Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Problem with someone who just won't stop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's because you've made it a question of whether you agree with one side or the other, and not the actual issue, which is one user's relentless pursuit of his own agenda, wikipedia policy, or common courtesy be dammned. ---And how can you possibly say that ""Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are the same phrase and mean the same thing"? They clearly do not. (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The admin recall process is dead

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

Points system for admin recall

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

Denying speedies

Hi there guys!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, what Iridescent said. You'll also see if the page creator comes along and removes your tag, or adds a hangon. Watchlists are a wonderful thing.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's baaaaaaaaaack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But...but... it has passive voice, so that makes everything better! You see, "it" "has been found" that "many" difficulties were <insult> <insult> <insult>, and so the project. Any form of the to-be verb plus a past tense verb = passive construction. Watch for it. Nearly every time you see it, someone's up to no good. Geogre (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Greg Kohs aka MyWikiBiz

Resolved

 – It is clear MyWikiBiz and Thekohser are not getting upblocked anytime soon. There is no consensus on broader issues or under what conditions might Thekohser be allowed to edit at some time in the future, but positions are entrenched, an increasing number of participants are strident in their language, and little further insight is being generated. Those wishing to engage Thekohser in further dialogue can do so at his user talk page, where he is able to respond. -- Martinp (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Click to expand
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At User talk:Jimbo Wales#Trouble looming with MyWikiBiz? Jimbo says "Indeed, although I have not kept up recently with whatever Mr. Kohs has been doing, I suspect he should be allowed a fresh start in Wikipedia. I would hope that eventually he can make his peace with the community and all will be well". Let's give Greg another chance. His past means that any significant misbehavior will be subject to an indef block. Can some brave soul unblock User:MyWikiBiz? WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Something like that would need at least some sort of discussion before doing anything rash, right? how do you turn this on 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Seeing as he was socking as recently as yesterday, I'm not convinced of the wisdom of unbanning him. MBisanz talk 19:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Whenever someone creates a sock after being blocked, they're essentially saying 'Screw you and your rules'. Kohs' 'Screw you' count is officially up to 38 and may be as high as 63. HalfShadow 19:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC) And doesn't he have a legal threat outstanding? From what I understand, that was the reason behind the end of his last legitimate attempt to return here. Blueboy96 20:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC) You would be wrong. He was banned shortly after his last legitimate attempt to return here when User:Durova leveled unsubstantiated defamatory charges against him, and when he objected to that, he was blocked for making "legal threats", which was really rather backwards. - No Indexer (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Yeah, why not give the guy a second chance? All he did was use Wikipedia to make money, spam his website, sockpuppet, evade blocks and bans (ongoign, I believe, with recent incidents), try to get the Wikimedia Foundation's charitable status rescinded, attack numerous people offsite and mount a years-long campaign of hate. What's not to forgive? Guy (Help!) 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC) He didn't plagiarize. Kelly hi! 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Unblocking and lifting Greg Kohs's ban is a terrible idea. Let's waste more of the communities good faith and time? I think not. Tiptoety talk 19:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Some editors need to stay gone. This is one of them. And honestly, he isn't gone. He's reading this right now, and contributing to Wikipedia with socks that haven't been caught yet, but will. Oppose unblocking, per guy. Keeper ǀ 76 19:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC) (e/c)I wouldn't support this; too much damage has been done. Current sockpuppetry doesn't strike me as remorseful behaviour. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Frankly, I don't understand why he was even allowed back as many times as he was. From what I understand, this guy was one of the very reasons promotional usernames aren't allowed on Wikipedia. Even without his massive socking, the fact that his very approach to Wikipedia is a quantum leap from what Wikipedia is should be enough to keep him blocked. Blueboy96 20:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC) One side of me says unban: his sockpuppets make good article edits, but he normally screws up by revealing the sock is him. I don't see why we should ban people who contribute well to articles. However, the other side of me looks at the reason for his banning, his antics on Wikipedia Review, his rather unusual candidacy for the board election, and that shows me that, perhaps, this person really isn't suited to this site. His negative attitude of Wikipedia makes me wonder why he'd even want to edit here. He should stick to criticizing it. I would maybe reconsider if he just stuck out the ban a bit. how do you turn this on 20:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Eh what's wrong with Wikipedia Review? Peter Damian (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Nothing. It's the posts from Greg there that are troubling. how do you turn this on 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Which ones? Most of them are quite perceptive. Frankly I'm not sure why he should be allowed back (and I'm sure he would be the first to agree). But he tells some home truths. Peter Damian (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Of course, however I dislike the negative attitude. I'm not here to argue about this though, I'm sorry. how do you turn this on 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Per Guy and MBisanz, lifting the ban is a bad idea. --David Shankbone 20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Can some brave soul unblock User:MyWikiBiz? That brave soul will not be me, nor, I hope, any other admin. "Another chance" is almost always in order; a third or fourth or tenth definitely is not in this case. And in the unlikely event that the ban of the person is lifted, that user name should be blocked as promotional in any case. --MCB (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I oppose unblocking MyWikiBiz, but not because I have issues with his business plan. Indeed, I wholly support it -- I don't really care why someone contributes to Wikipedia just so long as they comply with our policies. Remuneration is not incompatible with NPOV. On the other hand, the fact of his multiple sockpuppets is incompatible with our continuing assuming his good faith. Absent a signal of good faith -- and I would consider nothing less than three months without sockpuppets appropriate -- I think it unwise to unblock here. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Im pretty sure that this won't be popular, but I would support the unblock. What's the worst that could happen? He screws up, block him again. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Hmmmm. This thread came about because a transparently obvious Kohs sock posted on Jimbo's talk page. I think that speaks volumes. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC) And since there is a concerted effort to never allow him to edit again on this project, what other recourse would he have? At least he's being transparent about the sock. Has anyone considered asking on Wikipedia Review if he wants to be unblocked, and if he'd follow the rules? By getting him to make a public statement on his "home turf" as to whether he'll follow the rules or not, it makes it potentially more meaningful for him to actually do so. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC) 1) This is quasi-moot, as it's obvious that enough admins have it in for him that even if he were unblocked, he'd quickly be reblocked for offenses real or imagined. 2) However, that being said, if he has umpteen sock-puppets, well, practically, what's the point? That's rhetorical - I know, it's about community norms and a declaration of being outside them. But I suggest that be leavened with some pragmatism, recognizing when the standard operating procedure is becoming counter-productive. My advice would be to find some sort of face-saving climb-down from the current silliness (he's banned with multiple socks). Say something like "In the name of Jimbo The Merciful, Blessed be his (co)Foundership, let your evil past be washed away by the beneficence of his absolution. We shall grant you an Assumption Of Good Faith. Go edit and sin no more" (in case it isn't clear, this is saving face by conveying "it's *his* idea, we're just going along with it"). After the inevitable drama, hey, you can say you tried. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Seth, Kohs is a drama whore. He outs his own socks. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Support unblocking, what real damage has Mr. Kohs done to Wikipedia? Has his socking been anything but rather obvious? Yes he criticizes and barks and barks but has he ever really bitten? His socking is defying Wikipedia's block/ban on him, my my how terrible this fellow must be to defy the collective might of Wikipedia. He must learn to be humble and admit the error of his ways, then and only then can we be magnanimous and forgive this poor transgressor. Petty petty minded people how you do justify your prejudices so. RMHED (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC) What, apart fomr the offsite attacks, the attempt to have our charitable status rescinded, and the serial violation of WP:SOCK you mean? Hardly anything other than some WP:SPAM problems, a bit of WP:COI and some tendentious editing. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Wars end when one side has the courage to propose peace. Jehochman Talk 22:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Guy those aren't bites, at most they're just playful nips. How could he damage Wikipedia by challenging its charity status? Either the status is correct or it isn't. His so called offsite attacks are about as effective as a chihuahua attack dog. RMHED (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Then we need a WP:BADDOGS policy to go after those darned Attack Dogs! *Dan T.* (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Dear heavens, is this necessary? However useful MWB might have been able to be as a contributor, I would think he's too embittered now about this project to participate fully. Whatever. Of course, the community ban should end if he agrees that he will not attempt to link his personal website, that he will not institute editing-for-money schemes without community approval, that he will not operate bad hand accounts, and that he steers clear of inappropriate on-site personal remarks. If he violates any of those, I'd suppose that he could be reblocked with a note at AN pretty easily. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Truthfully, I am not sure he ever would have been good, but you are certainly right about how he would probably be now. The thing is, there seem to em to be two sorts of people who come to Wikipedia: those who think "this is good, what can I give?" and those who think "how can I use this to my advantage?" The latter sort we have the devil's own job getting rid of, be they Truthers, LaRouchites, True Believers in homeopathy or Intelligent Design or whatever - the more we ban them, the more determined they become to get back in and the more of the good people they drive off in the process. Protecting the people who are single-mindedly determined to use Wikipedia for their own ends is exhausting and leaves many casualties by the wayside, good faith being one of them. Kohs is the archetype of the "what's in it for me?" kind. You, me, these others here, we came to Wikipedia and decided to help out with no thought of personal gain. Kohs, he decided he could make a buck off the back of the efforts of the millions of volunteer hours whch have gone into making Wikipedia the high profile place it is. He can be charming, but he has also shown that he is ruthless when thwarted, and the combination of seeking personal gain and tenacious and highly aggressive retaliation against anyone who stands in his way is simply not what any of us have in mind when we picture an ideal Wikipedian. I must say that I'm tempted by Rodhullandemu's idea, though... Guy (Help!) 22:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Support unblock with an editing restriction to Pokemon-related articles only, as long as there's breath in my body. That should give him about a week or two. --Rodhullandemu 22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Support unblock restricted to one account that we can keep eyes on. I personally will reblock if he steps out of line. Greg can edit through socks whenever he likes. As Seth Finkelstein said, face saving measures will be good. Jehochman Talk 22:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC) (mec)Er, my support wasn't intended to be serious. I'm not sure, with the best will in the world, how yours can be. Everything about this guy suggests that no sanction is effective in moving him towards meeting all of the standards of the project. It's not a "pick 'n' mix" scenario, and he's chosen which bits he accepts and seems to have rejected otherwise. But, given his record, functionally, regardless of the merits of the content of his edits, I would expect at least a personally-binding (FWIW) commitment (FWIW) to play the game by the rules. Per WP:BEANS, I have doubts, but won't express them. --Rodhullandemu 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Qui bono? What good does it do Wikipedia to have him back? Corvus cornixtalk 22:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC) It helps to end a useless war. It allows us to watch Kohs, instead of him editing on the sly. Jehochman Talk 22:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Question Has anyone even asked him anywhere if he even wants to be unblocked? Might be moot, otherwise... that whole thread on Jimmy's page is about the "MyWikiBiz" article draft Neil is doing. rootology (T) 22:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Yes, I have asked, and he does, but he is dejected that Guy and Durova will never let it happen. Jehochman Talk 22:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Support unblock. His original "offense" was pursuing a cash-for-articles scheme that he's long since abandoned; his next "offense" was wanting Durova to own up to what he felt was a misstatement about his talking to a reporter. These are all ancient history now. Since then, he's been a gadfly for Wikipedia, but is that necessarily a bad thing? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC) No thanks. Though IF he is unblocked, I think something along User:Rodhullandemu's editing restriction idea mentioned above is fine.--MONGO 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Comment - I am willing to mentor/monitor him. I was given second chances after my initial editing was below par. Jehochman Talk 22:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Jehochman...below par would be a compliment for Kohs...if you were previously trying to be a nuisance, you failed to come anywhere close to the infamous antics of Kohs. We do give second (even third) chances to those that deserve it...Kohs doesn't.--MONGO 22:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Comment - I am willing to mentor/monitor him. I was given second chances after my initial editing was below par. Jehochman Talk 22:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Support unblock: I'd support unblocking him per Seth Finkelstein, Jehochman and Swatjester. (I also like the idea of confining him to editing Pokemon articles if he gets out of line.) I'll go further and say that I would even consider revisiting the MyWikiBiz PR-editing model if proper safeguards were put in place: someone writes a wikified, GFDL (or similar license) article for hire off-Wikipedia and then established, trusted editors evaluate it for possible inclusion here. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Wow. Seeing "per Seth Finkelstein, Jehocman, and Swatjester" actually is a bit disturbing to me ;) ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Ufff - we've had banned editors (and even WR regulars - *gasp*) who not only did okay when unblocked, but excelled here on WP. I've also blocked enough MWB socks myself to know what he's like & mostly, his target seemed to be Jimmy. Now that Jimmy has given a sort of tacit endorsement to his unblocking, I don't see why not, however I'd like a very firm undertaking from MWB that he keep well away from Durova. I'm not 100% au fait with what happened there, but I know that there were issues and we as a community need to respect that and consider our contributors already here. As for monitoring the guy, somehow I suspect he'll be watched rather closely indeed by various folks. He knows this already, and I'm sure he's taken that into account. As Sam Korn points out, remuneration and NPOV can co-exist, ergo I suggest a tentative 'Conditional unblock' - Alison ❤ 23:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Switched to oppose unblock at this time. See below - Alison ❤ 01:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Support unblock per Seth, Jehochman, and (especially) A. B. I looked into the history of the situation, and it seems to me that he was treated unfairly to begin with, and then that many of the subsequent actions were provoked by unwarranted hostility from certain people. It was dumb to prohibit him from writing articles for pay, anyway - who cares why people write articles so long as they are in compliance with policy? Jeez. After all, we do have the Reward Board, and that's allowed. Kelly hi! 23:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Support unblock per Alison above. As I've said elsewhere, Kohs is a very good writer, and since he'd undoubtedly be one of the most-watched accounts on WP would hopefully behave himself. I can think of at least two indefblocked editors who've returned and made fantastic contributions. – iridescent 23:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Support unblock per Jehochman's reasoned rationale and offer to mentor. By the way, JzG appears to be persuing a personal vendetta against Kohs. From the evidence section in the ongoing C68, FM, SV arbitration case: "(JzG) Admin deleted an article then said the recreation was written by him, although the two were almost identical [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Adamantly asserted that the recreated version was written ab initio [7], but then back-pedalled on that assertion when faced with abundant evidence that it was an act of plagiarism. Note - this became a controversy due to JzG taking a deletion action 15 months after the article had been peaceably resolved."[8] The article that JzG claimed he wrote was actually written by Kohs. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Isn't that a blatant GFDL violation? Kelly hi! 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC) That's the point. —Giggy 23:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC) How the **** does something like that happen? So we can declare someone persona non grata, and then another person can then plagiarize their work, and this is OK? That's against everything this project stands for! Kelly hi! 23:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC) There is a lot more to this than is misrepresented by Cla68.--MONGO 23:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Such as? (Feel free to drop on my talk page if you like.) But since when did it become OK to claim credit for others' work? If someone did that to me, I'd sock like crazy and disrupt Wikipedia, too. That's total B.S. Kelly hi! 23:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Comment - I assume the discussion is for un-banning Greg Kohs, and not User:MyWikiBiz since if there ever was a problematic company name under Wikipedia:User_name#Company.2Fgroup_names it is this one. --David Shankbone 23:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Yeah, he can use "thekohser" which he has for SUL I believe. —Giggy 23:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Unblock, and get over our paranoia of people who disagree with us. Per iridescent and Swatjester. —Giggy 23:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Unblock I'll declare an interest in that I post on WR, as is on my talk page, but Greg is clearly a very intelligent chap who, if he was allowed, could enhance the project George The Dragon (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC) keep blocked Greg has engaged in completely unacceptable behavior. He has by his own admission engaged in vandalism on the English Wikipedia and he has expressed zero remorse for that. Indeed, quite the opposite. In his recent attempt to run for a position on the Wikimedia board he tried to claim that his actions were a good thing. He has repeatedly sockpuppeted. And he has engaged in large-scale harassment of editors such as Durova. Kohs is as far as I can tell interested in three things: trolling, disruption, and self-promotion. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Arbitrary section break for some discussion of movement forwards As I see it, there is a groundswell of opinion that Greg Kohs personally is a good editor and a net benefit to this project; contra that, there are behavioural issues that negate the assumption that he edits here within commonly-accepted rules. His history is undeniably against him on that point; whereas commercial interests may be in the past, sockpuppetry, however well-intentioned, I have a problem with. That is a breach of trust, and an evasion. I've seen various proposals for limiting accounts, topics, etc, but again, the history could be said to speak for itself. If there is to be a rehabilitation- for that is where we are at- it must be both committed, watertight, and enforceable. Given the history, it is the latter issue that concerns me the most. We all know the difficulty of traceability here. If anything is to be achieved for the benefit of the project here, it must be scoped beyond doubt. --Rodhullandemu 00:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Disclosure: I had removed this section break earlier because I thought it was unnecessary. However, if a separate section is needed for discussion outside of straight up and down votes for whether to unblock or not, then I guess this is the place to do it. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Unblock Just because he put the image of one of our established editors on thong underwear, and has instigated drama whenever possible, and has created dozens of sockpuppets, and has done his best to subvert our core policies to further his god-given right to make a buck, why should he remain blocked? Yuri "The Fool" Karlov (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I think what we do is pretty simple - we assume good faith, which is what many here failed to do in this person's early involvement with Wikipedia. On the contrary, notable people here, including Jimbo and Guy, apparently assumed bad faith despite evidence to the contrary and caused all kinds of bad feelings and disruption as a result. It's time for a Greg Kohs/Wikipedia reboot - let him start fresh, and let the people who have been hunting him and harming his reputation stay away. If they think any action needs to be taken, they can ask for it here or at WP:ANI. I'm frankly appalled at how this has been handled from the beginning. Kelly hi! 00:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Reboots don't exactly work when a) there's no indication that Greg has any intention to stop any of his behavior and b) you engaged in behavior beyond a certain point. Photoshopping pictures of another Wikipedia user to make them look like she is wearing only underwear after the user tried to engage in good-faith dialogue with you is beyond the reboot point. It is about in the category where you can't reboot because someone hit the hard-drive with a sledgehammer. Just for starters he could take down his blog entries outing other users and smearing them. Just a tiny step. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry, Joshua, I hadn't seen any evidence of any of those things presented. (Not disputing, just saying I've seen no evidence.) I have run across evidence, however, of this person being provoked, attacked, and demonized. I'm curious to see which happened first. Should any Wikipedia admins/editors be doing any introspection about initiation and escalation of the situation? Kelly hi! 00:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Kelly, this demonstrates more than anything that you haven't been paying much attention to this matter and are nevertheless commenting in detail. In any event, I've sent you an email with further details. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Got your e-mail - unless you're referring to someone besides Durova, your "outing" claims are silly. Durova outed herself. Kelly hi! 01:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Wrong, and once again showing that you haven't been paying attention. Durova wrote under her pseudonym. An offsite troll then added a comment to that piece which outed her there.. Greg Kohs then splashed her name all over the net and ensured that when you googled for her actual name one of the first things you found was his photoshopped monstrosities. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC) No, I found this YouTube Interview, which predates the link you provided by many months. Kelly hi! 01:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Kelly, not following the timeline. That youtube video was made well-after Durova had been very outed and had been asked to speak at a conference. The blog entry by Kohs was one example of his attempting to smear Durova. It was not by any means the only. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC) If she publicly discloses her identity, how can she be "outed"? Kelly hi! 01:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Kelly. Please don't be dense. Read what I wrote about above. This time I'll add in bold to help out. "That youtube video was made well-after Durova had been very outed". Notice the tense? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Joshua, your statement that Kohs created a picture of Durova wearing underwear is a lie. Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Oh your right. I'm sorry. He put her face onto underwear. It's not always easier to remember these details. And of course that's so much better. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Josh, can we see some evidence that Kohs "Outed" Durova against her will? Kelly hi! 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Kelly, this is going to be my last comment about the outing matter. If you really think that someone can be voluntarily outed and have their name smeared across the internet including having a blog entry that has their name as a keyword along with various derogatory terms then I can't help you. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I understand where you're coming from, but we don't control off-wiki conduct. If Durova was engaging in an off-wiki battle with this person, then we shouldn't be judging just one side of the fight. And I still have seen zero evidence that he outed her against her will, when she was apparently making public interviews, giving her status as a Wikipedia admin as one of her "credentials". Kelly hi! 01:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Comment Folks, you're missing the reality. It's just an issue of whether he has an account which is both persistent and admitted to be his, or not. That's it. That's the only decision you (collectively) can control. You can say "no", for the symbolic value of it, a kind of social fiction censure that if you do not grant him a Religious Name, he does not officially exist. You can say "yes", under the theory that's the path of least drama (note I didn't say "no drama"). I believe the latter is the wisest option. But the choice is that minor. And it doesn't seem worth much drama in itself. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Seth you seem to be missing a few points. First of all, if Greg is unblocked he'll pick a new admin to harass and make the life miserable of. At least one. That's what he does when he's unblocked. Furthermore, the message this sends is to all banned users. If your persistent enough and disruptive enough we won't do anything to you. Do you really think the project will function well when that sort of message is sent? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC) On what basis are you making that prognostication? Kelly hi! 01:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Logic. Isn't it amazing? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Apologies, but a little evidence besides your logic would be welcome. Who else has he harassed when he was unblocked? Kelly hi! 01:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Let me assure you I do understand the viewpoint, and my position is a realpolitik assessment. Note what I said earlier "1) This is quasi-moot, as it's obvious that enough admins have it in for him that even if he were unblocked, he'd quickly be reblocked for offenses real or imagined. ...". Sometimes, the choice is only between two bad options. Right now, he thumbs his nose at your message, and it's not necessarily the most authority-reinforcing position to be in to have someone constantly mocking your ability to impose sanctions. A dirty secret of Wikipedia administration is that only people who care about Wikipedia rules and norms (to at least some extent) will care about what message you're sending. Everyone else will consider this sort of stuff navel-gazing narcissism. Hence my advice, try to convey at least the illusion of having some influence. Not pretty, but the world is often ugly. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Can someone point me to the original discussion of his ban? Anthony (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC) See this and the next section below it, "Let's make this official". --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Photoshopping editors in their underwear? I'm no fan of Durova but if that's true, not now, not ever. RxS (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC) No, according to Cla68, it's a bullshit claim. Kelly hi! 01:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Is there someone less involved that can comment on this claim? Or point to some proof, or email some support for the claim? RxS (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Agreed, evidence seems rather thin on the ground, once you disregard the hyberbole and personal attacks. Kelly hi! 01:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I misremembered. He actually put her face on a pair of underwear that could be bought (through Cafe Press?). Because that's sooo much better. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Anyone dispute this? Because I actually think (I think) remember this. RxS (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC) He put a picture of her face on a picture of underwear. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC) No, he had a CafePress store where he sold thong underwear with Durova's picture on it. Given that this was discussed in detail on Wikipedia Review, where you are a regular participant, your -- ah, let's call it "misunderstanding" -- of the situation is curious indeed. If I were a cynical person I'd say you were misrepresenting the situation to protect a fellow WR editor in his harassment of a Wikipedian with whom you have had spirited disputes. Good thing I'm not a cynical person, huh? 72.255.13.241 (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC) <= Then absolutely not. I don't have a dog in this fight but that's beyond any conceivable acceptable behavior. No one has a right to edit here, I don't and you don't, and someone who can take a disagreement this far out of bounds needs to be gone. I've been here a while now and there's one thing I know, we're fighting a running (and losing) battle to keep the disruption to a minimum and the focus on writing an encyclopedia to a maximum. It's already hard enough to get rid of disruptive/diverting editors, there's no reason to let someone back in that's capable of this sort of crap. RxS (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I will support unblocking if he makes statement promising to obey Wikipedia rules including WP:SOCK, WP:NLT, WP:COI, etc. He also must be a subject of restrictions including one account only and no harassment of wikipedia users on external sites. I think it is better to have him with the team rather than with the enemies and it only needed one click to block him again if he misbehaves, so the risk is low Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Not support unblock As he's still socking as of today, no telling what other problems he'll cause. For evidence: User:Wet_Floor_Sign (today), [9] (yesterday), and User_talk:Feline_Who_Watches_You_Masturbate_From_Above (this month). Wet Floor evidence: [10] and onwiki, Feline evidence: [11] — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC) When a user is unjustly banned, and then continually smeared after they've been nominally chased off, what other remedy, or way to call attention to their situation, do they have other than socking? Creating socks is the last refuge, kind of like the right to bear arms in the U.S. Constitution. If all else fails you can resist an unjust government. A blatant criminal (i.e. a Wikipedia vandal or POV-pusher) gathers no support and is quickly quashed. Someone who rebels after unjust treatment gathers supporters, which seems to be what has happened here. I sure feel sympathy for the guy, he got the shaft. The right thing to do in this situation is to offer amnesty in the hope of reconciliation and peace. Kelly hi! 02:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Unjust ban? He wasn't banned unjustly. He deserved it - and I believe he knows he did. Whether he should still be banned is another question. Where has Mr Kohs been smeared? I can think of many other ways to deal with being banned than creating sockpuppets with obviously disruptive usernames. Sure he may be frustrated, but that's a real bad way to go about things. I'm all for unbanning if I can honestly believe he'll not do anything like this again. Plus, his disputes with Durova and Jimbo haven't done him any favors. how do you turn this on 02:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC) For different values of unjustly and smeared. Wraping the socking in a grand ol' US flag doesn't change what it is; there are other avenues of appeal (email being the obvious one). — Coren (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC) To who, ArbCom? Like they've been inspiring a lot of confidence lately. What was the result on that SlimVirgin/JzG/FM case opened like, four months ago? I rest my case. Kelly hi! 02:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Yes, arbcom first off. If that's not useful, there are several admins (as can clearly be seen here) who he could have contacted for help, to propose one of them initiated a discussion such as this one. Did he do that? Well obviously I don't know about arbcom, but as far as I know he hasn't requested to be unbanned, although I'm not that familiar with this, so may be wrong here. how do you turn this on 02:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Yeah, Greg's behaved quite unreasonably here in the past. Things like impersonation, penis vandalism, and selling thongs with Durova photoshopped on them are quite beyond the pale of common human decency, much less our communal standards. Oops, was I supposed to put a big bold leave blocked somewhere in there? east718 // talk // email // 02:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Hell no, for the reasons east718 pointed out just above. Penis vandalism, impersonation of good faith users to participate in contentious AfDs, and general insults and harassment aren't the hallmarks of a constructive editor, let alone a purported businessman. The reasoning for his original ban did seem rather unfair, but he's long since earned it with his appalling behavior. krimpet✽ 02:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Over my dead body This guy is the antithesis of everything we stand for as a project and a community. He has not only violated the standards of behavior which this community holds, but he has worked tirelessly to undermine our mission. Why would we welcome someone back who not only is completely unapologetic about his past misdeeds, but actively seeks to destroy us from without? If we unban Kohs, why don't we sysop GRAWP while we're at it?Steven Walling (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Spoken like a true zealot, good to see you keeping the faith brother Walling. Stay true to the mission, let not doubt enter thy mind. RMHED (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Your rude sarcasm is not appreciated. If you can't be constructive in discussion, then don't participate. Steven Walling (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose unblock. I have huge opposition to unblocking someone with his history of abuse on Wikipedia, particularly when he has done little to remedy that since his banning. bibliomaniac15 03:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose unblock. You can be the best editor ever, but if you keep socking over and over whist you're banned, whether justified or not, I cannot in good conscience support reinstatement. Wizardman 03:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Support unblock; I don't think he was ever treated fairly in the first place, and even if he was, he'd still be due for another chance after all this time. Everyking (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose unblock Self-important opportunist, has no real interest in using the project to educate others. Let him run his own yellow pages wiki. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Given that Kohs has shown an utter contempt for people who disagree with him, I strongly oppose any unblock. He called me on WR for a "witless boob", along with calling other very good people who I highly respect for "mindless nincompoop", "an incoherent twit" and "without any measure of intellect". A person who cannot control himself from flying off the handle with these wild attacks, whether on-wiki or off-wiki, and who has done little to actually build the encyclopedia as a volunteer, is not helpful at all to the project. I will also echo the opinion given by Sam Korn, the commercial editing might be OK, barely, despite my concerns over the impact this might have on NPOV, but the sockpuppeteering which Kohs has engaged in on a grand scale is clearly not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Support the unblock provided that Greg would like to be unblocked and participate (productively) - I have no idea if he does wish to - so I have emailed him and asked him that exact question. He is a decent enough writer - better than I am - and an intelligent guy who was treated piss poorly despite following the rules at the time to the letter. The socking whiles not exactly condemnable, could be completely ignored if he wished to come back and approach wikipedia from a new direction. ViridaeTalk 12:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Viridae, he has a perfectly good talk page at User talk:Thekohser, why must he use email to express the details of his intent to edit constructively, why can't he use the {{unblock}} template like everyone else? MBisanz talk 13:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Well remember that this unblock request wasn't initiated by him and to my knowledge noone had actually to that point asked him if he wanted to be unblocked. ViridaeTalk 09:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Comment It is amusing, in an ironic sense, that the most virulent (although not unexpected) opposition to an unblock of Kohs comes largely from a section of the community that applauds and supports Jimbo for every action that he takes that is even slightly out of process - yet this is a situation where the unblock of Kohs per the proper processes appears to have Jimbo's consent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC) ps. Unblock Why not? There will be too many eyes for any unseemly editing to slip by. One might just as easily comment on the fact that the most spirited support of an unblock is coming from Wikipedia Review editors who shriek incessantly at the slightest perceived unfairness toward others, yet are willing to overlook any level of harassment by one of their own toward established Wikipedia editors. 72.255.19.253 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I believe you just did, - but you are wrong in inferring that WP editors who openly contribute to WR (and who are you 72.255.19.253 to be aware who does and who doesn't?) are asking that Kohs past be ignored; most are saying that he should be allowed to prove he can contribute usefully, and can be easily reblocked if it proves otherwise, since blocks (and even bans) are supposed to be preventative and not punitive. Also, those who contribute to WR have the advantage of seeing how Kohs reacts in an environment that is generally supportive; personally I don't think it is fantastic, but it is no worse than many WP editors who are recognised for the work they do rather than their style of interation with other contributors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose unblock - No way. He continually socks and attacks Wikipedia users. Why should we let him back in? Anetode is completely right in saying that he's nothing but a "self-important opportunist". We wouldn't let GRAWP in if he apologised and said he'd never sock again either. You don't deserve a million more second chances, Gregory. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Those of you who know me here know that I am pretty levelheaded and not inclined to enter drama, so I hope that adds emphasis when I say no fucking way to unblocking Kohs. He has shown absolutely no interest in helping Wikipedia achieve its goals and no indication that he can behave within our community norms. The man has wasted enough of our time over the past year-plus and it's a virtual guarantee that if unblocked, he will simply create more drama of the type we do not need. This is a clear case of The Scorpion and the Frog (with Kohs being the scorpion, to be blunt). howcheng {chat} 16:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose Unblock No way. Seems that there are some here who wish to tear WP down by spreading discord and stir drama wherever and whenever possible. I can think of no reason for an unblock other than to do just that. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Arbitrary break; Durova's proposal - compromise to unblock with conditions Does anyone have access to John Bauer artwork that isn't halftoned? DurovaCharge! 04:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Comment If Mr. Kohs ever goes six months without socking or insulting Wikipedia offsite and pledges to abide by our policies, I will open an unban proposal for him myself. I extended this same offer to him on New Year's Day 2008 (and previously), and if he had accepted it he would be editing legitimately by this time. Now I'm heading back offsite to finish restoring a portrait of Sarah Bernhardt as Hamlet; it's the only kind of drama I want to be involved in tonight. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 03:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I weak support Durova's proposal as a condition for return. I would strong support if it was shortened to three months.--David Shankbone 03:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Question - how can you "insult Wikipedia"? Kelly hi! 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Making negative comments about a project some people dedicate a lot of time to can be hurtful, and insulting. how do you turn this on 03:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Oh, please. We have a whole article called Criticism of Wikipedia. Things don't improve if people don't call attention to the deficiencies. Or should people who protest against the policies of George W. Bush just be quiet because they might be hurtful to Bush supporters? Kelly hi! 03:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC) You asked a question, I gave you an answer. Is there anything else? how do you turn this on 04:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Going after its charity status I find insulting, in that many of us who do work on here consider it for the public good. That's at the heart of the jokes Greg Kohs has made on the Wikipedia Review about all of this being just some big attack machine multi-player game, isn't it? It's a lame joke, but it's still aimed at our core of what we believe. We don't do it with profit or fame in mind, but to gain knowledge and spread it. Many of us feel passionately about furthering the aims of the project, and spend a good deal of time, consideration, money, effort and research for this, uh, hobby. I personally find his choosing of the charity status particularly odious, in that light. This is just a comment. I still support Durova's proposal, more so shortened to three months. --David Shankbone 04:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Having a love/hate relationship with Wikipedia is natural and no big deal. I certainly have one. I appreciate and enjoy the opportunity that the project gives to write articles on subjects that interest me for a large, general audience. But, I also have serious misgivings on how the project is administered and I'm not afraid to say so both on-wiki and off. So, to ask Kohs not to disparage Wikipedia itself is, I think, unnecessary. Also, if Wikimedia's house is in order as a charitable entity, then it doesn't have anything to worry about from anyone's efforts to challenge it's tax status. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Cla, it is one thing to say one has a love-hate relationship. I doubt almost anyone who edits here frequently has a simple relationship to the project. But think about what it says about Kohs' attitude towards the project. The level of hatred to try to try to remove the Foundation's charitable status? It either demonstrates deep, vitriolic hatred or it is yet another piece of evidence that Kohs will lash out at people for even small slights. Either way, we have no need for him here. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just ass-kissers who toe the party line. If Kohs wants to edit productively and says he'll try follow the rules, he should be unblocked. By the way, Durova, didn't you claim that Kohs lied to a reporter about wikipedia and then failed to back up your claim with any evidence when Greg challenged you in self-defense? You might want to think about resolving this. And you might want to consider that you had a hand in creating this whole mess. --Duk 01:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Comment. Sounds like a fair proposal to me. I'm all for giving someone another chance, but this situation calls for some demonstration of good faith. Kelly's point is well taken though, and I suggest the condition be that Mr. Kohs avoid socking and engage in no outing or harrassing of editors (as opposed to legitimate criticism) offsite.--Kubigula (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Comment. I suggest we fix a date right now: "On December 25, 2008, User:thekohser will be unblocked if and only if 1/ there is no further socking between now and then, 2/ there is no further on or off site harassment of any of our editors (including faces on underwear, etc), 3/ a pledge is made the honor our site standards in a formal unblock request." Does anybody object to making this offer, which is designed to stop the problem and give the user a chance to return? Jehochman Talk 04:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Jehochman, there is no reason such a pledge cannot be made on site, User talk:Thekohser is the unprotected talk page of the individual and would be the best place for Greg to post {{unblock}} reqs or other relevant statements. MBisanz talk 09:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I think that is very reasonable Jehochman, and I strong support the Christmas amendment to Durova's proposal, which is the modification I preferred to Durova's proposal. --David Shankbone 16:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Counterproposal: Flat out unblock no conditions To me, such conditions confuse the essential issue, even making it political in a sense. What I want to know is: if Kohs is allowed to edit, would he do so productively and according to community standards? I'm not entirely sure what the answer is, but I know an easy way to find out: unblock him and watch to see what he does. It doesn't make sense to make someone wait months to edit if they're willing to do so right now. If we don't like his edits, he can simply be blocked again. Everyking (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC) We're going to need a compromise that most of us can accept, including Greg (who is not happy with the above proposal). This will probably leave nobody happy. Greg would like to be unblock now, as vindication. Various people here would like to see him further humiliated. At some point this war has to stop. It will be a good thing if it stops. Are we willing to be brave and just unblock him? It will only take a moment to reblock if he abuses the privilege. Jehochman Talk 05:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Perhaps he could have "community reviews" at intervals where his editing conduct would be evaluated and it would be decided whether to allow him to continue editing. He could have one review at the end of one week (provided he did nothing obviously unacceptable to get himself blocked before that point), then another at the end of one month, and so on. Everyking (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I would support unblocking to see if he is able to live within the rules given a fresh start. If not then wash our hands of it. I don't think this affair was handled well by either side at the onset, and both sides escalated it from there to varying degrees. I believe that it is very difficult to recover from that point without one side making a magnanimous gesture. There is rather little to lose by doing so. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Support unblock proposal per Alison and other commments. Peter Damian (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Strong oppose to unblock proposal. --David Shankbone 06:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC) As I wrote above, I strongly oppose any unblock of Kohs. I wrote down an opinion, with my rationale, on the proposal to allow BLP subjects to automatically remove their Wikipedia biography. Kohs called me a "witless boob" for doing so, along with a string of other attacks against people who I consider good editors and contributors, and who clearly didn't deserve that kind of vitriole. That kind of behavior, from a grown-up man who cannot blame immaturity, is not something we want on Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC) MyWikiBiz is a middle-aged professional with a reasonably strong sense of pride and a successful day job. I don't think it would sit well to encumber him with a lot of tests and restrictions. He's probably too grown up for a "mentor" and he knows more about Wikipedia's inner workings than many admins. Not everything that happened was his fault and some of us here have said some pretty shabby things about him also. Either accept him back into our community, subject to the same rules that should apply to everybody (no conflicts of interest, be civil, etc.) or leave him blocked. Treat him like a grown-up professional and expect him to act like one. If he gets out of line block him. One of three outcomes will occur if he's unblocked: He becomes a productive editor He acts so atrociously he gets himself blocked with broad community support and we go back to where we were. My fear: he sort of behaves half-heartedly within our rules but not poorly enough to get blocked for a while. Then maybe he baits someone else or they bait him. What ensues has enough wikidrama and blame on both sides to lead to an Arbcom case. Those things are so drawn-out, tedious and fraught as to sometimes bend space-time. The best way to avoid this is for those people that really dislike MyWikiBiz to just ignore him and for him to ignore them. (I think you all know who you are.) There are 2 million+ articles and a zillion other editors so it should be possible to avoid each other if you really want to. If MyWikiViz does rejoin the community, from here on out, anything he says about other editors on Wikipedia Review should meet the same rules (civility, no personal attacks, etc.) as if he said it here. Finally, MyWikiBiz should consider if he really wants to come back. He might not like it; much about the community's ways of doing business might really grate on him given all the history. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 07:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Greg Kohs knows Wikipedia better than most admins, he knows how to edit productively, and if he wanted to, he would hugely benefit the project. But he suffers from the same fundamental problem as Moulton, to some extent - his view of how things should be done is diametrically different from how things are currently done. I want to see "MyWikiBiz" Kohs unblocked (probably as Thekohser (talk · contribs)), and would support unblocking him, but I honestly don't know whether he would actually become a productive editor - not only do I not know if he would want to, but I'm pretty sure even if Greg did, a number of users (everyone can guess who) would never allow him to do so, and would be continually baiting him until he said something slightly out of line. Neıl ☄ 10:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC) The simple answer to that dilemna is for all people who bait Greg in any way, shape or form, regardless of their status, to be subject to community penalty, as should happen regardless of the target for said baiting. Those who want to endulge in gaming the system to reblock someone like Greg clearly aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Equally, if Greg misbehaves, then he can be shown the door again, this time for good. Minkythecat (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Nah, it wouldn't be for good no matter what he did. His WR pals would fight to the death against any permanent block, much as they have here, regardless of the level of misbehavior. If we consider putting someone's image on underwear -- strike that, selling underwear with a Wikipedian's image on it -- as just good clean fun, then Wikipedia may be as bad a place as some people think. 72.255.19.253 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Ah, yes the old "WR pals" argument. SAdly, not all WR readers/members are one big blob of congealed humanity; after all, your primary account hasn't been outed. Minkythecat (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Minky, it doesn't require every WR member to create that sort of problem (and I suspect that many of the problem people wouldn't be WR members anyways). It would be nice if everyone concerned wouldn't look at everyone else as monoliths. Now, more directly to the issue at hand:Your notion that we should unblock Greg and that other editors should be punished if they get into fights with Greg sounds almost like preemptively blaming the victim. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC) No, it's preemptively calling for action against those who deliberately bait ANYBODY on Wikipedia. As has been seen numerous times in numerous examples in Wikiland, people do bait and troll for a reaction. If Greg attacks somebody, with or without provocation, action should be taken. If somebody deliberately baits Greg specifically to gain a reaction, action also needs to be taken - labelling them a "victim" is actually quite telling in itself. Minkythecat (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC) MyWikiBiz: partial bibliography 80+ pages link to User:MyWikiBiz. Given the confusion with some of the history, here's a partial biblography; others can add additional links Start with: MyWikiBiz.com Assisting Companies with Placement of Articles on Wikipedia (press release) Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-09/MyWikiBiz Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive54#Paid-to-edit articles Here's a list of MyWikiBiz articles compiled several months later: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Feb#MyWikiBiz... Again The Arch Coal article was a sort of flagship article for the MyWikiBiz controversy: [Arch Coal] as it reportedly appeared at http://mywikibiz.com/wikifiedarticles/corp-artcls/Arch_Coal.html Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arch Coal Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 5 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 5#Arch Coal (history only) Various admin discussions, mostly about MyWikiBiz' subsequent behaviour, not conflicts of interest or spam Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive55#MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs) using AfD to shop for clients Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive72#For your entertainment Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive72#Let's make this official Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive72#User:JossBuckle Swami Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive80#Request for impartial review regarding Zibiki Wym Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive96#Limited unblock of thekohser, better known as MyWikiBiz Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive145#MyWikiBiz active Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive192#New MyWikiBiz sock Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236#Wikignosis block for legal threat Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive261#Andman8 (talk · contribs) Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive3#Unblock of Thekohser? WikiProject Spam and WT:EL discussions, some of them initiated by MyWikiBiz (or one of his many manifestations): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#Wikia.com links Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#Angela spamming list hosted by Wikimedia Foundation Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#User Talk pages Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Feb#Centiare/MyWikiBiz update Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 12#External Links mentioned in the course of User Talk pages MyWikiBiz's many personnas: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of MyWikiBiz Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MyWikiBiz Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MyWikiBiz Wikipedia Review: Ongoing Wikipedia Review discussions of this debate[12][13] thekohser's Wikipedia Review profile As I wrote previously, I'd support unblocking. I do not believe MyWikiBiz or anyone else should be editing for pay on our site, however I am also open to Greg's original idea (as I understand it) -- create neutral, referenced, wikified articles with GFDL licenses on another site for review and possible incorporation into Wikipedia by experienced, trusted editors.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Regardless of either Greg's intentions or the wisdom of his idea, he has continued to violate our policies while banned, I mean socking one's own unblock discussion!, do we consider that even remotely acceptable? from anyone? MBisanz talk 08:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 100 edits Kohs has suggested offsite that he be unblocked and allowed to make precisely 100 mainspace edits, after which time he is reblocked pending a review of those edits. (furthermore he does not intend to continue editing afterward even if those edits are judged satisfactory and he is unblocked, unless he receives an apology from either Durova, Jimbo, JzG, or Raul654 - which is good for another 100 edits, etc.) --Random832 (contribs) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Absolutely not. We're not bargaining with him. Jehochman's proposal above makes sense. The above simply gives Kohs more reason to harass these people until they apologize to him. If he cannot abide by reasonable terms like not selling underwear that have users pictures on them then there's no reason to let him back in. As far as I can tell the above makes no promises at all about not harassing users. This is unacceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I don't understand the dramatic undertone of this "precisely 100 edits", but it makes no difference. Christmas 2008 he can make 100 edits, or 1000, per the Durova-Jehochman proposal. Leave him unblocked. If he creates any problems, then re-block. I don't care how and what he does within those parameters as long as they conform to behavioral and editorial guidelines and policies. --David Shankbone 16:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC) We get 100 quality edits (or more) a minute from random editors. Why are we wasting time on this? RxS (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Evidence for this strange claim? I haven't noticed this in any of the articles I look at. Mostly pure vandalism. Peter Damian (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Take a look at recent changes. Lot's and lot's of good edits pouring in. RxS (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I'm more concerned with setting a positive example than with what Kohs would potentially contribute (although I expect it would be good work and I don't dismiss anybody's work as a drop in the ocean). It would be very positive, in my view, to show that we can let go of the past and give him another chance; it would be even more positive as an example if someone as critical as Kohs could function as a productive editor, without causing significant problems or being baited by his opponents. Everyking (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I'm not dismissing anyone's good work. But we're not talking about "anyone", we're talking about someone who put an editor in good standings face on underwear and tried to sell it. And someone even as we speak who is calling editors here spineless little twits, Wikipediots and dim-witted. I'm perfectly fine with letting go of the past, but I don't see any change in attitude or in behavior that would lead me to believe anything would change. So why waste time with this until there is some indication of a change of attitude? RxS (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC) That's a ridiculous suggestion. If Kohs want's to edit productively and say's he'll try to follow the rules, he should be unblocked. Let's cut out the gimmicks, Greg. --Duk 01:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Don't make such wide-ranging assumptions. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Back to the Kohs unblock question Not sure which section I'm meant to be voting at, but I oppose any kind of unblock also. I'm not fussed about his editing Wikipedia for money or the fact that he criticises it a lot, but if we unblock him all I can see him doing is following people around trying to call them out on whatever crap they've been doing and just generally causing hassle. Greg never lets things drop and he doesn't appear to actually be interested in editing so much as having the subjects of his grudges apologise for all the things that they've done, which is a reasonable thing to want, but not a reason to unblock. He seems to be keen on this just for the drama aspect and the fact that he's getting lots of attention. Whatever. Plz let's waste our time discussing something that will result in something productive, not discussing whether to make symbolic unblocks of users who don't give much of a shit anyway. naerii 12:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC) After reading thekohser's posts about this thread on Wikipedia Review, oppose (immediate) unblock. He cannot be possibly be serious about the things he writes and demands. --Conti|✉ 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Why should he be unblocked? His chief interest in Wikipedia seems to be "reforming" its community and its articles by imposing his view of what they should look like. It seems extremely unlikely that he will offer useful edits enough to offset the inevitable circus he will cause. He's the antithesis of a collaborative editor - he knows how it should be done, he believes he should be in charge of doing it, and until everyone conforms to his views he will see himself as not beholden to the rules of the community. Seth's supposedly "realpolitik" argument that we should unblock him because he'll just sneak in anyway is ridiculous. This is an online community, not the international political arena, and there is no reason to admit someone to the community whose purpose is to force it into his mold of the Truth and the Way. Lots of sockpuppeting vandals are blocked and reblocked many times daily, it can be done and will be done long after Kohs finds a better use for his free time. Avruch T 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC) My argument is slightly more complex than that, which I think moves it out of the realm of the ridiculous and to idea of harm reduction - Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC) We can't keep him out- this is true. But we can make it clear he's not welcome here, and we can eject him when we see him. If he's willing to behave himself like a reasonable adult, he could perhaps be welcome here, but we already know he's not. The answer looks pretty clear to me. Friday (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Giving Kohs' general behavior he would almost certainly be more disruptive if officially unblocked. Moreover, this is aside from the message it sends to our other users. (People seem to forget that counting across multiple Wikipedia projects Durova has more featured media then any other individual(I'm pretty sure this is true. If one restricts oneself to the English Wikipedia and to Commons this is certainly true). At a certain point we need to think about which users are most helpful and keep those. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Support Unblock. I’m often flabbergasted by the manner in which our community drives away and alienates many gifted, articulate, creative people who could be of immense benefit to our project. Greg is among the many talented editors we’ve alienated and I say bring him back and let him demonstrate he can edit productively. The risk in allowing him another opportunity is low. --MPerel 19:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Comment. Yes. So much so. Peter Damian (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Is this the same Greg that we're talking about? Greg spends most of his time either whining or engaging in self-promotion. generally both. I see no evidence that Greg is a "talented editor". JoshuaZ (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Well, his writing was good enough that an admin was willing to plagerize an article Kohs wrote and claim it as his own writing. Seth has a point and it should be taken seriously. Cla68 (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Which speaks more to the stupidity and lack of sense of the admin than to any specific quality in Kohs' writing. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose Unblock I'd rather have my face stapled shut. To be precise, I'd rather have his face stapled shut, but... HalfShadow 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC) There's no way I'm going to support an unblock whilst Greg still feels it's OK to attack other users based on appearance - We don't need the hassle, and we don't need to alienate good faith contributors who have to put up with that. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose Unblock This is not a constructive user. He is someone who has done all he can to undermine this project. MPerel says "bring him back and let him demonstrate he can edit productively". But he hasn't gone away; he's been sockpuppeting in a very disruptive manner continually. Why does anyone imagine that an unblock will magically redeem him?