is worse - if that's a real reason, or if it's a poor excuse for a poor excuse (tedious point - this sentence is an attempted humorous commentary on logical possibilities, not an accusation). And before you call me a troll, I'll note I've repeatedly said Wikipedia group dynamics fascinates me, and in fairness you should see why from such a perspective this is simply amazing. Look, I know we often disagree, but take this in good faith - what you're doing comes across as because-I-can, just plain random craziness against some unfortunate minor offender who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when the Godking is in a churlish mood. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got that completely backwards. If the victim of Damian's attacks had been a plain ordinary user, he would have been booted out of here long ago for sheer nastiness. I would have done it without a second thought, were I a simply an admin; I might nor might not have bothered to post on ANI about it. But because it was FT2, a fellow arbitrator (and of course a rather controversial one at times), I knew that if I had blocked or banned Peter, the masses would have yelled "abuse of power", "cronyism", "bullying", and so on. It was hardly one post that caused the banning; it was a long crescendo of ugliness. But FT2 didn't ban him, and neither did I, and I know a number of admins also demurred, which is why we asked Jimbo to take a look. Does the community feel we should have acted without waiting for Jimbo? Next time, because of what Jimbo has said here, I know I'll be less tolerant of continuing vile attacks here or elsewhere. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"We asked Jimbo to take a look" - are you saying that the Arbcom requested Jimbo to look at the editor and do what he thought fit? DuncanHill (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No. FT2 did, and then I did a while later. It was not in any way an official ArbCom request; I don't know what FT2 said, but I said "please take a look at FT2's request" when Jimbo took a little while getting around to it and FT2 mentioned it to me. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. DuncanHill (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How we treat long time editors - make the effort to inform the community

Jimbo's block may have been perfectly reasonable - but an uninvolved admin would have no way of knowing without spending a lot of time hunting through links and diffs. Peter Damian worked on this project for over five years - he create a lot of quality content. Jimbo, you owe him and the community better. If you want to ban him, take a few minutes and explain to the community why. Have the courtesy to use an accurate and informative block summary. Make the effort to start a note at WP:AN. Don't conduct court behind closed doors. Don't sit around and wait for people to ask. Is this too much to expect of you? Your actions here are nothing short of slovenly. Really, it's not like we're expecting you to break a sweat or anything. --Duk 17:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only is Jimbo citing personal attacks that occurred on a different website, but Peter subsequently acknowledged that his attacks were excessive, apologized, and even had some kind things to say about FT2's work. I strongly agree with Duk above—long-term, hard-working editors are particularly entitled to fair, reasonable and polite treatment, and this is nothing of the sort; furthermore, the community is entitled to explanations (at the very least) when such bans are handed down. I also think it reflects very poorly on Jimbo that he cannot give his explanation without insulting other people discussing the matter: "a small group of very vocal users (a few of whom you can find in this very thread, complaining about this ban) who seek to defend every trollish user, no matter how bad, to the point that good admins have at times lost the patience or courage to do what needs to be done. I am here to say: ignore the handful of wikianarchists..." This kind of thing seems unfitting for a "constitutional monarch". Everyking (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Long-term, hard-working editors are particularly entitled to fair, reasonable and polite treatment..." Yes, that is exactly right. A good summary of why people believe Peter should be banned. Avruch ^T 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very good point, Everyking, about the "complainers". To be clear, I'm not complain about this ban. I'm complaining about an hour of my life wasted hunting through logs and diffs and histories, all because Jimbo is too lazy to write a note. I wonder how many other administrators wasted their time doing this too. And what about other long time editors who may have respected Peter, only to see him banned without explanation - what do you think the effect on morale will be? --Duk 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

An hour of your life wasted? Well, Damian's block log has quite some info. One log entry contains this diff, and another one reads: "Last chance at WP, no more harassment or disruption will be tolerated". - Face 18:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Damian's block log has quite some info. Ya, too bad the log itself notes that it isn't trustworthy.--Duk 18:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that Jimbo's comment there might have, um, discouraged people from participating in this thread! Devil's advocate is a better term than wikianarchist, I think. But I get Jimbo's point. He doesn't want to stop people disagreeing with him (far from it), but he wants discussion to be logical and centred on the specifics of this case, not merely principled opposition. I think if people concentrated on what happened here with regards to Peter Damian, and thrashed out some agreement, then Jimbo might listen to that. Carcharoth (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I must be misreading you here because you seem to state that principles have no place on Wikipedia. Hiding T 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice, I think, for Jimbo to acknowledge that Damian has made some valuable contributions to the project. It's wrong to suggest that he was just here to troll. He's made hundreds of valuable mainspace edits. Zagalejo^^^ 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I found this discussion through WR some minutes after wondering why he was banned. WR is pretty nice for determining why someone was banned when the block log and user and talk pages don't say. --NE2 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is not what a constitutional monarch does, Jimbo. Seth is right about this being more "barbarian king" behaviour. Secondly, although Damian had clearly lost his mind as regards FT2, this does not necessarily mean he was incapable of being constructive elsewhere, so long as he is kept away from FT2. As to what he posts on WR...well, who cares? That site has no credence except that which we lend it. Bless their little hearts, all the people I block can rant and rave about me all they like over there. I don't care, that damages nobody except them. They just wind up looking small. Unless Damian had been involved in "outing", this may be excessive. Moreschi (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fascinated by the quasi-official status WR is coming to have here. Should we just fold it into project space, make their admins sysops here, and give them two or three seats on the arbcom? Or would it be better to just redirect ANI to their site? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a link on PD's user page to the WR thread would suffice. --Duk 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In line with Carcharoth's suggestion above, I will make a simple outline of what happened as it appears to me:

1) Personal dispute between Peter and FT2, on both WP and WR, culminating in Peter comparing FT2 to a secret police chief on WR

2) Peter's comments are widely deemed excessive and out of place by others on WR, and Peter apologizes, going so far as to commend FT2's work on a sockpuppet investigation

3) Peter leaves WP due to this dispute with FT2 (may have occurred before point 2?)

4) Jimbo bans Peter without explanation

5) Jimbo says he banned Peter because of Peter's comments toward FT2 on WR, without noting the subsequent apology.

Is there agreement on those facts? Everyking (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems like an oversimplification of the facts. The idea of Jimbo Wales as "god-king" seems more appealing than these endless discussions. Also, one of the endemic problems with Wikipedia is a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality that it's OK for certain long-time users/admins/contributors to use foul/excessive language or engage in their own tribal barbarism. We often see newbies blocked all too quickly, while the admins protect each other's bad behavior (like the "Blue line" in policing). Jimbo's blocking of Peter Damian suggests that no one is immune and after being given seven chances at reform, the 8th was a ban. Yet it may not be a permanent ban, just an "example" ban, to attempt to get others into line.

Ryoung122 05:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You're against double standards, then—but isn't it a double standard if Jimbo is allowed to ban someone for an off-site insult (which was followed by an apology!), when no other admin would be able to make a block on those grounds? Furthermore, isn't it a double standard if Jimbo can ban a long-standing contributor without explanation? And anyway, if my outline is inadequate, please suggest changes. Everyking (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Over-simplification, Everyking. 9 month almost non-stop history of this on-wiki and off, block logs on 3-4 accounts for the same thing, recent posts about "this means war", recent comparison to the holocaust, recent and past threats, significant gaming of AGF (enough to get unblocked each time, and then almost immediately resume), repeated warnings to stop by many different admins. (And the compliments cited actually came only 6 hours after being compared yet again to Stalin's First Murderer.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the user in question has indicated elsewhere that he is not requesting an unblock. In the interests of allowing some breathing space for everyone, I suggest that this moots much of the discussion here on the merits of the block, particularly as the user in question is not able to comment on-wiki on the matter.

He has also pointed out a related issue, which is that a prior block placed when his account was registered under his real name, became something "that colleagues could see," presumably referring to a search engine result. It is questionable whether userspace should appear in searches at all (compare generally, Wikipedia talk:NOINDEX of noticeboards), but it is submitted that in any case, a "NOINDEX" key should immediately be placed in the various indefblock templates, as there is certainly no need for these to be searchable and if anything, this complicates the ability for a banned user to walk away from Wikipedia as well as potentially creating real-world complications for the user. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Has been since July 30th, [17] MBisanz ^talk 12:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Good change (not sure if it's been made in all of the affected templates, though). Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fairly certain Krimpet hit all the templates, it's used on 30,000+ 46,000+ pages at this point, so it would need to be a very obscure and almost never used template to not have been covered. MBisanz ^talk 12:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• In short, no. An indef block was a long time in coming for that guy. He made 900 mainspace edits on that account and the instant someone screwed up (Stifle) he wanted nothing less than his head. When he didn't get it, he left in a huff talking about mailing donors and book burners and witch hunters and what not. Later, he seemed to come to his senses and accepted Stifle's apology to the community. However no sign in that whole process was given that Peter Damien (I'm going to go ahead and say that's probably not his real name) would behave any differently were he "crossed" again. He argued ceaselessly and tendentiously, even against neutral editors and he generally made a nuisance of himself. I say good riddance. As for the method...I think we need to just deal. Jimbo is here. He's not going to leave because we get upset when he intervenes. He's not always going to be right when he intervenes but we can't really do anything about that. Consider it a perk of putting years of effort into something that we all love and enjoy. And it isn't extreme in any sense. He isn't Stalin, for god's sake. He hasn't purged hundreds of editors or put people in camps. And honestly the last thing I want to be part of is a community protest to overturn a block for someone that abrasive. All we will get is an editor who was brought back through the sweat and tears of the community who will have nothing but bad things to say about us for it. And every admin who thinks about blocking him for going on about how the place is a "craphole" or how we are all book burners will be stepping on eggshells from the moment they see the block log. Protonk (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So... what we do or say on OTHER websites will cause us to be banned here? Oh geez now thats interesting. Jacina (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And don't bother trying to apologize, either! Everyking (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion skirmishes over Kashmir

Right now, there's so much irregularities going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir that I want to bring this discussion to the general attention of the administrators. I am not going to provide any examples as interested admins may inform themselves by looking at this page (and its history). __meco (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I (who myself is an active party in the debate) would say that there are problems on two fronts. On one hand Nangparbat (talk · contribs), who represents a pro-Pakistani POV in the debate, is constantly disrupting the discussion through various IP number edits. On the other hand, there are canvassing and sockpuppeting cases amongst pro-Indian POV editors. My suggestion is that a the AfD be semiprotected to weed out Nangparbat and the socks from the discussion. --Soman (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:kashmircloud has already been blocked for sockpuppetry and canvassing. Pakistan occupied Kashmir is a PoV fork of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir has been heavily votestacked towards a keep, but as a content fork the article should either be deleted or merged. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for the heads-up. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I support Soman. What we need are constructive inputs and it's being hampered by Pro-Indian and Pro-Pakistani elements. Please semi-protect. Thanks.  S3000  ☎ 12:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No protection necessary, the socks are transparent. It may have been votestacked, but there does appeear to be a legitimate difference between Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, the latter consisting of five territories while the former consists of only two. They both seem to have sources, perhaps the solution is to attempt to gut both articles to get rid of POV? GlassCobra 17:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But the constant disruptions of the dynamic IP user makes the whole debate extremly difficult to read in a sensible way. Nangparbat (the dynamic anon IP user) constantly issues uncivil comments, and many other participants in the AfD are quick to respond. Thus the core issues of the AfD gets sidelined in the discussion. --Soman (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting aspect, and I wonder if any administrators who have experience in such cases can outline how they deal with discussions that are so entangled that it's almost impossible to attain a clear impression of what is significant and what are elaborate distractions. __meco (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Improper protection of a PRODed article

Resolved

 – semi protection had nothing to do with PROD removal;the contesting of the prod by the anon had been accepted - the article is at AfD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Semih Aydilek is currently up for PROD. After an anon had repeatedly removed the PROD tag, including once with the summary "please keep" (contesting the deletion), Daniel Case protected the article with a summary which clearly indicates his awareness of the anon removing the PROD tag. As it seems from WP:PROD that anons are allowed to contest PRODs, and this anon was clearly trying to do so, I think the page should be unprotected, and the PROD tag removed as a contested PROD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROD indicates clearly, that removing the PROD-tag needs to be done with a statement, as to why the PROD is contested. As the PROD will go on until Sept. 11, you should notify the IP of that and once he/she explained the reasoning, the PROD tag may be removed and the article unprotected. Just removing tags is considered vandalism and may lead to protection of articles. I would suggest though that if you disagree with the PROD, that you open a AfD-discussion to determine the fate of the article. Regards SoWhy 11:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROD does not require a reason to be given, nor does the instructions on the tag itself. WP:PROD says you should leave a reason and the tag says that "it helps." WP:PROD also says: "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article)." That's obviously not the case here. Not should the PROD tag not have been re-added, but semi-protecting the page to force the anon out of a content dispute is a blatant violation of the protection policy. What the hell happened to WP:BITE? Mr.Z-man 15:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with Z-man. The contested PROD should be taken to AfD. GlassCobra 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I protected the article, along with some others, because the anon who had already been blocked and whose unblock I denied, had already threatened to use a different IP. As we usually do in such cases, I protected the pages he had been targeting as well as extending the block.

Yes, the contested prod should go to AfD, but I was giving the original tagger the opportunity to do so as it's really his nom to make. Since he has not done so, I will. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears it is now on AfD. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why was he blocked? This was definitely vandalism, but he stopped after that, and tried to improve Semih Aydilek in a noobish way. For that, he was reverted by a bot. --NE2 07:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fuller response with relevant diffs

I did not protect the page for any reason connected to the PROD.

• First, the anon, having been previously blocked by someone else, had requested unblock. I declined, since he had previously declared it was his intention to edit-war. He responded to the decline by threatening to evade the block.

• So, as we usually do in such circumstances, I decided to protect the pages he had been editing disruptively, rather than leave some other admin the headache of possibly having to rangeblock. There were three, of which Semih Aydilek was one. The possible deletion of the article was not an issue to me; the PROD tagger is supposed to start the AFD if the tag is removed, instead of just reverting it back. In addition, I do not believe from his edits above that he would have participated in an AfD. Therefore, the protections were an overall response to his disruptive editing and threats, not an attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute in which I was not a participant at the time. Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre block evasion

Per a private request, I ran a CheckUser enquiry into the edits of Z388 (talk · contribs) and a possible relationship to Sceptre. This relationship is  Confirmed. I do not have any doubt at all about the link between the two. The check also revealed that the following accounts are also sockpuppets of Sceptre:

• TUATW (talk · contribs)
• Gridlocked Caravans (talk · contribs)

I have blocked all of these as abusive sockpuppets -- although there does not appear to be anything wrong with their edits in themselves, this is block evasion.

Moreschi recently changed Sceptre's indefinite block to one of two months' duration (block log) as a "final chance". Given the above findings, this probably needs reconsideration.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So in effect, Sceptre is basically banned, not just blocked? how do you turn this on 16:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't considered a community ban, it probably should be. The block should go back to indefinite IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving it back to an indefinite ban. Evading blocks and bans is a no-no.--Tznkai (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

May I ask: what is the difference between a block and a ban? how do you turn this on 16:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A block is directed against an account, a ban against the person. A block is a purely technical matter, a ban is a somewhat esoteric social construct (which is enforced e.g. through blocks). See Wikipedia:Banning policy. user:Everyme 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ermm No, a block is against the person also, it would be pretty pointless otherwise. You've been disruptive so we'll block this account, feel free to continue with another account... See WP:EVADE your definition of being against the account would make this pointless as it would be impossible to evade a block just directed against an account. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So basically there's no difference? how do you turn this on 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The ban is the social construct, blocks one mechanism for enforcement of a ban (though blocks will be used other than for ban enforcement), see WP:BAN. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So if you evade a block, you get punished for the same reason as evading a ban? They sound basically the same to me, except a block is the technical part of it and the ban is the part that says that person can't edit. how do you turn this on 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the accounts be tagged accordingly? user:Everyme 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd be inclined to simply reset the clock. Scepte is an annoying immature individual but they do make good edits when they have a mind. Indef and permaban seems a little kneejerk right now but given our history I'm not going to fight in the trenches for him. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre was on an indefinite ban for harrasment, so resetting the clock brings us back there, but I am unfamiliar with the details. Also, an administrator who understands the autoblocker will want to review the block.--Tznkai (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

At least one of those "harassed" (I would have called it childish name-calling, myself) put it down to childish behaviour and asked for an unblock. Something those who were here for the original discussions might remember. The block log entries rarely tell the whole story. Carcharoth (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I endorse the stated relationships (among Sceptre, Z388, TUATW, and Gridlocked Caravans) as  Confirmed, I ran checks myself. At the very least I think a reset to restart the 2 month clock is justified. I leave the rest to the community's discretion, for now. Oh, and thanks again to Risker for some spadework in this matter, and to the WR poster who first spotted the possible connection. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clarify what "stated relationships" means, and what the checkuser confirms, for those of us who have never filed a RFCU and have no idea what that entails? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sam said the other accounts were "sockpuppets of Sceptre". That's the stated relationship. I ran similar checks to what Sam ran, and my interpretation of the results is that they indeed confirm the relationship Sam stated. (i.e. that Sceptre was the controlling account). I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I'm talking more about the technical details- how the stated relationship was established, what the evidence was. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that you already knew that a checkuser isn't going to tell you that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I'm surprised that a user who has been around as long as David has would even ask, actually. ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just haven't been in many drama-fests in my time. So how are these socks proven then? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, that's the same question. There are a number of ways of telling, but a CU isn't going to tell you which one was used in this case. Black Kite 17:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Augh! (head hurts) I must not be making myself clear... what exactly does the checkuser action spit out and how do we determine the likelihood of socks based on it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically? Checkuser can reveal IP range similarities and suspicious timing. That combined with shared interest, tone, and other suspicious activity can reveal a series of logins to be the same person.--Tznkai (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is other technical information that CU can pick up as well. Black Kite 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I support resetting the block to 2 months. Sometimes long-time contributors who end up with a block like this don't have the patience to sit it out. A few resets should be used to get the message home before moving to indefinite. And with respect to User:Tznkai (who I am not familiar with), they have recently returned from a two-and-a-half year hiatus. An edit on 8 February 2006 was followed by an edit on 4 September 2008. I can see from User talk:Tznkai that Tznkai has recently been reaccepted as an ArbCom Clerk, but I would reiterate what has been said elsewhere: it is best to ease back in gently. At the very least, reading the threads around the Sceptre block should be done, and not just going by what is stated in the block logs. For the record, Tznkai has said "I am unfamiliar with the details". Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also support a reset. Sceptre is a valuable content contributor, and I think this block may just have been a clear note to him to shape up. The socks' contribs were not abusive, as has been pointed out. GlassCobra 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I definitely support an indef block now. It's pretty clear cut that his final chance is gone, no need to AGF anymore. Wizardman 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: it turns out the relationship between two of them is obvious. I've also blocked sleeper sock Paracetamoxyfrusebendroneomycin (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And you'll notice that these socks are not new. Sceptre has been dropping sleeper socks for quite some time now... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In his favour, there is no evidence that he was editing abusively and I see nothing from Moreschi to Sceptre saying this was a final chance. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi's entry in the block log says "final chance". I'm hoping Moreschi also left a note on Sceptre's talk page, as not everyone reads block logs for messages like that. Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He didn't. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That's not good, is it? Setting up sleeper socks, while still in good standing, for later use? That is troubling. But I'd still give him a few resets. At the very least, this thread might shock him into realising that if he continues this way, he is very close to a ban. Carcharoth (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I oppose a reset. Sceptre knew what he was doing, I'm tired of giving people chance after chance when they blatantly take advantage of it. Wizardman 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to anyone changing my block action, but I will note that block evasion to me justifies not only reset, but escalation to the next interval.--Tznkai (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We should give him a second chance now so that we can give him a second chance later (not really). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What if, in three months, Sceptre turned up all apologetic, saying he has stopped using sockpuppets, promising not to use sockpuppets again, and asking for an unblock? That is probably what the two-month block was meant to do. People who use sockpuppets to make constructive edits are more likely unable to disengage, rather than abusive. Setting up multiple sockpuppets is more worrying, but it was done so naively I'm almost tempted to say people should look further and see whether this is a smokescreen for something else? Carcharoth (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Like what? naerii 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to speculate. I would hope that the checkusers have picked everything up. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what should be made of this? An at least one of these points to this redlinked cat.

