Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Users Emptymountains and Truthbody

Could somebody please review the edits of these two users? For many months now they are consistently doing nothing else then spamming articles with books from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (Tharpa publications) and manipulating all articles related to the Shugden-controversy, in order to advertise the their teacher who founded the "New Kadampa Tradition". They remove any critical notes on this teacher in a continuous stream of small edits, so that in the end, virtually all critical notes vanish. Especially the article on Shugden is their main battleground, and many other editors have simply given up on this article because everything is 'manipulated away' by mainly these two users. Kind regards rudy (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Diffs of the disruptive editing would be very helpful.  iMatthew :  Chat  01:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, basically, ALL their edits in Wikipedia are related to their 'mission'. Problem is that the issue is somewhat obscure and hard to explain to someone not involved in Tibetan Buddhism. In a nutshell, they are part of a cult within Tibetan Buddhism under the guidance of their teacher Kelsang Gyatso who founded the 'New Kadampa Tradition' (NKT). There is a dispute with the general Tibetan Buddhist community regarding the practice of a ghost/deity called Shugden. Following this controversy, Kelsang Gyatso was expelled from his monastery etc., and you can find refenrences to this for example in the website of the Tibetan Goverment in Exile at The Tibetan Administration on Controversy Surrounding Dorjee Shugden Practice

In the mean time, the NKT has been expanding in the west quite quickly, often with less then proper means so to speak. Anyway, many of their followers believe that one of the monst important things in life is the worship of the Shugden deity/ghost, and they use all means to convince others that their practice is very mportant. For years, this has led to endless edit-wars in pages like the page on shugden itself, but also because members try to manipulate information on the Wikipedia to introduce their 'plight' on every page that is even slightly related to a subject on (Tibetan) Buddhism. They do this systematically by more or less 'legal' means of spamming book references of their teacher (Tharpa publications), promoting the pages of people who are involved in the practice (like the previous Trijang Rinpoche, trying to manipulate pages of opponents (like the Dalai Lama), or even the pages where they are quoted (a recent example, the page on bodhisattva. They consistently cover up their edits by following up with one or more minor edits, so it looks as if they just added a comma or so, but instead they replaced a book reference of the Dalai Lama with one of their teacher three edits before that. Many different editors in the (Tibetan) Buddhism pages have come across them and were 'defeated' in longer or shorter edit-wars. If it helps, I could ask some of these editors to contact you or to add there comments here??

In short, these users do everyting in their power to 'Game' Wikipedia in their obsession. To be honest, even when they would be banned, it is very likely that 'new' users will pop up to continue their systematic manipulation.rudy (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

One more addition. This may sound paranoia, but I suppose that they may have read this notice, and just a few hours ago three brand-new users have popped up: Draesynrei, George415 and Totallydoit who 'by coincidence' continue with exactly the same job. Isn't that strange? These people have become really professional, and I have no idea with how many they are. rudy (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Kelsang Gyatso is not a reliable source, that much seems to be clear. Mitsube (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's really adequate to make a blanket statement that Gyatso or any source affiliated with the NKT is not reliable. I don't know enough about the NKT teachings to identify where they diverge from orthodox Buddhism, but are they really that much more idiosyncratic than, say, the FotWBO or some of the other 'Westerner oriented' hybrid traditions? Obviously divergences from more common positions should not be allowed to be depicted as the majority view, but where the NKT view is in accord with what most sources say, there's no reason to discard those sources. I agree with User:iMatthew that we need specific pages, issues, and diffs to make any useful discussion possible; it's not enough to just issue a blanket condemnation of two editors and then expect people to wade through their entire history looking for problems. I looked at User:Truthbody's edits for a bit and found a few that I find to be idiosyncratic with mainstream Buddhism, or otherwise biased ([1] [2] [3] [4]), but also many edits on the topics that the editor is being accused of maligning where the edits that I looked at (obviously just a sample) all appeared fine, if they do lean a bit heavily on Tharpa books. It's much better to discuss edits, not editors. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Spacemunki, however, I have not accused Kelsang Gyatso for providing only wrong information on mainstream Buddhism. The problem is that with all these edits they are simply turning the Wikipedia into an advertising option for their books and their organisation. For example, when I search for 'tharpa publications' in the Wikipedia, I find about 40 links to their books, and virtually all added in the last month: is it acceptable to use Wikipedia as a free advertising platform?rudy (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the writings of any religious teacher should not be regarded as reliable encyclopedic sources for anything more than his or her own opinion. This is especially true in the case of teachers who are controversial within their own circles. Worse yet, Clay gives examples where Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is cited for information about Buddhism or Mahayana thought as a whole, although his thought is apparently based specifically in one school of Tibetan Buddhism. I don't really see any reason why his books are acceptable sources for any Buddhism articles.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, actually- now that I think of it, generally books by someone like the Dalai Lama or Thich Nhat Hanh should probably not be used as sources for general Buddhist views, either- there are too many works by academics that have already done the work of synthesizing traditional views for there to be a need to lean on those, and it runs the risk of substituting personal interpretations for general beliefs. Also, it should always be the case that when a teacher is sourced for a statement, that view is attributed to them, rather than to 'Buddhism' or 'Buddhists'- I object to something like this where an edit removed the link to Gyatso, giving the impression that it is general to all of Buddhism. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is a reliable and well respected source for Mahayana Buddhism. His books have been read by over half a million people and are studied by tens of thousands. They are also used on university courses. They are mainstream Buddhism. I personally am only trying to help with various Buddhist related articles. I am genuinely trying to help because I love Buddhism. I also just really enjoy editing Wikipedia articles. I have hardly even added a great deal -- just a useful sentence or two, or a definition here and there, to articles on Buddhism, with relevant source material (in accordance with Wiki requirements). I was just getting started, I feel I have a lot to offer in terms of helping to clarify some of these articles and have started dialog with other editors e.g. on the article Tantra. I have studied Mahayana Buddhism for 27 years. I find this bias and prejudice against myself, whenever I make edits, inexplicable and uncalled for. It is as if Rudy and Mitsube are trying to run me off Wikipedia and it is, frankly, quite hurtful. If you can find examples of Buddhist information that I have added that is wrong or misleading, fair enough, but I think I have added useful and accurate information about Mahayana Buddhism, especially as presented in the Gelugpa and Kadampa traditions of Je Tsongkhapa, and I have been very clear about the sources, which are all WP:RS. I have in no way tried to use Wikipedia for advertising, that is an unwarranted accusation. I am only trying to help improve these articles. Please moderators can you encourage these other users to assume good faith when it comes to my edits? And request them to stop making personal attacks on me, my Buddhist tradition, and my Buddhist teachers? And let me know if you have any more questions and I will answer them to the best of my ability. Thank you for your help. (Truthbody (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

If you object to my edits, please let me know exactly which ones and I'm happy to discuss these. And I would really appreciate it if you please did some research before making such offensive claims about spirits and goblins and the like -- this slander does not seem suitable on an encyclopedia and I have not bad mouthed any of you so, please, drop the hostility!! Please check this website for more reliable information: http://www.newkadampatruth.org. (Truthbody (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

The only referent I am aware of for "mainstream Buddhism" would be the Nikayan schools that were considered orthodox during Aśoka's time. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's writings can hardly claim to be representative of Theravada Buddhism, or even of East Asian Mahayana. I'm sure he is quite learned in the Tibetan tradition, although I'm not sure if most Tibetan Buddhists would feel comfortable with him being cited as an expert. Anyway, as I argued above, even non-controversial and widely respected teachers should not normally be cited as encyclopedic sources.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please will a moderator also ask Mitsube to stop following me around from article to article and reverting all my edits, giving no good reason. (Truthbody (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Thank you for soliciting my view with the invitation on my chittychat page. I tender that the editors should be censured if they do not collaborate for a brilliantly faceted indivisible truth and shanghai with malintent[sic]. One practitioner's demon is another's deva: Banes are invariably boons, as what wanes will wax. The murky lurkiness of politikkking...

Aum Svaha Ah

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please ignore B9 hummingbird hovering; he's always like this.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rudyh01,

You ask, "When will you ever stop advertising Kelsang Gyatso in Wikipedia and trying to hide your edits?" Please note that I never disguise contestable edits as "minor" ones. Instead, I go through the entire article, making major and minor edits along the way. Why is going through an article in one fell swoop considered hiding my edits?

For the quote by the Dalai Lama, my edit summary said, "the DL quote made it seem like no Bodhisattva ever cultivates boatman-like or shepherd-like bodhichitta, which is incorrect." The Bodhisattva article itself says, "Shepherd-like Bodhisattva - one who aspires to delay buddhahood until all other sentient beings achieve buddhahood. Bodhisattvas like Avalokiteshvara, Shantideva among others are believed to fall in this category." Did you know that Manjushri also became a Bodhisattva by first cultivating shepherd-like bodhichitta? Yet, the DL quote says, "there is no way that a Bodhisattva either would want to or could delay achieving full enlightenment." That is why I think it is incorrect, no matter who said it. Emptymountains (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My general advice on this issue is to nominate a very strict administrator who would follow the attempted of these (pro-shugden) fellows. The best would be to have a specific page where to report the problems, so as to be able to stop it. We have had the same problem on the french page. By carefully using the rules of wikipedia, we could at least control these peoples. By the way, it was "funny" to witness a "defender of RPC" was helping these fellows. He probably didn't know he was taking on a him a very dark karmic energy ... --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think these users are experiencing the same kind of blantant sectarianism which is now rife in the Buddhist world since the Dalai Lama banned the practice of Dorje Shugden. The articles are not related to the Shugden issue so why do you and other insist on making this a Shugden issue? it is not. Is it not permissible for those Buddhists who practise the New Kadampa Tradition to make edits to articles on Buddhism without having to suffer blatant discrimination from other Buddhists? I would appeal to the admins to protect the right of anyone to contribute to these articles if they can improve them.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I second the comments of Matthew - specifics are probably necessary--seeding references to NKD thoughout wikipedia, if that is in fact what is happening, it is troubling but I'm not sure what it would run afoul of, if anything. Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not what is happening. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is a respected Buddhist author and the content of his books are traditional Gelugpa teachings that no one would have any problems with. Information from these books can be used to improve Buddhist articles, therefore Sacca and Mitsube's objections can only be sectarian ones because the accuracy and authenticity of the material is not in question. If it is in question, they should give valid reasons why. Either we should allow input from all valid Buddhist authors such as Geshe Kelsang, the Dalai Lama, Tezin Palmo, Alex Berzin, Glenn Mullin and so forth, or we should allow none in favour of academic references only, but it would be a shame to include only academic references because a full understanding of Buddhism comes only as a result of practising it, not simply learning and writing about it. The 'practice' references are therefore very important, but we should not discriminate against Buddhist authors. Geshe Kelsang's credentials are clear and authentic.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

user truthbody just committed another violation of the 3 revert rule on the Vajrayana article. Concerning NKD material again. where to report that? I am in favor of removing him for a while now, this is the second violation already, shows no signs of stopping his POV edits too. Greetings, Sacca 23:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What is POV about his edits? Please give specific reasons why you do not agree with these edits. Are they not technically correct? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck to anyone trying to maintain a NPOV in articles related to the NKT, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso or their pet protector Dolgyal Shugden! The NKT, an organization of Geshe Kelsang's (overwhelmingly western) followers, are a heterodox cult which has branched of from the mainstream Gelukpa tradition - though naturally they believe fervently that they represent the authentic tradition and those that disagree with them are misguided and perverting the true tradition. Since they believe their root guru is infallible, anyone who they think disagrees with his views is automatically wrong [of course whatever the good Geshe has written or said is naturally always true, fair and impartial]. Anyway you simply can't argue logically or reasonably with people who have that kind of belief and you will end up exhausting yourself if you try. The NKT has thousands of members many of whom (and their sock puppets) seem to have nothing better to do than to "correct" anything written about them, their guru or their "protector". This has been going on for years ~ first on Usenet and other forums and now on Wikipedia.

Frankly it is difficult to see how anything the founder, leaders, or "true believers" of any controversial religious cult write about themselves, their organization or their beliefs can be a reliable encyclopedic source for anything other than as an example of what they believe. Similarly the views of their most vociferous opponents may not be a very good source either. Chris Fynn (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris Fynn, what you say here is of course intended to be insulting and it shows remarkable prejudice. But in your own words you are not a good source, as you are acting as a "vociferous opponent" here yourself, with no attempt at being polite, balanced or empathetic. Why would I or others amongst the "thousands" of students in the Kadampa tradition not want to "correct" horrible accusations like this when they are shouted out on Wikipedia? (Truthbody (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Chris, Rudy, etc. - you use this word "cult" and make some pretty strong claims about these Buddhists: that they're unthinking 'sock puppets', for example. Rather than doing this, if you really think that there's a problem with any edit, would you please have the common decency and intellectual honesty to reference these edits and explain clearly why you feel that they are inaccurate or redundant to their respective articles. So far, you've just been rude, and this isn't helpful. If a person with whose views you strongly disagree contributes a factually accurate and relevant edit to any article, what are your grounds for disapproving of that edit?Atisha's cook (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration between other Buddhist editors against NKT editors

What have user:Jmlee369, user:Dakinijones, user:Moonsell, user:Peter jackson, user:Andi 3ö, user:CFynn, user:Spasemunki, user:Rédacteur Tibet, user:Nat Krause, user:Mitsube and user:Sylvain1972 all got in common? They were exhorted by rudy to come to this board and gang up against user:Truthbody and user:Emptymountains and the Buddhist tradition they practice with the following message on their user Talk pages:

The never-ending story about Shugden

Hi, I'm just starting another attempt to stop the NKT people from 'taking over' the Wikipedia with their continuous edit-war to promote the Shugden practice. If you agree, please leave a note at Administrators noticeboard. rudy (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely that is against Wikipedia policy?

We can see from Chris Fynn comments above what kind of sectarianism NKT practitioners have put up with, mainly from Tibetan Buddhists who seem to have an issue with the fact that everyone is entitled to religious freedom and the Dalai Lama has no right to politically control religious views. They want to invalidate my Teacher, my tradition and my beliefs because they don't agree with their own. This should not affect Wikipedia. NKT practitioners have as much right to edit articles on Buddhism as everyone else, without interference from politically motivated Buddhists who subscribe to the Dalai Lama's views. This is nothing to do with Dorje Shugden - all I'm trying to do is to improve these articles and I and other NKT editors are being discriminated against. What is the Admins' view about this? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on "Truthsayer62", this has nothing to do with "religious freedom" or suppressing it or with "sectarianism". Of course knowledgeable NKT practitioners have as much right to edit articles on Buddhism as any other knowledgeable person, provided they follow the norms - however it appears to be difficult for at least some NKT contributers to maintain a NPOV when they perceive something contradicts the story of the entity Shugden as it has been related to them by their Geshe-la.

In editing more general Buddhist articles, it helps to be familiar with the whole range of books and commentaries on the subject written by both "insiders" and "outsiders" ~ not just to rely on the works of Geshe Kelsang. Learned as he may be, his views represent those of one individual belonging to one segment of a single sect of Tibetan Buddhism. IMO they should only be given as much weight as they deserve in that wider context - no more. As for the Dalai Lama, he is indisputably a far more significant figure in the broad context of Tibetan Buddhism than is Geshe Kelsang Gyatso - who apparently has no more than a handful of Tibetan followers. In the contentious cases I think we are talking about, the views of the Dalai Lama generally represent the mainstream of Tibetan Buddhist opinion whereas the views of Geshe Kelsang are representative, at best of those of a small minority. I don't mind Rudy01 pointing out to me when he thinks articles have become imbalanced - you can do the same. When I receive such a message all it means is that I may go to the article try to decide for myself if what he - or you - is claiming is in fact the case. Beyond that, I'm unlikely to do anything since I have neither the time nor the energy to participate in edit-wars. IMO it is a total waste of time to attempt to correct any misinformation I may find in NKT / Shugden related articles as inn my experience such corrections will be undone within a matter of hours. If someone believes their spiritual teacher is infallible, "fully enlightened" or suchlike ~ how can they accept anything that contradicts their teachers views? Chris Fynn (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC).

