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. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Proposed topic ban: User:Pcarbonn from Cold fusion and related articles

• Prior ANI threads and resolutions attempts:
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_review_this_case (and older archived threads - feel free to add 'em as you find 'em))
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive157#Cold_fusion
  • Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Cold_fusion (and subpages)
• Recent diffs cited as troublesome: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#diffs_just_from_November

• Proposal: User:Pcarbonn is banned from Cold fusion and related articles for six months.

Executive mini-summary

Pcarbonn is alleged to be a single purpose account, to edit with a conflict of interest, to have repeatedly violated WP:NPOV, and to have boasted off-wiki of his success at altering Wikipedia's coverage of cold fusion in order to present it in a more positive light.

Question of jurisdiction and rationale for this proposal

There has been some confusion about whether this issue should be handled under arbitration enforcement, but the majority of editors contributing to this straw poll were of the opinion that cold fusion is better described as "pathological science" or "fringe science" than pseudoscience, in which case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience may not be applicable. Hence this proposal: that question of jurisdiction will be irrelevant, however, if the community can agree on a ban here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

You are making a bad assumption here that folks seeing this on AN know the full details of your particular case. Please give us links to all relevant items, and a short description of why you want this topic ban and what you guys have tried prior to requesting this. —— nixeagle 17:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's all in the threads that SheffieldSteel has linked above. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair criticism; I've added a little more information. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per previous thread discussion here. The poor attitude displayed is a contributing factor to my support. Verbal chat 17:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am most troubled by the statement Sourcing to NewEnergyTimes (where he was published congratulating himself on getting Wikipedia to promote cold fusion) after consensus was it is not reliable. I can see the reference, but can someone elaborate on what the statement in NewEnergyTimes was?—Kww(talk) 19:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See the second diff here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's clear enough to demonstrate that he has a stated agenda contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia. Support topic-ban.—Kww(talk) 21:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I looked through the diffs presented in the above thread. I've also looked through the article. ScienceApologist said that Pcarbonn cited the NewEnergyTimes, yet the diff shows him bringing it up on the talk page.[1] The rest of these diffs leave me very suspicious of SA's honesty; they're mainly of Pcarbonn on the talk page, stating substantive points and citing substantive research. Two are in the article space. For one, ScienceApologist cites Pcarbonn "insisting that two-thirds is not a majority" for this diff, when Pcarbonn doesn't seem to dispute the mathematical fact but rather increases the precision of the statement by substituting the word two-thirds in for the word majority. I try for precision whenever possible. That looks like a good edit to me. Keep in mind that if a physicist is a well-published academic, then citing articles by that physicist from places like the NewEnergyTimes might be appropriate. Yes, Pcarbonn says that publications acknowledge a growing controversy over new research in cold fusion. For example, a 2008 article in Nature India is titled "Cold fusion hot again". I see that there are talks in these threads of wiping out all of these fine sources and going back to the 2004 version. How can you justify eliminating articles from things like Nature? Why react to this article as if one's entire worldview revolves around cold fusion being reflected as pure pseudoscientific garbage. Why does it matter so much? Recently a professor at Osaka University in Japan unveiled what he calls a working cold fusion reactor.[2] This used to be in the article, but it has been deleted. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. Are we trying to "save people" from hearing about the latest news regarding cold fusion? Why? If a professor claims to have a working CF reactor, that is news worthy of an encyclopedia. It is not our job to fact-check it or ensure that readers know that this is just an announcement, not necessarily a confirmation. As a reader, I come to Wikipedia because, unlike textbooks, it does not censor the latest breaking (encyclopedic) news, or shy away from the most in-depth details. II | (t - c) 19:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ive read and re-read the above post and cannot work out who "you" is meant to refer to. Please clarify whose honesty you doubt, if nothing else. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. For some reason I thought the "diffs" thread (which is the only one which really matters) was started by you, but it was started by ScienceApologist. So I doubt his honesty, which isn't surprising to me. It says something when the best diffs you can come up with start with "[the user] pontificating on the talk page". What do you think of those diffs, and what do you think of the more recent third-party sources? II | (t - c) 02:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The major problem with you is that you think that the mainstream is wrong and Wikipedia is the place to right that wrong. Well, I'm sorry to inform you that it is not. You might try wikinfo instead. They prefer the sympathetic point-of-view over there which is closer to what you advocate. Your continual push away from NPOV is well-known by those who track your contributions. You're a very good contributor, you just don't conform to our core policies. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support per the AN/I discussion, the delisting discussion (which arguably would not be necessary if PCarbonn adhered more scrupulously to the weight of sources), and years of usually civil insistence that NPOV and should be superseded by advocacy. (Note that I am occasionally involved at Cold fusion, but generally lack the time or inclination to fight over every point I try to research and add). Reverting to a few years back might be a bit extreme, but WP:DUE must be respected. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  Yes. In my perception, based on a very brief stay at the article, this is how Pcarbonn is compromising WP:DUE. Consider the facts: 1) There are over 50,000 papers indexed by ISI each year on Applied Physics / Condensed Matter Physics, which all ignore this revolutionary anomaly. 2) Britannica has two paragraphs about Cold Fusion in their article on fusion, completely ignoring the five or so recent papers. 3) Sourcing policy only considers reliable sources about the topic in question, not the extend to which most reliable source don't even bother refuting it, therefore, the presentation is vulnerable to attack. This vulnerability is masterfully exploited by Pcarbonn.

  In any case, surely there are editors without vested interest in cold fusion, who cold oppose the Britannica POV, if that is indeed too conservative; but Wikipedia's inability to deal with non-well-established-knowledge pushing is the worst aspect of this project, so I hope something is done about it. Vesal (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are reliable sources which acknowledge a controversy from Wired and Nature India. For example, a 2008 Wired article states that "verification of these controversial results is not the problem".[3] There is also an article on it I'm not seeing how the amount of mainstream physics work published is relevant to what is included in the cold fusion page. Am I reading you correctly in that you advocate removing most of the now-considered acceptable sources on the subject, such as the Nature India article, Wired article, and the cold fusion research articles because mainstream physics ignores cold fusion? I would oppose the Britannica POV (or, more accurately, their article, which is likely short because of lack of resources), but I don't have the time or the interest to learn about cold fusion, especially since I would then have to have edit-wars with SA and others concerned that CF isn't being presented negatively enough. II | (t - c) 02:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wired magazine is hardly known for its cutting-edge reporting on the natural sciences. Like other cold fusion advocates, you seem to be preferentially enthralled by sources which present cold fusion in a positive light. Nobody says that such sources don't exist, only that they shouldn't be driving the content of the article. In fact, the article should conform to the mainstream understanding of the subject per WP:NPOV. That is, we need to make sure that readers understand that the majority of the world thinks the subject is a whole lot of pathological hooey. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Vesal, you complain about "Wikipedia's inability to deal with non-well-established-knowledge pushing". Do you imply that this applies this case ? Isn't there a principle of Justice that the benefit of the doubt should benefit the accused ? Pcarbonn (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the very core of this problem is that you are pushing non-well-established knowledge. You emphasize sources from low-level technical journals, but well-established knowledge is reflected by Britannica and physics textbooks; you constantly emphasize the resent experiments, although the significance of these are quite unknown. Now, it is perfectly fine to oppose the Britannica POV, but we should extend from well-established knowledge very carefully, and that is hard when someone with a vested interest is dominating the discussion. Vesal (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support as I said in the AN/I discussion, our goals should be to improve the encyclopedia, not advance a particular viewpoint. If PCarbonn is interested in contributing here, it needs to be on areas unrelated to Cold Fusion. Shell ^babelfish 22:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Shell; tendentious editing drives away too many good editors Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I think Pcarbonn's editing has been borderline at best, and their off-wiki comments are troubling in that they reveal a desire to spin the article. Wikipedia has more than 2 million articles. Banning somebody from a handful is not a very strong sanction. On balance, I think this ban makes sense, but it is a difficult call and good faith editors may disagree and this diff seems to provide a solid justification. Jehochman ^Talk 22:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC) and 23:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support a ban/block on Pcarbonn for the reasons mentioned by SA, Verbal, and many others. There is clearly a conflict of interest and some serious and unrelenting POV pushing. He is more than willing to wage a war of attrition allowing more NPOV edits to be added and stand for a time before working the text back to his position.--OMCV (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• support ban mainly per Shell and Kww. If Pcarbon proves himself able to contribute productively to other areas maybe we can revisit this ban at some point in the future. I hope that he might grow to appreciate NPOV more if he became more involved in other topics. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Pcarbonn's stated intent[4] is to "win the battle" over cold fusion. Crowing about his victory on his blog[5] is, in my mind, the final straw. Skinwalker (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

unless I am mistake,m that was back in June, and refers to the result o fa mediation which he says supported his approach to the article. And, to a certain extent, so it did. It think it ridiculous that someone should be topic banned because he accepted a mediation DGG (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, that mediation was a bungled mess, handled by a mediator who alienated a number of editors who were much more familiar with the science. I received the rudest e-mail of my life from that "mediator" who then essentially told me he would ignore me for the rest of the mediation. Since then, that mediator has driven an excellent editor off Wikipedia and has continued a low-level campaign of harassing editors with science backgrounds. Sometimes, more often than we'd care to admit perhaps, mediations go wrong. This is one of the classic examples I turn to. It's why I no longer participate in mediations, in fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per nominator Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose topic ban. I totally disagree with him on the underlying subject, and I am not sure i agree with many of his edits, but i regard his work as fair, or at least fair enough to avoid banning. This is an attempt to win at AN/I what could not be won at the article or the medation. The place to try this if people insist is at arb com. FWIW, I don't think I have ever involved myself with the article itself. But I do know this is not the place to discuss article content. DGG (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with content. Its an issue of COI among other things.--OMCV (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

DGG thinks that fringe ideas should be allowed to present themselves in their full glory because he thinks that's the best way to educate people about their problems. However, he's in a very tiny minority: a minority that long ago forked to wikinfo. I'm generally amazed that DGG hasn't found his way over there yet. They seem to embody his ideals for an encyclopedia better than Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose topic ban. I am not involved in this article but looked at the diffs and evidence presented against Pcarbonn.I don't see policy violation. 2/3 for example is not a weasel word. "Most" is. What exactly is pontificating, self-congratulation.[6] These words are judgments based in opinion and not policy violations. I don't see either of these things as accurate descriptions, but if I did when did these add up to a policy ban. I could go on, but what I see is a discussion that should go back to the article where it belongs; editors with differing views but discussing reasonably, and an article that had FA status. I note as well that this is another try at having an editor banned, a concern. I would suggest that such an article requires patience and lots of discussion rather than a ban that prohibits an expert in the field from editing given that although he certainly may have a certain slant on the information so do many of the other editors there. Discuss rather than eliminate and punish.(olive (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

• Support topic ban. This editor doesn't seem to understand or accept the purpose of Wikipedia. -- Fyslee / talk 05:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

the purpose is to be a user-edited encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia edited by those user whose views i happen to support. DGG (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. You're thinking of wikinfo. This encyclopedia only lets editors edit whose views conform to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. It's not sympathetic to the user's POV. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I use this encyclopedia to help my kids (all three of them) with their homework. I prefer that it be as accurate as possible. In order to be accurate, we need to remove cruft such as non-notable topics, and fringe points of view. We need to make sure that the remaining stuff is fairly balanced. Editors who cannot set aside their personal beliefs (or at least try to do so), may have to avoid certain topics. Pcarbonn has made clear that they view Cold fusion as an ideological battleground. We cannot allow that sort of editing to continue. Jehochman ^Talk 06:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said. I cannot imagine what kind of report would be handed in by a student reading the current Wikipedia article on cold fusion. The slant of the article toward sources which are written by advocates of cold fusion means that most anybody reading it would probably produce a report of fairly poor quality, I'm afraid. It was such reports, in fact, that got me involved in Wikipedia in the first place. I'm confident that students reading the Big Bang article will come away with a good background and grounding in the main ideas of the subject. Not so much with many of the articles you see my username show up on. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - but only with the provisio that it is a provisional topic ban that is lifted if and when:
  1. PCarbonn broadens his editing base (so show that he isn't just here to promote his version of cold fusion or to lift his own personal profile) and
  2. that he gains consensus prior to any edit on the pages listed at the start of this thread. Shot info (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Being an SPA can be fine. Sometimes fringe editors provide useful views. But fringe POV focused on a single topic? That's a recipe for NPOV violations. Would support a return to the topic if he meets Shot info's conditions immediately above. Cool Hand Luke 06:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support this is clearly a single purpose account determined to push a particular viewpoint and to change the article on that viewpoint so it no longer conforms to Wikipedia policy. I see the editor has decided to "stop editing for some time" following this discussion. Hut 8.5 07:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support — I have voiced support for this topic ban before, and I still support it. Pcarbonn is a SPA, who is editing here in the spirit of wikiality. I would also support extending the ban to the talk pages, too. – Sadalmelik ☎ 08:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. After reviewing the evidence above, I'm forced to conclude that Pcarbonn is arguing for his POV within policy. Sadalmelik, he's not engaging in outright Wikiality because he's providing sources for his claims.
  
• .....The proposal here is to get someone banned for having a minority point of view, so some article can get reverted to a version preferred by the majority. SA, has basically admitted that he's using this venue after not getting what he wanted in mediation. I agree that content mediation is problematic on Wikipedia, because the mediator(s) may not have the necessary background, but AN is not any better in that respect. Even if I can empathize with SA's goal, I cannot empathize with his method for achieving it, which is reminiscent of how communists dealt with ideological divides.
  
• .....There are dozens of politics-only accounts that are engaging in far more partisan behavior than User:Pcarbonn, and nobody is trying to get them topic banned, but that's only because they have more buddies around to watch their backs here. Asking Pcarbonn to start editing Pokemon articles in order to "broaden his editing base" is ridiculous.
  
• .....SA, there is no such thing as "WP:NPOV view". Are you really claiming your view is the NPOV standard? Wikipedia isn't Nature; it cannot contain only uncontroversial scientific topics. Allowing only mainstream orthodoxy in Wikipedia can be quite dangerous in any field, because in many areas this would exclude healthy controversy. For instance, most psychologists swear by MMPI, and so do many judges. Does that mean I should be topic banned for adding a critical section about the Fake Bad Scale (sourced only to a newspaper), if someone displaying a "psychologist" user box decided that most psychologists don't agree with the criticism? As long as Wikipedia is governed by WP:V, and not (scientific) truth, you have to keep arguing with users like Pcarbonn over the WP:DUE weight of minority positions.
  
• .....I think the article on Cold Fusion can be written to present the minority view with due weight. If you still think Pcarbonn's behavior is problematic, WP:ARBCOM is thataway. VG ☎ 11:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly I can "source" any claim I care to make up. The moon is made of green cheese! So one argument demolished.

Next, the issue here is not that Pcarbonn has a minority point-of-view. The issue is that Pcarbonn wants to see a minority point-of-view given more WP:WEIGHT than it is WP:DUE and is using tactics, techniques, and editing practices that expressly are forbidden by a number of policies. In the sense that a "majority" "prefers" a version here, it is a "majority" that wish to see the proper weighting of the article and treatement of the subject.

Mediation happened a LONG time ago and I do not come here because of that incident. The mediation in question was poorly handled and I was not a party to it because the mediator essentially refused me access in defiance of the standard rules of mediation. That is neither here nor there, though. You have misinterpretted the situation.

