Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Heads up re Huggle

Gurch seems to have vanished, shutting down Huggle as his final act ([1], [2]). User:Atyndall has since reactivated Huggle, but without Gurch to keep an eye on it, users are already starting to make their own tweaks to the configuration. Be aware that unless/until Gurch comes back or someone else takes over the maintenance, it may get buggier & buggier. As a last resort, Huggle can be shut down by restoring this version and protecting the config page; unless we start getting problems, I don't propose doing this at this stage given the disruption it will cause to those who use it. – iridescent 18:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Erratic behavior. Enigma ^message 18:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well per WP:BOLD, and to prevent possible disruptive Huggle changes, I went ahead and fully protected the config page. No prejudice against reverting if this level of protection is deemed unnecessary. —Travis^talk 18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think restricted established editors from editing the config page is a bit extreme, why not semi protect it instead? There's more chance of a new user or an IP from vandalising than an auto-confirmed member. We've never had problems before with the page being vandalised. ——Ryan | t • c 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan. Semi would be good, not full. Enigma ^message 18:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think gurch is gone for good, but he may not be able to edit much or at all for the next few months :( delldot talk 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Because Gurch isn't an admin, full protection will restrict him from editing it if/when he returns. I'd oppose full-protection for that reason, as long as someone's watching the page closely. – iridescent 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe I overreacted. Back to semi, then. —Travis^talk 18:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As a general note to everyone who's followed the link here from WP:Huggle/Feedback, if I see any signs that Huggle's playing up I won't hesitate to shut it down despite the annoyance this will cause to its users, and would urge anyone else to do the same; as with bots, it works at such high speed (20+ edits per user per minute sometimes) that "shoot first and ask questions later" is IMO the appropriate action if it seems to be faulty. – iridescent 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I came here form the feed back page. The whole point of the config is so that the huggle users can edit it. Anything that they are not meant o be able to change is configured into the actual program. I will watch the config page until gurch gets back (if he comes back) and I will also log all things to be fixed onto a page so the feedback page doesn't become too backlogged. The config page is already semi protected and that should be enough. If anything is playing up with huggle then please add it to the feedback page. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Though WP:OWN applies to many pages it is ridiculous to start messing around with the page just because of Gurch's temporary leave of absence. Its a great tool that Gurch has provided and there's no need to fool around it. I do think the semi-protection is a bit unnecessary but hopefully it will help people understand that the config page shouldn't be tampered with.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting on the deeper issue, but semi-protection makes perfect sense; huggle users are approved for rollback (and therefore no doubt autoconfirmed) and able to edit semi-protected pages. –xenocidic (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection isn't really over the top. Following WP:BEANS (not saying what) but you can change one line and mess up one line in that config and suddenly everything goes wrong. People wouldn't notice straight away and then there would have to be one major cleanup from damage. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that someone (preferably an admin) should add a notedire warning on the page about exactly what will happen to you if you edit the page and accidentally cause other people to make errors in their reverting. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, if I see anyone deliberately disrupting it (as opposed to a well-intentioned but wrong "improvement"), they'll be explaining their actions via {{unblock}}. AGF is a core policy, but not when it means potentially disrupting thousands of mainspace pages. – iridescent 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI: The page was originally semi’d back in January. —Travis^talk 19:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we're all overreacting. The page has never been vandalised in the history of it's existence. The only questionable edition was by User:Xp54321 and his edits were in good faith. ——Ryan | t • c 19:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding what I was saying above about adding a dire warning to the top of WP:Huggle/config, even if an edit was a good-faith attempt to try something, there is still an insane potential to mess up hundreds or even thousands of pages within a very short time. And it would be nearly impossible to fix all of the mistakes because they would be made by like 30 or 40 different establishd users and admins, so you couldn't just go through and rollback like you can with a spambot or a vandalbot.

Basically, what I'm saying is, we need to make sure that people know what the potential consequences of their actions could be, not only in the form of blocks/nudges/permanent blots on reputation, but also the tremendous and almost irrevocable damage that could be done to the entire project in a very short period of time. It's like allowing random people to mess around with the firing mechanism of a Teller-Ulam device sitting inside a tank of liquid deuterium and lithium 6. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest 20 edit per minute is pretty rare unless you are only taking a glance at each page and it is during a peak time. There are currently over 15 user huggleing on the english wikipedia and together they only made a total of 19 edits per miniute. Over time that is still quite big but if something went wrong with that it shouldn't take long to fix. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe add something saying "If you want to propose a change do so at on the feedback page" or something similar. Otherwise looks good. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I must be blind (maybe make that line a bit bigger? :D) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Change the line that reads "Vandalising or making test edits to this page could result in an immediate block." to "Vandalising or making test edits to this page WILL result in an immediate block."

I cannot imagine the amount of damage that could be done if someone made a very small change that went unnoticed for a while.

Also, shouldn't all the subpages of Template:Huggle be full-protected? None of them should ever need to be changed, and (WP:BEANS, so commented out) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the part about dogs and cats living together, and mass hysteria. Perhaps a little atom bomb symbol, instead of the red stop sign? Font needs to be bigger, in red, and more panicy (How do you spell panicy, anyway?). And more exclamation points, please (where, exactly, to put them can be at your discretion). And finally, of course, a note somewhere (Wikipedia:Village Pump/Vandal noticeboard perhaps?) to further advertize to vandals where they can cause the most damage. --barneca (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Comment was based on a template that has since been removed, and comment was snotty anyway, so stiking out. --barneca (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. Dammit, just make Gurch an admin and full-protect the config page ;) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that I could get behind 100%. But it's been tried. :( --barneca (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what Gurch should do is move Wikipedia:Huggle/Config to User:Gurch/huggle_master.css and make Huggle look there for instructions. I've suggested that to him, but he either didn't read or didn't want to do that, for whatever reason. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of the config being open to edit is so that people can edit it :D. Putting it on his user page .css would kind of stop that from happening. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the point now is, Huggle is an incredibly fast and widespread tool. Vandalism to the config page has enormous potential to almost irreparably damage Wikipedia. I do not think that just anyone should be allowed to play around with it like that. Allowing only Gurch and admins to change the configuration page is a the only viable solution, IMO. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that not just anyone should be allowed to edit it but restricting it so only gurch and adims can edit it is, in my opinion, a bit too protective. Also to change the location of the page at this stage would mean a re release of the current version of huggle and also making all previous versions useless. Also this would be a global change for all for the wikis that huggle is used on (commons,meta,bg e.t.c) meaning the inactive gurch would have to create an account on each of these wikis for the .css user page to be viable. I think thats about all I wanted to say. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Er... we all have an account on each of thise wikis. – iridescent 21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppsy, didn't notice he had a SUL. Well this would make things a bit easier if that is the way that we want to go. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though, that the config page is good just semi'd. If there are changes that shouldn't be made by people other than gurch, he can hard code them in. If it ever becomes a problem, we can deal with it, but I don't think it is now. delldot talk 21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I could probably throw together a bot that would revert edits to the page by non-rollbackers (or non-admins other than Gurch, or whatever) Standard procedure is it'd need Bot group approval though. Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That in my opinion would probably be a good idea if not the best idea. (I was acctually thinking of proposing this a bit earlier) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Per conversation with gurch he will not be coming back to wikipedia. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that's unfortunate, did he tell you why? Or is it personal? ——Ryan | t • c 22:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope he didn't tell me why but knowing him I respect his decision. I will try to keep ontop of keeping huggle up to date. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

With Gurch gone apparently forever, we should have another .NET programmer take over maintenance, the source code is up for grabs, there's a link at WP:HUGGLE (for convenience, it's [3]). Someone has to take over maintenance and construction, a quick look at the WP:Huggle/Feedback page shows quite a few outstanding program bugs and requested features. Anyone volunteer? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bot policy is to unflag a bot if its operator/owner leaves the project (even temporarily). Considering the power of huggle, it should be disabled until Gurch returns, or someone agrees to take his place. giggy _(:O) 23:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think it should be shut down until either Gurch returns or someone volunteers to continue the project. One of Gurch's last edits was to deactive Huggle so I think we should keep it that way. I'm going to be bold and at the same time, peeve off many members. ——Ryan | t • c 23:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Much as it will annoy everyone, I agree with Ryan. – iridescent 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Temporarily disabled

In light of the above, I've temporarily protected the config page in the "disabled" state. Once this is resolved, anyone feel free to unprotect if that's the consensus. – iridescent 23:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I will develop huggle further. I am in the process of learning .net and have already had the huggle source for quite some time. I have already fixed a few of the bugs in the current version and hope to release a newer version soon. Gurchs version "0.7.11" had many bugs and he didnt give it to me so "0.7.10" is acctually the most up to date version currently. Anyway I cant say I will be as good as gurch was but I am willing to try to fill his pace. (dam edit conflicts)·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 23:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally would feel more comfortable with someone already proficient in .NET taking it up. giggy _(:O) 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Same with everyone else, quite obviously, hence my comment above. There's a more or less list here (all the people with the ".NET programmer userbox"). Crude and incomplete, but if someone can find a trusted user in there... I personally didn't find one within the first 150 transclusions. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Here's the disabling. I don't think it should be reversed until someone is willing to do everything Gurch did - bug fixing, dealing with user problems, development, etc. etc. giggy _(:O) 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if anyone else does come out for this then please ask me for the latest source (I see where you are comming from giggy) I would be willing to "try" to develop and fix bugs(I have done 3 already) and have always dealt with user problems on the feedback page but really there is probably someone better suited to it than me ^^. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 23:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Also just a small point but on the config page "enable-all:false" should work :> ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 23:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Giggy. Check my talk archives; during May-June I was reporting bugs to Gurch virtually every day. Remember, unblocked & malfunctioning Huggle will leave a string of blocked users, users stripped of rollback rights etc; when you do reactivate it, make sure you get it right! – iridescent 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think disabling it entirely is too extreme at this point, especially given how useful the software is. If there are concerns about how to proceed, why not just acivate the "admin-only" option ("require-admin")? That way, we don't lose a powerful tool in vandal-fighting. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree thinking about it as having it enabled without gurch here isn't acctually going to make much of a difference compared with if he was here. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Huggle should remain deactivated entirely until someone experienced enough can maintain it. Even if you limit it to just sysops, if it were to malfunction, who would be skilled enough to rectify it? With the power of huggle and it's already dented reputation here on the project, we'd be crazy to continue using is unmanned ——Ryan | t • c 23:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't meant to sound flippant, but are there actually any admins who use Huggle? Aside from (occasionally) Persian Poet Gal, and a few edits from myself when I was testing the software, I don't think I've ever noticed a huggle-edit in Recent Changes from any admin. – iridescent 23:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Epbr123 does (did?). giggy _(:O) 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course you haven't. Huggle gains you adminship. You don't use it after adminship. Okay, that's all from me. Going away now...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with disabling of huggle at least till we get word from Gurch or we find someone who can maintain huggle. I'd wait a few weeks to a couple of months.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the use by admins, I've certainly found it very useful for late-night vandalism cleanup. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We could always protect Wikipedia:Huggle/Users and use it as an approval list for now. This way all users already on the list or who have already used huggle can use huggle and continue fighting vandalism but no new users (maybe users that will make mistakes) can use the program? What do you guys think? ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea but still there's the chance of a bug.(Like the one I encountered that got me a 15-min block) and without Gurch we'd be in much trouble.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 00:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ye, Xp is correct. No re-enabling. Use Twinkle. giggy _(:O) 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is a bug then report it, To be honest I don't think there can be any more bugs in this version that have not been found as it has been out for months with no new versions released. Just wondering Xp54321 which bug is this? If there is a bug that got you blocked for this long and it was a serious bug with huggle then please post it at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback and then yes if it is serious I see a reason for huggle to be disabled for now. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would we disable it? It is a stable tool, working properly, not causing any problems. Seems silly to turn it off, all the edits made by it are the responsibility of the editors, not gurch's, so it is nothing like a bot owner being away situation. I recommend it be re-enabled immediately. So, I am going to reenable it, WP:IAR (this will unarguably improve the wiki) until some sort of consensus is formed here. Prodego ^talk 00:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It was a bug in a previous version. He had his Huggle rights revoked yet was somehow still able to access the program. If a verified user list were to be agreed via consensus then I think the current user list should be scrapped at least down to the core users and then only accept trusted, well established users until we can 'acquire' a maintainer. I do agree, most bugs are ironed out now but would we be willing to take that risk? I think Wikipedia will suffer without huggle, it filters vandalism a lot more efficiently than Lupin's anti vandal tool ——Ryan | t • c 00:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with user list option.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 00:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree but stripping down off the huggle user list? Maybe just taking off the last weeks additions to the list? ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, It's not like I have a huge problem with it even if there are errors, except for the times that is freezes when I close it out, other than that it is a perfectly fine tool and like they said, the page has never been vandalised in it's entire existance, why move to protect it now that Gurch is gone? It's not like he spent 24/7 on Wikipedia when it was running in the first place, just my opinion but I really do think you should turn in on temporarily so we can continuing reverts on vandal edits and see how it goes from there becuase now I have to use VandalProof, a program I am not use to AT ALL, to start my reverts. Notify us if anything changes in the situtation please! --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm just wary about continuing the use of a very powerful program without it's maintainer around. Therefore to limit potential abusers, if we were to activate it again, the user list should be limited. There are so many users listed here ——Ryan | t • c 00:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's got to be someone out of the millions of editors on Wikipedia that can run it. If nothing else, why not just e-mail Gurch and see if he'll fix any problems that come up? I strongly suggest Huggle be reactivated, as Huggle was the most efficient and accurite tool for vandal fighting. IMO, Wikipedia relied on Huggle, and will never be the same without it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You only have to have used huggle once to have your name there thats why there are so many. I dont see how allowing all in that list to have access would be a problem.. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we keep it enabled unless there's a problem that Addshore can't handle? No reason to assume there's going to be a problem until there is one. If a user on that list creates a problem, we can deal with them individually. Nothing about gurch's presence made people not abuse huggle. delldot talk 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(5xEC) The list needs cleaning out anyway, why not now? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec x a million) Addshore, for the exact reason outlined above. No offence Xp54321 but I'm using you as an example. He had his rights revoked, he was still able to edit. I bet there would be many other users who'd be willing to exploit a bug to harm the project and like I said, if there's no maintainer to fix these bugs then Huggle's reputation goes downhill even more. ——Ryan | t • c 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Xp54321's bug was in a version of huggle that was allot older. This version should be virtually stable other than the few bugs which have been pointed out on the feed back page (none of which can get your rights removed) the majority of bugs are just huggle crashing freezing with unhandeled exceptions. Yes there could be users willing to exploit bugs but they would need to have rollback :S. And iff rollback got given to someone that would exploit bugs (i know it has bene but hey) i would start to wonder why. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not just let whitelisted Huggle users just use it? I mean whitelisted users are really the ones who are trusted in the first place, right? I don't see the big deal if everyone is worried about people who will abuse the program. --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, any user with 500+ edits is auto-whitelisted. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean the userlist not the whitelist. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

