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

Wilhelmina Will's DYK topic ban

Resolved

 – The community's concerns have been allayed and the topic ban is lifted. Further discussion of the ban itself is not necessary here. Since Wilhelmina has thousands of articles to create before requesting anything such as tools, etc. enough time will pass that this topic ban will be irrelevant. Nonetheless, discussion of these issues is underway in another forum in Abd's userspace. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems only a short time ago that we were discussing it, but the issue of Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) has to be raised again. The background to this is that Blechnic (talk · contribs) called for this ban based on discovered copyright violations, the worsening of articles to make them meet the requirements of DYK, etc. Accordingly a discussion was held here.
When Wilhelmina appeared to ignore the ban, it came up again [1], where I realised that, since WW refused to engage the community at the noticeboard, to assume good faith would be to assume that she hadn't noticed. I thus notified her, and closed the request, despite some protestations by Blechnic on my talk.
This led Abd to regard me as the "responsible party" for the ban - I accepted that I had effectively closed the discussion, and thus could be regarded as "responsible", which I did principally to give Abd a point of contact since he seems to have styled himself as WW's advocate in these matters (see her talk page and archives, and here for examples). Subsequently, Abd has decided that the community consensus was illegitimate because the evidence the community used did not exist. He consequently believes that I should overturn the topic ban. Now despite my naturally high opinion of myself [/sarcasm] I felt that I can't undo what I believe was the will of the community. I therefore invite another admin to check whether my judgement of community consensus at the first discussion was correct, although some editors here seemed to agree.
Furthermore, there is the question of when the topic ban may be overturned. I believe the consensus was along the lines of There exists a DYK ban for Wilhelmina at least until she tells us she understands and is willing to abide by copyvio rules and stop treating DYK medals as an end in themselves. I have invited, on her talkpage and through Abd for her to give me such an assurance that I could bring to the community and say "there it is", but no such assurance has yet to be received. I defer re-assessment of my closing arguments to other admins, and the latter question (once again) to the community at large, since my judgement has been repeatedly called into question on my talkpage, and for all I know, I may very well be wrong. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

From a review of the above, I would suggest that a topic ban consensus was very apparent and that the subsequent discussion was properly closed once Wilhelmina Will had been advised of the ban and invited to participate in the discussion of its implementation. I feel the argument that the ban is invalid because there is no determined time period is hollow; the editor is topic banned until such time the editor engages with the community with regard to the concerns raised - at that point the appropriate period (if any) before the editor can be allowed to contribute to DYK nominations can be determined. It appears that Abd's conclusions and requests are driven by considerations other than policy interpretation and application of the communities consensus, and are not shared by the majority. I see no reason to vary the sanctions on Wilhelmina Will's account until such time as Wilhemina Will starts a dialogue with those who have expressed concerns regarding her editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with LHvU - until and unless Wilhelmina Will makes an assurance the poor behaviour will cease (even accepting the behaviour WAS poor would be a start), the topic ban must remain. Neıl ☄ 10:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In fairness to Abd, he appears to now be contending that the consensus was flawed, and thus my close showed a "lack of wisdom" (or words to that effect) because there was no problem to begin with. He says that there is no evidence of copyvios and so the topic ban is an error that I should not have made. I'd paste the discussion over here, but it's pretty lengthy - it's at the bottom of my talk page. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

His is, and was then, a singular viewpoint. A lot of people apparently reviewed the evidence and concluded there was a problem. You did not make a decision, you enacted one made by the community. Perhaps Abd might consider that when they are the singular voice against the majority, then it may be them who is wrong. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be true if I were a singular voice. I'm not. I've written an extensive response, but it is sitting on another computer. This topic ban would not be sustained through an RfC or ArbComm review, I'm certain of that. What has happened is that a lot of editors did not review the evidence and came to a conclusion based on an assumption that the charges were true, and they !voted in that line, some actually stated, "if the charges are true, then a topic ban is appropriate," and I will, in a full comment, provide diffs. Fritzpoll, however, has not fairly presented my argument, though I believe it was his intention to do so. To date, no significant evidence, enough to justify a ban, has been presented for a topic ban. Therefore Fritzpoll has made a closure decision without reviewing the evidence, but, apparently, based on his own opinion outside of what was presented in the discussion, but not only without expressing that evidence, but also not expressing it later, when questioned about it (specifically, about the copyvio charges which he stated were central). He was therefore not a neutral administrator, one more flaw in this affair. At this point there is enough evidence -- but not presented here yet -- for a neutral administrator to reverse the decision, perhaps also sending it back to that community (AN/I) for review; though I would contend that this was the wrong forum in the first place for dispute resolution. AN and AN/I are not part of W:DR, which corresponds to a legal system, whereas AN/I is like calling 911. 911 makes immediate decisions for the protection of the project, but not binding or lasting ones, in the presence of significant disagreement. --Abd (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated on my talkpage to you, I based the closing decision both on the consensus of the community and the AN/I discussion (that I have not linked here) which dealt with her copyvios and introduction of inaccurate material. You are being disingenuous in saying that I acted in a non-neutral fashion when I have already described to you how my decision was reached, and in saying that I have not responded to your request for information, which I did on my talkpage. I also invited you to ask another administrator to "close" the discussion, on the presumption that, if they disagreed, the topic ban could be overturned. I asked you to supply the proof to back up your statement that she had clearly learned her lesson, so that I could propose overturning the topic ban. I asked you to get WW to talk to me so that I could propose overturning the topic ban. Instead you decide to attack my position by disputing my neutrality or helpfulness in this matter - I have not vested interest in WW being banned from DYK (hardly an overbearing restriction in itself), and certainly not indefinitely. Perhaps you need to choose your words with greater care? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Fritzpoll has failed, apparently, to understand the basis of the problem. Yes, Fritzpoll has "described" the basis of his ban. He based in on two charges. I have a detailed response at [2]. What you call, below, "the facts of his argument," have not been presented by you, or anyone at AN or AN/I, ever. My argument is that there was no evidence presented showing that the charges were anything more than Blechnic's warped and exaggerated allegations. (Which opinion, by the way, has been expressed by multiple editors at various times, before I was ever involved.) In short, there were two "facts" underlying your ban: (1) copyvio, and (2) padding an article to meet DYK 1500 words. The latter is so trivial that it's hardly worth mentioning, but you did mention it. Unless it were shown that this editor continued to do this, and more than rarely, it's not worthy of a topic ban, and the padding would disappear if it actually damaged the article, rather quickly. As it did. The first charge, though, copyvio, would be serious. How do we deal with editors who plagiarize text? Do we topic ban them? No! I don't know of any other example, though possibly there might be an odd one. We warn them, and we block them if the action is repeated after warning. Often we will warn them more than once. However, no evidence showing any pattern of copyvio, nor even a single example, as I recall, was asserted in either AN/I report filed by Blechnic -- and this is what you referred me to when claiming that you had acted based on evidence. No evidence was asserted here, either, nor did you, in bringing this here, note the very clear basis for my effort to persuade you to lift the ban, which I am required to do before proceeding with further process. The basis wasn't what you claimed. There was a consensus at AN/I. It was, however, a consensus of editors who aren't responsible for confirming the evidence, and a number, indeed, noted that they had simply assumed the charges to be true, and therefore their approval of a topic ban was conditional, and you failed to confirm the condition. And many others, I'm sure, did not look for the evidence, or were confused by the red herrings presented, the few allegedly outrageous mistakes of WW, which, however, were really only outrageous if they were repeated, particularly if repeated after warning, plus some sort of dark assumptions based on WW's "failure to respond." Which should have been irrelevant. (A positive response would be a basis for not topic banning, based on AGF, but a lack of response is never an offense, only the repetition of problem behavior after warning.)

I did not bring this report to AN, nor would I have done so, until I'd exhausted WP:DR, though there is a basis for an attempt at AN/I (I consider that the ban has seriously damaged the project and should be lifted promptly). But it's here, so I've responded. And I will go to the next step in DR, unless some admin takes a look at this and lifts the ban, which, having been discussed, could now be done without wheel-warring. Had anyone confirmed the evidence, sufficient evidence to block, it would be another matter. --Abd (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I will note, now, that I'm accused, via a warning on my Talk page, by User:Jehochman, of failing to AGF for Fritzpoll. I might have made a mistake somewhere, but I am not aware of ever questioning Fritzpoll's good faith, and I have assumed it all along. I have concluded that he erred, and I requested that he review his decision, and then questioned its correctness, but I do not believe and have never believed that he intended anything other than the welfare of the project, and I assume this, as well, of the editors who have been, the last few minutes, piling onto my Talk page to "second" the warning. It's not over, folks, until the diva sings. There is a reason why we don't make decisions based on the first few !votes that come in, they are often biased. We'll see. I'd say, given that I haven't filed any AN or ANI reports, started any RfCs, or even edit warred or maintained tendentious debate against an informed consensus, that blocking me based on my history would probably be disruptive, I'd not advise it. But, then again, maybe some good would come out of such, you never know. It was just suggested, yesterday, to me, that I go again for RfA. Last time the !vote was about 50-50, after the canvassed votes due to an SPA -- blocked for it -- were disregarded. And the reason given by most voters was that I only had something like 1400 edits at the time. Might be disruptive for me to self-nom, though. I won't do that. --Abd (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I didn't want to be accused of forcing bias in a response by not presenting the facts of his argument. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now commented on your talkpage that Abd should bring his concerns regarding the basis on which consensus for a topic ban was created back to the community which expressed it, and not on the page of the admin that enacted it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, LHvU Fritzpoll (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be a bit late to say it, I've been indisposed, but this is the issue of general value here. There is a view of administrative responsibility here that conflicts, certainly with my understanding of it and with that of some admins whom I respect greatly. Generally, short of ArbComm, we don't make decisions by vote. Rather, a rough consensus may -- or may not -- be expressed in some discussion. And then an administrator reviews it, reviews the arguments and evidence, and makes a decision. The administrator makes the decision. This is very clear at AfD. It's also clear when a block decision is made after a discussion. The blocking admin becomes the go-to person for unblock or unblock permission. I have never seen it be considered necessary to go back to AN/I to get an unblock if the actual blocking admin consents to it. So I assumed that a topic ban would be the same. The closing admin is the actual judge, and would never make a decision contrary to their own opinion after review of the evidence, on the idea that "the community decided, not me." I have seen quite a solid supermajority be reversed by a closing admin because he didn't accept the basis they were asserting. And because this "judge" can decide any way, the exact way that the admin decides at close is not binding on that judge, the admin can reverse it later upon consideration of new evidence or argument. Further, all that I've seen about dispute resolution guidelines indicates that, when we disagree with an admin close, the admin is where we go, first. It's disruptive to go beyond that when it might not be necessary. The closing admin can say "bug off!" That is totally within his or her discretion. And then there would be further process, each step involving slightly more fuss. --Abd (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fritz, I also agree your reading of the consensus was entirely correct. I was considering closing that topic ban discussion myself and I would have closed it exactly the same way. As others have said, if Wilhelmina Will wants the ban overturned, she needs to engage with the community. Sarah 02:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah. I figured my first AN/I close was probably worth checking Fritzpoll (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This was an obvious one. Fritzpoll divined consensus (and an overwhelming one) rightly, and until and unless WW engages with either Fritz personally, or the wider community with regards to the topic ban, it should stay. ^S._D.Jameson 14:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes although some of the way the conclusion was arrived at might be arguable, this was definitely the consensus. What I will say though is that WW herself hasn't edited in five days, and she hasn't done anything to violate or even question that ban herself in the meantime, so the 'blame' for this being made an issue again shouldn't fall on her and I hope this won't effect the outcome. I wish she would talk to the community though to discuss mentoring etc or ask for help, and hope she isn't gone for good. :( Sticky Parkin 13:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is correct, there was a "rough consensus," but this affair shows why AN/I is the wrong venue for complex user conduct investigations and response, it is only good for ad-hoc, easily reversible decisions, made necessary by some immediate hazard. Had there been no rough consensus (and from vote count alone, it was a strong one), I'd have been advising WW to ignore it, and Fritzpoll's later comment to her I would characterize as a warning from an involved administrator. But that's not the case. Hence I've advised WW to respect the topic ban, even though I believe it to be seriously defective. It's also true that WW has not challenged the ban, not once, nor did she repeat, after warning, any of the allegedly improper behavior, not before the ban, nor after it. Mentoring would be a good idea, if it were not an utter waste of time. We propose mentoring for good editors who don't learn from their mistakes without it. Quite simply, that isn't Wilhelmina Will. She is far above average for editors. --Abd (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

When he took responsibility for the ban, Fritzpoll gave this reason for the it: The general argument was that WW was introducing copyright-violating material (despite repeated requests not to do so), and reducing the quality of articles in order to achieve a DYK nomination. As such, I interpreted the situation as a threat to the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. In this context the community consensus for a DYK topic ban was justified.[3]

Now, the "reduction of quality" argument was based on a single incident, and, as was noted by an editor at one point, her problem was that "she didn't know how to bloviate well enough." Clearly, she made a mistake, but it was not even close to being a reason for a topic ban. Copyvio, though, would be much more serious. Indeed, it would be a shortcut to her goal, DYK nominations, to simply copy existing articles that she finds somewhere. Was she doing this?

Repeatedly, in the AN/I reports in question, requests were made for evidence, and I continued this with Fritzpoll, and evidence wasn't provided. The copyvio charges were trumped-up, I must conclude. I suspect that there was some incident, somewhere, but, since there was active request for the evidence at AN/I, and a participating editor -- tendentiously participating -- who would presumably have had access to the evidence, and who did not provide it, there must not have been much! Definitely not enough to justify a topic ban. And there was, in addition, no evidence that she had been warned and persisted beyond the warning. Topic ban, quite simply, was not justified by the evidence presented in the AN/I report, and Fritzpoll has not responded to this particular issue. Instead, he brought this matter here as if the question were the consensus at AN/I, which then produced the simple answer: there was a consensus at AN/I, something we already knew. And, since, Fritzpoll is unwilling, as closing admin, to reverse the ban without going back to AN/I, the simplest recourse is to go back to AN/I with a request to unban, which I intend to do. He shouldn't have brought this here, nor should he bring it there. Going to AN/I simply because someone criticizes something you've done is not appropriate. The reason I would go to AN/I: the project has been damaged, damage continues, and thus the matter justifies an AN/I report requesting immediate action. An unjust topic ban can be expected to drive away some productive editors, and it seems it is doing just that.--Abd (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, AN/I is probably not the venue for that discussion - I would suggest proposing the unban elsewhere, since AN/I is for incidents requiring immediate administrative assistance. The reason I brought it here, Abd, is that you questioned the validity of what I had done - not being so arrogant as to believe that all my words and deeds are without fault, I brought my actions here for scrutiny. Wilhelmina was on a Wikibreak, so it is hardly surprising that she hasn't been editing (look at her edit summaries for today) and she is creating new pages again. I have consistently responded to your request for information, including the original AN/I report where the copyvios were discussed. I have offered opportunities to resolve this repeatedly - that you refuse to counsel WW to engage with the community, refuse to accept my offers of compromise in the form of discussion (where I even offered, under certain conditions, to request the unban myself) and instead embark on this crusade on her behalf is bewildering to me.

You also persist in this idea that I can overturn a topic ban on my own. This is not true - administrators in these instances, as I understand it, enact the will of the community. They do not decide that will - admins are no more special in that regard than any other editor. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to recap this thread into a clear discussion, there are three elements together which brought about the DYK topic ban against Wilhelmina Will. These are discussed in detail in the threads linked to in Fritzpoll's opening paragraph, and can be summarised as follows:

• Wilhelmina Will was found to be introducing copyrighted material into DYK candidates that were being prepared.
• Wilhelmina Will has been found to edit war with others working on DYK candidates in the interest of meeting DYK minimum requirements.
• Wilhelmina Will has been found to be uncivil to others when the subject is discussed, working against the collaborative ethos.

While one of these issues on it's own would cause concern, it is the three together that have generated this situation and all three that need to be improved upon before the ban is likely to be rescinded. It is also worth bearing in mind that blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive. In this case, they are designed to prevent DYK submissions from being created that are potentially damaging, either by worsening the experience of other editors wishing to collaborate on the article or through potentially copyright infringing material being introduced. It is also why, in this instance, Wilhelmina Will has been encouraged to demonstrate an admission that these problems exist and a resolve to avoid repeating them in the future so that the topic ban can be lifted.

In addition, consensus does not equate approval without dissent. Although there are some editors who disagreed with the topic ban and felt that other measures were appropriate, the broad consensus was for a topic ban to be applied. Such a measure does not require the approval of ArbCom or an RfC to be implemented, and is a common remedy introduced by the community in response to editor concerns in a particular area while allowing them the freedom to contribute to other unrelated areas.

To conclude, I would encourage Abd and Wilhelmina Will to work constructively through this topic ban, demonstrate a willingness to contribute to lifting this through positive means and in the fullness of time rejoin the DYK contribution process with the consent of the community at large. I am concerned that any protracted argument or dispute will only cause further contributors to leave the project, which is somehting I think we can all agree is an undesirable outcome. Consensus has shown a clear way to resolve this issue, and I would humbly request in the interests of all concerned that it is followed. Many thanks, Gazimoff 14:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, now User:Fritzpoll has been chased from the project for at least awhile. Good grief. ^S._D.Jameson 13:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. All that happened was that I questioned his close decision (made something like a week after the apparent AN/I consensus which had, however, never been closed, with no administrator taking responsibilty for a topic ban allegedly decided there). I did not call into question his editing, ever. I claimed no administrative misconduct rising to a level of bad faith, for I believed, and continue to believe, that he simply erred by not confirming the crucial copyvio claim, not that he intended to harm anyone. He was the one who brought this report here, when a simpler and more direct response, following WP:DR would have been more appropriate. He did not need to insert himself into this, he could have simply done nothing when I pointed out to him that he had warned Wilhelmina Will of a topic ban that was never properly decided. And then he could have made his decision, and continued to do nothing more. I didn't make this into a drama, he did. But, still, he had options, and continues to have options. He has taken one of them, which is, essentially, to do nothing, unless he changes his mind. It's a legitimate option: let the community sort it out. It's the option that Wilhelmina Will took; however, the paradox here is that he held it against her. I won't. No process was begun that he had any obligation to respond to, at all, with no immediate risk from silence, so I find his withdrawal puzzling. --Abd (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason for people's reactions and the withdrawal, I think, is that it is difficult sometimes to understand exactly what it is you are saying, Abd. I say this as someone who thinks you often say some very perceptive things, and as someone who disagrees with the views that others are developing about your contributions (see your talk page section and warning). I think the problem is that to engage in a full and frank discussion with you on a topic can be rather difficult due to the length and abstractness of your responses, and the end result can be uncertain. I don't think what you do is harassment, but I can understand some people getting frustrated with the approach you take. I did ask before whether you had considered putting some of your views into an essay? Sometimes the points you are trying to make are best made in the abstract, before alighting on people as examples, if you get what I mean? For the record, I have supported Blechnic (someone you are criticising at the moment) over their flagging of copyvios in the past, so I think you both make good points, while I'm not 100% sure exactly what started this latest incident (I've been away for a few weeks). Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Carcharoth. It should be noted that when I have an agenda, a decision I've made and I'm trying to persuade the community to act, eventually will I take the time to boil it down to brief, effective speech. It takes a lot of time, so when I write at greater length, it is in discussion mode, it is not intended as persuasion, but rather exploration. It should also be recognized that this rewriting takes a lot of time, discussion is far easier, and that this problem is typical for writers like me. I did not file this AN/I report and am simply responding here, with information and analysis. While it could save a lot of fuss if someone looked at what I've written in the past about Blechnic, I'm not expecting that, though I've been succinct, actually, in some comments on AN/I that were simply ignored. But I've seen long-term, highly experienced administrators filing cogent reports ignored on AN/I. That's part of the problem that I really want to address. I do intend to write about "what started this incident," unless it becomes moot, in which case I may get distracted from that. Yes, I understand why some people "get frustrated." I've been seeing this for better than twenty years of on-line conferencing and communication experience. I don't hold it against them. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that I shut up when I have something I think important to say.

I develop the ideas that I might put into an essay by communicating with that part of the community that cares to read what I write, not for the tl;dr crowd. Some people read what I write, some don't. Unless I'm in action mode, which will be obvious, nobody has any obligation to read what I write, and there is no serious hazard from skipping it. Again, thanks. --Abd (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

goes beyond that doesn't it? more firmly implied by your dire threat on your talkpage that my "administrative future" might depend on reading your 11KB post. --87.114.149.224 (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy Shit! 87.114 is a User:Fredrick day IP. Two possibilities: Fritzpoll is Fredrick day, a banned editor, which I absolutely did not suspect, though it now does make some kind of sense, or this is Fredrick day is trying to stir up shit by pretending to be User:Fritzpoll. It's checkuser time, to clear Fritzpoll, if nothing else. (I would not argue that Fritzpoll should automatically be blocked if checkuser confirms that he is Fredrick day, but I think it is essential that we know, given what has come down here. (FYI, folks, Fredrick day was himself exposed most clearly because he apparently forgot he was logged in and edited signing his post with the sig of an identified vandal; if Fp is Fd, this, then, could be him forgetting that he was not logged in, thus revealing his IP. But it would take checkuser of Fp to verify this.--Abd (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Em.. I'm quoting the guy - doesn't the link to his statement give that away? I know you like to go on fishing trips and accusing people of being me - but your harrassement of fitzpoll should stop at this stage, you drove him away, what more do you want?--87.114.149.224 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In the same edit, though, we have: "...until I'm sure that I can edit without feeling the dread, without waiting for you to tell me..." - I read that as Fritzpoll saying 'it's you or me and I'm not coming back until you avoid me or are gone'. I can understand that is being written under stress, but it is equally unhelpful. I have very little sympathy with people who say things are too stressful due to someone's edits, and then argue against that someone from halfway through the door while saying they are leaving. Wikipedia is a stressful place, and the balance has to be struck between reducing that stress and not skewing discussions. Take a break or reassess how you do things here (one of the lessons to learn is how to handle people like Abd, as well as how to handle departures, and, to be fair, for Abd to reassess how he does things as well), but don't use leaving as a parting shot at someone. Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC) For example, if Fritzpoll now says he is leaving again because of what I said, the cycle starts again. See User:NoSeptember/Leaving for more on this.

I find your characterization of Fritz's message incredibly unfair. I didn't see it as a "parting shot" at Abd, I saw it as a final response to an editor who had hounded him over the course of several days over a properly made administrative call, threatening all sorts of process-related recourses, until finally Fritz just had enough of it, and decided to take a long break (at least). If you look at Fritz's initial responses to Abd, he was accomodating in the extreme, unfailingly polite, and in no way contributed to the mess that this has currently become. Fritz is not the problem here in any way, Carch. To suggest otherwise does him and the work he's done here a great disservice. ^S._D.Jameson 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Fritzpoll withdrew that comment. I was trying to make clear that I didn't think Fritzpoll intended it as a parting shot, but was trying to make the point that it could still have that effect. Until you've had it happen to you, it is difficult to communicate how powerless an editor can be when trying to refute an argument made by someone the other side of a still-swinging exit door. I will just repeat again that I appreciate the work done by Fritzpoll. The problem seems to be more social here - many editors getting heavily sidetracked and losing sight of the initial dispute and examining the evidence for that, rather than whether Abd or Fritzpoll dor other editors did the right thing along the way. See my comments below where I say that the best thing would have been to re-examine the whole thing afresh. Carcharoth (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But it's a pattern of behaviour - if you look at Abd's user page - he's been warned off before of making those "you need to listen to me or it's trouble for you" warnings to administrators. Everyone has a right to speak but you don't get to try and force people to listen with vague threats of trouble. --87.114.149.224 (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This changes the complexion of this entirely. I had no general complaint about Fritzpoll, which is why the departure made no sense to me. However Fredrick day has bailed from attempts to persuade him to negotiate a return because he knows that I'd maintain some kind of notice of his activities, which he seems to be totally allergic to. Given what he's done in the past, some level of awareness is necessary. He has stated, elsewhere, that he had other accounts, so it would not be surprising if he is Fritzpoll, but quite surprising that he'd make the mistake of editing as him without logging in, he's usually much more careful. There remains the possibility that he is merely pretending to be Fritzpoll, but there is now strong reason to suspect Fritzpoll is a sleeper account for Fredrick day. There was very, very little hazard to Fritzpoll here, unless he persisted through much more process, starting with RfC (which would, of course, require another editor's certification, I could not do that on my own), so the strong reaction does make sense. That's how Fredrick day would react if he imagined I was harassing him. We'll see. --Abd (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty low trick - you are now trying to knobble the guy by saying out of the side of your mouth "psst.. he might be one of THEM.. he cannot be trusted" - have you no shame? --87.114.149.224 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No such charges were made, Fredrick. I couldn't continue this not only because of the block, but because before the block I had promised to stay under voluntary house arrest, so to speak, to confine myself to my Talk on all these issues until the smoke cleared. In other words, the block actually did nothing except make it impossible for me to edit stuff irrelevant to this. And to handle archiving my own Talk page, among other nuisances. On th eother hand, I got to find out who my friends are, and who is helpful weven then they aren't my friends, so to speak. You didn't have to face this inconvenience, when your IP, the vandal "Section 31" was discovered to be Fredrick day, you just packed it in, immediately. (You'd slipped up, in a manner somewhat similar to how you made the edit that triggered this whole sock mess (but reversed: that was conclusive, this merely created a weird suspicion). When I filed a checkuser for Allemandtando, you, again, bailed immediately, before the checkuser result came in. Now, here, Fritzpoll had already -- it appeared -- bailed. I think you saw that, and saw an opportunity to stir up trouble by planting that edit. While it's possible that it was inadvertent, that you didn't intend the post to create the appearance that you obviously recognized it did, it was awfully fortuitous for your goals. I think you crafted it, practically a stroke of genius, I'd say, so that I'd see it and comment on it, and then someone else would look deeper at it and notice the exact quote and then have a reason to dispel it -- and make me look foolish. However, I never had any intention of pursuing anything against Fritzpoll. I doubt I would have filed an SSP report, or requested checkuser, because, while the suspicion was strong, I had previously had stronger suspicion about Allemandtando, said so at AN/I, and didn't file. I'd have supported checkuser but not to "get" Fritzpoll or "knobble" him, but to clear him of the suspicion you created. In the very first edit, the Holy Shit edit, I noted that this could easily be, not Fritzpoll, so to speak, thinking he was logged in and signing, thus revealing his IP, but you creating this false impression to cause disruption. That part worked. It did cause disruption. The coincidence of your edit, plus his mysterious departure with cries that he'd been harassed -- something you were known to do -- certainly raised suspicion, but it was far short of proof, which I said again and again. And Fritzpoll wasn't a disruptive editor, and I had only one reason to suspect the quality of his adminship, a single decision. Far, far from any kind of actual opinion that something should be done about him. No, I was focused on the case which he had closed. I approached him for clarity on it, asked him questions about it, and none of that could have been considered harassment. Or any editor seeking clarity on a decision would be considered to be harassing. At any time, he could have said to me, as to his Talk page discussions, stop, and I would have come to a dead stop, full brakes. Had I filed an AN report on him, likewise, before exhausting reasonable simpler remedies, it could have been considered harassment, but that wouldn't have been my next step and, in fact, as the smoke cleared, we discovered that we agreed on the next step. Big surprise: it's dispute resolution policy, involve a neutral editor to mediate or make an independent decision. But it was he who filed the AN report, and it's still beyond me why he did it. It wasn't necessary. I had acknowledged that there had been a consensus, my question was about the close and who the closing admin was, and therefore who could make decisions regarding the ban. When I discovered, after my return from a trip, that he had filed the AN report, and commented there. he resigned, and people were blaming me for it -- which remains quite mysterious to me, since I'd done nothing drastic (this was before the sock puppet flap, which was itself a mountain made from a molehill). So then you showed up with your little poison dart. Anyway, I'm back, Fredrick day. I'm pretty sure you've never been gone, and I might just get motivated enough to finish that sock discovery research. Active socks can be identified (i.e., simultaneous accounts), it should be pretty difficult to conceal them once one knows where and how to look. But, I do, in fact, have other stuff to do. Such as, even, occasionally, working on articles, but more often, children (7 ranging in ages from 5 to 40), grandchildren (5), business, and, of course, trying to change the world. Of which Wikipedia is only a small slice. --Abd (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic

Just a couple of quick words on this topic if I may. Firstly, like Abd and a number of other users, I feel the initial ban was hasty, ill-considered, and made on some pretty flimsy evidence. I also found it pretty distasteful, quite frankly, to see a 16-year-old girl pilloried the way she was at AN/I, and it therefore doesn't in the least suprise me that she might be reluctant to participate there. It also bothered me that no-one thought to notify any of the DYK regulars to see if they might have want to express an opinion, and I didn't even know about the ban until the topic had been closed.

Subsequently a second thread was started by Blechnic, in which I tried to clarify just what the nature of the ban was. It transpired that most people merely felt that she needed to acknowledge some mistakes and accept a mentor, but since no-one put up their hand to act as mentor and the discussion petered out without much response, I decided it would have to be handled ad hoc. Since then two articles by WW have been nominated on behalf of her by other users, one has been promoted and one IIRC was not.

So just for the record, I would like to say, firstly, that I personally have no problem dealing with submissions to DYK from WW provided they are on general rather than technical subjects. Secondly, I think I should add that I frequently see much worse copyvio offenders on DYK than WW (in fact I haven't actually seen a copyvio from her in spite of all the accusations), but my response has just been to disqualify the article and warn the user. So why WW has been singled out for a DYK ban I can only suppose has been due to Blechnic's persistence in frequently bringing her case before AN/I. At this point then, I think we need to make our minds up whether WW's trangressions were really so exceptional as to deserve a ban in the first place, and if so, what exactly needs to be done in order for her to have the ban overturned. Some clarification at this point would be very useful. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely, and I say that as someone who initially supported the ban. While User:Gazimoff is correct below when he states that copyvios were not the only or even the primary reason for the ban, the copyvio issue was by far the most serious issue. The rest of the issues were one inappropriate revert, one uncivil remark in an edit summary, and some statements indicating a lack of comprehension on certain topics she has been editing on, leading to some inaccurate statements in articles she creates. None of those would - or even all together - would seem to warrant any sort of ban, maybe a short term block at most, if it wasn't for the copyvio issues. And so far the only copyvio that has been uncovered is an item that is 7 months old, and apparently was a result of some misunderstanding with another user (possibly an admin). And by the way, BOTH of the articles that WW created and were nominated for DYK by other users were ultimately accepted. Rlendog (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that some important clarifications are required, in a restatement of my original response to Abd:

• As part of this thread, a temporary ban was put in place. Copvio concerns were not the only (or even the primary) reason, but civility and edit warring were heavily discussed. It was the combination of these three areas that brought about the topic ban. Stating that it is purely regarding copyvio is, regrettably, only part of the problem.
• Copyvio evidence, as has been repeatedly requested, is documented in this thread under the section 'Her existing copy vios and vandalisms that need edited'. Please note that this is not the only concern, as stated in my previous point.
• Fritzpoll intervened in this matter due to the convoluted nature of mutiple AN and ANI threads on the topic, in order to act as a single point of contact and simplify matters. Since taking up this role, the majority of discussion has been around the legitemacy or otherwise of a topic ban, and not (as was intended) progressing onwards from this point.
• User:87.114.149.224 has no contributions to wikipedia outside of this topic. The IP is used by PlusNet, an ADSL broadband provider in the United Kingdom. As such, it is exceedingly difficult to level accusations of sockpuppetry without strong, (usually checkuser based) evidence. If you have such material available I would strongly urge you to come forward with it or drop what ammounts to a fundamental accusation of bad faith.