Fourthly, comparing me to the cultural revolution seems a bit ridiculous. This is Wikipedia we're talking about here: an encyclopedia, not a society.

You are right that there is no such thing as the NPOV view. And obviously I'm not claiming "my view" is NPOV standard. What I am claiming is that NPOV demands, especially with regards to WP:WEIGHT, that we treat minority opinions as minorities and majority opinions as majorities. This is where Pcarbonn and I differ. I want to see WEIGHT enforced so that the majority opinion of cold fusion (that it is an example of pathological science) is given the weight of the article while the minority opinion (that it is an unfairly oppressed minority field in science) is marginalized. My opinions on whether cold fusion really is pathological science or not are irrelevant.

Sixthly, we're not talking about someone adding a properly weighted section to an article, as you describe. We're talking about this "hypothetical critic" (you) trying to take over the entire article and rewrite it from the Fake Bad Scale perspective. And then, when other editors point out the flaw, waste everybody's time and efforts by contintually removing, rewording, or discarding attempts to realign the article to a state that it is currently in. Pcarbonn isn't adding a "section" here, he has commandeered the ENTIRE article. I expect that with Pcarbonn gone we will give his opinion the weight it deserves in the article, but we cannot do it while he has a vice-grip hold over the article.

Finally, taking this situation to arbcom is, to my understanding, the next step if the community doesn't act on this issue. However, if we can get consensus without arbcom wouldn't that be better? I'll make sure to include you as an involved participant if that's where we end up. However, I'd prefer it if we didn't end up there.

ScienceApologist (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You sound like you're threatening me with ARBCOM for not agreeing with you here. I'm as uninvolved as it comes on Cold fusion. I admit to not having read the whole article, but I find the I find the current lead considerably more informative than the one that was featured four years ago.

If User:Pcarbonn has had the massive deleterious effect on the entire article that you claim, I'm not seeing it. Color me blind. VG ☎ 12:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not threatening you with anything at all. Just pointing out options in the same way you pointed options out to me, is all. Your detailed opposition seemed to be singularly obsessed with my behavior, so I thought that maybe you'd have something to offer the arbcom case. And if this whole discussion comes out as "no consensus" because of your argumentation, well, then, I think we do have something to arbitrate because my idea of a harmonious editing environment and your idea of a harmonious editing environment seem so diametrically opposed as to be fairly near impossible to maintain in conjuction.

Secondly, I agree with you about the lead. I should just point out that the lead is currently in my preferred version due in no small part to a vigilance I'm only able to maintain due to peculiarities of my current work schedule. It is the only part of the article that I've been able to work on while the disruptive tactics have continued for the last few months. What is on the talk page and in the edit history is a record of false starts, driven-away editors, pointless machinations, disastrous argumentation, a complete inability to move forward, dismissal of reliable sources, promotion of unreliable sources, etc., etc., etc. Why should it be that just because I've been insisting on a good lead that we should happily tolerate such an unhealthy editing environment?

Lastly, it is very clear to me that you didn't consider the evidence very carefully. You've offered counterfactual (mis)interpretations of rationales, motivations, timelines, and positions and haven't responded substantively to any of the places where I pointed out where you are wrong. It is true that I really don't appreciate being dismissed with a claim that I'm engaging in CCCP-style censorship and a wave of the back of the hand toward ARBCOM. It just evinces an attitude that is rude, jerky, and boorish.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're taking this too personally. We've both made our points, and I have neither the time or the desire to engage in a feud with anyone. VG ☎ 13:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This notice is a strong-armed attempt at POV-pushing. I've known the editors long enough to see through it. I recommend that newcomers to this discussion review the evidence before commenting. Kevin Baas^talk 15:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC) — Kevin_baas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User was renamed (capitalization).

  The above signature links to the user and talk pages for Kevin baas (talk · contribs) which redirect to those of Kevin Baas (talk · contribs). Regardless of these distractions, the editor who made this comment has recently made few or no contributions outside the cold fusion subject area. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• What POV-pushing is going on here? Seriously, I don't want to be part of any POV-pushing attempt, so please inform me. Is it POV-pushing to want articles to be more like other reputable encyclopedias? Vesal (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose topic ban - Editors need to learn to use WP:DR to resolve content disputes. Take this to another round of mediation, rather than use AN/I. If all fails, take it to ArbCom ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Defense by Pcarbonn - The private feedback I received encourages me to say the following: if confirmed, a ban decision would be a shame for Wikipedia.

First of all, it would result from a mockery of Justice, reminiscent of the French Reign of Terror. Which Justice would punish someone for SPA, when it is not an offense ? Which Justice would take the argument of COI, when I was cleared of it in another judgement ? Which Justice would punish me for expressing an opinion, when no evidence is presented that I did it aggressively ? Which Justice would punish me for boasting of my success, when it is not an offense ? Which Justice would punish me for wanting to present fairly a significant point of view, when one of its past decision was actually to allow that ?

What happened to the original American ideals ? Your master revolutionary and second president, John Adams, once defended the primacy of rules, even British ones, over the rule of a mob. That's why he was appalled by the French Revolution. He defended the value of free speech, and, wary of the dangers of individuals, designed a constitution with check and balances. Wikipedia has such check and balances in the core policies. He would certainly have defended me in this case of free speech.

Furthemore, it would be a mockery of Science. Good scientists make a difference between skepticism and rejection. Rejection is only allowed when a theory is falsified. As the DOE said in 1989, and again in 2004, the cold fusion theory has not been falsified. Therefore, good scientists familiar with the matter keep an open mind. Some news article ignore such fine points, and consider cold fusion "rejected". Unfortunately, some wikipedia editors as well, despite the many sources (and our article), which only says that most scientists are skeptical. All my efforts have been directed to clarify this difference, to defend the view that cold fusion is still a controversy, a view that is well sourced and contrary to what some of the signatories above believe. (I regret not having stopped User:IwRnHaA from presenting cold fusion as confirmed (e.g. here, which I believe is a prime reason for the demotion of the article from GA).

I have decided to take some distance with Wikipedia for a while. Still, if the ban decision is confirmed, I would be convinced that Wikipedia has become a tabloid, for the reason stated. Hopefully, overtime, it would mature. I would wish you good chance. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support I don't have American ideals, I'm British. More seriously, the initial experiments were flawed, the claimed results would have created a lethal dose of radiation, and it all doesn't matter because the problem is an obvious COI. If Richard Dawkins was editing the article of Adnan Oktar, it wouldn't matter that Dawkins was probably in the right, what would matter was that Dawkins has a COI because Adnan Oktar is attempting to vilify him in the Turkish courts. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahowmker, how do the claimed experimental results become relevant to whether the individual in question should be banned from editing the article? DGG (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This seems to be a POV fight between two sides with each side being equally culpable of POV pushing. This proceding (IMH)) is just a method to oust of one side of the debate by the other side of the debate rather than go through the normal WP:DR channels. I've seen this behavior before from the same editors. "I don't agree with you. I can't change your mind. Therefore I am going to recommend a topic ban." That's rather petty. I don't think that COI is an obvious problem here, nor do I think that an editor should be banned because of SPA. That said, I would encourage Pcarbonn to branch out and look at other articles which desperately need help from willing editors. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment on a dangerous precedent.

• This is a dispute about content: No teacher in an academic environment could ever consider Wikipedia an acceptable source for definitive information, because of the nature of how the articles are created. Wikipedia articles are influx, are never confirmed stable sources of knowledge. We cannot, then, use the argument that, the article needs to be stable so my kids or my students can rely on it. No article is ever that stable. As well, few educators at the post secondary level and hopefully at the secondary level could consider Wikipedia or any encyclopedia, although a starting point, a legitimate reference.

• As a dispute about content, have the appropriate procedures been followed when disputes about content arise, and has Pcarbonn supported these procedures. Pcarbonn has agreed to mediation in the past and there is no evidence that he refused appropriate discussion or procedures as concerns content.

• Until all of the appropriate procedures on content disputes have been exhausted this case has no business being here. Jumping from a content dispute to a request for a sixth month ban is a ludicrous jump in logic and judgment on our parts.

• As a content dispute there seems to be the nonsensical notion that Pcarbonn has been able to control this article despite the active involvment of other editors like Science Apologist who maintains an opposite POV from his. No editor created that article on his own. No editor trod over other editors to make his edits stick. No diffs indicate that kind of scenario.

• There seems to be a notion that the article is a mess. From who's viewpoint? The article had GA status.

• No Wikipedia Policy or guideline prohibits single account editing . Single account editing is a possible indicator of concern when an editor begins to violate policy and guidelines in his editing practices . Pcarbonn has not edited outside of policy/guideline. There are no diffs that indicate such editing. As such we might consider that we are dealing with an expert in this field who has strong views on the material . As long as he edits within policy he is Wikipedia compliant.

• Removing Pcarbonn from editing this article leaves another POV in control. Is that good for the neutrality of the article.

We set a dangerous precedent for Wikipedia when we attempt to limit editors with expertise from legitimate editing of articles in their areas of knowledge if they are not violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We set a dangerous precedent when we jump past the procedures in place for content dispute and instead, gang up on an editor rather than follow appropriate procedure. We set dangerous precedents for Wikipedia when we ignore content and instead move to attack one editor for a POV, editing in compliance, when other editors in the same article have well known POVs. Making these kinds of judgment by passes Wikipedia policy and guidelines and places judgment into our hands - a kind of mob rule, always a desperate scenario.(olive (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

The article is a mess from the viewpoint of those future Nature reviewers, who will compare this article with Britannica and consider it a major blunder, making Britannica win 5:4 in that contest. Can this project, for once, get over the misconception that he most civilly pushed POV is the most encyclopedic POV?? It isn't hard to compare with Britannica, if you don't know enough about the topic. This isn't just my POV versus yours, read up on the topic in some other encyclopedia! Vesal (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your talking about content. Argue this in a content dispute process.(olive (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

I was talking about motivation. Is his motivation to improve Wikipedia? To present a neutral evaluation of cold fusion? Or is it to present cold fusion in the most positive light that he can? The latter is unacceptable, and his statements have persuaded me that it is what motivates him.—Kww(talk) 19:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

We put ourselves in a very precarious position if we attempt to decide motivation. I couldn't care less what motivates him in the context of this dispute, but I care that he is editing within policy. Do you all mean to tell me that SA has no influence over there. Let them work it out, or take it through the content dispute process, but we cannot dare to decide what motivates someone else, and then in doing so suggest a 6th month ban.None of us should have that kind of power.(olive (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

I'm not talking about specific content, I'm saying that this "all POVs are equal" idea is flawed, because some views are more encyclopedic than others. I wish admins would make a simple comparison with other reference work, rather than content-agnostic judgments. This applies to any article, even where it would contradict my own POV. I certainly have fringe views, such as I don't believe in free will and I believe that view is the cutting edge in cognitive science, but it would be very wrong to overwhelm the article with specific experiments to skew the presentation, because the fact that we lack free will is not well-established knowledge, yet... This is precisely what Pcarbonn is doing to the Cold Fusion article. Vesal (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Its not about specific content but it is about content. Pcarbonn is not solely responsible for that article .... If there are concerns about content on any level it needs to be discussed and dealt with. The way of doing that is not to cut down an editor to get him out of the way so things can move along .... That's not Wikipedia. I'm not saying you're doing that, of course, just that this case is presenting that as an option.(olive (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

 Redflag This thread has deteriorated into bickering. Therefore, I have filed a Request for Arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 20:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant white flag. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

good step. The decision, whatever it turns out to be, is likely to be better thought out-- and get better acceptance than we will here. DGG (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO - this is crazy. Referral to ArbCom flies in the face of the trend to community resolution. If it is indeed "just" a content issue, ArbCom is powerless anyway - unless it will be referred to the nascent "experts committee on sources", which I thought most people were against anyway. If it's a behavioural issue, it should be solved here. The current tally is 2:1 pro-topic ban. Subtract the "usual suspects" on both sides and it would still likely be pro-topic ban (haven't even tried to tally that!). See above at Shot info, who could be considered as among the usual pro-science pro-mainstream pro-verifiable advocates: temporary ban, prove an interest beyond the single topic. Why are creative solutions being discarded in favour of an ArbCom reference? What is ArbCom going to deliver here (beyond a three-month delay and "parties are reminded")? This is cutting off discussion among potential neutral parties. Anyway, just my opinion... Franamax (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Woot! Shot info, who could be considered as among the usual pro-science pro-mainstream pro-verifiable advocates :-) Shot info (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Shot, I thought you had the best idea in the thread, that's all I care about. Given that it's a polarized thread though, I felt I had to categorize you somewhere - and I can only go by my own experience with your edits, so I called it as I see it. Substitute anti-, null-, skeptic-, agnostic- or any prefix-prepositional-adjunct-clause you wish, it was still a good idea. I apologize though for any false characterization! :) Franamax (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey I'm not disagreeing :-) ... Although you might want to watch out...there are some admins who will slap you with some CIV warning or some other silliness. Shot info (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't disagree much there. I thought this discussion was proceeding reasonably well. Expecting unanimity is a bit much, and this seemed to have been settling at a pretty clear supermajority, which is as close to consensus as any of these things ever gets.—Kww(talk) 04:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem. We do not have a clear policy for implementing Community topic bans. The closest thing we have, WP:BAN states that a ban happens when no administrator is willing to unblock. How do we apply that to a topic ban? I am not sure. An administrator, User:Jossi has already objected to the topic ban, as have a few other editors I respect (such as User:DGG). My feeling is that something as serious as a topic ban probably shouldn't happen at a noticeboard unless there is a clear supermajority, and no administrators objecting. It is very easy to generate support for a proposal where a bunch of drive by editors chime in "support, per the guy above". This is not the sort of fair and careful consideration that Pcarbonn deserves. Jehochman ^Talk 04:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree on the first sentence of the "problem". There should be a clear policy - and weren't you just lately asking for something along the same lines? Lets get at it then.

I've just been quickly through the comments above and I don't see that many "drive-by"s - although enough committed observers as to skewer my putative secondary analysis of neutral opinions. But you won't find any better distribution at ArbCom, will you? Instead, you will find a more limited group of editors, more constrained as to how they can comment on content issues.

