Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

G2bambino - violating restriction

Violating his civility restriction here, by stating that I feel I own the page. Restrictions are noted here, specifically:

"Required to follow Strict civility restrictions on any and all talk pages and in edit summaries; the severity of and required action due to incivility, personal attacks, and/or assumptions of bad faith, to be judged by any uninvolved administrator."

Given that he has already been blocked once for violating his restrictions, and was the subject of another report here within the past few days, I would ask that an administrator take a look. Several administrators have told him in no uncertain terms that he should mind his p's and q's, and one even said directly: "That means that you would be very unwise to push the envelope, or even attempt to find out where its boundaries are by experiment." [roux » x] 00:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being uncivil, you need to grow a thicker skin Roux. If there's more to the story, then excuse me for being dense, but the statement you are linking to above is hardly worth a second read, let alone a block for incivility. My suggestion? Avoid contact and remove G2bambino's talk page from your watchlist. - auburnpilot talk 06:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a little more history to this AuburnPilot. While I agree with you assessment, neither party will leave one another alone. This is close to the 8th thread regarding this issue. I am really not sure how to deal with it anymore. If a totally uninvolved admin (thanks for volunteering AuburnPilot! :-) ) would like to look into the situation and offer some insight, I would really appreciate it! Tiptoety ^talk 06:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already blocked the editor for violating the agreement the two of them came to. Part of that agreement was not to assume bad faith about the other. Saying that roux was owning the article/template/whatever was a bit of a stretch and does not help matters. I have blocked G2bambino for 24 hours. Anyone may undo this block if they feel it is not appropriate, however I think it is appropriate given the restrictions the two of them agreed to. (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive174#Both_editors_accepted —— nixeagle 06:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have also commented further at User_talk:G2bambino#Assumption_of_bad_faith and Template talk:British Royal Family#Width 2. Auburn, sorry for bashing in like this, but you posted after I made my choice and posted to these other two pages. —— nixeagle 06:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty sound to me. Tiptoety ^talk 06:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realize this situation had gone so far. I was asked to look into it a few weeks ago (twice actually), but never had the time... Block seems reasonable enough. - auburnpilot talk 15:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A little harsh, if I may say so... The reason the two parties won't leave each other alone is because they can't. They edit all the same articles...hence my confusion as to why they can't just get along! ;) I'd have them both indefinitely blocked if I weren't so fond of them both! :) --Cameron* 15:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Cameron, I'm fond of you too--but as you know I have left all of those articles due to G2's behaviour. I just hadn't removed that one from my watchlist. [roux » x] 18:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Roux possibly violating restrictions

I raised this matter to Nixeagle while on my assumption of bad faith block. After discussing it with him, I'd like to present the matter here. I'm not pressing for action, but others may feel differently. Mostly, I just wanted it on the public record:

I did not initially pursue this because I tend to ignore minor insults. However, now knowing from my own recent experience just how strict the AGF restrictions upon Roux and myself are, I took a different look at the matter between he and I. This led me to see that Roux appears to have violated his AGF and CIVIL restrictions on Template talk:British Royal Family when making the following comments:

• [1] "I'm not getting into an argument with you. Mayalld explained, as did I, what the consensus on this page is. It is against changes. Bye," and,
• [2] "You know precisely what you were told and where... no change is required to this template. Period. Your attempts to override that... are beside the point; the overall view across this entire talk page is very, very clear: no change. None. Nada. Zero. Nothing. You have already been told this, and quite specifically, by Mayalld. I suggest you re-read his comments."

Further, he posted the following on my talk page while I was under block:

• [3] "Oh for crying out loud... Your continued insistence on doing that has gone way beyond difference of opinion into attack territory, and I won't stand for it any more. Stop... I will not be coming back here again. Bye."

There is an evident tone of sarcastic derision in Roux's words, violating his WP:CIVIL restrictions. There is also veiled accusation of my willfully ignoring a consensus in order to get what I want, as well as more direct accusations of my making attacks, violating his WP:AGF restrictions. As I said, whether or not this warrants further action, I do not know; I just felt it was worth consideration. --G2bambino (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop selectively quoting me. I've asked you before. There was no sarcasm or derision, so please stop projecting that onto me. I've asked you that before, too. There was no veiled accusation of anything; you were doing precisely what you had been expressly told not to do by Mayalld. Nixeagle made it clear that he--as the person enforcing restrictions--felt my statements were made in good faith, and I can absolutely guarantee that had he felt that I had violated the restrictions I have voluntarily agreed to he would have blocked me without a second thought. Please stop this. [roux » x] 23:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I respected Nixeagle taking the time to discuss the matter with me in a rational manner, though I did disagree with him, and still feel he didn't understand the details well enough; he hasn't yet weighed in again, so I don't know. Perhaps his opinion is actually the most common one; that won't be known unless more opinion is sought, however. And I am as entitled to seek that further opinion as you were to post your accusations above. --G2bambino (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino, as we have already discussed indepth I'm afraid there is not much I can do further to continue discussion with you on this particular topic. You already know my position (see User talk:G2bambino around the bottom for others interested).

For other administrators, the major hubhub and where G2bambino got most of his quotes is from Template_talk:British_Royal_Family#Width_2. It helps to read the whole story in context. The sections above "Width 2" are also of interest as that is where the consensus formed against modifying the template or formed against roux's proposal... I guess it depends on how you look at it. The crux of the matter, and why these two got into each other's hair is their differing views on what that consensus meant.

To G2bambino, one further note, I suggest you follow my advice at Template_talk:British_Royal_Family#Width_2 and specifically ask the rest of the folks on that template talk what the original consensus meant. —— nixeagle 03:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, nixeagle. Can you please confirm for me whether or not I was correct when I said "Nixeagle made it clear that he--as the person enforcing restrictions--felt my statements were made in good faith, and I can absolutely guarantee that had he felt that I had violated the restrictions I have voluntarily agreed to he would have blocked me without a second thought" ? Thanks. [roux » x] 03:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Roux, first off I believe your restrictions means that anyone can block you for violating them, which is why G2 is asking here for someone to double check my reasoning. This is fine. You are correct in your belief that I would and will block you should I believe you violated those restrictions, with G2 or with others. I'm really hoping that for both of you these restrictions will force you to think twice and after they expire.. they might just teach you a thing or two.

As far as the situation at hand, you are not entirely blameless, when citing the existing consensus you could have linked him to the section above, and explained to him that you felt the discussion on your proposal about "no changes are needed", "leave it as it is" meant no changes whatsoever, including changes to the width of the template (quotes may not be exact see here at the bottom). Now, will a second administrator please evaluate G2bambino's assertion? —— nixeagle 04:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Gah I hate double posting like this, but roux I need to point out that your use of language like this: Oh for crying out loud... is not productive. Its bordering very close to what I consider meets your civility restrictions. To be honest the majority of your post has no meaning to it other then to say that you won't be posting to his talk page anymore... which really does not need to be announced (I think you said elsewhere you were not touching the template). I've never really considered sarcasm to be a civility issue, however roux if you keep using the tone you used in that message... I will be blocking you.

