Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

User:Zeraeph

Following a report on AN/I about personal attacks on Talk:Asperger syndrome, Zeraeph was blocked for a week. There has been ongoing abuse by this user directed at SandyGeorgia for months - amongst other things, the allegations are that SandyGeorgia is stalking Zeraeph (in real life as well as on Wikipedia), using sockpuppets, and conspiring with administrators. There have been three mediation attempts, a request for checkuser which showed that the alleged sockpuppets were unconnected to SandyGeorgia, and frequent complaints to AN/I. Nobody who has looked at Zeraeph's allegations has come to the conclusion that there is any evidence for them at all, or that SandyGeorgia has done anything to provoke this. I've just extended Zeraeph's block to a month, because she was using her talk page to repeat the allegations despite being warned (by myself and Nandesuka who reviewed the initial block) that her only option now was to open an arbitration case or stop the abuse. Does anyone have any objections to a community ban? Zeraeph's article contributions are instructive. --ajn (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

i don't know how to say this politely, so I'll just say it. It's clear that editing Wikipedia is interacting poorly with, and perhaps aggravating, the particular issues this person has. A number of the things she or he says (particularly about being stalked for years by Wikipedia users, conspiracies reaching back into the past, multiple unrelated people out to "get" her) are classic symptoms of various problems that are very, very serious. Obviously, I don't think Zeraeph's editing is good for Wikipedia, but there's a more important issue. While normally I would say that this is the sort of thing that should go through Arbcom, I do not believe that any sort of formal proceeding involving a panel of strangers evaluating her behavior that will drag on for weeks and weeks is going to be healthy for this person. I think the most merciful thing we could do is to shut her down, and do it firmly and quickly.

For what it's worth, I feel that way about User:Doctor Octagon, too, although less strongly. Nandesuka 10:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The incoherence of the allegations and the inability to come up with even the slightest evidence for their reality is also typical. I've had to deal with this sort of thing in real life, and you're right about the best way to deal with it. --ajn (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the point made by Nandesuka, the user's threatening comments here are extremely serious and support this approach. Newyorkbrad 14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been dealing with Zeraeph on a more personal level, through email after an unblock request sent to the Unblock mailing list (for the record, I advised Zeraeph to take the block as an enforced Wikibreak and to be calm when the block is over). When conversing with me, Zeraeph has alternated between being quite calm and being very frustrated with the situation. I know that Zeraeph can be very calm and reasonable when approached the right way, and I also feel that Zeraeph very honestly feels that he (or she?) is being stalked online, off-Wiki as well as on. I think if I can look at what Zeraeph can present to me, I can either provide advice on actions to take, or possibly log an RfAR on Zeraeph's behalf if the information is valid.

As such, I'd like to volunteer to be a mentor (this would be my first time as a mentor), even during the block. I don't think a community ban is the answer. If you feel that Zeraeph will only cause more trouble in his talk page, the solution may be to protect the talk page so he can continue to converse with me. I don't think Zeraeph is ill-intentioned, but rather, feels that he has a valid complaint. I hope that if I can bring this off-wiki, and in private, we can deal with the situation without rubbing too many Wikipedians the wrong way. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections to your trying. You should also contact SandyGeorgia privately; apparently she has been receiving unwanted e-mails regarding Zeraeph, and suspects that A Kiwi (talk · contribs) is involved (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/A Kiwi, particularly the talk page). It could be (and this is pure speculation) that Zeraeph is being stalked online, but not by SandyGeorgia. My personal opinion is that this is going to be too complicated to achieve a workable on-wiki solution. Godspeed. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your speculation had occurred to me too. For now, I don't think I need to be contacting SandyGeorgia via email just yet. I am open to on-Wiki communication if necessary. I don't want Zeraeph to feel like I am any part of this conspiracy, and for now I am just communicating one-on-one with Zeraeph. Currently, Zeraeph is being calm and reasonable with me (though clearly frustrated with the situation), and that may change if he thinks I'm carrying on any conversations with SandyGeorgia behind is back. I would like to wait until Zeraeph presents valid evidence that it is indeed SandyGeorgia that is doing the stalking. I can promise that I will keep an open mind, examine the evidence clearly, and not do anything rash or without thought. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Last month, a situation arose that should have been addressed discreetly by senior administrators and with a minimum of public discussion. Instead, it became the topic of extensive discussion on-Wiki that caused egregious harm to vulnerable editors. Although the specifics here are different, this is an extremely serious situation involving allegations of an 8-year history of stalking, legal threats, potentially delusional scenarios, and psychological issues as mentioned by Nandesuka. I strongly believe in transparency on-Wiki, but there are limits. An RfAr under these circumstances would be a horror show and should not be suggested again. We need to be able to identify and deal with the(rare) sensitive situations like this that need to be investigated and resolved in a highly sensitive and confidential fashion. Newyorkbrad 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nandesuka and Newyorkbrad. Zeraeph has been asked several times as part of mediation processes to put forward a coherent, evidence-based statement about what she thinks is going on. All that comes out is the typical conspiracy theory reasoning - the absence of evidence for the conspiracy is firm proof that the conspiracy is real and working well, there are special secret things going on that the "victim" can't explain (for reasons which themselves can't be explained), things are so obvious that a request for evidence is proof of the inquirer having underhand motives for asking the question, and so on. This is typical. I don't think Zeraeph is ill-intentioned, I think she is (literally) deluded. In any case, the abuse of SandyGeorgia has to stop, and on present form an arbitration case would just be used as a platform for further abuse, and would do Zeraeph no good at all. --ajn (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph's talk page has been protected since this morning, by the way, because she was using it to continue the behaviour for which she had been blocked. --ajn (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why I want to bring this discussion off-Wiki, so it doesn't hurt established Wikipedians. If I act as a filter, you can be sure that anything I present is, in my opinion, valid. I won't present anything that I don't think is valid. Right now, I have some pretty good dialog with Zeraeph. If I can keep this up, maybe Zeraeph and I can discuss this calmly. I would like for Zeraeph to eventually contribute positively to Wikipedia, but I also don't want for this situation to cause undue stress to Wikipedians. That's why I feel carrying on private dialog with Zeraeph without the threat of a community permaban (just the current temporary block) is best. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think things have got to the stage where Zeraeph is willing to use User talk:Zeraeph appropriately, feel free to unprotect it. I wouldn't be at all happy with an unblock unless there is an arbitration case which has gone "live". --ajn (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, for now I think it's in Zeraeph's best interests to leave the talk page protected for now. I don't want Zeraeph to get into a situation where he (or she) will get blocked for even longer. I'm not advocating an unblock yet (indeed, when Zeraeph submitted an unblock request to the mailing list, I suggested that he take this block as an enforced Wikibreak): I'm only opposing the community ban (which is an indefinite block) as proposed here. I don't think a community bad is the answer here. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It could be (and this is pure speculation) that Zeraeph is being stalked online, but not by SandyGeorgia. I believe this to be true, based on the emails I have, but apparently it "takes two to tango": she has been stalked and has allegedly been a stalker as well. (Witness the threats against me: that she is going to have authorities deal with me in real life.) I'm not convinced that any amount of conversation or mentoring will be able to convince Zeraeph that I am not the stalker, because that person has an AOL account, and I have an AOL account which I use when I am in a hotel that doesn't have another internet connection. I appreciate your efforts, but I believe the other editors have valid points about dragging this out in public considering the issues involved: I, too, have encountered situations like this and have always believed that disengaging is the only way to handle them. I understand your concerns about contacting me privately in order to preserve your role as a mentor, but someone needs to look at these e-mails, and then deal with the AOL editors who appeared in the midst of this mess, complicating it even further. I have repeatedly encouraged those people to keep the off-Wiki situation off Wiki, to no avail. I am fairly certain at this point that the only person who is going to be damaged by all of this is me: yes, the edit history is instructive (and I'm having a lovely vacation :-). It also needs to be understood that Zeraeph's attacks on me began long before she thought I was "her stalker" and before I received the emails (the person emailed me to supposedly support me because of Zeraeph's attacks), so using that now as the rationalization for her behavior doesn't hold water. Best of luck to you, Sandy 16:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... okay, if you feel that I should look at this emails, send me an email at Special:Emailuser/Deathphoenix. I'm keeping an open mind and assuming good faith, on both sides. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, someone else needs to look at them. While I understand and accept that you have an open mind and are assuming good faith, and I applaud your effort, the reality is that you don't see this as clearly as ajn, Nandesuka, many others and I do, and your role right now is as Zeraeph's advocate and mentor. First, I believe strongly in guarding the privacy of e-mail, and wouldn't want the information in these e-mails to fall into Zeraeph's hands, even unwittingly. Second, your relationship with her as a mentor is likely to be compromised if she knows you have corresponded with me: she has expressed several times that she is convinced that I can manipulate admins. Third, if the person who sent me the e-mails holds me responsible for the information falling into Zeraeph's hands, I am likely to have not one online problem out of this mess, but multiple. In short, I am the one at risk here, having done nothing to warrant this, and I need for an admin who is not Zeraeph's advocate and mentor to look at the information. Again, Zeraeph's attacks on me began long before she had any reason to involve off-Wiki disputes or to believe that I was one of the people she has had those disputes with: I merely happened to cross paths with her because of a FARC. I concur with ajn and Nandesuka's analysis of the situation: unless there is a very fast cessation of these attacks and recognition that there is no reason to believe I am one of the people Zeraeph has had off-Wiki disputes with, as soon as I'm home, I will bring the ArbCom case myself. I am the one who best knows where to find all the pieces and the dates. Sandy 17:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't forward the emails at all--contact the sender and inform him/her of Deathphoenix's offer to mentor. Let the sender decide. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My once daily checkin: Brilliant solution, thanks. (I have never responded to the sender's emails, as I don't want to be part of the whole drama: it appears that the sender read this and has already contacted ajn.) I feel strongly that the sender needs to be protected. I also failed to make another thing clear yesterday: If the sender is to be considered a "stalker", the sender has violated no Wiki policies, and only came (apparently) to Wiki after seeing Zeraeph do to me what she has done elsewhere to others. Once I asked that I no longer receive these e-mails, they stopped. The sender has turned out to be right about everything I was warned about, so I consider the sender credible, and to be protected. Sandy 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I thought these emails were the harassing emails, not information sent by other people. In that case, that's fine, I'd rather not know. FWIW, I have yet to correspond with Zeraeph today, so I'm not sure how she feels about the whole thing (or even if I could be considered a mentor). All that is moot if she doesn't accept me as a mentor/advocate anyway. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it might be worth at this point, I agree with ajn and others that this individual is not only very nasty but probably delusional, that everything reasonable that can be tried to get him or her to become a positive contributor to Wikipedia has been tried, failed and indeed has only made things worse, and that a community ban is both warranted and probably achievable. I attempted to be a voice of reason in the most recent mediation attempt, and the response was a) a repeat of precisely the same vague and barely coherent non-evidence that I was trying to get past and b) the most vicious and potentially libelous things Zeraeph had said on Wikipedia to date at the time. I seriously believe that he or she should, not only be off Wikipedia forever, but probably in jail or a mental institution as well for that response, and can't imagine how anyone could defend its author. I actually regret that my next response to Zeraeph was so mild - to be honest I skipped over most of the stalking accusations and so on the first time through. Not only were his comments about Sandy at that time completely outrageous toward her, they were rather a slap in the face to me as well. Ban with extreme prejudice. PurplePlatypus 02:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now had email from someone (not SG) offering to forward me the emails. This was my response:

I think the best thing would be for you to not forward the emails to anyone at this time - this is a Wikipedia problem and it's regrettable that off-Wikipedia problems have intruded. If anyone else feels it would be useful to know what was in them, I'll be happy to act as an intermediary and make sure that no personal information is divulged.

By "anyone else" I mean involved admins, of course. The person who emailed me stipulated that they were not to be passed directly to Deathphoenix. I think that's what was stipulated - re-reading the message, it could have meant "not to be passed to anyone who is trying to help Zeraeph". Either way, I've not seen them and I don't want to (unless it's necessary). --ajn (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There's not much in the emails that anyone with eyes wide open can't figure out, or that will be news to you, ajn. The problem is, they do contain identifying information, and if I redacted that information, I couldn't forward the emails with headers. At any rate, I want this to end. It is taking as much of my time as bringing an ArbCom case would, and when I return from vacation, I will have lots of Wiki work to catch up on. I still agree with those who said an ArbCom case will not be good for Wiki or good for Zeraeph, but I have a feeling if I don't bring the case, I'll still be responding to this issue months from now. It is with some irony that I noted the comments above that Zeraeph was "frustrated". This is a situation wholly caused by her and brought upon herself by no one but her, with me as the target, so I'm not entirely sympathetic anymore to her frustration. The people who followed her to Wiki certainly complicated a situation which Wiki admins could have handled, but they followed her to Wiki because she apparently continued a pattern of abuse here she has engaged in elsewhere. I'll check in tomorrow. Sandy 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with all of this, apart from this stigma that seems to be attached to my good faith attempts to help someone (I'd like to think that I'm mature and experienced enough not to let my attempts to help Zeraeph get in the way of doing what's best for Wikipedia and in not making unjustified attacks for someone). You guys are beginning to make me wish I hadn't replied to Zeraeph's request to the Unblock mailing list. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubts your good faith or integrity. What's worrying some of us is that any further attempts to give Zeraeph a chance to defend herself will be abused by her. See her recent post to wikien-l, for example. I firmly believe that the most helpful thing that could be done right now is a permanent block and no more discussion, here or offline. Engaging with someone in her state and trying to reason with her is very unlikely to help anyone. --ajn (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As with ajn, I don't doubt your good faith or integrity. I doubt Zeraeph's good faith and integrity. It's very nice of you to offer to help this individual, but I believe it to be naïve; all you are likely to accomplish is to directly or indirectly give him or her a platform for further abusive actions (as happened with my own attempt to introduce some rationality into the debate), and that's not a desirable outcome no matter how good the intentions of the person doing it. Zeraeph is not above attempting the same kind of manipulation of which s/he is so quick to accuse others, and I believe that is likely what will prove to be happening here. PurplePlatypus 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm experienced enough to not let facetious or invalid information leak to Wikipedia via my own edits. What I hope to accomplish is to look at Zeraeph's information closely and either tell her that the information doesn't indicate too much or find some way of correcting the situation if it does. Since most of you believe that her information is invalid, you shouldn't be too worried, because while I genuinely want to help Zeraeph, I also want to make sure that she is either made aware that her accusations are unmerited or that, if they are, I can help her correct the situation. My dealing with her gives her a way of dealing with someone on Wikipedia. It does not mean that she has a meatpuppet who will blindly post anything that she writes. Currently, she is blocked from Wikipedia (a block that I'm not contesting), and her talk page is also protected (which, despite your offer to allow me to unprotect, remains protected). This pretty much means that the only ways she can communicate with someone on Wikipedia are through email, and that's where I come in. What she writes goes to me. Yes, I read her recent post to the mailing list and while it's a little troubling, the language isn't over-the-top. If it becomes as such, the listmods will likely ban her from the mailing list anyway. Which once again just leaves me to deal with her. What's the harm in that? I'm not a vexatious litigant, and I'm not ignorant either. Sometimes, just sweeping something under the rug and ignoring it isn't the answer. ajn, you must know that we don't hand out permanent blocks like candy. Community bans only become as much if someone permablocks the user and no other admin bothers to unblock. I am fine with this long block you've put her on while I try to deal with this user, but I won't stand idly by and see this user get permanently blocked while I've got some fruitful dialog with her. And this fruitful dialog is nothing that everyone else should be stressed out about either. I'm not an ignorant meatpuppet who allows any statements made by anyone cloud how he sees other users. If result of my discussions with her are that she should stop editing Wikipedia, then so be it. I actually suggested that plan of action in our discussions, and she may consider it if it seems she can't edit Wikipedia without resolving these issues, but I would like me and Zeraphael to make that determination for ourselves, not via a community ban forced upon her. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"you must know that we don't hand out permanent blocks like candy" - I'd hardly say this is candy, this user should have been blocked a while ago. Constant, unrepenting harrassment of other editors; and yes, I've had a bit of first-hand experience in the articles as well (although thankfully I was never the target but I tried to defend those who were). Please, let this one rest in peace so this user can solve his/her issues; Wikipedia is not a very good place to do that, in fact it usually just makes them worse; LOL!!! RN 19:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the candy remark bugged me too. DP, you're making it sound like all he did was swear at someone or something like that. Frankly, trivializing Zeraeph's offenses, such as calling someone an "erotomanic stalker", is rather offensive. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but at best failing to consider how that might come across backs up my above charge of naïvety. PurplePlatypus 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't mean it that way, and I resent the implication that I'm naive. You're entitled to your opinion, and I know you didn't mean it that way, but I find your remark at least as insulting as my inadvertent remark about candy. You'd be singing a different tune if you were to look at the nature of my discussions with Zeraeph. I am by no means trivialising what Zeraeph has done, and I am not saying that what she did was minor. What I am saying is that community banning Zeraeph will not solve these problems of which you speak. And no, I am not saying Wikipedia is therapy either. I am dealing with Zeraeph off-wiki. How many times do I have to say that? I am dealing with Zeraeph off-wiki. That and the fact that she is already being blocked for a month should be sufficient. I do not support a community ban. You guys are asking for a community ban, and I'm not supporting it. Simple as that. If you guys want to file an arbitration case to get her banned for a year, that's fine, go ahead and file, I have no problems with Wikipedia processes being followed. But if you think you can get her banned through a unanimous community ban, I'm afraid you are mistaken. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, as I understand a community ban does not need to be unanimous. Leaving that aside, though, let me come at this from a slightly different angle. Could you please explain what positive result for Wikipedia you hope or expect to accomplish? Under what circumstances do you think Zeraeph should be permitted to edit again, and what benefits do you beleive will result when that happens? You can deal with Zeraeph off-wiki as much as you like, and as long as it stays off-wiki it's no real concern of mine (though I can see why Sandy might have a different view), it's the potential ON-wiki consequences that bother me. PurplePlatypus 20:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it does have to be unanimous. A community ban is simply an indefinite block that other admins can't be bothered to undo. If a single admin wants to undo an indefinite block as a result of a community ban, that community ban will not hold. To have an enforceable ban on a user requires the approval from ArbCom, Jimbo, or via an office action, and unless things have changed since I last paid attention to it, ArbCom can only hand out one-year blocks on main accounts (sockpuppet accounts are another matter). As to your next question, I was hoping to tiptoe around it before, but I'll be frank. I believe that if you simply hand out a blanket block, Zaphrael will continue to find a way to make life difficult for the said parties. While I understand how harrying it is for you people, I may have found another angle with Zaphrael and how to approach her. She's already been blocked for a month, and right now, she can't really do anything on Wikipedia, unless she chooses to get around the block by using sockpuppets or anon IPs, but from what I see in our emails, Zaphrael is fully aware that I will not help her at all if she breaks the block on her in this fashion. I'm reviewing her information in a neutral manner, and I can have feedback that I can give her. Whatever the result, I can act appropriately. --Deathphoenix ʕ 08:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a reasonable answer that I am a lot more comfortable with. That being the case, good luck. PurplePlatypus 17:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As I stated below, I hope Zeraeph and I can come to an agreement. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What's worrying some of us is that any further attempts to give Zeraeph a chance to defend herself will be abused by her. See her recent post to wikien-l, for example. ajn I do not have access to, nor have time while on vacation, to track down this post, but if she is continuing to smear my name, I hope someone has either saved that information or will forward it to me so that I will have a record of it for any potential ArbCom case. I am relieved to see that others have (finally) noted the severity of the statements Zeraeph has made against me, since I was surprised at the initial mild responses, considering how severely she has attacked me in so many places, with no foundation. Phoenix, I have no doubt at all of your good faith effort, but I do wonder if you've had experience with the particular issues and behaviors in evidence. I would also like to have an idea if there is a concensus here as to whether I should bring the Arbcom case. If some admins finally realize what I've been attempting to ignore, I will be glad to continue to ignore it if others think that is best for Wiki and she can be prevented from the continued attacks and smears, which are clearly beyond the pale of anything I've encountered on Wiki. On the other hand, if others feel I should bring the case, I'm willing. It's not fair, but it is what it is. Sandy 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response above. And yes, I have experience with these particular issues and behaviours (admittedly, not as a formally trained professional) and it is precisely because of this experience that I am approaching it this way. Think of it this way: she's already blocked for a month and her talk page is protected. If she decides to write any further emails to the mailing list that the listmods deem unacceptable, they will reject it. Any of her other activities beyond this will be outside of Wikipedia, and these actions may occur regardless of whether she is community banned from Wikipedia or not. Please, this time is mine to use (and in all of your opinions, to waste). While I understand how harrying this is for you, I believe this would be equally harrying whether I expend this effort or not. At least give me the chance to expend this effort, try to talk to Zaphrael, and have us (me and Zaphrael) both come to an agreement on something before we act on it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 08:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a community ban won't stop her from harassing me, and my concern is that she will use socks and proxies, and may impersonate me. I have no concerns about off-Wiki attempts or activities: I have never encountered her off-Wiki, and to put it plainly, Zeraeph thinks she knows who I am, but since she's wrong and I'm not who she thinks I am, there is no chance she can harm me in real life or off-Wiki. The only concern is on-Wiki, so I am in agreement with any approach that might work in the long-term. As I've said from the beginning, I'm willing to follow whatever approach is best for Wiki, and will hopefully keep me safe from longer-term attacks via socks, proxies, and impersonations. I just hope others will have my back, because the viciousness is alarming. Sandy 16:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Even while Zeraeph (I keep misspelling her name!) and I are engaging in useful dialog, I am aware of the possibility that she could be doing these things. If she is making any on-Wiki attacks via socks and open proxies, let me know and I will look into these cases myself or, if you are asking another admin to look into this, please let me know regardless. Wikipedia mentorship goes both ways: mentors are supposed to help and guide the people that they are mentoring, but they also issue warnings and blocks if the people they are mentoring continue with un-Wiki behaviour. However, sockpuppet and impersonator accounts can be blocked indefinitely, and this would not be contentious at all. If the account attacking you is a sockpuppet of Zeraeph, I would have no problem with an indef block because Zeraeph is getting around her block in an un-Wiki manner, and if the account attacking you is an impersonator of Zeraeph, she would happily have that account indef blocked because it's trying to get her punished even more. The simplest thing to do would simply be to indef block a sock or impersonator account (or temporarily block the IP) and revert any edits that those accounts make without further action. If, however, a CheckUser confirms the accounts as belonging to Zeraeph, further action would be relevant. I feel confortable saying this because I am certain that Zeraeph would not engage in sockpuppetry while we are in useful dialog, but have no problems with fixing anything that happens because of my misplaced trust. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm comfortable that you should be allowed time to see if you can attain a more workable long-term solution, as my concern has always been how I could be safe in the long-term, knowing that short-term approaches and blocks might not help. I hope the admins who said they would bring the ArbCom case if I didn't will also give this some time. [1] I am willing to wait. Sandy 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully Zeraeph and I can come to an agreement. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Torinir and ajn both mentioned they would be off-Wiki: I will leave a message on ajn's talk page. Sandy 23:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've observed a little of the behaviour of Zeraeph, and would like to add that I feel great disquiet about the effect on what should be serious, professional work on WP. I'd be relieved if something could be done about it. (I should disclose that I'm a Wikifriend of Sandy's.) Tony 15:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe myself and Justdignity made some important contributions to the Bully and Workplace Bullying topics back around May 2006 but the text kept on being immediately deleted by Zeraeph on the basis of no citations. But very little else on those topics had citations either. Zeraeph said she would be happy to reinstate my text if it had citations. But that left me at her mercy as to whether in her view i had enough citations or in the right places. She should have left my text in place with citation markers in place and I would have gladly provided citations. On her basis i hardly felt motivated to bother doing any more work. I would love to contribute more to the Bully, Workplace Bullying and NPD topics but not with Zeraeph around. --Penbat 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please also check the huge number of revealing comments made by Zeraeph on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bully I even created a subtopic called Zeraeph on that page back in May. The "Characteristic of Bullies subtopic" is also particularly revealing. User "Justdignity" makes the following revealing comment about Zeraeph: "I have read some of the feedback on your page and I realise Penbat and I are not the only ones to have fallen foul of your personal crusade to uphold what you think is WIki policy. While I accept Wiki policy applies to me, please will you accept that it applies to you too." --Penbat 19:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am the aforementioned Justdignity and have to say that my introduction to Wiki editing was short and thoroughly disenchanting thanks Zeraeph's perceived need to control (i.e. delete) user input, justified by non-sequitur commentary (i.e. nonsense). I retreated from Wiki because I had (and have) better things to do with my life than to waste my time grovelling to Zeraeph. However, I would be happy to consider completing the work I started if I knew that Zeraeph had been permanently blocked. Justdignity 13:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph had a large role in the banning of Sam Vaknin. In my view Zeraeph's contributions were poisonous. Sam Vaknin is a self proclaimed narcissist but not in my view a malicious narcissist like Zeraeph. Like him or loath him he is an important authority in the understanding of narcissism. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sam_Vaknin and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Vaknin If you strip away Zeraeph's comments you dont have too much left to damn Sam Vaknin and some of the other comments were because others were taken in by Zeraeph's poison. I hope that Sam Vaknin can be reinstated. --Penbat 18:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to add that I think that some of the others putting the knife into Sam Vaknin were Zeraeph sock puppets. Penbat 19:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