And you touch on a really big issue - "no administrators objecting". As far as you mean "one single administrator defies the community will", that concept really needs to die soon. That has nothing to do with ArbCom, it has to do with the admin corps and its self-organization. You cavil at drive-by comments supporting a topic ban, yet you would defend any drive-by (I don't mean Jossi) admin who stopped in to say they would overturn? Like I said, that's crazy. Franamax (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your arithmetic is a bit off. Both jossi and DGG (opposing above) are admins, and DGG has been opposing this ban ever since JzG brought it up in July. Furthermore, you are declaring that editors without an admin bit should have no say in a (community) ban discussion. Since when does community == admins? VG ☎ 13:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Whose arithmetic do you mean? I'm looking at JEH's referral to AC, based at least in part to the math/thinking he describes above. The closest reference is held to be WP:BAN, and there "no admin is willing to unblock" == "!one admin stating a willingness to unblock" - ergo one dissenting admin -> paralysis. Similarly with specific attention to a proposed topic ban, JEH cites a dissenting admin, Jossi, with the implication that the admin status is sufficient to null the proposal. Now I respect all of JEH, Jossi and certainly DGG, the other named dissenting party - but I don't recognize any (or all) of their dissents as sufficient to stop this discussion and direct it instead to an ArbCom case. I would much rather see the discussion proceed here, especially on the basis of Shot info's terms, towards a resolution - and the aggrieved party would then be free to file with ArbCom. If a community solution can be achieved, to me that's a far more satisfactory outcome. Franamax (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should also take into account here that none of the dissenting admins above, to my knowledge, are going to go against a consensus decision. If there's a community consensus to impose a topic ban, then they're not going to lift any blocks resulting from it without discussing it somewhere.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to continuing discussion here, there has been an arbcom case opened. I'm not going to tell you all to pack up shop here and move there, but I'm pretty sure input over at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion would be more useful then input here. (I really don't see any clear consensus to implement this restriction or consensus not to implement it... but that is just my opinion as an editor). —— nixeagle 21:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I should make a note to those wishing to continue this, if you guys want to see an easier to read consensus on the matter, I would suggest someone not involved with the proposal above reformat and rewrite the proposed ban taking into account suggestions in the comments. Some of the comments are of the tone "I like the idea... but I'd only accept if XXX conditions are in place". Incorporate the whole of the discussion and make a new subsection below with it and let the community discuss that topicban. —— nixeagle 21:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Second Comment The biggest problem with this thread is that pretty much zero evidence of objectionable behavior has been presented. The only diff presented by those supporting is of Pcarbonn stating that he has "won the battle" or somesuch. That's not much to go on. It's pretty amazing that people are willing to support such a major move with so little evidence. II | (t - c) 22:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat

Came across a suicide threat here [7]. Definitely not something I feel comfortable handling.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it from the page history. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We're now dealing with suicide threats by deleting and ignoring? Serious question; I'm not being sarcastic. I typically file a CU request to get the IP... contact the ISP... etc etc... Tan | 39 17:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SUICIDE. The edit came from an IP in Pakistan. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with that essay, and several times I have reported suicide threats to ISPs around the world. WP:SUICIDE states, "Once noticeboard threads have been responded to by appropriate parties, consider blanking them, possibly leaving a link to the last version of the thread for reference as needed." (Bolding my own). While I don't have a huge issue with what you did, I'm trying to determine if I've been going way out of my way for nothing. The gist of the essay is that we do not ignore suicide threats and take them seriously - or so I am interpreting. Tan | 39 17:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I just realized that that was talking about blanking this thread, not deleting the threat itself. Trying to work and Wiki at the same time. Anyways, I just always thought we take more action than merely deleting. Examples of my previous actions: [8](I was the one to contact the ISP in this oneTan | 39 18:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that it is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. You are, of course, more than welcome to pursue further action if you'd like, but no one is obligated to do anything specific (other than revert it). John Reaves 18:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can take whatever further action they think fit. Mind, WP:SUICIDE, which is indeed only an essay, says: Threats or claims should be removed from any relevant pages, and are frequently deleted from page history, which is what I did, since I can see no need for it being there (admins can see it as needed). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I wasn't trying to cause a ruckus; I was curious as to other people's mindset on this. Thanks for all your input. Tan | 39 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Tan, none of this is to say you've been going out of your way for nothing, it's wholly up to you, please carry on doing what you think is most helpful. Truth be told, I do think 9 out of 10 or more of these are hoxes and idle (yes, maybe sad) teens trying to see what gets stirred up. If I saw one I truly thought was worrisome, I'd likely do something. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Why in the world would the revision be deleted from page history before it has been assessed and perhaps reported to the authorities. Indeed it should not be deleted in the case that the authorities need to see the revision in order to get the contact info from an ISP. Deleting a revision of intended threat or suicide at all is unwise but deleted it before it can be tended to is terrible. Bstone (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Is it just me? My attitude has always been "fuck 'em. I don't care" . I seriously don't understand why anyone bothers with this kind of attention seeking vandalism. I'm not quite at the stage of actually goading them into doing it but I'm not that far off it. If they need help this website is not the place to go looking for it. But then maybe I'm just a horrible person. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm essentially right behind on that. Of all the threats, suicide or otherwise, I've seen (note they seem to have proliferated over the past year or two), only one has seemed anywhere near credible (and when I saw that one I called the police, was on the phone for several hours, got some lucky kids out of school for a day and one unlucky one arrested). John Reaves 21:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen over the years, most of them are hoaxes or distraught but hardly suicidal teens stirring up the worries and fears most of us have about this kind of thing. I remember what it was like at that age, one way or another, they want to see what happens. I say follow the essay and delete the threats altogether (again, admins can see them anyway). Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not quite at the stage of actually goading them into doing it but I'm not that far off it." Encyclopedia Dramatica and 4chan are thataway...please peruse Suicide#Suicidal_gestures_and_attempts and leave your bit at the door on your way out if you decide to go for it. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

PS- if this geolocated to Pakistan I wouldn't have bothered reporting either. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Either way, most of them are hoaxes and stir ups. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they are. It's like a kid pulling a fire alarm; if it's real, the authorities are summoned and life is saved. If not, the authorities are summoned and the kid gets told, hopefully by the police, that crying wolf is unacceptable. Or you could simply RBI. Either option is a far cry from "goading them into doing it" for your own perverse amusement, which, like I said, is the mindset of an ED/4chan troll. Except now, since Megan Meier, if you successfully goad a child into committing suicide, you'll likely be arrested and prosecuted. Per WP:AGF, I simply assumed Theresa, as a long-time and valued administrator, was making a sick joke and would not consider actually trying to goad any Wikipedia editor (IP or otherwise) into committing suicide. It might be good if she clarified or redacted. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 02:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Did I say I would? Read my post again and don't be so bloody high and mighty. As someone who has had articles written about me at ED, and as someone who constantly deals with trolls, by revert block ignore, and as an admin who firmly believes that vandalising an article by threatening suicide as clear and obviously trolling I find you calling me a troll as really quite amusing. I have no intention of redacting my statement, and stand by what i said. Theresa Knott | token threats 07:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Did I say I would? Er, unless we want to get into Clintonesque explorations of what "not far off it" means, I'm not sure how else one is supposed to interpret "I'm not quite at the stage of actually goading them into doing it but I'm not that far off it." Like I said, I AGFed and assumed you were making a bad joke. And I'm sorry you seem to think I'm high and mighty for pointing out (politely) that attempting to goad someone into suicide (for whatever reason) is a favored and particularly amusing activity for ED/4chan trolls (which is a fact), instead of saying what I actually thought, which is that musing over trying to goad a stranger into suicide out of spite is a pretty friggin' sick and offensive thing for a human being to do to another. I'm not in the minority here, either, Theresa. Nobody's disputing your right to RBI every suicide threat if such is your administrative judgment, but you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who'd support your right to harass said users with the goal of getting them to actually kill themselves. Such is, frankly, beyond the pale, and I rarely find anything bothersome on Wikipedia. This is just the Internet, but you're talking nonchalantly about potentially being the driving force for the ending of a real human life. I understand you've suffered at the hands of the trolls, but so have a lot of admins here and if that experience has made you so bitter and jaded that you're prepared to start acting like them out of a misguided sense of justice, you'd best voluntarily hang up your spurs here before you do. Again, I respect you greatly as an admin and an editor but this is...well, beyond the pale. I'd ask you again to clarify exactly what you plan to do, here. I'm seriously worried. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 22:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For a moment I believed you were serious, but "clarify what you plan to do" is a bit over the top. Or are you serious? In that case I suggest that you leave the evaluation of the credibility of any other "threats" you may encounter on Wikipedia to others who are more qualified. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I think he is serious all right. But i don't think he is reading my reply in it's entirety and simply choosing to read the bits he wants to. Bullzeye I have no intention of telling anyone to go kill themselves and never had. Stop fussing.Theresa Knott | token threats 06:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Theresa, I read every word. Words have meaning, and it's kind of tough to ascertain dark sarcasm over the Internet; I ask others to take my words at pure face value when it comes to matters of life and death, no matter how far-fetched it seems, and I expect the same of others. But I thank you. That last post was all I wanted to hear from the start. Consider all of my previous statements redacted, and I will strike them out if you'd like. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 07:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for my eduction, Bullzeye, I noticed you and Gwen Gale both mentioned the IP being in Pakistan. Why does this make a difference? Not being snarky, just trying to learn. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Maybe it's just too hard to make contact with Pakistani authorities. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 01:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless it was a college or business IP, there's zero chance of inducing any kind of intervention. The guy's boss or teacher might care, but I seriously doubt the Pakistani national police would have any time to spare for this, for about 10 different reasons. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 02:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm also doubtful about the likelihood of doing anything useful about a suicide threat from Pakistan, but concerning suicide threats in general, I'm going to repeat what I wrote in an earlier related discussion. If you don't feel like doing anything about a threat, don't do anything. But don't act in a way that prevents other people from doing something. If you aren't going to help, just stay out of the way. looie496 (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe what I'm reading! If this is a cry for help (we can't view the threat now) it must be responded to. If it vandalism or a sick prank, that's life! But if its serious, we may be the last community he has contact with! Admin needs to disclose this person's identity!--Gazzster (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

They don't know his IRL identity any more than yours or mine. All that could be done is a call to the Pakistani authorities, and if you'd like to give it a try you are more than welcome. It would probably help if you spoke Urdu. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 03:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

note they seem to have proliferated over the past year or two That's because we have started taking them here, and discussing them. Feeding trolls largely. Perhaps we could come to a sensible plan here. If you come across a suicide threat revert ( but don't delete), decide to take action or not, and leave it at that. Is that sensible? Theresa Knott | token threats 06:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I would also stipulate that if the reverter decides to take no action, then they post here or on the Village Pump so that someone else can if they like. The revision can be deleted once an attempt has been made to contact ISP, authorities, somebody. In my mind, the suicide essay, while not policy, is just common sense. It is easy to become very cynical about the people who post unencyclopedic content to our project, but it is important to remember that they are human beings, also. Sometimes just the knowledge that someone out there actually is listening is enough to bring you back from the edge. Without going into any personal detail, this is something which resonates with me personally. I am perfectly willing to set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Suicide Watch or something similar for others who are willing to spend their volunteer time responding to these things. Let me know if this is something others would pitch in for. This is important. Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think setting up a whole project to deal with this is kind of the opposite of what Theresa was talking about - give them less attention, not more. And Wikipedia isn't therapy. We should, at most, contact the authorities. We ourselves should not be trying to "bring [people] back from the edge." Mr.Z-man 17:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

100% agree! I think any kind of suicide watch type project would simply encourage people to post suicide threats on wikipedia and may even open up us to legal problems. This is an encylopedia, and we are here to help write an encylopedia. Anything that is detrimental to that ( and threatening suicide certainly is) needs to be dealt with swiftly and without drama. Revert, block the account, deal or not as your own conscience dictates, and eventually delete seems sensible. If people need bringing back from the edge they should go to their friends, family, doctor, religious leader, teacher or even some other website. But not here. We are here to write an encylopedia. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly see where you guys are coming from. We are primarily here to build an encyclopedia, not deal with suicide threats, large numbers of which are probably fake. That said, and while still agreeing that we should WP:DENY recognition to these types of things, I can't personally ignore them. Anybody who finds something like this, and doesn't want to follow up, is free to post it to my talk page for further. I would also like, if not a WikiProject, then at least a list, similar to Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks, of admins/editors who are willing to deal with this sort of thing. Or is even that giving them too much attention? Any and all input is requested.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Christ! The milk of human kindness certainly flows here, doesn't it?!There must be a policy for dealing with threats of violence! Doesn't it occur to any of you, that if we haven't heard more of this, is possibly because the guy has carried out his threat?--Gazzster (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be, but highly unlikely. This has nothing to do with kindness, most of us worry about any threat like this, but some of us understand that most of these threats are hoaxes. Wikipedia is one of the most widely read websites in the world. Because the wiki software allows anyone to throw in content, these mostly empty threats, along with a very few, now and then, which have something to them, are bound to carry on with no end in sight, hence the notion of handling them through some take on WP:RBI. So what about the very few which may have something to them? If Wikipedia puts forth a set policy of dealing with or answering editors who are thought to be truly suicidal, Wikipedia becomes a suicide counseling/response service, with all the legal and administrative worries this would mean, never mind it would likely stir up even more hoaxes. Meanwhile I do think individual editors should always be free to handle these as they please, as individuals, even as the threats themselves, which are mostly hoaxes, are swiftly rm'd from the wiki. The biggest question I have is, where to post these? An WP:Administrators' noticeboard/threats of self harm would only make things worse. The most helpful thing I can think of is to keep reporting them on ANI or AN, remove the edits (by revert or deletion, whatever the consensus might be), block the user, protect their talk page (keeping in mind that any suicide threat is a kind of murder threat echoing back on the one who makes it) and let individual editors do what they think fit from there. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Aervanath, what would you think of a boilerplate pointer to a more appropriate forum, such as this one, with worldwide suicide crisis hotlines? On whole, I agree with Gwen and Theresa that we can't put ourselves in the position of being suicide interventionists--few Wikipedians are professionals or trained for dealing with suicide threats and could actually do more harm than good. I am also inclined to believe that many suicide notes to Wikipedia will be hoaxes. I did a brief stint with a local suicide hotline and found it disheartening how many people seemed to think faking suicide calls was fun (with their friends giggling in the background, no less). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be acceptable. I do acknowledge Gwen Gale's point that most of these are probably hoaxes, and it's not our job to be suicide interventionists, I just don't think just dropping these is a moral option. The "boilerplate pointer" option you suggest sounds like something that could get consensus. I'll throw a template together tomorrow for comment. I'm not going to try to make it mandatory on everybody, but I think having a standard template around for people to use would help standardize our approach to these things.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think so, too, and I also think it could help avoid some of the pitfalls of personal interaction with these individuals, where a communication misstep can precipitate the event we'd hope to avoid. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think any boilerplate would need to be worded very carefully indeed, but it might work. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A draft is available at User:Aervanath/Suicide response. Contributions are invited. I would recommend that the revisions containing the threat and the response template be deleted after a reasonable period of time, say 24-48 hours.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Simple and to the point. I think it's good. Provides real help to those who are serious with their threat while keeping Wikipedia out of any potential legal hot water for attempting to provide help. لennavecia 19:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes Theresa Knott | token threats 21:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Though I'd already tossed my support in at Aervanath's talk page, I'll "officially" note it here. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Suicide Threat continued (a subthread)

Sure, it has of course occured to me that this may be a hoax. But Wikipedia, as a public forum, must assume the same responsibilies as any public organisation must. Those responsibilities include formulating and acting upon policies relating to public threats of self-violence or violence to others.It is not of course subject to local law- but still it must be responsible to itself and its members. I'm not trying to hop onto a soap-box here, but this issue does disturb me.--Gazzster (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And in the same vein, why are suicide threats deleted asap?--Gazzster (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What "responsibilities of any..." "public forums" or "public organisations" do you mean? Is this your own outlook or are you talking about a legal principle which defines public forums and organizations on the Internet along with lawfully mandated requirements to deal with this kind of thing? I ask this with a reminder that these threats do indeed seem to unsettle most of us (they unsettle me).