Again so it does not get lost, I would appreciate it if a second administrator looks at the situation, note that roux's comment came after I blocked G2bambino, the context for that comment can be found here. —— nixeagle 05:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine how "oh for crying out loud" is enough to draw a block, even for someone on a civility restriction. Are you familiar with the history in the last year of civility blocks? I'd strongly advise against even considering or lightly foreshadowing a block on the basis of comments like that. Avruch ^T 05:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that under advisement, though you should read the rest of the comment. —— nixeagle 05:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I echo what Avruch said above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia edit war

Right now, User:7876 ann arbor street (likely a Conservapedia editor based on the link on his userpage) and User:JoshuaZ are continuing to revert to a rewording of the article's mention of RationalWiki, inserting a claim that Dr. Peter Lipson, the founder of RationalWiki, and those who founded the site with him personally orchestrate vandalism of Conservapedia, using this LA Times source as evidence. (See these diffs [4] [5], in the second, JoshuaZ also discreetly removes the article's internal link to the RationalWiki article without mentioning this in the edit summary). Here is the quote from the article that he is using to support this claim:

" After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia. And – by their own admission – engage in acts of cyber-vandalism."

As the article does not elaborate on any specific admission or include any quotes by Lipson that he personally orchestrates vandalism of Conservapedia, nor does it include any from the other editors who founded the site with him (or even mention them by name), this statement in the LA Times article seems much too vague and unverifiable to be included in the article and presented as fact. This seems like a violation of WP:BLP on the part of a Conservapedia editor who is attempting to insert an anti-RationalWiki bias into the article. I would like help in resolving this.--ParisianBlade (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is at AN. It is a pure content dispute. If it had to go anywhere it should be WP:ANI or WP:BLPN if anywhere at all. I've explained my actions in detail at the relevant talk page. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that ParisianBlade appears to have violated 3RR, too. looie496 (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I have. I've made exactly three reversions today, and I made one reversion of the same content yesterday.--ParisianBlade (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? I'm only counting three reversions. In any event, Tznkai protected the page so no need to block anyone. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Its an edit war! Page protected for 3 days, other admins are invited to override if and only if they want to help sort it out.--Tznkai (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

To me this issue deserves being discussed on the admin noticeboard as potentially libelous content is being inserted into the article. The LA Times source is also libelous in my opinion as it does not contain a quote by Lipson or tell when and where he made the quote that he personally organizes vandalism of Conservapedia but simply makes a generic statement. WP:BLP comes to mind.--ParisianBlade (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on the quote says that he personally organizes vandalism and there's no reason you would think so from reading either the LA Times article or the Wikipedia article. And I already tried to explain to you, neither of those is a reason to be at WP:AN. The proper places for such concerns would be WP:BLPN or WP:ANI. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RationalWiki seems to be Conservapedia's Wikipedia Review, complete with an apparent BADSITES policy on Conservapedia that suppresses links to it. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote specifically says "From there (RationalWiki) they (Lipson and several other editors) monitor Conservapedia, and by their own admission, engage in acts of cyber-vandalism." It does indeed state that Lipson admits to personally vandaliing Conservapedia yet cannot provide any quote by him in which he has (and I've yet to find one on a Google search). If you think this should be moved to WP:ANI, feel free to do it.--ParisianBlade (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Parisian, please discuss this on the relevant talk page and stop cluttering up AN. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there is a serious "outing" issue regarding the "people who want to destroy us" quote. The young lady to whom this is attributed in Stephanie Simon's report has been editing Conservapedia for two years and holds the rank of bureaucrat, so I'm certain she realizes that her username can be easily determined from the edit history of the Irish dancing article of which Ms. Simon credits her as the author.

I much more concerned about the username of the other user. At first I supposed the address was probably that of the headquarters of one of these feuding organizations, but instead I found that it clearly belongs to a suburban residence in Dexter, Michigan. According to Google Maps (the second-best web site ever...) it is a unique address, requiring no "disambiguation" as us Wikipedians would say, see [6]).

Now I don't know or care who lives there and I can only speak for myself, but hear me out: My assumption of good faith is heavily outweighed by my assumption that nobody in this post-modern, post-Ted Kaczynski, post-Tommy Tutone world is foolish enough to post their own home address (much less register it as a username) on this or any other internet site, thus I am almost certain it is that of an unsuspecting victim.

For this reason alone I propose an indefinite block and an involuntary renaming for the above-mentioned user. Feel free to courtesy-blank this thread if and when this is done. — CharlotteWebb 13:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agree 100% with username block, possibly with a renaming to follow, if that would help. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, according to the user, Milo Radulovich lived there 55 years ago, but he obviously doesn't live there now, and I doubt it's vacant. I can't tell exactly which house it is from the satellite photo but most of them have cars parked nearby… — CharlotteWebb 19:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Be Black Hole Sun and his socks...

First of all, I suggest before discussing, if you haven't already read this thread, then you should now. I am starting this because I do not feel that whether or not BBHS gets a second chance or not should be at the discretion of one sysop. I think it should be a general consensus, because of the differing opinions on this case. This will likely satisfy more people. I'll start with my personal opinion:

• Keep Blocked - I think he really deserves one last chance. People can always change, and we should always assume good faith. It's not like it is impossible to reblock him if he turns out to be a complete liar just looking to harass more and more people. And, if he wanted to harass more people, why wouldn't he be doing it from his talk page, where he is now allowed to edit? I think he has changed. However, I do think he should issue personal apologies to everyone he has harrassed. _David^WS _(contribs) 20:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, per the below votes, maybe he isn't to be trusted just yet. _David^WS _(contribs) 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep block Permanent ban - socking around scant hours before asking to be unblocked? No good. I would support the restrictions posted on his talk page, except that we can't (yet) trust that he won't create more socks. I suggest running a CU to root out the entire sock farm, and if he can spend three months without creating another one, he can come back with six months of severe restrictions. [roux » x] 20:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Per my comments below, this was a second-chance account, and he blew it. [roux » x] 02:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep blocked The standard procedure, which has been used successfully before, is that the user who has been blocked for any issue has to convincingly show he will not commit the offense again. This guy has to prove that they really intend to stop socking. If this user refrains from creating any more sockpuppet accounts for say, a month or so, I would be willing to revisit the issue. But this is to close in time to his most recent socking. So in summation: if he refrains from creating any more accounts OR from using anonymous IP addresses to avoid the current block for 1 month or so, I would support an unblock, but its too soon now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair enough, but I am going to once again go back to WP:AGF. I know he has in the past been dishonest and made socks (yes, even just a little while before the unblock request, but I'll discuss that later if you'd like), why wait one month? I would, at most, wait a week. My reasoning is that (at least to my knowledge) he has never before submit an unblock request, acting honest, and then come back and violate policy again. If so, then my argument for not waiting is void. _David^WS _(contribs) 20:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My answer to the idea of AGF here, so soon after multiple socking abuses, is that I am not so much green as I am cabbage-looking. We don't have to assume good faith when it's been proven that there isn't much to be assumed. The ideal is good, and kudos to you for doing it, but it's like not arresting someone who promises they won't break into your house again and PS here's the radio they took five minutes ago... [roux » x] 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And my response: that's an okay analogy but, again, Wikipedia is different. Now, what about if we unblock him, keep him to a 1RR handcuff, AND prevent account creation from any IP he has ever used, just in case he's being dishonest. Maybe we should wait a while, but still, I really think he is truly sorry. Anyway, we'll see, I guess. I think it should be discussed by multiple sysops. I'm now sort of leaning towards Very Weak Unblock, not Unblock, as I see both sides. _David^WS _(contribs) 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at this edit from one of Be Black Hole Sun's weekend sockpuppets.[7]. I think the edit summary speaks volumes here. "give up". This is a user with an attitude that is belligerent... who has no respect for Wikipedia policy at alll... and their non-sincerity in promising to be good has long since stopped fooling anyone around here. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that edit summary makes me lose faith in, well, his good faith. If he had done that today (I'll look) then I ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY change my opinion to keep blocked. However, if he has not, you might say that that was enough time to change. However, he needs to understand "discuss to gain a consensus". Yeah, I'm really thinking more negatively now... _David^WS _(contribs) 21:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep blocked unless the editor is willing to commit to a strict 1RR handcuff and agree to a topic ban of 1 full year on all music related articles. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep blocked PERMA BAN (As per below, I didn't know that BBHS was his last chance account) - I spent so much time hunting down this guys socks. Honestly, if I was in trouble too, then I'd apologise. Would you? He's taunted me, attacked me, and generally made my life difficult as I blocked every single one of his socks. He was socking just one hour before requesting his first unblock. No way. If anyone unblocks him after he's done something like that then I will be having words with that admin. He's had so many second chances. He knows that socking is wrong, yet, he still does it. Many, many, many times over. He needs to stay blocked for good. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep blocked - if only he didn't sock an hour before requesting unblock - I might think differently. iMatthew 21:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Would support unblocking if he accepted some voluntary restrictions and also took on a mentor. I should also point out that until earlier this morning, he was locked from editing his own talk page, so he had no other way to contact someone and ask about unblocking except by creating another account. –xeno (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Other than Special:Emailuser, unblock-en-l and arbcom-l, of course. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Right, but I don't think the user was familiar with those processes. –xeno (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that he has created dozens of accounts and used IPs to evade his block and not once did he attempt any sort of contact with any of the numerous administrators who have blocked him in the past to try and plea his case for re-instatement. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh? –xeno (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of that "attempt" this morning, he still had hundreds of opportunities to attempt to contact an admin regarding unblocking. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep blocked This guy was yesterday creating socks at a rate almost too quick to keep up with; only by watching Special:LogNew/users was there a hope of monitoring the situation and reacting effectively. Today's contrition may be genuine, or it may not, but my preference would be to leave substantial time to elapse with zero socking before this editor should be considered to have reformed. --Rodhullandemu 21:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep blocked - Socking less than 12 hours ago? I don't think so; I can't believe we're even discussing this. AGF isn't a suicide pact. Mr.Z-man 22:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep blocked - A 1-year ban should be considered. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep blocked and I would support a one year ban. This user has shown no reason for the community to accept him or her back. Enigma ^message 01:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Time frame for unblocking