But the userlist also contains users who don't have rollback. Remember, the program automatically adds you to the user list and the rollback requirement was a recent addition. So think of how many NEW members are on that list. Another reason to strip it down ——Ryan | t • c 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the program currently is only enabled for those with rollback per a config setting. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We're not referring to that - we mean that the list has far too many people that either can't or don't use huggle. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I see that huggle has been enabled again regardless of all the security concerns and whatever else we've been discussing the past few hours...so this is all irrelevant ——Ryan | t • c 00:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Enabled until consensus is reached here, which it hasn't. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

While I am glad that it has been enabled, the past discussion is not irrelevent, as it has been enabled until consensus to disable it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Was consensus ever reached for the disabling of huggle in the first place? I can now just see us tied in knots :D ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not put someone in charge until (if ever) Gurch returns, Addshore isn't a bad idea, and chop the approval list smaller to make this transitional phase simpler? Useight (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fritzpoll has expressed interest in maintaining Huggle (along with AddShore?). This solves the no maintainer problem. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I support re-enabling the tool. Huggle already carries a responsibility waiver, and for people like me whose connections crash and burn on Twinkle... Sceptre ^(talk) 00:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of all the people who abuse/misuse Huggle, there are plenty of people who are capable of controlling and properly using Huggle's power, in spite of all its problems/bugs. Is it right to take away this tool from people who have done nothing wrong simply because some people are not capable of controlling Huggle?

Also, with regards to Giggy's comment above about bots, Huggle is decidedly not a bot. The problem lies not in the tool but in the users who do not know how to control it. I have used Huggle since version 0.6.1 (in February) and I can attest that if a user really knows what they are doing, there is nothing (within reason, deliberate errors in programming don't count) that software can do to to make them make mistakes. Unfortunately, the converse is also true.

What Huggle needs is an approval list similar to VandalProof's. Since Fritzpoll is an admin, he should blank WP:HUGGLE/users, full-protect it, and force Huggle to ensure that a user is on the list before they can use the tool. That would keep out all the riffraff. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You could always use the built in config settings. User must:

• Have an account X days old
• Have a rollback account
• Have over 1000 edits

meaning as soon as a user is over these he can run huggle be automaticly added to the list and not have to waste admins time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Addshore (talk • contribs)

Nope, the features don't work, unless you fixed them? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody knew that they didnt work to know to try to fix them :> I will add this to the list of TO FIX :D ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 01:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support a manually-managed fully-protected whitelist for the moment (pending consensus on other eligibility criteria), assuming we have an admin prepared to do the additions, and someone who wants to take responsibility for making the decisions. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I too would support an approval list per what Pseudomonas said ——Ryan | t • c 09:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, there's enough vandalism these days to justify keeping things going. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm opining, if the config page can be fully-protected that'd make me feel more comfortable. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Well, if that works, cool. Would be much easier that an approval list. Or, if you want, I could be an "approval" person, if you went the route I suggested. I have been using Huggle since vs. 0.6.1, nearly four months. In the last 10000 reverts made, I have less than five nudges, as far as I can remember. (that last part was my resumé, hope you enjoyed it :P ) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling we won't be needing that, since we have found a suitable replacement for Gurch (Fritzpoll, see below), which should nullify all arguments (unless I missed something?). Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the random babbling... it's 21:34 where I live, and I got less than 3 hours of sleep last night, (A/C on the blink....) and my BCL (blood caffeine level) is dropping... See you guys tomorrow! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Didn't know where to mention this, but I could probably get Mellie to talk to Gurch. she can be very persuasive. Steve Crossin (contact) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued two sections below. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 19:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...I may regret this

If you still need/want someone, I happen to be a "proficient .NET programmer", who has a passing interest in programming for Wikipedia. I'll offer my services if people want a maintenance man like me. Just let me know Fritzpoll (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fritzpoll yay! Well I think this is good. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You're just the person we were looking for... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're sure you want to put up with all the hassle... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*huggles Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If fritz can fix the bugs and acctually do the code i'm sure I can cope with sorting out the feedback page, changelog e.t.c to take some of the work away from you :>·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It can't be worse than navigating the minefield that was getting FritzpollBot approved, can it? Off to bed - I'll wait until I get online tomorrow for anyone to object, then I'll check over the source code and get familiar with it. As GEOBOT is still warming up, this will not be a distraction (before Blofeld gets worried) Fritzpoll (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well given what this discussion has already gone through I don't know why anyone would want to say no to you :D. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I for one have no objections to Fritz taking over huggle, though I am sorry to learn that gurch has left wikipedia. (I've been working on a program to help the simple english wikipedia, so I've been away for a while...) Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

YAY!!!Huggle will be okay!!!Thank you Fritz!!!--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fritz, I chatted with Gurch before about possibly hosting Huggle on SourceForge. He never objected to doing so, and showed some interest in it, but the idea just fell through the cracks after no more action was taken on it. Perhaps now would be a good idea to do that? Gary King (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle is on SourceForge already :) (and the source, too) Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The URL being http://eocp.sourceforge.net/huggle/0710.zip for the current Huggle version - by the way, Fritz should know that and keep it that way (and making sure to update the current source code, etc.), and it's hosted by Atyndall. But all that will come after he accepts the position. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not a public project there; you don't see it when you do a search. Gary King (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

← True. Perhaps talk to Atyndall? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just hosting huggle on another sf.net project's webspace but I have now applied for an actual project for huggle (It's under the unix name gurch because 1. It honors is original creator, how may have now moved on from the project and 2. For some reason the unix name huggle doesn't work). The site says it could take 1-3 days, once that is done I'll upload the source code and files. Anyone who wants to have developer status to the project should sign up for a sourceforge account then email me and I will add the permissions required. I'll also put the Huggle source code into SVN.  Atyndall93 | talk  08:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Atyndall93 i am currently the only person with the most up to date source so send me an email or something hen you need it. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just regarding the svn I can really see huggle getting in a big mess if we try to put it on the svn. there are many files (about 440) and frm's e.t.c. I think it might just be better if we stick to one main dev and if that dev cant fix something then they pass it onto the next person. Fritzpoll has now been given the most recent version of the code and has started trying to fix more bugs. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I suppose it doesn't need to be in SVN, but I have had an idea that maybe you (Addshore) could be a Wikipedia-side liason who feeds all bugs posted on the WP:Huggle/Feedback into the sourceforge bug tracker system and then I could work out their seriousness and feed them into the task system (kind of like a priority and version to-do list) where Fitzpoll can just fix whener. Although we do need to decide when a new release should be posted etc and what OSS licence to put our contributions under (Gurch put them into the public domain with attribution preferred but thats not compatible with Sourceforge as far as I know).  Atyndall93 | talk  05:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes this sounds good and im happy to do that, Also im happy to fix a few of the smaller bugs or the ones that I know how to fix :> How is the sourceforge project coming along? ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've added you name to the list of developers and the project is awaiting approval ETA about two days, after that we can commence its use.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mellie/Gurch

• Didn't know where to mention this, but I could probably get Mellie to talk to Gurch. she can be very persuasive. Steve Crossin (contact) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed Steve's comment above. This may prove useful. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, here's the thing. I know her better than anyone, and I know that Mel and Matt are good friends. Mel's a very persuasive girl, and I'm sure she could convince him to come back. I'll ask her to make a cmt here though. Anyway, what do people think of this? Steve Crossin (contact) 13:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Let him be - he's obviously extremely stressed out and doesn't want to be part of the project at the minute. We should respect this and he'll come back in his own time. It looks like we've found someone to help out with Huggle, and he can obviously resume that himself when he's back. Let the guy sort his issues out himself. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well said Ryan, I agree. I'm pretty sure gurch is going to come back when he's ready. delldot talk 13:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• There's a difference between persuasive and forceful/coercive, but, we will let this one rest. Let him come back when, and if, he's ready. Steve Crossin (contact) 13:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think he should be left. I only managed to talk to him for around 30 mins and his last message to me went along the lines of leave me alone. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 14:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, leave Gurch alone... (and as a matter of fact, huggle is doing quite well w/out him...) Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 19:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well he did make the latest version all I did was compile it, sort out the pages, downloads e.t.c but I agree gurch should be left alone, if he wants to come back he will. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Now that it's been re-enabled, can it be semi-protected instead of full? Enigma ^message 17:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It was only full-protected to prevent anyone re-enabling it, and keeping it full to prevent vandalism violates the protection policy... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 19:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It was declined hours ago ——Ryan • (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

After some discussion, as I said at RFUP, some people may disagree with the full protection. I've found out that some people do agree with it though. Thoughts are welcome here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I commented there - my message was: Fritzpoll is an admin, if/when he takes over AddShore as the main developer, he'll be able to edit the config. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 20:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The page should stay protected - Fritzpoll is an admin. If it's over his head he can disable huggle; the wiki won't end. giggy _(:O) 23:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. No one saw fit to protect it ever (since one time in January) until iridescent wanted to disable it. Now it needs full protection forever and ever? What happened to protection not being preemptive? The page has never been vandalized. Plus, if you're protecting the page, why not protect the whitelist, too? That even more than the config page shouldn't be edited. Finally, iridescent even said it was temporary. " * 19:38, June 23, 2008 Iridescent (Talk | contribs) changed protection level for "Wikipedia:Huggle/Config" ‎ (Temporarily protected pending resolution of this discussion [edit=sysop:move=sysop])" I don't see how this indefinite full protection makes sense at all. Enigma ^message 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify since I see this generating more flames on my talkpage; at no point have I ever disabled Huggle. I protected the config page (which was initially protected by TravisTX), for a very short time until it was decided whether to leave it running. At no point have I ever changed the configuration in any way. – iridescent 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(To Enigma) The configuration page has had a lot more attention as a result of being linked off AN and it will undoubtedly have caught the attention of vandals, seen as some people went into a lot of detail above about how destructive a tool like that could be if the configuration was messed with. It's now become a higher risk page where it wasn't before. Seraphim♥Whipp 08:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just like to throw this into the discussion. At this point in time admins should / would not make any helpful contributions to that page because they don't know what to do e.t.c. The only things admins would do is to disable it. The users that want / need to change the page are generally non admins and now have to work through admins wasting admins time and it just a bit peculiar. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if it were to have it's semi restored then that would stamp out the possibility of anonymous and new users from vandalising. These two groups of people are more likely to vandalise the page than established auto-confirmed users. ——Ryan • (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider me in

Fine - no objections in the past 48 - I'll start looking at this tonight and tomorrow and along with AddShore, I will start looking at bugfixes. If I can get stuff uploaded to the SF page, I will, but I've never done that before! Cheers, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Good i agree we defiantly need you :> I have already used the extent of my knowledge fixing one bug :D ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make one think clear from the outset about my volunteering here for this: I see this as purely the role of a "caretaker". Huggle is considered to be very useful by the community, and clearly needs maintaining/updating and I am willing to do this. If and when Gurch returns, I will not hesitate in returning this job to him upon request. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about sourceforge, I can show you how to use it (it can be a bit feature-intensive at times) but I have had several projects and its a very good website. I am thinking of turning on the task list (once the project is approved) where you can just find out what needs fixing, do it and mark them as done. Although a system of workuing out when a new version should be released needs to be decided on.  Atyndall93 | talk  05:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

New version or subversions should be released whenever all MAJOR bugs have been fixed. There can still be minor ones left :>. Also for full new versions try to get everything you can get done. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding the Drama

Seriously, how many vandal tools do we have? We have Lupin's anti-vandal, VandalProof, Vandal Fighter, rollback, Vandal Sniper, Twinkle, etc. There are even a couple more that are not worth mentioning. How many more do we honestly need? Sure huggle is a powerful anti-vandal tool, but we got like 10 more of those tools. I'm sure we can handle ourselves with one less tool.