--Bedivere (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Note Despite Greg's most recent characterizations, he's emailed me indicating he's having trouble figuring out how to apply the {{unblock}} template to User talk:Thekohser, I've responded with more detailed instructions, so some admins might want to watchlist that page in case he needs a review. MBisanz talk 21:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Why do we want him back while even today on another site he's doing the equivalent of making jackoff signs while pointing at us? HalfShadow 21:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose Unblock. While I greatly respect the opinions of several editors above who support giving this user another chance, I'm going to agree with Ryan and others on this one: it's not worth the hassle. We certainly cannot be so desperate for editors that we are willing to take back someone who has so blatantly disregarded our policies and social mores on many, many occasions. Let's take the effort it would require to monitor this person and instead invest it in welcoming and mentoring new users. — Satori Son 21:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose unblock at this time, could support later. Mr Kohs can't seem to resist trying to "prove" his points off-wiki or via various socks. In addition, some members of our community seem to see red anytime his name is mentioned, regardless of merits. As long as this pattern stays recent or near-recent, I think the chance of his productive and collaborative involvement in the community is unlikely. Even though it's against policy, I've suggested in the past that Mr Kohs set up a new username (yes, a sock, to call a spade a spade) and spend significant time participating anonymously in a noncontroversial manner. This is not 100 good edits - he's had good socks that made that number of good edits before he presumably couldn't resist jumping into old haunts - it's several months of sustained contributions and engagement with the community, not trying to reshape it or prove his points, but collaborate with it and learn how it really works and thinks. If Mr Kohs is serious about wanting to support Wikipedia's development in the long term, he should be able to resist fighting the same old battles for a few months. I'd like to hope that peace and quiet on the Kohs front for e.g. 3-6 months followed by a tip-off from him to a trusted user that a specific single sock of his that has helped write decent articles, participated fruitfully and noncombatively in community discussions, all over a span of several thousand edits (and other socks have not been combative or pointy in the meanwhile), could much more easily generate consensus to "unban". I put that in quotes since all it would then mean is linking his name back to his new identity. By the way, I hope either NOINDEX is active on this page or that someone will courtesy blank it once it is concluded, given the RL impacts, which cannot be avoided at this juncture. Martinp (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Unless he created his sock account with permission from the ArbCom or Jimbo, the account would probably be banned immediately when his identity was revealed. In the past, constructive editing has not been seen as a mitigating factor in sockpuppeting by banned users (not that I agree with that attitude), and I don't think anyone would be willing to invest months of work into an account without a guarantee that it wouldn't be banned as soon as the identity was disclosed. Everyking (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Meaningless question. If Kohs' only goal were to contribute productively to the encyclopedia, he could just start another new sock and avoid all the behavior that has gotten him banned in the past. He doesn't need an unblock to behave in a way that is welcomed by the community. This "unblock me" initiative is a battle about trying to force us to accept him on his own terms. No camel's nose in the tent, thank you. If you really want to contribute to Wikipedia, just stop acting like a camel. If you want us to accept a camel in the tent, the answer is no.--Father Goose (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose unblocking/unbanning. (I have posted once above, but since someone asked for !votes, I'll be more unambiguous.) This is a person who has (legally) threatened Wikipedia/Wikimedia, has conducted a public-opinion campaign against Wikipedia, has evaded blocks/bans via sockpuppetry, has used Wikipedia for promotion of his business, has engaged in personal attacks and ridicule of other editors, and is now (apparently) demanding apologies from admins here for his treatment. I'm a person with a lot of patience, and I always begin with assuming good faith, but at this point I think I have to add my name to the "over my dead body" chorus. (Plus the very good point noted by Father Goose above, which is that if he really wanted to just contribute, he'd pick an account, edit quietly, and shut up about it. He doesn't want to do that; he wants to win an argument with us.) --MCB (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose unblock Perhaps to put much of the above into other words, I don't think Mr Kohs is ready. If his outlook ever does become a fit for Wikipedia, few will know and fewer will even care if he's come back. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Switching to Oppose unblock - I'd originally suggested a conditional unblock, but this and this are deal-breakers for me. This whole Durova thing needs to end & I don't think MWB can return here as long as that is still festering, sorry - Alison ❤ 01:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Concur, assuming that was indeed Kohs. As long as he can't resist the urge to jump in with "corrections" via a sockpuppet to this very discussion within hours, rather than waiting for a while and then making a calm statement if really needed, then he is clearly not ready to be unbanned. That does not excuse that there is a lot of unnecessary heat in this discussion by Mr Kohs' critics, but for better or worse if we did allow him to come back in any way linked to his former username he would be in for a lot more of the same. Unfortunately, as perusal of any number of RFC's and Arb cases shows, the "sport" of bear baiting on EN:WP is altogether too irresistible for some. Martinp (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Strongly oppose unblock. — Athaenara ✉ 02:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose unblock absent any demonstration of good faith. Theoretically, we could unblock Kohs on the grounds that, in the long run, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The best case scenario gains us a valuable and knowledgeable contributor and in the worst case he gets indef blocked and banned again. However, the potential for drama and disruption in the meanwhile is considerable. There is also the question - which, as a relative newbie to all this, I must ask - of what the "upside" is, i.e. whether Kohs was ever a good faith contributor to Wikipedia. My understanding of the MyWikiBiz story is that his edits were motivated purely by money, and as such he had no interest in improving Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 02:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose unblock. Bedivere and Sheffield Steel have put their fingers on the key issues; this is not a productive user and he has shown no willingness to become such in future. Kohs has no "right" to edit Wikipedia and shouldn't fool himself into thinking that he does; he's had his chances but squandered them. So be it - we can do without him. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I have no problem with paid-for editing, as it is always the unpaid editors who are the worst and most fanatical, and Kohs is a smart chap - but I really do not think his personality is well adjusted for collaborative editing. An unblock is probably a bad idea. Moreschi (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose unblock. No. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 01:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I've tallied the consensus vote so far If I'm wrong with where I put anyone, please feel free to let me know. I tried to create a dichotomy as nebulously pro- and anti- as I could. Here's the tally. --David Shankbone 01:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Why don't you place the tally here so we don't have to go to your blog. --Duk 01:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC) And to put the overall numbers here for convenience, David has 24 for immediate lifting. 37 against lifting and 5 on the fence or of unclear opinion. Obviously the actual breakdown is more complicated since we have a variety of different circumstances under which some people will let Kohs back. Moreover, the 24 includes people who want immediate lifting but disagree with how much restriction Greg should be under. So both the 24 and the 37 can be broken down further. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Exactly. I just wanted to try to garner a clear sense of what decisions, if any, had come out of all the dialogue and voting. Once the consensus is gleaned as to those two questions in the post, then the next two issues appear: 1. Yes, lift the ban with restrictions. What restrictions? 2. No, do not immediately lift the ban. Then in 3 months? 6 months? Indefinite? That's how I saw it going through it all (whew!). --David Shankbone 01:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Also note that Alison just switched to opposing which brings the tally to 23 for and 38 against. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC) "consensus vote" is a contradiction in terms. There quite clearly is no consensus on this issue. We don't make ban decisions based on votes, so this issue should probably be taken to ArbCom. --Tango (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I understand where you are coming from, but what is the point of all the dialogue if we can't come to at least some basic, general conclusions as to how people think? ArbCom is premature, but I agree regardless of whether he wants to edit or not, it should have an ArbCom decision just so that we can end this unending saga with some formality. I think the community as a whole would benefit from a decision to help everyone move on. --David Shankbone 01:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC) This seems like there is a consensus at least not to unban him at this time. Why don't we pick a fixed amount of time and wait to rediscuss it then? Say 60 days? Presumably if he is on good behavior during that time he'll have a much better chance getting unblocked then. Frankly, the ArbCom is operating so slowly at this point that Greg could likely get unblocked due to the Durova proposal before they made up their mind. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC) There is no consensus to unban him, that's not the same as a consensus not to unban him. There are a significant number of people supporting an unban. ArbCom isn't a great option, but it's the only alternative we have when a consensus cannot be reached. Durova's proposal doesn't require a consensus to be reached at this time - if Kohs accepts the proposal he can approach the community in 6 months and request unblocking and we can discuss it then (I suspect a consensus could be reached if he's abided by her conditions). If my understanding of policy is correct, any admin could unblock him immeadiately and it would be up to someone else to take the matter to ArbCom and request a ban - if any admin is willing to unblock, then there is no community ban. Do any of the admins supporting an unban feel strongly enough about it to unilaterally unblock him? If not, then he remains banned until such an admin exists, or ArbCom overrules the community. --Tango (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Eh. Note that since David's tally Alison has switched over to opposing and three more opposes showed up. That makes it 41 against and 23 for. If this were an article we'd be likely be calling this a consensus to delete (on the other hand, if we did, I' likely be rushing over to DRV to change it no-consensus. And then I'd get slapped down. So I don't know if that's a good analogy). JoshuaZ (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC) A consensus exists only when there is no significant opposition (or no opposition at all, by some definitions). There is no way this can be considered a consensus. If this were an AFD, the closing admin would probably use their understanding of policy to judge the validity of the comments on each side in order to make a decision, that doesn't really apply here. --Tango (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Well, exactly the point of the tally, to demonstrate that it would be an unwise admin who flew in the face of so many concerned members in good standing. Clarity helps everyone, and help forge decisions. --David Shankbone 02:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC) That sounds like you're looking less to clarity and more to influencing the vote. Nobody likes to back the wrong horse, as you point out here. However, I urge people to comment dispassionately here and not necessarily go with the majority just because they're the majority, y'know? It's often a sign of a strong admin who'll go against consensus to make their voice heard. Just sayin' ... - Alison ❤ 03:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Whatever decision is made here, I'd like to see a better consensus. Perhaps Greg himself can help by using his talk page to explain what he plans to do here if unblocked. On the other side, I'd really like to see Greg's perceived opponents not to anything to raise the temperature. It will be best for Wikipedia to let go of old disputes. That may not be possible right now, but in time hopefully people will see the benefit of not holding grudges. Jehochman Talk 03:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Just for the record, I have no grudge to hold against Mr. Kohs. In fact, I do not believe I have ever had any dealings with him whatsoever. I simply believe it would be unwise to allow such a problematic editor back into our community. Wikipedia is not for everyone. I do certainly wish him well in his other endeavors. — Satori Son 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I agree with both Alison and Jehochman. I would like to see better consensus than only 2/3rds as well, and I think old disputes need to be hung up. I think Greg was shafted back in 2006, and I think his behavior since then has exacerbated the problem. The problem was Greg's rants on WR yesterday to this discussion, calling us "Wikipediots" and making fun of people's physical appearances. Greg styles himself as the Ken Kesey of Wikimedia, with nothing but harmless practical jokes and WP:POINT demonstrations. He should be more understanding that many people have not appreciated the jokes, but feel they were the butt of them. As everyone here knows, this is a collaborative environment. This is not "I will come on and hand down my 100 edits on stone tablets and let ye judge and apologize", this is "I will attempt to make 100 changes and will work with other editors on any issues with incorporating them." The only point of the tally was exactly to show where we stand, not that we have definitive consensus. The issue becomes problematic when Tango starts advocating some admin be bold against 2/3rds of the participants and unblock. That's more problematic, I think everyone agrees, than trying to figure out where everyone stands in the discussion. --David Shankbone 12:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I think it's indeed more than ok to keep talking and keep his talk page open for this. So far I see no consensus to unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC) The reality is that "unbanned" is an editor's natural state. There's no need for a "Concensus to unban", there is need for a "concensus to keep banned". Now, looking at it, I don't see that it's obvious Mr. Kohs is willing to meet the kind of conditions people would want to enough that there's no longer a concensus to ban. That said, it seems easy enough to me that the easiest way to resolve it is to unblock him, watch him like a hawk, and reblock him once he makes a misstep (and having read a bit of what he's been saying, this seems inevitable). If someone is willing to watch him for an extended period (Probably measured in time rather than edits), why not just unblock him and see if a ban if justified? His history is not so problematic that a short unblock would be the end of the world. If he resorts to personal attacks or mudslinging, its easy enough to reblock with a strong ban concensus. If not, nothing is lost. People can complain that he's exhausted the community's patience, but if someone has the patience to keep him under their gaze, then nobody else has to do anything, and if he's a problem, he's his babysitter's responsibility. Easy-peasy (as me mother wou'd say, eh?) WilyD 13:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Ehm. I made a comment above, but am not in any particular "side" here. I was put under the "do not unban" side, when really, I would agree to an unban if he was willing to work positively with the community. Right now, all I see from him are sour grapes and shots being thrown in this direction from Wikipedia Review. He just doesn't seem to be interested in working positively. I find the name of this section odd. I agree with Tango a "consensus" is not a vote. Consensus is more like a general agreement amongst everyone. There'll never be agreement here. how do you turn this on 13:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC) He's also apparently sending nasty emails as well. I got an insulting email from Greg. I replied briefly to the one substantive remark in the email and then recieved follow-up email had further insults and a borderline threat. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I am sorry if this may sound a bit harsh but it is my humble opinion. In fact, I have no current particular interest in this case apart from hoping to see it resolved one way or another. I tried to mediate between Kohs and Durova months ago but failed. But you seem to insist more than enough on responding to almost every comment in this thread. Most of your comments are redundant indeed. It is not helpful. Probably that is a bad idea and time consuming since it appears you had to open your mailbox too many times expecting to get e-mails full of smileys. Please, let's hear about other people's input; there are a couple of good ideas being presented. By the way, is this a popularity contest voting or seeking a resolution? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Threats are never acceptable. And such sarcasm in response to the assertion --it appears you had to open your mailbox too many times expecting to get e-mails full of smileys-- leaves me gobsmacked. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC) No single threat but now I see that it probably got little to do with sarcasm though it wasn't intended at all. And I am sure I said "sorry" in case my comment would sound harsh. Anyway, thanks for the sarcasm flag. I am very familiar with the subject Aunt Entropy and my mediation dates back to almost a year and I know what I am talking about. I know Joshua, Kohs and most concerned parties for much longer than that. I am also very familiar with the story offline between both guys due the fact that I've already dealt with this through the ArbCom process. You missed the relevant points. I understand that once someone's voice is heard widely, there's no need to get it over again and again because it becomes unhelpful (and getting nasty e-mails can be a nasty and unwanted consequence which leaves everyone gobsmacked). That is not to say that you'd never get those kind of e-mails if you shut up but, we don't want people to shut up of course, but to be responsible of their own acts in order to avoid unnecessary drama and time wasting for the community. We are encouraging positive resolutions for the best of the encyclopaedia and not further drama and offline disputes because after all someone needs to fix it. Right? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC) He has a bunch of confirmed and suspected socks: he will probably keep editing Wikipedia under socks if he remains "blocked". If he is unblocked and edits constructively, great. If he is unblocked and edits disruptively, he'll be blocked again, will have lost much of the basis for his complaints against Wikipedia, and presumably we won't discuss this again for a long time. Gimmetrow 17:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Given his socking during this discussion, I have to say it looks pretty bad. Hostile emails? Pretty bad. If Mr. Kohs really wants to demonstrate good faith, another project where none of his usual antagonists are active would probably be best, I think it's time we move on and revisit the issue if he has a change of heart down the road. Further discussion now seems pointless. WilyD 18:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Comment I am fairly new tot his situation, but there seems to be something very flawed in our process. It seems to me that the fundamental question is whether or not Greg Kohs acknowledges that some of his behavior has been disruptive, and is committed to making a positive contribution. I see a number of references above to emails and off-site behavior that, supposedly, demonstrates that Greg is not ready; but those references are not accompanied by diffs or any other kind of substantiation. Even more problematic, is that we have not enabled Greg to participate in this discussion. The fundamental question is one that only he can answer, and yet we have denied him the opportunity to do so. If Greg demonstrates the right attitude, I think the obvious answer would be an unconditional lifting of the ban. If not, there's nothing to discuss. Either way, it should be handled in a way that respects his dignity (i.e. do not exclude him from a discussion about him), and minimizes the demand on volunteer resources. We all have better things to do. -Pete (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I just unblocked MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs) for the reasons above -- so that he may participate in this discussion. Obviously, my action has no bearing on the ban that's in place, which is a social mechanism, not a technical one. If MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs) uses the unblocking to do anything beyond present his views in this discussion, I think a quick reblocking and closure of this discussion would be appropriate; but assuming that he proceeds in good faith, this discussion may be allowed to progress instead of spinning its wheels. -Pete (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC) While I certainly have no intention of wheel-warring over it, that unblocking seems very premature based on the discussion here and at User talk:Thekohser. My prediction is that no good will come of it, but I hope I'm wrong. — Satori Son 21:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Engage Kohs directly So often these things become people talking at each other, or making accusations about each other, instead of talking with each other. I encourage people to talk to Greg on his talk page, where he can respond, if you have any questions or concerns. I think that's more helpful than the communication divide now. --David Shankbone 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Greg's attitude is to blackmail the community that if we do not unblock him and give him a fresh start, he will continue to engage in a campaign of "relentless sockpuppetry and antagonism." I do not understand how this reflects his desire to join a collaborative community in the least. --David Shankbone 20:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC) A small note for the various parties engaged in back-channel discussions with Greg, if may be worth the time to read the related RFAR of the other time an admin decided to help out a banned user against community consensus after using only back-channel means of communication. This isn't an emergency and Greg can post to his talk page, so we should all make sure our actions follow the public community consensus. MBisanz talk 20:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC) ARGH! It is hard to convey to the acculturated how Kafkaesque this is. You have a process where anyone with a grudge, anyone who wants to score some in-group points or play at being Defender Of The Holy Order, can make any sort of sleazy mud-slinging accusation at the target - and if the recipient gets quite understandably annoyed at defamatory drama-mongering, that's just further proof of their poor character and unfitness for the sacred status of Membership. That's not going to fix anything. Too many people seem to be looking for the guy to make some sort of begging acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the administrative judgments against him, and that's not going to happen. My advice was, and remains, to finesse it all, rather than seeking a declaration of contrition and submission -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC) That's not fair Seth. Nobody is looking for begging, or even an apology. I don't see where people have made any such demands. Where people have taken issue is with his admitted and continued relentless sockpuppetry and antagonism. Asking for him to spend a few months dropping that act hardly seems like we are "seeking a declaration of contrition." --David Shankbone 21:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Note I didn't use the word "apology". But regarding demands, look at "six months without ... insulting Wikipedia offsite". Just think, where else do you ever see something like "insulting the [King|Country|Party|etc.]" as a condition? The exchange where you took the quote is a perfect example. "When you're ready to forgive and forget, ..." - that's basically asking for some sort of begging, given the context of the ill-will. What's he supposed to do when baited? Smile and admit fault? Yes, I'll grant, there's been a long history of heated comments on both sides, there's mutual bad behaviors. But snapping back "In other words, you are encouraging me to continue a campaign of relentless sockpuppetry and antagonism. Great!" strikes me as the sort of thing that's just average push-back in a conversation going poorly - what someone who considers themselves a peer, rather than a subordinate, would say to indicate they think the other person is trying to push them around (note I'm not claiming that is the situation objectively, but rather it's a very common way of perceiving it). Now, I understand why that's taken badly. I'm pointing out that it's all about signaling submission - or not - to the ideological system. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Where else do you see "insulting the [King|Country|Party|etc.]"? In any community with standards, when a person violates those community-defined standards, then they run into opposite with their desire to part of a community. The problem with your example is that this is not a government entity. This is a website, designed to building an encyclopedia. Greg is asking to return, we are not asking for him to come back. He appears to want it completely on his own terms. Both of you are making fallacious arguments. Wikipedia is not a "King/Country/Party" it's more like a gated community. And yes, there are rules and standards, and if you violate them, you should find another community. There is no Right to Edit Wikipedia. So...I'm not finding that your arguments are built on solid premises? --David Shankbone 21:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC) The terminology of "asking to return" and "to come back" is highly inaccurate. He was never gone. I keep making the following point, and it keeps on going past people. Repeating: "It's just an issue of whether he has an account which is both persistent and admitted to be his, or not. That's it. That's the only decision you (collectively) can control. You can say "no", for the symbolic value of it, a kind of social fiction censure that if you do not grant him a Religious Name, he does not officially exist. You can say "yes", under the theory that's the path of least drama (note I didn't say "no drama"). I believe the latter is the wisest option. But the choice is that minor. And it doesn't seem worth much drama in itself." Moreover, you (collectively) look increasingly weak and shrill as he continues to mock-by-sock, so I keep advising declare victory (via mercy) and get out of the losing situation. A "You'll never edit under your own name again!" banishment is a particularly puny pronouncement. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC) That's fallacious, and boils down to "Give him what he wants or he will continue to antagonize". I don't know that anyone cares about his antagonizing. We aren't living in fear. You are making derisive comments about Religious names as if we are supposed to be motivated to prove you are wrong; that we are not a cult. But nobody cares to prove these accusations wrong, and I think even less in this situation. Regardless of whether you think there is a ban or not, there is considerable community opposition to his return and that is effectively a ban. Appealing to some kind of machismo ("you (collectively) look increasingly weak and shrill" and refs to the site as a cult) is a bit silly; that may work to get people to support Bush's war, but hopefully we are a smarter lot who don't react to prove people wrong. If you aren't using in such a way, there's no need to be sarcastic and insulting. --David Shankbone 22:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I view the matter as more along the lines of "Recognize the limits of your power". Once again, I refer to the concept of harm reduction. This does require acknowledging that some bad behavior cannot simple be outlawed and that's the end of it, that the optimal approach is much more complex. I also repeat, talking about a "return" is inaccurate terminology. And I'm advocating not machismo (which is in fact the approach you're using - a tough-guy position), but realpolitik. And the parallel to Bush's war is staying in Iraq for 100 years because of not being willing to admit when a strategy is counter-productive -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Your use of terms that are more applicable to geo-politics, such as realpolitik, again shows the problem in what you are writing. This is a website; this is not Soviet-US relations; this is not "Who lost China?" this is "Who do we welcome into this community?" Being banned has nothing to do with clicking the edit button, and everything to do with participating in the community of editors. You argue as if the goal of banning is that we never again have to have Greg editing any articles. Nobody thinks that, so arguing on that level does little good. Greg does not have the freedom to work on here as he would like; he does not have a voice in discussion; when he is found out, he is shown the door. So "return" is accurate, since we are talking about a communal ban, not a website ban. --David Shankbone 23:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC) As "The Buddha resides as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of a mountain.", so does the realpolitik apply as much to wikidrama as to superpower cold war. You touch on the key issue when you note it is not about the "website" but the "community" - which I read as effectively "the clique" (not cabal, because cabal implies power, whereas clique is about petty social in-group and out-group distinctions, usually so the in-group can feel superior). After all, a totally dedicated build-the-encyclopedia person would not care much about such clique-ness. But the point is that if HE doesn't care about being recognized by the clique either, you have no power over him. Whereas if someone greatly craves approval and recognition from insiders, such disapproval will be significant (and thus that's one of the ways Wikipedia becomes a cult). And so the more you (collectively) come off as a bunch of would-be Queen Bees looking to lord it over people who don't think too much of you, the more he can wear the mantle of underdog and martyr. That's where realpolitik applies. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC) This is all analytical bollocks. The question is "does the community want Kohs back editing here under any circumstances, and if so, what are those circumstances"? Anything beyond that is pure mind-wank and to those of use who spend upwards of 12 hours a day here trying to make this encyclopedia what it is meant to be, supremely irrelevant. There's a job to be done here which is neither predicated on point-scoring nor arid quasi-political debates. FFS, ban this poisonous editor for all time and let us use our time here productively. --Rodhullandemu 00:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC) No consensus to Ban When there is no consensus to ban an editor, that editor may be unblocked Some people seem to want a consensus to unblock; this is backwards, you need a consensus to impose a community ban, not to lift it. See WP:BAN. I respectfully suggest that we are making this harder than it has to be. Even Jimbo has commented; I suspect he should be allowed a fresh start in Wikipedia. There is no consensus to ban User:thekohser. In fact, there is considerable support to unblock him. One admin has already acted on this. What I'd really like to see is a simple email or note from Greg saying that he wants to be a productive editor and is willing to follow the rules. --Duk 21:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC) While I am far from radically opposed to unblocking Thekohser, I think simply unblocking a user after close to two years when there are substantial concerns remaining unresolved is a serious misuse of admin tools. There is a conversation ongoing; let's see where that leads before taking action. People have genuine and rational concerns: to unblock without dealing with or recognising those is, I feel, a very bad idea. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Duk: Would you have accepted a note from Theodore Kaczynski that he "won't do that stuff no more"? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Jim62sch, thank you for your fiercely intelligent comment. --Duk 22:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sam Korn, instead of making threatening comments like serious misuse of admin tools, why don't you show me the consensus to ban? Yes people have concerns, but where is the point where those concerns tip the scale? Hint: it starts with 'con' and ends with 'sus'. --Duk 22:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC) While there is no consensus to ban, I don't think there's anywhere near consensus to unblock. Just judging from the conversation. SirFozzie (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Threat certainly wasn't the intent. This is a community. Many people in the community -- not all of them cranks by a long way! -- have serious issues that they want to see addressed. To pretend these do not exist is a horrendous misjudgement. This ban has been in place for quite a while now -- a couple of days to discuss it properly is a very good idea. And a consensus, you ask for? Well, a ban lasting 22 months seems like reasonable evidence of consensus to me, enough to warrant a serious conversation at the least. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I'm not pretending that 'serious issues' 'do not exist'. Maybe we can consider slicing through the bullshit and drama and just make a trial unblock. It's not like there are a shortage of admins to re-block in case of emergency. And, just maybe, some of those serious issues can be more effectively addresses when the central person is included in the discussion instead of effective excluded. --Duk 22:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I'm not seeing why we cannot transclude his talk page to here and let him converse with everyone, without the headache of an unblock. MBisanz talk 22:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Hmm, was he ever community banned? I vaguely remember a discussion about this a while ago, but I could be wrong. --Conti|✉ 22:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC) As it stands, I think there is a consensus to Keep banned until his attitude changes. Most of the unblocks are conditional, upon conditions Thekohser doesn't seem to want to meet at this time. WilyD 22:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC) That's a good point - no admin should unblock unless there's an indication that the editor wants to follow the rules and edit productively. I haven't seen an indication of that yet. --Duk 23:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Nope, your question is backwards. He's already banned, so the question is, "Is there a consensus to unban?". No there isn't, so the ban should stand. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I concur. Raul654 (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC) This statement is wrong. No consensus to keep banned = unbanned. Here, however, there is a consensus to keep banned at this time. WilyD 23:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC) What is wrong with you people? Since this discussion began, more socks of his have been found, he's apparantly sending offensive e-mails and you're seriously still suggesting he be allowed 'back in the pool'? Why, in fact, are you even still wasting time on this? HalfShadow 23:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" and listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users. We can throw around quotes all day. Kohs will not be unblocked because of an out-of-context snippet of policy. (e/c by Rlevse, who cuts to the issue much better) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC) And he will not be banned if there is no consensus to do so. --Duk 23:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Duk, my reading suggests a fairly strong consensus to keep banned. Looking through the "support unblock" votes, some of them are clearly sarcastic (e.g., limit edits to Pokemon characters) and most of the others impose conditions. But none of those conditions have widespread agreement, or agreement from Greg Kohs; therefore I think those !votes must be considered as opposition to lifting the ban. I just had some private communication with Greg. I don't want to speak for him, but I will say that I didn't sense a burning desire to have the ban lifted at this time. Which leads me to ask, what is the urgency of addressing this issue? I understand why it was brought up to begin with, and it was probably wise to give it some consideration; but in the absence of a major change, I don't see any reason to make a change. I just see a lot of potential for this discussion to degenerate and make a lot of people even more pissed off than they actually are. I suggest that we drop the matter, and (as always) remain open to a clearly-articulated request from Greg Kohs to reconsider the ban at whatever time it may come. -Pete (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I agree in that Kohs doesn't seem that eager to be an editor. Discussions like this usually start with the banned editor expressing a desire for a clean start. That part seems to have been skipped here and I don't think he'll be unblocked without it. Nevertheless, some of this mess was precipitated by our own administrators, opening ther door for Kohs' somewhat justified protests, and there was never a formal community ban. I feel that administrators should be aware of this and be looking for opportunities to resolve the situation. --Duk 04:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC) When you make a proposal, that proposal needs consensus. Here the proposal is to unban, it does not have consensus, so the ban should stand. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC) A user is community banned if and only if there is no admin willing to unblock. If there is an admin willing to unblock, then there is no community ban and that admin is perfectly entitled to unilaterally unblock the user. If people have a problem with the unblock, then they should go to ArbCom and request they ban the user. Policy is quite clear on the subject. I see nothing in policy that says that once a community ban is in place it can't be removed without consensus. --Tango (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Try Common Sense. An administrator should not do an action which likely will be controversial without consensus. Any administrator who unilaterally unblocks despite the consensus above being to keep a block up does so at their own risk. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision#Wheel_warring for the principle.. As I have said previously, there is no consensus to keep banned, but there is nowhere near consensus needed to justify an unblock. There is a difference between the person behind MyWikiBiz being banned, and the account User:MyWikiBiz being blocked. SirFozzie (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC) You're contradicting yourself - first you say there's a consensus to keep the block, then you say there's no consensus either way. Quite clearly, the latter is true. If an admin decides to unblock then, by definition, there is no consensus to keep the block. That ArbCom principle says you should discuss before undoing another admin's actions, it doesn't say what outcome is required from the discussion. There has been a discussion, no consensus has been reached, so the default is no ban - the policy on community bans if very clear on that. --Tango (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC) No, you're not grasping the nettle here. I agree that there is no consensus to keep banned. Therefore, per policy I do NOT consider Mr. Kohs banned on Wikipedia. However, there's another, higher bar to be cleared. "Is there consensus to undo the block on Mr. Kohs account?". Quite obviously, there's not. So the default status now is that the ban is lifted, but the block is not. Don't confuse block and ban.. all banned users are blocked. Not all blocked users are banned. SirFozzie (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Ok, we're into very deep wiki-lawyer territory now! Barring vandalism accounts and similar, what is the difference between an indefinite block (with no established conditions for unblock, and discussion having been exhausted) and a ban? I know the concepts of blocks and bans are different, but there is a lot of overlap and I think we're in that overlap now. --Tango (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Well, fundamentally, there's some things that come into play with bans that don't happen with blocks. But here's the key item to me, a "Community" Ban, requires the consensus of the community. It has to be there, for it to work. I'd say there's a pretty good majority for the ban to continue, but I'm not sure it could be classified as consensus. It's the community's action, to ban users that's at stake here. However, in this case, there's a second action, and that was the block of Thekohser/MyWikiBiz by an administrator for various actions. That has the higher bar of having to have consensus to undo (especially since its controversial). Think of it like the way civil trials work versus Criminal Trials.. Civil Trials (Community Ban), you just need a preponderance of the evidence (to point out that there can reasonably be doubt that there may not be consensus to maintain the ban). Criminal Trials, (undoing another administrator's action), you need to be "Beyond reasonable doubt" (ie, you have consensus that the other administrator's action should be undone). SirFozzie (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC) SirFozzie, I agree with the 'common sense' you mention but have a little different take on it. A community ban is one where no admin is willing to unblock. Right now, no admin should feel constrained from unblocking by anything except their own common sense. If Kohs expresses a desire to edit constructively and obey the rules, then unblocking is a low-risk no-brainer. I'm not implying that Kohs has made this request, but the admin community should be looking for ways to resolve this mess. And when there are persons who feel wronged by the admin community, we need to have an open mind and try our best. I think we all should acknowledge that (a few years back) sitting around in IRC snickering at Daniel Brandt and calling him names didn't do Wikipedia one bit of good. And right now I'm looking at an email someone sent me maligning Kohs behind his back. I replied that they should take their complaint in the open where it can be addresses, but that didn't seem to happen; guess what people, behaviors like that don't solve these problems, it makes them worse. So my several points here are; 1) there was no consensus to ban, any admin should feel empowered to unblock if they have a good reason to, 2) unblocking is low-risk, 3)Kohs feels betrayed by the admin community and we should try to resolve this problem and not engage in siege warfare, name calling and behind the back smears. just some thoughts. --Duk 06:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC) He was unblocked by Jimbo back in March 2007 and his article-space edits at the time were OK. He made decent article-space edits under some of his sock accounts, too. Jimbo is OK with a fresh start now. Really, this discussion has wasted a lot of time already, and If we don't change the present situation somehow, we'll just revisit the same question in the same way in a couple months with another 150k of discussion. Let him edit under User:Thekohser or some new openly-acknowledged account. If he's as disruptive as some seem to expect, at least we won't need to have this discussion again. Gimmetrow 03:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC) And what about the ongoing and current issues of sockpuppetry and abusive emails? Kohs has consistently evaded his ban, and shows considerable evidence of being utterly obsessed by Wikipedia and unable to let it drop. He feels ill-used y the admin community simply because we did not unblock him; sorry, but that's not a very good argument. It is evident that he repudiates WP:COI and actively seeks to undermine it and have it removed, he was agitating on WikBack for a change to policy to allow his paid editing to resume, his so-called "good" content included laudatory articles on his friends and clients. He has made may statements offsite which indicate that simply does not accept several of Wikipedia's core values. If he wants to contribute content then a mechanism already exists: he can post it on his site in a GFDL compliant area. Philosophically, I think it is quite wrong for someone to be paid for editing and then volunteers have to check the edits for neutrality, but that is not the issue here, the issue here is that he was banned and he chose to react with sockpuppetry, suborning admins offsite, abuse, attacks and active retaliation against the foundation including attempts to have charitable status withdrawn. He has been evading his ban during the conduct of this debate. I am astounded that we are even considering unblocking him after that. What other serial sockpuppeteer would get such treatment? Guy (Help!) 07:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Yet more unsubstantiated -- and what's more, unnecessary -- claims. JzG, what are you trying to accomplish here? There's no great momentum toward lifting the ban. Greg Kohs is banned. Is that not enough for you? Is it impossible to let this stuff lie? Are there no articles that need improvement? -Pete (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC) These are not unsubstantiated claims. Kohs was not banned, as he claims, for having a spat with Jimbo, he was banned for sockpuppetry (Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_MyWikiBiz) and block evasion,and he's still doing it. Suborning of admins is documented in the past; he had Viridae restore a WP:CSD#G5 - an article on one of his clients which he created while banned, evading his ban. Check WikBack, check Wikipedia Review, use Google. Kohs repudiates WP:COI, actively wants paid editing to become approved and has never shown any signs of accepting that his actions are grounds for legitimate opposition. There are many banned editors who are obsessed with Wikipedia and continue sockpuppetry after their bans, we normally take the sockpuppetry as evidence of unhealthy obsession. We should be compassionate, we should be liberal with courtesy blankings and we should allow him to raise concerns via OTRS, his friends on WR will also bring his article-space concerns about himself here, but serial ban evasion has always seemed to me to be a very bad reason for rescinding a ban. Kohs has some criticisms of the project, some of which are legitimate, but te legitimacy of those criticisms does not undermine the fact that he was banned for cause (block evasion), has systematically evaded that ban, and the obvious fact that we don't need him to be unblocked in order to be able to raise his concerns. I have no desire to get into disputes with people here, many of you are editors I respect and trust, the issue here is whether Kohs can be trusted to abide by core policy - and violating policy on abusive use of multiple accounts during this very discussion is simply unacceptable. Any other banned user, the use of a sockpuppet in a debate like this would cause instant closure and speedy endorse of the ban. Why is Kohs getting special treatment? Guy (Help!) 07:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Guy, my point is, if the accusations are not substantiated here, all they do is fan the flames. In fact, even if they are substantiated here, being true does not mean that they help us reach a decision in the matter at hand. As far as I can tell, there's not a single person -- Greg Kohs or anyone else -- who feels strongly that the ban should be lifted at this time. So why continue? This strikes me as being motivated by a personal grudge. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but no reason for it to spill over into a discussion about administrative action. -Pete (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I'm not looking for a fight with you, but I fail to see why facts which are not known to be in dispute (e.g. sockpuppetry, attempts to get the foundation's 501(c) status revoked) can't be referenced. This is not article space, we don't need {{fact}} after "Gregory Kohs evaded his blocks and ban". We are discussing his behaviour in relation to Wikipedia and how that might inform the decision as to whether we think he would be a net positive to the community. And yes, that is the most relevant fact here. Whatever the reason for Kohs being blocked, and we could argue about that all day, the reason the block became a ban was because he used sockpuppets to evade the block. The fat that he is still using sockpuppets means, in my view, that the ban was and remains fully justified and should not be lifted. If even I can completely disengage from Wikipedia for a cuple of months (which I did) and actively avoid places where my name is being dragged through the mud and my actions mischaracterised, then I see no reason why Kohs should not be expected to do the same. If someone comes back and asks again in some months (six would be my minimum here, I suspect, but whatever) and shows that Kohs has disengaged for that time, then I would be much more comfortable with an unblock. If in that time we have a number of GFDL compliant articles provided out of MyWikiBiz and copied by editors with no known involvement with Kohs elsewhere (specifically WR) then we will have proof of the decent, unbiased content Kohs asserts he wishes to provide. I will never lose my innate suspicion of someone whose first reaction to Wikipedia is not "how can I help" but "how can I make a buck out of this" but I try very hard not to bear grudges and I don't stalk the edits of people I don't like. I can live with critics, I can't live with obsessive ban-evading sockpuppeteers. So, some above have suggested revisiting this if there is a provable period of disengagement, and I agree with that. It needs to be long enough and it needs to be pretty much complete disengagement (i.e. not pushing the WP:IHATEJIMBO meme), but such a period of disengagement would go a long way to answering Kohs' many critics here. Guy (Help!) 08:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC) JgZ, Greg Kohs disputes much of what you say at User talk:Thekohser (since the block prevents him from saying anything here.) Much of what he says in demonstrably true, and I've confirmed it myself. So, as far as I'm concerned, you have no credibility in this discussion. You have been mixing fact with unreasonable interpretation liberally, without even making an effort to reconcile them. Anyway, I'm done here -- and disappointed with the way we have conducted ourselves, as a community, on this matter. -Pete (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Clarification re "ban" As far as I can see, there is no clarification of the question posed above as whether Kohs is banned; whether by the community, for which consensus must exist, or de facto wherein there is an indef block which no sysop will consider unblock. Obviously, the latter is in tatters - an unblock has been made (in good faith) and although (properly) overturned it signals that there is no "de facto" ban. The question regarding the community ban is more open, since the requirement for a community ban (as noted by Tango) is a consensus for, and the wording says Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" and listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users. It is not made clear whether the concept of "due consideration" refers only to the original admin board discussion, or if subsequent discussion is also part of the "due consideration" process - I should like to see if there is any previous examples of whether the community having a change of heart/mind is rendered redundant by the original decision considered inviolate, and if there isn't is it possible that this could be considered a test case. To further clarification, I should like to make my position clear; I believe that there is evidence on this page that there is no longer any consensus to ban Greg Kohs/MyWikiBiz (etc.), and that it would move discussion along a lot quicker if we can dispense with this aspect of the case. If we can agree, amicably, that there is no longer an existing a community ban we can remove the log at List of banned users and get onto discovering if there is a consensus to unblock (and, yes, there must be a consensus) or if there needs to be a tariff substituted for the existing indef block. I feel that the removal of the banned template on thekohsers (et al) pages - and the use of the emotive and possibly biased phrase "banned user" (which is a temptation to drama) - would also benefit all parties who are inclined to discuss the matter on its merits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Kohs reply - unblocking Greg's written a detailed reply to JzG on his talk page mentioning, among other things, that he has no interest in paid editing. He also says he wants to edit productively and follow the rules. Sam Korn mentioned above that there were many people with many concerns. I suggest people go read what Greg has written, and if they have more question they should ask and maybe Greg will answer. We should unblock him. It's a very low risk thing to do. There's no consensus to ban him, he's not intending to engage in paid editing, he said he'll follow the rules. We don't block people for criticizing Wikipedia, holding unpopular views or defending themselves. I'll plan on unblocking in a day or so unless consensus magically appears for banning. --Duk 17:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Given that there's a clear consensus to keep him blocked, any unblock you do will not only be disruptive, but will also be swiftly undone. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC) He is banned, he is staying banned, I am have and still am supporting maintaining his banned status; how much more clearly must we say it? MBisanz talk 17:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC) There is, at this time, a consensus to keep him banned until he's willing to let go of old grudges. That's when to ask again. WilyD 18:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Ryan, rather than engage in pompous drama and threats, what can Greg do to change your mind? --Duk 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Greg can cut the attacks out off site for a few months (I don't mean the critisism of the project, merely the attacks (such as an attack he made on the physical appearance of one of our contributors just the other day)), stop any sockpuppetry and I'd consider supporting an unblock - there's no way I'd support one till at least November however, and he wouldn't be able to put a foot wrong in the mean time. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I agree with this, pretty much word for word, though I find the attacks puerile rather than offensive. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Ryan, have you tried asking Kohs? Or were you relying on telepethy? --Duk 18:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC) WilyD, MBisanz, just because you and your little circle of buddies say so doesn't make it true. As far as 'letting go of old grudges' it seems this latest round started here, and that Greg is in an entirely defensive position on his talk page. --Duk 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Well right now I am seeing 1 admin willing to unblock, and several others opposed to it, so I really don't see where this can go that doesn't result in him remaining blocked. MBisanz talk 18:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I'm unaware that I have any friends at all on Wikipedia. Certainly no one came to my birthday party :( I was arguing to unblock Kohs as a trial three or four sections ago, but his subsequent behaviour has been too much. To read what's he's been saying offsite, it's pretty clear it's not really unblocking his interested in anyways. WilyD 18:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I'm sure I for one have no long-standing grudge with Greg -- if I do, I don't remember it. I think he should come back to editing and have no problem with his business model. I don't think he should be unblocked immediately, and in this I think I have the vast majority of editors behind me. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC) As an admin who is essentially uninvolved (at least prior to this discussion here), I also see a demonstrated community consensus to keep this user banned. My personal opinion as an editor is that, after reading the discourse at User talk:Thekohser and offsite, I do not yet see an editor whose return would be a benefit to the community here. It’s like a marriage that has irreconcilable differences: the best possible outcome is for each party to just move on with their separate lives and let go of the anger and resentment, regardless of how much of it is justified. Mr. Kohs is a quite successful businessperson and, as I said before, I sincerely wish him the best in all his other endeavors. — Satori Son 18:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I do not yet see an editor whose return would be a benefit to the community here. How would you know without trying. As I mentioned earlier, unblocking is very low risk. --Duk 18:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I need not stick my hand in the flames to know it would be burned. More importantly, I am simply expressing what I feel would be best for our community. If a consensus is established later that disagrees with my opinion, I will be more than happy to abide by it. — Satori Son 18:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Unblocking is high risk. The last time Greg was unblocked he picked an editor to harass repeatedly. Are we forgetting that this is an editor who still thinks that it is reasonably acceptable to harass editors he dislikes? The fact that he has not even given the slightest hint that maybe, just maybe, his behavior to Durova was not ok should make it very clear where he is coming from. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC) And yet this latest round of attacks started right here, a place that Kohs is banned from. And he's been relegated to an entirely defensive position on his talk page. Given some sleazy emails I've gotten behind Greg's back, I'm starting to really question who the good guys are and who the bad guys are --Duk 18:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Hmm, can you please cite the section of the Admin, Block, wheel warring or Ban policies that permit users to contribute to discussions about themselves or permit an admin to unblock against the opinion of several other admins? What part of {{sockblock}} and {{BannedMeansBanned}} is so unclear? MBisanz talk 18:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC) English? Can you be more clear. The only ways I'm able to interpret what you've said it becomes either false, misleading or a borderline tautology. Of course he's relegated to a "defensive position" on his talk page. There are good reasons he's been banned and the only thing he has left on his talk page is to try to cloud those issues and issue apologetics. (and I have no idea what you mean about sketchy emails but innuendo really isn't helpful. If there are concerns that are relevant then voice them. Vague statements aren't helpful) JoshuaZ (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Despite what's claimed above, he did, in fact, participate in the discussion here, with one of his newest socks. This is "one of those things" that makes people disinclined to unblock him. WilyD 18:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Just unblock the guy for a week, let him have his hundred edits, what's the big deal? It would be far more productive on behalf of the project's goals if people stopped operating based on personal grudges. All this verbage could have instead been applied toward productive writing instead of endlessly second guessing motives and generating more ill will. Is the world really going to end if he's allowed to edit for a week? --MPerel 20:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC) If Kohs wants to be unblocked, he needs to put up or shut up. Stop bitching about us on WR and come back under a new account and be productive. Make an FA or two, some GAs, learn how things work around here. Then after six months of this or so he can stand up and say, "Hey! I'm Greg Kohs! See? I can be a productive editor who works well with others!" And then maybe we'll talk. howcheng {chat} 22:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Then his account would be immediately banned as a sockpuppet of a banned user. I find it remarkable that some participants in this discussion are saying that Greg should not endeavor to return to the project openly, under a known identity, while engaging the community and its processes, but should instead prove himself by editing while slipping around in the shadows with sockpuppets—the very thing he has been banned from doing. This viewpoint requires one to believe that Greg should be banned, but that he should not actually adhere to that ban, provided he violates his ban in a specific way. Everyking (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Kohs is trying to take away Wikipedia's section 230 status As discussed at User talk:thekohser#What is the status of your attempt to help us improve the BLP policy? Greg seems to be making comments that he is going to go to the United States Senate to try to get rid of the Foundation's section 230 protection. Do we any more evidence that this individual has little interest in the project? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC) You may wish to expand on why Kohs is prepared to do this; I understand that he believes that by doing so it makes the Foundation more responsible for the content that is hosted on WP, and that he feels that this would be a good thing. I would further point out that we are not discussing Kohs possible actions re the Foundation, but rather if there is any purpose in seeing whether he should be able to add good contributions to the encyclopedia (which would be pointless if he is seeking to tear the project asunder), for which I am certainly in the "dunno" camp. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC) And if you believe that Greg wants to do that has nothing to do at all with trying to get back at Wikipedia and the Foundation then I have a bridge to sell. Actually three,of,them. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I cannot speak for Greg, since he and I do not communicate (even though we both edit the same off-wiki site), but my impression is that he wishes WP to be closer to his interpretation of the Wiki ideal than that of yours (or Jimbo's, or mines'). I believe that he sincerely wants a WP that conforms to his interpretation of responsibility. I also believe you are sincere in your interpretation of the WP ethos, but that you do it no favours in deriding a viewpoint that is contrary to your own - and that you might have an unrealised bias in dealing with Kohs viewpoint. As for bridges over the Thames, would that be Tower Bridge, Vauxhall Bridge, Putney Bridge, Wandsworth Bridge, Albert Bridge, Waterloo Bridge, or just simple London Bridge? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Grr. Evil Disambiguation. I was thinking of the London Bridge... More seriously, I'm not deriding his viewpoint per se. I understand where he's coming from. But as long as he keeps pushing to either destroy the project or change it to fit his ideals, he isn't going to be productive here. And letting him back under such cirmcumstances simply will lead to more disruption. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC) From what I have read I do not believe, and would request a link/diff suggesting otherwise, that Kohs wishes to destroy WP. Remodel, almost certainly - but the project draws a lot of its strength from the diversity of opinion and is better for all the different criteria which allows people to present different viewpoints in the presentation of the encyclopedia. Yes, he pushes his vision; but it is surely needed to counter the visions of others who view matters contrarily - and who is to say which viewpoint should be silenced providing it is addressed in accordance with the rules/policies, etc. Should Kohs fail to adhere to the process' to address his concerns, then he remains blocked - but not banned for having those concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Didn't London Bridge fall down? Or can I not believe everything I hear in nursery rhymes? But on more serious issues, I find myself agreeing here with Duk, somebody whom I've not always seen eye to eye with before. Grudge matches and taking action against people based on political beliefs aren't a good idea. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC) One did, one got sold to a US citizen, and the current one still carries traffic. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Erm, that's a red link there. howcheng {chat} 23:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Oops. Link fixed. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Um Joshua, we don't ban people for their political beliefs. And we don't ban people for pointing out Wikipedia's many, many flaws. Trying to ban someone because of their criticism or political beliefs is just clumsy censorship, among other things. On the other hand, your post betrays a tyrannical streak that I think everyone reading should take into account. --Duk 23:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Duk, it isn't exactly civil to accuse people of having a "tyrannical streak" and it might be a sign that you need to calm down. This isn't a ban based on political beliefs. It is simply an observation that it is incredibly hard to say that we have someone who is so dedicated to damaging the Foundation and its allied projects that they want to remove the Foundation basic legal protections and that that person actually wants to really help the project out. See the problem? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC) I understand that you aren't very happy about Kohs giving a link to an unflattering video of you. Have you tried asking him nicely to stop? I don't think you should let your personal animosity interfere with administrator decisions. --Duk 00:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Actually, I don't care about that video despite any claims made at WR. If I did, I would have asked my friends who put it up to take it down. Anyways, the video was made in 9th grade. I'm not as bad now. And in so far as I still resemble that, its somewhat funny. What Kohs' behavior with that video and others shows he tries to interact with Wikipedians, but trying to insult and mock them. That doesn't bode well. In any event Duk, I would expect better of you than to engage in repeated ad hominen attacks. Your repeated attempt to undermine my arguments (whether by calling me "tyrannical" or claiming that I'm annoyed at Kohs over a video) isn't helpful. I note incidentally, you didn't respond to the substantive point in my above remark, so I'll assume you agree with it. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Oh wait, you aren't an administrator any more, are you. --Duk 00:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC) No. But you already knew that didn't you? Had enough with the ad hominem attacks and straw men or do you actually want to respond to anything I have to say? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SwirlBoy39 ACC flag