It wouyld seem that WW is prepared to work within the guidelines set to improve the quality of DYK submissions and regain the trust of the community. I reiterate my request to Abd and WW to progress in this avenue. Constant resortion to debate and argument tends to stall progression on the isse and only perpetuates a needlessly tense situation. Many thanks, Gazimoff 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I thank Gazimoff for taking the time to investigate to the degree to which he has. However, it's not adequate, there are aspects to this situation which can rather easily be overlooked until one researches it depth -- or reads an RfC or other discussion that thoroughly explores it, and such doesn't exist yet, and I've been hoping the whole thing could be resolved more simply. So some corrections and points in response:

1. Yes, other matters were discussed, but Fritzpoll based his eventual closure on only two points and the rest not only wasn't considered important enough to mention, in our discussions, but I'd agree they were moot, minor faults; however, minor faults pointed out in the context of other allegations that are much more serious can add to an impression of wrongdoing, which clearly happened.
2. Fritzpoll intervened, first, without realizing what he was doing, if I AGF, which I do. There was an AN/I discussion where a clear majority supported a topic ban, but no administrator investigated it and drew a conclusion for closure. As a result, WW was not informed of the ban and made another DYK nomination. Blechnic complained, and Fritzpoll then took it upon himself to warn WW that she had (allegedly) been topic-banned. It took me a day or so to sort this out and realize the implications, so I can easily understand that others might still not get it.
3. We don't make decisions by vote. Ever. Votes represent a rough consensus, we make decisions through servants, closing administrators, trusted by the community to review not only some apparent consensus, but also the evidence and the analysis, and a closing administrator is obligated, in fact, to make his or her own decision, being informed by the community as to evidence and opinion. Part of this is a responsibility to investigate the evidence, to understand the basis for the decision. However, when Fritzpoll went to the WW Talk page to warn her, he denied that it was his decision, he essentially said, "Don't shoot the messenger," I'm just reporting the community's decision. He most explicitly did not take responsibility for the decision.
4. I raised at one point the possibility that Fritzpoll was not neutral in this affair, but that's not a point that I pursued. Rather, I acted as if he were, in fact, neutral, and thus able to properly close if he agreed with the evidence and conclusion.
5. When the community makes a decision through a polling process, there is always a close by an administrator, or sometimes another editor; when a topic ban is involved, custom is that this is an administrator, because the administrator then becomes responsible for enforcing the ban with blocks if necessary. Since there had been no close, the ban was not in effect, it was not merely that it hadn't been communicated to WW. However, when I discovered this and wrote about it (on my Talk page?) I cautioned WW to continue to assume that there was a ban, until it could be sorted out. But I also wanted to give her some hope, so that we might avoid losing her entirely. As well as, possibly, to assuage her probable hurt feelings. At least she could know that somebody was trying to sort it out!
6. So I went to Fritzpoll and pointed out that there was no close, and invited him to review the situation. I mentioned several options: He could simply not act, in which case there would be no ban, and I'd return to AN/I with that, probably, or at least to DYK (which is where most of this should have happened in the first place.) He could close the discussion, either with a ban or not. He elected to close it, to take responsibility. I considered this as progress, even though I considered the decision incorrect. Now there was a responsible administrator, and I could attempt to negotiate with him, or could ask others to do so. It never came to that, because Fritzpoll continued to insist that the decision had been the community's, not his. I asked him for the evidence of copyvio, and he provided only a diff to a former AN/I report by Blechnic, which didn't show copy vio. I'll note that copyvio evidence recently posted here, taken from Blechnic's Talk page, posted after the ban, was a single example, from many months ago, with extenuating circumstances. I understand there is another example, it's been mentioned, but I haven't seen it myself, though I've looked. It's not important. If there were a pattern of violation, worthy of a topic ban or even a warning of a topic ban, we'd have seen it by now. This has been a very productive editor, with many, many articles, and it's quite possible that going over it all with a fine-tooth comb would turn up something else. But we don't ban for this level of problem. 'Wilhelmina Will was a productive editor, with 29 DYKs to her credit and many short articles created and standing. I look now, and I see, to my relief, that she has resumed editing. She was gone for a week.
7. While I was negotiating with Fritzpoll, and then while I was traveling for three days, he took the matter to AN for review -- without necessity, it was his choice --, but he didn't present the crucial argument: the lack of copyvio evidence. Instead, he was looking for what he thought important: confirmation of the consensus at AN/I on the ban. He thought that if there was an apparent consensus, that meant that he was justified in his close. It's an error, but it is an error which, I assume, could be corrected; the appearance of a consensus was never challenged. What was challenged was the underlying arguments and evidence, or lack of same. Some !voters at the AN/I report specifically prefaced their comment with a disclaimer: "If the charges by Blechnic are true, and I see no reason why they would not be, ...."
8. Yet Blechnic was an editor, fairly new, previously blocked for harassment, who, I'd already concluded, was, indeed, harassing WW, beyond all reason, tendentiously arguing against every positive thing said about her or questioning his report. While it is proper for editors to AGF and make a prefatory remark like that, it was not proper for an administrator to consider those !votes as being effective unless the administrator personally verified the evidence. And, absent evidence to the contrary, we can assume that most !votes are, in fact, dependent upon the evidence visible when they !voted, so such verification is crucial, or, at least, when a close without personal examination of evidence is made, and challenged, it should be immediately investigated and fixed. Which Fritzpoll apparently never did. (I don't think he needed to consider the !votes at all, the matter is simpler. He should have looked at the charges de novo, and verified the evidence. If the evidence was verified, then he'd have presumably made his own decision based on it, which might or might not match the community's apparent consensus.
9. It seems that Fritzpoll had some impression in his mind that there had been copyvio problems, I've mentioned this "other" incident. But one incident can create such an impression, yet a ban should be based on a pattern of incidents, likely to be repeated. Now, lots of admins make close decisions, and then change them when aspects of the decision are questioned. There is no difference, in principle, between an AfD or an AN/I poll decision, and it is fairly common to reverse an AfD and, in fact, the standard first action, before challenging an AfD at WP:DRV is to discuss it with the administrator, who can change the result, and going back to the community (i.e., re-opening the AfD), isn't necessary, because there is simple recourse available for any member of the community who disagrees with the new admin decision.
10. Eventually, I came to question Fritzpoll's competence as an administrator, based on a series of factors that I won't review here, since it is moot now, but never his good faith, and there was no risk to Fritzpoll's admin bit unless he tendentiously opposed the community in possible ensuing process. My reference to hazard had to do with the possibility that he would do this, and I made that clear in my full comment (on my Talk page, by the way, not pushed in his face). I did not threaten that further process, I move very slowly, normally, unless pushed by circumstances. He didn't need to do anything. The fuss that ensued was caused by his report here, and then my answers to it. Further process only becomes burdensome at the RfC level, which would require quite a bit of preparation, including independent efforts to resolve the dispute. And I continued to make it clear that Fritzpoll wasn't the problem. The problem was unclear process and practice at AN/I, for which the community is responsible.
11. Yes, this is long. But quite a bit shorter than a full RfC would be. Nobody's obligated to read this. I'm not pushing for anyone to be blocked, and this is not where I'd ask for a reversal of the WW ban -- though it's once again questionable due to the departure of the closing admin, for whatever reason.
12. And I haven't provided diffs. Don't trust me? Don't worry! You won't personally be held responsible. I've been threatened with being blocked, twice today, most seriously for the sock puppet issue, so I should address that.
13. 87.114 is Fredrick day IP, the possibility that this was other than Fd would be minute, and I've read that 87.114 has acknowledged being Fd, not that this was ever in doubt. See Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day for a list of IPs, known or reasonably suspected to have been used by Fd, together with some other sock puppets. I do know what I'm talking about. As to Fritzpoll being Fd, I do not consider it proven yet, there is merely reason for suspicion, most notably since Fd did use the first person singular possessive pronoun, referring to Fritzpolls' administrative status. I'll decide later if there is reason to file checkuser, which would simply be routine at this point, it's possible that a checkuser coming across this would do it on their own. Or not. Fritzpoll was not a disruptive editor, as far as anything I've seen. It would be the community's decision as to what to do if it turns out that Fritzpoll is Fredrick day. Continuing the sysop status would be out of the question, I'd say. (If you know what Fredrick day has done, I think you would agree.) But blocking would be another matter. Wikipedia does not punish, we protect, and that is exactly what I'm doing all this work for, to ensure that the policy and guidelines are a reality. --Abd (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I'll respond to here, Abd is your last point (#13). You are not getting it and need to read your user talk, which I presume you're doing. You have completely misunderstood the "possessive pronoun" bit, and I can't find another way of explaining it to you. The IP (who admitted to being F-day), copy/pasted from Fritzpoll's talkpage, not from your talkpage. The "MY" in the post is a direct copy paste from the person who said MY, Fritzpoll. Your "suspicions" are laughably unfounded and are serving you no purpose other than to deflect from the core issues. Type less, think more. Keeper ǀ 76 21:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Two more points of note that I see in this latest missive:

• Carcharoth has just made the point (elsewhere) that it's unfair to see Fritzpoll leaving (hopefully not for long) as an exacerbating factor in re Abd, yet Abd in #6 above is directly using the tactic for their own benefit "I see, to my relief, that she has resumed editing. She was gone for a week."
• And in point #8, "Blechnic...previously blocked for harassment" which seems to elide the discussion where Blechnic's block log was subsequently modified to indicate that the blocks were unjustified.

And of course, to continue with a sockpuppet discussion of any kind, especially based on the premise of the leading two octets of an IP address (that leaves 65,000 possibilities doncha-know) somewhat strains credulity. Franamax (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord. What a mess. I'm going to ignore the sockpuppet accusations, while noting that Abd has been blocked indefintely for the accusations (see his talk page). Somewhere in those points 1-12, though, there is an important point, which is 'individual admin responsibility for their actions', versus 'actions that "enact community consensus"'. It is incredibly easy to hide behind consensus and the conclusions of previous discussions, instead of standing up for your own admin actions and examining the evidence de novo. In that sense, Abd is right: when asked to look into something, admins should examine the evidence afresh (no matter how tedious it might seem), and not just rubber-stamp previous decisions. This is similar to the way "unblock" requests are supposed to work. An admin answering an unblock request might end up agreeing with the previous decision, but they need to make clear that they have done an independent examination of the situation, and not just briefly read the previous discussion and nodded a few times. It is difficult, but that is the only way to avoid confirmation bias. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My what a wikidrama this whole thing has turned into. I have not read every single word in this tomb but I have read enough to get a sense of what has happened and who has done what. As a totally uninvolved editor here, I would say that people just need to chill out for a bit and stop being so sensitive to perceive slights and defending entrenched positions. While there are many bit payers in all of this, here are the most significant points as I see them:

1. WW appears to be a 16 year old who is enthusiastic and motivated to help create content for the project. This should be viewed as a good thing and she should be encouraged not tarred and feathered.
2. As such expecting a professional level of maturity from her is unrealistic and totally unnecessary. So being motivated to win some DYK award may seem trivial to some here, it is quite conceivably important to a 16 year old. If she has made mistakes, the can be corrected. Finding a support structure to help her improve should be the goal here, not deriding her because she is intimidated to come here to the "Hall of Authority" to defend herself and her actions before a group of much older and oft times much more uncivil authority figures.
3. As far as I am concerned Abd has done a good thing by taking up an advocate position for this user who may simply lack the assertiveness to deal with the BS that goes on here that only comes with experience and maturity beyond her years. While he may be verbose, and while some of his ways of putting things may appear as threats, his underlying premise in this case appears to be sound: an early consensus was formed simply by uninformed editors piling on (with all good intent) because they were hearing accusations of copyvio violations which is the only substantive charge I see in this whole mess, but for which I have seen essentially zero evidence given the amount of discussion space already dedicated to discussing things ... well there was that single 6 or 7 month old one liner ... which has apparently already been dealt with. This warrants a more thorough investigation whose goal should be simply to find and repair and past damage and to compile a list of example to present to WW so that she might learn to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
4. I will agree that it is important for WW to engage the community but there is no need for this to be a threatening experience for her as I am sure it must be. Simply allow Abd to continue as her advocate and adviser so that she has the structure to help her to properly engage in the experience. This would be a valuable life experience for her in the long run and as long as she embraces the changes that need to be made she promises to be a prolific contributor to the project. This is, after all, what the goal should be here, right?
5. As for Abd leveling accusations of sock puppetry, I think that things are being over blown here. His statements were hardly clear cut accusations. They were mere stream of consciousness suspicions as is Abd's way. In the end after Thatcher's post and some reflection Abd clearly acknowledged that Fritzpoll is NOT Fredrick Day and apologized for any distress that his suspicions may have caused. This is, I believe, the trigger that people were expecting to lift his ban? If so the threshold would appear to have been reached.
6. For what it's worth, I find Carcharoth and Gatoclass to be the most level headed voices of reason in all this. i found their positions and assessments to be the most compelling. Most of the pointy sticks in this discussion were based on entrenched positions and a lack of willingness to admit a rush to judgment.
7. I clearly believe that Fritzpoll was acting in good faith when he closed the original ANI imposing the DYK ban. There was a clearly stated consensus there so his actions were justified but it is also important to note that many of those voting had admitted that they had not actually looked into the matter personally and were taking the word of other editors on the charges. I have no reason to doubt the good faith intentions of those whose findings these others listened to, but I also note a distinct lack of verifiable diffs to back up all the bluster. As such, I think Abd was correct in his assertion that this ban was premature and potentially a rush to judgment that should be corrected.
8. I also believe the Blechnic was acting in good faith in his actions here and his desire to protect the project from what he saw as harm. While this is admirable I think that he is being overzealous in his pursuit of WW, especially in consideration of her age. To the extent that his actions have prevented further damage he has been vindicated, but now that the threat has been halted I would hope that he would switch his focus towards finding a positive solution to this situation which allows WW to continue to be an enthusiastic contributor to the project regardless of what motivates her to do so. There is no reason that the desire to achieve a DYK award should be considered a negative as long as his primary concerns regarding copyvios, the padding of articles just for padding's sake, and a couple of thinly veiled insults are addressed. With the exception of the copyvios, neither of these issues is worthy of a ban, IMHO. On the issue of extensive copyvio allegations I am seeing very little here in terms of actual diffs. That does not mean that they don't exist, but without them a ban is clearly premature given the number of conditional votes in the existing consensus which is all Abd is claiming, also IMHO. Even if they do exist a ban should not be the goal. Correcting them should be and WW will probably be more than willing to help in that effort as long as the process is not pursued in such an intimidating manner.

--GoRight (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The main problem here is that Abd, whilst claiming to have tried to follow WP:DR, seemed to lose that in a quest to be "right". As I felt was appropriate, I offered, as one means of resolving the dispute, having another administrator review the close (since I can't unilaterally overturn what I perceived as a community ban). Following Abd's block last night, I asked Carcharoth to perform this task, which will hopefully be to the satisfaction of all concerned. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think an independent review is a fine step, but I don't see that as a resolution moving forward. As I said above I believe that you were acting in good faith and given what you had before you that you were justified in your actions at the time. The question now becomes what is the best positive outcome that can be achieved here and what is the best means of effecting that? What the community has done only the community can undo, which is the core of your point, correct? So let us formulate as best we can the conditions which have to be met so that the ban can be lifted by community action. Whether the ban was right or whether it was a rush to judgment is rather moot a this point, IMHO. It is done so let's focus on moving forward and let the independent review serve as a retrospective to help everyone avoid similar problems in the future (if it is deemed a problem at all). If the independent review reveals an injustice was done in the form of a good faith rush to judgment then it should be easy enough to garner community support for the lifting of the ban. If the judgment was justified, well, then the issues identified need to be addressed by WW in a construction way for the obvious reasons.

Clearly actual participation by WW here would facilitate this process. While WP:AGF coupled with her age can explain (but not excuse) her alleged actions she will eventually have to step up and become accountable if she is to be taken seriously. More than anything I think the main complaint or uncomfort I am hearing in this whole discussion is a lack of active participation in this process by WW, which I think is fair, and this then becomes her first challenge in getting this matter resolved. I simply think that this will be most effective if Abd continues to be an advocate and an adviser but ultimately with her direct participation here. In that context I would urge Abd to encourage WW to take some responsibility and engage the process. 16 years old or not if she refuses to address the community it should be no surprise that the community will view her with suspicion and in a negative light (regardless of whether that is justified or not). It is simply the reality of the situation.

Personally I prefer to wait for the results of the independent review before formulating any next steps. This will not prevent WW from working on additional contributions as part of her DYK goal, as far as I can tell, as long as the ban on her self-nominating is respected until this is resolved. Personally I have no particular problem if others within the DYK community want to nominate her work within that process so long as the nominator takes responsibility for insuring quality concerns are properly covered before making such a nomination. Do others have any serious objections with such an arrangement? It seems she has some support from within that community so perhaps that could be a workable arrangement? --GoRight (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of the sentiments above, and, to be explicit, I don't think it should be considered "ban evasion" (as it was once termed by an editor) if another editor nominates on her behalf, provided that editor takes the same responsibility for the nomination as if it were their own Fritzpoll (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a secondary problem here, which is that WW has apparently not been communicative with anyone in recent days and has successfully avoided addressing any concerns. It's nice to see people standing up to protect this poor frightened sixteen-year-old - except that she professes leadership such that she's unable to join in a project, she doesn't have time to read about what's happened, she's still creating technical articles and she's guessing at them. I suppose these issues are subsidiary to the big show and I won't pursue them. I'll just make my prediction that this topic will recur here, some new players, some the same old same old. I'll try to watch more quietly next time. Franamax (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that you raise valid points, some of which I have addressed above. On the issue of leadership and not having time to read what's happened I think the WP:AGF view of that is simply her rationalizing things so she can avoid the trip to the principal's office, as it were. This seems to make perfect sense in a 16 year old frame of mind, IMHO.

On the issue of her creating technical articles on material which she does not understand, I would suggest that Abd convey to her that this is no longer an advisable set of material for her to work on unless and until a suitable reviewer or reviewers can be identified to volunteer to vet her work. Still, if the material is sufficiently above her level of comprehension that she is writing incomprehensible gibberish then obviously this would be of no value to anyone, including herself in her quest for the DYK award. Clearly it would be best for her to confine her activities to topics that she can reasonably understand, but even on technical articles IF she is able to get things into even a 90% usable state this can be a way to make those interested in such topics much more efficient at creating new content since they would only need to help her get the last 10% completed. This is obviously only a viable option so long as suitable arrangements are made with other appropriate contributors who are capable of and willing to invest that extra 10%. Thoughts? Concerns?

I would also suggest to Abd that he convey to her that quality is just as important a goal here as quantity. In other words, 5,000 really well written articles is probably a more laudable achievement than would be 10,000 sloppy and inaccurate ones. Agreed? --GoRight (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It depends on how sloppy. Creating 5000 "really well written articles" could be an extraordinarily difficult task. Wikipedia creates really good articles through a cooperative process, and every article must begin with some seed, a stub, at least. "Inaccurate" is quite a relative term, in fact. But even an inaccurate article can quickly evolve into an accurate one, and much more quickly than a non-existent article. So I really don't know which is better. I'd say that if it was the same amount of work, i.e., she simply spread out the same labor over 10,000 articles than 5000, there is a very good possibility that the 10,000 articles, though likely to be less well done, would be more beneficial to the project in the long run. Many times I've looked up some topic, and it was almost always more useful to me to have some article than to have none. Very many articles have no sources at all, and they can sit that way for a long time. WW creates articles with sources, and so improvments become easier, there is some place to start. If she was actually creating lots of "sloppy, inaccurate articles," she'd probably be frustrated in her DYK efforts. No, nobody seems to have really sat down and thought this thing through. I don't see any more reason to suggest to her that she keep away from (non-existent) technical articles than from anything else, or than any other non-expert editor. What actually happened in an article where she made a technical error was that it was quickly fixed. Her work was useful and was, in fact, the bulk of the work that went into the article. --Abd (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd blocked

Just a quick note as the blocker; Abd was blocked solely for the de facto campaign of harassment against Fritzpoll (even after the blocking, the closest he can come to an apology is that Fritzpoll "could" be innocent. This has nothing to do with the wider issue re WW (FWIW, somewhere in the thread you'll see me actually arguing in support of WW; I'm not trying to "suppress the opposition" here). As I've said, I specifically mean "indefinite" as "undefined", not "forever". If someone genuinely thinks this was an abusive block (but note the seven warnings after the final warning), or Abd comes up with a legitimate reason to unblock, I won't oppose anyone unblocking – although having done some research through his contribs, he seems to have some very serious COI issues; as the self-declared inventor of a voting system, more than 50% of his mainspace edits are to related articles; there also seem to be some off-wiki issues, for what they're worth. – iridescent 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you've made the right call here. Much as I often agree with Abd on more general topics, his behaviour here was beyond the pale regarding Fritzpoll, who is an excellent contributor to mainspace. Orderinchaos 00:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone trying to resolve this mess, and to save reposting a huge chunk of diffs, the "personal attacks following final warning" on which the block was based (incidentally, despite what Abd is saying, the warning was not given by me), are listed here. Even after all that, the closest he's coming to a retraction is that "the whole thing could be a trick", a claim that I somehow cooked this up because I wanted to block him but couldn't find a reason, and a threat to take me to Arbcom for "putting him in talk page prison". – iridescent 00:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, there is no technical evidence of a connection between Fredrick day and Fritzpoll, and substantial circumstantial evidence to actively refute a connection. Thatcher 00:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the reference to a "trick" was that Iridescent was tricking Abd. The reference seems to be that F.D. was trying to trick Abd into thinking Fritzpoll was a sock of F.D. Which apparently succeeded, although rather than being an attempted trick it was apparently a case of missing quotation marks. Rlendog (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No – read it in context. "I've seen these kind of arguments before. They come up when admins want to block someone, but need to figure out a reason. This affair has, so far, to me, all the signs of that. It's fine with me. I don't need to be able to edit Wikipedia to prepare an ArbComm case" is explicitly referring to this block being an admin conspiracy and/or a deliberate abuse by myself, and an implicit (albeit laughable) threat of an RFAR. – iridescent 13:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I made one of the last warnings, asking for input from others at the same time. I thoroughly support this block, more so now that Abd is claiming in the aftermath he was "tricked." His hints about Fritzpoll were utter smears and whether in good or bad faith, were disruption. He is clearly here to drum for his own interests, in his own meta-talk ways, far above and beyond anything else. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see on his talk page just now what i take as a rather full apology, so the block has served its purpose. I support an unblock. DGG (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I also support an unblock as Abd has thrice made my list of wise wikipedians. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What? How silly. Iridescent, the blocking admin, also appears on your "list of wise wikipedians". So I guess really you should be neutral? Keeper ǀ 76 14:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think either Abd or Iridescent should be blocked indefinitely. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

On his talk page Abd has clearly acknowledged that Fritzpoll is not Fredrick Day and has apologized directly to Fritzpoll for any distress this misunderstanding may have caused and they seem to have parted on friendly terms. This seems to be a significant constraint that those who supported the ban wanted from Abd. He has now provided it. I support unblocking him. --GoRight (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is Abd's "apology" to Fritzpoll [4]: "I can also, now, apologize for my thoughts, expressed above, calling into question Fritzpolls' competence as an administrator. I still think he made some mistakes, but.... what matters is what happens next, and it looks like he's properly handling it now." Although Abd uses the term "apologize", he still claims that the mistakes were on Fritzpoll's side. Abd apologizes only because Fritzpoll "is properly handling it now". Yellowbeard 11:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowbeard (talk • contribs)

Abd has clearly apologized for the sock puppetry related suspicions and any distress those may have caused. Unless I am reading things incorrectly this was the primary motivation for his block. That now seems to be settled. That he still believes there was a rush to judgment in this case and therefore an injustice had been done is a separate matter. Both Fritzpoll and Abd seem to be in agreement that an independent review is appropriate and I suspect most people would accept that this is a good course of action at this point. The outcome of that review will set the tone for any next steps in resolving this matter. If an injustice was done then it can be easily undone. If the judgment was proper then corrective action can be put in place. The bottom line is that simple, IMHO. Either way I agree, even if Abd does not, that Fritzpoll was justified in his actions based on the consensus expressed there and the information Fritzpoll had available to him at the time.

I also believe that people may be misinterpreting Abd's position and intent. When he says that Fritzpoll made mistakes, knowing what I do about Abd, I don't believe that this is intended as an attack on Fritzpoll, per se. It is merely an observation (without prejudice or judgment) about the process that was followed, where it might have gone wrong, and therefore what should be done to fix it. I interpret Abd's comment as being a statement about the process as opposed to about Fritzpoll personally, but I can certainly see how others might interpret it differently. Abd is focused on improving the process to avoid similar issues arising in the future as far as I can tell. So in that light I think that YB's issue above takes on a whole different tone. Perhaps this is just my interpretation, though, and your mileage may vary. --GoRight (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (I find it hard to follow 15,000 byte polemics) he hasn't provided a retraction and unconditional apology for his baseless sockpuppetry accusation. –xeno (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's as close as I'm going to get, and I have accordingly assumed good faith and accepted it on his talkpage. The block, from my vantage point was triggered by the accusation, but not the sole issue for iridescent, which is something you should probably check with him. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As I say on his talkpage, I'm neither going to endorse a block or an unblock here. I am getting very irritated at being the butt of a sub-WR level conspiracy theory that (despite never having interacted with this user or Fritzpoll in any way prior to this incident, AFAIK) I somehow engineered this situation to give myself a pretext to block him. Since, given what appears to be a totally warped view of what Wikipedia is for (this is not another Giano or Vintagekits who has had disputes with some editors but has a basically sound pattern of editing; this is a user with less than 20% of their contributions being to mainspace, more than 50% of which are on the voting system he claims on his userpage to have invented) I believe that any endorsement I make of either blocking or unblocking, he'll either see as "proof of the vendetta against him", or as a "defeat for the cabal", as appropriate. That is not to argue against an unblock – he'd hardly be the first disruptive editor given another chance – but it's a decision I want no part in taking. – iridescent 17:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but I think you should go further and say that you won't stand in the way of an unblock. Simply blocking and then sitting on the fence doesn't really help. Fritzpoll has taken an admirable and pragmatic stance and has decided to accept the apology, as far as it goes, and move on. I can understand your frustration, but really, the sockpuppet accusations and the block of Abd, and even his comments about you, are a sideshow. If we could get that cleared up and move on to how to handle (and not handle) editors producing (sometimes) problematic content with DYK as a motivation, then that would be good. We could even try and persuade Abd to take a different approach (I haven't read all he has written recently), but that is a separate issue to what you blocked him for. Carcharoth (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"If someone genuinely thinks this was an abusive block (but note the seven warnings after the final warning), or Abd comes up with a legitimate reason to unblock, I won't oppose anyone unblocking" (...) iridescent 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC). I suppose we are just waiting for Abd to throw up an unblock template. –xeno (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was clear but these threads are starting to get rather tangled; for the record, I will explicitly not stand in the way of, or argue against, anyone unblocking. As Xeno quotes above, if you genuinely think this was abusive – or if you think he's "served his time" – feel free to unblock. I specifically said both on the block log and the block notice that this was not "indefinite" in the sense of "forever". The point I was trying to make above is that I don't think I should be the one to make the decision on this one since after the string of attacks on me I'm not going to be unbiased. – iridescent 18:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I must protest the continuation of Abd's block at this point.

While I accept Iridescent's good faith in her making of the block, the use of an indefinite block was perhaps not the best choice. When she made the block she stated "If someone genuinely thinks this was an abusive block (but note the seven warnings after the final warning), or Abd comes up with a legitimate reason to unblock, I won't oppose anyone unblocking ..." While I agree that it was not Iridescent's original intent, I am here to claim that this block has become abusive and punitive, and as such I would ask that someone please unblock him at this point.

In looking over WP:BLOCK can someone please justify the continued blocking of User:Abd under any of the sections listed in WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_be_used because I am having a hard time understanding how the continuation of this block serves any of the purposes listed therein. Can someone offer a rationale here, please?

I will also note that this particular block, IMHO, has now reached a point where the first two sections of WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_not_be_used seem quite applicable. It is being used, for all practical purposes, to settle a dispute [5], [6], and the edit summary of [7], and for others here with the power to unblock I suspect that they see this more as WP:CDB. If this is not the case please state your rationale for allowing this to continue.

--GoRight (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd has not asked to be unblocked yet. I'm sure if they were to request to be unblocked and retract their comments regarding iridescent, someone would unblock them. I think even Keeper76 has offered to under these circumstances. –xeno (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Has yet to* and he's a she. Synergy 15:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User page says his name is "Dennis". Tan ǀ 39 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tan {{trout}}. I meant iridescent. Synergy 16:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed --GoRight (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed –xeno (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

But I never referenced irid with a gender-specific pronoun. –xeno (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My fault. GoRight started off by saying him, and its now corrected. /end confusions. Synergy 16:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a requirement for Abd to make such a request before an unblock can be performed. I am arguing that, as Iridescent said at the beginning of this, enough is enough. If the block is no longer justified under WP:BLOCK it should be lifted. --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, to try and answer some of your questions: If he has not requested an unblock, there is no reason to unblock, since it was done in good faith and appropriate. Its indef only because there is currently no fixed duration (this is of course up to how Abd proceeds from here on out). When and if he chooses to request it, conversation can flow in that specific direction on his talk page (so long as its not misused and subsequently protected). I hope this helps you understand this situation a little better. Synergy 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He was blocked for making baseless accusations towards Fritzpoll (which have since been resolved) but exacerbated the situation by making baseless accusations towards Iridescent. I see no reason for him to be unblocked without a retraction of the latter. –xeno (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems the cabal is out to get him and prevent him from saving wikipedia - "So, there's a task for me, write about it on the policy pages. Which is, of course, exactly what some admins, explicitly, are trying to prevent. --87.115.24.199 (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a kind of cabal, the real kind, which is mostly virtual and informal, which is clearly out to get me, but, apparently, they aren't in firm control. Yup. I find out about cracks in policy and try to patch them, usually after someone tripped over them. There are some doozies. Anyway, folks, that's a Fredrick day IP, in case you haven't noticed. Up to his usual. You might notice I'm unblocked, now, courtesy of Xenocidic. Thanks to all who supported me through this block. It took longer than it might otherwise, I didn't put up an unblock template till today. When I put it up, unblock was denied, no big surprise, but the alleged consensus that I should continued to be blocked unravelled quickly with no further action by me. --Abd (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. Looking at the length of my last two posts I think you may be starting to rub off on me. :) Rlendog (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the big problems is that we have a process whereby editors are encouraged to make comments that become decisions based on knee-jerk responses to incomplete analysis of situations, and often highly biased presentations of arguments that exaggerate what evidence does exist. Garbage in, garbage out. We can see, now, that the charges against WW were not based on evidence of copyvio, that evidence still hasn't shown up, so whatever exists must be minor. The other charges looked bad, except that her lack of repetition of each offense (and she had made mistakes, no doubt about it) wasn't brought out, because nobody went over the charges in a systematic way: had she done the thing (often yes but sometimes no), was she warned, did she continue after warning? If not, there was no need for any sanction, the basis warning/behavioral change process worked. I've claimed that AN/I is a terrible place to decide long-term remedies, it's great for deciding on escalating blocks, which are harmless if there is review process that will exonerate an editor who is wrongly blocked. But we actually don't have a good process on that. We have a process that usually works, but which can seriously break down, it's far too unreliable. In any case, we aren't going to fix these problems through shallow, knee-jerk responses, which can easily be very brief. If someone works a half-day to develop an opinion, sure, they can summarize the opinion, sometimes, in a few words. And then people who haven't done that research simply dismiss it as without evidence. If they put in the evidence needed, it is quite likely to be a long post. There are solutions to the problem, but Wikipedia doesn't even agree that there is a problem yet, so implementing a solution is way premature. I'm attempting to experiment with solutions in narrow environments, and even that is quite difficult. But I think we will get there. If I didn't think that, I'd abandon the project. It's far too abusive as it is. --Abd (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I came across your account as the result of a comment I made on someone else's userpage that was copied to yours. I saw you were blocked and had a look at your history. When you get past the massive massive comments that you make everywhere, you seem to be a SPA - you have some sort of voting system that you want to push and everything you do seems to be geared to getting us to adopt it and nobody is interested. Part of the reason that nobody seems to be interested is that you seem to have no interest in getting engaged in the core function of this project - to produce a quality encyclopedia. Your mainspace edits account are @ 18% but once you remove the edits to the article on your pet voting structure (which I think you claim to invented), it's actually near 9%. Would you consider becoming involved in our core function? writing and producing quality articles? --Hank Pym (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Please note that User:Hank Pym has been confirmed as a ban evading sock per checkuser. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Pym (Fredrick day) knows that if you throw enough mud, some of it sticks. But he's quite confused about this "voting structure" thing. Sure, I'm one of six independent inventors that I know of -- there are probably more -- of what I call Delegable proxy, but the article on that, which I created as Liquid democracy in 2005, I think, for that was the name from another inventor, that was, at the time, better known than my own term, I only edited at the very beginning. Later, I didn't touch it because of COI, so that isn't what Fred is talking about. Must be Instant runoff voting, which isn't exactly my "pet voting structure." For sure. But I happen to be a bit of an expert on it and on the politics of it. Delegable proxy is not a "voting structure," it's a communications structure that can be used to form and estimate consensus on a large scale, efficiently, see WP:Delegable proxy a proposal that was, of course, rejected, because, in spite of all that the creator of that page and I explained, editors considered it a voting method. And, of course, "we don't vote." Of course, when the attempt was made to actually delete the project page, and the majority of editors !voted Delete, and the closer closed with Keep as Rejected, they screamed. How dare the closer disregard the "consensus"! Such is this place. Little by little, we are either waking up or going totally mad. --Abd (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Abd's unblock came too early. Abd succeeded in getting unblocked without having to show any insight. It is clear that Abd will interpret his unblock as a community approval of his behaviour. And it is clear that he won't change his behaviour after these events. Yellowbeard 11:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yellowbeard is an SPA that became entirely devoted to me and my associates or work, since December, 2007. He's correct. Hopefully, this discussion here will cease. Pending resolution satisfactory to me, I have taken voluntary action which largely restricts me to my own user space: [8] --Abd (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2008

While the issue has already been resolved, I just want to say that I disagree that Abd's behavior at any point has warranted a block. The sockpuppet "accusation" -- if that's what it was, as I read it, he went out of his way to avoid an explicit accusation -- turned out to be unfounded, but it was not totally unreasonable. A simple "Hey, I'm not a sockpuppet," would've been sufficient. Chasing him onto his talk page and continuing to press the issue was unconstructive at best. Additionally, the comments of a number of editors on Abd's talk page were just barely within the bounds of civility. I'm glad Abd's been unblocked. But he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place, and regardless of whether or not Abd needs to be more concise or whatever, the whole thing could've been handled with way less drama. Just my two cents. J. Langton (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So the state of play is?

I note that no-one has yet replied to my question, which was, what exactly is the state of play regarding WW and the supposed DYK ban? Hopefully I can get an answer this time. If I don't, I think I am just going to have to assume that there is no consensus and that it will be up to the DYK regulars to formulate a response for themselves. Gatoclass (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That a topic ban is currently in place, but that I have asked for it to be reviewed by a neutral administrator, who will get around to it this evening. Hope that helps Fritzpoll (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ho hum, the drama goes on. Thanks for letting me know. Gatoclass (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

One minor correction to your summary above, Gatoclass. You stated "It transpired that most people merely felt that she needed to acknowledge some mistakes and accept a mentor, but since no-one put up their hand to act as mentor..." however at least two people offered to mentor her. WW simply "archived" those offers along with anything else put on her talk page with in minutes of seeing it and did not respond to them. I, myself, am one of the ones who agreed with the bans because her reactions to them showed she didn't care at all about the guidelines and made it clear that she was her because she felt she "had" to make 10,000 articles and get a lot of DYK's to make a name for herself. I am mildly concerned that she has such an obsession at a young age, one that would daunt many older, more experienced editors.