I did a quick look at the live links where they exist, and they, by and large, look unrelated to this, but... - J Greb (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Sceptre has been working at WP:ACC. The accounts created in May and earlier are likely his, though. – Sadalmelik ☎ 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I am actually quite opposed to a reset as well, but as a compromise - reset now, and make it clear that any more block-evasion will result in an indef. Fair? Black Kite 17:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

how about resetting to three months with further evasion leading to indefnite? Carcharoth (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that as well. Black Kite 17:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this. naerii 17:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, 3 months is ok. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See also this post and replies to it. WR is not a substitute for WP dispute resolution (nor should we negotiate or whatever there) but the information may be useful. I think someone should undo the redirect of his talk -> user so any conversation that Sceptre chooses to initiate there could flow unimpededly. ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done [18] NonvocalScream (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions: where is the best place to leave the message that this really is the final chance? It should be put in the block log for future admins to see. It should also be placed at User talk:Sceptre (which as Lar says should be un-redirected). Is his e-mail address still enabled? To what lengths should people go to ensure that the message has got across? Carcharoth (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been chatting with him, I can relay the "ultimatum" if necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He says he already knows. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WR shouldn't be used instead of talk pages, either. Some on-wiki statement from him (on his talk page) would be nice, but unlikely I suppose. Anyway, let's leave this to develop a bit more and see what consensus emerges. Carcharoth (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think spectre should be brought into this conversation, on wiki. I personally refuse to take care of administrative business on an off site forum--Tznkai (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm willing to dialog with people but will make no official representations of how I will or won't act, nor will I claim any sort of agreement has any standing. Here is where we do our own business. Not on WR, not on IRC, not on sekrit mailing lists. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably going to pulled into real life at any moment, so I'm going to go on record with something so there is no confusion. I am endorsing a reversal of my block of Sceptre by any administrator (upon some decision being reached).--Tznkai (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that going to a block of three months, with the explicit warning that this will be his last chance, is the best idea. He has made positive contributions, which I think could continue to do if he were so inclined. Hopefully three months distance from the project will help him regain the perspective necessary to edit in a more constantly productive way.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He has stated in email correspondence that he is amenable to three months as the upper limit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could relay to him that he doesn't get to "be amenable" to anything. That sounds very much like "anything more than three months and I'll start socking again". Black Kite 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Amenable may have been David's choice of words, who knows. user:Everyme 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, I still believe that the initial ban for those "harassing" edits was totally overblown in the first place. user:Everyme 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've a problem with Sceptre's user page being deleted. Is he invoking WP:RTV or something? Since when do blocked puppeteers get to request that their user pages be deleted? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that, either. I've long held that userpage and user talk deletions, as opposed to courtesy blankings, should be reserved for RTV situations. David, would you consider reversing your deletion and restoring the history? — Satori Son 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have more of a problem with Sceptre calling User:Kmweber a stalker. See his talk page (transcluded below). But I'm going to be charitable and put that down to residual anger. I would hope that, three months down the line, Sceptre might not do that sort of thing, or, if he has genuine concerns, to learn the right way to state them. Carcharoth (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I support the extension to 3 months. I would also strongly encourage offering Sceptre a one-time-only no-penalty opportunity to provide the names of any other alternate accounts to one of the checkusers involved in this case, either Sam Korn or Lar, with the understanding that any further use of alternate accounts at any time in the future will result in immediate indefinite blocking. Risker (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you're waiting for an apology from Sceptre, don't hold your breath. He's too busy calling me an idiot. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore it.--Tznkai (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre's talk page

Transcluding Sceptre's talk page here. Please copy in text when discussion finished. Carcharoth (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done so now. It was serving no purpose. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am reading AN, and yes, Black Kite's original proposal (two months and final chance) is okay, and I'd be willing to settle for three months. Anything longer is frankly insulting, and would result in me never editing again (although the chance is very low right now). Once this matter is finished, I would like an admin to move this page to User talk:Sceptre/Archive53, revert to this version, and delete the redirect made. Don't feed the real trolls and stalkers any more than you have to. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorsing both the two month and three month blocks (either or), but I recommend in the strongest terms that sceptre keeps this talk page available.--Tznkai (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

After this is done, I'm not going to edit for at least two months - that includes replying on my talk. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Carcharoth: ArbCom have evidence of Kurt's off-wiki harassment which they've chosen to ignore. Hence my post to my userpage about Wikipedia having no standards: I get blocked for harassment for something that isn't, but a proven harasser has done so, and continues to do so, but people won't act on it because blocking him would be "censorship". Sceptre ^(talk) 18:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Risker: The accounts I've set up are in my creation log and those checkusered. I can't recall any others. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why I'm even bothering - I'm getting totally demonised in the AN discussion. You have my word I will not edit until at least November 7, probably until December 7 (dependent on whether the block is two or three months long). And Wknight, if you can get that from my naivety, imagine what ED could do. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but cut people a bit of slack as well. By evading your block by using socks, you have abused people's trust. For them to accept your word now is difficult. The best way to re-earn that trust is to accept a three month block and stick to it. It is easily possible to spend the time reading and gathering sources and writing content offline. You might feel you shouldn't have to do that, but that is one option. You could also take a complete break - it really does help sometimes. Carcharoth (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's true. Still, I can't "double-promise" something. That's all you can have; my word. If you want to enforce it, hardblock my IP for three months. That way, you know I won't edit. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, blocking an IP address doesn't block someone from editing Wikipedia. There's no need for anyone to rely on trust here. It'd be more straightforward for you to ask in December for your block to be lifted based on proof that you hadn't evaded it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is an implication that he is being asked to rely on the community to allow him to edit again if he requests it in three months. Why not just reset him for that period? Then he knows where he is and everybody moves on. There is no concensus for an indefifinite irrevocable block. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No block is irrevocable. Sceptre may ask for his to be lifted at any time. I suggest December but he could ask sooner or later. However he is asking us to trust him to not sock puppet in the interval, while I'm saying that trust isn't necessary if he simply exhibits good behavior. Do you think think he can't go until December without using socks? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No idea. But AGF is more likely to result in good behaviour IMHO. It is an aspect of courtesy and respect to which everyone is entitled. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have inferred (note: this means he did not say this, but that I picked it up) from talking to Sceptre that he has only used sockpuppets while blocked; this could be read to mean that he does not use them while not blocked, or we could just use the default reaction of "if he's used them once, he'll always use them and won't ever stop". —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:17 9 September, 2008 (UTC)

(comment from the sidelines...)

I don't think that looks at the issue that generated the ire. The nub is that, by what has been presented, the socks were used to avoid the block. If (big if here) the inference is sound, all it does is reinforce the thought that the socks were explicitly for use when he "got caught and sanctioned" to avoid the sanction. That smacks of "The rules don't apply to me". It also does not engender faith and undermines what faith was there to begin with. - J Greb (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to see that double standards are alive and well

If this was an ordinary user that no one knew, they'd be blocked indef, no questions asked. Jtrainor (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I do have sympathy for that view. However, we also have numerous previous examples of blocks being lengthened for sock-puppeting block evasion, both with "high profile" editors and others that "no one knew" as well. Black Kite 19:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre is not an ordinary editor that no one knows. Plain and simple. GlassCobra 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sceptre has made numerous positive contributions in multiple areas over a long period of time. That's worth making the investment in trying to turn things around, up to a point. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are people arguing that we don't have different standards for established users who have been with the project for a long time? I thought this was a well-known fact. Mr.Z-man 19:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jtrainor, if it was a user that no one knew, and had gotten indef blocked, I would go to bat for them if I became aware of their unblock request. Many users here know that I make such unblock requests on behalf of the lesser known. So, no, I don't see it as a double standard. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(Not) resetting block to 3 months

Unless anyone else has any major objections, and Sceptre is aware that any more socking will lead to an indefinite block, I am going to reset Sceptre's block to 3 months shortly. Black Kite 19:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. I see no consensus for anything, except possibly for a ban at this point. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm endorsing the 3 month--Tznkai (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I object too, and would rather support an indefinite block at this point. As much as I want to AGF, Sceptre has been given so many chances to reform yet has continued to be erratic and a net drain on the project. Jimmy Wales himself said in 2006, in an incident where Sceptre was harassing an underage female admin, "If he does ONE MORE LITTLE THING, he is gone from wikipedia *poof* just then, no arbcom, no nothing, just me banning him myself." He has done many more "things" since - I think the project has had enough. :/ krimpet✽ 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still iffy on this as well. IF consensus shows that a 3 month block is accepted by most then I'll be fine with it, but right now I'm not sure yet. Wizardman 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Indef is totally appropriate at this point. Per Krimpet, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK. Clearly no consensus at this time, so I will leave as indef, something I'm not unconvinced by myself anyway. Black Kite 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I object also. How many chances do we give him? He was indef blocked and then his block was reduced as a last chance. He has now used that last chance and still is unrepentant about why he was originally blocked. Why keep wasting our time? KnightLago (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not positive, but I believe his last chance was given AFTER the sock edits but BEFORE they were discovered.--Tznkai (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The one sleeper sock was created and edited within the last few days. The sock that created that sock also edited on September 1. Sceptre's block log clearly says Moreschi's "Final chance" was in August. Which last chance were you referring to? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending his drama-mongering or his mistakes, but some points. First off, what Jimbo says should not be any reason to conduct our affairs in dealing with users in any different way. We're the community; we decide. Secondly, I disagree with the assertion Sceptre is a "net drain"; he's nominated five successful AfDs and has been an extremely positive asset to Doctor Who. What I've urged everyone to do (and no one has listened) is to try and come to common ground on editors clearly intent on improving Wikipedia but who have caused drama in doing so (Sceptre, Giano, et al). This isn't just one editor, it's an offshoot of a continuing issue. I'm just hoping that we can address this so we don't waste our times in threads like these over each individual user. Also note per above Sceptre has good reason to want his talk and user page salted, as the trolls at Encyclopedia Dramatica already have a sizeable article on him and its unethical to provide them more ammunition. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

First, let's not compare Sceptre to Giano. Giano has pointed out what he - and quite a few others - feel are injustices. If he wasn't so dramatic and biting in his choice of language, he'd get a lot more official support. Sceptre is turning out to be a vandal, a harasser, and an abusive block evading sockpuppeteer. No comparison. It's only now that he's been unmasked. Next, what good is there in deleting his user page? It's just a sockpuppeteer tag that helps the community here understand what happened. What information is contained there for ED? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's interesting timing. I believe the "last chance" comment was placed at the end of a block log. I haven't seen any evidence that Sceptre was given the courtesy of being informed on his talk page that this was his last chance. I also don't think dredging up things from 2006 is completely fair, nor is appealing to Jimbo's authority. As can be seen above, Jimbo is quite capable of stepping in when he wants to. What I really want to see here is an acknowledgment from Sceptre that he really is going to step away from Wikipedia for a few months (it can be done, and I believe Sceptre has stated this), and then Sceptre make a statement after those three months in the form of a block appeal. This gives people here a chance to calm down as well. In principle, I think all indefinite or long-term blocks should be reviewed a few months later, merely because people may change opinions they expressed in the heat of the moment. Maybe what I'm arguing for is to leave indefinitely blocked, and to revisit it in three months time? People may feel differently then. Carcharoth (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The first thing I'm looking for is a slight hint of repentance. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You may not get that now, but you might in a few months. Would you be prepared to wait a few months to get a hint of repentence? Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse a reset. Frankly, anything that has been stated here is not even near bannable. The socks weren't abused. Normally, only the socks are blocked due to block evasion. — Edokter • Talk • 20:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• If the socks are productive, the master account is not blocked, and there's no abusive sockpuppetry, then you'd usually be right. When the master account is already blocked though, that's block evasion as well. Black Kite 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• And evading a two-month block before even a few days are gone is a very bad sign. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Two notes: 1 I believe I understand why sceptre wants his user page space to be deleted, and he has legitimate concerns for trolling, harassment, and other distress. 2. I propose that if Sceptre posts an apology for evading via sockpuppet, we move to a three month ban, courtesy blank his talk page with a block notice and sock notice hidden a layer deep, delete his user page, and move on with life.--Tznkai (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree on both counts. His user page has a single edit in it. There is no information there. I didn't undelete the entire history of it. It's just a pointer with information that trolls already have anyway. Next, the blocks and past threats from Jimbo were all based on a common thread of immaturity and sneakiness. Those don't go away in three months. Three years maybe, but definitely not three months. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then ban him again in three months. It takes twenty seconds.--Tznkai (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The one problem with that is the possible damage an unrepentent sockpupeteer might do. I'm not convinced though that Sceptre would do such damage. Carcharoth (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Wasn't the comment from Jimbo two years ago? But the real point here is that consensus is slowly moving towards a ban, and I think Sceptre is beginning to realise that. Why push for a ban immediately? If Sceptre reforms, that's a good result. If he doesn't, more people will support an indefinite block. If that's what you want, you'll get that eventually, but you don't have to get that immediately. A later indefinite block with firmer consensus is better than one now with opinion divided. Carcharoth (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse 3 month block but firmly opposed to making him grovel to get it. Shorten the block and indef him next time. He is annoying and immature but produces featured content is is a long term contributor. We really need to look for rehabilitation rather then restitution here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I endorse restarting the 2 month clock. Firmly opposed to seeking to get him to grovel. The original indef blok was way over the top. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd endorse resetting the two month clock, but tacking on a third month seems punitive. For somebody like Sceptre, who lives and breathes Wikipedia, two months is long enough (if he can actually bring himself not to continue socking). I think a reset of the two month clock is a good warning shot, and if he's caught socking again, he should be met with an indefinite block and a discussion regarding a community ban. - auburnpilot talk 00:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone doubted the elusiveness, a WR user noticed Sceptre welcoming and talking to himself - and not recently but four months ago. I'm actually embarrassed for him at this point. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus seem to have moved towards a 3 months block and away from an indef at this time. I'll change it round in a couple of hours unless there are further sustained objections. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It has? I only see a couple people who do so. You, Neil, Auburnpilot, Kittybrewster, and Edokter, since Krimpet's post. I don't see any consensus to change anything in any direction, be it towards a ban, or towards a 3 month block. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I have as well, as well as other endorsement on sceptre's talk page, and on the suggestions subsection of this topic.--Tznkai (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse a three month block. There's no reason to expect a "full, frank apology" or anything like that. If Sceptre chooses to provide one, great, but it should not be a condition. Neıl ☄ 09:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that ritual abasement is not required here. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am in agreement with Edokter's statement "Frankly, anything that has been stated here is not even near bannable." This is a spat, not a long term behaviour problem, and we're dealing with a 17 year old who is impulsive but not particularly mean spirited - I've dealt with way worse and can't even get them a 24 hour block, so I think an indefinite ban is absolutely ridiculous. Certainly the stuff he has done merits some attention in the form of a block, but it should be finite, and clear, and given his solid contribution to the project overall, unconditional (I see I'm agreeing with Neil on the latter point). Orderinchaos 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd argue with you on the mean-spiritedness of this - towards Kmweber as well as homosexuals and the mentally handicapped. I'm supporting a finite block as well but let's not water down the transgression too much. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Estimate

This is my attempt at seeing of the people who have commented here, who thinks what. Feel free to correct. --Tznkai (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• This like consensus to chortern the block but I have not enacted this to allow for further comment and discussion. there is no deadline. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more definitively, it looks like a lack of consensus to maintain the indefinite ban. To avoid a wheel war, I can enact whatever remedy is required.--Tznkai (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good. Throw in a trout slap for talking to his own sleeper sock and I'm good with either two- or three-month. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In my judgement, we have something resembling a consensus for the following:

• rescind the indefinite ban on Sceptre
• block for 3 months (starting two days ago, so 89 days or so), pending further discussion on the 2/3 month issue.