About gurch's departure, we have to face the fact that some good editors leave because of anger, fustration, wikibrunout, etc. and learn from it. That way we can prevent it from happening it again. PrestonH (t ♦ c) 05:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, we couldn't live without it, its that and more. :-P  Atyndall93 | talk  05:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How many tools do we need? I daresay Huggle rendered VandalProof and Vandal Sniper obsolete months ago. There are things we can afford to lose, and Huggle most certainly is not one of them, as anyone who has used it can attest. Enigma ^message 05:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Enigmaman, can you show me how huggle has improved over VandalProof and Vandal Smiper? PrestonH (t ♦ c) 05:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a much more powerful tool and much less buggy. Can I show you? No. I'd to make a presentation in person to demonstrate what's better about it. If you've used it, you know that it's much better, much more useful, and indispensable. Enigma ^message 06:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

PrestonH, it is far far better than VP. It is probably more useful than all the other tools combined. Prodego ^talk 06:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Also if you ever go into the irc feed and set your client to beep every time the huggle advert summary comes up you will be amazed. Firstly during peak times there can be over 18 people huggeling at once and they can be making well over 100 edits per miniute. Take this away and well thats about 50 cases more vandalism not dealt with and I also agree that this tool is far better than many others. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of its dented reputation here, we cannot afford to lose Huggle. I've tried using most of the anti-vandal tools you mentioned...well OK I couldn't get VP to work but that's besides the point. Huggle is capable of far more than all those tools combined. Addshore, you'll have to teach me how to make my IRC client 'beep' me. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle is way better and faster than the rest of the ones you mentioned (well, was, now it's been rendered almost completely useless by the sheer number of bugs). I've personally never been beaten to a revert by a VandalProof user, VandalSniper isn't maintained any longer, Lupin's Tool and Twinkle are monobook scripts that use JavaScript to modify or improve Special:Recentchanges, which is not anywhere near as effective or fast as Huggle, VandalProof, or VandalSniper. Anyhow, this is a wiki, there's no problem with having so many. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 02:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see everyone's point. Anyways, has huggle even been fixed yet? --PrestonH (t ♦ c) 05:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm estimating 5 more weeks before Wikipedia:Huggle/Bugs is cleared out. It's a slow process. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So are we going to use the old tools and rollback during those five weeks until everything is sorted out? PrestonH (t ♦ c) 05:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not so buggy you can't edit through it, but just look at all the security/privacy concern bugs on Wikipedia:Huggle/Bugs. Too many for me, but it's still usable. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle has always been buggy. There hasn't been a single release with some big bugs and the bugs list at the moment is about normal size. Huggle has always been "usable" even though it has these bugs. Yes that whole bugs list could take a few weeks to get through also. Might even now release 0.7.12 first before 0.8.0 ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think Huggle has been handed out to far too many extremely unexperienced users. That can be quite risky, if they have no idea what they are doing. There was previously a large scale discussion, which resulted in it being made clear that applications for Huggle would be taken under greater consideration, but I can't see evidence of it yet. As for the other tools, well, I use rollback, and I have coped perfectly well still, even with other users patrolling with Huggle, so it's not that great. I've argued this case before, it doesn't help RfA participation one bit, if those taking candidates under consideration have to sift through a million Huggle edits to find some non-automated ones. Lradrama 08:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether it was automated or not? The point is that they're reverting vandalism and contributing to deletion. If I use my raw rollback priveleges to revert vandalism on an article versus using a utility, why should the first reversion be somehow more valuable? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't upset Vandal Proof or it will team up with Vandal Sniper to take out the Huggle Bear. Seriously though, while some may find the older tools obsolete, I find Vandal Proof works just fine for my needs. Also, I agree with the above that Huggle is handed out waaay too freely. I more often now have to clean up Huggle messes while on vandal/speedy/afd patrol due to inexperienced user mistakes.--Finalnight (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think that you can say "Huggle is handed out waaay too freely". It is restriced to rollbackers and to be honest that should be enough for any anti vandalism tool. Vandal proof and sniper are perfectly good tools it is just some users find huggle allot easier to use. Huggle mistakes if repetitive should really be reported to ANI to be dealt with. Most huggelers will undo their mistakes and if they do not then they should not be using huggle. (my opinions anyway) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 12:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that Addshore has brought up the topic, Huggle can only be used by editors with rollback. We initially did this because it would transfer the problem from huggle to WP:RFR. If admins at RfR don't have enough sense to keep rollback from editors who don't deserve it... what fault of ours is that? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Other restrictions could be imposed but there is no need to as it is already limmited to only rollbackers meaning all users would / should have a good reputation, some knowledge, edits and time on wiki. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Gurch is BACK!!!! See the config talk page!!!!--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 20:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes gurch is now lightly deving huggle again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin

I just wanted to personally weigh in here with a request for calm. Nothing permanent has happened. I am unclear on the facts (just heard about this today... from a lot of people) at this point, and it is not my style to jump to conclusions quickly. I can state some general principles though, which should soothe people a lot. It is ok for the ArbCom to work quietly with people to resolve conflict in a way which preserves dignity and minimizes drama. We have done that a lot, both formally and informally, and it works well. It is not ok for us to have secret trials in which the people to be punished have not even been notified or offered the opportunity to defend themselves. I have no opinion at all about the editor(s) in question, because I have not studied the facts of the underlying case at all. However, it is part of our longstanding governance traditions that there is a right of appeal, and I can overturn ArbCom decisions, and I would consider that a lack of opportunity for defense would be in the category of reasons I would consider valid. The main thing is, there is no reason for drama right now, drama is not necessary, what is necessary is a thoughtful look at everything, and assumption of good faith. If errors have been made, things can be set right quickly enough.

I would particularly urge Orangemarlin and Odd nature (and others) not to engage in "civil disobediance" to prove a point, etc. (No one has threatened this, to my knowledge, I am just saying is all...) To everyone: let's all be on our best behavior here and sort this out with a minimum of dramatics.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

One way to minimize dramatics would be to suggest that, in the future, arbitrators not present cases that were completed entirely in camera and then immediately thereafter make themselves unavailable for comment. If a secret case absolutely must be presented posthaste, presumably it is with regards to an issue of such import that an arbitrator would be willing to reply to questions for at least the next hour or two. Also, presumably, arbitrators would not have a problem with identifying who voted for/against/abstain with regards to each measure, though this is secondary. Regardless of what the facts of this case may be, the way in which it was presented was the equivalent of casually dropping a bombshell. The community should not be blamed for the dramatics in this case (a statement not intended to imply that you're blaming the community). Antelan^talk 05:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has noted a number of controversies involving the editing of Orangemarlin and Odd nature, and acting on its own volition and in the interests of minimizing disruption, has discussed the situation privately, and published their findings and remedies in the RFAR arbitration case which is closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Orangemarlin is admonished for editor conduct, placed on editing restrictions for one year and a mentor to be appointed by the committee; Odd nature is admonished for editor conduct. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this common practice? I've never heard of an arbcom acting as both prosecutor and jury in any case before, especially not in a closed session. Amerique^dialectics 15:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its been done before, in the NSLE and JoshuaZ desysop cases there was no on-wiki discussion before the decision was announced. MBisanz ^talk 15:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The precedent that this sets is a bit on the chilling side if these users were not given prior notification that the case was being heard and (more importantly) an opportunity to present evidence in their defense. I don't know about NSLE, but in the case of JoshuaZ, he WAS notified and was in frequent 2-way communication with arbcom during the case. That's completely different from waking up one day and finding out arbcom has made a determination against you. If it is now our policy that arbcom could be considering your actions and my actions right now and, as Amerique says, acting as prosecutor and jury, and there's no notification whatsoever until the verdict is rendered, that's a bit scary. --B (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is more or less correct. I was in full communication with the ArbCom prior to my desysoping and communicated with them for sometime after that. (There were serious problems with that case and I am, to put it mildly, still pissed at the ArbCom and think they screwed up at multiple levels but lack of communication in the initial case was not one of those issues.) JoshuaZ (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect (and with no specific opinion on the process used) I think Orangemarlin would have had good reason to expect that his behaviour patterns leading up to as recently as 11 days ago could not continue indefinitely, and the result could have come about by any number of means. Unfortunately, and I have fairly solid experience on this side of it, the community is absolutely terrible at dealing with challenges (even fairly ordinary ones!), especially when it's up against dedicated essay-writers determined to use community process to confound community expectations, and especially when they can count on unswerving support from others. Secret trials are definitely not the way forward but I can see why it may have been used in this particular case - we do have to think about what the best outcome for Wikipedia as a whole is. Orderinchaos 15:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am disturbed about this from a number of perspectives. (1) I see very little if any evidence of bad behavior presented associated with User: Odd nature. (2) It is quite disconcerting to see User:Orangemarlin not allowed to mount a defense against the charges. It looks like railroading to me. I also have just finished skimming through the evidence, and I believe a lot was left out, and there are multiple interpretations that are available for some of the "negative evidence". I do not claim that one or two outbursts of Orangemarlin were not problematic (as I have stated previously), however this one-sided presentation is a little unconventional, to say the least. (3) A lot of the claims I read seem to be based on misunderstandings, possibly associated with cultural differences. (4) The characterization of the Rbj case strikes me as somewhat incomplete. (5) The open-ended nature of the assorted allusions included is troubling. (6) Some might interpret some of the statements as inconsistent, given other rulings of Arbcomm.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This was an exceptional case, and the matter was clear and unambiguous. If Orangemarlin wishes to appeal, he may. But for various reasons, this was the right way to go about it. We have that discretion, and we very rarely use it. But on this case, we have done so. By the very nature of what we saw, the user defends via smoke, and invented pretexts, and smears. We have no interest in enduring a week or two of that, or asking others to. We considered emailing the user for comments before posting, but that too would lead to email and "smoke" as well, and wikidrama and hearsay until it was belatedly made public anyway. So by his own conduct, the option we chose was exceptionally, a summary case, with notification and announcement at the same time. In light of the nature of the case and sheer volume of egregious examples, it is appropriate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about in camera stuff, but in this case I think it was justified, at least on first reading. "Clear and unambiguous" seems a good summation to me. I'd encourage Giggy and Avruch to consider standing for RfA again fairly soon, and encourage the community to not be so quick to jump on bandwagons of accusations if they choose to do so. Both those RfAs were, in my view, poisoned. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think my standing for RfA any time in the near future would have a positive consequence on the community. —giggy 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Giggy, I urge to reconsider - if not now, sometime in the future. My observation of your work on Commons suggests to me that you'd be a great admin. Kelly ^hi! 17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would hope I didn't suddenly become a good Commons admin in the last few weeks... ;-) —giggy 08:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I read In light of the nature of the case and sheer volume of egregious examples.... What was the nature of the case, and where are links to just some of those egregious examples? And nem. con. of how many people, and why aren't they named? -- Hoary (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Re. Where are examples: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence is what I think he refers to. I missed it when I first looked at the case, I suppose the link doesn't really stand out. —giggy 16:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the votes are shortened to a tally anyway, when the case is closed; typically, detailed votes (with counts and rationales) would be found on the proposed decision page. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Utterly unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The case discussion page would be a good place for longer comments and queries, so as to not clog up the notice board. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. This isn't about the case. This is about utterly unacceptable behaviour by the arbcomm, the kind of behaviour that has driven at least one excellent contributor away. Guettarda (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

An excellent contributor with a long habit of threatening opponents. If what FT2 says its true, then its too bad arbcom didn't sanction him for RFAR/Jim62sch. Or is threatening to notify another editor's employer that his edits violate company policy on computer use part of being a "good contributor". Thatcher 16:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, the arbcom stated "We therefore urge that responsible administrators and non administrators look forward if issues such as this come up, and we do not recommend the community to open up long-closed "history", unless it will have a significant effect going forward." Please don't violate their request. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What is utterly unacceptable, Guettarda, is the history of case after case of the conduct exemplified. We aren't process wonks. That - or more - was always going to be the outcome of Arbcom discovering a user has a history of that kind. The only thing that benefits from doing it otherwise, in our judgement, was not the community, which should be what counts. It would be beneficial to minimizing, distracting, or burying the issue. We decided that wasn't going to happen, this time. I'm sorry if you disagree. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What about threatening to out contributors to the press, and refusing to retract the threat? I guess that is ok, huh? I will note that you have completely mischaracterized the Jim62sch situation.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, the arbcom stated "We therefore urge that responsible administrators and non administrators look forward if issues such as this come up, and we do not recommend the community to open up long-closed "history", unless it will have a significant effect going forward." Please don't violate their request. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe that is a pending situation that has not been decided on, not a "long-closed history".--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am asking you to stop discussing the long closed 62sch situation. It is doing little more than opening old wounds. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure Thatcher. So if you agree with the end, the means is acceptable. What you are saying is that OM would have quit even if the case had not been conducted in secret? You have some evidence to back up your claim? Not to mention at least one... Guettarda (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that those folk, some of whom are widely perceived as part of the putative "ID cabal", here strenuously protesting this matter, are not doing their reputation much good. Address the issues. I am not happy about the in camera nature of this, but ArbCom has stated they had their reasons for it. Address those reasons and address the evidence, instead of attacking Thatcher, et al. Or, better, accept it, internalise that the tactics that OM uses are unacceptable, and vow not to use them yourself going forward. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's see...you complain about being described as a Wikipedia Review editor, and then turn around and tar others with the term "ID Cabal". The problem here isn't the evidence, it isn't the conclusions, it's the way in which it was done. Secret trials are unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Secret trials are indeed unacceptable, except when they are absolutely necessary. They scare the bejeepers out of me, even in something that isn't a government. ArbCom, has stated this was one of those cases where it was necessary. I criticise ArbCom from time to time, as you may know, but I'm prepared to take them at their word on this, barring concrete evidence that it wasn't. I see no such concrete evidence. I see rhetoric. You, Guettarda, would be well served to internalise the issues with OM's behaviour that were raised in the evidence here, and look within yourself, and endeavour to in future do better. That's actually advice that applies to everyone, myself included. But some more than others. ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My point isnt that this discussion shouldn't be held in a visible place, or that it should be curtailed at all. I am simply suggesting that this discussion shouldnt be held here as it will adversely affect the utility of this noticeboard. The arbcom talk page, RFAR talk page, the RFAR case talk page, or the VP ... they are all good places to have a long and protracted discussion about these issues. Sorry for any confusion. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a long question; I have a short one. I'd like to thank Giggy for pointing me to the "evidence". It looks more like a prosecutor's statement. So where's the defense? -- Hoary (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not exist, obviously.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me correct that. A defense exists and could be mounted. If Arbcomm had seen fit to let us "dogs" mount one.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on the 'defenses' OM has used in the past, I'd be surprized if the committee would find it compelling. That said, I don't care for this type of hearing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like prejudging huh? Wow I bet it feels good.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been strongly critical of Orangemarlin in the past (especially in the Jim62sch affair) and I tend to believe that these sanctions may in fact be justified, but even I must chime in here with my criticism of Arbcom. Doing such a case in private may be justified. Doing it without even notifying the affected individual is totally not on. And to justify that decision, afterwards, by saying that the defense couldn't not possibly have been convincing is in very bad taste. I also note that I find FT2's compilation of evidence, on a cursory reading, far from compelling, and not of the quality I'd expect from a document that has already gone through the critical filter of the whole committee. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully endorse what Future Perfect's said, I was going to say the same in very similar words. This is not how I expected my current dispute with OrangeMarlin (here) to end. The Tango case made me feel that Arbcom has understood that a certain type of admin behaviour is highly problematic. Now it looks like Arbcom itself is behaving in a similar way. Double standards of this kind is the safest way to make me really angry. I will be on a wiki strike until at least 1 August. Bye. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

How could OrangeMarlin really defend some of those actions, especially in the Wikiquette and Twinkle incidents cases? Repeatedly reverting a valid edit as in the Wikiquette is common -- but then deleting the comments as uncivil, calling the user a sock, and then attempting a block? A similar thing with deletion of comments/sock/ect. happened in the Twinkle incident. These actions are indefensible. This has been blown way out of proportion; a stern warning was needed, and it was handed out. It should be clear that these types of actions are simply unacceptable and, as far as I can tell, indefeasible, especially so recently. Now OrangeMarlin is raising a huge drama episode when he could simply accept that these actions were unacceptable and refuse to do it anymore, and he would be fine. I think this sets a good precedent. Deleting people's comments, calling people trolls and socks -- these are just disruptive, and when you seek a block after you've done these things -- well, that's sort of mind-boggling. If OM was a newbie, maybe things would be different. Now, OrangeMarlin has an appeal, and perhaps new evidence will arise. But glancing at these incidents, it's pretty clear that there's not much that can be said. OrangeMarlin's best approach would be to apologize to all the people he's offended, showing with dignity that he's learned. Unfortunately, perhaps the ArbCom may be using him as an example, but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve it. ImpIn | (t - c) 08:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just glancing at these incidents it's clear that they look superficially bad, and just looking at the evidence presented shows an open failure to investigate or understand the context. That's why there should be time for an open defence before sentencing, and why the community should be given the opportunity to examine such evidence before the arbiters draw their conclusions. Just because you don't see a defence doesn't mean that there isn't one. These issues make this secret trial invalid, and the case should be examined afresh. . . dave souza, talk 10:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. An additional point: if the alleged offenses were "so egregious" that they required a "secret trial" one would think that the penaly would have been much stiffer. In otherwords, the outcome belies the claim. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC on Arbcom?