Resolved

 – Flag returned, access restored SQL^{Query me!} 18:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I would also support a restoration of SwirlBoy39's ACC tool. Revoking the ACC tool just because he was banned for sock puppetry when SwirlBoy has reformed does certainly sounds like he is being punished. Actions like these should only be done as a prevention from multiple misuses, not punishment. Though, if SwirlBoy was recently unbanned, then I would highly oppose a restoration. But in this case, he has shown he has reformed and I would assume he will not misuse the tool. -- RyRy (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• absolutely support Swirlboy's tool access. No indication of poor behavior. RyanP's actions both in creating this report, and removing the tool with no indication of problems is the kind of abusive admin action that we DO NOT NEED. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• The tool removal was dealt with in the appropriate forum for an off-wiki tool, and is back as it was. Also, Swirlboy got his flag back (Agree on both cases, personally, as I said on the mail list). I'm going to mark this as resolved now. SQL^{Query me!} 18:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Lordvader2009

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

I don't think there's too much of a problem here. Sure, he's blanking his talk page which is pretty unreasonable behavior in and of itself, but his "evils" aren't that great either - just two copyvio uploads. I edit in the same circle of articles as them and am willing to clean up their messes. east718 // talk // email // 06:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Two blatant copyvios and about 20+ odd images he failed to provide even basic copyright and source information to. Q ^{T C} 21:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of IP address from history page

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

Administrators can't "remove" just one edit from the page's history. Only oversighters can "remove" edits from page histories, but there has to be a good reason. Oversight is usually done for privacy reasons. I would assume this is you? Anyway, I see no reason why it should be "removed" in the first place. You can easily just sign in and replace the signature with your signature. What's so important that you want that one edit "removed" anyway? I see no harm in just replacing the IP's signature with your signature, saying that you weren't logged in in the edit summary. Either that or you can just leave it alone and continue the discussion. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He wants it removed because some WP "watchdog" sites use slipups like that to personally identify editors and admins (as best as an IP address can do) Protonk (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made the edit admin-only for now. Please email oversight-llists.wikimedia.org to make the removal permanent. east718 // talk // email // 07:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's been oversighted - Alison ^❤ 09:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gdewilde

Resolved.

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

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

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

Now, for what it's worth, he's using his blog at yahoo. (Do a google search for "Arthur Rubin", and the blog appears toward the top.) Nothing we can do about that, but it seems interesting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Sec 1971

I'm a little concerned about ths user's comments. Apparently they're upset over having to source everything: "Could I put the phrase "George W. Bush is half lizard, and eats babies for lunch while fingering his own ass" on my website and call this a reliable source? Probably not, but that's basically the way most of the editors here are siting their sources. Make up your minds, are require deletions to be DISCUSSED FIRST before finalized. We're not Nazis here, common knowledge is common knowledge. Would I need a reference to say that Bill Clinton was threatened with impeachment due his liaisons with Monica? I think not, because everyone knows this....." Comments like this are concerning, but unfortunately I don't know what to do. Is this just a rant or something more serious? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at the discussion in context on that user's talk page, he seems to have engaged constructively with you on the issue of sourcing and editing. I don't think this is something requiring administrator intervention or monitoring. --MCB (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns with possible copyright violation

We have an adminstrator among us who is a serial image copyright offender. I'm talking not about occasional errors in judgment or the usual dodgy fair use claims, but about a sustained, fraudulent series of uploads claimed as self-made when they were clearly collages of copyrighted elements. What makes it worse, he has been deliberately and systematically lying about these images to defend them, and he is still doing so. If this was not an admin but a normal editor, he'd be blocked for a couple months for this.

I'm talking about Dreadstar (talk · contribs), and his images:

• Image:2001question.jpg (March 2008, with earlier versions at Image:2001questionwd1.JPG, Image:2001question.JPG, Image:2001questionColorHAL.JPG)
• Image:DSSword.jpg (March 2008 version on en-wiki, equally dubious replacement created on commons in August 2008)

Evidence in form of graphical comparison is here: Image:Dreadstar comparison.jpg (my upload, deleted to make it admin-only, since it's not formally NFCC-compliant)

Dreadstar's repeated lying can be seen here: [14], [15], PUI, [16], [17], with further talk at User talk:Dreadstar#Image closure.

What makes this even more serious is that this abusive editor has also been taking admin action in image-related matters. Oddly, all his (quite infrequent) image actions seem to consist of unexpectedly popping up at IfD to close some of the most hotly contested borderline NFCC cases, always as "keep" ([18], [19], [20], [21]). In at least two of these cases, he was keep-closing controversial IfDs where the uploaders/defenders were his wiki friends.

Disclosure: Two of these IfDs were my nominations, and before anybody now shouts I'm doing this in retaliation: yes, of course this move comes in reaction to his. If it hadn't been for these closures and I had just come across his abusive uploads by chance, I would have done what I do to all such recalcitrant copyright offenders: block them or topic-ban them from all image uploads. But seeing highly controversial and high-profile admin decisions being taken by somebody like this is just something I can't put up with. This person has been systematically subverting and sabotaging our policies, he can't be trusted to be an adminstrator. He must be desysoped, or at least make a binding commitment he'll never again take admin action about images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Without even looking at the IFD closures, I find Fut.Perf's arguments at [22] quite convincing. (FP, do you have any objections to reproducing the text here and the image offsite?) If the problematic actions at IFD are as serious as you describe, there is a real concern here: one that needs to be addressed by the community at the proper dispute resolution forum, not just here. east718 // talk // email // 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair about the IfDs, none of them was really obviously abusive in the sense that some other admin might not also have taken them. I challenged one of them at DRV and it was upheld, so, well. It's just the pattern that struck me, together with what I consider rather poor arguing in closing them, and the combingation with the very obvious copyvio offenses. – Technically, I'm not very good with hosting images off-wiki. If people want it fully accessible, could somebody else please lend a technically-challenged person a hand? Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf's post is in the box below; the relevant image is here. east718 // talk // email // 07:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

click to expand
Comparison of non-free image originals with image details allegedly "self-made" by User:Dreadstar 1a: detail from a copyrighted 2001 Space Odyssey film poster [23], magnified by 110% 1b: detail from Image:2001question.jpg, claimed as self-made by Dreadstar ("I did indeed draw that interpretative image by hand, tracing nothing, per the article's subject matter - Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Sure it has its similarities, but that's a necessary part of the interpretation" [24]) 2a: Image:Hal-9000.jpg, a non-free screenshot image from the same movie 2b: Corresponding detail from Image:2001question.jpg, claimed to be self-made. 3a: Detail from Image:Dreadstar bc2-black.jpg, a non-free scan from a 1980s comic book. (Turned upside down, original size and resolution.) 3b: First (en-wiki) version of User:Dreadstar's Image:DSSword.jpg. Claimed to be self-made ("I drew the original sword drawing about 20 years ago, but I agree that it was too derivative of the original "). Below: close-ups (300%) of detail of each. 4: Second (commons) version of Image:DDSword.jpg. "The second sword drawing is completely my own work, with an image of my own creation - it does not appear to be derivative that would violate copyright" [25]. However, this is clearly made on the basis of a photograph, not a drawing. No source was given for the photograph. After being challenged to name the source, Dreadstar instead requested speedy deletion on commons, stating "{speedydelete|At uploader request. Image was for humorous talk subpage on Wikipedia. But it's not funny any more.} [26]

Updated a link within the above to point to a now deleted Commons image. —Giggy 09:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think some question should be raised here of why FutPer finds it acceptable to call other admin liars and trawl through the history of people who disagree with him to find something to attack them with. He follows a system of engagement and browbeating (that can be seen at the recent closure of HMS Conqueror, that caused FutPer to check through Dreadstar's history, where after people disagree he then trawls through peoples image upload history to find any faults). While following a deletionist agenda is not a bad thing, the zeal and delight with wich FutPer seems to engage in it is unsettling at the very least. FutPer should, at the very least, be encouraged to seek annother admin's input immediatly after a disagreement with someone, rather than deleting things on his lonesome with an editor he is already in conflict with. I understand that FutPer may be getting the right results, and I do commend him for the work he does in keeping the copyright violations down, but I do think that process is just as important as the result, and the way he goes about things is unnerving at best. (For what it is worth I am out of the country starting this afternoon, so if I do not respond to any questions about my decision to speak here or such, I apologise in advance.)Narson (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get distracted. While I agree that FuturePerfect's language is immoderate, that should be dealt with elsewhere. What is significant here is that the core accusation seems to be correct: the elements of these images are, essentially, identical on the per-pixel level, which makes the claim of multiple independent drawings not credible. Nandesuka (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would disagree, there are multiple issues to be look at here. Not being an admin I can't see the evidence against User:Dreadstar for one thing; he doesn't get a full community hearing as he should for one. I don't think the behaviour of one party in a dispute should be swept under the carpet just because they've apparently uncovered a juicy piece of dirt on the other. There are multiple issues at hand here. Justin talk 12:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that Future Perfect trawls through the upload logs of those with whom he is in active dispute, and unilaterally deletes images he feels fail the CSD over the reasoned objections of the uploader, does belong here - even if the images meet the criteria. Even if it's not just retaliation it's always going to look like it. It only seems to me to be good practice to allow another admin to delete any image he tags, where deletion has been opposed and where he is in an active dispute with the uploader or those who object to deletion on another matter. Pfainuk talk 12:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Images failing NFCC are not the issue here. There were a few of those too, and Dreadstar didn't raise objections against their deletion. (Those weren't in bad faith, although I note in passing that their existence is in fact another piece of evidence against his competence as an admin.) The deletions in the copyvio cases were absolutely straightforward. As for not acting unilaterally any further, that is of course the exact reason I brought this here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the assertion that "Future Perfect trawls through the upload logs of those with whom he is in active dispute" unfounded and unnecessarily inflammatory. FutPerf identified a number of image copyright issues, and as any administrator should when any apparent systematic abuse is detected, he reviewed the other editor's contributions. He then (rightly) chose to bring it here rather than take action himself. The image comparison inked above is compelling, and if FutPerf's analysis is correct then this is both systematic abuse and quite deceitful behaviour. To ignore it would be wrong. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet he deleted all the images several hours before he posted here. And yet he acknowledged that the reason he went through Dreadstar's upload log was because he objected to the IFD closes.[27] He's even used the word "trawl".[28] Perhaps the tone of my comment was a little off, fair enough, I'll apologise for that, but contentwise I believe it says no more than what Future Perfect has accepted.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should point that I was involved in the IFD whose closure brought this on and in the discussion surrounding his speedy deletion of Image:FalklandsWarMontage.jpg, an image uploaded and defended by a user arguing the other side in that IFD, part way through that IFD. If nothing else, both that case and the one being discussed - particularly when put together - create the impression that these actions are retaliatory. And this creates a very bad atmosphere.

Should we be keeping copyvios? Of course not. Is it an issue if an admin uploads copyvios? Of course. But I think Future Perfect does need to be rather more careful than he has been in cases where he is already in dispute with someone - and if a case is as obvious as he says (and it may well be) then there should be no issue with allowing one of the other 1600-odd admins to handle the deletion. Pfainuk talk 17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

First my apologies to everyone for this problem, had I not just given a knee-jerk reaction to Future Perfect's first post and truly examined the images, this whole thing may have been nipped in the bud. Can't make too many excuses, but we were having the full effects of a tropical storm and I admit that my patience, attention span, and electricity were short yesterday. No pun intended. However, after taking the time to more fully review the images and consider their circumstances, FP is correct, they're not what I remembered them being.

As I've already admitted, the 2001 image version I ultimately posted wasn't my all-original one I thought it was, but it was a different one that contained copyrighted images. I did a bunch of different versions, and emailed them around for opinions, and that was the one everyone liked - they were all very similar, and I thought it was the one of my own "creation" (though it's still derivative, which I didn't fully understand at the time). My mistake. It certainly wasn't a "sustained, systematic effort at deception", just a simple misunderstanding. Basicallly, I uploaded the wrong image, thinking it was one that I created – and never re-examined it, even when it was tagged in May, until FP deleted it. Heck, I was moving at the time, packing boxes everywhere, so my attention wasn't fully on the task at hand.

As for the sword, I was pretty sure the one I originally posted for use on my user subpage was the one I drew years ago, but I was fiddling around with a bunch of different images and it may actually be one that I modified from the original. Looking at it, it looked like one of the copies I drew, but on closer examinination, it does appear to be just be a photoshopped copy of the original. Hard to tell, as I said, it was purposely made to look as much like the original as possible. I went through a phase in the early '80s, not only collecting comics (over 4k of them!), but seeing if I could actually draw the things. Didn't work out, but I do have a stack of copies that came out...well..interestingly... :)

So, no I'm not lying. If I were going to lie about it, I'd have just said I was wrong about all the images, they weren't what I initially remembered having posted.

I did not object to FP’s deletions of these images, once he brought them to my attention, I recognized the copyright problems with them, whether I created them from scratch or not. I’ve learned a lot about image policy since that time, heck I’m still learning.

I can make the following promises, not to upload any further self-created or modified images without approval from other image admins; and if my Conqueror IFD closing is found to be faulty, I will not close any contested IFD’s for one year - until I've had lots more experience at IFD. I have no objection to Conqueror being taken to DRV, I welcome it.

Beyond that, I can only humbly apologize for my error with the sword and 2001 images, I truly thought what I was saying at the time was true. I certainly hope the community hasn't lost faith in me over this mistake, I feel terrible about it. Dreadstar † 13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at Dreadstar's talk page [29]. Short version, I have strong reasons to believe this is still not the truth. The timing doesn't add up. Dreadstar uploaded the final 2001 version at a time he must have known it was a copied version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Dreadstar made multiple versions, some with copyrighted elements and some without, and he uploaded the wrong one. At some point the error was called to his attention. Did he defend his images as free even after the error was pointed out to him, and has he done this on more than just these two images? Thatcher 17:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He certainly repeated the assertion that they were his own free work several times after being pointed to the self-evident fact that these were photographs/screenshots. [30], [[[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 March 7#Image:2001question.JPG|PUI]], etc., and he also repeatedly defended his sword image on commons after being asked about its source. (On that one, I can't point to the actual source, which might actually be a free one, but I find it suspicious that he has never so much as acknowledged that there's something to be explained about it, as it very obviously contains photographic material.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here: compliance with our policy concerning images, and Dreadstar's character. I am not an expert on images (as is the person who womments in the section below) but I am satisfied by Dreadstar's comment here, on 13:37, 21 August 2008, that he respects our policies and understands he made mistakes and regrets them. What more can we want? Everyone makes mistakes, and editors in good faith can easily, and thus often do, get involved in prolonged misunderstandings. I see Dreadstar trying to clear this up and people who have a good grasp on our image policies can obviously work with him in reaching a quick resolution. But FP is taking an aggressive and hostile stance that seems unwarrented based on the evidence - I do not see a larger pattern of subversion of our policies. I have had encounters with Dreadstar a number of times and he has always struck me as a serious, well-intentioned, hard-working editor. I am certain he acted in good faith and will in the future. I see no need to impugn his character and find it unnecessary and sad. Let's just tone down the histrionics and maybe people can accept Dreadstar's acknowledgment of his own mistakes, and move forward. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein stated this very well, and I concur with his comment in full. After reviewing this thread, the linked user talk page and IFDs, there is no indication that Dreadstar did anything wrong other than making a couple mistakes that could happen to anyone. He's acknowledged and apologized for the mistakes and has offered a strong plan for avoiding similar errors in the future. I've seen Dreadstar's actions and words in various areas and always found him to be an excellent contributor and in his admin roles, a positive influence on the process of collaboration. There does not appear to be any continuing problem here at all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well spoken, Slrubenstein. Dreadstar made a mistake, fessed up to it, and is agreeing to stay away from controversial image closings for a year. I think that is more than acceptable in this case for Dreadstar. As for FPAS, see comment in the section Olive started. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He did not "fess up". His very apology here contained a continuation of his lies. And I haven't seen him make a binding commitment to stay away from image-related admin work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Olive regarding Dreadstar

I came upon FP accusations yesterday and find this offensive and inappropriate for any editor let alone an admin. [31]. "Serial" in the title of this discussion has obvious, highly inappropriate connotations. His continued comments could be construed as harassment and lead me to question FP’s motives in dealing with this issue. I have no reason to judge FP on any other issues so want to make clear this comment is about this issue alone.