The threats are deleted because they're highly disruptive and also, starting up a conversation with someone who makes this kind of a threat (hoax or not) could tend to cause much more harm than help. Given that most are hoaxes, WP:Vandalism also fits, much more often than not. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand that. Any public organisation will say also, that suicide threats are disruptive, whether they are real or not. Still, they all have a policy for dealing with them. I don't doubt that these sort of threats, true or not, 'unsettle' you. As they would any right-minded human being. But why do we suppose that, being an international website, we are exempt from the basic duty of care?--Gazzster (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, as to basic duty of care are you talking about your own ethical and caring outlook or a legal principle which has sway over Wikipedia? Could you give some verifiable examples of "public organizations" which "all have a policy for dealing with them"? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely what I'm saying! If Wiki is not subject to any law in this regard it needs to formulate it's own policy! And it should model itself on the principles that govern public organisations.--Gazzster (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What public organizations are you thinking of? Can you name some, along with their policies about this? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you like a list? We could start with the Police, Counselling Services, shopping malls, schools, the St Kilda Returned Services League, the Croyden Girl Guides Group?--Gazzster (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. How about websites? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably jumping in the middle of something here, but we have Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up. Although it's an essay and not a policy, I've read it as a guide and found it very helpful, but have also found some editors don't agree with parts. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Which editor is threatening suicide? Killing oneself over not getting his/her edits accepted, is a bit dramatic. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

for those interested, there's also a (currently rejected) 'Threats of Violence' policy which if adopted could apply :-) Privatemusings (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for this discussion, this page is for discussion the administrator's noticeboard, not subjects that would appear on the noticeboard. John Reaves 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am horrified that an admin on this project would delete a revision which includes a suicide of homicidal threat without letting it be reported to the authorities. Gwen, might you comment on why you do this? Bstone (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Why are you horrified? Any administrator can see the revision and call/email local pd's if needed. And we really do have to weigh the possibility that threats are credible against the drama/trolling that comes from fake threats. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's irresponsible to delete the threat if you do not also report it to at least this noticeboard. If you are, for example, Huggling and you come across a suicide threat, revert and go on... I don't agree that such action is appropriate. If, however, same scenario, but instead of going on, you report the revision here, then go on... I don't see a problem with deleting it immediately. لennavecia 05:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. From what I have read so far, threats of suicide are treated merely as nuisances. Which is a totally **cked attitude. Everyone behind a computer is a person, not a problem.--Gazzster (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The threat had already been reported here, I then carefully reported here that I'd deleted it following WP:SUICIDE and any admin could and can still see it. Nothing about this stopped anyone from following up on it if they wanted to. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Suicide_threat above. This thread is a fork which was mistakenly carried forward on the talk page, then moved back here. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we move it back up to the previous thread?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea, if nothing else so that they are archived together. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot (talk · contribs)

I appreciate that dates are often overlinked, but sending in a bot to unlink each and every wikilink to a date article is pretty radical. What happened to our healthy suspicion of bots doing the work of human editors? The relevant guideline, at Wikipedia:CONTEXT#Dates, has

such items should be linked only when this is demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic

now if somebody has written a bot capable of making that call on a reliable basis, I suppose we can announce the Turing Test has just been met. Meaning, I don't think so. dab (𒁳) 17:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you read all three of the discussions that are linked to from the 'bot's user page, especially the third? Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot should not be unlinking any dates as understand it. BJ^Talk 23:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I take that back, why was that approved again? It is just as bad as removing all autoformatting which got denied.BJ^Talk 23:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that instances of a link that is "demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding" are sufficiently few as to make this bot good value, providing it can be reverted once and forever when an inappropriate delinking is detected. 86.44.21.224 (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For instance we already have bots removing certain links (of the myspace, youtube, blogspot type) on sight based on whether or not the editor adding them is autoconfirmed. 86.44.21.224 (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocking a bot

I'm not sure if this is the right place or not. If it isn't please point me in the right direction. I would like to request that User:Lightbot be blocked. At least temporarily. If you view the operator's talk page, there are at least 2 sections (here and here) where other editors have pointed out that the bot is acting contrary to consensus, and the bot operator appears to refuse to stop the bot or change it. One example of this, is how the bot is changing text that breaks the depreceated autoformatting ([[July 4]], [[1976 in radio|1976]] for example) to "[[July 4]], [[1976]]". It is removing a useful link. More details of the problems with the bot can be found at the 2 sections linked above.--Rockfang (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't like autoformatting but there are many articles that contain broken autoformatting due to these concealed year links. All the bot does is fix the error. I don't expect thanks for fixing the errors caused by other editors, but I don't expect to be attacked for cleaning up the mess and explaining how autoformatting works. Lightmouse (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, your bot is removing a useful link under the color of "fixing" broken autoformatting. While your stated dislike of piped "year in subject" links is clear, the consensus is that they are both permissible and useful. Your bot has been removing these links and replacing them with bare "year" links which leaves the autoformatted date links you purport to be removing while stripping hundreds of articles of a useful, on-topic link. I have requested a temporary halt to this behavior which is both destructive and against consensus but you have not only refused but at one point concealed the mechanism for halting the bot after restarting it. - Dravecky (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I was actually on my way here to begin this exact discussion when I saw that it had started without me (and now I've been edit conflicted - urgh!). Luckily, we seem to have reached a detente on radio station articles, at least for now. However, that's not to say that I don't still have concerns.

The task approval for Lightbot is very broad with regard to dates, as follows:

I would like to make it explicit that I will be editing dates in a variety of forms.

A 'date' is any sequence of characters that relates to time, chronology, or calendars. This includes but is not limited to seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, fortnights, months, years, decades, centuries, eras, and can be in any sequence or format.

Edits may add, remove or modify the sequence or format of dates.

Edits may add, remove or modify templates that involve dates.

Edits may add or modify autoformatting. Edits may remove autoformatting where it is invalid, broken or itself breaks a date for readers.

Edits may add, remove or modify links to dates.

In that regard, the edits that are causing concern are within the bot's scope, per its broadest interpretation. So, at this point, I think it's the approved scope that needs to be questioned. Given that the current state of WP:MOSNUM is that autoformatting is deprecated, why should any bot be adding autoformatting to articles or, as has been happening here, fixing autoformatting that is broken? Why should broken autoformatting be 'fixed' at this point, particularly if the links being 'fixed' point to valid contextual information?

Lightmouse, for what it's worth, I will say thanks for the explanation you've provided about broken autoformatting. As I've told you before, I also think it's unfortunate that you've taken all the flack that you have for removing autoformatting from articles, whether via your bot or via script through your user account. Some of that flack has been rather personal, which is particularly regrettable. However, I don't believe that this discussion has contained attacks against you, and I know that I certainly haven't attacked you. If that's how you're perceiving it, then I'm sorry for that. What I have done is raise what I believe to be valid concerns about your bot's edits as it concerns existing policy and as it concerns the deletion of useful links. Now that you've stated you've tweaked the bot to steer around the radio station articles, we'll hopefully be able to get some third, fourth, etc. opinions.

So, here's the question I'd raise. I think it's a reasonable assumption that a piped link - whether it takes the form of [[October 5]], [[1976 in radio|1976]] or simply [[1976 in radio|1976]] - is intended to point toward contextual information. As such, would it not make sense to build logic into the bot to have it skip past piped date-related links? Mlaffs (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I felt the request was too broad at the time, and, I think that this carte blanche type task is beginning to cause problems now. However, for the time being, the bot appears to have stopped. SQL^{Query me!} 21:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The only reason the bot has stopped is becuase of this.--Rockfang (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I saw that the bots owner and another party were having a bit of a fight over that page. SQL^{Query me!} 21:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And now the bot is running again, even while this discussion continues. - Dravecky (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

NOTE - to clarify, while there may be links such as these in various spots within an article, the particular ones that I'd like to see retained are those in the infoboxes. Other editors' mileage may vary ... Mlaffs (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Links like that are not good, since people will think they're year links and not click them. See WP:EGG. However, that link does suggest an alternative that might be able to be done by bot. --NE2 20:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise it might be a useful task for the human bot-net which has been doing most of the de-linking. — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That page notes explicitly that "piped [year] links may be useful in places where compact presentation is important (some tables, infoboxes and lists); and in the main prose of articles in which such links are used heavily, as is often the case with sports biographies that link to numerous season articles." –xeno (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

True but auto-formatting concerns would not apply to a table cell containing

| [[1998 NBA Finals|1998]] || [[Chicago Bulls]] || [[Utah Jazz]]

or whatnot, so hopefully these links would not be affected by Lightbot. I agree that year links (and most others) should be de-obfuscated in prose context. As a rule of thumb I would say try to make the links point where they appear to if they are part of a complete sentence or part of an index which is expected to list articles by title rather than by function, etc. — CharlotteWebb 20:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot will not touch the example given by CharlotteWebb where the concealed link is on its own. It is only where the concealed link is preceded by day+month. You can't have autoformatting AND concealed links together. I did't make the rules for autoformatting and I think Wikipedia will be a much better place for readers when autoformatting is gone. If somebody adds a concealed year link to an autoformatted date, I have simply been undoing that error. If the consensus is that people want the bot to remove the day+month link and think the wording of the bot approval supports it, then I will remove the day+month. I just hope you guys are around when somebody complains about that. If the supporters of autoformatting were more active in making it work, perhaps we would not be having this discussion. Sigh. Anyway, which do you want:

• removal of the link to the concealed year
• removal of the day+month link

Lightmouse (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Using my first example in this subsection, if the bot changes anything, it should only be to delink the [[July 4]] and leave the in "year in radio" link alone. If the bot cannot delink it, it should leave both parts alone.--Rockfang (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As autoformatting is apparently deprecated by some consensus while the "year in radio" links and their ilk are explicitly permitted in most contexts, if some change must be made automatically then I feel strongly that the link to the useful content be preserved and the date autoformatting be defeated by removing the link to the month-day pair. - Dravecky (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have stopped the bot's operation via the normal method again. If it resumes prior to a resolution of this discussion I will block it. I would also encourage the participants in this discussion to take into consideration the reams of discussion at WT:MOSNUM and see if some kind of real consensus can be generated regarding this recurring issue ... Shereth 22:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am astonished that I am being threatened with a block for fixing a defect. I have complained about these defects before but they lay unfixed and we would not be discussing these defects now if I had not started fixing them. If you like these errors so much, keep them. I am hereby making a formal complaint about abuse of administrator powers by Shereth. What is the next step in the complaint process? Lightmouse (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I threatened to block the bot, not you. I never have threatened any administrative action against yourself, Lightmouse, only to block the bot if it continued editing in the midst of a dispute over its use. Anyway, if you insist on crying foul, here or AN/I are as good a place as any. Shereth 23:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse has once again started the bot with an edit summary of "see user talk page" but no apparent explanation on that page. - Dravecky (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I hereby declare now that Lightbot not fix these errors anymore. The errors will remain concealed. That is a resolution of the discussion. I will restart the bot on the assumption that you have got what you wanted. Lightmouse (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sareth, I’m just dropping in and haven’t read hardly any of the above. You are in the thick of this and are familiar with the details. But I do notice that you have written of “continued editing in the midst of a dispute over its use.” As you already know, disputes very rarely completely end on Wikipedia. Most issues are never free of controversy. We need Lightmouse’s contributions here on Wikipedia. His Lightbot is extraordinarily prolific and does more work than a hundred ordinary editors. Further, emotionally, blocking Lightmouse’s bot would—from Lightmouse’s point of view—be received as if you blocked Lightmouse himself. I’ve always seen that Lightmouse has been extraordinarily quick to respond to any reasonable request. I encourage you to afford him the greatest possible latitude to determine on his own whether a general consensus exists for some policy and to revise his bot to implement the desires of that general consensus. More than most other editors, Lightmouse shouldn’t have to continually be looking over his shoulder just because a couple of extra-vociferous editors are willing to climb the Reichstag over some issue. Greg L (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not a fan of the logic of "Lightmouse's bot does such good work that we should allow him to do whatever he wants." The last bot that people argued was so valuable and whose contributor was so important that the bot should not be blocked was a mess. If the bot is so important, split its work into important non-controversial work and other projects; there isn't a logical reason why a single bot should be doing everything. People asked Lightmouse to stop the bot and he should have, until the issue was resolved. On the relevant issue, thanks for taking care of things Lightmouse. It's nothing personal, just a view I rather don't agree with. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• My point is that if all it took to require that he stop his bot is because “people ask him to,” then we could rarely have bot assistance. Take the hypothetical example of a bot converting mebibytes to megabytes. This bitter conflict ended up with a clear consensus but it was also an instance where A) two editors were declaring there was no consensus, and B) would have no-doubt been as vociferous as hell about the point. Now, you know this is true, don’t you? There is rarely a controversy where everyone is in 100% agreement with the consensus view. We can’t let editors who’ve got bits of Reichstag imbedded under their toenails venue-shop until they find a sympathetic admin who finds that *There Is Conflict*.

  I’m making no judgements as to whether or not Sareth is improperly an involved admin in this instance (see Tony’s post below). If he is, then that would cloud his judgement. I’m just saying that he should cut Lightmouse the maximum slack to determine for himself whether there is or is not a consensus and operate accordingly. I’ve advised Lightmouse that all he should ever have to do is identify whether A) there is a general consensus for something, B) that his bot properly implements the gist of the consensus, and C) that he truly believes what he is doing is good for Wikipedia. It should not be any more complex for him than that. Greg L (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Potential breach of a basic admin rule: I'm most concerned that Shereth risks breaching the conflict of interest rule here in threatening to block Lightbot, when he is personally involved in the issues. This is a serious matter. Tony (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting worked up about here, Tony. I have attempted to make clear that my "personal involvement" is not a desire to see the discussion end either for or against the removal of links, but merely a desire to see the discussion come to a resolution. If attempting to ensure that a bot abides by community consensus is what you call "personal involvement" then so be it; I will not recuse myself from acting in a matter because I have added to the discussion previously, since my previous contributions have been merely to push for any solution, not a specific solution. Shereth 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I must concur, and ask that the bot be blocked. It is now revert-warring to reset its own stop button, which is an abuse; more seriously, the approval on which it is now operating is this one: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. It is vague; it is imposing an interpretation of WP:MOSNUM which is far from consensus, and the approval ignores considerable protest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa

Lightmouse, first off a block on a bot should not be perceived as a block on yourself. Any admin can should block a bot if it is misbehaving, and you as the bot operator needs to discuss the concerns without running the bot during the discussions. So what if the bot is delayed by 24 hours. This nonsense about a block on the bot being a block against yourself is just totally incorrect and goes against the point of WP:BOT. I'm telling you this as a past bot operator and as someone that has several scripts on toolserver.

Now, is this problem solved solved to the satisfaction of the general community? If it is not I urge any admin to block the bot in question until all issues are resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Thanks. —— nixeagle 03:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved?