Since it appears it's snowing, do some of the people who want him to remain blocked want to set out a time frame and also perhaps offer BBHS some advice on how he can re-earn your trust? It does appear he wants to reform and return to building the encyclopedia in a hopefully collegial fashion. –xeno (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd propose the following, adapted from Libs' statement:

• 1 month block; talkpage unblocked and may use talkpage for proposing changes to articles
• After 1 month, if no socks have been created in that time as confirmed by CheckUser (he has freely admitted which IPs are his, and I'm guessing can give permission for a CU to be run on himself), unblocked with a soft topic-ban on music related articles; must propose changes to mentors and implement only if approved. To last for three months.
• Held to strict 1RR on all articles for three months after unblock, broadly construed.
• After three months, all restrictions lifted, but held to 2RR for three months, broadly construed.
• Any socking results in an immediate and permanent ban.
• Is required to take on two mentors and abide by their advice for six months following unblock.

Thoughts? [roux » x] 23:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Masters deserve 1-year bans. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I can AGF, but I say:

• 3 month block
• If sock-free then he can edit with a hard-topic ban on music articles to last for a full 6 months. If no incidents he can move down to a soft topic ban for another 6 months.
• Held to a strict 1RR for 3 months following re-instatement followed by a 2RR for 3 more months if first 3 months are incident free.
• Any socking/breaking these rules=permanent ban from Wikipedia.

He has earned the ball and chain. Must work hard to have it removed. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) If this is to be passed, I would prefer it if he was also placed on a seriously strong civility parole, to the extent that if he says anything that can be construde as rude, then he would also be permanently banned for that. He's been blocked for aggressive editing (i.e. "Shouting" in edit summaries etc.) and I think this should be reflected in the community sanctions. Also, I think a 1 month straight block is too short; he's probably fuming, so he'd probably want to take out his anger at certain people (probably myself included), so I would recommend keeping him blocked for longer as a preventative measure. (Re above: 3 months would be okay) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case, for all my advancing years and physical decrepitude, I can see where BBHS is coming from. He has shown himself to be a competent author, taking articles to both GA & FA. In some senses, he reminds me of me at his age (and I can only pitch in general terms what that might be), that is, competent but impatient. Certainly, some block for him to get over his behavioural issues and realise that he is in a cooperative environment might be beneficial both for the project (which must take priority) and himself. Three months at his age is a long time, and likely to be seen as punitive rather than rehabilitatitve. One month might be enough here, I feel, as long as it's a very, very clean month, especially with respect to civility. He should learn to count to ten. One step out of line should, in the current circumstances, be the final straw. --Rodhullandemu 23:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

When I was 15 it was the peak of the disco craze and the Bee Gees were on every AM radio station... but I still knew how to calm my own anger issues at that time. I can agree to a compromise of a 6 week complete ban... followed by all my earlier proposed restrictions. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

How about we keep him blocked and see what he does? We tell him the smartest thing to do is wait and request an unblock without socking. He can make up his mind as to when. If he wants to play and request unblock within a day, I'm not unblocking him (and I doubt anyone else will). He should be smart enough to realize when he wants to request an unblock. I'd say a few months and nobody should be playing the "he's too young to be mature enough to handle waiting." If he can't wait to be given the permission to edit freely, he doesn't deserve it; if he's too immature (doesn't matter about his age, we have plenty of adults who are ridiculously immature) then he doesn't deserve the privilege of editing here. If he's remotely serious about wanting to help, he can use the talk page and {{helpme}} requests to prove he is willing to be useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, it was a tough decision for me to indef block BBHS. I've worked with him on a number of things, mostly at WP:FLC, and I've seen what good he can do; however, when I saw he was violating WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:SOCK after being given a second chance on en:WP, I felt that there was no other option and put my personal feelings aside.

If the community feel that he should be unblocked then I am happy to go along with that, although considering he has a history of such behaviour (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wellwater Conspiracy, no:Kategori:Mistenkte sokkedukker for Gaius nepos, and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wellwater Conspiracy) and that this is his second chance account, and then went and committed the same offenses (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Be Black Hole Sun and Block log of User:Be Black Hole Sun), if it were up to me alone I wouldn't unblock. Despite his good contributions, it is my feeling that they are outweighed by his bad contributions.

If he is unblocked, I think some of Roux's and some of Wiki libs' suggestions should be implemented:

• 3 month block, starting today - time served does not count because the reasons for blocking continued
• talkpage unblocked and may use talkpage for proposing changes to articles
• After 3 months, if no socks have been created in that time as confirmed by CheckUser (he has freely admitted which IPs are his, and I'm guessing can give permission for a CU to be run on himself), unblocked with a soft topic-ban on music related articles; must propose changes to mentors and implement only if approved. To last for three months.
• Must only edit using the User:Be Black Hole Sun username. No IP edits, no sock edits.
• Held to a strict 1RR for 3 months following re-instatement followed by a 2RR for 3 more months if first 3 months are incident free.
• Any violations of WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:SOCK (the original blocking reasons) will result in a permanent WP ban, with absolutely NO MORE CHANCES

I've seen editors blocked for longer than a month for doing less that what BBHS has done, so if it is decided to reduce the indef block, a three month block sounds better to me. But, whatever block is decided should start from today. From the day I blocked him through to today, he has continued to edit under IPs and socks. In fact, he was socking prolifically over the weekend and continued his MO of incivility, reverting, edit warring and vandalism. Time served should therefore not be included into any new block of a period of time.