Look Chris, This isn't about Shugden/Anti-Shugden and it's not about Geshe Kelsang vs the Dalai Lama. Both Geshe Kelsang and the Dalai Lama had the same root Guru so their views with respect to Gelugpa teachings are bound to be similar, disregarding their completely different views about Dorje Shugden which is not the issue here. Geshe Kelsang's teachings are as much representative of the mainstream of Gelugpa teachings as the Dalai Lama's are and therefore his books are as valid a source of reference as the Dalai Lama's are and it's of no avail to claim otherwise --Truthsayer62 (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Rudy's original concern was about "spamming articles with books from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (Tharpa publications)" - so let's get back to that claim. Articles including Universal_Compassion, Heart of Wisdom, The New Meditation Handbook, do look to me very much like publicity blurbs for books by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso with the same titles that have been published by Tharpa Publications - a publishing house which is pretty well entirely dedicated to "publishing the works of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso" and which is "part of the New Kadampa Tradition - International Kadampa Buddhist Union". Checking the histories of these articles, it appears they were almost entirely written by User:Truthbody who on his user page says he is "in the New Kadampa Tradition and a student of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso" and that he has "worked in Public Relations and in journalism". It does make me wonder whether the above mentioned articles, all of which have appeared within the last month, were written with the intention of publicizing or advertising the said books by someone who clearly has connections with the author and the publisher - or at least the organization of which the publisher forms a part. (IOW not exactly a neutral or disinterested party) This seems like a method of advertising. Can someone please clarify, what is the Wikipedia policy on such "promotional" articles? If a contemporary book truly warrants a Wikipedia article, it strikes me that it would be better coming from someone unconnected with the author or publishers. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A quick look at 2 of the articles shows heavy reliance on Amazon blurbs and unverifiable 'reviews'. They do, as you say, read like publicity blurbs. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you check the article on the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, it includes a bibliography and some links to individual books of his such as the Art of Happiness. Geshe Kelsang's article contains a bibliography and has links to individual books such as Universal Compassion, Heart of Wisdom and so forth. No one is being accused of 'spamming' Wikipedia with promotional information about the Dalai Lama's books, so where is the problem? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's probably explained by the fact that the Art of Happiness is just 1750 bites, while Heart of Wisdom was 8464 bytes until I removed some unreferenced/improperly referenced stuff. If you are happy to trim the book articles you've written to the same length as The Art of Happiness, that would probably settle the matter. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally i like Dougweller's unbiased edits on these book pages to improve them. Is there any reason why the Art of Happiness could not be longer? Is there a specified wiki article page length? (I'm still learning!)(Truthbody (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

For the record, Chris Fynn, I have no connection with the author or publisher other than that stated on my user page and am working on my own behalf on Buddhist articles (and sometimes other articles of interest) throughout Wiki not for promotional purposes but to contribute to the body of knowledge (and because I enjoy it! for me it is better than wasting my spare time watching re-runs on TV). I know you only have my word for it, but as far as I am concerned this is the truth. (Truthbody (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Since the heading above implicitly accuses me of "collaboration" (is that actually an offence?), perhaps I should make my position clear. It's certainly true that I probably wouldn't have been aware of this discussion if Rudy hadn't alerted me. However, I haven't looked at any of the edits being discussed here. I've commented only on some of the remarks in the discussions on this page. I'm not taking sides between the Gelugpa factions. Here's a quotation from a reliable source:

"The Dalai Lama represents a Buddhism that is more representative of Tibetans in exile and their Western followers than of Tibetans in Tibet." Faure, Unmasking Buddhism, Wiley-Blacwell, 2009, page 73

No doubt it would be easy enough to find others saying similar things about NKT. Neither faction should be trusted for an accurate account of traditional Gelugpa teachings. As Nat & Clay say above, we need scholarly sources for that. Peter jackson (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:DougsTech