We don't have as clear of a consensus, but I would like to do the following

• put a note detailing Sceptre's block for sock abuse, and its length
• courtesy blank that same page (there will be a note about this in the blocking log as well.)
• Speedy delete User:Sceptre per user request

Concerns?--Tznkai (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I intend to recind the ban in the morning. First sleep.--Tznkai (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Rescind indefinite ban

• tznkai - Open to Two month or three month ban(Note: Blocking admin for most recent block)
• Carcharoth - Supports two month block, open to three month block, further evasion causes indefinite
• Naerii - Supports three month block, further evasion causes indefinite
• Philknight - supports three month block, further envasion causes indefinite
• User J - supports three month block, further envasion causes indefinite
• Kitty brewster - supports three month block, supports two month block
• Edoker
• Spartaz - supports 3 month block, "opposed to seeking to get him to grovel"
• auburn pilot - supports 2 month block, does not support 3 month block, further evasion causes indefinite, consider community ban
• Niel - supports 3 month block
• Risker - supports 3 month block
• Wknight - Supports 3 month block
• GRBerry - Either a reset 2 month or preferrably a 3 month. Low tolerance for further evasion. GRBerry 16:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• GlassCobra - 3 month block, low tolerance for further evasion. Indef block inappropriate, socks were not abusively used. GlassCobra 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Black Kite - 3 month block, NO tolerance for further evasion. Ensure static IP hardblocked. Black Kite 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Orderinchaos - 2 month block, would support 3 month as second option, indef block inappropriate. Agree with most or all of the comments in "other" section below. Orderinchaos 17:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• 2 months reset Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Everyking - I'm uncomfortable with a block for an extended period given Sceptre's history of contributions and productive work even while socking. Certainly I oppose an indefinite ban, and I think even two months is too long. Everyking (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• InkSplotch - Support a fixed length (2-3 months), but I'm often uncomfortable with "indefinite until they indicate <whatever>", especially since I'm not sure I see consensus on how severe the initial block should have been. --InkSplotch (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Seraphim Whipp - Reset two month block. I do feel there needs to be a clear message that abusive behaviour or disruptive/POINTy behaviour that wastes the community's time is not tolerated though. Seraphim♥Whipp 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• hmwith - Support 3 month block & discuss the reaction to future evasion at a later date. Hopefully, we will not need to do so. hmwithτ 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• I support no block as a first choice, and two month as a second choice. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Me. Just unblock and be done with, this is all silly. He knows what'll happen if he plays up again. 2 months/whatever is a second choice, obviously. Giggy (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• IMHO review in a month, time off for good behavior...Modernist (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Maintain indefinite ban

• Krimpet
• Wknight - Waiting for an apology/ some sign of repentance
• KnightLago

Other

• "For the record, I still believe that the initial ban for those "harassing" edits was totally overblown in the first place. user:Everyme 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"
• "Agreed. Sceptre has made numerous positive contributions in multiple areas over a long period of time. That's worth making the investment in trying to turn things around, up to a point. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"
• "I'm still iffy on this as well. IF consensus shows that a 3 month block is accepted by most then I'll be fine with it, but right now I'm not sure yet. Wizardman 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"

*"OK. Clearly no consensus at this time, so I will leave as indef, something I'm not unconvinced by myself anyway. Black Kite "

• "I agree that ritual abasement is not required here. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)"

Suggestion

The usual result of serial block evasion is an indefinite block. I suggest that if Sceptre has not evaded this block after three months he be encouraged to request an unblock, but that no expiry date be set on the block of his account - that is, it will not automatically expire, it would require an active review after a reasonable period. I think this is fair, given his past contributions to the project combined with his present disruptive activity. I would also suggest that those who consider him friends on Wikipedia, contact him privately and counsel him to abide by the block and come back refreshed after a nice Wikibreak. If voting were not evil I would set up a notavote on it right now, but anyway, that's what I think. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, but I would submit that sceptre is more likely to be receptive to a 3 month block, especially since there is a small but growing consensus among some of the people commenting here that the original indef and final warnings may have been over the top. In the mean time, do you object to a 3Month pending further discussion?--Tznkai (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus seems pretty clear for a stated block length of two to three months, and Sceptre himself has signed on to that. Accordingly, the proper action is quite clear. To those who support a ban, a ban, even more than an indef block, invites evasion. And thus we have more time wasted detecting it, enforcing the block or ban, etc. I was indef blocked for a few days, it was a fascinating experience. Dark thoughts; fortunately, I had sense enough not to act on them, but I know the tricks, from watching a master at it, I could have. We should be careful about turning bright editors into vandals and enemies of the project; rather, we need to find ways to guide them -- and to accept or work with what is legitimate about whatever it was they were pushing that led to the problem in the first place, usually there is some good faith motive there, even if badly misapplied.

Meanwhile, it would be my hope that users who have good communication with Sceptre keep in touch with him, and support him, and whatever is useful and helpful of his agenda. It's not meat puppetry if it's careful, and if the editor takes personal responsibility for it. --Abd (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is meatpuppetry and would only make matters worse. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter what Sceptre is receptive to? Being blocked is not something that he is required to agree about. Jtrainor (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

changes to the templates for Birth/Date age - Still unreseolved

I previously wrote up this issue and it was archived without resolution so I am writing it up again. The linking for birth date and age templates has been removed which is causing the dates to not link within templates., Infobox military person for example. Although I see under the WP:Dates where someone changed the wording I cannot see where the change was determined through discussion or consensus and therefore should be corrected. If the decision is to not link dates in general fine but it should still be linked in templates such as infoboxes. Additionally,if this is the desire is to not link dates then the bots and AWB that correct dates need to be reviewed (because they are still changing date formatting) and the millions of date links on pages that currently exists needs to be removed. Until somone can show me where this has been changed based on a majority decision and not just a user thinking that its wrong then I am going to continue linking dates.--Kumioko (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask User:Tony1. He has a page explaining where consensus was reached. See User:Tony1/Information on the removal of DA. Earlier thread was here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Does he plan to delete all the month/day/year pages once they are completely orphaned? Seriously, what is the point of all this? — CharlotteWebb 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That point did strike me as well. There must be some cases where we link to years. I suppose from calendars and timelines rather than articles? And from timelines within articles. I think the point is that linking a year is OK, but linking the date and month is pretty pointless. Though knowing all the instances when a date is mentioned in Wikipedia could be useful in some circumstances. But that more linking dates for the sake of using the "what links here" function. We also have "x in year" articles. Tony's argument that there is vast amounts of overlinking is valid as well, and particularly the point that unregistered readers see a mess (though I thought everyone knew that already - I think half the people that create accounts do so in order to improve their reading experience and to access the reading preferences such as 'skins'). Carcharoth (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I see Tony's point I do not agree that not linking dates at all is the answer and it seems as though he has become the defacto owner of the date formatting for wikipedia. I have reviewed his comments as well as the comments of the supporters and opposers and here are some things that I notice/concerns that I have:

1. The Opposers and the supporters all have a good point but the supporters opinions seem to be favored heavily.
2. Tony's page states that the majority support it but when you look at the vote it didn't clearly define support and the number of users who voted was relatively small.
3. There are bots and apps tat edit dates on pages that need to be modified.
4. There are millions of date links that need to be unlinked if this is kept.
5. There are hundreds of date pages that will need to be deleted if this is kept.
6. I believe that a change like this that affects so many pages and edits should have had more publicity before it was implemented.

--Kumioko (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that this debate has been going on for years and has taken place in an enormous number of different places, too many to be easily linked to. In 2006 the whole thing blew up into a wheel war, see relevant block logs. Tony has been consistent and persuasive, and I think he's (probably) right that the significant opposing viewpoints have been answered to the satisfaction of a majority of those who have followed the debates all along. Of course, since this debate affects basically every article and (as you note) a great many templates as well, lots of people are going to notice the actual changes who were not aware of the debate, no matter how well it's publicized. But in this case, consensus of everyone whose watchlisted pages would be affected would be simply impossible (since that's all editors), and there has to be some kind of move forward at some point. Like you I see both sides here, but I also see the downside of continuing the debate for, oh I don't know, another three years. . . Chick Bowen 05:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In those earlier debates, was the issue of "what is the purpose of year, month and date articles", addressed, and whether such articles should ever be linked and if so from where? Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The links to such pages are only to be removed where they serve no purpose. Where they serve a purpose they will remain. Therefore, the pages will remain, since consensus is that there is a purpose to having on this day in history pages and chronology pages. Hiding T 09:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Response to CharlotteWebb et al.: If all or even a tiny proportion of year-pages were like 1345, we'd be putting them up as FACs, highlighting them in The Signpost and generally being rather proud of them. But they're not like that: I recently surveyed a sample right back to pre-christian days and found them to be most unsatisfactory stubby, fragmentary lists. But even if year-pages were worthy of proper articles/lists, there's an insuperable problem: they provide information about a whole year for the whole planet, and by definition are hard to justify as links that add significantly to the understanding of a topic at hand. If there's one relevant fish in the ocean of a year-page (that is, one that is not just a stubby little collection of one-line statements, it would always be better in the article itself. Year-pages are actually a great idea for something quite different: diversionary browsing. While many editors work to discourage enticements to divert from our focused article through year-links, if more year-pages could be worked up into good articles, I'd be the first to promote them in their own right as worthy for a certain class of reader. There's the challenge.

I think for the most part I agree with the concept of what this is doing but I think that a change of this magnitude is creating a LOT of work. I also agree that many pages with linked dates have that date linked too many times unnecessarily. For me 1 link in the article and maybe one for the infobox if applicable and thats enough. But to not link dates at all to me is an extreme measure. I also agree that many of the date pages are nasty and need work but that could also be said of the articles themselves. I think one way to fix this might be to setup a project to start reviewing these date pages and if there aren't many items on the dates page then we roll them up to the next level (if 19 January 1988 only has 2 items then we roll it up as a sub section under 1988). Many also need to be assessed.--Kumioko (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Response to the issue of autoformatting dates in templates: This is quite a different issue from the linking of years and other chronological items. It's simple: templates that generate dates need to (1) avoid linking them and (2) allow editors to choose between the two standard formats, US and international (some citation templates seem to like ISO, which is permitted in ref lists). This arises from major changes to long-standing practice, in MoS (main), MOSNUM, MOSLINK and CONTEXT last month.Tony (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For me the biggest problem here is that there is no standardization for the page names (some are 19 January and some are January 19) and some dates even have 2 or more pages, 1 for each format and seems to be based on who created it. I understand that dates are displayed differently in different places but if the article name is 19 January then the link should reflect that rather than an unnecessary redirect for the sake of symantics. If someone in Great Britain created the article as January 19 then those of us like me in the US should be content with that format and display it as such unless we can come to some sort of understanding that dates and articles about a date will be displayed a certain way (perhaps based on the most commonly used format). Again I am not trying to be a pain here but it appeared to me that there was no follow throw of dealing with the 2nd and 3rd level effects of abolishing the date links.--Kumioko (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

STILL at it.

Resolved

 – blocked. — Coren ^(talk) 12:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to [19], above.

This morning I left a note on blocked user Andy Bjornovich's talk page with concerns that he was continuing to edit using IP 212.159.64.14. This IP was only editing user and talk pages, but I still felt that, with 2 days left of his block, this was unnecessary (it's worth noting that another admin disagreed).

Just now, however, I noticed another edit to Andy's user page, this time by a different IP. I checked that IP's contributions only to discover 5 article space edits from this morning, so I left a message on Andy's talk page requesting clarification. Following another edit, this time to a template, I have indefblocked 79.73.71.54 for evading a block.

Andy has just admitted he is using that IP. I have therefore indefblocked his other IP as well.

Now I propose to increase Andy's original block (already his second) for this evasion. I'd like recommendations on the increase: are we going to give this clearly problematic user yet another chance, or just say goodbye? Exploding Boy (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you indefblocked two IPs? Are they static? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The blocks can easily be changed. I indefblocked for the very reason that the block is...indefinite. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, I've reduced the blocks on both IPs to 3 hours. That should give us enough time to discuss what to do with Andy. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This started with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive166#User signature. Based upon that incident and the conduct since, I believe an indef block is now warranted. We have already been excessively polite and patient with this user, but there has been no improvement in their behavior or attitude. It's time to move on. — Satori Son 18:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

With this editor I'm continually going back and forth between whether he's just not getting it, or deliberately trying to test others' boundaries. Even though today's IP edits from 79.73.71.54 were innocuous (except for this one maybe-- does anybody know what this is?). My suggestion would be a last warning to AB with indef ban immediately upon any further edit. At some point, disruption is disruption, regardless of whether the editor seems well-intentioned. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit is especially strange. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity, 5 edits from that IP today are to article space, and this user is currently blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my comment too--sorry, yes, I think this is a definite problem. The userspace edits and bizarre comments (e.g., [20]) make me think he just doesn't get that he's not supposed to edit at all, under any form, during this. Maybe I'm being naive though. If the consensus is that we've given enough warning I have no problem with that too. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And to add a little more weirdness, please see this latest edit by Andy in which he admits to editing article space and says he's incompetent (!??) Exploding Boy (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd support a reset of the original block, per WP:EVADE, which seems pretty straightforward. I don't see a very good benefit/drama ratio in extending the block to indef. If I am dead wrong about this, then I think we need to consider updating WP:EVADE to reflect what the community considers appropriate in such circumstances. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, WP:EVADE seems quite clear, so reset. I don't think his IP edits were 'blockable behaviour' on their own. justinfr (talk/contribs) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:EVADE the block should be reset. But there's the additional question of whether these edits by this user (whose behaviour has been problematic from the outset and continues to be problematic, and who has already been indefblocked once), along with all his previous edits and the pages of discussion they've generated, should be taken as evidence that he will likely never be able to participate in the project without being disruptive. I'm inclined to believe that they should, especially since even now (at least as of his last edit) he believes that it was acceptable to use an IP to edit article space while blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right. This violation of WP:EVADE is only the latest one symptom of a much larger issue. When the totality of this user's contributions are considered (and I encourage those who haven't to carefully look at each and every one), then an indef block is entirely appropriate. — Satori Son 02:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I was favorable to initial attempts at making this user understand the basic rules of Wikipedia, it has become apparent that his agenda is not compatible with writing an encyclopedia. When he's not being insulting, he willfully tries to work around very explicit and very simple rules, or makes "humorous" edits. He's not here to write an encyclopedia, and has been given numerous warnings and a few last chances by patient admins.

I'm blocking indef; if there is another admin who feels up to setting him up for some sort of mentoring in a strict framework, feel free to take over but I would expect any further time spent on that user is time wasted. We've already collectively lost hours dealing with someone who behaves in very bad faith (his claims of Asperger's are particularly inane, for instance, especially as some sort of excuse for his disruptive behavior). — Coren ^(talk) 03:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully endorse this indef block. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this is resolved, but I want to add this. Aspergers does make some one unwillingly and unwantingly stubborn. But it in no way makes some one ignorant to the rules. It can cause confusion of the rules if they are vague. But saying Wikipedia's rules are vague is like saying Duke Nukem Forever will come out in our lifetime. It just isn't true. Rgoodermote  15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Admitted sock of Tom Sayle (block log). Big surprise. Honestly, we waste far too much time on trolls. — Satori Son 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it time for checkuser? Exploding Boy (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh * Just when I thought this couldn't get more ridiculous.... justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought "Bjornevich", which he claimed was his real name (as well as the ridiculously long pseudo-Polish full name he used in his original sig), was too unlikely to be true, rather like McWong or Queequegson. Deor (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet still more believable than Ó'déłámóñtŕágñéáúxtéíxtéíŕá. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding non admin closure of AFD

Is there any issue with myself closing AFD's as no consensus or any other close other than delete? This is more of a sanity check, I want to check my thinking. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NAC is clear; Non-admin closures of XfDs should be limited to the following types of closures:

• Unanimous or nearly unanimous keep after a full listing period absent any contentious debate among participants.
• Speedy keep closures, per the criteria at that guideline.
• Snowball clause closes, where it is absolutely obvious that no other outcome other than keep is possible.
• Pure housekeeping, such as closing a debate opened in the wrong place, or where the page under discussion has been noncontroversially speedy deleted, yet the debate is not closed.

• Now NAC is an essay, however I don't see many situations where it would be wrong.

Black Kite 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• If as a non-admin you wish to close AfD's as no consensus you are free to do so. Just ignore that rather patronising essay. RMHED (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought Hammer was correct to reopen this AfD. The others you did today were ok. PhilKnight (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had Hammer give it a second look on IRC, we decided that relisting it won't hurt a thing. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The burden of correcting a bogus keep/merge/noconsensus/wrongvenue closure is an order of magnitude less than correcting a bogus delete closure (because the latter requires admin rights and is unfortunately considered "wheel-warring" until proven innocent). — CharlotteWebb 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt, non-admins should not close AfDs unless the consensus is obvious. Wizardman 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no desysopping to threaten them with if they screw up (duh... ). — CharlotteWebb 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

They haven't gained community trust most of the time, ergo I'd be uncomfortable with them closing afds. (Plus, a lot of them have failed RfAs, which shows a lack of community trust.) Wizardman 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, (not in reference to you because you're a former admin and I'm sure you'll get them right) there have been a number of cases where non-admins have closed non-obvious AfDs and got them wrong, which wastes everyones time. If there's not a horrible backlog (which there isn't at the moment), I don't see the point. Black Kite 20:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What a ridiculous answer, closing an AfD as No consensus is no big deal. Deleting is the big deal and that is where the trust is required. RMHED (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no consensus is a big deal. That's an interpretation in and of itself, as other admins could see a case as no consensus where others see delete. Wizardman 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not ridiculous in the slightest. There are plenty of AfDs which appear to be "no consensus" through a simple vote-counting exercise, but which aren't for various reasons. Getting a N/C wrong and ending up with another AfD is just as timewasting as getting a Delete wrong and ending up with a DRV. Black Kite 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound as if judging consensus requires the wisdom of Solomon, it really really doesn't. If it did 99% of our administrators would be in deep shit. RMHED (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, of course it doesn't, you're right. On the other hand, I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of hordes of people trying their hand out at random AfD closing, because I've seen too many examples of people getting it wrong. Black Kite 21:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If the outcome would be either nebulous to determine or controversial, I would be fine with a non-admin closing the debate if he conferred with an administrator or two, just to be sure of his judgement. —Animum (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So long as the closing non-administrator has clue aplenty, I am happy with him or her dabbling a toe in "no consensus" deletion discussion closures. I advise an abundance of caution to be used when making these closures, however: I've seen contentious non-administrator closures result in some nasty head-biting in the past (mostly justified—non-sysop closures have been known to go poorly—and sometimes not). It's your head; you decide whether it goes on the plate or not! Anthøny ✉ 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that when you got into trouble as an admin it was over exercising judgement in controversial areas. I'd avise you to steer clear but, as the man said, its your head and lots of people (not me) will be watching to catch any mistakes for you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see one DRV where I closed an AFD that I voted in (what was I thinking?) and one AFD that I improperly applied BLP. I learned from those, and don't intend to close any controversial AFD's. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary

So basically what I get from the above is "Do what you think you can handle, we will let you know if you get it wrong". Is this correct? NonvocalScream (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its that cut and dried. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

More like "if it has any possibility of being contentious, avoid it", I think. Black Kite 21:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Black kites works for me. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I used to close AfD's during my downtime at work and found it incredibility frustrating. On the one hand you have users who are much too wrapped up in the outcome of a deletion discussion; once they catch wind that you are not an admin, and then it's all "rv - Oh no you did-n't, you’re not even an admin!" On the other hand, you have certain admins who feel that their RfA somehow uniquely endows them with the ability to make an intelligent determination of consensus, who like to bowbeat you with WP:NAC for their own amusement. Never will anyone point to a problem with the actual close itself, only that it was a non-adminstrator who did the legwork. It’s infuriating, and in your specific case and obvious qualifications I imagine it would only be especially so.