Further up in this section Lightbot said that the bot will no longer change "year in subject" links. As the original poster of the bot block request, I am satisfied with that promise. Shall we consider this resolved?--Rockfang (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure on that, the basic MOS premisis that this bot is acting on is currently under hot debate as I can see on the history. I'm not sure if lightmouse wants to halt the bot while that is sorted out or not. I would take it as evidence of good faith. You guys need to remember that BAG only gives technical approval for things... if the community at large is not happy with a bot's operation, BAG's approval may need to be re-looked at and possibly have the scope narrowed. —— nixeagle 17:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's true that discussion is still ongoing regarding the best approach to things over at the OVERLINK talk page. However, I'd agree with Rockfang - based on Lightmouse's statements regarding intentions for the bot going forward and after scanning some of the bot's edits earlier today/later yesterday, I'd !vote that this specific issue is resolved. Mlaffs (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Although it's become apparent that there are several issues with the behavior of this bot, as regards the "year in subject" unlinking that I and others found disruptive, if the bot is no longer making these sorts of edits then that portion of the discussion is resolved. - Dravecky (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I regard this as resolved too. However, User:Pmanderson keeps on stopping the bot but has yet to explain why. Lightmouse (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody persuade to User:Pmanderson to talk or persuade him to leave the bot alone. Lightmouse (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot is disruptive, and has no clear mandate; what Lightmouse is doing with it has no consensus even at WP:MOSNUM. Three or four editors there unconditionally dislike date articles; but WP:articles for deletion/March 1 should show that they are a minority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a red herring, and programming the bot to stop doing the one thing it should be doing (removing links which say one thing and do another, whether they break date formatting or not) isn't a satisfactory result. — CharlotteWebb 18:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Anderson, Lightmouse is a highly skilled and diplomatic bot manager, and we should be pleased that he's willing to put in the time and effort to make HUGE improvements to the project, thereby allowing other editors to get on with their content editing. The critical role of bots (now and in the future) was one of the main themes of the address to the recent Wikimania conference by Dr Bill Wedemeyer, Faculty of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Michigan State University, who conducted an extensive study of the quality of (mainly) scientific articles on WP. We should be assisting and supporting, not obstructing; this is a long-term part of the project that we need to expand and refine. The recent spate of roadblocks appears to be at the behest of some individuals' pet peeves, rather than in consideration of the interests of the project. Tony (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Proceeding from here

At this point, it should be obvious to any casual observer that no real conclusion has been reached. At best, we have a temporary patch. There are several issues here:

1. The bot need to be re-evaluated as to whether or not it really has consensus anymore. There needs to be an actual community discussion as to whether or not the bot should continue running, and if so, what, specifically it should be doing. This should be somewhere like the village pump, not WP:BRFA or some MoS talk page.
2. Revert warring on the bot's talk page is absolutely inappropriate, especially by the bot itself - a bot should not be turning itself back on after a user stops it.
3. Running the bot during this discussion is also inappropriate.
4. WP:BRFA approval is not like an ArbCom decision that one can wave around and use as justification to continue running while there's a discussion ongoing about the appropriateness of the bot. If there is a real community consensus that the bot should not be running, prior BAG approval does not matter.

If the bot continues revert warring to restart itself, or it continues running with no attempt to engage the community and determine whether or not it has consensus (there's always the possibility that the community doesn't actually care), I will block the bot and begin a discussion with regard to revoking its bot flag. Mr.Z-man 20:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As will I. Since there was (apparently) some confusion as to the precise nature of the problem before, I'll accept that the resumption of the bot's duties was not in blatant disregard for the discussion going on here. But as this is an ongoing problem, the bot's operation must be suspended until the above questions are both addressed and resolved. Shereth 21:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify something about which I think there's significant potential for confusion, because I think that the differentiation is important. The specific issue that Rockfang raised yesterday, and about which Dravecky and I both expressed concern, was a very narrow problem relating to removal of piped links within date elements in radio station articles. I think the three of us have agreed that this specific issue is resolved, insofar as Lightmouse has decided to avoid those particular types of edits via Lightbot. As I see it, the issue that PMAnderson is now raising, and which is giving rise to suggestions that the bot should stop its activities or risk a block, is part of a much, much broader discussion at MOS regarding the deprecation of date element links for the purpose of autoformatting, the true meaning of the term "deprecation", and the appropriateness of the automated removal of those links. In reading through various parts of that discussion, it's clear to me that there are some who feel that this discussion is fully and completely put to bed and that MOS reflects consensus as a result, and there are others who disagree, hence the further concerns raised here. For what it's worth, I have no dog in that fight. Mlaffs (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your evaluation of the situation is spot-on. Shereth 22:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I will address the points made by User:Mr.Z-man:

• 1. There needs to be an actual community discussion... This should be somewhere like the village pump, not WP:BRFA or some MoS talk page.
  • Fine by me. Start a discussion at either of those places.
• 2. a bot should not be turning itself back on after a user stops it.
  • I can't parse that. There are many bots on Wikipedia and they are all restarted by bot owners after they are stopped by users. Some users (e.g. PMAnderson) even stop bots without giving a reason. Sometimes reasons for stopping a bot are 'you have changed one of the pages that I own, please stop'.
• 3. Running the bot during this discussion is also inappropriate.
  • Who decides when the MOS is complete? There are many sections of the MOS that I don't like. I could claim that everybody must stop implementing those bits of the MOS until I have agreed to them. I could restart a discussion at any time claiming that there was not sufficient discussion or agreement.
• 4. WP:BRFA approval is not like an ArbCom decision
  • I agree.

Now several of you have issued the block threats I look forward to seeing the discussion mentioned by User:Mr.Z-man. If there are constraints on implementing the MOS, then there are many editors that need to modify their actions, not just me. Lightmouse (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This edit, and it is one of several, shows Lightbot removing the "stop" control from its own talk page. If this is the actual prggramming of the bot, that is unacceptable. If it were, for example, Lightmouse using the bot's account - well, there are other words for that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well I can clear that up easily. It is just Lightmouse restarting the bot while still logged into the Lightbot account. What are the other words? Lightmouse (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You the bot operator needs to demonstrate consensus before doing automated edits. This is laid out in WP:BOT. If there are editors here doubting the consensus for the bot then it might be a good idea to make that consensus perfectly clear. As far as implementing the MOS, let me make it clear that the MOS is only a guideline, on top of that I should note that these changes your bot is doing (and I presume others as you mentioned) are not time critical (there is no deadline). It does no harm for you to pause the bot's activity while discussion is going on, what is 24 hours, 48 hours, even a week in the life of a program?

Finally I should note that if the community says (in a location public enough) that your bot is fine for operation, then that means all bots doing this task are fine. However if folks say it is not fine, then all bots doing this task are not ok. Frankly I don't care the answer, however I do think that any consensus is not very clear at the moment. While consensus is not clear, automated programs should not be running implementing one side's point of view. I think this is inline with what Mr-Z said above, and what I think some want. —— nixeagle 03:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot was started again this morning (see edit history) with an edit summary of "see owner talk" but no actual relevant comment on that page (see edit history). - Dravecky (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually all that happened was the "stop" was removed. Look at the bot's edit history; it has not resumed delinking articles. I'm not going to interpret the removal of the word "stop" as a flaunting of requests to pause its behavior here, as it has not resumed its duties. Shereth 16:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Avinesh

This user was confirmed to be a sockpuppet in this case. Sockpuppet templates were placed on the sockpuppet pages alerting people to that fact. User filed an unblock request that was denied. His reason was that he had no idea who these people were and that he 'suspected' that individuals at his place of work were contributing. However, checkuser and sockpuppet cases established that there was significant overlap on areas of interest, including styles of writing. After user said that he had no idea who these sockpuppets were, user comes back and removes the sockpuppet tags and says that the sockpuppets retired 'at his request' (even though he doesn't know these people). After the templates were placed back, user removes them again and this time says that if we assume he IS the puppetmaster, then he has the right to remove the templates from these pages. This was the second time he was accused of being a sockpuppet. In an earlier case he again claimed that he was using a shared IP and that he 'suspected' that people from his office might have edited the same articles. I've told him that he shouldn't remove the templates since those users were confirmed to be sockpuppets. He doesn't want to listen and asked me to take the case to ANI. --vi5in^[talk] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an old issue and User:Vivin too was accused of sock (Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Vivin) & reached inconclusive. See User_talk:Vivin#Your_sockpuppet also. It is sure that I rmd that tag as it looks odd to me. However, the tag is in place with my comment. I think this issue is over, but still wondering why vivin started this thread? Also reporting Vivin's edit war & uncivil discussion at User:harjk user page & talk. --Avinesh  T  04:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

See this diff, vivin rmd my comment, should be severely dealt with. The user still keeping bad faith & edit warring. --Avinesh  T  04:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This user has a long history of violating WP:OWN, WP:COI, and has been accused and confirmed of being a sockpuppet twice (first case here. Similar circumstances to second). This user assumes that any attempt to edit the pages that he has worked on is "vandalism", even going so far as to launch frivolous sockpuppet accusations against editors. I find it highly unlikely that both times people from his office would create user accounts and edit the same articles with the same POV, including the same type of language. Also keep in mind that for being new accounts they seemed to have a rather extensive knowledge of Wikipedia terms and policies. This issue was over, and the sockpuppet pages were appropriately tagged. This user then tried to remove them (claiming that they look 'odd', which isn't a valid reason in any way whatsoever). Furthermore, this user has given many conflicting accounts about these sockpuppets. In one instance he claims he doesn't know who these people are, and then he claims that they are people from his office, and then he claims that because the checkuser confirmed them to be his sockpuppets, he has the right to go in and edit those user pages and remove the sockpuppet templates(!) There has been no uncivil discussion on my part. In fact, after he removed the tags and then wrote to me on my personal webpage, I quite civilly explained to him why the templates had to say. Of course, he later removed my comments from his talk page (completely within his right to do so), calling them "bad faith". The reason I brought this up to ANI is because the user kept reverting the pages and then asked me to take the issue to ANI. --vi5in^[talk] 17:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The user appears to have stopped removing the tags, so I suggest this issue be closed. --vi5in^[talk] 17:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I recently blocked one of Avinesh's accounts and then he denied he was the owner of another account on-wiki, but then he emailed all over the place with his other name; Only a mug would believe this guy's "friend" explanation, he has used socks abusively before and is now using a separate account for his religious battles. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think there is no surprise in YellowMonkey’s comment here. In fact, I was reading this posting today (interestingly speaking about User:YellowMonkey [Blnguin] & User:Vivin [Vivin Paliath]), the same people who are in this thread too. Just asking a clarification from YM: About 2-3 weeks back, when another user asked YM about googlean’s sock id’s this was your message to him. And now, this you done. YM, I am not able to catch your contradictory statement although I undid my edits of ‘retired’ tag & commented.? What was your ‘special interest’ in this topic? --Avinesh  T  08:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice try. Good one. And I have no idea what you're trying to prove with that link to the WSJ Livemint article. But thanks for the plug \o/. --vi5in^[talk] 15:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I blocked New York City for anon?

I've got an IP-hopping blocked user who's irritating me. He seems to be jumping around a number of IP addresses - all with the same provider, all in the same geographical area. But new addresses every day.

Would anyone be greatly worried if I just blocked all the CIDR blocks he's coming from, for a reasonable period of time? I think it amounts to a bunch of /17s - fairly big blocks; it's a big provider. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How many IPs does it cover? You should ask a checkuser about collateral damage. Enigma ^message 14:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Each /17 takes out 32.000 addresses. So I guess I'd have to block around 100.000 addresses to be effective. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I would mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.175.131 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Relax, you're not in one of the blocks I've found. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As much as I would be incredibly amused by it, I think that's a lot of collatoral damage. Is the IP's vandalism really that bad? L'Aquatique[talk] 22:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So far, it's just a banned user seeking to continue the "discusson"; I don't know if he's really done any vandalism yet, but this looks vaguely threatening. What I dislike about those blocks is tha the operator seems to make it VERY easy to get new IP addresses, which means that it's exactly the same as a dialup bank, and almost as bad as an anon proxy - more detail on the IP ranges involved at User:Alvestrand/DeFrancis notes. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

what i meant was, i would return to what the normal vandals you see the huggle reverting people revert do, the kind of vandalism that gets reverted right after you make it by cluebot because its so ridiculous... its amusing to see the warnings piling up like c*** on your talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.156.23 (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

i will stop because i found vandalising spanish wikipedia is more fun then here. i was accused of being molested in my house lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.133.253 (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please only use rangeblocks in extreme circumstances, especially ones as far-reaching as the ones you're proposing. I see no reason in this particular case to take such an extreme action. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Appeal of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

Ease of editing section break

This is also posted to the Arbcom page. However, this case was handled so badly by the arbcom, that I would like a parallel community re-evaluation. Thank you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A few months ago, Newyorkbrad encouraged me to open a new request related to the core of this case, but the wounds were too raw, and I was unable to set out my evidence calmly at that time, so delayed.

I ask that we reopen the matter now.

In this case, the arbcom, while I was suffering from severe depression, illness, and on the verge of nervous breakdown from the monetary situation at the time - I was literally faced with being homeless - opened a case with no prior dispute resolution - I had never had so much as an RfC on me - and chose me to be a test case. In the end, combined with the other events, this forced me to drop out of university. I left Wikipedia over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of User:Newyorkbrad, User:Durova and a few others that brought me back after several months.

A sitting arbitrator launched a campaign of harrassment throughout the case pages, unchecked by the other arbitrators. Here are some samples. This all took place over a single bad block, made two months before the Arbcom case was opened.

In the initial lead in to the case, I had offered to let Charles Matthews take over the block, in e-mail, because there was no way that I could review it competently at that point in time. He said that was "not good enough", so I put it up on ANI.

Charles Matthews specifically says at one point that my refusal to simply to defer to his judgement is why he opened this case and pushed so hard for my desysopping:

Bear in mind, please, my approach. I intended to get Vanished user to correct this mistake, voluntarily, in such a way as could appear a personal realisation that something had not been right, something had been excessive. In such a way that no review process had been needed. An admin had reconsidered an indef block, had read the log - "gosh, that was too strong - a month is enough - didn't mean to put it that way". Unblocks, leaves a Talk page note to MH. Vanished user and I would have had a little secret. End of story: MH might have left the site, but the matter would have ended in no fanfare. Why do we have a test case? For precisely this reason: the indef block was made in such a way as to obstruct this entirely humane and non-accusatory private review, discussed as between colleagues. Now, I would treat the next bad block just the same way: private email; talk page note, "did you have a mail from me?", no topic mentioned; another private mail, saying more clearly waht the issue is; another private mail asking for attention to the matter; a further mail saying you really ought to give this some attention, and, no, we should talk before you take this to any forum. Tell me, please, whether I'm not acting in the interests of everyone? As opposed to - I start an AN/I thread saying "Vanished user blocked badly here, and here's my case", and we get an adversarial discussion. Charles Matthews 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[N.B. I used to edit under my real name. I will be censoring it wherever it appears, and would ask that if anyone mentions it that it be immediately deleted]

As he did not get my consent immediately (though I did unblock in the end), Charles Matthews then launched a campaign of harassment against me, using the power of the Arbitration committee to harass without fear of rebuttal. A complete read through of the case pages would be necessary to see this in full, so I'll just give a couple typical comments by Charles.

• Really, I'm upset now. This is just crap we are listening to about how the admin bit makes you a demigod, and it is death to become an ordinary mortal once more. I can't think legalistically about all this. I came here to Wikipedia to write articles, not to deal with moral pygmies. Too right I can't AGF of the AN/I shower. Charles Matthews 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (and that in response to an appeal by Carcharoth that he calm down!)

• No doubt you do object. I have highlighted quite a number of misleading statements you have made. You're hardly coming across the truthful, conscientious, responsive type. You just pass the buck and excuse yourself, endlessly. "Harsh" is interesting - very interesting indeed; but you will have due process, and a chance to defend yourself. (You indefinitely banned a user by saying "good point" to a load of old rubbish.) And User:Jehochman has it wrong. Prevention of further misuse of admin powers is the idea, rather than punishment. Charles Matthews 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

His harassment was not devoted to me, he also referred to other editors in the same over-the top terms:

• At best User:Moreschi regards policy as an inconvenience for admins. And User:Jehochman here is a meddling hypocrite, at best.

