Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Captain Thomas Graves

In the article on Captain Thomas Graves

someone added irrelevant material that should probably be in its own seperate article.

Quote:

"William Solomon Graves was a full-blooded Cherokee whose parents died on the Trail of Tears. His name appears in the Guion-Miller roles along with other Cherokees with the surname Graves. The Graves family was kind enough to adopt the young boy into their family. The full family chronology of this branch of the family has been ignored by the Graves Family Organization who prefer not to embrace this part of the family's pureblood heritage." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natwebb (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

NLP article specific examples of promotional obscuring of facts and relevant views

Hello again everyone. Further to admin Guy’s helpful pointers I understand that some may be scrutinizing the NLP article already. Here is more easy to access information for admin who find themselves far to busy to scrutinize the confounding amount of edits that are occurring on that page every day (on average about 30-40 a day and recently as much as 70 odd). I’m posting this up here because it seems to me that core facts and highly relevant views are still being systematically obscured. Here are a few examples:

• I added straight and representative quotes (with the help of user BenAveling) [1]) and user Comaze seems to have minimized it. [2].

• I added this set of straight sourced definitions to the introduction in order to give the reader some idea of what NLP practicers do (eg assessing eye movements and postures…) – Comaze removed them from the intro to criticisms section adding something more promotional to the intro (what NLP authors say NLP can do for you) [3].

• User 58.178.195.26 limiting controversy to therapy only (not representative of the article at all) [4]

• User 58.178.195.26 obscuring the basic facts again (moving them out of opening) calling them “peacocking”. [5] and again (note) erroneous and unsupportable label- skepticism based psychologists [6]. No idea who added that last point and its too much work to search the edits.

• Some more by other unaccountable editor [7]

• Use of argumentative writing (claims and other commentary) [8]

• Selective editing (the negative end of the paragraph is omitted) [9]

• User 58.178.195.26 denying that there is a problem and actually encouraging the behavior [10]

I think all that’s required is to find a way to ensure the basic facts are presented without any sort of minimizing – overloading with unsourced commentary – moving out of context – de-emphasizing - or negating science with hyperbole – testimonial - and non-sequitur. Apart from the recent helpful scrutiny of Guy, I get the feeling I’m pretty much working on my own on the NLP article and the relevant facts are just not getting presented properly with due weight. Promotional obscuring of facts seems to me to be an overwhelming problem and part of it seems to be achieved by persistently overloading the article with edits. I know I have more to learn here - so if any admin thinks my assessment needs qualifying in any way – please contact me here or on my talkpage. Thanks. AlanBarnet 06:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. User AlanBarnet obviously hasn't read the instructions on this page. Indeed AlanBarnet seems to have trouble following any of the Wikipedia guidelines towards collaboration. 58.179.175.12 14:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No 58.179.175.12 this is not about content. This seems to me to be evidence of a group of editors who are obscuring relevant views by overloading the article with edits. There are multiple dubious edits that are hard to identify because of the overload. There also seems to me to be a lot of editors making edits based upon their own opinion (eg they think Tony Robbins does not do NLP despite the stated views of researchers). There also seem to me to be a lot of very similar edits going on and people praising each other for insignificant changes that obscure dubious ones. I am presenting this for the benefit of admin and for the benefit of the article. AlanBarnet 12:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please lighten up and use the proper channels, there's no conspiracy. You seem to be under the impression that admins have content resolution authority. This is not the case. Like it or not, the condoned procedure is to put your personal irritations aside and work with the other editors to form a consensus. 58.179.135.173 22:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm as light as a Christmas fairy. Nevertheless - you are trying to deter me from notifying admin of a problem. I requested admin to reply here or on my talkpage if my assessment needed qualifying and they did not - so I assume that my assessment is at least fairly accurate. Already an admin has raised concern over editors with proven conflict of interests working on the NLP article. I've shown evidence of one of those editors persistently removing valid edits and refusing due weight on the fundamental facts. You (an anonymous editor) seem to be actively encouraging that activity and discouraging the notification of that activity. The presence of so many anonymous editors conducting such activities on the NLP article raises the question -exactly how many editors there could have a conflict of interest? Those anon editors are certainly not telling editors with known conflicts of interests that Wikipedia strongly discourages such activities. I can only assume my notification here is helpful to admin. AlanBarnet 04:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

AB has posted in discussion that I am in violation of WP:COI. I don't think WP:COI applies to me in full because I no financial interest in this topic. I am willing to confirm this by disclosing details to a third party. Althought I have training in this topic which I have disclosed. I will seek to hold myself to a higher level of responsibility when it comes to wikipedia policy. I have already started by working other editors to check facts and remove any sythesis or conclusion not attributed to a verifiable source. This is a difficult topic because there are many competing and disagreements between authors that need to be described. There are also different criteria for evidence in the different disciplines where NLP has been applied. --Comaze 07:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

More evidence: I think its fairly probable with just a few clicks on Google that the above editor (User Comaze) is either or a close associate, who is in Australia. Even after reminders from admin that there is a proven conflict of interest – user Comaze continues to persistently obscure facts. Now Comaze even denies the conflict of interest despite all the evidence and views to the contrary. User Comaze keeps removing (even today) perfectly clear - reasonable and supported edits and replacing them, minimizing them, or obscuring them with promotional gloss. It seems to me that to sensibly reduce the chance of promotional obscuring of facts it would be advisable to actively stop Comaze from editing articles related to NLP and stop all non-accounted editors from supporting Comaze's promotional obscuring of facts. If Comaze has any desire to help edit Wikipedia it can be done on articles that have nothing to do with NLP. There are plenty of them after all. AlanBarnet 11:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never posted my personal details on wikipedia and wish to keep it that way. I do not wish to disclose my personal details on wikipedia except to a third party administrator. Furthermore I have already responded to this editor on his talk page and the discussion page. I have agreed to write in a more descriptive tone and be very careful with checking facts. I have been working with a number of unrelated editors to restore the article after it was discovered that the banned editors wer every creative with the facts and references. [Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#Summary_of_editor_blocks_for_breach_of_Arbcom.2C_sockpuppet_and_meatpuppet_use]. --Comaze 12:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Not posting details - just pointing out Comaze's reluctance to allow a notification of his already known conflict of interest. If anyone thinks I am being unhelpful or erroneous in doing so - please reply here or on my talkpage. Thanks. AlanBarnet 05:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RPA - Please stop posting my personal details on wikipedia. I said I'd disclose my details to a third party if necessary. --Comaze 05:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. Your details are freely available on your own userpage and I stopped posting your name after you admitted those details were yours. AlanBarnet 05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

More information: Comaze firstly removed all evidence of <refactored user's personal website> from userpage - and states that he is leaving Wikipedia[11]. Then states that he is on holiday due to wikistress (from not being able to edit NLP related articles?) [12]. Then makes a comeback stating "back with a passion" on editsummary[13]. Then presents selective editing on the article (the end of the paragraph reads (Word of mouth, reputation, charisma and neatly packaged seminars seem to constitute proof of NLP's favorable outcome. If such incredible results had truly been achieved, why haven't they been documented and presented to the scientific community and the general). Yesterday Comaze made edits on the main NLP article despite a known COI, even after reminders to stop by admin Guy [14] and multiple reminders on the NLP talkpage by myself. AlanBarnet 05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that both users Comaze [15] and 58.178.234.128 [16] are removing key information from this noticeboard. Comaze's information about his company is freely available on his own article [17]. Comaze has a known COI and there seem to me to be far too many unaccounted editors on the NLP article who support Comaze's promotional obscuring of facts. AlanBarnet 06:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano's rampant incivility

Okay people, this talk is escalating into argument for argument's sake. Please, let's take a step back and realize something: Wikipedia is not a battleground - we are not here to make war with each other, we are here to work together to the betterment of the Encyclopedia. This "IRC vrs non-IRC" argument is divisive and unfair. People will communicate however they want, and that cannot, nor should be stopped. We should be working together, and communicating, after all. Everyone that edits on Wikipedia, from the newest editor all the way back to Jimmy Wales, are valued and respected editors, and we should be helping them to contribute to the Encyclopedia and helping keep the environment positive. All of us together can improve this encyclopedia, and arguing over communication media isn't going to help that.

As Piotr and Ghirla are in Arbitration, and Jimbo has endorsed and overturned the block of Giano, I don't think this conversation, saving the last section, serve any further purpose. I respect all of you greatly, so I beseech you, please, let us work together to better the encyclopedia instead of taking time here in such a divisive argument. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

---

When did posts like this become acceptable? It seems to take years of established history of WP:CIVIL and throw it out the window. I'll reproduce it here, so you can see what I'm talking about:

Kindly refrain from littering my talk page [18] with your infantile and hostile warnings in the future, or you will find yourself de-sysoped and banned. Irpen and Bishon were quite correct to revert your antics and your revert warring with them did you little credit. Giano 13:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This all stems from a simple boilerplate civility warning I left him (which is apparently "infantile and hostile") after he was getting too out of control on Mackensen's talk page. Now he turns his glare on me. Threatening to have me desysopped and banned? C'mon. And yeah, the usuals (Bishonen, Geogre, Ghirlandajo, and Irpen) are going to step in now and defend Giano ... but they defend him no matter what he does because they're all in this little back-scratching clique together. I'm posting this here to solicit some response from other administrators: is this kind of behavior really acceptable? Do you want to work in an environment where users routinely have blow-ups like this and are only encouraged by admin inaction? --Cyde Weys 14:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Unlike some people, I am going to spell out exactly what it is in your above post that is a personal attack. "he usuals (Bishonen, Geogre, Ghirlandajo, and Irpen) are going to step in now and defend Giano ... but they defend him no matter what he does because they're all in this little back-scratching clique together." is a personal attack. Consider this a warning. If you persist in this type of mischaracterization and denigration, you may be blocked. HTH HAND. Geogre 18:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no incivility in Giano's posting, just a mild warning. "This little back-scratching clique together", however, is blatantly incivil and I demand apologies. Such comments may indeed lead to desysopping. If your posting is expected to trigger an uproar from all sorts of IRC fairies who habitually indulge in incivilty on IRC and then pontificate about civility during their occasional appearances on-wiki, I suppose it would be nice to see them here. Foundation employees have no wild card for incivility, for what I know. The community is aware that your dispute with Giano goes back to the time when your energetically defended Kelly Martin's postings demanding "an enema and a major fight that flushes 20-30% of the en-wiki community". This page is not part of dispute resolution procedures, so I advise you both to move your dispute to Requests for comment. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I rather feel Cyde may have a gone a step too far this time "they defend him no matter what he does because they're all in this little back-scratching clique together." I think that is rather a serious charge to make. Perhaps Cyde would like to withdraw it and apologise while it can still be contained to this page alone. It is Christmas and I am in a forgiving mood. Giano 14:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If I ever make a manual in civility or diplomacy, the first rule on that list will be: Never, ever, ever tell another person to be civil, and never, ever, ever, accuse another person of being incivil. We can work backwards from there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, from other administrators? I'm page banned from your posts on ANI, perhaps? That's all right, Cyde. The way you speak of me, you must be a civility expert, so I'll just listen. Bishonen | talk 14:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

The problem is that incivility does happen, and incivility is harmful to the community especially when it results in ever-increasing tension between two groups. It would be nice if there was a way to address incivility before it gets to the point that arbcom gets involved, and before it gets to the point where people leave. --Interiot 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the persons here (not least because I'm guessing I've already been pre-emptively dismissed as an 'IRC fairy', which Ghirlanajo won't consider to be uncivil). But, please, if we are going to have a conversation about civility, can we perhaps compete to outdo one another in civility, rather than the reverse? We all know where this is heading unless we cool it.--Doc^g 14:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This time I concur with Doc. There is no need in pressing the issue, although the real grounds for Irpen's irrational block above should be eventually investigated, to prevent further outbursts in the future. We need to put an end to gaming WP:NPA and WP:CIV policies for pursuing one's personal vendettas. Everyone may read incivility in the postings of his opponent, however courteous they may be. We should understand that endless appellations to WP:CIV is a bad ground for solving long-standing differences. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to de-escalate the situation. Thank you. Luna Santin 14:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"...or you will find yourself de-sysoped and banned" is hardly a "mild warning," and "they're all in this little back-scratching clique together," is hardly going to calm anything down. This continued squabble is disrupting the community, and has been for too long -- everybody, please take a step back and breathe. -- Luna Santin 14:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Both sides telling the other to stop being incivil? This appears to be a case of WP:KETTLE. >Radiant< 14:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed... I'm not an admin and I'm not familiar with the history of this dispute, but neither side is helping themselves much here. It's sort of hard to argue that the other guy is wrong when you are engaging in behavior that is no better. You both need to chill.--Isotope23 14:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the above, If he would just stay off my page I would gladly ignore him; unfortunately though this time he has allowed his obsessive hatred of me to overflow and has now insulted others. Is this the behaviour of an admin? Giano 14:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Just walk away. All of you.Geni 14:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Particularly in the light of Cyde's edit summaries on User talk:Giano II about letting Giano defend himself, I'm not clear why Cyde got involved in the first place, he was not a direct party to the discussions at User talk:Mackensen and given what I've seen of their history his intervention was hardly like to calm matters. David Underdown 14:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I find Cyde's reverting of the removal of the talk page warning particularly ironic when he asked whoever posted it to leave it and let Giano deal with it himself. By that logic, shouldn't he have left Giano to undo the removal of the warning, and limited himself (Cyde) to posting a new message pointing out to Giano that the warning had been removed? Carcharoth 22:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think this needs some type of dispute resolution such as RFC or MedCab. This is not going anywhere if this is going on and on. Both sides should stop fighting and this is getting the community tired of all this. Just cool down guys, we can settle this. Nothing both of you say makes any difference, just be civil to each other and don't tell each other to be civil or vice versa, like what Sjakkalle said. Both sides are telling each other not to be incivil, this doesn't sound too right. I suggest both parties stay away from each other for a while to cool down. Edit conflict again... Terence Ong 14:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised to find out that the discussions on my talk page have prompted this affair; if there's any mediation to be had, it's between Lar and Giano. I've never seen a civility warning have it's desired effect--no one likes being told their being uncivil. At the same time, I don't see the need for allegations of de-sysoping. The Arbitration Committee has set ample precedent that you have to abuse your admin tools for that. Finally, I agree with Cyde on one point: Giano is more than capable of taking care of his own talk page; we all are. If I think someone's cluttering my talk page I can do it myself without anyone else's help. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be discussed at WP:PAIN? On another note, we seem to need a policy on civility notes. Who can issue them, and who can rever them. It seems that recently there is a trend to remove such notes (ex. [19], [20], etc.), which in turns causes other users to complain that they were removed... I'd suggest that only certified editors of WP:PAIN, who should be elected like admins, should have the right to issue such notes, and that in those cases the notes issued by them should not be removable by non-PAIN certified users. This will put an end to the problem.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is who may be considered a "certified editor of WP:PAIN". Who is supposed to "certify" these guys? The problematic warning you cite was added by a non-admin who is active on WP:PAIN. When I attempted to discuss the issue with him, he simply removed my messages from his talk page on several occasions. Do you consider yourself a "certified editor of WP:PAIN"? I see you have been commenting on each message posted there during the last day or two. Do you want to run the board and "issue" warnings to your opponents? If so, I would rather oppose your proposal. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is so broken that we need to introduce a new class of user. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Whew, is there something bigger going on here or is this really just a tempest in a teapot? From my experience at WP:RFI and WP:PAIN I suggest petitioning a neutral third party to review contested user warnings that arise from a dispute. This isn't policy or even guideline, rather practical experience: deletion of a user warning by an involved party often fuels more quarreling. If parties in this dispute accept me as suitably neutral (I've collaborated with Ghirla a few times and handed him a barnstar) I'll volunteer to be the template referee here. And please stay away from hot button words such as infantile - no good comes of them. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No No No Not another bunch of wiki legislation to enforce civility. You can't do it. Civility needs to be caught and taught not enforced like that. Speak nicely to people and perhaps it might catch on, ignore people when it doesn't. Personal attack blocks should only be used in open and shut cases....and even then (as I found out) it seldom works. Has anyone known any of these processes do anything bar escalate the problem? I've put the template in question up for deletion [21] --Doc^g 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• No to turning this section colors and saying it's over and settled. Cyde has announced that "it's time to stop" another user whose primary crime is making Cyde unhappy, apparently, or saying things Cyde seems to dislike. There is no divine right of admins. If there is, then my divinity is as great as his. Geogre 18:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No one is trying to do so; it appears to be the result of a formatting mistake about halfway up the page. Mackensen (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, Mackensen, for that clarification. To the issue at hand: What I see, so far, is personal. Cyde is taking things very personally and becoming personally involved in trying to "stop" persons, etc. This is counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. The fact that, above, he would even try to reach back to the Giano RFAR to mischaracterize Fred Bauder's rejected finding on the meaning of a policy is simply more evidence that Cyde is extremely angry rather than anything else. He had not been involved in interactions with Giano II on Mackensen's talk page, had not been involved in any interactions with me, and yet his vote on my ArbCom run, his desire to "stop" "people like" Giano, etc. is showing a very deleterious mindset at present. I hope that I am wrong (I often am), but I honestly cannot see any justification whatever for Cyde's words. I would love to "assume" good faith, but my imagination is not sufficient for finding a way to do that when someone comes along and announces a campaign to "stop" another user. It's rather like those people who want to "stop filth on television": they should not watch the show. Similarly, Cyde can not scanning everyone's talk page for "evidence." A good administrator waits for a complaint. He doesn't go looking to create one. Geogre 19:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

At some point there needs to be a conversation about persistent incivility and its effect on the environment we work in. It is not clear to me why we tolerate so much of something we don't really want. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In other contexts, other issues, with other disputants, I've objected to "double standards" where one or more parties held others to stricter standards than themselves, and I've argued for keeping a single standard. Now I begin to think that may not be sufficient to the needs. Better still would be to hold oneself to the stricter standard, and extend leeway (and some forgiveness) to others. That way the waves of mutual recrimination would be dampened out at the start, rather than growing, heterodyning in a feedback loop, as seems to be happening at present. Just a thought. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 19:49, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).

• I can't understand a word the person above is saying, but he probably agrees with me. I have been reading and re-reading various posts of Cyde's mostly admittedly those concerning me, and have come to the conclusion we are dealing with someone fairly young here, at most a late teens. We all get out of our depth at that age, so lets all say Happy Christmas and forget it. Perhaps though at some stage during 2007 we need to have a big think about junior editors and ages and responsibilities. IRC seems always to be a problem eternally with us, I know James Forrester has decreed IRC conversations off limits but that was in the days when wikipedia was much smaller - and he was more powerful. I think the time has now come to re-think that policy too so 2007 promises to be an interesting period in Wikipedia's history. Wikipedia is going places in internet history, it must not become a victim of it's own history. So lets wish each other a happy Christmas and productive new year. Giano 19:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"I can't understand a word the person above is saying, but he probably agrees with me." That is probably the funniest thing I've read all day... thanks for making me laugh (and I mean that with all sincerity!) --Isotope23 20:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, from your username and the physics metaphors you were using, I can understand Giano (who I think writes on Italian architecture, among other things) not understanding what you were on about. Maybe wikilink your metaphors next time? heterodyne and feedback loop were probably the most obscure terms. Carcharoth 22:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, Carcharoth, though Isotope23 is not the person who used those metaphors. I'm sorry for assuming a more general familiarity with those concepts than actually exists. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:15, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Oh, and regarding Giano's speculation's about Cyde's age, it doesn't really matter what age he is. Judge him by his words, not his age. FWIW, I have seen pictures from various Wikimanias and similar meet-ups that identify someone they claim is Cyde, but again, that is neither here nor there. When we edit and interact on Wikipedia, we are just words. So look at the words, not the person. Carcharoth 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's sort of pointless to bring it up now, but I was asked (via the much-maligned IRC, no less) to note that I think the community should strongly prefer using tailored warnings to communicate with experienced users, rather than templates, since templates are definitely written with new users in mind. Given the heated conversation above, I don't know if it would have changed anything, but anything that can be done to keep a conversation cool is good. --Interiot 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