If you do decide to put up with it though, I’ve successfully closed several debates as delete. Just slap a {{db-xfd}} on the target article and a sensible admin will come along to delete it eventually. HiDrNick! 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree mostly w/ Dr. Nick here. NAC's help the backlog a lot, but they can generate stress. People get REALLY caught up in the outcome and will come banging on your door if you "mess it up" (give them an outcome other than the one they were looking for). further, closing a LOT of deletion debates will make later attempts to become an admin pretty miserable. Protonk (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously though, if you're going to close as delete, make sure it's really uncontentious. Black Kite 16:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Take this from someone who has had 4 or 5 wrong closures (and they still come back to bite you). There are those in the community who simply do not like non admins closing these types of XfDs. After closing well over 150 XfDs I think only two were overturned as delete, and the rest were overturned and later re-kept. This will draw more attention to yourself, and others will question your judgment, regardless of how many closures were right. I agree it should come down to the proper decision and the proper knowledge, the but sometimes this is not always the case. Synergy 20:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of Sarah Palin

Protection is about to expire on the above article. I've laid out suggested ground rules on the talk pages for conduct. In addition, I am recommending here that uninvolved administrators use very short (15 minutes) blocks and page protections to force users to discuss issues with each other on the talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection on the article expires in two weeks; it's not "about to expire". Gary King (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Downgraded the protection now anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting site, I was ask to forward this to admins: http://www.blogpi.net/who-is-encouraging-obama-supporters-to-vandalize-sarah-palins-wikipedia-article . John Reaves 11:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrative action review: Tznkai

Tznkai appears to be using his position to POV push and support those who do. I am requesting that User:Jossi be the admin there as he seems to really have a handle on NPOV. Tzanki is apparently not swayed by argument about NPOV. Booksnmore4you (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll note for the record I havn't made a single content edit to the article. I have made no ( that I can remember anyway) content suggestions on the talk page. I have warned Books repeatedly about violating 3RR, and less so, civility issues. I stand by my actions, which are available for anyone curious. --Tznkai (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

@Booksnmore4you: Thread with care while you learn the ropes and please Assume good faith. You are welcome to disagree with Tznkai actions, and best would be to address your concerns directly with him in his talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

@Tznkai: There are other people violating 3RR there, hope you look over these as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning

The way I understand it, when listing out actors for a cast list, they should be placed in order of importance, or in order of the film's credit listing. User talk:Iluvteletubbies‎ persists in re-ordering the cast list of The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning in (their own words): "To make it easy to read.Puting it in order by smallest to largest,which I'm doing right now." I've raised the issue on the user's talk page, and already reverted their edits twice, so I cannot revert again. Thoughts? Annie D (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find that at? (The way cast lists ought to be?) Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines doesn't list that, nor does the Template:Infobox Film documentation. At least, not that I can see on a cursory first pass of each. I wouldn't say you're wrong per se, but I don't see cast list order as something to push 3RR over, IMVVHO. Will the hypothetical casual Wikipedia reader take notice? LaughingVulcan 04:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We really ought to have an MOS bit on that, so we can at least have consistency from one article to the next. Alpha and order of importance make sense. By length of line, not so much. bd2412 T 04:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Should I bring up this issue somewhere else, so it will be addressed in the MOS? Annie D (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Upon further review, we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. bd2412 T 06:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't in the guidelines, but that was the impression I had from interacting with other more experienced editors in the Wikipedia:Film project, some of whom are quite particular about the order in which actors are listed. I realise it's a petty issue, but the editor has been repeatedly editing the cast list to make it fit by "length", which may be pretty to look at, but doesn't make any logical sense. Annie D (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Anarctica: Vandalism/Hacking

Can an admin please look up the Antarctica article? There is discriminatory language posted at the bottom of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.110.142 (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick skim but it's quite a long article. Could you be more specific please? justinfr (talk/contribs) 03:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone back a week in the history and can't find anything. There was other vandalism that was always quickly reverted. The user left a message on my talk page saying it was within the boxes at the bottom--maybe a template got vandalized somewhere. justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Shortage of involved admins at DYK

OK folks, DYK updates have been a bit slow and there's a bit of a shortage of admins actively involved, and some of those who have been doing it for a while could do with a break. We are asking folks who listed themselves on Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins to update details on this page - User:Olaf Davis/DYKadmins, so we can grade everyone's involvement (and who, knows, someone may want to get involved more :)

I find it a nice change of one is getting a little tired of negative interactions with vandals, POV pushers, reverters etc. so maybe the nice warm group-hug of DYK may good place to recharge.

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please watch me

Resolved

 – Sock blocked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hrafn#Please_read_my_recent_edits_...

Hrafn and his buddies are about to kick me off. "His" hierarchy of consortial editors (using the same username, passwd, and /or email communications) might now kick in. I would like you to restore my good name as Doug youvan, Nukeh, and MsTopeka, as one in the same. I do not have the editorial skills or ability to do anything other than what I have already done, because I focus on content and edit in good faith. I am sorry for breaking rules, but this consortium is just to fast and well skilled in WP rules for me to do otherwise. MsTopeka (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Please explain precisely what it is you're asking an admin to do. --Tango (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? Where has hrafn harassed you? And do you have any proof of your accusations of sharing usernames and passwords? That's a serious charge. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that User:MsTopeka has kindly admitted to being a further sock of banned User:Doug youvan/User:Nukeh, could somebody please ban 'her'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There he is, hrafn, and I believe that to be a consortium of editors, and a proxy of www.kcfs.org with many editors on the same username. It's possible all edits are piped through Krebs at kcfs, but I don't know anyone who could figure out how to detect such technology. I'm now in their home state, but I will not make any legal threats here. They defame my real name, Doug youvan. One has made a threat of violence. One of their goals is to control WP articles that are supportive of certain public policy positions, such as NO Intelligent Design being taught in school. ID is now a mess on WP and elsewhere, but it tracks back to the ideas of Arrhenius, one of the fathers of thermodynamics.

My cv includes 8 years of teaching in 2 departments at MIT in chemistry and biology, 20 years ago. Since then, I was the CEO of a biotech company, worked in aerodynamics, cosmology, mathematics, etc. I am Hrafn's worse nightmare in a public debate because of my background in research level science in many fields. On the other hand, his goal appears to be only to influence public policy, e.g., the Kansas State School Board elections. They pervert scientific articles on WP simply to make Darwin stand and ID fall, because they believe ALL of ID is a trick to get Creation back in the schools.

I broke some WP rules to catch these guys, so what do I do now? I have accumulated evidence here: http://www.childpainter.org, a master website that has links to other websites. I ask you to look at http://www.wikipediaversusthegodofabraham.org. You will also see that MsTopeka has recently tried to alert fellow WP editors to a potential IPO of WP, and has also looked into MACIDs for security reasons. These are not the efforts of the typical bad troll or socketpuppet. They are more akin to an ACLU activity with the goal of continued Freedom of Speech in a society that has lost much to the war on terror, which appears to be the delusions of a dry drunk, Prez Bush, and his money grubbing pals. Please do not lump all Christians in his bag. To do so will recreate 1935 Germany with Chrstians taking the place of Jews in the present day. Hrafn (and Godwin, a pun) would love to see that happen.MsTopeka (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Above, I read "that this may be a jimbo / arbcom decision in some way (hopefully we'll get clarification in due course)" on PD. If that is a method unknown to hard working, common, everyday editors, it appears we have still another problem. MsTopeka (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ROFLMAO -- I think this pretty much sums 'Ms Doug' up. I've added a report on WP:SSP. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what WP:SSP is. So, I ask a senior admin to defend my position. I appear to be pro per (court analogy) in Hfran v Youvan, where Hfran is highly skilled. I am a scientist, mathematician, and proponent of fair play - not a WP "attorney" like Hrafn who wins arguments in article content based on skills in admin stunts. MsTopeka (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Try clicking on the link, then you'll know what it means. --Tango (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, do review MsTopeka's edits. Certain words involving living under bridges come to mind. Corvus cornix_talk 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Subbridgulation? Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Are the words defined in Webster's Underthebridge Dictionary? Edison (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Username Blocking...

What's a reasonable amount of time to wait when blocking a username to allow the user to file a request at WP:CHU? I unblocked Vma2008admin after he requested to change his name. Instead of going to CHU, he created an article...--Smashville^BONK! 05:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I speedied the article, because it was NN. To be honest, I'd block them again but to be less WP:BITEy, leave a note explaining exactly what they need to do. Black Kite 06:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'd tend to reblock. If the contribution history is limited (as this one is), one might suggest the user simply open a new account with a more Wikipedia-friendly name. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I would reblock. Xclamation point 07:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say that if the user clearly knows that the account is unblocked, and has not yet requested it within 10-15 minutes, he should be reblocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request. It's too soon to block. I assume this editor thinks that posting the unblock request (which contains the new username) is all they had to do. I'll see if I can explain. ETA I've been overtaken by events - Smashville has re-blocked (I think the WP database is a bit laggy right now). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...I went with Gale's suggestion. Going through that process is kind of a lot of stuff for a new user whose only nondeleted edit is an unblock request. I left him open to recreate a new account and told him he was able to do it. --Smashville^BONK! 16:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Recurrent IP vandalism on Hippopotamus

See [21]. Suggest temporary semi-protection. Jayen466 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add this to the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please redact the last sentence of your response. Wikipedia does strive for civility, and that sentence borders on the incivil. Corvus cornix_talk 20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's uncivil about it. It was justification for me doing it here in stead of WP:RFPP. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Corvus, your tersely-worded demand for redaction is itself rather incivil (not to mention slightly bureaucratic). Hope this proves to be enlightening - Badger Drink (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when is "please" a demand? Corvus cornix_talk 19:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Need Assistance with Approving Page

Resolved

 – by User:Jerry posting at DRV

I created the page "Bettertrades" recently, with the intention of putting up a new and useful page about something I knew and had sources for. It was speedily deleted, and I couldn't get either the deleter or the suggestor to specifically explain the issue. I edited the page even more. I have done everything I can to keep neutral POV, assert notability, and adhere to wikipedia standards. I tried requesting help from User:Coren and User:Jerry, since Coren was the deleting admin, and Jerry was the one who restored the page to my userspace. I've been trying to get some approval or editing from anyone who can help me to make sure that I make the page correctly in order to assure that it doesn't simply get deleted at a pass again.

If no one has any opposition, I would like to move the page from my userspace at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Westcoastbiker/Bettertrades to the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BetterTrades (note the uppercase "T"). I hope that my exhaustive efforts have proven useful, and that I can move forward with working on other wikipedia interests. Westcoastbiker (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker

You will probably get better reception by copy/pasting your paragraph here to deletion review. Would you like assistance in doing that? Keeper ǀ 76 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. I had not been aware that I could have pursued it in a deletion review when I first started this. Thanks. Westcoastbiker (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker

I did it. please see: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 8#BetterTrades. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jerry, I got sidetracked, didn't see the request for help. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 19:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkusers please

There is a backlog at WP:RFCU. Since the worst cases of disruption often end up there, it would be good to keep response times to a minimum. Confirming sock pupptry quickly, and thoroughly, can help reduce administrative backlogs and prevent edit wars. We should be endeavor to find all the socks in a farm at once, rather than playing whack-a-mole with them for weeks or months. A thorough job discourages further socking, whereas whack-a-mole encourages more of the same. Jehochman ^Talk 15:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it, but it's going to be later today - couple of hours. RL is getting in the way of Wikipedia again :) - Alison ^❤ 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I regret that you will find one of the cases rather messy. There appears to be two dueling sockfarms. Jehochman ^Talk 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few requests that are like that, I am hoping that once myself and FT2 get the new process up and running it will help with situations like this. Tiptoety ^talk 20:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It took me an hour to figure out, and then block and tag all the malefactors on one report. We could use more admin help at WP:RFCU and WP:SSP. What's gratifying is that one of the socks had been blocked at least six times over the last nine months for edit warring. They are now on "permanent wikibreak". Jehochman ^Talk 08:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for speedy closing of AfD

Resolved

Could someone please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Sarah Palin, with an eye to a speedy closing of the debate? It is not just the ≈100% unanimity, but the fact that the nomination was made on faulty premises. As it stands, all the deletion template does is to deface one of the most visited pages on WP. Lampman (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Closed. I don't see any point in prolonging that one. Black Kite 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response. Lampman (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Temporary unprotection of Template:ArticleHistory

I would like to request that Template:ArticleHistory is unprotected for a few days, so I can implement the changes needed for Wikipedia:Good topics. In theory an admin could do the changes, but the whole process is pretty complex, and I'd rather get on with it myself. Arctic gnome, an admin who is also in charge of WP:FT, has already said that he would see me do it[22] - rst20xx (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to deflate the balloon, but Arctic.gnome asked you to create the modified version in a sandbox, and then implementing the entire modified version in one edit, not that we unlock the template for a few days so you can whittle away at it (not because you are untrustworthy, but because of other stuff that I won't say per WP:BEANS). That's my interpretation of his remarks. —kurykh 17:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that's true, but I think that was more because he suggested the sandbox because he didn't think of me asking here (I was more using the citation to demonstrate that he trusted me with it, sorry, I should have made that clearer). Franamax asked for exactly the same unprotection a couple of days ago, and had his request granted[23]. To do the changes in a sandbox would be an absolute nightmare, as I'd have no way of testing whether they were working as I want them to, as it all involves templates adding a large number of categories. And obviously whatever I create in a sandbox wouldn't be transcluded onto lots of pages - rst20xx (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You can transclude your sandbox onto test pages to test the sandbox version. Just play around a bit with several different sandboxes and transclude them onto themselves if you want to do transclusion tests. You might end up with the sandboxes in live categories for a few minutes, but as long as you disable the transclusion quickly, that should be OK. Goodness knows there are enough user subpages in "article" categories. Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The proper place to request edits to a template is using the {{editprotected}} on the template's talk page. Most admins want specific edits, though, which is why sandbox use is encouraged. Also, playing around on the live versions of high-use templates is generally a Bad Thing™ because it fills up the work queue a lot (basically 'cuz it makes other edits take longer to show up). It also helps reduce the impact of bugs in the code. And there's WP:BEANS stuff, of course. I highly recommend doing some work in a sandbox first, and making sure the edits are all kosher (bug wise). Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmm, fine, not entirely happy but I'll give it a go - rst20xx (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time in a week a request to unprotect ah has been raised here; why aren't changes raised on proposed on the ah template talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I was following the lead of the first request. Sorry - rst20xx (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

ah, I see :-) A request on the template talk page might be more efficient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

For reference on the "first request", see the archived AN request which links to several threads discussing the specific problem, the reprotection, the followups with interested/involved parties and the resulting change to the MediaWiki software at r40499. Franamax (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise it was later questioned. Anyway, I'm now in the process of sandboxing - rst20xx (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have made the changes required, I shall now bring the request to Template talk:ArticleHistory - rst20xx (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please review this block

I've been blocked for preposterous reasons and accused of vile actions that I did not do. I placed the unblock template on my talk page but nobody seems to have seen it yet. Can someone uninvolved please review my block at User talk:Nobody of Consequence? If necessary, e-mail me to discuss further. I'll be online sporadically the rest of the day. 75.3.120.150 (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have notified FayssalF, the blocking admin, of this discussion. — Satori Son 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On the face of it, the block appears to be poorly justified, and based on a single IP edit which is claimed to be you, which you are claiming isn't. I would expect FayssalF, as an experienced user and arbitrator, to give *significantly more* justification for a 2 week block than what has been given, it took me over 10 minutes just to find out what on earth you had allegedly been blocked for. I would consider unblocking if evidence is not forthcoming, but am willing to defer to FayssalF if a much better explanation and substantiation are provided. Orderinchaos 17:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:Well, I can't help but notice the IP address is the same ISP and location. This could of course be a coincidence - it might be worthwhile asking a Checkuser to determine whether it is the same person. Brilliantine (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Strike, that possibly may not be the case, sorry. Brilliantine (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

While we are waiting, this IP is admitting to block evasion, so I've blocked it for the same length of the original block. Even an unjust block does not justify sockpuppetry to get around it. Of course, if the block on the registered account is overturned or reduced, the IP block should be reduced/removed. MBisanz ^talk 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've always thought of sockpuppetry as something done with accounts. IP editing is not socking, IMO, as there is no attempt to hide the IP address. It is natural, if an account is blocked but the IP isn't, for people to edit as an IP to ask questions about what happened (they should read the block notice, but that doesn't always happen). People who turn up as IPs asking why they were blocked should be politely told to file an unblock request on their talk page, and not be accused of block evasion and have the IP blocked. It's common courtesy, no matter if is it current practice to call this type of IP editing "block evasion". At the very least, the block template should have a message warning against editing with an IP on other pages (does it?). Carcharoth (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm calling that  Confirmed on both IPs, per FayssalF. IP information has already been revealed above, so yes to that. Both User talk:Nobody of Consequence and the vandalizing IP used that IP within a very short time. Other technical evidence supports this too - Alison ^❤ 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're absolutely clear, 75.3.120.150, and User:Nobody of Consequence are both vandal socks?--Tznkai (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really a vandal. NoC used the IP to leave nasty anti-semitic edits at user:Einsteindonut's userpage. He denied that althought he didn't give us any explanation why that could happen especially that he edited the same articles Einsteindonut edited. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. I don't understand that sometimes people asks us to be utterly stupid for the sake of being politically correct. This has been a clear-cut case from the beginning unless he got his connection compromised. What is odd is that his opponent, user:Einsteindonut, is claiming innocence in a similar fashion. Some other CheckUser may help review that case as well.