Resolved

 – No consensus on this matter was reached. Have boldly marked resolved and archived. Continuing episodes of the DuncanHill/Sceptre show are best kept to their own talkpages. //roux   14:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unresolved  – converted to tag from section header --slakr\ talk / Discussion Wikipedia is not an experimental model of open democracy and certainly is not an experiment in online libertarianism. I'm interpreting this huge discussion and the previous epic situations with Kurt to indicate a presumptive consensus here and favoring of a topic ban from RfX, which I've notified DougsTech of here. Now can we please get on with writing an encyclopedia? rootology (C)(T) 15:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC) No way Rootology you cant possibly impose a topic ban with this lack of support after less then 24 hours. This is insane. There is no consensus and we should never act this urgently without a clear and present danger to the project. Whatt happened to allowing editors in all timezones to comment? Has DougsTech even commented on this yet?. I'm unarchiving and unresolving this. Please let discussion and consensus find its own way in its own time. Sheesh Spartaz Humbug! 16:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC) It has recently come to my attention that this user has been opposing every single RFA on the assumption there are "too many administrators currently". Engaging in discussion with this editor is useless as everything said is a personal attack. The point of RFA is to give an opinion on whether the candidate is suitable for adminship or not. Or even just about the candidate. DougsTech is abusing the process by doing neither of these, but posting a blanket statement on his misguided view of the situation (i.e. the false idea we have too many admins). Unlike with Kurt Weber, it is impossible to be supported by this user. Kurt, with all his faults, at least supported occasionally, and had a reason that I could, at a long stretch, agree with. But DougsTech's votes have nothing to do with the candidate. We need this to be nipped in the bud while it's still fresh. We need to stamp out nonsense when we see it. All the bureaucrats I have spoken to have said they ignore his vote, so there is no point in his continuing to edit RFA pages. All his votes do is draw attention to himself when an unsuspecting person unfamiliar questions it. Yes, people are allowed to give their opinions, but the opinions need to be relevant and about the discussion at hand, not about something else entirely. He is doing nothing positive on RFA, is being totally ignored in the result, so I think a topic ban to ensure that we don't feed him would be the best solution here. Additionally, he is now edit warring on an RFA template trying to remove the word "only" which implies there are too few admins. This user needs some time away from RFAs. Majorly talk 01:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support - enough is enough. His actions are the very definition of WP:POINT. //roux   02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose as while I do not agree with the editor in question's stance, I see no reason not to allow him to express it. If it is his opinion, so be it. People can easily ignore those with whom they disagree. And even if it is a minority or dissenting opinion, there is value in having a variety of opinions expressed. We run into dangerous territory if we start censoring opinions and stifling discussions in RfAs or anywhere. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC) He's allowed to express it, just not on RFAs, where he is ignored by bureaucrats, and where the opinion expressed is supposed to be about the candidate in question. Nothing is being censored here: just asking him to take it elsewhere. It does not belong on RFAs. Majorly talk 02:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I reckon bucreacrats probably ignore a good deal of comments in RfAs that are not convincing, but if we prevented people from voicing their opinions just because bureacrats ignore them, who knows how many editors' opinions we would not allow? Yes, his comment is not specific to the candidates, but hey, if that's what he feels, so be it. As with the other user you mnetion (I am not repeating his username as I believe he left under "right to vanish"), I think more hubub was caused by challenging his copy and paste opposes than by just ignoring it. I disagreed with him, too, but it just never really bothered me if that's how he feels. It really just seems like we'd be better off not making an issue of it than doing so. Let him say what he wants to say. If people disagree okay. If they want to engage with him in the Rfas, then who knows maybe they can get somewhere that convinces him to think about the candidates as individuals. And if we have a discussion, isn't that better than just a vote (i.e. a list of supports and opposes)? Now I would agree with you if he said to oppose "because all admins are (choose some insult)" that would be perceived as a personal attack or incivil, but if he just thinks we have too many admins and wants to do say as much, it's just a "whatever," move along. I am just concerned that if we start barring people from commenting when they aren't making a clear personal attack, we could establish a dangerous precendent that will invite challenges to other people's stances. And besides, what about those who say "Support, we don't have enough admins", which I have seen as well? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I'm afraid "so be it" is the wrong attitude. We are clearly being trolled here, and it's sad people are too nice to see it. But we are. DougsTech adds nothing of any value to RFAs: his opinion is totally ignored by bureaucrats, who have publicly stated as such; his vote will always offend somebody; his vote has nothing to do with the candidacy, so is off topic and irrelevant; he has proven difficult to talk to, and argumentative, and has taken his "stance" further by edit warring on an RFA template trying to push his opinion. I'm all for discussing whether we have enough admins or not. Individual RFAs simply is not the right place to do that. Majorly talk 02:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC) How are we sure we are being trolled? Shouldn't we WP:AGF? Now unless if (and I admit here I haven't looked), he has a history of other unconstructive edits, then why should we conclude that we are being trolled? I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt. It just seems that as far as potentially bad things to say or do at RfAs, his opposes are just not that serious. Now, if he was vote stacking, making personal attacks, etc. okay, but really just saying we have too many admins? And again, I disagree with that assertion, but it just doesn't seem like something to lose sleep over (and no, I am not suggesting anyone actually is losing sleep over it, but I suppose you get what I mean). Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I'm pretty certain we are being trolled. It's nice of you to assume good faith, but it's difficult to assume good faith when someone is very deliberately disrupting the RFA process, and finding every loophole in the book to allow himself to do so. Perhaps my bullshit toleration level is lower than yours; that's fine. We have put up with this silliness for enough time though. Majorly talk 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I don't know...I just don't like the idea of not allowing someone to say what he wants to say in such instances. And hey, people know me as being a strong inclusionist and all and well, accordingly to Doug's userpage he's a deletionist, so one might think I would jump on this opportunity to silence someone of the opposite editing philosophy, but that just wouldn't be right. We need dissenting and diverse opinions to challenge each other even if we really don't like the opposing viewpoints. And as far as I can tell, he is otherwise an editor in good standing, no? Now, again, if it were clear that he was a sock of a banned editor or had a block log full of vandalism or harassment blocks or something, I could maybe see something here, but it just doesn't feel right to silence him here. Maybe if he is just ignored and his view doesn't influence others, he'll try a different track? I just really want to give people the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, I suppose. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC) A nobody: “ This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence ” — WP:AGF This editor has has presented contrary evidence to the idea that he is not trolling. Therefore to prevent disruption, we must err on the banhammer side here to prevent DougsTech from making further disruption. A better place he could have brought his point up would be WT:RFA, WP:PROPS, or WT:ADMIN.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Strongly Oppose He has a valid (but in my opinion incorrect) argument and we shouldn't silence dissent. I don't think the closing crats take his opinion to mean much, anyway. Perhaps if we'd ignore him he'll stop that. The behaviour that's most disruptive at the RfAs is all the bad faith responses and accusations that his opinion creates. ThemFromSpace 02:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC) No, the argument is about the situation, not the candidate. It doesn't belong on each RFA. It belongs on RFA talk. There is no point in an editor continuing to troll us (which he is doing) if his votes are even being totally ignored. Majorly talk 02:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I don't consider him a troll. As I said above, I think the response to his opinion has created more disruption than his opinion itself. If he believes that there really are too many admins than it makes sense for him to try to shut down the gates and prevent any more editors from becoming admins. Wikipedia works by consensus, and consensus isn't on his side yet. Perhaps there will be a day where we have too many admins and RfAs will need to be suspended but consensus says that day isn't yet. ThemFromSpace 02:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC) You need to look at the start of the chain. 1. User makes controversial vote. 2. People respond to it. It's human nature. Most of us know not to respond to it, but there will always be someone who is unaware (as I clearly explained in my summary above), which means that for the best, it is suitable he is prevented from making any more "votes" (I hesitate to call them votes, because they are completely ignored, and have nothing to do with the discussion being voted on). His dissent does not belong on each and every RFA. If he thinks there are too many, he ought to make consensus on RFA talk. Until then, he should either start voting about the candidate at hand, or stop altogether, because this is blatant abuse of the process. It is very sad people are far too forgiving and easy-going, when we are clearly being trolled here. DougsTech's "opinion" adds nothing to RFAs, or consensus (as it's ignored), so has no place here. Shame you can't see that. Ah well. Majorly talk 02:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Your comment borders on being uncivil. Last time I checked we didn't ban people for stating their opinions in a discussion. It's the most unpopular opinions that need to be protected the most. If others will learn to accept his point of view maybe we can move forward with this frivolous discussion. One can vote to oppose a candidate who doesnt have, say, 6 months of experience. Or that person can write an essay on it and be ignored by the RfA consensus. The only fair way to let DougsTech participate is to let him have his say at RfA. Writing essays and postings on chat boards isn't a direct action, when participating in the actual RfA is. ThemFromSpace 02:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Your comment is bordering on being uncivil. Opinions have a time and place. RFA is already brutal enough as it is. DougsTech does not offer an opinion about the candidate. If he did, we would not be here. Until he offers an opinion about the candidate on an RFA, he has no right to be using RFA to troll us. He is disrupting the RFA process to make a point, that we have too many admins. RFA is not about opinions on just any old thing. He is offering an opinion on the general situtation, which is totally inappropriate. Once again: opinions about topics have a time and place. RFA is not the place to discuss whether there are enough admins or not. Until you, and he sees that, it will continue to be disrupted. Majorly talk 02:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC) This topic isn't about me and since you've turned the argument at me by implying that I am somehow at fault for this, I'm now through with this conversation. I've made my point clear above. ThemFromSpace 02:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I never said the topic was about you. You're merely supporting allowing a user to continue disrupting Wikipedia. So in effect you are at fault, in my opinion, though not at all directly. Thanks for dropping by, your opinion was highly appreciated. Majorly talk 02:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support. The user knows that his votes are being ignored by the closing crats, and he continues to do it anyway in the hopes of drawing a reaction. This is pretty much the definition of trolling. If he believes there are too many admins, there are other, more appropriate places to discuss this, such as WT:RFA. I think a lengthy topic ban (but one that will have an effect, on the order of magnitude of 3 months) would be a good deterrent to stop the disruption. Firestorm Talk 02:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Comment I notified DougsTech of this discussion, which should have been done by now. ThemFromSpace 02:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support Any gain that may have come from this users voting has been worn away by the mindless repetition. Far too often this user has disrupted people RfAs, not because he has an opinion on the person, but because he wants to make a point. He does not base this opinion on the candidate, yet that is the location he chooses to express it. Chillum 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support - He made an alright argument at WT:RFA, and I figured if the crats were discounting it anyway then it wasn't the worst thing that could happen. I have, however, just seen his actions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate, which make me believe that this is indeed an attempt at disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Specific RfAs are not the place to voice believed issues with adminship or the number of admins - that should be discussed elsewhere. — neuro(talk)(review) 02:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support the Kurt battles went on long enough, and this is following the same pattern that followed. The choices to deal with this are (1). DougsTech stops his votes, (2). he is topic-banned, (3). everyone else is topic banned, or (4). everyone stops responding to him. 3 and 4 would be very, very hard to enforce: everyone can't be topic banned from RfA, and as the Kurt issue demonstrated, RfA non-regulars will keep responding to the opposes, and we'll keep going round in circles. With 1, DougsTech has been unwilling to stop his votes, so that unfortunately leaves us with 2. If his votes are ignored by all the bureaucrats, then I see no point in renewing drama. Finally, as Neurolysis points out, the edit warring on the RfA template is not acceptable, and is what convinced me to support this. Acalamari 02:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support- I believe DougsTech's "opposebot"-like behaviour is unhelpful and inapplicable to individual candidates. It is grossly unfair to a candidate to be opposed on grounds that have nothing whatsoever to do with their work, demeanour or suitability for the job and in my opinion the bureaucrats are right to ignore DougsTech's !vote. Having said that, I was going to oppose this topic ban motion- usually I would argue that even the most unpopular and unhelpful opinions should be tolerated even if they're later rejected. However, I now find myself convinced by Firestorm's argument that DougsTech's behaviour amounts to trolling- DT knows his votes are being ignored but persists with them because of the annoyance and drama they cause. That is trolling. Reyk YO! 02:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support We made the mistake of tolerating this nonsense with Kurt for way too long. Non RfA regulars who try to get the bit in good faith, but who don't know about the loony bin RfA groupies, shouldn't have to put up with this kind of absurdity. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Strongest possible support - His point has been made, and it's pissed off a countless amount of users. While it's not that big of a deal, most candidates would of course like to see their RfA go un-opposed. While it's not common, it's most certainly not fair if that's ruined for a user over an oppose that doesn't even concern them directly. That aside, his behavior is just unacceptable.  iMatthew :  Chat  02:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support per Reyk. He knows its being ignored by the bureaucrats and that it annoys people, yet he persists on doing it. Its not WP:POINT because its not actually proving anything, its just disruption. Mr.Z-man 02:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support It is painfully obvious that he is violating WP:POINT by making his copy/pasted oppose comment in just about every RFA. This is apparent trolling. These comments are just causing unnecessary turmoil at WP:RFA and are placed in the completely wrong area if DougsTech wants to put out and prove his assertion. Lastly, the comments have nothing to do with the abilities, temperament, edits, or experience of any of the RFA candidates or how they would handle the tools. There is every reason to ban DougsTech from RFA, not even mentioning the ongoing edit warring mentioned by Majorly. Timmeh! 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support - He has every right to express his opinion (as much as I disagree with it). However, individual RfA discussions are not the place to do so, and at the moment he is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC) To clarify, NuclearWarfare sums it up nicely. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose - I disagree with Dougstech but I can't see how his comments do any particular harm. I imagine they are ignored or barely regarded by closing bureaucrats, who are assessing the actual discussion points made rather than the number of !votes either way. I don't see them as particularly offending RfA candidates either - they're generic so its nothing personal, and the real tension of an RfA is people trawling through your contribution history in search of mild misdemeanours or limited work in some admin-related area. If the RfA is not close the final tally is meaningless and so is Dougstech's view, if it is close then the bureaucrats will give Dougstech's views the appropriate minimal weight. I agree with those who argue he is trying to make a fairly needless point, but the actual disruption is inconsequential, perhaps compared with the potential drama of a topic ban. Euryalus (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose If you think there's too many admins, then you have a valid reason to oppose nominations. What else are you supposed to do to prevent more admins coming into existence? On RfA talk you'll just get ignored; at least on the RfAs, your vote counts. I don't think its right either to topic ban him or to ignore his vote. Obviously if he were smarter he'd just find an excuse, but we can't seek to oppress honesty when it's there (if it's there). I don't think it sends a right message either, that admins (who dominate RfAs) are seeking to oppress users who think there's too many admins (that's obviously not how it is, but rather how it'll be presented). There is the argument of course that he is just abusing the process to get attention, but I don't accept the weight of this as this user isn't charismatic enough to make it effective. In fact, just the opposite is happening, as can be seen in this thread. Undoubtedly if he continues more people will swarm around him reverting his contributions, driving him to blocks, and so on. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Just a quick response. DougsTech would not be ignored on RfA talk; apparently, you haven't seen the discussion there in which he participated. Also, a vote such as DougsTech's would always be ignored by bureaucrats, so it would not count. He is disrupting the RFA process to make a point, and he is not commenting on the actual candidate in question but repeating the same statement about his belief that there are too many admins. That's the reason his vote is not being taken into account. Every individual RfA is not the place to voice an opinion on administrators in general; RFA talk is the appropriate place, whether his comment would be ignored or not (it wouldn't and hasn't). Timmeh! 04:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I did say the crats shouldn't ignore his votes. Nothing is going to come of any RfA talk page movement by him, and community consensus is against his view. So, for all practical purposes, it'll be ignored and will count for nothing in all forums but RfA voting. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support - It is painfully obvious that he is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and from prior experience with Kurt, we let this type of behavior stay around individual RfAs for way too long. -MBK004 04:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Big support. It is one of those "clear examples" of being pointy OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support. This is baseless nonsense and a perfect example of WP:POINT. We got Kurt topic banned from RfA and DougTech's opposes have an even worse criteria: "I'm going to oppose everyone". Why he shouldn't be topic banned as well is beyond me. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. While such opposes are not helpful, they are also harmless. So I do not see any reason for a topic ban. Ruslik (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support. Quite why WP:SOAP is thrown out of the window with RfA is beyond me. It's disruptive, annoying and influences nobody. Individual RfAs are supposed to be comments on individual editors, not on the process. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support, enough is enough, these opposes are ridiculous and damaging to some candidates. The fact that they are ignored by crats gives me more mind to ban them entirely rather than ignore them; one thing I notice is that if you ignore something, it will only grow.  GARDEN  10:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support. The burden should be on him to give better arguments, not on everyone else to ignore his canned, impersonal opposes. Since he shows no sign of improving, we should not continue to allow him to invite off-topic commentary in each individual RfA, as Majorly notes in the proposal and Timmeh restates below in his response to DGG. Since newer RfA participants may not know the pattern, repeating an invalid rationale over and over is potentially disruptive, and I think there is harm in continuing to provide the opportunity for that. — TKD::{talk} 11:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support Ban His argument is not specific to each candidate, which is the point of RFA's. Until he gains consensus in talk pages, RFC's, etc. that we do, in fact, have too many admins and RFA should be suspended, his blanket voting is disruptive. The fact that he responds with incivility, personal attacks and ignoring questions when someone asks what he dislikes about particular candidates he has opposed shows he is at best disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and at worst trolling. The Seeker 4 Talk 11:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support - Why we tolerate trolls for so long is beyond me, lets not tolerate this one for any longer. ~ Ameliorate! 11:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support - pointiness aside, it's a drama magnet. Not worth our time, but here we are. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support: This user is going way too far pushing this point. Although the RFA comments are probably harmless and will be considered plain ridiculous by the closing 'crat, the edit warring shows that he's going even further than that. He can say there are enough admins as much as he wants, and he can try to convince others through discussion. But trying to force or fool others into believing his view through behaviour like this, however far fetched and ridiculous, is completely unacceptable. Chamal talk 11:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support — This has been going on for a while and needs to be dealt with; roux and Reyk nailed it: POINT, and bad faith; +WP:DISRUPT. I agree with most of the "supports" G'day, Jack Merridew 12:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose per my support of the alternative proposal. hmwithτ 12:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Are you Joking??? or oppose I guess. What's this?? Votes for banning all over again??? This must be the most stupid proposal that I have seen in ages. Fringe votes like this don't have any material outcome on RFAs and I seem to recall that we have been here before with Kurt Weber. Suppressing fringe views in internal discussions is simply the first stage in imposing group think on our deliberations. Ridiculous. Shame on everyone supporting this nonsense. Just ignore them and explain to RFA candidates that the 'crats ignore the vote anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 12:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Discussion has been attempted, if you take a look at his talk page and archives. He seems to have a wrong image of the administrator system, and is apparently not ready to listen to anything against his beliefs. Instead of mocking the proposal and its supporters, it would be helpful if you explained your view on this better. Chamal talk 13:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC) So what if you tried reasoning with them. It doesn't matter. Just ignore them and they will go away or at least its less disruptive then trying to ban them. Their contribution makes absolutely ZERO impact on promotions and banning someone from contributing simply because you don't like the opinion they are expressing represents pure groupthink. I'd agree wholeheartedly with a ban if they were the ones pushing the issue but the drama all seems to be down to people who don't like the opinion. Well, they are the ones disrupting the project not him. Spartaz Humbug! 14:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support Whilst I suppose one !vote isn't really relevant, it throws out the RFA percentage stats which quite often people look at. This sounds a bit WP:SLIPPERYSLOPE, but if we let DT carry on with this, there's nothing to stop even more disruptive non-votes clogging up the system. This should've been dealt with when it was Kurt doing it - let's not pass up a second chance to sort it out. (And that goes for anyone who starts doing it on the support side as well). If this was someone spamming AfDs they would have been blocked by now - we don't need to do that, but we do need a topic ban. Black Kite 13:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose: new consensuses are developed via just this sort of process. Claims that "well, the bureaucrats ignore this anyway, so it's safe to suppress" without evidence to that effect (and as far as I know, the 'crats tend not to discuss this sort of thing) are thinly-veiled statements of "I don't like this, shut him up." Claims that the discussion be redirected to talk space smack of "I don't like it, but the 'crats might be paying attention, shut him up." Claims that WP:POINT applies are unfounded. Is he making a point? Yes. Is there disruption? No. Dougs is non-confrontational in his approach. Ultimately, either we have an opinion being ignored by the 'crats, in which case it is no great trial to expect all RFA participants to be mature enough to tolerate its presence, or we have an opinion, properly presented, being considered. Unless someone can prove the former, this ban proposal (or others like it, as below) has no place. — Lomn 13:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC) "Votes based on too many admins were immediately thrown out, of course.".  GARDEN  14:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC) In that event, I withdraw the bulk of my objections. I still note that expecting all RFA participants to behave around controversial comments isn't a high hurdle. — Lomn 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support per above. At some point, AGF stops becoming what we have to listen to, and common sense becomes it instead. DougsTech is free to express his opinion on WT:RFA. "RfA/X User" is meant to be a discussion, not a vote, and if DougsTech is unwilling to agree with this, there is no point in continuing to allow this. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support - I've been putting up with this for a while, and it's gone on for too long. Xclamation point 14:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support per NW. DougsTech is by far not the only mass-opposer I've heard of, but his reasoning seems to be aimed at the wrong venue. RfA is meant to judge the user's fitness to be an admin, not the encyclopedia's need for admins. This is clearly WP:POINT-y behavior. —Admiral Norton (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose This is why we have crats. Let him give his opinion and let the crat weigh it.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Kind of weakishly reluctanltishly support It's a fantastically stupid opinion and since it's systematic we could almost assign a bot to adding it when an RfA goes live. But there's also a longstanding (though misguided) tradition to let anyone say whatever the heck they want on RfAs. The problem is that since RfAs are thankfully not the sole territory of RfA regulars, every occurrence of "too many administrators currently" either creates a long list of "what???" replies or forces someone to add "don't worry, there's a long thread on WT:RFA about this and crats will disregard the opinion". Since nobody really takes his opinion seriously, it's a useless distraction in a process which clearly could do without distractions. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose too many threads at AN. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Second Choice (stolen from ArbCom :P). I don't think it is a good option above, but... Anyway, I have seen enough stray comments from Doug to suggest that he either has or will operate another account if there were any blocks or the rest on him, so I have no confidence that such a topic ban would do anything but possibly drive him to continuing it on another name in a more subtle manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support User is clearly not evaluating individual candidates, this trolling has gone on too long. ϢereSpielChequers 15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose Everyone is allowed a !vote and I see no reason to strike a !vote just because you don't like it. Striking oppose !votes is a dangerous trend because it discourages others from opposing and should be done very carefully. How about a swing by some of the articles needing attention instead? --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Just ignore him for pete's sake. It's a protest vote. We get it. The 'crats get it. If he feels like stuffing that onto every RfA, then it's his time to waste, just pass along to the next one and carry on with life. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Ignore him per Tony Fox. This whole discussion is just feeding a troll.--Aervanath (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Neutral — Although the bureaucrats can not-vote a not-vote (?), if the same thing happened with AfD, where someone added to every AfD, "*Delete – too many articles already," people would go batty and be ready for a lynchin'. It all goes back to don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. One user is ignorable, but if it grows to levels where 10 people are always adding stuff like "too many admins" or "self-noms are prima facie evidence of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand," then it's a bit silly, and I have a strange feeling everyone else will agree if it ever got to that point. That said, one person trolling by stating something clearly incorrect—that we have too many admins, as opposed to not enough—would likely favor the candidate, so in reality, that kind of an oppose vote is really more of a support. :P --slakr\ talk / 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support While I defended Kurt's right to !vote as he deemed fit, I have to oppose these pointy !votes of DougsTech. The big difference is that Kurt's !votes were about the candidate and some perceived imperfection with the candidate themself. Kurt was able to defend his position on why he felt that a specific candidate wasn't qualified based upon his sense of what he was looking for. Doug's !vote has nothing to do with the candidate, but a belief that we don't need more admins. If Doug wishes to rally about how there are too many admins, he can do so, just not on individual RfA/RfB's where he is being disruptive/pointy.