I don't know where Lawrence has been, but would it be appropriate to continue the work he started here: User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft, in light of these current issues? Amerique^dialectics 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Per [4] he won't be around for a few months. MBisanz ^talk 18:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence has contacted me privately and indicated he is retiring, he has asked me to move the draft RFC to the Wikipedia space to let the community at large work on it. Since I won't be certifying it, would someone else like to do the move? MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee per retiring Lawrence Cohen's request. He delayed this for several months, partly at my request. I ask fellow editors to set aside individual grievances and focus on systemic and procedural matters. With respect, Durova^Charge! 01:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee

Moved duplicate thread started by Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival. Please note that several hours before he initiated the duplicate thread with assertions about the purpose of the present RFC, the actual reasons had already been explained to him at his user talk page.[5] He chose not to reply. Durova^Charge! 17:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The posting of this proposal in its present form seems to have arisen in part from provisions in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes that give administrators wide discretion in enforcing the Biographies of living persons policy. As such, it is likely to be of special interest to administrators. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note... Contrary to the above, this RfC was drafted long before recent Arbitration Committee issues came to light. Progress began in March. It is a grave mischaracterisation to label the RfC as discussion on 'enforcing the Biographies of living persons policy', or any individual cases. It is a review of the entire Arbitration process. --Barberio (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for volunteers

WP:RFAR/Orangemarlin#Orangemarlin placed on parole and a mentor appointed says [bold added]

“ Should Orangemarlin wish to criticize on-wiki, the personal views he believes another user holds, or the non-wiki actions he believes another user engages in, he should refer the matter to an Arbcom appointed mentor (to be appointed) who will assess whether the matter has merit and how best to raise it. ”

There may not be any immediate need for this, as this role is unnecessary until Orangemarlin wants to criticize certain views of editors. That said, it would be useful for any users willing to act as mentor to please add themself to this list, so the committee can appoint someone willing.

Note that Durova and Lar offered their services below before I could even call for volunteers. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I offer my services in mentorship to Orangemarlin. Durova^Charge! 16:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OM has announced his intention to retire. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If he chooses to return at any time, this offer stands. Durova^Charge! 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would too, if desired. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Appointing a frequent user of Wikipedia Review would be like adding peanut butter to the chocolate! PouponOnToast (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For completeness perhaps you could take the time to recite all my offices and participations... not just one, hm? Start, perhaps, with my being a steward, or perhaps with my being an admin on 4 WMF wikis, CU on 3, 'crat on 2 and oversighter on one... I offered because I suspect that most here recognise I'd give OM a fair shake, and it would not be my first mentorship... not merely because I'm farsighted enough to realise that criticism should be evaluated regardless of the source, although that certainly helps ensure impartiality and demonstrates a lack of prejudgement. ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Mentors are supposed to be trusted by their mentees to be acting in the mentees' interest. Do you believe OM would trust you, Lar, to do such? Accept that such a belief might be irrational, but please do acknoledge that it exists. For instance, do you think you could mentor me, given my possibly irrational belief that you provide aid and comfort to people who act with malice aforethought? PouponOnToast (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Mentors need to be trusted by the community, first and foremost. The wishes of the mentoree are not as relevant. If OM is given a choice of mentors, he can choose as he likes but I would say the list of mentors first needs to be vetted against whether the mentor is trustworthy, impartial, and fair, as well as judicious. I'd be fine with Durova. But I would not be fine with, for example, you, or Filll, or Guettarda... I mentor people with possibly irrational beliefs all the time. If you think you are in need of mentorship to improve your on-wiki activities (a view that may not be held only by you, mind you) I'd be happy to consider it. ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks, such as the one you engage in above. They are unhelpful and disruptive. The mentor-mentee relationship requires trust between the two parties. I believe you are well aware that OM does not trust you. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In light of this case, I'd be wary to claim personal attacks where there are none. Lar has not attacked anyone. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. Lar personalized the debate by suggesting that I require mentorship ("a view that may not be held only by you, mind you"). While Lar's sutability for mentorship is at issue, given his volunteering for enforced mentorship, my sutability as an editor (or lack thereof) is not. Ironically, you were one of the individuals who I would hope would volunteer to mentor OM. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh... I misread you, I thought you were indeed acknowledging that there indeed are those that look at your approach somewhat askance, which would be a very positive step on your part, I think. If you were merely posing a hypothetical, I apologise. No personal attack was intended. But even if I meant to imply that you might benefit from mentorship in opposition to your own acknowledgement of it, I think you'd have to stretch the definition of personal attack pretty far to include that but not include your subthread starter... your insinuation was pretty clear to me. But to reiterate, in the hypothetical case that you were to seek mentorship I think I'd be perfectly capable of effectively mentoring you. Or blocking you if the mentorship failed, as I have done in the past. Your beliefs about the matter are less important than that of the wider community. Mentorship typically is a "take it or leave it" matter. Some latitude to pick is given, but the ultimate decision is not up to the mentoree... ++Lar: t/c 17:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt Orangemarlin would accept me as a mentor given our history. :-) Thanks though. --Ali'i 17:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Guettarda (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

...Which sounds delicious, actually. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Peanut butter and chocolate? Sounds good. - auburnpilot talk 16:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's maintain a respectful tone, please. Orangemarlin has announced retirement. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant no disrespect - as I have indicated on Orangemarlin's talk page. I merely questioned the metaphor; subsequent discussion has clarified it further. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume Durova's comment suffers from either unfortunate placement (not directed at the above two comments) or a serious misunderstanding. Nothing disrespectful in either comment. - auburnpilot talk 17:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No disrespect intended on any side, I hope. Certainly not on mine. Just long experience in how easily these things can veer off into counterproductive directions. It's sad that things came to this. Durova^Charge! 19:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to volunteer as a mentor if needed. I'd also like to say that I have a lot of respect for OM's work on the difficult and contentious parts of the project that many of us tend to ignore, but agree that he is sometimes much too abrasive. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant; perfect choice (I was going to suggest either TimVickers or Casliber). I've been mentoring OM in my own little way, trying to show by example why the tone set by some of his other co-editors on some articles isn't the most effective, and I have had reason to believe lately that the message has been received. I've followed OM's talk page for A Very Long Time, and I believe that he should do well under Tim's mentorship. I suggest that ArbCom missed the boat here a bit, by failing so far to rule on a case about another editor who sets an example and the tone for OM and his co-editors. I think we can't apply one standard to OM and another to other editors who edit similar articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

AEB1

<outside comment, off the cuff>...and in the interests of minimizing disruption.... Yeah. That worked well. Good call. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, participating in RFARs is very stressful and disruptive. Now that the arbcomm has decided to go for secret trials, if we're lucky no one will ever have to present evidence or argue about interpretations. Heck, they won't even have to file RFARs. Why not streamline matters a little more - just pick 3 editors a month at random and sanction them. Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazing how helpful hyperbole can be. Thanks, Guettarda. Kelly ^hi! 17:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm is equally helpful. Thanks Kelly. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. Seriously, though, everyone needs to chill. It's not like this ArbCom action had any impact on anyone in real life. Kelly ^hi! 19:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

By the same reasoning, none of OM's alleged actions had any impact on anyone "in real life"... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but is was apparently disruptive to the Wikipedia community, which is a different kettle of fish entirely. Kelly ^hi! 19:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not granting the premise, but you mean like this travesty of justice isn't? We have already lost one good editor, and we may lose more.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how demanding that someone abide by site policies is a "travestry of justice". And maybe this sounds kind of cold-hearted, but another editor will come along to replace Orangemarlin should he not recover from his "retirement" hissy-fit. If that editor is not a member of Wikiproject Intelligent Design, and does not cause needless drama, then we have a net gain. Kelly ^hi! 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, you were out of line there - you used sarcasm just a few lines above, and you admonish Kelly for it? Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said my post was sarcastic. OMG! Just kidding, good call NUNL. Apologies Kelly. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No sweat, all in good fun. Kelly ^hi! 19:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, although I fail to see what's "fun" about this to OM and ON. It's hard not to wonder which day I'll get that little orange message bar on my talkpage that says "We've been talking about you secretly, and in an official capacity as community elected arbitrators. Even though the community chose us to act towards the betterment of an open community, we decided not to involve them in our discussions about you. After talking to each other, we've decided to sanction you, Cheers!". Where's the fun? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone who thinks this is fun has to imagine what it feels like to be notified that a group has met in secret and decided you have no defense for some terrible "crimes" that they compiled into a list, and that you should be sanctioned and shamed for your terrible acts. And also imagine when you read the list of "crimes" that they are completely one-sided misreadings of the situation. But some group has acted as prosecutor and judge and jury and now is enforcing some punishment against you. Fun huh? If you think that is fun, the precedent that has been set here could easily be used against anyone else on Wikipedia in the future. Including you. Because you have no right to a defense. Whatever you did, it was indefensible.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record (I hate that phrase), I don't condone the uncivil way that OM approached certain topics or editors. Not in the least. But he should've had the opportunity (I won't say "right"), but the opportunity, to play out his hand before being publicly embarassed like this. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate where you're coming from. But I'll save my effort for defending editors that actually deserve to be defended. As I've said elsewhere, this has no effect on "Orangemarlin" in real life, or even on-wiki, so long as he behaves himself. The hyperbolic histrionics are actually a little amusing. Kelly ^hi! 19:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course OM does need defending, because you have already decided he is guilty, right? And if any say he should be granted the opportunity for a defense, that is proof they are guilty too, right? And as for having no effect on him on-wiki, I think you are being a bit naive. Oh well.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Orangemarlin is guilty (in my opinion), and I daresay his peers that have engaged in similar tactics should reflect on their own conduct, as well. Kelly ^hi! 20:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not all "peers" Kelly. I've never cross-edited with OMarlin, other than to challenge his civility on his talkpage or an article talkpage. I've been not shy about confronting him, and I found him to be rather rude on more than one occasion. That does absolutely nothing to change my opinion that he has been severly mistreated here. Severely. I'm equally disturbed by this blind acceptance of a "Surprise! We've been watching you! You're sanctioned!" ArbCom secret ruling. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh - I just don't see how Orangemarlin has been mistreated. He violated community norms (even a cursory review of the evidence shows that) and was warned not to do it again. Orangemarlin wasn't blocked or banned, he chose to retire rather than live by the ArbCom's decision. That's his call. He could have continued here perfectly happily by living with the ArbCom's decision, which was pretty reasonable if you read it. Orangemarlin chose to leave - oh, well. If he continues to have the same level of obsessiveness with Wikipedia, which I'm sure he will, he'll be back as a sockpuppet. If the sock complies with WP policy, then we win - the disruptive behavior has stopped and we continue to gain the benefit of Orangemarlin's knowledge. If not, someone with his level of knowledge in his specialized areas will be along eventually. Be practical. Kelly ^hi! 21:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I stopped reading at "I don't see how Orangemarlin has been mistreated". If you don't see that, then we don't have anything left to talk about. May it never be you in a secret Arbcom. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it will be a problem, since I don't make a habit or attacking or harrassing other editors. But if the ArbCom does ever sanction me unjustly, I'll just create a new accont and carry one as before. Kelly ^hi! 21:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean like a fugitive criminal? Forget all friendly (and other) contacts you have made on-wiki, lose your reputation, change fields of interest to reduce the chance of being accuses of sock-puppetry? I'd rather people would stand their ground and try to improve the system than turn and run away. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfucking believable. "I don't see a problem with this, because if it ever happened to me I'd just change my identity and carry on as before". Weird doesn't even get close. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

AEB2

• Troubling, troubling all very troubling. When a committee confers in secret and decides one's fate in closed session one can't help but wonder, what next? RMHED (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hopefully they'll sanction the rest. Naerii 21:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• The rest of who? The rest of the editors who haven't been told there are any problems? IMO you're missing the point, which RMHED and Keeper76 have stated clearly; its not OM; its not OM's behavior: it is the precedent this sets. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• The rest of the uncivil editors that are gaming the system on enwiki? Maybe I am missing the point, sorry, I just find it a bit hard to get worked up over the supposed injustice against OM in light of the overwhelming evidence presented by the ArbCom on his behaviour. Naerii 21:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am disturbed that the editors examined where not given a chance to communicate with Arbitration Comittee about their conduct before the case was decided. I am disturbed that the Arbitration Comittee is so sure of themselves and their investigatory skills that they believe that hearing from parties under investigation can add nothing substantial to their understanding of a case (perhaps they got this one right anyways but with such methods it is only a matter of time before a castrophic failure in understanding). I am deeply disappointed that the Arbitration Comittee would take the the time to begin, on June 14, an investigation from the ground up on a long-term issue of no urgency, while a similar long-term case sits in its second month with no input from the Committee. --BirgitteSB 22:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said. --Duk 05:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to say... Jesus. I can see where the AC/FT2 are coming from: Orangemarlin has had it coming since long before Krimpetgate. As KillerChihuahua says herself:

AGF is not a suicide pact. If someone writes a post with blatant personal attacks, signs another user's name, then starts posting in multiple places calling for the banning of the innocent party, they are a troll. Calling them such is not a failure to AGF: it is a logical deduction.