For people unfamiliar with the whole background of this mess, please have time to have a look at this lenghty boring thread. People have spent 2 days out there. Socks are horrible. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly he's lucky to get away with two weeks - in my opinion antisemitic remarks qualify for the "don't let the door bang you on the arse on the way out" treatment. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I've already addressed this point and I'd have no problem with extending the block. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Once again, anti-Semitic remarks (which I abhor) get treated more strongly than calls for the celebrations of the murders of 9/11. Just pointing out the consistency there. Corvus cornix_talk 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Corvus cornix, this is the first time I'd explain my modus operandi to someone. I am glad this point is being raised and hope the community would correct me if I am wrong. So thanks for bringing it.

Well, when you block someone in a controversial situation you have to be very prudent. So it is better to start the easy way while undergoing more investigation in parallel (the thing we are doing now). In this particular situation, the user in question has been aproached by 2 other admins a couple of days ago. If you get back to the AN/I thread in question, you'd see that today I got back to him including his story on the thread. Until here, there was no evidence other than his IP being used for the anti-semite edits. So had I blocked him people would complain about not AGF (an established editor away from the I-P conflict making those nasty edits? unbelievable and you can still read a similar comment at his talkpage from another editor). However, I didn't hesitate to block him on the spot after user:Einsteindonut brought diffs showing his direct involvment in the JIDF article. What would you do in such a situation? I know most people would have thought about an indefinite block or a long-term block at least. Same here obviously. The difference is that thinking and acting are two different things as acting 70% (even more than that) sure in a controversial situation usually prompt drama (ohhhh, indef is abusive, ohhhhh, indef is baseless, ohhhhh, he shared computers with his X, ohhhhh, you were so quick to jump, ohhhh, ahhhhh, ehhhhhhh, uhhhhhh). 2 admins hesitated to block, I didn't but that was because of the new supporting evidences brought by user:Einsteindonut. It wasn't a simple case and the proof is the very existence of this thread.

Anyway, do you believe that I'd object an indef after a review? Go ahead, you'll have my biggest support if admins review it. Please note that I really appreciate bringing this issue and I am certainly sure of you assuming good faith though not completely sure of my neutrality. You judge it now Corvus. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to the actions that were taken here. My continued objection is to the leniency shown User:Tree Cannon. Corvus cornix_talk 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Corvus for the confusion because I didn't get it at first. There was no leniency. At the opposite, it was me who found out who that guy might be without even using the CU tool. I could even bring a year-old memory back to life. Everybody then was waiting for his reaction to my comment. He then apologized for the comments but said nothing about his possible connection to other disrupters. And of course I blocked indef his obvious sock 0oors (talk · contribs). -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, Nobody of Consequence has "retired." seicer | talk | contribs 19:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Alison, can you clarify whether NoC had edited logged-in from 75.3.147.166 both before and after the vandalism? --Random832 (contribs) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Something about this doesn't strike me as right. I was looking into NoC's contrib history and among the first edits he made was complaint about the anti-Jewish content of a user box. Is it possible that the explanation on his/her talk page may in fact be true? Tiamut^talk 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Before and after, yes, Random832. There was as little as ~20 minutes between login times, at one point - Alison ^❤ 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that nails it I would say, that is not compatible with his explanation. The coincidence would be altogether too unlikely. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As little as 20 minutes? Isn't 20 minutes rather a long time, or am I missing something about what length of time means here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Not for DHCP leases, etc. To explain that, per your question below; IP addresses are farmed out from a range of IPs to our computers via a cable modem or DSL set or whatever. These generally have a fixed lease, so that if you power off your set or if you are idle for some time, the IP address you are given stays with you, sometimes for days, weeks. This is the 'lease time' for an IP. DHCP is just a protocol for farming out these IP addresses to many people across one network (like an ISP, for example). You can sometimes force an IP address change by telling the DHCP server to drop your lease to the current IP address and go get another one. Some fast-moving vandals do this. However, in the case of DHCP, it always dishes out new ones from its 'pool' of unassigned ones, and puts your old one to the back of the list for recycling later. Thus, renewing your IP over such a protocol rarely if ever results in getting "your own back", especially if it's been farmed out to some anon and back again in the meantime? See what I mean about the likelihood here? - Alison ^❤ 00:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the 'resolved' tag. After reading User talk:Nobody of Consequence, I think a clearer explanation of exactly what happened here is needed, even if only for those who are missing the pieces in the jigsaw puzzle. A timeline and diffs would be helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've skimmed through this thread that Fayssal mentioned above. What is the connection again? Presumably that someone reading the thread made the edit to Einsteindonut's page? How definite is the CU evidence again? IP edits either side link to intervening edits made by the account? Is the message at User talk:Nobody of Consequence credible? Is there any way the CU evidence could be interpreted wrongly? Carcharoth (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be an idea to get a third checkuser report, if you like. However, having DHCP drop the IP address, then an IP editor comes along and vandalizes some particularly relevant pages (even User:Einsteindonut), then modem reboots and you get the same one back?? And that's from a reasonably wide IP range;

PPPoX Pool se4.chcgil 041007 1222 SBC-75-3-112-0-20-0712043420 (NET-75-3-112-0-1)
                                  75.3.112.0 - 75.3.127.255

.. from the above IP address. It's a little beyond the realms, sorry. And now that I'm asked, I began to dig further. These edits[24][25] came from the same IP as NoC and it was login-logout-login again. Then there's these contribs, once again from NoC's IP address. Then there's this one and this one (with less than a minute after the IP finishes and NoC logs in. And this one, etc, etc. You get the idea. This guy logs in and out all the time to do stuff - Alison ^❤ 22:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. When you say "from NoC's IP address", you mean checkuser showed that the account was editing from those different IP addresses (but in the same range - how big is that range is absolute terms?) at the same time (or around the same time) as the edits you flag up? When most people read something like "from NoC's IP address" they will think you mean one single IP address, but I think what you are saying here is that he is on a dynamic IP (hence the talk of modem rebooting) but still within a range, and you've linked edits from the (normally masked) IP addresses he edits from to both masked (ie. logged-in as NoC) edits, and unmasked (logged-out as IP) edits? Is that right? Oh, and what does "DHCP drop the IP address" mean? Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've also tracked down the featured article. Madman Muntz. I also found out the block was two weeks. For some reason (not sure why) I thought the block was indefinite. Given that it's not indefinite, I think Guy has the right approach here (see NoC's talk page). After things have calmed down, NoC can post an unblock request (or wait out the block) and let's see what happens then. But in some ways, this should be resolved one way or the other. I'm still surprised that a productive contributor would switch between behaviours like this, which is why I was asking if there was any chance that the data could be explained another way. I realise that answering that is a bit beans-like, but was wondering if anything more could be said. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The same IP each time, over different IPs. login-logout-login. Same IP, and it happened again and again. I'm having trouble connecting this to someone taking his IP address, vandalizing or whatever, then he grabs the same one back - hours or even minutes later?? - Alison ^❤ 00:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, hang on. I am working on this. It seems very but very odd. I'll contact fellow arbitrators because of the nature of the findings. We'll keep you updated. I'll contact you within a few minutes Alison. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fayssal. Emailed reply - Alison ^❤ 04:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal asked for confirmation of these findings on the CU list so I took a look... I concur with them. There's a patter here of user->IP->user... the user does some stuff, logs out, does some stuff as the IP, logs back in. Repeated across several different IPs in the same range. Seems pretty clear to me. ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole detailed case and seeking community opinion

Note: I'll be using alphabetical letters to refer to the accounts, pending opinion of the community.

Back to you guys. The case was left at the point where NoC is blocked for 2 weeks for being connected to the IP who left the Nazi and Islamist Jihadist flag on user:Einsteindonut's userpage. As everybody knows, NoC claims to have retired. To the dismay of many, I must say "not really, he's still among us."

Yesterday, while digging further, I discovered another account used by user:Nobody of Consequence (NoC). While reviewing and double checking this case another account X belonging to this user was found. The account X returned editing a couple of days ago after a long wiki-break. This suggests that NoC was expecting my block because he knew what he did. X started editing almost 2 years ago (end of 2006) but stopped earlier this year. X and NoC have many shared interests of course.

Well, as you know, I had notified the ArbCom yesterday of the case of NoC and in parallel I asked the CheckUser team to verify the findings and the connection with the newly discovered X. Again, positive from Alison and Lar today. I thought that the tracing would stop just there. And because of the insistence of the community above I found myself digging further which led to the discovery of X.

Today, while preparing this report, I went copying diff and checking history files of X. To my surprise, I found out that X used an old account Y (now redirected to user X - no sockpupptery at all). I thought it was only a matter of username redirecting. Nope. More digging led to the fact that Y started editing on mid-2006 but stopped before the redirection. The first edit ever of Y was a query posted at a former user W (unrelated) asking him why he left him a vandalism warning early 2006 (supposedely a warning by W to Y). This obviously means that Y had another prior account. This also means that W had left that supposed warning on early 2006. But to whom? I couldn't find out as, in fact - as W responded to Y, there was no such edit. I verified and it was true. There was no such warning at all!

This whole case suggests that NoC is in fact an established user who at least started editing on spring 2006. As it is clear now, NoC had at least 2 other accounts. However, none of these accounts were/have been disruptive apart from the IPs used by NoC (like redirecting BetaCommand's userpage to 'Anus' and the recent anti-semitic edit on Einsteindonut's userpage). We are dealing here with an established user and not merely with NoC who claims falsly to have retired.

It seems clear that NoC used to start and abandon accounts (no big reasons at all since none of them were ever blocked). What I am seeking here? Your opinion. Do the community think that blocking NoC indef (the account has retired anyway) and leaving X (who returned editing though there's a block evasion) but blocking Y (account inactive) would be a wise decision here or does the community have another say on this? I ask this because apart from harassing Betacommand (three times I believe) and the recent case of Einsteindonut, the person behind the accounts has never been disruptive or sockpuppeting per se or abusively. True, he said he retired after staring to use X again but I prefer your opinion. If the community decides to take action as described above, I'll do it. If not, I'll be blocking NoC indefinitely instead and move on. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Cid Campeador

Talk 14:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 – I will leave a warning - but I would appreciate others keeping an eye on his conduct. Slrubenstein

I am very close to considering this user a vandalism-only account. The problem is, many of his (?) edits are borderline. I think they are all disruptive but none of them are the kinds of obvious vandalism - nonsense or obscenities - we usually have to deal with. He will often remove information claiming it has no citation (true, but he never inserts the template asking for the citation, or takes a sec to ask anyone on the talk page for a citation); he often adds dubious information without citation. He caught my attention because he made one disruptive edit to the race article. I looked back to his earliest edits and saw a pattern of vandalism concerning Dubai (identifying it as a fascist country).

No edit suggests to me that he is a serious editor who has any use for research or our policies, but enough of his edits are more inane than outright violation of policy that I hesitate to block him as a vandalism only account.

I know that there is a very robust cadre of anti-vandalism editors here and would appreciate their keeping an eye on him, and if anyone else cares to go through his history of edits and comment, I would be grateful. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've had a look at the last dozen or so of Cid Campeador's edits and I agree the majority of them are dubious. I'm not convinced this is a vandalism only account however. More of a POV-pusher, if anything, and I notice that nobody's contacted Cid on his talk page about his edits since last year. Considering that most of Cid's edits are fairly innocuous and undisruptive, and he only makes a handful of edits a month (too few to make a nuisance of himself), I suggest we assume good faith and leave him be for now. If you have a problem with Cid's edits, raise the matter on his talk page. Reyk _YO! 20:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I can speak to him specifically about the stuff on Race, but if I were to use a generic warning, which template do you think would be most appropriate (if any)? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• You could try whatever you think is closest out of the uw-unsourced, uw-npov or uw-error templates, though if he's producing a combination of all three, a written message is probably better. Black Kite 21:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WITCHHUNT → Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

Would someone please reopen Wikipedia:WITCHHUNT → Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. It appears to have been improperly closed and I think the RfD needs a conclusion to prevent the page from migrating back to a redirect in the future. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a speedy close. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is more that the creator of the redirect closed the discussion, stating he'd turned it into an essay, when it's actually just a blank page with three tags: {{Underconstruction}} {{essay}} and {{humor}} (and it's been that way for nearly 2 days). MfD could always do the trick (add WP:JIMBODOESNTCARE while you're at it). - auburnpilot talk 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Burn the witch! Guy (Help!) 12:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the moment I've userfied the two incomplete ones to User:Prom3th3an/WITCHHUNT and User:Prom3th3an/HEADSMUSTROLL .--Tikiwont (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Troll day

I missed the bulletin; in case others did too, it is clearly Troll Day here on Wikipedia. Enjoy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, which day isn't? GRBerry 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, but that minimizes the beauty of this statement. The benefit of a statement like this is that I am correct, regardless of when you read it. Also, I need do no specific research whatsoever. Neat, eh? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea of how to celebrate; watch for a new user working from my ip to start correcting Sarah Palin very soon. The whole article needs to better reflect The Truth, which is that she shamelessly wastes water by drowning puppies in the bathtub instead of using a toilet or a bucket. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

She does?!! Wait - I'm going to rush off and post a diary about this at dKos so you...oops, I mean the new user...can have a Reliable Source^TM to use in the article. Guettarda (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I though it was just me, all of the sudden bumping into trolls and socks everywhere I turn. Seriously, what in the hell is going on? — Satori Son 01:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

All the kids got back-to-school laptops? Exploding Boy (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's September --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

PATROL!

Like the good old Patton would say: Encyclopedias are not just created by your own edits, it's by patrolling the beepety beep out of the other poor beepety beeps edits!

List of unpatrolled pages

Everyone, hop on and do even just 10. Come on, you can do it! --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Support an immediate indefinite ban on Kim Bruning for making reasonable suggestions that make me do more work!--Tznkai (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Support! That's one way to kick the habit. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Patrol them? Or AFD them? Guettarda (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Do what is appropriate, and/or then mark as patrolled. (incidentally, it's useful to reload the above link regularly, to avoid doing double work. A "show random unpatrolled page" option would be nice :-) ). --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for attempting to get others involved Kim. Synergy 01:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounded overly snarky. First up: thanks for the reminder. But just looking at the page I realised to my horror that half that stuff should probably be speedied, and a third of what's left send to AFD. It reminded me why I stay away from newpage patrol. Guettarda (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And that is precisely why there is a backlog that reaches for almost a full MONTH (and it'd be even worse if it wasn't for the fact that pages expire from the patrollable queue after 720 hours; user:Gmaxwell got the toolserver to produce a list of the pages which were created since the implementation of patrol, but which did not get patrolled before expiring from the queue. It's eleven megs long. DS (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember that many pages get checked but not marked as "patrolled". On newpage patrol, I don't care if a page is marked patrolled or not, I just go through a bunch. People who feel that marking a page as patrolled is useful may continue doing so obviously, but I don't see the benefit, as the difference in quality between one and the other isn't remarkable. Patrolled pages <> good enough articles. Fram (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The benefit to patrolling is that it indicates "this page has already been checked by a human and does not need a fresh set of eyes to validate that it is a good article" (or, alternately, "this page has already been checked by a human who decided that it needed to be tagged for deletion"). If we have a thousand articles, and 100 volunteers, and each of them checks 10 articles... something like 650 of the articles will get checked three times, 100 will get checked twice, and the rest won't get checked at all. The patrol feature reduces duplication of effort, and shows what hasn't been done yet. DS (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that contention. I run across tons of "articles" which have been marked as patrolled which wind up being speedy deleted due to being articles about garage bands, some teenaged girl's secret crush, some guy writing about his sexual prowess, etc. I think patrolling is more harmful than it is useful. Corvus cornix_talk 19:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not long after posting the above, I discovered this. Corvus cornix_talk 19:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And if someone is abusing the patrol feature, they get blocked. Simple. DS (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Corvus cornix: just because they have been marked patrolled does not mean they can not still be tagged for deletion/cleanup. I mean, that's how it was done before we had new page patrol. Tiptoety ^talk 19:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. Marking as patrolled is not saying it shouldn't be taken to AfD. It just means that the article is well enough that we didn't feel a speedy tag was the answer. And lets not forget, that one of the reasons we mark as patrolled is because there already is a speedy tag placed on it. Patrolling is not a simple task, and editors who just randomly click patrol are generally not very good patrollers. Synergy 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The patrol itself is just that: A feature. A mechanism. It is not a policy. Alone and without policy a mechanism is neither good nor bad. Policy is what makes it something useful or something harmful. Paroling can be abused, like any other feature, and it's up to policy and administration to make sure it isn't. The feature shouldn't be any more prone to abuse than others: it can be limited to whom can use it, and it provides a good audit trail so you can see how it is being used and hold people accountable for misuse. I could use editing to insert nonsense into articles, but we don't turn editing off. We warn, then block, problematic editors. Patrol should be no different. Cheers. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So what do I do if I keep encountering nonsense articles which have been patrolled and nothing done about them other than being marked as patrolled? And The benefit to patrolling is that it indicates "this page has already been checked by a human and does not need a fresh set of eyes to validate that it is a good article" tells me that people think that once something is marked as patrolled, it's not nonsense. Well, let me tell you, that ain't true. Corvus cornix_talk 20:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD, cleanup, tag as a speedy (if applicable) etc. If the users who are just randomly clicking away, and not evaluating these articles, maybe you want to ask them if they know how to patrol or inform them that what they doing are is not always helping. And if that fails, tell DS. I patrol with him often, and hes usually a very strict admin when it comes to this stuff. Synergy 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, note that I said that patrolling indicates either that the page has been assessed as valid, OR that it's been marked for deletion as having a substantial problem of some kind or another (has it been AfD'd? PRODded? Marked as CoI? Yes? Then patrol). DS (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

<-unindent St joan of arc school got marked as "patrolled" even though a casual reading would have shown it's nonsense. I put a speedy deletion tag on it. Corvus cornix_talk 22:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! That worked out just fine didn't it? Tiptoety ^talk 22:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If I'm unsure I leave a page to another patroller. If it's not obvious that the page is a blpvio or copyvio or should otherwise be immediately prodded, I'll mark as patrolled. But really, all "Patrolled" means is that a human being looked at it at least briefly, and judged that at least it wasn't a TOTAL disaster. :-P You can still feel free to disagree with that person, of course.