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: he is now making his posts in the Neutral section... I don't mind that.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Support per the above voters, especially Black Kite. I personally believe from secondhand observations that most Wikipedia administrators are overburdened and that we could solve the problem by appointing a lot more of them, and the declining rate of new admin promotion worries me. But I would not vote for someone whom I feel would become a problematic administrator simply to increase the number of administators, and each time I vote in an RfA I give the specific reasons why I would like to see each candidate be promoted or denied so that the other voters and the bureaucrats may find value in my vote. (Note though that I am somewhat new to RfA, having made only six votes, and have not yet voted Oppose, as all of the candidates whom I really wouldn't trust have been snowed out fairly early on. But the rationale I give above is a principle I hold myself to.) Soap Talk/Contributions 16:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Your support for this topic ban has virtually no relation to DougsTech. As such, it is every bit as valid as DougsTech's opposes on RfAs. Could you please provide a reason why DougsTech should be banned from RfA? If it is because he is opposing because he thinks there are too many admins, then would you support banning anyone from RfA who thinks there are too many admins? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I thought I had explained myself better. I'm highlighting the difference between someone who believes there are too many administrators and votes Oppose based on the merits of each individual candidate, versus someone who believes there are too many administrators and votes Oppose based on that rationale alone, ignoring the respective pros and cons of each candidate. I would not support the banning of anyone in the former category, but would support banning anyone in the latter category. Soap Talk/Contributions 18:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Strong oppose, just as I opposed restrictions on Kurt Weber regarding his votes. My arguments are the same as of others opposing this above, which means under normal circumstances I would not take the time to comment duplicatively here, but since there has been such unseemly haste to mark this resolved and a topic ban implemented, it seems important to register disagreement. Martinp (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support. This is completely different from Kurt Weber's input, which was based on the candidate. Given that the closing 'crats routinely ignore these "votes", the best case outcome is that this editor's contributions to RfA are utterly useless. The only other likely outcome is disruption and distraction from discussing the candidate at hand - recall that the purpose of an RfA is to determine whether or not the community trusts the candidate not to abuse the tools. Now, if DougsTech has a sincere belief that there are too many admins, he should pick an appropriate forum (e.g. WT:RFA or the Village Pump) and start trying to convince people of his position with arguments, logic, statistics... something. Nobody is being silenced - if anything, such a discussion is to be welcomed. Perhaps the process of gaining - or losing - the bit will be improved as a result. But individual candidates' RfA pages are not the place for that discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support ban editors who disrupt this project and doesn't contribute much to the building of the encyclopedia should be banned. Secret account 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support a topic ban from individual RfAs and RfBs (but not from WT:RFA). I think the opposition makes many good points, but where they fail is that they're not reading what the supporters are actually writing. No one thinks that anyone should be muzzled for being disagreeable, but a topic ban is the traditional and acceptable way to deal with persistent, dogged FORUMSHOPping. Dougstech is welcome to argue his case for getting rid of all the admins and replacing us with something else (he hasn't said what, yet), perhaps at WP:VPP, but that's the only argument he's indicated he's interested in, so far, and that has nothing to do with individual RFAs. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support Ban from WP:RFA, WP:RFB, and WT:RFA, as well as from making RFA/B related comments on a canidate's talk page. The ban should be indefinite until re-discussed.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose Is this a joke? I didn't realize having an unpopular, or even unfounded, opinion was grounds for a banning. And the peoeple who think this is a violation of WP:POINT are missing the point that one of the criteria of WP:POINT is that the action is disruptive. Voting in a vote (let's face it, it's a vote) is not disruptive even if it's based on a factually suspect opinion that nobody agrees with. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, it is disruptive. It's confusing to new candidates at RfA, and it's confusing to editors who are new to RfAs. And it's disruptive to editors with experience at RfA in the same way that spam emails are disruptive - yes, it can be ignored, but that still takes a bit of time and mental exertion, just like spam emails. And it is spam - no bureaucrat should give such an opinion any weight whatsoever, since the "oppose" has nothing to do with the quality of the candidate. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Anybody so easily confused shouldn't be an admin candidate. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC) IMHO, if in making a point someone has caused major disruption (as seen here), chances are that was the intent. ;-) --Ipatrol (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. Those pushing for a RfX ban are seeking to silence dissent. Misguided dissent, maybe, but bureaucrats have the discretion to ignore his vote. This ban will have a chilling effect on RfA opposes at a time when potential (and current) administrators need more, and not less, scrutiny than in the past. As someone who has voiced unpopular opinions at RfA, I have to wonder whether I'll be next. Perhaps that's the intent. Skinwalker (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Of course potential admins need scrutiny, although not too much as adminship is not a big deal. But DougsTech is not opposing based on the individual candidates, he's template opposing based on an unrelated reason and not explaining his stance. As I've said before, the oppose section of each individual RFA is not the place to be making a point about the total number of admins. That belongs on WT:RFA. There are plenty of valid reasons to topic ban this person without including the fact that the facts and an overwhelming majority of Wikipedians disagree with his view. Timmeh! 22:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I'm going to digress for a moment and express what I expect to be a very unpopular opinion. "Not a big deal" is, IMO, a antiquated and harmful canard that needs to be put to rest. If it were not a big deal, adminship could be easily removed, not tied up in gigabytes of endless discussion and arbitration only to result in a "strongly urged" decision. If it were not a big deal, discretionary sanctions that allow individual admins to abrogate consensus would not exist. If it were not a big deal, we wouldn't have habitual sockpuppeteers spending months or years grooming accounts for RfA. If it were not a big deal, rank-and-file admins would not have access to sensitive and at times nonpublic information via deleted revisions. Since Wikipedia is one of the first terms that come up in a google search on a given topic, administrative control over this site and who has it is a very, very serious topic. One or two bad admins can (and do) hijack articles and skew them away from mainstream, encyclopedic coverage. People read these articles and consider them fact. It's not just silly buggers with high-school vandal whack-a-mole anymore. Adminship is most certainly a big deal. But I digress. I don't see anything in your comment that touches on my concern about chilling effects on oppose !voting. Skinwalker (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, perhaps a hardline needs to be drawn about people who blanket oppose candidates. Thanks for bringing your own example up. I'll be sure to propose something once this is dealt with. Chilling effect or not, it's disrupting and inappropriate for RFA. Majorly talk 23:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Wow. Bring it. As an aside, you seem to have a large amount of emotion and anger invested in matters concerning adminship and RfA. Other editors have noted this as well. I suggest you walk away for a bit and allow the community to, one way or another, put out the fire you've started. The boorish and intimidatory comment you made above is spectacularly unhelpful. Skinwalker (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah, perhaps consider why - maybe because POINTy RFA votes, such as your own, DougsTech's etc are tolerated as much as they are, and said people claim I am the one causing the problem. Try looking at the start of the chain: perhaps if people started using RFA for what it was created for, perhaps there wouldn't be need for threads like this. It is not my fault people abuse RFA and use it as their soapbox for whatever they want to say, and nor is it my fault people tolerate it. So stop trying to shift the blame for the "fire" on me. The vast majority of people agree with me on this issue, not you. And you seriously think I'd waste my time trying to get you banned from RFA too? As much as I detest your template POINT, at least you don't oppose every single one, and at least the candidate has a chance of deciding if they want to risk being opposed by you. DougsTech offers no such thing. Majorly talk 23:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Two points. First, I'm not sure that, in this case, I understand the distinction between silencing dissent and systematically ignoring dissent. No crat takes this seriously and every single oppose of Doug is accompanied by a clear "let him be, nobody cares". Secondly, those who have read Doug's explanation on WT:RFA know that his opposition is basically directed at the power structure created by adminship. Even if you're sympathetic to that opinion, it's clearly not something that you can change through blanket opposes of RfAs. It's a much more fundamental debate that actually has nothing to do with RfA itself. If Doug wants to discuss it, he should do so at the village pump or some mailing list (or gasp! Wikipedia Review). We'd have no second thoughts about removing an oppose reading "Oppose: every BLP should be semi-protected" and Doug's blanket opposes are of the same nature. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose Considering some of the reasons that are put forth to oppose RfAs, Doug's predictable opinion is hardly a cause for concern. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support per NuclearWarfare. It is a POINTy oppose and the very kind of thing we want to avoid at RfA. Enigmamsg 22:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose If he's doing it to make trouble for the sake of making trouble, then he's a troll & (as Tony Fox pointed above) the best thing to do with trolls is ignore them. If he's sincere (but misguided), then ignoring him will encourage him to find another, more acceptible way to present his reasons. -- llywrch (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose His reason is much more valid than some others I have seen here. And you know what, he's sincere. He could find a less controversial reason to still vote oppose all the time. --Avg (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose He should be allowed to voice his opinion. His judgement is valid. -download | sign! 00:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Really? I honestly do not know of any other vote that I classify as less valid than this one. Even no oppose rationale has some implied meaning: "I disagree entirely with the nom" or "My views on this candidate are obvious" or an implied "per above". However, opposing every single user because you disagree with the makeup of Wikipedia, something that the candidate cannot help, well...Look around at WT:RFA or this ANI thread. Not one person has said "I agree with DougsTech." All the oppose voters are giving an argument of "slippery slope" or "he has a right to say this." Well... he really doesn't. If this had been AfD, DougsTech would have been banned long ago (see User:Juvenile Deletionist for a recent case). Why is RfA so different that WP:Free Speech suddenly does not apply there. I welcome DougsTech to try to convince people at WT:RFA; he is not being topic banned from that. But if no bureaucrat is counting his opinion (and if one is, I welcome him or her to speak), then what is the point of keeping his (conspicuous absence of a !)vote in and encouraging future drama when an administrator promotes below 70% because they ignored Doug's vote. Or something like that. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose This is literally a topic ban because WP:IDONTLIKEHIM. If you find him annoying, don't read his comments-- you can oppose for any reason you wish, including no reason. Jtrainor (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. He should be free to express his views at RfA. The only thing disruptive about his comments are editors' reactions to them. We can't assume bad faith either. Maybe he really believes that administrators are harming the encyclopedia and that their numbers should be capped. The point is, if this is his attempt at improving the encyclopedia, let him make his argument. That does not mean anybody has to listen, but we should not prevent him from trying to improve the encyclopedia in the way he sees fit. Malinaccier (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Support Ban. Enough is enough. He's been marring RfAs with his WP:POINT that has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the candidate. It's quite disruptive and doesn't belong in an RfA. Valley2city‽ 03:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Strongest possible oppose - An editor in good standing has the right to express an opinion, regardless of whether we agree with it or not. I supported Kurt, I support User:Keepscases and really anyone who is participating in the process. All this talk of WP:POINT is way off base; as has already been pointed out, the disruption that has occurred is in the reaction far more than in the comment. And the supposed contrast to Kurt's robotic opposes is also off base; "too many admins" is no less focused on an editor than "self-nom" was.  Frank  |  talk  05:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC) "Too many admins" refers to admins and Wikipedia generally. There are more than 1000 admins. "Self-nom" and "power hunger" are talking about a specific candidate. How could there possibly be no difference between the two? There is a huge difference. Timmeh! 14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC) "Self-nom" and "power hunger" were never about a specific candidate; they were automatic opposes and were routinely questioned...and candidates were routinely cautioned that Kurt "always" did that (he opposed me too; read the edit summary in particular). In fact, there was the CDB question as well; Kurt actually was disruptive with that one. I don't claim it's a perfect analogue, but they are very similar to this patterned oppose.  Frank  |  talk  19:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC) He opposed each self-nom because he thought each of those candidates was too power hungry. DougsTech opposes every candidate regardless of how qualified they are and regardless of anything the candidate has done. Jimbo Wales could de-sysop himself and nominate himself for adminship, and DougsTech would still oppose his RfA. There is a difference. That difference is causing DougsTech's !voting to be much more disruptive than Kurt's were, not to mention this guy is putting the "too many admins" comment in the totally wrong place, where Kurt's, although annoying, were appropriately placed in the RfAs. Timmeh! 20:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC) That's not how I remember it. I remember Kurt opposing every self-nom with the prima facie comment and an edit summary that said the same thing: "Oppose, self-nom". In fact, I only ever found 1 or 2 candidates that he supported; not that I did a long study of it so that could be wrong... But the point is, his automatic position was to oppose any self-nom candidate. In fact, if you look at his oppose, it is very non-personal: "I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger." It actually didn't say anything about the candidate...just that by its very nature, a self-nom was oppose-worthy (or even oppose-required). Those opposes almost universally started with "I" - and rarely included anything specifically about the candidate.  Frank  |  talk  01:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Comment No matter what the outcome here, if he keeps this up he's going to be topic banned from RfA just like Kurt was. RfA isn't the place to engage in little pointy stunts and people here should know that. Wailing and gnashing your teeth about free speech and groupthink isn't helping anything. We know damn well that we aren't banning someone from a forum because of an opinion. We are banning them because we don't have the physical ability to stop their stunt from disrupting that forum. We can tell ourselves that crats will discount their vote (a proposition which may or may not be true but is wholly irrelevant for the course of an RfA). We can worry that "too many admins" is actually some legitimate position to hold. Or we can just cut to the chase and stop this before it muddles up any future RfA. Wikipedia (and the project space) doesn't exist to service someone's sense of civic virtue. But by all means let this slide for a while. It will be back here eventually. Protonk (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Support User has been asked to explain his opinion many times and has never done so, only claimed he's entitled to it and the askers have no authority to decide Rfa.--Pattont/c 10:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. All editors have the right to vote in whatever manner they want. I see no reason whatsoever to deny this user his right.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:06, April 7, 2009 (UTC) !Voting is not a right, it's a privilege. If an editor can't make his !vote without causing disruption, it should be taken away. Timmeh! 15:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC) What disruption??? Aren't we talking about just one vote per nom? With the rationale provided for those votes, they can hardly sway anyone else's opinion, yet alone cause "disruption".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:26, April 8, 2009 (UTC) Support by default because Doug's agenda would be better served by trying to stop the entire RFA process altogether. That is what he is trying to achieve anyway. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. I don't agree with the opinion, but it's fine for him to express it. Sure, it's not the right venue and it's pointy, but that happens a lot on Wikipedia. Most people who do that make asses of themselves and wind up being ignored.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Support. Doug is spamming the RfA nominations, wasting the time of every single editor who has to mentally (if familiar) skip over his posting or (if unfamiliar) puzzle out that the comment is pointless. Doug is welcome to write an essay about why he thinks there are too many admins, and to present statistics at WT:RFA about the lack of admin backlogs, and so on, but inserting absolutely irrelevant comments into individual RfAs is unjustified. And the comments are absolutely irrelevant - no bureaucrat should give them even the slightest weight, because they are *not* about the candidates. What would the community say about someone who posted, in every single AfD, the comment Delete, Wikipedia has too many articles? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC) It's really not that different. This AN thread is basically a Kurt Weber redux. The RfA "comments" are unhelpful trolling and do not comment on the candidacy. Doug's defenders, like Kurt's defenders, simply claim that it's everyone else's fault for responding to them and that topic banning them would be stifling the opinion of people you don't like. Those two arguments completely miss the point. 1)Several hundred people have commented on RfAs recently. You expect all of them to have the knowledge and self-control not respond to trolling? Really? I have never responded to stock trolling comments at RfAs, but it's unrealistic to assume everyone else will do the same. To prevent disruption, you topic ban the cause. 2)Stifling opinion would be if there was someone who found reasons to oppose many RfAs and then demanded that user stop opposing or else. This is simply an attempt to rid RfA of obvious disruption. Aside from the fact that he's completely wrong and refuses to consider that reality, if Doug believes there are too many admins, trolling every single RfA is not the proper way to go about it. He has been warned to stop and he has refused. If the topic ban is not implemented, DougsTech should be blocked for disruption if he continues to ignore warnings about his POINTy behaviour. Enigmamsg 16:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Strongly support denying this troll his particular fuel. What a shame; I viewed Doug as a valuable editor until he started trolling the crap out of RfA. Add his edit warring to push his own personal POV the fire, and I utterly fail to see why his behavior shouldn't warrant a block. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose, and admonish those who have chosen to make a mountain out of this molehill. All admins who have participated here are clearly superfluous to requirements, as they obviously can find nothing constructive to do with their time here. DuncanHill (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Support per the giant thread on WT:RFA. I note some of the opposers above say he's not hurting anything. Well, in my view, he's an attention seeker, who is getting attention? WP:DENY, yeah, I know, but a ban from RFX would deny them the attention they want, and waste less people's time squabbling over this user's conduct. Steve Crossin Talk/24 22:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Comment: If it is really a big deal someone copy and paste spamming RfAs, then by that same logic we should ban anyone who rapid fire copy and paste spams AfDs with "Delete, nnotable" and "Delete, cruft" in a manner that does not reflect adequate consideration of the individual articles under discussion or say ban someone who's sole purpose is to "vote" to delete in every AFD regardless of individual merits or changes to the article during the discussion (yes, I can actually think of one such account). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Support. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with whether or not his opinion is unpopular, or even if it's correct. The problem is that he is spamming it in a completely incorrect venue. His opposes have nothing to do with the candidate on whose page he is placing it, and so they have no place. No more place than off-topic spam has anywhere in Wikipedia. Individual RFAs are not platforms for debate or discussion of adminship or RFA in general, they serve no other purpose save to determine the candidates qualification for adminship.--Dycedarg ж 00:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Comment It seems that DougsTech has actually !voted neutral in an RFA recently, but I don't know if he plans to continue doing it. I, along with another editor, have suggested to him that instead of repeatedly opposing, he could instead repeatedly stay neutral and make his comment there. That way, he would attract much less attention for his comment and cause less disruption. If he listens to our advice and goes through with it is yet to be seen, maybe even unlikely as he doesn't seem to be very willing to listen to advice, but if he does, I don't think a ban would be needed. Timmeh! 00:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose There are numerous votes made at RFA which provide little or no reason. Attempting to suppress votes which provide a particular reason is improper and unhelpful as it will discourage editors from providing reasons and so reduce the rational nature of the process. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose Let him !vote how he wants, and let the bureaucrats afford his vote every shred of weight which it should be accorded... i.e., none whatsoever. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Strongly oppose You're kidding me? You're giving DougsTech this much power over you? --KP Botany (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Support; this is clear trolling. Wikipedians made a huge mistake giving Kurt the rope he was allowed; don't make the same mistake again. Sceptre (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC) According to the user who you mentioned's userpage, he left per right to vanish. As such, bringing him up in an unrelated thread seems bad taste and unconstructive. We shouldn't kick people while they're down as it were. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC) RTV doesn't make one a saint. Kurt was an annoyance. And he would've been banned if he didn't invoke RTV. Speaking of which, didn't you RTV too? Sceptre (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Whether you liked him or not as far as we are all aware he is gone. As such, no need to write about him any further. Why beat a dead horse? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Kurt was bullied off. Those responsible would be ashamed of themselves if they had any sense of decency at all. I suspect the same will be attempted against DougsTech. DuncanHill (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, but April Fool's Day was last week. Kurt harassed and trolled his way around on the wiki and it's better that he's gone. If you're defending it, you should be ashamed of yourself. Sceptre (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC) You, of all people, have no right to suggest that anyone should be ashamed of themselves after the way you behaved at the time Sceptre. DuncanHill (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I lash out at someone who harasses various editors including myself and an at-the-time fragile female admin, and suddenly I'm the devil incarnate and he's the arch-angel Gabriel? Sceptre (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Devil incarnate? Don't flatter yourself. DuncanHill (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC) It's irrelevant. Given what has been said, if you think Kurt was in anyway a good Wikipedian, you really need to see a psychiatrist. Because believe me, you need to be pretty fucked up in the head to think that his campaign of harassment was in any way defendable. Sceptre (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, I think (as you described him above) that he was an annoyance. I think that you are an annoyance too, and me (I certainly hope I am), and a lot of other editors too for that matter. I also think that annoyances are sometimes not just useful but essential. DuncanHill (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Going out of your way to be an annoyance, however, isn't on. You have the right to dissent, but you do not have the right to abuse that right. Which is what Kurt did, and which is what Doug is doing. Sceptre (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think DougsTech is abusing that right. DuncanHill (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC) The blanket opposing on itself would be annoying but tolerable. Then going around and disrupting the RfA templates is getting to POINT behaviour. Sceptre (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Alternate proposal While I oppose the above proposal, why make it a topic ban? Why prevent him from expressing his thoughts altogether? If the concern is solely an "oppose because we have too many admins", why restrict him from commenting in RfAs altogether? So, why not make a blanket ban on "opposing because of too many admins" from any editor and allow DougTech to participate in RfAs so long as he uses different arguments that do focus on specific candidates? Again, I don't believe anyone should be restricted, but I think we should not prevent any editor from commenting in RfAs altogether. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Not a bad idea, but the argument itself isn't flawed... there could, at some point, be too many admins. Maybe there are too many now, and maybe there are too few. Dougstech makes this vote blind, and without ever supporting his assertion, even when challenged. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC) This would be fine, but my senses tell me that the user will simply pick another phrase to template each RFA with. I think stricter is better, to be honest. Majorly talk 02:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC) He would find another phrase to oppose on. "Additional administrators are not needed"?  iMatthew :  Chat  02:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC) No, the editor obviously does not have any intention of commenting on a candidate's ability/non-ability to be a good admin. He has no reason to if he believes there should not be any more admins. He would either rephrase his comment or oppose without a stated reason. Timmeh! 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Well, editors support without a stated reason, so why not allow editors to oppose without a stated reason? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC) When someone supports an RFA without a stated reason, it is basically shorthand for "I agree with the nominating statement". When you oppose, there should be a valid reason why you don't think the candidate in question should have the tools. Timmeh! 02:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC) (ec)Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of rationale-less supports myself, but usually these are intended as, and interpreted as, tacit agreement with the nominator's statements. Reyk YO! 02:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC) You know one thing I always find confusing about RfAs is is it supposed to be a discussion or a vote? I feel similarly with AfDs, but at least those are more apt to be discussion oriented, but really in both cases, we are told they are not votes, yet they look like lists of bold faced support/oppose and keep/delete, i.e. votes rather than actual threaded and interactive discussion and it seems that some get overly defensive when challenged, which is disheartening because in an academic discourse, people should challenge each other and be open to being challenged in order to reach a more nuanced conclusion. Nevertheless, in both cases, we seem to have something in between. So, it should be made more clear that we either bring something new to the table and have a discussion in these things and pure votes be discouraged or we just let everything be fair game. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC) It should be discussion-based, not vote-based. There should be at least a rough consensus among the participants to grant the candidate adminship. In almost every RFA, there is at least one discussion in the oppose section, initiated when a user disagreed with an oppose reason. Opposes are made in response to the nominating statement/candidate's answers to questions, and comments are then made in response to those. I have seen some very heated discussions in the oppose section of RFAs in the past, and the RFA nominating process is definitely not just a vote-and-it's-over-with deal. Anyway, I think we've delved a bit too much off-topic. Timmeh! 03:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Do not support: I view ban proposals as prima facie evidence of power hunger. seicer | talk | contribs 03:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Ignore it entirely, as I'm sure the crats do also. Its not worth interfering. If you do not let yourself get bothered, and do not respond to it, there is very little problem. I'm very reluctant to censor pointy people, as long as they do not actually disrupt things. DGG (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC) The problem is that he is disrupting things. By making the comment, he invites the questions of many editors who have not seen the original discussion on his RFA votes and causes more controversy, which is centered on the RFA page. And the RFA page is for discussing the RFA candidate, not whether there are too many admins or whether DougsTech's votes are legitimate. Timmeh! 03:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose per above. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Comment I personally just ignore Doug's "!votes", as I suspect the closers do. To be honest, I'm surprised I haven't seen the !vote struck with an "Invalid argument" edit summary yet. I can understand the disruption arguments listed here, but unless there is reason enough to suspect that Doug's Tech is actually a "Sock-o-Kurt", (and open a WP:SPI), then procedure should be followed. Were Doug's !votes the only issue, I could see my way clear to an "Oppose" as far as the ban. On the other side of the fence, we have the template edit waring, and he's received a proper level-1 warning (without being templated). He's obviously attempted to make a WP:POINT, and with this and this editing, it appears to me that he's now attempting to game the system. My understanding is that a level-2 warning would now be appropriate. The community should not be too quick to block or ban simply because they don't like something - we all have a voice here, regardless of how ill-informed, it may be. Follow procedure, issue the warnings, block when needed, and if the disruption continues then open a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct to discuss a proper ban. IMHO. — Ched :  ?  05:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. Per my oppose in the above section. Ruslik (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support - Whilst I don't think Douglas is a troll of any kind, he does seem to be trying to make a WP:POINT that would be better served via the RFA talkpages and perhaps the Village Pump or some other venue; continuing on individuals RFAs seems disruptive now, his point has been acknowledged. Skinny87 (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose per my support of the topic ban, above. G'day, Jack Merridew 12:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Support Even when it's an issue, it still shouldn't be discussed at individual RfAs. Those are simply for judging whether or not the candidate will abuse the tools if entrusted with them. hmwithτ 12:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC) If he can't bring it up there, no one should... and this shouldn't be just for this phrase. This should be for any phrase that doesn't directly have to do with the editor. hmwithτ 12:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Are you Joking??? or oppose I guess. What's this?? Votes for banning all over again??? This must be the most stupid proposal that I have seen in ages. Fringe votes like this don't have any material outcome on RFAs and I seem to recall that we have been here before with Kurt Weber. Suppressing fringe views in internal discussions is simply the first stage in imposing group think on our deliberations. Ridiculous. Shame on everyone supporting this nonsense. Just ignore them and explain to RFA candidates that the 'crats ignore the vote anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 12:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC) There is an important difference between fringe views, and those which are merely unsubstantiated views. DougsTech only posits an unsubstantiated point of view, and is unwilling to back it up with any evidence whatsoever. That is not fringe, it is unsubstantiated, and offensive to the individual RfA candidates. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC) And all this drama is justified by a meaningless and ignored line in RFAs?? Hmmm... Spartaz Humbug! 15:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Yes. A little drama here is entirely preferred to constant drama in each new RfA, with a repetitious cycle of the next new goober coming up with some ridiculous attention getting blanket oppose. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose Everyone is allowed a !vote and I see no reason to strike a !vote just because you don't like it. Striking oppose !votes is a dangerous trend because it discourages others from opposing and should be done very carefully. How about a swing by some of the articles needing attention instead? --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC) The reason we don't like it is because it is unsubstantiated, has nothing to do with the qualifications of the candidate in question, and is copy/pasted in just about every single RFA, attracting unknowing editors asking about it and causing controversy until someone explains that DougsTech always does that. It is obvious trolling and violation of WP:POINT. Timmeh! 15:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Then just ignore it. No one is harmed by a generic oppose that will not be considered by a crat. This bland oppose is meaningless and not worth the time you guys are putting into it. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC) This user's opposes are valid and presented civily (It's not "prima facie evidence of personal attack removed"). This is not votes for banning, I remember when that was done away with. Get over it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not exactly sure an RFA oppose can be valid when it is an oppose based on the RFA process in general and has nothing to do with the RFA candidate. If I opposed simply because "Wikipedia sucks", would that be valid as well? Should the bureaucrats take that into consideration for determining consensus? Timmeh! 16:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC) No and no. It's not valid because wikipedia sucking or not sucking has no bearing on why someone should be promoted to adminstrator. If we had too many admins, we should not promote more admins, so the promotion of this admin is more likley to be a mistake. Beyond this, I doubt that DT's opposes will be taken seriously in any edge-case close by a 'crat. Of course, if he were to be stopped from !voting oppose everywhere, some other user might just decide that I "just can't trust this user with the tools, sorry," in every RFA. What would you do then, ban him? Perhaps he's just not a trusting kind of person? How about "sorry, untill adminstrative recall is fixed and we can remove admins, making more admins is cruising for a bruising?" Just because DT can't write a good blanket oppose doesn't mean blanket opposes are all equally invalid. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Hipocrite makes a very valid point. If !voters can't say what they think, they'll just !vote in the oppose column with some acceptable statement instead. Where will that leave us - cosmetically happy, I suppose, but in some meaning less place as far as the RfA process is concerned. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose- I fear that if we did that, DougsTech would come out with opposes like, "Oppose- candidate missed filling in an edit summary in 2005. Also, too many administrators currently." The truth is that you can't force people to judge a candidate fairly. If DougsTech gets banned from RfA and then has a change of heart and genuinely wants to make constructive contributions there, then we could always review the ban. I don't support imposing a half-way ban that would probably just be gamed anyway. Reyk YO! 21:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC) But at least then Doug would have to actually look at the candidate and pretend that he is voting on the candidate... I could at least partially support that (just as I supported Kurt) but when the !vote has nothing to do with the candidate...---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose – The only reason I didn't say this earlier was that I knew community ban discussions are left open for a considerable time to allow sufficient discussion and avoid knee-jerk reactions. It seemed clear that people would come to reason. Apparently not. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. All this would do is make RfA even harder to change in the future. We don't ban ideas because we don't like them. Malinaccier (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose this one too. Let him speak his peace--I'd rather ignore one hundred honest dissenters with whom I do not agree than silence one of them. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose Surprising how much voting "Too many administrators" has caused such discussion, anxiety, and turmoil. This must be the silliest example of quashing a voice outside of Stalin's Soviet Union I've ever seen. Every administrator here is proving Doug's voice is not overheard, but under listened to. --KP Botany (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I don't like your idea! Ban you! First they came for the opposers based on too many admins. Then they came for the opposers based on suffrage. Then they came for the opposers based on block history. Don't you people have enough to do without worrying about a silly opposer that is ignored by bureaucrats anyway? What the hell is the problem here? Has anyone actually found an RfA that was swayed by the unsupported argument that there are too many admins? Go tilt at some other windmill please and sell crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC) What she said. BurnBan the witch! Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I can't believe it's even necessary to have to voice support for the above. Skomorokh 16:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC) You miss the point entirely. His opinion is only relevant to this discussion to the point that it has nothing to do with the candidate. If he was opposing every candidate because its 2009, or any other random reason that has nothing to do with the candidate it would be just as disruptive. RFA isn't an anything-goes, free speech zone. If there's consensus that your comments are unhelpful and multiple people ask you to stop, you should. This is a collaborative project. If someone is entirely unable or unwilling to work with others, we don't keep them around just because the negative aspects aren't too bad. The fact that we put up with crap like this for so long is one the reasons we lose good contributors and have trouble keeping new ones; we're more willing to put up with trolls than we are to create a decent editing environment. Forget "collegial," at this point I'd settle for "not shit." Mr.Z-man 17:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC) In what way is it disruptive? The only disruption I see is caused by nonsense like this, making a fuss about nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Ah, excellent Mr.Z-man. Thank you for your commentary. Would you please be so kind as to direct me to an RfA whose outcome was swayed by the vote of DougsTech? Failing that, would you please come up with ANY rationale as to how this is a problem other than you don't like his vote? He is welcome to his opinion you know. He thinks there are too many admins. Solution; don't promote any more admins. It's a perfectly reasonable vote, and he is HARDly unprecedented. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Why does the outcome have to be swayed? If someone trolled every thread on ANI or every AFD discussion with some inane repetitive comment it wouldn't change the outcome of those, but we'd almost certainly do something about it other than ignore encourage it. Though I do have to agree with MZMcBride, threads like this, where we admit something is trolling but decide to allow it anyway, because its just RFA and RFA is supposed to represent the project at its worst, are far more disruptive and discourage and drive away far more users than the trolling itself. Mr.Z-man 18:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Keep schools are notable. Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Merge per the two above posts. Otherwise, salt and delete. Enigmamsg 22:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I agree with Malleus, Hammersoft, et al. Threads like these are far more disruptive than these votes could ever possibly be. And, frankly, DougsTech's trolling is working expertly by causing all of this. If the votes really bother you that much, I'm sure it would be possible to create a JavaScript script of some sort that hides the votes for you. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC) As with Kurt, all the disruption is created by those who don't like "awkward" opinions. I don't bother to participate in RfA's in part at least because of the way in which !voters are laid open to attack by the thought-police. The other reason I don't participate is the appallingly low standard of admin produced by the current system. DuncanHill (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC) RFC/U? Not to be a party-pooper (actually, yeah), but has anyone considered an WP:RFC/U on the user as opposed to going here? MuZemike 14:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC) It would have been nice to save some time and effort here. However it may just come to that. Chillum 14:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC) If there is no consensus here, we can move to the next stage in the process. However, in my opinion, there is clear consensus this user is a problem, and a net negative to RFA. Majorly talk 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah, because if there isnt a consensus here to ban them you can simply keep shopping this to another forum in the hope that you can get someone to ban them elsewhere. Honestly, haven't you got enough feedback on what people think from this already? Sheesh. Spartaz Humbug! 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC) And that's the problem with this entire discussion. Skipping the "triple dare" and going right to the "triple dog dare". I said "as opposed to coming here" as in "this topic ban discussion should never have started here until at the very least an RFC been tried". Process is important, especially in cases like this. I am in no way encouraging forum shopping. I would rather have users sit down and discuss this in a (hopefully) constructive manner without degenerating to straw polls and having the tyranny of the majority participate in the apparent witch-burning that is going on right now. MuZemike 17:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC) There can be consensus that what he is doing is inappropriate without there being a consensus that there should be a topic ban. If we can't decide what to do, we can at least agree that this is not productive behavior. A topic ban is not the only way to stop disruptive editing. Chillum 14:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I cant see the problem. It just requires an RFA regular to append a comment linking to an essay somewhere for non-regulars to get the drift. And, if they don't, it's a very illuminating way of measuring what those responding are really like behind their screens. He may be a gadfly but occasionally gadflies are useful. Spartaz Humbug! 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Although in this case, said gadfly deserves a good swatting. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I disagree. Spartaz Humbug! 16:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC) ←re: MuZemike question about RFC/U: Yes, I mentioned it here. It seems however that a mob mentality has taken root, the drama has increased 10-fold, and I'm not sure much can be done to stem the tide. Proper procedure, as I understand it, from our policy and guideline pages appears to have cast to the wind. I was under the impression when I joined that all editors were to be treated equally, I'm not as secure in that belief as I once was. Make no mistake, I strongly disagree with Doug's conclusions, but I must support his right to voice his opinion. It occurs to me that this "topic ban" vote, (without the !) has created much more drama and disruption than the collective "Too many admins already" posts which apparently the closing 'crats tend to disregard anyway. — Ched :  ?  18:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Some are more equal than others. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, I forget sometimes that the proper procedure for trolls is to allow it and encourage them. Silly me, I thought people were supposed to not be disruptive. Mr.Z-man 18:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC) If it truly is "trolling", then threads like this massive "ban" drama achieve their desired results, rather then the WP:DENY that is a suggest course of action. imho — Ched :  ?  18:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC) It is only achieving the desirable results because people are insisting on an imaginary "right to opinion", and insisting DougsTech can say whatever he wants to on RFA. If people simply agreed his comments are not productive (and I don't think anyone actually believes his comments are), then perhaps this thread would be over. It was closed earlier today by Rootology - reopened by Spartaz, who then lamely tried to attack me for "loving drama". I'm not the one insisting on keeping this thread opened. I opened it, with a hope that people would see DougsTech for what he is - an attention-seeking individual, here to push a ridiculous agenda, in a totally inappropriate fashion and place. My expectations were, once again, too high. Majorly talk 22:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Dreadful thought... the return of Al Tally to RfA ;-) ---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC) ←Majorly, I'm not suggesting that Doug's comments are right - I'm only saying that I think this (an AN "Ban him" thread) is not the proper way to go about resolving the problem. If the wording in the RfA/Front matter "Expressing opinions" section were more specific, then there would be a clear case to strike his comment, issue warnings, and if it continued - block. If we could be specific about the "Expressing opinions" being about the candidate and not a "current state of Wikipedia condition", it could resolve a lot of the problems at the root of the issue. If you cover up a mess by throwing a rug over it, the mess still exists. If enough people DONTLIKEIT, then it should be resolvable through procedure and consensus, rather than an ad hoc incident. — Ched :  ?  02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC) The reverse I don't see how the "oppose as there are too many admins" is worse than the numerous "support as there are not enough admins" that have been popping up in seeming retaliation. Would be deliberately sarcastic and mocking of another user's stance be the greater concern? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Until there are no admin backlogs whatsoever on a consistent basis, any claims there are too many admins are simply misinformed. I have personally never seen anyone template the same support rationale of needing more admins - perhaps this is because supporting someone is generally seen as a more positive thing to do, and therefore does not get questioned. People simply aren't as affected when it's a supporting rationale. Additionally, supporting generally indicates you agree with the nomination, so perhaps it's simply an addendum to the vote. Majorly talk 18:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I agree, we need to block these people immediately. Trolls are precious resources, we need to protect them. Mr.Z-man 18:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I believe A Nobody is talking about this in particular. No opinion on discussion. — neuro(talk)(review) 18:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC) One of those was altered, when challenged, to "Sense of humor fail. I have no reason to not trust him". SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Sweet, I'm back on AN! :-\ It was a joke, I know some are immune to laughing, but some aren't.  iMatthew :  Chat  19:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC) If people are supporting candidates for reasons that are nothing to do with the candidate, then I would hope that (a) other contributors would challenge them (b) the 'crats would ignore them and (c) people would ask them to stop. If that has happened and there is still a problem, then we can consider taking further action. I have to say that it seems like DougsTech has got past that point already. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC) (a) has happened many, many times. (b) has happened and continues to happen (c) I believe DougsTech has been asked to stop, but hasn't, claiming his "right" to an opinion. He has definitely gotten past that point and is continuing to disrupt the RFA process. I still don't understand why some have a problem with taking a privilege away from a disruptive editor. Timmeh! 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, the need for more admins has been a common !vote for as long as I've been invovled with RfA. As for why it is different... it goes back to the very principle that we've always expected rationale reasons to oppose, but that support is the default barring reason not to promote.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC) You have a point. I suppose there is an unspoken "per nom" inherent in a support. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Just to clarify, I am not saying that supporting per "there are not enough admins" is problematic; rather supporting per "there are not enough admins" to be deliberately hostile to another editor's oppose. If you think the oppose per "there are too many admins" is trolling then why not "deny recognition"? If you don't think it is trolling, but just disagree, why be blatantly antagonistic? My concern is supporting with a rationale to be deliberately counter to someone's oppose. It just seems to fan the fires, no? And again, my opinion remains that people should pretty much be able to say whatever they want so long as it is not blatantly libelous. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I really don't see the difference between this "there are too many admins" and the more particular "there are too many vandal fighters" or other incarnations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC) The problem isn't that "there are too many admins", nor is it that "there are too few admins". The problem is that there are too many bad admins, and too few good ones (say a dozen). DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I don't know if I would say there are only a dozen good admins. I agree that there are too many bad ones (even if there was only one bad admin, that would be one too many...and I can think of several who close AfDs biasedly for example), but I can probably list at least a dozen good admins off hand with whom I may not always agree, but I think by and large are "good" by my standards. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC) As long as there are so few things to do on en.wiki that admins have the time to go by AN/I and take a cheap shot at an editor or contribute to the billionth thread on the same half dozen users one more time, any claim that there are not enough admins is just ridiculous. --KP Botany (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Close this thread In the absence of any ACTUAL policy violations shown on the part of this guy, I propose this thread be archived immediately and trouts handed out all around. Go find something better to do with your time than censoring people you find annoying. Jtrainor (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC) He is clearly violating WP:POINT, is he not? Timmeh! 17:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC) No, not clearly, because if it were clear multiple editors would not oppose any sanctions. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Timmeh, this [5] looks like running to Mummy when you can't get your way. DuncanHill (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Is it against policy to ask for Jimmy Wales' input on this? Timmeh! 18:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Which other editors will you be asking in this way? DuncanHill (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Which other editors would you like me to ask to comment here? I believe I already asked one or two whom I saw commenting on this at WT:RFA. There obviously is nothing close to a consensus here, and I was just interested in what his opinion would be on this. He is the founder of Wikipedia, after all. Timmeh! 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Well, firstly, you shouldn't do anything that might be seen as canvassing (for example, contacting people who you have seen already express opinions similar to your own). Secondly, if you want to know what the "founder" of Wikipedia thinks, you should be asking Larry as well as Jimmy. DuncanHill (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Larry is obviously not interested in Wikipedia anymore. The only edits he has made since August of last year were to Jimbo Wales' talk page. If you wish to contact him and ask him for input, I have no objections. Anyway, canvassing does not include sending a message to one editor. Timmeh! 18:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC) The advice about canvassing was in response to "I believe I already asked one or two whom I saw commenting on this at WT:RFA" - I'm not saying you were canvassing, I'm sure you included people who were opposed of your position as well as those who supported it. DuncanHill (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC) I looked back and found I only contacted one person about it. Therefore, it wasn't canvassing. Thanks anyway for the advice. It doesn't hurt to be reminded of policies and guidelines once in a while. Timmeh! 19:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC) You gotta be kidding me. Contacting Wales about this????? <stunned look> If we needed proof this thread has gone past its useful life, there it is. Support close. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Since when is having an opinion pointy? Jtrainor (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Close this thread. Please go back to building an encyclopedia and commenting on peoples opinions less--DFS454 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC) WP:POINT is not policy. If it's about him breaking policy, then quote policy. --KP Botany (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I have been waiting for someone to bring that up. I just kept saying that all my !votes are within policy. They never actually bothered to see that its not official policy.DougsTech (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Policies aren't magically more important than guidelines. The only difference between the two is that policies instruct and guidelines advise. No-one would really say the deletion policy is more important than AGF. Sceptre (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Discounting his "votes" before this discussion is closed? I just noticed Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#RFA_tallies. Per my comment there, I am totally uncomfortable with others editing or discounting someone else's "vote" in an RfA. Unless if DougTech is a blocked sock, we shouldn't be editing his posts while the matter is still under discussion and especially given that many editors have expressed support for his ability to comment above. I fear playing games with his posts in existing discussions sets the stage for needless strife maybe even edit warring between his supporters and critics. We should if anything worry about future RfAs only and not those already underway. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC) DougsTech probably is a sockpuppet, judging by his early contributions. But this discussion should take place on RFA talk not here. I already explain why his so-called opinion is ignored by bureaucrats. Majorly talk 23:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Has every single bureaucrat said his opinion is being discounted? And even if so, burecrats probable discount many weak stances, but we don't go about preemptively striking them for the editors. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC) One bureaucrat, Bibliomaniac15, has said this (diff upon request, it's a bit hard to find). I don't think any other bureaucrat would seriously consider Doug's oppose comments. That said, I find the !vote striking, tally manipulation, and bullying to be highly vindictive and inappropriate. There is no consensus, per the above megathread, that his comments should be restricted. Skinwalker (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC) All this is doing is causing edit warring on the RfAs, which if anything is all the more so unfair to the candidates. Now granted I have no intentions of running for adminship, but if someone opposed per too many admins, it really wouldn't bother me, even if it affected the tally. In fact, it would probably bother me less as it obviously isn't personal. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Any remarks that aren't personal have no place on RFA votes. You can scream "People are entitled to their opinion!" all you like, but the fact is, anything off-topic to the discussion at hand has no place on individual RFAs. It's about as relevant as me opposing a candidate with "Oppose - not enough google hits". It could be that I prefer administrators to have some notability, so my oppose would be perfectly valid, in a twisted way. But it really, really is off topic and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so has no place there. Majorly talk 00:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly, do you not trust the bureaucrats to count and make their minds up for themselves? DuncanHill (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I'm trying to make it clear to people in the RFA that the vote is routinely dismissed. Since we don't want to feed the trolls, allowing DougsTech to continue will inevitably get somebody unfamiliar questioning the rationale - hence, feeding the troll. This is why I feel it so important that trolling is removed from RFAs. Some people here disagree and believe someone's soapboxing/trolling is more important than the integrity of a process that's already got a poor reputation. That's all the vote is - I don't believe anyone seriously agrees with DougsTech. RFA is supposed to be a consensus building process on the candidate's suitability to be an admin. How on earth do DougsTech's "opinions" help in any way shape or form build consensus about that particular candidate? They simply don't. They're unhelpful, soapboxing and abusing the process. It's unfathomable why people are defending him so much. Either people are too nice, and are assuming too much good faith, or they're not seeing the disruption I am. Majorly talk 00:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I do see disruption, but not from DougsTech. DuncanHill (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Nevertheless, it is caused by DougsTech's actions which he refuses to explain. Timmeh! 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Yup, I failed to explain them here,and it is explained 3 times here, and on WT:RFA and on wp:an. Do not say that I have not explained it again. If you do not understand my reason, do NOT fail to acknowledge it.DougsTech (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC) You explained why you think there are too many admins. You did not explain why you choose to copy/paste the same oppose reason for multiple RFAs regardless of the candidate and cause disruption instead of discussing it at an appropriate place. Timmeh! 01:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC) So his curious oppose !votes justify you and others engaging in disruptive editing? DuncanHill (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC) It's going to be pretty hard to stop dozens of editors unfamiliar with DougsTech from questioning him and feeding the troll which only causes heated arguments and more disruption. Timmeh! 01:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC) It's clearly impossible to stop people from feeding the trolls who are stirring up this issue. DuncanHill (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC) This seems to be going essentially nowhere. Everyone is set in stone on their side of the issue, there is no meeting of the minds on either side, and nobody is changing their opinions. How about we chalk this entire episode--including this latest coda--up to Wikipedia once again being unable to either recognise or deal with disruption in any sort of meaningful way and call it a day? //roux   02:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Agree, close with no result. RFA frequently gets disrupted, not so much by editors who state their opposition, but rather by the RFA crowd who launch immense discussions on "what's broken about RFA". Put this sardine in the same can, trust in the bureaucrats to sort through the substantive RFA !votes and comments. Franamax (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Gouryella bad images