convenient break

We hear a lot of talk about 'at some point' or 'they can't get away with this'. But I've begun to ask myself: what is the end game here? What solution are we realistically wanting? Cyde banned? Giano blocked? Perhaps others too? The problem is that loose cannons go off, and the various groupings raise the defcon in defence or attack. Where does this end? Actually, when all cools down, I find I actually agree with folk like Geogre on far more issues than I disagree. And some civil conversations with others (yes, in IRC!) convinces me it doesn't have to be this way. I don't want to be sanctimonious, but perhaps all of us could work on cooling it. Are certain people uncivil at times. Yes, and we all know who they are? Are certain people sometimes hostile to the point of trolling? Yes, and we all know who they are. Can these people be otherwise? Yes, I think so. We all know it would be better if it were. Please let's all use whatever influence we have (particularly on those we think might listen to us - and not on those who are likely to react negatively to us) to cool things. It really doesn't take Time magazine's 'man of the year' to work it out--Doc^g 19:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, we need a level open playing fields for all. No IRC, we are either all there - or all out, editors, admins, crats and the rest. Let the Arbcom have their mailings (confined to reigning members) in camera everything else open to scrutiny. I'm sick of reading "I discussed this on IRC" IRC counts for nothing here, and when all realise that, then we can progress, until then we are in for permanent fighting. Giano 20:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• And you'd agree not to use e-mail either? Actually my point is that the most productive civilised conversations I've had today have been on IRC, and have been with folk I've previously fought with on-wiki. So, I'd actually draw the opposite conclusion. But that's a side issue. Frankly, human nature is human nature: the medium be damned. We either want to fight, squabble, factionalize and and point score, or we want to move on and co-operate. I'm rather hoping we can go for the second option. Hoot if you're with me.--Doc^g 20:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree 110%, especially on your main point. (and on the side point, I agree that IRC has been the one place where I've had very pleasant and civil conversations with those I probably wouldn't have had otherwise). --Interiot 20:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm glad you are all having such a good time there, and good luck to you, but why do so many Wikipedia admin decisions on blocking etc have to be made there? Please do not insult our intelligence by saying they are not. Giano 20:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sure bad blocking decisions have been made via phone or email as well. As Doc said, address the person, not the medium. --Interiot 20:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• You have to be joking! I've been there and have the T-shirt to prove it. They conspire together and come out with WP attack, WP civility and WP anything else the next one can think of. I'd rather fight a nest of vipers than take on the IRC gang, but I frequently do. No lets have the source "eliminate the nest and kill the pest". Giano 20:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Doc, I agree with you, and I meant what I said above sincerely and at face value. I know folks assume that I'm always up to some rhetorical trick or something, but I'm not. People take things personally, and that's no way to operate. I don't know what "incivility" is in cases like these. Words? Words are just symbols. Intentions? None of us can judge those. Actions? Ok. Worse still, we have taunt and counter, badger and follow, charge and countercharge, and all that can occur then is that the people behind the names get angrier and angrier, and then someone says "booger," and the other person blocks, and then we're at ArbCom. Seriously: when you find yourself scanning other people's talk pages for evidence, you're probably trying to make a complaint rather than addressing one. Geogre 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and the IRC side issue: IRC is a great place to be pleasant, to banter inanely, and to burn some time. It's a fun place to blow off steam, too. How could it not be? That's the function of all chat. It's a horrible place to argue, in both senses of the word. I've never been against bantering with my fellow Wikipedians. I'm generally an amusing and mellow fellow (I got top 2 percentile in chatter and banter on the GRE), but IRC is a terrible place for formulating on-wiki actions unless it is followed by on-wiki deliberation and transparency. It's not that fine a distinction, either. Wikipedia actions have to be established and accountable on Wikipedia. People on IRC should have the sense to know that, whatever IRC says, they have to find their evidences and provide their rationales on the project. Geogre 20:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Why is IRC rather than the person to blame if someone decides the conversation is over and that there's nothing to discuss on-wiki? --Interiot 20:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The person is to blame, but our vagueness is more to blame. Having an ArbCom that lived on IRC didn't help, either, as we had tremendous reluctance to spell out coherently and clearly best practice. Additionally, the much touted "gang" and "herd" mentality at IRC is very much to blame, too. While Cyde maligned the "back scratching" of a few of the academic writers, if such a thing existed (and it doesn't), it wouldn't have a patch on the self-defense instinct of people on IRC who rush to defend their pastime and/or IRC "friends" (quotes around friend because of my views on the illusoriness of all this mess). So, if a person is found out acting plainly on the basis of non-accountable process, we will see some very shrill defenses. It is disappointing that so few people think independently and weigh the issues dispassionately. Geogre 12:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hoot Hoot Hoot to All. Paul August ☎ 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I beg your pardon? Are you going to share with us your views on IRC with us, or just make owl noises? Giano 21:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I see what you did there, Paul. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
        • I'm with you too Bish. Hoot Hoot. Paul August ☎ 22:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. to Giano: You don't have to beg you can have my pardon for free. As for IRC, I don't use it. I think it is best if Wiki related business is done on-Wiki, and hoot hoot to you too.
          • What is this? An example of a conversation held in a secret medium? —Centrx→talk • 23:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
            • See Doc's Hoot if you are with me above. Paul August ☎ 03:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh look everyone [22] another little IRC kid has turned up! Now lets see if I get banned for kicking him off my page. It does become very tiresome Giano 22:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, a RFAR concerning the behavior of Cyde, Ghirlandajo, and Giano is certaintly appearing to be a good possibility/remedy, as I can safely say that there has been a depressing lack of assuming good faith here, and this incivility on the part of all parties involved is simply disruptive. Thank you Ghirlandajo for trying to cool down the situation up above at your second post, but I think the fact that we are even here in the first place shows that there are some blatantly obvious problems between editors that needs to be addressed. How would a RFAR sound, then? Cowman109^Talk 22:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I for one would love to see a productive discussion about the policy and accountability implications of IRC's lack of transparency -- in particular the "on-wiki actions should be justified on-wiki" school of thought appeals to me quite a bit, as a rule of thumb if nothing else, and I try to stick to that. IRC is a medium, it's a tool, and like any tool, it can be used effectively to better the encyclopedia, or it can be abused. I think it is a damned shame that the discussion has become so heated -- all of this incessant name calling accomplishes nothing and only makes the problem worse; it encourages "factions," scares people away, and hurts any chance of reaching a consensus of any real sort. As I said, I'd love to see a productive discussion, but I can say for sure that when I see a phrase like "IRC fairy," my blood starts to boil, and the chance of a good talking-over is inherently diminished -- I'm not trying to defend anything, or single anybody out, here, and I'm sure that any number of other examples could be brought up, on all sides. I guess what I'm asking for is this: those of you who really care about Wikipedia, please try to put your petty squabbles behind you, and strive to reach a legitimate agreement. I implore you, all of you, act your age and let the anger go. We have more important things to accomplish, all of us. Luna Santin 23:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As a reminder to myself, I have just added the following to the top of my talk page:

"A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." Proverbs 15:1 King James Version

I recommend this sentiment to everyone. -- Donald Albury 23:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• An RFAR? <cough> For what, exactly? I've been aggrieved, too, but I don't see anything but bad interpretation of the blocking policy and Cyde being very, very angry. He's entitled. I am reminded of what Mark Twain said: "When angry, count to ten. When very angry, swear." The problem is, we're now getting to the point where no one can be very angry. I'm not suggesting "drunken sailor -pedia," but let's get over this false Polyannaism. We are on the Internet, after all, and the very people offended by someone seeming to be angry are jokingly referring to goatse. You can't be jaded and prim. I don't use the pottymouth words, myself, but I think we ought to wait for people to violate Wikipedia policies, get warned, get negotiated with, have some mediateion, and repeat their mistakes before we block folks. Geogre 03:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A less painful alternative?

Piotrus left me a friendly response to my proposal about playing template referee and invited me to the PAIN and RFC. Since this has escalated to a proposed ArbCom case I've proposed a less painful alternative: namely that I step into this hornet's nest and try to mediate. Durova^Charge! 23:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Chairboy's block

Chairboy has blocked Giano for 48 hours. Giano is saying on his talk page that this was all decided on IRC. I've asked Chairboy to unblock, particularly if he was involved in an IRC discussion. I'm requesting two things: first, and most important, that Cyde stay away from Giano from now on, and in particular that he stay away from any warnings or admin actions; and second, that people stop discussing admin action against Giano on IRC. It starts to look like harassment, and whether it's intended that way or not (and I'm sure it isn't by at least some of the parties), that's what it looks like to some bystanders and probably to Giano too. Admin actions like this, especially controversial ones, shouldn't be decided on IRC because it leads to nothing but trouble. That's surely a lesson that must have been learned by now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To be blunt, it looks to me that every time he get or the users that have associated with him get in trouble, they complain about secret IRC discussions they cannot prove happened until the decision is repealed. This is, at best, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. How long are we going to let them bully sysops out of their decisions? Who are the ones making the decisions here? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the IRC rules is that public logging is not allowed, but that shouldn't prevent people telling us what was said and who said it, so long as the actual log isn't posted. I hope someone will therefore elaborate, and say who was involved in the discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If they can actually back up these claims, then we can weigh them on their own merits. If they're just complaining "OMG IRC CABAL" it's silly - we are not in kindergarten anymore, there is a certain code of conduct expected. That these editors are getting away with it on technicalities and unsubstantiated claims is damaging the wiki, in my biased opinion. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Who are the ones making the decisions here"? Certainly not the IRC clique of several non-editing sysops and lots of wannabe admins, of which you are one. The decisions are made by the community, by the ArbCom elected by the community, and by Jimbo Wales. If the janitors with mops are to make some vital "decisions" in this temple of knowledge, I will be the first to walk away. Admins are not priests but janitors. When janitors prevent priests from performing their duties (i.e., editors from writing the articles), priests should evacuate the temple. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Being an occasional resident of the IRC channels, I can tell you that IRC is just like real-life and on-wiki- there's no close-knit clique (or if there is, it's two or three close friends, and others dissent). Most of the time in controversial situations, there's a significant amount of discussion on more than one side of the issue. And frankly, I've dissented more than a few times on blocks that I thought were unjust, etc., leading to continued discussion on the blocks both on and off-wiki. The thought of an IRC clique controlling Wikipedia is just absurd. Ral315 (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read my message carefully, you will see that what I spoke about was contrary to what you've been able to read into my message. I was responding to these inflammatory questions: "How long are we going to let them bully sysops out of their decisions? Who are the ones making the decisions here?" --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no conspiracy. There was no plotting against him. The claim is inaccurate, and if the logs are reviewed, they will show that to be the case. I hope he will excercise good judgement in whom he shares his illicit copies with, and I hope he provides complete transcripts without any editing, but that's that. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The copies wouldn't be illicit; it is only public logging, by which I assume is meant public posting, that's prohibited by IRC rules, at least that's my understanding. I stand to be corrected, of course. Chairboy, can you say whether you were involved in the IRC discussion, and who first suggested the block? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Since, after an IRC discussion, Jimbo has both endorsed and lifted the block, I think it is all a little moot now.--Doc^g 00:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad Jimbo has lifted the block. I don't think the discussion about IRC will be moot until people stop organizing blocks there, particularly if it's anything likely to be controversial. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak but I do have a question: has it been verified that this block was organized via IRC? All I've seen is questions asked of Chairboy and Giano's accusation. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not verified. I've asked Chairboy here and on his talk page, but he hasn't responded. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your questions both here and on my talk page, please clarify "he hasn't responded". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant that you hadn't answered the question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this on Recent Changes, and i'd suggest that you just have public logging of these secret IRC rooms, that would prevent the conspiracy theory stuff.Just H 00:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly save a lot of trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The block was not organized in any way on IRC. The only involvement IRC had before everything exploded was that an admin gave me a diff of Giano being incivil to someone. After that, the decision to block based on his subsequent actions was mine and mine alone. There was a discussion on IRC where I counseled someone _not_ to block him because the block rationale they provided was improper, and another user in the room appears to have misinterpreted that as planning/coordination, but that is absolutely not the case. In response to the assertion that sharing the logs with Giano was proper and licit, I'll have to disagree. It's a violation of the channel rules and undermines the privacy expectations each participant has agreed to. While I know that I have at all points operated on the channel in a manner completely consistent with the ideals and ethics of the project, the fact that someone would make such a gross violation of trust is very disapointing and personally troubling. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Chairboy, can you say who gave you the diff of Giano allegedly being uncivil? Also, can you say exactly what the channel rules are? We can't have a situation where a channel that operates in absolutely secrecy has any effect on Wikipedia administrators. I can see the rationale for no public posting of logs, but for no one to be allowed to say anything whatsoever is absurd. This isn't an in-camera hearing of the UN Security Council. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who gave the diff to Chairboy. But I subsequently gave the same diff to Jimbo Wales on IRC. The 'channel that operates in absolute secrecy' (which, incidentally, any admin can join) had an effect on that particular administrator. Indeed based on conversations there, he endorsed the block and, after discussion, agreed to lift it for the wider good of the project. A course of action (that I believe I) initially suggested to him, again on IRC. Any problems?--Doc^g 01:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what your post means. I asked Chairboy who gave him the diff, because it'd be useful to know whether it was any of the people who've previously tried to get Giano blocked. And I asked what the privacy rules were on the channel. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my laptop timed out while I was asleep, so I don't have the relevant logs. When I asked, earlier, if the block was planned on IRC, Chairyboy said "absolutely not" and Bishonen said "you'd better believe it." Don't know who to believe, and I don't have the logs. =\ Luna Santin 01:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then bishonen has called me a liar. I find the claim offensive, incorrect, and a gross miscarriage of WP:AGF. I have attempted to reconcile with the user off-wiki, and she has rejected my attempts. I hope it doesn't spill into the project, we've got enough work already as is. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to understand the logic here. A block is either a good call or a bad one. The blocking admin is alone responsible for his/her call. This call was a reasonable one (although I think ultimately unhelpful). I'm not sure what is meant by 'people who previously tried to get Giano blocked'. I've previously blocked Giano, does that count? Since everyone in the channel is an admin, anyone who believes someone should be blocked can just do it. However, it isn't the first time I've asked people to take a look at a diff I've caught (wanting a second opinion), and found someone blocked the offender before I did.

All that aside, Jimbo's action was designed to de-escalate this conflict and ask us all to play nice. I'm not sure going through Giano's edits, or IRC logs to see who said what to whom and when, is quite in that spirit. Lets move on.--Doc^g 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a point of information: not everyone in the channel is an admin, and most admins aren't involved in it, so it's a little misleading to call it an admins' channel. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth (which may or may not be much depending on Ghirla's decision regarding my offer), I'm not on IRC and don't have any plans to join that channel. Durova^Charge! 01:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, the fact that Giano got blocked yet again tells me we learned absolutely nothing from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean this? Funny, it seems to suggest just the opposite. Or perhaps you meant this? I'm not seeing a "Get Out of Jail Free" card anywhere in there. --Calton | Talk 02:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is disgusting. How long do we get to bandy about a diff? Can I now block Giano on the same comment and then claim, "Hey, it was just me by myself?" The "any admin" channel is similarly ridiculous, as there are at least two people who are not administrators who are on there, and there are people who are who won't go near it. The very existence of the thing was an attempt to gain greater secrecy, and that means opacity. Playing legal games now to say, "Well, someone showed it to me on IRC but I made the decision" is disengenious. Anyone ever heard of the bias of the first move? Basically, if I go to your talk page and say, "Oh, my goodness! Look at this horrible personal attack" and link, then you go to read specifically a single comment looking for the attack. If you are not skeptical (say, the person telling you is someone you've bantered pleasantly with for days), you may indeed see that vicious personal attack. Now, if all this happens on a talk page, there is some chance that the "attacker" will show up to explain the context, the intent, and the standing. If it happens on IRC, though, you're just getting that biased view. When a person makes a point of attacking IRC coteries, that person's going to be hunted and hounded extra especially. Doing anything "by the attention of someone on IRC" is a horrible, disgusting move. Confer! Confer some more before you block and confer openly. What is AN/I? What is its purpose? IRC blocks are, if ever, justifiable only in emergencies. Hours old diffs of Giano being mean are hardly emergencies. (Oh, and then the "Help, Bishonen's not assuming good faith" is really terrific.) I'm very disappointed. Geogre 04:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• I want to make clear that I don't doubt Chairboy acted in good faith. However, in general, I wonder why people discuss blocks on IRC rather than on AN/I or by e-mail? AN/I has the benefit of being public, transparent, and can be quoted. E-mail is private for anything sensitive. IRC is neither fish nor fowl. It's public enough to invoke a gang mentality in those who use it, yet not so public that we're allowed to quote from it, which just strengthens the gang mentality. There's no point in denying this, because I've seen it time and again, and I've been stunned every time I've witnessed it (and the two facedness takes your breath away!). There's no gang mentality by e-mail, or at least it's harder to create it given the limited numbers. Anyone who can't see IRC has a potential for creating that atmosphere doesn't understand human nature. Even if we think we're not succumbing to it, we might be. Doesn't it therefore make sense to use AN/I for most blocks, e-mails for anything sensitive, and IRC for general discussions not involving individuals? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well said. Paul August ☎ 04:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I have no aspersions to cast on Chairboy's intentions, but the process was awful. It's common sense to deliberate, to use AN/I, to make deliberations especially for blocks as transparent as possible. Not doing that is absolutely wretched, whatever the intentions of the person doing it. Instead of accepting this point, which would certainly make me feel better, we're getting another battle, which doesn't help my peace of mind at all. Insisting that one's actions are above reproach is rarely helpful. If people are reproaching you, there's probably something you could have done better. (Unless you assume bad faith in every single person questioning you, but, if you do that, you're really off the path.) Geogre 15:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• "There's no gang mentality by e-mail" ... Are you sure about that? If there actually are conspiracies afoot, the conspirators will conspire by whatever means necessary. And it's a lot harder to hide the evidence on IRC, in a channel that 1000 people can join if they want to, than it is by private email. With private email, all you see is the circumstantial evidence. If that. I don't really think you need IRC to get two faced behaviour. Human nature being what it is and all... IRC is a tool like any other and can be used or misused, like any other. ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• The nature of IRC lends itself to the herd mentality in a way e-mail doesn't, or at least much less so, because the latter's private and the numbers involved much smaller. With IRC, there may be dozens or even hundreds of people watching, and there's a certain amount of grandstanding. I've seen more experienced editors basically issue instructions to very young or inexperienced ones, and minutes later, they're off doing the thing that the experienced editor didn't want to do himself. It's all very well for people to claim that everyone on IRC acts of their own freewill, but how realistic is that when the age and experience differences are very significant? The important point is that IRC-related blocks frequently cause trouble, so why not just avoid them? If someone raises the possibility of a block on IRC, directly or otherwise, the sensible thing to do is for one of the admins present to initiate a discussion on AN/I to see whether the off-IRC voices concur. That's particularly important in the case of a controversial block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, the truth does not require your approval. You can assert that I've misbehaved and conspired and cabalized all you want, but it's simply wrong. If you feel I have acted improperly, if you feel that I'm lying or otherwise doing wrong, then put your money where your mouth is. Open an ArbCom case so that the logs can be reviewed by disinterested parties. JWales reviewed the situation and endorsed the block. I corresponded with SlimVirgin in email regarding some of the specifics of the discussion. Either make a formal complaint and follow it through or apologize for your inappropriate insinuations. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How often has the point been made about articles, that Wikipedia needs not merely truth but verifiability? The same should apply to accusations and disciplinary actions. It may be true that umpteen dozen admins on IRC endorsed my blocking you indefinitely for death threats (and protecting your talk page so you can't even post an "unblock" appeal); and it may even be true that "all the lurkers support me in email"; but you have no way to verify either of those claims, so you'll just have to take my word for it. However, since you know first-hand that you never uttered any death threats, my word on the matter is unlikely to satisfy you. So isn't it convenient for me that I've just prevented you from publicly defending yourself or denying the charges? And that if you try to do so from different accounts, I can just keep blocking you as a sockpuppet? Under those circumstances, you might want to have open process, with all assertions proven by citations of an open and verifiable record. As an abusive admin, I have just as strong a motive to keep everything secret and unverifiable, off the record, and avoid having to prove anything, or even specify (let alone cite) what threats you supposedly made. (With that in mind, see this and this.) This scenario is why the whole IRC issue is raising people's hackles. It brings up memories of the Vehmgericht and other "secret tribunals" of the past, and of stories by Kafka and Orwell. Secrecy destroys trust, because people will always wonder (and worry) about what you're hiding and why. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 02:00, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).

• Indeed, the truth does not require approval, and it is similarly not your possession. You have been asked, several times, to answer germane questions. You still want opacity. In what way does this help? As for "apologize for inappropriate insinuations," you'll have to tell me what they are, just as you really should tell Giano what you are blocking him for. Oh, and giving him a chance to explain would have been nice. Giving him a chance to reduce the heat would have been nice, too. You have, indeed, behaved inappropriately by following along the well worn path to unilateralism. You will note that my comments were directed at this affair, and not so much a single person. This affair illustrates, again, the use of stale diffs and, most distressingly, the refusal to confer. You indicate, one place, that you did confer, but it was on IRC (where no one may see or say), but then you say that you made your decision solus. I repeat: before blocking consult and confer and do so on Wikipedia. This is good practice, and it does require approval. All administrators should (must, except in emergencies) confer and deliberate in any shadowy area. This was a very shadowy area, and yet you felt that, on the basis of a first move call for action, you could act without warning and mediation and resolution and conferring. That can only be done if you believe you have a pipeline to the divine truth or divine rights (or if you are acting unthinkingly, of course). Geogre 12:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're calling me a liar. This is grossly incivil and an injust mischaracterization. What are your motivations here? I didn't block Giano because of a conversation on IRC. I got a diff from a novice admin who wanted to know if the text in it was a blockable offense. I told the admin that it was not, but volunteered to ask Giano to be nice. I then went to Giano's user talk and left him this request to be civil. Giano blanked the civility request with an edit summary that told me to "Go away tiresome shild^(sic)", then left a message on my talk page telling me to go and 'learn some manners'. As a response, I restored the warning and told him I was blocking him for repeated incivility and personal attacks against me when I asked him to knock it off. At no part of this was there any IRC collaboration to plot his blocking. As far as I can tell, another admin in the group misinterpreted my counseling to the novice admin as some sort of plot, but anyone who actually reads the log will see that it's ridiculous. At one point I mistook Giano for someone else and characterized him as a wikilawyer and said something to the effect of "If you block someone, you need to make absolutely certain that it's a proper block. You can't just block based on a feeling, there needs to be a specific policy violation", and mentioned that Giano would properly assert against an improper block. Blocks are bad juju, and I don't like doing them, that's why I counseled the new admin about how to avoid getting into a crapstorm and blocking innocent users. Between you and bishonen, my actions have been mischaracterized and you have whole cloth fabricated motivations and conspiracies that simply do not exist. Create an ArbCom request, Geogre, please. I beg you. If it's the only thing that will get you to stop libeling me and the only thing that will help us begin healing this weird rift in the project that you and bishonen seem determined to create, then let's get it over with. The logs can be privately reviewed by the Arbitration Committee without violating the trust of the admin IRC channel (which exists not to plot and make Wikipedia policy, but as a place where people can bounce ideas off each other and either get a positive sanity check or a thwack on the back of the head to correct a mistake) and breaking its effectiveness as one of Wikipedia's heroic inanimate carbon rods. Apologize for your gross mischaracterization of my motivations and actions, open an ArbCom case (which I will gladly assist with in any way possible), or you stand ready to clearly communicate to everyone here that your goal is not to create a better project, but is instead to disrupt and impugn innocent folks with whom you personally disagree for one reason or another. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, what "characterization of motives?" I don't see any, unless you count way up there, where he says that he doesn't have any aspersions to cast at your intentions. You mean he should apologize for that or else you'll link "civil" and "personal attack" some more? Sheesh. Crowbait 18:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there was no characterization of motives. There was a characterization of behavior. When Betacommand was called out for his improper block (blocking without warning, blocking without conferring), he conferred with Chairboy, whose measure of conferring was to think it over and just block without using AN/I or consulting with another administrator. That is bad practice. There have been no personal attacks here, just tremendously bad actions. When blocking, confer and do so openly. How hard is that to take to heart? Chairboy, you can keep begging for an RFAR, but I am not "accusing" you of anything. I am flatly stating that your actions were bad practice, improper, and invalid. They were. Take that as a "personal attack" only if you consider community input to be always harmful. Geogre 00:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, Chaiboy's block was entirely justified by Giano's disruptive incivility. If he hadn't beaten me to it, I would have blocked Giano myself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• For the benefit of anyone who still cares about this project, the truth of this affair is being outed here [23] Giano 17:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell us exactly what the rules are regarding privacy of logs on the so-called admins' channel? Giano's source appears to have one understanding and some of the people posting here have another. It would help if we could be told for certain what's allowed and what not, in terms of disclosure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Most major Wikipedia channels, including #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en-admins, allow logging for personal use only. Thus, keeping copies for one's own use would be fine, and, presumably, reading logs to generalize a situation and responses would be fine. Quoting logs, making logs public, or sharing logs without the permission of all participants in the discussion is prohibited. (It may be worth noting that even private logging is illegal in some jurisdictions, but that's another story.) Ral315 (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ral. I'm still not sure what it means in practise. Would someone be allowed to say "It was User:X who suggested the block"? Would they be allowed to say it on AN/I? By e-mail? And I mean without X's permission. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And when you say "illegal" and "jurisdictions," what do you mean? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Good news: both Piotrus and Ghirla have agreed to let me mediate. Durova^Charge! 14:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC) --- I want to go on record here I also stated this on my userpage. I NEVER ASKED FOR A BLOCK all I asked was that a npa warning be given. at the Time I did not see a reason to block, I did not know about the block until I logged BACK online over an hour later. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

May I quote your bit of the log re:Giano to show how to the block was discussed?