To quote MastCell's response to the last:

“ Since this case seems to be focusing an unusually intense magnifying glass on the minor failings of everyone even peripherally involved (see Chaser above), it seems fair to note that describing an established, good-faith editor as a "meddling hypocrite, at best" is remarkably poor conduct for anyone involved in an arbitration, much less an sitting Arbitrator. Unless that makes me a meddling hypocrite as well. MastCell Talk 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

... and really. Describing someone as a "busybody" and a "meddling hypocrite" for voicing an opinion on a block at WP:AN/I? What sort of message are we aiming for here? MastCell Talk 18:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

”

However, Charles did not act alone, he was aided and abbetted by the other arbitrators, who actively defended his right to harrass me:

• "Let's try and leave Charles Matthews out of this. He's recused. The case isn't about him, at least not to me." - Uninvited Company, 20 December.

• "You've missed UC's point, I think. The issue at hand is what to do about Vanished user, not what to do about Charles. And, as an aside, I can't imagine any reasonable editor thinking that Charles needs anything done about him. Paul August ☎ 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"

Furthermore, the arbitrators were clearly not interested in anything I had to say in my defense: The case opened on 17:40, 2 December 2007 [9]. Within 13 hours of this, and before I had had the chance to provide a single word of evidence in my defense, Uninvited Company set out proposed decisions saying my statements were not borne out by the facts, to sanction Chaser for not having unblocked Matthew Hoffman, and to suggest I be desysopped.

The problems with this case have been pointed out for several months, but the Arbcom have refeused to deal with it, even to simply remove the harrassing comments by Charles Matthews.

A proposal I made during the case that I be desysopped immediately, in exchange for the case stopping, because of the health and RL problems being severely aggravated by having this case going on as well, was rejected by the Arbcoim in favour of dragging it out, coninuing the case, then opening an RFC. However, in July, the personal details I had volunteered in an attempt to get them to agree to my proposal were thrown back in my face:

"Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems." - Morven, on WP:RFAR, 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC), seconded by Kirill.

The arbcom have very consciously put me in a situation where only a full discussion of my private problems will prevent them from using them to say that the community is unable to comment on my situation, and that they should have the sole right to discuss what should be done with me. I do not trust myself to comment on their behaviour regarding that matter. Suffice to say that when I DID make a disclosure of some of the health problems of that time, e-mails I received from them afterwards criticised me for not being detailed enough, because I had still wished to maintain some sense of privacy.

Other users have agreed that there are problems with this case:

“ At this juncture I wish to remind the Committee it has been my opinion for many months that the Matthew Hoffman case was the worst-handled arbitration I have ever seen, and rather than remedy any of its numerous errors the Committee appears intent upon compounding them. Hollow apologies mean little; I would like to see for starters Charles Matthews withdraw the repeated personal attacks he posted to the case pages. Ideally you ought to be vacating this case because it was requested in a non-emergency situation with no prior attempt at dispute resolution--thus outside your mandate.

Virtually the only other recent case that closed with a prohibition on RFA was the Alkivar case; the off-wiki evidence regarding Alkivar was entirely or almost entirely my own submission and I assembled it from public records. I have been never been under any pledge of confidentiality regarding that material. Until now I have chosen to handle it with discretion because of its sensitive nature; that does not oblige me to remain silent. DurovaCharge! 23:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

”

Likewise Raymond arrit et al, Filll, and numerous others, see the last third of the Proposed decision talk page.

I do not care about getting my adminship back, and I accept that the block was incorrect. However, for my own mental health, I want to put this behind me. Likewise, the campaign of harassment is a blight on the arbcom, and I ask the arbcom to vacate it, in full. As it stands, this case remaining is a statement that, if you upset an Arbitrator, the Arbcom reserves the right to open a "test case" against you with mno proevious dispute resolution, and allow the arbitrator to harass you off the site.

Furthermore, the Arbcom's self-regulation is clearly not working. A basic principle needs to be put in place that all Arbcom decisions can be appealed by the community.

I will gladly provide more evidence on request, however, I believe that this thread is already quite long.

Thank you,

User:Shoemaker's Holiday, a.k.a. Vanished user. 14:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I was not involved in or even aware of the "Matthew Hoffman" case, and I have no opinion about the merits of this appeal (the lengthy and somewhat confusing submission above does not help). However, as a procedural matter, I strongly suggest that this thread be archived without action. For one thing, Shoemaker's Holiday has also submitted the matter to WP:RFAR, which is where it should now be considered, not here. Moreover, WP:AP provides that "remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to modification by, Jimbo Wales." Shoemaker's Holiday has not shown that he has exhausted this venue of appeal before coming here. Finally, there is currently no policy providing for an appeal of Arbitration Committee decisions to the community. This means that any discussion here would probably only lead to fruitless drama. Nonetheless, I wish Shoemaker's Holiday all the best with respect to any personal problems the arbitration may have caused or aggravated. Sometimes, it's best to just let things go. This is only a website, after all.  Sandstein  05:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

SH has a right to ask the community's input IMHO, I've not read the details but note that a recent RfC made by Charles Matthews is meeting with a very different fate.:) Sticky Parkin 03:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Sticky Parkin. The issue here is oversight - who polices ArbCom wehn ArbCom screws up? The ultimate oversight is the community as a whole, and AN provides a location for editors, especially admins who as a rule have been around longer and have demonstrated commitment to the project, a venue for discussing anything of concern. Clearly this is an example of something of concern to us. This is a website afte all - a website that functions only because of the voluntary labor of its editors, and we always need good editors. In fact, there are many essays on the problem of losing good editors. Shoemaker is or at least a valued editor and a good example of the kind of editor we should fight to keep and not hang out to dry, in my opinion. Am I wrong? Let us administrators review the facts and weigh in with ideas and opinions and suggestions. It is nice to think ArbCom has second chances to reverse its own mistakes, but when a real travesty of justice is possible, the community ought to examine the case and weigh in. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid this looks to me like venue shopping. It is as good as stated above that the main reason for asking for "community" input is that ArbCom won't change their minds. Anyway, what are we being asked to decide? Even if the block of MatthewHoffman was 100% solid there were other FoF points as well. Sure, people have got away with worse, including me, probably, but this seems to be a simple case of an appeal based on not liking the outcome rather than any policy grounds. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Reformatted to a transclusion of Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Appeal of Matthew Hoffman in the interests of preventing forest fires.--Tznkai (talk)

Checkuser

Moved from WP:VPP

I've been contacted on my talk page by an IP (67.160.51.32) that claims to be Seattlehawk94, a user that's blocked indefinitely for being a sock of Dereks1x; the userpage has been protected to prevent Seattlehawk from posting unblock requests. According to the Seattlehawk userpage, the block was made after a checkuser case. Where can I find the request for checkuser for Seattlehawk? Looking at What Links Here for User:Seattlehawk94, I find that s/he appears only at this request, in two instances: (1) Seattlehawk posts a comment, and (2) Alison notes that Seattlehawk is a sock. I cannot find anywhere to prove that Seattlehawk has been found a sock by Checkuser; and as no other reason seems to be given for Seattlehawk's block, I'm not willing to block the IP for evading a block or ban. Moreover, I contacted Alison three days ago, asking for an explanation and/or link to the checkuser request, but she's not yet replied. I'm quite confused in this case, and (given that Alison's not yet replied to me) I think a further note for Alison wouldn't be productive; of course, I'm not going to wheel war, especially as I've never seen this user before and thus don't know what's going on exactly, but seeing that I'm being asked into this situation by the IP, I really would like to see what's going on. Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes Checkusers are ran without a formal report, if Alison said someone is a sock, then I would gather this is what occured. That being said, she is semi-retired, so I would say if there is consensus developed here to unblock the main account then it wouldn't be wheel-warring to carry out the consensus. –xeno (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x#Dereks1x (17th) has Alison's finding. I'll avoid commenting beyond what's already been said. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am quite confident, based purely on the WP:DUCK test, that Seattlehawk is Dereks1x. Its all part of his games... Some of his most recent socks have been protesting, demanding that Seattlehawk is removed from his own list of sockpuppets, because its "not him". He's known to play these silly "hey, this isn't me!" stuff. Alison is QUITE familiar with the whole Dereks1x/Archtransit sockfarm, and I trust her judgement completely on this one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the RFCU link above closely. Seattlehawk94 just suddenly appeared asking about some account that hadn't edited since June! What in the world? "Oh, I've been meaning to do this for the last five months"?! My guess is that Dereks1x was trying to gain some information about how long it took for checkuser data to go stale - or something along those lines. Huge kudos to Alison for seeing through that and checking the reporter instead. There's little other explanation for the RFCU in the first place. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things: (1) I hadn't observed until just now that Alison is also a checkuser, and (2) so checkusers are allowed to run a test without a report being filed? I did see Alison's finding on the 17th part, but that's what I meant about "(2) Alison notes that Seattlehawk is a sock". No complaints: I'm simply so unfamiliar with the checkuser process that being thrown in by accident by this IP's messages made me rather confused. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

On #2: see WP:BURO. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. RFCU is used to file reports so that Checkusers who may be unfamiliar with a situation may act on it. There is no formal requirement that a report be filed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

CheckUser is just another word for alchemy; nobody truly knows how it works, not even the practitioners, so there is unlikely to be a definitive response (not one you can trust, anyhoo) to your query. Now, I will get back to editing just as soon as someone changes me back from a newt for spilling the beans here... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to poison the well, here LHVU, checkuser gives its users the ability to check the IP addresses used by registered users. Simply because we don't have access to those IPs does not mean that, as a class, checkusers cannot be trusted. Just because a process is not transparent does not mean that anything nefarious is going on, AGF and all... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, my response was supposed to be humourous (hence the newt comment) - and I am aware that CU's have a few more subtle procedures to point toward two accounts being the same person than mere ip review... nevermind. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe one has to weigh the user to see if s/he weighs the same as a duck... thus proving they're made of wood... At which time, the burning can commence. –xeno (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Thanks much for all the comments and explanations! As I said, I'm hitherto completely unfamiliar with the process, so (being aware that checkuser is a very rarely available tool) I had just assumed that a procedure needed to be followed, like we have to go through a procedure to delete most articles. All makes sense now, as far as I care. Since the IP that commented on my talk page is claiming to be an indefinitely blocked user, would someone block it as a sock? I don't feel comfortable doing it, as I've somewhat been involved in the situation already. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User pages apparently acting as articles, self-publicity, etc

User pages currently are indexed by Google. How far can a user go in using his userspace for self-publicity, sub-pages for articles, etc. Eg. User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin - his user page is literally, except for being in userspace, an article on himself, and his subpage User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin/Sinagogue of Satan is the recreation of a deleted article - [10] which was done over 2 years ago after a deletion review [11] - but how long can it stay there without being moved into article space? And why should he bother risking AfD when it shows up as number 5 in Google when you just search for Michael Margolin or Sinagogue of Satan? 3 more in sort of descending order - User:Georgeos Diaz-Montexano, User:Ccmehil, and User:Dhushara. It looks to me that these fall under WP:UP#NOT but I'd like some comments, especially as to what should be done about them, if anything. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A quick review of the "article" indicates that there has been no activity on it since September 07, and before that March 07. I think there has been plenty of time given to have the piece improved by way of provision of independent reliable sources, and that it should be deleted forthwith. I would do it, but for the fact I have now commented here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Take it to XfD instead. Pretty fair reason to nominate. --Tone 22:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I would usually just blank more obvious spam pages (non-notable companies and the like) since it's doubtful they'll ever come back to spam again but if they haven't edited in a while (and User:Ccmehil's edit history is particularly telling), agree with Tone on XFD. When in doubt, punt it to consensus to decide. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The content already has been XfD'ed as an article, but I suppose having the community re-affirm the decision will mean less potential comeback. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of putting up the sub-page User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin/Sinagogue of Satan at MFD for review. Looking at the MFD page, it looks like user pages in general are reviewable, also, so I may add the others if and when I have time. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"User pages currently are indexed by Google" To prevent that I put __NOINDEX__ at the top of articles I'm working on in my userspace. I hope that is sufficient. Perhaps all user pages should have this by default?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect on user talk page

After being warned for vandalism, User talk:Assa Al Rapa blanked his talk page, then redirected to an image of a reindeer urinating and now an image of someone giving the finger. I can't find any guidance on this but wouldn't this, for instance, cause a problem for anyone using say Twinkle to give them a warning? Sure, they can blank the page, but redirect? dougweller (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

:He has been blocked. Anyone can give a warning see WP:WARN 220.239.47.163 (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Right i get you. If that editor was messing with his talk page then you can call for a reblock with "cannot edit own talk page" or just full protection. The editor has not done anything since being blocked 220.239.47.163 (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Doug is an admin and wasn't looking for this type of answer. I've struck out the response to make it more obvious that a response is still needed. looie496 (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

When unsure about any user's behaviour because no rules seem to apply, the key question to ask yourself is Does this hinder the improvement of the encyclopedia ? If the answer is "no", the behaviour is acceptable, otherwise it's not.

How does that apply to this particular case ? Well, user talk pages are provided to allow communication between editors on encyclopedia-related matters. If the user is messing with the talk page in such a way as to make it difficult for other editors to communicate with him, it hinders the improvement of the encyclopedia. So at the least you should "un-redirect". If the user continues to cause other editors to spend time "fixing" the talk page when they could be working on the encylopedia, the user should be blocked so as to improve everyone else's productivity. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - I have blocked for this in the past. –xeno (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As a note, the account has been indef'ed as a vandalism/trolling-only account. And after looking over the contributions, I'm inclined to agree with the block period. If the user is unwilling to communicate with others, and redirects visitors to obscene content, and hinder the communication process, then they should be blocked. seicer | talk | contribs 19:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. This is what I thought was the case. Looie496, thanks for helping me get the information I wanted, and Derek Ross, thanks for your clear explanation. dougweller (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We have an image of a reindeer urinating? Where? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Sikh-history's userpage

Userpage is used as an advert for sikh-history.com or is being used by multiple users ("we"). --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just take it to MFD or at the very least, point him to WP:USER. Out of policy-respects, I'll informed him. -- 08:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky81682 (talk • contribs)

My page is not an advert for www.sikh-history.com and there is only me editing. Consulting others before editing behind a computer I would say is good practice.--Sikh-history (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Clear misuse of userpage (see WP:UP#NOT). Sikh, I suggest you minimize your beliefs to a sentence or two, or this will probably go to MfD (with an almost certain delete outcome). Tan | 39 15:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: MfD started here. Tan | 39 17:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

He's removed almost everything from his user page -- his talk page though -- almost a whole article there. dougweller (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Help needed to undo autoblock of User:Mooretwin

User:Mooretwin was recently blocked, but this blocked was removed on a "tome served" basis on further investigation (see User talk:Mooretwin.) However, the user is still autoblocked, and neither the user nor myself are able to determine how to undo this. Can some more knowledgeable admin help us sort this out, please? Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I and the editor may have sorted this out now, but I'm waiting for confirmation from the editor that they can edit other articles now.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. It has now been completely resolved.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To find autoblocks, just stick the user that the autoblock is affecting in http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php . It will find the autoblock and give you a link that you can use to remove it. —— nixeagle 04:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Trudeau article page seems to be corrupted

Resolved

I was editing the Kevin Trudeau page and several error pages kept coming up. I finally got the edits to go through and they are viewable on diff in the history. However, page seems to be corrupted when I try to visit it. Thanks. Atlantabravz (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Have you tried clearing your cache? J Milburn (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me now as well. Oh well, it must have just resolved itself in one way or another. Atlantabravz (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Mothers (and fathers) may I ?