About the only person not in favour of an immediate ban on Zeraeph is DeathPhoenix. Zeraeph has got form. She has a highly manipulative personality. For her, acting this way is a compulsion. Any idea of negotiating with her to reach agreement is doomed to failure. It is very naive to even try. She may play mind games and pretend to agree to a compromise solution but she would just be bluffing. It is Wikipedia that is much more important than the welfare of one contributor - Zeraeph. Why should we have to endure any more of her poison ? --Penbat 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

THE SYNOPSIS for those who don't want to read all this * More Wiki situations found re/Zeraeph's problem behaviors * Zeraeph tells of 8 years grudge, showing she brought off-Wiki matters to Wikipedia. -I am Kiwi 23:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My first involvement in the Z-affair was very tangential. I visited Keyne's Talk page to thank him for his plea for Z to halt her disruptive posting on the Asperger Syndrome talk page. The talk page had become emotionally stressful just to read and try to keep up with the others (a steadily dwindling number).

Then came the last of the attempted Mediations. I saw her refusal to cooperate and to divert attention from the issue. Then here, RN and others say they have had problems, too. I decided to check out her contributions history and so far I have, in this short time, found that she has gone after a PhD psychologist by impugning the quality of his education and, seemingly, his relationship with an online mental health site. She then implied that he wasn't at all qualified to write about the topic.

I found situations which indicates Z brought one, perhaps more, old grudges with people in the mental disorders topics. I recognized Penbat from years ago from a bullying forum where he is a moderator and where the two of them had conflict. Penbat was easy to spot as he uses his screen name everywhere.

Most disturbing of anything I saw was the long page of posts I found when I went looking for the man who wrote the rebuttal to the Vaknin opinion article. User_talk:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu/Global_Politician

This was the ending where she revealed that she has been personally upset with Sam for many years. On that page, many of her posts indicate her problems with him were of long duration before she came to Wikipedia. However, when I went hunting, her posts to Samvak started only in February of 2006, and she showed no sign of knowing him at all and he did not recognize her until later.

---

Under the SubTopic entitled TIMEOUT!!!! by Ta bu shi da yu

Folks, my article was never to whale on Sam! I responded to his points, and asked for his response and he only responded with an ad hominem attack. Please, we should not be doing the same in kind. I realise he's frustrating, but it gets us nowhere to have a go at him. Please, some kindness and patience for this critic of Wikipedia! He's absolutely no threat to us, and even if he was, we should not be too harsh on him anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't say that if you knew him.

The guy has spent almost 8 years cold-bloodedly, deliberately playing cruel little games with the heads of as many extremelly vulnerable, damaged people as he can rope in, and determinedly crushing anyone he percieves as "getting in his way", including, but not limited to, the kind of tactics you have seen around "The Six Sins of the Wikipedia".

To Sam Vaknin "kindness" and "patience" are just contemptable weaknesses in others to be exploited. So don't waste them on him.

Truth and fairness are the best he deserves. --Zeraeph 16:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but this is not the forum for such matters. Blogs and places like Kuro5hin are best for such matters. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I don't think this is the place to request "kindness and patience" for someone like that under circumstances where to extend either would be to leave oneself open to abuse.

Still it might be best if discussion of the man himself, as opposed to the specific article in question, were to move over to Talk:Sam Vaknin? --Zeraeph 16:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

---

-I am Kiwi 23:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like Sam Vaknin got badly wound up by Zeraeph, ref his "The Six Sins of the Wikipedia" for example. He presumably equated Wikipedia with Zeraeph as Wikipedia in general seemed to have sided with Zeraeph in preferance to himself. Far from being the monster that Zeraeph portrays him as, he still runs two popular support groups for victims of narcissists and commands the respect of many victims. --Penbat 14:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Update

This sub-topic seems to have gone quiet all of a sudden. --Penbat 20:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Slowed a week ago. Deathphoenix wanted time for Zeraeph, see if she could ignore cetain people. He said she'd promised not to slip around in stocking feet. on that note, I got wiki mail from someone who may or may not be the someone others have mentioned. The party says they have had two socks in sight for the past week and 3 IP addresses to check against. Something about how it won't be sent unless it's wanted. So, for what it's worth, I'll leave that bit without further ado. Hey, The Amazing Race begins again tonight! CBS -I am Kiwi 23:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Research request

Please do not delete this post without discussion with James F..

Hello I'm a member of the research team at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) interested in understanding conflict in Wikipedia. A number of other admins and James Forrester (a member of the Wiki Research community) have supported our research, and we hope that you also will support our endeavor. We are currently running a survey to understand how administrators characterize conflict. If you would like to help in our research on Wikipedia please complete the survey at the link below:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=272072498578

Please note that we are committed to providing quality research to the Wikipedia community. The results of the survey will be incorporated into an academic paper that will be submitted to a peer-reviewed conference this fall (likely the CHI conference), and will be freely available to any interested parties. A link to this publication will be posted on my user page. You can look at the preliminary results of our first survey in which we targeted members of the Mediation Cabal to get an idea of the kinds of questions we are interested in.

We are not journalists or spammers but an established research institution with a strong track record of high-quality publications. Here are links to find out more about our team (the User Interface Research group) and our past research, including studies on characterizing the web. Thank you for your help! Parc wiki researcher 17:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove this request. It is the third bloody time we've had to put it up, and I'm tired of people massively mis-interpreting Policy. Do not attempt become the third sysop to endure my wrath over this. ;-)

In as much as I have the authority so to do (which is not great), I welcome the research efforts from PARC. Please take this as sufficient to quell any doubts you might have about the authenticity of the request.

James F. (talk), Wikimedia CRO. 22:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Any chance that a bot can be created to automatically send a copy of the complteted research to our (interested users) talk pages? Just a thought. RVTA 22:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

if they have done this before why are they not hoasting on thier own servers and why are they not trying to contact people directly rather than useing theier current setup which gives them no control over who fills it in. It also asks about articles and then provides a list that includes a portal. Result obtained are likely to be largely useless.Geni 23:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a valid point: How are the respondents being vetted? Is there a possiblity of creating a seperate page in userspace to ask these questions without clogging up the noticeboard? RVTA 00:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to respond to the above questions: Geni, we are using SurveyMonkey to host the survey, which is a common tool used in the research community. The articles/portals are selected using an algorithm which we will discuss more in the paper. RVTA, originally we targeted a randomly selected (by name) group of admins, but people told us to post here instead of to individual user pages. If the WP community has a better idea for a method for researchers to interact with the community, we'd definitely be interested in hearing it. Thanks! Parc wiki researcher 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If you use your own domain to host serveys people are going to tend to be less paranoid.Geni 21:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A problem I see is that there is no way to ensure you are getting answers from administrators and editors, or trolls and passers-by. Anyone can do the survey and anyone can fill in whatever username they wish to impersonate. A better way might be to send e-mail messages with unique passwords. —Centrx→talk • 21:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't encourage them to spam Wikipedia users. That will just get Wikipedia put on blocklists. --John Nagle 19:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I just took the survey and the research methodology seems to be at best lacking. The articles one was asked to look at are clearly not randomly selected but the procedure they were selected by doesn't seem at all clear either. There were other issues I had but I don't want to taint the study by going into them now. JoshuaZ 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

new topic: can we have a more informative rollback choice?

I assume most of us revert vandalism using the rollback choice but you notice it leaves no explanation of the reason. There are a few other categories of "rollback on sight", such as removing linkspam or removing personal info or removing personal attack or removing edit by banned person. I am sure a few others might occur to people. Is anyone else in favor of asking the developers for a choice of, say, 5 or 6 rollback buttons that function like the present one but put a brief explanatory phrase in the edit summary? alteripse 20:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's anything other than vandalism, rollback isn't appropriate. I'm sure we've all broken that rule now and again, but to be honest, it's generally a good one. If you need to undo an edit for any other reason than vandalism, then you need to manually explain whay you're doing. Doing so will also help you think twice about reverting in the first place. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A related question, what can be done for admins who continuously use rollback for reverts during edit disputes, and other cases where no obvious vandalism/link spam etc has occurred? I have tried politely requesting them in such cases, but most of the time, the offending admin simply ignores and does it again and again. --Ragib 20:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest not doing anything, since there is nothing wrong with doing so. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is of course problems in abusing admin features in edit disputes. According to WP:ADMIN#Reverting, Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please revert manually with an appropriate edit summary.. --Ragib 20:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If an admin repeatedly uses the rollback feature to get the upper hand in an edit war they should first be reported for violating 3RR or the spirit of the rule if appropriate, then send to arbcom if they keep ignoring requests not to. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see how using rollback is any different from leaving a blank or uninformative edit summary. 3RR is already taken care of. There is already guidance to not describe a good-faith edit as vandalism. Misusing one's position as an admin is understood to be wrong no matter what mechanism is used. How is using the rollback button worse than leaving as a summary "restored NPOV"? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the interface clutter is worth the trouble. Rollback is, in the vast majority of cases, used where the reason for its use is obvious. If an editor is confused or perplexed about why an admin used rollback in a particular circumstance, a polite talk page request usually clears matters right up. For admins (or other editors, for that matter) who would like more specific or more customizable rollback buttons, my understanding is that there are any number of homebrew scripts available for download these days. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't happen in the first place, and having to talk to the admin first is quite a waste of time. I had a minor fight on a WP:BJAODN page - I added something and the admin reverted. I think we both wasted more time arguing about it on his talk page than if he had just spent 20 seconds explaining why he didn't think it was funny. Hbdragon88 19:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, we don't do that with edit wars, etc. So where can I find a "homebrew script" that would let me make a small menu of edit summaries for rollback? alteripse 02:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin rollback has always been for vandalism only. If admins are making an edit decision, they should do it manually like everyone else, and leave an edit summary to explain the edit (which rollback can't do). This is for good communication with other editors. Past discussions about this feature have been unambiguous. Tyrenius 07:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

All points agreed as above. This is about how, not when and whether. I am suggesting/requesting a measure to increase ease and detail of communication for those rollbacks that do not warrant a talk page discussion but might not look like obvious vandalism. I am one of those editors who feel a much stronger conversation obligation to named users with accounts than to anon IPs but would like to leave a more informative message than the automatic "reverted". Please don't repeat the points already stipulated, thanks. alteripse 12:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Patterns merely perceived?: User name plus behavior = small freak-out

Is this at all normal? A series of user names, most of the form "name <space> name", all editing a single article, with very small edits quite quickly, over a short period of time but not overlapping. Is this someone trying to 'establish' a set of users for ... 'later'?

• 05:09, 14 September 2006 User:Stanley Goodwin (Talk | contribs) (New user account)
• 05:05, 14 September 2006 User:Kevin Ronchzkowski (Talk | contribs) (New user account)
• 05:02, 14 September 2006 User:David Sam (Talk | contribs) (New user account)
• 04:59, 14 September 2006 User:Carl Edwards (Talk | contribs) (New user account)
• 04:53, 14 September 2006 User:Mark Stanley (Talk | contribs) (New user account)
• 04:31, 14 September 2006 User:Jonathanchristman (Talk | contribs) (New user account)

Check out the edit history of Reformed_Baptist. (I'm tempted to revert the whole lot of changes, as several are just bad, but I'm spooked.)

I scanned down the list of new accounts for about 1.5 hours' worth, and except for

• 04:25, 14 September 2006 User:Bruce Graham (Talk | contribs) (New user account)

none else fit the (perceived?) pattern.

I know that people will often perceive a pattern in "white noise", but this is too strange for me. Shenme 05:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say there's something up. That history page is scary! Looking at this dif (there are over 50 edits in between) there seem to be no substantial changes (and a few copyediting errors, which I am going to go fix). It seems like someone trying to build up an edit count on a few socks. I'm no expert or admin though, but that's what I think. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 06:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, that looks like a pattern all right. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Bruce seems to be unconnected to the others, and is presumably blisfully ignorant that his name is being dragged through the mud. I've dropped a handrolled "please don't" message on each of the others. Probably just someone experimenting. We will see. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope I didn't give that impression, sorry if I did. User:Bruce Graham was not in the first list, and I was _trying_ to say he wasn't a possible problem, but apparently failed. No, I was not including User:Bruce Graham in my concerns. Shenme 16:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologise. I didn't think that you meant that Bruce was a problem, only that you were just raising a perfectly valid concern that there might be a connection. But I'm discomforted that Bruce was included in a check user request [2]. That's not because it wasn't done in good faith - it was. Just that it's rough on him to show up and accidentally be caught in a dragnet. I'm uncomfortable that we're discussing him and he doesn't (presumably) know it. But I don't what to do about it - leave a message on his page saying "By the way Bruce, just to let you know, we're watching you and we're know you're innocent?" That's wierd too. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I only included him, because he appears (or appeared) to be connected by naming and edit habits. If he's innocent I'm sorry he got dragged in here, but I don't see anything implicitly wrong with innocents being included in RFCU when there's reason to believe there's a connection. The persons performing such checks will not reveal any confidential information, so information he is not related can only be good for him. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

myg0t

Myg0t (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been deleted, reviewed, deletion endorsed, earth salted, reviewed again, reviewed again. It's pretty unliekly that we'll see an article at that location in the near future. The talk page is, of course, the usual trollfest. I suggest we delete it, as a talk page of a deleted article which is unlikely to play any productive part in a deletion review in the foreseeable future. What say? Guy 12:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. JoshuaZ 12:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And earth salted. Technically talk pages aren't speediable if they "contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere", but I don't even see the use of that generally, and certainly none of the trolling on Talk:Myg0t is any use to anyone. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the same approach could be applied to Talk:Wii60? -- ReyBrujo 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Luelinks is also flaring up again after another admin deleted the talk page a few months ago. Hbdragon88 19:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano

• Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Giano has taken his concerns about the recent Carnildo affair beyond the level of reasonable discussion and has begun to make quite hysterical and false accusations [3] [4]. I've given him three hours to reconsider his words and cool down a bit. --Tony Sidaway 21:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that a block was necessary here... I don't read anything that makes it look like there's any danger to the project, and it isn't obvious to me that the comments are designed to upset any contributors. Jkelly 21:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)-

I agre with Jkelly. I'm going to unblock, and leave him a message on his talk page asking him to be a bit cooler. Raul654 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, Flonight beat me to it. Raul654 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the block, but Giano definitely needs to cool it. There's room for civil discussion, and then there's accusations of conspiracy, corruption, and cabalism. True or not, the latter doesn't help a damn thing. Mackensen (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I think it had gotten far beyond the stage where asking him to cool it would have worked, though. We'll see how it goes. --Tony Sidaway 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, for the delay in posting. Keep getting edit conflicts. Giano will not respond positively to a block so I unblocked. --FloNight 21:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I support getting Giano to return to the excellent work he has done in FA's and to try and let the situations outside of that become the past, as they should be. I also hope folks aren't going around undoing Tony Sidaway's admin actions, knowing that he cannot revert them since he is under an administrative 1RR ruling. Let's not undo others admin actions as this is the second time in less than 24 hours an admin has changed Tony's blocks.--MONGO 21:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"[T]his is the second time in less than 24 hours an admin has changed Tony's blocks." Seems to me there are two ways to interpret that statistic.... —Nate Scheffey 21:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's here all week folks! Mackensen (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, the block was uncalled for, especially of an editor you hadn't even warned, that I can see. The block summary was even more so.[5] "Hysterical" is untrue and a personal attack, and now it's there in the log for evermore. Please consider the formulation of block summaries with particular care, as they are extremely difficult to remove or change, and it's in practice never done. This was discussed extensively, recently, in relation to Carnildo's "hate speech" summaries, which still remain in several block logs—Giano's, as luck would have it, being one of them. Bishonen | talk 21:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

Yes, the block was uncalled for (and particularly bad form). Better to risk a bruised ego by undoing an improper block than to let it stand out of some misguided notion of politeness. Friday (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid we'll have to differ on this,Bishonen. Giano's accusations of skulduggery and malice are beyond anything that is ever acceptable on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well, you don't usually mince words yourself, Tony. A month ago you were accusing a fellow admin of "Pure, unadulterated malice. Disgusting." Haukur 21:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony weren't you also just fighting with Giano on the crat board? [6][7] I notice you've also started doing more refactoring of those discussions after I asked you to stop. JoshuaZ 21:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And where is this "skulduggery and malice?" From the two diffs you provided, the editor disagreed with Taxman's re-promotion of Carnildo and discussed it. They didn't explicitly attack either Carnildo or Taxman with anything more than opinions. I don't think dissenting opinions deserve a block, and if something in the grey area like this does, it is better to discuss your problems with the editor first, especially if you've had problems with them before. There was nothing urgent or dangerous about this matter which required an immediate block. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If 2-3 admins disagree with Tony Sidaway, I think that sends a strong message that the action was wrong in teh first place. Hbdragon88 19:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that events have proven the wisdom of that block. The issue has quite evaporated now that those who were engaged in pushing a ridiculous shrieking campaign against trusted Wikipedians have stopped. When a nurse lances a boil, sometimes she gets covered in malodorous filth and she may be blamed for the smell. The patient's health prospects are immediately improved, however. --Tony Sidaway 19:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, we have to add that one to The sayings of Yogi Berra Tony Sidaway ;). NoSeptember 20:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Such a remark is deeply offensive and disgusting. No wonder a block was issued, was about time. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What pure, unadulterated, self-righteous poppycock; entirely uncivil and an offensive personal attack to boot: delighting in the departure of a Wikipedian whose positive contribution to this encyclopedia (rather than the byzantine claptrap that resides in Wikipedia space) can scarcely be counted, from a person who admits that his favourite article is the execrable falling. The block was not "wise" - it was unnecessary, inflamatory, and made a bad situation worse, like the block of Ghirlandajo. Tony the nurse may be congratulated for amputating Wikipedia's right arm. And the issues underlying Giano's accusations have not gone away. Far from it. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• If anything could be the opposite of what was stated, that is. Who, pray tell, are the "trusted Wikipedians," when it's quite clear that Tony is not trusted and barely a Wikipedian, while Giano enjoyed a great deal of trust and made Wikipedia grow? Is Tony saying that his shrieking campaign against Giano is over now? That's odd, since, above, he says that he had never heard the name until a couple of days prior and then, not a quarter of a screen later, that he knows that Giano had been complaining for months, and, elsewhere, that all of Giano's complaints are "silly" and that it's a "truism" that they needed no consideration. Someone has a Bush-like grip on realitys. Geogre 20:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony's last statement here -- the one with the metaphor comparing Giano to a filth-filled boil -- is incredibly offensive. I question whether the value Tony adds to the encyclopedia is worth the price the community pays by allowing him to edit here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the metaphor wasn't intended to come out the way it did. Tony, I invite you to withdraw the comparison or face a block for an outrageous personal attack. Bishonen | talk 20:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC).