The background to Chairboy's block of Giano last night was Betacommand's recent block of Irpen. Looking at the admin channel logs from last night, I see people asking me how the issue of blocking Giano started this time, and me saying I couldn't remember. Now that it's no longer the middle of the night, I do remember: the background was Betacommand's extremely dodgy block of Irpen, which has been criticized here on ANI for being done without warning, for giving only the vague reason "personal attacks", for coming without a block message, and for being imposed at the last minute before Betacommand went off line. (On Betacommand's talkpage are many more queries and comments, including this trenchant summary by Geogre: [24].) Betacommand's block of Irpen was pretty soon undone, but Irpen remains crushed by the way his block log now looks. I saw clearly last night on en-admins the usual old callousness about such things, exhibited by some admins (those most active in the matter): the too-frequent incapacity for understanding the amount of harm done to good-faith editors by blocks. :-( Blocks were actually discussed in terms of editors wanting to be blocked, "wikilawyering" to be blocked, "dancing" to be blocked; rather than in terms of the shock and pain of getting an enduring black mark (so very easily inflicted!) in the block log. Whatever. Giano was one of the people criticizing Betacommand over the Irpen block, and Betacommand's reaction was apparently (not that he needed to take stock, being a new admin, and reconsider doing such blocks) but that he needed help from more experienced admins in putting a stop to such Personal Attacks against himself. He joined #Wikipedia-en-admins to ask, and Chairboy advised him. Considering the rate at which Chairboy's accusations against me personally seem to be escalating above, I'd really like to go into more detail at this point, and to preferably use exact quotes from the discussion of the blocking of Giano, but I confess myself unnerved by the different things different users are saying about whether, or how much, the logs can actually be quoted in public. Let me go out on a limb, though, and ask the following editors if they will permit me to quote their words here on ANI. If that question itself is improperly revealing, you'll just have to hang me. Betacommand, Doc glasgow, Royalguard11, Chairboy, Naconkantari, Interiot, Luna-San, Jwales, could you please indicate here whether you're OK with having your words from the log quoted by me here? Bishonen | talk 17:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

If you feel you need to make a point, then go ahead. I release my contributions, my only requirement is that you include the entire log, from beginning (when Betacommand asked for someone to block someone for NPA) to Jwale's leaving the room after endorsing the block, not just a cherry picked segment with "helpful editing". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't fully understand this what's going on here. Giano's recent edits seem to indicate he already has logs (though I can't confirm if it's genuine, but I'll assume so). Have you already shared them with him? Dmcdevit·t 19:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't. I don't know where Giano got his logs. (I asked and he wouldn't say.) I logged the channel when I was in it, and I'm asking if I may share suitable bits of the log here. On ANI. Nothing to do with Giano. Right now I'm taking some deep breaths and trying to decide whether anything will be achieved or improved by my replying to Chairboy in the same spirit in which he speaks to me. I think not. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

With respect, you've been accusing me of lying, and I've had the temerity to object. Look, we're all volunteers here, that's part of why this whole thing is so silly, and the personal nature of the attacks are unwarranted. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Does not compute: "entire log" makes no sense. How do you know when someone began logging and quit? Weird. Everything is "cherry picked." Crowbait 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be most helpful for those who wonder where Wikipedia is going. I have been told so many times how civil and helpful that abode of "wikilove" they call #Wikipedia-en-admins, that I would really like to see a sample from logs of that "wikilove" (or is it "wikievil"?) to assess the situation. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well you can obtain a flavour of the log here [25], where you will see some of those concerned are grabbing at straws and seem reluctant to discuss the situation further. Oh and for the benefit of those who seem to suspect Bishonen passed me the log - she did not. It came from someone altogether closer to my home, and that is the only hint. Those concerned know what was in it, and they seem to be anxious to rephrase their meanings, I do hope so because "kill me cleanly" is a very unpleasant term indeed. Obviously nothing uncivil intended there. Giano 19:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Kill you cleanly?" Is that what this is all about? It appears you do not actually have a copy of the logs, if you did you wouldn't be making these claims. I was counseling an admin about administering blocks. I told him that any block administered must meet specific criteria and be completely legit to ensure a "clean kill", in the sense that the alternative is that people get blocked who shouldn't have been. Bishonen interpreted this in just about the worst possible way, and if my language was unclear, I apologize, but saying that I was plotting to kill you or otherwise conspiring as part of a big mean IRC cabal is just flat out wrong. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord, in what way can "clean kill" be interpreted? Honestly, you're great at reading menace into my words, but your own...even when you use violent language...that's just no biggie? Yikes! Geogre 00:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Aside from obvious vandalism, blocks of established editors should be discussed here or on AN. Using IRC to determine if a block is appropriate or if an unblock is a good idea simply needs to stop. Consensus is decided on wiki, not IRC.--MONGO 20:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. If an established contributor is to be blocked, at the very least they should be given a chance to defend their actions. I feel the "anti-IRC" argument is misplaced however. Plenty of blocks have probably occurred by AIM/MSN/YIM group chats too. I would even conjecture more happen there as more Wikipedians I know use these messenger services as communication media than IRC. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

..........and the reason I dismissed Chairboy with such a curt message [26] was because I already (very reliably) knew he had been made the stooge of an IRC plot. He was referring to the incident Cyde had already posted here (on this page) hours before. All very odd isn't it? Giano 20:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but I see irony in the fact that you were unblocked per an IRC discussion in the admins channel as well. If anything, I would suggest you be happy it was IRC - there are plenty of people who have logs (of which you seem to be one). If it was AIM/YIM/MSN it would be "he said/she said." Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Was I? I didn't know that. Not often someone can tell me something I didn't know. So what else was said in that IRC discussion? I'm sure we would all love to know Giano 20:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Jimbo interceded on your behalf. As I understand it, he endorsed the block for the reasons given, but repealed it because of the issues related to IRC (with a strong warning in the unblock for you to act in a civil matter - you can read the block log if you wish.) I am not sure of the contents of the discussion, as I was not a party to it, but I know for a fact that it was conducted over IRC. For my part, I also discussed the matter with him. While don't want to say anything Jimbo said without his permission to say it, I commented to him that the whole matter seems to have gotten vastly exaggerated, that you were a good contributor, and that you simply seem to have misplaced your suspicion of IRC. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick correction. JWales did not unblock Giano because of issues related to IRC. He unblocked Giano because he feels Giano is a valued member and he wants everyone to be happy. Whether or not it is the right thing to do is a concern that must take a back seat to diplomacy. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Any admin who thinks diplomacy is not the right thing to do or is unimportant, should be summarily stripped of their mop, which should then be broken in twain and the pieces lovingly shoved where the sun don't shine:).--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And that's your idea of being 'diplomatic'? Perhaps you should follow your own advice.--Doc^g 00:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is what I was getting at about people being a bit hypocritical. People who go on search and destroy missions for "incivility" and "personal attacks" should at least be consistent in seeking to exemplify civility (and not talk about getting quick kills or escalate situations with volatile editors and not admit no fault) and avoid itching for fights. RDH doesn't go hunting civility breaches, and neither does Giano. Of course we should all be civil, but when we make ourselves wardens of everyone else's behavior and not our own, when we go hunting for what we are sure must be personal attacks, then we get distorted into the monsters we claim to want to destroy. It's far better to be laid back. Geogre 01:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. No one should go hunting for incivility breaches. I certainly don't.--Doc^g 01:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was a non-starter. A question about sharing the en-admin logs.

Well, that was apparently a non-starter. Only Chairboy has replied so far, and, Kerberos-like, in a way that would make it necessary to ask several more people for permission to quote their words (pointless quoting, but required by Chairboy to avoid my putative evil and dishonest cherry-picking). I've suggested to Chairboy on IRC that he might like to do the editing himself, to shorten the very long section from Betacommand's question to jwales's exit, and especially to remove the irrelevant people, but he doesn't wish to. OK, I would have liked to explain how I see what happened on en-admins yesterday, but meh, forget it. I'm only sorry Slim's questions are destined to have no replies. Hey, could somebody who's sure they understand the rules tell me, though: is there any objection to my e-mailing the logs to SlimVirgin? She's an admin, she might as well have been there and doing her own logging, though in fact she was not. Right? Bishonen | talk 21:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

For my part I pointed out to Jimmy that there was a request for his permission to have the logs reviewed pertaining to him, but he has been busy today. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sure "Jimmy" is very grateful to you. Regarding your point above, it rather seems my suspicions of IRC are far from "misplaced" Giano 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy is jwales on IRC and User:Jimbo Wales here. You can read about him on wikipedia. He happens to be it's founder :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• don't worry, I know who he is, I have been here a short while. Giano 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I have no objection if you release the logs of that conversation, Bishonen. I thought it was a helpful talk. I can only speak for myself, though. If you get the permission of all involved, I don't see why it would be any problem at all (even getting past our general paranoia about it). Luna Santin 22:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And If people won't answer, I don't see the harm in emailing the logs to anyone who requests a copy Giano 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think I would see a problem with it, either, but the person releasing the logs would be making themselves vulnerable, under the prohibition on public logging; if at all possible, I'd prefer to avoid forcing that on anyone. Luna Santin 22:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano, I would suggest you didn't do that without permission. The reason is alluded to above. If you give out information given in confidence without the permission of all involved, then there could be legal implications, and I certainly wouldn't want that happening with anyone here. We have Bishonen's implicit permission and Chairboy and Luna-Santin's explicit permission, let's wait until doc-glasgow, Jimmy, and Betacommand reply and do this the "right" way. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to read Chairboy's "permission" more carefully, Peter. It contains conditions that make it unusable. There were several people there whom a publication would be likely to embarrass. I simply wouldn't do it, even aparat from the fact that they'd be highly unlikely to give permission for it. They're not relevant to this, but as long as Chairboy insists on every dot or nothing, they'd be part of it nevertheless. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

I've just seen your edit here [27] are you daring to make a legal threat to me? Please consider your answer very carefull before you answer. Giano 22:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious how you could interpret that diff as a legal threat in any way, shape, or form. Unless you're referring to this edit, where he specifically says he's not hoping for that. Luna Santin 22:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to his edit directly above, where he and I know full well what he is implying. The reason IRC Logs are not used on Wikipedia is because James Forrester decreed it so. I have an IRC log of him boasting about it, I must dig that one out, it makes amusing reading. Giano 23:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano, I've commented there to keep things short here. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 02:41, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I know I'm going to be shouted at for this but if you really want IRC logs published, propose a change to the policy in the normal way and let the community decide what happens rather than keep banging on about IRC logs here where it's just annoying and upsetting other users and where your making new enemies for no reason. I'd really like to see a proper discussion about IRC logs after all the complaints from the past week. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano, with all due respect, I still don't see how you can possibly interpret that as a legal threat, when he explicitly said he didn't want anyone to get into legal trouble. Perhaps you're reading a subtext into it that I'm not, but at this point focusing on details like that is only going to kill everyone's chances at quickly resolving this with as little drama as possible. Please, just let it go so that we can move on to working this out. If you want the "last word," fine by me. Luna Santin 23:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-involved non-admin here, and FWIW I interpreted it as a legal threat. Anchoress 02:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Anchoress, please also see here. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 06:48, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Giano, I wish to take this opportunity to apologise for using sarcasm in your presence, as it is obvious unhelpful. I will attempt not so to do in future (though I imagine I will fail, sadly).

Yes, it is theoretically my call as to all of the rules in all of the IRC channels (that's my job). Yes, it is my job to oversee the enforcement of said rules. No, I did not actually make this rule up. Yes, I support it personally, but it would be utterly inappropriate to use my position to further a personal objective of mine. No, I do not enjoy "power", and would not boast about it. Yes, I sometimes make a joke of it. Further questions are welcome, of course; transparency in this role is not necessarily a bad idea.

The rule and its rationale are as follows: IRC is not Wikipedia. IRC is not under the control of Wikipedia, or any part thereof (the me-who-is-on-IRC is not the me-who-is-on-here; such is the nature of having various hats). Things that happen on IRC are equivalent to things that happen on MySpace, or in a telephone conversation, or in a pub. They are meant to be analogous to e-mail - all participants get a copy, but it is utterly morally vile (and generally illegal) to forward private correspondance to another party without permission of all those involved. Were we to publically log the "private" IRC channels, they would, err, cease to be private, and all these "cabal"-like discussions that so many people seem to think occur there (wrongly, as far I am aware) would move to somewhere that they cannot have as many people take part in the discussions (by the very nature of having a private channel), and, as they wouldn't be part of the official Wikipedia IRC network, I would have no ex officio ability nor authority to be in said channel, and so wouldn't be able to monitor such things.

I think that it is very sad that those people who choose not to use IRC (it takes very little effort in most circumstances) consider those who do do so to be part of some microscopic group that plot against the rest. It is not really very in-keeping with wikilove, AGF, and other core parts of what our community is about (for those that have forgotten :-().

Finally, please note that #wikipedia-en-admins is not an "official" channel (as said above), but is for informed discussion, so various particular people who are no longer, or have never been, sysops are still welcome there - and, by extension, people who are sysops but are disbenefits to the discussion could be asked, or forced, to leave (though I do not believe this has happened yet).

James F. (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, James. You've explained the rule — that it's analogous to e-mail, with all participants receiving a copy. Two questions: first, whose rule is this? Second, can the rule be modified so that anyone who would be entitled to be on the list (basically, any admin) may ask to receive a copy after the fact, assuming a copy exists? In that way, situations like the above would be avoided. The secrecy is breeding suspicion. A number of us here have tried to deal with this situation, and are having to feel our way along in the dark. I have not seen the logs. I don't know who said what. I would like to know, not so I can blab about it, but so I can inform the way I approach the situation. If admins could request the logs in future for any situation that turns controversial, the people on the channel will be more careful not to do controversial things on it, and if they do, it'll be easy to see how it evolved so it can be more easily avoided in future. Do you have any thoughts about that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The rule is that of the IRC community. It has been the rule for longer than I've used IRC for the Wikimedia projects (that is, it's been a rule since at least 2003). I'm sure it can be modified, but in the same way that any policy in Wikimedia can - consensus has to be convinced of the need for and appropriacy of change. As to the particulars of your proposal, I would observe that it violates the primary point of the logging ban (that what is said in private, stays in private), and so I doubt the community would be terribly in favour of it. You can ask, of course, but I don't fancy the proposal's chances.

I'm also somewhat unsure of your implict premise - that each and every single sysop can be trusted with such information. By "trusted", we mean trusted not to react adversly to it, not to leak it to other people or organisations such as "Wikitruth" - in essence, not to bring the project into disrepute (that is what we're all here to do, isn't it? ;-)). This is in general an exceedingly difficult thing to ask of people - for example, I would not necessarily feel comfortable seeing logs about myself, or about something "politically sensitive". I would say that the ability to trust all sysops with such information is not something that can easily be handed down - it is up to each conversations' participants to judge for themselves whether or not they trust the people in-channel at the time to. Given the rampant lack of trust and factionalism present in the sysop cadre, a rot that has been festering for quite some time now, I can see no way of getting to the point where such a thing would be possible. :-(

I don't think that it would be appropriate for me to comment about the individual cases that come up here, of course, so I'm afraid that I might not be of as much help as you might expect in solving this right now; I have had a quick look, and it seems that I was not in-channel at the time of this conversation (there were a few problems with IRC servers), so I'm just as much in the dark as everyone else. Sorry. :-(

I'm sad that you have seen people become suspicious just because they do not know everything; it seems somewhat petty to my mind, really - but then, I'm used to the concept of circles within circles and all that from my extra-wiki life. :-)

James F. (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you James so your statement on IRC: that if you were to make personal attacks you would do them on IRC because you control it, and had personally ruled it was not under the Arbcom's jurisdiction" was not true then? Giano 11:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was a sarcastic observation. Anyone who knows me even vaguely would be able to tell that. :-) I would not make personal attacks about others - ever - so the question is moot. I was, yes, part of the Committee when we observed ("ruled", if you prefer, though I don't) that IRC is outwith Wikipedia, but the observation was not novel.

In this particular case, I'm not terribly fussed about you revealling the contents of my privileged discussions, but please do not do so again without prior consent of the parties involved.

James F. (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

James, if making the logs privately available to any admin who asks isn't tenable (and I take your point about trust and Wikitruth, and other venues), would it be easier to request, or to introduce a rule (I don't know how the channel works and what rules exist, or how they are introduced) that no-one is allowed to discuss on the IRC admins' channel the proposed block of an established editor, and that anyone doing so will be asked to leave the channel, or some such? Not including proposed blocks of vandals, or drive-by editors, of course, but the blocking of anyone established in the community should not be discussed at all on IRC. Would that work? I think it would go a long way to re-establishing some trust. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually liked this idea so much that I went ahead and made it. Hopefully this will make people happier, but, far more importantly, work to improve the project.

James F. (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not involved in the discussion prior to the block (as Bishonen can attest), my only involvement after it was to counsel against the block. However, I explicitly deny permission for the publication of any of my contributions. That is not a precedent I wish to set. --Doc^g 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion for the future

My understanding is that any admin is entitled to use the so-called admins' channel. Therefore, any admin could be present at any time and be watching or logging for themselves. My recollection is that Danny set it up for the benefit of admins. Therefore, it makes sense that any logs may be passed to other admins by e-mail with or without the permission of the participants. This would get round the absurdity of Wikipedia admins trying to discuss an admininstrative issue on the Wikipedia admins' noticeboard, but not being allowed to know what was said. In future, I suggest that any admin may request a copy of the logs from any other admin who happens to have them. Who are the channel operators so I can check this with them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's my understanding that the channel is not restricted to enwiki admins, but is rather open and devs and commons admins get access too. Does that mean they get the logs if they ask for it? – Chacor 02:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand why it's not allowed to just publish these logs in any case (with the exception of confidential stuff, of course), soo.. what if we allow logs to be published whenever an admin action was involved (same exception)? Whenever someone says "I discussed this on IRC and then blocked him/protected the article/whatever", it should be possible to find out what was said by whom, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 03:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my suggestion is that anyone who would be entitled to access to the channel may request a copy of the logs from anyone who has a copy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the long-standing rules on #wikipeida channels on IRC is that publishing a log = ban on IRC. Another issue that hasn't been brung up is that the conversations on IRC aren't released under GFDL. (not a big issue, but it could turn into something someday). ---J.S ^(T/C) 03:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say "publish." I meant that anyone entitled to access may request that they be privately forwarded a copy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Brought". ;) – Chacor 03:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I know it's a rule, I just don't understand why it's one. I think publishing the log in this case would've prevented a lot of bad blood between all participants. --Conti|✉ 03:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