During the blocking period, he must not create a single sock account or edit using an IP. A block is a block. After being unblocked, he must edit under his account only, and mustn't make any edits with an IP or sock account so that his edits are visible and be watched. I think the idea of 1RR is good, considering how many times he's done it, and how many times he's been blocked for it. I also think that a soft topic ban would be better than a hard topic ban, considering that's where his good edits are focussed. His good edits are good when he keeps a cool head, it's just that the problems arise when that level-headedness is lost. Mentorship is also a good idea, I would strongly recommend him seeking mentorship, and possibly Editor review.

That's my 2c on the matter, at the moment. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea this was a second-chance account. I retract all of my previous suggestions in their entirety; permaban. [roux » x] 09:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I didn't exactly know either. I'd heard of the Wellwater conspiracy accounts but, wow, I had no idea there were that many accounts involved. I agree with roux. Someone who agreed to stop socking a few months ago, and then went on a giant sock rampage just recently, should be banned. Sure, he can contribute positively, but for someone who has such a blatant disregard for our policies, he should be permabanned. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, he lied here. He's been around long enough to know our core policies. He has received warnings for incivility, vandalism, sockpuppeting, 3RR, and he has also received welcome templates on his talk. Naturally through the learning curve, everyone learns of our policies. There is no chance that he went through his Wiki career and did not learn anything. In my view, he's simply playing ignorant to appear in a better light. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't notice that one. Admins, please give this charming fellow a permanent invitation to the world. [roux » x] 19:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't see that either. He obviously knew the policies at that point. Wow, that is really annoying. I'm thinking along the lines of BANHAMMERING him, now. _David^WS _(contribs) 00:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

BBHS has agreed to take a 1-3 month break from wiki (no socking) and we'll revisit this at that time. People can change. –xeno (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. _David^WS _(contribs) 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. He was given a second chance; presumably that second chance included a strict 'don't you dare sock' clause? He deserves at least a year off, if not a permanent ban. [roux » x] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Noted. –xeno (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Freshacconci revert warring at Citizens for a Canadian Republic and mislabeling his reverts

I added legitimate and sourced information, explaining that the views of a prominent member of that group's executive committee belonged in the article, and User:Freshacconci censored me by reverting me twice. [8] He is at 2RR and so am I. I was about to revert him again but decided to come here instead. This kind of censorship and bullying from a self-proclaimed republican like him needs to stop. He also needs to be reminded to properly label his reverts. He doesn't even bother discussing bother reverting. If you look at the articles history he reverts seconds after I post the information. He reverts me one last time, informing me on my talk page that he will revert to try to lure me into 3RR [9] and then says I should discuss. This user should read WP:OWN.

All my edits had summaries. I asked this editor to take this to the talk page rather than edit warring, as seen here. He eventually did, but still reverted my edits once more. In any case, the discussion is now on the talk page. freshacconci talktalk 00:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, after reverting me again [10]. This is not civil behaviour. He is clearly trying to WP:OWN the article and have his way. Laval (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore his summaries were evasive and not labeled as reverts. If anything he should be blocked for his behaviour. Again, he reverts seconds after I made my edits and then tells me I should discuss, after he has reverted me. I am not going to be able to work productively with this user because I am adamant on including this information because it is valid and belongs there and I am sure he will keep reverting me in the days and weeks to come. Laval (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

He is clearly trying to WP:OWN the article and have his way. Laval (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore his summaries were evasive and not labeled as reverts. If anything he should be blocked for his behaviour. Again, he reverts seconds after I made my edits and then tells me I should discuss, after he has reverted me. I am not going to be able to work productively with this user because I am adamant on including this information because it is valid and belongs there and I am sure he will keep reverting me in the days and weeks to come. Laval (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And as I can see, he he has bothered responding to me on the talk page of the article. For this user, the matter is not open to discussion. He just doesn't want the information there because he doesn't like it. Amazing. Laval (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The article-in-question is currently under AfD. This edit war may turn out to be pointless. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's true! freshacconci talktalk 00:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to the user in question. He reverts me mere seconds after I make my edit. That's lame. Laval (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If admins don't sanction this user I am going to revert him one last time because he cannot be allowed to get away with this. He cannot force users to discuss after he reverts and then tempts me to revert him. Laval (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I've said what I had to say on the talk page. Both Laval and I crossed the line with edit warring. For that I apologize. I consider this matter over. freshacconci talktalk

Thats very convenient since he has used up his 3RR and has his version active right now. Laval (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

He also accused me of making a "bad faith edit" [11] when it was entirely in good faith. He didn't assume good faith at all from the beginning. Laval (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just don't revert each other anymore. Let's hope that article doesn't get locked. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have a better idea. HalfShadow 01:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Laval, why the need for second section below? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have reviewed Laval's contributions and agree that they are problematic. Most of what Laval writes, reads as personal opinion and is euther unsourced or sourced to primary sources, see the section "non-American union" added here: [12], sourced from YouTube videos and activist websites with no intervening filter of reliable independent analysis. I can quite understand why many of these changes are being reverted or significantly revised. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts‎

Resolved

 – No admin action needed, WQA thread is the place for this, so closing the AN thread to prevent discussion bifurcation. --barneca (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion about User:Silly_rabbit on that page. The dispute does not seem to be resolved (going on for quite a while). Although silly rabbit is a respected editor, someone has accused him of incivility. Could an admin please participate in the discussion and take the most appropriate action against silly rabbit (if any) (User:LowKey accused User:Silly_rabbit)? Silly rabbit was blocked by an admin (prior to the dispute) for WP:3RR (incivility in edit summaries (see the history of Fidel Castro)) and has continued this abuse (according to User:LowKey the problem is now more 'incivility').

Thanks for your help.

Topology Expert (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm really starting to feel a bit baited by this whole affair. Lowkey got all worked up over a stupid edit summary, perhaps ill-advised, but certainly not as incivil as all of this seems to make it seem. My earlier block was because of an accidental WP:3RR violation because of a single-purpose account who was pushing some POV into the Fidel Castro article. I gave the blocking admin a piece of my mind over the affair, and came within epsilon of retiring because of it. Now this Lowkey business is totally without any merit, and I have no idea why Topology Expert is lobbying to have me censured over it. But if the community has it in for me, then I can make it easy for everyone and retire, since I was considering this course of action anyway. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I definitely was not 'lobbying to have silly rabbit censured' over the dispute. I was in this dispute 'for silly rabbit' until LowKey tried to convince me to be 'against him'. The evidence was convincing (to someone who does not know anything about flood geology (I still don't understand what the name means!)) so I went 'neutral'. I only bought it up here 'on behalf' of user LowKey (and this in now way meant that I supported him).

It would certainly be a great loss to Wikipedia if silly rabbit retired since he is definitely a valuable contributor. Now as far as I understand, LowKey bought up the issue over just one edit summary. The only reason why I 'supported' LowKey was because I did not understand the dispute fully (if at all). Now I do, and I think that LowKey was wrong to bring up a dispute over just one edit summary and could have handled it in a less 'public' manner. Hopefully this dispute will be closed and we can get back to normal editing (I now understand the fidel castro issue properly and I was wrong to make that summary).

Topology Expert (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Topology Expert,

1. Your summary of Silly rabbit's block history/rationale is inaccurate. It was a 3RR block, recinded 1 hour later by the blocking admin.
2. The discussion at Wikiquette alerts (God, what a stupid name; can't we do better?) seems to have been going on, not for quite a while, but for a little less than a day.
3. An admin, User:dave souza, has already commented on the thread there.
4. This certainly seems to be a mountain out of a molehill.
5. Above, Silly rabbit calls his edit summary "ill-advised", which is certainly enough for me; it was fairly minor, wasn't directed at anyone in particular, no one has presented any diffs to show it is a pattern, etc, etc.