Bish, no need to. He already got blocked for it, and I fully endorse that block. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmm... Never thought I'd see the day when I was sticking up for Tony, but I don't think that was a personal attack, merely a poorly worded metaphor. The "boil" was Giano's behaviour, the operation was issuing a cooling-off block, and the mess was, well, all this of course. Perhaps I'm wrong but that's how I read it. --kingboyk 20:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I support the block - Tony's clearly been engaging in a pattern of disruptive behavior. He may enjoy playing the biggest bully in the schoolyard, but this yard doesn't need bullies and there's no reason we should tolerate them. Friday (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, the block was not just for that attack (which merited at least a stern warning by itself and almost certainly a block) but the general disruptiveness and lack of civility and willingness to mistreat long term productive users. This particularly dif was the final straw in that regard. I consider the dif to be arguably not block worthy but when taken together with Tony's other recent behavior it seemed more than necessary (and before anyone thinks I have some personal issue here I was the person who attempted to defend Tony's ealier borderline wheel-warring). JoshuaZ 20:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I'm not quite sure what the wisdom in this block is. I would echo Newyorkbrad's thoughtful comments below about both of these editors. If we accept that Giano's and Ghirla's blocks were unwarranted as cool-off blocks only serve to make a bad situation worse, how is this block different (other than being a block of Tony Sidaway)? I hope it isn't a controversial thing to say now that my ideal scenario is that both Giano and Tony Sidaway (and Ghirla, too) stick around for a long time to come, and in calmer circumstances, too. I understand the problem with incivility here. But I'm left wondering what productive gain this block is meant to have, unless it is just a heat-of-the-moment thing. I did think the course of previous discussion ws to determine that we don't think blocks are a good solution to incivility for long-term productive editors. I think all block buttons should be lowered at this point, as they are clearly hindering a resolution. Dmcdevit·t 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should be more conservative with blocks all around. However, there was a pattern of disruptive behavior here that was getting worse, not better. Tony takes "not getting it" to a new level, and he wasn't getting it. Will this make him realize his behavior is unacceptable? I don't know. But we do know that no amount of people simply telling him it's unacceptable has had any effect. Friday (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is (and speaking not to the merits of any of the arguments, but just how I see them if I'm not misreading) it seems like that was exactly the reason Tony gave for blocking Giano, and the arguments he got in return were not (totally) that Giano wasn't a bit too uncivil, but that that's not how blocks should work. If that's not how blocks should work... maybe it would have been better to have blocked neither of these editors. I'm afraid this whole affair is creating needless divisions between people (based on administrative and community concerns, too, not even encyclopedia ones) ans wish there was some easy way to transition back to amiable encyclopedia writing. Dmcdevit·t 21:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, I can see the irony in blocking someone for being uncivil in a discussion over why he shouldn't block people for being uncivil. I also understand and support the block - Tony needs a wake up call, and wishing for amiability continues to not work. Scores of Wikipedians, including many admins, have tried to explain to Tony that he can and should deal with conflict situations in a way that serves to dignify all the parties involved, and thus easily de-escalate situations, rather than escalating them by treating disgruntled parties with contempt and dismisiveness. He continues to disagree, and I don't see any number of repetitions from experienced Wikipedians making any difference. If anything, he's more and more defiantly sure that his brute-squad enforcement approach to adminship is the way to go. It's up to ArbCom at this point. I realize that Tony is a clerk, and very helpful to the arbitrators, but they really need to somehow take him aside and explain that, whether he understands or not, whether he agrees or not, this won't fly, and that he is not indispensible to the project. If ArbCom won't say it, then Jimbo needs to say it. If Jimbo won't say anything, the community's patience will eventually wear out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And Tony's most recent comment [8] makes it look like Bish would have blocked Tony as well. JoshuaZ 21:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Tony has issued a few unwarranted and truly damaging blocks recently, and that his continued obstinate attitude and condescending, dismissive replies to everyone who disagrees with him are unacceptable. However, I feel this block, and others like it, will not solve anything. Tony will simply "sit this block out,"[9] and then continue the controversial behavior. I think, at this point we need to seriously consider whether Wikipedia is improved by Tony having the mop and bucket. —Nate Scheffey 21:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This block is indeed useless when the blocked user does not understand its purpose at all. --Conti|✉ 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I suppose I should weigh in. For a long time now, Tony and a few others have "prevailed" in their disputes by not obeying the rules and then knowing that their opponents, being rules proponents, will not treat them as they have treated others. (Sorry for that inelegance, but I hope the sense is clear.) Blocking for personal attacks is something I disagree with. Blocking for disruption is something I agree with. I believed that the frivolous and ill-tempered RFAR behavior was disruptive. I believe coming back to get the last word in this section was disruptive. I believe that blocking people who merely disagree with you is disruptive. I concur that this block was warranted, exactly as JoshuaZ said, not for the particularly noxious phrase, nor for the contradictory and apparently dishonest arguments, but because of ongoing disruptiveness. Blocks are preventative, and this one was. That said, I also think that clock struck midnight days ago on whether or not Tony uses or abuses administrative powers. Geogre 00:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not Giano but Tony Sidaway

I see a big problem here and this problem is not Giano (talk · contribs), but Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Tony has turned the entire Wikipedia into a battleground between himself and anyone who dares to disagree with him. Tony has lately resorted to a more fiery methods of intimidation, including frivolous arbcom submissions and, most amazingly, blocks when the opponent is especially voiceful. His own recent activity ranged between foul language, personal attacks, intimidation and gross abuse. There is no single contribution into a single article in mainspace, which is also noteworthy.

Until Tony will stand in front of ArbCom for his contempt of everyone but himself, he needs time to chill out. I call on the community ro consider giving him a time to cool off. Perhaps a 1-3 day block will be enough for him to take a good use of a wikibreak, cool down and come back somewhat chilled out. --Irpen 21:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Again already? He got blocked just a couple of days ago as a naughty essay-deleter :) [10] Haukur 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it had been established that cooling-off blocks didn't do any good. Heaven knows there are howls of protest whenever one's proposed against a non-admin. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm or do you agree that cooling off blocks do no good? —Nate Scheffey 21:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen them work, really, because it's difficult for someone to take a block in good grace. I don't blame you for asking, though. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

They work well if they're permitted to. I don't disagree with the unblock (all my blocks are subject to review and overturning with my implicit permission). I think we would have done well to permit Giano the time to reconsider the quite hysterical and false accusations of skulduggery and malice of his recent comments. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. This block would not have cooled Giano off. His comments were not hysterical. Saying so doesn't make it so. All of your blocks are subject to review regardless of your permission. —Nate Scheffey 22:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my impression is that he does post any potentially controversial blocks up for review, so I cannot see what you meaning is on this point.--MONGO 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Since he said "all my blocks" I'm not sure where you got "potentially controversial blocks" from. Regardless, my meaning is that on Wikipedia all of our actions are subject to review, no permission necessary. —Nate Scheffey 22:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaways' latest is another of those blocks that will obviously have the opposite effect of its stated intent. This needs to be addressed in WP:BLOCK. —Nate Scheffey 21:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking isn't the answer. Furthermore, I'd encourage you to be careful with "voiceful" (I suspect you meant "forceful"). There's a very important line between arguing your point forcefully and trolling. It's often hard to tell the difference, and people have varying levels of tolerance. When in doubt, moderate one's language. Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(four edit conflicts) Agree that the problem is Tony. Disagree on the block. Other solutions are needed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Giano may be more than a little upset at the way Tony responds incivily to a civil (and might I add hypothetical) statement, then, called on it, says "ridiculous threats deserve to to be treated with loud and resounding contempt." Noting that one would call for Tony's recall if he were a bureaucrat is not any sort of threat that I can discern. Tony is being incivil; he has been consistenty policing post-Carnildo discussion to what seems to me a disruptive point, and he should perhaps block himself for three hours for a calm-down, if he finds such blocks generally effective. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone bother to discuss the blocking with Tony before reverting his action?--MONGO 22:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there was about as much discussion with Tony about unblocking as there was between Tony and Giano before he imposed the block. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi ho

If no one minds I'm going to attempt to stifle and censor discussion by proposing that this matter best be handled as dispute resolution between Giano and Tony Sidaway. Tony reported his block, the block has been undone. Nothing's going to be accomplished here save much grumbling and drama. We all know where the dispute pages are; we all know where to discuss the blocking policy. Administrative action isn't needed here. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got nothing further to say on the matter. Hopefully Giano will calm down now that more eyes are on him. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) I see two issues here. If people agree that cool-off blocks do not work, why Tony is not yet reprimanded for the cool-off blocks against respected users who simply dare to disagree with him? I mean, some people cry foul loudly but since Tony does not care about the community's perception of himself, there is no consequences for him whatsoever. At the same time, he lately runs completely amok and that's not just me who says that. He needs not a cool-off period but a wiki-break. If he, like all of us, is such a wikiholic that he can't call a wikibreak by himself, the wikibreak must be called on him by the community. The disruption by Tony to an entire Wikipedia has become intolerable. Personally, I won't care if he blocks me. First of all, someone will likely unblock, and, second, I am here to write content and I will use the time to write an article or two on a hard-drive. But other users are more britle and take unfair blocks closer to heart. Tony's behavior drive out Wikipedians, and not those who like him spend their entire time chatting and lawyering, but those who write a FA once every 2-3 days. Users like the G-3 (Giano, George, Ghirlandajo), the Worldtraveller, 172 is hardly contributing. What the hell is happening? --Irpen 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(Record number of edit conflicts) I strongly endorse the unblocking. I had been following the discussion on WP:BN today and Tony Sidaway was an active participant in it, disagreeing with several of the other users contributing. In the process, Tony made remarks that by his own admission on his talk page were uncivil and "over the top." Resort to the page history at BN is necessary because throughout the day, Tony refactored the discussion by deleting several comments that he disagreed with. Although BN is a project page rather than an article, Tony's blocking here was the equivalent of blocking to gain an advantage in an edit war, widely considered an unacceptable practice.

Under the circumstances, while I do not agree with everything Giano had to say, and I find that the ongoing debate on Carnildo's re-sysoping has become somewhat sterile, Tony certainly should not have been the blocking admin -- even had Giano said anything that could have warranted a block, which he did not. User:Giano is not some random troll to be driven away; he is a major contributor to the encyclopedia, who has had two featured articles on the Main Page within the past week, and is entitled to express his opinions on an administrative noticeboard, particularly where he is doing so more civilly than the person who chose to block him.

We are at the point that we have some valuable contributors who are living in fear of administrators will block them if they say something out of touch with the mood of the day -- not in an article, but in project space where meta-issues are supposed to be debated. A strong consensus should emerge from this that it's time for some folks to step away from the block button. Newyorkbrad 22:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Who are the contributors that are leaving for fear of being blocked for speaking their minds?--MONGO 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the BN and was thanked for doing so by several editors, including one bureaucrat. It doesn't matter what good Giano is doing elsewhere, his activities on use talk pages were inflammatory accusations of malicious skulduggery and he had been warned to stop. Newyorkbrad's false accusation of blocking to gain advantage in a dispute is unworthy of response. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, a relatively new editor, is also one of the most thoughtful commentators on meta-issues I have seen. You demean yourself by dismissing him thusly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thoughtful he may be, but when he's wrong he's wrong. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

He's not wrong. You are wrong. Dismissing his accurate and well reasoned objection as "unworthy of response" demonstrates conclusively that your civility issues need to be formally addressed. —Nate Scheffey 22:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely all opinions judged wrong by you are not "unworthy of response"? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Only the clearly ridiculous ones. --Tony Sidaway 22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on Two Users

User:Tony Sidaway is dedicated to this project. He has clearly spent thousands of hours serving Wikipedia as an administrator, as the ArbCom clerk (time-consuming and tedious I'm sure), and in meta-debate as well. When doing his job well, he is one of the most valuable Wikipedians. Unfortunately, Tony has his rough edges: by his own admission, he is sometimes uncivil; he says what's on his mind and minces no words; and lots of people have had to urge him more than once to cool down; and he's acknowledged that he has a fiery temper, to the point that he is subject to restrictions not placed on any other administrator. But he's put in his time; he's been subject to vicious personal attacks off-wiki for his work here; and he withstands it all and continues to work for Wikipedia.

User:Giano is dedicated to this project. He has clearly spent thousands of hours serving Wikipedia as a contributor to some of our best articles, and more recently to some extent in meta-debate as well. When doing his job well, he is one of the most valuable Wikipedians. Unfortunately, Giano has his rough edges: when provoked, he sometimes skirts the edges of civility; he says what's on his mind and minces no words; and lots of people have had to urge him more than once to cool down. But he's put in his time; he's been subject to inane block summaries and proposed (fortunately not enacted) ArbCom remedies; and he withstands it all and continues to work for Wikipedia.

There is a place for both of these people here, and it's not sitting behind blocks. Newyorkbrad 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well put. Jkelly 22:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that what Giano has been doing is far beyond incivility. It is clearly false accusations, without evidence, of malicious wrongdoing. He remains very, very worked up about this, which is a shame, because we'd all like him to cool down and stop adding this stuff to user talk pages and trying to whip up hatred against other Wikipedians. Those actions are real problems. We may differ on what to do about them, but they won't go away just because we ignore them. --Tony Sidaway 22:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• "we'd all like him to cool down and stop adding this stuff to user talk pages" I bet you would; but what stuff exactly Tony? Giano | talk 22:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's what is happening, and there is a real behaviour problem, it isn't obvious enough yet, given that a whole bunch of us here couldn't see the block as even a necessary evil. If there is a problem that goes beyond Giano's... level of emphasis, it needs a lot more spelling out -- an RfC level of spelling-out, I'd suggest. Jkelly 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's abundantly obvious. "All of them I suspect were in on this - even Angela - there are no innocents here" and "I smell a rat, I see a rat, and I don't like it one little bit" make it plain that the fellow has taken to making false, quite unfounded and extremely damaging allegations about other Wikipedians. Asking for an RfC is superfluous. This is the kind of poison, in my opinion, that should never be spread around on Wikipedia. Since others can't see that I've no problem accepting that I was mistaken. --Tony Sidaway 23:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

//sigh// Well, I was hoping that perhaps what I wrote would induce Tony Sidaway to acknowledge that Giano has his merits, and Giano to recognize that Tony has his. Not working out that great so far, is it? Tony likes to write that he's "not one of life's mediators," and it looks like perhaps I shouldn't quit my day job either. Newyorkbrad 23:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I have nothing against Giano and until the other day I don't think I'd ever heard of him. His recent actions have been, to say the least of it, odd. As an administrator I seek to deal with those actions. I'm not succeeding in this instance otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and I'll own up to that with no problems. However Giano's actions remain a problem for the community. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You're all idiots

OK, I don't really mean that. :-) Well, not for all of you; Newyorkbrad, for one, has been quite rational. The hysteria and nonsense from many of the rest of you, however, leaves me disappointed. I won't try to point fingers at the poor players (if you don't know that a finger would have been pointed at you or not, it probably would have been, and that you cannot tell is not a good thing).

Tony's comment was not at all, in any way, a personal attack; it was an accurate observation, though perhaps beladen with a little too much melodrama. Only those looking to take offence could possibly miscontrue it. However, even were it offensive, this build-up still would be nowhere near sufficient to block a fellow sysop. We shouldn't block people in retribution, only in prevention, when it will actually make a difference to the benefit of Wikipedia. Blocking a long-term user - whoever that is - will rarely (but not never) accomplish this.

I would imagine that you've all got much, much more productive things to do than comment on here. Some fool once told me that, apparently, we're here to write an encyclopædia. Go and get on with that job, and knock it off.

OK, but only 'cos it was requested: I am Spartacus.

James F. (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And I agree. As I said before, I think just about everyone who has used their block or unblock button in this matter and everything leading up to it has made things worse. We need to step back and decide when such things are worth it and beneficial to the encyclopedia, and when they just make us feel better (and make others not feel better). I think it's time to recognize this whole affair has been an exercise in the latter. I hope I am stressing "everyone" here clearly enough. Dmcdevit·t 22:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you're stressing it clearly enough for those who already agree with you. Those who won't apply it to themselves are precisely those who need to hear it, though. I doubt that particular bit of communication is best on-wiki, so I hope it's happening off-wiki. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur entirely in James' opinion, above. The block button is a sledgehammer, not a feather. It is rarely possible to give someone a "light tap on the shoulder" with the block button, and yet people persist in the fiction that they can. It just increases the drama level, and that's not helping Wikipedia at all. So, please, everyone, stop being silly sausages; move along, there's nothing more to see here. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh... your second third and fourth sentences are precisely what people have been trying to tell Tony. The fourth sentence in particular, about drama not helping Wikipedia, contradicts what you yourself have said in the past about drama serving to identify "useless users", when explaining to me why you're happy to generate it. [11] I'm glad to see you've changed your mind - or is drama only destructive in some cases? Finally, your last sentence is misguided. Tony has been exhibiting chronic drama-generating behavior, and sweeping that issue under the rug again will only make it a bigger and worse drama eruption next time around. I hope that something happens during his week off to convince him to stop swaggering around with a banstick and an attitude. Looking away on the grounds that there's "nothing to see here" won't do it though. I hope your call to ignore the situation is simply what you say on the wiki, and that in some other, more private, setting, you're working to address the very real problem we're talking about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There is significant private discussion on this issue; it would be unproductive to share it publicly. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. I hope it's going well. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Less than three months ago, Kelly, you wrote this after blocking MONGO:

My block was intended as a "tap on the shoulder", to get his attention and underscore the message that flamewarring on third party talk pages is not acceptable. MONGO's reaction to it tells me that he is in dire need of an attitude adjustment, however, and I think he should consider either (a) a wikibreak or (b) resigning his adminship. [12]

Have you changed your mind since then on blocking as taps on the shoulder? Haukur 16:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people will react to a tap on the shoulder by stopping what they're doing and listening attentively to the tapper. Others will react by turning around and slugging the person doing the tapping. One has to exercise judgment in using such methods; I believe that Tony's judgment, in using such an approach with Giano, was misguided. Giano was clearly not in the mindset where he would react positively (in either the short or long term) to such a block. This should have been obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with the history of the situation. What Giano needed was for someone to talk to him, calmly and probably also privately, and slowly and quietly bang some sense into him. That someone needed to be someone he would respect, rather than someone he viewed as the enemy. Giano brought a great deal of this onto himself; laying all the blame for this situation on Tony's lap -- or on Carnildo's or the ArbCom's (for unspecified crimes) or Taxman, Rdsmith, and Danny (for controversially promoting Carnildo) -- is woefully misguided. This is very much in danger of turning into a lynch mob. Please don't live down to James' sarcastic characterization of Wikipedia as a dystopic ochlocracy. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin blocked because someone took his comments out of context. Tsk, tsk. Sounds like a bit of personal vendetta-ism going on here. This action (blocking Tony) is completely unwarranted. People need to get over themselves and not take things so seriously. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 22:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you look at Tony's talk page where he seems to make it clear that the relevant dif was intended exactly as he meant it. Furthermore, as I explained above the block was not just for that dif but the general disruptive behavior that Tony has been engaging in. Yes there is an encyclopedia here but if Tony keeps driving away the people who want to write it we have a problem. JoshuaZ 22:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Psh. You seem to think that you know better than everyone else. However, it was you who blocked a long-term user - who erred; who show no remorse. And Tony is the problem?

James F. (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You have just described exactly what Tony did to Giano. Bittersweet irony. —Nate Scheffey 01:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Being a longtime and helpful user is no excuse for driving away multiple users one of whom had multiple FAs. Your above comment also somehow seems to imply that possibly I'm a problem which is a bit odd since if you look at Tony's talk page you will note that I the person who went through the relevant logs related to the easlier wheel-warring accusations and argued that he hadn't wheel-warred. JoshuaZ 23:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If we're here to write an encyclopedia, well, Tony's action caused a most excellent conributor to leave and another one near doing so. If we choose to favor people that effectively write an encyclopedia, Tony's behaviour is even more problematic.

Oh, and telling people to knock it off is quite incivil, if you ask me. This reaction like, "shut up and just work" (don't remember who said it on Tony's talk) is just revolting. Wikipedians are not expendable cogs to throw away and they're not citizens of a totalitarian state telling them to get up to workwrite an encyclopedia every morning. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Knock it off" is absolutely standard Committee parlance. Yes, that is exactly what it means. And, ahem, you obviously didn't listen to the Committee panel recording - cogs is exactly what we all are. "Totalitarian state" indeed - read WP:NOT again, especially "Wikipedia is not a democracy". We are not here for you to feel included. If you don't like that, go else where. That's the social contract we've all signed, and if you didn't read the fine print, well tough.