• Background: I have a terminal degree in fine art, (MFA), in painting and drawing and have taught art to university students at both the graduate and undergraduate level

• I’m not sure what FP’s issues are with the images he is comparing. A quick visual scan of the “fetus” images (Examine the lips closely. They are quite different), indicates they are not the same, although the layouts used in the overall images are very similar. There are other differences. The two swords pictured are also not the same, although quite similar. One visually scans the shapes around the objects rather than the objects themselves to create accurate representational work. Note that the white shapes below the sword are different in size. There are also other more subtle differences here in terms of shape/space relationships. The circular “Hal’s eyes” images would seem to be identical.

• Could Dreadstar have drawn some of this. Sure. Non-artists are often astounded by what can be drawn. Drawing is a fundamental technical skill that can be developed, and of course many people are genetically endowed with the ability to draw what they see, easily even if they aren’t practicing artists. I am always astounded by someone saying, oh that can’t be done, or so and so couldn’t have done that. As well drawings by even high school students can look more real than photographs. In the art world this kind of art is called Photorealism or Super realism. I have no idea what Dreadstar’s skill level is, and neither does anyone else. Further he is not required to somehow prove his drawing skill. Good grief!

• As a general comment, I can draw just about anything, but my ability to manipulate a computer and collage in an elegant way is just about zero. Those skills do not overlap, but are largely technical and require practice. So someone could easily draw very well, especially if they’ve been doing it for a long time but could be somewhat more awkward in manipulating images on a computer. And of course drawing on a computer is more difficult than drawing be hand.

• More to the point: What is this about. Dreadstar seems unclear about what happened, fair enough. He, without argument, advised deletion of the images, the appropriate response under the circumstances. and has apologized for the situation. Anyone who has watched the creation of, or themselves created computer collaged images knows that multiple images are created that can combine multiple techniques. What happened in which image is pretty hard to remember unless one is specifically trying to create a process that can be repeated and especially if one is emailing images back and forth. Art as well has been copied since the beginning of time. It’s a legitimate way of creating art and of learning certain skills. I am surprised to learn that copyright on Wikipedia seems different than in the art world itself. It’s a cloudy issue. That is, what’s a copyright violation and where are the boundaries between what is original, and what is a violation are not intuitive, but have to be learned probably through experience. Dreadstar is an admin with an excellent reputation among editors, large number of contributions, of being helpful beyond the call of duty, evenness of temper, clear thinking, a sense of humor and guess what? No instances at all of lying in any of his other admin duties. Why would that kind of person decide to lie here?

This is a place where good faith must come into play. Ultimately, we can’t prove or disprove any of the things being said. We have to take Dreadstar’s word on this issue, an act of good faith based on his past. His well-established reputation as an admin and editor deserves nothing less than that.(olive (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

• Said well (far better than I could have), and should be the last word on this issue. Fut Per should assume good faith, retract the accusations of seriality, and move on with working on the project. Dreadstar has indicated his remorse for the mistake he made, and I doubt (given his character) that he will make the same mistake again. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Olive, your defense of Dreadstar would have gained a lot in credibility if you hadn't attempted to defend the indefensible by trying to deny the obvious fact of the copying. All the high-faluting art jargon you mix in there cannot hide the fact that your arguments here are just specious. The lips of the baby are different? No, they are not, they are identical down to the tiniest, single-pixel sized details of contours and shades, except for colouring and contrast artefacts that are due to the fact that his immediate source may well have been a slightly different electronic web copy of the same movie poster than the one I found, plus the fact that obviously the lower lips together with everything else at the left margin was just mechanically cut off and replaced by a rectangle of dark blue background. "The white shapes below the sword are different in size"? Nothing that's not the result of crude electronic retouching, or an artifact of separate jpg rastering after an act of mechanical copying in the electronic medium. There are "more subtle differences here in terms of shape/space relationships"? No, there are not, you can overlay the two images one over the other and they match down to single pixels, everywhere. Don't bullshit us.

The fact remains, Dreadstar didn't make a "mistake"; he knew exactly that he wasn't supposed to copy those elements, but he copied them, and he spent a lot of energy thinking up lies to cover the fact. For several months, again and again, until and including today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

FP. My comments are and were honest.Using the simplest language in my field to try and explain what I am seeing is not high- faluting langauge, and no I wasn't "bull shitting" you. Just doing my best to be honest as I see it. Sorry you see it otherwise. I stick by my "specious" arguments.(olive (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

Ignoring tone for a moment, FP's point was that the images in question are clearly Photoshopped versions of copyrighted originals. The 2001 pic contains repeated patterns of stars in the extreme right and lower right (compare to this, for example) where the "2001" was covered and the picture was extended. The sword has the same pixel patterns as the original. Both pictures are modified from the original, yes, but were not redrawn from whole cloth as you suggest is possible. And, in any case, Dreadstar seems to have admitted the Photoshopping. Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

he knew exactly that, so when did psychic abilities become part of the administrators toolset?

Whilst Dreadstar may or may not have consciously uploaded images and came up with an elaborate series of explanations, the fact remains that you cannot determine what his thought processes may or may not have been either at the time or in dialogue about them.

By the same token I can't determine if this is a witch-hunt based on the decision to close a hotly contested IFD in a way which contradicted your initial raising of the image.

fwiw I see no reason from a review of input to artificially constrain Dreadstar, the same cannot be said of others involved in this issue.

ALR (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"He knew exactly that"? Yes, of course he did. Because he said so himself at the time, as you would know had you read the evidence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an issue of interpretation of the statement made. We can choose to disagree, feel free to hound me now as well if you wish, for daring to disagree with you (a second time).

ALR (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Olive. Dreadstar has admitted his error (see my post in above section). I think desyssoped and a total ban from image closing is excessive. I'm ok with his commitment. However, let's not forget the other side of this issue, FPAS's behavior in the area of images. Others have already alluded to this here in this thread. FPAS seems to have a genuine problem in dealing with those who disagree with him in image cases. I'll admit he knows policy well, but his following people around, rigid inability to accept dissenting opinion, lack of AGF, and obnoxious behavior are unacceptable in an admin. Just from looking at FPAS's current talk page and July 31 image delete logs, I found these threads (note he often doesn't respond or dismisses concerns, and there's much more similar behavior in image debates): User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Falklands_War_Montage, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.png, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Bouboulina, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Image:SanJuanPotters.jpeg, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#My_new_Project, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Himar.C3.AB, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Comment, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Your_comments, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Gian_Maria_Volont.C3.A8, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Epirus_map, and from the image delete page on Jul 31: calling an opposed a vandal, disruptive, and having bad faith-which someone called “shocking”, accuses people of lazy writing-which someone called snarky and a ""heads you win, tells I lose"" and "a game whereby no one could possibly satisfy your interpretation of that NFCC languag" situation by FPAS. This is just from two pages. It even appears he follows them around to check their images--would this be stalking? I feel an RFC on admin conduct is in order for FPAS as many users are concerned about his behavior and treatment of others. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over Dreadstar's image past, he has 32 uploads total according to the edit counter and not much experience in image work. Even as someone who has over 6,000 image edits, I still seek guidance from others and mess up on occasion. AFAIK, the other images Dreadstar uploaded included proper non-free licenses, etc, so I would be surprised that he would pick this single image to lie on and certainly do not see it as a long term (serial) pattern of behavior. Since he has admitted fault and agreed to stay away from IfDs and seek guidance from others on images, I think we can wrap this one up as good faith random variance.

As to FutPerf, just looking at his last several edits I see some things that strongly concern me, for instance:

Also, your English is too poor. This is the English-speaking Wikipedia and it is really only for people who have some good working knowledge of English. You cannot really participate on such a difficult topic if you can't write well.

What ever happened to not biting the newbies and open editing for all? I agree with Sumo that this needs further investigation. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, I explained that one to you yesterday on IRC. Bringing this up here again in the context of an entirely unrelated matter is, well, just low. This posting to the newbie was a good-faith attempt at communicating with a person who evidently knew so little English anything more complex or more polite would likely not have been understood. And Sumoeagle with his list of talk page links above is evidently already practicing for the favourite sport of abusive RFC/U and Arbcom accusers: filling "evidence" sections with quantities of unrelated material in the hope that some dirt will stick. Guys, if you want my head, go straight to Arbcom, you won't get it any cheaper than that. With these "evidence" pieces here you have already shown the intellectual level of the attacks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think someone needs to remember that people in glass houses should not start burning witches. Or something. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• This has to stop. My own personal interactions with FP have been mixed, at best. I've tried to always be civil to him, but there are times when he makes that extremely difficult. Anyone who disagrees with his views on image policy is, well, harangued and belittled. It really does have to stop. I don't know if I support an RfC or not, but this is certainly not a non-issue. I've severely curtailed my activity on IfDs, mainly because of the tack that FP (as well as a couple other regulars who nearly always recommend deletion) have taken. Wikipedia is a hobby to me--a source of pleasure and relaxation at the end of a day. I work hard at it, but I don't need the grief, and as such I've cut back on IfD work, which is an areas that I greatly enjoy. The always found the investigation that I put into my recommendations quite interesting. Anyways, I apologize for my wordiness, I just felt that someone needed to point out that FP's behavior problems are not a non-issue. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 05:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  See here for a diff that illustrates my concern. He reverts two good-faith users' attempts to communicate with him as "badgering." ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 05:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that having butted heads with FuturePerfect, I have concerns that some of his behaviours cast doubt upon his suitability to be an admin. I have no doubt that his intentions are for the benefit of Wikipedia as a project, however, his attitude to fellow editors that disagree with him leaves a lot to be desired and some of the tactics that he employs I find questionable.

I first became aware of his actions when I checked my watchlist and noticed changes to the article British naval forces in the Falklands War, to remove the image Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg see [32]. Assuming that this was a good faith edit of someone not familiar with the history of the conflict I edited with a comment "rs iconic image of RN". FuturePerfect immediately reverts [33]. Again I revert "rv see talk page, an iconic image of the only nuclear submarine to sink a warship in a conflict, in a well know incident adds to understanding see talk page". I make a post on the talk page [34] inviting to discuss. Instead of engaging on the talk page to discuss a content dispute, FuturePerfect immediately reverts [35]. What concerned me at the time was the comment "rv, image *will* be deleted". Not wanting to persist in an edit war, I place a comment on the Talk Page indicating my intention to do no further reverts [36].

My first concern, an administrator should not be initiating an edit war, which is effectively what FuturePerfect did. If an edit war was initiated an admin should have been the one bringing it to an end not an editor. Finally, when an effort to head off an edit war is made an a Talk Page it should have been an admin making that move first. None of this occurred here.

There are other things troubling me about this. FuturePerfect removed this image Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg from a number of pages:

• British naval forces in the Falklands War,
• Royal Navy Submarine Service
• Churchill class submarine
• HMS Conqueror (S48)

He then declares the image to be an orphan [37] and a candidate for speedy deletion. This seems to be an abuse of process to me, deliberately orphaning an image to then delete it via a speed deletion process. It seems deliberately designed to avoid going through an WP:IFD and a proper debate on the fair use rationale.

The comments on the talk page to me indicated that FuturePerfect intended to go through a speedy deletion process despite strong objections from 3 editors. It is my belief that the only reason an WP:IFD was proposed is because PfainukRyan4314 asked for an WP:RFC. Incidentally FuturePerfect didn't notify others involved in disputing the deletion call after the WP:IFD was opened, that was left to Pfainuk.

Several editors mention the fact that FuturePerfect appears to be browbeating editors on the WP:IFD Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 12#Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg. Some notable comments:

I'll repeat this until people finally understand it: Saying so don't make it so. You wont't get away that easily: I'll repeat this until you finally understand it: Oh, and please, spare yourself the ad-homs and personal attacks, I'm rather tired of those and they do get boring after a while. Yet another voter who doesn't get the difference between the notability of an event and the usefulness of a picture of that event. If you can't see that, you have a reading problem

I could go on but these are only a sample.

His conduct thereafter does smack of retaliation, proceeding to go through my image uploads. He picked up on Image:FalklandsWarMontage.jpg in which I'd used a Fair Use image and recommended it for speedy deletion disputing the fair use rationale. Now when I created the montage, I was careful to seek advice about the use of the image in question, the consensus at the time was it was OK. It would appear that the advice I was given was wrong but I politely asked that a non-involved admin look at the speedy [38]. However, that suggestion was dismissed out of sight with the comment that heI was trying to shut him out of his turf. As a tangent, FuturePerfect indicated he would allow me time to make a replacement but went on to delete the image before I could upload it.

I have a few articles in preparation on my user page, I will freely admit that the idea for the new article User:Justin A Kuntz/Iconic photographs of the Falklands War was inspired by comments in the deletion review. However, on User talk:Justin A Kuntz#Your sandbox page intimates that before the article is even written it is destined for WP:AFD.

Not only did he go through my image uploads but other editors who voted keep in the deletion review.

Once the deletion review was complete, he then appears to have continued browbeating other editors involved. He posted on Dreadstar's page [39] with a posting that is not only uncivil but seriously lacking in WP:AGF. The nomination here calling for Dreadstar to be desyopped appears yet more retaliation and worse intimidation.

As with other comments here, I'm not the only to have noticed a pattern of incivility. Here, [40] Rlevse comments on insulting comments. FuturePerfect responds with more incivility.

So in summary of my comments, I have noticed:

• FuturePerfect has some serious issues with incivility.
  
• FuturePerfect is an admin and should not be initiating edit wars.
  
• FuturePerfect has circumvented policies by deliberately orphaning images to then use a speedy deletion process rather than IFD.
  
• FuturePerfect has browbeat and retaliated against editors that disagree with him.

My own personal interpretation of this is that FuturePerfect feels he is working for the good of the project. However, his methods are counterproductive and leading him into conflict with other editors. I have a serious concern that he just simply doesn't see that he is at fault here and that his confrontational attitude is causing friction. I do believe that he has become mission-orientated and is not treating cases on an individual basis but feels he has a mission to expunge none free images from wikipedia.

For the record I don't see my own conduct as beyond reproach, I know I can be a cantankerous old git and I can be very mission-orientated myself. I know I can be confrontational and in your face but I do try to stop those tendencies and I will listen to others. Justin talk 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also had that i hope Dreadstar does not recuse himself from deletion decisions, none of the deletion decisions above are a bad call. He made a mistake, he admitted it, he's apologised that should be the end of ot. I don't think deletion decisions should be limited to those with a very narrow interpretation of policy and more importantly we should back up admins making those calls. If it is a mistake that is why we have WP:DRV. Justin talk

A minor correction, it was User:Ryan4314 who initiated the RFC, not me. I can see how it looks like that from the talk page though.

To my mind it was not so much the removal of the Conqueror image from all articles and then tagging as orphaned that was an issue as much as the edit warring to keep the image off any articles, coupled with the declarations that the "image *will* be deleted". Given that he didn't use any admin tools to do this, and that admins are supposed to be just editors with extra tools, I just wonder how you guys would have reacted to me if I'd done that. Not well, I would imagine. If there is dispute as to whether the image should be included on a page (as to whether it meets the NFCC) then surely speedy deletion as orphaned is inappropriate. It seems also perhaps fair to say that, while it's the obvious conclusion when you look at this talk page, there may have been no connection between Ryan's decision to take it to RFC and Future Perfect's decision to go to IFD less than two hours later. The IFD was closed as "keep" by User:Dreadstar, and at this point, Future Perfect went to Dreadstar's talk page to demand a retraction and bring up the issue that brought us here.

So this case was very badly handled by Future Perfect. I was hoping that it would blow over, as process was eventually done - that's why I didn't bring this up here at the time - but the closure of that IFD is inevitably caught up in the issue discussed here, and this particular issue should be placed in the context of the ongoing issues that I and other editors have brought up.

I've mentioned the Falklands War Montage deletion earlier but I might as well say again that Future Perfect, the nominator of the IFD, unilaterally speedy deleted an image uploaded and defended (on policy grounds) by one of those actively disputing Future Perfect's position in that IFD. He had to be persuaded to tell us which speedy criterion he was contending it met (see Talk:Falklands War). I think this is not the sort of conduct one expects of an admin. If the case was clear-cut enough for CSD, then another admin could have reviewed the case and pushed the delete button just as easily as Future Perfect. That's basically all that was requested of him.

On Dreadstar, he's admitted and apologised his mistake, and I don't think he'll make it again. I think that issue is basically done. Pfainuk talk 15:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As a final remark in a larger context: I wanted to say that the issue here isn't whether the images I looked at are identical or not. Visually scanning them they aren't. A machine maybe shows something different. Nor is the issue whether someone can draw well or not, or if these images could have been drawn. They could have. My comments from the perspective of my field were a neutral response to accusations. The real issue is, whether on Wikipedia do we "hang" people for mistakes, or do we attempt to provide an environment where editors can function at an optimal level, a consideration at the heart of Wikipedia as a collaborative community. If an editor demonstrates consistent patterns of high quality work, honesty, evenness, maturity, and at some point this kind mistake is made, support, not should be, but must given, consistent with the very nature of what Wikipedia is. As others have said, a clear apology for whatever happened, and none of us knows what that is, demonstrates good faith, and a responsibly mature editor, behaviour consistent with his history. Our response must be a good faith one as well. That is the essence of Wikipedia. Sorry if I sound preachy . Maybe I've been working too long on the Civility Policy article.(olive (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

User edit warring, removing maintenance tags

• diff1
• diff2

User:Koavf doesn't have consensus on talk page, behaviour reminds me of WP:OWN. Insertion of categories like "conflicts in 2008" is a pushing of unsourced info (I can't put a citation needed tag near a category)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

again diff this can now be even 3RR --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

edit the tag was indeed not right, I didn't notice that. I didn't know the meaning of the word "spurious" when he tried to tell me it's not right --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I haven't gone into this disagreement in depth, but it's easy to see that you yourself recently reverted the article no less than six times within 24 hours. Note also that Koavf is right and you're wrong about the tag {{Unreferenced}}, which s/he keeps removing and you keep re-inserting: the article is far from unreferenced. Your edit summaries suggest that you're using rollback to revert edits that are far from clear vandalism. That would be misuse of the rollback tool. And finally, have you told Koavf that you're discussing him/her here? That would be courtesy. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

P.S. I see you admit above that the tag was wrong. That's good, and I hope you will continue to check what tags say (=not just what your opponent says about them) before you put them back so many times. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

Request for quicker response at WP:RPP

Hello -- I hope you won't mind me asking this, and that it won't seem like nagging -- I do fully appreciate that nearly everyone here is a volunteer, and so things are done on a best-efforts basis, but when recently I was dabbling with recent changes patrolling, it was frustrating to encounter problems due to a delay in getting a page protected by admins. Yesterday, the article Folie à deux was reported at WP:RPP at 20:42 UTC. It was semi-protected 19 minutes later at 21:01 UTC. In that time, there was a veritable onslaught of vandalism from multiple IPs. Earlier page semi-protection would have helped considerably. Would it be possible please to place greater priority on page protection requests? Many thanks. — Alan^✉ 15:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

19 minutes is not a long wait at all. In fact, that's probably one of the quickest response times I've ever seen for RPP; vandals sit at AIV for longer than that. - auburnpilot talk 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What then would be an appropriate channel in a case where the vandal edits are coming really thick and fast, so where 19 minutes is a long time (see the page history)? Should I just take it straight to AIV? I eventually did, but only after a while, because I assumed that the RPP (which someone else raised) would in itself get a response. Thanks. — Alan^✉ 18:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

While other admins would probably disagree with me, I'd take something like that to WP:AN or WP:ANI. These two noticeboards receive much more attention than AIV/RPP/UAA. Before my RfA, I always checked the deletion log when I needed the quick attention of an admin. Spot one making deletions and leave a note on his/her talk page; you'll get an even quicker response. - auburnpilot talk 18:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. — Alan^✉ 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

National-Anarchism

Requesting page protection for this troubled article. The last thing we need is for people to think it's acceptable to spam the external links section with foreign-language weblogs. Ottre (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection would prevent any work on the article, and this is one editor edit-warring against several others. I've given them a 3RR warning. A block could follow, if necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange vandalism at Project Chanology

Resolved

Hello. I have no idea what noticeboard to post this at, so I decided to put it here. Project Chanology seems to have some strange sort of template vandalism. I can't find anything that looks like it would cause it in the article's source code and no edits in the history appear to have caused it. Anybody know what is going on? Captain panda 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, protected, blocked etc some time ago thanks. Refresh your cache. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

not repaired. not a cache issue for me, never went there until after seeing this report. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything. What's the problem, exactly? --Deskana (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

now it's clear. it had some strange quote about owning souls and a bunch of numbers in a block. It's the common template vadalism that's been happening the past couple of weeks. I couldn't figure out what template was causing it though. and I don't know why I saw it after zzuuzz fixed it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In the future you can use this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=[article title]&action=purge .-Wafulz (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments

The Arbitration Committee is currently looking to appoint new CheckUsers. For more information on the application process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments August 2008.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Deskana (talk)

• Adding a new (fake) timestamp so this announcement does not get archived until the application period is over. Thatcher

• Or you can just remove the timestamps outright... Maxim (☎)

Help

Please can someone archive the first 25 threads on this page? I am unable to load the whole page at the moment. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot II (talk · contribs) will archive some threads later. D.M.N. (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD tidyup

Resolved

This AfD about a band was closed as Delete, but the four associated articles (about their recorded output) were not. Could someone delete them, please? Ta. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC) : Doing... --Rodhullandemu 19:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hut 8.5 19:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot alert

The bot User:JAnDbot has been incorrectly changing or deleting interwiki links in articles on my watchlist. The latest was the article Micropropagation. I have had to revert at least two other edits from this bot on other articles. I appreciate the author's good intentions in making a bot, but as can be seen by his talk page, other people have been finding similar problems with the bot's edits. The bot author states on his talk page User talk:JAn Dudík, "If you have something about my bot, please leave diff or link, in other case I'll ignore your cries."