Since you've asked an admin to chime in at WP:WQA, and one already has, and since no admin is going to take action against Silly rabbit for one isolated gruff edit summary, there's no reason to keep this WP:AN thread open. For those who wish to chime in, the WP:WQA thread is a better place, but I'd consider it closed, myself. --barneca (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm sure SR is aware by now that someone was miffed by the comment, but I don't see that they intentionally attacked a specific editor, nor do I see a pattern of problematic comments here. If this isn't an ongoing problem, I should think that moving on in a spirit of cooperation is the best way to go. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Something's cookin'

Check this out!

The title reads Creating the Bosniak/Croat/Albanian/Montenegran/Macedonian/Hungarian/Turkish Lobbyist group which will oppose the SerboGreek aggression on Wikipedia

Lobbyist group? This thing started by User:Bosniak Atheist, and openly supported by User:GriffinSB and User:Cradel is quite... well, how do I put it... racist, anti-Greek, anti-Serb, anti-Wikipedia. I mean, seriously, lobbyist group?! What is this, an encyclopedia or a place to spread political, ethnic and who knows what other interests!

I urge the Wikipedia administrators to take some action to contain this. I know that you will make the right decision and hope that we build Wikipedia on good faith, not.. lobbyist groups. Thank you, --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for political agendas. This BCAMMHT thingy, doesn't look good. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly.. but what can be done? --GOD OF JUSTICE 02:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, User:Bosniak Atheist posted this on his user page: "Please sign in here if you want to join the Bosniak Wikipedia Lobby group" --GOD OF JUSTICE 02:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

His own page essentially states he's a single-purpose account. That's a blockable offense. HalfShadow 02:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the "lobby" thing from the user page, and left him a long note/warning on the user's talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Bože pravde and ARBMAC

Ok, very convenient. I would like to request the community to scrupulously examine the behavior of Bože pravde (talk · contribs) against the provisions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia (take some random diffs). The editor has long been aware of the sanctions: [13]. Colchicum (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have spent many hours discussing things on the Talk:Kosovo page, but no matter what consensus is reached, Albanian editors on Wikipedia keep changing the many articles to their own anti-Serb, anti-Greek bias. This is done especially by User:Cradel, who is part of the Lobbyist group listed above. I do revert his edits from time to time, as well as edits by users who write nothing on any Kosovo-related talk pages. If people read the Talk:Kosovo page, they will see that I do give my reasoning and that it is supported by other editors on Wikipedia. However, there is an endless number of single-purpose user accounts, biased editors and those who tell me and other editors to "accept the facts", while they really want us to accept their interpretation of the facts. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If the administrators still feel that I was wrong in my approach, I will accept it and apologize. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You are not a newbie, however. Could you please explain how a move from Brezovica, Kosovo to Brezovica, Serbia [14] or change from Kosovo to Kosovo, Serbia [15][16], make Wikipedia more neutral? It is a fact that Brezovica is in Kosovo, regardless of whether Kosovo is independent. Whether Brezovica and Kosovo are in Serbia is a matter of POV. And such are most of your contributions, as far as I see. Colchicum (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is actually a good advice to read Talk:Kosovo. Somebody needs to step into the mess, as the article is (in theory) under probation. Colchicum (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And this is edit-warring against the established consensus. Not a single line from you on the talk page. Colchicum (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just spotted this was put to AN. I'd be very happy if some more users could monitor the article Kosovo and the talkpage. Sometimes it needs some neutral involvement. It has already been put to arbcom's probation but nobody enforces it. --Tone 09:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Freshacconci still tracking my edits and edit warring, this time at Charles Roach

See [17]. He is still leveling false bad faith accusations at me and reverting my edits. Please tell this user to stop harassing me and stop deleting my info without bothering to discuss. He has already reached 3RR on one article and is posed to do the same here. A pattern is emerging here. He is literally trolling blatantly now. Laval (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm not permitted to edit articles that I choose? I am editing clear violations of WP:BLP which is a serious issue. I am not edit warring and did not revert anything. I removed information that was also removed at a different article by a different editor. I do not appreciate these uncivil accusations on Laval's part. I am making good faith edits to a number of related articles. That's all. Please judge for yourselves. freshacconci talktalk 05:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This editor is really getting tiresome. He clearly has a fundamental misunderstanding of guidelines and uses them like a stick to beat me with. He makes all sorts of accusations, accusing me of bad faith and then at the same time telling me I should assume good faith in him! He edit wars without discussion, claims that there is no consensus when discussion hasn't been engaged, and continues reverting while at the same time accusing me of being the problem! Laval (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How does the above user justify reverting another editor mere seconds after an edit has been made? Laval (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a novel idea: both of you go edit other pages and avoid one another. Easy fix to the problem. Having said that, Laval, your edit to Charles Roach was in fact problematic under WP:BLP; the same information was quite rightly removed for a similar reason from the Citizens for a Canadian Republic article here. I'm going to suggest to Freshacconci not to mess with your edits, but to discuss them on the talk page; in return, I suggest that you avoid adding information that isn't properly sourced. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be glad to abide by all of this. I do expect an apology for being referred to as a troll and claims about my "fundamental misunderstanding of guidelines", since I've been proved correct here. But I won't hold my breath. As for the Citizens for a Canadian Republic article, I've mentioned on the AFD discussion that I've found a great deal of sources that I wlould like to add when I have time, some time tomorrow. Other than that, I have no intention of dealing with Laval in any capacity after this. Life's too short for this nonsense. freshacconci talktalk 05:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I will never apologize to you. Your behaviour is rude and condescending and you revert edits seconds after a person makes them. Your behaviour clearly reveals trolling habits. Notice how nobody disagrees with at least that part of my argument against you since you obviously stalked me from article to article. Laval (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

One would assume that when the member of the executive committee makes a statement about another member of the same executive committee of the same organization, that this information would be legitimate. I disagree with this interpretion of the guideline. In certain cases such as this, blogs should be valid. Laval (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See [18] - the fact that a member of the executive committee would make such statements about another member of the same organization in my opinion should be allowed, otherwise the whole truth is not being made available to the public. Laval (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Truth isn't the issue. Verifiability is. You have a random blog by "J.J." and you are taking a whole lot out of that. Agree with Tony, this isn't sourced remotely well. Get some actual press about the dispute or otherwise drop it. It's giving way too undue weight to McCullough's view. If you want to continue this, go to Talk:Charles Roach. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

'kay, for general information, I've asked both editors to saty away from one another; I've informed User:Laval that blogs are not valid sources for BLPs (and if that's not good enough, he's going to have to take it up by trying to change the BLP policy or the reliable sources guidelines, really), and if this sniping continues, I'm going to start being a cranky fox, and cranky foxes with block buttons are not your friends. =P Hopefully, this defuses the situation. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(ecx3) Freshacconci has acted quite correctly per BLP and should not be advised to "steer clear". He should be encouraged to keep up his vigilance. Any negative comment about his action is totally out of order. Ty 05:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ty. I admit I get a bit hot under the collar at times (and did admit to the first bit of edit warring mentioned above), but this has gotten out of hand. I know this is out of your area of interest (I mean, Canadian politics!) But if you could have a gander at the AFD discussion at Citizens for a Canadian Republic and see if I'm being out of line here or not with some of the issues (including WP:V and WP:BLP). freshacconci talktalk 05:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked that if he sees an issue that he brings it up with a neutral party, such as myself, to try and bring the war down to a manageable level. Quite appropriate, I'd suggest. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Good move. Ty 05:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've left a note for Laval pointing out that if he wants to avoid trouble he should use reliabel independent sources rather than blogs, activist websites and YouTube videos. The major problem here is that what Laval writes looks very much like his own analysis, and any editor is likely to revert this kind of thing: [19], and edits that quote blogs as calling article subjects "dumb" are unlikely to be accepted as sources either. I think Laval should steer clear of any articles related to CCR unless he can show that he can edit in a neutral manner compliant with policies; in my view he has violated WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV with some of his recent edits, and I don't think that's a good sign. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. I was surprised to see Freshacconci's name here as I am familiar with his history as a good editor. It is problematic when an editor like him addresses unacceptable content and is then attacked. I hope Tony Fox's suggestions will act as a buffer. Ty 01:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Images linking to pages