I've heard several people comment here that a lot of unpatrolled pages are gratuitous steaming piles of excrement of male bovine (more often than average).

Well *duh*, that's what the (un)patrolled flag is for! Those pages ought to be checked! You'll have much better odds finding bad stuff in unpatrolled pages than you will elsewhere. I'd say that's a goldmine for wikignomes who want to boost their AFD-count! ;-)

Even if some pages get marked as patrolled incorrectly, that doesn't mean that the pages that are *not* (yet) marked as patrolled are any more correct. They still need to be checked. Let's start worrying about people not using the patrolled flag optimally when we actually start running out of unpatrolled pages :-P.

Finally, perhaps it's an idea to sometimes leave a message on talk pages of pages you've patrolled, telling why you decided a particular page is ok. (in cases where you don't prod or anything) :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin protection level decrease

Hello! I know there's already a section above for this, but I wanted to make a new section to get people's attention. In about 45 minutes, at 24:00 UTC, I intend to reduce the protection level of Sarah Palin to semi-protection, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Time_for_semi-protection, assuming the general idea there stays the same. I have gone through the templates and semi'd the ones which were unprotected (and were only being caught by cascading protection). It would be nice to have as many people as possible working on this article when the protection level drops, to show that we as a wiki are able to deal with even our most popular articles. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG!!!!!!!!1!!!1! John Reaves 23:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people have pointed out to me that I said 24:00 instead of 0:00. Either way, it's in half an hour. ;) kmccoy (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's looking a lot better so far. I think the child articles are working well together with this main article. Gary King (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Block Request for Keeper76 for Stalking

Resolved

 – Though how you actually "resolve" something as daft as this...

The user has repeatedly stalked users who have used this IP address. The address is from a publically-shared computer, and has many users each day. The user has sent very impolite message to many different users from this address, and deserves to be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.121.29 (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This just makes KillerChihuahua look even cleverer :-( SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete, non notable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ray Ray, is that you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be Ray Ray's official nom de guerre. Or nom de wiki. He followed community consensus on choice of names, giving up a rather racy Monty Python name, and, keeping in the John Cleese train of thought, a Fawlty Towers reference. He's still whining about not wanting to use his admin powers, but he's back. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It may be spelt "Short Brigade Harvester Boris" but it's pronounced "Throat-Warbler Mangrove". Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thing is, I can't actually see that Keeper has edited that IPs talkpage at all. Ah well. Resolved. Black Kite 00:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I are confoooooooozed cat...this are seerius bizniss--also known as "JiggaWHAAAA?" El Keep is one of the best admins we've got...perdoname iffen this block-request escapes me, but again I ask you: HUHH?Gladys J Cortez 03:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    • In fairness to the IP, a library IP, I was the most recent to block it. It was a 31 hour block for calling User:Hersfold a jackass and a jackoff, in one thread. I must've neglected to post the the IP talk, my bad. Keeper ǀ 76 22:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppeting case's review of the day

(Copied from my (FayssalF) talk page - please feel free to comment)

Why do you think Saxphonemn is an Einstein puppet? Saxphonemn's English is pretty poor from what I remember, while Einstein's is not. Both are over the top, but otherwise, I din't think they seem similar. Of course, I do not have the tools to check.Sposer (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sposer, I don't think but they are.

Many Wikipedia sockpuppets haven't been similar at all. "I cann wroten bud anglis forevere and gut away with it."

I am really sorry Sposer, I am not going to waste another 2 days to argue about this and I don't think I am permitted to discuss the privacy of anyone here by giving you the details of the Check. Some other CheckUser operator may help by reviewing the case. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can answer this: When you said "by proxy" did you mean that you believe this is meatpuppetry? Or did you mean that Saxphonemn edited from an open proxy IP? Mangojuice^talk 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In reviewing Saxophonemn's block earlier, I interpreted the proxy point to mean that the editor was using proxies to edit as the sock; I'd like clarification as well, actually. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Open proxy IP... using exactly the same user agent version "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_4; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Safari/525.20.1". The rest is known to everyone (voting the same stuff, editing the same articles, targetting the same users user:CJCurrie, appearing at the same period, the history of user:Einsteindonut's sockpuppeting). If someone prefers to call that meatpuppetry, then go ahead. We must not forget that the I-P related articles are under restrictions. I suggest you read the whole thread at the AN/I for all details. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me - thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't looking for private info. Was he using same IP address? Stuff like that. I look at many of the pages he does too. Lots of folks see what CJCurrie's edits. I personally do not believe he is using a sockpuppet, not that I think Einstein or Sax add very much to Wiki. Sad that he is blocked and other admins are using incomplete info to defend it. Then again, if you tell me same IP address, I will believe you. You have far more info than I do.Sposer (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Open proxies Sposer. We have been having sockpuppets editing from 2 separate continents, let alone dozens from different locations within a country. In case there are doubts, we refer to the user agent. In this case, both accounts from 2 different location used the very same user agent. It is posted above. This means that both accounts allegedly editing from different locations edited using the same version of Mozilla (5.0), the same OS (Macintosh, the same processor (Intel Mac OS X 10 5 4), the same web kit (AppleWebKit/525.18), etc....

Still doubting? Ok, this is a very interesting case study of sophisticated sockpuppetry which can be taught at schools of sockpuppeting. Note that user:Klaksonn and Co. (not forgetting user:Embargo) was a prolific pro-Hizbollah dedicated sockpuppet and POV pusher. Sposer, please allow me to describe myself as a "vieja puta" in this business (apologies for the dirty language). If you want to read more about my adventures with socks you can consult Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed as well. Sri lanka-LTTE area is much more quiet after my raid. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, thanks for the explanation. Certainly an inexact science. I have firefox and IE on most of my PC's, but I will take your word for it. I do not know enough to be sure he is doing this, but you guys have to do the best you can!Sposer (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

True, it is an inexact science. There's no doubt about that. I have 4 different browsers and use 3 for wikipedia because IE sucks (i am a Microsoft guy but not an IE one). I use the 3 exchangingly (when one gets frozen - because of the multiple tabs I get opened, I use another). I don't know why I am telling you this but well...I totally appreciate your questions. It is a pleasure Sposer. Anytime. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 00:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

More eyes on Evan Tanner please.

The subject of this article had gone missing, and search crews have found a body near where the person's campsite was. News articles are alternatively saying that the body has yet to be identified, and that it has been identified as the subject. Probably going to need some watching of the article as details come in. SirFozzie (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just deleted two paragraphs, one of which quotes an unreliable source and one of which is hearsay. (actually, double hearsay, since the quotes attributed to a hearsay witness were themselves unsourced)Corvus cornix_talk 19:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiVersity is an important resource that admins can use to help with conflict resolution

"Wikiversity strives to provide useful services to WikiMedia sister projects. A continual problem facing Wikipedia is finding good sources to cite. Many Wikipedia editors have a specific agenda and are perfectly willing to cite poor and unverifiable sources to support claims that are made in Wikipedia articles. Wikiversity is a center for scholarship in finding and critically evaluating sources. Wikiversity participants are encouraged to create Wikiversity pages corresponding to any Wikipedia article." - http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_and_Wikipedia_services - - WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you spamming a page that hasn't been edited in a year? There are not even Wikiversity pages for many basic topics, let alone "any Wikipedia article". Why would we go looking for help there? Fram (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I quoted from that page because I think it is a good idea for some conflicts to be sent to WikiVersity where ORIGINAL RESEARCH and multiple points of view are allowed without regard for notability. People can flesh out their arguments and sources there and then be referred to at wikipedia in a discussion here about whether some of it might be appropriate to add to a wikipedia article. People who work poorly with others can go to WikiVersity and not be stepped on by all the rules we have here. It is useful as one more alternative when trying to sort out a dispute, especially when original research or poor interpersonal skills are involved. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see many conflicts here being solved by removing them to Wikiversity. Apart from the fact that most editors want their stuff to be on Wikipedia and not some side project, I doubt that Wikiversity would be happy to get all the fringe science (not to mention the completely trivial things we routinely remove here) from here. And I don't see how "poor interpresonal skills" would be better suited for Wikiversity than for Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see many conflicts here being solved by removing them to Wikiversity, either. I only am suggesting that you guys keep the possibility in mind for those few cases where it might be helpful. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What, so the POV-pushers go there, hone their arguments and then come back to cite their peerless research on Wikipedia? Sorry, I don't see how that helps at all. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right that it would not help in cases like that, Guy. I only suggest that it be kept in mind as another tool available in admin work. A tool need not be useful every day for it to a useful tool to have available. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how OR is allowed at Wikiversity. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Abuse Filter: Last call for objections

I'm intending on filing a bug requesting the activation of the Abuse filter extension on Wikipedia in the next few days. I'd like to ask that anybody who has an objection to the activation of this extension make that objection known on the talk page.

In brief, the extension allows automatic filters/heuristics to be applied to all edits. Specific rules can be developed, such as "users with less than 500 edits are blocked from moving pages to titles which match this regular expression: /hagger/". Of course, the rules can get quite a bit more complicated – I've developed, for example, a rule that blocks all grawp vandalism with a 70% success rate (and blocks the IP address of the user doing it), with about 2-3 false positives per year (I checked it on the last year's worth of moves).

We're planning on treading carefully – most abuse filters will be tested for a few days (in "log only" mode) before being brought to full force ("block", "disallow" or "throttle" modes), and to start with, we'll allow only members of a specific group to modify the filters, although this group will be assignable by administrators.

For those interested, full discussion has occurred at Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter, and there is a documentation page on MediaWiki.org. For the more adventurous among us, you may test out the abuse filter itself on my test wiki; you're free to ask me for admin rights to have a better look at it.

Thanks, — Werdna • talk 06:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose implementation until such crude and drama-inducing features as "removing all userrights" and "adding a block log entry for established accounts" are removed. Daniel (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the private info shouldn't be there. If such information is necessary, it can be checked by any checkuser; otherwise, it should remain unknown. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is intended that the 'degroup' option is to be left out. I've discussed this with you on IRC, and still think that leaving a block log entry is essential for all blocks done. — Werdna • talk 09:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How can an extension block an account? Rather, who would the block log say did the blocking? John Reaves 09:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A special pseudo-user called 'Abuse filter'. — Werdna • talk 10:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• No objections to this since the only controversial issue, automated desysopping, has been dropped. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Nothing wrong with blocking Grawp. If the thing screws up (rare) we can leave a note in the block log saying so. Giggy (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I will stuff BEANS up it's nose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.38.72 (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you will when your block expires. _Gb^T/c 12:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I support this, obviously. Let's try not to hit the fan with it, though :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support this seems to be an excellent feature of the MediaWiki that will bring a very large net positive to the project. I mean, who can complain about 1-2 mistakes PER YEAR just with the filter generated. Even if it messed up one in every ten blocks (yes, that would be annoying) it would still have a huge net positive to the project. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 14:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• woo-hoo! Let's see it in action. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support, given that we start with basic filters to make sure this isn't going to crash the wiki. I know you've tested this already, Werdna, but we're a good deal bigger than your average test wiki, and we've got the added issue of possible dramaz, something which can't be debugged. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support this is clearly necessary, is a net benefit to the project and there are safeguards in place. Hut 8.5 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• As long as there are strong restrictions on who can create and edit filters, I don't have any objections. --Carnildo (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Please let us know where the logs are.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Barnstar for Werdna support This is an excellent piece of news. Hersfold makes a good point, though I imagine Werdna has considered it, and if he hasn't Brion will... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Although I wish it had a feature to that came to your house and smashed your computer if you vandalized. MBisanz ^talk 19:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Object Unless all filters are made public. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Making the filter rules public would allow smart abusers to design new attacks to avoid them. Is there some specific concern you have? Thatcher 21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Let us not be lazy, if they abuse - we block them. Remember our statement of principles bank in '01? Regarding open algorithms? This still holds. I think the idea of closed algorithms goes against us, as a matter of project principle. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Presumably if someone has any serious issues then can post saying "Hey! I'm trying to do X and I can't." JoshuaZ (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Has my support. Impressive work by Werdna. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose in principle to performing blocks or other admin actions by any sort of automated process. I know the intentions are good, but experience with bots shows that they tend to degenerate. The proposed blocks should be written to a log for human review. DGG (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per DGG. Admin actions should be performed by admins, not by a bot. I have no objection to bots being developed and used which assist admins, for example by identifying possibly problematic edits, but a bot running according to rules which cannot be scrutinized by the community is in no way suitable for performing admin actions. DuncanHill (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support per my comments on the project talk page. Mr.Z-man 01:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Obama is a Muslim and will take away our guns Support, of course. Great concept, great work, erroneous blocks can be undone. user:Everyme 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• This has my complete support. Assuming we have a false positive, we can always unblock. Blocks are harmless and fully reversible. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• It's about time. Let's do this already! SQL^{Query me!} 01:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• When was a straw poll called for? Oh well, support as long as it doesn't do anything particularly "crude and drama-inducing", like Daniel said above. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 01:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Careful logging required, and a course of response for people who show up as false positives (collateral damage), and people standing by to provide prompt action on such responses. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A sudden wave of Image talk: test pages

It seems to me that in the past few days, a variety of IP addresses have been creating test pages in the Image talk: namespace, where the corresponding image exists. Any idea what's going on? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Could be a coordinated attack from somewhere, or just one of the Many Mysteries of Wikipedia (such as "why do people ask the most random things at Wikipedia talk:Signatures???"). John Reaves 11:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do we even have an Image talk namespace? Looking at recent changes [26], it seems their only purpose is wikiproject tracking and random people asking random questions that no one will ever see to answer. Great namespace, ranks up there with Help talk. :) MBisanz ^talk 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And Category talk... Stifle (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we put up, in the Image Talk: section of Mediawiki:newarticletext, some sort of banner directing users to the sandboxes? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It could be done better using a namespace edit-notice. Maybe something pointing them at the WP:MCQ or some sort of image discussion page. I'll try to code something later and bring it here to show. MBisanz ^talk 13:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

IPs can't create new articles, but they can create new Talk pages. Probably found out they could mess around that way. Corvus cornix_talk 19:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As promised, here is the proposed edit notice {{Visibility-IT}} MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Tathagatghosh

Resolved

 – Questionable images deleted. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This user has uploaded a metric buttload of fair use images of people, and despite multiple warnings, has failed to change their ways and since ended up blocked. Would it be too much to ask that all of said images be deleted as orphaned fairuse? I started to tag a few but there're, like, 300 of these things. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 11:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Working on it ... --Kralizec! (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Done (though it was only about 30 images)! --Kralizec! (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Entroducing.....

Resolved

Hai guyz. Attempted to create redirect page from misspelt Entroducing..... to correct article name Endtroducing..... but was told the article's on a blacklist. Why? It's a valid and helpful redirect. Lemme know ^^ Artrush (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like it got protected a while back (most likely becuase it was a chronically re-created article). If you wish for it to be unprotected, you might ask at WP:RPP in the unprotection section. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The instructions given when trying to create it say to ask here. DuncanHill (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not protected, and there's no deletion for that page. My best guess would be that the inclusion of the "....." is caught by a new page blacklist designed to stop a certain P....E....R....S....O....N and their pagemove vandalism. _Gb^T/c 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I've created the redirect. _Gb^T/c 12:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that many periods would hit the article blacklist. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The error message I got when trying to create it referred to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, a page which I have difficulty reading, let alone understanding. DuncanHill (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That would be it - it's to ensure that certain pages with certain terms can't be created. The illegible text is the list of rules for all those pages which editors withour administrator rights cannot create, to try and cut down on vandalism. In this instance, the number of ....s would have fallen foul on one of the restrictions trying to prevent a persistent vandal. _Gb^T/c 12:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

CERN & LHC

Hi, would a few of you mind just adding to your watchlists the following articles.