I request that an administrator look into this, since replacing correct interwiki links for a language to ones that lead to incorrect pages in that language is an insidious form of damage.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
WriterHound (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if the error is on the other end:

• Micropropagation → fr:Culture in vitro → Tissue culture
• Micropropagation → nl:Weefselkweek_(plant) → Plant tissue culture

I don't really have a proposed solution, but it's possible something needs to be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The bot seems be *correctly* removing a link to a non-English article in a case where that article links back to a different one than the original. In fact, its treatment of Micropropagation seems correct to me. Micropropagation is specific to plants, and the link to was matching it up with a more general article on the French side that was not appropriate. It is normal to block bots immediately if we see them making mistakes (since their feelings can't be hurt) but I'm so far not seeing any error by the bot. I haven't studied the previous comments at User talk:JAn Dudík, but I did leave a note for this editor on his Czech talk page asking him to come here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

On the French side, it says translated, "In vitro culture (also called micropropagation). . ."

The whole thing seems a bit confusing.

WriterHound (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot is working correctly when doing autonomously. The things discussed on my userpage are whein I try to solve mixed interwiki using assisted bot. I have list of articles which are linking to article en:A, list for en:B etc. from these list I am trying to solve it. When article en:A links to fr:C but fr:C links to en:B what can I do? When I solve it bad, somebody could repair it. I have solved many articles ando only few of them were bad. JAn Dudík (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Jan, first of all thank you very, very much for all of your work on Wikipedia. Obviously, we are all volunteers here and other people do not always appreciate the hard work that many of us put into editing.

WriterHound (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Global blocking now active

Please see Wikipedia:Global blocking for more information. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Suggested admin edits

Credit to Giggy, borrowed text and idea from his post at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

I suggest that MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked (the message recieved when you're globally blocked and try to edit here) be created/modified, modeled after commons:MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to John Reaves (talk · contribs) for doing this. Cirt (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also suggest that {{unblock}} be modifed similar to [41], to add an option for removing a global block. See also See m:Steward handbook#IP address blocks for some more information. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Omar Khadr

This doesn't need admin attention specifically, but admins are often experienced editors, so I thought I'd bring this by here. It's pretty simple: The article on Omar Khadr has 33 photos. It's kind of jaw-dropping. The issue was brought up on the talk page not long ago, but didn't get any responses. A significant number of the pictures aren't of Khadr at all, but merely of other people who have gotten involved in the controversy. Some really extreme trimming needs to happen, and I wouldn't have the slightest idea where to start, so any thoughts would be appreciated. --Masamage ♫ 23:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Start a new section on the talk page, list the images and the reasons why you are going to keep/remove each one. Remove the images you don't think fit, one per edit with a meaningful edit summary, referring to the discussion on talk. See who disagrees, enter into a one-on-one or centralised discussion with that individual, as appropriate. Do not edit war, and report any disruption or edit warring to the appropriate places. --Stephen 01:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

This arbitration case has closed and the full decision can be viewed by clicking the above link. Both William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) & Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are indefinitely prohibited from taking any administrative action with respect to Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or edit wars in which Giano II is an involved party.

Furthermore, please note that the temporary injunction in the case now ceases to be in effect.

Regards, Daniel (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Nathan Jay Williams?

I really have no idea if this is the right place, but I noticed that Nathan Williams (talk · contribs) has his User and User_talk located at Nathan Jay Williams (talk · contribs). Now I'm not quite sure how to proceed with this user. He seems to want to change his username. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 04:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest try talking with him about getting an actual name change first; if he doesn't want to do so, then the user/talk page need to come off redirect. You might also point out that he can change his signature to include the Jay if he wants without actually changing names. Shell ^babelfish 06:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A little help needed

Can an admin please delete List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees. It needs to be deleted so that List of current Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees can be moved to List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees. (Per a new consensus). Thanks, -- iMatthew _T.C. 11:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

See discussion here for more information. D.M.N. (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please post requests like these at WP:RM. Thanks, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 15:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Hi. Question - have the categories changed somewhat ? If I went to WP:CATS, I could click on the box on the right and get an alphabetic list of categories starting at a particular letter. Thats all seems to have changed ...is there a problem or ahs the structure been changed ? CultureDrone (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify further, clicking a letter gives a 'from' / 'to' option - if I enter something like 'Books', then instead of a list of categories starting at 'Books', I get a list of 'xxx' to 'yyy', and I then have to repeatedly select to drill down further and further, rather than just being able to scroll through. Also, on the first page after clicking on the letter, there seem to be a lot of articles listed as redirects....CultureDrone (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this as well and found it somewhat more difficult to use, or at least requires a lot more clicks to get where I need to be with no apparent added benefit. Anyone know the reason for the change? Stardust8212 13:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ick. Not good. Agree with Stardust. Why? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting a notice Be Issued to Tvoz and Plushpuffin to Respect the Neutral Point of View and Good Faith Policies (moved from talk)

Resolved

 – I've blocked Kevin j for a week (because of previous block history). Angry unblock request, complete with accusation that I was an involved admin in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.... --barneca (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz is failing to respect the good faith policy on the Bill Clinton page. His erase of reliable facts I have presented are unacceptable and complete out of line in terms of good faith. The user has already confessed to being a loyal supporter of the Republican Party. I'm not speaking as a Democrat when I say WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR POLITICAL PROPAGANDA. I also don't care if Tvoz has received a good amount of Barnstars, because he still needs to accept the fact that Wikipedia is neutral and requires good faith among other users. Not to brag, but I also received a barnstar myself and I still know that Wikipedia policies must be respected.

I have no special privileges, and neither should anybody else on Wikipedia as well. Plushpuffin has also been doing the same. The user has not been willing, AT LEAST FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN, to respect the neutral point of view policy on the Bill Clinton page either. To me, opinions need to be kept to themselves UNLESS THEY ARE PRESENTED AS RELIABLE FACTS. I am willing to respect Wikipedia policies, and so should. Also, I only have capitalized some of the words in my statement not as a form of rage, BUT RATHER AS A FORM OF HIGHLIGHTING WORDS I THINK ARE VERY IMPORTANT. I don't intend to be uncivil in anyway, if anybody reading this gets that idea.Kevin j (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please present diffs of offending edits by the users that you have called into question? Thank you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the request user Ioeth. The difference in our two revisions is that the user Tvoz, at least from my opinion, erased my contributions to the Clinton page to keep a large amount of people online from finding out the flaws of the Sally Perdue case. Wikipedia has now become not only the Internet's top enclycopedia page, BUT ALSO ONE OF THE TOP WEBSITES SEARCHED ON THE INTERNET TOO. Some Republican strategists, which Tvoz has presented him/herself on through his/her talkpage, can easily make edits to the pages as a political strategy. This is in clear violation of the good faith policy, and Tvoz needs to know that you can't violate the policy or get any special privileges in anyway. - - Plushpuffin has also been stubborn to me, and the user seems to think that only his/her opinions matter the most. I keep telling the user I am respecting the neutral point of view policy and that have reliable resources to back my claims. However, THE USER HAS ERASED MY CONTENT ON THE BILL CLINTON PAGE REPEATEDLY AND HAS TRIED TO LABEL ME AS A VIOLATOR OF THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW POLICY. THAT IS AN ACTUAL VIOLATION OF THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW POLICY RIGHT THERE. I don't mean to uncivil in anyway either.Kevin j (talk)

Kevin j, I'm afraid you're a little too worked up to edit constructively right now; your posts on the talk pages of Tvoz, Ricky81682, and Plushpuffin are too far over the top, and your edit summaries during your edit warring at Bill Clinton (apparently now stopped, thank you) all seem to indicate that you aren't acting calmly. Please trust me when I say no one is going to sanction Tvoz for anything he did at that article so far. also notice how I used italics, instead of all caps, to emphasize something. Finally, I note you've made zero edits to Talk:Bill Clinton. Talk pages are where we work out questions about reliable sources, not edit summaries and reports to WP:AN. You've been here a long time; I'm surprised you forgot that. I very strongly suggest that you don't re-add that paragraph to the article tomorrow (as your last edit summary there suggested you were going to) without consensus on the talk page first; at this point, I would consider that edit warring, whether you violate WP:3RR or not, and it could get you blocked again. --barneca (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask for sanctions. I ASKED FOR A WARNING TO BE ISSUED TO THESE USERS TO RESPECT THE POLICIES. If they continue to violate this, THEN I WILL REQUEST A BLOCK. WARNINGS CAN BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE. Also, I AM NOT TRYING TO LOOSE MY TEMPER IN ANYWAY, IN CASE YOU THAT IDEA, AND I AM TRYING TO BE CIVILKevin j (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(multiple e/c, inserted after 2 comments below) Tvoz and Plushpuffin have not violated any policies. They've removed something they think violates WP:BLP; negative info from a source they do not consider reliable. If you disagree, discuss it on the talk page. If a consensus developes in your favor about the reliability of the source, then re-add the info. if it doesn't, then don't. A reliable source is a reliable source because consensus and policy say so, not because you say so. Make your case (not here; on the article talk page). At this time, there is no reason to warn either one, and there is no way they are going to be blocked if they continue to revert your addition of BLP material if there isn't a talk page consensus that your source is reliable. --barneca (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You should probably follow the good advice Barneca offered above, as if you keep following this path, I have no doubt that someone will get blocked, but I suspect it will not be Tvoz. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not capitalize my important words OUT OF UNCIVIL RAGE. Slander me again, like the way you did on the notice board, AND I WILL HAVE YOU REQUESTED FOR A BLOCK. Respect the good faith policy.

Stop typing in capital letters, please. As for the debate over your edits on Bill Clinton, I looked at Capitol Hill Blue, and see the tag line "Because nobody's life, liberty or property is safe when Congress is in session or the White House is occupied" under the headline. That suggests rather frankly that there is a problem with the site - that it carries a specific point of view. The article you were trying to link to has a disclaimer that "mainstream media" wouldn't publish it. Please take a look at the reliable sources guidelines - I think you'll see that the article in question doesn't meet them. Finally, in future, please take these issues to the talk page first - discussion is a better approach than immediately making complaints about other editors who disagree with you. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream media statement is only an advertisement I'm afraid. It's no different than Fox New's "fair and balanced" or CNN's "most trusted name in news" mottos. You also did not read the article clearly, BECAUSE IT DOES BACK MY CLAIMS. Capitol Hill Blue is a very reliable resource with good debators.Kevin j (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a disclaimer indicating that it was published there because the MSM wouldn't publish it. The site is not reliable, as it is blatantly slanted - its tag line indicates that quite strongly. I suggest again that you read the reliable sources guidelines and seek out other sources with strong and neutral editorial oversight to source your edits to. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I'm afraid that's only your opinion. Advertising is a common thing to do The website promotes itself as neutral with that claim. Do you also really would they insult themselves and damage their business by saying that the mainstream media would reject them because they are unreliable? Keep your opinions to yourself.Kevin j (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

*facepalm* I tried. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted Kevin J's edit on the Bill Clinton article (here) back to the original form of the sentence, in which two (somewhat conflicting) statements were originally written as "She alleged the affair took place in 1983 during her second divorce, but she did not begin divorce proceedings until later." Kevin J had rewritten the sentence to say "She alleged the affair took place in 1983, but she was discredited...," which I thought was original research and injected POV into the article.

I also reverted Kevin J's edit to Bill Clinton (here) because he added some random irrelevant fact about CNN supposedly supporting Bush in the 2000 elections as a way of calling into question the credibility of a poll on Clinton's popularity at the end of his term. I considered it irrelevant and misleading, and I noted as such on the Talk:Bill Clinton page.

Tvoz reverted Kevin J's reversion of my reversion, as well as removing what she considered unreliable information about Sally Perdue in accordance with the policy on biographies of living persons.

It is important to note that Kevin J had pretty much the same edits reverted by the administrator User:Ricky81682 only three weeks ago: (here on Bill Clinton) and (here on Sally Perdue): at the time, Kevin J had written it as "Sally Perdue's arguments were also flawed, as she stated that she began her 1983 affair with while going through her second divorce..." Two days ago he took it upon himself to revert the administrator's edits and re-add the information and language which Ricky81682 deemed inappropriate.

I reported him three weeks ago for his behavior and properly notified him of such on his talk page (note that he did not do the same for me today). I did not think he would benefit from arbitration, considering the enormous number of complaints against him on his talk page. I still believe I was right to get an administrator involved from the start. Throughout this affair, Kevin J has consistently acted irrationally and uncivilly (see User talk:Plushpuffin and User talk:Tvoz), has refused to engage in debate regarding the merits of his edits, and has begun an edit war on the affected articles. Tvoz and I did not scheme together to revert his edits; rather, we both felt (independently) that the content and language changes that Kevin J was making to the articles were of extremely poor quality, especially considering that Bill Clinton is/was a "good quality" article. -- plushpuffin (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, and I responded and nobody blocked me Again, I am warning you to keep your unsourced opinions to yourself and respect Wikipedia's policies. The statement you have provided is POV based, and that is not acceptable to request somebody is violating a policy just because they disagree with you. Don't like it? Tough.

I also never said that either of you two schemed together, and I am now using Italics to highlight my important words. You both were out of line. Stop this nonsenseKevin j (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please use a colon to indent your replies. I've fixed the above two for you. -- plushpuffin (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User Kevin J should be blocked imho. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done nothing to get myself blocked, and I even reverted the edits I made to the Clinton page to respect the three-revert 24 hour rule. Is this Tvoz trying to diguise themselves with their IP address by chance? I myself have learned well about the strategy you are trying to use to get me blocked, by disgusing yourself as another user and making look like more people are defending your claim. It's really not fooling me.Kevin j (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, clearly the polite, word-to-the-wise appeal to reason is not working here. Kevin j, neither Tvoz nor Plushpuffin has done anything to warrant a warning, much less a block. Even if they had, who would know? You haven't provided any diffs or evidence of any kind. You appear to be running from talk page to noticeboard to talk page leaving a trail of angry threats, poorly informed accusations, and vitriol. I'm asking you to drop this. It should be apparent by now that no admin is going to warn or sanction Tvoz or Plushpuffin. If you continue badgering them and everyone else who comments here, and edit-warring to insert poorly sourced material into biographies of living people, then you will be blocked. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, you are not thinking the facts right. I'm afraid I have just told a lot of differences and you need to act more mature. I do not appreciate these childish, personal attacksKevin j (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets disrupting AFD

Resolved

 – Maxim has closed the AfD & deleted the article

A few sockpuppets appear to be disrupting this AFD with firm arguments to "Keep" the article. Removing their arguments would result in the article being "Delete". It might be worth closing the AFD as "Delete" now to avoid any further socks/IP's disrupting the !vote. D.M.N. (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the AfD needs an early close, since admins who work on closing are generally pretty perceptive about sockpuppets/meatpuppet/SPA participation. On the other hand, I think someone could make a decent WP:SNOW case that there's no way the article will be kept. But what does need to happen is an immediate edit of the article to remove serious WP:BLP violations, and I'm going to do that right now. --MCB (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a decent knowledge of boxing, and the article appears to be a clear-cut hoax. I have cast my !vote at the AfD as such (along with my reasoning/evidence). If some other intrepid admin wants to close out the AfD for the snowball it is, I would appreciate it. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 19:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Harassment of User:Erwin85

Resolved

I can't do very much, as I'm on my phone, but could someone please take a look at User:Erwin85 and User talk:Erwin85. Someone seems to have it out for him. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

All accounts and IPs involved have been blocked. GlassCobra 21:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve Crossin, Chet B Long, PeterSymonds, and inappropriate account sharing

The Arbitration Committee has become aware that Steve Crossin (talk · contribs) (not an administrator) has accessed and used the accounts of two administrators, Chet B Long (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and PeterSymonds (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). We also believe that Chet B Long and PeterSymonds may have accessed Steve Crossin's account too. In the case of Chet B Long, we believe that Steve Crossin encouraged the exchange, and Chet B Long in an act of exceedingly poor judgement sought not to let him down. In the case of PeterSymonds, we believe that he accidentally revealed his password, which prompted Steve Crossin to try accessing his account. Steve then told Peter that he knew his password, and Peter allowed his password to stand unchanged. Steve used Peter's account to perform non-controversial administrative actions, but without the approval and trust of the community, and in PeterSymonds' name. Such behaviour is outside the standards that administrators are expected to follow in keeping their accounts secure, and the Arbitration Committee considers this grossly inappropriate conduct.

While we have no evidence pointing to inappropriate administrator actions being carried out by Steve Crossin while accessing these accounts, there is still an issue of trust here. In addition, we have been informed by multiple people that Steve Crossin has been sharing chat logs of a private communication between himself and other users, including Arbitrator Deskana.

All parties made a full admission of fact, and both Chet B Long and PeterSymonds have already voluntarily resigned their adminships. Given the information above, it is clear Chet B Long and PeterSymonds have retired "under a cloud", and as such, should only have their administrator access granted again via application to the Arbitration Committee. Whilst all three are valued editors, their actions were grossly poor in judgement. We are considering Steve Crossin's position, but do not feel any other sanctions are necessary in respect of the two administrators at this time. The community may wish to discuss their own sanctions, if appropriate.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Deskana (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Yes, I've known of this for a few days, and I remain somewhat disappointed. My thoughts to Arbcom-l stand, Deskana. Transparency is vital. Anthøny 21:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with this decision. This was an exceedingly poor decision on the part of all parties involved; however, no long-term damage was done to the project. Further, Chet and Peter were amicable in recognizing their mistakes and giving up their tools. This has already mostly been dealt with, let's keep the drama at a minimum. GlassCobra 21:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see Steve Crossin banned indefinitely. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Some comments;

• One day on IRC, Peter Symonds botched a nickserv identification on IRC, which resulted in his inadvertently posting his IRC password in public. Steve tried logging into Peter's Wikipedia account, which has +sysop rights, with this password, and it worked (presumably, Peter uses the same password for IRC and Wikipedia). Steve notified Peter that this was the case; Peter then informed Steve that he will not be changing his password, so long as he promises to behave.
• On a rather different note, Chet Long seems to have readily volunteered his password to Steve (I know not whether Chet offered it, or Steve requested it). Conversely, however, Steve used Chet's account only once.

Regarding the proposals to indefinitely block and / or ban Steve, I don't think that is necessary here. His judgement was poor, certainly, but he has never acted maliciously towards a project. No, this matter is to all intents and purposes, closed and resolved: no further action is available here that will benefit the project.

This is a delicate matter, and we need to let the dust settle here -- moreso in that the committee is still discussing the matter.

Anthøny 22:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how Steve acquired these account passwords, using them to perform action on Wikipedia is a violation of WP:SOCK, I intend to indef block Steve for egregious violation of SOCK and the community's trust in a few minutes. MBisanz ^talk 21:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Very well, I'll hold off for the time being, but I think the community deserves a full explanation from Steve to the the degree it did of Archtransit in February. MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit was the sock of a banned user who worked his way up to adminship. I don't think that's quite applicable in this case (at least I certainly hope it isn't). Though a statement from Steve I think should be necessary if he wishes to continue editing (he may not). Mr.Z-man 22:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit gamed and violated the community's trust to use the admin tools despite knowing he had no right to, Steve also violated the community's trust by using admin tools he knew he had no right to. MBisanz ^talk 22:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

But AT used the tools to unblock his own socks and IPs and purposely cause as much somewhat-subtle disruption as possible. While Steve used an admin account inappropriately, he (most likely, based on the above statement) was still trying to be productive. Mr.Z-man 22:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am very familiar with Archtransit, as I was the one who discovered his socks. This situation does not appear to be the same. Jehochman ^Talk 01:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, I strongly disagree with Steve being banned. He is a good faith contributor for the most part, with over 20000 constructive edits. He's effectively bombed any chances that he has for any RfAs, I'd consider that due punishment. However, I would very much like to hear exactly why he wanted access to these accounts. I've tried to ask him about it, but he was not open to questioning. GlassCobra 21:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What harm do you think will be prevented by blocking him? I think this thread should reach a consensus first. Jehochman ^Talk 21:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything to be gained from banning. None of them will pass RFA in years. I don't think we need take any more action than that. It doesn't seem necessary. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to have to comment here. Steve had brought this to my attention on August 19. He had told me that he was sharing accounts with PeterSymonds and Chet B. Long. I, will admit, I did not know to any case that a policy about that had existed. Not knowing what to say, I asked what exactly had happened, with him telling me that Thatcher had checkusered PeterSymonds on an unrelated note and found that Steve was editing under his account. Thatcher brought it to Peter's attention, which Steve saw, and steve, on Skype had been acting really weird, saying things like "ugh" a lot. He (Steve) was complaining a lot, and well, I asked another user (who will I will not name for protection), who knew about previous situations with account sharing on Steve's part, chided him out. Steve gave me logs to a discussion he had with thatcher, and pastebinned it. He seemed fine for the rest of the day, but you could tell he was edgy.