I felt a topic ban was necessary to stop her from violating WP:COPYRIGHT (which I know she has done frequently in other topic areas, such as films and television because I was the one who went behind and corrected her and thought, mistakenly, that she had learned rather than just moved to a new area) and from violating WP:V with her inaccurate additions where she admits to not knowing what she's reading or writing about, her actually sourcing herself in some articles, etc. These are two very core policies that editors can not just be allowed to ignore because they are "young" or "inexperienced." I know another editor who is about 10 who has learned about those and come to understand both reasonably well enough that he even checks to make sure a source is WP:RS if he isn't sure himself. If a 10 year old can learn that without having to come to this extremely, sure WW should have gotten it by now? Her talk page history shows that rather than learn, she is ignoring, and that is not good. I would like to see her get turned around, as I think she does have the potential to be a good editor if she'd stop ignoring the community, policies, and guidelines, to do so. I worked with her on a few articles and it took some time but I thought she'd learned something, but it seems she hasn't learned to apply those teachings across the board, and has allowed herself to become obsessed with amassing DYKs. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

When did the copyvios that you refer to occur? The most recent copyvio that I have seen evidence of to date occurred more than 6 months ago. If you know of recent copyvios I would like to see evidence of that, because that would likely impact my current position that the ban (that I originally supported) was probably inappropriate. But if the copyvios are from a few months ago or more I do not think we should be sanctioning her for that now, as that issue would have already been addressed. The quality issue is still outstanding, but I have looked at some of her creations, and while there have been errors it has hardly been the situation that was represented at the original AN/I - that she either just copies straight from her sources (no evidence in the past 6 months that I've seen) or changes some words to avoid copyvio but doesn't care about whether the result is correct or not. Sometimes the result has been incorrect (which is a legitimate issue, but not the overwhelming one presented at AN/I), but more often than not she gets things right, and the inaccuracies are typically minor. For example, I nominated her Jillian Clare article for DYK. I had to expand the article and add references to get it to be eligible for DYK. But the only error I found in the original article as WW created it was that she referred to Star Trek IV as an "episode", rather than as a "movie". And given that it is one of now 10 movies, describing it as an episode is arguably accurate. Rlendog (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed the various threads myself for the first time I can now comment. There was a clear community consensus to topic ban her from DYK. The most important underlying problems were concern about plagiarism and writing articles that just weren't right. The intent of topic banning her from DYK was to get her to slow down and do a better job herself, instead of depending on the rest of the community to repair her articles to an acceptable standard after the page has already been on the main page. Thus someone who quickly forwards her suggestions for DYK noms is undercutting the intent of the ban, and in the long run is likely to lead to further restrictions being placed. The community was open to mentoring - which would require the mentor to actually review her work closely - but WW did not indicate any such openness (and some evidence from her talk archives seems to indicate that she is not willing to work with or learn from anybody).

It might be possible for another editor to review her new page creations, take responsibility themselves to make sure it is a decent article, explain to her the changes that were made and why they had to be made, and then nominate the resulting article for DYK under their own name. When they stop having to make changes to her articles to get them into decent shape, then it would be time to nominate on behalf of WW. It would be most effective if each type of change was made in a single edit with appropriate edit summaries - say one edit to clean up any copyvio/plagiarism, one edit to correct the article's wording and facts, one edit to bring the referencing up to snuff, and (it appears likely to be needed) one edit to use multiple sources. This would have the effect of mentoring her, though it would work better if she were actively participating in two way communication. Given the pace at which she has been operating, this may be more than any one editor can do on their own - and given her prior attitude we may have trouble finding volunteers. It takes me a couple hours to produce a decent non-stub article - and it will probably take about as long for any reviewer to make sure that a new article from this editor is in fact not just a stub (regardless of the presence of absence of a stub template). GRBerry 14:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. I also think we should not be spending lots of editor time, just to facilitate some editor who seems more interested in racking up a new high score than in collaborating usefully with others. Anyone who actively subverts the topic ban probably needs to also be topic banned. Friday (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? What in the original topic ban or consensus thereof indicated that the ban applied to other editors nominating articles created by WW? Some supporters of the ban explicitly stated that their conditions for lifting the ban were that other editors succesfully nominate at least 5 (or maybe it was some other number) of her articles to DYK. Surely they weren't supporting a ban on other editors nominating her articles. And while that wasn't my position, the ban as I supported it was applicable only to her self-nominations.Rlendog (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry, I was going to ask/echo "is it worth it?" when I saw Friday had said rather much the same thing. As you hint, if there are volunteers willing to help out with this, wonderful but otherwise it seems to me she isn't ready to do this on her own yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems is that, if you look closely at new articles (not just the ones being looked at here), lots of them have problems. That is part of the point of a wiki, after all, that people come along and improve what you have written. Where to draw the line with problems with articles and explaining this to those who start articles in a stubby state (we've all done that, I would venture to say), is tricky. I've spent time trying to find out more about Paul E. Pieris Deraniyagala, to see if WW's choice of one source over another for one date (1967, instead of 1937) was correct, but it is difficult. I agree with those that have said that an obsession with DYK is not good. The aim should be to improve as an editor overall, not rack up DYKs. Oh, and in case anyone thinks I write good stubs, List of Arctic expeditions needs attention... Carcharoth (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So you have a verdict yet? Because I'm still not clear on what's happening. Is she barred from participating in DYK unless she accepts a mentor, and if so, who is putting their hand up for the job? Gatoclass (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

She is barred from DYK. Mentoring is a possible path to removing the bar. There are others, but they all require WW to do things she hasn't yet done - or even shown any understanding of. To put it bluntly, she is going to have to change her ways significantly for the DYK bar to be lifted, and thus far the only acknowledgment of problems I've seen is that she has admitted the need to check WP:AFC submissions for copyright issues. DGG, Tim Vickers, Fritzpoll, and S. Dean Jameson had previously offered to mentor and work with her to various degrees at various times. In late July, she did work a little with DGG. [9][10][11]. For Tim and S. Dean Jameson, she thought it was "wierd" that people were trying to help her, said that she didn't want anybody talking to her, basically said that she won't listen to anyone who thinks there is a problem with her work, and said that she'll only work with others if she is in charge. GRBerry 14:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding her "wierd" comment, I am certainly not alleging ANYTHING here on the part of those who approached her and who I recognize as being sincere in their efforts, but if you had a 16 year old daughter working on the internet today would you want her to be befriending everyone who approaches her out of the blue? From her perspective people she knows nothing about are approaching her, uninvited, and offering to be her friend. If I were her parent I would encourage her to be suspicious of such people, wouldn't you? --GoRight (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing I have discovered is that this "topic ban" for WW didn't get added to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. So Abd's point that the paperwork wasn't filled out is valid, let alone the points that people are making that the original case may have been overstated. My verdict, if it helps at all, is that everyone should try and move on from the mess that resulted, and try and start again with assessing what needs to be done. ie. Restart disussion from the point of the topic ban proposal. Sorry if that isn't very helpful, but that's about as much as I can make out at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the most significant factor in the original discussion which made a ban even a consideration was the accusation of wide spread copyvio on her part, and since is it impossible for us to prove that these haven't occurred, perhaps those making the charge should now be required to provide diff's in sufficient quantity and recency to justify the continuation of the ban? --GoRight (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have become focused on copyvio. I think many people joined this case during or after the argument at AN/I here, that started on 28 July, where the DYK topic ban was proposed. In deciding the way forward it would be helpful to forget the mess of accusation and counter-accusation that followed and re-read the discussion of Blechnic's original expression of concern about WW's activities on 21 July here which was not limited to copyvios, but included poor sourcing, taking articles from AfC without adequate checking, and inaccuracies caused by haste and by writing on subjects she did not understand. Mentors/nominators need to be alert to all these. JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Even the July 21 thread is heavily focused on copyvios and plagarism. Although even there User:Blechnic concedes that she copies "cleverly" - as far as I can tell he is saying that she copies but changes the wording from her sources. Which she does. But that is no longer a copyvio. Admittedly, that could lead to different problems - i.e., her inaccuracies when revising the wording - but I'll come back to that. Another problem discussed in the July 21 thread is poor sourcing. But that is not a problem unique to WW or to DYK. That is the case with many newly created Start class articles. That is the nature of most newly created start class articles - they have a limited amount of information and are often poorly sourced. At least with a DYK we know that one item from the article was traced back to at least a plausibly reliable source. And then there are the issues from the July 28 thread - the reverting an edit to keep an article over 1500 characters, using uncivil language in the edit summary while doing so, and trying to lie about the latter. But all that at worst was worth a short block, and most likely at most a warning. Which gets us back to the inaccuracies that sometimes emerge when she tries to reword articles or journals she doesn't fully understand. That is the one issue she has that is serious and recent (unless someone can show evidence of a recent copyvio; so far no one has come up with anything more recent than 7 months ago). But even that seems to be overblown. The only topics where any evidence of significant inaccuracies have been shown are in paleontology articles, which do seem to be a particular interest of WW's. Although as User:GoRight has indicated, there don't seem to be any such issues with her paleontology articles (alneit stubs) created since this whole drama erupted. But if the genuine issue is inaccuracies in paleontology articles (far less than the accusations in the July 21 or July 28 threads that led to the topic ban) then a DYK ban is hardly an appropriate remedy. At worst that ban should be limited to paleontology articles, or better yet, allow her to nominate paleontology articles to DYK but require a 2nd opinion from another knowledgeable editor before they can be used. Rlendog (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

One last point. Much was made in the July 28 thread (and to a lesser extent the July 21 thread) of her just creating articles to hunt for DYK "medals" and reach a goal she set for herself of 5000 DYKs. People felt that was inapprorpriate (I too at first). But even here there is more than initially meets the eye. First of all, a desire for DYK trophies is in itself hadly a bad thing. The purpose of the awards must be to encourage creation of DYK articles or else they wouldn't be there. Of course, if editors get sloppy just for the purpose of collecting DYK awards then it becomes counterproductive. But what was not mentioned in those threads was that WW's other goal is 10,000 newly created articles. That means 5000 non-DYK articles. That is hardly the goal of a mere trophy collector. It means her goal is to put in the effort to create 5000 articles that she would not expect to get DYK credit for. Also, having 30 DYK articles to her credit, she is entitled to the award for 25 DYKs. As far as I can tell from her user page or from the list of DYK contributors, it does not appear that she ever collected or tried to collect this award. Strange conduct if her sole goal was (as stated in the AN/I threads) just to collect DYK medals. And even after her ban (which apparently upset her very much) she went back to creating new articles with no expectation whatsoever of them achieving DYK status -and she seems genuinely surprised on her user page that 2 of her articles were successfully nominated during her Wikibreak. I think her ambitions are a lot more complex than was represented in the AN/I threads. She seems to genuinely want to improve the encycolpedia by creating new articles, and DYKs are just one element of that goal. And she seems to respond to criticism, even if she doesn't necessarily acknowledge it immediately, as she apparently stopped generating copyvios months ago when the issue was brought to her attention. Rlendog (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Having others nominate WW's pages for DYK

Since Abd's block has removed the voice of WW's advocate from this forum, I shall attempt to fill that role during his absence. I have argued above, and Fritzpoll has concurred, that it will be acceptable for others to nominate WW's material so long as the nominator accepts responsibility for any quality concerns therein, and any such nominations shall not be considered an evasion of WW's ban. Is there any serious objection to this approach? --GoRight (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, in the interests of time and effort, let us begin with a straw poll to gauge the level of consensus on this point.

Those in favor of allowing others to nominate WW's material for DYK per the conditions stated above:

1. --GoRight (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2. --Rlendog This is what the original topic ban was, at least as I supported it. Some other people supporting the ban explicitly stated that their conditions for lifting the ban would be that other editors successfully nominate at least 5 (or some other number) of her new articles to DYK. So I don't see how anyone can conclude that there was a consensus for the topic ban to be any more restrictive than this. And I will say that in the time since the ban I have become concerned that my support of even this version of the ban was probably hasty. I have yet to see ANY eveidence of a copyvio (the most serious infraction) from the past 6 months, so I am concerned that the discussion of copyvios in the original discussuion was a red herring. Maybe a serious issue in the past, but apparently long since addressed. The issue of accuracy remains, but even there, having looked at some of her other creations, the issue seems less prevalent than it was presented at the original AN/I. Rlendog (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
3. --Agree. Sticky Parkin 22:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
4. ---Agree. This is really standard. Nominating an article is often by other than the creator. She's not banned from creating articles. Wikipedia articles aren't expected to be perfect; DYK nomination actually results in rapid cleanup, much more often than not. If you look at what's being nominated, you'll see that a lot of pretty bad stuff is nominated. Her articles are way above the norm, so I wouldn't even think that an editor should be obsessive about checking the articles. I did one nomination for her, and I checked all the references and fixed some missing citations. I probably did a worse job of it than she would have, but others then helped some more. I don't see the reasoning behind the ban. It protects nothing. But it exists, so, in the meantime, we can avert part of the damage by simply recognizing what shouldn't have been controversial in the first place: anyone can nominate any article, and the community hasn't been banned from nominating WW's articles. --Abd (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
5. --Agree. This is similar to something I suggested on WT:DYK to remedy the situation, so of course I endorese this.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Those with different conditions:

1. Nominators need to actually review the article themselves for accuracy, copyright/plagiarism, and reliable sourcing. They should make any necessary changes before nominating the article, not merely "accept responsibility for any quality concerns". GRBerry 16:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   FWIW, I had expected as much but thanks for the clarification. --GoRight (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   Having just noticed it myself for the first time in a long time, I'd also be happier if they were processing User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult or Special:Newpages rather than specifically looking to get WW's contribs nominated. Not that this must be a necessary condition, but given the proxying policy, it would be a good idea. GRBerry 16:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   Agree with GoRight. I would assume that anyone nominating an article (by WW or anyone else) would check the article for quality before nominating as a matter of course. Rlendog (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Agree (including GRBerry's condition). I agree with some reluctance, because I think the focus on DYK numbers is harmful, to her and to WP, and I am concerned about her continued refusal to engage in dialogue or accept a mentor or admit that there might (have been) a problem. But perhaps article discussions with other nominators will improve things. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Those opposed:

Review of the Specific Allegations of copyvio

I wish to review in detail any examples of copyvio alleged against WW. Thus far I am only aware of one specific example and here is what I turned up. Are there other examples which have already been identified?

Item 1

Original report:

From User:Blechnic, [12] and [13]

Chronology:

WW identifies a page that was started in the sandbox by another user but was never created, [14], she then asks a more experienced user if she should create it, Antandrus Archive No. 26., who then indicates that it is an "unusually good for first [try] by newbies". She then creates the stub from the sandbox version, [15], and begins to wikify the stub (see her edits in the history [16]). As part of the improvement process User:Jllm06 adds references back to the original source, [17], approximately 11 days later.

User:Blechnic creates a user page section to record notes, [18], and WW replies there with an explanation, [19] some hours later.

Conclusions:

1. The actual copying of copyrighted material was done by someone other than WW. While she should have been more careful about using such a stub, this is something that could have slipped by anyone, especially a newbie. In fact, it even slipped by a more experienced editor who subsequently added the references back to the original source.
2. Given the amount of text involved here it is not clear that this is even a copyright violation under fair use standards once it was subsequently referenced back to the original source.

Comments on this review:

Review of User:Wilhelmina Will's articles

WW maintains a list of the articles she has created here, Articles I have mothered (created).

Review results:

• Today I reviewed numbers 357-374 (her latest submissions) with the following observations:
  • She has a number of scientific stubs created for various extinct animals. There is very little information on these pages but they are valuable as stubs, IMHO, as a couple of them have attracted additional user inputs. I reviewed the content and compared it to the sources she had used. I observed no copyvios and the information that is there is accurate per the sources. I can't speak to the WP:RS nature of these sources, however, but they don't appear to be alarming in any way. The images she used are from the wikimedia commons. My conclusion: no problems.
  • She has a couple of pages on wrestlers. These pages have a lot of content which are mostly referenced to a wide range of fan sites. I expect that this is the norm for this type of article, but I could be wrong. They seem well written and provide a nice overview of the subjects, IMHO. I followed a number of the references provided on each page, but not every reference, and her use of the content from these sources seems appropriate. I did not observe any direct copyvio problems in my random checks. Other users have already begun to enhance these articles. My conclusion: good articles, no problems.
  • She has a couple of BLPs on people from the entertainment industry. The content appears reasonable to me and the text is well written. I checked a reasonable subset of the information against the sources she had used and I observed no copyvios and an accurate use of the information from those sources. My conclusion: good articles, no problems.
  • On all of the pages with significant content I would randomly select significant phrases and googled for an exact match. I found no hits based on these random checks.
  • I won't claim to have vetted every word of every article but I believe I gave them a reasonably thorough look in each case, but your mileage may vary.

Extended content

--GoRight (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC) I asked again and again for copyvio evidence, and nothing was provided, except the single old example. That doesn't mean there is none, this editor has written a lot of articles, and people can make mistakes. But I'd think that with Blechnic hot on her trail, he'd have come up with more if it was as common as would justify some kind of reprimand. What I saw was a quite respectable editor, with 30 DYKs. That is not a small accomplishment in itself. She made a few mistakes, but there is no sign that she repeated them after warning. And if there was a problem, it would be in article space. The alleged problem of her DYK nomination "greed" was a total red herring. If she's creating bad articles, the quickest way for them to be exposed and corrected is to DYK nominate them. As has been pointed out, if there is a problem, it would be with DYK policy. If we don't want to motivate people to create and nominate articles, why do we give awards? So she's motivated, and then we blame her for being motivated? There was one instance where she was a few characters short of 1500, the supposed requirement. And so she reverted an otherwise-proper edit on that basis, and very naively said that was her reason. Now, if she'd been faced with a sympathetic editor -- and we really should be sympathetic with each other, the other editor might have helped find some factoid to insert. Instead, he went ballistic. --Abd (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC) I invite you, and others who care to, to go through her articles in a manner similar to what I have done (I plan to continue going through them a little each day) and do a reasonable level of checking and report what you find here as I have done above. Interested parties can select a small range of articles and reserve them here with a first level bulleted one liner saying which ones you plan to go through. That way we won't duplicate efforts. And then when you are done replace the one liner with the summary of the results as I have done above. Soon we will have a good record to judge whether there is actually a problem here, or not. --GoRight (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I plan to next go through 340-356. --GoRight (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I finally completed the review of these articles. The results were basically similar to the above.
  • The only substantive change I made was to update one of the stubs for an extinct animal to "promote" one of her external links to a full fledged reference and expanded her text a bit to clarify the current view of the epoch from which this animal comes, even though what she had was arguably fine. Here's the change: [20]
  • There were no problems with any of these articles, IMHO.
  • I'll discontinue my efforts here pending the outcome of the on-going straw poll to lift her ban. --GoRight (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

Well, I'm not planning to do it. I don't think it is necessary. A number of editors have looked for copyvio in her edits, and little has been found. Whatever has been asserted was old, and, as you pointed out, not necessarily even copyvio when sourced. In the absence of evidence, we can assume that there is insufficient copyvio to be a basis for any remedy. If there is to be a ban of some kind, it would require other evidence. Further, the ban against DYK self-nomination, in place, is not preventative, it's apparently punitive. She can still create bad articles if she wants to or is unable to do otherwise. But that's self-punishing, she won't reach her DYK goals, which are indeed ambitious, if she creates bad articles, and if she's creating bad articles, that's a separate issue; should the net value of her contributions be less than the effort needed to fix whatever errors she makes, a remedy would be warning and block for ignoring or being unable to respond to the warnings, to protect the article space, which is, after all, what all this is about. If someone thinks her articles to be a problem, the answer is simple: watch her DYK nominations if you think DYK is the problem -- it isn't, it's actually part of the solution -- and check the articles. Might be one article per day. And fix the problems. In every case I've seen, that has involved a few edits, resulting in better articles that wouldn't have existed otherwise. Work with her, not against her. Help her, don't attempt to drag her to AN/I. Is this a difficult concept? I wouldn't think so, but apparently .... --Abd (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Both User:GoRight and User:Abd are not helpful in this thread. I recommend that they both back off and let other editors handle this matter. Jehochman Talk 14:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Please explain how reviewing her articles for the alleged violations is not helpful. Do you suggest that we instead let the unsubstantiated accusations stand, and thereby allow her DYK ban to stand based on no evidence? --GoRight (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC) The length of this thread shows signs of argumentum ad nauseum. Rather than continuing here, perhaps you could request a review by the body appointed to handle such matters. It does not seem you have had much luck convincing the community to overturn the ban. I take no position on the underlying dispute as I have not reviewed it yet. The length of this conversation indicates a problem, for sure. Jehochman Talk 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC) "I take no position on the underlying dispute as I have not reviewed it yet." - Perhaps you should before commenting further. --GoRight (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Is Jehochman actually suggesting that we go to ArbComm when there is a neutral administrator, designated by the closing admin, reviewing the case, and that this may resolve it without further ado? Has he noticed that I suggested, many times, this wasn't the place to try to resolve this, but so many editors seem to have insisted on going right ahead? That I suggested we didn't need to compile evidence on WW's edits here, that's not what AN is for? I did not come here, in fact, to overturn the ban. At all. I came to respond to the issues raised by Fritzpoll. The ban stood, even though I considered it defective in certain ways, I advised WW to respect it, then developed a way to minimize the damage pending further resolution. This was a minimally disruptive plan. And, in fact, it is still going on. I'd suggest to GoRight that if he wants to continue to search for copyvios in WW's work, something I consider unnecessary at this point -- we don't have to prove that she never made any, and, in fact, she could have created *many* articles with copyvio as long as it wasn't recent -- he should do it on a user page. It could then be used in ensuing process if it is necessary, which it may not be. We already know that, in spite of multiple requests, the copyvio charge was essentially false. I.e., there may have been an isolated incident, perhaps, but there was no ongoing pattern, hence copy vio as a basis for the ban -- and this is the main reason the closing admin gave -- was defective. What happens here is that no clear decision is made, arguments go back and forth about this or that. There is no open case for AN to decide, this whole discussion was a mistake, that's what I've been saying from the beginning. It's like someone taking an AfD decision they don't like to AN. Or, more accurately, a closing admin who is asked about his decision and who comes here to find out if he "judged the consensus right," when that wasn't the issue at all. If he wasn't clear about his decision and willing to take personal responsbility for it, he should not have closed, period. He didn't close at the time, nobody closed, so I wonder at the comment of an admin above that she was about to close "with the same decision." The discussion simply petered out and went into archive, with nobody taking responsibility for a decision. I really wish people would take the time to either (1) investigate this or (2) assume a little good faith on my part when I present the results of my investigations. In an environment like this, too many seem to want a brief conclusion, not a detailed examination, and then they will agree with it or not, not based on reviewing the evidence, but on ... what? The name of the editor? The phase of the moon? The faction they perceive the editors as belonging to? But, really, my opinion is that nobody should vote in any of our processes without investigating the evidence, which would, yes, reduce greatly the number of people voting. But we'd get better decisions. --Abd (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal by Fritzpoll: rapid straw poll needed to lift ban

Per my discussion with User:Carcharoth (which due to time differences, he has yet to respond to - but this is of sufficient urgency to jump process), I would like to make the proposal to lift the topic ban of Wilhelmina Will, for the following reasons:

• Concerns about her editing, so prevalent early on appear to have dissipated
• Recent articles since coming back from her Wikibreak (as she described it) have shown to be good
• Most importantly, she has engaged with other editors to check facts before creating articles [21]

In these regards, ignoring whether or not the topic ban should have been placed to begin with, the community's concerns there expressed have been satisfied per my original reading of consensus. A quick straw poll here over the next few hours to confirm the validity of this, and I'll let WW know that it's gone. This will be much faster than arguing over a discussion that is weeks old, which is ultimately better for WW anyway. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Addendum - I plan to review this around 24 hours after the above posting, and if there are no substantive objections, I'll overturn the ban and notify WW Fritzpoll (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support (and with thanks to Fritzpoll for having the energy to see this through, and GoRight for doing the work above) Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support WW's recent contributions show that she has taken on board the comments made here and elsewhere and is also showing more of a desire to collaborate and ask for assistance where necessary. nancy ^talk 07:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, thought it was over-harsh anyway. MSGJ (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - an editor who takes on board suggestions and shows improvement deserves our encouragement. Gazimoff 09:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, seconding the thanks to Fritzpoll who acted just as an admin should - took responsibility, acted with fairness and moderation while being attacked, as a peacemaker so often is, by those he was trying to help, and saw it through to a satisfactory conclusion. JohnCD (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Keeper ǀ 76 16:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• I strongly support lifting the ban, based upon the fact that WW seems to be improving in the areas that were previously an issue. It's good to see that she's taking to heart some of the concerns that were raised. I have felt from the beginning of this whole incident that she has some real ability, and I think that she's definitely on track to be a wonderful contributor to the project. Nice work throughout, Fritz. ^S._D.Jameson 17:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Even if the ban was proper -- which it was not -- it is clearly improper now, and totally unnecessary. My own behavior, with regard to my own, should be examined in a voluntary user RfC I've started in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. The participation of those who have been critical of my actions is especially invited; however, the purpose of this is to advise me, so that I don't repeat any problem behavior, so this RfC is under my process control, it's not going to be quite like a standard RfC, which, of course, anyone could open. But since I'm mostly confining myself to my user space pending review, that shouldn't be necessary, at least not yet. (As an ongoing issue, this is an exception I made in my voluntary topic "ban." I only mention this here because the "attack" of Fritzpoll is mentioned above, and I have a different view of what happened. Fritzpoll was not my focus, but rather an abusive process that could result in an unnecessary topic ban which nearly drove a very productive and valuable editor from the project, based on trumped-up and unsubstantiated allegations. That's my opinion, of course, and no necessity to discuss it here. I won't be, any further, unless my presence is demanded.) Please note, nothing in this edit criticizes Fritzpoll or claims that he acted improperly, or denies the view that he was harassed. Indeed, my RfC could conclude that I did unjustly attack him and ignored warnings, i.e, that my block was properly applied. I have my opinions, but would greatly value a considered consensus on the manner, developed in a rigorously non-disruptive manner. That's why it's in my user space, where nobody has any obligation to read any of it. --Abd (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support As discussed above, most of the issues that led to the ban were not as recent or prevalent as appeared when the ban was imposed. Since WW seems to be working to address the remaining issues (i.e., accuracy when summarizing information from technical sources, engaging the community), the ban no longer serves any productive purpose. Seconding S. Dean Jameson's comments, I think her energy, motivation and resiliance will make her a wonderful contributor to the project. Rlendog (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Thanks to both User:Fritzpoll and User:Carcharoth for taking the lead in resolving this matter. --GoRight (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Wisest way of addressing issues with the original ban. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Agreed with User:Fritzpoll. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Whilst it looks like support is there based upon the issues, it bears noting Abd is "coaching" WW - notably [22]. My concern is that this then places WW in a lousy position. Should she then contribute here in a way Abd has advocated, it raises the question of sincerity. The support, which I totally agree with, seems present; it doesn't need influencing. Minkythecat (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Hence my subsequent comment on that page that it is WW, not Abd or anyone else who is earning the lifting of the restriction. I'm concerned that this might otherwise be viewed as a triumph of advocacy over good editing Fritzpoll (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed. As I've said, I'd support what has been proposed. It is and should always be WW's actions, words et al that determine the end result, those actions, words, have to be honest actions whether good or bad - not coached. Minkythecat (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Of course. And I'd never suggest that an editor say something insincere. But many editors have advised her to tell us that she made a mistake and she won't do it again. Isn't that "coaching?" In any case, I only advocated for her because, when I checked, she appeared to be quite a good editor, with the claims made in her ban discussion being greatly exaggerated. I'm not only concerned about this one case, here, I'm concerned about a process that resulted in what amounted to a massive insult regarding her work here, unjustly critical to the extreme, and that I have seen befall other editors. There is no support for a ban being shown here, now that (1) GoRight took the time to document that a sample of her recent work was free of copyvio, (2) Many editors have reviewed her work and have considered it worthy, (3) It has become known that problem behaviors had ceased, quickly, when she was warned, and that these had been no more than isolated incidents. (4) And then, the new reason given for lifting the ban, an incident of obvious cooperative behavior. Previously, when she had been attacked, and then some of those who attacked her approached her to "help," she simply ignored it. And then they used this against her. I think she would have been "cooperative" all along, approached with sensitivity and compassion. But we don't block or ban editors for not being "communicative." We block or ban them for behavior contrary to guidelines that continues after warning. Quite simply, this condition did not exist, ever. I make this point for a reason. If the ban is lifted because "she has now opened up," but the ban is still considered to have been justified, we are maintaining the insult. I.e, "your year of work, your hundreds of articles created, your 30 successful DYK nominations, were 'crap' or 'vandalism,'[23], but now that you've shown you'll talk to us about it, we'll forgive you, maybe you can learn to do good work, so we will give you another chance." It's abusive. We don't have to decide, now, that the ban was improper, but neither should we emphasize her supposed conversion as a reason for unblock. And WW is not responsible for unsolicited advice I give her. She never asked for my advice, though she did ask for a clarification once, and, I think, it was that clarification, pointing out that the ban did not prevent other editors from DYK nominating her articles, and the proof of this that I and another editor provided by DYK nominating two articles she had created, successfully, that may have given her sufficient cheer to continue here.--Abd (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Though I strongly support the lifting of this topic ban, there was nothing improper about the initial community topic ban. There were several issues raised, and she has dealt with them. Both Tim Vickers and myself (neither of whom had "attacked" her in any way) initially extended offfers of help and support. She simply blanked them without comment. She has since improved greatly, and that--and only that (not any perceived "advocacy" done on her behalf)--has led to the topic ban being lifted. It really is as simple as that. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 03:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Briefly, there were errors of substance and errors of procedure, of a kind that are common on the noticeboards, they are not good places to come up with well-crafted solutions. There was no specified term, though many of the !voters stated "short." There were requests for evidence that were ignored, and such evidence as existed was exaggerated, such that single incidents, of a kind that would ordinarily attract little attention, were presented as patterns of behavior (and the !votes showed concern for the patterns.) Irrelevancies were tossed in the mix, that the editor lied about a minor incivility was taken as a blockworthy offense, when it is not. There was no evidence of behavior continuing after warning, which is crucial before a ban or block. Her DYK motivation was widely condemned, when we encourage editors to seek DYK nominations, because it results in better quality articles. If her article work were bad, if the incivility or edit warring had been true problems, the remedy would have been warning and block, not a DYK ban. Then there was the procedural problem. No administrator took full responsibility for a close, and the discussion was simply archived. And the admin who did seem to eventually step in and act as a closing admin, held the opinion that it was the community's decision, not his; but a closing admin would, for example, fix the term, if any, and take certain other actions which weren't taken. And then this admin, being the one who actually made the decision, could also modify it. No other admin could modify it, it would be wheel-warring, without going through some new discussion. There has been only one change that took place after the ban: she requested the help of another editor on some fish articles. Once, a single edit. I have seen an editor's noncommunication cited as a reason for a block, but only when the user was engaged in reverting without explanation. It was improper to cite her lack of response as a reason for the ban, when she had not repeated any of the offenses for which there was evidence after warning. In other words, her lack of continued offense should have been considered sufficient response. Basically, there was no close so there was no topic ban. Fritzpoll's response to the issue was ambiguous. He told WW that it had not been his decision, it was the community's decision. That would be like an AfD closer who decides "Consensus is Delete" saying, it wasn't my decision, it was the community's decision, and I can't change it. But AfD closers can change the decision, and fairly often do, when presented with convincing arguments or new evidence. We could have been spared all this drama, in fact, if Fritzpoll had simply said, "Oh. It wasn't closed, there isn't any ban. But be careful, because that was a very strong vote, you should be sure that you don't repeat your mistakes." In fact, though, it was his decision, he took it by stepping in to declare a ban. And he appears to continue to think it was merited. This process here is not going to decide that question, and I'd not even be mentioning it if it were not being insisted, here and on WW's talk, that the ban was proper and needed and that what has caused this dramatic about-face is that she started being communicative. Remember the context: charges of massive copyvios. Her work is "crap," redacted to "vandalism." She is uncivil and edit warring. So she makes one edit asking another editor about fishes and she is "reformed?" No, it's the original charges that were "crap." And it's important that this be said, otherwise the massive insult that the ban represented -- by ratifying and believing and not verifying the charges of an editor who was harassing her -- stands, and that is dangerous. It is not necessary to resolve this disagreement, as long as I and others have the freedom to say that the community made a mistake. Fritzpoll made procedural errors, but he'd never done something like this before. He isn't the focus of my comments. It's the process. However, I do not like that he has insisted to Wilhelmina that the ban was proper and that what has made it be lifted is her communication. That is the reason he gave for bringing this here, but it's likely that the ban would have been lifted anyway, there was process underway that looked like it would come up with that. And he's also insisted, preposterously, that the efforts of myself and GoRight to clear this up had no effect. I don't think so. I don't think that she'd have returned, if I had not begun to advocate for the lifting of the ban, and especially if I hadn't nominated an article of hers for DYK, followed by another editor doing it, showing that the community would actually help her instead of simply blaming her. Fritzpoll would, I suspect, have taken no further responsibility at all. Nothing would have happened. And she would be banned, without, really, understanding why. --Abd (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• You should know, this really isn't about you in any way. That you believe the initial topic ban was "crap" is well-established. That you think that you had something to do with the unban is also well established. What you think and believe, though, has little bearing on what is actually true in this case: WW has improved as an editor (she was already a good writer) and thus the lifting of the topic ban has wide support, just as the initial topic ban had wide support. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 04:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Can we all please stop bickering about what happened? This straw poll is not the place to hash this out. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. While I'm not convinced that there are no problems, (in reviewing recent edits I noticed that WW still has a bit more to learn about reliable sources and interpreting sources accurately), I agree that an ongoing DYK ban is unlikely to help, possibly wasn't necessary anyway, and that dropping it is likely to be far more effective. And the problems I see in her edits are not ones that particularly relate to the initial ban anyway. While I agree with Abd in the above that asking another editor for help once shouldn't be seen as sufficient for arguing that she's fully "reformed", it certainly shows a willingness to seek advice, which is always the sign of someone with the potential to become very good. - Bilby (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Kanabekobaton