James F. (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

James, I think you miss an issue here- people don't function well when treated as cogs or worse as "boils." You are welcome to run a Wiki of your own that treats everyone as machines. I doubt it will last long. JoshuaZ 23:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Joshua's comment above that I would presumably have blocked Tony also. Noh... I do endorse Joshua's block, but Giano is a personal friend and I'm very upset that he has left. Therefore, I should not and hopefully would not have blocked Tony. I lost my cool when I saw Tony's disgusting attack, and said (and meant it) that I'd block unless he withdrew it. In my defense, I believe I would have reacted the same way at the same low triumph over a departed editor who wasn't a friend of mine. And I do believe I would have recovered before actually using the block button. Dear friends, from this we may draw a valuable lesson about the advantage of always warning before you block! It gives not only the presumptive blockee, but the blocker, an extra minute to think. Oh, and I would like to emphasize that I don't take orders from James F, and I'm surprised at his tone. To me it sounds more like standard parlance for calling dogs to heel. Bishonen | talk 23:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC).

I would even say that I'm surprised a lot at his tone. It is plain insulting. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that put us in our place. Back to work, minions!

As it happens, I agree that this block will be entirely ineffective in addressing the problem, which it Tony's attitude. You only have to read the succession of complaints and suggestions on his talk page, and his totally dismissive responses, to understand that. Perhaps it would help if Tony would "knock it off" and get on with writing the encyclopedia, a task to which he has singlarly failed to contribute for as far back in his edit history as I care to look. I present you with the pinnacle of his contributions: falling. Enough said.

But even Tony is perhaps the worst case of a wider malaise. I used to enjoy being a Wikipedian, and doing my bit to spread knowledge. I used to. Now it seems like a constant uphill battle. What is wrong with this place? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I was about to mention that article too...

As to answer your concerns: it is in my (not so) humble opinion pretty clear. As WP grows, more and more people seem to forget that the goal is to contribute, and not to spent time on endless wikilawyering. Consequently, a contributor that writes stuff is the central point to WP. Not the admins, as some people think. Being an admin does not make you superior. An admin's job is to mop, not to treat normal editors as his subordinates.

Yes, some of editors are engaged in edit wars and stuff, but as long as the whole thing's getting discussed and is moving, any block is harmful (see the RFC on DMC's conduct as an example). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

James F said: Tony's comment was not at all, in any way, a personal attack; it was an accurate observation, though perhaps beladen with a little too much melodrama. Only those looking to take offence could possibly miscontrue it.

I have to put my foot down and disagree in strong terms here. Only those with a strong determination to look the other way could misconstrue it as anything but a vile attack carefully worded to avoid technically falling under the sacred "PA" label. Using a metaphor doesn't give you a free out; you are still responsible in civil language for the metaphor you pick. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• James F, what the hell are you doing here all of a sudden? "The Committee" has parlance? The Committee for Public Safety, or the Arbitration Committee? And now Kelly shows up, too. Gosh. Getting involved now, and entirely for Tony's unilateral blocks, against process, is really wonderful. Your input is terribly appreciated, and especially the "idiots." It's just too darned bad that there are so many idiots, isn't it? Why, oh why, can't we all think as The Committee does? Why, oh why, can't we all block without thought, speak without moderation, and come back to taunt the way that Tony does? The Committee enjoys very, very, very, very, very little confidence, and the sooner it starts to realize that its tendency to view itself as a cadre is eroding what little confidence it ever had, the better. How, James F, have you been writing an encyclopedia? How, Kelly, have you been writing an encyclopedia? How has Tony Sidaway? I click on contributions and I really don't see many. Still, the Committee for Public Safety can tell us that we're all idiots for responding to someone calling "festering boil" an insult, because the Committee knows best, has a private language, and need not speak the same language as everyone else. Geogre 10:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Help, it's a conspiracy of our elected representatives secretly plotting against 'everyone else'. Time for the 'plain man' to speak up? TINC? --Doc 10:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Elected representatives? Do you even know how the ArbCom was picked? Did you pay attention during the "election?" What about the clerks, which Tony represents so admirably? Were they elected? Wow. However, if you believe that they were elected, please inform me where the no confidence votes are to be lodged. Also, tell me when the next election is. Also, please tell me how, in a Lockean model, the once-elected have power without the will of the governed. ArbCom enjoys very, very, very, very, very little confidence at this point. Also, the point remains that those calling all of us "idiots" are showing up late, uninformed, and unreasonable. Still, tell me again how they're elected representatives, and I'll tell you a fable about King Log. Geogre 11:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

See here's the thing. Arbcom may not be purely elected - but each of them poled massively possitive votes when the community at large spoke up at the arbcom election. The people in whom the community, as a whole, had most confidence were appointed. Wheras individuals like you, with no mandate behind them, rant on about 'the will of the governed' and pronounce ex cathedra on the subject of the community's confidence. You presume to speak for 'the community'? On what basis? No, JamesF's idiot remarks, and Tony's responses may not have been well-advised. I'm not defending them. But I can sometimes have sympathy with the sense of exasperation at the self-righteous and self-appointed prophets of the 'democratic'.--Doc 11:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• In addition to Slim Virgin's response, let me just point out that I have every bit the mandate that Tony has. I am an administrator. Further, I have been here longer. Further, I have contributed far more content. Given that that content has been passed by community consent several times to the FA level, that's some mandate. Further, several of my policy ideas have become policy. I'd say, on any basis, I have as much, and yet I "rant," while Tony cannot be blocked for disruption. Amazing. And you've been following all this all along? You've been helping Tony? You've been trying to calm things? Right. That "ranting" thing: that's a huge help. As for whether I speak for the project when I say that the Committee for Public Safety has confidence, I speak on the basis of evidence. What evidence do you have? You say that they had approval, which is not strictly even true and certainly not germane to the present. Once more, you say that, "They went through an election, so they can speak to anyone any way they want and get a cordon sanitaire around them." Go, King Log, go! When do they come up for re-election? What is the mechanism for no-confidence? If you suckle at the teat of such an unfounded analogy as comparing them to a government (and I had thought, silly me, that they were not a government, but a dispute resolution body and that they were not supposed to ever be above other users...little did I know that I was being asked to vote for a ruler!), then answer those questions. Geogre 13:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I look forward to the next AC election in Decemeber, when, by your logic, the community will seek to ouste the 'Committee on Public Saftey', and, no doubt, overwhelmingly endose your popular platform.--Doc 14:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Doc, please don't refer to respected users as "ranting." The facts are that Tony is an admin and yet has been blocked eight times in one year for 3RR, disruption, and personal attacks; he exercises his admin tools under an ArbCom restriction; he is extraordinarily rude and dismissive of people; he's been instrumental in the departure of a highly respected editor in the same week that editor had two of his six featured articles on the main page; and most importantly, he does all this in the context of himself not editing the encyclopedia. Tony would be the first to criticize this behavior in any other user. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

SV, I'm neither attacking nor defending Tony. I'm not getting into that. I was responding to Geogre's rather bizzare attack on arbcom as the 'Committee on Public Saftey' and his rather absurd claim to be the authentic voice of the community. I really don't know what to describe that as if not a 'rant'. Perhaps 'demagoguery'? --Doc 14:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You can only think that I was making such a claim if you have been paying absolutely no attention to the situation as it has developed over the last month, and that is part of my criticism. Now that Tony has gotten 24 hours for his actions, James F, Kelly Martin, and you show up. Fantastical is what it is. If you're not commenting on Tony's actions, then how can you say that his actions, and the failure of the ArbCom, is good or bad? If you had been paying attention, then you would know that we have Giano, Bishonen, ALoan, Paul August, and myself all either withdrawing for a time or quitting entirely over Tony and this bullflop. If this isn't enough, add to these names several others (at least 5) who are contemplating the same. This is what's called "evidence" of lack of confidence in the way that these users are being treated. It is on that basis that I say there is very little confidence in ArbCom, and to have them magically appear like pixies when Tony -- the self-appointed clerk -- gets acted against for his disruption, frivolous blocks, and unilateralism only erodes that more. The audience isn't probably going to accept being called "idiots" and probably won't "cut it out" because James F and Kelly Martin show up to tell us that we are all inferior to them. Nor will anyone respond well to apologists for them, especially when they claim that they're not really, really apologizing for what they said -- they just felt that they had to launch an attack on those they have been deriding. Geogre 15:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't get a free pass based on contributions. Some leniency, perhaps, but not a free pass. I brought this up the last time Giano got blocked for incivility but I'm not sure the point sunk in. I'm as saddened as anyone to lose valuable contributors, but we all volunteer here, after all, including the admins, and time will tell if the net of Giano's departure is negative or positive, as I'm not sure I'd paint this affair as entirely one sided, "good contributors fleeing" and nothing else. I think in fact there is some fallout (in the general case of people bucking against warnings, bucking against blocks) of good admins giving up, admins who are tired of being taken to task for trying to make this place better and who therefore choose not to participate in necessary admin functions. The irony of the claim that a warning was needed in this case, when a warning (and the response to it) was part of the reason for Giano's LAST block, is not lost on me either. I point this out without taking sides in the current disagreement of whether Tony was justified or not. ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Geogre. Basically, calling other people "cogs" or "idiots" or whatever in that tune just because someone is an admin/arbitrator/clerk/whatever while the other side is not is plain revolting and insulting. The greatest threat of any organization is to be overcome by its own bureaucracy. I hope it won't be the case... :( -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: For anyone who may not have seen it, User:Tony Sidaway has announced on his talk page that he is on a 7-day Wikibreak. Newyorkbrad 13:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should we believe that? - [13]. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I took his word for it when he wrote it 36 hours ago. Since then he seems to have been unable to withhold his thoughts on a couple of RfA's where he has strong views, and he's been doing some talkpage archiving. I think it definitely qualifies as a highly reduced level of activity, anyway. Newyorkbrad 12:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The temptation to say something cutting, clever, or incendiary is high, but, whether Tony takes a voluntary break for ten minutes or ten days is somewhat irrelevant, since he has been the person imposing involuntary breaks of hours and days on people to "cool it" and to get their attentions. Further, as Tony's own words say, if he leaves or not, it will be his actions and decision. Thus he absolved himself of any responsibility for generating the departure of several users, not just Giano, so I think anyone who has been drawing attention to his behavior here should take the warm comfort he offered himself. Geogre 12:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I just intended a point of information. I don't suggest it binds all wounds. Newyorkbrad 12:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole affair has been really disappointing. Giano needs to fucking cool it. Tony needs to stop being so fucking provocative towards otherwise good users. End of story. Rebecca 23:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If it were the end of the story, a lot of people would agree. For a long time, people have agreed with both points, and both users' friends had said things to the effect, but the reason this rose to the level of AN and possible injunction (supposing it would be possible for a self-annointed clerk to have his case examined by the dispute resolution mechanism (not masters, not rulers, not superiors, not honored among users)), is the use of the block button. Tony has been very free with it. This is aggravating by hypocrisy (blocking people for language and then using worse). Giano never went back to become an administrator again, never sought to have power. Tony, in my opinion and the opinions of several others above, abused those powers and tenaciously refuses to even have his behavior examined. That is why we're here, instead of sending e-mails to users and telling them to step back. Geogre 12:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony's behavior is being examined quite closely. So is yours. Please cool it. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful! I have been waiting to be examined quite closely. After all, I'm only editing articles and objecting to you and others of ArbCom employing imperatives instead of reason, only objecting to your considering yourselves anything other than parts of the dispute resolution process, and clearly that needs very, very close examination. Much better to threaten than to listen, after all. Even better would be to block instead of apologize and mandate rather than mediate. That's what the dispute resolvers do, is it? Geogre 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm wincing, because it's inevitable that Kelly Martin's last comment is just going to raise the temperature again. Newyorkbrad 15:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the passive that does it. "Is being examined" leaves out by whom it is being examined, as well as why it cannot be examined by the unstated group implied. Further, my behavior "is being examined." If that does not imply a power differential, if not a Star Chamber, then I must have some serious reading problems. Why do the heathens rage? Geogre 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations; you have successfully taken maximum offense and assumed the worst possible connotation of a wholly innocent statement, thereby insuring that you, too, are clearly part of the problem, and not part of the solution. That Tony's conduct has been and is being examined is obvious; one need merely read this discussion to see that. Likewise, I'm sure everyone reading this discussion has examined your behavior and reached some conclusion; at this point mine is that you are ranting for the sake of ranting, and not actually trying to help Wikipedia, and as such I wish you would just quit it. (And to think that I've always respected you, at least until now.) I'm sure there are any number of private examinations going on as well -- both by the ArbCom (the issue has been broached on the private mailing list, although I shall not discuss details) and by other "cabals", the number of which on Wikipedia is almost certainly countless. However, I question whether your recent actions are intended to help solve the problem; if they are, they are very poorly crafted attempts. I strongly urge you -- and everyone else -- to think about forty times before posting any more heated invective to this or any other Wikipedia discussion page. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the smart move here - and probably at the 'crats noticeboard as well - is to archive this thread as having reached the point where nothing lis likely ot be achieved other than restating the dissent which we already know exists. Guy 16:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, I've always respected you until now, too. But if your posts in this thread are intended to help solve the problem, they are eye-poppingly unskillful. As Newyorkbrad points out above, the kind of "cooling" you're doing here can only raise the temperature. If you have no water to offer, do you really think petrol will do in a pinch? Bishonen | talk 16:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

If this is what it takes to lose your respect, then it's well gone. Look at the header for this section. Look at your contributions. Look at your phrasing. It takes no skill to read those passive voice constructions. Further, they're validated by your own statement. It has "been broached" on the "private" mailing list of arbitrators. Why? Has an RFAR been lodged? Has one been lodged against me? Has one been lodged against James F calling everyone taking umbrage at Tony Sidaway an idiot? Has one been lodged against you for showing up, offering no evidence at all that you have been trying to mediate, no evidence that you have been trying to moderate, and yet that we should all henceforth be quiet? Quiet? Really? Is quiet the way we build an encyclopedia? As for my personal behavior, you are free to examine it to your heart's content and form whatever opinion your private jaundice dictates, but my actions to date (not today) have been wholly concerned with gaining transparency in operations, not more private cabals, consistency in the application of policy (not Tony blocking people for saying "fuck" and then saying "fuck" himself, not Tony blocking people to "send a message" or Kelly Martin using a block to "get someone's attention" and then having a 24 hr block of Tony Sidaway treated as idiotic), and ensuring equality among users and not ordering people to behave in a way that causes me least distress. Kelly, if you have nothing to actually add that will indicate that arbitration is underway, that Tony's actions are condemned (not "being examined privately where no one may know by whom"), that your own actions are being "examined" by your peers, and that you, too, wish for more transparency, equality, and consistency, then the gratuitous threats aimed at me are despicable. However, I invite you or any other to examine my contributions on any day. Today, they have been adding content (there is that despised word again) to Aurelian Townshend and removing a horrid sentence that a member of ArbCom had inserted to save face, adding content to Margaret Cavendish in regard to her poetry, and offering a policy idea. Other than that, I've been trying to deal with arbitrary, not arbitrating, threats. If you will not have dialog, then enjoy monolog. Geogre 17:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to confuse your editing actions with the sum-total of all you do on Wikipedia. I imagine the reference was to your input to places such as this, though I make no comment on that. Just a thought. BTW, thank you for the amusing (and highly satirical) personal attacks - they are a refreshing change from the usual crap I get. KUTGW :-)

James F. (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course! How could I be so blind! You're right, James F! I should be calling you an idiot, the way you have called me one, as that's a contribution to Wikipedia, and I must never again confuse writing an encyclopedia with contributing to it. Let's compare our "contributions" here, then, shall we, James? You have called everyone an idiot and incited anger. What have I done that's comparable to that "contribution?" Geogre 23:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right ... but then again, most people have some innate need to let their opinions be heard, even if it may increase the drama of a situation in the short term. And in the long term, the more people who speak up with their opinions as soon as possible, the better. --Cyde Weys 16:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"And in the long term, the more people who speak up with their opinions as soon as possible, the better." You sure about that? I've been staying out of this one since my opinions have already been adequately voiced by others. But if you insist..... :] --CBD 17:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me amend that. I'm not saying that discretion is useless and that everyone should always say exactly what they think, even when they would rather remain silent. I'm merely saying that if someone wants to say something, but the only thing stopping them is some perception from other people that they aren't helping matters in the short term, they should say it anyway. It's better to get issues out of the way sooner rather than later, if you want to get issues out of the way, anyway. People shouldn't be jumped on merely for speaking their mind; they should be jumped on because what they are saying is wrong, not that they are saying it at all. That make any sense? --Cyde Weys 18:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, as long as we're clear that they should get jumped on, the rest is just details right? ;) Phrasing and kidding aside, I think you're calling for people to get their baggage out on the table so we can deal with it, rather than dragging it around, rolling over people's toes and taking up aisle space on the bus. That still isn't an argument for doing it in an inflammatory way, if a diplomatic way would do. I mean, we could make sorting through the baggage as difficult as possible, or as easy, or anywhere in between... -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course diplomatic is better than inflammatory ... although I don't recall suggesting inflammatory remarks, either. --Cyde Weys 01:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think you did suggest that. I think we're talking about Bishonen's water/petrol comment above, no? I agree with you that it's good to get things out on the table, and with Bishonen, that it's better when it's done with some tact and diplomacy. Nothing really controversial about that, I imagine. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not quite the idiots you seem to think

Sorry to disappoint those who had hoped they had seem the back of me but my attempts to give up wikipedia appear at the moment to be as successful as my many attempts to quit smoking, so I hope this edit will prove to be just one quick gasp. I think one thing we all agree on is that Wikipedia has a big problem, apart from me, that is. There is a haemorrhage of quality editors who feel belittled and undervalued by the treatment they receive here by an overbearing and sinister arbcom, and too many little buzzing admins. The only way to rectify this is to allow those valued editors a voice, and a very loud one too. There are many editors, all valued, and contributions range from boring (to me, categories) to writing front page articles, or numerous 500 word pages. There is one chap in wikipedia's basement (I will not embarrass him here, but I'll email his name to anyone who asks) who should be lauded and barnstarred for his work in categories, but I doubt many of you have ever heard of him.

The arbcom are now teetering on the edge of losing control - as demonstrated by the bizarre attitudes and sayings here of J Forrester and Kelly Martin (James don't ever join the army - your men would shoot you in the back if you behaved like that - you are an officer here, behave like one). As for Kelly Martin her unpleasant veiled threat to Geogre is despicable. In my view her repeated overbearing pronouncements make her unfit for the sensitive office she assumes.

At the moment the arbcom have lost touch and need to be re-ordered. This can be achieved simply and painlessly: J Forrester and K Martin who have shown their majestic lack of appreciation of the mood of the encyclopedia, should resign immediately, in Martin's case also all sysop and any other rights she may have. This will immediately prove to the editorship that there is change is in the air. Tony Sidaway needs to be prevented from arbcom clerking permanently, and as for Carnildo, whose RFA began this whole affair, well not much can be done there - he is once again an admin - so leave it alone.

Following the resignations (dismissal if necessary) of J Forrester and Kelly Martin a selection of highly valued and respected contributing editors should offer themselves in an extraordinary election to the arbcom, with two of them being elected. Geogre, Bishonen, ALoan immediately spring to mind, but their must be many others in other corners of the encyclopedia, the net should not be confined to admins but to the rank and file, one does not need a block button to have a worthy opinion - even here.