While we've always had the ability to link to somewhere other than the image description page (using various hacks), it's now possible to do so using standard image syntax. For example: [[Image:Foo.png|20px|link=Main Page]]

Has there been discussion about when doing so would be appropriate and when it would not be? I imagine we would always want non-free content to link to the image description page, but what about other images (icons, logos, etc.)? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My quick take on this is that if an image looks like an object (like a button labeled "instructions"), it could have different destination than the image page. In such cases the expectation is that the object should do something when clicked. If the expectation is that you would want to know about the image, or see a larger version, it should not. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My quick take on this is that you should only do it with PD images or images not requiring attribution. Otherwise we risk being in breach of the licenses. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no reason to object to the creation of freer-than-free public domain alternatives to any already free GFDL icon art we might currently use—honestly, who could say no to more free stuff (both in quantity and degree of freeness)…? On the other hand I just noticed when I click on the upper-left logo, I'm taken to Main Page, not to the description of Image:Wiki.png, an image which is far from free… — CharlotteWebb 14:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Current possibilities

There is currently a request to enable the image links at a few Wikimedia project related templates. They are Template:Wikibooks, Template:Wikinews, Template:Wikiquote, Template:Wikisource, Template:Wikispecies, and Template:Wiktionary. Thoughts on these ones specifically? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I already did that on {{Commons}} a couple of days ago, no screams of horror so far. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD problem

Resolved

 – AfD closed as delete

Can an uninvolved admin take a look at this AfD for the International Gaming Tour? It's the target of a rather persistent IP sock (case detailed here). I see three possibilities: 1) Do nothing. The closing admin probably would see through the BS, but in the meantime, we have a mess of a page and it might unduly influence any naive !voters. 2) Protect the page. Probably the most obvious choice; is it worth not letting other IPs have a say? and 3) Close it early as an obvious delete (this pretty much meets CSD A7), and be done with it altogether. Thanks for any opinions. Tan | 39 16:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

After some digging...the article creator was ZeroFanMission (talk · contribs)...who just so happened to have signed this AfD (closed last year) as Xgmx (talk · contribs). If one looks at User talk:Xgmx, there's an awful lot of block notices, including an autoblock notice for 4.245.73.33 (talk · contribs) -- remarkably similar to 4.245.74.168 (talk · contribs), 4.244.3.216 (talk · contribs), 4.245.21.242 (talk · contribs), & 4.245.73.195 (talk · contribs), the IPs that keep showing up to "save" International Gaming Tour. Time to hand out some blocks... — Scientizzle 16:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope you didn't do all that without first clicking the sock report I linked to above. Blocking will do nothing, IMO. Tan | 39 16:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I did miss your 2nd link, but all this took ~1 minute to find, so I don't feel that bad. As for the AfD, it's closed. — Scientizzle 16:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Option 3 it is. Thanks Scientizzle. Tan | 39 16:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Executive mini-summary

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

Question of jurisdiction and rationale for this proposal

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose I looked through the diffs presented in the above thread. I've also looked through the article. ScienceApologist said that Pcarbonn cited the NewEnergyTimes, yet the diff shows him bringing it up on the talk page.[20] The rest of these diffs leave me very suspicious of SA's honesty; they're mainly of Pcarbonn on the talk page, stating substantive points and citing substantive research. Two are in the article space. For one, ScienceApologist cites Pcarbonn "insisting that two-thirds is not a majority" for this diff, when Pcarbonn doesn't seem to dispute the mathematical fact but rather increases the precision of the statement by substituting the word two-thirds in for the word majority. I try for precision whenever possible. That looks like a good edit to me. Keep in mind that if a physicist is a well-published academic, then citing articles by that physicist from places like the NewEnergyTimes might be appropriate. Yes, Pcarbonn says that publications acknowledge a growing controversy over new research in cold fusion. For example, a 2008 article in Nature India is titled "Cold fusion hot again". I see that there are talks in these threads of wiping out all of these fine sources and going back to the 2004 version. How can you justify eliminating articles from things like Nature? Why react to this article as if one's entire worldview revolves around cold fusion being reflected as pure pseudoscientific garbage. Why does it matter so much? Recently a professor at Osaka University in Japan unveiled what he calls a working cold fusion reactor.[21] This used to be in the article, but it has been deleted. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. Are we trying to "save people" from hearing about the latest news regarding cold fusion? Why? If a professor claims to have a working CF reactor, that is news worthy of an encyclopedia. It is not our job to fact-check it or ensure that readers know that this is just an announcement, not necessarily a confirmation. As a reader, I come to Wikipedia because, unlike textbooks, it does not censor the latest breaking (encyclopedic) news, or shy away from the most in-depth details. II | (t - c) 19:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are reliable sources which acknowledge a controversy from Wired and Nature India. For example, a 2008 Wired article states that "verification of these controversial results is not the problem".[22] There is also an article on it I'm not seeing how the amount of mainstream physics work published is relevant to what is included in the cold fusion page. Am I reading you correctly in that you advocate removing most of the now-considered acceptable sources on the subject, such as the Nature India article, Wired article, and the cold fusion research articles because mainstream physics ignores cold fusion? I would oppose the Britannica POV (or, more accurately, their article, which is likely short because of lack of resources), but I don't have the time or the interest to learn about cold fusion, especially since I would then have to have edit-wars with SA and others concerned that CF isn't being presented negatively enough. II | (t - c) 02:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Support a ban/block on Pcarbonn for the reasons mentioned by SA, Verbal, and many others. There is clearly a conflict of interest and some serious and unrelenting POV pushing. He is more than willing to wage a war of attrition allowing more NPOV edits to be added and stand for a time before working the text back to his position.--OMCV (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• support ban mainly per Shell and Kww. If Pcarbon proves himself able to contribute productively to other areas maybe we can revisit this ban at some point in the future. I hope that he might grow to appreciate NPOV more if he became more involved in other topics. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Pcarbonn's stated intent[23] is to "win the battle" over cold fusion. Crowing about his victory on his blog[24] is, in my mind, the final straw. Skinwalker (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong oppose topic ban. I am not involved in this article but looked at the diffs and evidence presented against Pcarbonn.I don't see policy violation. 2/3 for example is not a weasel word. "Most" is. What exactly is pontificating, self-congratulation.[25] These words are judgments based in opinion and not policy violations. I don't see either of these things as accurate descriptions, but if I did when did these add up to a policy ban. I could go on, but what I see is a discussion that should go back to the article where it belongs; editors with differing views but discussing reasonably, and an article that had FA status. I note as well that this is another try at having an editor banned, a concern. I would suggest that such an article requires patience and lots of discussion rather than a ban that prohibits an expert in the field from editing given that although he certainly may have a certain slant on the information so do many of the other editors there. Discuss rather than eliminate and punish.(olive (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support. Being an SPA can be fine. Sometimes fringe editors provide useful views. But fringe POV focused on a single topic? That's a recipe for NPOV violations. Would support a return to the topic if he meets Shot info's conditions immediately above. Cool Hand Luke 06:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Support this is clearly a single purpose account determined to push a particular viewpoint and to change the article on that viewpoint so it no longer conforms to Wikipedia policy. I see the editor has decided to "stop editing for some time" following this discussion. Hut 8.5 07:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support — I have voiced support for this topic ban before, and I still support it. Pcarbonn is a SPA, who is editing here in the spirit of wikiality. I would also support extending the ban to the talk pages, too. – Sadalmelik ☎ 08:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose. This notice is a strong-armed attempt at POV-pushing. I've known the editors long enough to see through it. I recommend that newcomers to this discussion review the evidence before commenting. Kevin Baas^talk 15:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC) — Kevin_baas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User was renamed (capitalization).
• Strong oppose topic ban - Editors need to learn to use WP:DR to resolve content disputes. Take this to another round of mediation, rather than use AN/I. If all fails, take it to ArbCom ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting comments about blocking policy