• CERN
• Large Hadron Collider
• Safety of the Large Hadron Collider
• Micro black hole

I reckon the vandalism over the next 48 hours is going to increase quite alot with the impending start up and all the press interest in it. The article are semi-protected at the moment, but the talk pages aren't to allow anon IP's to request changes etc. ^Khukri 15:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well hopefully either we'll all be sucked into a black hole or they will shut up about it. Either way... [shrug] SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow sees particles accelerated in the ring, but there won't be any collisions for a few weeks, so if we're all gonna die, it won't happen just yet ;). _TalkIslander 15:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the sprot due to it's seen to be protectionist or ring fencing the article. May need a few more eyes, thanks. ^Khukri 17:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I recommend posting this to the Fringe theories noticeboard. You should get a few fringe-watchers interested that way. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User Kelly (and others) attack campaign (IDCab meme)

I noted on ANI that Political positions of Sarah Palin was becoming an edit warground. In the course of attempting to slow things down and get parties talking, I made a simple post on Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin, reiterating what most experienced editors know already: that you don't need 3RR to be blocked for edit warring, and stating my position that Kelly's edits were not removal of clear POV nor BLP violations (Kelly was at 6RR at the time.) [27] Kelly responded by personalizing the dispute, claiming this was some kind of "IDCab vendetta"[28] which was noted by others on AN3 (Note MastCell and Carcharoth's comments.) Carcharoth posted on Kelly's talk page[29] Kelly responded by saying "The IDCab folks push my buttons; they have tag-teamed me before. Based on my experience, any article they get involved with is sure to become a hellhole of POV-pushing and BLP vios"[30] This was at 21:39, 7 September 2008. No evidence was offered for Kelly's accusations against the ID Wikiproject, which Kelly persists in calling the "IDCab". Please note that no other member of the ID Wikiproject has posted on that talk page, or on Kelly's talk page. This did not stop Kelly from continuing to present this as an "attack" by the "IDCab" - which is a phrase I view as a violation of NPA. Carharoth informed Kelly that "the ID cabal comments are grossly inappropriate. Please don't perpetuate that meme"[31] Kelly responded wtih " I take it you've never been the target of the ID folks...But I promise to be nice and bite my tongue when I see them around"[32] This both perpetuated the meme and indicated that Kelly would not attack me with that particular NPA. Cla68 made a comment supporing the meme and making a blanket accusation without any supporting links.[33] Followed by Kya the Catlord's highly disruptive "Screw them all. I'm out of here. IDcab and their new found attack dog jossi have won"[34] which manages to insult myself (as the only member of the ID Wikiproject involved), the ID Wikiproject in general, although the article is not related to ID, ID has not been mentioned, and no other project members have edited there; and Jossi, who is now being lumped in with the "IDCab" - why I have no idea. Attacks on Jossi: See this section on Kelly's talk page. Kelly states "there are a lot of left-wing folks" on Wikipedia; Jossi stated he was not left-wing, and Kelly responded, astonishingly enough, with "Hey, Jossi - don't you have some wheel-warring to do somewhere, or maybe an ArbCom case to comment in?" Now, while I think jossi was wasting his time discussing his political views - they should be irrelevant unless one allows bias to creep into one's editing, and should not be mentioned by anyone unless that is the case - there is no excuse for the repsonse Kelly gives. I attempt to work it out with Kelly: here Kelly responds with more of the same, rejecting my attempt and (again) using the "IDCab" nonsense and adding further insults.[35]

Now, throughout all of this, I was the only member of the ID wikiproject involved; ID was not mentioned; the article was not an ID article, and Kelly has attacked me and the project (calling it "the IDCab") and Cla has supported that attack; and Kyaa has not only supported that attack but has added jossi, with whom Kelly had several content disputes on the article in question, of being "the IDCab's new attack dog". This nonsense must stop. It is disruptive and insulting and poisonous, and prevents any productive discussion, as Kelly et al merely tar and feather those with whom they disagree with the "IDCab" label, even if ID is not involved in the slightest, and apparently now even if they are not a member of the ID Wikiproject. I have attempted discourse; I have been not only rebuffed but additional attacks and insults added. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I recommend trout all around and that everyone just avoid each other for a week. Go write on Birds and Camels for a while.--Tznkai (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As you have missed much of the background of this, you may be unaware of the pervasiveness. This is the last chapter in quite a saga, and I for one would be happy enough if editing "Birds" would fix the problem. Unfortunately, it won't. Otherwise, editing "Sarah Palin" would have fixed it, since it has nothing to freaking do with Intelligent Design, and There is No Cabal, but that doesn't stop some editors from screaming "Oh noes I'm being attacked by the Evil Id Cabal" whenever they disagree with anyone even remotely associated (and in the case of jossi, not associated at all) with the the Intelligent Design Wikiproject. That, in a nutshell, is the problem. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Have the relevant users mentioned in the above text been informed of this thread? I'd like to hear their side of the story. how do you turn this on 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly is aware of this thread. I would not dismiss this matter so quickly as KC has brought diffs and claims that those diffs at least on face value appear to back up. MBisanz ^talk 17:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is to be done, anyway? I see the options are nothing, asking everyone to back off for a while, or push people through dispute resolution. You can't tell people to stop believing theres a cabal. Asking people to stop saying its the work of a cabal takes a lot of patience, but there isn't really a remedy that can be done.--Tznkai (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

NB: from WP:NPA Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Implication? Stop accusing eachother of being part of cabals, its unproductive.--Tznkai (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's part of the point of KC's post, as I read it -- to request, or at least bring attention to, the lack of enforcement of that particular snippet you posted. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all." Doesn't always cut it in all cases, but any "enforcement" is best done by outside parties.--Tznkai (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What is isolated about this? The whole point KC is making is that it is repetitive and not at all isolated. And the outside parties are here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The "outside parties" would be you and others reading this, Tzn. Its why I am ehre. I am tired of this constant BS. I am tired of being repeatedly maligned. I am tired of the gaming of the system. I am pinging the "others" to step up to the plate and start doing something about this poisoning of the well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I presume you mean asking everyone who is actually promulgating the attack meme, not innocent parties who are being maligned. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that the whole IDCabal meme is becoming old. It's really just a thinly veiled attack on what certain editors' politics are presumed to be. It's one thing to say "Lol, yeah the cabal is gonna get you" jokingly, without referring to any specific editors explicitly or implicitly. It's a whole different thing to identify the group, identify or strongly imply who the editors are, and accuse them of everything short of Nazi eugenics. Oh wait, I forgot, it's the ID cabal so it's ok to bring that sort of thing up cause they all believe that right? (See how easy it is to fall into that trap)? It's not something so easily dismissed as saying "Go do something else for a week", when whatever "else" it is that certain editors do, their detractors follow them there. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What I'm saying is, the IDCabal accusation is not different from any other cabal accusation. Its already against policy, and normal warnings about personal attacks and inflammatory statements apply. There is nothing else to be done her ehtough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tznkai (talk • contribs)

It's significantly more in-depth than other accusations in that it has lasted longer, is more direct, and has perpetuated through various arbitrations. Are you in fact familiar with the situation?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. It took exactly 43 minutes of this thread being open before someone mentioned the nazis. Is that a record? Keeper ǀ 76 17:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I really think Kelly and others should stop making the dispute personal (comment on content, not the contributor). It's a bad enough dispute as it is without people attacking each other. how do you turn this on 17:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. However, you will note in my evidence above, that several people made just that suggestion; one in fairly strong terms, and the response was to repeat, not cease, the attacks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest taking some dispute resolution with Kelly (who seems to be the main person here). Requests for comments? With the intended outcome that Kelly stops attacking other editors? If he/she realizes his/her behavior is a problem, perhaps he/she'll listen and stop it. how do you turn this on 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a polite warning on Kelly's Talk. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could say it was going well[36] KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Kelly appears to be laughing this off and isn't taking it seriously, I really do urge an RfC. Looking at some of the above diffs, this is somewhat of an ongoing problem and needs to be nipped in the bud, before irreversable damage is done. how do you turn this on

I actually suggest against that. An RFC is just another forum for Kelly to perpetuate the same allegations. Either block, or continue the discussion on his/her talk page, or whatever, but opening up an RFC only invites the ID allegations to be drawn out even more, inflamming things even more, etc. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Kelly has responded to multiple requests and warnings on his/her talk page, and to this discussion here, with disdain and more attacks. An Rfc would simply change the venue, not what the problem is nor Kelly's attitude. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also agree that an RFC is not necessary (or even remotely helpful towards any resolution)right now. Keeper ǀ 76 18:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Then how do you propose Kelly changes their behaviour? how do you turn this on 21:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Since there pretty much is an existing community consensus among uninvolved that there is a group of users, often referred to as the IDcabal, who regularly act as a group and attempt to run roughshod over others, the meme is not going to die out. It will only die out when the behavior does. Unfortunately for KC, the facts are that his behaivour is once again that of coming to a dispute other members of the group were involved in. He may or may not have been aware of this, but edits at Sarah Palin and Kingdom Now theology and their talk pages definitely reveal edits by other members of the group as part of this dispute. Frankly, if he wants the description to go away, the behavior has to go away first. GRBerry 19:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Berry, withdraw your very serious, and wrong-headed, accusation. I have not edited either of those articles, and not only am I unaware of any edits by others who are members of the ID Wikiproject, it does not matter if there were, that is a personal attack. Wtihdraw it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding, if my behavior has at any time during this been questionable, name it and link to it. This bullshit about "behavior must go away first" is yet more propegation of the thoroughly wrong and divisive and false IDCab meme. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding, to save others the time and effort, GRBerry is being very misleading in linking to that Rfc; there is NO consensus as he claims; that is false. The Rfc was started by members of the ID Wikiproject in an attempt to get this kind of labeling stopped, and the most endorsed sections are: Not a Battleground (SirFozzie), 19; Waste of time (A'li), 18; and Labels are bad (Rocksanddirt), 16. All of those were endorsed by members of the Wikiproject. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Viewing every editing dispute as a battle in an ongoing war of cabals is stupid, destructive conspiracism. This approach to editing and to working with each has damaged the project. It needs to stop, but I have no idea how to stop it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I habve no idea what to do. See the last two links in my long evidence post. I tried to talk to Kelly, who responded to a 3RR warning with allegations of persecution by the "IDCab", although none were there and the article had no relation to ID. Kelly's talk page became a morass of others supporing that meme and adding on to the attacks. Now GRBerry has gone so far as to tell me that I edited the talk page of an article which was related to an article which another ID project member had edited, so it is all my fault and I must change my behavior! That is such nonsense I cannot believe a sane person is suggesting it. Its a personal attack; I suggest we block on sight. I'm out of other ideas. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There certainly has been some collusion between "ID cabal" members. I don't know if that's the case here, but it certainly happens. --NE2 20:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes? What was the result of the RfC? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The only "result" of an RFC is comments, hence the name. --NE2 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to it? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design? I figured you were asking a rhetorical question, since I hadn't mentioned any RFC. --NE2 21:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised, because the comments at that RfC mostly contradict your claim that 'certainly has been some collusion...', and suggest that accusing people of membership in such a cabal is a problem. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You're the one that mentioned the RFC. I'm just saying that I have noticed some collusion between the people who are commonly known as the "ID cabal". --NE2 21:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand the impulse to block, and persistent name calling justifies it. But recall how blocks of established users for personal attacks have gone in the past. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am, as I said, open to suggestions. However I am also frustrated that this divisive name-calling and tarring and feathering is either being blown off, ignored, or - and this is appalling to me - supported by the admins here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

One suggestion I would have would be that anyone who repeats this meme needs to go help improve an article (I've got a very long list of articles that need a lot of work). But I might be in this the evil IDcabal so I guess my opinion isn't valid. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

KC, I agree with you, and I don't support it, but we have to recognize that a block won't be sustained. And you see from my discussion with NE2 above how little good an RfC will do. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Two comments: (1) Accusations of cabalish behavior are not, in themselves, an attack, and stopping them altogether is not really a realistic or desirable solution. However, (2) there is an appropriate time, place, and way to bring up such criticisms, and content disputes are generally not appropriate. It appears that Kelly has diverged from the topic at hand and started commenting on contributors, which is rarely a good thing; however, Kelly does seem to have disengaged for the time being, which will hopefully give them a chance to cool off. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

• It is time to stamp out this stupid and childish meme once and for all. I propose that if any of editor ever mentions the so-called "ID cabal" ever again in a way that even smells faintly of bad faith, they be blocked, with escalating blocks for future recurrences. It has gone on for far too long, it is an absolute case of assuming bad faith and ascribing motives where none need exist, combining elements of ad-hominem and poisoning the well - and that's even before you get to the undeniable fact that ID is a WP:FRINGE view and therefore would quite rightly be the target of careful ring-fencing against the documented relentless POV-pushing of its advocates, an issue which occurs as much in the real world as on Wikipedia. And I don't give a toss who it is who raises this stupid and malicious meme, be they my best friend or my worst enemy, they should be blocked because it is well past its sell-by date. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Don't think this is a good idea due to more or less Sχeptomaniac's reasoning above. Probably better to just block when we would block normally. Accusations of cabalism when made in an obviously uncivil fashion and bad faith fashion should be blocked almost regardless of what group one is talking about. On the other hand, the line for that sort of thing is very hard to draw. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

While I am sympathetic to JzG's position, and would've suggested the same way back when, I think this will only escalate the distrust. That having been said, Sχeptomaniac is wrong. It IS a personal attack, because it is designed to attack the editor, who we hope is a person.--Tznkai (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It may be a personal attack, but it also happens to be undeniably true (in that they work together to "protect their own" against outside people). I'll repeat what someone said further up.. if they want people to stop calling them that, then it's time to stop acting like that. SirFozzie (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fozzie why don't we paraphrase that and make it more explicit: If any group of editors edit the same articles and have each others talkpages watchlisted and Fozzie doesn't like them then any conspiracy theory about them is fine. And the only way for them to get rid of that is to pretend that they never ever notice an edit by any of the others and can't comment on any edit remotely related to one of the others. And it doesn't matter how diverse the editing interests of those editors are. Hmm, said that way it sounds a bit less reasonable doesn't it? And if you have any doubts that that is precisely the sort of situation we are talking about you should go and read the above discussion carefully. KC gave a standard 3RR warning and was then accused of cabalism because another one of teh-evil-cabal editors had edited a related article. Do you see why this is ridiculous? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Re to Fozzie: Let me get this straight: I tell someone at 6RR they are edit warring. They claim "IDCab harassment" even though the article is not an ID article, has nothing to do with ID, and no othe ID Wikiproject member is anywhere in sight. You tell me I need to change my behavior. Have I got that right, Fozzie? Is that what makes it "undeniably true" that the "IDCab" is "working together to protect their own"? Does this make any sense in your world? Because in the world the rest of us live it, its nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In my world that's called having friends. Friends are not cabals, even when they share an interest in protecting the project against the promotion of a particular fringe view. I thought ProtectEachOther was supposed to be a good thing, but it seems that what is happening here is the drawing of battle lines, and I feel the best reaction to that is to take away the flags and banners - in this case the blatantly ill-faith "ID cabal" label. Or perhaps we should simply balance things out and call the other lot the POV-pusher cabal? No, I thought not. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Inaccurate, Tznkai. I never said that Kelly's accusation of cabalism was not an attack. What I said is that whether an accusation is an attack or criticism largely depends on context. Making the accusation in the middle of a content dispute is usually an attack, as it changes focus from the content to the contributor (WP:NPA). However, stopping all accusations of an "ID Cabal" (ugh, I never did like that term) is not a realistic solution. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Spare me the sophistry and hyperbole, Joshua. Editors involved in the Wikipedia Project: Intelligent Design have a long, detailed history, brought up in Requests for Comments, ArbCom, of basically watching each others backs when one of them gets in a heated discussion/edit war. This is not a bad thing on it's face.. it's even codified in one of WP's principles.. "Defend Each Other". But there's a danger in taking that too far, that when a group of users band together and basically work as a steamroller.. (One, or more, provokes, another comes in and pretends to be neutral, "It looks like you're getting heated", etcetera, and then when the target finally snaps from the constant badgering, the resulting diffs are then used to discredit others in future arguments. I've seen it happen multiple times. And for, as you say, a group of editors whose editing interests are REMARKABLY diverse, it's rather interesting to always see "The Familiar Faces in the Familiar Places" when it comes to disputes about one of them. In fact, there's a proposed decision in an ongoing ArbCom case that notes just that. SirFozzie (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Re to Fozzie: Let me get this straight: I tell someone at 6RR they are edit warring. They claim "IDCab harassment" even though the article is not an ID article, has nothing to do with ID, and no other ID Wikiproject member is anywhere in sight. You tell me I need to change my behavior. Have I got that right, Fozzie? Is that what makes it "undeniably true" that the "IDCab" is "working together to protect their own"? Does this make any sense in your world? Because in the world the rest of us live it, its nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh grow up. All you've done is rephrase identical accusations. And indeed you seem to have ignored or misunderstood my points. If you have a large number of editors with diverse interests it makes it more likely not less like that they will end up running into each other over multiple areas. And I find it interesting that you completely ignored any issue of talk page watchlists and ignored my comment about the original context of what led to this particular accusation. I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to respond to you at this point. If you are going to continue, maybe say something productive? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Did I say Kelly was not edit warring? Nope. Don't believe I did. I even suggested Kelly take a break from WP, to avoid further being antagonized with an attempt to discredit them. And yes, I think there is a group of editors, commonly referred to by the phrase under question, that need to change behavior. And it makes sense not only in my world, but to at least certain ArbCom members as well. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#FeloniousMonk.. (E) From time to time, FeloniousMonk has edited certain articles, particularly those relating to controversies involving intelligent design, in conjunction with one or more other users in a fashion that has created at least a perception of excessively coordinated editing. (3 supports, 0 Oppose, 1 Abstain, needs two more supports to pass). So I feel like I'm pretty firmly grounded in the real world here. SirFozzie (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed the FeloniousMonk = All members of Wikiproject ID - could you link me to that? Also where Calling the project, both members and en toto, the "IDCab" is acceptable whenever you encounter them, for any reason or no reason. - where is that, please? And the bit where 3 supports = consensus by the entire Wikipedia community - you're on firm ground are you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering who you thought the "one or more editors" were then? And yeah, I think I'm on bedrock, here. SirFozzie (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Take 3 on getting a straight answer out of you on this question: Let me get this straight: I tell someone at 6RR they are edit warring. They claim "IDCab harassment" even though the article is not an ID article, has nothing to do with ID, and no othe ID Wikiproject member is anywhere in sight. You tell me I need to change my behavior. Have I got that right, Fozzie? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And Take 3 at saying the same thing despite you and I talking past each other, KC. The members of the Wikiproject:Intelligent Design have been noticed by quite a few people, including members of the Arbitration Committee, as working in a fashion that resembles "Excessively Coordinated Editing". When Kelly earned AT LEAST a warning about 6RR (and as I've said before, despite you twisting my words, that Kelly deserved that at the very least, and as I've said before, I suggested on Kelly's page that they take a break from WP to avoid getting overly frustrated), I object to the messenger, not the message. I do think members of Wikiproject:Intelligent Design DO need to modify their behavior. Does that answer your question in sufficient detail, or are we going to have to continue to try to score points on each other? SirFozzie (talk)