It's beyond time for a Japanese-speaking editor or admin to step in here. This editor has been making dozens upon dozens of edits a day for the last couple of years, and maybe has been bothered to use the edit summary twice. The edit history on the user's talk page shows that the typical response to warnings is to delete the message without comment and continue on just as before. Kanabekobaton has been asked on countless occasions to stop this behavior or at least give account for the actions. No change or explanation has been forthcoming. The userbox on the userpage suggests that English is not this user's first language. That's not important. What is important is that the total lack of response to the inquires of other users is not acceptable. DarkAudit (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User has been banned on ja Wikipedia since 18 April and has had similar bad faith edits on other wikis, endorse indef ban here and community block. treelo _radda 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor has now switched to television-related articles after being run out of beauty pageant articles. Over 150 edits today alone. Every one tagged "minor", even the moves and redirects. And not a single explanation for why the edit was made. Something smells here. DarkAudit (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Has he been banned? His talk page at ja.wikipedia suggests that he got a UsernameBlock. —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

From the talk on the Korean Wiki comes implications of misconduct. he's been warned on the Simple English wiki, and it looks like there are a fair number of other warnings where he has edited. DarkAudit (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support a block if he doesn't engage with something other than a template. He's using Huggle to template anyone, experienced or not, who reverts him. Then, after editors remove the warnings from their own user talk pages, he adds them back. He's definitely disruptive and my good faith is seriously stretched for this user. KrakatoaKatie 23:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I informed user of this discussion within minutes of posting here, urging a response. None was forthcoming, yet hundreds of similar edits poured forth afterwards. I have subsequently informed them that with the evidence of a preexisting ban on another Wikipedia, continued silence could only result in further sanctions if the behavior persisted. DarkAudit (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him too, when I reverted a page move he made. He's been editing since 2045 UTC without a break, with only two or three minutes between edits, and this is his typical pattern. He does this three or four times a day, like this is all he's doing with his life. If he doesn't respond or stop these edits in a few moments, I'll block him myself for disruption until he explains himself. Review of my actions is welcome. KrakatoaKatie 00:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So he's not actually doing anything wrong? I've spot checked at least 20 different contribs at this point, and haven't seen any actual disruption. -- Ned Scott 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He's been doing moves and reverts without bothering to give any reason why, and refusing to respond when challenged on the action on talk pages, even when others have had to go back and revert. He has been given final warnings on his talk page, but merely undid the edit and continued right along. Each individual edit or block of edits may not be disruptive, but the sheer quantity of them combined with the utter refusal to engage in any sort of communication with fellow editors, is disruptive. It asks the rest of us to be mindreaders, Wikipedia is not a collection of mindreaders. DarkAudit (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I've had to fix two or three things he's done in just the last few hours. He's moving pages and creating new pages and fixing dabs but he's not always doing it correctly, and nobody seems to be able to engage him in a dialogue to ask him what's going on. Some of these moves and new pages are because of punctuation, like tildes and accent marks. He's going so fast that he must be working off some type of list, first beauty pageants, then television, then athletics, then geography, and so forth. I'm bothered both by speed and variety of subjects. I won't block for now, but somebody has to watch him and I can't stay up 24/7. KrakatoaKatie 00:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It depends. Right now his edits are all compliant. At times they won't be. I've pointed the issue out before, when he was on a streak where 3 out of 4 edits did require reversion. He may be well-intentioned, but his reluctance to use edit summaries creates problems—almost to the point of it being disruptive in and of itself. Certainly, any evidence of a change-revert-revert again without discussion would warrant a block, IMO. —C.Fred (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Like Stifle I've looked through a quite a few edits here ( and some on other Wikis). The only significant issues I see are the marking of edits as minor, the lack of edit summaries and possibly the lack of community involvement. I am yet to see a pattern of poor editing and cannot see a reason for a block. I've dropped a note on his talk page about this. He seems to make lots of good edits and in this case steering the user to better community engagement and better editing practice will achieve good ends, I can't see that blocking him will - Peripitus (Talk) 00:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

looking over his contribs, I get a strong sense of, um, mechanicalness. Looie496 (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Except it looks to be manual, based on this edit. —C.Fred (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Never an edit summary, almost all edits marked as minor, clearly doesn't understand swaths of English idiom hence makes mistakes now and then, which means lots of mistakes since he makes lots of edits and unwilling to discuss. I think it's disruptive. Some editors may believe the helpful edits outweigh the worries and it's worthwhile to quietly clean up after this editor but I don't. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here he did delete content without explanation. I was generous and gave uw-delete3 (if only because I don't want to say "will" be blocked with this discussion ongoing), but a repeat would be enough for me to block him. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It may take someone posting a message to his talk page in Japanese to get his attention. DarkAudit (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And when I tried with 妨げることができる。 答えなければならない。 (You may be blocked. You must respond. Reverse translated to It is possible to obstruct. You must answer.), he merely undid my edit. I reverted his undo. DarkAudit (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And once again with a heading of "You must answer" and a link here. Undid the post. It's clear that this user refuses to discuss this or any other matter he finds himself involved in. That is *highly* disruptive to the process. DarkAudit (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, it is not vandalism for him to remove a message from his talk page, nor is it appropriate to keep putting it back per WP:TALK. His removal is considered a sign he has read it. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A reply of some sort would be a sign that he read it. Deleting the message is not a reply. This user has been asked on numerous occasions to account for his actions. He has not bothered to say a word in *any* language. DarkAudit (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

True, the user is not vandalizing anything. However, his unwillingness to talk about his many edits has become disruptive and I have blocked him pending discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I did notice him using a summary once, [24], where he incorrectly identified an edit as vandalism, not to mention called it minor. He edits, imo, the most random selection of pages and at a pretty quick rate. It seems like there is always something for him to change. I know that I couldn't just open up a page and be able to edit it. I'm not even sure if he is Japanese like we suspected. This is the most bizarre user I have ever seen, and in addition, he has definitely made some disruptive edits on Eurovision articles. (does he have auto minor edits checked in preferences?) Grk1011 (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Grk1011: Exactly. When I read that he marks almost all his edits as minor I too thought that he must have "Mark all edits minor by default" turned on in his preferences. I have now left a message on his talk page asking him to turn that setting off.

Why do we even have that setting? I can't imagine a case when we would need that setting.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We have it because it is very helpful for editors who contribute minor edits mainly (there are too many). -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, please unblock now. You've blocked him for not discussing his non-controversial edits? What the hell? Like David mentions above, the minor thing is probably just a setting that needs to be changed. See also User talk:Kanabekobaton/Archive 1#April 2008. Leave the poor guy alone. -- Ned Scott 04:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He was not blocked for not discussing his non-controversial edits. Have you read this thread? Gwen Gale (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"True, the user is not vandalizing anything. However, his unwillingness to talk about his many edits has become disruptive and I have blocked him pending discussion." I guess you don't remember saying that.

The user has made a handful of mistakes, but nothing that would ever warrant a blocking like this. There is no urgency here, and your actions will only inflame the situation. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked for vandalism either. He was blocked for disruption, as I said. Meanwhile, you seem to be the one who's inflaming things. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent)What disruption? You have blatantly blocked him for not discussing his edits, which he is not required to do. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken about why I blocked this editor. Altogether, this mix of refusing to talk at all about marking hundreds of edits a day as minor when many are not minor, making mistaken edits and page moves which other editors must clean up (and sometimes templating these editors for vandalism when they do), along with an utter lack of edit summaries has stirred up so much worry that many editors have posted in this thread, wondering what to do about it. That is an urgent disruption of the project. Let's wait and see what he has to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You're already backtracking on why you've blocked him [25]. You can't weasel your way out of a bad block. I'm not going to allow you to sweep this under the rug and hope everyone just forgets about him. We've got three diffs cited in this entire discussion, none of which call for this kind of action. I'm tired of checking his contribs and not finding anything, so unless anyone has some actual diffs of disruption, this guy needs to be unblocked. -- Ned Scott 04:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You had misread my blocking statement so I made the syntax more clear. See the block log. He was blocked for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no disruption. You've failed to show evidence of disruption. Where's the diffs? Where's the fire? KrakatoaKatie gave him a vandalism warning today for a good pave move that another editor (C.Fred) agreed with. You're all going around in circles, no one being able to actually show this user doing anything wrong except a hand full of minor mistakes. I'd rather not do something as drastic as an arbcom request, but if you're going to blatantly bullshit me like this, then I'll do just that. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at his talk page and the archive. He has been asked over and over again to explain why he edited the way he did, to the point that he was blocked for 3RR in June, and warned to keep out of other articles. And those are just since April. Before that he just deleted all talk page messages. He edits without regard for his fellow editors, at the rate of hundreds an hour, leaving the rest of us to somehow decipher his reasoning and motives, and to clean up any damage he leaves behind. That is as disruptive as it gets. DarkAudit (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How am I meant to respond to talk like that? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Are you forgetting the arena dispute from April? Where he insisted that arenas were actually stadia? Look at the logs of his talk page at all the different users asking him to say something, anything about why he was editing the way he was. There are probably three times as many requests that he summarily deleted. It doesn't take vandalism to be disruptive. Charging through Wikipedia at a hundred edits an hour, other users be damned, who cares if mistakes are made, is just as disruptive, if not worse. DarkAudit (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering I stepped though those edits one by one, I don't think I'm forgetting them. I was the only one to point out that more than one admin was ignorantly reverting him and then breaking an infobox. Everyone else just assumed he was being disruptive. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • But how the hell were we supposed to know? I kept trying to ask him about his Stansbury Hall edit, but got no reply. I see that building every single day. I should know what an old basketball *arena* looks like. The infobox was fine when I created the page. It wasn't broken when I reverted him. Continuing to revert when an unexplained edit is challenged *is* disruptive, it *is* rude, and it *is* unacceptable. Take a look at this block of edits from just yesterday regarding the Miss World pages. Warring templates without any further discussion. Communication should be at the heart of the project. This user flatly refuses to communicate with his fellow editors. If he doesn't want to give account for his actions when needed, then the block should stay. DarkAudit (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Three comments. We read above:

when I tried with 妨げることができる。 答えなければならない。 (You may be blocked. You must respond. Reverse translated to It is possible to obstruct. You must answer.), he merely undid my edit. I reverted his undo.

First, and as somebody else has pointed out, that reversion wasn't called for.

Secondly, the Japanese-language message strikes me as a curious mixture of ambiguous (the first half) and brusque (particularly the second). I don't recommend that you repost it anywhere. There could be a place for a Japanese-language message, but not this particular Japanese-language message.

And the block: The user is experienced, and can read English. If they can't fully understand the message in English, they'll be able to ask about it in English. An indefinite block is not an eternal block, and this user is free to challenge it at any time. -- Hoary (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I had to try something to get a reply. He wasn't responding to anything in English, so what else could I do short of going to his home and giving him a good shake? Yeah it was brusque. It had to be. We were talking about blocking the guy and he wasn't bothering to do anything to defend his position. He had to respond if he didn't want to be sanctioned. He ignored it and continued to plow ahead like nothing could touch him. That is not acceptable. DarkAudit (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason either to be ambiguous or to be brusque. If you want him to respond, you might take your cue from the ja:WP template designed for just this purpose. It's right here. Note its content: 対話拒否はやめてください。これ以上続ければ、ウィキペディアの編集ができなくなる投稿ブロックの対象となります。ご注意ください。An entirely different register from your prose, and complete with formulaic honorifics. (I shan't bother to make a literal translation, which would sound stilted and laughable.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's better than what I used... babelfish. DarkAudit (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I stepped away for a few hours. Ned, don't pick on Gwen for a revert I made. In the article you mention, Sardis Road ground, I interpreted from the context of the article that the word 'ground' meant an athletic ground or field. So, when I saw Sardis Road ground being moved to Sardis Road, it looked to me like a poor move, especially given the lack of communication from this editor. I reverted and left a short note. B to the R to the... nothing. That's the whole point - he won't communicate about his intent or his reaction or the price of milk in Sardinia. Not "hello", not "go to hell", nothing.

I don't see us as 'going in circles' or trying to punish him, either. I looked at every one of his last 500 edits (roughly the last 48 hours) before I made my second post here. Further, I looked at every edit he's made to both the talk space (no dialogue, just moves of talk pages with article pages that create an edit on the talk page) and user talk space (100% templates, plus reverting other users removal of his templates and other material on their own talk pages), regardless of the date. Most of his changes and moves look okay, but the ones that are not need explanation and/or discussion, especially the moves. He was making 25 to 40 edits an hour for literally hours and days on end, and the mistakes and bad decisions should have had some discussion. He was warned in April, by C.Fred, to improve his communication, so this isn't a sudden, spur-of-the-moment, 'gotcha' block.

We can't do WP:BRD, as I tried to do with Sardis Road, if someone insists on the bold without the discuss. He has not responded at all, even to this block. His talk page and archive are full of pleas, begging, even, to communicate with other editors, going back several months. He may have the potential to be a good editor/WikiGnome if he would just engage with other humans. Since he has been making hundreds of edits very quickly, I do not think it is unreasonable to block pending a short explanation from him. KrakatoaKatie 06:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ned Scott: That I have left a message on Kanabekobaton's talk page asking him to turn of the "Mark all edits minor by default" setting in his Wikipedia preferences only potentially solves one of the problems. I just wanted to report here that I thought that was the case and that I had asked him to fix it. It doesn't solve all the other problems.

I haven't personally checked up on Kanabekobaton so I should probably not say anything, but if what I read here is true then I think he should remain blocked. It is very frustrating when a user refuses to answer any messages. It makes it more or less impossible to work with that user. I think he should remain blocked until he agrees to communicate properly.

By the way, can a blocked user still edit his talk page and thus answer? Or does he have to edit as an anon user to respond?

--David Göthberg (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He's able to edit his talk page while blocked and logged in. MBisanz ^talk 13:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• By this time of the day, he's usually already made several hundred edits. He did not see a need to respond at all to this discussion. He has not seen fit to respond to the block, as one of his edit cycles has come and gone with nothing. Assume good faith can only go so far. To continue to assume good faith in this case, if no change in behavior is forthcoming, is to ask other Wikipedia editors to develop mental skills and abilities that only exist in comic books. Mindreader is not part of the average Wikipedia editor's skill set. It may not be a requirement to use edit summaries, but when you combine a refusal to do so on such a scale (18K edits, *maybe* two summaries) with unwillingness to discuss anything with other editors, even when told that continued failure to do so jeopardizes their place in the project, you reach the state we find ourselves in now. Even after the block was in place, there was no response. No positive or negative. A big patch of nothing. That shows that this user just doesn't give a damn either way. Even after my apparently misguided attempts to engage him in Japanese (I was bold. No one else bothered.), there was no response beyond deletion of the comments. Without communication amongst editors, the whole project falls down. We cannot have editors like this who so blatantly refuse to engage his fellow editors. DarkAudit (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't try to understand what's going on in his mind, other than to say that for him, it may all be in what he sees as good faith. I don't know and I don't need to know. The outcome of his behaviour is enough to go by. Meanwhile, the only talk page posts I've been able to find from this editor are vandalism templates like this, where there was no vandalism, after someone mistakenly warned Kanabekobaton to stop vandalizing. That Kanabekobaton has disrupted the project can be clearly seen through all the posts in this thread from worried editors. If Kanabekobaton doesn't respond (which he may not) is that the end of it? How do we handle this? Should we welcome an editor who misleadingly marks all of his hundreds of edits a day as minor, with no edit summaries, who won't talk about anything at all but to throw off a mistaken vandalism template on a talk page now and then? If there is a community consensus that we should indeed welcome Kanabekobaton as he is, disruption and all, given his many helpful edits, maybe he should be unblocked straight off. Or, if the consensus is that the disruption and worry he causes makes it all not worth it, then perhaps he should stay blocked until he speaks up. I can only say that making a few (mostly) harmless edits a day, marking them all as minor with no edit summary and zero talk page participation would not be taken as disruptive by most editors. If that's what was happening, this thread never would have come up. Rather, it's the hundreds of daily edits with towering stacks of bolded ms, blank edit summaries and utter silence in response to many pleas for discussion, other than a few templated and mistaken vandalism warnings from Kanabekobaton, which have all come together to make this a tale of disruption. What shall we do? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Were this to go to RFC, I doubt that anything would change. Unless he could respond to RFC while still blocked, all I see would be a resumption of previous behavior and continued silence. He had edited via IP a few times during the arena dispute in April, so it may be safe to assume that rather than bother to reply, he's either doing it via IP or has a new name. Given that he registered the current name across all Wikis, the latter seems unlikely. DarkAudit (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is beginning to be an epidemic: it seems that in the last 12-18 months there has been a growing volume of reports about editors who decline to discuss their edits. While there is nothing wrong with an editor deleting messages on her/his Talk page, or declining to respond to some (or even most) of the messages left with her/him, the whole Wiki process will cease to work. Is it time to formulate a new policy, explaining that Wikipedians need to be willing to explain their edits -- & may be blocked if they fail to do so? -- llywrch (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Most folks are talkative, it's how we are so I have no fear Wikipedia will ever break down owing to lack of discussion. Meanwhile, there will always be a few editors who don't want to talk, no need to ask why. In itself, this is ok, so I do think one should go lightly on any editor who doesn't want to talk about their edits, so long as the edits are helpful (which is to say, not stirring up much fuss), all the more so if they're not quick to revert back when they've been reverted. With this user, it was a mix of many behaviours: No discussion, no edit summaries at all on hundreds of daily edits, reverting back when reverted (then sometimes replying with unfit vandalism templates), tipped by marking all the many edits as minor, making for a misleading and very long contrib log, with worried editors posting about it here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Any movement starts with a few isolated individuals & grows from them, although I doubt that one day all or most Wikipedians will make their edits without ever exchanging a word with each other. But to my point, from personal experience with one of these individuals I can attest that it is very frustrating to deal with another editor -- even if it is clear she/he is acting in good faith -- who will not respond to messages. But what I find strange is that, although I read WP:AN & AN/I regularly, I don't remember ever seeing this problem before I encountered it -- yet since then these autistic editors (to give them a name) have been reported once or twice every month or two. I don't know if this is simply because I started looking for this problem -- or that new editors have decided that the best way to deal with other Wikipedians (who have a reputation for bizarre behavior) is to simply ignore us. If the latter is the reason for this development, it is not a good development. -- llywrch (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the block, there's been absolutely nothing. No activity at all. After two days one would expect a request for an unblock, but no. Did I stumble upon a Wikipedia otaku? DarkAudit (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would you expect any response when there has been little in the past. Good work and this block should remain imho. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this the same user? Euroleague (talk · contribs). All minor edits, even edited kana...'s page. Grk1011 (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be. See here. Euroleague is blocked as a sockpuppet on the Japanese Wikipedia. DarkAudit (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and submitted an RFCU based on the SUL's and the diff to Kanobekobaton's page. DarkAudit (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked pending checkuser result. KrakatoaKatie 00:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

... and  Confirmed - Alison ^❤ 01:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, He's banned from Wikipedia to abused sockpuppetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.127.91 (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, maybe. In any case, it's not for an IP to say who is blocked or banned. Ban template removed from user page. DarkAudit (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

AN page proposal

(Well we've been here before with nothing beyond discussion, but let's try again : )

What would you (plural) think about us turning WP:AN (the main page) into a (protected?) nav page, which would list all the subpages (as sort of a directory, or index, or table of contents)? It would make things easier for everyone, and I think that we'd be more likely to see the subpages more correctly ustilised.

I think that this would help with every page/subpage of AN. Better to have the main page as a directory to point everyone in the right direction, than for this page to be (as it often is) the one-stop shop.

To clarify: This page (and its history) would be moved to a sub-page. (Consensual discussion can come up with a name.) And then this page would become the navpage/directory for all the subpages.

Thoughts/concerns welcome. - jc37 23:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am no admin, but it sounds like a long-overdue move to me. Brilliantine (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually have another similar proposal for how we could work things better. We could have a number of different AN subpages, each dealing with different editorial problems. We could have Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Editors, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Content, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Admin problems (to be used when people have concerns about admin behaviour), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Meta requests and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Miscellaneous requests. This would have a few advantages, with admins able to concentrate on the areas that they have expertise in. It would also significantly reduce the size that each pages gets to. WP:AN could be an index of each of these subpages, and AN/I would no longer need to be used, or replaced with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Urgent admin intervention. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. Cirt (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(I also have a proposal for AN/I on the talk page.)

But regardless of how we (re-)purpose the subpages, I still think we need a directory as the most likely "first stop" (here). (As you seem to agree: "WP:AN could be an index of each of these subpages...") So, at least for now, to keep this discussion sane, let's just focus on discussing this page being repuposed as a directory. A ReOrg to the subpages is a different discussion altogether. - jc37 23:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we couldn't do away with AN altogether without additional boards - there would be too much pressure on the current boards if we did that, so I think it would be good to discuss options for complete reform. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought ANI should be known as 'User Conduct' and this one, as a subpage, could be simply 'General'. I would strenuously oppose there being an AN/Content board - for me, that would be an example of exactly what wikipedia shouldn't be about. Brilliantine (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we get content issues brought up here all the time such as BLP concerns, off wiki legal concerns, image copyright concerns - a central place to discuss these would be good. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is already a BLP board. The thought of yet another place begging for content disputes to be inappropriately shopped around to gives me the heebie-jeebies: keep them in talk space or as an RFC if they cover a wide range of topics, says I. Copyright etc fair enough... Brilliantine (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had a masterlist of noticeboards somewhere (not just admin ones), but I see that Wikipedia:Noticeboard is a redirect to something I've never heard of. I suppose Category:Wikipedia noticeboards is the closest we have. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think it's a great concept! This board is difficult to navigate at times due to long issues. Warning, though, that if we make a Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Misc, that's the board that will get all the traffic. Nobody wants to read instructions, it seems, and if they're angry, they're even less likely to bother. KrakatoaKatie 00:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I say this every time someone suggests drastically changing how AN works - Why does it need changing? Is it broken at the moment? Not convinced ... I think the current set up works fine, particularly as it's less busy now then it was a year ago (as with Wikipedia in general). Neıl ☄ 09:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, size was one of the issues we were discussing some months ago, but there are plenty of other issues for change. I'd support almost any proposal, so long as it cleans all of the noticeboards up (and there is reason to do so). Would anyone like to provide a comprehensive list of discrepancies that might be fixed with x amount of change? Synergy 11:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I support turning AN into a navboard, but I think there would need to be somewhere to post the kind of miscellaneous notices that AN is needed for. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd find it much more useful to extract all threads into subpages, one per topic, similar to the AfD logs.
  I have only been active here a couple of times, but found it very hard to follow my topic due to the noise, i.e. high number of other edits to this page. If every topic is in its own subpage I can watchlist it, and look at every diff if the discussion gets too confusing to just see at a glance which comments are new.
  There's a possibility of name clashes when creating a new topic page, but if they are prefixed with the date (e.g. WP:AN/2008 August 13/AN page proposal) that should be acceptable.
  The sub topics could then be classified however one likes, by having one or more AN pages that list or transclude all open issues.
  --Amalthea^Talk 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• God, yes. AN and ANI need to be reorganized like AfD or DRV's main list pages are. It would not only make it easier to track individual topics, but people could be referred directly to the old discussion when it drops off the main page, instead of having to sort through a bunch of archived pages full of stuff. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the above, this would seem to have consensus. But I'd like to give it at least another day before making the move, just to give everyone who would like to comment (for or against) that opportunity. - jc37 20:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is no where near enough support to make such a major change. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you start by creating pages for some of the suggested redlinks above, and see what people think at that point? Cirt (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(To Ryan) - actually the only naysayers at that point were Neil, and you had a conditional support/oppose. Everyone else appeared to support. But even so, I still would like more comment (as I noted). - jc37 07:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support and for a similar measure at Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. seicer | talk | contribs 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

first things first

Not at all to interrupt what is above, but I'd think it would be good, before we dive into solutions, that we explicitly find consensus on what the problems are, if any. How about a project page? We could examine on that page what the strengths and weaknesses of the noticeboards are. We could easily make drastic changes, without understanding this clearly, first, and simply make things worse, if we don't stop and first agree on what the problems are. I can think of numerous solutions to problems that I perceive, and I perceive plenty, but ... it's like trying to decide what medicine to take when you haven't figured out what disease you've got. Sure, in desperation, we might do that. But I don't think it's a great idea. If there is a solution to some of the problems that is described above that is easy to implement, that is reversible, that does no damage, sure, we can do this simultaneously. But some of the truly major problems, I suspect, won't be solved merely by splitting up the noticeboards into subpages, unless other aspects of the process are also examined and reformed. The very purpose and function of the noticeboards should be examined. And I don't even want to go into that here, I think we should do what we should be good at: describing consensus, neutrally, on a page, that would have its own Talk page where open discussion takes place and the project page where consensus is summarized, revised, etc. Not signed, the project page is a report of the community participating on the topic. --Abd (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I very much oppose doing away with this noticeboard and splintering discussion onto a half dozen other boards; the last thing we need is yet another noticeboard (I don't have time as it is to read the 38 pages linked on {{Editabuselinks}}). I must a agree with Neil's comment above, in that this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. The Editabuselinks templates already serves as a list of noticeboards. Doing away with WP:AN will only increase the traffic on AN/I and reduce the number of eyes on topics sent to other, less trafficked noticeboards. I also don't see any benefit to an AfD style noticeboard, with each issue created as a subpage that is then transcluded here. That's overly complicated compared the current system and creates more problems than it solves. - auburnpilot talk 23:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that the vandals which plague this page will find it easier to vandalize several individual pages, requiring protection across a wide range of pages. Corvus cornix_talk 01:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Starting over

• The thread directly above is exactly why my initial proposal was (and is) merely for moving this page to a sub-page and using this location as a navpage. Nothing lost, and everything gained. Instead we have people hung up on ReOrg plans for sub-pages and the like. - jc37 07:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are no further comments, I'm going to archive this and start over. Perhaps with a straw poll. - jc37 01:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, might be best to make it simple, and post a notice at central locations to get wider community input. Cirt (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem with someone who just won't stop.

The content issue : There are two college societies with the same name, "Mystical Seven". They both have articles, that's not a problem. One society uses Mystical 7 as its name, and that is actually the proper form of the name for that society. Not so for the other. There is a disambiguation page for both Mystical Seven articles, and the redirect page for "Mystical 7" should go to the society that uses that as it's name, not to both societies. As one poster said, "a redirect from 'Coke' as a name should go to 'Coca-cola', not a cola disambiguation page for Coca-Cola and Pepsi."

The editor issue : There is a user who can't apparently understand this. He wants to have the redirect for Mystical 7 go to the disambiguation page for both societies. (He's given no reason why.) It went back and forth a bit. HE then asked for comment. The comments he got supported the 'it should go to the one society that uses the name, not the other' side of the argument. He still reverted to his view. I changed it back and he STILL reverts it back to his view. I have a hard time accepting that this is good faith anymore, since it has all the appearance of a profound and sullen stolidity.

So the question is this : what do you do with an editor who can't accept his own request for comment?Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is this RFC? If you mean the question he asked on the secret societies talk page, that's not exactly something official and binding that can be enforced. Not only that, but there was no consensus either way in it, in the four comments I saw. (Personally, I agree with him) --Golbez (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. Ok, these are secret societies? I've never understood how we can have Wikipedia pages on secret societies. If they're secret, then we don't know about them. If they're not secret, then they're something like "private membership" or "confidential membership." However, that violation of fundamental logic aside, we do redirects for misspellings. It's routine. Therefore, it's safe to assume that a person who has only heard the name (after all, it's secret) will type "7" sometimes and "seven" sometimes, so it would be logical to have the redirect serve as the landing point for any query. The "7" people lose nothing. After all, they're secret, so presumably they don't want people to find them quickly. Geogre (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. This is hardly a Coke and Pepsi issue, and it's extremely misleading for you to use that analogy, Thaïs. These societies have the exact same name, and people who are unfamiliar with the particular form of the word seven should not be penalized by having to dig around, looking for whichever of the two they're trying to find. Mystical Seven and Mystical 7 should both stay as they are currently. GlassCobra 14:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. These so-called secret societies can't have articles without reliable sources, so it hardly makes them secret, does it? Corvus cornix_talk 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"I've never understood how we can have Wikipedia pages on secret societies." Then don't comment on the articles...

"we do redirects for misspellings." That's the point, it's not a mispelling. The phrases are distinctly different.

"These societies have the exact same name" it's not the exact same name. The connotation of "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are quite distinct. Did you read the two names before making your comment?

"These so-called secret societies can't have articles without reliable sources" These societes have very reliable sources, and several of the articles are better referenced than 90% of the articles in wikipedia. Why would you make an arbitrarily dismissive comment about these articles if you understood the subject matter? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to concur that I think the current setup is correct: "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are both plausible search terms, so it's good that both should lead to a dismbiguation page. Each article has a hatnote directing any mis-led reader to the other page, which is also good. This all seems to be straightforward, and I don't think any specialist knowledge of the subject is needed to form an opinion on the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" may both be plausible search terms, but they are different phrases, and mean different things; --you have not addressed that at all. BUT, that isn't even the point. This already went to a discussion, and user geniac refused to accept that comments went against him, and is still pursuing this. He is not following wikipedia policy, and for that matter, is not constructively contributing to the process. Why should articles be sacrificed to the endless quibbling of someone who does not understand what he is doing? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The only other dscussion I've seen is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Secret_Societies#Mystical_7 and I certainly wouldn't say that there was a consensus to change Mystical 7 to point away from the dab page. There's been a discussion here too, for what it's worth. The two terms are essentially interchangeable, from the perspective of someone who does not know that much about the societies and is searching for information - which is the person we want to help.

As an aside, you might want to dial down the rhetoric a little. No article is going to get "sacrificed", and this really isn't that big a deal. edited to add I just read the intro to Mystical_Seven_(Wesleyan) again, and noticed this: Properly written as "Mystical 7". So... you're arguing and slow-edit-warring in favour of something you don't have a source for. um. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" may both be plausible search terms, but they are different phrases, and mean different things; --you have not addressed that at all.Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

From the perspective of the typical Wikipedia reader, and even the author of this paper, "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are the same phrase and mean the same thing. This really isn't an issue for the admins' noticeboard any longer though. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The admin recall process is dead

This section has been moved to: Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall#The admin recall process is dead (WP:AN)

"These get reverted so fast, it's pathetic."

4chan /b/ tried to do some coordinated vandalism in weapon articles but it is already ebbing and under control by normal RC control[26] and bots[27]. Anonymous commented "These get reverted so fast, it's pathetic." Fine. --Pjacobi (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's get a little bit more complicated, as the smarter ones stopped announcing their successes and are targetting more obscure article. Perhaps we can just ignore, what is not detected by RC patrol and bots and do a search for the typical pattern in 24h. --Pjacobi (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Winrar for the RC patrol and bot squadron. --mboverload@ 15:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather out of touch with current toolserver's capabilities. Would it be possible to search for links to Tony Stark and Stark Industries outside of Category:Marvel Comics. This would give a check whether something was missed when it was inserted. --Pjacobi (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This and this list may help, though obviously only for cases where those pages are wikilinked. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Userpage usurpation

Is it allowed without due process? User:Avineshjose just redirected User:Avinesh's user page to his own. I reverted it and an admin reverted me. I asked him why, he didn't bother to reply. Uzhuthiran (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that. He could probably usurp the account anyway, per Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. The account is old, has one trivial, non-copyrighted edit from more than three years ago and does not appear to be active. If he wants the redirect (is it his global account?), I'd agree that that would be perfectly reasonable. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you read the page right. The page you linked about talks about User account usurpation. You request it and it is done by 'cats. Logically, usurping a user page without usurping the account through due process is improper. In any case a user doesn't seem to have the right to hold somebody else's user page. Uzhuthiran (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Uzhuthiran - it's probably an obvious usurpation-allowed decision, but...assuming the identity of the account without assuming the actual account isn't right. If he wants it as a doppelganger account, he should apply for usurpation at WP:USURP. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Uzhuthiran is on a personal edit war with me and my articles. The issue I posted as a new incident in this page. I don't find any issue with redirecting User:avinesh to my account as I noticed avinesh has only one old edit and not using the account anymore. Additionally, I did it because thats my name. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is not the correct procedure. You cannot redirect another user's page to your own even if that is your real name. Bureaucrats have come to a consensus (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 11#Effect of SUL on certain rename requests) to prevent such doppelgänger accounts from being created. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No probs, it is going though the proper channel. My concern was about User:Uzhuthiran’s ‘complaint’ was made by bad faith. --Avinesh Jose  T  07:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp is correct, you can't just take over someone's user page, even if the account is dormant. You need to request formal usurp, which I see you've done. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't redirect a userpage even if that user edited once, three years ago, to vandalise? If that really is the consensus, I think it's a pretty silly one... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My impulse would be to let it rest until the user whose page is so usurped objects - sort of how actual usurpation works. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether you think it silly or not, that is the proper way of doing things; userpage usurping is too closely tied to username usurping, so there's no reason for the process to be any different. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No reason than common sense, of course. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I redirected that userpage as I thought it was my account. (When I started editing WP in 2005, I signed up with different user names). I guess including that one also. But I am not sure and forgotten the password also. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

section break

Isn't there a way to deal with this coi editor who hurls accusation around wildly and engages in PA at the drop of a hat? The guy has repeatedly accuse me of vandalism (one of which was for reverting his false usurpation) for adding maintenance tags to his COI articles. He filed a checkuser case [28] in extreme bad faith against a user who has been around for many years. Never, never did he apologise. I reported his disruptive and ignorant edits earlier on wp:ani [29],but it was ignored. I made no bones to admit that I am an avatar of a banned user. But anybody who know me knows that I have been instrumental in sending a very large amount of crap down the drain. My problem with this user is that he is a COI editor hellbent on promoting some business men and houses. He is merely adding crap and resisting any effort to improve it. Just see his latest contributions which are mere reverts that reinstate nonsensical crap in those articles. Uzhuthiran (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• User:Uzhuthiran looks like a bad faith editor targeting Labour India and its associates. His vandalism were reverted by many admins. Recent evidences are: 1, 2. It looks like he is a paid editor by Labour India's rivals. Evidence: The second last paragraph of Hindu article says that 1 Labour India One of the first institutions of its kind in the private sector, the Research Centre plans to formulate an educational curriculum of international standard and publish textbooks, educational journals. But User:Uzhuthiran wants to delete it that without any reason along with other attacks towards this firm and its associates. (I have no idea about this banned user). --Avinesh Jose  T  04:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• This is what an admin commented about his behavior. --Avinesh Jose  T  06:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Shabazz is deletig my ref of "self hating jew" from New Historians and Post-Zionism

Please help!