So, out of curiousity, who holds the copyright to them? Picaroon 03:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that IRC chats have the same status as telephone calls, and in North America you may record your own telephone conversations and allow others access. You may not do it unless you're part of the conversation. However, I find this resorting to legal questions pointless. We're not children and we're not enemies. We should be able to reach an agreement that ensures these IRC block controversies don't pan out in the same way in future. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You may record your telephone calls and allow others access if you inform the other party or parties prior to the conversation that the conversation is recorded and may be used for whatever purpose, at which point they can disconnect or communicate elsewhere. —Centrx→talk • 09:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're a participant in the conversation, the only consent you need is your own. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not participated in this discussion, and have never yet been on a Wikipedia-related IRC discussion, but for the record, the law about recording phone conversations varies greatly from one place to another. In the USA, for example, in some states ("two-party states") both sides to a conversation must consent to any recording, exactly as Centrx says, but in others ("one-party states") either party to the conversation may record unilaterally (at least as far as the purely legal aspect is concerned). When the two parties to a call are located in different states with different rules, of course, things get complicated. If one then tries to extrapolate to an IRC channel with hundreds of participants, it becomes clear that this is not going to be a useful analogy one way or the other, for better or worse. Newyorkbrad 12:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A useful analogy is chatting around a table. You know who is present, and that they are trustworthy enough not to record your real-time conversation and advertise it elsewhere. If they were to record it, you would not speak freely or comfortably, and you may just go sit at another table altogether. If there is official business to be conducted, it can be done at the WP:AN table, but if a certain table is logged, people will simply choose to go to an unlogged private table, a private table that may be unsupervised and to which you have no guarantee of entrance. It is one thing to take notes at a board meeting, and another thing entirely to record every business (or totally non-business) lunch and post the transcripts in the company lobby. Surveillance will not solve the alleged problem, it will just send it underground, and has other effects besides. —Centrx→talk • 22:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that my contributions in IRC are not released. They remain my copyright. If anyone were to log them and offer copies to over 1,000 admins that would surely be a breach of copyright, freenode policy, and the law in certain countries. I would strongly resist that, for a whole host of reasons. With 1,000 potential logs (even if for private use) it would impossible to enforce a 'no publications' rule. If logs are published, then they are searchable. If someone can search through my informal chatting on IRC, then they can almost certainly compromise my pseudonymity. Slim this is dead in the water. I would seek to enforce my copyrights.--Doc^g 09:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why I propose to only publish logs (or hand them out to everyone who was involved) when an admin action was involved. I understand your point, and I also don't see a point in publishing day-to-day chit-chat, but discussions that lead to a block should be available to those involved, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 15:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you have any copyright over that material, but as I said above, that really ought to be beside the point. If secrets are being discussed, they should be discussed privately by e-mail. If they're not secrets, but ordinary admin business, then any admin should be able to see the logs. The current situation, where they're sort of secret and sort of public, is untenable, at least for admin business, because it leads to absurd situations like the above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I wrong to thank that the best place for further discussion would be the talk page of m:IRC guidelines? As a note on confidentiality - right now the channels are considered a private place, and anything said in there is between the parties therein. Releasing it without the express permission of everyone therein is a breach of trust, which is punishable to various degrees in various countries. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I love the smell of IRC secrecy in the morning. It smells like ... victory. El_C 02:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems what we need is a little Wikilove, I think you are forgetting we are in this to make an encyclopedia, and everytime we try to punish people for their wrongdoing we allways seem to lose our sense of community, we need to stop worrying about little things and move on. Wizardry_Dragon said at the top, that wikipedia is not a battleground, though scrolling down it would seem that this is often blatantly ignored. If a user is bothering you, ignore them. ArbCom is too much like a court, 90% of the time we end up separated over small arguments which end up affecting more and more users as they go through arbcom. If you can't stand somebody, have a nice cup of tea and sit down and then ignore them for a while and try and realise that they want to make an encyclopedia as much as you. You don't have to be paranoid of everyone out to get you, if we let the little things get to us then our encyclopedia will suffer. TehKewl1 11:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Today... is Christmas! There will be a magic show at zero-nine-thirty! Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God, and a few Marines! El_C 21:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me offer my two cents, with the disclaimers that I am an admin but I almost never frequent IRC. I strongly support the notion that IRC logs should be logged and public unless the channel is restricted to a given group, like admins. In that case at the very least the logs should be available to all admins. That said, I do not think that the admin IRC channel should be password protected in the first place; I don't believe that anything we admins discuss needs to be 'secret'. Wikipedia is an open community, and this should apply to all levels of our decision making.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Notice on Alan.ca's talk page, warning about violation wp:point

Note: This has been reposted here as it seems the relevant location for a block discussion. Alan.ca 01:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I request you in good faith to cease what you are doing? Let the closing administrator judge which note is invalid and which is not. From what I have seen from you before, it only seems that you are trying to make a WP:POINT – [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. I frankly believe that you are being disruptive. Please assume good faith and be civil. If you are prod'ing articles without checking the verifiability of the articles properly, Chacor and others have the *right* to revert you, in case they think it was not appropriate. Furthermore, please do not make accusations of contrib crawling – [38] – when you are not giving a second thought to what you are doing. Please understand that further disruption from you will warrant a block. Kindly co-operate, we are all here to make a better encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What point are you proposing that I'm trying to make? What policy are you alleging that I would qualify to be blocked under? Alan.ca 22:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT would be that policy. --Coredesat 01:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if this is a notice to warn me that I am under consideration for a block, it would help if someone would clearly outline how I am disrupting wikipedia. I don't see how advising people about the AfD process constitutes disruption. Blocks are intended to prevent a user from doing something, not simply a punishment. What action is it that the interested admin(s) are looking to prevent me from taking? Is there a related discussion on an admin noticeboard somewhere? Alan.ca 01:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to chime in as I have been a bit unnerved by your actions. For one thing, I can certainly assume that you were going through my edits and contributions, and while that is not something I find wrong, I found it disturbing that you decided to bring a discussion into my editor review page, even after it had been closed. Add the fact, seeing you revert that 3RR warning and calling it "bs" was most certainly something I was not too happy to see. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

#User.27s_overzealous_.7B.7Bprod.7D.7Dding_of_articles, #Harassment and threat, User talk:Alan.ca#WP:V, [39], [40], etc, are all very relevant. – Chacor 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan.ca's edits seem to me to be disruptive, as they must be designed to discourage participation in AfDs. While AfDs aren't votes per se, closing admins look for consensus, and one way to evaluate consensus is to count the relevant "votes" on each side of the discussion. "Stating per user or per nom serves the process no benefit" is inaccurate, and I don't see it as User:Alan.ca's place to make that judgment anyway. In short, it looks to me like an attempt at intimidation, and it should stop. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you may want to review [[41]] as it clearly advises editors to include an argument with their suggested outcome. Alan.ca 04:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Per nom" means they agree with the argument, which means they have given the argument. Again, WP:POINT. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 04:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Your trolling has gone on long enough, and this really is the last straw. We know, stop treating us like idiots, you clearly deserve a block if you don't stop, because it's getting old and irritating. – Chacor 04:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan has also been cited in violation of WP:3RR. If you take a look at Stephen Harper, you'll see a lot of edits in the past week where he violates (alongside others) 3RR over a copyright dispute. The dispute went further with this image, but it has since been removed and re-uploaded, so the discussion is now gone. I had tried to mediate with him, but he seems to be quite stubborn and unwilling to listen. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the diff where I reverted the 3RR warning and then just gave up on returning it when he gave me this hostile response. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• There was previously two discussions, to my knowledge, where administrators on this noticeboard have agreed that a user is permitted to modify their talk page content as to deletion and archival of content. As for the 3rr, it was a 3h block, that subsequently, the image of which I was re-including the copyright & commons deletion templates has since been deleted from wikipedia. As to the comments in the editor review, I assert the reason a person announces an editor review on their user/talk page is to notify visitors that they are welcome to comment. If you were seeking positive feedback only, you may wish to state this in future editor reviews. Alan.ca 02:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

FOUR admins have now agreed you've violated WP:POINT, and yet you're still saying you haven't? – Chacor 02:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I care about feedback both positive and negative. However, I do take offence when you are obviously entering the editor review when trying to make a point. It is quite apparent to me that you cannot take criticism well, however, and I am almost spent on seeing stuff from you that I find aggressive and nowhere near friendly. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly seconded. – Chacor 02:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you read wp:point the phrase I would ask you to re-read is disrupt Wikipedia to. The fact is, whenever we express an opinion we are attempting to make a point. Alan.ca 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you appear as aggressive here. Let me demonstrate what I see you in violation of:

• don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong, or nominate the existing rule for deletion
• don't reverse an arguably good change for no reason other than "out of process"

Or how about the descriptions of a disruptive editors as defined in Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing?

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

Honestly, it shouldn't take four administrators and me ripping stuff from policy for you to understand this. I think you're intelligent enough to understand that you shouldn't go out of your way to be aggressive when this is a project of collaboration, not who's better than who at this. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Colin, the fact that I am engaged in this discussion here suggests that I am open to the point of view of others. However, it does seem when I seek a broader consensus past those complaining on my talk page that often I find my position is supported by neutral third parties whom have no association with me. Conversely, the support of the opposition on my talk page tends to be from editors who have a past with the person who initially filed the complaint. Alan.ca 03:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It is quite apparent that you're willing to be "open" out here, but as soon as it enters your talk page and it becomes direct finger pointing there, you go right up on the defensive. Quite honestly, you're acting as if there is no wrong in your actions, and I am seeing that there are other people in other situations who have the same thoughts about you. What you say about editors supporting you can be turned around and be said that similarly that there are editors who have no relation to me who have the similar thoughts to what I have about you. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing my open behavour in this discussion. You should note, that, it was me who chose to move this discussion to this broader forum. Alan.ca 03:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You did. However, my comment still stands. Who are these people who back you up? I think if you want to convey your side as correct, I would take those who you cite as these neutral editors should get involved in this discussion and clear what their thoughts are about your actions. Do you feel you are able to make mistakes on Wikipedia? I know make a lot! :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 04:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So if you're open, why are you taking this discussion out of here? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 04:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Noting that Sir Nick actually first posted to his talk page and he moved it here, I find it very hypocritical and uncivil to now go to Sir Nick's talk page and say that he wants to talk without "the others chiming in". – Chacor 04:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that an accusation of meatpuppetry and incorrect behaviour? If it's anyone whose conduct should be up for scrutiny it's you. What a brilliant show - the second time in two days - of WP:AGF. – Chacor 03:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, I'm not clear what point you're trying to make here. If you believe this discussion is proceeding in a fair and productive fashion, why not participate? Alan.ca 04:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Has it ever occured to you that the way you respond to people it is as if you're talking down to them? That's where I am getting this aggressive idea from, and honestly, I am not surprised how some people are reacting towards you. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 04:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the PRODing activity: In Alan's defense, the section of policy that he is citing (Wp:v#Burden_of_evidence) is severely written and can be interpreted in the manner that he is interpreting it. However, when actions along the letter of the policy are opposed as broadly as they presently are, this is indicative that the letter of the policy needs to be reconsidered to more appropriately reflect current consensus. It is not unreasonable for there to be an injunction on mass actions based on policy that is under dispute. The question here is whether the section of policy being invoked here is actually in dispute or not when taken letter-for-letter. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Ceyockey, that is why I started a discussion on WT:V#Verifiability_as_a_basis_for_deletion.2C_Burden_of_Evidence_Section to give the opponents and proponents and opportunity to have this discussion. Alan.ca 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• I notice Alan.ca is very rough with people - he appears to want to moderate without due dilligence (see here where he asks me to cite examples which should be flaming obvious, really!) — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 03:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

We were discussing a merge proposal, I had presented, as an alternative to the AfD I had initiated. You stated a reason for not making the merge and I asked you for an example supporting your reasoning. I cannot see how asking such a question would be considered disruptive. Alan.ca 03:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be far too keen to implement WP:Policy yet very slow to actually do some reading around yourself, e.g. the fact that the Paris Métro is complex and that one cannot simply merge all stations into one article, and you did not know anything about the Arrondissements either - if you know nothing about a subject, why are you so keen to stick your oar in? — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 05:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If you recall, I flagged the article for deletion. I realized that there was opposition to this proposal so I have been reading the AfD points. A merge was proposed by another editor and I have been exploring this option while the AfD continues. If we are able to solve the problem with a merge, then I would be able to withdraw the AfD. Alan.ca 05:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Alan's issues have been brought up here before. It's also very interesting that he won't discuss these problems here anymore and has taken them to another talk page. I find this very distressing. What options do I have here to get this resolved? I don't think Alan is going to change his ways. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 05:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Colin, the only other places where I have forked these discussion are the talk page for the verifiability policy, for that related discussion and I posted on to Headless Nick's page because he initiated this discussion. It was my hope, if I could converse with Nick outside of this discussion I could better understand his concerns. Alan.ca 05:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan, you're not being as "open" as you should be. Even your previous edits make me think that you're just archiving things to lessen your accountability when you inflame someone else. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 05:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if the discussion is brought here, it should stay here unless there's an agreement to move it elsewhere. There wasn't one, so it should remain here. Also, Alan.ca has been changing other people's subject headers to less-than-accurate titles, and claiming that the accusation of WP:POINT against him is POV (as in, Alan.ca is only violating WP:POINT in others' POV). That's yet another WP:POINT violation. As an uninvolved party, I think a short block (perhaps up to 72 hours) might be a good idea here. --Coredesat 06:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a 72-hour block. I believe that Alan has forgotten that this a community project, not his own. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Coredesat, I have changed the section title to Complaint that I have violated WP:POINT', thanks for pointing that out. As for the 72 hour block, what purpose would that serve WP? Are you trying to preserve the format of my user talk page? Alan.ca 06:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Changing others' section titles is akin to changing their comments. This is WP:VAND, even on your own talk page (WP:OWN - no one owns any particular page). – Chacor 06:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Motion to block Alan for a period of 72-hours

• Support - I believe that this will enlighten Alan to not violate WP:POINT and to be less aggressive. This is a collaboration, not a place to bully around using rules. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - how long until Alan wikilawyers that WP:NOT a democracy? I count at least SEVEN different users telling him that his conduct is not appropriate, and he's hit back at every single one with ruleslawyering. Ridiculous, support block. – Chacor 06:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - The WP:BLOCK policy clearly states that blocks are not to be punitive. Not that I agree I have violated WP:POINT, but if I had, I am not engaging in any conduct that warrants a block. Alan.ca 06:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There has been no effort on your part to remain civil and stop disruption, even when 7-8 people ahve told you to do so. That most certainly warrants a block since you're not stopping. – Chacor 06:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Would someone please step in here? These two are patrolling my contribs, remarking on my talk page archiving and now pushing to have me blocked for 72 hours as a punitive measure. Alan.ca 06:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What a brilliant assumption of good faith. I believe this comment shows that this user is not here to help contribute conducively. – Chacor 06:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There is nothing wrong with me viewing your contributions, just as it is the same for you viewing mine. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I don't believe the block should be regarded as punitive. Take a "timeout" from the project and think about what you're doing, and come back later. Maybe you'll feel better after Christmas (if you celebrate Christmas, that is.) Grandmasterka 06:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support; Alan.ca definitely needs a break from the project to look over some of our policies (or just sit down and have a cup of cocoa).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment by uninvolved admin Alan.ca, please note that your continuing insistence at making comments are only serving to incriminate yourself. I abstain from this vote, as I know not of the circumstances. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours

I blocked Alan.ca for 72 hours, given where the poll is going and the many warnings he's already received. Hopefully this will allow the situation to cool down, and give him time to think about what he's done. --Coredesat 06:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There's been an unblocking request, which I object to. He continues to wikilawyer while blocked, too. – Chacor 06:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

He's just made a totally irrelevant comment about Core having supported my RFA. This is ridiculous, and should not be tolerated! We cannot let this trolling and disruption continue, and I think it may be time to start considering a longer-term block as he shows no signs of improving, even while blocked. – Chacor 07:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it ludicrous what this guy will go to. He finds it offensive for me to view his contributions and then make points about, then he does the same thing to make remarks about situations that he has nothing to do with. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I also do not support a longer block. I want his current block stayed, and then we'll see if he reforms. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that he continues to do exactly what he was blocked for while blocked, I don't see the point in waiting the 72 hours. – Chacor 07:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A new ridiculous allegation made in clear violation of WP:CIV and WP:AGF against me. This is driving me nuts, I don't see why we should let such an editor stay. – Chacor 07:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Do not inflame this even further. Let him stay blocked and serve it out. If he continues with his action, then follow the appropriate steps. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that you're a former administrator, you should understand that there is no need to escalate this further. If he continues to be a problem after his block, then take him to WP:RFC. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hence why I decided to remove my post. And come on, we all know RFC is useless, there's no enforcement whatsoever. That's probably why this came straight to ANI in the first place, without going to RFC. – Chacor 07:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not extend the block further. I think 72 hours could be construed as unfair; Alan overstepped the mark, but he was continually being pushed. Proto::► 12:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-imposed probation

Alan.ca was unblocked by J.smith after promising not to inflame the situation any further. I agree to the self-imposed probation, and he should be reblocked immediately for 72 hours (same duration as before) if he pursues the issue further (as if it were an actual probation). Hopefully this won't happen and we can all breathe a little easier this Christmas weekend. --Coredesat 07:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he's gotten the message... and I hope I don't end up looking like a fool over this. -_^ ---J.S ^(T/C) 07:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a much better solution. Alan, the best thing to do for a day or two muight be something else (either not on Wikipedia, or on a different area of Wikipedia entirely). Proto::► 12:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Violation of said self-imposed probation

This probably constitutes a violation of his block probation. – Chacor 14:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have done an independent review and agree. Therefore, I have reinstated the 72 hour block on User:Alan.ca. Миша13 14:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Alan could not set it aside for even a couple of days; see User_talk:Alan.ca#Your_request_regarding_your_block_on_my_user_talk_page, which is my response to a note he placed on my talk page earlier today (about 6 hours before the present re-block). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not pleased he keeps harping on the fact I was desysopped - that is totally irrelevant. His thinly-veiled attack on blocking admin Coredesat should not be accepted, either, and instead condemned. It's not the kind of behaviour we want, surely? – Chacor 15:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

He's now going around meta asking for steward intervention. This is totally inappropriate. I also note the irony in him accusing me of looking at his contribs when he's done the exact same thing to me and others in compiling this. – Chacor 05:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

One of his notes says he tried to contact via e-mail, I have nothing from him in my inbox. Wait, yes I do. My e-mail forwarding did not work properly and I never received it. --Coredesat 07:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Block shortened to 48 hours

After discussing the situation with Alan.ca and a couple other admins through e-mail, I've gone ahead and shortened the block to a total of 48 hours (includes time already blocked). I am assuming good faith and hoping this won't become a problem again in the future, but his probation is essentially still in effect - if there is any more disruption, and consensus that he is violating WP:POINT or WP:CIV, Alan.ca may be blocked again for any duration plus 24 hours (the 24 hours I removed from this block). --Coredesat 09:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9 blocking good users

Hi! I am a mediator with WP:MEDCAB, and I just came across a strange case. It was named Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/User:Lucky 6.9 reverting his own Talk page, but it seems to reach much further. It appears that Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is fighting people who disagree with him by various actions up to deleting mediation pages and blocking users who, as far as I can see, have done nothing wrong, other than they could be dangerous to him.

Timeline:

time (UTC)	what happened
about 20 December	mediation case was created
21:52, 22 December 2006	SebastianHelm asks Lucky_6.9 if he accepts mediation
01:08, 23 December 2006	Lucky 6.9 blocks SamAndrews indefinitely *
01:12, 23 December 2006	Lucky_6.9 replies with WTF???. Does not reply to question if he accepts Sebastian as mediator.
later on 22 December 2006	Lucky 6.9 deletes the mediation case

* The reason for blocking SamAndrews was given as "Trolling, vandalism". However, I do not see any evidence for this. Here are all edits from Special:Contributions/SamAndrews:

time	article	edit summary	edit as summarized by Sebastian
21:09, 20 December 2006	Regina Peruggi	updated, new position	meaningful edit
21:01, 20 December 2006	Regina Peruggi	started page	created nice page - at least I don't see anything wrong with it
20:35, 20 December 2006	m Rudy Giuliani	link	inserted relevant link
20:34, 20 December 2006	Judith Giuliani		meaningful addition
20:33, 20 December 2006	m Donna Hanover	fixed typo	fixed typo
11:01, 20 December 2006	Kashrut	hyperlink for trafe	hyperlink for trafe
09:42, 20 December 2006	User talk:Lucky 6.9	Please do not revert your own talk page, it is meant to be an accurate historical record.	reinserted long list of alleged reversions

Please also take a look at WarthogDemon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who often works very closely together with Lucky 6.9. — Sebastian 02:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I will investigate this matter. If these claims reveal themselves to be true, I recommend immediate desysopment. With all due respect, of course. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Immediate" desysopment is for emergencies. I see no evidence that this is an emergency, and I am not confident that it is even well-founded. —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Way to overre4act, messedrocker. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

User:SamAndrews is clearly a sockpuppet of someone; his first edit is to start up on Lucky 6.9's talk page referring to previous discussions. At least some of these reverts are reasonable, the latest user's comment ends with "Maybe Lucky should go get a life." Leaving a message "WTF???" is not cool, calm, and collected, though it would be an understandable response to a mediation request by a disruptive user being taken seriously. —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Working closely? I offered to help him get rid of the abusive comments from his page. I've tried to be selective and not remove legitimate comments (and on those where I noticed I had, I either replaced them or apologized to the user who's message I deleted). I've stated it was because of Lucky's request so it people would know I wasn't wikistalking or whatnot. Seriously, if this is against policy or something, an admin need only tell me on my talk page and I'll stop at once. -WarthogDemon 03:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I see nobody had even bothered to let Lucky know that he was being attacked and threatened with desysopping. I have taken care of what I am sure was merely an oversight. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Zoe. We were all the victims of a calculating and very knowledgeable troll who is familiar with this sites inner workings. I hope we can all continue on trying to make this crazy site work. - Lucky 6.9 02:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been suggested by Zoe that I just let this thing run its course and refuse mediation. This is a non-event by an extremely clever troll who threw in a few legit edits to cover his tracks and whose very first edit was to my talk page, folks. If you wish, I can restore the complaint, but it's pointless IMO. - Lucky 6.9 03:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, impersonator just appeared at the WoW wiki. His name? Lucky 6.9. He did try and impersonate me. Coincidence? I don't think so. Besides, I spell better.  :) - Lucky 6.9 03:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the countering viewpoints, thank you for pointing out I overreacted, let me do the investigation though and I will come to a conclusion as an uninvolved administrator. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the user's first edit and Lucky's explanation I am inclined to believe that this block is valid and no wrongdoings is involved. --WinHunter ^(talk) 03:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see this. Are admins now allowed to give out blocks because they think that someone's a troll? Things seemed to have been changed in the couple of months I've been away. Looking at Luck's Talk page, and following up some of the exchanges, it's clear that he has a very odd notion of what counts as insulting language and behaviour, that he overreacts regularly, and that his judgement as to who is and isn't a troll is far from dependable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Most of the "OMG admin abuse" complaints on AN/I are bunk. I agree that we can never let that blind us to the ones that aren't bunk, but those usually come with corroboration, usually from long time users. Lucky 6.9 is a pest hunter as well as an editor, and he regularly does the brave and time consuming business of swatting the vandals. For that reason, a complaint against him requires extra time and care. In the past, Lucky has been accused of every crime in the laws of nature or man, but I've never seen him be guilty of anything worse than a salty word. This looks like just another newborn account with amazing knowledge of Wikipedia's rules and processes. That should sound alarms. Geogre 03:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucky seems like a decent person, but I am someone whom he has offended not once, but twice. In both cases, I had done about 15 minutes of sincere, well-meaning work (first, trying to improve a squirelly article about "Alaska cruises", then second, trying to comment on this apparently hoax-driven mediation), which Lucky decided to unilaterally delete, without really checking to see if anything valid was in progress. Then -- and I think this is the worse thing -- he deletes any criticism of his actions on his Talk page, then threatens the critic to "ease up" or risk being blocked. The guy merely needs a break; some time for self-examination. --JossBuckle Swami 03:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that this is a familiar story; I had exactly the same experience a few days ago: I'd followed up a speedy notice, found that the article wasn't speediable, took of the notice and did some tidying, only to find when I tried to save that the article had been deleted by Lucky. I recreated it, left a message at his Talk page, went back, and he'd deleted my recreation (without contacting me). When I left another message, I received an intemperate reply, but when I went back to respond to it, he'd deleted my first two messages from his Talk page.