I would advise debate on this now, but not for too long, the arbcom can save itself or throw itself on the mercy of the encyclopedia - the encyclopedia being its editors. Giano 20:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Kelly, I only just saw your question [14] the answer is "Arbitrator Emeritus", CheckUser and oversight rights, and Admin, in fact all those rights you advertise on your page. You have the golden opportunity to help write the encyclopedia as member of what you so eloquently term the "fickle and ill-informed populace." [15]. Giano 22:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's impossible to resign as "Arbitrator Emeritus", insofar as that position is defined by being a former Arbitrator. The only way for me to cease to hold that position is to become, once again, an Arbitrator, and I doubt that Jimbo would consent to appoint me as such. In any case, that title entails no rights. And I do actually contribute to the encyclopedia, although a significant fraction of my recent encyclopedic edits have been on a different account (yes, I have a sockpuppet; four, in fact, although only one has been used recently). Lately, however, I have not been very active, as my obligations to family and work have left relatively little time to do much more than what I do for the Foundation in my various roles held there (which are explicitly not subject to this offer of resignation; I will not be resigning from the Communications Committee or quitting OTRS). I also contribute to the Wikimedia Commons. I may not have the time or the writing talent to spew forth featured article material at the same rate that you do, but for you to claim that I do not meaningfully contribute to Wikimedia projects is both ill-informed and offensive. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have consented to comply with Giano's demands on the condition that he must enlist Geogre, Bishonen, and two other admins to make them as well. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you will note I said "dismissal if necessary" - your peers can decide - you and your colleagues are now so out of touch it doesn't really matter how you go, just so long as you go. Giano 21:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This proposal would be a step in the right direction if executed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then we make it happen, we can either lie down and suffer this tyranny, threats and blocks, or we do something about it. To throw the whole lot of them out would de-stabilise the encyclopedia and ultimately be a bad thing, so we kick out those who seem to be most out of touch and menacing, replace them with those we trust, and then see what happens. Raul, Mindspilage etc the sensible hard working ones remain and give a sense of reason and continuity. Seems like rational common sense to me. Giano 21:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your proposal of removing Tony Sidaway as clerk. Giving him a job that basically amounts to shuffling people's complaints around and generally acting as page boy is a great idea - because it's Arbcom-related it sounds important, but it keeps him away from real work that would require him to exercise judgement, such as Articles for Deletion, at which Deletion Review has frequently shown up his incompetence. If only the Arbcom could think up more such jobs for him we could keep him too busy to make these pointless and posturing blocks as well. 22:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have only just seen this, as I had hoped that my absence from AN would make my heart grow less rancorous. I don't know about the Kelly suggestion yet. I am not going to rush, but there is something I have restrained from saying that now has to be said, if only for clarity: Kelly Martin is not a member of the Arbitration Committee, although James F is. When this iteration of ArbCom was constituted, it was a serious bone of contention whether former ArbCom members be allowed access to the ArbCom mailing list. That was handled as too many things have been handled, by being shuffled away from wiki and onto the mailing list itself. I had no idea whether they continued to have access or not until Kelly said that behavior "is being examined" and that behavior "had been broached" on the list, which made it clear that access was still there. I will say no more, although I cannot say that I disagree with James Forrester's stepping down in any respect. I have not seen his name on any actual ArbCom cases lately, have not had a single pleasant conversation with him (and the only opportunities have been on IRC, as I have never once run into him on-wiki, except in occasions like this, when his comments have been boorish at least and consistently implied his patriarchy over all the little writers who swarm about in the dark). For the rest, I will hold my peace for the moment and have something to say tomorrow (US). Geogre 23:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems a bit harsh to me. You have one somewhat curt run-in with JamesF and immediately you're calling for his resignation? People might take you a bit more seriously if you didn't call for outrageous punishments that go far beyond the pail of any possible consequences that might be necessary for the actions under consideration. It's like the constant stream of people demanding desysoppings on ANI, only moreso I suppose, since ArbCom is a much more vaunted position than administrator. --Cyde Weys 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think JamesF is a substantial issue here. However, to be blunt both Kelly and Tony have highly problematic and continue to do so. However, of the discussed people only Tony as far as I can see has engaged in what may constitute an abuse of admin tools. (This is not to say I am supporting Giano here just clarifying what I see as the central problem). JoshuaZ 03:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• The central problem is that the arbcom blindly presides over all this mess, and needs to be reformed. I don't think I have ever had any one to one dealings with J Forrester, I gauge him by his performance. Kelly Martin rules through threats and put downs. I'm sure there are other members of the arbcom equally worthy of disposal, but I want reform not a revolution. I'm not calling for Tony Sidaway's desysoping either, the reformed Arbcom can deal with him as best they see fit. If Kelly Martin won't go peacefully, then she must be dismissed by whoever has the authority to do so. She may not officially be on the arbcom but he emeritus obviously gives her certain rights or why use the title, and as for all her other "positions" - we need a clean sweep they can go too. I don't even want to erode the Arbcom's powers, just have a better Wikipedia, one ruled by people who understand the aims, encourage writing, and have a more just sense of maintaining order. We don't have to live with being afraid to voice our views on what is wrong . Just out of interest unlike some I'm not controlling an army of thought through email, and I haver been on IRC. If you lose this opportunity for reform I doubt there will be another. I just want to refer to "our Arbcom". Giano 06:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

User:YouWontUnblockMeBecuaseYou'reProbably(ARepressed)Gay! It's probably already blocked, but I thought someone ought to take a look at this one... —Keakealani 00:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this one might need a block too (presumably the same user) User:IHopeYou'reKiddingAboutThatNaziComment.CauseTheyHateGays! —Keakealani 00:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Another: I don't know if I should keep a running list of these: User:IsThisWebsiteRunByTheMarines?..ThenStopBlockingUsGays!

Please use WP:AIV next time, and please simplfy your sig. Yanksox 00:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm still rather new, so I'm not really familiar with the processes behind this. May I ask how to simply my signature? I won't sign with the automatic one, then, now, until I figure it out. --User:Keakealani

These were all blocked previously. You can check yourself before posting to WP:AIV. One of the easy ways is to go to the user's contributions and at the top the page it will list "For <user name> (Talk | block | Block log | Logs)". Click on the "Block log". -- JLaTondre 00:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much...so sorry for the trouble I caused - it was purely newbie blunders, since I've never ventured near this part of Wikipedia before *sweatdrop* And Thank you to Yanksox for letting me know about my signature...I was genuinely unaware that it was as long as it was or as disruptive...I hope this one is a bit better? If not, I can prune it down again. —Keakealani 05:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's good, lots of users have a green-colored letter in their signature to signify Esperenza. Hbdragon88 08:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Phishing from wiki@wikimedia.org ?

I received this strange e-mail:

Someone (probably you, from IP address 24.121.44.189) requested that
we send you a new Wikipedia login password for en.wikipedia.org. 
The password for user "Janke" is now "XXXXXX". You should log in 
and change your password now. If someone else made this request 
or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to 
change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password.

What's going on here? The IP above is not even close to mine! Is someone else trying to get my logon password? Greetings, --Janke | Talk 06:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's someone else asking for a password reminder, it sends that to your registered and confirmed email address, as the message you got says "If someone else made this request ... you may ignore this message and continue using your old password". As to the other persons motivation, as an IP that user only has one edit[16] so I can see no obvious connection. Beyond that it's guessing, could be someone thinking they could get your password (though that seems unlikely), could be someone who can't remember their own account details etc. --pgk 06:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Only one edit, yes, but probably from an anon IP that is changing with each access (such as AOL)? That edit was certainly not a newbie edit... --Janke | Talk 06:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

For a brute force attack, requesting a new password increases the size of your target, because there are now two passwords that will work. However, I tend to ignore such emails - six random numbers and letters are fairly hard to crack (2 billion variants). I suspect there are admins here who receive several of these every week, especially those with accounts on several Wikimedia projects. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. I'm a little wiser now... ;-) --Janke | Talk 12:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already had a few of these. I don't know what the wiki source code is like, but depending upon how these random passwords are generated there may well be a vulnerability here that someone is trying to exploit - I can certainly think of some hypotheticals. Dave 00:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The most probable explanation is that the person attempted to register an account with your name. This failing, they supposed that they might have already created it, and had a reminder mail sent. When this didn't work they gave up. Deco 02:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

POssibly, but several of us had at least half a dozen of these a while back all generated by the same IP address - clearly up to mischief. Alas I don't remember the IP, but I blocked it. --kingboyk 21:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Politics of Israel

This article is blank. Somebody has vandalized it. I don't know if that's proper place to put such an information, but I don't know where else do it. 83.238.15.162 06:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Next time you can fix it yourself by going back into the page history, editing the last good version, and saving it. That overwrites the vandalised copy. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Please note that IP 65.105.179.195 appears to be on a blanking-vandalizing spree on Israel subjects, and needs to be blocked immediately. --Janke | Talk 07:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Seems to have stopped vandalising yesterday. -Mgm|^(talk) 07:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia, yet again...

At Template_talk:EU_countries_and_candidates#Regarding_.7B.7BMKD.7D.7D, Niko Silver refuses to acknowledge that the neutral form in use on Wikipedia is "Republic of Macedonia", even in articles on or related to the European Union. Or am I wrong? —Nightstallion (?) 10:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno - the Hutchinson Encyclopedia says that "Republic of Macedonia" is the "official internal name" and that "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is the "official international name". --Telex 10:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• If it's worth anything. They're referred to as FYR Macedonia in Eurovision song contests. But I don't see why either would be more neutral than the other. Removing Yugoslavia from the name may come across as hiding info that is significantly important. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I was aware, RoM would prefer "Macedonia", Greece would prefer "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", and most Wikipedia pages use "Republic of Macedonia" as a neutral compromise. The question is whether this should apply to all pages, or only to some; by Niko Silver's arguments, Republic of Macedonia should be at Macedona (country), however... ;p —Nightstallion (?) 14:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, no. That is not the case. Greece would prefer "Republic of Skopje" or "Slavomacedonia" or "Vardar Macedonia". The country itself would prefer "Republic of Macedonia". The compromise solution in the UN was Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. So, this is not Greek POV, it is int'l POV, as described in featured article Macedonia (terminology). EU calls that country FYROM, and the country itself addresses officially the EU as FYROM. Not as RoM (and definitely not as "Slavomacedonia"). Interested parties kindly contribute to this discussion in the template talk. •NikoSilver• 10:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe 10 years ago. - FrancisTyers · 02:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Influx of users using personal experience over verifiable sources

Apparently, User:Lentower has invited his friends (at least six of them) to oppose the deletion of his self-bio, filed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard H. Tower Jr.. Most of them have only a single contribution, which is to that AfD (which Lentower created and contributed to). At least one, Special:Contributions/Gonzopancho, has now started to contribute to other articles, with a tendency to refer to his own experience rather than verifiable sources. I'm busy, can someone keep an eye on these users? Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I not that User:Gonzopancho gave a reasonable reference for the change, from the subject's own website no less, and a credible reason why the original date was wrong. Guy 13:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Subjects' own websites are generally not considered reliable sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not always true. It really depends on who the subject is and what is being referenced. 172.190.124.131 19:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Subjects' own websotes are generally reliable sources for facts regarding the subject (e.g. you can cite a company website for numbers of employees, or a person's website for their date of birth). I can't say I've formed a firm view on this particular edit, but it looks OK on the surface. Guy 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has ruled in the past that it's inappropriate for users to add links to their own websites. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's as simple as "never add a link to your own Web site". Doing so is a bad idea upwards of 90% of the time, sure, but I don't think there's a hard and fast rule against it and it sounds like this might reasonably fall into the other <10%. PurplePlatypus 07:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned user: Please block

User:Pnatt's latest sockpuppet, User:Hockeypuck, has been vandalizing MySpace with a Pnatt-like motive and results. He also appears to be talking to himself on the talk page, but that is not necessarily true. -- Chris chat edits essays 14:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User:LordByronKing

I have indefinitely blocked LordByronKing (talk · contribs) for repeatedly inserting his name and nn books into articles all over Wikipedia. He has yet to respond to any messages on his Talk page. I have indicated that I will entertain an unblock request if he pledges to stop the spamming. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction in the Kosovo arbitration case

For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned, by an uninvolved administrator, from Kosovo or related pages for disruptive edits.

Affected users are listed in the case, and have all been notified. The affected articles (and two templates) have all been labelled with appropriate notices.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy Accused of violating sock protocol

What is going on ? I was visiting with DreamGuy when I found the WP:SOCK matter. Anything to this matter ?Martial Law 18:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

According to this checkuser request, Essjay found it likely that Victrix is a sockpuppet of DreamGuy. Both disappeared in the next few days; DG has only made a few edits.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just got home from the pub so excuse my bad grammar. This has been discussed before. Nothing much more to add bar the info above but the evidence is overwhelming. Both had similar edit times, had similar edit summaries, edited the same articles and the account was used to voilate the 3RR rule, e.g. Victrix would rv 3 times then DG would step in and vise versa. Englishrose 23:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Pistonheads

Loads of vandalism in the last hour, a second ip is just starting to get to work. Needs sprotecting really. Probably at least half my fault because I posted on the message boards at the site saying that we really needed to get a decent page up that was proportionate to the size of the site. Current vandalistic users on wikipedia are banned from the site too. Dave 23:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected, hopefully in a reasonably non-vandalised state. The article does need some serious work though. Gwernol 00:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Favouring admins involved in 3RR violations?

I was going to drop this matter, but I am still uneasy about it and decided to interrupt my wikibreak to get at least get some community comments on the matter. User:UtherSRG, an admin has recently engaged in revert war with 154.20.161.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with a total of 6 reverts over two days (including 4 reverts within 24 hours) on Paranthropus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) within 24 hours labelling the revers as vandalism. However, the anon editor was trying to discuss this matter on the talk page, and in a very civil way. The dispute was over the accuracy of the article and the reliability of the article sources. The anon user reported the UtherSRG to WP:AN/3RR where he was himself blocked by User:Winhunter for 3RR violation and UtherSRG was left without as much as a note on his talk page.

I came into this incident when 154.20.161.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) put up an unblock request describing the matter. I found his 3RR report, reviewed it, and not realising that User:UtherSRG was an administrator, I have blocked him for 24 hours and put a note on his talk page informing him of the block. A couple of seconds later, on the admin channel on IRC, I was informed that I had just blocked an admin. After 10 minutes of discussion on IRC, User:Glen_S decided that because a lot of his reverts were reverting {{unreferenced}} tags on a "referenced" article he could be unblocked.

However, at the beginning of the revert war, there were absolutely 0 references in the article (see the version at the time of the first revert), later on the anon explained his concerns on the talk page, put in an unreferenced tag, and a disputed assertion tag on one of the statements, this again was reverted as vandalism using admin rollback. The admin anon reverted the revert asking for discussion, this was removed again using admin rollback, more links were added by the UtherSRG, the anon expressed futher very legitimate concerns about the reliability of the online sources and about neutrality of the article and put in POV and unreferenced tags but was again reverted multiple times. UtherSRG has made only two small comments on the talk page, not even bothering to address the last detailed statement describing his rationale for each tag - instead of addressing it 4 reverts were made, including 3 admin rollbacks.

I am not happy that an admin was favoured in this case for what clearly looks to me like a revert war NOT vandalism reversion as the edit summaries suggest. And I am not happy that admins can run around using their admin rollbacks in revert wars without decent attempts at discussion. I don't agree with the technicality used to lift the block on UtherSRG, that was pointed out to me on IRC - i.e. that the Template:Tk tags are meant to refer to articles with absolutely 0 references. An anon has no way of knowing all the tags available on wikipedia, otherwise he could have used something more like: {{Primarysources}}, which even I did not know of until just a couple of minutes ago! And in any case these are not the only tags that were reverted. For me it looks like that UtherSRG, who got out of this unscathed, is more at fault than the anon who was blocked for "3RR violation and disruption" while actually trying to discuss the matter and being the one who reported the incident in the first place!

So I would like to know what everyone else thinks on this matter.--Konstable 00:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have found one place where I write "the admin" instead of "the anon" so I went back and replaced the instances where I referred to UtherSRG as "the admin" with his name. Nothing else is changed--Konstable 00:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mark any of the reverts as vandalism. I often use the admin rollback as it is very convenient and gives an automatic and very neutral edit summary. My first rollback was followed immediately by an edit where I add a reference, countering the anon's complaint. Etc. If the anon has relevant information to add to the article they should do so instead of complaining at the state of the artcle and slapping tags on it. I didn't add the majority of the information, but I helped clean up the edits of several other, well informed, editors. Perhaps my biggest offense is WP:BITE, where I have little patience for non-productive armchair quarterbacking. The anon showed little interest in editing, only in complaining that the article didn't reflect the POV they felt was more valid. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:ADMIN and the Guanco, MarkSweep, et al arbitration case says to never use the rollback for any old reason, for only vandalism. Rollback summaries are essentailly blank ones: vandalism is the only self-explanatory reason. Otherwise it should be explained. Hbdragon88 07:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This I did not know. I do not (and can not) keep up to date on all of the Wiki rules and policies. There are way too many and they change way too frequently to keep current on. Taht said, the edit summary of the rollback must be changed to indicate it is reverting vandalism if, indeed, that is the current policy. Until the edit summary matches the policy and is changed from its neutral wording to one that states it is revertin vandalism, then the policy is flawed and should be disregarded as it doesn't match the effect of the software. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So UtherSRG was unnblocked because he technically didn't break the 3RR since he only reverted the {{POV}} tag twice, and removed the {{unreferenced}} tag. But if that is so, then I technically did not break 3RR either. How can I be at fault but not him?

I was not aware that adding external links was considered citing sources. On the Paranthropus talk page I explained why I had added the unreferenced tag. If it is true that external links are considered references, that could have been explained to me on the talk page and I would not have re-added the same tag.

"If the anon has relevant information to add to the article they should do so instead of complaining at the state of the artcle and slapping tags on it. I didn't add the majority of the information, but I helped clean up the edits of several other, well informed, editors. Perhaps my biggest offense is WP:BITE, where I have little patience for non-productive armchair quarterbacking. The anon showed little interest in editing, only in complaining that the article didn't reflect the POV they felt was more valid. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2006"

I find this statement offensive and erroneous. In the Parathropus talk page I clearly said: "There is no consensus in the scientific community that the species A. aethiopicus, A. boisei and A. robustus belong in the genus Paranthropus. They are commonly referred to as A. aethiopicus, A. boisei and A. robustus in current peer reviewed articles and books. To provide a neutral viewpoint, both models of classification systems should be described in detail. For these reasons I have added a disputed tag. Please do not remove until article is updated to be NPOV." and "What I am suggesting is that BOTH models of classification systems are mentioned and described in detail. For these reasons, I have added a POV tag. Please do not remove the tag until both classification systems are given the equal attention which they deserve" I was not trying to promote my own POV as I do not have an opinion on which genus the three species belong to. All I was attempting to do by adding the tags was trying to bring attention to the false statement that there is a consensus on that subject in the scientific community. I even provided references on the talk page to show that it was not my personal point of view, but that of textbooks. There are many different ways to contribute to wikipedia, just because I don't make major changes to the article does not mean my edits should be discounted. IMO, alerting others that an article is POV is productive editing (if not, why even have the tags). I would also like to note I tried to continue the discussion on the talk page with UtherSRG, but he responded by saying "(rv I tked, we disagreed, i have nothing left to say.)" which I found to be very discourteous. 154.20.161.143 03:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you state the case briefly? If the point is that someone who has a sysop bit was given false favor in an edit warring situation, then this is a serious matter. Nobody should edit war. Admins especially should not edit war. --Tony Sidaway 03:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Very brief summary edit war on Paranthropus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) between anon 154.20.161.143 and admin UtherSRG. On anon's report to WP:AN/3RR the anon was blocked, UtherSRG was not blocked. I blocked UtherSRG when responding to anon's unblock request,without realising he was an admin, after IRC discussion someone else unblocked him on what seems to be a technicality over tag definitions to me. Either way, even 3RR was technically not violated, they were both revert warring.--Konstable

I don't understand what you mean here or what Glen S means in the unblock summary. I count 5 reverts by UtherSRG within 24 hours. It makes no difference that both were revert warring or that he was removing a reference tag on an ostensibly referenced article. —Centrx→talk • 05:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the {{unreferenced}} tag does say that the article cites no sources, since the article has no sources putting in this tag is techincally wrong, that is what User:Glen S had meant at least. Though I don't really see this as a valid excuse for reverting.--Konstable 08:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove Template:Afd2 whitespace

As I'm not trusted with admin tools, could someone go and remove the excess whitespace at Template:Afd2. It's because it has now been edited with a hidden comment warning, telling users to be more considerate to outside users to stop people mailing WP:OTRS and complaining. I'm not too happy that there's any message there at all as I mentioned in the talk page, but before anything is done about the message, please remove the whitespace. - Hahnchen 00:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the commented warning for now, because, as I said in my edit summary, this is a template which people subst without ever reading the full text contained in the template. And, frankly I couldn't care less if spammers are whining about their spam being deleted. That I didn't say in the edit summary. I suggest further discussion is taken to Template talk:Afd2. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that such a warning should be manually inserted in situations where civility actually becomes a problem. The majority of AFD pages consist of drive-by, pile-on "votes" in one direction or another with very little accompanying commentary. However a few of them actually evolve into meaningful, or possibly inflammatory, discussion, and may require a warning shot across the bow. Perhaps as an ironic counterpoint to {{afd-anons}}, we need a {{afd-regulars}} template. Thoughts? —freak(talk) 21:19, Sep. 17, 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Wikipedia Page

if you search for Jeffree Star the page is deleted and i don't realise why this would be so. I'm not that good with the user tools so could someone put the page back on or at least start it up? Thank's :] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.137.162 (talk • contribs) .

The page Jeffree Star was deleted because it does not assert the notability of its subject. If he became notable he'll get an article until then this was correctly deleted and won't be recreated. Please read WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC for details on the specific notability guidelines that apply. Thanks, Gwernol 03:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. The article has been deleted now by 'six' different admins. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Unblock

I take my rejection straight to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway_4 on this so called "community ban." Since it is through the community users rather than the formal committee i feel that RFC is sufficient rather than Arb-comm. Please let me come back Le Wiki Brah 06:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Le Wiki Brah. Perhaps it would be a better idea to speak to Tony Sidaway first as opposed to filing an RfC? -- Samir धर्म 12:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Silly me, I didn't see the thread above -- Samir धर्म 12:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Code bug

Sigh hope I'm in the right place. Bug in the page code for the entry on DDT. Box content on right-hand side not able to appear.

• I'm afraid this is the wrong place. Try WP:HD. = Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Block to review

I have blocked User:133.41.4.46 for the 3RR violation on Holodomor - 5 reverts in two hours, user was warned. Posting here since I was involved in the disputeabakharev 11:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, don't block users you're in a dispute with. If they need a block, get another admin involved. — Werdna talk criticism 11:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Werdna on this matter; I also agree with the need for the 3RR block. I would recommend allowing the block to stand, but definitely don't do it again. Captainktainer * Talk 12:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:133.41.4.46 made an edit to add Category:Genocide to the article Holodomor. The following edits were all concerned with adding and removing this category. There were 5 reverts to delete it. He only made 4 reverts to reinstate it (the first of his 5 edits was not a revert). His first edit was at 10.28. The first and second reverts against him were at 10.32 and 10.36 by User:Irpen. The third was at 10.43 by User: Alex Bakharev. The fourth at 11.47 10.47 by Irpen (his 3rd revert) and the fifth by Alex Bakharev (his 2nd revert) at 11.16.