--Shevashalosh (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, adding a "See also" reference to Self-hating Jew to those articles — especially New Historians, which names living people — raises serious WP:BLP issues. The fact that Shevashalosh needs to include a footnote next to the "See also" entry indicates the spurious and politically-motivated nature of this issue.

I would ask that administrators please look at Shevashalosh's edit history. She is a persistent POV-pushing edit warrior who has turned every article she touches into a battleground. She has referred to editors with whom she disagrees as self-hating Jews. She has made no constructive contribution to the project. Within the past 24 hours she has made complaints here, at AN/I, and at OTRS. She is a problem editor, and the sooner somebody intervenes the better.

Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

PS — You may notice that Shevashalosh reported a conflict with me on this page a few days ago. Rather than seek consensus on an article's Talk page, where consensus always goes against her, she runs to other forums such as those mentioned above, the Village Pump, and the Israel and Judaism WikiProjects. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: After Shevashalosh's previous dispute with Ceedjee spilled over into my talk page[30], I tried to talk to her and explain how disputes should be resolved[31]. Her reply seemed positive[32], but now it looks like she's back at it. I believe she's operating in good faith, but an administrator should have a talk with her and perhaps mentor her. -- Nudve (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that Shevashlosh appears to be having some difficulty understanding the concept of undue weight. A mentor would no doubt be of benefit to all, but need not I think be an admin. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

NO. He complained about previous ref of mine, so I used Nudves ref. This is part of the political dialouge in Israel, and since those are article that are talking about the political dialouge in Israel, this is a very important part of it (undue is irrelvant in this case),

Deleting an RS ref, is unaacepble!

more so, deleting RS, in articles that talk about Israel political dialouge, is even more unaccpteble. just because you don't like the critism on those who crticize Zionism (so undue is irrelevant in this case).

please help, he keeps deletin RS ref for this WP or that wp or for for spelling, or whatever have you, inventing eveytiem something new. --Shevashalosh (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

First, it's a content dispute, second, you appear to be giving undue weight to a minority POV. Deleting of a reference which violates WP:UNDUE is no only acceptable, it's required. The onus is on you to achieve consensus for the content you wish to include, that's what the talk page is for. If there isn't consensus then your edit stays out. Special:Contributions/Shevashalosh shows forum shopping and canvassing, these are not good behaviours. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite being told to achieve consensus, Shevashalosh went right back to each article and restored the material in question. She is now engaged in a revert war at Post-Zionism, where she just violated 3RR. Her two previous 3RR violations were overlooked by admins who simply locked the articles. (See here and here)

Please, will somebody step up to the plate and intervene? Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 15:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton (again)

Resolved. Blanked & protected, please observe WP:DFTT ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for bringing this here again, but I've got serious concerns about the behaviour of calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Incivility concerns (amongst other things) were brought up not so long ago here, and he was given a 0RR restriction for edit warring. Now, his incivility has continued, and I think we need to consider putting Calton under a civility parole. Recently, Calton removed an editors leaving Ramble[33] - not really sure why to be honest, many users who are upset on leaving leave a message similar to this on their userpage. He then proceeded to slow edit war on the page to keep his empty version live [34] (forgot to log in), [35], [36], [37]. Now, I consider the next bit the serious aspect - He was clearly baiting Folksong with this edit; "Poor baby. Would you like a tissue?". After I and Tiptoety had warn him about this, his flippant attitude continued in threads here and here. Now please note - I did also warn Folksong here for making threats after Calton had left his nasty talk page comment, but the fact of the matter is that we would never had users making threats if Calton hadn't continued his uncivil attitude. I really believe it's time for a civility restriction at the very least, or some other community based sanction that will help Calton be a lot more collaborative. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Before anyone automatically leaps to the defense of a fellow admin -- the default position around here -- some actual facts. "Flippant" apparently means "not regarding admin buttons as some sort of tin Sheriff's badge" -- or, more specifically, not automatically standing up and saluting when Ryan Postlethwaite barks orders -- as Ryan Postlethwaite once again is under the delusion that unquestioning obedience to his authorityis required. As for his false claims of baiting, he conveniently leaves off that my message was a response to this -- and also conveniently leaves off Folksong's vandalism and Folksong's threat of violence. His response to this unacceptable behavior? Soothing words to the ones making the threats. I'd say the latter shows he's less interested improving the encyclopedia and more interested in exercising petty authority and enacting petty vengeance, and is the LAST person whose judgment should be trusted in this matter. --Calton | Talk 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Christ, someone should block you for that post alone. Tan ǀ 39 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? And that would be because of what, exactly? Questioning Ryan's self-proclaimed authority? Responding to false or overstated charges? Noting Ryan's double standard regarding users who level threats of violence? Help me out here. --Calton | Talk 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

They weren't soothing words - I told him that he'd usually be blocked in that situation, it was a final warning for him to cut out the attacks. But the point stands that this wouldn't have been an issue if you hadn't have gone around blanking his userpage. Note, I didn't see the diff that Folksong posted to your talk page, so I apologise, but there was still no need for any of the previous actions, or the baiting after. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Responding to vandalism and threats of violence with rationalizations and "just chill out dude" doesn't strike mena as much of a warning -- certainly not on the same scale as left on MY page. --Calton | Talk 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this is resolved. I believe that Ryan and Calton might justly now be characterised as being in dispute, and I feel it would be best for Ryan to distance himself from Calton and vice-versa. It is clear to me that both are committed to the encyclopaedia and not here to advance an agenda or pursue personal aggrandisement, so I would advocate disengagement at least for a while, please. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fine by me. Easy enough, since I never cross his path, he always crosses mine, in search of some new way to exercise his self-proclaimed authority. --Calton | Talk 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think concern about Calton's actions makes me in dispute with him - the only reason why I spotted this was because I was reverting vandalism from Calton's userpage, and went to investigate the guy who did it further only to come across this situation. Maybe Calton doesn't like me, fair enough, I don't think he's so bad personally and appreciate the work he does here, especially relating to anti-spam efforts. Calton slating me when I bring up concerns doesn't mean I'm holding a grudge against the guy - the only time I've ever looked at his contributions has been when I've been doing work at UAA (I think there were a couple of concerns I've had there)), and in this instance when I reverted vandalism from his userpage. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Based on your interactions with me -- from your complete unwillingness to do more than issue orders without the slightest justification or actual explanation, your quick resort to threats, your automatic assumptions of bad faith, and your latest attempts to force me to kowtow to your personal authority -- I'd say that I have very good reason to doubt your claims of not holding a grudge here. --Calton | Talk 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, meant resolved w/r/t the Calton/Folksong debacle. As for the Calton/Ryan P. clash, yes, some distance would be useful. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, it's not, since the actual page in question -- User:Folksong, not User talk:Folksong -- remains. --Calton | Talk 21:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• So does User:J.A.McCoy. WP:MFD is always open. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan: I think clicking here would make most of your troubles and concerns presented here fade away. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Since Calton basically went on a short wikibreak during the last thread about him, things pretty much just tapered off. Is he under 0RR or not? Someone needs to inform him if this is the case. –xeno (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Every admin who pays attention to what Calton does ends up saying "this is not okay". Calton responds along the lines of "of course it's okay, you're not okay". They are then In A Dispute^TM, and apparently that makes Calton untouchable by that admin. I believe that Ryan's warning to Calton was perfectly acceptable. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Forgive me for asking a stupid question of Carlton, but why were you reverting a change on a user's own userpage? To follow this up, why did you respond in the manner that you did on that user's talkpage? I would be keen on understanding your justification for such edits. Many thanks, Gazimoff 06:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, shall we fully protect User:Folksong for the time being, until an MfD is called? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• This matter is not resolved and I don't believe User:Folksong is the issue. The issue is Calton's rabid incivility. He is a "spam warrior" par excellence, but he takes it way too far. Once he found he couldn't use the old {{temporary userpage}} tag to get rid of userpages, he started prodding, now he simply blanks pages. Frequently (though far less than half the time), the users come back and unblank their pages. How many users don't come back because of Calton. When a user questions Calton he or she undoubtedly gets a most vile treatment. If an admin says "stop" or "warning" or "You're cruising for a block Calton", the response is always to the effect of "Oh yeah, the big admin telling me what to do, yes Sir" or worse. If he is actually sanctioned, as he has been here at least twice, he simply leaves for awhile. I am convinced that Calton's many contributions to the project are completely offset by his incivility and he needs strong action from this forum to require him to behave by basic standards of civility...--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note, I mixed two concepts I fear. Calton is guilty of incivility in his spam warrioring, yes; but the blanking of pages he does on the claim that the user is "nonexistent", part of his personal war against allowing non-editors to have userpages regardless of content.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You mixed two concepts, and you tailed off towards the end of your first post, I believe. Or did you mean to say that "he needs...Doug"? _Gb^T/c 16:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the case, wherever the venue, the edit warring has to stop. As I stated above, if consensus was reached for 0RR in the previous thread, than he needs to be informed and it needs to be enforced. –xeno (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Ha, you're right. Underlined text added to complete the sentence.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting)

• Consensus was reach, and as he was informed of that thread, and this, there's no way that he doesn't know that. The activities that brought this thread into being, however, weren't a breach of that sanction, but were as a result of his edit warring over the blanking of material he thought inappropriate, rather than bothering to take it to MfD - that, and his "blank non-user's page" behaviour (and it's clear from his contributions that a number of those non-users subsequently return), aren't covered by the earlier restriction, but should be, as he's just gaming the system by not XfD'ing the pages in the first place.

I'd support any sort of civility restriction, and any sanction which viewed his blanking of pages he doesn't like as vandalism (as there are mechanisms open to dealing with them that everyone else avails themselves of with little difficult). Unless it's enforced, though, it's pointless - as with the last discussion, whenever too bright a light is shone on his activities, he simply keeps a low profile for a couple of weeks, then gets straight back to what he was doing without any modification of his behaviour. If a conclusive message can come out of this discussion then at least he can consider himself on a final warning, and will adjust his behaviour accordingly. _Gb^T/c 07:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly support a civility restriction, as I did the last time Calton's behavior came up. Calton's incivility is extraordinary, and he's been behaving this way for years. Block him for at least 24 hours for each uncivil comment and maybe he will start to change his behavior. I doubt that anything weaker than that would have an effect. Everyking (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • We must be clear too that "getting into it" previously with Calton does not bar an admin from taking action. Some of the comments above suggest people think Ryan is in a "dispute" with Calton and needs to take a step back. My God, you can't talk to Calton as an admin without him escalating it; and everyone involved, Ryan, myself, Tiptoety, etc, have generally held off on blocking Calton and each time bring it here. None of us should have to do this each time though as Calton's bad actions are habitual. If Calton takes issue with an admin's actions he can of course bring it here himself, but Calton does not need us to lay out a carpet for him and create a gauntlet for the admins to run each time. The fact is that certain admins have seen what Calton does, so we watch him. All of the admins, and I think I can safely include myself, are generally easy to get along with. But Calton's actions are detrimental to the project and he must be stopped. I suggest we need to consider a community imposed ban prohibiting Calton from editing any userpage, except to nominate it MfD and further restricting what he can post on usertalk.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 11:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

By MfD, you are including CSD, I take it? He should be allowed to nominate any page, including userpages, for CSD if it fits the criteria, but if the tag is removed (either by another editor (other than the creator / user themselves) or speedy is declined by an admin) then his next step should only be to either (i) nominate it for XfD, or (ii) leave it alone. Blanking userpages on the grounds that he thinks it's a "non-user's page" should be treated for what it is - i.e. vandalism - and dealt with accordingly.

As for user talk, as long as he is civil he shouldn't be unduly restricted, but the restriction should be there to stop him harranguing other users for "insulting his intelligence", as he sees it, or "disagreeing with him", as others see it. _Gb^T/c 12:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• He edit warred on User:Folksong. imo, the 0RR restriction should apply to everything, whether be it userpages, UAA reports, CSD tags, adding block tags, etc. And he does need to be formally informed that this restriction is in place, while it's pretty clear consensus was reached no one made the a call and set it out for him (presumably because he had gone on break). –xeno (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess he should be allowed to place one appropriate CSD tag, if one applies, but he needs to strictly follow the criteria or he's being disruptive (in other words, U2 applies only if Special:Listusers does not indicate a user for the page). If he starts tagging long strings of pages, with U2 and one of them shows up on Listusers and Calton's blocked. He can't PROD userpages anymore (that rule just changed), so we don't need to worry about that. I'm not sure how much rope we should give him on user talk, there's a lot of damage he can do there. Obviously he needs to be able to communicate with other users but he shouldn't use that as an excuse to send lots of spam warnings regarding the corresponding userpage. I think we need to make it clear that we'll block him if he's uncivil. The problem we're going to face though is that Calton is going to tag a lot of pages with G11 and they're going to be borderline cases - I suggest that if a reviewing admin believes the page might likely survive an MfD, he should be warned and if necessary blocked.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Points system for admin recall

This discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall#Points system for admin recall (WP:AN)

User:National Library of Wales

It would be good to have some more eyes on what's going on with image uploads from User:Telor Roberts and User:Paul Bevan. They're working for the National Library of Wales and are uploading images from their archives. They believe they have the rights to those images but they're not uploading them under free licenses, instead relying on fair-use rationales. That seems a bit peculiar to me. There's already a threadlet at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#National_Library_of_Wales. Haukur (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I'll go talk to him. Durova^Charge! 08:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Haukur (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There's also a brief discussion at Commons:Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Request_for_clarification. Given that a consensus to disregard UK claims of copyright on {{PD-art}} works is almost certain, I'd say warning them of an eventual transwiki under the presumption of public domain would be the best course of action. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the things I have in mind. Durova^Charge! 08:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, PD-Art is usually taken to apply only to photographs of paintings, taken from a distance. We already assume that scans of photographs are ineligible for copyright worldwide. Haukur (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the people we're interacting with basically want to be cooperative and have a lot of encyclopedic material to offer, but also come to the table with a set of expectations and constraints that are somewhat different from the way we like to operate. I'm not suggesting we make special exceptions for them; I do think there's more to be gained in the long run on both sides by locating the most fruitful path that's compliant with both organizations' policies. It's already apparent that they're approaching this from a customary museum approch to copyright--claiming full control over everything and attempting to release permission on a limited basis. Our first organizational impulse to reject the fair use rationales and delete, and our second is to recognize the flaws in the copyright claim and grab what they've already uploaded. That's likely to push them away, especially because the individuals we're interacting with are probably not the organization's decision makers in terms of asserting those copyright claims: even if the organization is wrong they have orders to carry out, and could have professional consequences if they fail. If we find a way to cooperate with their structures without compromising our own, then we could get a lot more useful images in the long run. It might even open doors with other museums. I have a few ideas for where that could go, and those depend on input and dialog with their people. Durova^Charge! 10:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. I was hoping someone would have the patience to take this line and act as something of a liaison so cheers for you, Durova. It does look like in many cases they are claiming 'rights' for public domain material on the basis of holding the physical copy or producing the digital reproduction. Take a look at Image:Gwilym Marles.jpg for an example. That image looks like it's in the public domain but the licensing template is a completely inappropriate "non-free standard test image" and then there is some cookie-cutter fair-use rationale. This is clearly something of a mess. Maybe we could apply a public domain tag and perhaps humor them by creating a specific template with information on the NLW project? In any case I hope they can be persuaded to add as much information on the images they upload as possible. If they have information on the photographer or a publication date that's great. If all they know is that the photograph was donated to them at some point then that would be useful information as well. Haukur (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no use in humoring them, the situation on our side is abundantly clear. I wish the best of luck to Durova in tactfully negotiating a continued partnership with NLW representatives, but there's no use in sugarcoating the truth. As far as formalities go, it would be easier to design a custom copyright tag/disclaimer for such images over at Commons. Throwing fair use templates in the mix makes hosting these images at en.wiki against policy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually over on Commons where I'm an administrator we deal with claims like this routinely. A lot of museums, libraries, etc. assert copyright over derivative works of items that have lapsed into the public domain. Mike Godwin has stated the Foundation's opinion on that type of situation. Very few of these organizations would actually pursue the claim in court. But what they can do is make it hard or easy to obtain high quality digitized images of their collections. And if they see that it's to their advantage to make high quality files available to the public, they may change their approach and do so. Durova^Charge! 04:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

NOINDEX template question

What is the allowed usage of the Template:NOINDEX functionality, that I just noticed is live? No article pages are included, but I see some article talk pages here. Why would those be NOINDEX? rootology (T) 02:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It works in any non-content namespace, which is defined as anything other than the article space. Anyone can add it, and for some controversial discussions, like at BLP talk pages, etc, it may be desirable to use it. No policy as of yet, but that might be something to work on. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I found out that the functionality itself was live, but is it supposed to be on by default today for say Talk:Bible? Thats all I was wondering--the template is linked there, apparently transcluded through one of the many templates already on that talk page, and it seemed odd that only those certain random talk pages had it. rootology (T) 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to use {{NOINDEX}} for ease of tracking. Jehochman ^Talk 02:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured for that. It looks like what we're seeing on those talk pages is the inclusion of Template:Checkuser which is causing it. rootology (T) 02:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That didn't make the tracking much easier for me, tho, I don't think I would've found where in Talk:Bible the template is used without Special:ExpandTemplates. Anyhow, seems the NOINDEX template is used at Template:Checkuser, which doesn't seem like the best idea to me. Whenever someone uses that template on a talk or discussion page, the entire page will be blocked from Google searches. That seems.. kinda random to me. --Conti|✉ 02:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That does seem improper. I've taken NOINDEX out of the template. Jehochman ^Talk 02:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If somebody wanted to NOINDEX checkuser subpages, a template like {{rfcu box}} or even {{rfcu top}} might be a better choice. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

All the templates including are here for the curious. rootology (T) 02:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps just wrap the usages with noinclude so they don't get put onto the pages they're transcluded onto. –xeno (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with implementing this in often-used templates without discussion. Either a broad policy on where it is used is framed and receives community approval, or each time it is used, a note is left on the appropriate talkpage. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Uzhuthiran is on a personal edit war with me

User:Uzhuthiran is on a personal edit war with me & my articles. Though he has a below 50 contribs, his main areas of interests are Labour India, Santhosh George Kulangara and run after my contribs and blindly reverting. His edits were reverted by many editors. (see Labour India's history). He is not at all listening to others and adding false edit summaries without a constructive discussion. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

He vandalised here also, Labour India Gurukulam Public SchoolI cleaned up and removed advert tone of wordings. But uzhithan reverted it blindly. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

His intention is well clear in here (comment by an admin). --Avinesh Jose  T  06:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

ResearchEditor still pushing

Resolved

Please see this discussion at McMartin preschool trial. ResearchEditor is continuing to push a POV, after a topic ban on satanic ritual abuse (above for anyone who missed the original discussion). Specifically RE is attempting to put undue weight on a non-peer reviewed news publication that reports on child abuse accusations (Treating Abuse Today, second from the bottom). This is at the expense of and in opposition to a 400-page report and analysis of the trial from Prometheus Books. The quote RE wishes to insert would give credence to the idea that Ray Buckey was guilty of molesting nearly 400 children in a variety of public locations and beating a horse to death with a baseball bat, but somehow after 7 years of investigations managed to get away with it. Reliable sources and a recantation by a witness illustrate that the McMartin preschool trial was a moral panic and should be portrayed as such. Even had Buckey access to his friend's special effects studio and a horse farm, this does not mean that he faked supernatural powers or killed a horse. This is why I would support a blanket ban on a variety of pages related to SRA and the memory wars, including dissociative identity disorder, false memory syndrome, multiple personality controversy, Michelle Remembers and the McMartin preschool trial.

Also note that ResearchEditor is attempting to insert a reference to a publication that s/he knows is not on par with Prometheus books - see Talk:SRA archive and reliable sources noticeboard.

Also note this section of Michelle Remembers, I'm really sick of being blamed for this because I happen to be the only editor willing to read many university-press books and scientific journal articles in order to raise the standard of the page from this to the current version. Seriously, it's not like I'm engaging in original research on these pages, all of my edits have been based on and sourced to reliable sources. I edit according to what I read, I don't edit according to what I think. Yet still I get pegged as "a POV-pushing editor" as if I were the one trying to impose undue weight. This isn't me being a big meanie, this is me relying on appropriate sources and conventional interpretations of policy, being able to demonstrate that ResearchEditor's interpretations and attributions are incorrect. WLU (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand why ResearchEditor has not been banned in all SRA-related articles. I cannot speak for the articles unrelated to SRA that I don't edit: (1) Dissociative identity disorder, (2) False memory syndrome and (3) Multiple personality controversy. However, I do know RE's bahavior in (4) Michelle Remembers, a book which claims that Satan himself appeared to a woman; a book that started the SRA panic, as well as his behavior in (5) McMartin preschool trial: an iconic case of SRA claims. I would support an extension of the ban in these two articles. —Cesar Tort 14:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked User:east718 to reconsider whether there was support for a ban from related articles; I think there was, but I was involved in the discussion. Hopefully he will correct himself. Mangojuice^talk 15:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Reviewing the histories, the posts occurred before East718's posting to RE's page(McMartin, Michelle Remembrs and East718) and the decision has been amended [38] and RE made aware. I think this is resolved and have tagged the section. WLU (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the addition of other pages to the ban is inappropriate. I have not even had a chance to defend myself about the actions at Michelle Remembers or McMartin. Treating Abuse Today is a serious journal and a reliable source. I posted this at the page recently -TAT is a reliable publisher. Many respected researchers have published there. See here.

The quote I wanted to install simply was a balancing quote "What surprised me as an investigative journalist was that nobody looked beyond the seemingly fanciful nature of the disclosures. Nobody tried to interpret what the disclosures might mean through a child's frame of reference and perception. Nobody searched for plausible explanation....children talked about...improbable events like jumping out of airplanes and seeing a horse killed. Yet, investigators did not track reports that Raymond Buckey had a friend who ran a special effects studio or that Virginia McMartin's sister owned a horse ranch." This is not unreasonable and adds to the article. There are several quotes in the article from biased sources from the other perspective. Both CesarTort and WLU have an interest in seeing my edits banned from these pages since they have an opposite perspective. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread is closed, RE. Just follow MangoJuice advice: present your complaint to ArbCom. (BTW, we don't want you banned because you think different. Biao has exactly the same pov of you and we don't want him banned. It's your pov pushing what left the community with no more patience.) —Cesar Tort 04:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

{undent}WP:SHUN. No need for drama, no need for replies. With no response from the community there is no reason to consider this an issue. It's obvious that no argument can change things, so why bother? WLU (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Biao has stated people left the page because they were "shit on." He basically refuses to edit the page because of his treatment there. The both of your edits created an environment at the page that made sure no contradictory positions were allowed to edit. Anyone whose edits disagreed was brought to AN. The page is now a one-sided joke. With only one position allowed on it. This type of page makes wikipedia look like a joke. The extremist view of panic being the only allowable theory has allowed for the ignoring of 30 - 40 peer reviewed journals as sources and 10 or more books. If anyone had look at either of your edits and done a full investigation, it would have been very clear that your edits pushed an extremely skeptical POV, not allowing any other point of view to exist. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Denying speedies

Hi there guys!

Although the vast majority of the articles I nom for speedy are in turn deleted, sometimes they are denied. In the spirit of learning from your mistakes, I would like suggestions on how I might be notified of this. I don't want to put too much load on admins already spending their time at CSD but I also don't want my talk page to look like I nominate everything I see for CSD.

Any suggestions? Are there any bots that monitor when CSD tags are removed? --mboverload@ 14:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Best bet is to use a common edit sum when making CSDs, like "Nominated for CSD". If it is declined, then the edit sum will still be in your Special:Contributions, if it is deleted, then there will be no entry. MBisanz ^talk 14:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If you add the page you've tagged to your watchlist, then you'll be able to see which are deleted and which are denied. If I refuse a speedy delete request, I (like others) try to remember to leave an edit summary with reasons (e.g. "decline speedy, clear assertion of notability" or "decline speedy, reason given for deleting a redirect isn't one of the criteria, try WP:RFD"); if not, try asking the declining admin on their talk page. I think the onus is on you to ask why, rather than on the declining admin to tell you, otherwise the workload gets too high. That said, if I found someone who clearly didn't understand the criteria I'd probably let them know... There are bots notifying page creators of speedy requests, but none that I know of that notify nominators of declined requests. Bencherlite^Talk 14:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I frequently inform users about declining speedy deletions. In addition, I never decline a speedy without a useful edit summary explaining why it was declined. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of speedies are declined when an AfD would be logical, but let's also remember that some of the "declining" is vandalism and hyped authors trying to "OMG don't delete hes a real guy in my class n hes awsum," so following is a good idea. I've also seen some admins who have denied for less than strong reasons (like, "but we need more one line cricket stubs on guys who played one match in 1804!"). Utgard Loki (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Speedies should usually be declined if there is any question about their applicability. I know what you are saying but we do have to accept the fact that everyone starts out at some point and that proper speedy deletion procedure helps us keep new editors while keeping bad articles off. As frustrating as it may be to do in practice, that procedure suggests strong deference to the page when weighing a speedy deletion request. Protonk (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I usually leave a {{sdd}} or {{sdd2}} template for people when I decline a speedy. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting templates. A shame they don't mention PROD though. Rmhermen (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I usually decline speedies that are under A7 when the article has at least some assertion of notability (whether it is completley valid or not I am not sure). I usually leave an edit summary stating that and mention that it could be prodded or taken to AFD if desired. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have mentioned this, but the easiest thing to do is just watchlist everything you tag. If it's deleted, you'll never see it again so it won't disturb you; if it's declined, you'll see the tag being removed in your watchlist. This also means you can see right away if a deleted page is reposted. – iridescent 19:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody?! "If you add the page you've tagged to your watchlist, then you'll be able to see which are deleted and which are denied" (!) Bencherlite^Talk 09:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just testing... – iridescent 00:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Aparachik question

How do I find out, easily and quickly, whether or not an article has been through an AfD? I know the recreated articles are speedies, but how can you tell? Utgard Loki (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The simplest option is to do a search for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/name of article, which should hypothetically bring up any AfD discussion if the title is the same. One could also look at the (deleted) history of the page and see if an AfD tag was applied, which should give a link to the discussion but that's a little tricky for a non-administrator. Risker (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There is still the problem of knowing whether the new article is substantially the same; you might have to ask an admin to look at the previously deleted one and advise. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Risker's suggestion will be fastest. You can also try alternative capitalizations and/or with/out the middle name/initial. (Seen too much of that at DRV when someone really wants the article to exist and won't take no for an answer.) You can google search for mirror articles for recent AFDs. A major fraction of blatant recreations come very soon after the initial article is deleted. Having found the prior AFD, you can at least read it to determine what the concerns were. If you think the same concerns apply, it is worth getting an admin's attention. GRBerry 18:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

you can also of look at contribution lists--this gets the most persistent of the POV ones. But as John says, the problem of seeing if they are the same is real--usually they are essentially the same, sometimes they are new ones done in perfect innocence, and occasionally the problem is actually fixed. I hope all admins actually deleting the G4s are especially careful to always check the previously deleted article there. For the related problem of articles under slightly different titles, only a high level of suspicion and a good memory help.

• Off topic comment, slightly. I just tried Risker's suggestion with the article Self-hating Jew, which is mentioned in two threads above. [39], [40]. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-hating Jew didn't bring up anything. It's an AfD page that doesn't exist. So... just let me get this straight. Not only do we have an article called, for god's sake, of all things, Self-hating Jew, which has incidentally existed since August 2005, but that article has also never been AfD'd? Really...? Actually, in 2005 it was a decent enough stub, like this: "'Self-hating Jew' is a derogatory polemical label typically used by politically conservative Jews in the United States to describe left-wing Jews who publicly criticize the government or policies of Israel, such as George Soros and Noam Chomsky." [41] But people have been, cough, helping Wikipedia by expanding it ever since, and now it's looong, and not decent at all. It starts like this: "'Self-hating Jew', or 'self-loathing Jew' [sic!], is a term used to describe Jews who feel hatred toward their Jewish identity." That's the entire lead there. And the article has a section called "Proposed psychological basis". And... and... [/me breaks down. Cries. ] OK... so, did I misunderstand Risker's instructions? Alternatively, while I don't really know my way around AfD (don't like it much), could I use "antisemitism honeypot" as a deletion reason? Or, third idea, am I supposed to spend the rest of my life arguing about consensus for re-stubbing it on that talkpage? Or, fourthly, help! Bishonen | talk 21:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

  Yep, never AFD'ed under that title. I won't guarantee anything about prior titles on the same concept before this 2005 creation - or any of the 15 redirect pages. (Which incidentally don't include the alternative phrasing bolded in the article.) There have been related CFD discussions for affiliated categories, and is a current one for the latest category incarnation. GRBerry 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  OMG the redirects. I said "help me", not "depress me"! :-( Bishonen | talk 23:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

• A "what links here" search in the Wikipedia namespace can help to find discussion where it was linked. See here. And GRBerry's suggestion of looking under the redirects is good (click on the "links" bit next to each of the 15 redirects). I'm guessing there was a reason to mention the article's redirects in Talk:Racism/Archive 12, Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 25, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive281, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive406. Going back to the 'Wikipedia' namespace links for the current article, it is linked from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive17 (that must be old!), Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 3, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 18, Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics/Archive 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of synagogues (the only AfD to mention this, it seems), Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 21, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 24, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 23, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive467. Possibly there is something relevant in all that. More likely the same arguments are getting recycled. Hope it's not all too depressing. Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  WAAAAH! Bishonen | talk 23:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

• Holy cow! That thing hasn't been AfD'd, and it has grown tentacles, gone cancerous, and metastasized, and there is nothing anyone can do about it? See, I used to argue that the creation of carefully stated articles like that was an invitation to a launching pad for hate, stupidity, and offensive stupidity, and people used to say, "Oh, you deletionist, you! Why do you hate users? I'm sure it won't get bad." It's like creating Miscegenation and saying, "Oh, don't worry, I'm sure that racists won't show up and make it a hate platform. Wikipedians will keep tabs on it." Yeah, sure. By inches, it gets absurd, and then, from absurd, it becomes an atrocity, and all in the name of a concept that is intellectually bankrupt and, as much as it is culturally current it is culturally nebulous. It can mean anything and everything, so the article starts to serve the most motivated, and the most motivated aren't always the most... neutral. Geogre (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the easy solution to roll it back to an acceptable state and then protect it? Looie496 (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Without consensus, both of those are pretty naked power moves, and protection should be used very rarely. If we have an ongoing storm of vandalism, then protecting won't raise an eyebrow, but what these articles generally get is a "consensus" on their talk pages (e.g. "I can give X ghits to the term! It's obviously used to mean X and Y" -> "It also means" -> "We need a list of notable people who 'have been called' this" -> "And here's my least favorite Jew"), and the people who disagree get either exhausted by the many accounts arguing or just run off. After there is a "consensus" on the talk pages, it becomes impossible to retrieve the sane version without AN/I complaints, and then, if you're an admin with any history at all, those who do not like you will reflexively show up to make the complaints into a case.

The point is that RFC's fail. AfD's are possible, but they're likely to fail. Hard power is a bad idea and a self-destructive one, and all this because an unwise "meme" got an article. At least that's my opinion. Geogre (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You have no idea how much, how strongly, I agree with you here. There have been dozens of politically-loaded phrases that have gone through "no consensus" AfDs over the past few months. I could link some of the AfDs, with their bloc voting and lazy closes, but reliving all that would cause the salty river of my tears to join Bishonen's, so I won't. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[/me hands tissue box round. ] Bishonen | talk 11:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC).

hate speech

hate speech removed in this edit^MY♥_INchile 03:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it's hate speech, but the user has been warned. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like boring vandalism to me. The user last edited a week ago, so the IP address has probably been reassigned and there's nothing we can do about it. Hut 8.5 12:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Harassment, uncivility and POV editing by User:Cityvalyu

Something should be done about this editor and fast. His continual POV pushing edits and harassment of other editors, that do not favor his POV and are trying to maintain NPOV, is rampant. You can not try to come to a consuses, because he feels that anything that does not blatantly support his POV is simply the POV of the other editor even when sourced. His harassment then spills over to the editors talk page (see User_talk:Jmedinacorona) where he then tries to further push his point of view without end, using words stating he's using WP guidelines in editing and that everything said to him is lies. The talk page of 2008 South Ossetia war also contains discussion other editors have had with his edits, reverts and NPOV. Below are just a few examples of his edit style:

1. Extensive weasel insertion
2. Claims to remove weasel words then adds some of his own
3. More weaseling
4. Here he even admits to posting non neutral views
5. See diff then read his edit summary, NPOV? In who's eyes?
6. Here he makes a controversial revert and says in his summary to talk about such reverts in the talk page, where it was already being discussed for consensus, yet he makes the revert despite it.