A day later, Steve gave me details to an e-mail from the Arbitration Committee. Well, it wasn't a smart move on my part to ask about the e-mail, but he did bring it up to me. I did the wrong thing, and asked about it. He gave me details. Later that morning (my time, EST), Steve again told me he had a discussion with Deskana, the arbitrator, which he gave me. I sort of did the wrong thing and kept it, which I regret. Things afterwards had been quiet about this, until this thread was posted, when I told another user, and eventually Deskana about the logs I had been given. I am posting now for the reasons that I am regretfully sorry for any problems this may have caused, that its the right thing to tell a hidden story like this, and to accept that what Steve did was wrong. If there is any questions, please ask. Ok.Mitch32^(UP) 21:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't regret anything. It's not your place to be feeling shame or regret, here. --Deskana (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure blocking him will prevent harm to the project. We as a group I don't think should punish Steve for misconduct here. Perhaps a explanation and apology is forthcoming. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WTF? Are all three of these accounts the same person? Or is it three people with a shared password? I don't do "IRC" or whatever, but without a diff or two, I don't see why anyone should be blocked. If an admin gave out his/her password to a non-admin, to do admin functions, i can see at least two indef blocks/bans being handed out. I'm at a loss, because I've had nothing but good interactions with at least 2 of these 3 users. Completely losT. Keeper ǀ 76 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The two administrators have requested removal of the tools at meta. The third party is not actively disrupting the project. None of them are at this time. Why an indef block? NonvocalScream (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, missed that. I won't comment further. It was more a "WTF" than anything rational or whatever. I've had good interactions with 2 of the 3 users, and I'm merely in shock. I won't post further. I don't support (or not support) a block of any account, at this time. Keeper ǀ 76 21:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Very, very, very disappointing. Wizardman 21:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(ecx5) I strongly encourage beg MBisanz not to block Steve before this has been digested and discussed a little bit. No rush. --barneca (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm dismayed by this news. Steve had been acting as a mediator in the Prem Rawat matter and had shown maturity and diligence in his work there. I know that he has been under a lot of pressure due to harassment of his partner. Even so I find this astonishing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec re to barneca)Agreed. Steve, Chet, and Peter have all made invaluable contribs to this project. No rush, no urgency. None of the three are vandalising. The turtle won the race against the hare, remember? Keeper ǀ 76 21:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I object to any blocks of the three accounts for now as well. There is no need to perform any actions like that at the moment, and I do not believe that blocks would help the current situation or prevent any disruption. Acalamari 22:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Without knowing specific timeframes when this account switching/sharing occured, we non-ArbCom types can't review the logs to see what actions were taken with the accounts. But, assuming that the situation is as Deskana describes it, I don't think I support a block on any of the three editors. If, indeed, none of the admin actions harmed the encyclopedia, I don't think a block is in anyone's interests. These are good people, who made an inexplicable mistake, which won't be repeated. I agree with the desysoping, but as long as no other shoes drop, I don't think any other action is necessary. I do hope that all three of them man up, admit their mistake, and continue to help with the encyclopedia. --barneca (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed Steve's IP-block exemption flag as he cannot be trusted with it after abusing two admin accounts. I've consulted with a checkuser, and they have agreed with the flag removal. Maxim (☎) 22:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't forget this. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 22:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Steve, I'm sorry, but mocking Maxim's skills is not the explanation the community deserves. MBisanz ^talk 22:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Apologies, but the removal I thought disregarded that an IP range I regularly edit/ed from is hardblocked, from the next 5 years. 91.203.96.0/22. I've used it often, as a CU will show. As for a response to this thread, one is forthcoming, however I will wait until ArbCom has decided how, or if, they will punish me, and what that will constituite, and after I've got a few hours sleep. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 22:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
        • @MBisanz: I'm not seeing any problem with Steve's comment, least of all any mockery of Maxim's abilities. Could you expand? Anthøny 01:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• I don't support any editing restrictions, though I think all three users should be required to show to the community why they should be given any additional tools. While we see examples of poor conduct daily on en.wikipedia most of it is not three long time users exhibiting such poor judgement together. I hope they can right the ship, and continue with the project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's bad, I accept that. But, I don't think it's a huge deal - no harm has been done, all users involved are good contributors, and all have owned up to it. The voluntary desysoping seems sufficient to me (and maybe a trout...) Ian¹³/t 22:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm both saddened and disappointed having conversed with two of the 3 individuals on a daily basis. Like many have said above, before a ban or block is imposed, I think a formal explanation is in order. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve has apparently declined to respond to the community's request for an explanation at this time. Given the severity of his actions and the deceit he used in performing them, I continue to find this response wanting and to be sorely testing the community's good faith. MBisanz ^talk 22:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• He's indicated that he will respond, but is waiting on the outcome of the ArbCom decision. Unless there is a threat of harm to the project there is no rush to block. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that what we have here are three good faith contributors that made a serious error in judgment. Blocking serves no purpose, really. I don't think they'd do it again, even if they could, which they can't. They haven't engaged in any other disruptive behavior. As it is, they'll all have a black mark on their reputations forever. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Unbelieveable this occurred. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My response

• What I've done was stupid, and it goes without saying that I'm sorry for what I've done. I feel self-loathing, I've lost sleep over this, but I'm not expecting sympathy, because I know there is none. My judgment has been clouded by other serious personal issues, as Will noted above, that a select few Wikipedians are aware of, as well as the Arbitration Committee. What I did should have never happened, and if I could turn back the clock, I would. Deskana has already explained above as to how I gained access to their accounts, so I don't see a real need to re-state what Dan has already said. Some of you may not be aware, but the three of us, Peter, Chet, and myself, are very close friends. I used Chet's account only once a protection, I used Peter's quite a lot, the last time I used it was blocking all of these, though on his account, I performed protections, speedy deletions, XFD closes, image deletions, blocks, and so on. I never used his account to contribute to a discussion at AN/ANI, or anywhere. Peter checked through the admin actions I made, and was sure that they were administratively correct. That doesn't mean what I've done is correct, far from it. My intentions were always to help the project, though I have done the opposite here. My judgment was grossly poor, and for this I am sorry. If there was anything I could do to take all this back from happening, I would do it, but I can't. All I can ask for now is forgiveness. Then, in time, I hope I can forgive myself. Yours, Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 23:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What I fail to understand is, why would you knowingly put Chet in that position when you had access to another admin account? What was the need for two? That puts concerns in my mind about you saying you were doing this for Wikipedia. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a careless, stupid mistake, that's all there is to it. Probably the dumbest thing I've ever done at all. I feel terrible for what's happened. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 23:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I accept that. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• As do I. This is done and dusted, and extensive discussion on the matter would be without point. Anthøny 23:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could have thought doing those tasks were to help. Accounts are limited to one person for good reason, especially admin accounts. To gain access to not one, but two accounts and perform multiple actions on them is seriously gross misconduct, and plain stupidity. I can't understand why you'd do that. For the thrill?? how do you turn this on 23:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I am ashamed of you. I don't want to make this a tirade against you, seeing as you are in a pitiable position. I thought that you showed such promise as an editor, and I had been planning to nom you for adminship for such a long time. But not only did you use the accounts of two admins (thankfully no main page deletion or Jimbo blocking), you also caused the community to lose two able administrators. I should probably hate you for this, but I feel genuinely sorry for what you've gotten yourself into, and I think that blocking would be a punitive measure now that you've confessed. I hope that if you continue to edit constructively, you will exercise your right to vanish and come back under a different name. bibliomaniac15 00:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. After reading through all that, I never would've expected this. I also do not endorse blocking, as that seems punitive. Useight (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• In light of the revelation that Peter, Chet and Steve are close friends IRL and have shared accounts, I am disappointed to recall that Chet, on WP:AE, chose to block one of the parties in a case that Steve was mediating. Of course it is natural for editors who know each other outside Wikipedia to communicate, but when it comes to admin actions, such friendships should not be called upon. Jayen466 00:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Eh, that's not such a big deal. It seems like a clear block, and people keep more track of certain editors who they either get along with or don't get along with all the time. That's not such a big deal. Let's not lose sight of the primary issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It wasn't a case of Chet keeping track of what Steve was doing. It's clear from the AE discussion that Steve, as the responsible mediator, contacted Chet, and Chet blocked a few minutes later. Yes, perhaps any other admin would have taken the same, or a similar, decision. But if that's so, why get your friend to decide in the first place, rather than trusting the WP system and letting the thing run its natural course? Especially if you're mediating the case as a non-admin (as Steve was) and need both sides in the dispute to have faith in your impartiality. I know what you mean, and it certainly seems like a case of exuberance and eagerness rather than bad intent. But the same thing applies to the other stuff being discussed here as well. Enough said. Jayen466 03:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I had an interaction earlier today with Steve Crossin that I wasn't thrilled about, but I can now see he was under a bit of pressure. I'm puzzled though. I can think of good reasons (i.e., good intentions) to do what he did, under WP:IAR. Certainly what he did was against policy, but no actual harm has been shown yet (except, of course, by the loss of two admin bits and a bit of disruption here, and those admins lost their bits because they violated policy). Why did he do it? "Stupid mistake" doesn't cover it. Sure, he made some "stupid mistakes," but it was done for a reason, and "making a stupid mistake" wasn't the reason, I'm sure. Steve has, as far as I'm concerned, no obligation to me to answer, but he might have an obligation to the community. What pressures caused him to do this, and caused the admins to permit it? How could we address the underlying situation? --Abd (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not certain if a block is needed, however I also want a better explanation here. Steve has been an outstanding member of the community, this incident aside. Had this not happened, I am almost certain Steve would have been nominated, and passed, an RfA within two months at the very least. I have told him myself that I would be willing to (co-)nominate him. Now, that trust is gone. I would not consider him for adminship again, and I would be surprised if an RfA wasn't closed within a day under WP:SNOW. That, given the situation, is probably sanction enough. However, Abd is correct when saying a "stupid mistake" doesn't cover this. Steve knew, knows, that this is not in the least acceptable, appropriate, or, to be completely blunt, morally correct. Had it occurred once, with one account, I would have been willing to accept that explanation. Given the severity and duration of this, however, it's not sufficient. Steve Crossin, what caused you to do this, and is there anything we as a community do to rectify the situation? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to hear more from Steve also but at this point I strongly oppose blocking any of the three of them. Simply put, the encyclopedia would gain nothing from it. Steve has contributed a great deal of good content and I have little doubt he will continue to do so because Steve's just that kind of guy. There's no need to cut off our nose to spite our face. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I too strongly oppose any block at this time. It would not help the encyclopedia at all.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't that Steve used an admins account, but the problem is that he used it's "adminsistrator" privileges to protect pages and block users and this "Bad faith" adminship attitude shown by Peter and Chet really doesn't help the situation. I'm happy that these 2 voluntarily resigned their tools and for that reason, I don't think this needs to go to the arbcom but Regarding Steve, what he did, the damage is irreparable and so it will seem fair if he was put on mediation for his actions, for someone who was a really good volunteer of the Mediation Cabal, his judgements and actions has damaged his reputation, no need to punish him anymore ...--Cometstyles 02:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

However stupid and reckless their behavior was, I don't support a block for any of the three. Should Chet and/or Peter want adminship again, would they have to obtain approval from ArbCom or would they have another RfA? What are we going to do with Steve? Place him on some sort of restriction? Personally, I don't see any point in doing that... Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. I think Steve acted in good faith, and it's from stuff like this that we all learn our lessons. Jayen466 04:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I spoke with Steve about this last night, and he was completely unwilling to explain any sort of reasoning for needing/wanting access to two admin accounts. I oppose any action being taken against Chet. I have spoken with him extensively on the matter over the past few days and know how horrible he feels about the situation. I am extremely disappointed and dismayed at the tactics used by Steve to obtain Chet's password, and disgusted with the way Steve has responded privately to the matter regarding those tactics and his reasoning. Unfortunately, I'm in agreement with MZMcBride wrt Steve. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• With respect Lara, you didn't try to speak to me. I felt like I was put on trial, as I saw from the Skype logs after I went offline. I'd have explained, but the attitude of the BRC made me go numb. And I don't like the threat to kidnap my wife, either. If that was a joke, it was a bad one, and I want an apology from Cometstyles. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 06:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I asked you point blank several times why you did this, and you did not answer. You were talking on Skype until right before I asked you, then disappeared. It was exceedingly disappointing. GlassCobra 06:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve, apologise for what, sorry but my days of apologising for someone else's mistake and being made a scapegoat is long over and as Glasscobra mentioned we asked you multiple times why you did that but instead you just ignored as and just logged everything we said instead of trying to prove your innocence, I really feel sorry for what happened to Chet and Peter and this would have never happened if editors and admins alike, learned their boundaries but as Jennavecia mentions above, what you did has really disappointed many editors who believed you had potential to do much better, though I still believe you have learned your lesson and should no longer be put on trial..--Cometstyles 09:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My View

While the actions of Steve were well intentioned they are in fact quite hellish. Using another users account distorts the very essance of the account system. It destroys community relationships. Using an administrators account for administrative actions is far far more serious. I personally don't have an issue with the page protection edit, (provided there was no dispute from either Steve or the admin account). However the usage of an administrators account to block users is far beyond the pail of anything I could find common ground on. I don't know the details about the users that were blocked, but it doesn't really matter.

A non-administrator taking AA against a user (weather it be a sock, obvious vandal or anyone else) without being vested by the community (in any definition) completely and utterly violates the trust we place in admins. It causes distrust in all others. Combining these actions with a checkuser case is a slap in the face of all policies Steve intended to protect. While I like the guy I can't in any way defend him. Never been a fan of the indefinite block, given the ability to degrade into an psuedo-ban it effectively is nothing more than one user saying to another 'you and your actions are not welcome here, now or ever'. But on this one and with community involvement I frankly can't think of a behavior more inline with that statement. However WP:Block is very clear about no putative blocks. Does this mean that immediate apologies and forgiveness let Steve and anyone else walk scot free? What would such an action say to other users? "Do what you want just immediately ask for forgiveness." Do we apply policies equally to all users or do we take into account past works or good intentions? The answers to this question determines what new users and the out side world think of WP and what the community thinks of the people its chosen to guide the project.

Given that arbcom has made no statement that it will even review the issue and its history of long cases I propose that all involved be placed on the strictest probation possible until a decision is made by arbcom or the community at large. I would suggest that the users take a long wikibreak and absolutely refrain from editing any subject that would commonly be called contentious. While I respect the work that these users have placed in the past I can not remain silent on this topic. --68.209.2.187 (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, since nobody here actually believes in forgiveness I really doubt any further "sanctions" are needed. — CharlotteWebb 03:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've lost your trust

[42] I don't really have anything else I would want to say about this, I worked so hard for your trust and I caused it to be lost. Please ask an arb for the emails I sent them. I don't think I'll be replying to anything else here for the time being. --Chet B. Long // talk // ark // 01:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename

Chet B Long asked for a rename, which is his right. I conferred with another crat, User:Rdsmith4 and CU User:Kylu. We agreed arbcom would need to be informed. Chet agreed and Chet also wanted to make the change public, asking me to make this posting, saying "I don't want to fool the community anymore than I have already". Chet B Long's new name is User:Coffee. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, that's cu/steward elsewhere, to clarify, since we're running the same software version as here. Just to minimize confusion. Kylu (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that Chet might now be confused with the sysop User:TheCoffee. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect he had no malicious intent, so there's no need to assume bad faith about his choice of username. He's lost his sysop bits and public face, there's no need to go further, imo. Kylu (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith; if I had a penny for every time my username was spelled wrong... Sceptre ^(talk) 04:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Skepter? Who would spell your name incorrectly? GlassCobra 06:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

RFA

I object, as always, to the presumption that Arbcom has the right to forbid the community from nominating someone for adminship. --Random832 (contribs) 05:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

<commonsense>Good luck nominating one of them...</commonsense> John Reaves 07:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the right to nominate someone is a community right and personally i dont think its arbcoms place to be able to say that we cant nominate a particler user for RFA   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but there are many arbcases and incidents handled by arbcom where they retained control of a resyssop. So, you have a lot of precedent to overturn. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Policy getting in the way of constructive editing

I would like to raise a motion of WP:IAR at this time for obvious reasons. These 3 editors are fantastic at what they do and when you remove all the red tape crap so much good came from what they did. So you (The community) have two choices, Indef ban all of them per WP:SOCK etc or let them off free and they'll probably never do it again and continue to help wikipedia? Personally I think WP:IAR was made for a situation such as this, to protect users such as PeterSymonds and co. I stongly oppose these 3 great editors being struck off for helping, just not in the right methods, it would never sit well with me but one must ask, does the end justify the means? My answer would be yes. So im going to be rathor brasen, if you support or oppose indicate it and why as this is not a vote, but a consensus   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

“ If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. ”

• Support - Per rant above   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, what rule are you trying to get us to ignore? —kurykh 07:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOCK, WP:BLOCK, WP:BAN, so in a nutshell any policy that would see that these editors should suffer any further reprocusions for this particuler incident.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those three policies seem to actually apply to this situation... --Deskana (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I, um, am not aware of more than a handful of users who've supported any sort of actions being taken against the users in question other than what has already happened. Ranting in defence of them looks silly when you're not defending against anything (with respect to MZM/Lara; not literally nobody but you are in the minority). —Giggy 10:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My view

Three people messed up. It's been taken care of. Can we get on with creating an encyclopedia now? --Carnildo (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Further explanation required from Steve Crossin

For full disclosure and absolute transparency, I would like Steve Crossin to disclose if he has used any other accounts besides the ones listed here to this point. I feel that this is important to get started towards eventually gaining the trust of the community back at some time in the future. GlassCobra 09:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So be it; I'm sure there will be a response. I guess since this is the third time for me personally that I've had to hear these sort(lengthy self-pitying allocutions) of things from Steve it is getting rather old for me. Maybe I'm just too jaded and all or my good faith is thinner than others. MBisanz ^talk 09:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur and I for one would like to know if his wife's account was involved in any way. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have not. The accounts I've used on Wikipedia are my own Steve Crossin (talk · contribs), Steve Public (talk · contribs), and SteveBot (talk · contribs). I have a doppelganger account, Cro0016 (talk · contribs) as it was my username when I first came on Wikipedia. As is known, I've accessed Peter and Chet's accounts. On my IP address, two other accounts appear. One is Melissa's old account, Mellie (talk · contribs) (renamed), and she has another one, which I will not make public as she exercised her right to vanish, and the ArbCom is aware of it. Mel's accounts have no involvement whatsoever. Any checkuser can comment here and confirm this information, but keep Mel out of this. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 10:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, let us have our pound of flesh, drag this wretch through the streets! Who's got the tar? Did you bring the feathers? Are the stocks ready to be clamped around his neck? I think the CheckUsers would have, in the process of rational action, ran a check on Steve, and would have informed the community of any further inappropriate socking in the original message above. Some people here are really going overboard with the torch and pitchfork histronics. Badger Drink (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: the link between Chet, Peter, and Steve was uncovered by CheckUser evidence. If there were any more accounts being operated by Steve, I suspect the information would have been released by now. Anthøny 10:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • If there was anything they would have said so, Also note that this is not a privacy violation free for all.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • There haven't been any privacy violations at all. Again, you seem to be a bit off the mark. Please read the thread in detail before commenting. --Deskana (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Another problem

This is the kind of post I hate to write. Steve Crossin has done wonderful work for the 24 project, and has earned a triple crown, and until very recently I hoped to conominate him for RFA. Please bear in mind also that both Steve and his wife were harassed this summer. They didn't deserve what's happened to them. Please weigh these factors against what follows.

Steve's statement here is untrue:

I have not. The accounts I've used on Wikipedia are my own Steve Crossin (talk · contribs), Steve Public (talk · contribs), and SteveBot (talk · contribs). I have a doppelganger account, Cro0016 (talk · contribs) as it was my username when I first came on Wikipedia. As is known, I've accessed Peter and Chet's accounts. On my IP address, two other accounts appear. One is Melissa's old account, Mellie (talk · contribs) (renamed), and she has another one, which I will not make public as she exercised her right to vanish, and the ArbCom is aware of it. Mel's accounts have no involvement whatsoever. Any checkuser can comment here and confirm this information, but keep Mel out of this. Steve Crossin Talk/24 10:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[43]

I am the other user mentioned in this post:

He (Steve) was complaining a lot, and well, I asked another user (who will I will not name for protection), who knew about previous situations with account sharing on Steve's part, chided him out.[44]

Here's what I knew and when I knew it. I was completely unaware that Steve Crossin was sharing passwords with two administrators until basically the same time as Mitch found out: shortly after Thatcher ran a checkuser. Nor was I aware that Steve was spreading confidential e-mails until this thread began. These developments surprised me greatly, particularly because Steve had been coming to me for advice for some time. Roughly a week beforehand (I'd have to double check the exact date), Steve had disclosed to me that his wife Mellie sometimes logged into his Wikipedia account and edited under his name. As soon as he made me aware of that I informed him about the role account clause of the socking policy, and told him that could get either or both of them sitebanned, and advised him to put an end to it immediately. He led me to believe this had only happened a few times, and he did not hint to me that any other account sharing was going on. So Steve was fully informed that account sharing was a serious breach of policy, and contrary to Steve's claim when specifically asked for full disclosure: Mellie was involved.

As soon as Steve confessed that he was using the accounts of two administrators, I urged him to make a prompt disclosure to the appropriate parties. He showed me parts of his draft message to ArbCom as he was composing it, asking for advice, and gave the impression of someone honest and remorseful who was coming clean. In good faith I believed he was sincere until I read his post stamped 10:01 today: obviously he was not candid and is not candid now.

Regarding inappropriate disclosures, he showed me two things. One was a private e-mail that he attempted to post in group chat at Not the Wikipedia Weekly about 12 hours ago. I did not read it and (as a channel host) I deleted within a few seconds when I recognized what it was. The other was a chat log involving several people that occurred slighly more than a day ago. I did read that briefly; he just initiated a private chat and posted a link without introduction or explanation. I was distracted and tired, and I didn't know what it was until I was already reading it. I supposed it was semipublic and someone had leaked to him. My advice to Steve after seeing it was to ignore it and start a new good article drive.

Steve knew what he was doing was wrong, and he has not come clean. His wife edits under a new account unknown to the community; I do not know what it is. The community is unable to monitor their edits and determine whether they are operating these as undisclosed role accounts. Also, the level of deception here is disturbing. I was stunned to discover that in serious discussion about Steve's wife sharing his account, Steve had failed to mention the much more serious use of two administrator accounts until after somebody caught him at it. Now he denies any account sharing by his wife, as response to a public call to come clean.

To Steve: I apologize for the pain this gives, but your contradictions force me to step forward. I've done all I can to help you honestly, and I don't want to appear to be part of some conspiracy. Steve, please do not attempt to contact me again by any means whatsoever. Durova^Charge! 12:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Internally to the other Arbitrators, yesterday I asked for the Committee to not end our discussion about sanctions for Steve because I feel that a preventative block/ban may be needed to stop chronic problems related to his editing. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy of deleted article

Resolved

 – It's been done - already! Thanks for the fast response! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 10:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother, folks - if one of you has time, would it be possible to email me the Wikitext of editing marks, a deleted article? Thanks. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 10:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

List of satanic ritual abuse allegations/SRA in the Netherlads

Criminologist1963 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account dedicated to getting a separate page about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. S/he has created several pages for this purpose (Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, Satanic ritual abuse and the Netherlands and some redirects for spelling). I became aware of the page and wikified it; ultimately there wasn't much there, so I redirected to list of satanic ritual abuse allegations#the Netherlands. C1963's contribution history is a series of page blanks, reverts, and basically a concerted effort to have an unnecesary separate article. The discussion at Talk:List of satanic ritual abuse allegations#The Netherlands has been less than productive. I have dealt with this a while, but now I'm thinking perhaps the community might want to comment. WLU (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)