(Outdent) No, it really doesn't. My complaint is that Kelly responded to the EW post I made by claiming it was some kind of persecution by the "IDCab". I fail to see how your statement addresses that at all. I have not intentionally "twisted" your words; I have a valid issue and you've responded by basically repeating that there is a cabal, and the ID wikiproject members need to change their behavior. I see absolutely no connection or logic in what you're saying. You are perpetuating and encouraging name calling as a reflex attack whenever anyone sees any member of the ID Wikiproject anywhere. This is unacceptable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As I suspected, we;re talking past each other, and both of us repeating the same things over and over again. That you think I'm "Perpetuating and encouraging name calling as a reflex" with my viewpoint on members of the ID Wikiproject. and that I think that there is a group of editors who work as a unit to discredit and harass other users. I think we'll leave it there or take it private, if you so wish, I don't think we're adding value at all at this point. SirFozzie (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep it here, as others may be having the same difficulties communicating. Or they may be able to see the "missing bit" that one or the other of us is simply not getting from the others' posts. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• What if the group of people who are strongly in favour of adding a "scientific point of view" that results in non-neutral, highly negative articles, edit the intelligent design article (and related articles) in ways that resemble cabalism? Using the two line description I just typed is tiresome. But it's OK; I didn't say the badwords, right? Giggy (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

ID is WP:FRINGE, evolution is mainstream. That's not some kind of extremist scientific point of view, it's simple fact. And it is also simple fact that ID proponents have been battling for years in the real world and on Wikipedia to paint their fringe view as a valid mainstream alternative to evolution. We are duty-bound to resist that, per WP:UNDUE. The fact that some people who support the mainstream view of ID - i.e. that it is a fringe view - joined the ID wikiproject is an entirely good thing. Wikiprojects made up only of those with a supportive point of view are a recipe for disaster. And editors helping each other not to get overheated? That's a good thing too. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

When you take an article about someone who may or may not have intended to help push a fringe view by signing a petition and make it mostly about that signature, that's undue weight. That's what the so-called "ID cabal" are probably best-known for doing. --NE2 23:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If something is "undeniably true" then it doesn't need to be said. Now, this conversation about bad faith is being done in bad faith. This isn't ironic, but it is stupid and unproductive. Accusing someone of cabalism, especially in the culture and language of Wikipedians is highly insulting. Just because something is in your view true, doesn't mean you should say it. Pointing out someone is say, descendant of a mass murder is seldom going to be anything but an attack, even when its true.--Tznkai (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh you mean Intelligent design which got to featured article status and despite intense focus by people claiming that this evil cabal exists have not changed almost anything on that article? Yeah that's real non-neutral. So non-neutral that when other editors come along they keep it just as is. Right... JoshuaZ (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• For those who think BADSITES didn't go far enough, let's have a BADWORDS policy! I nominate "meme" as one of the banned words, since the main thing it seems to be used for is to try to discredit ideas without actually refuting them logically, by claiming them to be BADMEMES, probably being promoted by BADPEOPLE on BADSITES. But if you start blocking people for saying taboo words, then as somebody has pointed out on one of those Sites Which Must Not Be Named, this strongly brings to mind that funny Monty Python routine about people being stoned for saying "Jehovah". *Dan T.* (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Meme"Memes propagate themselves and can move through the cultural sociosphere in a manner similar to the contagious behavior of a virus"--MONGO 01:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, which makes it very easy to discredit something as a reasonable viewpoint by referring to it as a 'meme'. Personally I think ID is a load of rubbish, but I also feel that there has been quite a bit of over-coordinated editing on the topic by several people who feel the same way as I do. While 'cabalism' might not be a particularly useful word, there is often the impression of something going on that people will refer to in that way. Remember that truth is a pretty subjective thing. Brilliantine (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Guy's proposal above. My reasons are known to arbcom. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose on the principle that harsh measures such as if any editor ever mentions [...] ever again in a way that even smells faintly of bad faith, they be blocked is a tad to strict, especially on valued editors who do important work for this (encyclopedia) project. Better to approach editors with as light a touch as possible, especially when circumstances vary. In this case, Kelly was doing a difficult job and KillerChihuahua seems to have come on a little strong. Kelly's ID comment was made in the context of having had a prior involvement in commenting at the ID arbcom case. I guess I'd feel pretty hypocritical not opposing this after being in favor of gentler treatment in an RfC back in March for a certain editor accused of worse conduct. -- Noroton (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting it

Can someone explain to be what a supposed "ID Cabal" has to do with the Sarah Palin pages? I edit the Intelligent Design pages from the scientific POV, and I also edited Kingdom Now theology and Political positions of Sarah Palin. Am I a part of the cabal now? FWIW, I started editing the SP pages after numerous pleas on this board for assistance from Kelly. It's not like these pages are obscure now. Can one of the anti-anti-ID people show me a supposed connection, or they going to support this completely unsubstantiated attack?

I have also hesitated joining any wikiproject because of these attacks. There's no way I'm going to put my name on a list just so I can be considered a conspirator. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"ID cabal" is a term of art that has caught on, perhaps misleadingly, and refers to certain names that keep "popping up everywhere" and were first noticed in relation to ID. Unless you plan to do the things the "ID cabal" is accused of doing, I doubt you'll be lumped in. --NE2 02:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't everyone have a watchlist? I have the talk pages of others who hold similar interests watchlisted. I even look at their edit histories. They will point me to articles that I may have overlooked. Palin has been a subject of The Panda's Thumb blog and Pharyngula (in addition to every political blog out there) which I doubt I'm the only wiki anti-IDer to read. So using Palin to claim cabalism is just silly. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "term of art", it's a slur. It was hammered away by Moulton at WR to slur the people who opposed him over here. It was adopted by the WR regulars and used here as a slur. Everyone uses it differently, but basically it means "people that I want to discredit who can be loosely tied to a certain group of editors who built the intelligent design article up to FA status". It's sort of like the way the far right uses "liberal" as a slur. Guettarda (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a group of editors, some of whom are members of the Intelligent Design WikiProject, who frequently support each other in various areas of the project (and sister projects where they have not previously edited), unrelated to Intelligent Design, in order to promote a common goal. So, editing the articles or even joining the project do not make one a member of what some refer to as the "ID cabal", rather editing other areas of the Wikimedia projects that do not relate to the project, with this same group of editors, on a regular basis would. And this sort of behavior cannot be solely attributed to watchlists and contrib stalking, as there is evidence of them going over to other projects in order to support one side when they have not previously edited that project. I can grab the diff of a Request for Checkusership on Commons, if need be here to give a diffed example. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. What evidence would there be of this? If you're going to engage in these sorts of attacks, would you please be so kind as to provide some evidence? Either that, or strike your attacks. Guettarda (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And in at least one proven case, the group of editors were caught emailing each other, canvassing to mass-oppose a nominee at WP:RfA. SirFozzie (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[Probably not helpful]. Guettarda (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dihydrodgen Monoxide, by Filll? You remember, the one he apologized for and said he was sorry for creating controversy? Not too long ago, mind you. Three-Four months ago... if I'm doing the math right. And glad to see that you still hold the BADSITES meme close to your heart. (since we're already speaking of memes above...) SirFozzie (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So the two - or was it three - people who Filll emailed were, what you call "IDCabal" members? There's evidence of one editor emailing two or three other unrelated editors. It certainly has nothing to do with what you said. [Probably not helpful]. As for the "BADSITES meme"...hey, they fact that a policy proposal didn't pass doesn't mean that WR isn't used to coordinate attacks on Wikipedia editors, or to out editors...and none of the regulars bat an eye when it happens. [Probably not helpful]. Guettarda (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of what Jennavecia is referring to: [37]. In the past, when one editor from the the IDCab took issue with something, in this case, Guettarda, the same group of editors would usually suddenly appear within a short time of each other to join in the discussion in support of the first editor's comments and to try to shout down the response from the other editor involved (in this case, me). To be fair, I haven't heard of these editors engaging in the same tactics as much lately since one of their group was given some adult supervision a couple of months ago. Hopefully, their behavior has been corrected. Cla68 (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? That isn't explainable by watchlists or wikistalking? Really? Fascinating. Guettarda (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tell me how this was watchlisted, considering at least one of you (and if memory serves, more like three) had never edited Commons before. Enlighten us. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree on what we disagree about. Firstly, does anyone disagree that Cabals are bad? I suspect not. Secondly, does everyone agree that a Cabal (for this purpose) is a bunch of people trying to achieve an outcome through force of numbers, rather than through logic and discussion? If so, the specific question becomes - is there or is there not logic in the position the alleged Cabal are trying to put. If not, then there might be something to discuss here, but until we establish that, I don't think there is any point going over who said what about whom. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate

Please delete Archbishop Jovan (John) VI of Ohrid which is a copy of Jovan Vraniskovski. Thanks.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking care of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(laughing) This solution didn't occur to me :)--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done a "history merge", combining the two articles. I've also taken the freedom of doing a bit of a re-write, for neutrality. The text was rather biased in favour of his church; we shouldn't be making a judgment on whether his group or the official church are canonically legitimate or not. We'll just be saying who regards who as what, but not who is right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit requests

Hi, could somebody wander over to WP:PER? (Some of the requests, such as my request for Template:Wikitravel are not controversial so shouldn't take too long!) Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the location parameter to {{Cite web}}, and that alone was probably enough to push the job queue up into the stratosphere. Actually, there are several requests there that need some hashing-out, and a couple that deal with hCard microformat that I wouldn't know how to test, so I'll let this one edit be the highlight of my day. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this actually a blockable offense?

I made a comment recently, found here, and was threatened with a block.
Since I was trying to be nothing more than honest, direct, and complete, I certainly didn't intend to harrass, berate, or, uh, vandalize? And yet, I was threatened with a block.
If I actually did violate some policy, then I'd love to be updated on wikipedia's new ruleset. (This isn't an issue of wikilawyering here. Even if I violated a general rule of thumb, I'd even want to know that)
And yet, if I break down everything I said, each component still seems to be both accurate and reasonable. No, a sockpuppet isn't the same as a forged signature. No, it's not good form to protect someone's talk page in response to an attack they made against you personally (there's never a shortage of other admins who will do that for you, to avoid conflicts of interest). No, removing people's comments from talk pages aren't 'minor' (and, yes, the difference is just a minor clerical issue). Yes, a non-admin can see if a page has been deleted.
So, what, precisely, have I done wrong? And, more importantly, were my crimes actually blockable offenses?
(btw, please reply here, not on my talk page, as this is a dynamic address and I may not see it there)
(btbtw, it's up to you if gwen should be notified about this here. I'm asking about my conduct, so I really don't know if it's necessary) 209.90.134.118 (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not in itself (but Gwen may or may not have information we do not at this point?). If it were a blockable offense, you have been blocked by now. Synergy 21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could simply look at my contributions to see if there is, indeed, any other information that would warrant threatening me with a block. However, since it was a reply to that specific comment of mine, I have to assume that my crime was there. 209.90.134.118 (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving Gwen the benefit of the doubt. I have no opinion other than to say that its not a blockable offense. Synergy 21:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, apparently it's personal. I tried asking what I did that warranted the threat. Her response was absurd personal attacks. (you can see part of our dialog here)

This is getting absurd. Is she always like this, or just having a bad day? 209.90.134.118 (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it appropriate to leave GG a notice, and did so. DGG (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what I see: Hayabusa2938's only edits were vandalism, including a disruptive, deceitful comment on the talkpage of a BLP. Hayabusa was also quacking like User:Mythstory (an already blocked user) and was thus blocked. Then this IP shows up, jumps head-long into this dispute and defends Hayabusa, using comments such as "wikipedia is indeed censored". Now I can't speak for User:Gwen_Gale, but it looks like they don't like ducks. ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 00:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

IP, for some reason you came to my talk page and lengthily defended both this bit of vandalism/disruption along with another meaningless shred. Do I smell footwear in the laundry bin? Waterfowl in the pond out back? I'll still be more than happy to block you, if you like. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, don't play with your food and don't feed the trolls. Playing with the trolls, on the other hand, is okay... as long as it's on your own talk page... I think. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. I take great exception to what both of you are saying.

Addressing things in the order that's easiest to address, this was actually a mistake. At the time, there was a minor factual error in the article, which that editor was correcting on the talk page. (Apparently, Letterman made some stupid joke about a fictitious brother "ment-ally ill", and the article confused it with another nickname of Jong-il himself. That editor was just pointing out the mistake in the talk page) Gwen made an (honest) goof, and deleted the person's comment, confusing it with nonsense. I left a note on her talk page that, even though it was obviously just a mistake, she should still be a bit more careful. I then worked with another editor who saw the notice on her talk page to improve the article (namely, we decided to remove the whole stupid section from the article, since neither of us felt it belonged).

Gwen knows full well that this was the context of that note, and yet she's chosen to call it a "meaningless shred". I don't know what she even means by that, but the irrefutable fact of the matter is that she misread something, and mistakenly deleted a good faith comment on the talk page.

Secondly, I never defended any vandalism/disruption/anything-else. I corrected some minor notes about what she'd said.

• She said someone had forged their signature. That was false. It probably was a sock, but that isn't the same as a forged signature. For someone who seems fond of talking about ducks, it seems strange that she'd take exception to using the right words to describe people. (a sock is a sock, not a forger)
• Since I was talking about the subject anyways, I did point out that it really wasn't appropriate to lock a person's talk page just for insulting you personally. note: I didn't say that his page shouldn't have been locked. That would've been defending him. I just said that someone else should've done it. Tell me, who here does feel that an admin should be the one to punish people who insult them personally? Nobody? I thought not.
• After then commenting on how particularly offensive it was or wasn't, I then pointed out (to Cdogsimmons) that the comment didn't belong on that article talk page anyways, since it wasn't constructive (thus defending Gwen's position). I assume Gwen didn't take offense to that. She's yet to be particularly specific about what, if anything, I've done wrong, so I still don't know.
• I then told Cdogsimmons that he could see the deletion logs for articles himself (thus dispelling the myth that admins were entirely 'disappear'ing articles). This was to defend admins in general. Again, I assume that nobody here has a problem with that, but I'm really starting to wonder here.
• Finally, I very briefly defended the deletion of the article being referred to (against the point of mythstory/hayabusa). Perhaps this is where Gwen thought I was defending hayabusa? By suggesting that he was wrong? I have no clue; she never explained herself very well.

Simply put, I find it both disconcerting and tiring that IP editors are treated with such disdain.

I've been threatened with a block, and not a single person has yet to explain how that would have been remotely warranted.

I've been insulted, and called a troll, with no explanation of how that could possibly apply to me.

Gwen has lied (and I do not use that word lightly!) in saying that I defended hayabusa. (If you think I'm wrong, find a diff. Until you provide one, do not accuse me of doing things I never did!)

I've then been threatened with another block, by someone who's still yet to identify a single thing I've actually done wrong. Not a violation of any WP policy, not a violation of any rule of thumb, or general preferred behaviour. Nothing. You want to ignore me? Fine. But do not threaten me with a block unless you plan to have a bloody reason for it (and how insane is it that I even need to say that?). Do not call me a troll, or a defender of vandals, unless you have something to back it up.

For any logged-in editor, you need to provide diffs before you start throwing around accusations and insults (and even then insults aren't preferred). Why should that be different for IP editors? 209.90.134.118 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Help needed at Category:Disputed non-free images as of 9 September 2008

Several hundred images have been tagged by FairuseBot (talk · contribs) for lacking a fair use rationale and added to Category:Disputed non-free images as of 9 September 2008. I am not arguing with the mass tagging, but I would like to request that other editors do what they can to add appropriate fair use rationales to keep the images from being deleted. I have added a few, but I can't do them all. --Eastmain (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a gadget that helps to add fair use rationales to articles, but I've never used it, so I don't know what it is. Corvus cornix_talk 21:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean FURME. It's a great tool. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, WP:FURME. But you need to know what you are doing to use it. Using it poorly is worse than not using it at all. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Less than half of the images are in danger of being deleted: most of the images have fair-use rationales for at least one use, so FairuseBot will come along in five days and remove them from articles without a fair-use rationale and from the category. --Carnildo (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin take a look at a multiple article AfD please

At the moment this AfD is dealing with several articles at once, however both myself and another editor are unhappy with the articles being grouped together for the reasons stated in the AfD. I think it would be best if this one was nipped in the bud before too much discussion had taken place (it's generating a fair bit of interest) and the AfDs listed seperately (which is obviously best dest by an admin as it would be a possibly controversial early close). Obviously this is only my personal opinion and a reviewing admin may disagree but I thought it best to raise it here as if splitting is to occur it's obviously better to do it before there's too much discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a question in the AfD asking if it should be split up into 11 separate AfDs. If you think there is a consensus for splitting or rearranging, you could ask here for it to be rearranged. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspected hoax

The article Joshua tolbert appears to be a hoax, I have prodded it, but should it be an AfD (which could be closed more quickly, I understand)? DuncanHill (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have AFDd it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua tolbert. On a side note, twinkle is doing extremely odd things when sending things for AFD at the moment, anyone know why? Brilliantine (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the article as an unsourced negative bio. It was not supported by a single source, as was likely an attack on some unknown individual. I know he was supposed to be dead, so I ignored some of the rules. I have assumed that there is likely some unknown target this was aimed at. Kevin (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Scandalpedia

Presenting the latest Wikipedia rip-off: Scandalpedia. It's actually a campaign site of the Liberal Party of Canada for the forthcoming election. --RFBailey (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. A backburn. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit section links on this page broken?

Is it just me, or do the edit section links lead to the wrong sections? Brilliantine (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This happens when, as you click on a section edit link, a previous section is removed, or an additional section is added somewhere above the section you are trying to edit. Usually it's because a section or sections have been archived. DuncanHill (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Just never come across that before. Must have been just after archiving then, it was many, many sections out. Sorry to bother. Brilliantine (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)