I'm through with dealing with him now. I have spent way too much time having confrontations with him and it has destroyed any pleasure I found in trying to contribute to this wiki. Do editor's on WP really have to put up with someone like this constantly pushing their view and then following it up with harassment? I think this kind of incessant behavior discourages the participation of all and as a new editor myself, it has nearly discouraged me from participating further. I did not come to WP to have verbal confrontations of this caliber, I came to try and contribute as I can within WP guidelines. Thank you for your consideration and hopeful intervention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmedinacorona (talk • contribs) 05:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

16 hours and counting and not a single comment on my request, yet those immediately preceding and those following appear active. Should I take this as consensus that my complaint has no basis?--«Javier»|Talk 21:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You should take it as consensus that this is a "simple" content dispute and you should follow dispute resolution instead of here. — Coren ^(talk) 23:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. It's a "simple" content dispute. Then this is normal behavior if it is so "simple" and I decline to be involved in this kind of "simple" dispute when my reason for contributing was to improve articles, not get involved in verbal warfare and abuse. Thank you for confirming my understanding of WP after having gone through this episode. Peace. --«Javier»|Talk 23:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Title of Christian Bautista's live album

Resolved

Hello! I want to create an article regarding the album of Filipino singer Christian Bautista titled "Just A Love Song...Live!" but I can't because I think the title is in the local title blacklist. Can it be removed from the title blacklist? I think the article is important because it is one of his successful albums here in the Philippines.Kleomarlo (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had any problems creating an article at that title. The title blacklist disallows too much consecutive punctuation, but three dots should be OK. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You didn't because you are an admin. The elipse does cause a problems with the blacklist for non-admins. I have created a stub article at Just A Love Song...Live!. ~ BigrTex 14:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Request to reduce a block for a user

Resolved

User:Top Gun was indefinitely blocked by User:Moreschi.

I request a reduce of his block, due to the following reasons: 1. This user created many article and is highly contributive.

2. As you could see here his eternal blocking is controversial.

3. The same blocking admin reduced the blocking of user User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog from a week to a few hours, when this user has much stronger behaviour problems. I'm afraid this administrator is to much politicaly motivated. In another case when I edit warred with this user I was blocked for a week without a warning, while this user was not. The not nutrality of this administrator is seen here very well. Here is a typical saying by the user that administrator reduced his blocked to a few hours, I guess such users have right to be even if they insult, edit war, and whatever. As long as you have the right political ideology.

I have first saw this user when editing in the 2008 Ossetian War article and belive me, he's much less worst then that Captain whatever Moreschi so protected.

No doubt this user deserved a block, but: 1. Constancy with similar cases on different sides will be nice. 2. An indefinite block? To much. Kostan1 (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Politically motivated? Balls. Top Gun was caught flagrantly lying about sources and then edit-warring to protect his lies. Simple as. This block has already been reviewed. Game over. Moreschi (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And the insults captain whatever gave to other people, he's rudness, edit warrness and whatever that's realy good deeds that you as a nutral administrator had to take to account when reducing his block!

You yourself on your talk page said that you never inform a blocking admin about you changing a block of someone he block to save troubles. That's why not surprising that you haven't seen that on Top Gun's user page people said that he deserves a block of a week, I would say 4 month, but not a eternal one. It's funny that you now say you are not politicaly motivated because you when informed on your talk page about rudness of Captain Whatever you said your to buisy with "Russian nationalists". I wont get into the talk of your weird definitions of "Russian nationalist", but if you were nutral you would block Captain just like you blocked Top Gun, or the opossite, give Top Gun a block at least close to Captain Obvious. Kostan1 (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Game over? Realy? Interesting. Kostan1 (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yawn. I think this is a prime case of WP:TIGERS - or, alternatively, wikilawyering, pure and simple. The Russian nationalist crowd are so far divorced from objectivity it's not even funny. Moreschi (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice, you have no answers so you shoot the traditional accusations. You fight Russian nationalists, fine, and what about fanatics like captain Obvious? It's not a case of who belives in what. As far as a care? Belive in Space Monkeys. Realy. The case is simple, and don't try to push this case a side:

You, for the same things, gave completely different punishments. Thats the case. While forgave all to one user, eternal block to another. Don't turn it into a drama, that's just funny. Answer what you were asked. You for now already blamed me for nationalism (P.S. Top Gun is not Russian), whatever. You did everything except answering to the case. Kostan1 (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, because there isn't a case? And "fanatics like Captain obvious"? Granted, he's not perfect, but "fanatic" is hardly the term I would use. Unlike others I could mention. My job is to maintain WP:ENC - Captain O does a much better job of that than you and your mates. Wake up. Moreschi (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, your a paranoid! What mates?? Did you at least see my contribution list?? I haven't edited anything political for a long time. And at the Human Rights in the Soviet Union? I took the side of Biophys even thought it was against my political view, why? Becuase he had the nutral version, while someone with my political orientation edit warred with him over it. What mates?? I fight for NPOV, I proved it there 100%. And lately?? I haven't even touched politics. I created an articles needing creation list for the Russian WikiProject and create articles from there, alone, quite. I wish I'd have "mates" there. Stop shooting accusations, that really works against you. Kostan1 (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Um... not exactly presenting the appearance of an unbiased reviewer there Moreschi. As I understand it, the 'lying about sources' was quoting a figure of 180 casualties during one battle based on one source that said 200 total for the conflict and another which said about 20 outside that one battle... i.e. 200 - 20 = 180. I'd question whether that was even blockworthy. It certainly wasn't grounds for an indef. The copyvio seems to have been a copy and paste which the user forgot to reword (poor practice to begin with), but then corrected himself. Correct? He was blocked after he fixed the problem himself? User seems to be making various mistakes... and then agreeing to fix and avoid them in the future. I get the impression English isn't a first language and he's not familiar with alot of Wikipedia policies/practices... such as how to sign his posts. Are you alleging that this user is willfully out to undermine Wikipedia with false sources / copyvios or that he just isn't willing to fix his mistakes? Based on the evidence presented I don't really see a case for either. Is there more to it? --CBD 11:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, his previous blocks. He got blocked indef for copyvio and then unblocked on parole with the condition that any further violations would get the indef put straight back on. Moreschi (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • And eventualy he stoped with it haven't he? And read what a smurt man CBD wrote. He wasn't even telling lies. P.S. You didn't exacly take to account the previous blocks of captain whatever. Infact, you reduced a block of someone who did take it to account. Kostan1 (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Do not endorse: We must be fair and even-handed in the blocking or sanctions of editors who have violated core policies and have disrupted the project, whether or not their viewpoint is valid or not. In this respect, COAHCFD was blocked for one week because he was edit warring, this a cumulation of two prior blocks. Top Gun has six blocks for a variety of serious infractions, including numerous copyright infringements, block evasions and sockpuppetry, inserting in false materials, and edit warring. Administrators may hold the "mop" so to speak, but we aren't pooper scoopers, and cleaning up the copyright violations and having to double check every source and statement that Top Gun wrote was not only time consuming, but disruptive to the process. seicer | talk | contribs 13:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you would read what CBD wrote above, you would see that he wasn't fighting for flase information. That was a misunderstanding.

If you'll enter Top Gun's talk page you would see that the accusations of sock-pupets were false, and the one that complained on him with that even said sorry.

If you will enter the South Ossetian War 2008 talk page, Morechi's talk page, or whatever you would see that Captain whatever was complained on many times, and warned many times, it was simply ignored. And he was previously already blocked for a few times. Kostan1 (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Top Gun didn't deserve an indefinite. Moreschi's admin status should be reviewed immediately. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG. LOL. Instead of actually bringing this up to the administrator in a civil manner, people are calling for his head. Big surprise there. I've seen this occur with much more frequency, and it seems that dispute resolution has been exceptionally ignored. Again. seicer | talk | contribs 15:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite is not infinite blah blah blah zzzzzzzzzz. TheFEARgod's (I loathe to type that) comment was predictable and bromidic. Tan ǀ 39 15:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Predictable (and ignorant too) was a personal attack as an answer to my point --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

explaining my first statement: this is bullying strong vs. weak --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, just POV-propagandists versus uninvolved administrators. Take that as you will, or will that be constituted as a personal attack that will require desysoping? seicer | talk | contribs 17:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If indefinite is not permanent, then what does the editor have to do or say for someone to agree to unblock him? If there is nothing that he can say or do, then it is effectively a permanent block, not an indefinite one. There are times when indefinite means "until such a time as someone feels they can unblock", but most of the time it means "permanent block and throw the key away and forget about this". I sometimes wish the terminology developed had been "open-ended block" and "permanent block", not "indefinite" and "infinite". Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at Top Gun's block log, I see: 21:38, 23 February 2007 Sandstein (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Top Gun (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (Your indefinite block is lifted, on parole, after you have promised not to add any more copyrighted text to Wikipedia. You may be immediately and indefinitely reblocked in the event of any further copyvio edits, vandalism or other infractions.). Well, he has been caught making copyvios since then. IMHO he has got what he deserves. Colchicum (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am tagging this as resolved. This user has had his block reviewed three times now. This has long ceased to be an unilateral decision of Moreschi's. Any request for another review would do well to present new evidence. The arguing about sockpuppetry is irrelevant since this user wasn't blocked as a sockpuppeteer but for parole violation. dab (𒁳) 17:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's baaaaaaaaaack

Remember WP:AMA? Just was tipped off about this. Enjoy. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Same person as last time? Daniel (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they will be just as effective as before. Thatcher 13:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm sure. And Daniel: Not sure. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. AMA ran into the normal doldrums that happen with projects like that, and thus became vulnerable to being crushed. My comment has been that the crucial mistake that was made was organizing on-wiki. I have no idea if the people in this new initiative have sufficient knowledge and resources to pull it off, but, ultimately, something like this is going to be necessary, because existing process can be murder on users who are either innocent, or whose offenses were far short of deserving the response that arose. I think the problems can be resolved, though, without external organization; but the jury is out on that, as far as I'm concerned.

There are two kinds of wikilawyers: the process demanders and the political advocates. We recognize, easily, those who attempt to manipulate decisions through making purely legal arguments. What is harder is dealing with wikilawyers who are skilled at appealing to the knee-jerk responses of editors, in nondeliberative environments, and the latter are actually more dangerous. --Abd (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AMA was vulnerable to being crushed due to it's own activities and organisation, something everybody who proposes amazing fixes to possible problems finds. Advocacy is all very well and good, but absolute power corrupts; where ostensibly well meaning advocates forget that being well-intentioned doesn't put themselves above process nor on a moral high ground, then they lose perspective. The second category of wikilawyering you identify is pretty easy to spot, easier than the first category which at least have some form of validity they can refer to. Minkythecat (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Intregity"? Deor (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

AMA was, from my perspective, defectively organized, not only the matter of being vulnerable by being on-wiki. Wikipedia process works spectacularly well in certain ways ("amazing") but, actually, it's pretty understandable -- nevertheless it also sometimes fails. The second category of wikilawyer (really a political skill) might be easy to spot, for those who are looking, but seeing it does not necessarily fix it, in fact, describe it and you could get blocked. The only editor I've actually accused of this was Fredrick day, and he made it pretty easy for me to get away with it, sort of. I'll note that I was blocked as a result of looking at, and describing, the possible implications of some recent posts of his to AN. (It's part of what he does: toss shit and some of it sticks.) Did I make mistakes? I'm sure. Everybody makes mistakes, and since I try new things and express new ideas, I probably make more mistakes than more cautious editors.

However, there is this strange thing. Some voluntary process is set up. If it is not efficiently organized, it will waste some editor time. But it's voluntary. The editors decide if they want to waste their time. What was the hurry to shut down AMA? Similarly, Esperanza? These both created a kind of bureaucracy, but the bureacracy wasn't essential to what they were doing, it's merely the first way they tried to go about it. With time, those who supported the activity would have learned to do it better. No, these were User:Abd/Rule 0 violations. When there are Rule 0 violations, they must be punished, societies have been doing this for millenia. But, of course, giving Rule 0 as a reason for the punishment violates Rule 0. So there will be some other reason.

When there was a dissident candidate for the board of the IEEE, the board realized that defects in their standard voting system could cause a spoiler effect, and the candidate might win. So they implemented Approval voting. When the danger was past, they went back to their old system. Why? Well, there was what they gave as the reason and then what was probably the real reason. The official reason was that most voters were not using the ability to add extra votes. True. That's normal for Approval. However, it costs nothing to allow the extra votes, the same ballot is used, and it is easy to count the extra votes if they are cast, and they are only cast, unsually, when a voter sees them as needed. The real reason? S.O.P. The board was acting to preserve its power to control the next board elections through its preferential nominating power. It's so common that it's hard to even condemn it. Those who have excess power almost always believe that the power is merited, and they might even be right.

But the lesson of history, still being developed, is that broader distribution of power benefits a community, if mechanisms are in place that allow the best in people to come out, instead of the worst.

Injustice on Wikipedia (or the appearance of injustice) is gradually destroying the project. Many long-time editors have left, citing the poisonous atmosphere. We can sail on, believing that everything is fine, or we can start to identify the problems and seek solutions. If we destroy every attempt to correct wrongs, because the attempt is itself defective, as it will almost certainly be, we will never be able to move beyond our limitations, and I can predict what will happen, probably in no more than a few years.

So I was blocked. Big deal, eh? However, there is this strange disconnect. If I actually did what I was charged with doing, it would be very important to get me out of here, quickly, or, alternatively, to educate me. Without education, without my understanding what I did wrong, I will repeat it. And so will most editors in the same position. We desysopped Physchim62 and Tango, not because they made mistakes, but because they were unable to recognize them as mistakes, after it should have become obvious through extensive discussion. Therefore holding access to the tools was dangerous. If we had some way of moving past the obstacles that prevented them from seeing it (it wasn't really very complicated, but the political situation was complicated), we would still have the advantage of their substantial experience and hopes for the project. How could we do this efficiently? I think I have an idea, and I'm trying it out. It's not started yet, but the page is there, and if you are interested, watch it, it's User:Abd/RfC. It will not be obvious to most people why this would be any different than what we already have, but it will, if anyone participates. And I'm seeking for as many of those who criticized my work to participate. I'll moderate it, since it is designed for my benefit. If I screw it up, I'll get some bad advice, as will anyone who controls advice in a dysfunctional way. If this fails, I will have wasted my time, and a little time of those who choose to participate. If it succeeds, though, it is possible that it will have demonstrated something very important: a way to find true consensus efficiently, without having massive debates. That is, in fact, the real problem here: inefficient process. Standard WP process is highly efficient in certain ways. But when it comes to negotating consensus in certain areas, it can break down very badly and becomes extraordinarily inefficient. And, in fact, our article process, seen from the point of view of overall effort expended, is really broken in situations where there is serious controversy, so an article goes back and forth. And that is mostly wasted effort by those involved, and those who are trying to defend the encyclopedia against POV-pushing can get pretty cynical and burned out. --Abd (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the "I'm a revolutionary martyr, here to make Wiki amazing by getting my amazing system implemented, oh by the way I was unjustly blocked by the way" message has been well received by now. Minkythecat (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

hey but he does offer free banking, I guess that's why he's keen to solicit people's email addresses.... --87.113.67.19 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fredrick day, IP blocked. – iridescent 23:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim bage

Resolved

 – Good times had by all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim bage (talk · contribs) has made 4 edits in total, 2 of which are this and this. It's obviously a sockpuppet account, and not one that is used productively. Also, this is a bit of a hot potato issue, so I decided to refer this to admins' attention. user:Everyme 14:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Indef'd. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Thatcher 14:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Should that user page be fully protected for good measure? It may well attract future similar edits, so why bother to wait for them? user:Everyme 14:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No need. Block on sight. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, user page watchlisted and issue resolved then, I guess. user:Everyme 15:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Request to restore Sustainability article and page history

Resolved

 – Prior history merged. –xeno (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We have a situation with regard to the Sustainability article. It seems to me that it could easily be resolved by an admin who knows policy regarding major changes to articles.

A note had been placed on the article talk page under the heading “REWRITE SUGGESTION” [42] on June 17. Granitethighs referred to a sandboxed version on June 19. Unfortunately I (and evidently others) missed the sandboxed version. I can find no discussion on the rewrite.

The article was completely rewritten and a new version substituted for the former version on July 12, 2008 [43]

The means chosen for this was a page move. Unfortunately that made earlier versions and page history no longer accessible to editors. Some concerns have been expressed about the rewrite, but, more fundamentally, I have requested that the earlier versions and page history be restored. [44] Effectively the former page was deleted without an AfD. My request has not yet been carried out. Administrator assistance is needed to restore the article. Sunray (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason the old history was not merged in? Seems necessary for GFDL attribution, especially if the re-write uses content from the original. –xeno (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Xeno, what steps do I need to do to restore the page history? I tried various ways but I couldn't insert them back in. Maybe you can help? As for Sunray's concerns, I have compromised my position and provided the full wiki-markup to his email so he can insert back whatever he thinks is needed in the article. Yet, he said "The former article needs to be undeleted before we can begin to discuss the changes".[45] I wonder why he insist the new version has to be deleted before we can move towards the negotiation process. He wants to sacrifice the article's quality for his own gains (which we have no clue and perplexed why he wants to retain the old version). I have recreated and placed the old version at Sustainability/Old. Perhaps other editors can comment on which version is more comprehension, better in citation, broad in scope, and relevant to the subject. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's quite simple/ view history, click view or restore xxx deleted edits, enter a comment (i.e. "history merge") and click restore. Whether or not Sunray has some other plans for the revisions, I think they need to be there for GFDL significance. I'll go ahead and let you restore them so you can see how it's done. The new version won't be deleted, it'll still be there, but the past revisions will be available in the history. –xeno (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean the new version is lost then? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the histories will be merged. The latest revision (the new version) will still be showing. –xeno (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I think I did it now. It shows edit history back when it was 2002. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep... all's good. –xeno (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Need local admin eyes, cross-wiki issue

Resolved

Original authorship/licensing has been addressed, thanks guys. rootology (T) 17:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Can a couple admins please review the deleted image of Image:Sexuality pearl necklace.png here locally, and then confirm here or at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png 3rd nomination whether the original image uploaded here by User:Cp79 is the same image as Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png on Commons by the same author, but just cropped? Warning: kinda graphic if the title wasn't a give-away. rootology (T) 15:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO just cropped to remove the identifiable face (the "fluid" is in the same place!) & I'll comment at "home" too :). Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, looks like the new one is just a cropped version (understandable). It was indeed uploaded by Cp79, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I added this original deleted-here version as the source on the cropped version based on this confirmation. :) rootology (T) 15:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Malik shabazz is deleting my RS on Post-Zionism and New Historians despite my addtional ref on talk page

I told him this was RS, I replaced my initial RS by Nudve's and have provided addtional RS on talk page.

I told him he can not delte an RS because he doewsn't like it, but if he has any complaints go to talk page. Since he has any, he keeps deleting it eveytime for newlly invented reason.

help! --Shevashalosh (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see #Shabazz is deletig my ref of "self hating jew" from New Historians and Post-Zionism above. Is anybody going to intervene and stop this trainwreck? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say a block (of Shevashalosh) is definitely in order. I count 5 reverts in 2 days on New Historians and Post-Zionism. However, last time I blocked an editor for revert warring on similar articles (one who actually broke 3RR in a single day), the block was overturned and accusations of POV were thrown around, so I won't bother here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. If it resumes, a very steep escalation would be in order IMHO; this person does not seem to grasp the idea of collaborative editing. --barneca (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So sad. I must say it was time for this block and yes, if this carries on the next block should be much longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not finished yet.

Nobody explained her it was forbidden to take a suckpuppet when you are blocked. So, she took one : User:Shmonaesre. Note she didn't hide but if you read the diff's, the last one is not encouraging.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the new account (including prevent account creation) and warned Shevashalosh that if she tries it again, a long-term block will be in order. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Jpgordon has now blocked Shevashalosh indefinitely for legal threats and sockpuppetry. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

To big to delete

Resolved

 – deleted MBisanz ^talk 16:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Silkroad Online had the AFD closed as delete but is greater than 5000 revisions. How do we make this go away? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silkroad Online the AFD is here. I have no clue about how to implement the deletion; it may require a developer. GRBerry 16:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If this were taken to DRV, would we also need a developer to undelete? :) --NE2 16:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(two e/c!)It doesn't need a developer; it needs a steward. they have "bigdelete" privilege. Paragon¹²³²¹ 16:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hrm the db lag wasnt as bad as I thought it would be. –xeno (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  Somehow, Maxim (talk · contribs) managed to delete it despite not having dev rights. Oh, well done. MBisanz ^talk

Currently, the deleted article has less than 5000 revisions. So what happened here? Carcharoth (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell he somehow split the article into a holding cell in his userspace (see his logs). –xeno (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

When I (stupidly) deleted the talkpage of one of our most active wikiprojects, it allowed me to do it, and when I frantically went to restore it, it said "restore all 6251 edits?". Last I checked, I'm not a dev or a steward....Keeper ǀ 76 17:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It was mentioned elsewhere recently that the software is rather sloppy about counting the total number of edits. Perhaps these weren't truly over 5000 or were too close for it to notice. Rmhermen (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't split the revisions, but I managed to overcome the initial bigdelete problem. ([[WP:BEANS|but I'm not in the mood to share how to do it publicly, please email me if you wanna know how, perhaps, I managed to delete that page]]) Maxim (☎) 20:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Page move done wrong - possibly controversial

Resolved

 – Page moved back, discussion open on article talk page if needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A user has moved Virginia Tech massacre to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University massacre, but the associated talkpage has not been moved. Also, there appears to be no discussion on the talkpage about this move, which may be seen as a controversial move. D.M.N. (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see ElKevbo (talk · contribs) moved it back. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all "controversial". Just moving the article to a title that doesn't contain local slang, but the official title of the school. Wouldn't you move an article called List of tallest ppl to List of tallest people as the original title contains a colloquialism? I am apologise for mistakingly not moving the talk page, this shall not occur again. Dalejenkins | 18:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Virginia Tech" is not local slang. I doubt that many people know the actual name of the university. The move is pedantic. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dale, we call things by their most commonly-known name, when we can. Friday (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that Virginia Tech's own web page uses "Virginia Tech" nine times (including the title of the page) and "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" only once (at the bottom in small text). Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I never knew Virginia Tech as anything but Virginia Tech. Perhaps I'm missing something here. It doesn't seem like slang. "Tech" is just an abbreviation. how do you turn this on 19:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, I was just passing through on my way to read Laugh-out-loud cats. Wait a minute... where is my article? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Colon, close parenthesis. --barneca (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Greg Kohs aka MyWikiBiz

At User talk:Jimbo Wales#Trouble looming with MyWikiBiz? Jimbo says "Indeed, although I have not kept up recently with whatever Mr. Kohs has been doing, I suspect he should be allowed a fresh start in Wikipedia. I would hope that eventually he can make his peace with the community and all will be well". Let's give Greg another chance. His past means that any significant misbehavior will be subject to an indef block. Can some brave soul unblock User:MyWikiBiz? WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Something like that would need at least some sort of discussion before doing anything rash, right? how do you turn this on 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as he was socking as recently as yesterday, I'm not convinced of the wisdom of unbanning him. MBisanz ^talk 19:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Whenever someone creates a sock after being blocked, they're essentially saying 'Screw you and your rules'. Kohs' 'Screw you' count is officially up to 38 and may be as high as 63. HalfShadow 19:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And doesn't he have a legal threat outstanding? From what I understand, that was the reason behind the end of his last legitimate attempt to return here. Blueboy96 20:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You would be wrong. He was banned shortly after his last legitimate attempt to return here when User:Durova leveled unsubstantiated defamatory charges against him, and when he objected to that, he was blocked for making "legal threats", which was really rather backwards. - No Indexer (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, why not give the guy a second chance? All he did was use Wikipedia to make money, spam his website, sockpuppet, evade blocks and bans (ongoign, I believe, with recent incidents), try to get the Wikimedia Foundation's charitable status rescinded, attack numerous people offsite and mount a years-long campaign of hate. What's not to forgive? Guy (Help!) 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  He didn't plagiarize. Kelly ^hi! 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unblocking and lifting Greg Kohs's ban is a terrible idea. Let's waste more of the communities good faith and time? I think not. Tiptoety ^talk 19:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Some editors need to stay gone. This is one of them. And honestly, he isn't gone. He's reading this right now, and contributing to Wikipedia with socks that haven't been caught yet, but will. Oppose unblocking, per guy. Keeper ǀ 76 19:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• (e/c)I wouldn't support this; too much damage has been done. Current sockpuppetry doesn't strike me as remorseful behaviour. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Frankly, I don't understand why he was even allowed back as many times as he was. From what I understand, this guy was one of the very reasons promotional usernames aren't allowed on Wikipedia. Even without his massive socking, the fact that his very approach to Wikipedia is a quantum leap from what Wikipedia is should be enough to keep him blocked. Blueboy96 20:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• One side of me says unban: his sockpuppets make good article edits, but he normally screws up by revealing the sock is him. I don't see why we should ban people who contribute well to articles. However, the other side of me looks at the reason for his banning, his antics on Wikipedia Review, his rather unusual candidacy for the board election, and that shows me that, perhaps, this person really isn't suited to this site. His negative attitude of Wikipedia makes me wonder why he'd even want to edit here. He should stick to criticizing it. I would maybe reconsider if he just stuck out the ban a bit. how do you turn this on 20:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Eh what's wrong with Wikipedia Review? Peter Damian (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Nothing. It's the posts from Greg there that are troubling. how do you turn this on 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Which ones? Most of them are quite perceptive. Frankly I'm not sure why he should be allowed back (and I'm sure he would be the first to agree). But he tells some home truths. Peter Damian (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Of course, however I dislike the negative attitude. I'm not here to argue about this though, I'm sorry. how do you turn this on 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Per Guy and MBisanz, lifting the ban is a bad idea. --David Shankbone 20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Can some brave soul unblock User:MyWikiBiz? That brave soul will not be me, nor, I hope, any other admin. "Another chance" is almost always in order; a third or fourth or tenth definitely is not in this case. And in the unlikely event that the ban of the person is lifted, that user name should be blocked as promotional in any case. --MCB (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose unblocking MyWikiBiz, but not because I have issues with his business plan. Indeed, I wholly support it -- I don't really care why someone contributes to Wikipedia just so long as they comply with our policies. Remuneration is not incompatible with NPOV. On the other hand, the fact of his multiple sockpuppets is incompatible with our continuing assuming his good faith. Absent a signal of good faith -- and I would consider nothing less than three months without sockpuppets appropriate -- I think it unwise to unblock here. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Im pretty sure that this won't be popular, but I would support the unblock. What's the worst that could happen? He screws up, block him again. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmmm. This thread came about because a transparently obvious Kohs sock posted on Jimbo's talk page. I think that speaks volumes. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• And since there is a concerted effort to never allow him to edit again on this project, what other recourse would he have? At least he's being transparent about the sock. Has anyone considered asking on Wikipedia Review if he wants to be unblocked, and if he'd follow the rules? By getting him to make a public statement on his "home turf" as to whether he'll follow the rules or not, it makes it potentially more meaningful for him to actually do so. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1) This is quasi-moot, as it's obvious that enough admins have it in for him that even if he were unblocked, he'd quickly be reblocked for offenses real or imagined. 2) However, that being said, if he has umpteen sock-puppets, well, practically, what's the point? That's rhetorical - I know, it's about community norms and a declaration of being outside them. But I suggest that be leavened with some pragmatism, recognizing when the standard operating procedure is becoming counter-productive. My advice would be to find some sort of face-saving climb-down from the current silliness (he's banned with multiple socks). Say something like "In the name of Jimbo The Merciful, Blessed be his (co)Foundership, let your evil past be washed away by the beneficence of his absolution. We shall grant you an Assumption Of Good Faith. Go edit and sin no more" (in case it isn't clear, this is saving face by conveying "it's *his* idea, we're just going along with it"). After the inevitable drama, hey, you can say you tried. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Seth, Kohs is a drama whore. He outs his own socks. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblocking, what real damage has Mr. Kohs done to Wikipedia? Has his socking been anything but rather obvious? Yes he criticizes and barks and barks but has he ever really bitten? His socking is defying Wikipedia's block/ban on him, my my how terrible this fellow must be to defy the collective might of Wikipedia. He must learn to be humble and admit the error of his ways, then and only then can we be magnanimous and forgive this poor transgressor. Petty petty minded people how you do justify your prejudices so. RMHED (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• What, apart fomr the offsite attacks, the attempt to have our charitable status rescinded, and the serial violation of WP:SOCK you mean? Hardly anything other than some WP:SPAM problems, a bit of WP:COI and some tendentious editing. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wars end when one side has the courage to propose peace. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Guy those aren't bites, at most they're just playful nips. How could he damage Wikipedia by challenging its charity status? Either the status is correct or it isn't. His so called offsite attacks are about as effective as a chihuahua attack dog. RMHED (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Then we need a WP:BADDOGS policy to go after those darned Attack Dogs! *Dan T.* (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Dear heavens, is this necessary? However useful MWB might have been able to be as a contributor, I would think he's too embittered now about this project to participate fully. Whatever. Of course, the community ban should end if he agrees that he will not attempt to link his personal website, that he will not institute editing-for-money schemes without community approval, that he will not operate bad hand accounts, and that he steers clear of inappropriate on-site personal remarks. If he violates any of those, I'd suppose that he could be reblocked with a note at AN pretty easily. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Truthfully, I am not sure he ever would have been good, but you are certainly right about how he would probably be now. The thing is, there seem to em to be two sorts of people who come to Wikipedia: those who think "this is good, what can I give?" and those who think "how can I use this to my advantage?" The latter sort we have the devil's own job getting rid of, be they Truthers, LaRouchites, True Believers in homeopathy or Intelligent Design or whatever - the more we ban them, the more determined they become to get back in and the more of the good people they drive off in the process. Protecting the people who are single-mindedly determined to use Wikipedia for their own ends is exhausting and leaves many casualties by the wayside, good faith being one of them. Kohs is the archetype of the "what's in it for me?" kind. You, me, these others here, we came to Wikipedia and decided to help out with no thought of personal gain. Kohs, he decided he could make a buck off the back of the efforts of the millions of volunteer hours whch have gone into making Wikipedia the high profile place it is. He can be charming, but he has also shown that he is ruthless when thwarted, and the combination of seeking personal gain and tenacious and highly aggressive retaliation against anyone who stands in his way is simply not what any of us have in mind when we picture an ideal Wikipedian. I must say that I'm tempted by Rodhullandemu's idea, though... Guy (Help!) 22:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock with an editing restriction to Pokemon-related articles only, as long as there's breath in my body. That should give him about a week or two. --Rodhullandemu 22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock restricted to one account that we can keep eyes on. I personally will reblock if he steps out of line. Greg can edit through socks whenever he likes. As Seth Finkelstein said, face saving measures will be good. Jehochman ^Talk 22:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(mec)Er, my support wasn't intended to be serious. I'm not sure, with the best will in the world, how yours can be. Everything about this guy suggests that no sanction is effective in moving him towards meeting all of the standards of the project. It's not a "pick 'n' mix" scenario, and he's chosen which bits he accepts and seems to have rejected otherwise. But, given his record, functionally, regardless of the merits of the content of his edits, I would expect at least a personally-binding (FWIW) commitment (FWIW) to play the game by the rules. Per WP:BEANS, I have doubts, but won't express them. --Rodhullandemu 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Qui bono? What good does it do Wikipedia to have him back? Corvus cornix_talk 22:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It helps to end a useless war. It allows us to watch Kohs, instead of him editing on the sly. Jehochman ^Talk 22:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Question Has anyone even asked him anywhere if he even wants to be unblocked? Might be moot, otherwise... that whole thread on Jimmy's page is about the "MyWikiBiz" article draft Neil is doing. rootology (T) 22:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have asked, and he does, but he is dejected that Guy and Durova will never let it happen. Jehochman ^Talk 22:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock. His original "offense" was pursuing a cash-for-articles scheme that he's long since abandoned; his next "offense" was wanting Durova to own up to what he felt was a misstatement about his talking to a reporter. These are all ancient history now. Since then, he's been a gadfly for Wikipedia, but is that necessarily a bad thing? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• No thanks. Though IF he is unblocked, I think something along User:Rodhullandemu's editing restriction idea mentioned above is fine.--MONGO 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I am willing to mentor/monitor him. I was given second chances after my initial editing was below par. Jehochman ^Talk 22:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Jehochman...below par would be a compliment for Kohs...if you were previously trying to be a nuisance, you failed to come anywhere close to the infamous antics of Kohs. We do give second (even third) chances to those that deserve it...Kohs doesn't.--MONGO 22:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I am willing to mentor/monitor him. I was given second chances after my initial editing was below par. Jehochman ^Talk 22:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock: I'd support unblocking him per Seth Finkelstein, Jehochman and Swatjester. (I also like the idea of confining him to editing Pokemon articles if he gets out of line.) I'll go further and say that I would even consider revisiting the MyWikiBiz PR-editing model if proper safeguards were put in place: someone writes a wikified, GFDL (or similar license) article for hire off-Wikipedia and then established, trusted editors evaluate it for possible inclusion here. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  Wow. Seeing "per Seth Finkelstein, Jehocman, and Swatjester" actually is a bit disturbing to me ;) ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ufff - we've had banned editors (and even WR regulars - *gasp*) who not only did okay when unblocked, but excelled here on WP. I've also blocked enough MWB socks myself to know what he's like & mostly, his target seemed to be Jimmy. Now that Jimmy has given a sort of tacit endorsement to his unblocking, I don't see why not, however I'd like a very firm undertaking from MWB that he keep well away from Durova. I'm not 100% au fait with what happened there, but I know that there were issues and we as a community need to respect that and consider our contributors already here. As for monitoring the guy, somehow I suspect he'll be watched rather closely indeed by various folks. He knows this already, and I'm sure he's taken that into account. As Sam Korn points out, remuneration and NPOV can co-exist, ergo I suggest a tentative 'Conditional unblock' - Alison ^❤ 23:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Switched to oppose unblock at this time. See below - Alison ^❤ 01:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Seth, Jehochman, and (especially) A. B. I looked into the history of the situation, and it seems to me that he was treated unfairly to begin with, and then that many of the subsequent actions were provoked by unwarranted hostility from certain people. It was dumb to prohibit him from writing articles for pay, anyway - who cares why people write articles so long as they are in compliance with policy? Jeez. After all, we do have the Reward Board, and that's allowed. Kelly ^hi! 23:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Alison above. As I've said elsewhere, Kohs is a very good writer, and since he'd undoubtedly be one of the most-watched accounts on WP would hopefully behave himself. I can think of at least two indefblocked editors who've returned and made fantastic contributions. – iridescent 23:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Jehochman's reasoned rationale and offer to mentor. By the way, JzG appears to be persuing a personal vendetta against Kohs. From the evidence section in the ongoing C68, FM, SV arbitration case:

"(JzG) Admin deleted an article then said the recreation was written by him, although the two were almost identical [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]. Adamantly asserted that the recreated version was written ab initio [52], but then back-pedalled on that assertion when faced with abundant evidence that it was an act of plagiarism. Note - this became a controversy due to JzG taking a deletion action 15 months after the article had been peaceably resolved."[53]

The article that JzG claimed he wrote was actually written by Kohs. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that a blatant GFDL violation? Kelly ^hi! 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the point. —Giggy 23:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How the **** does something like that happen? So we can declare someone persona non grata, and then another person can then plagiarize their work, and this is OK? That's against everything this project stands for! Kelly ^hi! 23:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot more to this than is misrepresented by Cla68.--MONGO 23:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Such as? (Feel free to drop on my talk page if you like.) But since when did it become OK to claim credit for others' work? If someone did that to me, I'd sock like crazy and disrupt Wikipedia, too. That's total B.S. Kelly ^hi! 23:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I assume the discussion is for un-banning Greg Kohs, and not User:MyWikiBiz since if there ever was a problematic company name under Wikipedia:User_name#Company.2Fgroup_names it is this one. --David Shankbone 23:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he can use "thekohser" which he has for SUL I believe. —Giggy 23:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock, and get over our paranoia of people who disagree with us. Per iridescent and Swatjester. —Giggy 23:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Unblock I'll declare an interest in that I post on WR, as is on my talk page, but Greg is clearly a very intelligent chap who, if he was allowed, could enhance the project George The Dragon (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• keep blocked Greg has engaged in completely unacceptable behavior. He has by his own admission engaged in vandalism on the English Wikipedia and he has expressed zero remorse for that. Indeed, quite the opposite. In his recent attempt to run for a position on the Wikimedia board he tried to claim that his actions were a good thing. He has repeatedly sockpuppeted. And he has engaged in large-scale harassment of editors such as Durova. Kohs is as far as I can tell interested in three things: trolling, disruption, and self-promotion. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break for some discussion of movement forwards

• As I see it, there is a groundswell of opinion that Greg Kohs personally is a good editor and a net benefit to this project; contra that, there are behavioural issues that negate the assumption that he edits here within commonly-accepted rules. His history is undeniably against him on that point; whereas commercial interests may be in the past, sockpuppetry, however well-intentioned, I have a problem with. That is a breach of trust, and an evasion. I've seen various proposals for limiting accounts, topics, etc, but again, the history could be said to speak for itself. If there is to be a rehabilitation- for that is where we are at- it must be both committed, watertight, and enforceable. Given the history, it is the latter issue that concerns me the most. We all know the difficulty of traceability here. If anything is to be achieved for the benefit of the project here, it must be scoped beyond doubt. --Rodhullandemu 00:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Disclosure: I had removed this section break earlier because I thought it was unnecessary. However, if a separate section is needed for discussion outside of straight up and down votes for whether to unblock or not, then I guess this is the place to do it. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock Just because he put the image of one of our established editors on thong underwear, and has instigated drama whenever possible, and has created dozens of sockpuppets, and has done his best to subvert our core policies to further his god-given right to make a buck, why should he remain blocked? Yuri "The Fool" Karlov (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• I think what we do is pretty simple - we assume good faith, which is what many here failed to do in this person's early involvement with Wikipedia. On the contrary, notable people here, including Jimbo and Guy, apparently assumed bad faith despite evidence to the contrary and caused all kinds of bad feelings and disruption as a result. It's time for a Greg Kohs/Wikipedia reboot - let him start fresh, and let the people who have been hunting him and harming his reputation stay away. If they think any action needs to be taken, they can ask for it here or at WP:ANI. I'm frankly appalled at how this has been handled from the beginning. Kelly ^hi! 00:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reboots don't exactly work when a) there's no indication that Greg has any intention to stop any of his behavior and b) you engaged in behavior beyond a certain point. Photoshopping pictures of another Wikipedia user to make them look like she is wearing only underwear after the user tried to engage in good-faith dialogue with you is beyond the reboot point. It is about in the category where you can't reboot because someone hit the hard-drive with a sledgehammer. Just for starters he could take down his blog entries outing other users and smearing them. Just a tiny step. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Joshua, I hadn't seen any evidence of any of those things presented. (Not disputing, just saying I've seen no evidence.) I have run across evidence, however, of this person being provoked, attacked, and demonized. I'm curious to see which happened first. Should any Wikipedia admins/editors be doing any introspection about initiation and escalation of the situation? Kelly ^hi! 00:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Kelly, this demonstrates more than anything that you haven't been paying much attention to this matter and are nevertheless commenting in detail. In any event, I've sent you an email with further details. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Got your e-mail - unless you're referring to someone besides Durova, your "outing" claims are silly. Durova outed herself. Kelly ^hi! 01:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Wrong, and once again showing that you haven't been paying attention. Durova wrote under her pseudonym. An offsite troll then added a comment to that piece which outed her there.. Greg Kohs then splashed her name all over the net and ensured that when you googled for her actual name one of the first things you found was his photoshopped monstrosities. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
            • No, I found this YouTube Interview, which predates the link you provided by many months. Kelly ^hi! 01:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Kelly, not following the timeline. That youtube video was made well-after Durova had been very outed and had been asked to speak at a conference. The blog entry by Kohs was one example of his attempting to smear Durova. It was not by any means the only. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
                • If she publicly discloses her identity, how can she be "outed"? Kelly ^hi! 01:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • Kelly. Please don't be dense. Read what I wrote about above. This time I'll add in bold to help out. "That youtube video was made well-after Durova had been very outed". Notice the tense? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • Joshua, your statement that Kohs created a picture of Durova wearing underwear is a lie. Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
                    • Oh your right. I'm sorry. He put her face onto underwear. It's not always easier to remember these details. And of course that's so much better. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • Josh, can we see some evidence that Kohs "Outed" Durova against her will? Kelly ^hi! 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
                    • Kelly, this is going to be my last comment about the outing matter. If you really think that someone can be voluntarily outed and have their name smeared across the internet including having a blog entry that has their name as a keyword along with various derogatory terms then I can't help you. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
                      • I understand where you're coming from, but we don't control off-wiki conduct. If Durova was engaging in an off-wiki battle with this person, then we shouldn't be judging just one side of the fight. And I still have seen zero evidence that he outed her against her will, when she was apparently making public interviews, giving her status as a Wikipedia admin as one of her "credentials". Kelly ^hi! 01:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Folks, you're missing the reality. It's just an issue of whether he has an account which is both persistent and admitted to be his, or not. That's it. That's the only decision you (collectively) can control. You can say "no", for the symbolic value of it, a kind of social fiction censure that if you do not grant him a Religious Name, he does not officially exist. You can say "yes", under the theory that's the path of least drama (note I didn't say "no drama"). I believe the latter is the wisest option. But the choice is that minor. And it doesn't seem worth much drama in itself. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Seth you seem to be missing a few points. First of all, if Greg is unblocked he'll pick a new admin to harass and make the life miserable of. At least one. That's what he does when he's unblocked. Furthermore, the message this sends is to all banned users. If your persistent enough and disruptive enough we won't do anything to you. Do you really think the project will function well when that sort of message is sent? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • On what basis are you making that prognostication? Kelly ^hi! 01:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Logic. Isn't it amazing? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Apologies, but a little evidence besides your logic would be welcome. Who else has he harassed when he was unblocked? Kelly ^hi! 01:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Let me assure you I do understand the viewpoint, and my position is a realpolitik assessment. Note what I said earlier "1) This is quasi-moot, as it's obvious that enough admins have it in for him that even if he were unblocked, he'd quickly be reblocked for offenses real or imagined. ...". Sometimes, the choice is only between two bad options. Right now, he thumbs his nose at your message, and it's not necessarily the most authority-reinforcing position to be in to have someone constantly mocking your ability to impose sanctions. A dirty secret of Wikipedia administration is that only people who care about Wikipedia rules and norms (to at least some extent) will care about what message you're sending. Everyone else will consider this sort of stuff navel-gazing narcissism. Hence my advice, try to convey at least the illusion of having some influence. Not pretty, but the world is often ugly. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Can someone point me to the original discussion of his ban? Anthony (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See this and the next section below it, "Let's make this official". --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Photoshopping editors in their underwear? I'm no fan of Durova but if that's true, not now, not ever. RxS (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No, according to Cla68, it's a bullshit claim. Kelly ^hi! 01:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Is there someone less involved that can comment on this claim? Or point to some proof, or email some support for the claim? RxS (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Agreed, evidence seems rather thin on the ground, once you disregard the hyberbole and personal attacks. Kelly ^hi! 01:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I misremembered. He actually put her face on a pair of underwear that could be bought (through Cafe Press?). Because that's sooo much better. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Anyone dispute this? Because I actually think (I think) remember this. RxS (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
          • He put a picture of her face on a picture of underwear. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
            • No, he had a CafePress store where he sold thong underwear with Durova's picture on it. Given that this was discussed in detail on Wikipedia Review, where you are a regular participant, your -- ah, let's call it "misunderstanding" -- of the situation is curious indeed. If I were a cynical person I'd say you were misrepresenting the situation to protect a fellow WR editor in his harassment of a Wikipedian with whom you have had spirited disputes. Good thing I'm not a cynical person, huh? 72.255.13.241 (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

<= Then absolutely not. I don't have a dog in this fight but that's beyond any conceivable acceptable behavior. No one has a right to edit here, I don't and you don't, and someone who can take a disagreement this far out of bounds needs to be gone. I've been here a while now and there's one thing I know, we're fighting a running (and losing) battle to keep the disruption to a minimum and the focus on writing an encyclopedia to a maximum. It's already hard enough to get rid of disruptive/diverting editors, there's no reason to let someone back in that's capable of this sort of crap. RxS (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I will support unblocking if he makes statement promising to obey Wikipedia rules including WP:SOCK, WP:NLT, WP:COI, etc. He also must be a subject of restrictions including one account only and no harassment of wikipedia users on external sites. I think it is better to have him with the team rather than with the enemies and it only needed one click to block him again if he misbehaves, so the risk is low Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not support unblock As he's still socking as of today, no telling what other problems he'll cause. For evidence: User:Wet_Floor_Sign (today), [54] (yesterday), and User_talk:Feline_Who_Watches_You_Masturbate_From_Above (this month). Wet Floor evidence: [55] and onwiki, Feline evidence: [56] — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

When a user is unjustly banned, and then continually smeared after they've been nominally chased off, what other remedy, or way to call attention to their situation, do they have other than socking? Creating socks is the last refuge, kind of like the right to bear arms in the U.S. Constitution. If all else fails you can resist an unjust government. A blatant criminal (i.e. a Wikipedia vandal or POV-pusher) gathers no support and is quickly quashed. Someone who rebels after unjust treatment gathers supporters, which seems to be what has happened here. I sure feel sympathy for the guy, he got the shaft. The right thing to do in this situation is to offer amnesty in the hope of reconciliation and peace. Kelly ^hi! 02:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Unjust ban? He wasn't banned unjustly. He deserved it - and I believe he knows he did. Whether he should still be banned is another question.

Where has Mr Kohs been smeared? I can think of many other ways to deal with being banned than creating sockpuppets with obviously disruptive usernames. Sure he may be frustrated, but that's a real bad way to go about things. I'm all for unbanning if I can honestly believe he'll not do anything like this again. Plus, his disputes with Durova and Jimbo haven't done him any favors. how do you turn this on 02:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For different values of unjustly and smeared. Wraping the socking in a grand ol' US flag doesn't change what it is; there are other avenues of appeal (email being the obvious one). — Coren ^(talk) 02:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

To who, ArbCom? Like they've been inspiring a lot of confidence lately. What was the result on that SlimVirgin/JzG/FM case opened like, four months ago? I rest my case. Kelly ^hi! 02:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, arbcom first off. If that's not useful, there are several admins (as can clearly be seen here) who he could have contacted for help, to propose one of them initiated a discussion such as this one. Did he do that? Well obviously I don't know about arbcom, but as far as I know he hasn't requested to be unbanned, although I'm not that familiar with this, so may be wrong here. how do you turn this on 02:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, Greg's behaved quite unreasonably here in the past. Things like impersonation, penis vandalism, and selling thongs with Durova photoshopped on them are quite beyond the pale of common human decency, much less our communal standards. Oops, was I supposed to put a big bold leave blocked somewhere in there? east718 // talk // email // 02:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Hell no, for the reasons east718 pointed out just above. Penis vandalism, impersonation of good faith users to participate in contentious AfDs, and general insults and harassment aren't the hallmarks of a constructive editor, let alone a purported businessman. The reasoning for his original ban did seem rather unfair, but he's long since earned it with his appalling behavior. krimpet✽ 02:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Over my dead body This guy is the antithesis of everything we stand for as a project and a community. He has not only violated the standards of behavior which this community holds, but he has worked tirelessly to undermine our mission. Why would we welcome someone back who not only is completely unapologetic about his past misdeeds, but actively seeks to destroy us from without? If we unban Kohs, why don't we sysop GRAWP while we're at it?Steven Walling (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Spoken like a true zealot, good to see you keeping the faith brother Walling. Stay true to the mission, let not doubt enter thy mind. RMHED (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your rude sarcasm is not appreciated. If you can't be constructive in discussion, then don't participate. Steven Walling (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. I have huge opposition to unblocking someone with his history of abuse on Wikipedia, particularly when he has done little to remedy that since his banning. bibliomaniac15 03:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. You can be the best editor ever, but if you keep socking over and over whist you're banned, whether justified or not, I cannot in good conscience support reinstatement. Wizardman 03:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock; I don't think he was ever treated fairly in the first place, and even if he was, he'd still be due for another chance after all this time. Everyking (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock Self-important opportunist, has no real interest in using the project to educate others. Let him run his own yellow pages wiki. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Given that Kohs has shown an utter contempt for people who disagree with him, I strongly oppose any unblock. He called me on WR for a "witless boob", along with calling other very good people who I highly respect for "mindless nincompoop", "an incoherent twit" and "without any measure of intellect". A person who cannot control himself from flying off the handle with these wild attacks, whether on-wiki or off-wiki, and who has done little to actually build the encyclopedia as a volunteer, is not helpful at all to the project. I will also echo the opinion given by Sam Korn, the commercial editing might be OK, barely, despite my concerns over the impact this might have on NPOV, but the sockpuppeteering which Kohs has engaged in on a grand scale is clearly not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support the unblock provided that Greg would like to be unblocked and participate (productively) - I have no idea if he does wish to - so I have emailed him and asked him that exact question. He is a decent enough writer - better than I am - and an intelligent guy who was treated piss poorly despite following the rules at the time to the letter. The socking whiles not exactly condemnable, could be completely ignored if he wished to come back and approach wikipedia from a new direction. Viridae^Talk 12:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  Viridae, he has a perfectly good talk page at User talk:Thekohser, why must he use email to express the details of his intent to edit constructively, why can't he use the {{unblock}} template like everyone else? MBisanz ^talk 13:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It is amusing, in an ironic sense, that the most virulent (although not unexpected) opposition to an unblock of Kohs comes largely from a section of the community that applauds and supports Jimbo for every action that he takes that is even slightly out of process - yet this is a situation where the unblock of Kohs per the proper processes appears to have Jimbo's consent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC) ps. Unblock Why not? There will be too many eyes for any unseemly editing to slip by.

  One might just as easily comment on the fact that the most spirited support of an unblock is coming from Wikipedia Review editors who shriek incessantly at the slightest perceived unfairness toward others, yet are willing to overlook any level of harassment by one of their own toward established Wikipedia editors. 72.255.19.253 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  I believe you just did, - but you are wrong in inferring that WP editors who openly contribute to WR (and who are you 72.255.19.253 to be aware who does and who doesn't?) are asking that Kohs past be ignored; most are saying that he should be allowed to prove he can contribute usefully, and can be easily reblocked if it proves otherwise, since blocks (and even bans) are supposed to be preventative and not punitive. Also, those who contribute to WR have the advantage of seeing how Kohs reacts in an environment that is generally supportive; personally I don't think it is fantastic, but it is no worse than many WP editors who are recognised for the work they do rather than their style of interation with other contributors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - No way. He continually socks and attacks Wikipedia users. Why should we let him back in? Anetode is completely right in saying that he's nothing but a "self-important opportunist". We wouldn't let GRAWP in if he apologised and said he'd never sock again either. You don't deserve a million more second chances, Gregory. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Those of you who know me here know that I am pretty levelheaded and not inclined to enter drama, so I hope that adds emphasis when I say no fucking way to unblocking Kohs. He has shown absolutely no interest in helping Wikipedia achieve its goals and no indication that he can behave within our community norms. The man has wasted enough of our time over the past year-plus and it's a virtual guarantee that if unblocked, he will simply create more drama of the type we do not need. This is a clear case of The Scorpion and the Frog (with Kohs being the scorpion, to be blunt). howcheng {chat} 16:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Unblock No way. Seems that there are some here who wish to tear WP down by spreading discord and stir drama wherever and whenever possible. I can think of no reason for an unblock other than to do just that. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break; Durova's proposal - compromise to unblock with conditions

Does anyone have access to John Bauer artwork that isn't halftoned? Durova^Charge! 04:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If Mr. Kohs ever goes six months without socking or insulting Wikipedia offsite and pledges to abide by our policies, I will open an unban proposal for him myself. I extended this same offer to him on New Year's Day 2008 (and previously), and if he had accepted it he would be editing legitimately by this time. Now I'm heading back offsite to finish restoring a portrait of Sarah Bernhardt as Hamlet; it's the only kind of drama I want to be involved in tonight. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 03:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I weak support Durova's proposal as a condition for return. I would strong support if it was shortened to three months.--David Shankbone 03:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Question - how can you "insult Wikipedia"? Kelly ^hi! 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Making negative comments about a project some people dedicate a lot of time to can be hurtful, and insulting. how do you turn this on 03:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. We have a whole article called Criticism of Wikipedia. Things don't improve if people don't call attention to the deficiencies. Or should people who protest against the policies of George W. Bush just be quiet because they might be hurtful to Bush supporters? Kelly ^hi! 03:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You asked a question, I gave you an answer. Is there anything else? how do you turn this on 04:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Going after its charity status I find insulting, in that many of us who do work on here consider it for the public good. That's at the heart of the jokes Greg Kohs has made on the Wikipedia Review about all of this being just some big attack machine multi-player game, isn't it? It's a lame joke, but it's still aimed at our core of what we believe. We don't do it with profit or fame in mind, but to gain knowledge and spread it. Many of us feel passionately about furthering the aims of the project, and spend a good deal of time, consideration, money, effort and research for this, uh, hobby. I personally find his choosing of the charity status particularly odious, in that light. This is just a comment. I still support Durova's proposal, more so shortened to three months. --David Shankbone 04:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a love/hate relationship with Wikipedia is natural and no big deal. I certainly have one. I appreciate and enjoy the opportunity that the project gives to write articles on subjects that interest me for a large, general audience. But, I also have serious misgivings on how the project is administered and I'm not afraid to say so both on-wiki and off. So, to ask Kohs not to disparage Wikipedia itself is, I think, unnecessary. Also, if Wikimedia's house is in order as a charitable entity, then it doesn't have anything to worry about from anyone's efforts to challenge it's tax status. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Cla, it is one thing to say one has a love-hate relationship. I doubt almost anyone who edits here frequently has a simple relationship to the project. But think about what it says about Kohs' attitude towards the project. The level of hatred to try to try to remove the Foundation's charitable status? It either demonstrates deep, vitriolic hatred or it is yet another piece of evidence that Kohs will lash out at people for even small slights. Either way, we have no need for him here. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just ass-kissers who toe the party line. If Kohs wants to edit productively and says he'll try follow the rules, he should be unblocked. By the way, Durova, didn't you claim that Kohs lied to a reporter about wikipedia and then failed to back up your claim with any evidence when Greg challenged you in self-defense? You might want to think about resolving this. And you might want to consider that you had a hand in creating this whole mess. --Duk 01:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Sounds like a fair proposal to me. I'm all for giving someone another chance, but this situation calls for some demonstration of good faith. Kelly's point is well taken though, and I suggest the condition be that Mr. Kohs avoid socking and engage in no outing or harrassing of editors (as opposed to legitimate criticism) offsite.--Kubigula (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I suggest we fix a date right now: "On December 25, 2008, User:thekohser will be unblocked if and only if 1/ there is no further socking between now and then, 2/ there is no further on or off site harassment of any of our editors (including faces on underwear, etc), 3/ a pledge is made the honor our site standards in a formal unblock request." Does anybody object to making this offer, which is designed to stop the problem and give the user a chance to return? Jehochman ^Talk 04:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Jehochman, there is no reason such a pledge cannot be made on site, User talk:Thekohser is the unprotected talk page of the individual and would be the best place for Greg to post {{unblock}} reqs or other relevant statements. MBisanz ^talk 09:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• I think that is very reasonable Jehochman, and I strong support the Christmas amendment to Durova's proposal, which is the modification I preferred to Durova's proposal. --David Shankbone 16:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Counterproposal: Flat out unblock no conditions

To me, such conditions confuse the essential issue, even making it political in a sense. What I want to know is: if Kohs is allowed to edit, would he do so productively and according to community standards? I'm not entirely sure what the answer is, but I know an easy way to find out: unblock him and watch to see what he does. It doesn't make sense to make someone wait months to edit if they're willing to do so right now. If we don't like his edits, he can simply be blocked again. Everyking (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• We're going to need a compromise that most of us can accept, including Greg (who is not happy with the above proposal). This will probably leave nobody happy. Greg would like to be unblock now, as vindication. Various people here would like to see him further humiliated. At some point this war has to stop. It will be a good thing if it stops. Are we willing to be brave and just unblock him? It will only take a moment to reblock if he abuses the privilege. Jehochman ^Talk 05:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps he could have "community reviews" at intervals where his editing conduct would be evaluated and it would be decided whether to allow him to continue editing. He could have one review at the end of one week (provided he did nothing obviously unacceptable to get himself blocked before that point), then another at the end of one month, and so on. Everyking (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• I would support unblocking to see if he is able to live within the rules given a fresh start. If not then wash our hands of it. I don't think this affair was handled well by either side at the onset, and both sides escalated it from there to varying degrees. I believe that it is very difficult to recover from that point without one side making a magnanimous gesture. There is rather little to lose by doing so. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock proposal per Alison and other commments. Peter Damian (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose to unblock proposal. --David Shankbone 06:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• As I wrote above, I strongly oppose any unblock of Kohs. I wrote down an opinion, with my rationale, on the proposal to allow BLP subjects to automatically remove their Wikipedia biography. Kohs called me a "witless boob" for doing so, along with a string of other attacks against people who I consider good editors and contributors, and who clearly didn't deserve that kind of vitriole. That kind of behavior, from a grown-up man who cannot blame immaturity, is not something we want on Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz is a middle-aged professional with a reasonably strong sense of pride and a successful day job. I don't think it would sit well to encumber him with a lot of tests and restrictions. He's probably too grown up for a "mentor" and he knows more about Wikipedia's inner workings than many admins. Not everything that happened was his fault and some of us here have said some pretty shabby things about him also. Either accept him back into our community, subject to the same rules that should apply to everybody (no conflicts of interest, be civil, etc.) or leave him blocked. Treat him like a grown-up professional and expect him to act like one. If he gets out of line block him.

One of three outcomes will occur if he's unblocked:

1. He becomes a productive editor
2. He acts so atrociously he gets himself blocked with broad community support and we go back to where we were.
3. My fear: he sort of behaves half-heartedly within our rules but not poorly enough to get blocked for a while. Then maybe he baits someone else or they bait him. What ensues has enough wikidrama and blame on both sides to lead to an Arbcom case. Those things are so drawn-out, tedious and fraught as to sometimes bend space-time. The best way to avoid this is for those people that really dislike MyWikiBiz to just ignore him and for him to ignore them. (I think you all know who you are.) There are 2 million+ articles and a zillion other editors so it should be possible to avoid each other if you really want to.

If MyWikiViz does rejoin the community, from here on out, anything he says about other editors on Wikipedia Review should meet the same rules (civility, no personal attacks, etc.) as if he said it here.

Finally, MyWikiBiz should consider if he really wants to come back. He might not like it; much about the community's ways of doing business might really grate on him given all the history. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Greg Kohs knows Wikipedia better than most admins, he knows how to edit productively, and if he wanted to, he would hugely benefit the project. But he suffers from the same fundamental problem as Moulton, to some extent - his view of how things should be done is diametrically different from how things are currently done. I want to see "MyWikiBiz" Kohs unblocked (probably as Thekohser (talk · contribs)), and would support unblocking him, but I honestly don't know whether he would actually become a productive editor - not only do I not know if he would want to, but I'm pretty sure even if Greg did, a number of users (everyone can guess who) would never allow him to do so, and would be continually baiting him until he said something slightly out of line. Neıl ☄ 10:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer to that dilemna is for all people who bait Greg in any way, shape or form, regardless of their status, to be subject to community penalty, as should happen regardless of the target for said baiting. Those who want to endulge in gaming the system to reblock someone like Greg clearly aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Equally, if Greg misbehaves, then he can be shown the door again, this time for good. Minkythecat (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it wouldn't be for good no matter what he did. His WR pals would fight to the death against any permanent block, much as they have here, regardless of the level of misbehavior. If we consider putting someone's image on underwear -- strike that, selling underwear with a Wikipedian's image on it -- as just good clean fun, then Wikipedia may be as bad a place as some people think. 72.255.19.253 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes the old "WR pals" argument. SAdly, not all WR readers/members are one big blob of congealed humanity; after all, your primary account hasn't been outed. Minkythecat (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Minky, it doesn't require every WR member to create that sort of problem (and I suspect that many of the problem people wouldn't be WR members anyways). It would be nice if everyone concerned wouldn't look at everyone else as monoliths. Now, more directly to the issue at hand:Your notion that we should unblock Greg and that other editors should be punished if they get into fights with Greg sounds almost like preemptively blaming the victim. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's preemptively calling for action against those who deliberately bait ANYBODY on Wikipedia. As has been seen numerous times in numerous examples in Wikiland, people do bait and troll for a reaction. If Greg attacks somebody, with or without provocation, action should be taken. If somebody deliberately baits Greg specifically to gain a reaction, action also needs to be taken - labelling them a "victim" is actually quite telling in itself. Minkythecat (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz: partial bibliography

80+ pages link to User:MyWikiBiz. Given the confusion with some of the history, here's a partial biblography; others can add additional links

Start with:

• MyWikiBiz.com Assisting Companies with Placement of Articles on Wikipedia (press release)
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-09/MyWikiBiz
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive54#Paid-to-edit articles

Here's a list of MyWikiBiz articles compiled several months later:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Feb#MyWikiBiz... Again

The Arch Coal article was a sort of flagship article for the MyWikiBiz controversy:

• [Arch Coal] as it reportedly appeared at http://mywikibiz.com/wikifiedarticles/corp-artcls/Arch_Coal.html
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arch Coal
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 5
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 5#Arch Coal (history only)

Various admin discussions, mostly about MyWikiBiz' subsequent behaviour, not conflicts of interest or spam

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive55#MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs) using AfD to shop for clients
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive72#For your entertainment
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive72#Let's make this official
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive72#User:JossBuckle Swami
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive80#Request for impartial review regarding Zibiki Wym
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive96#Limited unblock of thekohser, better known as MyWikiBiz
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive145#MyWikiBiz active
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive192#New MyWikiBiz sock
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236#Wikignosis block for legal threat
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive261#Andman8 (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive3#Unblock of Thekohser?

WikiProject Spam and WT:EL discussions, some of them initiated by MyWikiBiz (or one of his many manifestations):

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#Wikia.com links
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#Angela spamming list hosted by Wikimedia Foundation
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#User Talk pages
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Feb#Centiare/MyWikiBiz update
• Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 12#External Links mentioned in the course of User Talk pages

MyWikiBiz's many personnas:

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of MyWikiBiz
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MyWikiBiz
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MyWikiBiz

Wikipedia Review:

• Ongoing Wikipedia Review discussions of this debate^[57][58]
• thekohser's Wikipedia Review profile

As I wrote previously, I'd support unblocking. I do not believe MyWikiBiz or anyone else should be editing for pay on our site, however I am also open to Greg's original idea (as I understand it) -- create neutral, referenced, wikified articles with GFDL licenses on another site for review and possible incorporation into Wikipedia by experienced, trusted editors.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of either Greg's intentions or the wisdom of his idea, he has continued to violate our policies while banned, I mean socking one's own unblock discussion!, do we consider that even remotely acceptable? from anyone? MBisanz ^talk 08:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

100 edits

Kohs has suggested offsite that he be unblocked and allowed to make precisely 100 mainspace edits, after which time he is reblocked pending a review of those edits. (furthermore he does not intend to continue editing afterward even if those edits are judged satisfactory and he is unblocked, unless he receives an apology from either Durova, Jimbo, JzG, or Raul654 - which is good for another 100 edits, etc.) --Random832 (contribs) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We're not bargaining with him. Jehochman's proposal above makes sense. The above simply gives Kohs more reason to harass these people until they apologize to him. If he cannot abide by reasonable terms like not selling underwear that have users pictures on them then there's no reason to let him back in. As far as I can tell the above makes no promises at all about not harassing users. This is unacceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand the dramatic undertone of this "precisely 100 edits", but it makes no difference. Christmas 2008 he can make 100 edits, or 1000, per the Durova-Jehochman proposal. Leave him unblocked. If he creates any problems, then re-block. I don't care how and what he does within those parameters as long as they conform to behavioral and editorial guidelines and policies. --David Shankbone 16:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We get 100 quality edits (or more) a minute from random editors. Why are we wasting time on this? RxS (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for this strange claim? I haven't noticed this in any of the articles I look at. Mostly pure vandalism. Peter Damian (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at recent changes. Lot's and lot's of good edits pouring in. RxS (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with setting a positive example than with what Kohs would potentially contribute (although I expect it would be good work and I don't dismiss anybody's work as a drop in the ocean). It would be very positive, in my view, to show that we can let go of the past and give him another chance; it would be even more positive as an example if someone as critical as Kohs could function as a productive editor, without causing significant problems or being baited by his opponents. Everyking (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing anyone's good work. But we're not talking about "anyone", we're talking about someone who put an editor in good standings face on underwear and tried to sell it. And someone even as we speak who is calling editors here spineless little twits, Wikipediots and dim-witted. I'm perfectly fine with letting go of the past, but I don't see any change in attitude or in behavior that would lead me to believe anything would change. So why waste time with this until there is some indication of a change of attitude? RxS (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous suggestion. If Kohs want's to edit productively and say's he'll try to follow the rules, he should be unblocked. Let's cut out the gimmicks, Greg. --Duk 01:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the Kohs unblock question