An interesting RfC is ongoing about the actions of admin Slrubenstein (talk · contribs), who overturned a block of one of his allies, Mathsci (talk · contribs), without consulting with the blocking admin, Charles Matthews (talk · contribs). Specific questions being covered:

• Should an admin be required to consult with the blocking admin, before overturning a block?
• Is it acceptable for an admin to use tools in support of an editor, if that editor is one of the admin's regular allies in other editing disputes?

Comments and opinions are welcome at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII. --Elonka 17:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that these editors are "allies" is an issue being discussed in the RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm pretty familiar with the case, I think the word is appropriate, and I'm happy to provide dozens of diffs if there is a question on this point. --Elonka 17:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it was the word you used in your comment in the RfC and that view may be endorsed by other editors in the future. However, I thought it would be helpful for people not familiar with the issues to note that this is presently one of several viewpoints under discussion, not an uncontroversial "fact" accepted by all parties. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not neutrally worded and should be amended, please. Verbal chat 17:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Elonka's view (claiming that Mathsci and Slrubenstein are allies) hasn't yet been endorsed by any other editor, and has been in fact denied by one of the parties[26].--Ramdrake (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Blah reading the RFC, the problem looks like it was just a misunderstanding (those are the opinions with the most supporting them). There is already a bit in the admin policy about making sure to put any extra info in the block reason. —— nixeagle 17:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That bit of policy was added after this situation occurred because we realized that the documentation was not as clueful as it could be. Jehochman ^Talk 19:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how we can put that in as a requirement, since it may not be possible to contact the blocking editor. It's a good idea to do so, of course, but if the blocking Admin doesn't reply, that shouldn't be a reason to unblock. As for using Admin tools, so long as they are used correctly, there's no problem is there? And if they are used incorrectly, that's the problem, the incorrect use. 'Allies' doesn't have to come into it. dougweller (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Doug, please discuss it at the RfC, not at AN? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. In an earlier version of this RfC, Charles explicitly stated that "As I mentioned above, the block itself will be looked at under policy by the ArbCom, and this RfC is absolutely not about the conduct of User:Mathsci. I will take very badly any attempt to divert this conduct RfC to that matter." I confirmed privately by email with Charles 2 days ago that this still applied, with particular reference to Elonka. However, Elonka's contribution to the RfC seems to be exactly of that nature. Although I don't really feel I can make any comment on allies, whatever that means, I think I could make a very clear statement about enemies. Mathsci (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Disclaimer: I haven't looked at the RfC and I am not familiar with the involved editors there. I do think that Elonka should be cautioned not to leave such biased invitations to discussions in the future. (Is she an involved party in the RfC?) WP:CANVASS#Campaigning seems pretty clear on this. Cross-posting a biased announcement to high-traffic locations (including here and the Village Pump: [27]) is not a good way to get impartial participation from neutral editors, nor is it likely to aid in calming and resolving any disputes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh, I just realized that that was talking about blanking this thread, not deleting the threat itself. Trying to work and Wiki at the same time. Anyways, I just always thought we take more action than merely deleting. Examples of my previous actions: [29](I was the one to contact the ISP in this oneTan | 39 18:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can I get the attention of sockpuppet category creators?

I'm looking for a simple way to get the attention of people who create sockpuppet categories. I want to ask/remind them to include {{Sockpuppet category}} when creating these pages, because doing so will keep the category from showing up on reports such as Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories. Any advice? - Stepheng3 (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Try posting to WT:RFCU and WT:SSP. MBisanz ^talk 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've done this. Thanks! - Stepheng3 (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Admins signing blocks or not signing them

I note that some admins sign the blocks they place, but others block anonymously (of course the identity of the blocking admin can be found in history). The blocked user can normally place an unblock request on his talk page, unless the blocking admin protected the talk page and cannot post on the blocking admin's page. What are the pros and cons of signing a block? Edison (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The only posts or templates (of any kind) I don't sign are uname blocks. I'm not speaking for anyone but myself though. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In any case one will get a "your username or IP has been blocked by so-and-so" message if they try to make another edit, which will contain the pre-filled code for the (goofy and unnecessarily complex) unblock template, so anything on the user's talk page would be almost entirely redundant. If they never try to make another edit (as would be the case with throwaway vandal accounts) the point is moot. If you mean that people are leaving unsigned "you have been blocked" comments on talk pages, but if so I agree that this would as a general practice be poor form, but onlookers would be the only ones confused by it. Habitually not signing these may cause someone to forget to sign more important comments elsewhere, however. — CharlotteWebb 18:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't even leave a message (for vandalism blocks) unless it is indef, and that's only so the page will get deleted eventually. John Reaves 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I always leave a message. It ups my edit count. Especially the user talkpage count. Makes me look like a nice caring sysop. Heh heh heh heh. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The only ones I tend not to sign are schoolblocks and ublocks, where a talkpage message gets left anyway. Black Kite 22:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Leaving a message is a good way to game subsequent unblock requests when one is unsure the block reason will stand up. 86.44.21.224 (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Signing all communications and postings, especially blocks, seems like a good-faith gesture. Are the main reasons for not signing that it is too much trouble, and that the admin fears retribution from the user who is blocked, but thinks the blocked user is too dumb to figure out who blocked them? Why not just use the standard template which includes a signature? IIt was noted above that the blocked user gets a message stating who blocked him if he tries to edit, so I suppose it is redundant. Edison (talk)

Lightbot (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocking a bot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edits may add, remove or modify links to dates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whoa

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

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

User:69.1.44.28

This anon, presumably a sock puppet of someone, has taken to posting incessant criticisms on my talk page without saying what he is complaining about. While I could block him myself, I would be grateful if another admin could do it for me so it doesn't look like I'm just shutting him up. Thanks. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Left them a note for now, will keep an eye on it in the meantime. Block(s) forthcoming if they don't calm down a notch. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I was perusing through DJ Clayworth's talk page and noticed a disgruntled user (Ford1206) with a history of disruptive editing and harassment. The IP's behavior fits this pattern, so I ran a check.  Confirmed; blocked Ford1206 (talk · contribs) indefinitely. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone wants something to do

Wikipedia:Database reports is essentially a better, actually updating version of the special pages list. There are also several reports that the special pages list doesn't include.