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked by Ricky81682. hmwithτ 12:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This user User talk:Gouryella keeps on uploading bad images with fake license information. He has had many of his images deleted many times, but keeps uploading them. Why doesn't he stop? He takes images from other sites and says they are public domain or creative commons like this File:68-gouryella3.jpg or this File:Kamaya+Painters.jpg or this File:R34-GTR-RB26-.jpg. He has been warned almost 70 times, shouldn't he be blocked for clearly having no interest in following Wikipedia licenses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.222.144.44 (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Notified him. Going to bed right now, but it looks like he was last warned to stop uploading images in September 2008 and has since then pulled up a dozen or more new problems. It's clear he's just screwing around (there's no reason to believe that Last.fm is now Creative Commons at File:Kamaya+Painters.jpg). I'd suggest a final warning and a check of his work, or even just a block until he realizes we are serious about this stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

I've indefinitely blocked User:Gouryella both for continuing to remove his permissions problems and for this response. Asking for outside review. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And it would be nice if someone could respond to his recent comments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

They have, as suggested by you, appealed the block and have had it declined. Unless they change their position I think the editor can be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:PONDHEEPANKAR is back???

I strongly feel that User:PONDHEEPANKAR who was banned for using 18 sockpuppets is now back. Please have a look at this where User:Onlynms is indulging in POV-pushing in Kongu Vellalar article. The article is full of blatant WP:OR and apart from a few external links to Kongu Vellalar organisations, there are no references at all. -The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 07:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the similarities, but PONDHEEPANKAR was blocked in 2007, and the latest socks (confirmed or suspected) in the block log are well over a year old (February 2008). If this is the first incident of this type on Kongu Vellalar organizations since then, I would assume good faith and warn the user. That being said, if the pattern continues, a report at WP:ANI would probabally be the route to go (I'm not sure if sockpuppet investigations would be able to do much at this point, since checkuser evidence would be stale, and this isn't a long-term, serious pattern of vandalism anymore.) Keep in mind I'm not actually an admin though (disclaimer!) I just saw your comment and put my two cents in, if any sysops feel strongly another way, please feel free to say so and disregard my comments. -Senseless!... says you, says me 19:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, the additions made by User:Onlynms are almost exactly same as the unreferenced propaganda content in Vellala Gounder article which was removed earlier. The list of prominent Kongu Vellalar too might probably be identical to List of Kongu Vellalars which was deleted earlier.

And as far as the reason for User:PONDHEEPANKAR's delayed reappearance is concerened, in case you are not aware, India is going to elections a couple of weeks from now. And I could clearly decipher in the acts of User:Onlynms or User:PONDHEEPANKAR or whoever it might be, an intention to indulge in political campaigning on behalf of a Kongu Vellalar political party.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 23:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The addition of large chunks of unreferenced propaganda content, too, is vandalism. -The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 23:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's in the same city, although the city is quite large. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 23:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that User:Onlynms is a sockpuppet or atleast a meatpuppet of User:PONDHEEPANKAR. Both have been introducing the same pro-Kongu Vellalar POV. By the way, apart from external links to some Kongu Vellalar Welfare Association sites, it has almost no references at all.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 07:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I can report a simular sockmaster that is related to him PickYourLeader14 (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Bigsaidlover

Resolved

 – User blocked for one week by LessHeard vanU. hmwithτ 12:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This user seems to be unsatisfied with my views, so he simply corrects or rather edits what I've written, either on my or his userpage [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]]. Without my permission, of course. He ignored my message regarding this behavior. As he obviously doesn't have too much respect for me, would someone else please explain to him that altering other users' comments is not desirable. Thanks in advance, --Catgut (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Abusively blocked by me for 1 week - let us see if they are happy to take what they deal out... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The block is fine, but I have some concerns that a user this new might not realize that your explanation was sarcastic. Looie496 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Limits of what you can put in your user page in langs other than English

I noticed in passing that User:Kabad has some untranslated Arabic text in his/her userpage. I re-checked WP:USERPAGE and could not identify any specific prohibition, but always thought that text in user pages/talk pages should be translated to English so everyone can understand. Should the user be warned/asked to add a translation in English? For all I know, as I don't read Arabic, the user could be violating policies such as WP:BLP or others in that text. I am not saying he/she is, just that it's impossible to tell for someone unfamiliar with Arabic script. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if an automatic translator for Arabic is available somewhere. If there is, run the text through it—an automatic translation should be enough to determine whether there are serious problems with what's said. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That might work to see what's said, but the question goes to determine if it is acceptable at all (policy), not the specific message in this user's example. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

People can put what they want, within limits, on their talk user page. If it's not disruptive or overly unproductive (we're not a social site), then it's usually fine. The specific example appears to be innocuous, probably a quote of the Qur'an or some other religious text: (Google-translated version of the page). {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC), fixed slightly 17:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a quotation in Latin on my user page, and another on my talk page. One is from Catullus, the other from the Bible. Translations provided on request.  :) Antandrus (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold, to think outside of the box, & asked him what the Arabic means. If it's something uncontroversial like a quotation from the Koran, or a famous Arabic poet, or just a greeting to fellow Arabic-speakers, I'm inclined to let it go. Why create friction where none is needed? (And there are enough Wikipedians who are fluent in Arabic that if it is something actually disruptive, they'll let us know. Alexf's question has been up for about 2 days, & none of them have mentioned it.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:REALNAME issue

There is an issue of a Wikipedian who has the same name as a member of the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee (SAFKA). It is getting quite confusing and problematical discussing the views of "Petri Krohn" of SAFKA as there exists User:Petri Krohn, as the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Finnish_Anti-Fascist_Committee indicates. A potential COI was reported on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Johan_B.C3.A4ckman earlier.