I'm feeling unnaturally civic-minded today, and was looking at the indef-blocked IP report. Somewhere up above, it was mentioned that "most of them just need to be unblocked", and since a number of them have now been blocked for nearly 4 years, I was willing to go through the list and unblock--but as a fairly-new admin, I'd rather not step on anyone's toes, let alone screw something up monumentally. Rather than send messages to each and every blocking admin about things that they did during the first Bush administration, I'm posting here to see if there'd be any howling objection if I were to set a cutoff and unblock the IPs in question--for example, if I were to undo all listed blocks older than a year, would that alarm anyone? (If this is the stupidest idea anyone has ever heard of, please don't pounce; I saw a post asking for admins to attend to some issues, and rather than charge in blindly, I'm asking first. Thanks!)GJC 18:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ehh, that makes me a little uncomfortable -- I'm not sure why the page says that most of the IPs need to be unblocked; it seems to be that most have been indefblocked for very good reasons, ie. known IPs of banned users. Unblocking these for no reason other than to have them unblocked doesn't sound like a very good idea. GlassCobra 18:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• I just undid most of CSCWEM's indef's except for the aol block ones. –xeno (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I am guessing you have a good reason for that. For posterity, could you explain so that others do not become confused? Jehochman ^Talk 19:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I examined the vandalism that preceded it, and the block reason, and didn't feel that an indefinite block was warranted. Since CSCWEM is de facto retired, dropping a note seemed like an excercise in futility. –xeno (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• Don't undo blocks willy-nilly. You need to contact the blocking admins and check with them, or else post the specific blocks here for discussion. It may be helpful to sort the database by admin and deal with them in batches, or post them here in reasonable sized batches. You can lose sysop access for hastily unblocking. Sometimes the block reasons have not been made clear, but the block is there for a damn good reason. Jehochman ^Talk 19:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• (Non admin) One thing bugs me. They are indef blocks. That means, at least in my eyes (as a non english native speaker) that the block is indefinite, in other words, it is there forever. Why are you looking at unblocking all these IP's? An indefinite block surely should be that once its there, it should be there for good. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

  Indef != infinite. For the IP accounts, even if they are static, it is easily possible that the owner has changed over the past four years. looie496 (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Glancing at the list, I see at least three categories of indef-blocked IP, each of which should be dealt with differently:

1. Ones that shouldn't be on that list, but "proxy" was misspelled or whatever, causing the regexp to miss it. These should be unblocked and then immediately re-blocked with the appropriately spelled message in order to get them off the list.
2. Ones associated with notorious sockmasters. I would be very leery about unblocking these, because the most notorious vandals have shown that no amount of time or effort is too much. So they very well just may have sat on an IP for four years. Who knows. Don't unblock these.
3. Ones that were blocked for persistent vandalism or spamming, but which are not associated with any sockmaster or vandal in particular. In these cases, the indef != infinite maybe comes into play if some admin is ready to do the work. I think unblocking all of the ones in this category wholesale would be disastrous... but I could see unblocking a dozen of 'em, waiting a week to see if any of them resume vandalizing/spamming, and then moving on.

I can see an argument against this too. But hey, it's a proposal... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Jehochman, and Jaysweet many of these IPs were blocked indef for a reason, including banned user evading blocks from static IPs, spambots (in which many of them are open proxies), harassments, open proxies, etc. It's not like we are blocking thousands of innocent users. A few I blocked a while back are in that list, and they deserved a indef. Talk to the blocking admin before unblocking the IPs, but if the admin is inactive (like some of them are), then either use common sense, or discuss with other admins here (especially with the banned users). Secret ^account 20:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

IPs should almost never be indef blocked. As Looie496 says, even a static IP will likely change owner eventually. Open proxy/Tor/spambot blocks should generally be 1-5 years or less, Tor nodes can run on dynamic IPs. Blocking IPs used by banned users indef is generally pointless, unless for some reason they have a static IP, blocking 1 IP in a likely dynamic range of several tens of thousands is useless. The only thing I can really think of is AOL proxy ranges, as AOL proxies should now be sending XFF headers, so no one should be editing through the proxy IPs anymore. For future reports, a WHOIS/RDNS link might be helpful. Mr.Z-man 20:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I disagree, open proxies and Tor does more harm than good, and if they change owner, let them to a unblock tag with evidence that the IP isn't a open proxy anymore. Secret ^account 20:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    • TOR exit nodes have a very short half-life. Block one for 24 hours, and by the time the block expires, there's a 75% chance that it's no longer a TOR exit node. --Carnildo (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• What about ones like this? (admins only) These shouldn't really have been blocked indef in the first place (unless I'm missing something). Black Kite 20:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Could have been a banned user, I trust Jerry judgement, if it's not a banned user, unblock I guess... Secret ^account 20:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Z-man's comment (er, excuse me.. Mister Z-man ;), I would add to what he said about static IPs that, you know, the average American family moves something like every 3 years or so... So for IPs that geolocate to America at least, even if it is a persistent vandal behind a static IP, after 3-5 years there's a pretty decent chance that a different person has that IP address anyway.

I think a lot of the IPs on that list could be blocked without doing any damage. I would definitely oppose anything that used to be an open proxy, no matter how long ago, cuz those are just too dangerous. But if it was just some kid who wouldn't stop vandalizing, meh, maybe his family moved or he graduated or got a girlfriend or something. No harm in opening up the IP in that case.

I dunno, just my thoughts on that. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

@Secret: That was sort of my point, wasn't it? That a lot of those were blocked for a reason? <shrug> Whatever.. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Had a edit conflict with you, that's why it's mostly a repeat. Secret ^account 21:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, I think I misparsed your comment. I thought you were saying, "I agree with Jehochmann. And, Jaysweet, those IPs were blocked for a reason..." but maybe you were saying "I agree with Jehochman and Jaysweet. Those IPs were blocked for a reason". Sorry for the confusion! ;D --Jaysweet (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am very glad I bothered to post instead of just doing what the instructions in the other post said and unblocking. I guess Wikipedia and my real-life job have something in common after all--volunteering to do something extra can be a dangerous choice! :) GJC 00:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• I made the "other post" referenced above saying "most of these should be unblocked". I was wrong. All of these should be unblocked. Why? Because we don't indefinitely block IP addresses. Now, that being said, many of these need to be re-blocked (after being unblocked) for a period of time, say 2-5 years (possibly longer for rare cases), but even open proxies are no longer indefinitely blocked from my understanding. There are plenty of cases on here where an indef block was ridiculous, including single instances of run-of-the mill vandalism. Legal or death threat? A year block is more than enough IMO. Sockpuppeting? A year or two seems enough (simple to re-block if it continues after unblocking). VegaDark (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia article vandalized

Can someone take a look plz, untill 15:52, 12 November 2008 [12] the link List of homonymous states and regions under See also has been present with a consensus by the editors. On 15:52, 12 November 2008 the Greek User: Zakronian has deleted this link with no talk page referece, with just the summary "removing article of low significance, it's been already included in more lists than it deserved". After i reverted his vandalism, he has deleted again this harmless see also link with the summary: GFYS, i think no translations are needed. Just one minute after I restored once again the link on 20:35, 13 November 2008 my edit was reverted this time by the User: Zakronian compatriot User:Hectorian, with no explanation for his disruptive act. Again Macedonian related articles are constantly being vandalized by Greek disruptive editors. After Republic of Macedonia now this. Can something be done about this editors or in the bottom line lock the page till full moon passes and this disruptive editors vent their frustrations elsewhere. Thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, it is a purposeful, good faith edit. Vandalism does not mean "edits I do not agree with". His edit may be right, or it may be wrong, but it is NOT vandalism. Please stop edit warring, and seek dispute resolution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Its disruptive editing when with no real arguments WP:IDONTLIKEIT someone reverts a consensus solution again and again. If someone should look for dispute resolution are the editors that are looking to change the article by WP:WEDONTNEEDIT Alex Makedon (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow - was there even a single day in which you didn't fill an ANI for something completely out of the reach of this noticeboard. --Laveol ^T 21:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

keep your pov for 10 чрвени Laveol Alex Makedon (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Alex Makedon, you really really need to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have stated my request and have no reason to add anything Fut, so asking me to stop, besides being off topic, is pretty futile, especially with this dramatic "really really" tone. Alex Makedon (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism, use dispute resolution. Everyone else, move on... —kurykh 23:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets - 50+ case backlog

I would normally if I see a backlog put {{adminbacklog}} at the top of the page. However, this backlog is just huge and IMO needs multiple admin eyes to look at the case there - some were filed in late October and haven't been doubt with! The backlog in the least needs to be brought down to a reasonable level. D.M.N. (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Reporting a possible vandal

Iamthenew!! (talk · contribs) acts like a vandal. Many of his recent edits need revert. Please consider reviewing his activities. huji—TALK 22:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any vandal behaviour from this user. Some of their edits are a bit muddle-headed, but this user seems to be acting in good faith. Reyk _YO! 23:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the history behind the original !!, are we sure there's not something a bit trollerific going on here? It just seems hinky to me, claiming to be "the new" incarnation of a user whose block led to one of the most contentious ArbCom cases in WP history, and an equally-controversial desysop...they might as well have named themselves "ArchtransitsBabySister" or something like. Just one user's opinion, of course....GJC 16:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Card Guy (talk · contribs)

I blocked Baseball Card Guy (talk · contribs) indef for general disruptive editing. I first noticed him about to close a bad faith AFD on his part Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of trading card sets which I voted delete afterwards because of other reasons. I saw all of his personal attacks in the AFD, and was about to warn him, then I saw his block history. Seems like he is harassing User:Libro0 for months, leaving a history of reverting, personal attacks, incivility, block evasion, and sockpuppetry, which consists of a good chuck of his recent edits (the rest are simple wikilinks and other insignificant edits). He was blocked several times already, and he doesn't seem to learn. No reason to keep him around. Thanks Secret ^account 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Note seems to me that Your Radio Enemy (talk · contribs) is a likely sock, maybe a checkuser is in place. Thanks Secret ^account 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the indef block. I first ran across BCG at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Image:50s Topps Logo.jpg, where many of his posts were uncivil. Then I watched hopefully as Libro0 sought mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-04 1950s Topps, but BCG posted only incivility there. —teb728 t c 00:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block - This editor`s contribution history shows that he has remained just as incivil and uncooperative after each of his four blocks. It is high time that his disruption to the project ends. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• If Your Radio Enemy is a sock, an indefinite block would be in order given his history of socking. Since he's continued the same behavior that previously got him blocked the first three times, I'll have to endorse the block. Spellcast (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block - It was a good block. This guy obviously doesn't have Wikipedia's best interests at heart. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 07:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

I blocked 173.17.158.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 72 hours a couple of days ago. Almost immediately after his block expired, he started in again, so I blocked him for two weeks. I went to do a WHOIS on his IP address and I got this. Is there any special rule about handling blocks of IANA IP addresses? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

whois results:

NetRange:   173.16.0.0 - 173.25.31.255
CIDR:       173.16.0.0/13, 173.24.0.0/16, 173.25.0.0/19
NetName:    MEDIACOM-RESIDENTIAL-CUST

Mediacom, mid sized US ISP. BJ^Talk 05:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange, because the link J.delanoy pointed out shows a different result. Where is this result from? Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 05:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It was right on the {{IPvandal}} whois link. Duh. /me facepalms myself J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP belongs to Gulf Breeze High School, which is the article the students were targeting. A whois search shows "network:Network-Name:MEDIACOMCC-173-17-156-0-Gulf Breeze-FL". A Google search of "Gulf Breeze-FL school" shows this belongs to that school. Spellcast (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfairly Blocked by Luna Santin

Admin User:Luna_Santin blocked my real account, User:Darren_'Doc_Nebula'_Madigan, without any warning or notification. She or he gave only the reason "Similar to existing user or recent meme". When I requested an unblock, an admin associated with User:Luna_Santin, named User:Spellcast gave the single word reason "Decline" and protected my page from further requests. [13]. I feel this is grossly unfair and would like an explanation. Another user, User:Andy_Dingley, also questioned this block before I even knew about it [14]. As Andy says, I had "no obvious contribution problems, with no prior warning.". Darren 'John Jones' Madigan (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And blocked as another Wroth of Groth (talk · contribs) sock. Spellcast (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the above account, as they created a new account to dodge a block on their first account. They can request an unblock at their first account, and admins can respond there. I ask all admins to check the talk page and contribs list of that account. It will be an enlightening read. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Deceased wikipedian - Hankwilson (talk · contribs)

Hankwilson (talk · contribs) has died. An article about the - quite accomplished - activist is now forming at Hank Wilson. One of his ongoing campaigns was poppers awareness which resulting in some rather unproductive posting on that article. He seemed to have a lot of research but the level of discourse on that talkpage wavered in civility. And perhaps others. It might be good to clean and protect his user accounts but I have no idea what is the best approach to take. -- Banjeboi 11:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rest In Peace, Hank :-( .DollyD (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that there is a need to protect the pages, but I have placed {{User:Bobamnertiopsis/userboxes/isdead}} on his user page and redirected the talk page to it. لennavecia 06:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that helps quite a bit. I added a link to their article. Cheers. -- Banjeboi 16:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that a userbox saying "This user is dead" is quite tasteless? Why can't we use normal text instead? --Conti|✉ 16:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see why you might consider it tacky, but it's phrased a bit more tasteful then "he bit the dust, folks". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Would somebody place his name at Wikipedia: Deceased Wikipedians? I'm never good at those things. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not about the wording, it's about the fact that it's a userbox. Those that are usually used for statements like "This user likes pie" and "This user is silly". Having a userbox about someone's death just seems wrong to me. User:Asdfg12345 sums up my feelings nicely. --Conti|✉ 17:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict!] Hello. I don't know anything more about this than seeing this page on watchlist, reading this post, and clicking to see the userbox. I understand that no one meant to be offensive or boorish, and I can see that no one would go to the trouble of making a userbox like that, and then someone else adding it to the page, if they were not well-intentioned. I don't think anyone means to do wrong. But I think it's in rather poor taste. The man died, that's solemn. Userboxes seem to be mostly gimmicky, fun, or geekish things to highlight mostly frivolous information. In my humble opinion, a RIP userbox is in bad taste. I'll be bold and simply delete the userbox and copy the text. If I've done something wrong please post on my talk page, happy to discuss. it's funny, at wikipedia, there's no one running the show, so we just discuss things among ourselves. Please let me know if people think this should be handled differently, though, or if my comments were perceived as inappropriate. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 16:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Note: I made this comment before changing the page, but didn't see that it didn't go through.--Asdfg12345 16:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked for a banner, because I know I've seen it before, but I couldn't find it. It was like the retirement banner, but lighter colors, and it said something like "This Wikipedian has passed away." And that was pretty much it. I thought I had seen it on Jeffpw's page, but I suppose it was custom made and later expanded to what it reads now. It was really late. I didn't think about that last night. Sorry if the box seemed tasteless. I didn't really want to use it, but it seemed like a small token over text. Userboxes are sort of a Wikipedia thing, so it seemed appropriate. لennavecia 17:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Aside: Sjoerd Jongens died this week ([15]). I wish there were enough sources for an article. Some kinds of activist get more coverage on teh internets than others. The guy was a pioneer fo the use of the internet for activism, but was too modest to brag about it. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Review

Bringing an issue here for further review.