• Broken redirects - Most of these need to be deleted
• Cross-namespace redirects - Many of these need to be RfD'd
• Empty categories - Most of these need to be deleted as C1
• Indefinitely fully-protected articles - Mostly for informative purposes, perhaps the older ones should be evaluated for unprotection
• Indefinitely-blocked IPs - Most of these need to be unblocked
• Polluted categories - Need to remove user pages from mainspace categories (and, occasionally, vice versa)
• Self-categorized categories - Need to remove categories from themselves
• Uncategorized categories - Need to categorize
• User categories - Mostly just a list for me to make it easier to find categories to bring to UCFD, but if you can find another purpose, go for it

--VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Avinesh

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

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

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

time and date

Is there any particular reason why the title of this article appears to start with a non-capital letter? I tried moving the article to Time and date move then back to Time and date but even the page, once moved, appeared to not have a capital letter, and when moved back. --{{User:Belinrahs/sig}}{{time}} (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it has {{lowercase}} on the top, which makes the article title display without capital letters. The title appears in the database with the first letter capitalised. I've deleted the "Time and date move" redirect. Graham87 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusing title blacklist

Right now I'm trying to take advantage of the wonderful new categorized archive of past RfAs to collect statistics.

My collection script hangs on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Rschen7754, a page which doesn't exist and which is apparently on the blacklist (I can't tell at all what regex it's matching). I'm not trying to create that page, but pywikipedia hangs when it encounters that page because there's a "you can't create this" message where there should be a text area. It concludes that Wikipedia is down and goes into a waiting loop.

Certainly there are ways to work around this (such as having the script log in as me -- no don't panic it's a read-only script don't call the adminbot police -- or skipping that particular name and hoping there aren't others like it). But the fact that this page is blacklisted is probably a bug in the blacklist. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it's the blacklist? It doesn't match anything on either the local or global blacklists. If you try to create the page manually, exactly what error message do you get? --Carnildo (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is really bizarre: it's being blocked by a regex that isn't on the blacklist. --Carnildo (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Using my non-admin account, the regex given is .*Rschen7754.* # for non-account pages., which appears on the global blacklist (despite it clearly saying it was blocked locally). Mr.Z-man 05:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Turns out my copy of the global blacklist was out of date -- that entry was added to the global blacklist abour four hours ago. --Carnildo (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the stewards did that. Man, that's bad luck that you were doing it just then... --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Revisionist and Race Hatred edits at Schutzstaffel

The article on the SS is currently under attack by someone using anon ip edits to insert obvious Holocaust Denial edits into the article, i.e. adding the word "alledged" in front of every statement about the SS. While that alone can be dealt with, we also have have a very clearly racial motivated edit summary where the user claimed they were "reverting Zionist edits" [30]. A protection of SS might be in order and without a doubt a block on the ips making these edits. We are dealing with a race hate spouting vandal, pure and simple. -OberRanks (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi'd for a day. There are only 3 or 4 IP's so far, but I suspect more are in the woods. If this is not enough to break the series, we need to reconsider. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandalism need cleaning up

Resolved

 – Page was moved back, redirect deleted as CSD G3

• Funguy06 has moved The X Factor (UK) to The FIX Factor (UK). Can an administrator revert the move, and block the account? Please note the move was made eight hours ago. D.M.N. (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:FrankLloydGallery

FrankLloydGallery appears to be representing Frank Lloyd Galler of Santa Monica, California within Wikipedia. However, it is not clear that User:FrankLloydGallery has permission to be Frank Lloyd Galler's representative in Wikipedia. -- Suntag ☼ 10:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible spam

I notice that user 147.188.36.31 has on 12 Nov 2008 added links to various downloadable spreadsheets on some 10 Wikipedia pages. This does not appear at first glance to be a commercial site, so I'm not sure if this is someone trying to be helpful or if it is disguised spam. Could someone with more experience than me take a look please. Murray Langton (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The very act of adding links to the same site to many articles is a big red flag. Reverted and warned. MER-C 11:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

More questionable behavior from WT:MOSNUM

I previously noted here some issues I saw at WT:MOSNUM regarding the issues of date autoformatting, specifically that while the main editors there believe they have consensus to change the MOSNUM to disallow it (among other details), they seem to refuse to discuss further with those that are against that change nor seem willing to go to an RFC or other central process for making sure they have consensus, giving the page a cabal-like atmosphere. (I will note that there's an RFC in place on the talk page but only specifically covering the use of birth and death dates, not the wider issue.)

I am getting a feeling it is getting worse, though certainly its only hitting the edges of WP:CIVIL, but there is a lot of questionable behavior going on. First off is [31] this discussion on WT:MOSNUM which is only a continuation of current behavior: User:Tony1 and others seem to assert that consensus has been reached but at least two predominate editors (User:Arthur Rubin and User:Locke Cole) are simply asking for more discussion and clear demonstration of consensus. The editors wishing to remove the formatting of dates seem to sweep these concerns under the rug and continue to perform de-linking of dates with automated tools despite the discussion not being resolved.

Second, a thread on WT:MOSNUM pointed out that there exists individual dates (day, month, and year specified) which User:Ohconfucius brought (in a single month block) to AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 1, 2003. That AFD seems to be fine, but then when User:Greg L comments that When someone nominates all our “on this day throughout history” articles (like January 1) for deletion, someone please let me know., an AFD of a series of date-month article was created by Ofconfucius at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 1. I try to look for good faith here, but when both these editors (as well as those supporting the deletion of the day-month article) have made it known they do not want date formatting and see any generic day or year articles as being collections of trivial objects (see, for example this barnstar challenge that Greg L's offers to show the futility of such articles), or here on WT:MOSNUM where discussion on when to link shows individual views, I cannot shake the feeling there's gaming of the system going on. The second AFD series is certainly not disruptive to the point of blocking, but it is appearing to be very WP:POINTy in line with the reasoning to get rid of dates.

Irregardless of whether or not dates should be linked or not, I cannot help but to look at the behavior on the WT:MOSNUM page and walk away feeling that there's a cabal at work that refuses to listen to reasonable requests to discuss matters further before implementing them (even though I agree on many of their points on the actual matter of date formatting - it's simply the approach they are taking that concerns me) It's not yet to a point where blocks or the like have to be issued, but I am concerned that if discussion continues as it does, with it spreading to other WP areas of process without any significant and proper discussion of the basic points, it may become a deeply entrenched edit war. It may be that this needs to have moderation (I don't see this yet as an Arbcom case yet), but I don't see any resolve on the talk page alone is going to work. --MASEM 10:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Appeal of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

Ease of editing section break

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

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

I ask that we reopen the matter now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To quote MastCell's response to the last:

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

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

”

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

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

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

Furthermore, the arbitrators were clearly not interested in anything I had to say in my defense: The case opened on 17:40, 2 December 2007 [32]. Within 13 hours of this, and before I had had the chance to provide a single word of evidence in my defense, Uninvited Company set out proposed decisions saying my statements were not borne out by the facts, to sanction Chaser for not having unblocked Matthew Hoffman, and to suggest I be desysopped.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

”

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

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

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

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

Thank you,

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

RFPP problem

Resolved

 – Thanks Collectonian. I shouldn't Wiki before my morning coffee... Tan | 39 16:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone more savvy than I take a look at WP:RFPP - the very last active report for LaVan Davis is not being caught by the bot although it has been resolved. In the edit screen, there is a large block of text here that seems to be definitions for all the RFPP icons... very strange. Take a look-see, help out if you can; I don't know how to fix it short of deleting that whole block of text, which is probably the solution - but just want to make sure. Tan | 39 15:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Should now be fixed. Looks like JForget accidentally did a subst instead of a regular call to the RFPP template. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Please Advise

Could someone please refer to my request posted on the below talk page on Oct. 6, 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Delaware_North_Companies

I would like to get it resolved as I think all issues have been resolved.

Cwhit3134 (talk)