This was an edit war which all three users engaged in. As it was two editors acting against one, 133.41.4.46 would inevitably fall foul of 3RR first. It does not speak well of any of the editors involved, particularly an admin, especially when the latter blocked his opponent and made his preferred edit 2 minutes later.

133.41.4.46 made his 3rd rv at 10.46 and was warned for 3RR a minute later. However, at 10.43 the 3rd rv had actually been made against him (Bakharev's 1st rv, following 2 by Irpen).

At 10.57, 133.41.4.46 had left a justification for his edit on Bakharev's talk page.[17] There was no response to this and at 11.07, Irpen made his 3rd rv and the 4th in total against 133.41.4.46., who rv 3 minutes later and was blocked. Then Bakharev made his 2nd rv and the 5th in total against 133.41.4.46.

The net effect is that an editing decision has been achieved by force rather than argument, and that an adroit use of the rules has been employed to achieve this. It is not in wiki's interest to tolerate such practice. Two users acting in concert have been as guilty in spirit, if not the strict letter of the law, as the single user.

I commend Bhakarev for bringing this to AN, but he cannot expect to receive a "get out of jail free" card for doing so. I propose that all three editors involved need to back off and cool down, and if Bhakarev considers that a block is needed to do this, then he and Irpen should also receive one; or he may decide that the block on 133.41.4.46 was unjustified in the circumstances and remove it, in order to respond to continue the dialogue which 133.41.4.46 initiated on his talk page. and which he has so far ignored. See clarification below

Tyrenius 14:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: 133.41.4.46 made the post initiating dialogue at 10.57. 133.41.4.46's final edit was at 11.10. Bhakarev responded to 133.41.4.46's post at 11.12 and then immediately blocked 133.41.4.46 at 11.14 (at which time Irpen also responded to the post).

Tyrenius 17:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This situation needs some more responses to it. Tyrenius 21:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The edits to Holodomor were repeats of the edits of User:Alex Kov (see e.g. this dif) so all the five edits are reverts. The edit were intensively discussed by Irpen on Alex Kov's talk page User_talk:Alex_Kov#Rurikid_image_and_Holodomor and User_talk:Alex_Kov#Holodomor he did not answer. User:Alex Kov and the anonim are the same person. They not only do the same edits to Holodomor, but also highly unusual edits to Rurikids princes see history of Sviatoslav I of Kiev, Yaroslav I the Wise, Vladimir I of Kiev as well Japanese prefectures. He did not answer Irpen's comments. In any case I warned the user about the 3RR rule but he choose to ignore it. That is my explanation. If you feel that I should be blocked, please go ahead, but Irpen did not do anything illegal, no violated any policy. abakharev 22:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer of being blocked, which shows integrity, though it is not something which I will do unilaterally. I wondered if something of what you said was occurring, but, assuming that it is true, a different approach is preferable. You are stating that a user is employing socks abusively, and the tack should be to resolve that situation. The anon has been editing as such for some time. Two against one, as in the current situation, always looks bad, especially when one is a blocking admin. It doesn't help our reputation for fairness. Tyrenius 23:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW I find the Tyrenius's interpretation of WP:3RR to be extremely unusual. In my opinion the whole point of 3RR is that it is a surrogate of polling: if three editors prefer one version and two prefer another than the most popular opinion wins. So do not worry if you are right somebody else will restore your version. Now, if the interpretation is that you are not allowed to revert if somebody did two similar reverts before you then the effect on the editing process is quite dramatic. I am not sure how Wiki is suppose to work if everybody is allowed to revert against the consensus and the consensus is not allowed to revert back. abakharev 03:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a completely nonsensical interpretation of 3RR. 3RR applies to individual editors, not groups of editors. If one were to rule according to Tyrenius's view, it would mean that one editor could hold an article hostage against the will of any number of other editors, and we would have a "1RR rule", not a "3RR rule". Rather, if one individual is reverted by three other editors, that is not a sign that they have all violated 3RR, but rather a sign of consensus against that first editor's view. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree with you there. The 3RR exists to encourage that people stop reverting, and actually take the issue to the talk page. Those reverting changes which are not vandalism should include "discuss on talk page" in their edit summaries. The 3RR rule can only be broken by a group when enforcing recient agreed consensus. Edit summaries do not provide enough space to include reasoning, preventing most forms of informed consensus being reached without having to use the talk page. If groups could act to ignore the 3RR, meatpuppetry and gang actions would become the prefered means to edit. LinaMishima 03:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR in no way applies to groups, and never has. Groups who agree on something are not a "gang", or "meatpuppets", but rather "consensus". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with JayJG, at some stage I thought I have gone mad. Besides the talk page to the article and its archives are plastered with the discussion if the Holodomor was a genocide and how to better formulate the facts. The latest section Talk:Holodomor#Genocide_once_more is specifically about the category. There was also a discussion on the User Talk:Alex Kov page that belong to the blocked user. Really the Category:Democides is a result of long arguments and is a compromise abakharev 04:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. 3RR does not apply to "groups", but to individual editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, consider a fairly common case wereby a group of editors wish to refuse to follow policy. In cases like this, their acts are simply not consensus. Wikipedia uses informed consensus, based on an understanding of policy, guidelines, good practice and so on. One does not create informed consensus through the brute pushing of a viewpoint (about all that's practical in the edit summary length), but through detailed discussion and evaluation. If 3RR represented a consensus, this would send the message that ignoring the concept of informed consensus is perfectly acceptable. 3RR must apply to groups also to stop group edit wars, another common occurance wereby the editors of an article all take sides, and there are enough of them to prevent 3RR from being noticably reached. If a consensus has formed on the talk page, the best approach is for the first reverter to state "See the talk page". If the original editor cannot find the entry, they then may leave a summary of "could not find the section". The next revert should then either point out the most recient clear consensus, or state "Let's dicuss this". It seems to me in this case that the group reverting was justified, but they allowed an edit summary argument to occur rather than continuing to attempt to drag the matter onto the talk page LinaMishima 04:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR appling to "groups", not just individuals? No. Never has, and never will. Talk about "policy creep." Lina, you've been contributing to the project now, what, like two months? You may want to consider spending a little more time contributing to articles and getting to better understand policy and convention here before lecturing us on how policy is applied. Especially to arbcom members. FeloniousMonk 05:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that you choose to use the age of my account as an argument, rather than actually debating the subject via reason. WP:BITE probably applies here. If you check through my edits, you'll see I am contributing quite nicely, and the situations I am refering to are occuring in articles I am editing. The literal interpretation behind the 3RR rule does not apply to groups, no. But the spirit of the rule is to prevent edit wars, which often may not consist of only two users, or one user verses 'the rest'. LinaMishima 05:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a case of BITE, rather, this is a case of experience mattering. FM clearly stated that you might want to spend time "getting to better understand policy and convention here" - a gentle reminder that perhaps you simply don't understand the policy well, not a bite. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

She understands it perfectly: "the spirit of the rule is to prevent edit wars." Tyrenius 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

More so to prevent single editors from edit warring against consensus. When there are many editors in two groups edit warring protection is in order. If a single user disagrees with the general consensus it is that users job to either convince the other editors (or if that fails) get an outside mediator or opinion to step in. 3RR simply has no bearing on groups of editors. JoshuaZ 20:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I just came online and found out this amazing thread from the note left by Tyrenius at my talk. If he had some questions on the issue, he could have asked for details if he is too busy to spend a little time to clear this up from the edit histories on his own. I would have happily answered all his questions and so would Alex, who found himself bizzardly accused in Admin abuse.

Here is the situation. Anon IP 133.41.4.46 (talk · contribs), who is also User:133.41.4.47 which both are also Alex Kov (talk · contribs) who chooses to edit without logging in switching between these two IPs and in all likelihood also Oleksiy (talk · contribs) appears to be a non-responding sterile revert warrior. He has his views. That's fine of course. What's not fine is that he resorts to abusive methods to force his POV into the articles, such as switching between IPs and usernames, not responding to attempts to talk, to calls to register and/or edit from an account, and when he finally said something, he just made a bunch of curt statements that defy days and days of talk discussions.

His entire edit history to this day consisted from:

• removing multiple times a well referenced piece from History of Cossacks article
• sterile revert warring in several articles trying to insert the WP:OR images he drew in defiance of historical research (see his images). Involved articles include Sviatoslav I of Kiev , Yaroslav I the Wise , Rurik Dynasty and Vladimir I of Kiev (in the latter he was also removing a photo from a historical monument as well as the dab on top
• Finally, on the very same day something got to him to start a sterile rv war aimed at adding cat:Genocide to Holodomor. The latter issue has been discussed at talk:Holodomor to death and the current version reflects the outcome of that discussion that the article should reflect that some researchers consider it a Genocide but such a view is not as generally accepted as e. g. for the Holocaust. I am well involved on that article and I wrote much for it. I participated in lengths of discussions at the talk. I am intimately familiar with the state of the art in the research of the issue. The anon/sock was first reverting in silence and after multiple calls at several talk pages to talk, he defiantly stated that some laws exist that claim that Holodomor was indeed a Genocide. I pointed to him that no law can say such a thing. The law he probably means is the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Convention provides only a definition and does not list any specific cases. As such, it is up to scholars to agree or disagree on whether the definition fits a specific case. The scholarly debate is still unresolved as presented in the article. He did not respond and resorted to sterile reverting despite being warned multiple times.

When finally Alex Bakharev blocked the editor who did nothing but disruption we get these strange "reviews", like the 14:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC) post by Tyrenius. More can be seen at anon's talks and User talk:Alex Bakharev#Holodomor. The statement that "The net effect is that an editing decision has been achieved by force rather than argument," is plain incorrect. The article was simply restored to pre POV-push attempt that it reached through prolonged discussion and search by multiple editors. The "..don't be reckless" clause at WP:BB is there for a very good reason. I thoroughly agree with statements above that revert wars are harmful and useless and discussion should be always preferred but with certain editors it is imnpossible to discuss things. Editors who refuse to talk, ignore calls to read past discussions, refuse to use registered accounts and instead use multiple IPs to circumvent 3RR by such activity exhaust the WP:AGF guideline and need to be tought to become responsive if they can't be talked into that. If Tyrenius or anyone else has more questions on the matter, I am looking forward to hear from him. --Irpen 07:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I spent some time analysing not only the edits, but also the article talk page. Each situation has to be judged on its own merits. I am not suggesting a rigid rule that should be imposed everywhere. I am assessing whether this situation was conducted properly, and I find there are aspects which don't meet the standard we should aim for. Accusations of sockpuppetry are being made now: those things should have been addressed initially, not afterwards here, when the editor is not even able to participate. 3RR is never an excuse to get away with reverting 3 times: it is a barrier to reverting any more than three times. The spirit of this is that there should not be mindless edit wars.

I am concerned that there was not dialogue, and that, even though the anon tried to initiate it,[18] it was only responded to 2 minutes before he was then blocked. That is not something to be encouraged. The editors opposing him were relying on being able to escape the strict 3RR by having more reverts at their disposal. This is not in accord with the aim of the 3RR rule. That rule operates when there is a consensus to stop a rogue editor, but two editors is hardly a consensus. I don't find that this short but intense session of reverts over a single category in this way reflects well on any of the participants, especially when it is finally resolved by one of the involved editors blocking his opponent.

Irpen's basis of argument is also questionable, as he has decided that the term "genocide" can only be agreed if scholars are united in its application, and that its use by governments is invalid. This, to say the least, is not definitive, but is now seen as the arbiter of consensus over the issue in this article.

Some of the arguments above have descended to ad hominem (and pro hominem). That is not the sign of a good argument. Let us address the points on their merit, not on who made them.

Tyrenius 11:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius, with all due respect, it is not up to one individual to judge what is or not "in accord with the aim of the 3RR rule." The dialogue on that was established ages ago on the talk page, so if a rogue editor omits to read the dialogue, it's just about his problem.

And btw, the editor in question probably created socks to avoid the block, making his behaviour even more questionable. The issue was debated and is explained quite well in the "Was holodomor genocide?" section of the article. Being rogue does not prevent one from reading the damzor thing.

Consequently, I would rather not push things further and not run against a respectable and well-established policy.

Personally I endorse Alex's block fully. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the block, so that is irrelevant. Nor am I challenging the policy: WP:3RR makes it clear that there is no licence to neatly nip up to 3RR and be in the clear. If there is edit warring it is blockable with less reverts. The policy is the spirit of that, and not the letter of the law. I've made my points above, but if there is no consensus that they are of concern, then I'll leave it. Tyrenius 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole purpose of 3rr is to let tempers cool down when a conflict between two people gets too heated. It is obvious to me that if others revert a particular user, we are dealing with an entirely different situation. Sometimes this happens with very obvious cases of vandalism or trolling. Sometimes it happens in more complicated situations. But no matter what, when it happens it is not because one person has lost his or her cool. Multiple people reverting a user is an example of the community at work.

Let's really look at this proposal to see how absurd it is. What is being suggested is this: once a person has been reverted three times, they are immune from being reverted. is this really the situation we want here? I do not think so.Slrubenstein | Talk 10:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What is being suggested is that 1RR is optimal followed by other solutions. This should involve discussion if the involved editors are in good faith. If there is a deliberate violation of consensus, then they can be warned for abusive behaviour and sanctioned if they persist. If thre is a sockpupper, then they can be blocked as such. I hope you find these suggestions less absurd. Tyrenius 20:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Tirenius, I find your suggestions not just non-absurd, but excellent. The problem isn't that what you say is wrong. It isn't! However, you are making a set of entirely correct statements but the problem is that they are not applicable to the particular case. 1RR is optimal, true. Non-reverting is even better. Discussing at talk between many editors with different views who are all acting in good faith in search of consensus is an ideal solution for an ideal world. This solution could not be applied in this case because the situation is different. The rogue user resorted to a series of sterile reverts using anon ip accounts. He repeatedly defied all attempts to engage him into any meaningful discussions. He was asked to log in which he also refused to do. Finally, he supplied his final revert with a frivolous statement that cannot be interpreted as a "discussion" but makes it clear that he either did not read the talk page where it was discussed or choose to simply disregard everything said there.

Socks are to be blocked in their own right. Users who resort to sterile reverts, then are asked to discuss, refuse to do so and persist with reverting are not proper candidates to have discussions with. In such case, there is nothing else to do but revert the user. That many users do so proves the consensus or at least violation of WP:BB "...but don't be reckless" clause. 3RR is by no means an entitlement. It is a guideline based on the principle that edit warring is harmful but discussions are preferable. However, you can't force the user into the discussion if he adamantly refuses to and ignores all the past discussions. There is nothing else left to do with such user but revert him, ask him many times to explain himself and, and if he persists with sterile revert wars, he's got to be blocked. 3RR is a very useful guideline both by a letter and by a spirit. --Irpen 22:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai bus deleted by mistake

While editing Shanghai Bus, the server went down. Now the text is deleted, and I can't get it back no matter how many times I try to paste my edit in. It's blank. I don't want to be named a vandal. --Outlook

It's fixed; don't worry. Take a look at the five bullet points at the top of Help:Reverting to learn how to do this yourself in the future. Happy editing. ~ PseudoSudo 13:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

G.I. Joe character list DELETED without cause. It was a valid list.

Dream Focus 14:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am the creator of a page that was formerly found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Joe_character_list

It listed a name of every character from the series. Dozens of these names also had links to wikipedia pages others have created about those characters.

I believe it is a very valuable and valid page.

Why the sudden deletion?

I checked the deletion logs, but they don't even list it.

Since I see other series have pages with list of all characters from that series, complete with links to wikipedia articals about those characters, I don't understand why mine was deleted. Surely it is the result of vandalism.

This information is listed nowhere else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_Joe The main G.I. Joe page has a link to my list. And the list of hundreds of names wouldn't really fit on that page.

Can someone undelete this please, and tell me if it was a vandal that destroyed it somehow?

Um, the list seems to be there: G.I. Joe character list. Am I missing something? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I still see it - G.I. Joe character list. —AySz88\^-^ 14:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There was some sort of weirdness going on. I went there and it gave me the "Wikipedia does not have an article by this name" page, but didn't have a deletion log. In fact, the history log was still available and when I clicked "edit this page" it looked like the article. I clicked "save page" without changing anything and the page was back (with no record of any edit by me). Seems like some sort of glitch? --Fastfission 14:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not clearing your cache resulted in this? Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it perhaps had something to do with the database error of yesterday. I had someone today thinking I deleted an article. The article indeed seemed gone. Purging did the trick. Garion96 (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I noticed what appears to be the same problem with a different article, on 16 or 17 September. On the page Neo-noir, I clicked on the link for 8mm and got the "Wikipedia does not have an article by this name" page. I did Search for 8mm and got the same results both from the Go and when clicking on 8mm in the list of Search results. 8mm is fine now, though. -- Writtenonsand 06:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Mccready is issued a 30 day community ban from editing all articles related to Pseudoscience

Based on this discussion on AN/I [19] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is issued a 30 day community ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 22:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hm, interesting. There was a discussion about community probation last week (i.e. deciding that a user should stay away from certain articles, as opposed to a community ban which decides a user must stay away from the entire 'pedia). Based on the response there, it sounds like a good idea to give this a shot. Based on the heavy mailflow on the Admin Noticeboard, I figured it might be a good idea to log all current probations on a single page (but please keep all related discussion on this page). I've created a log at Wikipedia:Community probation with some deliberately vague language at the top (feel free to edit) because I'm quite sure we don't need a formal legislative process for this. >Radiant< 22:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Logged here. [20] --FloNight 23:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. FeloniousMonk 05:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich

Jason Gastrich has emailed me asking that his community ban be rescinded. He promises not to use sockpuppets and to serve out the term of his one-year arbcom ban, counted from the date of the last sock activity. Opinions? Stifle (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem was not in the main the sockpuppetry, although that was a massive problem in itself, the problem was his contempt for policy and consensus, his use of external sites to solicit support, and abnove all his apparnet desire to use Wikipedia first and foremost as a vehicle to promote his own agenda. Guy 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JzG's no. View the edits made at Louisiana Baptist University by new users. I strongly ask that his ban not be lifted. There is no compelling evidence his behavior has changed or will change.

During RfAR he didn't even bothering apologizing, admitting sock puppets, or coming to terms with his actions.[21] He denied his actions, had contempt for other users and the rules. Arbusto 22:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Count it from the "last day of sock activity"? So yesterday? Shog5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made the same edits as a new user a few months ago.[22] He is permantently banned from the Louisiana Baptist University article and it still gets hit.[23] Here's a new user adding Gastrich's webpage to the article.[24] Here's different a new user adding the same Gastrich page.[25] Adding another Gastrich page.[26]

The links added recently, go back to what he stated in the RfRA[27]: "I disagree with JzG and Arbusto's viewpoint that a link to one of my web pages or a link that I agree with should be discussed on the talk page first, in fact I find this downright unfair and wrong." He was here to promote himself and his views no matter what the rules are. Arbusto 22:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinions? Sure, I can do that. Here it is: No. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the silly season. All the daft banned trolls are crawling back and asking to be given another chance. No. --Tony Sidaway04:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. Not one of our prolific and disruptive biased sockpuppeteers. FeloniousMonk 05:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems pretty close to negotiating with terrorists. He promises if we let him back he won't use sockpuppets? Maybe when the LBU page isn't hit by him for a few months we could consider it possibly. That is not this point (we'd still have the problem that he had few if any productive edits). JoshuaZ 21:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich is the worst sockmaster I've ever dealt with. No. Mackensen (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Its also worth noting his presence on metawiki, where he plugs his goods. For fun, count how many times he refers to himself as "Dr", and count how many times he mentions that his doctorate is from an unaccredited, mail order "school". Arbusto 21:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Given his complete lack of any contributions whatsoever at meta (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jason_Gastrich) I see no reaosn why he should be allowed to use his page there to spam his websites and books. I'm all for giving people a second chance if I think there's a chance of redemption, but here? I see absolutely no hope that Gastrich will ever place policy and consensus above his own personal bias. Guy 22:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone want to go find somoene with some authority on Meta to go blank his userpage then? Otherwise I'll do it myself (yes I know the previous link is not a meta policy). JoshuaZ 22:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I did it already. JoshuaZ 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, is there even a question of this? No, no, and again no. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

He's even got a sock puppet there. (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ruth_Ginsling). Harvestdancer 16:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If Jason is genuine, then I would welcome him back - but he would have to make a full apology to the community. --LiverpoolCommander 09:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A full apology means admitting he did something wrong. The few apologies he's ever given have been to apologize for being misunderstood - for you misunderstanding him. You're chances of getting a real apology ... I'd support lifting the ban if he made a full apology, which means I'm not in favor of lifting the ban ever. Harvestdancer 14:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Gastrich's inability to concede LBU's lack of meaningful accreditation as a problem because of x, y and z (for example, notable guest speakers at LBU); is an unfortunate indication he has firmly held POV's that aren't reconcilable with being a constructive Wikipedian. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks at google[28] Arbusto 22:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And another sock: Special:Contributions/Hebrews102425. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• The community might also want to consider this page, where we read, "spiritually, me and some other believers were becoming unequally yoked with unbelievers, having to form close relationships as we dredged over the minutia of each Christian entry and what should and shouldn't be included. In every case, the unbelievers wanted sensational, ridiculous, unencyclopedic, and in many cases incorrect information included and some others and I insisted on including the truth and excluding that nonsense. This opposition met us head on and I was eventually banned for one year. I don't see myself returning to Wikipedia because I have shaken the dust from my shoes. In fact, we even decided to end the Wiki4Christ.com web site that was sending Christians to Wikipedia. It is an awful place for Christians who sincerely want the truth fairly represented." All emphasis added was by me. So, if Wikipedia is an "awful place for Christians" such as Gastrich, why would he want to return? Notice that Gastrich implicitely denies using sockpuppets in the same commentary. Regardless, Gastrich has had a few unkind things to say about Wikipedia since his expulsion, and that includes recent comments. Those were certainly "sour grapes," but they're enough to bring his sincerity into question.