My impression is that he's sometimes much too eager to speedy-delete articles, and is too short-tempered and defensive to accept legitimate criticism — though in my case, after an exchange of messages, he did finally calm down. I'm sure that he does a great deal of good work, but pulling back a little wouldn't hurt. This isn't anything like grounds for de-sysopping, but it would be nice if people who create articles in genuine good faith (as was clearly the case in the example with which I was concerned) could be treated with more courtesy by admins. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Investigation so far... I am not going to jump to conclusions about trolling or not, but the mediation page was not really... needed. Blocking of SamAndrews may or may not have been warranted... and page deletions seemed pretty cromulent. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please restore Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/User:Lucky 6.9 reverting his own Talk page. It is common sense that a party involved in a mediation case should not delete the mediation case without reason. — Sebastian 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we move this page as per WT:AN#Linked subpages for discussions? (We could either create a subpage of this page or of the mediation page. Or does anyone have a better idea?) While we're at it, I would also like to change the title which currently only expresses one of the dubious actions I listed. (If this is to become a subpage of this page then I'd propose to call it simply WP:ANI/Lucky 6.9.) — Sebastian 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• As some one with both unpleasant and pleasant interactions with Rallph (AKA Lucky9.6) for parts of the last eighteen monts, I dacn say that his heart is in the right place, although he might be a bit sensitive. Vive Miami! Wikkibrah 20:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nationalistic bot

User:Ganeshk has again unleashed his WikiProjectIndia template-adding bot. The bot is tagging hundreds of articles re Bollywood actors and actresses with the India template. Here's an example: [42]. The bot was stopped on November 6 and he restarted it on December 23 ([43]). This is just plain pointless! It fills up the top of the talk page with huge templates (you have to scroll and scroll to get past them into actual discussion) and it's unnecessary. What possible good does it serve, other than the egos of the Indian editors (we own XXX,XXX articles nyah nyah!). This sort of thing spreads. A Pakistani editor tried to claim Salwar kameez for Pakistan (even though the items of clothing in question are worn in many countries) and one editor insists that Dhoti belongs to India and Hinduism. This is bad enough when you have one editor adding project templates one at a time -- fending off an attack by a bot is hopeless. Can we please BAN template-adding bots? And revert the dang bot edits? If it isn't important enough for someone to spend the time to add it by hand, after discussion with the regular editors, then it isn't important to the project. Zora 00:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll second this. I'm fed up with this high-level project nonsense, where people in some special-interest clique make decisions and then enforce them on dozens of articles they've never worked on, regardless of the sentiment of those who are. A bot to do this? Terrible, terrible, terrible. This is how we loose good editors who just work away at one or two articles. Can we block the bot, and ban this type of nonsense? --Doc^g 00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:1.0/I depends on these templates. It helps editors identify at a glance which articles need more work on, and as a result, are not suitable for inclusion into any of the stable releases. Zora, if any editor is saying, "ooh, we have 100 articles, and you don't, nyah nyah", go have a chat with that editor. Doc, I haven't heard of one case of an editor leaving Wikipedia because a tag is added to a talk page. That neither one of you finds adding more organization to pages useful does not mean that others share your opinion. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot for now. I wouldn't be against rolling back the edits. Grandmasterka 01:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel the bot block is really unfair without a discussion here. The bot tagging helps out with WP:1 and also help identify articles that need improvement. There are about 250 projects participating in this. Ganeshbot works under automation project of the India project tagging India-related categories with India project banner. This discussion here is not about this particular bot, but about whether assessments are needed for Wikipedia. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, what exactly is the problem here? If it's just a concern about template bloat, it would be trivial to have the bots/people/whatever use the small-form templates, avoiding the whole "scrolling past the templates" issue. Is there some fundamental problem beyond that? What's wrong with letting interested WikiProjects enter relevant articles into their assessment process? Kirill Lokshin 01:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the "assessment process" is producing any results. We had a list of "to-do" items at WP:INCINE and the response (even from me, and I should be be more dedicated) has been tepid. WP:INCINE is the project devoted to Indian cinema ... if we can't get editors to work on actor/actress articles, then what good is an India template going to do?

If adding templates doesn't help produce better articles, then it's nothing but ethnic/religious/nationalist tagging of the sort that has mired thousands of articles. Are we adding US templates to all the US actor and actress articles? NO .... but I did find a great example of the idiocy of template-mania: have a look at Talk:George Clooney. He hasn't lived in Kentucky since 1982, but someone has claimed him for WikiProject Kentucky.

We let anyone start a project and plaster templates all over heck and gone and there's absolutely no discussion or approval required. This is something that can't be done with links? or even categories? No, we have to have a great big graphic that says "Kilroy wuz here". That's bad enough, but automating it? The last time Ganeshk turned his robot loose, it was tagging articles related to Iranian history with WP:IN templates and the Iranian editors were extremely upset. Please, let's turn off the bot until we can have some high-level decisions about projects. Zora 02:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, did you notice the part where I pointed out a way to make this a small, out-of-the-way graphic? If it's merely a layout issue, we have technical solutions for it. ;-)

As far as producing results: it's been my experience (with WP:MILHIST) that the process is very helpful in motivating and tracking improvement (if not, perhaps, in an entirely predictable way). Your experience may, of course, be different. I don't entirely disagree with you on the subject of projects not getting discussion or approval; but I think that going after one particular project (and WP:INDIA doesn't seem like a project whose existence would be controversial, in any case) is hardly the best way of approaching the issue. Kirill Lokshin 02:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to poke into other people's affairs,but Ganesk has been doing this for along time now.The last dispute ganshk had(along with an edit war) was with user:Szhaider when he put Indian tags on Pakistani history articles.Again i don't mean to come in uninvited or anything,but Ganshk why not inform other editors of what you're about to do before randomly tagging other countries history pages with indian tags?You seemed to have upset more than just Szhaider and I by continuing this random tagging.If more than just Szhaider and I are complaining about this to you,then shouldn't it mean something?Please think about it. Nadirali 02:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that the bot-tagging is (presumably) driven by categories, I'd guess that there's something funny about the category structue involved that's bringing in unrelated articles. Kirill Lokshin 02:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, The bot always runs on India-related categories. In Zora's case, it was Category:Indian actor stubs. Nadirali is pointing to Indus Valley Civilization that is part of Category:Indus Valley Civilization which is a sub-category of Category:History of India. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ownership" of Indus Valley Civilization is hotly contested subject. Claiming it for India without even considering that this claim might be controversial is thoughtless. It's also not at all clear to me that if someone is an "Indian actor", the Indian part of the concept takes precedence over the actor part. Why pick India, instead of cinema?

Real-life is not a UNIX file structure, with everything neatly hierarchically arranged. A particular article may be relevant to many categories or projects. Grabbing it for ONE project and ignoring any other areas of interest or relevance is provocative. That was exactly what was wrong with the Pakistani editor trying to claim salwar kameez. Since it's provocative, you don't do it by bot. If you want articles assessed, put up a SMALL assessment template, that doesn't claim the article for any one project. Zora 03:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about "ownership" or "claiming"? There's nothing unusual about having multiple projects add their tags to the same article (although you seem to be complaining about this as well?); and all the tags I've seen now say merely that the article is "within the scope" of a particular project, avoiding even the mildly controversial "part of" a project wording used in the past. That Ganeshk is only applying one project's tags is not intended as a slight to other projects; they're perfectly free to add their own tags (or even get a bot to help them do so). (While there have been some bots that have tagged articles with multiple projects' tags in a single run, this usually requires more coordination than it's worth, in my experience.) Kirill Lokshin 03:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Zora, Tagging does not mean "ownership" or "grabbing" or "claiming". It means taking responsibility to substantially improve the article to FA-standard. Indian actors are tagged with cinema=yes parameter so that they fall into the Cinema workgroup of the India project. If someone is a Indian actor, both Indian part and the actor part apply. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the indie bot tagging bollywood stuff. Indian cinema project is listed under the wp india. The actors are also indian. this is perfectly acceptable. As for indus valley civilization, it has the word indus in it. islam and the islamic state of pakistan didn't even exsist. indian women also wear salwar kameez. there's nothing wrong tagging it.--D-Boy 06:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the template should be made as small as it could be. If possible, it could have a show/hide option defaulting to hide, so that those not interested see the discussions straight away. I thought adding a project template does not imply ownership, and that articles can be tagged under several different projects. As far as the bot is concerned, since the project templates/assessment, etc. are relatively new things, we do have a big backlog of articles, and so a bot is handy. Of course, merely tagging doesn't achieve much, and it's true that many bot-tagged articles run at the risk of being forgotten again. deeptrivia (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ownership" of Indus Valley Civilization is hotly contested subject. Claiming it for India without even considering that this claim might be controversial is thoughtless.

You might want to look closely at User:Nadirali's contribs (which include claiming Panini for Pakistan]] & running an off-wiki meatpuppetry forum)... No one is claiming IVC FOR INDIA. We already have different project tags for pre-1947 India.

Seriously, i find Zora to be mildly Indophobic ( See [44]). She assumes bad-faith with virtually every Indian editor. She seems to be on one-man crusade to rid Wikipedia of what she considers to be assertive Indian nationalism. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 11:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ganesh's and Deepak's comments that template tagging does not mean ownership. The literal meaning would be "This article is associated with this WikiProject." The size ohwever, is a contentious issue. Since some articles will have many templates, a size reduction is inevitable and necessary. As others have mentioned, the bot is extremely efficient compared to humans and only a small proportion of the articles it tags would be considered controversial "taggings." At times you can't blame the bot. Take Dhoti as an example. Zora mentioned that Dhotis are worn by people outside of India but the all but one sentence in the entire article talks about Dhotis being worn outside of India and even that sentence is unsourced and randomly inserted. Someone should be bold and write firstly about Dhotis being worn in other parts of the world in Wiki-style. Personally if I read the article, I would have doubted that they are worn outside of India. Most importantly, more than one template can be added, therefore template tagging does not suggest ownership but rather association. Gizza^{Chat ©} 13:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Zora is merely indophobic. She should stop seeing Hindu fascists/Indian imperialists/etc. around. She accused a very neutral Indian editor of acting like "a tank division heading from Islamabad. Just because documented India-bashers are upset is no reason to stop a bot which is organizing things to make the pedia better. Wikipedia shouldnt fall prey to fringe, politically charged, rants.Bakaman 17:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A) Whether or not someone is an "indophobe" has no bearing as to whether they can edit or comment constructively (we all have our biases). B)Labelling someone an "Indophobe" is a great way to create "Indophobia".NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 18:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Bots that are disputed can always be taken to the BAG or a b'crat for deactivation. As to Nina's comment, I would merely point out that, unfortunately, some users are simply disruptive, in such a large environment as the English Wikipedia, that is inevitable. While we respect everyone that contributes here, some simply aren't able to truly contribute because of their negative attitudes. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Whats more, it irrates me when i'm accused of claiming my own cultural icons. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 22:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Feel free to have at James McCune Smith. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 22:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahem these are Indian actors being added with a WP India tag. Its logical. Editors that disagree either have not fully understood the rationale for tagging or have issues that need to be worked out. Judging by the consensus formed (in which only one editor thinks tagging Indian people with a WP India tag is offensive) I think Ganesh's bot should be reinstated with all priviledges, and Zora reprimanded for disruptive behavior and blatant racism.Bakaman 01:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I read what some of these editors have written about me.That forum is not "meatpuppet" or what ever you want to call it.Zora is not Indophobic.Other members on Pakhub have informed me that some of these facists are part of a Hindu fanatic site.And thanks alot Dabrood for vandalizing the article we wrote on Pakhub.Please read the warning I posted on your userpage.

"But Someone from Wikipedia, who I had an argument with, went on this forum and asked his Hindu freinds to spam this site "to hell"

Here is the screenshot: http://upload.pwnage.nu/files/upload2/pakhub-threat.JPG "

I don't mean to assume bad faith or be prejiduice against indian wikipedians in any way ,but it seems if they can't have their way around,they either start ganging up on other wikipedians and launch personal attacks or they call upon Indian administrators to help them in their battles.Look at the example below:

Yes bhai, I do remeber you. I am a brahmin myself and will get an Indian admin to indef ban this user.Bakaman 14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Before I continue,I confess I have lost my temper in the past,been incivil,reponded to personal attacks against my with personal attacks of my own and did carry out a few violations unintentionally or out of anger.

But ever since that,I have either tried to ignor these Indian nationalists and tried to reach out to make a truce with them as I did to Bakaman here

Before wikipedia turns into a nasty battle-ground and eventually gets disrupted,I propose one thing: Admnistrators should NOT be allowed to help resolve disputes IF it is related to their nationality or ethnicity in anyway,because it only causes them to take sides.Please consider it carefully

Merry Christmas and Happy new year to all. Nadirali 02:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Number one use diffs. Otherwise I'm going to assume all "quotes" you provide have been tampered with. I got a user indef blocked becasue their user name was "Brahmin-gaand-maaru" (meaning "Brahmin ass fucker"). Per WP:USERNAME its offensive. Obviously an Indian admin would also know what that means. Calling me a fascist (when I myself am democratic is a horrible personal attack). I feel no need to treat nadirali (talk · contribs) & company as contributors anymore merely as trollsespecially those that call me "fascist". The last user that did that got banned for one-year. There was no battle in the first place, and your prejudice for Indians is so obvious its like finding hay in a haystack. There are no truces on wikipedia, wiki is not a battleground in the first place. So other members on a meatpuppetry forum think I'm a member of Hinduunity? Great.Bakaman 03:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Whenever I disagree with Bakasuprman, he calls me anti-Hindu, Indophobic, racist, Muslim, etc. [45], [46], [47]. (That's just the last few days. I could get more if I went back further.) If I were a racist, I wouldn't have spent the last few years editing Indian cinema related articles, working on Indian clothing articles, Desi, Partition of India, etc. If he calls me anti-Hindu and racist, it's in the same partisan spirit that some rightwing US politicians and commentators call their political opponents anti-American and suggest that they're working for Al-Qaeda.

If I'm anti-anything, it's anti-nationalism. Of any kind. I've pulled back from the Iran-related articles because of lack of time and sheer weariness at being the constant object of attack, but when I worked on those, I was regularly accused of being anti-Persian, an Arab-lover or an Arab, etc. We have a problem on WP, in that cadres of patriotic editors (often of one political tendency) stake out their turf and fight off interlopers. It's hard for many US and UK editors to see this, because they may not be familiar with non-US or UK political struggles, and it is easy to believe people who claim to represent a whole ethnicity, nationality, or religion. If it were a US editor showing up and claiming to represent all Americans, he/she would be hooted off the stage with a shower of rotten tomatoes.

It's not just me objecting to the India bot. Others have complained. Ganesh says that he has the best intentions and I just don't understand but ... if various people, who otherwise have had no other association with me, complain about having a huge India template slapped on a talk page without so much as a by-your-leave, then he is doing something that upsets people, and he should reconsider what he's doing.

If articles are to be assessed, I suggest that a simple, tiny box on the article would produce more assessments. Many encyclopedia users don't know that the talk pages exist. Just put up a button that says "Has this article been helpful? Click to assess it." Or some such wording. This would pop up a questionnaire or a rating bar. Start with a few high-traffic pages and experiment with different versions of the questionnaire or bar, until we know what works. As for the templates: if they were one-inch square and stuck off on the right side of the monitor, and said only "Interested in working on other articles related to X? Click here" (click taking you to project page) that might work. Or better yet, just one button that says, "If you'd like to work on more articles like this, click here," and then a menu of related projects would pop up. All the same size. No competition to draw more editors with a bigger template.

There's a great book called The Inmates Are Running the Asylum, about computer interface design. It's tricky stuff, and programmers and systems engineers are notoriously bad at it. I suggest that a rethinking of our interface is in order. Zora 05:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, look at the pattern. first, we have paks complaining that the indie tag is imperialistic. Ganeshk goes out of his his way to make the thing as neutral as possible. At is still called hijacking history. NEWS TO EVERYONE! there's plenty of room for everyone's tag. pak call the tag offensive. well, you know what, I find the pak tag offensive. they would never change their tag and tag flag off it. seriously, let us be. we don't hurt anyone. India was the country where Gandhi was born. It's people are under attack from islamics, maoist, and some questionable missionaries. The president is muslim, the pm is sikh, and and italian women who never gave up here italian citizenship almost became pm. Also, india tag should be on bollywood articles, because for one thing, bollywood originated in INDIA! Indian actors are from india. it's not abouyt nationalism. it's commonsense. the bot tag helps out a lot and save manpower helping directed for other things.--D-Boy 06:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Bollywood actors are Indian actors. Putting templates on their talk pages does not imply any kind of ownership; but only categorisation of articles so that editors of a particular project may work on those articles. Terming the bot "nationlistic" does not seem very appropriate on your part. However, I would request Ganesh to stall bot operations before this issue is sorted out and discussed. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, not all Bollywood stars are Indian - there's Yana Gupta for instance, or if you want more notable examples, how about Manisha Koirala and of course, Helen Richardson. The trend of non-Indian Bollywood actors also seems to be increasing[48]. Bwithh 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I just spent a few minutes looking at WP actor/actress articles. None of the North American/English/European articles had any nationality tags (though I did find that Greer Garson, that quintessentially English actress (Mrs. Miniver), has been claimed by the state of Texas). I spot-checked a few other actor/actresses (Egyptian, Iranian, Japanese) and the only actor page with a nationality tag was Toshiro Mifune. I don't think that Ganeshk can claim that tagging actors/actresses by presumed nationality is standard procedure. It's not just "common sense." If we have Cinema of India tags, surely that's all that's necessary. (I'd be happy to see those hidden behind a button, BTW -- no special treatment.) Zora 10:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yana gupta may not be Indian but she makes her career INDIAN cinema. So do other actresses you mentioned. I'm sure ganeshk can program the bot to make the indian cinema tag appear if that's your main problem. You can even do it yourself by inputting the parameter.--D-Boy 11:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of hindu extremists on this board, and with them being members of forums like HinduUnity, you cant possibly call them Neutral in any way. I dont bash Indians here, however they have been on my back ever since I tried to correct the articles where they are blatantly stealing Pakistani history. Anyone willing to understand would understand my argument but people here refuse to read it, so go figure. You talk about Bollywood being Indian, because its located it India. Fair enough. I am sure the same applies for the Pakistani history. Unre4L 18:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we all are agents of Hindu Unity. I havent seen anyone "steal" Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan, Choudhury Rehmat Ali or etc for India. Therefore your charges of hijacking are baseless. I read your argument and found it impotent and unsourced to boot. Zora, merely joining with Pakistani users to attack Indian users and indian imperialist bots is not forming a consensus. I agree with dboy, that the Pakistani flag is offensive especially when claiming Hindu history for an entity not even conceived at those points in time. The only time a tag intersection should occur between Hindu and PAkistan is he article is on Rana Bhagwandas, Krishan Bheel, Ramesh Lal, etc. According to the group angry at a robot (already a weird source for anger) I am a "rightwing, Hindu Unity, Hindu extremist". Great descriptors.Bakaman 21:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

So how does a republic of India flag make it onto so called "ancient Indian" history articles. Your argument is ridiculous. Just because you havent stolen all of our history doesnt mean you havent stolen most of it. Pakistans flag is just as valid as having an ROI flag. Both countries were born in 1947. And India was never united prior to the British Invasion. Yet you still refer to Ancient India as if it has existed long enough to claim the history of the entire subcontinent. Unre4L 23:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Never united? Ahem Ashoka, Akbar, Rama. United before British invasion? Please explain how Chanakya and his Indian army beat back a Greek assault, how Aushada Pandit (a noted Buddhist scholar) and King Videh united 100 Kingdoms of India. Ancient Pakistan is cited on educational websites 55 times while Ancient India is cited 39300 times. Thats about 880 times to one that the truth is cited on educational websites.Bakaman 03:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I had thought about hiding Indian project tag when cinema parameter is set. But this does not work in cases where actors have turned into politicians (Talk:Rajesh Khanna). In these cases, both cinema and politics are set to yes. The India tag is on so that other sub-groups can be tagged to the article talk page. Too many checks make the template complicated and hard to maintain. If template size is an issue, there are ways to make it small. Ideas such as "link-only", "category-only" should be discussed at the Wikipedia-level and not be forced on one project (India in this case). Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolution?

Wow, thats a long discussion! I think Zora's ire was meant to be vented towards my bot as that is the bot that has been doing most of the tagging of WP India articles. So I am sorry that I took so long to respond. I was off to a Xmas vacation. Hope you all had a great one too!

Now that the discussion has already gone on long enough, can we start moving towards the resolution? I am trying to put down the problems and their solutions point by point:

1. Large templates eating up talk page space: We already have the small template solution for that.
2. Irrelevant articles getting tagged: Both Ganesh and I exercise extreme caution while tagging articles. We pick them up from categories and leave out ambiguous cats. Errors are however bound to creep in and we can remove them in good faith.
3. Nationalistic tagging: I told Zora before and I say it again. This is not the Indian government trying to own articles. Wikiprojects exist to give a structure to related articles and that is all that we hope to do apart from giving them more visibility. I am also one of the early members of Wikiproject Pakistan and planning to run my bot for Pakistan related articles as well.
4. Assessments: There are quite a few people assessing articles even if not at the desired speed. We are trying to get more editors to do it.
5. Blocking of the bot: I feel blocking of any good faith editor, even a bot, should not take place without discussion. Why block when you can discuss??