As I understand Wikipedia:REALNAME, "If you share the same name as a well known person, or you are a well known person, and you wish to edit under your own name, then your userpage should make it clear whether you actually are the well known person or not". User:Petri Krohn has participated in the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Finnish_Anti-Fascist_Committee, so he is well aware of the requirements of Wikipedia:REALNAME, but he hasn't indicated on his user page if he is the same person as "Petri Krohn" of SAFKA. Could some resolution to this be found. Thanks Martintg (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you asked the editor? You may wish to advise them of this section, in any case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was apparent in the AfD dicussion referred to above, which he is aware of, but appears to be ignoring the issue. I have explicitly advised him of this section[10]. Martintg (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologise, I meant "have you asked the editor on a talkpage" - I didn't see anything on the user talkpage so was enquiring if it had been brought up elsewhere; you note he has avoided or ignored the query on the afd, but I would be surprised if this had not been brought up previously in a more less confrontational environment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. WP:USERNAME is policy, right? Alll I am asking for is assistance in clearing up this confusion. Martintg (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed, as is Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Another request to clarify the situation is probably the best initial response - and only if the requests continue to be ignored, and the account continues to edit in areas which may be of interest to the RL Petri Krohn, should we conclude that it is likely the two same names are linked. At that point we can act under WP:Username and any other relevant policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the advice, done[11]. Martintg (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What is a "well known person"? Surely, one who is notable enough to have own WP article, which is not the case with Petri Krohn the Anti-Fascist Committee member. Thus Petri Krohn the WP user doesn't owe anyone an explanation. Óðinn (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Petri Krohn of SAFKA is appearing in the television media, so certainly he is becoming well known. Martintg (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. He's not notable. If it is the same person, what he does off-wiki is of no relevance on-wiki. So long as he abides by the same content policies that everyone is under obligation to follow, he is under no obligation to respond to what can be construed as constant attempts of WP:OUTING and WP:HARRASS. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, the user Petri Krohn has been contributing to Wikipedia since August 2005. He might be the same person as the SAFKA member, or someone who happens to have the same name -- but he didn't join Wikipedia just to promote SAFKA, & presumably has been around Wikipedia long enough to understand the problems inherent in conflicts of interest if he is a member of that group. As well-meaning as Martintg is, it appears that he's needlessly stirring up trouble & possibly offending an otherwise constructive member. Let's give Petri the benefit of the doubt here. -- llywrch (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this really relevant, yes Petri has made a very good contribution, but do we also want to drag up the really negative stuff too? The only one that appears to be needlessly stirring up trouble is Russavia, see here. This is purely a conflict of interest issue. If Petri chooses to edit a topic that mentions a person that has the same name as him, he has to declare his interest. He hasn't done so, yet continues to edit the article. Martintg (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over presentation of User talk:BetacommandBot

Seems to be a bit of a dispute brewing over how to present User talk:BetacommandBot, with some users advocating leaving it as it was, and others putting up a note about the community ban. I've protected the wrong version for 24 hours. I don't really care one way or the other, but I do see some value in having the header information (perhaps "copyedited for biteyness" as suggested by Enigmaman) remain up for users who may return from long absences to find notes from the bot and go to the page looking for further guidance. –xeno (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• See also User talk:Rjd0060#User talk:BetacommandBot, User talk:Skomorokh#Please stop. –xeno (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you decided to start a thread here. As evident from the thread on my talk page and the corresponding thread on Enigmaman's talk page, there isn't much of a dispute anymore. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Because another user showed up to put back the ban template. –xeno (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed that - however I really don't think this is a big deal and I think we've all already wasted far too much time on the issue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No doubt. –xeno (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The use of Betacommand's bot user page to get the message across about image policy is inappropriate. There are other mechanisms specifically for that purpose. This user page should not be some sort of proxy outlet for image policy.

The community decided to ban him and his bot and the community deserves to be made aware of that. Hairsplitting on may versus are to be is just evasive. Editing his sharp-edged message so that it is somehow "friendly" doesn't erase the stink of his approach. He was banned for a reason. Betacommand is not some sort of dead prophet for image policy. He is a banned user who operated a banned bot and that is what is most relevant in the current context.

And if I read right how does making the edit at Betacommand's request make it right? He's banned, no longer part of the community. How does his wish to continue to influence policy and practise by leaving his pointy message up carry any sort of weight at all?! Wiggy! (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe Betacommand will be resurrected this Sunday. He's certainly my prophet. Anyone so vehemently hated must have done something right. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

He did; he got banned. HalfShadow 20:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So now he's back and editing his own user page? Whats up with that? Wiggy! (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, he's back to mix it up. So to make this a little more formal: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Return of Betacommand?. Wiggy! (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering how many notices BetacommandBot left on talk and user talk-pages, I think some explanation on User talk:BetacommandBot or User:BetacommandBot would be helpfull. Most of the editors do not follow the internal bureaucracies of Wikipedia or drama boards. If they follow the link, they should find usefull information on what to do – either nothing or contact the deleting admin. – Sadalmelik ☎ 07:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. At least a note along the lines of "If you have come here about a notice on a file, contact so-&-so." Otherwise, the notes that are there explaining what BCB was & that BCB has been banned is sufficient. (Sheesh, that unfriendly 15 points response BC had on that page & wanted to restore only harms any chance he might have for being allowed to return.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with an problem move I just did

Resolved

 – Move reversed. hmwithτ 12:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble - was used to seeing only (film) after film titles so sigh without checking I moved Warrior (2010 film) to Warrior (film). However when I was adding the page to the disambiguation page I saw that there were many others already there, so I think (2010 film title is appropriate. However I don't see an easy way to "undo" the move. Sorry for the trouble. JCutter (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to go to the history of the original article location, click on "view logs for this page" and then you'll see a revert link next to the move. Took me two years to figure that one out, so don't sweat it ;-) (By the way, I fixed this one just before posting.) Someguy1221 (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - glad it was an easy fix. I'll have to write this one down in my WP cheatsheet. JCutter (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Resolved

 – User directed to correct venue. hmwithτ 12:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is on the issue of consensus. I was under the impression that when there was an editing dispute, to prevent warring an article is retained in its most recent stable state i.e. a consensus is effectively need to make further changes to, either to add material or remove material? Can someone confirm this?

The problem is on a range of beer articles in regards to whether a certain external link should be included. The opinion is split as to whether it is relevant or not, and despite debating the topic for months no consensus as yet has been attained. To stop the edit warring, a stalemate was effectively declared where the link wouldn't be added to any of the pre-existing articles, and neither would they be removed from articles where the link was present before the dispute started. Is this the correct course of action?

There is of course a small minority who are going against this ceasefire, including an administrator. On one article he has removed the external link to the talk page for 'discussion' and said it will be re-added once consensus is reached (because that is 'normal for disputes'). The problem here is that I think he's using his position as an admin to enforce his viewpoint. One article inparticular (Beer styles) included the link for a whole 9 months before the dispute started, and was stable up to that point. In my interpretation of Wikipedia policy consensus is required to remove the link from the article, just in the same way it is required to add a link to further articles. If all the links are removed until a consensus is reached for including them, then effectively that is just a unilateral decision to remove all the links because the other side of the debate don't have to agree to anything since they get exactly what they want - the removal of the links!

So I would appreciate clarification:

1. Does Wikipedia consensus apply to changes to an article or to including material?
2. In a conflict, is the proper course of action to retain the article in its most recent stable state, or to just remove the disputed material?
3. If an article included the link for 9 months without being contested, is that regarded as the most recent stable state of the article?

Any views and opinions much appreciated, Regards, Betty Logan (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion might best be conducted at Wikipedia talk:Consensus or at one of the Village Pumps. Regards, Skomorokh 10:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah thanks I have posted it to the consensus page. Betty Logan (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, if it is about a specific link, the WT:EL External Link talk page might be suitable. the Consensus talk page is really for discussing the genera rule, not specific complaints about jhow it is being applied, or every dispute in Wikipedia will end up there. . DGG (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD getting out of hand

I think this AFD is getting out of hand. Stevenspiegel (talk · contribs) The creator is clearly socking and launching personal attacks. I have tried helping the user on my talk page but I don't know if I have done so correctly and I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes. --DFS454 (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The apparent socking is concerning, but the AfD isn't out of hand at all. Apparent socks marked with {{subst:spa}}. Someone might want to go to WP:SPI with them (though honestly the edit summaries pretty clearly indicate the relationship). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Reported to SPI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stevenspiegel. MuZemike 13:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Zouavman Le Zouave

This user has been repeatedly attacking other editors for not sharing his own opinions, and has been trying to push his own opinion in Wikipedia articles. Editors who do not share his opinions are referred to as if they were ignorant or stupid, particularly here and here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

I see an ongoing discussion and Zouavman asking for additional input at WikiProject Music. I see nothing that is even close to an attack, not even any real incivility, in any recent edits made by Zouavman. What specific diffs by Zouavman do you believe merit administrator action? The Seeker 4 Talk 14:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on the accusation of personal attacks. On the other hand, I will comment on the fact that Ibaranoff24 is the only user in the discussion to push for his point of view on the article, despite the fact that three users have already stated in this discussion their disagreement with the removal of a genre from the infobox. It's about respecting reliable sources and consensus. I have tried to prevent an edit war by letting Ibaranoff24 edit the article as he wishes, despite the fact that none of his, sometimes controversial edits are not backed by community consensus. For a walkthrough of the edits made on the article and the talk page, see User:Zouavman Le Zouave/Ibaranoff24. If an administrator believes I have violated WP:NPA or made any other block-worthy edits, I will see no objection to a block. Zouavman Le Zouave 15:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that your list is inaccurate. I made some corrections to your list which you reverted to keep your own point of view readily viewable. How convenient. I've never made any controversial edits. In actuality, I have done my part in improving the quality of the article by cleaning up its text, adding relevant content and sources, and removing unreliable sources. Do you really think that questioning user-edited biographies, biased promotional articles, or correcting the link on one of the news articles to point to the author's page which lists the full interview cited (the title, in fact, does not refer to the band by the genre which you are trying to push, but in fact is simply They're an Armenian band) are "controversial" edits? I've never pushed any opinion. I only want to present what is considered factually accurate by the majority of sourced material. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

• Right now this is a whole lot of "He did this!" "Did not, the other guy did that!" "I never, but he did the other thing!" Please, both of you, provide diffs. Links to talkpage sections aren't particularly helpful. As it is, this just looks like a content dispute, which may be better handled here. //roux   18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Zouavman Le Zouave: "I'll be the smarter one and not revert him"
• Zouavman Le Zouave: "...especially one that understands the concepts of verifiability, neutrality, and consensus, it would be greatly appreciated"

Both of these statements imply that editors who do not agree with Zouavman's opinions are idiots. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

That last statement was not at all implying that Ibaranoff24 did not understand those concepts. I was rather asking for other users to give their input on the discussion, and asking for preferably experienced users that understand those concepts. One would agree that without understanding those concepts thoroughly, discussions are generally less constructive. This had absolutely nothing to do with Ibaranoff24's understanding of those concepts, which I do not make judgement upon. Zouavman Le Zouave 18:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I have seen quite a few statements made by you which come across as being negative towards editors who do not share your opinions. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

User:HellinaBucket +IPs

IPs User:97.112.172.176 and User:97.112.174.15 It started out as a revert of unsourced information on the A Memory of Light article, despite a request for sources only a single unreliable one was provided (fansite comments). On top of this there have been personal attacks, curious comments on political stances, edits to prove a point, accusations of bad faith, and a general disruptive and negative attitude. Rehevkor ✉ 17:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The alleged fansite come from the same site that Hosts/Hosted Robert Jordan's official Blog. i've attempted to add that the decision by Tor books and Sanderson is from from uncontroversial. I've made several attempts to rewrite this several times. most Recently I put in the assertation that the fan reaction has widely varied from supportive to his widow to calls to boycott the series. I've made 2 references to unpopular politicians to point out that not everyone is a saint and decisions aren't always popular or agreed with. The above editor kept saying anything to do with Dragonmount was unreliable. Editor is not allowing article to come even close to s neutral viewpoint, if he was there would be a whole palatte of colors that the world is shaded with. He refuses any attempt to compromise or nogotiate.I originally made a comment about speculation of the pubnkishing house financial stability but this was removed justifiably as there is no confirmation to this atr all only comments from the announcment. I have signed all edits taking out blog references because if above users bifurcated view of reporting news on a forthcoming book as unreliable. If the site is an inappropriate or unreliable source shouldn't it be taken out? He showed me several policies indicting that is why he removed min. in the end i believe that if this is indeed the rule and i was wrong it should be enforced so I was rectifying that breach in policiees. Also the comment he has that has the cursing in it wasn't me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by HellinaBucket (talk • contribs) 17:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The unreliable source in question was being used for statements of opinion. Rehevkor ✉ 17:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Rebuttle The statements weren't personal opinion they were reporting the FACTS of the reaction of the fans. The FACTS are that there are 222 pages of comments by fans of the series with repsonses from positive and negative. How is reporting written reactions unreliable? Also there were attempts to rephrase so both sides of the spectrum was reported

Your analysis of the fan reaction constitutes Original Research. Also, there is a difference between citing the Author's official blog, and a bunch of comments from random fans. Just because they are on the same website doesn't mean they carry the same weight. If you want to report that there was a wide range of fan reaction, find an acceptable, reliable source that says there was a wide range of fan reaction. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagreee because it still hosts his official blog which is sometimes used by Harriet to address Mr. Jordans fans and this is directrly with her interview on the site regarding the book splits. Also in the news article itse;f they acknowledge this has upset many people." —Preceding unsigned comment added by HellinaBucket (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Mitchazenia

Per a motion at WP:RFAR, Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) may regain his adminship via RFA, request to the arbitration committee, or request to a bureaucrat.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 18:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Editing Template:Country_data_India

This is a protected template. I have corrected the color of a flag used in this template. I will appreciate if an admin can change Flag of the Indian Army.svg to Flag of Indian Army.pngSumanch (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Done but next time, use the template talk page and {{editprotected}}. Easier to keep things there for historical reasons (as the complexity of my edit summary indicates). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A certified apology for my recent behavior to the community

Dear Wikipedians and our high-ranks,

I am deeply and regretfully sorry for my behavior on April 4, 2009. At the moment of the incident, I was in a deep fit of rage from an action on my most active WikiProject. If you ask people on IRC who saw my reaction, I was in a deep set of rage. I did threaten suicide on IRC, and well, it got the better of me on Wikipedia. I regret this much.

When I originally posted that thread on WP:ANI, I made the header and some of the language to be a little too serious than what was really going on. I deeply apologize for scaring the community, and I meant the discussion to be a "should I retain my rights" thing, not a crisis. At the time I was doing this, my demeanor had become more and more depressive and well, so did control of myself. I thank the community, as drastic as it may be, for taking the right actions. I knew that a lot of stress was starting to build from a lot of on-Wikipedia discussions, and well, I finally blew.

Before this, I had threatened suicide on IRC and Wiki combined, around 1 1/2 dozen times. The first one really occurred in 2006, after a fight with another user. Well, combined with the personal issues that caused this, I really started bundling all my problems in. About the time 2009 started, I began to seriously feel worse and worse mentally. I had and still have been going through stress as a high school student. I've been diagnosed by doctors with Aspberger's Syndrome, and that really doesn't help things too much. Well, with these problems, along with the stress, my behavior really fell downhill. I was threatening suicide over stupid things, and being incivil to others. I aplogize to User:NE2 for telling him to "go to hell" on Wiki. I really was ticked, and it just shows. I apologize for the behavior and am wanting to make it up with you.

By the end of March, my biggest birthday of my life had passed, and I've wanted to help my behavior from a teenager to adulthood. Right now, especially with the bullying at school, nothing changed, and to tell you the truth, I felt worse. With the actions I pulled on April 4, I tried my best to calm down, although crying and beating myself up physically didn't help much. I want to thank User:Gwen Gale & User:Tiptoety for the drastic action, and I apologize for my behavior.

After this situation, I've felt less stressed without my adminstrator powers, which I clearly didn't deserve in the first place (being I passed 55/6/3). I also want to say that I am looking into more outside help for this serious problem and have run into a few people off-Wiki that have had the same problems I do, and I really am trying to solve this. I thank people for their support in my sort of called "recovery", including much of the Arbitration Committee. Again, I am feeling better and looking for more to do in my life than stress over Wikipedia as a whole.

My ceritified apologies,

Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

External linking issue

Resolved

 – WP:EL included signatures rolled back. –xeno (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this, I've forgotten where abouts I should ask other than the help desk...