• Not sure which section I'm meant to be voting at, but I oppose any kind of unblock also. I'm not fussed about his editing Wikipedia for money or the fact that he criticises it a lot, but if we unblock him all I can see him doing is following people around trying to call them out on whatever crap they've been doing and just generally causing hassle. Greg never lets things drop and he doesn't appear to actually be interested in editing so much as having the subjects of his grudges apologise for all the things that they've done, which is a reasonable thing to want, but not a reason to unblock. He seems to be keen on this just for the drama aspect and the fact that he's getting lots of attention. Whatever. Plz let's waste our time discussing something that will result in something productive, not discussing whether to make symbolic unblocks of users who don't give much of a shit anyway. naerii 12:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• After reading thekohser's posts about this thread on Wikipedia Review, oppose (immediate) unblock. He cannot be possibly be serious about the things he writes and demands. --Conti|✉ 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why should he be unblocked? His chief interest in Wikipedia seems to be "reforming" its community and its articles by imposing his view of what they should look like. It seems extremely unlikely that he will offer useful edits enough to offset the inevitable circus he will cause. He's the antithesis of a collaborative editor - he knows how it should be done, he believes he should be in charge of doing it, and until everyone conforms to his views he will see himself as not beholden to the rules of the community. Seth's supposedly "realpolitik" argument that we should unblock him because he'll just sneak in anyway is ridiculous. This is an online community, not the international political arena, and there is no reason to admit someone to the community whose purpose is to force it into his mold of the Truth and the Way. Lots of sockpuppeting vandals are blocked and reblocked many times daily, it can be done and will be done long after Kohs finds a better use for his free time. Avruch ^T 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My argument is slightly more complex than that, which I think moves it out of the realm of the ridiculous and to idea of harm reduction - Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• We can't keep him out- this is true. But we can make it clear he's not welcome here, and we can eject him when we see him. If he's willing to behave himself like a reasonable adult, he could perhaps be welcome here, but we already know he's not. The answer looks pretty clear to me. Friday (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Giving Kohs' general behavior he would almost certainly be more disruptive if officially unblocked. Moreover, this is aside from the message it sends to our other users. (People seem to forget that counting across multiple Wikipedia projects Durova has more featured media then any other individual(I'm pretty sure this is true. If one restricts oneself to the English Wikipedia and to Commons this is certainly true). At a certain point we need to think about which users are most helpful and keep those. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Unblock. I’m often flabbergasted by the manner in which our community drives away and alienates many gifted, articulate, creative people who could be of immense benefit to our project. Greg is among the many talented editors we’ve alienated and I say bring him back and let him demonstrate he can edit productively. The risk in allowing him another opportunity is low. --MPerel 19:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment. Yes. So much so. Peter Damian (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Is this the same Greg that we're talking about? Greg spends most of his time either whining or engaging in self-promotion. generally both. I see no evidence that Greg is a "talented editor". JoshuaZ (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, his writing was good enough that an admin was willing to plagerize an article Kohs wrote and claim it as his own writing. Seth has a point and it should be taken seriously. Cla68 (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Unblock I'd rather have my face stapled shut. To be precise, I'd rather have his face stapled shut, but... HalfShadow 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• There's no way I'm going to support an unblock whilst Greg still feels it's OK to attack other users based on appearance - We don't need the hassle, and we don't need to alienate good faith contributors who have to put up with that. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock This is not a constructive user. He is someone who has done all he can to undermine this project. MPerel says "bring him back and let him demonstrate he can edit productively". But he hasn't gone away; he's been sockpuppeting in a very disruptive manner continually. Why does anyone imagine that an unblock will magically redeem him?--Bedivere (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note Despite Greg's most recent characterizations, he's emailed me indicating he's having trouble figuring out how to apply the {{unblock}} template to User talk:Thekohser, I've responded with more detailed instructions, so some admins might want to watchlist that page in case he needs a review. MBisanz ^talk 21:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Why do we want him back while even today on another site he's doing the equivalent of making jackoff signs while pointing at us? HalfShadow 21:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock. While I greatly respect the opinions of several editors above who support giving this user another chance, I'm going to agree with Ryan and others on this one: it's not worth the hassle. We certainly cannot be so desperate for editors that we are willing to take back someone who has so blatantly disregarded our policies and social mores on many, many occasions. Let's take the effort it would require to monitor this person and instead invest it in welcoming and mentoring new users. — Satori Son 21:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock at this time, could support later. Mr Kohs can't seem to resist trying to "prove" his points off-wiki or via various socks. In addition, some members of our community seem to see red anytime his name is mentioned, regardless of merits. As long as this pattern stays recent or near-recent, I think the chance of his productive and collaborative involvement in the community is unlikely. Even though it's against policy, I've suggested in the past that Mr Kohs set up a new username (yes, a sock, to call a spade a spade) and spend significant time participating anonymously in a noncontroversial manner. This is not 100 good edits - he's had good socks that made that number of good edits before he presumably couldn't resist jumping into old haunts - it's several months of sustained contributions and engagement with the community, not trying to reshape it or prove his points, but collaborate with it and learn how it really works and thinks. If Mr Kohs is serious about wanting to support Wikipedia's development in the long term, he should be able to resist fighting the same old battles for a few months. I'd like to hope that peace and quiet on the Kohs front for e.g. 3-6 months followed by a tip-off from him to a trusted user that a specific single sock of his that has helped write decent articles, participated fruitfully and noncombatively in community discussions, all over a span of several thousand edits (and other socks have not been combative or pointy in the meanwhile), could much more easily generate consensus to "unban". I put that in quotes since all it would then mean is linking his name back to his new identity. By the way, I hope either NOINDEX is active on this page or that someone will courtesy blank it once it is concluded, given the RL impacts, which cannot be avoided at this juncture. Martinp (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Unless he created his sock account with permission from the ArbCom or Jimbo, the account would probably be banned immediately when his identity was revealed. In the past, constructive editing has not been seen as a mitigating factor in sockpuppeting by banned users (not that I agree with that attitude), and I don't think anyone would be willing to invest months of work into an account without a guarantee that it wouldn't be banned as soon as the identity was disclosed. Everyking (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Meaningless question. If Kohs' only goal were to contribute productively to the encyclopedia, he could just start another new sock and avoid all the behavior that has gotten him banned in the past. He doesn't need an unblock to behave in a way that is welcomed by the community. This "unblock me" initiative is a battle about trying to force us to accept him on his own terms. No camel's nose in the tent, thank you. If you really want to contribute to Wikipedia, just stop acting like a camel. If you want us to accept a camel in the tent, the answer is no.--Father Goose (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking/unbanning. (I have posted once above, but since someone asked for !votes, I'll be more unambiguous.) This is a person who has (legally) threatened Wikipedia/Wikimedia, has conducted a public-opinion campaign against Wikipedia, has evaded blocks/bans via sockpuppetry, has used Wikipedia for promotion of his business, has engaged in personal attacks and ridicule of other editors, and is now (apparently) demanding apologies from admins here for his treatment. I'm a person with a lot of patience, and I always begin with assuming good faith, but at this point I think I have to add my name to the "over my dead body" chorus. (Plus the very good point noted by Father Goose above, which is that if he really wanted to just contribute, he'd pick an account, edit quietly, and shut up about it. He doesn't want to do that; he wants to win an argument with us.) --MCB (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock Perhaps to put much of the above into other words, I don't think Mr Kohs is ready. If his outlook ever does become a fit for Wikipedia, few will know and fewer will even care if he's come back. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Switching to Oppose unblock - I'd originally suggested a conditional unblock, but this and this are deal-breakers for me. This whole Durova thing needs to end & I don't think MWB can return here as long as that is still festering, sorry - Alison ^❤ 01:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Concur, assuming that was indeed Kohs. As long as he can't resist the urge to jump in with "corrections" via a sockpuppet to this very discussion within hours, rather than waiting for a while and then making a calm statement if really needed, then he is clearly not ready to be unbanned. That does not excuse that there is a lot of unnecessary heat in this discussion by Mr Kohs' critics, but for better or worse if we did allow him to come back in any way linked to his former username he would be in for a lot more of the same. Unfortunately, as perusal of any number of RFC's and Arb cases shows, the "sport" of bear baiting on EN:WP is altogether too irresistible for some. Martinp (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose unblock. — Athaenara ✉ 02:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock absent any demonstration of good faith. Theoretically, we could unblock Kohs on the grounds that, in the long run, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The best case scenario gains us a valuable and knowledgeable contributor and in the worst case he gets indef blocked and banned again. However, the potential for drama and disruption in the meanwhile is considerable. There is also the question - which, as a relative newbie to all this, I must ask - of what the "upside" is, i.e. whether Kohs was ever a good faith contributor to Wikipedia. My understanding of the MyWikiBiz story is that his edits were motivated purely by money, and as such he had no interest in improving Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tallied the consensus vote so far

If I'm wrong with where I put anyone, please feel free to let me know. I tried to create a dichotomy as nebulously pro- and anti- as I could. Here's the tally. --David Shankbone 01:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you place the tally here so we don't have to go to your blog. --Duk 01:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And to put the overall numbers here for convenience, David has 24 for immediate lifting. 37 against lifting and 5 on the fence or of unclear opinion. Obviously the actual breakdown is more complicated since we have a variety of different circumstances under which some people will let Kohs back. Moreover, the 24 includes people who want immediate lifting but disagree with how much restriction Greg should be under. So both the 24 and the 37 can be broken down further. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly. I just wanted to try to garner a clear sense of what decisions, if any, had come out of all the dialogue and voting. Once the consensus is gleaned as to those two questions in the post, then the next two issues appear:

1. Yes, lift the ban with restrictions. What restrictions?

2. No, do not immediately lift the ban. Then in 3 months? 6 months? Indefinite?

That's how I saw it going through it all (whew!). --David Shankbone 01:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also note that Alison just switched to opposing which brings the tally to 23 for and 38 against. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"consensus vote" is a contradiction in terms. There quite clearly is no consensus on this issue. We don't make ban decisions based on votes, so this issue should probably be taken to ArbCom. --Tango (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I understand where you are coming from, but what is the point of all the dialogue if we can't come to at least some basic, general conclusions as to how people think? ArbCom is premature, but I agree regardless of whether he wants to edit or not, it should have an ArbCom decision just so that we can end this unending saga with some formality. I think the community as a whole would benefit from a decision to help everyone move on. --David Shankbone 01:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems like there is a consensus at least not to unban him at this time. Why don't we pick a fixed amount of time and wait to rediscuss it then? Say 60 days? Presumably if he is on good behavior during that time he'll have a much better chance getting unblocked then. Frankly, the ArbCom is operating so slowly at this point that Greg could likely get unblocked due to the Durova proposal before they made up their mind. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to unban him, that's not the same as a consensus not to unban him. There are a significant number of people supporting an unban. ArbCom isn't a great option, but it's the only alternative we have when a consensus cannot be reached. Durova's proposal doesn't require a consensus to be reached at this time - if Kohs accepts the proposal he can approach the community in 6 months and request unblocking and we can discuss it then (I suspect a consensus could be reached if he's abided by her conditions). If my understanding of policy is correct, any admin could unblock him immeadiately and it would be up to someone else to take the matter to ArbCom and request a ban - if any admin is willing to unblock, then there is no community ban. Do any of the admins supporting an unban feel strongly enough about it to unilaterally unblock him? If not, then he remains banned until such an admin exists, or ArbCom overrules the community. --Tango (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Eh. Note that since David's tally Alison has switched over to opposing and three more opposes showed up. That makes it 41 against and 23 for. If this were an article we'd be likely be calling this a consensus to delete (on the other hand, if we did, I' likely be rushing over to DRV to change it no-consensus. And then I'd get slapped down. So I don't know if that's a good analogy). JoshuaZ (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A consensus exists only when there is no significant opposition (or no opposition at all, by some definitions). There is no way this can be considered a consensus. If this were an AFD, the closing admin would probably use their understanding of policy to judge the validity of the comments on each side in order to make a decision, that doesn't really apply here. --Tango (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, exactly the point of the tally, to demonstrate that it would be an unwise admin who flew in the face of so many concerned members in good standing. Clarity helps everyone, and help forge decisions. --David Shankbone 02:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like you're looking less to clarity and more to influencing the vote. Nobody likes to back the wrong horse, as you point out here. However, I urge people to comment dispassionately here and not necessarily go with the majority just because they're the majority, y'know? It's often a sign of a strong admin who'll go against consensus to make their voice heard. Just sayin' ... - Alison ^❤ 03:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey harassment

I have asked user:Scjessey to not post to my talk page several times [59], [60], [61], and to keep relevant discussions on the article's talk pages. The last time I warned him that I would report him for harrasment if he did it again. Evidently he did not care, as he posted again [62]. CENSEI (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably wouldn't be a bad idea for you and Scjessey to leave each other alone, I'd say. That's my first read, but I'll have a look. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires collaboration. Telling people to stay off your talk page is almost never a reasonable thing to do. Also, blanking a section with an edit summary of "removing trolling" is hardly a polite way to ask someone to not leave messages. How about just ignoring it and you two leave each other alone? Or is there something else you're hoping gets done here? Friday (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While I understand Friday's point in principle, I have to say that (a) Scjesey's last 3 posts to CENSEI's talk page could be reasonably considered "baiting"; (b) saying someone is "trolling" your talk page is pretty much guaranteed not to improve a situation, and (c) I've asked people who were obviously only interested in pestering me to stay off my talk page before I've even blocked one who didn't listen, but don't tell anyone, as I'm pretty sure that broke a rule. Disengaging is a reasonable step in a heated dispute. I'll echo the "ignore it and leave each other alone" sentiment, with the added note that if someone is obviously posting to another's talk page to goad them, some here might consider that disruptive and act accordingly. --barneca (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey should have left me alone when I asked him to, not continue to harass and poke me. In a nutshell

Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information.

. I will be more than happy to leave him to his thing if he would leave me to mine for the time being. CENSEI (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to thank Friday for informing me of this discussion. Secondly, I would like to say that this concerns a content dispute that involved CENSEI deleting text from the Dana Milbank BLP and then edit warring over it. My first message on CENSEI's talk page pointed out the problem with the first edit, and the response was edit warring and name calling. I dismissed the edit summary-based "threat" and posted again because of CENSEI's incivility. I won't waste any more of my time with this individual, but I recommend that he/she be "educated" about how to behave in a civil fashion. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, this is not the place to talk about the edits to Dana Milbank, this is where we discuss why you continued to harass me on my talk page after I asked you 3 seperate times not to. The edits you made on Dana Milbank were grossly NPOV, and I was not the only user who agreed with that assessment. I would suggest you read up on civility, harassment and NPOV. CENSEI (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Leave each other alone" means "Leave each other alone". Starting..... now. --barneca (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I will throw in a special door prize for whichever editor allows the other to have The Last Word. Go back to making edits that are "grossly NPOV". MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree; we want "grossly NPOV" edits. --NE2 22:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Our spam filter is now blocking spam in edit summaries

FYI: our spam filter now appears to block spam addresses in edit summaries even if the domain is not in the page text. I just learned this the hard way. It's probably a response to all the shock site spam recently left in edit summaries by vandals; some will crash browsers. I'm glad we have this now. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm... this news is a bit old. And Grawp now just drops off the http:// piece of the URL, bypassing the filter. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is apparently new; try saving an edit with avril. on. nimp. org (remove spaces) in the edit summary. --NE2 23:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SwirlBoy39 ACC flag

I recently found that SwirlBoy39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had access to the ACC flag. Now, this wouldn't normally be a problem, but he has previous been community banned as Bugman94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's created numerous socks, which can be found in Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bugman94. I'm all for offering users a second chance (I think I supported his unban request a few months ago), but I don't think it's a good idea to give a tool which allows the ability to create far more accounts than is possible to normal users to a user who has been known to disrupt the project with serious socking previously. A review would be appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• In principal I agree with everything Ryan says above. However, SwirlBoy39 has reformed, and has done some tremendous work at ACC. Yes, he was banned, but that is genuinely ancient history. I wouldn't support the removal of ACC status. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Users can reform, and I agree in many ways SB has - but with the history of socking he has, I don't think he can be trusted with the tool in the long term. There's plenty of other things he can do without having access to this flag. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I should note that the ACC tool is in no way backlogged. Users that haven't had previous sock issues can easily handle the requests. There's no urgent need to lower the standards to give users with a socking history to have access to this flag. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. It just seems strange to me that all this is being dug up now, nearly a year after the sockpuppet accounts were tagged. Has there been any evidence of abuse in the time he had the flag? It just doesn't sit right with me. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that with his socks, he's been known to abuse the ability for users to create new accounts. One example is here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, having the account creation bit is really only of use to a massively abusive sockpuppeteer. Basically, any editor can create six accounts at a time and over a number of weeks, that can accumulate to quite a lot. If he were ever to abuse this, checkuser would be able to pretty-much detect and nail the entire sockfarm. I'm not particularly worried, and besides, Swirly is now well past all that stuff and I'd hate to see him permanently 'branded' for his past transgressions - Alison ^❤ 01:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, of course it can, but also creating a quiet account here and there would also be silent. Checkuser doesn't show everything, espeically if the user isn't vandalising in pattern. I think he can develop trust on wiki, but when someone has a history of relatively serious sockpuppeteering, they can develop trust in other areas. There's plenty of other users who do account creation. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

But "creat[ing] a quiet account here and there" has absolutely nothing to do with the ACC bit; he can do that either way. Rather, I see this as an ideal way for him to regain the trust of the community - Alison ^❤ 02:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

He can regain the communities trust in many other ways. There's plenty of areas he can work in, many others indeed. We can be slightly picky with who we give the ACC flag to, given that so many people have access to the tool - many, many other users can easily deal with the accounts that SB can't deal with. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Have you checked to quantify how much ACC work he's done to-date? You see, he's had the ACC bit for quite a while, and there have been no issues. Bringing it up now, and for no clear reason makes it look like an exercise in humiliation. I know that's not your intent, Ryan, but it could easily be seen as that, esp. by Swirly and that would be seriously disheartening to him. Like there's never going to be any redemption - Alison ^❤ 02:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Alison. Working in this area without any problems is a perfect opportunity for Swirlboy to regain trust he lost last year. Working here is no different to working in other areas. how do you turn this on 02:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Alison as well. Removing the ACC flag does nothing to prevent him from creating socks if he so desired. Just leave it be IMO. Though, he hasn't hit the throttle since late May. –xeno (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

When was he unbanned? Months ago? Last I checked, an overturned ban wasn't supposed to be like a felony conviction that followed you around for the rest of your wiki-life. If he's not doing anything wrong, why take action against him? Besides, creating abusive socks using your main account is pretty much the height of stupid when it comes to sockpuppetry. Mr.Z-man 04:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree, return the flag to Swirlboy, there is absolutely no indication he has misused it. Prodego ^talk 07:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh Ryan, you've already gone ahead and removed it. With due respect, while I won't wheel-war over the matter, that was more than a little hasty here. And the message you left in the logs was somewhat of a damning black-mark against him. I feel that that was totally unwarranted here. I've been watching over Swirly since he was unbanned and working with him on issues, and there's been very little I can fault him for - Alison ^❤ 07:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ryan, with all due respect, consensus is against you here. While he was banned a while ago, he has shown that he's reformed, and removing the ACC flag from him seems punitive rather than preventative. Swirlyboy has more than "served his time", so to speak, and I think holding the fact that he was banned 6 months ago against him is unfair, and his flag should be restored. Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 07:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(Apparently Ryan P can't reply for a bit, his internet is down.) - FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

SwirlBoy does good work on ACC, last time I checked. Someone give him his ACC flag back if he's going to use it (and he has needed it at times). While you're there, take my flag; I don't need it and the current ACC system is a joke. But that's not SwirlBoy's fault. —Giggy 10:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I knew this was going to be brought up, and I've been hesitant to posting. There are other tool admins who can keep an eye on him if there is evidence of potential misuse. Since there isn't, it should be returned to him Ryan. Synergy 10:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored Swirlboy's account creator flag per consensus here. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So an admin brings this here for a review and people's thoughts. Consensus is, it's not a problem - and from my outside view, it should be removed WHEN an offence occurs, not via an admin using a crystal ball to think an offence might occur. possibly. At some point. The fact said admin then unilaterally removes the access against any semblance of consensus here before "losing" net access smacks very much of "I think this, please validate my view. Oh you didn't, never mind, I'm right anyway". Minkythecat (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I originally proposed that SwirlBoy be unbanned, and I can certainly say that since that proposal was passed by the community, he's improved no end. This removal is punishing him for past transgressions, when they are just that: in the past. His conduct is not a current problem. When or if he does abuse this tool, we will take action; at present, however, this is a purely penal measure, with no solid preventative element. I support restoring SwirlBoy's tools. Anthøny 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would also support a restoration of SwirlBoy39's ACC tool. Revoking the ACC tool just because he was banned for sock puppetry when SwirlBoy has reformed does certainly sounds like he is being punished. Actions like these should only be done as a prevention from multiple misuses, not punishment. Though, if SwirlBoy was recently unbanned, then I would highly oppose a restoration. But in this case, he has shown he has reformed and I would assume he will not misuse the tool. -- RyRy (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

xxxxx made in ENGLAND!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/207.248.44.241

This anon IP has been going around to various talk pages of music genres and rather forcefully asserting that they are from England and England only, going as far as to repeatedly remove mention of other areas without discussion. If not a troll, far too agressive. Zazaban (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Mr.Z-man 05:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is me trying to get your attention, Mr./Mrs./Miss or whatever admin (Time off all the "block User:XXX" drama)

Resolved

 – Page restored without personal information — E 08:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please restore the article Hip hop music? Apparently, User:Kevin deleted the page almost an hour ago per "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: rm email address in edit summary". Does it really take that long to get some cleanup done? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Restored (link) — E ↗^TCB 08:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem may have been the large number of edits in the article (over 3,000) that needed to be restored - from what I understand, some people's systems (and sometimes even Wikipedia) tends to choke. I believe I have restored the article minus the problematic edit. Or actually it looks like two of us tried to restore it at once - hopefully that worked out ok. Shell ^babelfish 08:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, both you guys did a nice job. Thanks for the swiftness. 08:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a bit of a potential trap - I deleted but never got the usual confirmation screen, just an internal error message. At that point the page still seemed to be there, probably because of my browser cache. Now that I know it can happen, I can do a refresh to see what mediawiki actually did. Kevin (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of comments from article talkpage...

Hopefully, quick question but, is there a reason why someone's comments would be removed from an article's talkpage but, not show up in the history of said page? This is specifically in relation to the conversation here. I'm trying to WP:AGF and all that but, I can't find any evidence of a contribution by this user to the page in question. If consensus of the admins is that the person is just "trolling" than I'll start a vigorous compaign of ignoring. Otherwise, whatever help or advice can be given is greatly appreciated. I bring it here because to my knowledge admins are the only ones that would be capable of removing the material and the contributions plus you guys are normally much more familiar with things like WP:BLP and such than I'm probably ever going to be. Either way thanks in advance. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

They don't have any deleted contributions either. I'd suggest asking what IP or account they made the comment under, otherwise, they appear to be confused and/or trolling. Shell ^babelfish 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it involves Brandon Link/Lang, it might be tempting to see trolling. On the other hand, this could be something as simple as a newbie not understanding an edit conflict, and your text replacing theirs - and the lack of visible contribs may not mean much when it's an IP. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

NOINDEX on various noticeboards and archives proposal

Resolved

 – Discussion has been moved to a policy proposal page. Protonk (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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

I have added {{NOINDEX}} to Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all. --Random832 (contribs) 03:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it until we get consensus. At minimum if we are going to add anything like that we need to add a big fat pointer on the template that there is a search tool on the toolserver. And we need a hell of a lot of assurance that that tool won't go down as tools so often do. I suggest putting a discussion about this on AN rather than here which isn't as likely to be noticed. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My intent was not to open a discussion. It's unacceptable for these to remain visible to google. And there IS a "big fat pointer on the template that there is a search tool on the toolserver", there are in fact four links to that tool; perhaps you noticed them when you made the edit? --Random832 (contribs) 16:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(above was moved from WT:AN --Random832 (contribs) 16:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

---

I was thinking it may be a good idea to do this. There is a LOT of negative information on living people by name liberally over the years scattered across these--sometimes just plain bad, sometimes in good faith discussions, but all the same findable by search engine. Yes, I know that our internal search somewhat sucks still, but the benefit of our own searching isn't as valuable as not screwing people by their names being found in negative connotations on this site buried in some archive. If the search function is too busted for some, we have lots of very skilled people that can fix it if they wanted to spend the time on it. So, simple proposal. {{NOINDEX}} on every notice page plus archives/talk on the header today:

Administrators' • Incidents • ArbCom enforcement • Biographies • Conflict of interest • Ethnic and cultural conflicts • Fiction • Fringe theories • Neutral point of view • Original research • Reliable sources

At a dead minimum, the ones in "red" to start as they're most likely to touch on BLPs. rootology (T) 13:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree to do this, but I think this proposal would be better at the Village Pump. At least make a note there, if you haven't already. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WT:AN pointed people here, but a reference at VP wouldn't be bad either. MBisanz ^talk 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think we need to get the gorram search function fixed before we start noindexing the whole place. –xeno (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree strongly with Xeno. I have no objections to no-indexing if a) we have a working search function b) can guarantee that tool will stay functioning and c) add a prominent note at the top of the relevant pages about how to search for people who aren't aware of it. b is the easy step. a and b need to happen first. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• NOINDEX them all, and add the Community Sanction Noticeboard to the list. I had added the NOINDEX tags to them last night, but have since been reverted because it "makes it harder to search the archives along and reduces general levels of transparency."[63] This response indicates a need for improving the internal search function, and has nothing to do with transparency.

• We are depending on Google and other external search engines to do work that needs to be internal. Can you imagine any other responsible organisation using a publicly available search function to document concerns about clientele (in our case, subjects of articles) or personnel (in our case, editors)?
• On a daily basis, editors complain about "incivility" on any number of noticeboards and talk pages. People get blocked, sometimes even banned, for saying unkind things about other editors (or in some cases, about subjects of articles); we are told that the validity of their words does not excuse the lack of "civility"...and yet we as a community do not apply the same standards to the encyclopedia.

• There is an attitude amongst many individuals that people who get banned or blocked "deserve" to be named and shamed publicly, and it is the blocked/banned individual's "fault" that Google searches turn up pages suggesting they behaved unacceptably on a top-10 website. The veracity or validity of the complaint is irrelevant to whether or not these posts are searchable outside of Wikipedia.

• The real life identity of a very significant segment of our editing population is easily linked to their Wikipedia activities, either directly (real-life name as username) or indirectly (by making real-life name available on userpage, etc.) Few of these individuals made that information available expecting to be publicly castigated for failing to follow the rather arcane behavioural rules of Wikipedia. We keep these complaints about editors on pages that often rank highly in search engines despite the fact that many of them relate to editors who are easily identifiable in real life.

• This information is available to current and future employers, colleagues, clients, police and other security forces, and so on. Is this the kind of thing we want to have following our teenage editors who go on to mature behaviour? Is this what should happen to academics who have spent years in the parry-and-thrust of more direct debate than is permitted by our "civility" policy? Do we want people to be branded "troublemakers" in the outside world because they just don't fit in here?

• Discussions assessing the "verifiability" of negative information about the subjects of our articles are spread all over the place, and again are searchable outside of Wikipedia.
• For whom are we trying to make things transparent? Our editors? The information is searchable within Wikipedia already; if people can't find it, improve the search function or help them learn how to use the current one. (I have never had to resort to Google to find information on Wikipedia, and I am hardly a genius when it comes to searching.) Why does the world at large need to know that User So-and-so was blocked for being rude to User Such-and-such, after a 20kb discussion on some noticeboard? It has nothing to do with the quality of the product - the encyclopedia.
• Our current system highlights the negative editor information (messages on user and user talk pages, noticeboards, etc) over and above any positive editor information (contribution histories, key articles, etc.). It's time that we as a community model the behaviour we expect from our editors. With indexing of noticeboards, our behaviour management process includes promotion of pejorative information about individual editors; we know these pages are highly ranked but we allow them to be widely available, despite the fact that individual editors are frequently blocked/banned for identical behaviour.
• Summary - Fix the problem - our internal search function - instead of publicly smearing the subjects of our articles and the editors who produce them. --Risker (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Risker (and with several others further up); NOINDEX now, and work on fixing the internal search next. Personally, I am of the belief that the only pages in Wikipedia that should be indexed are article pages and category pages. Everything else is internal workings that does not need to be catalogued by Google/Yahoo/whatever search engine. Horologium (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It will be incredibly damaging to internal functioning if we don't have a search function. I agree completely with the sentiment but it isn't acceptable unless we have a search function. I also strongly object to Risker's claims that anyone here thinks that blocked editors "deserve" to be "shamed" This sis a straw-man argument which no one has ever claimed but is repeatedly brought up. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We have a search function, JoshuaZ, it can definitely use improvement, but it does work and it does pull up everything I have ever looked for, including information on noticeboards. I was able to do a very indepth summary of evidence using information from noticeboards, for the Tango RFAR without once resorting to an external search engine. Having this information widely available is not necessary, even with today's search engine. Removing the ability to search externally will promote the improvement of our internal search function because it becomes a high priority. Risker (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Addendum to reply to the other part of JoshuaZ's comment: Please look on this very page to the thread entitled "Greg Kohs aka MyWikiBiz" for some examples (and no, I have no opinion on whether or not he should be unblocked). There are others right here too, including the discussion of removal of a permission from a reformed but formerly blocked editor. This is the kind of stuff I am talking about. Should the discussions happen? Yes, I think so. Should anyone google searching for the name "Greg Kohs" get to this page or its archive (or the archives of those other pages listed in the thread)? No, they should not. Risker (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Also note that we have another search specifically for the noticeboards, which is linked in the navigation box. --Random832 (contribs) 16:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I did not know about that. That seems to be functional for AN. That at least takes away the AN, ANI 3RR and CN archives but not the other noticeboards. I'd also strongly prefer that that link was much larger. In any event, I have no objection to putting the Noindex into the Template for the noticeboards. But we need a better search function to use it on the noticeboards other than those 4. (I also think we should wait to get a bit more input in general before taking this large a step) JoshuaZ (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• NOINDEX must come first to end the harm being done, and perhaps by preventing external search engines from indexing non-article spaces, Necessity will enter the scene trailed by her child Invention, and we will see in short order a leap in internal search functionality. What short-term difficulty some administrators may have with searching non-article space is far outweighed by the ethical obligation to reduce people's exposure to the distorting effects of search engine publicity. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• NOINDEX is far more important than improving the internal search function and should come first. Anything we really need to find can be found via search and what links here. There is today no need to use external searches to find relevant internal data, it is merely a habit that many have acquired along the way. If a specific location becomes challenging to search, have someone build or modify a toolserver tool. GRBerry 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. We shouldn't be broadly disabling useful functionality for the sake of a few identified people who might prefer Google had a little less to say about them. I understand blocking AFDs and certain focused discussions, but blocking entire noticeboards goes too far for me. Even if we have an internal search as good as Google (and let's be honest, we aren't there yet), I'd still want to maintain Google functionality for people who prefer that interface and the broader comparisons it allows. Most of what is discussed at AN is not harmful to identifiable people, and of that portion which is, a significant fraction is no more harmful than they deserve (if someone is a consummate trouble maker all across the web, there is no reason for us to conceal that fact). The discussions of identifiable people under circumstance that might well warrant redaction are sufficiently few and far between that I can't see how that justifies mangling the searchability of all the other noticeboard content. This simply doesn't pass a balancing test of justification versus negative impact. Dragons flight (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"[A] significant fraction is no more harmful than they deserve ..." Thank you for proving my point, Dragons flight. We aren't here to punish people, even if they are complete jerks, or totally incompetent. We might block them or ban them because they cannot work within our system. Overtly and consciously publishing their misdeeds is the internet equivalent of The Scarlet Letter. Risker (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And your point? You seem to want to protect everyone, even complete trolls, from the justifiable and predictable consequences of their actions, but you have no concern for protecting the rest of the internet from them. We don't go out of our way to publicly chastise people, but neither should we go out of our way to protect them. Dragons flight (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment So I'm not asking for links to BLP/copyvio/oversight material but where is the demonstrated harm that would cause us to want to eliminate a helpful means to search wikipedia? Protonk (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be posting at length to this discussion tonight. At least, I would like to, if I can locate a particular location where the central discussion is located. Is it here or there or where? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be the central discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want a centralised discussion Brad, you'll have to make one. What to NOINDEX isn't just an admin issue. Why not use Wikipedia:What to noindex? WilyD 17:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• How about a challenge? Maybe I'm wrong about this issue, but before I might conceed that, I'd like a demonstration that a real problem exists. Give me four or five examples of people who if you put their real name (and only their name) into Google then you get a negative noticeboard discussion within the first 20 or 30 hits. If having these archives are really profoundly distructive then such examples ought to be easy to find right? I've already tried several well known trolls and none had a noticeboard hit in their first 30 google hits. Dragons flight (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Update

I've created a proposal here. Discussion may continue on the talk page there, so as to not fill up WP:AN. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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

"Captain picard's bald head"

Resolved

 – blocked MBisanz ^talk 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A new user, Captain picard's bald head, has been removing wikilinks to "cactus", using the edit summary "(Removing backlinks to Cactus because "Z A I N E B R A H I M = R A P I S T w w w . a v r i l . o n . n i m p . o r g"; using TW)". I would like to inform the user that this is inappropriate. However the user's talk page has been deleted and protected. Axl (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Block by Luna-Santin as a VOA. Thanks for the heads up. MBisanz ^talk 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Very similar vandalism about 6 hours ago from

Gnomeliberation front (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Examtester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

both of whom have now been blocked. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Lordvader2009

I've templated him, some of the image bots have templated him, other's have left him a personalized message, I've left him a personalized message, and even threw in a last {{uw-copyright4}} warning. His reply to all these have been to blank his talk page. But as can been seen from the log he's went ahead and uploaded two more copyvio's that have already been speedied. I'm guessing asking him kindly to stop isn't going to work. Q ^{T C} 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

English nationalist

Okay, so this is getting pretty ridiculous... All he does is slant articles favorable towards England and complain about everywhere else. I can't tell if whoever it is is being serious or if they're just trolling for the sake of trolling, but they need to stop. There's already been attempts at warning him, but he just deletes them and then tells people not to post on his talk page or he'll "report" them. I hate nationalists with an undying, vehement passion, so it would probably not be good for me to try to intervene because chances are good that I wouldn't be able to restrain myself (just looking at the contribs is like fingernails on a chalkboard), not to mention the fact that I've been pretty much inactive for the better part of two years and have no idea how to go about handling it... Would someone mind taking a look and finally shutting him up? --(Flying Ninja Monkey) ^(Banana!) 20:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that it is difficult to see whether this account is driven by some nationalist ideal or is simply trolling. It is made more difficult by the fact that they appear pro-British when arguing against the claims of other sovereign nations, but prefers to refer to the constituent countries when editing within UK based articles. I suggest placing the relevant warnings on their talkpage, and bringing back here if they continue to be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image talk:Recycle001.svg

Resolved

I tried to put a db-talk tag on Image talk:Recycle001.svg and the template said it wasn't an appropriate tag for the Talk page of a commons image. How do we get this page deleted? Corvus cornix_talk 21:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I likely would have deleted even if you'd left the G8 tag on the page. ~ BigrTex 21:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of IP address from history page

I accidentally made a comment on the discussion page of Paramore without remembering to log in first. Could someone please, please, please delete my IP address from the history page? I would very much appreciate that. Please. Thank you. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gdewilde

Resolved.

Before being full protected, indef blocked User:Gdewilde used his talkpage as platform to launch personal attacks against me and another user, Guyonthesubway, quoting me out of context and/or misrepresenting the context, and refactoring my remarks. Since the page is full protected, I cannot respond or otherwise defend myself, so I'm wondering if someone would be willing to blank the section in question. Thanks for your consideration. Yilloslime (t) 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. Yilloslime (t) 03:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Robert Kaufman and Robert Kaufman seem to share a disturbingly large amount of content. I grant that I didn't compare word for word, but I think this may qualify as a copyvio. Before I do anything though I would like a second opinion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)