Interesting, wiki4christ.com now redirects to Jason's own ministry. Why am I not surprised. Such issues aside, one of the reasons I supported the final indef ban was the complete unacceptability of using an outside source to attempt to get outside help target and overwhelm articles here. If he has stopped doing so, for whatever reason, that is a good sign. Unfortunately, the reasons he gives for stopping in no way indicate he will be at all a helpful Wikipedian. JoshuaZ 04:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• During the discussion in arbitration, Gastrich wrote, "I'm going to avoid Wikipedia for awhile. However, I am going to encourage everyone I know to continue contributing. Therefore, don't expect to be hearing from me, but expect to be hearing from them [emphasis added]." The community certainly did hear from "them," didn't it? It might be especially noteworthy that Gastrich denied using sockpuppets during the arbitration discussion, and also on his "response" site, but then seems to tacitly admit doing them, according to what was related by Stifle at the beginning of this thread. This wouldn't be the first time that Gastrich has changed his story so that he might accomplish whatever it is that he wants to accomplish. What is clear is that he saw the problems at Wikipedia as being one of those who believe as he does being in battle with "unbelievers." He's posted that sort of commentary a few times since his expulsion, and it's clear from those comments that he still believes that. That should be taken into consideration during any discussion of a lifting of a ban that was imposed with good cause by the consideration of good evidence.

Rob Levin

I don't know how familiar people here are with him but apparently a large number of people on the Wikipedia IRC channel knew him. No disrespect intended, but this article is recreation of previously deleted content. See the first AfD which apparently he himself initated by saying he didn't feel he was notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Now I know I could tag it as db-repost but I feel even tagging it as such may generate some ill will. I'd like to get a consensus about what should be done here first, perhaps circumstances have changed and the community indeed feels he is now notable enough for an article. VegaDark 02:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The AFD was about 9 months ago, and circumstances have changed so db-repost isn't sutible, another AFD would likely be kept as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) In that case the article should state what makes him more notable now than when he was at the time of the first AfD. From what I can by the information in the article, his claims to notability have not changed since January, hence the first AfD would stand. VegaDark 02:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the log and history, the article was restored today to restore the edit history after content was merged; before that it had been redirected to Peer-Directed Projects Center since January. The redirect has now been undone, but if content has been merged it can't be simply deleted. The thing to do would be to get consensus to re-redirect the article in the normal way. Incidentally, dying is not a claim to notability. I would have been perfectly willing to delete this per CSD G4 if this was just a standard repost (which it isn't). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(Just got edit conflicted twice) Well, I think he is a lot more notable now then ever before.... but freenode only has a few thousand users, and I haven't a clue if that makes him notable. Personally I think we need to find a reliable biography to use as a source, because as it stands, all we know about is his death. (which earlier incarnations of the article didn't even have). Ok, time for google. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• The page has been reverted to a redirect and reverted back to an article twice each now. I still have yet to see any new information towards his notability that would show why he is more notable since the AfD in January. VegaDark 19:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We've also become more inclusionist since then. You know we have articles about farm roads, right? Give it up. —freak(talk) 21:12, Sep. 17, 2006 (UTC)

We've had thse farm to market roads since long before that AfD (I've checked one, and it survived an AfD in January 2005 with no consensus). So your example is invalid, and the idea that we have become "more inclusionist" is not reflected in policies or guidelines. There are some categories of articles where we have (sadly, IMO) become more inclusionist, to the point of dropping all questions of importance, notability, or even being somheow remarkable or exceptional, and where the only necessities are verifiablilty and NPOV. But for most articles, I don't have the impression that the "rules" have changed or that more articles are kept. If it's not notable, delete it. Fram 08:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Circumstances have changed since the original nomination to AFD, if someone contests the notability of this person they should renominate the article and allow it to be discussed there. Yamaguchi先生 00:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting this without discussion on the basis that it was "previously deleted content" is process over substance. It should not be speedily deleted on that basis. As many people have pointed out, standards of notability have changed. I personally think that Rob would be considered notable under current standards; in any case, there should be a proper discussion rather than an attempt to strongarm misunderstood policy to circumvent such a discussion. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Desg

I am sorry, I am very, very green and I doubt I am doing this correctly, but there it is.

This user is a spammer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Desg

All his contributions are adding his commercial links to Wiki pages.

In particular, on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stained_glass

He has removed a very valuable link about stained glass restoration and replaced it with a link to his newly formed forum. He has added a very plain stained glass window of his in the middle of the world's best examples, with a link to his commercial site.

On this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_came_and_copper_foil_glasswork

He added a link to a tool he sells and did a similar trick with the external links as he did for the page above.

Most importantly, after the pages were restored, he promptly returned to spam the Wiki pages again, and added his spammy links once more.

I understand there is some sort of warning system but I am not confident enough to do this, I cannot be sure I will do it right.

I would appreciate if someone could oversee this matter. Thank you.

Recommend adding downeaststainedglass.com on the spam blacklist. Hbdragon88 06:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

With spammers, you usually warn them incrementally with templates {{spam}}, {{spam2}}, {{spam3}}, {{spam4}} each time they return to their activity. Use their talk page for that. If they persist, you report them at WP:AIV. See WP:UTM for other warning templates. Conscious 07:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

He is also spamming with stainedglassville.com and free-recipe-site.com RogerJ 09:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This person Roger J has a personal hatred for me and is attempting to destroy my credentials. Please call me by phone to discuss further if you have any questions. My phone # is at the bottom of my website Down East Stained Glass I can produce legal harrassment papers to back my claims. DESG

Whether or not this is the case (it is certainly odd that his only contributions here are related to you), for the most part he is correctly interpreting Wikipedia standards. Our External links policy strongly discourages editors from adding links to their own sites and/or to commercial sites. FreplySpang 14:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this user has removed warnings to his talk page with this edit. I have restored the warnings and added {{subst:Wr0}} as appropriate, as it appears this user may not understand our policies regarding talk pages but did not appear to remove the warnings in a botched archiving attempt or as part of a formatting error. Captainktainer * Talk 15:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

He's been temporarily blocked for violating 3RR. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Presently he seems to be testing the limits of tolerance of Wikipedians regarding linking to his website. The new strategy involves gratuitious mentions of his website accompanied with a link to some page or other of downeaststainedglass.com [[29]], [[30]], [[31]], [[32]]. Given his past behavior I suspect he is curious as to how many times he can insert his link outside of the "External Links" sections before being warned. I also suspect he is venting his frustration about being caught spamming with a NPOV dispute on this page Lead_came_and_copper_foil_glasswork. It's a lot of work to protect the Wiki pages from his dogged pursuance of a personal and commercial agenda. Assistance from the community would be much appreciated. RogerJ 13:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I don't know enough about stained glass to evaluate whether he is an eeeevil spammer or a good-faith contributor with valuable information on the subject. Dispute resolution is the way to bring in people who are experienced with Wikipedia (and hopefully even some with stained glass experience) to look over the situation. This page is not for dispute resolution; please do not try to carry out the argument here. FreplySpang 15:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting sites

Please redirect U-Pass to Universal Transit Pass as [[U-Pass] applies only to Vancouver area whereas the other one is in a broder sense in being Canadian.

--Cahk 07:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Followed up on user's talk page. Herostratus 07:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Protected deleted pages

This category has grown overly huge over the years, and frankly it is pretty ugly to visitors of the encyclopedia that might even end up there via Special:Randompage. In my opinion we should prune it. I have been trying to replace a few with sensible redirects, but for most of this list I can't think of any. What I'd like to do is generate a list of all PDPs that are older than, say, three months, and delete the lot of those (because I don't think most recreators are all that persistent in the first place). What would people think of that? >Radiant< 10:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, this is horrible clutter - and in some cases it's even blocking the creation of legitimate articles. I proposed cleanup procedures a while back at Template_talk:Deletedpage#How_temporary_is_this.3F. Haukur 11:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. Most of the recreators are just bored schoolkids who will have wandered off elsewhere by the end of the day anyway. Deleting 3 month old deleteprotected pages should be no problem (even 1 month old should not be a problem in general), I think most of the "backlog" is simply due to the fact that most admins, myself included, just protect a page and then forget about it. --Sherool (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd also support this as long as a suitable time period is given (such as one to three months, per Sherool (talk). While I don't want to name names, there is an administrator who is currently arbitrarily undoing these deleted pages with the edit summary "Old deleted-protected page unlikely to be recreated." The problem is that a number of the pages he/she is undoing were protected only days ago. While there is nothing wrong with getting rid of these pages once the risk of vandalism and such has passed, doing so after only a few days is a a waste of everyone's time. --Alabamaboy 11:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be opposed to assigning specific time ranges for this. Some unprotection after a couple of days would be fine, for some I've seen 6 months later people still wanting to recreate an article delted as not a crystal ball based on the same "sources" available when initially deleted. This should be a common sense thing. --pgk 12:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I found this: User:Kotepho/reports/deleted page by cl timestamp. Sounds useful. >Radiant< 12:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting page but not very useful since it must be manually updated. Is it possible to create an automatic page along these lines?--Alabamaboy 12:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well cl_timestamp is actually a field on the categorylinks database table, so I would suggest that this is actually being extracted rather than manually produced. That timestamp has its problems since IIRC it gets updated each time the page gets changed rather than when the category was added, however for this purpose that shouldn't be an issue... --pgk 13:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's defenently possible, it requires accesss to the database though, and unfortunately the toolserver still doesn't have a working copy of the enwiki database. Guess the best bet is to download a dump of the categorylinks database (the most recent ones is only 6 days old as of now) and run some querries offline. --Sherool (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Luckily, even regular users have limited access to the database; see m:Query or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php (I know that at least two bots use this method to get cl_timestamp data). --ais523 09:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it not possible, in addition to whatever pruning we might do, to get the developers to come up with a way of not picking them up on random? Guy 17:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked about whether special:random would find them a month ago. However, now that I think about it, if the developers applied a way to make exceptions to finding these from special:random, there would be a clamor about "excusing this article," "excusing that article," and excusing all articles with deletion, wikify, and NPOV tags, too. In my opinion, when sysops deal with this category, the goal should be to keep it tidy and miniscule, not to dump things in it and hope they're gone. They should just use their common sense about what needs to be protected against recreation indefinitely, what can be removed from this category after a week, and everything in between. If effective pruning is carried out, then there will be very little need to excuse these protected deleted pages, if only due to the tiny amount of them in total. Picaroon9288 19:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've gotten a protected deleted page twice recently while clicking random article, so yes this is beginning to be a problem. I would support a way to not be able to get pages in this category if the developers can do that. If not, I think finding redirects would be the best way to get rid of a lot of the pages in that category. Who knows how many are YTMND related, perhaps everyone should do a scan over the category and make redirects to anything they recognize. VegaDark 20:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of these are protected after having been deleted for legal reasons and whatnot; perhaps we need another template (identical but for the category) for these? — Dan | talk 20:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, let's just keep them protected and redirect them all to bad title or something similar. A template could be used to categorize such redirects for later perusal, in fact it could even be the same template we're using now. —freak(talk) 21:09, Sep. 17, 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say that rather than making feature requests, our easiest solution is to delete most of those pages. I'd be happy to give it a shot, and if two or three other admins chime in it's not really that much work with a tabbed browser. >Radiant< 22:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It would make sense for someone to go through and clear out the old ones, but it is absolutely essential that we maintain a list of these pages somewhere so that we can, in the future, look over it to see which redlinks turned blue and determine if the recreation was valid. How about maintaining the list at Wikipedia:Deleted protected deleted pages? --Cyde Weys 02:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia:List of pages protected against re-creation or a new bot generated list? --Sherool (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see deleted protected deleted pages, so new list then, nevermind. Yeah, usefull to keep taps on recreations. --Sherool (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Also, you can watchlist deleted pages, and they'll show up if recreated. And also, you can check in your deletion log whether any page you deleted has been recreated. >Radiant< 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• A watchlist doesn't do nearly the same thing because: it only works for one person not everyone; if multiple people are deleting these protected deleted pages then no single person will have the list; and watchlists are generally used for lots of other stuff, and if you aren't editing for over a day or so, you will totally miss it. Thus, it is essential that we create a page somewhere where we list all of these protected deleted pages that are deleted so everyone can keep an eye on the redlinks that turn blue and make sure that it is valid content. --Cyde Weys 02:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Having a list of deleted deleted-protected pages might be over-kill unless it can be done extremely easily; most are not re-created and when they do they seem to be mostly found, and then that's just another backlog that has to be cleared of dead items. Keep in mind also that many of these topics actually do warrant articles, mostly for different persons other than the one that was deleted. That's the main reason for getting rid of these deleted pages. There are so few relative to the number of articles that readers getting them on a Random article is not a significant problem, but when you have major political figures, etc. blocked because some bozo with a similar name created a vanity page in a space of 2 minutes 6 months ago, that is a problem.

The list we currently have at User:Kotepho/reports/deleted page by cl timestamp will last at least for the deletedpages until 8-10-2006. Whereas bots are necessary to do things on a daily basis, this list doesn't absolutely need to be created more than once a month really. It would be nice though to have it automatically created.

Another way to help out with deletedpages is through Special:Shortpages. Recently protected deletedpages show up there (mostly at 15 bytes). If the page was created in the space of an hour 4 days ago, delete. If it looks like it's a little more chronic problem, append a little comment that pushes it off the list, like <!--Excess long comment to prevent listing on [[Special:Shortpages]]............................................................-->. This is an automatically generated list and is cutting down the backlog from the other end, as well as doing it from the Kotepho list. —Centrx→talk • 03:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The rule of thumb I've been using whether to keep them protected is whether the amount of time between the first deletion and the last deletion is longer than the amount of time between the last deletion and now, with leeway if someone has talked about creating a legitimate article on the talk page. As you can see from the list, most don't stay protected. —Centrx→talk • 03:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• This purging has started; I've already seen some others work on it besides myself. Any help would be appreciated. >Radiant< 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

What the hell? Protoss Archon 15:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Same as #G.I. Joe character list DELETED without cause. It was a valid list. A null edit did the trick. Conscious 15:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. ParalelUni's community ban is endorsed. Any of the single-purpose accounts mentioned identified in the case, or any other accounts or IPs an administrator deems to be an account used solely for the editing of St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages, may be banned from that article or related pages for disruptive edits.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 17:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Lollywood Block review

I have blocked Lollywood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely as he has continued to insert copyrighted text into various articles despite warnings. This includes Undivided India [33], Durand line [34], Pashtunistan [35], Pakhtunkhwa [36] etc.

I should note that the same user has in the past edited from the ip block 82.159.*.* as evidenced by exactly same copypasting in these articles ([37], [38] etc.) and was warned/blocked several times in the last 2 months. --Ragib 18:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Added: Further evidence of vandalism/disruptions include [39], [40], [41], [42] and so on. --Ragib 18:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I support Ragib's actions.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z. Kehrli is prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation. Should Kehrli violate any ban placed on him by this decision or engage in substitution of notation, he may be blocked for an appropriate time. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 18:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove loong talk diatribes per SOAP?

Is it ok to revert long diatribes on talk pages per WP:SOAP? Andrew Cuomo has been protected due to large additions of POV text, and now its moved to the talk page, with no real attempt to construct proper content for inclusion. Can the most recent cut/paste be removed? [43]. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's not copyvio I would say the best idea is to archive it. —Nate Scheffey 19:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't think of the copyvio issue. As it stands, the diff above is a large cut/paste from the newspaper article (but it cited as such). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Some input to List of African-American writers

I'm going to assume good faith and not revert, but this edit (actually a series of small edits) added lots of red links to the List of African-American writers page. Can anybody determine if these people are notable writers? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the first three are legitimate authors, and IMO they meet the notability criteria. However, the article is a List of African-American writers, and there doesn't seem to be a notability threshold for inclusion. I didn't read up enough to figure out if they are actually African-American, which is an issue and should be verified. But what's the existing standard of verifiability on the article? Have all the 'blue-linked' authors been verified as A-A? If the issue is the red-links, IMO the discussion should wait until actual articles are written about them, whereupon it can be decided whether or not they are notable enough to warrant them. Anchoress 21:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From what I can tell they appear to be notable writers, although I haven't checked every one. Should serve as a good guideline for creating some new articles in an area Wikipedia is short on. —Nate Scheffey 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the input from both of you. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Unblock

User:Agquarx has requested to be unblocked after being indefinitely blocked in July 2006. I wanted to post here to try to gain some community consensus as to whether or not Wikipedia would benefit from giving this user another chance. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at a random selection, all this user's "contributions" to Wikipedia seem to have been torrential outpourings of utter nonsense - this looks to be typical. No unblocking, please. --ajn (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The unblock request was recently reviewed and denied by Centrx. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's just ... bizarre. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use the "unblock reviewed" template so the user was still listed at CAT:RFU and Centrx must have been working there and missed my comment on the user's talk page mentioning this thread and made the decision to deny the request. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I just erupted in laughter after reading that. Yeah, the indefinite block is completely warranted. I wonder if this overdescribing of everything couldn't be caused by some mental disorder, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I also went through this user's contributions, and I think ajn's assessment is spot-on. In fact, I'm not sure I could find a single diff which cannot be characterized as a "torrential outpouring of utter nonsense". For example, woah. Perhaps I've missed some, but can anyone point me to good edits by this user? --- Deville (Talk) 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not rely, I remember running into him a while back when he made a royal mess of the Love (disambiguation) page with one of his philosophical rants and a page move. I've never seen anyone capable of writing so much nonsense and still somehow stay on topic on some level, almost a Malkavian quality to his "work". A usefull contributer his is not thogh, he would write lengthy rants on his talk page defending his works when people called him on his vandalism. --Sherool (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

He was indefinitely blocked for making death threats, and didn't consider that he might need to apologise for them before an unblock request would be taken seriously, instead trying to claim that "There is only one way to deal with bullies - a gun. If you are collecting my articles, you must to be shot to save humanity, per your own definition - a Darwin Award" [44] is a "figure of speech". Should we unblock? Hell no. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed ban of JarlaxleArtemis

According to the terms of an Arbitration on JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he can be banned for a year with the agreement of any three administrators. I suggest that we should do this, following his recent trolling. He's also been guilty of copyright violations, flagrantly violating the MOS, removing deletion tags, POV/vandalism edits, posting the source code for a vandalbot, etc. (as seen on his current RFAR). We can save the ArbCom a bit of time by dealing with this ourselves. They don't need to re-examine this case; they've already looked at him twice before, and what came out of it was that we can ban him for a year as necessary. I propose that it is now necessary. --Cyde Weys 23:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am JarlaxleArtemis. I think that Cyde is the one who is trolling and should be banned. Of course, no one will believe me, but I just want to at least try to counter this admin's lies. His lies regarding me are here. My message telling him to stop are here and here. He then blocked me for trolling, even though he is the one who is trolling. [45] Another lie about me is that he is saying I was trying to make a vandal bot. What will I gain with that? I pasted the script for Checkuser (yes, Checkuser, not a vandal bot) on a freaking Sandbox page of mine. Great vandal bot that is, isn't it?--4.168.33.6 23:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

According to [46], the second arbitration case was closed early because he was "permanently banned" for spamming account creations with impersonating user names. After he was unblocked probationarily in November 2005, he has been blocked 8 times since for various disruptive behavior. In total, he has previously been blocked by 9 different administrators a total of 20 times. Based on looking at the comments in the block log and the arbitration case, it is clear that this user is repeatedly disruptive and is not amenable through promises, probations, or mentoring. —Centrx→talk • 23:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, the source codes are readily available at Special:Version, which is linked to from Special:Specialpages. I am mistaken; the source code was for renaming users, not Checkuser. As if I could benefit from that. I need to be a bureaucrat or something like that to rename users, which I don't even want to. Please ban Cyde. 4.168.33.6 23:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The comments in the block log are deceptive. The admins repeatedly make overstatements and/or flat out lie there.--4.168.33.6 23:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin number three here. Get it over with. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course you listen to Cyde. You are a fucking cabal. Goodbye, then corrupt admins!--4.168.33.6 23:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Did the three-admin-ban thing actually pass? The case was closed, but it's not clear whether the proposed decision was ever put into place. (Not that I have any objection to banning him, mind you, just curious.) Kirill Lokshin 00:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? He is disruptive, always has been, just block him. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. He ended up being banned outright, but for some unknown reason, he was unbanned and then continued to get into all sorts of trouble in the following months. I'm reinstating the indefinite community ban. --Cyde Weys 00:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak thought he could be reformed, if I recall correctly. In any case, a community ban sounds fine. Kirill Lokshin 00:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there even a single test case of this working? "Reforming" just doesn't seem workable to me. This is just an Internet site; if someone is an asshole, they're going to keep being an asshole, and no mere Internet site is going to get them to reform. Seeing a psychiatrist regularly, maybe. But not this. --Cyde Weys 01:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been known (there is also the issue that we have been around long enough for certain people to just grow up).Geni 01:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Geni. According to information he posted on Wikipedia, JarlaxleArtemis started contributing to Wikipedia last year when he was in the tenth grade. Some young people lack the maturity, discipline, and people skills to contribute to a serious collaborative project like Wikipedia, but they may gain these skills as they grow older. —Psychonaut 01:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that you've blocked him, prepare yourselves for a flood of vandalism. He did this the couple last times he was banned or blocked for a long period. Favourite tactics include mailbombing and mass creation of user accounts. —Psychonaut 00:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

He's just violated WP:3RR on User talk:JarlaxleArtemis by tampering with his block template (changing it from "reviewed" to unreviewed). If his ban doesn't prevent him from editing his own page, then perhaps it should be protected. —Psychonaut 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Kirill Lokshin 00:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been JarlaxleArtemis' principle mentor for the last several months. During that time there have been many complaints and instances of JA repeating the specific behaviors which led to his previous bannings. Since this new ban has been placed on him he has once again acted in an immature manner. His negative inputs have exceeded his positive contributions, and I regret having to endorse this ban. -Will Beback 05:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Vandalism

The following was posted a few minutes ago at the Vandalism talk page by an unregistered user:

Someone in Deffective By Design suggested a "wikipedia-bombing" on October 3rd, to change all occurrences from "Digital rights Management" to "Digital RESTRICTIONS Management". Although I am completely against DRM, and think that DbD has some interesting ideas, this one in particular would cause more harm than good. I think the DRM article should be watched to avoid edit wars and vandalism.

here is the link to the Deffective By Design site.

00:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC) An Anonymous reader

It may not be anything, but then again, it may be something. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding the page to my watchlist. The somewhat... erm... intellectually challenged person who made that suggestion apparently never bothered to consider that a) what he writes is visible to everyone and b) administrators' actions can be reversed, very quickly, and often are. Truly one of the lamer "OMG LET'S VANDALIZE T3H W1K1P3D14!!!11!!!oneoneone" suggestions. Captainktainer * Talk 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't exactly say they've set up us the bomb. Still, it'll be good for a few of us to be watching the pages in question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Defective by Design has now taken down the page that that links to. I wonder if their admins decided it was inappropriate, or if they're trying to hide something? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's because I sent them a message pointing out how much it discredited their project and how futile an exercise it would be, especially since their suggestion that any DfD members with admin rights protect the page after vandalizing it would lead only to an immediate revert of the protection and an emergency desysopping with a speed not seen since the Everyking scandal. Aside from a few odd DfD members who saw the notice, I don't think we'll see anything now. Captainktainer * Talk 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite ban of Karwynn

I have indefinitely banned Karwynn following recent CheckUser revelations that he was using a slew of sockpuppet accounts for some rather malicious vandalism. The sockpuppet accounts blocked include ShintoSabe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Rostafar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mai Ling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), GomeonaFinnigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Juan Gonzales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It has become rather obvious that Karwynn is nothing but an ED troll trying to raise a ruckus on Wikipedia, and his long good-bye statement from last week where he gave us all the finger and told us to "sit and spin, bitches" is going to be his last statement. --Cyde Weys 02:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I was unfortunately very wrong about this user. Endorse block. JoshuaZ 02:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, an end to a monumentally huge waste of time. Thanks, Cyde.--MONGO 05:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorse, we really shouldn't take sooo long to rid ourselves of patent trolls. As MONGO says, this stuff really does waste the time and patience of good users. --Doc 09:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorse block. AnnH ♫ 09:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Block endorsed. Glad it was blocked and the sock farm detected. --LiverpoolCommander 22:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Arthur Ellis is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie. Arthur Ellis is required to use one registered account. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

One to watch

Chelsea Tory (talk · contribs) is causing a ruckus at Gregory Lauder-Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He attributes motives to all editors including User:William Pietri, who is just about the most civil person I've come across on the project. Trolling, tendentious edits, assertions of illegality. If one or two uninvolved admins could keep an eye I'd be grateful. Guy 10:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible this could be legal-threat-extraordinaire Sussexman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) again? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but I doubt it. They are undoubtedly connected in some way, though. -- ChrisO 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Trouble with User Jim62sch

Dear Admins, over the last few days I have run into trouble with User:Jim62sch on the Pope Benedict XVI article. Our actual disagreement is about whether to include certain comments or not: [47]]. I opposed this as I think the comments uninformative and bloating the section, while he readded them time and again. But the real problem with him is that he does not assume good faith when I state my reasons for removing them, instead accuses me of trying to "censor" or "whitewash", and is extremely uncivil in trying to use my religious persuasion, which I did indicate on my user page to ban me from editing in this issue. He has made similar remarks towards User:Musical Linguist, when she commented on the issue. Now, I want to be clear that I am not aiming at Jim being blocked or anything like this. I am sure he is a valuable contributor. However, could some admin please admonish him to desist from his uncivil and unwikipedian behaviour. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Please take it to dispute resolution. Jim is acting in his capacity as editor, not admin here. Please note that revert-warring is not endorsed as a way of resolving content disputes. While the relevance of individual criticisms may be debatable, there is no doubt that at this moment the controversy in question is headline news around the world and we need to give a flavour of that. The content in question is cited and stated accurately, so it's a judgment call, and that is not something we can fix by admin intervention, I'm afraid. Guy 14:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My query is not about a content dispute, but about Jim's behaviour of trying to exclude editors from certain topics based on their respective religions, and of constant insulting and bad faith comments. I have not asked you for your opinion in the content dispute, as you have voiced that on that talk page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Still a content dispute. I know Jim, he is a fair-minded guy. Have you tried talking nicely ot him? I often find that works a treat. Guy 17:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT a content dispute. If you don't want to help, then don't. Jim might otherwise be a nice guy, but he has attacked and assumed bad faith at me since our first disagreement on this issue. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

How silly of me to suggest that a dispute over the inclusion of content is a content dispute. I'll know better next time, I guess. Guy 23:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute. This isn't the place for it. Work it out on the talk. Arbusto 00:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I will stop this here, since apperently no one here cares about AGF and civility any more. How silly of me to think problematic behaviour is a behaviour problem. (And to repeat it one more time: I did not come here to get the content dispute solved, so please don't comment on it.) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't go overboard, please. It's a content dispute, there is no administrative intervention required. Honestly. There's no need to try and make a Federal case of it. Guy 14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't go overborad. And I am disappointed that no admin wants to tackle it. But most of all, I am astounded how someone can repeatedly declare something a content dispute when it is quite clearly not the content dispute that I have raised here. There was a content dispute, but what I raised here was Jim's behaviour. The way you talk, Guy, everything is a content dispute, as I hardly can think of a conflict not related to content in some way. For me the case is closed, so don't reply here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible sock?

Tyresias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Anyone want to weigh in on whether this user is a sock, and/or if a RFCU is indicated? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing a policy page as your first edit may indicate that you've been banned and are pursuing an agenda, or it may indicate that you've been editing as an anon, have gotten interested in policy articles, want to make a change and have realised, correctly, that you're not likely to be taken seriously editing a cornerstone policy page unless you create an account. If you're willing to name a sockpuppeteer, please go ahead and then we can compare the two accounts' contributions and request a Checkuser if necessary, but I don't see any proof of sockpuppetry based on this account's contributions alone. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding curt, I already knew that, as do most readers of this page. My hope was that if the user is a sock, someone would recognise the pattern and speak up. I have one sneaking suspician but would prefer others take a look and see if they see a similarity with any of the NOR edit warriors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind - someone else noticed, and he is indeed who I suspected and is now blocked. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And I agree as well. Seems this one is haviong a bit of trouble leaving, despite his repeated assertions to the contrary. Guy 17:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can get JA and JG together - the one knows Truth because he wrote the book (novel) on it, and the other knows Truth because he got it directly from God - and they're both banned sockpuppeting trolls. They have so much in common! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in article: Lebanon

The entire contents of the article Lebanon have been deleted and replaced with the content of the article Canada. The IP address responsible is 139.142.154.129. Please revert the page move/deletion and block vandal. LestatdeLioncourt 16:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for mediation has ground to a halt

Requests for mediation seems to have ground to a halt. There are 30 cases listed pending decisions to accept or reject, about 10 accepted cases that have not been assigned, and no substantive edits to the page in almost 2 months. Essjay, current chair of Medcom, hasn't edited anything in a month. I don't personally have anything pending but I noticed this through comments on Essjay's talk page, which I have watchlisted. Are there some former mediators who can take over temporarily and get things moving along again? It seems like a big part of the dispute resolution process is not functioning at the moment. Thatcher131 17:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not part of Medcom, but I've watched how they worked in the past, and I'm kind of wandering aimlessly looking for a Wikipurpose at the moment. If X number of admins are willing to sign off on it, I'd be happy to step in on an interim basis to do the clerical work and try to stir up the active Medcom members to elect someone else. --Aaron 01:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Medcom is kind of a closed club, with a closed mailing list and special procedures for accepting new members. I'm kind of hoping one of the mediators emeriti listed on the page will jump in as acting chair and get things going. If on the other hand there is no action in a few days and you fell like being bold, the worst thing that can happen is you'll stir someone else to action. Thatcher131 01:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if I might stir someone else to toss me into arbitration. Heh, could be interesting, couldn't it? I'll watch the page; if nothing at all happens after a few days, I'll come back and seek some sort of semiofficial sanction for my coup attempt. Hopefully they'll take care of it on their own, but it's already been an awfully long time for all those Medcom members to just sit on their hands, waiting for a sign from somewhere else. If nothing else, it's a sign that a couple of new rules should be enacted about the workflow, IMHO. --Aaron 02:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Essjay gone? He has not edited anything in a month.... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Essjay has not edited meta since August 7th, I think. Sugarpine t/c 03:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

He mentioned some real life issues, including the start of the school year and having more responsibilities. My gut tells me its more than that, though. Thatcher131 04:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:MW, he's currently overseeing the Board election. Scobell302 21:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've pointed a few current mediators here to see the discussion. Steve block Talk 19:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, I'd like to thank you for covering for ^demon in the Lost episodes mediation. I know its technically against procedure for someone who is neither a member nor a nominee of the MedCom to take MedCom cases, but considering the circumstances, I'm glad you did.

As for who should accept/reject cases, it was my understanding that MedCom came to some sort of consensus (presumably by mailing list), and some member of the committee (which for some reason always happens to be Essjay) accepted/rejected the case on behalf of the committee as a whole. But, not having been on the committee for very long, I've never actually been part of this process, so maybe I have it all wrong.

There are six cases listed as "unassigned" on the open tasks, and of those, three have received offers from a mediator (two from Drini, one from me), but are still pending agreement of the parties to that mediator. If there are accepted cases missing from that list, maybe you could add them? Or I could try looking around.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello as well. To start, I do apologize for the current backlog in mediation cases. As mentioned above, Essjay, who is our chair and does invaluable work, has currently been busy and inactive for a while now; I, too, have also been too busy to do much until recently. This has led to a large number of cases piled up - we've been postponing the (now) inevitable task of finding someone in the committee to temporarily do his duties. I will personally address these issues on our mailing list — it is our goal to serve the community, and we need to get the ball rolling again. Again, apologies for our lack of activity. In addition, I encourage any trusted users who wish to help to join us: we always are looking for new mediators to help us! Finally, a word of great thanks to the Mediation Cabal and other groups for doing their best in helping resolve disputes. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

IP request

First, sorry if this is in the wrong place. I really can't figure out where it should go.

I was wondering if I could request the user IP 150.101.113.199 be unblocked for people who sign in.

This is a school computer, so I can't really control what people use it to edit (especially since it's a k to 12 school), but it's dissapointing that I can't edit some articles.

Anyway, that's all. Thank you.

Reblocked 1 month with anonymous only and account creation enabled. Naconkantari 03:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We should probably block account creation from this address as well, but allow pre-registered accounts, otherwise there isn't much point in blocking the IP; it just makes our job more difficult to track abuse. In my opinion, the system administator should be contacted before blocks are released on educational networks which are proven as constant sources of vandlaism. Yamaguchi先生 10:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Zer0faults is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults#Log of blocks and bans. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 02:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone watching WP:PAIN tonight?

There is a clear npa violation, with requisite diffs, warnings, etc. at WP:PAIN right now (Éponyme) that has been open for nearly four hours now without any administrator attention thus far. Anyone want to take a look at it? · j e r s y k o talk · 03:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah--totally one-sided. Make them choose sides, especially the easiest side being that which has many numbers of apathetic lynchmobbers. Nobody has empathic Devil's Advocacy! Éponyme 03:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It was taken care of. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:John Spikowski

Myself a other editors of the Panorama Tools (software), Panotools, and PanoTools articles are having quite a bit of trouble with user John Spikowski. If you go through the history of those pages, the user pages, the user talk pages, and other related pages, you will find repetitive acts of vandalism in the form of spam, attention-seeking, user-page vandalism, talk-page vandalism, changing people's comments, and the list just goes on and on. It's not hard to spot once you check out some of the pages. This user has also made personal attacks to User talk:Wuz. It's pretty out of control and I ask the admins for advice on the subject. Never asked for anyone to be blocked before, but I think this case is extreme enough to ask for this request. We could really use some help right now. Thoughts? Roguegeek 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick note. I feel like myself and other contributing editors have made an effort in trying to understand the reasons for John Spikowski editing and have attempted to communicate intention rationally. The user simply resorts to defamation of others are removing comments all together. Please advise. Roguegeek 06:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN

Anyone for the idea that it should be redirected here? I seem to be one of just a couple of admins that even look at it. I removed alerts tonight that hadn't been acted on in over a *week*. What's the point? --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I worked their a bit, but the request are often not well formatted and require heavy research and context, so I tend to think "meh...let someone else do it".Voice-of-All 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I confess I also rarely visit that page. I have it it watchlisted, but many of the complaints are not only badly formatted, they are... well, not actually personal attacks being listed. Others are one foul-mouthed troll posting an alert about another foul mouthed troll, and frankly, I get enough trolling and accusations of heavy-handedness already. *sigh* I'll try to help out there more. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In the same category as KC. JoshuaZ 00:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

New idea

I've written up an idea that's been floating around in my head for a few days and finally gelled this morning: Administrative nullification. Comments and flames welcomed. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Me likes. -- Drini 14:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

For a length of time to be determined, an administrator will be asked to stop using the tools. Who will be doing the asking? Unless the admin in question has done something particularly egregious, which should go through the arbcom anyway, I can see having contentious arguments between groups of admins and users as to whether or not what was done even warrants nullification (for example, policy wonks vs IAR wonks). Overall, though, I think it's a good idea. --Kbdank71 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read through User:Dmcdevit/Proposal for desysopping, which has some similar ideas. jaco♫plane 16:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we're making proposals, I have had one, too. I'm not sure that it's a thing for the general site to argue over as much as it is a proposal for a reconsideration of how ArbCom thinks about what it does. It's here[48] for those who care. Geogre 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The general idea of "easy way for desysopping (voluntarily or otherwise) for some time" seems to be common to these proposals. I think it's a good idea, as any proposal to desysop indefinitely is likely to fail. (Liberatore, 2006). 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My own goal is to have an expiring demotion, as Guy put it. When people demoted have to go through an RFA again, it beomes a truly onerous process. That's why I'm suggesting that, as we have blocks that go 24 hr, 48 hr, etc., we have demotions that time out, though not for such brief periods. What I'm really advocating is a change of mindset from ArbCom. It would demystify ArbCom a bit and make the stick held over administrators potentially shorter (and therefore easier to swing), but it's all possible already. Geogre 17:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to the idea. The more power that devolves from the center, the better. Mackensen (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

These ideas all have the same fatal flaw. You will not get any consensus to desysop an admin (temporary or otherwise) unless the case is so clearcut that arbcom would deal with it anyway. Take, for insstance, Tony_Sidaway who has obviously annoyed a lot of people right now, but I still think you'd get no consensus to take any specific action. I, for one, would oppose it. In short any of these systems will generate a lot of heated debate, but they'll never do anything that AC wouldn't have done anyway. --Doc 18:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The two proposals seem similar in general theory - Mackensen's suggests a voluntary break from admin tasks while Geogre's has it enforced by temporary removal of powers. I'd suggest leaving the details (such as duration of 'hiatus') to the ArbCom to determine on a case by case basis, but otherwise see no problem with either... or both. ArbCom currently tells users 'stay away from articles on this subject' and then only blocks if the user does not... they could similarly tell an admin 'stay away from deletions of this type' or 'check with other admins before doing anything that is foreseeably likely to be very controversial' (applying Mackensen's concept to only a particular type of admin activity) and only enacting Geogre's 'enforced vacation' if they violated the injunction. Heck, I'd like to see this concept applied as general practice without any sort of punitive element to it. We all have our particular areas that we feel strongly about and valid reasons to be involved in, but when things get heated walking far enough away to get fresh perspective is a good thing. More... 'go do something else while tempers cool' than 'you are wrong and we are gonna block you'. 'Andy Mabbet, stop working on Birmingham articles for now', 'SPUI, go work on something other than roads for a while', 'Cyde, you need to walk away from userboxes for now', 'CBD, you should leave off defending blocked users for a while', et cetera. I'd much rather see, 'ok you all stay away from this subject for a week', as a standard response to edit wars and incivility than warnings or blocks. (after conflict) I wonder if this latter would address Doc's concern - would people really object if it were a way of saying 'there is a problem on this issue and everyone involved needs to walk away from it for a while' rather than parcelling out 'blame' and 'punishment'. --CBD 18:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll echo Doc's concerns, and explain. I don't think this will work precisely because in the kinds of situations like this, sides are drawn. And sides think they're right, and cannot fathom why no one else can see it. Those with the Admin bit, using the admin bit feel they're protecting the project in these situations and telling someone like that to back off rarely works. I doubt you'd get two sides to agree at once, and I doubt you'd get anyone to be recognized as a mediating influence (i.e., completly non-partisan) outside of ArbCom. And sadly, the current kerfluffle above around Tony seems to have drug the ArbCom into it, so I'm not sure how that one will shake out. I'm sorry, this looks to me like a bit of instruction creep which isn't likely to really solve any problems, even though it's very well intentioned. --InkSplotch 18:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Conrad has the thread of what I'm getting at here. Administrators need to take breaks from administrating now and then. If anyone's looked at my contributions, they'll note that my first reaction after my...unpleasantness...on the noticeboard a few days back was to go and start a new article (still a stub, but I'm going to take some pictures this week). Re InkSplotch, I want to avoid instruction creep as much as possible. Formal processes, enshrined policies, page listings...let's avoid all that. What we need is a way to tell an administrator that he or she needs to go something else, and for that administrator to listen. Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that a "way to tell an administrator to go [do] something else" is a fine thing, but how do you make them listen without resorting to the use of admin tools? Or, rather, how do you make them listen without resorting to admin tools and without inflaming the situation? It's a tactical challenge beyond me, but if you succeed, I'll be fully behind you. Can I ask, is this in direct response to the Tony/Giano situation above, or just sort of tangential? --InkSplotch 20:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd been thinking about a workable desysoping idea (if only temporary) for a while. It's not a direct response, but it certainly influenced my thoughts. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the importance of taking breaks. One good way of taking a break from the Wikipedia admin grind, and other users that you might be in conflict with is poking around some of the other projects. Perhaps we could encourage people to do that (not "get the hell off en wp" but "hey, have you seen this Wikibook on <<insert user's favourite topic>>") the wub "?!" 21:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we call it 'going on wiki-walkabout'? :] --CBD 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more like "Wiki-rambling" or some such. Random article patrol is an oddly soothing exercise sometimes. Amazing what you find sometimes. Mackensen (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Issue surrounding Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

This article, which was created a week ago and had a fact in DYK a couple days ago is being claimed to be completely baseless. I'm mentioning it here and not in an AfD because it looks like it might be somewhat of a public relations issue. This article [49] on a site which is set up like a newspaper (although whether there's a hard-copy version I do not know), appears to be claiming that an official in the Pakistani government has announced that the page is a hoax. There is, however, no question that there is some kind of local control of Waziristan, and that an agreement was made, but whether it's enough to be called a de facto state is another issue. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (second nomination) Remain Fully Protected?

Approximately ten days ago, I made a request for the unprotection of this page at WP:RFPP so that I could remove comments made by an indefinitely banned vandal while he was banned, per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits-- see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Dr_Chatterjee. So far, the request has been neither granted nor denied. Since retaining comments made by an indefinitely banned vandal while he was banned seems to encourage other such users to violate their bans, how would one go about getting this page unprotected? John254 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the disruption from the banned user has already occurred and removing the comments that are integral to an existing archive would cause more disruption than their remaining and would gut the archive. The person already got his laughs; selectively removing the comments isn't going nullify the effect of him violating his ban. —Centrx→talk • 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course the comments by the banned vandal have already had some effect, but preserving the trolling contained in these comments indefinitely would seem to magnify their impact -- the comments were offered in a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia by weakening its defenses against vandalism [50]. Avoidance of future disruption that might flow from these comments seems far more important than preserving the coherence of an archived MFD discussion initiated by a banned user. It might actually be advisable to delete all revisions of the discussion that contain the comments, to prevent them from being reinstated later. In any case, as Centrx protected this page himself, I wanted a "second opinion" on this matter. John254 02:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you could please point to the edits you want removed, that would help someone to give a second opinion. Note also that there's no need to unprotect, you can ask for an {{editprotected}} and if it's necessary an admin can edit the page accordingly. --bainer (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the comments by the banned user in this edit. John254 05:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Babychum

Given this edit, there is reason to believe that User:Babychum is a user that is evading a block or ban by creating another account. Is there a way to use Checkuser to determine if this is true? I have no idea what the blocked or banned account might be. --Richard 04:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)