Willisis2 (talk · contribs) had some banners linking to an external site called MXtabs, which was aimed at getting him views on that site. I assume this isn't permitted per WP:EL#ADV, and so asked him to remove the banners, which he has done. He has, however, still got a link to the site on each page saying "Me on MXtabs" or something similar, leading to the same page as before. I really don't think this is allowed per the same policy, but I wasn't sure, so I wanted to ask here before informing him. Cheers, again sorry if this should have gone to VP or the help desk! —Cyclonenim | Chat  20:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in that external links are not permitted in signatures. I've rolled back all the guestbook signings and will leave the user a note about this. FYI this seems to be related to some kind of referral contest. –xeno (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(sheepish grin) I am now just realizing your report had nothing to do with the signature issue. The links on his userpage are probably alright. –xeno (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no worries, thanks for your help. At least this post wasn't completely useless :) —Cyclonenim | Chat  20:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• MZMcBride (talk · contribs) resigned his status as an administrator on April 6, 2009, while the above arbitration case was pending. Should MZMcBride request restoration of adminship privileges, he will be required to submit a request for adminship or request approval of the Committee.
• MZMcBride is directed to consult with and obtain approval from the Bot Approvals Group before using any bot to edit Wikipedia and particularly before using any bot to undertake administrator actions.
• MZMcBride and those working with him are commended for developing an innovative method to identify articles with potential BLP issues, but are strongly urged to consult and carefully consider whether the current location and nature of the listing of the output of the script represents the most appropriate means of addressing the issues raised.
• MZMcBride is directed to create user accounts distinct from his own, clearly identified as bots and clearly associated to his primary account, from which to execute any automated or semi automated task that can make edits or administrative actions.
• MZMcBride is restricted from making edits or actions from his primary account that are either (a) automated, or (b) at a rate higher than twelve actions per minute. Edits or actions made from authorized bot accounts are not so restricted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 23:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Image help requested

Resolved

 – Editor advised that commercial use must be allowed

An editor who does not understand image policies has had their images deleted. They say they own the images, but they were tagged as fair use. I can't see the deleted images, would an image-minded sysop mind helping this user out? See this diff, and the user's talk page. Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On a quick skim, it looks like they were incorrectly licensed ("Prior written permission required for commercial use or use on any website", which is incompatiable with GFDL). – iridescent 01:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, but by my reading of their message, they want a noncommercial restriction on their images; however, we can't do that. They also seem to want them to stay deleted if they can't add such a restriction. Since they've already been deleted once while tagged as fair use, it's probably best to just let them stay deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Have advised the user accordingly, just seems to be a case of not appreciating that non-commercial licenses aren't ok. Looks likely that the images will stay deleted. dave souza, talk 09:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Harassing anon

A little while ago, an anon editor was continually harssing me (probably in response to me warning him for vandalism to an article), and didn't stop until after a series of blocks. Well, whomever he is, is back, and vandalized my user page again. Even though the IP is different, he referenced a specific remark he made earlier, making me think this is the same individual. I was hoping I could get some sort of intervention here, specifically a block (since the warnings and block didn't seem to stop him last time), and semi-protect my userpage against editing by anons until this individual stop creeping back. Thanks. bahamut0013^words_deeds 05:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Sorry you had to deal with this guy. Icewedge (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the protect, but what if he simply starts to vandalize a sub-page? (Note: block log is empty). bahamut0013^words_deeds 09:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Since whois traces 132.79.13.15 to Fort Huachuca and 99.25.108.10 to Fort Bliss, do you not have some off-wiki recourse against actual harrassment? I can understand that you might not want to take such action, yet. But is it available to you in the first place? Uncle G (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Draft arbitration policy

The Committee has prepared a provisional draft of an updated arbitration policy for initial community review. All editors are invited to examine the text and to provide any comments or suggestions they may have via one of the two methods specified on the draft page.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 05:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamish Ross anyone?

Jthuggett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) DuncanHill (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely--Jac16888^Talk 08:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Something untoward in Egypt Austria relations

The bilateral relationship between Egypt and Austria has been the subject of no less four academic conferences, with published proceedings: [12][13][14][15]. This was noted after the article on the subject had been nominated for deletion on grounds of notability: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austria–Egypt relations. Afterwards, at least two editors continued to argue for deletion on the grounds that the subject failed the inclusion criteria of WP:N. While I cannot say what inappropriate thing is going on here, it should be obvious enough that something is rotten. There is some problem that needs addressing. If these were less established accounts, one would probably conclude sockpuppetry or external co-ordination without any further evidence, but given the circumstances the situation certainly requires tact and some "less involved" opinions. So I am soliciting them here. WilyD 11:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion whether this topic is notable or not, but after all the borderline insane cruft-pushing that has been going on, you shouldn't be surprised there is a backlash. Of course it doesn't take a coordinated effort for this to happen. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that no, there is nothing rotten here (at least on my part): I simply expressed my opinion that as Austria and Egypt did not exist in their current form until the 1920s, and as the book we were asked to accept (on faith, it seems) as evidence for a notable relationship deals with the 19th century, WP:N still has not been demonstrated for that article. Please stop raising frivolous objections here, and try to argue persuasively at the AfD. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

One can't persuad the unpersuadable, but when one observes highly suspicious behaviour, this is the correct place to request less involved admin(s) review the situation. WilyD 15:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You argument hasn't convinced them. This could be conspiracy on their part. Something tells me it has more to do with deficiencies in your argument. Assume the latter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything terribly sinister here. By way of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Uruguay relations closing as "delete" there obviously exists some group of like minded individuals who have formed a consensus that relations between countries do not warrant an article by their mere existence. I don't see bad faith editing on either side of this issue... just two sides to the argument with credible positions. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Err, Croatia-Uruguay was pretty marginal. It is not a comparable situation. The problem is not that there are editors who believe "relations between countries do not warrant an article by their mere existence" , but editors who believe "relations between countries can never warrant an article, regardless of the circumstances". WilyD 21:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. This just led me to another thought: Are these articles considered unnecessary because of articles that focus specifically on the individual countries (such as Foreign relations of Algeria)? Hiberniantears (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an important factor. Some people consider every article of the type relations between Andorra and Tuvalu automatically notable. For simplicity let's assume there are 200 independent states. (The UN has 192 members.) Then we are talking about (200 x 199)/2 ≈ 20,000 such articles. Some editors have been mass producing such articles, with uniform structure and a very clumsy, uniform first sentence. There are similarities to the situation with human habitations, for which we have a consensus that they are all automatically notable, but I don't think it follows automatically that we have to treat them in the same way. In fact, there seems to be a majority against these articles.

A reader who is interested in the relations between Andorra and Tuvalu is likely also interested in the relations between Andorra and other countries, or between Tuvalu and other countries. Since there isn't much to say about these relations, it would be much better to treat them in foreign relations of Andorra and foreign relations of Tuvalu. The little content that we have is usually of the type: date of establishment of diplomatic relations and location of embassy. The former is best handled in tabular form. The latter information could be part of the same table, or for countries with only few embassies we could simply list them, and for each embassy list the countries which it covers. By contrast, this kind of overview is hard to get when the information is fragmented.

Some such articles are definitely notable, e.g. relations between North Korea and South Korea. In addition we could have articles such as relations between European countries, or relations between African and South American countries. I think there is a lot of potential in such articles, and they may eventually spin out subarticles. But starting with tiny articles whose content is better discussed elsewhere is not OK.

I don't agree with WilyD that there is a problem with editors who believe that such articles can never be notable. A natural reaction to mass production of articles which are mostly notable and almost empty is to delete them almost all without prejudice. Unfortunately we have no proper process for this, and the processes we do have are being filibustered by editors who are far on the inclusionist side of the spectrum. Obviously this creates bad feelings and puts people on the other side of the spectrum into "defending the integrity of the wiki against cruft" mode. So we have the usual polarisation caused by reactance (psychology): both sides become more and more radical. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What troubles me about these deletions is that the nominator has never shown any attempt to investigate the bilateral relations & determine whether there evidence that these are notable; the nominations that I've voted against all fall in a repackaged version of the old, discredited "n.n., d." formula. For example, to people who don't know Ethiopian history, Belgium-Ethiopia relations or Ethiopia-Japan relations both might appear to be speedy deletes, when in each case there is ample evidence that would persuade anyone to keep them -- events which include Belgium's role in setting up one of Ethiopia's military schools, & the role of Japan's first constitution on Ethiopia's 1935 constitution. On the other hand, if faced with something like Ethiopia-Syria relations, I would be far less supportive due to my knowledge of Ethiopian history. (Have they even exchanged ambassadors?) I'd like to see evidence that these articles proposed for deletion are not notable, based on some amount of research. -- llywrch (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So, we're just doing it in reverse. If it's notable, it will be kept, or it'll come back, better than before. If it's not, no loss. --BlueSquadronRaven 00:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I always do some research before making a nomination. I'm not going to waste people's time by nominating obviously notable articles. And two points for WilyD: 1) if "Croatia-Uruguay was pretty marginal", why did you vote to keep it? 2) Can you name even a single editor who believes "relations between countries can never warrant an article, regardless of the circumstances". I'm certainly not one of them and that sounds awfully like a straw man. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with recurring sock puppetry.

• Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cs32en (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The above account is an example of the stead stream of redlink accounts (recycled banned users) coming to disrupt Collapse of the World Trade Center‎ and World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories . Could a checkuser please watchlist those pages. It takes one minute to create an account, and at least ten minutes to file a report at WP:SPI. Obviously, the balance of time if we go that route is not good at all. Jehochman ^Talk 17:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

At least one conspiracy theorist with an interest in that article has recently been banned on other grounds. I'm wondering if she might be behind some of these socks. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything is possible. Here's another sock (added above). Could we get some help here please? We need a clueful admin, or a checkuser, to start blocking the socks until the user gives up. Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The two accounts listed as possible socks were both newly created on April 9. Semiprotection would keep them from editing the WTC articles. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Great would somebody help please with this. I am not using my bit in this topic. Jehochman ^Talk 01:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear. HELP FROM AN UNINVOLVED ADMINISTRATOR IS NEEDED NOW. I have come to the aid of many of you at various times and I am getting a bit annoyed that repeated requests for help are going unanswered. Several of you have been pining about Guy's behavior with respect to WP:UNINVOLVED. It's a two way street. If you ask administrators to hold back where they are involved, you need to pitch in an help when help is needed. Jehochman ^Talk 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor adding many WP:SELFREF-violating entries to reference sections

Ksnow (talk · contribs) has gone on an editing spree that awakes sincere doubts on his mental health. I honestly believe he is insane. For several weeks now he is adding the sentence "Based on the article in the French Wikipedia" in every article on a French commune he comes across. Now, i can assure you as the main author of articles like Colmar, Haguenau, Molsheim or even Strasbourg, Rosheim and Sélestat that nothing at all there is based on French Wikipedia, on the contrary even, i sometimes translate passages into French (i usually write for the German Wikipedia and translate some of my stuff here or ask for the translation of articles i wrote). In other words: User:Ksnow acts for a while now without checking if he actually acts right, which means that he acts silly. You may think that i am very harsh to assume that User:Ksnow has gone genuinely mad, but he definitely needs a reality check. And Wikipedia needs him to be checked again, because he has already come under scrutiny in a recent past, for his unconstructive and obsessive edits. In the meantime, could a bot just undo the addition of this senseless, meaningless and f*cking untrue sentence "Based on the article in the French Wikipedia" he added almost everywhere? I reverted already in the articles cited above. Thank you.--RCS (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Based on the article in the French Wikipedia" is an entirely inappropriate self-referential statement. Also fails WP:RS. I shall set to work removing these statements at once. –xeno (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC) someone cleverer than me needs to write a proper regex because sometimes it is the only reference and then we would want the ==References== header removed as well, yes? –xeno (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Labelling the editor as insane is entirely unproductive. Comment on content, not the author. See WP:NPA. Further, you've only brought up the subject to the author in the last two hours. While the editor has edited since then, I think a report here is entirely premature. Go talk with him. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Unproductive maybe, but how would you call an attitude that is 1) disconnected from factual reality and 2)obsessive (it is going on at least since March 27)?--RCS (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, if a bot could undo what he did, i'd be glad enough. I just don't know how to call for one.--RCS (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, it's further back than that. Since Feb 24th at least... AWB returned exactly 1000 results, which leads me to believe there is actually more than 1000 of the articles with this line in it. –xeno (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the edits are a big worry, nothing untowards about bringing it up here. I would only say, you don't know that the editor is "disconnected from factual reality" or "obsessive," he may have something quite canny in mind (although whatever this may be, it does seem wholly unhelpful to the project). Don't call other editors insane, stick to talking about the edits themselves and how they blend with policy and consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it necessary at all to describe him as insane? COMMENT ON CONTENT. This isn't difficult. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

N.B. header changed. –xeno (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to add some information here, Ksnow has been editing since 2004 and has over 93,000 edits, virtually all to the mainspace. It looks like a lot of his editing is script-assisted. He was recently blocked for automated date-delinking, and unblocked after promising not to do that any more. So it looks like this is more a case of over-automaticity than an obsessive editor. Looie496 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to label that editor "insane", as far as I can tell he's merely editing many articles about French communes in good faith.

Having said that, while much of his editing seems alright (updating census numbers, minor corrections, links to the website of the communes etc), the references are going to be tricky to fix. On that issue, it's not just the self reference to the French Wikipedia, he also adds links to the IGN site and INSEE sites, which would be legit if he linked to actual pages on the specific communes, but the links are just to the main pages, hence not useful. Other alterations might be questionable such as turning "département" into "department", I'm not sure what's the concensus on that if any. Equendil Talk 19:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually not so tricky as I earlier thought, I'm doing it now (see Special:Contributions/Xenocidic), so is it your opinion that the linkes to IGN and INSEE should be removed as well (in nearly all cases this would leave the article completely refless)? –xeno (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitively, they all reach to the same front page, nothing specific to the communes edited, so in my opinion, those three lines should go:

''Based on the article in the French Wikipedia.''

*[http://www.insee.fr/en/home/home_page.asp INSEE]

*[http://www.ign.fr/rubrique.asp?rbr_id=1&lng_id=EN IGN]

Equendil Talk 19:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm still concerned that if information was indeed culled from those sources, the links would at least give the user somewhere to go to verify the data. Anyone else have an opinion one way or the other? –xeno (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The INSEE site appears to contain a separate PDF of population data for each commune (the one for Abbécourt is here, for instance) but I don't know how one would automate the replacement of the links to the home page with these specific links. Deor (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a job for a bot-op far cleverer than I. I do note that the direct link to the .pdf is included as a ref for some of the fr.wiki articles, perhaps they could be ported over. For now I'm just going to continue removing the self-ref line. –xeno (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, then some more information: the INSEE conducts census, its site is not terribly easy to navigate as there is a ton of information in there as you would expect from census stuff, but filling in the name of the commune in the search box should do the trick. It might be best to make it a ref next to the census number if we keep that. The IGN maintains geographical information, its site offers a number of services, free or paying, however, the link here leads to some sort of portal to several sub sites and a search query seemingly results in a collection of pages where you can buy maps, pictures etc. Might be best to ask Ksnow how he's got his data from the IGN because that link does not seem useful. Equendil Talk 20:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should probably be continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject French communes, and maybe a WP:BOTREQ could be filed to extract the direct links. –xeno (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Added a section there. Equendil Talk 20:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Cludgy work-around for file (image) revisions

This has been reported before & a fix appears to be in the works. There's a cludgy work-around if you're trying to delete one reversion of a file & not the entire file itself. For example, if you want to delete one of the revisions of File:Horton a who.jpg, do as before and click on the old image "delete" link. This will take you to the wrong page; the address bar should read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Horton_a_who.jpg&action=delete&oldimage[]=20080102020421!Horton_a_who.jpg

In the address bar you can simply remove the [] after =delete&oldimage (i.e. =delete&oldimage[]=2008... becomes =delete&oldimage=2008...), refresh from the address bar, and viola, the correct "delete this revision" page comes up. I know it's a bit of a workaround, but for those interested, it does work (in a pinch :) Skier Dude (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Seemingly bad editnotice idea

I was looking into how editnotices worked earlier, and saw that ANI's editnotice, MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Administrators' noticeboard-Incidents, just transcludes Template:Noticeboard key, which is only semi-protected. Now, I thought about going to RFPP and requesting to protect the template, but wouldn't the same effect be achieved by just moving the template's code directly to the MediaWiki namespace page? Actually, it'd be technically better since it'd eliminate a transclude that fires untold numbers of times every day. I mean, frankly, I don't see a particularly good reason for the ANI editnotice to be edited by non-admins... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Noticeboard key}} now full-protected, before some of our beanier readers start having naughty thoughts. – iridescent 00:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)