I hope we can get to an early closure of this. — Lost^(talk) 08:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not tag Pakistani history articles with Indian templates.It has led to disputes and edit wars between us and the Indian editors.I don't see how you're helping the situation by continuing this random and unecessary tagging.

No one is stopping you from adding tags to your own history articles,but please refrain from tagging other countries articles with Indian tags as they serve no purpose other than creating more fights and arguements. Nadirali 08:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure which points of mine you are referring to. I wrote that I plan to tag Pakistani articles with the Wikiproject Pakistan template, not with India template. I also wrote that I do not tag ambiguous categories. The purpose has also been detailed above. What exactly is random and unnecessary? — Lost^(talk) 08:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan didn't have a history until 1947...--D-Boy 11:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Newbie biting

Can someone take a look at [49] and [50] and talk to StuRat (talk • contribs • count) about it if appropriate? He's appears to me to be wrong on policy, and using his incorrect impression to harass an anonymous user who's trying to contribute—and it's not his first such comment. Since he and I butt heads on the ref desk so much, it may be that I am wrong about this, and certainly he won't listen to me... but I am loath to let it pass when it looks to me like he's biting an anonymous user based on assumptions of bad faith. -- SCZenz 01:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the previous incident... see this edit, which I did attempt to talk to him about on his userpage. -- SCZenz 01:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah smells like a sock to me as well! Sturat has a very good nose for them. No action required!--Light current 01:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF says we need evidence, not a "good nose." -- SCZenz 01:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, 'good nose' is fine—to a point. Wikipedia necessarily handles a lot of stuff using 'sniff tests'. If StuRat – or anyone else – puts forward some diffs that support the notion that this (these?) IP is a sockpuppet of another editor, then it's a snap to request a Checkuser to confirm the identity. I'll even help write the CheckUser request. (Heck, I'd write the damn request myself; the Ref Desk talk page has gotten so touchy lately that I'll personally bludgeon to death anyone who's playing games with socks to screw with discussions.)

On the other hand, if the only reasoning at work here is of the form 'An IP editor on this page disagrees for me, therefore it must be a sockpuppet'...well, that doesn't smell fair. At some point, you have to put up or shut up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a valid point. "Similar editing styles," which is the most difficult evidence of sockpuppetry to accumulate, does require a "good nose." But that's not the kind of "good nose" we're talking about above, is it? -- SCZenz 02:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Since when is either one of you a checkuser? Does either one of you have any evidence, or are you just trying to discredit the poster? Since when are anonymous posters automatically sockpuppets? Titoxd^(?!?) 01:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Im sure evidence will be forthcoming! StuRat is the early warning radar 8-)--Light current 01:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be. I contributed extensively under an IP myself, including in various non-article-space discussions. IP addresses change, and a lack of contributions should not be held against this user. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz, would you please stop being the RD police and the attack StuRat monitor? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia by making suggestions on the reference desk. And I never tolerate newbie biting anywhere I see it. -- SCZenz 17:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm gathering evidence now, this while take a while, be back in a bit... StuRat 02:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

To start, he doesn't appear to be a newbie at all, he seems well versed in Wikipedia editing, Ref Desk policies, etc. He apparently has a dynamic I/P address (I didn't know this initially), which means he has a different I/P each day. I know of at least 3 of the I/Ps, but there are probably many more. They all seem to start with 87.102. The three I know about are User:87.102.4.34, User:87.102.4.227, and User:87.102.22.58.

Here is where he admits to having all three I/Ps: [51].

First, he made this charming contribution: [52]:

Fuck off - that's an insult.87.102.4.227 14:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, he followed up with this: [53]:

You are a totally time wasting twat - why don't you fuck off and stop wasting everyones time with your pointless words - I had doubts at first - but now am am absolutely certain - you are a total fucking twat - fuck off.87.102.22.58 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the nature of his contributions, I think I've been more than patient with this dynamic anon I/P. He also is firmly in the "deletionist" side on the Ref Desk debate, and makes it appear that there are many people on that side, as he has a different I/P every day and they all, of course, support the same deletionist POV. I don't happen to think that's right, to use multiple anon I/Ps to make it appear that the consensus is different than it really is.

As for SCZenz's motives in filing this AN/I, you will notice that, just 3.5 hours before, I signed a petition to recall his fellow Ref Desk deletionist Admin buddy User:Friday, and this is apparently SCZenz's attempt at retaliation: [54]. StuRat 03:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been keeping track of this for a while, so here is an incomplete supplemental list...:

• 87.102.4.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 23 December 2006
• 83.100.158.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 22 December 2006
• 87.102.4.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 20 December 2006
• 87.102.5.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 19 December 2006
• 83.100.250.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 18 December 2006
• 87.102.13.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 17 December 2006
• 87.102.4.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 16 December 2006
• 87.102.8.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 15 December 2006
• 83.100.174.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 12-14 December 2006
• 87.102.37.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 8 December 2006
• 83.100.174.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 7 December 2006
• 87.102.32.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 5 December 2006
• 87.102.32.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 4 December 2006
• 83.100.253.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 3 December 2006
• 83.100.253.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 December 2006
• 83.100.138.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 30 November 2006
• 83.100.158.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 28 November 2006
• 83.100.138.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 26 November 2006
• 87.102.36.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 22 November 2006
• 87.102.20.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 21 November 2006 <-- [55]
• 83.100.138.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 19 November 2006 <-- [56]
• 87.102.13.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 17 November 2006
• 87.102.18.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 17 November 2006
• 87.102.1.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 16 November 2006
• 87.102.23.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 15 November 2006
• 87.102.19.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 14 November 2006
• 87.102.6.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 5 November 2006

This is likely the same single user operating out of two IP ranges, 87.102.*.* and 83.100.*.* - there are two links where this user follows up on the same thread on the reference desk which establishes this. This user has been editing Wikipedia for some time, and most likely discovered the reference desks around mid-November. In fact, this person has been a daily contributor to Wikipedia for around 2 months - it's possible to extend this time even further back, but it's difficult to show as conclusively as the links below. Essentially, it's necessary to go through each of the IPs and their edits, and over time, you will see a general drift from gaming topics on Wikipedia, to those related to the reference desk. The diction, vocabulary, grammatical structure, and style of the posts is reasonably uniform, with a few exceptions which can be explained either contextually, or assuming that there is another unrelated user in the same range (which I consider to be somewhat unlikely). It's more difficult to establish that the IP is a sockpuppet of someone participating on the reference desk talk page with this information, so my inclination is to conclude for now that this is not the scenario we are dealing with here. --HappyCamper 05:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Both ranges, 83.100.138.0 – 83.100.138.255 and 87.102.0.0 – 87.102.7.255 are registered to the same ISP; Kingston Communications. It may be worthwhile to refer this matter to WP:RFCU if there are any additional suspected sockpuppets. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a policy on dynamic I/P usage ? I find it quite unacceptable that they can say or do whatever they want, then, even if they get banned from Wikipedia, they have only to log out, log back in under a new dynamic I/P, and continue the abuse. I would ban all use of dynamic I/Ps without a screen name. StuRat 12:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We allow it. -- SCZenz 17:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are we investigating someone when no reasonable evidence has been provided that they did anything wrong? Ok, yes, perhaps the IP has been uncivil, which I'm not saying is ok—but it was in response to harassment by StuRat. Maybe we should just drop the entire matter, and be nice to anonymous users from now on? -- SCZenz 17:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

So you would not have a problem with one of the regular editors telling you:

You are a totally time wasting twat - why don't you fuck off and stop wasting everyones time with your pointless words - I had doubts at first - but now am am absolutely certain - you are a total fucking twat - fuck off.87.102.22.58 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems extraordinarily lenient. Would you have let me get away with even one thenth of that? I think not. please act consistently SCZ.

--Light current 19:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, "uncivil" doesn't begin to describe his behavior. And there was no harassment by me, I merely suggested the possibility that these numerous accounts are socks of a registered user, which certainly is, indeed, a possibility. StuRat 00:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Uncivil" doesn't begin to describe your behavior either. Seen any WP:KETTLEs lately? >Radiant< 10:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• I never use that type of abusive language. Furthermore, any accusations of a lack of civility on my part have no part in this discussion, unless specifically related to the incidents with this anon IP. StuRat 15:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrespective of StuRat's other activities and snidey kettle remarks aside, StuRat, that is indeed unacceptable abuse. If any more takes place, let me know, and I will block the entire IP range to anonymous users. Proto::► 10:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Are two instances insufficient to justify this ? This wouldn't keep him from contributing, after all, but would only require that he contribute through a regular account, with the full accountability that goes with it. StuRat 14:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Rangeblock abusive user on dynamic anon I/P ?

I'd support rangeblocking this range to anons (requireing account creation), with the attendant fallout on the block list, regrettably, for abusive behaviour. The evidence supports it. Issues of other editors should be dealt with separately. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• I, of course, also support this action, based on these two edits: [57], [58]. StuRat 14:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning and block threat ?

I received this inappropriate warning and block threat, apparently related to the above discussion, even though no consensus has been reached that I've done anything wrong: [59]:

Witch hunting and harassment such as this and this is grounds for a block if you keep it up. This is a formal warning. Ashibaka tock 20:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What does everybody else think about this ? Are there any actions to be taken against Admins who threaten editors for no apparent reason ? StuRat 14:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:YuRiPa

YuRiPa (talk · contribs) has done the following:

• Created a article (Singapore Girls (Singapore Airlines)) which basically was a cut and paste copyvio from two websites in its first revision (see Talk:Singapore Girl).
• Since there was no clean revision I tagged it as {{copyvio}} and after User:YuRiPa removed the tag a couple of times as {{db-copyvio}}. It was deleted here.
• After that User:YuRiPa reposted portions of the copyrighted article, which made the idea of creating a clean page history without material derived from a copyright infringement difficult. I tagged the article as {{db-g4}}.
• I also replaced two fair use images (Image:SIA Girl.jpg and Image:SIA Stewardess.jpg) uploaded by User:YuRiPa with a free image (Image:Singapore Airlines flight attendants.jpg).
• User:YuRiPa then created a sockpuppet, IanFuller (talk · contribs), in order to impersonate a account at Flickr (Ian Fuller) and to create the impression that the copyright holder has released the copyright to a image uploaded by the sockpuppet: Image:SIA Cabin Crew.jpg (diff).
• User:YuRiPa also seems to assert ownership over the article in question and does not seem to fully grasp the concept of copyright and fair use, but those are common newbie mistakes. However asserting permission to use copyrighted text and images for which that user is not the copyright holder is fairly serious --Oden 14:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, it is. Can you prove he is not the same Ian Fuller? Proto::► 10:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you have evidence of a sock, please post it in WP:RFCU. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Checkuser confirmed that IanFuller (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of YuRiPa (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/YuRiPa and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/YuRiPa). The puppet account was blocked indefinitely and the puppet master was blocked for 24 hours. --Oden 12:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Soliciting 'endorsments' for a recall 'vote'

StuRat (talk · contribs) has been inviting users to 'endorse' a recall motion for User:Friday. Is this cool? Anchoress 14:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The recall process is unofficial, but Category:Administrators open to recall suggests that five endorsements are needed. Now, since there is no centralised 'requests for recall' page, the only way to find endorsers, apart from solicitation, is to expect users to stumble across Friday's talk page randomly, which doesn't make much sense.

Frankly I think Friday shares part of the blame by inviting others to troll him in this way - which is all it is. Look at the 'petition' - it only needs one more endorsement and yet it's so flimsy a dragonfly's breath would blow it out of requests for arbitration, the real forum for serious cases of sysop abuse. (There are more opposers, but they don't seem to subtract from the support under the supposed 'process'.)

What we should do about the solicitation, I don't really have an opinion. What Friday should do is make it clear that he will not be risking his ability to help the project for the sake of an insignificant spat and a stillborn pretense at accountability, and withdraw himself from the admin recall category. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say an RfC was the way to go, but given the egregious trolling by LightCurrent on StuRat's Talk I'm tempted to simply go and nuke the entire thread there. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Zomg admin abuse, and too temporary for my liking. To be truly rouge we should remove Friday from the recall category ourselves, protect the page in The Right Version and use the electric fence to stop Friday adding himself back in :o --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This will work best if we can gather a posse from the Cabal to tag-team it, of course... Guy (Help!) 20:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who does not think it the best idea to be open to recall through a process that has not been formalized yet? You won't catch me adding my name to that list. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the process is voluntarily, it's entirely up to Friday to decide how to handle this. He might decide the solicitation makes the petition invalid, or he might not. He might decide to listen to users who are so substantially misrepresenting his actions and intentions, or he might not. There's no need for intervention on anyone's part. Personally, you won't find me anywhere the recall list either; sometimes doing our jobs makes people mad, and I know good admins who would be recalled in a hot second if they were on it. -- SCZenz 17:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Regardless of our process or lack thereof regarding recallable admins, vote stacking is disruptive. >Radiant< 23:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Vote stacking" only applies to votes where the ratio of support to oppose matters, with the fear being that one side gets more votes because they can garner more supporters. Since "oppose" votes simply do not matter here, there is no possibility of "vote stacking". StuRat 10:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No. It applies just the same when a certain number of support votes are needed. It just means that the votes are being stacked against a fixed target rather than opposing votes. --Cherry blossom tree 11:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Has any admin ever stood for re-election as a result of an "open for recall" petition ? Given that Category:Administrators open to recall says that six editors "in good standing" have to request the re-election; it seems to be up to the admin themselves to determine what "in good standing" means; and no admin will admit that an editor who requests their re-election can possibly be "in good standing", this would seem to be a Catch 22 situation. Isn't this whole "process" just a cosmetic canard ? Gandalf61 17:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a possibility, the rules should be more clear - see how I specified 'good standing' on my talk page to get rid of this problem.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but I dont think we should 'duck' this issue now.--Light current 18:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Crzrussian resigned his adminship following such a petition (and then went through RFA again some time later). Kirill Lokshin 17:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

THat of course is an option open to Friday if he wishes to cut short the process.--Light current 18:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Another option open to any uninvolved administrator is to indefinetly block you, StuRat and THB until you stop harassing people. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Off topic.--Light current 18:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an admin has stood for re-election as a result... Crzrussian did so, as pointed out above. I've looked at the petition in this case, and I offered to clerk it for Friday if so desired, it seems a bit disorganised right now. I'm not sure whether Friday will accept my offer. (BoG did a little informal clerking already which helped in my view) It is not clear what Friday's "in good standing" criteria are yet. I suspect that if the petition DID succeed, the resulting RfC (if that were what Friday chose to do) would come out resoundingly in favour of his retaining his adminship but might have some constructive feedback for Friday to consider. This system can and does work if allowed to. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I have no problem with advertising various issues, but I think that a line should be drawn before advertising a vote (ok) and asking a person to vote in a specific way ('uncool'). In this case (as an admin open to recall myself) I'd certainly support asking others to look at one's behaviour - the larger the sample, the bigger the chance 'six editors in good standing', whatever the critiera, can be found. This also works in the favour of the defendant: if majority considers him innocent, then they are notified and waiting for a chance to cast support votes (or whatever they can do in a procedure that is initated).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll go farther and say it is OK to ask that people vote a certain way, if it is done decorously. It happens all the time via email, I am certain of it. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jacob Peters

(Moving this here from WP:AIV, in my opinion the situation is too complicated for that venue Mangojuice^talk 16:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)):

• Jacob Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user was blocked once before for making undiscussed page moves to Holodomor and major undiscussed edits to same page. Continues to press POV edits, deletes images en masse from page and once again is making undiscussed page moves. Blanks pages. Has been blocked 8 times for edit warring, undiscussed moves, and other offenses. Obvious vandalism-only account. TheQuandry 16:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• This topic is also further up the page at #Holodomor is moved again - fourth time. -- JLaTondre 16:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And the reason we haven't blocked him for a month is ... ? | Mr. Darcy talk 17:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's give him one last chance. The Holodomor article has been move-protected and Sebbeng (talk · contribs) (TheQuandry) has given him an official final warning. -- tariqabjotu 17:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if he persists, I'd advocate a long block, as I see no sign to this point that he has any intention of following our policies or norms. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, this has to be his laaaast chance. I've rarely seen a user more unwilling to compromise on anything. - Merzbow 20:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

He's at it again. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him for a period of two million seconds. -- tariqabjotu 01:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's...555 hours, 33 minutes, and 20 seconds, or a bit over 23 days. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I just did the math too. It's shorter than it sounds. Newyorkbrad 01:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was familiar with the length of the block. I have a page devoted to satisfying my sadistic needs (as they pertain to block lengths). -- tariqabjotu 01:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, why seconds? Khoikhoi 06:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. If he doesn't change his beheaviour, a perm block should be discussed, I believe.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Oussma and User:Nostramaroc blocked indef

I had blocked Oussma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a week on Dec 15th, 2006 because of copyright issues after a dozen of warnings. I am now blocking his sock Nostramaroc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitly for the same reasons and for evading block. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk Comment - If you have evidence they are socks (or there was an unarchived CU request), please lend RFCU a hand and post it so we can archive it for future reference :) On behalf of RFCU, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

At RFCU, it says that we block "obvious, disruptive sock puppet" and that "no checkuser is necessary". So the "obvious" part of that are the contribs (Morocco-related topics), timing, copyright infringement and refusing to communicate. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying its required for them to file a RFCU. I am saying it would be useful to note for future reference that they were blocked as a sock (and why). Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 14:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Pilotguy's deletion of userspace User:Argyriou/SirNicholas

Also discussed previously at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive164#Draft_RFC_deleted_by_admin. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:31, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I'm curious about the deletion and protection of this userspace page. The content was not an attack but a compilation of evidence to be presented in a future RfC. I'm also curious about how Pilotguy became aware of this page. I see no notices on his talk page and there is no listing at WP:MFD or WP:ANI. I get the impression that this was an action taken after discussion in IRC. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of WP:POINT, why do we have to have a user subpage containing stuff that would be discussed/duplicated elsewhere as in WP:MFD or WP:ANI? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The draft was being prepared there, to be posted at WP:RFC when it was complete. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:39, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Indeed Jordan. If the purpose was to prepare a draft than why we want it to be kept after having it completed? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I gather it hadn't been completed. Had the RFC been filed yet? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 02:24, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Alternatively, someone could look at your contributions and see that you edited the page earlier today. I contest whether the page was truly an attack page. Certainly, some of the accusations were a bit harsh and exaggerated, but I'm not sure I'd call it an attack page. -- tariqabjotu 17:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like an attack page to me. Kimchi.sg 17:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is here here. You have to realize that you do not own your userpages on Wikipedia and if an Administrator (Sysop), in their discresion, deems it to be inappropriate, it may be removed. Your best bet is to approach the sysop that deleted them, and discuss it with them. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Malber discussed the issue with Pilotguy. Of that whole exchange, what I found notable was Malber's "Okay, please illustrate how it was an attack page. Here's your opportunity to do so".... — and Pilotguy's response, "I'm not going to talk to someone as arrogant as you. It's Christmas, and the community has spoken on ANI. Bye bye." What an exemplary willingness to communicate with others and explain his decisions. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 00:09, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I am contemplating a user conduct RfC over this issue, or combining this with one on Mimsy. It would appear that they were acting in concert off-wiki. There also appear to be other administrative and incivility conduct issues with User:Pilotguy in my review of the above topics. —Malber (talk • contribs) 16:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Should PilotGuy be disinclined to undelete (which disinclination would not be unreasonable), you might also try deletion review. Joe 18:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Joe, do you think the above quoted-and-linked response was "not unreasonable"? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 00:09, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I'm curious, why wasn't this sent to MFD? Just H 18:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If it had been an attack page, it would have been speedy deletable (General point 10). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this expressed by "nonsense deleted", as though it had been a collation of Cab Calloway scat lyrics? Why no notification to the user, even after the fact? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:39, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

No, it's expressed by the deletion log. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Compare MastCell's comment below (21:28, 24 December 2006): ..."last I saw Argyriou's subpage (some time before it was deleted), it was primarly a compilation of diffs by Sir Nick, rather than an attack page per se." – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 00:35, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Great, thanks for the clarification. I'm curious though, is there a review for speedy deletions for those who would disagree with that compared to deletion reviews? I cannot see the page, so I do not have any opinion one way or the other. Just H 19:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That's probably right, but I don't know that it's altogether clear that there is a consensus for the application of G10 to userspace pages that be understood as attacking other users with the same stridency with which G10 is applied to pages generally, and mainspace pages in particular, that serve to attack biographical subjects or groups. Whilst the former may tend to be more disruptive than the latter (to be sure, IMHO, the instant subpage was not unnecessarily disruptive or devoid of constructive purpose), they do not tend to compromise the quality of the encyclopedic content. At the very least, I think it fair to say that there are reasonable objections essayed by many in the community to the deletion of pages that serve to compile information for a forthcoming RfC or RfAr (as against those that serve to compile information with which to harass other users or to compile material that will necessarily prove inflammatory), such that speedy deletion is disfavored for such pages; there have surely been several MfDs the disposition of which evidences the breadth and number of such objections. Joe 19:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely such a draft could be done much more tactfully on a local copy of Notepad or in email than on wiki. My opinion, anyways. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, on the one hand, such drafts could be composed more privately on Notepad etc. On the other hand, last I saw Argyriou's subpage (some time before it was deleted), it was primarly a compilation of diffs by Sir Nick, rather than an attack page per se. In general, I agree with SAJordan that if the reason for deletion was personal attacks/incivility, a warning before deletion would have been appropriate. Precipitate action by an admin in this kind of situation only feeds into what appears to be an established persecution complex. At this point, I agree that the most appropriate forum, should Argyriou want the page back, would be deletion review. MastCell 21:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't use Notepad to collaborate on a project. The reason you would want it in userspace is when you would like other editors to collaborate on compilation of evidence and to share their experiences with the administrator. By deleting and protecting the page, User:Pilotguy has stifled this discussion. If it were a page where editors were dishing on Mimsy and listing personal attacks I could understand the deletion, but this was not the case. —Malber (talk • contribs) 22:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there's a misunderstanding about the WP:RfC process, then. The idea is that others (including other involved/aggreived parties) chime in after the RfC is filed with their comments on the RfC page. Collecting diffs is one thing (it was my impression that this was what User:Argyriou was doing); creating a subpage in your userspace where a variety of people go to "compile evidence"/complain against one particular editor/admin is different, and blurs the line with an attack page - such a page will inevitably end up as a place where people go to "dish" about Mimsy. Creating such a page also circumvents the existing dispute resolution process. MastCell 22:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Using userspace allowed compiling a draft over several sessions and then posting a well-formed RFC, rather than typing into a live RFC at the first session and saving the work there while still rough. It also allowed removing any heated or ill-considered comments before the text was posted to RFC. I think we'd have fewer feuds if more people put their posts through such a cooling-off period. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:24, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

The intent of the page was not to create a place for collaboration before an RfC was filed, it was for me to document the abuses of User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, in the expectation that an RfC would be filed, so that I could contribute something sensible to such an RfC. I explicitly did not notify any other user of the existence of the page, as I intended it for my own use. Argyriou (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what it appeared to be when I saw it... and my feeling is that a user creating a subpage for their personal use, as a place to collect diffs in preparation for an RfC, is acceptable. That's a very different scenario from soliciting users to come to a subpage specifically to badmouth another editor/admin. MastCell 05:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

So, all this talk expended and the page has not been restored (and, even more strange, the deleting admin does not even participate in discussion here)? What is going on? Badagnani 06:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been put up for deletion review. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 07:07, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).