For the last several months, WP:MOSNUM has been the site of a protracted edit war. After this sequence of reverting in early November, I protected for a week: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]

Following unprotection, the edit war resumed among:

User:Tony1: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]: warning

User:Locke Cole: [32], [33], [34], [35]: warning

User:Arthur Rubin: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]: warning

I proceeded to warn them that further warring would result in blocks being applied. Subsequent to that, Tony1 called for me to "resign immediately" for warning them.

Later, Kotniski (talk · contribs) [41], [42], [43] and Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) [44], [45] resumed the edit war. I warned (Kotniski warning, Pigsonthewing warning) them both, taking into account that Pigsonthewing had never commented on the talk page and had 10 prior blocks for edit warring. Kotniski accepted the warning and agreed to not war further on the page.

Pigsonthewing has demanded I apologize and User:UC Bill has insisted I apologize to Pigsonthewing to stop embarrassing myself.

As I believe I have acted within policy here, I bring it to the wider community for further review. MBisanz ^talk 16:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse warnings. An extra note: the warning was modified in Pigsonthewing's case, and this was necessary. However, following the modification, the demands and commentary by both Pigsonthewing and UC Bill were unreasonable and utterly inappropriate. Given his history, and the recent disruption caused at WQA, he's indeed very lucky that he wasn't blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• You continue to behave in an inappropriate manner. I demanded nothing; my wording was "You have just made a false accusation on my talk page. Kindly withdraw it, together with your unwarranted threat; and post an apology"; and later "I ... note that you have slightly modified, but not withdrawn, your false accusation. Please do so now". You also give a misleading diff for the warning you placed on my talk page; the correct diff is this one. I have participated in no "edit war"; and you fail to assume good faith. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I also note that you have not notified me or any of the other editors who you slight here of this "review". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Whoa, if the guideline is under a protracted editwar and had to be protected... then can someone tell me why on earth bots like User:Lightbot got approved by bag? (I also note that there are some other users that are also running manual scripts that do this same thing) Part of running bots is having community consensus as well as approval from BAG for what modifications you are doing to a page. If there is a general clear consensus (meaning somewhere public with input from multiple editors...) would someone please show it to us? —— nixeagle 19:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed this is the heart of the issue, and the one I find myself having the hardest time dealing with. There's no clear consensus for deprecating full date links, and yet a handful of editors (including Lightmouse (talk · contribs)) insist on updating their JavaScript files to remove these links in the course of other (perfectly normal) edits. I've warned multiple editors about the lack of consensus and the disputed nature and all of them either ignore my warnings or tell me there's consensus (without actually showing me where this community consensus was reached). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just for clarity, can we have a diff where Tony1 asks you to "resign immediately"? D.M.N. (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  Here you go [46]. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, OK. The warnings seem completely justified, and you've given clear evidence for the edit-warring. Have you informed the users of this discussion? D.M.N. (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

   Done MBisanz ^talk 20:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Noted, although I think those who edited immediately before the protection should have been warned, as well. I can't say I liked the tone of the warning, but it seems appropriate.

  However, I think the guideline needs to continue to note that the consensus is disputed, so that discussions can continue on the talk page. That's most of the changes I was making. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The pet peeve of the same few editors who are loudly complaining about a change after the fact should be seen as just that, and not distorted. The change gained consensus after two years of intermittent debate at MOSNUM talk, and intensive debate there and elsewhere during July and August, plus VP notification of the proposal, plus apparently easy acceptance at FAC and FLC by nominators, plus a groundswell of acceptance/favour more widely in WP. Several people, including some represented here, are doing their best to disrupt the project to push their agenda. This should be ignored. Concerning the "warnings" by MBisanz: I believe that you are breaching several tenets of the policy concerning the behaviour of administrators (have you read it?), and I believe the call to resign was reasonable. I'm quite willing to discuss the details if you wish. Tony (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The only distortion going on here Tony is from you. A small number of editors at WT:MOSNUM do not get to force their idea of how Wikipedia should be on the larger community. I've seen discussions with hundreds of editors over smaller changes than this, why should this be different? Why should it be enacted with such a small amount of input from the community? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need for any more drama over this particular issue, but maybe we can take an important lesson from it. It is clear to me (having been involved in and witnessed a number of such situations) that the procedures (or rather absence thereof) that we have for changing our "rules" (policies and guidelines) are not working. There needs to be a properly thought-out process ("meta-rules", as some call it) for the making of substantial changes to the rules. We can't have a situation where reams of virtual paper are used up arguing circularly about whether some rule has consensus, should be marked disputed, etc. We do have a kind of procedure described at WP:Policies and guidelines, though it deals mostly with new policy/guideline pages rather than changes, and I don't know if it has yet been put into practice. Whenever I raise this issue it is met with silence or dismissals about "instruction creep", "against the Wiki spirit" and so on, but I raise it here again in the hope that the issue being discussed will serve as a good example of why such change is badly needed. If anyone's interested we can perhaps set a separate discussion page on it.--Kotniski (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A sensible structure would have technical stuff like this handled by a committee along the lines of ArbCom, not by any random editor who wants to "volunteer". looie496 (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of agree. Non-admin closure of discussions is problematic even in other areas (AfD, RM and so on). For big and complex discussions, I wonder whether closure shouldn't be done by an ad hoc committee (and with dialog first) rather than a single admin who happens to come along. But these are issues to be discussed elsewhere. As far as policy changes go, I'm inviting comments on my recent bold edits at WT:Policies and guidelines#Recent changes re changes.--Kotniski (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

User:3RRBot

I've recently programmed a bot that monitors the RC feed and attempts to detect editwars and disruptive behavior. You can see it's current reporting page at User:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations. It has already found one editwar/problem and is likely to find more at a rate of about 1 per hour. I would appreciate it if admins would keep an eye on the bot's reporting page and deal with the cases as they come up.

I have plans for the future to have the bot automatically spot blatant violations of 1RR restrictions, and monitor pages under probation and report incidents. (probably to a different reporting page then the current one) —— nixeagle 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Useful and reduces need for report. As long as there is a level-headed admin monitoring the page, it is ok. --Tone 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a great idea! Maybe the reporting page should be moved to a subpage of WP:AN3, just like how cluebot reports vandals to AIV? Just a thought. Tiptoety ^talk 20:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Try make the page archive every day instead of every 2 days. Otherwise the page will be way too long. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre edit attribution

Please would a patient admin look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Canterberry.2FOlana_North and note the bizarre edit attribution which may or may not be some form of attack on a user "Pigsonthewing". If there is something to "do" about this, please can it be done? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they were both by the same IP.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Which I earlier this evening anon-blocked for a month. --Rodhullandemu 23:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See this debate on WT:RAIL. This is a simmering fight that's been going on for over a year now following an IMO very harsh indefblock on User:Canterberry. (Short version: two users were creating sock accounts to votestack a trivial debate in opposite directions; one was blocked for three days and told not to do it again, the other was indefblocked. The original sockfest that sparked it was here.)

If nobody minds, I've "unresolved" this thread; given that there's already a discussion on WT:RAIL about whether to appeal the block, now's as good a time as any to canvass opinions from outside the somewhat incestuous "writers of articles on rail stations" world as to whether this block should be overturned. – iridescent 00:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've no strong views on this except that ascribing one's edits to another editor, for whatever purpose, seems prima facie dishonest and disruptive, not least for the false positives it can raise. That's the reason for my block. Full disclosure would be helpful, but in the murky world of the politics of railways in the UK, who knows what danger may lurk?</sarcasm> --Rodhullandemu 00:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the IP is Canterberry/Olana North – looking over its history, if it is then he's been having a number of conversations with himself. (The IP is Network Rail's server, so its having an interest in trains isn't particularly surprising!) While I wouldn't rule anything in or out, in my experience it isn't Canterberry's style. – iridescent 00:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no view on the actual identity of the IP editor; it is enough that s/he sought to represent themselves, although clumsily, as an established editor, hence the block. I checked the WHOIS before blocking, but as you say, there is little forensic information to be gained from that. --Rodhullandemu 00:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A bit of advice, from admin to admin...

If a deletion discussion on (for example) a company is started, and a group, say, Wikiproject Companies throws their entire weight behind 'keep' - what is there to stop all the other contributors being overwhelmed by the sheer number of 'votes' ^{(I know they're not votes, but a 90-10 split is going to win, good arguments notwithstanding)} from Wikiproject Companies members? Is there a policy which prevents groups of related contributors from 'ganging up' to save articles? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit: this has nothing to do with the AfD I'm currently involved in, before you ask! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote policy and guidelines, and hope for a sympathetic closing admin? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Who is to say that the members of Wikiproject companies would all vote keep though? I would think that the members of a Wikiproject would have views on deletion as diverse as any other group regardless of the article. If such a group were to rally to the cause however, part of adminly duties is to weigh canvassing accordingly. Icewedge (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

We cannot hold belonging to a group against a user - this requires us either to abandon AGF, or to get rid of groups. That said, a wise admin would look at the reasons and not just the numbers. If 90 people poll one way with the same reason, and it is a great reason, well, there cannot be anything wrong ith that. If 90 people poll the same way and do not provide reasons, I'd say they aren't taking the process seriously. The reasoning, and the degree to which it engages issues raised in our policies, is the ultimate issue and anyone who votes should bear that in mind if they want their vote to mean anything. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the dangers of WikiProjects. If they do not include people who are not fans of foo then you get the situation we have with ice hockey, where a pile-on will happen in any deletion debate for a third level amateur team whose only coverage is the occasional mention in the results pages, and for which zero non-trivial independent sources exist. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:UAA

is getting very crowded. Thanks, Grsz^{11 →Review!} 00:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

See the thread below. --Elonka 05:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

New blocking option

As of the software update a few minutes ago, its no longer necessary to unblock a user before changing block settings (see [47], [48], [49]). If the user is already blocked, it will give a notice (MediaWiki:Ipb-needreblock) and add another checkbox to the bottom of the form (MediaWiki:ipb-change-block), similar to the "delete and move" checkbox when moving a page over another page. Mr.Z-man 01:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks to all the devs! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, this might explain it. The helperbot at WP:AIV hasn't been working right this evening... The bot isn't down, but neither is it correctly clearing blocked users out of the list. My guess is that the new change has modified the expected forms in some way, such that the bot is no longer recognizing blocked users properly. I've left a note for Krellis (talk · contribs) to take a look at it. --Elonka 04:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The change is affecting WP:UAA as well, which means it will need manual cleanup until the bot(s) are updated. --Elonka 05:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to let people know I changed MediaWiki:Blockipsuccesstext, since now you don't have to unblock to tweak the block settings. Feel free to revert/modify... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Old CfD needs closing

Could someone be kind enough to close this CfD? It has been open since October 28 for a total of 17 days. --Farix (Talk) 01:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this tool exist?

Is there a tool to compare when two users were editing--for example, to show if two people ever edited at the same time, or what the difference in time-frames was between edits? Also, is there a tool to show the overlap between two editors as to articles edited? I have a suspicion of sockiness, but I'd like to have something more concrete than "spidey-sense" to go on. Thanks! GJC 02:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• http://toolserver.org/~bjweeks/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py Protonk (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• And this compares editors by timing. Protonk (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Beware of using tools like that, especially if one of the editors you are checking is a serial vandal-fighter. According to the first tool, almost everyone on this site is a part of my sock ring. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha! See--now the truth comes out! (<--humorishness--in no way do I suspect J.del of having more than, say, fifteen or sixteen socks... (j/k)))GJC 04:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There was this great thread on WR where someone postulated that I was running a sock claiming to be an 17-year-old Norwegian woman posting racy images of "myself" on my userpage. They based this on me having ~150 pages in common. The thread moved on fairly quickly after they realized what Huggle does to that tool. For example, I have 269 pages in common with Deskana, 885 in common with Dr. Blofeld, 1230 in common with Raul654, 6259 with NawlinWiki, 7250 with Iridescent, and 10074 with Epbr123! Hell, I've even got 73 in common with God Himself! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I just realized I break the second tool. "J.delanoy has too many edits to compare (over 10000)" Muahaha! You shall never find out the true limits of my awesomeness!!! *sees Luna casually clicking on Special:Checkuser and runs like hell... * J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS -MBK₀₀₄ 05:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't point it at OrphanBot's half-million edits, then. --Carnildo (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Voice_of_All/Specialadmin/monobook.js contains a script that adds a "Compare" tab to every user's contribution page. When comparing two users, it will list all articles they have in common, by date, with relevant diffs. - auburnpilot talk 04:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What an awesomely helpful bunch you are!! That timeline one alone has probably just saved me from making a finger-pointing ass of myself... Thanks, all!!! GJC 04:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Just remember. If you need something done, there's a tool for it. :) Wikis are amazing in that respect. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't need a tool to make an ass of myself... or is that "I don't need an ass to make a tool of myself"? I come from the DIY (Dickery Inclined, Yup) generation... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Problematic website...

I have come accross a website that displays wikipedia and adds ads. http://www.juz2u.com/WP:AN The evidence is linking here on this noticeboard. There's even a list of mirrors! What's the next step? --Mixwell!^Talk 05:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. But I do know that the Firefox ABP absolutely loves their site... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Check this out: http://www.juz2u.com/Special:MyTalk. Can someone go to m:Live mirrors and fill out a report? I don't have time, I really have to get to bed. Sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Report made - sleep well ;) Skier Dude (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't sleep too well. Live mirrors aren't blocked or anything... WODUP 08:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with live mirrors? Theresa Knott | token threats 18:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up regarding ITN

Update time has been and gone, and Talk:Main page has a big red banner. {{In the News}} needs to be updated. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 13:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

UAA backlog

There's a massive backlog at WP:UAA - it'd be nice if someone could pop round and hand out a block or two. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Seven unaddressed reports. the skomorokh 18:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I came across Minicalc and couldn't find a criteria for speedy deletion it would go under. A7, which excludes software, seems to be the closest one. I searched through the muck of the internet and only came up with a Yahoo widget link with under 100,000 downloads. So my question: What speedy criteria does this fall under? Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not everything that doesn't belong here qualifies for speedy deletion. In fact, most doesn't, which is why we have an elaborate policy. The speedy deletion process is only meant for the few obvious, undisputed cases where a discussion would be a waste of time. Minicalc is not such a case. Owen× ☎ 19:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I honestly figured Afd would be a waste of time for this article; but there it will go. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ in Compaartive Mythology

I made an edit to the topic on 'Jesus Christ in comparative mythology' and when I revisited the site, 3/4 of the section on 'History' had been deleted (not what I added, but what had been there before). This has not been re-inserted. Please put the section back, as now it is missing a great deal of content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.151.58 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Your additions were reverted by Dbachmann with an edit summary of "WP:DUE. this is not the "Jesus myth" article. It is not about the historiticy of Jesus. At least read the title please.". If you want it put back, talk it over with him. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 19:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

And I strongly suggest you get an account if you want to be an editor on Wikipedia. You can still use the library where you are editing from, but that IP address came close to being blocked recently for vandalism and you might want to distinguish yourself from it. Also read WP:Citations to learn how to cite your sources. Thanks. - and by the way, I think the removal of text was correct. dougweller (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)