I think the assumption of good faith was exhausted so long ago that AC had to conduct this in camera to make the actual process as straightforward as possible. The vehement defence for Orangemarlin's actions given the amount of evidence actually given really sickens me and makes my belief that there is an upper class of Wikipedians who may do what they please firmer. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, in light of your earlier comments,[6][7] it appears that your assumption of good faith was exhausted before you'd even looked at the evidence, and that your own "upper class of Wikipedians" communicates on another forum. Please learn to look beyond superficial impressions, and accept that fairness requires an open and detailed defence. .. dave souza, talk 10:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I stopped assuming good faith against editors like OM when he accused Krimpet of being a WR shill. No amount of "but she is!" would change the fact that he accused a trusted administrator of POV pushing against science, so to speak. The sheer fact that he and Odd nature brought along the "unbiased" Fozzie/B/Sxetp/me/Alison/anyoneelsewhopostsonWR RFC speaks wonders about their actions. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Many people - not just those who have commented - were lost for words when he and his supporters launched his missive on the Giggy RfA. It's actually one of the worst stunts I've seen in my 2½ years here, and that's even considering I wasn't exactly a supporter of that particular adminship bid myself. And then to see him try it on again at Avruch a couple of weeks later, not to mention the repeated disruption on AN/I over the past two or so months - I am only amazed in fact that more were not caught up in the net and it was effectively limited to two people. Sometimes decisive, swift action is required. That's something people surely have to recognise. Users who tag-team and attempt to derail community processes and throw up furphies as distractions to prevent meaningful discussion, then complain when the community is not involved in an ArbCom decision, are the height of hypocrisy in my view. (It's not the first time it's happened on Wikipedia, nor is it likely to be the last.) On the method - I have my issues with how this was done, but I hope that the community outcry on it means we won't see a repeat and so that much will not be an issue again. Orderinchaos 15:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any defense of OM; let alone "vehement" defense, Sceptre. As I say above, it isn't the editor; nor the actions; which warrant the lion's share of concern here. It is the actions (previously perceived as of ArbCom, now of FT2) - the actions of a secret hearing/trial. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if not here, then when it came up in the past. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So long as wikipedia doesn't appoint a chancellor with emergency powers this is still hope for us all :) Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 01:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh we do :P never mind lets all go home for a cup of tea and just come back to this when arbcom actually tell us what happened. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 01:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny, when I saw chancellor wikilinked, I thought it was going to go to this chancellor. ;) Does that mean I'm too much of a geek? --B (talk) 03:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. On Wikipedia, 50% of all employed analogies are to Star Wars, and the other 50% are to the Nazis. You just guessed wrong. :) MastCell ^Talk 05:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, Godwin's law anybody? MER-C 11:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry MC, but I never use Star Wars metaphors. I prefer Star Trek, but then again, it's old school. So, I'm going to go for the 33% Star Wars, 33% Star Trek, 33% Nazi, 1% Others. I know House doesn't appropriately explain statistics, but you should know better. I'm disappointed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That isn't the problem, Sceptre. The problem is how ArbCom is handling the case in absentia. By doing so, they aren't entitling him to any kind of defense. For all we know, the guy could be completely innocent; the account could have been hijacked; unfortunately, until someone does a CU, we'd never know. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stick to the case. It is blindingly obvious that the account has not been hijacked, as the majority of the evidence has already been discussed at length around the traps, with the account holder participating and defending their edits. The account holder has not once mentioned that they are not responsible for the edits involved. Besides, committee members have CU; it is terrible to suggest that the Arbitration Committee members involved in this wouldnt have run a CU if there was the slightest indication that it was necessary. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a major failing in the actions of User:FT2. In his own words, the thing was done in secret, without letting anyone defend themselves because We have no interest in enduring a week or two of that, or asking others to. If FT2 has no interest in enduring someone defending themselves (guilty or not), then he clearly should no longer be an arbitrator. Nfitz (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why single out FT2? If he speaks for a majority of the Committee then it is the Committee's standards that deserve examination, not his alone. Although it remains a bit unclear whether he is indeed the messenger, please hold your fire until you see the whites of his eyes. Durova^Charge! 08:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there would be any effective defence of OM's actions. LaraLove and giggy already tired of the related drama and bickering, and that was at an RFC. I have no doubts that it would be arduous for all if took to RFAR (but by necessity, we may have to) Sceptre ^(talk) 11:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Your doubt based on inadequate research and confidence that "it would be arduous" to properly examine the case simply shows the clear injustice and lack of legitimacy of this secret judgement. At the RfC there have been hopeful signs of agreement on principles of behaviour, and I've deliberately not reviewed flimsy evidence presented there as a detailed examination would show fault on both sides and result in the drama and bickering you fear. Please learn from the RfC. . . dave souza, talk 11:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's flimsy to call the editors a "cabal", "incivil", or "canvassers" - Naerii's analysis of RFA voting patterns, RFAR/OM/Evidence, and #wikipedia-en-admins logs, respectively are very strong pieces. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to have evidence that seems strong, another to deny the opportunity for response. This isn't about the outcome of one particular case so much as what precedent we accept for cases generally: new information can come to light. Someday the reputation under scrutiny may be your own. Durova^Charge! 14:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No doubt that all deserve a fair hearing and the adequate opportunity to present their defense.--MONGO 14:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also caution anyone who thinks that the right conclusion has been reached in this case. Maybe it has, maybe it has not, but the precedent here is a bit disturbing.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My comment was about Dave's RFC post, not about this case. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I'm reading of this, I can conclude two things right off the bat--OrangeMarlin's behavior was clearly unacceptable, yet there was nothing that I could see that required an in-camera ArbCom hearing, let alone denying a chance to mount a defense. This isn't nearly on the level of l'affaire Nathanrdotcom, unless I'm missing something. Blueboy96 15:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree there. Looking through the evidence it was difficult to actually differentiate anyone's position on anything. I don't, and have no desire to, edit in the subject area in question - but the whole thing really seems no more serious than I have encountered many times here. Editors and admins who when challenged in areas where they seem to think that they are correct, and only one view is possible, carrying out a scorched earth policy. Not to defend such actions, but I see nothing that justifies not doing the whole thing in public - which will likely occur even more publicly now. Nfitz (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

One problem with "looking through the evidence" is that it fails to give a balanced presentation of what happened. It is, in essence, more spin than evidence. Jaysweet and B have critiqued two sections. I see other areas where it just doesn't match my recollection of what really happened. Of course, that's why we have evidence pages, that's why we allow people to answer the accusations against them. Guettarda (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if it isn't spin, though, the fact that OrangeMarlin wasn't even offered an opportunity to defend himself in (to my mind) the absence of any exigent circumstances troubles me more. Blueboy96 20:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I agree with everything said about this case being a bad idea, but I do agree with the general principle - this was a bad way to handle the problem. The explanation for why this case was done in secret without the benefit of community comment sounds an awful lot like "well, this was going to be difficult, so we decided to bypass the whole community involvement part". I have a lot of respect for editors who are willing to work on ArbCom - I know its a thankless duty that requires extraordinary amounts of donated time and wading through tons of shit daily, but I still don't believe taking the easy way out was the right answer here. Shell ^babelfish 20:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just seen all this today. Even if everything said about OM should turn out to be true (about which I should say I have absolutely no idea), how can this ever justify a secret trial with no defence? I've been through ArbComs where those accused and his socks used the entire process to smear and defame innocent editors to the nth degree and nobody even suggested a secret trial. Even if the allegations were to be substantiated, I don't see anything about OM that puts him in a special category and beyond the normal requirements of Natural Justice. If OM's accusers say they have a good case against OM, let them post it openly and see what OM and fellow editors have to say about it and then make their decisions in the clear light of day. Fainites ^barley 13:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am hopeful that ArbCom/Jimbo/FT2 can issue a full and complete statement on this matter, explaining whether the case and sanctions are valid, why the case was not dealt with on-wiki in the usual fashion, and why there has been a lack of communication on the matter. If the answer to the first is in the negative, I am also hopeful for a full and complete explanation of why FT2 chose to post the case, along with what actions are being taken to maintain confidence in the Arbitration Committee. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy to Wiktionary

Is the transwiki process still running ? There are articles that have been tagged with the "Copy to Wiktionary" tag for over a month... CultureDrone (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, so make a unified login and go for it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Would that it were so easy. I tried to do just that very thing, but near as I can tell, you have to be an admin at Wiktionary to import articles there. I brought this up at AN on June 2nd (hmm. Got a response there I missed. Once I brought it up at Village Pump, I stopped watching.) The flat answer is, no, the transwiki process is not still running. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll check with Connel about his transwiki bot. His other bots seem to be running ok on Wiktionary. Please don't do manual transwikis, it makes a mess that Wiktionary admins have to clean up. (I'm also a Wiktionary admin). --Versageek 01:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I wrote Connel about a month ago, on May 24th. To quote from my last AN post ('cause I still don't know what it means :)), he said there is an issue with "false positives" in Special:Import, and he didn't foresee the bot up and running any time soon. He suggested that an admin may be found on Wiktionary in the event of an emergency transfer; I don't know that there are any emergencies in this list, but I have been concerned that they are stacking up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Afd big backlog

Just wanted to put out a call for more syops to come to Afd as the backlog is at 222 right now. Thanks.--Finalnight (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note this category which exists specifically for this sort of situation. —Travis^talk 12:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Final decision in Homeopathy arbitration case

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. User DanaUllman (talk · contribs) has been banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the evidence page is still missing, very disappointing. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted the committee about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Any response from them? This doesn't go over very well. Bstone (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the evidence page had allegations of the real identity of certain editors, which was claimed to be relevant. That part of the evidence page (and comments relating to it) clearly needed to be excised, and the GFDL makes it difficult to restore the evidence page without traces of that appearing. I think the final copy of the evidence page with the list of editors might be acceptable under GFDL, but I'm not sure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that a refactored (to remove the bad bits) final copy of the evidence page, along with a list of editors, would be just fine. All the editors are presumably still active, so they could also be contacted to resubmit their evidence by e-mail for ArbCom to post as a new version of the evidence page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I should point out the deletion log entry: 11:58, May 26, 2008 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence" ‎ (Personal information concerns. (ArbCom can still see the deleted content; please keep this deleted until they decide how to deal with the outing.)) --InkSplotch (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

London article seems quite huge

Hi, please feel free to send me elsewhere if there is a better place to sort this out. I tagged the London article with {{very long}} as it nearly shut my computer down with it's size. It currently clocks in at 134K. A regular editor just removed it citing that article "was tagged a short while ago and a reduction made". It seems to me there is still work to be done toward that effort but I don't want to disrupt on things and really can't help here as the article's so large I can't even look at it to help much. I also had started a talk page thread citing Wikipedia:Article size but am unsure what would be appropriate next steps. Any insight or help appreciated. Banjeboi 00:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You started a thread on the talk page, so let's see how that goes first. —Kurykh 01:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, going through the revision history (last 1000 edits or so) I found that the same tag was removed previously and the article had grown from 120k at the beginning of April 2008 to 142k, mainly due to references being added, and is now at 137k. There also seems to be a fair amount of anon IP vandalism and page blanking so semi-protection may be helpful. Banjeboi 03:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

First, this isn't an administrator issue. Second, the page is not long. The current readable prose size, as measured by Dr pda's prose size script per the instructions for calculating prose size at WP:SIZE is 53 kB (8692 words). Compare to featured articles at Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics#Ten longest articles. There is no justification for adding the tag, unless you can show areas where summary style isn't effectively used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Benjiboi was talking about article size, not article length. —Kurykh 03:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Article size is measured by WP:SIZE (I don't know what distinction your making between size and length); we don't penalize articles for being well cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, article size as is seen when you get that note suggesting anything over 30k may be too big. Thank you for the feedback. I did state "feel free to send me elsewhere if there is a better place to sort this out". Although technically the article is within a recommended or allowed limit, I was more concerned with the spirit of why size is a concern. In this case, this was the first article I've encountered that nearly crashed my system because of its size. I don't always have access to the most advanced set-up but I think compared to many parts of the English-speaking world I'm ahead of that curve. In any case, I appreciate the feedback but since I can't really look at the article anymore I'll leave it to them to sort out. Banjeboi 03:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

May I be so bold as to suggest that the problem may either be in your web browser or operating system configuration? A 134 KB article should not shut one's computer down as you put it. I just check with my older Win98 machine and London loaded up with no problems. --Dragon695 (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to respectfully point out that some people may be viewing/editing from places such as work or a public library where they can't control those things. shoy 16:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Possible copyright violations

Can administrators help fix the backlog in this category? (Non-admins can also help in cases where deletion is not necessary.) It's embarrassing that we have a two-week backlog in getting rid of flagged copyright violations... Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be embarrassing? There really is no rush, we could take a page from COM:MELLOW and stop running to AN every time something gets a little behind. Considering the who bruhaha surrounding the massive screwup in Luke Ford deletions, I think copyvios should be handled in a very slow and deliberate manner. Haste make waste, mostly of people's time. --Dragon695 (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's extremely embarrassing that we can't clean up things that are illegal cut-and-paste jobs. This is something that could actually get wikipedia in trouble, especially if it isn't dealt with promptly. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Need help with interpetation of WP:UP

I have some questions about interpreting and applying Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?, specifically point #9. This is in regards to the User page of GHcool (talk · contribs), which has been the subject of controversy in the past, including a no-consensus MfD (though I think the page has been substantially expanded since then) as well as an ANI thread from about a year ago that I cannot seem to locate (and in fact, the user who raised it appears to have had their identity erased entirely from Wikipedia... user page deleted on user's request, no contribs, nada). I was hoping to look to the past discussions for precedent, but unfortunately the past discussions are either missing or else have an ambiguous conclusion.