It was never a G10. Would it have been deleted if it were Nick preparing evidence for an RFC against Argyriou? No, it would not. The deletion was wildly inappropriate. Proto::► 10:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Pilotguy's actions were totally warranted. There's no need for hate sites operating on wiki.Bakaman 19:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

How on earth could it be construed as a hate site? Proto::► 21:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems slightly ironic in light of the name and content of this page. Nevertheless, most troubling to me is that a significant number of admins don't see how bad this action appears (regardless of past or current disagreements). I've heard the story, all users are equal, admins just have a couple more buttons, but I've also read the fine print. Tim Shuba 06:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of admin powers by Jayjg

User:Jayjg has protected David Irving[60] without giving a justification and despite the fact that he has recently been involved in editing the article. (see history).

User:SlimVirgin has removed the protection tag[61] without unprotecting the article. 87.117.199.132 20:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Which account were you trying to edit from? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason given by Jayjg was {{sprotect-banneduser}}. This guy is clearly a sock of whoever that banned user is (User:Kgeza67 by the looks of it). I've blocked the 87.177.199.0/24 range. -- Steel 20:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be User:Wik, who hates Jayjg because he's put some effort into blocking all his sockpuppets. Anyways, I don't think 87.177.199.0/24 is him - according to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kgeza67, the user is currently using a different range. Khoikhoi 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone complaining on ANI about misuse of admin powers shortly after an article is protected due to some banned user sets off the alarm bells for me. If you're confident it's not said banned user unblock the range. -- Steel 21:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's likely to be the same person. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag by mistake when I made an edit. I've returned it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I find no reason to censure Jayjg. He was merely protecting the integrity of the article.Bakaman 01:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect is not as big a deal as full protection. I would expect an admin to seek outside help for full protection, even in an obvious case such as attacks by a banned user. Thatcher131 13:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:$295,040.16!? I CANT BELIEVE IT!!

Hi, I was wondering if I could get some more opinions on this situation. It doesn't seem clear why this name is blockable under WP:U(i've seen longer names), and WP:AGF wasn't followed since the account didn't commit any vandalism. I'm fairly neutral, but I was wondering if we could have a reason here so this person doesn't become disgruntled and have an excuse to vandalize due to an axe to grind. I have asked for an unblock for this account until then, but if there's a good reason under policy I have no problem removing that tag. Just H 23:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A person/group of persons has been creating usernames with a number that is whatever amount is shown in the fundraiser bar on top of this page at the moment (unless you've dismissed it already). That is being trollish. Kimchi.sg 00:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed my blocked username above, so I thought I'd comment. I see nothing wrong with mentioning how much we've raised in my username along with my sandbox only (cause it is for experimenting) contributions. Last year I did this and had mixed results. Some people simply dont "get" my sense of humor. This I understand. However, to my knowledge there is nothing in the username policy that prohibits these names. Except for having multiple sockpuppets, I dont see the problem. If you want, I could pick a less attention getting name (such as this one) and stay in the sandbox. Deal?TheAnonomousFundraiser 01:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw it as a new user and I thought that it was a vandalistic username thus I blocked I am sorry for not AGF but given that the username was all caps and just appeared to be from a troll /vandal I blocked per Usernames that closely resemble any used by vandals of WP:U Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

(You didn't block this guy...) J Di ^talk 02:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I did block a differnt sock though $301,179.46!!! WOWIE! ZOWIE! KAPOWIE!! and there where others that other admins have blocked. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Username block, I think. To quote WP:USERNAME: "The primary purpose of usernames is to identify and distinguish contributors. This facilitates communication and record-keeping. The username is not a forum to be offensive or make a statement. No one has a right to any particular username. While colorful, interesting, or expressive names may add to the pleasure of Wikipedia, they are not essential." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I blocked one of these too. Socks and trolls, oh my. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A note, User:TheAnonymousFundraiser was blocked by Zscout370 for a username violation with the reason given that it sounded like the user was trying to imply that he/she was an official foundation member. I think this is another example of the growing problem of username blocks being overused, and I can't see how that users name could be interpreted in the manner suggested. I'll take a trout to the side of the head if everyone agrees with the block, but I just don't see it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

TAF is able to pick another username, and I have no problems with it. But this particular one, during this time of Fundraiser, could imply he is a Foundation staff asking for money or running the Fundraiser. On the Username policy pages, names sounding like they are connected to Wikimedia could be blocked, so I excercised my judgement in blocking this one. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's one person that has created all these usernames so far - so he can create a legitimate one too. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not creating accounts for comedy's sake. Now remember, WP:DNFT. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Spider-Man 3 - 3RR plus vandalism, incivility, and pattern behavior

(Moved from Admin Noticeboard to AN/I)ThuranX 02:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Can an admin please help regarding events on this page which happened yesterday and today. Last night, both 222.152.186.32 and Boggydark got into a revert war here. Bignole, Erik, Ace Class Shadow, User:Wiki-newbie, Veracious Rey, and myself have all counseled both editors on things like civility[62], citation, the difference between being bold and a vandal[63], and more[64] for weeks now[65]. Neither makes an effort to change, both call us all names [66], [67] for working hard on the page and not wanting POV edits added, and it's time for it to stop. ThuranX 13:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional information: One of the posters, the IP user, has also begun to take his issues to another site, IMDb, as seen here[68]. ThuranX 01:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we get some help here? The user continues to be hostile and combative. We've recieved no assistance yet. I understand the holidays strain the admin resources, but do not want to see this archived unanswered so I have to repost it. Thank you. ThuranX 00:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Request infinite block on old username

I was originally Rctxtreme. Please permanently block that old username so I won't get impersonated by the bullies at school... anger2headshot 04:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't block without some evidence that this isn't just somebody trying to get somebody else blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the name change log then anger2headshot 21:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That user name does not currently exist. You can re-register it yourself and scramble the password. It won't have to be blocked because no one will be able to use it. Thatcher131 08:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I reregistered it, and posted this with this account. Well can't it be blocked because that's what they said in the name change requests page. Rctxtreme 10:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Free Republic

False edit summary by [User:12ptHelvetica]

As evidenced by this diff [69] the edit summary "I've made some spelling corrections" was an out-and-out lie and an attempt to mislead other editors of this disputed article which this user has done his best to disrupt and make NNPOV. --BenBurch 04:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Penis Vandal Again! (POV template vandalised??)

There is something wrong it seems with the {{pov}} template. It brings up a pic of a guy masturbating. Look at this [70] previous version of the Prabowo article. Don't click if you don't want to see a guy masturbating. I think it might be similar to a case above. Merbabu 07:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I found the pic and a whole list of articles it links to - the one's i checked have the {{pov}} tag where the pic appears. The pic (don't click if you don't want to see explicit masturbation shots) [71] I hope some one can get rid of it soon. Merbabu 07:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Image deleted. alphachimp. 07:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a Commons image... You've only deleted its local description page. :/ And I protected the vandalised redirects since they are widely used. Kimchi.sg 07:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Commons, where everyone can upload pictures of their own wang, which are never used except vandalise Wikipedia. Yet the images stay on there. We should seriously think about changing the way Commons images are used on Wikipedia, like require an image description page to exist on Wikipedia for the image, or it can't be used, as Commons lacks any kind of quality control. Proto::► 10:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Can Commons images be overridden? In other words, if you upload an image to enWiki with the same name as a Commons one, that overrides it right? We could come up with some sort of nice, professional looking image that says, "this commons image is not permitted to be used on en Wiki because it violates our policies or has been deleted in accordance with our deletion procedures". That image could then be protected in place. BigDT 17:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Now there's forward thinking! You or I or someone else should test that. Grandmasterka 17:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

But then we wind up with the override image all over the place. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understan your objection. If you mean that we shall see the "override image" in wikipedia's articles, it is OK. Once it pops up, someone will go and delink it. `'mikkanarxi 18:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be even easier than that. Presumably we will be sticking the overridden images in a category, so a bot could just patrol the cattegory and remove the image anywhere it could find it. BigDT 23:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. I do know a couple of images at commons which have no place in wikipedia. But this must be elaborated how to do this formally. It is not exactly WP:IFD. I am starting a policy proposal, Wikipedia:Images for blocking. `'mikkanarxi 18:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I just tested it to see what would happen. I get this message - "A file with this name exists at the Wikimedia Commons. Please go back and upload this file under a new name." - when I try to upload an image over top of a current Commons image. It's actually good that I am not allowed to overide the image ... otherwise, image overide vandalism would probably be a big problem. I'm going out on a limb and assuming (I don't know, just assuming) that admins can overide images right now today ... that's what's done with images on the main page, right? Aren't they uploaded temporarilly then protected? So the technical ability to do this should already be in place. BigDT 23:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for bug 8322 to make it easier to find and revert this vandalism. --NE2 18:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Dragonball socks?

• Krinzad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ladyfighter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Myer Link (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Tojira Ikonoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 24.3.28.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Looks like Deskana (talk · contribs) recently blocked Fat Buu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for being a "self-admitted sockpuppet." Shortly after, those four accounts have all requested unblocking, all from the same autoblocked IP address, which for the record doesn't appear to be shared (see contribs and WHOIS). Now, it also looks like all of these accounts have made edits to DragonBall Z pages, and some of them have had relations with Zarbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), also recently blocked for sockpuppetry. I figured it couldn't hurt to run things past AN/I -- am I the only one who smells a sockfarm? Luna Santin 09:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems the bunch was unblocked by User:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh (probably wasn't aware of this thread, asking them to have a look over here, in a moment). Luna Santin 10:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like they may be socks; however, until officially declared suspected socks, these accounts should have edit rights unless blocked for some other reason.Eli Falk 10:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Being suspected as a sock to evade an indefinite block on an account is reason enough to block until it is proven or disproven, if I remember correctly. But as these were all autoblocks, then good faith should be assumed, until proven otherwise.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A sockfarm is likely; feel free to block specific usernames. I'd give them more time until they give themselves away. All I did was to unblock the IP. Kimchi.sg 10:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it's also possible that this is a family with several Wikipedians, who happen to be interested in DragonBall Z. If this is the case, one would expect them to all have the same IP address and have edited DragonBall Z pages. Eli Falk 10:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Deskana seems to have blocked the IP address; unblock requests are up again. Will ask Deskana for a comment here. Luna Santin 09:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I will look over the unblock requests to attempt to determine which ones are socks and which ones aren't, but I think it's likely that they ALL are socks. Taracka is persistant, if nothing else. --Deskana (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Every single one was showing the signs of being a sockpuppet of Taracka. Hell, several users admitted that they'd been on Wikipedia before. This guy is persistant, ANY accounts coming from that IP address should be treated with extreme suspicion. --Deskana (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User space violation

I know i it's better to ask personally, but in this case, im not going there... --Striver - talk 11:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• wow i hate people like u who takes thing as granted. people like u should die right now. PhBot 12:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• What does that even mean? ...not that I think Striver follows an NPOV routine or anything. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• PhBo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should just be indef. blocked for trolling here (combined with the fake "PhBot" sig of a non-existent user). (→Netscott) 13:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Already done. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

He didn't exactly make a threat on the ANI...but whatever. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It is just up there Haizum. I see it :) -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, I mean no offense, but are you a native speaker of English? Saying "people like you should die" is not a threat. It's just like saying, "I hope you get cancer and die," it's terribly incivil but it isn't an interpersonal threat of violence. It just isn't. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you aren't a native speaker of English. So, let me just tell you, "you should die" isn't a threat. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"You should die right now" is a death threat, imo. Justified block. You might want to reconsider what you've said, taking into account WP:CIV. – Chacor 13:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

""People like you should die" is even less direct, and is "merely" a general statement of hatred. It isn't a death threat simply because the words don't convey that message. It's almost too simple to explain. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, you can read over WP:CIV if you like, but I haven't stated anything here that would warrant a refresh on my part. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

So Haizum, are you against the block? Believing or not you should die is a death threat got nothing to do w/ linguistics but w/ culture. So aren't you a native socio-cultural human? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* You can't just take snippets like that. The user did not say "die," the full clause is "people like you should die." I'm telling you, not asking you: It isn't a death threat because it isn't supposed to be read that way. Do I need to cite legal precedent? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is another reason for an idef block, then by all means proceed. However, no interpersonal threat of violence was made. It was a statement of hatred, etc, but nothing to indicate a future set of events surrounding violence from one editor to another. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

...and now what was wrong w/ the block? I blocked and put Personal attacks involving death + trolling + username as an edit summary; Read dis. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Folks what is the point of this discussion? This 5 edits to its username account is very obviously trolling and that combined with the fake signature warrants indef. blocking. (→Netscott) 13:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable =). I was looking at the tag left on the user's page which refers to a physical threat. That is all I object to. Indef block for whatever you must, just not a threat of violence - it isn't there. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because there is no apporpriate template for that Haizum. {{Npa5}} is not for indef blocks unfortunately. So i had to use {{Npa6}}. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for pointing out the edit summary. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 16:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

... What... the... FUCK is on that user page!? Is that being used as a sandbox? If it isn't, I'm not sure it should stay. – Chacor 13:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Striver, i don't see anything wrong w/ Patchouli's userpage. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it really encyclopedic and being used as a sandbox? Otherwise it looks like there's quite a lot of material that would fail WP:BLP. – Chacor 13:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I just can't find any policy or guideline re to the way Pachtouli is presenting those info at his userspace. I'd be glad to know about them if there are. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it isn't being used as a sandbox (even if it was), like I said, there's stuff there that could constitute a violation of WP:LIVING. – Chacor 13:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This user page (at least the "Veil fetishism" part) should be deleted. This user is just spiting the will of the community by recreating (WP:CSD#G4) the deleted article Veil fetishism on their primary user page (if it was a sub user page-ie: a developmental copy- that'd be fine). (→Netscott) 13:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that now. I've just deleted that according to WP:CSD#G4. Thnaks Netscott. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

After Netscott message on my talkpage, i have undone the removal of content. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The content of the page has to do with this deletion review. I assume that the user wanted to make the contents available for the consideration of reviewers. In light of that, I think that the content should be allowed to stay until the review is finished. Bucketsofg 18:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Request advice re Timothy McVeigh ... vandalism, or what?

I need advice about how to deal with this. I've written it up on the talk page: Talk:Timothy McVeigh#Infowars video link. I don't mind continuing to revert it, if an administrator will assure me I'm not getting into 3RR trouble myself. I don't see how else to proceed if the person (presumably singular) won't come to the talk page. Thanks! Eleuther 17:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your comments, I'd say it can be treated as vandalism. If there is no apparent link to McVeigh, then it doesn't belong in the article. No credible source linking the video to McVeigh is given. Even if a good source was found, it doesn't belong in the lead section. The failure of the anon editor to discuss the matter indicates a lack of credibility. I'm happy to keep on reverting its insertion. I doubt that anybody (other than the anon) is likely to commence 3RR proceedings. --Pete 17:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the anon's other contributions, I find some similar edits, such as removing mention that Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist. His latest contributions include misleading edit summaries such as "cleanup" and "rv", but looking at the edits, they are the same old nonsense. Looking at the character add/delete totals on the history pages, it's fairly easy to keep track of what's going on - it's the same material being added and deleted. --Pete 00:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Pete, thanks for your support. I would call it vandalism too, but when I review the policy, I can't place it solidly in any of the categories, except perhaps Revert Vandalism (which refers more to behaviour than content). That's why I was asking for expert/admin advice. With you and others involved (so far seven separate editors have reverted 14 separate insertions), I'm not so much worried about being sanctioned myself, but I would still like some clarification about the policy. Cheers, Eleuther 00:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm, I can't say it fits squarely in any vandalism category, on reviewing the policy, but how else can we deal with it? The anon editor won't discuss his edit, it is clearly inappropriate, and if we leave it in, it violates any number of policies. I'd say that if it comes to talking 3RR the anon editor has racked up several reverts (even if he has used different IP addresses) and we can make a request for blocking on that basis. However, I don't think that you or I are in much danger of being blocked for 3RR breaches, because someone would have to commence the process, and who other than the anon is going to do it? --Pete 06:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Harassment and stalking

Malber (talk · contribs) despite previous warnings, seems to be continuing to go after Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs) --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 17:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Also seems to be hostile towards Pilotguy (talk · contribs)

Perhaps we should consider a block or community ban for this more and more clearcut case of wikistalking. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Disruptive actions like that should be stopped. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 21:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Go after"? "Be hostile toward"? Have vague and uncited statements like this become a valid basis for blocks and community bans?

Say I make a point of ignoring consensus to delete the contributions you've made, and ignore all pleas, or reasons given, or rules cited, for me to stop. I also delete other people's entries on your talk page so you can't get the messages; and I delete your own questions when you start asking them. Then I block you for objecting to my behavior. At that point, would your looking closely at my record, and complaining about my abuses, mean that you are "going after" me and "being hostile", and you should be blocked or banned for it? Boy, that would sure be nice for me. Thanks, guys! – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 02:38, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I agree with the first few commenters; people who dedicate this much time trying to 'shame' other contributors into what they view as 'the right path' aren't what we want here. --InShaneee 02:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I dont know if I came to right place, but this user goethean is accusing me of harrassment, sockpuppetry, etc saying that he wants to try to get me in trouble with wikipedia, what can i do about it? ForrestLane42 03:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Feminine hygiene/energy linkspammer

The following users have all contributed to link spam, in one way or another, to one of Cogeneration, Trigeneration, Sexual dysfunction, Female sexual arousal disorder , or Feminine hygiene:

Helloitsonlyme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

84.102.30.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

75.197.146.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

207.69.139.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

207.69.139.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

207.69.139.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

207.69.139.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some of these users have made positive contributions (many edits per article -- seems someone needs to learn to use preview). These may be external proxies for an ISP of sorts, I have done no technical investigation. There may be other sockpuppets of this user, please keep an eye out.

I'm not entirely sure what sort of action should be taken. I've removed all spam from these articles, but I can't comb through all the edits of these users. I have already spam-warned Helloitsonlyme, however, I did not do the ips. Please advise. -- Jmax- 18:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use abuse by user

Rtkat3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently, despite warnings, re-added images that violate WP:FUC to articles that were removed due to the fact that the articles were utterly flooded with completely unnecessary fair use images. He will not respond to warnings, and persistently reverts the removal of the images. jgp ^T_C 18:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he has apparently responded now, but only after being reverted after his warning (which came after multiple reversions). Despite me linking to WP:FUC in my first warning, he appears to be playing dumb. jgp ^T_C 19:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the three images (I would hardly qualify them as a "flood"), they don't seem to me to be useless as they helped identify individual characters that were discussed in the article. The question is, do the images contribute significantly by identify these characters? The answer to that question is, of course, subjective.

Ultimately, this is a content dispute between two editors and probably best handled through one of the dispute resolution processes. On a side note, I've tagged the article with {{in-universe}} tag because of its unencyclopedic tone. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ceraurus/Arthur Ellis evading ban

I suspect User:209.217.79.235 is User:Arthur Ellis (which in turn is a sockpuppet of User:Ceraurus) evading his most recent ban as specified at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden#Arthur_Ellis_banned_for_one_month. 74.12.163.213 19:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked the IP. Looking at the evidence of systematic evasion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella#Log of blocks and bans and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden, it looks to me as if Arthur Ellis is contemptuous of both policy and consensus. Should we extend the one month ban? Guy (Help!) 20:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• General arbcom policy is after five blocks the block length for enforcing a ban is extended to a year. You'd have to look up the specifics of the case though. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This is part of a long-running feud between Arthur Ellis (probably a Canadian blogger named Mark Bourrie), and his nemesis Warren Kinsella. The only reason Kinsella is not also sanctioned is that he smart enough to have never registered a user name. I would not be at all surprised if the anonymous complaint above was made by Kinsella; certainly every time Ellis' IP range makes an edit to the affected articles, Kinsella's IP range makes a complaint. Look for example at Lotuslander (talk · contribs) and Bowlder (talk · contribs), two brand-new single purpose accounts which have been re-adding negative information to Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after it was stubbed following the arbitration case. The only practical answer is to permanently s-protect the affected articles (Rachel Marsden, Mark Bourrie and Warren Kinsella), which I have now done, and watching the damn things forever, since these two 40-year old children can't seem to find someplace else to throw spitballs at each other. Thatcher131 21:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification Thatcher131, it is appreciated. May I inquire where the case was, if there was one? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden, and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ceraurus and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis, as well as the archives of arbitration enforcement, if you really want to know more. One really odd thing about the current IP editor, his edits to Rachel Marsden look like Arthur Ellis, but his edits to User talk:Catchpole, User talk:CJCurrie, and Allegations of apartheid look like someone else. Thatcher131 22:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• I was aware of the CU cases (though admittedly haven't read over them much other than the sockmaster/puppets) but not the Arbitration case. Thanks for the swift reply, it's appreciated. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Kid Sonic (talk · contribs)

I'm not sure what to make of this guy. Right now, he is threatening... some form of action against me at Talk:List of Zatch Bell! episodes because I refuse to allow him to add episode summaries. This action was the subject of previous edit wars perpetrated by banned users Myalysk (talk · contribs) and Bobabobabo (talk · contribs) of which I had marginal participation, but it seems to me that those actions make it clear that episode summaries should not be added to this page. He's only engaged in personal attacks once, which is why I'm not at WP:PAIN, but his actions seem over-the-top at best. Danny Lilithborne 20:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I understand your argument against episode summaries. But I do know that your example of has nothing to do with episode summaries because he was banned for vandalism. The last straw being when he attempted to disrupt an AfD on the fanfic Anime Warriors! and randomly placed AfD tags onto other, legitimate articles in protest. Your example of Bobabobabo doesn't appear to hold water either with regard to episode summaries. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess my memory sucks. :( I seem to remember an edit war by somebody based on episode summaries in this article, which was reverted primarily by Geg (talk · contribs). In any case, even if that edit war is all in my head, I don't think summaries should be unilaterally added without the input of other contributors; plus I don't think they're necessary, as most "list of episodes" articles of prolific anime don't have summaries. Danny Lilithborne 20:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand your beef about Kid Sonic's initial edits other then, "you don't like episode summaries". If that's the case, you shouldn't have reverted Kid Sonic's additions in the first place. Also, I don't think editors need the permission or consultation of other editors in order to add brief summaries to episode listing articles. To say such a thing treads into ownership territory. As for the reason that many anime episode lists don't have summaries, that's because no one has bothered to write them.