There is currently on ongoing Wikiquette Alert from Imad marie (talk · contribs), where he/she contends that using a quote from him/her on the user page, along with the text "even after this claim had been exposed as a falsehood", constitutes the naming of a "perceived flaw," as prohibited by point #9 in the User Page guidelines I linked to above.

I do not feel great about the user page in question, but I also do not feel comfortable proclaiming that it is in violation of policy. It is treading a very fine line, IMO. Myself and Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) attempted to mediate -- our compromise suggestion was to remove specific user names from the page to avoid the appearance of personal attacks, but to retain the diffs so that there was still proof these were actual user comments, and interested parties could still verify all of the info -- but GHcool was not amenable to this compromise, and as I said, I do not feel comfortable trying to force the compromise because I am unsure if the page really runs afoul of WP:UP or not.

Imad marie has asked about his/her next step in the dispute resolution process. I suppose I could say "Take it to ANI" or "Try an RfC" or whatever, but I do not think GHcool is likely to change his mind, and I am uncertain about which way enforcement would come down. So I'd like to hear some input from admins and other experienced users on what they think. Is the page User:GHcool a violation of WP:UP? Does it just skirt the edge? Is it reasonable to ask GHcool to make some accommodations to those who might be offended? Should we tell those who feel offended to just piss off? What do people think? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and your userpage is not a free speech venue to broadcast reams of polemic and paint your fellow editors as anti-Israeli via carefully selected and edited quotes. I would remove the entire section. Neıl 龱 15:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Although some of the user-written text is ok for what it is, having it on a user page is still soapboxing. The "selected quotes" however, could be taken as attacks on some users and are very disruptive to a collaborative, volunteer encyclopedia-building project. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

While I assume good faith on Jaysweet's part, I believe he/she has misinterpreted my stance on compromise. I promised him that I would take the users' names off my page if I heard a good argument for doing so. The only argument I heard so far was that fairly and accurately quoting other user's distortions of logic and factual information is offensive to those users. I don't believe this is a strong argument, since Wikipedia is an open community where public accountability and debate is a prime value. The argument is logically equivalent to my arguing that bringing up my user page for discussion offends me and insisting that the conversation stop immediately. I would never do that because I believe that such an argument goes against the nature of this site. I will be going out of town tomorrow for 10 days and will not be able to respond during that time. I respectfully ask that this debate be put on hold until I get back, or if that is impossible, I request that no ruling be carried out until I get back and have a chance to catch up on the whatever proceedings have taken place. Thank you in advance. --GHcool (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A simple response may be, if twice as many people consider it non-conducive to the good of the community in having the comments as they are now on a userpage as those who believe it conducive - then it gets removed. It is not your page, it is the communities page on which you are permitted to provide such information as you feel is of benefit in helping create the encyclopedia. In other words, it is for you to prove the grounds of the inclusion of content when two or more contributors raise objections - or get more supporters for your "stance". IM(NVH)O. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

@GHcool -- I believe a good argument has been made (regarding the interpetation of WP:UP, see above, I will not rehash it here). You do not agree with my assessment of the argument, and that is okay. But that doesn't mean I misinterpreted you, it just means we have a different assessment.

Also, FWIW, in my mind compromise sometimes means giving a little to the other side even if you think their arguments are shitty. You'd be surprised how many compromises I help broker on WP:WQA where one party is like, "Well, that's a stupid thing to be worried about... but what the hell, if it means I get what I want too, then I'll agree to it." In this case, you want to host a user page that is very much pushing the boundaries of WP:UP (in terms of length and intent, too, not just in terms of the "perceived flaws" thing), and in order to continue to do that you may have had to give a little... even if it didn't make sense to you. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review article

Based on the Encyclopedia Dramatica article finally getting the greenlight, I thought I would tackle our other bete noire. I have created a draft Wikipedia Review article, which you can find at User:Neil/wr. Now, in my opinion, it's radically different from the various previously deleted versions, is neutral, has more than sufficient reliable sources/references, is fully cited, and meets WP:WEB (the applicable guideline).

Normally I would just put an article into mainspace if it was radically different from AFD'd versions. However, I am not daft, and realise this is a touchy topic -I would love to avoid drama. Would the appropriate step to evaluate this draft be DRV, do you think? Neıl 龱 14:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, given this has been deleted at AfD, a DRV would be the best step. I don't see any problems with the article and would expect it be moved into mainspace, but it's best to get a firm consensus at DRV. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

On first impressions, the article looks good. The sources in some points fail - I don't like the Finklestein and Shankbone references because they're Wikipedian's themselves, and I don't like the Metz reference because its recently been his trait to criticise Wikipedia. I agree with Ryan it should be taken to DRV, though. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Author is a Wikipedian" is irrelevant to WP:RS, as is "Author has criticized Wikipedia." Apparent bias on an author's part can effect how a source is used, i.e., it might be necessary to attribute the source, rather than to simply state what is in it as fact, but if it is RS without those criticisms, it's RS after them, same as any possibly controversial statement found in RS. --Abd (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the Finkelstein source and the text sourced from it is not controversial, so attribution isn't necessary.--Abd (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say the Finkelstein and Metz ones are fine as they are in reliable sources (The Guardian and The Register). I wanted the Shankbone one in there because it's the only one I could find that contained criticism of WR (and Google News certainly believes the publication it appeared in to be reliable, as that's where I found it). I'll take it to DRV, thanks guys. Neıl 龱 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_1#Wikipedia_Review. Neıl 龱 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Well worth a discussion on Deletion Review. --Jenny 16:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Tony, you did an outstanding job fixing this article Neil! However, one thing concerns me, you know MONGO and SlimVirgin are going to pitch a fit when they find out about this, right? --Dragon695 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's different to that which was deleted, just put it in mainspace. DRV is, I was told some time ago (by which I mean: things may have changed!), solely for the dispute of the procedural closing of an AfD: ie, was consensus judged correctly? It shouldn't be there to give an article a second trial. Any discussion could and should probably go on at WP:AFD. Martinp23 16:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. DRV is for review of deletion decisions. The prior deletion decision was correct (I assume, I don't know, but it's moot for this) and should not be reviewed. This is a new article. Put it in mainspace. AfDs do not delete "subjects," just articles. What DRV would properly find is that the old deletion decision was correct, based on what was available at the time. Which would leave us back where we started. What will happen, I predict, is that someone will try to speedy or PROD it. If it is deleted without an AfD, this is a new deletion decision and would be reviewed at DRV, and, I predict, what DRV would do is to require a new AfD. Normal process. (And if the speedy deletion was not reasonably founded, some administrator might get a whiff of wikitrout.) Let's hope that the editors mentioned above keep their heads cool. I'd suggest that if any editor is tempted to comment in an AfD because they detest the subject of the AfD, they recuse themselves, not comment, and trust the community will make a reasonable decision without their participation, they will save themselves, and Wikipedia, a lot of grief. --Abd (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, normally I would. However, Wikipedia Review is, not unreasonably, a touchy topic for some editors, and I would like this article created (or not) in the gentlest, least dramatic, least controversial way possible. If that means going via the more formal DRV route, so be it. Neıl 龱 17:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a neutral and sourced article about a notable subject to me. DuncanHill (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. Certainly others may have different opinions; however, I don't think it is gentler to go straight to Deletion Review. That would be asking to overturn what we must assume was a correct deletion, and it is the least fuss, the gentlest to assume that the decision was correct at that time based on the article at that time. If we got to Deletion Review, we'd be asking the community to decide that the old review was incorrect, that it should have been decided differently. That's contentious, isn't it? Instead, put the article up. If it gets deleted, don't make a stink, go to Deletion Review. In other words, those who'd like to have this article should, I'd suggest, simply assume that this is a new article, which, from comments here, it is. (Obviously, I can't read the old article and don't think it worth the time to go over the last AfD, because I believe it is moot.) I would not assume that any editor is going to make a fuss. If somebody decides to make a fuss about an article that is neutral and sourced (or that is within obvious reach of being so with ordinary editorial process), let them do it. But it is a bit rude to assume that another editor will make an improper fuss. Even if they would have done so at one time, people change, and we should make it easy for them to change, partly by continuing to assume good faith. That's my advice, anyway. I'd treat Neil, temporarily, as the "custodian" of the article, i.e it's his decision what to do, and we are advising.--Abd (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If anything, I think DRV would be counter-productive because it would implicitly invite comment on the old article and its AfD, neither of which is relevant to whether the new article belongs on Wikipedia. That sounds like a recipe for confusion and drama to me. I think it's great that Neil posted here before moving the article to mainspace, but really it's a different article and the best move for now is, I think, to be bold. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

at the moment it seems to be moving to a SNOW restore, which would make this thread moot.DGG (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Would be most advisable to let it run for the full time. Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please don't close it early. I do not want anyone complaining they were not given a fair chance of expressing their view. Neıl 龱 09:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Opera-Mini

This Person had blocked Opera-mini from Editing wikipedia Just Because Someone had vandalised Using this Browser, i Don't think that this is a smart idea. i am a Opera Mini User too and i am facing this problem, Please Put some Lights on this and Please Remove This Unwanted Ban Bharath (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems Slakr has hardblocked the entire Opera Mini IP range for five years. I can't find any discussion on this, anyone know where it is? Neıl 龱 17:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think basically because it basically acts as an open proxy. Not sure there was discussion per se, but anyone can log onto the network and use their IP's. I did have a chat with Slakr about this off wiki and there were ideas that the unblock mailing list could handle problems with the block just as giving ipblockexempt to those users affected. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly an open proxy. Slakr is ordering everyone affected by the block to pester Opera to include XFF-forwarding, but I'm not even sure that works on a phone or PDA browser. There was a discussion here about it. Neıl 龱 17:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

According to my conversations with Slakr and others, the "demo" feature of Opera-Mini lets someone surf and edit using a concealed IP address. This would permit a user to log into the demo and edit WP with an IP address that was not their original address, making it an Open Proxy, standard blocking convention is to hardblock such IPs for long periods of time to prevent sockpuppetry abuse. Also, Opera permits the "demo" IP address to overlap with the actual product, meaning we can't segregate it to only hit demo users. And for Neil's question, Administrators and users with the IP-Block-Exempt flag can pass through such a hardblock. Hence why people hitting the block are redirected to the mailing list, to confirm the intention of their use of Opera-Mini and grant the IP-Block-Exempt flag. MBisanz ^talk 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Opera Mini already forwards XFF headers, now it's up to a WMF developer such as JeLuF or Tim Starling to add it to the trusted XFF list. I was initially riding slakr really hard about this privately, but as MBisanz said, the big problem is the demo: it needlessly acts as an open proxy, shares the same two /23 pools of IP addresses as the phone client itself, and does not forward XFF headers correctly. east.718 at 18:01, July 1, 2008

That is correct, for most Opera mini users,, their real IP is forwarded by XFF and available to checkusers. I'm not sure that blocking the range because of a few demo users is wise. Who was Salkr having a problem with, and did he ask a checkuser to look into it? Thatcher 19:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you now, from where I sit, my admin account was blocked when I've been trying to edit on my "wanabee blackberry" PDA using opera mini - mind you I'm also prepared to blame my technical incompetence.. Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't you have the ip-exempt flag? Enigma ^message 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh... on checking it's my technical incompetence as was fore-ordained - Doh! Pedro :  Chat  21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Listed on bugzilla. Thatcher 22:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  Responded on my talk page. Presumably, if Opera can play ball with us, one of two things could happen:

  1. They assign the demo interface a specific IP and we just block that and unblock the rest.
  2. We add all of their proxies to our XFF trusted list, keep the addresses blocked, and only the demo users will be affected if only the XFF forwarding on the demo is inaccurate.

  The main reason I made the push toward contacting Opera from the users' part is that abuse from this range has reared its head before and apparently Opera didn't care/did nothing about it. :\ --slakr^\ talk / 22:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

They still haven't fixed it? See meta:Talk:XFF project#Opera Mini and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive104#Opera proxies. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you cannot log in on the demo version (I can't check it right now, as Websense blocks it for "proxy avoidance"). You can try, it might even say "logged in", but as soon as you go to a different page, you're logged back out again, as it doesn't hold cookies. If that's the case, couldn't it be blocked anon-only? Neıl 龱 08:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I just used my alt account Mbisanz (talk · contribs) to log into the demo version, I could surf pages, view my watchlist, etc, all while logged into the demo. MBisanz ^talk 08:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you edit a page? Neıl 龱 09:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This edit [8] was made through the Mini Demo interface using my alt account. MBisanz ^talk 09:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Waiting on the Bugzilla request it is, then. Neıl 龱 09:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser shows edits that only forward the Opera IP, and other editd that forward the real originating IP, so yes, demo users (or someone) can edit as if it was an anonymous open proxy. Thatcher 12:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of Grand Southern Trunk Road

Resolved

 – blocked by User:Bearian for 1 week.