Now I'm not saying that Kid Sonic wasn't in the wrong by being uncivil. But you weren't in the right either. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, I didn't expect to be right. I guess I'll tell him. Danny Lilithborne 21:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with something like episode summaries. Bobabobabo's issue was fair use images, up to several hundred of them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:LuisMatosRibeiro using multiple IP socks to evade ban

LuisMatosRibeiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been blocked indefinitely for disruption, vandalism, and reintroduction of POV edits (flying in the face of consensus) at Holodomor article, a highly-charged and controversial topic. Ever since, a large number of the exact same edits have shown up from the same range of IP addresses in Portugal (which is where the blocked user was tracked to). See list of suspected socks (all IPs in the same 82.155.xxx.xxx range), except one username believed to also be a sock of this user). [72] TheQuandry 20:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:WikiprojectOWU

What is the general feeling about role account WikiprojectOWU (talk · contribs)? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems {{SPA}}ish to me, but borderline. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

When I first saw that username a while ago, I, too, was a bit confused. But s/he's definitely contributing positively to Wikipedia. S/he's doing good work rewriting Ohio Wesleyan University (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Ohio Wesleyan University). Gzkn 03:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPA is an essay and the guidelines WP:AUTO and WP:COI discourage such editing, but we don't have a policy prohibition that I know of. In light of Gzkn's statement above, I'd rather have this conflict of interest out in the open than see the editor blocked.--Kchase T 03:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a message at her talk page. Perhaps she can clarify things. Gzkn 03:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...seems User:WikiprojectOWU has become a bit discouraged from editing in light of all the above. Zoe, Wizardry Dragon, could you perhaps clarify what exactly you wanted WikiprojectOWU to do? Gzkn 05:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Reporting myself for scrutiny of sock account use

OK, so a month or two ago I created a second account, User:Girondin, with the intent of using it to edit articles that might personally identify me (hometown, high school, college, etc). A few days ago, in the context of a nasty dispute (in which I was uninvolved) at Talk:Barrington Hall, I made a total of 3 talk page comments with the purpose of correcting a misunderstanding - not realizing that I was signed in as User:Girondin rather than User:MastCell. One of my comments, in a moment of weakness, was an uncivil response to this sort of thing. To complicate matters, Cindery (currently blocked for disruption and abusive sockpuppetry), whose misunderstanding I was attempting to correct, is an editor with whom I've had disagreements in the past. She's accused me of abusive sockpuppetry based on those 3 edits.

After seeing this comment on Cindery's talk page, I realized what had happened and responded immediately by claiming ownership of the account, as well as apologizing for the uncivil comment I'd made. However, Cindery seems more interested in a pound of flesh than in de-escalation or dispute resolution, and has repeated a number of unfounded charges she's made against me in the past. Rather than listen to her ongoing accusations, I'd prefer to submit the matter here myself for scrutiny, administrator review, and whatever remedy the community deems appropriate.

My position is that this was an unfortunate and accidental occurrence, but one which I cannot undo; all I can do is take responsbility for it, as I've tried to do. I believe that, even if it were intentional, the edits from the User:Girondin account do not represent abusive sockpuppetry. I've apologized repeatedly for the uncivil comment - it's pretty mild compared to the kind of abuse Cindery routinely dishes out, but that's no excuse. I've already tagged User:Girondin to make it clear that it's my account. The most relevant documents are probably these:

• Special:Contributions/Girondin - contrib history for User:Girondin account
• Talk:Barrington Hall#evidence of bad faith - for the context of the edits in question
• User Talk:Cindery#Who is Girondin? - Cindery's talk page (currently protected by admin Samir), for Cindery's charges, my responses, and the attempts of an admin (KillerChihuahua) to de-escalate
• Talk:Depo Provera and Talk:Emergency contraception, if you're masochistic or interested in the background of my prior disagreement with Cindery

Sorry to bother on the holidays, and for the long post, but I'd rather have this resolved now in the open. Thank you. MastCell 20:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds to me like your remarks here should resolve the matter. I will make a permalink to a state of this page with your remarks and my response, and leave a note on Cindery's talk page. If she wants to reopen the matter, then the burden is on her to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 21:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Solomon's Temple

User:Nnatan keeps re-inserting his original research, cited only to his own self-published work. He has now stated explicitly that he is "not going to discuss with editors who refer to commonplaces and cliches of dictionaries or nomenklature encyclopedias" and he will continue to re-insert the material until he is blocked. Since I have been the main person disputing his citation of himself as a source, I am probably not the one who should act in this matter as an administrator. Given his promise to keep inserting inappropriate material until he is blocked, would someone please indef-block him? And perhaps then semi-protect the article Solomon's Temple? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 21:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes: he has been duly warned. In fact, other than an initial welcome, his user talk page consists of nothing but increasingly strong warnings about this matter. - Jmabel | Talk 21:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Nnatan looks like a single-purpose account existing only to push his original research. I'm inclined to support an indef block. Beit Or 21:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Pancasila (vandalism)

Pancasila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been given several vandalism and incivility/personal attack warnings, including a final warning for vandalism on 21 December (see his talk page). However, today he committed vandalism and personal attacks yet again [73]—this is the fourth time he has vandalized that user's page [74][75][76]. A block may be in order. —Psychonaut 21:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week. - Jmabel | Talk 22:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Mindless deletionism

Denni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) nominated Solveig Fiske for speedy deletion[77], apparently feeling that a bishop in Norway - and the fourth female bishop in the Church of Norway is so un-notable as to warrant a speedy deletion. When confronted with this [78], he reiterated his view that this was not a notable person. To me, this crosses the line of debatable nominations and way into vandalism. If Denni thinks that articles about bishops should be deleted on sight, unless they - in his view - have done something notable (beside making it to bishop), we need a broader debate on what's notable here. --Leifern 22:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article doesn't state why the person is notable. But when in doubt, send it to WP:AfD. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, where in our notability standards does it state that all Church of Norway bishops are inherently notable? Also, please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you have created. Metros232 23:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

1) I reserve the right to delete material that constitutes vandalism; 2) I suppose if you want to interpret the guidelines so narrowly as to exclude anyone who isn't explicitly included, you're going to have get very busy here; 3) There are eleven bishops in the Church of Norway, and these are responsible for about 3.5 million parishioners. This should be self-evident to any reasonable person. --Leifern 23:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of unfounded allegations of vandalism being made these days. Please don't bandy the term around unless you actually mean it because its simply devaluing a terms that should be used for real vandalism. --Spartaz 23:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for other allegations, but attempting to speedily delete an article about a subject that has prima facie notability clearly - at least in my view - amounts to disrupting Wikipedia. Maybe people here believe that Norway's too small a country to warrant articles in Wikipedia, or that bishops are not really all that important leaders - but that would undoubtedly be a fringe view in the general public. --Leifern 00:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article should have been sent to AfD. A bishop of a national church should be sufficient assertion of notability to pass CSD. If there's even vague doubts about CDS - send to AfD. However, Leifern should have challenged the CSD through the proper process rather than removing the tag Bwithh 23:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting vandalism on sight is acceptable policy. Speedy delete - even AFD - is way beyond the pale here. --Leifern 23:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so precious. Its not vandalism to stick a speedy tag on an article no matter how attached to it you are. Frankly, responding in such an extreme way is only denigrating your own complaint and if you don't follow the consensus for delaing with disputed speedy tags you are being disruptive. Spartaz 23:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A good faith effort, even if ill-conceived, to improve the encyclopedia is NEVER vandalism. Unless the user was deliberately mass tagging articles for deletion as a WP:POINT or something like that, this isn't vandalism. Your reaction, IMO, was over the top. A WP:CIVIL request on the user's talk page that they reconsider their position is much better than starting off with a threat. The better way to contest the tag is to (1) add {{hangon}} to the article page, (2) explain on the talk page why the person is notable, and (3) leave a civil note on the talk page of the person who tagged the article. BigDT 00:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying stuff like Speedy delete - even AFD - is way beyond the pale here. + the loose vandalism accusations are not helping Leifern's case here. Making a mountain out of a molehill and not following process Bwithh 00:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Bwithh, even if you disapprove of the way I present my case, the issue of whether Solveig Fiske, one of the highest officials in the Norwegian government warrants a speedy delete should be considered on its own merits. Second, it is my well-considered opinion that rampant deletionism amounts to vandalism. It would be a waste of time to even vote on the deletion of this topic. What bothers you so much about that? --Leifern 00:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not rampant deletionism - in saying this you are accusing administrators who see speedy tags of blindly hitting the delete key on sight, which is patently absurd. Please take a moment to regain your composure before continuing in this conversation, Leifern. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. A good faith speedy tag is not vandalism. The article isn't going to be speedied. Obsession with deletionism OR inclusionism is destructive - evaluate articles on their own merit, not based on your cabal affiliation. In any case, be civil and move on with life. BigDT 00:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take it to AFD to draw the heat out of this. --Spartaz 00:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Refactor to make sense but the AFD is here. Spartaz 00:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

1) There's a process in place for challenging speedy delete tags and for reviewing deletions. Why not use this? 2) Your "well-considered opinion" about this situation being "rampant deletionism" and an afd being "a waste of time" may be a very fine one, but it doesn't amount to consensus or policy or process. Bwithh 07:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Lightbringer

24.68.229.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has only been used to make edits to Freemasonry, and the edit summaries show the same style of rhetoric as Lightbringer. Clearly a POV-pusher, most notably this time he inserted an entire article into the main article, and the inserted article is currently under discussion for rewrite. IP address is in the same area as known LB socks. Therefore, I am requesting a block. MSJapan 00:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Gun Fetish article is nonsense, nomination for speedy deletion removed by IP

I'd like to draw the attention of an administrator to the Gun fetish article.

This article is complete nonsense, covering a non-existant topic.

A request for speedy deletion was added a couple days ago, but an IP address deleted both the nomination, aswell as the points made about lack of sources, and lack of articles linking too it.

I would like to see this article looked at by an admin, thank you. IUJHJSDHE 01:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, the "db-nonsense" tag was removed by User:Quarl and replaced with a prod, which is perfectly acceptable to remove. The article in itself is not patent nonsense. This is a job for AfD. Danny Lilithborne 01:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Always remember: on Wikipedia, utter bullshit is different from patent nonsense. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not refering to the change made by Quarl, but by the removal of the tags relating to deletion, lack of links, and lack of sources, by 209.247.22.198 IUJHJSDHE 01:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Help with a user [[79]]

I was doing a random article reading when I came across an article called the Clammies. In it, a user 130.15.129.40 has inserted a paragraph that seems to be non-sense. Looking that user's contribution list, it appears similar contributions have been made in other articles. Unfortunately the editors, who have reversed the edits, did not warn this user's vandalism insertions. I recommend this user's contributions be reviewed for reverse edits and a block on the user. Ronbo76 04:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I reread the Clammies article. This may be a changing IP also belonging to 130.15.129.20 Both IPs should be reviewed with their contributions likewise reviewed.Ronbo76 04:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal information posted

Personal informationw as posted in 2006 Melbourne teenage DVD controversy, specifically, the name address and phone number of one of the perpertrators. I have deleted that revision but I was thinking of getting oversight to remove it properly. Having not had to do that before, I was wondering wether that was the best course of action. Viridae^Talk 04:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for information on how to request oversight. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

More asking for a consensus as to wether it needed oversight or not. 04:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Without question it needs oversight. Personal information, whether of users or of subjects of articles, has no place in Wikipedia. That is especially so here given the nature of the article. --bainer (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Viridae has evidently handled this himself.--Kchase T 05:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that selectively deleting that kind of personal information is good enough. The same information was added to this article on December 3 and it was also selectively deleted. Then when Viridae selectively deleted the most recent edit, he accidentally restored the December 3 version of the same information. I deleted it again and I've emailed oversight-l, but I think it's worth mentioning here because it seems that if people don't ask for these kinds of edits to be oversighted, it will happen again and it could stay in the history for a long time before it's noticed. Sarah 14:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent spate of disruption from a single editor

Yrgh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who I had the misfortune of dealing with in the past because of his repeated removals of a single website from Soap Opera characters/actors with another one, has been recently been going on a disruptive editting spree, starting with tagging an article I have on my watchlist with {{notability}} when a cursory read of the article shows that notability is asserted and meets the requirements of notability.

This has then gone onto other areas, such as putting up List of Dune planets for AFD for no known reason, making articles about gay porn actors, and other disruptive activities, including a malformed RFC on User:TAnthony, and extreme incivility on Yrgh's behalf whenever he's encountered about his actions, visible from his contributions to other's user talk pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Soccerguy1039

I have blocked User:Soccerguy1039 for one week for repeating his actions from before his blocks, and for personal attacks against the blocking administrator. I understand that this is a controversial block, anyone can feel free to revert it without contacting me. Thanks. Canadian-Bacon 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Verdict

This user has been blocked twice for vandalising Brock Lesnar and Facebuster, yet he continues add his changes to them. He has also vandalised User:Paulley as a personal attack[80]. It's getting tiresome to revert his edits, could he please be blocked indefinitely?
↪Lakes (Talk) 11:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

linkspam, possible self-promotion: Boogie Street Guitars

Boogiestreet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding the URL for a guitar store to various famous guitarists' articles. See contribs for details. Single purpose editor. {{spam0}} has been added to Boogiestreet's Talk page.

Please let me know if I'm reporting prematurely or inappropriately. — edgarde 11:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That same link spam was added in other places using IP addresses, I just removed a couple that were still in articles. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 14:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk

The SoS dispute aside, I've noticed a clear block-->unblock-->reblock wheel warring pattern by RadioKirk. I've always held RadioKirk in high esteem and respect but I believe he has clearly abused his tools here and has been vehemently insisting that his actions were completely acceptable. Considering the seriousness of his actions and the severity of the actions taken against wheel-warring admins previously, I'm very surprised at the lack of reactions to this. If RadioKirk continues to claim that his actions were not wheel warring, or were acceptable, this should be taken to arbitration. --Srikeit 11:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I pointed that out to him on the main AN board, and I believe he said something along the lines of "then let me be sanctioned here" (might not have been exactly what he said, but with that idea). – Chacor 12:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In a previous discussion on AN, at least two arbitrators indicated an interest in hearing cases involving wheel warring, and indicated that such cases would be quickly accepted. The problem is that no one ever brings them. For myself, I agree that the general level of respect admins have for each others' actions has greatly declined, with Radiokirk's block warring being only the most recent example. Thatcher131 13:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling by Skantada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure what to make of this editor but their very first edits were on a talk page and specifically mentioned my username in a quite trollish manner. I have now removed this trollery twice and been reverted once. I do not have a history of disputation with any particular editor on the particular article so I'm a bit perplexed as to the origin of such pointed commentary surrounding me. Perhaps someone else can take a look at this and let me know if I've got this material incorrectly pegged as trolling or not? Thanks. (→Netscott)

I've blocked this user indef after checking this edit on Ryulong's talk page. The edit shows that this user is another sockpuppet of banned user Cplot the famous US Admin agents' conspirator. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry and other issues

Originally, while viewing the above section concerning 12ptHelvetica's changes to Free Republic, I had reverted to the last apparently non-controversial version, and inadvertantly got into an edit war. This is when ArlingtonTX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) started editting. While it does appear to be a content dispute, I would think edit summaries like this and comments like this are an issue, as he has had no other contributions other than to Free Republic and its talk page (and then Aywong...'s user talk after I commented on his removal of the account from AIV).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who protected Free Republic; stepping on this landmine is not exactly my idea of spending Xmas afternoon so I invite more eyes to look at the situation on that page. Kimchi.sg 08:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor note, the capitalized "DU" in "DUmmies" is an explicit reference to Democratic Underground, what I take as a rival site/forum.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ryūlóng. at the very least it is meatpuppeting. I have filed a formal complaint, but the sockpuppetting complaint page is very backlogged. And notice that they chose a holiday weekend to start this stuff, assuming rightly that very few of the adults would be around to supervise. Yes, DUmmies is a pejorative word for members of Democratic Underground, and indeed some of those editing the article are members of that site. I am not, however, and it appears that you are not either. This seems to be some sort of political game they are playing with Wikipedia in an attempt to force an untrue article about Free Republic to be accepted as consensus by means of a revert war where they wear down the other "side" by having more people doing the reverting. Of course it might also be sockpuppetting as well as at least three of these editors are from Palatine, IL. Basically I smell a rat. --BenBurch 01:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ben, and note that Admin Jossi worked long and hard with all of the editors and came up with a balanced NPOV article. As soon as certain pro-free republic editors saw that it would include a small amount of well-sourced criticism they started reverting the article and breaking WP by doing such things as making massive edits and summarizing them as 'spelling corrections' and adding totally unsourced POV claims. I ask that this article remain locked indefinately and all changes submitted and approved by an admin, possibly Jossi, who has acted as a fair and impartial informal mediator to the article for the last several weeks. After the sock/meatpuppetry issues are settled perhaps it can be unlocked. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Per my response at the talk page, permanent protection is not possible (to the best of my knowledge).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Some articles get that treatment, but this is simply not an important enough article for a durable protect. But the issue of an intentional, recruited-for edit war is an important issue, and ought to be dealt with. --BenBurch 05:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What a surprise. Ben and FAAFA agree with one another.

As always, BenBurch has left out several important details and spin-doctored others in his relentless efforts to make this article as negative as possible. Early in the process, I sought formal mediation and BenBurch rejected it. [81] BenBurch has acknowledged that he was a member of Democratic Underground before being banned from that site. [82] The archives of his Talk page are loaded with evidence of his extensive participation in bad faith edits and edit wars. [83] [84] Much the same can be said of his tireless friend, defender and agent in all things Wiki, F.A.A.F.A., another problem child [85] -- formerly known as NBGPWS, [86] an abbreviation of "Neocons Be Gone ..." etc. [87]

As the archives of their own Talk pages clearly demonstrate in exhaustive detail, both Ben and FAAFA have extensive track histories of bad faith edits, vandalism, personal attacks and edit warring, that stretch back at least six months. This went so far as directing the following remark to me, and then quickly deleting it after he knew I'd seen it: "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on." [88] Recently these tactics have evolved into the use of warning templates and even a sockpuppet investigation as vehicles for harassment.

They invited an informal mediator of their choosing to the Free Republic dispute and, rather than acting as a true mediator, Jossi has acted as an arbitrator. (I hope that the administrators understand the difference.) The version he has imposed upon all editors was not agreed upon, and was produced during the holiday weekend. Personally, I had announced in advance that I wouldn't be present during this extended weekend; previous delays for the sake of BenBurch and FAAFA were welcomed by this mediator, but in my announced absence, he proceeded to a "final solution" without my participation (and, it appears, without the participation of some of the others who were opposed to the efforts of BenBurch and FAAFA).

The resulting rewrite by Jossi contains negative material in its lead paragraphs that relies entirely on a self-published and unreliable conspiracy theorist by the name of Todd Brendan Fahey. Following is a summary of Fahey's self-promotion campaign to become the next Hunter S. Thompson. [89] This Fahey material, by some strange coincidence, was first introduced by FAAFA. Jossi's final version also included an abundant amount of other material introduced (and spin-doctored) by FAAFA that hadn't even been discussed by any other editor. [90] When 12ptHelvetica removed the Fahey based material -- which consisted of just one sentence plus a link -- but left the rest of Jossi's version intact, BenBurch reverted back to a pre-mediation "hit piece" version. [91] This evidently triggered the most recent volley of reversions.

This dispute calls for administrator intervention. -- BryanFromPalatine 05:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The conduct of BenBurch and FAAFA is a textbook example of the word "trolling." They deliberately try to provoke angry and inappropriate responses, and then complain to the site administrators about it. Any misconduct by other members must be viewed in light of this continuous hectoring and baiting. Bryan's Talk page is only the most recent example. BenBurch, in addition to being a banned DU member, tried to mislead WP administrators by saying "I am not [a member of that site]." This was not the whole truth. He was a long term member who was banned for life. Also, he is the webmaster of the White Rose Society website, which argues that George W. Bush and the Republican leadership are fascists. They take their name from the White Rose Society of Munich, which distributed anti-Nazi pamphlets in 1943 and have adopted the slogan, "Fighting the Rise of the New Fascists." BenBurch's trolling here is agenda driven, and it may reasonably be inferred that FAAFA shares those motives for his own conduct. FR supports Bush, while BenBurch and FAAFA strongly oppose Bush. Their bias in addressing the topic of FR in a Wikipedia article is self-evident. - DP1976 14:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)