This anonymous user has been vandalising the page already three times today. He has been removing material without discussing about it. Examples 1, 2 and 3. He also vandalised my talk page. I guess the 3RR definitely applies here. Docku (talk)

Mess of copyvios

Resolved

 – nuked by Nancy

Can some admins look at my last few contributions? Someone introduced a lot of copyright violations about people who are probably not notable. They were all brought to AFD before the AFD nominator noticed they were speediable. My reasoning is, on the off chance that any of those people really are notable, someone can create a legitimate article in the future. Thanks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruption and/or vandalism: Crownprosecutor and Pensionsdepartment

Crownprosecutor (talk · contribs) and Pensionsdepartment (talk · contribs) appear to be one and the same. They've engaged in serial BLP violations, most glaringly at Melanie Phillips. They're either formulaic vandals or extremely repetitive trolls who've mistaken Wikipedia for a virtual rock. Their modus operandi has been to idenitfy various media personalities as Jews, crucially none of these additions have been attributed to reliable sources and all of which are now reverted. Both have been warned. It would be really appreciated if someone else could put the Phillips article on their watchlist and help monitor these two. SoLando (Talk) 19:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• They're the same person. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review

I have blocked Arcayne (talk · contribs) for 24 hours in the heat of a moment, which I probably should't have. However, I did so after an extremely disruptive WP:POINT edit resulting from a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who. After I told him how we should list actors in an infobox, he edited Doctor Who MoS just to get under my skin. If he uses the unblock template, feel free to handle it as you like. Arcayne has a history of ignoring consensus and arguing his case to the point of being tendentious, and his block log speaks for itself. I'm ready to be chastized... — Edokter • Talk • 00:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeez Louise, I have just about had it with all the crappy administrators. If you make a mistake—and you did—then hold your hand up and fix it. Blocking someone you're edit warring with is just unacceptable. Have you considered resigning? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you just unblock him yourself? Avruch 00:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Edokter, you can fix your rash mistake by unblocking this user now (and putting something like "my mistake, block not supported by policy" in the unblock summary. I suggest you don't wait for another admin to do it for you. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, But it won't improve anything. — Edokter • Talk • 00:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I imagine it probably could have, had you pursued DR or mediation.

Could I trouble someone to point out where I can report an admin for using their tools inappropriately? I mean, if it is a page different from here specific to admin de-sysopping. The inappropriate block is on my record forever, and I am rather pissed. As the admin in question disregarded repeated suggestions that he seek out a fellow admin to advise him prior to using his admin tools, he knew he was using his tools incorrectly. He shouldn't get to hold onto them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're being very naive Arcayne. Administrators are invulnerable. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but I have been known to tilt at windmills ever so often. I am not really prepared to let the matter go, especially considering that the blocking admin admitted that it wouldn't improve matters. Clearly, the tools need to be taken away until he is in a happier place. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It comes with the terrirory. Admins are human too, and make mistakes. I have corrected my mistake. — Edokter • Talk • 01:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You've corrected your mistake, but have you apologized for your mistake? Both relevant. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I will apologise if I know Arcayne would accept it. Right now, I doubt it. — Edokter • Talk • 01:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologizing has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone will accept it or not. Human nature 101. That doesn't absolve you from "the right thing to do". If you are only apologizing because you feel this will "go away", then it isn't an apology. If you are apologizing out of contrition for your actions, and Arcayne doesn't accept it, then that is on Arcayne, not you. 101. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What is also relevant is that, apology or not, Arcayne now has an undeserved block on his/her record. What record does Edokter have of his/her fuckup? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You can check to see if Edokter is open to recall, but my advice would be to drop it. Unless you've evidence of a history of misconduct, or something far more egregious than this, he won't get much more than mild chastisement from anyone else. Avruch 01:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How do I have the block log purged of the inappropriate block? If there isn't a way to do so, I would like to request a short block for Edokter, as his inappropriate block was inherently contrary to his admin responsibilities and the gudielines, Since he said the matter wouldn't improve, it might be helpful to protect those articles he haunts for a little while. At some point, I'll be asked to explain the block in my log, and who knows if the admin in question will even be here then? I don't want a pound of flesh. An apology would be spiffy. As well, a short block is in order for Edokter, too - maybe the remainder of the 24 hours he wanted to give me. It would certainly be ironic. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He already noted in your block log that the blog was not appropriate. That's all that's needed here. Friday (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Developers can do it, but they won't. Save the link to this revision, and if you're asked to explain the block at some point in the future just paste it. Avruch 01:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Only the devs can purge a block log, and they've made it clear that they are only willing to do this if there's extremely serious circumstances, such as personal information. With respect to a block for Edokter - that would be punitive because he did undo the block. Just put it down to a bad block - if there's problems in the future, we can look further into it. Don't worry that you have an extra block in your logs - the unblock in the log makes it perfectly clear that the original block was wrong and against policy so that will never be held against you. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We should not have too much tolerance for admins who block inappropriately, but calling for resignation is premature. He screwed up here. He knows it. Unless it sort of thing happens regularly, it's not that big a problem. Friday (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I posted a rewrite in edit conflict. Okay. I guess I can let it go, as per the good advice I was given here. I do agree with Friday that Edokter has little in the way to reflect this mistake, though I am stuck with a block log. Maybe a block of a minute explaining the issue to balance things out? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't use blocks to highlight admins mistakes - I admit, you had a bad block, but making another bad block doesn't help things. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c reply to Friday) Although I'm sure it feels like a bigger problem to Arcayne, I agree Friday. A pattern is needed, not a simple mistake. If there's a pattern, fine, I'll gladly support an RFC or desysopping. A one-off though is not enough. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic, I really am; something similar happened to me not so very long ago. But there really is nothing that can be done about your block log. And asking for a tit-for-tat block makes you look as bad as the blocking admin. Put it down to experience. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I consider the matter resolved, and hope it doesn't reoccur. Sorry for asking for the reciprocal block; I guess it was rather childish. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What's needed is - Edokter to apologize, Arcayne to accept it, and everyone move along and create a better encyclopedia. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What's even more needed here is for Edokter to hand in his mop and go back to editing the encyclopedia. He has violated several policies and violated the trust this community put in him. He needs to resign. Tho gracefully is no longer an option. Bstone (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, any admin who finds him/herself in an editing conflict with another editor should absolutely not use the tools against the other editor. Witness this similar thread at AN/I. Just don’t do it. If the problem is serious enough for action, take it to AN/I, 3RR or whichever board applies, but step aside and let another admin handle it. Compare: Cop: I have shot Bob’s leg in the heat of a moment, which I probably shouldn’t have. Can another cop please clean up the mess for me and tell him I didn’t really mean it? This has been a public service message. —Travis^talk 03:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add that getting oneself blocked over the format of an infobox is rather ridiculous. —Travis^talk 03:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As is comparing the existence of a block-log on a website to a police bullet in the leg, when you think about it. (Note: this opinion of mine may arise from my residence, a city where the police currently seem hell-bent on shooting anything that twitches. YMMV.)Gladys J Cortez 05:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe my point was a little over-the-top, but it does dramatize the need for admins to refrain from using the “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality, especially with editors with which they have a dispute. —Travis^talk 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared --Selket ^Talk 03:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a backlog developing. There have been arguments about whether four-hour old reports are stale or not, and it's been a while since anyone has acted on a report. Martintg (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please use {{adminbacklog}} on pages to mark a backlog. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

'Login successful' page corrupted

Hey. There's a problem on the UserLogin&wpCookieCheck=login page. The link to the WP:HELP page isn't displaying properly. The page is also not W3 compliant, 7 errors.

If you're using the W3 validator, make sure you're sending the page itself, not the URL to the page; W3.org is not logged-in to Wikipedia ;).

Have a nice day/evening. --Sébastien Leblanc ^(Talk|Mail) 02:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be fine, when you actually log in. I don't know what's going on with index.php but the problem is only when you call it from the link above. --Selket ^Talk 03:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also validation passes XHTML Transitional on copy-paste from view source. --Selket ^Talk 03:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned. [9] [10] --Sébastien Leblanc ^(Talk|Mail)

Reported at bugzilla:14709. --- RockMFR 01:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered some long-standing vandalism

Frankly, I don't like it. A completly nonsensical article, Lonny Fame and the Belltones, just came to my attention due to a change I caught on RC patrol. This band only garners 89 Google hits, is filled with pure nonsense straight out of Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica and this idiocy has been up since January. Subtle vandalism to Shawnee Mission School District relating to this group was added as well; I've since removed it. User:Rsherm was the editor responsible for adding more nonsense atop the nonsense a few moments ago. The account was just created and has no positive contributions whatsoever. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Nocturnal emissions control device". Love it! --Jenny 07:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems highly likely to be a hoax, but since an admin has just removed the speedy tag I guess it should go to AfD. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's very clever and that's what worries me. The admin who reverted the speedy didn't read down the page. It starts out relatively plausible, but degrades into a refugee from Uncyclopedia about halfway down. It's a speedy under several different criteria from band vanity to pure nonsense. I hope it doesn't clog AfD since these bozos have had enough fun for the last six months. WP:SNOW really would apply here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Without checking, I believe hoaxes aren't normally speedies except where they are so blatant they qualify as a G3 i.e. pure vandalism. I reckon that's the case here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to agree with Jenny that the article is funny and I wish to heck that BJAODN was still around. Another cultural phenomenon lost to the ravages of time, I fear.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And doggoned if it isn't on AfD. At least it's a good-faith nomination and I've voted accordingly. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedied. Enigma ^message 07:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bless you. That red link was a relief. I can now head off to beautiful downtown Dreamland secure in the knowledge. Nice working with you all today.  :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted at User talk:Shii/Hoaxes --Iamunknown 07:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pity it's gone, really. It was a gem among hoaxes. "For fans and critics alike, the Belltones' musicianship was only half of what their fans tried desperately to avoid. The other half was the paranormal-like connection the members of the group had with each other. (...) But yet, like the partnership between heat and humidity, it was like the Belltones, from day one, breathed the same air, had eaten the same food, and worn the same type of underwear". A classic ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There actually is (or was) a "Lonny Fame and the Belltones" - they were a fifties-nostalgia act at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. I like the sound of our version better though. DuncanHill (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

EyeBuyDirect.com contribution

I had created the page for EyeBuyDirect.com and it has been deleted. What steps can I take to create the page properly? This creation was the first attempt of creation on Wikipedia and I would love feedback on how to correctly post.

Please contact me and we can discuss. Also, how can I go to the real time help chat? I know that used to be a feature but am unable to find it currently.

Thank you for your assistance.

Best, Blain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blainhowardjs2comm (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll discuss with this user on his talk page. No admin action necessary at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects templates

Needs immediate tlc

(That I can't give today)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F is totally messed up currently, I suspect a side-effect of a missing set of nowiki's or of what I started to report below... someone fiddled with a key template while not knowing where and how it was used! (Hot potato. HELP!)

my original post began

I've recently found several redirects (the {R from... }) tags which have been indelicately altered, shall I say so they won't work properly in pages where they are directly included. (Wikipedia:Templates/Redirect templates for one, there's at least a second, and perhaps more [Added some linked below].) While this isn't overt vandalism, people are apparently breaking things through ignorance (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:R_from_other_template&action=history R from other template] for another)

1. Wikipedia:Redirect#Spellings.2C_misspellings.2C_tenses_and_capitalizations -- Looks okay, but extra eyes might pick up something I missed.
2. Wikipedia:Template_messages/Redirect_pages my quick peek, suggests okay, but ditto on extra eyes checking.
3. Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages -- ditto again.
   1. Wouldn't hurt to have someone look into why some of these table cells show a <hr> and others don't. Looks like there was a now obsolete reason for some of these having a <hr> and I suspect most can be eliminated, while opining the tables would look better without.

Gang up on these guys, a nickle for every incompatibility found! <g> Don't want essential "How-to" to look crappy. // FrankB 17:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize and take full responsibility for any problems caused here. I've been going through templates one-by-one and each time, I thought of a new way to do what I had in mind, so the whole effect is perhaps a gradually increasing mess. (I had no idea it would cause any problems, though). Just so I'm up-to-date, is "When should we delete a redirect" looking the way it should now? $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 21:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (publically) for the private apology. ON "When should we delete a redirect", I'm unclear on your meaning. If you want to change the messaging, just make sure it makes sense and interfaces nice with the help pages linked above. Whatlinkshere will show all occurrences and text searching "Wikipedia:" should find all the pages that is directly including them. If you're truly interested in deleting one, that goes via {{rfd}} and WP:RFD. If you're thinking a major change in categorizing stuff, that should be discussed at the village pump and/or Category talk:Categories or sometimes Wikipedia talk:templates. You were interested in altering redirects categories, from what I saw in passing, so that discussion belongs in Wikipedia talk:Redirects, first and foremost, with a side-note annotation in the other places if its a big change. Hope that helps. // FrankB 22:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Xasha

User:Xasha, already blocked twice under the Digwuren restriction, persists in making egregious insults and contributing little of constructive value. In this edit, he writes: "Moldovans consider themselves "not Romanians". ethnicity is a matter of personal choice everywhere (OK, it wasn't in Nazi dominated countries)". Given his introduction of a source stating that the Romanian government does not recognize a separate Moldovan ethnicity, this comes quite close to implying that Romania itself is Nazi-dominated, a clear violation of the Digwuren warning: "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee."

To accuse a country's population to be "Nazi" is actually rude insult against this population.

Moreover, Xasha, in response to a post by User:Vecrumba defending the notion that Moldovans and Romanians form part of the same people, repeated the Nazi accusation: "Please don't revive the Nazi tradition of arbitrarily assignign ethnicity based on God knows what invented criteria."

I hope administrators duly note these two inflammatory messages in blatant violation of Digwuren, and also take into consideration the user's block record and general pattern of tendentious, unproductive editing. --Olahus (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I consider the first use quoted to be only an allusion, and not a accusation. I'm a little unsure about the second. DGG (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a badly-worded comment, not an "issue of concern". Civility warning. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid Reductio ad Hitlerum. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and read this, too. Kelly ^hi! 18:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And, might I point out, Xasha again invokes the Nazi spectre here: "The similarity with lebensraum discourses is not just a coincidence". In response to the warning he received due to his conduct, he combatively pledged to continue employing this sort of language. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also reminded Xasha of both the conditions of the restriction, and what happened when they were previously violated. If it happens again in short order a block will be required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, enough is enough. Anyone in that dispute that can't avoid all that fighting is due for a long block. Last chance here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

He is now continuing to conduct a long revert war against several other users, running up to 3R within the last 24 hours at this point, but with numerous previous reverts in the past few days. It's at Latin European peoples (an abomination of an article, but that's a different matter), and it's all about whether Moldovans should be categorised under Romanians or on the same hierarchical level with them, in a tree list of "Latin" peoples. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm reverting an user who is always restoring edits by banned sockpuppets of Bonaparte and now is removing reliable sources to prove it's point. I'm not ashamed at all.Xasha (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Unfortunately, however, you don't get to revert ad nauseam, so I'm blocking you for 96 hours: 72 for the lame revert-warring and 24 for the incivility. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Xasha is modifying the article Latin European peoples and he ignores the discussion on the talk page. Somebody stop him please! --Olahus (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is someone here to explain Xasha (talk) that talk pages shouldn't be emptied without archiving a discussion. Maybe he's doing it to cover up former conflicts with other users caused by his permanent zestfulness for edit warring, harassing other users or using the encyclopedia as a battleground. He was several times requested by other users not to empty his talk page. However, this is the list of all the discussions deleted by him: User talk:Xasha/Deleted (not archived!) discussions from emptied pages. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Users can do anything they want with the contents of their Talk pages -- delete, archive, whatever (except change other people's words). Corvus cornix_talk

Of course they can do anything with their talk page. I know that very well. But: concerning the user Xasa, there is a small additional problem: he likes to modify the wikipedia articles without giving any explanation and when asked about the changes, he just empties his talk page instead of talking about the disupted issue. After the talk page is emptied, he reverts the edits of the disputed article again and he behaves further as if nobody would have ask him anything about the disputed article. --Olahus (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, repeated insertion of loaded comments like this one can be considered harassment ("why are you beating you wife?"), provoking Xasha to remove all comments by that particular user. As for modifying wikipedia articles without giving any explanation - heh, it took you two blocks to notice the existence of talk pages yourself, Olahus. Although your behavior doesn't excuse Xasha's, perhaps laying off those accusations of "stalinism" as well as not rushing to revert back once you get reverted yourself, but using the talk page first might have a better impact on the general editing atmosphere in relevant articles? --Illythr (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock assistance please

Resolved

 – released by Maxim

I'm not in a position to take care of this myself right now, so could someone please release the autoblock on Giano II? It's a complex block history so it may take a few minutes to figure out which block/unblock is causing the problem. Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Maxim_(talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Maxim. We're having serial power failures here and I've already had four crashes today. Risker (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

New category:administrators willing to make difficult unblocks

Resolved

 – User is free to create category. --slakr^\ talk / 22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is already a category of administrators willing to make difficult blocks. In fairness, there should be a category of administrators willing to make difficult unblocks.

It is well known that administrators are unwilling to unblock. People have called it the cabal, gang mentality, lynching, etc. This category will blunt such criticism.

It is also well known that administrators who don't like certain ideas but who can't think of a logical way to explain their feelings resort to calling things trolling or make accusations of sockpuppetry. This is not trolling. If you are an administrator and are not willing to make difficult unblocks, you simply don't list your name. It's that simple!

Once again, this category blunts any criticism from Wikipedia critics who call us cabalism. Voxtel (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! That's quite a second edit you got there Voxtel. Have you been an IP for awhile to get to know the place, or a lurker? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited for months but I have edited. I lost my password and user name. I have some idea but does it really matter? Voxtel (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

De facto proof that the cabal sucks at being a cabal: they can't keep people from unblocking people everyone wants blocked. --slakr^\ talk / 22:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I can only read "difficult unblock" as "unblock against consensus". Not sure we should encourage that. We get quite enough of it already. Friday (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No fair. Friday stole my comment and then edit-conflicted me. :) OK, try this: We don't really need categories that describe an admin's willingness to perform basic administrative functions. How about Category:Admins willing to protect pages in an edit war? Or Category:Admins willing to adjudicate complex 3RR reports? Or Category:Admins willing to block Giano? MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Then should we eliminate the category "admins willing to make difficult blocks"? Voxtel (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Short answer (from me anyway) Yes. It presumes there are easy blocks. No block I've ever done has been "easy". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well said, Keeper76. Blocks are by policy; difficulty would reflect situations where it's not clear how policy applies. In that case, seeking consensus in advance would be best. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To reply to MastCell, I think we need to worry about a parent category first. Let's create Category:Admins willing to create difficult categories :) _{I's say my sense of humor's workin today.} Wizardman 22:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the smart thing for admins oppose to this idea would be to simply say nothing, hope that nobody signs up, then delete the category after it remains empty for a few days. That's fair! Attacking me, trying speedy delete, and other tactics are unfair and devious. So oppose it, there's an easy fair way!Voxtel (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very happy with that "difficult blocks" category. The description of Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks, however, does make me stop short of recommendng its deletion. We have had cases of administrators being targetted by vengeful stalkers and the like, so this category (if it serves the purpose described) is likely to be useful in cases of harassment. --Jenny 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Didn't see this discussion until afterwards, but I've CfD'dCategory:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult unblocks. I'd suggest that if this conversation is going to continue, it continue there. – iridescent 22:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec: cat was redlinked as of this writing)I'm afraid that it's not going to happen. It's not an issue of ideology or opinion— it's part of the blocking policy, in big bold letters. Admins usually don't undo blocks without consensus to do so or in obvious situations. This mainly is done to avoid wheel-warring between admin actions— something that is highly discouraged and frequently can result in desysopping. Therefore, the only possible definition of "difficult unblocks" is one that is done where there isn't consensus to do so, otherwise it wouldn't be difficult. That said, you're totally free to create the category, but it probably won't exist for long as we usually remove underpopulated categories within a few days of it being empty. --slakr^\ talk / 22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

fine with me. a few days and it remains empty then it's ripe for delete. Voxtel (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be time to work on some articles in the meantime, eh? MastCell ^Talk 22:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:John celona socking

After a long history with John celona (talk · contribs), I recently co-certified an RFC about him. Very shortly thereafter, it was brought to my attention that he is an extremely obvious sock of the indef-blocked Tommypowell (talk · contribs). Now, I'd be quite comfortable blocking, because it's really not at all a subjective block, but given the fact that I just co-certified an RFC/U, I can imagine somebody taking issue with me as an involved admin. Therefore, I'd like some guidance: should I block? Should I file a WP:SSP report, bearing in mind that that is severely backlogged? Should I just ask another admin to look through contribution histories and make the block her/himself? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll note the last date of edits for Tommypowell was 21:42, February 7, 2007 so checkuser will not be possible due to expiration of the data. MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's unfortunate that it took this long, but it's an extremely obvious sock. Enigma ^message 23:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll stop short of saying it's "extremely obvious," but it's very likely. Tommypowell was blocked on Feb. 7, 2007; and John celona started editing four days later. Both have edited Brent Corrigan, an article that attracts some interest but where two unrelated users are unlikely to show up randomly. If you have more evidence linking them, please state it here. This is already a good start, and if you can build on it, you can justify a block - but be careful because John celona is an established user with more than a year of experience, and should not be indef-blocked without careful forethought.

Also, don't file an SSP report. Those just wind up on my desk anyway. So continue the discussion here, and if you need me to check anything, ping me on my talk page. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 23:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[11] "Very nice job. The evidence that John celona is Tommypowell is conclusive, for me, and we didn't even need a checkuser! Tommypowell was indefinitely blocked on February 7, 2007. The John celona account was created on February 11, 2007. They also edited some of the same pages." Check out the tool which compares the pages they edited. Enigma ^message 23:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the most obvious: Duplicate edits to Tom Sawyer (1973 film). [12] [13] They were both quite active on Michael J. Devlin and the now deleted pages on his victims. AniMate 00:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

The following is the evidence of sock-puppetry:

• Tommypowell was blocked indefinitely February 7 ([14]), John celona registered February 11 ([15])
• Both editors took the position that Brent Corrigan was born in 1985, and not 1986 as the subject claims ([16],[17], plenty more diffs available on request)
• Both editors added gay porn stars' real names to their articles ([18],[19], may more diffs available on request)
• Both editors inserted identical language regarding an underage nude scene in Tom Sawyer (1973 film) ([20],[21])
• Both editors edited articles about gambling card games ([22],[23])
• Both editors engaged in Holocaust denial ([24],[25],many more diffs available on request)
• Both editors liked to emphasize how long material that opponents favoured removing had been in articles ([26],[27])
• Both editors showed substantial interest in Michael J. Devlin and, especially, in his victims. For example, Tommypowell supported keeping an article about one of Devlin's victims ([28]) but was unsuccessful in doing so; early in his career, Celona supported overturning this deletion at DRV ([29])
• Both editors had the habit of cross-posting their messages to involved editors' talk pages (Powell: [30],[31],[32], Celona [33],[34])
• On June 2, Celona made an edit to Newyorkbrad's talk page that began with "As someone who has contributed to this article", referring to Michael J. Devlin ([35]). At that time, Celona had not made any contributions to that article. Powell, however, had made several ([36])

There's lots more than that, if you care to look, but I think I've outlined enough to make the case conclusive. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Petition for Community Ban

• Support Bstone (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Has disrupted the encyclopedia for far too long. Enigma ^message 04:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think a ban vote is necessary: we just need an uninvolved admin to go through the evidence and block Celona. I mean, we could ban too, I suppose, and I'd likely support that, but what's needed at this point isn't a community discussion, but a single uninvolved admin. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  While we wait, we may as well discuss a ban. For me, it's a forgone conclusion that the user will be blocked whenever someone looks this over. The question is a ban, and I think one should be implemented. Enigma ^message 05:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban. I didn't actually read any of the diffs, but I trust Sarcasticidealist not to fake them, and if even half of them pan out, that's more than enough evidence. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 06:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I have only looked at a few of the diffs, but the evidence both that Celona is disruptive, and that he is a sock is very conclusive, especially those identical edits to the Tom Sawyer article. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 06:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support I did read the diffs and I too trust the Judgement of Sarcasticidealist. He supported John and tried to help him become a better editor.I tried to help John too but too many people have been adversely affected by Johns disruptive behavior so I regrettably have to support this call for a community ban. :Albion moonlight (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Request Page Move Help

Resolved

 – Page moved; next time, post request on WP:RFPP.

Please move the page at Violetta Blue to Noname Jane as this is her correct stage name and she is barred from using Violetta Blue anyway. I would do the move myself, but there is a conflicting redirect that I cannot remove. Thanks so much! --BenBurch (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Would a move to Ada Mae Johnson not be more appropriate in this case? Anyway, for future reference, thre is Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Edokter • Talk • 00:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what is appropriate for an actor/actress? Is John Wayne's article under Marion Robert Morrison? Whatever the standard is. Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, with all double redirects fixed. Btw, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) stipulates that using either legal name or stage name is correct. —Kurykh 00:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! If you are an American, have a great Independence Day Holiday, and if not, well, have a great weekend! --BenBurch (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Could an administrator...

Check out this revision [37], as it seems the person who posted it User_talk:Lasvegascompany put his/her password in the revision. Thanks Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 01:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the info and requested oversight. The user has also been counseled. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pirat Clone of Wikipedia (?)

I would like to inform administrators and Wikipedians about the not complete copy/clone of Wikipedia [38] but it exactly looks as the real Wikipedia - I think - something is not correct with it (?)--Cerber (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a live mirror site, with no advertising added (makes a change) but it's pulling all the images from Wikipedia directly. What's the policy on these? Based on WP:MIRROR, I've added it to m:Live mirrors - do we need to do anything else? Neıl 龱 11:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. This site been noted since October 2007— Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#Adorons.com. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a remote loader website, see [39]. Do the devs know about it? MER-C 11:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, it does have something. Click view source on any page, and go right to the bottom (or search for a013.com) - it's doing something with an advertising sitetracker. And it's definitely remote loading, right click on any image and see "properties" - they're coming from upload.wikimedia.org. I've added it to m:Live mirrors, so the devs should know about it fairly soon. They were pretty quick about e-wikipedia.net a few weeks back. Whois data for www.adorons.com: [40]. Neıl 龱 11:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo edit war- and expansion

The Taekwondo talk page gives a good introduction. Started (several months ago) as an edit war after JJL (talk · contribs) substantial rewrote the article with a strong Pro-karate/Japanese POV. Several editors felt he went to far beyond what the sources supported, it went to a mediation which stalled. After this failure JJL and Manacpowers (talk · contribs) engaged in and edit war over a Japanese vs Korean POV, I and some other editors attempted to produce a neutral version and reason with both sides, this was hampered by stubbornness on both sides, policy misunderstandings and Manacpowers poor level of English. Except from brief flare-ups on the reliable sources notice board, and the martial arts project talk pages it has generally keept it self to the Taekwondo and talk pages. I have broudh this here Manacpowers has now started editing various Korean martial arts articles in attempt to prove a point that only majority view (in his opinion that Taekwondo is primarily korean) should be shown. I noticed this on the Hapkido article where he as claimed the it might actually have originated 3000 years ago with Bodhidharma (see Asian martial arts (origins), the edit war & POV forks there for how debatable that is) referencing a Korean edition of Britannica, which I tried to translate using babel fish & can't make out anything useful from.

I asked him to read WP:Point, and he then copy an pasted a previous comment of mine about showing all sourced views. showing his previous patten of finding a point policy to stand on and reiterating it regardless of relevance, counter points, misunderstandings of what he has read or contradiction. I realise that I have become embroiled in this and am struggling remain neutral due to my increasing frustration with Manacpowers, and to a lesser extent with JJL. I have asked on several project talk pages for other editors to help but as none have come forward I am left with myself an a couple of other well intentioned editors to try and resolve the dispute. Manacpowers escalation to other articles has lead me to believe that he will not debate but will keep arguing the point and disrupting articles, while a block may not yet be in order some stern words (ideally in Korean) are needed to prevent him from spoiling several articles that have been progressing well and introducing errors (factual and grammatical) that my not be fixed for an extended period. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Subject of an article requesting deletion of references to himself

Currently, there is an AFD about a book by an author, which seems likely to be deleted. However, the author of the book, Ed Williams, who does not appear to have an article going on this disambiguation page, is claiming he wants references to himself in articles such as Kay Parker and Bachman-Turner Overdrive deleted, although I cannot find any references to him in these articles, so I'm not sure what should be done (if anything). Just letting the admins know.--Les boys (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ed Williams (novelist) - strangely it had been turned into a redirect to an article about an actor. DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, that explains things. Thanks. Well, it seems like he wants that article deleted, and any references to it (or himself) in other articles. I thought it'd be a good idea to raise this here, anyway, going on the BLP policy.--Les boys (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)