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

Proposed ban on Bart Versieck

Bart Versieck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of editing others' talk page comments, despite being warned several times not to do so. See his talk page and the talk page archive--it's littered with warnings about this behavior. It's been the subject of at least two admin discussions ((here and here) He's been blocked at least eight times for this since 2007, each time promising to stop. He's also engaged in similar behavior on the Dutch Wikipedia. Most recently, he was blocked for three months--but this was reduced to three weeks, with a stern warning that the next block would be much, much longer and possibly indef.

Well, earlier, Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) discovered he'd done it again. To my mind, this is the last straw, and I propose a community ban. Blueboy96 01:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban It's not just the talk pages either, it's main article editing. There were lots of problems with his behavior on Ruby Muhammad, for example, and I think that at least one of his blocks (possibly one of mine) related to his distortion and refusal to abide by talk page consensus on this page. Cheers, CP 01:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose While I'm no fan of Bart's edits to other users' comments, how is this edit the last straw? It wasn't exactly an on-topic comment that he removed, and I probably would have removed it too. Looking at his contributions since the last block, this appears to be the only time he continued the same behavior. This is not ban worthy, and the indefinite block should be reversed. - auburnpilot talk 02:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - diff shown isn't ban worthy. PhilKnight (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban - CP sums it up. Soxred 93 03:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. He may be trouble at times, but if that edit's the last straw, then we'd have to ban an awful lot of people. His block log says quite a bit about him doing this in the past, though how many of his edits have been modifying comments and how many have been removing edits like the one above are two very different causes for alarm. Wizardman 03:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban. The stated diff is admittedly trivial, but this is just the last in a LONG stream of behaviour which snubs the TPG guideline. He refactors other's comments often, including removing edits, despite promises not to do so any more. Dutch Wikipedia block log shows this is not just a problem here. Please also read this which shows how exasperating the user is. Moondyne 04:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I'm aware of the user's past issues, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that diff. He removed some nonsense comments from a talk page after adding a template to it. I probably would have done the same thing, and have done so. Mr.Z-man 04:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Z-man. Indef should be overturned if he notes what he's done wrong and agrees to do something constructive about it (read: ask for second opinions even in cases like this.) giggy _(:O) 05:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I have some sympathy with anyone who fixes other people's posts. I've done it myself in the past, but I hope I know where the line should be drawn. I try to limit myself to fixing things like incorrect formatting (eg. closing a bold or italics bit), fixing a header if the number of "===" are wrong, fixing a link if it wasn't closed properly, fixing incorrect wikimarkup taggs (eg. a <small> or <nowiki> tag not closed), and even egregious spelling mistakes if I can resist (I know I should resist!). I also try and only do it while adding a comment myself anyway. The difference, I suppose, is that I haven't been asked to stop as many times as Bart has, though someone did ask me not to the other day. I then promptly apologised. Let's see if I can find some diffs. OK, here is an example from yesterday: [1]. I had clicked on the link WT:BIO, knowing what discussion Woody was referring to, and end up at the talk page for the notability guideline, not the biography wikiproject talk page. A fairly common mistake, so I fixed the shortcut to be WT:WPBIO. Other times, I do cross the line, particularly with regards to indentation. Normally, when I see an indentation I don't understand, I ask the person concerned. However, the other day I "fixed" an indentation: [2]. The editor in question asked me not to do this: [3]. I then apologised: [4]. I also found another example of fixing. See here: [5]. So what is needed here, I think, is recognition that some fixing is possible, but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed, and if you cross it you should just apologise and adjust your behaviour. The question is whether Bart is crossing this line (we need specific and recent diffs) and whether he is adjusting his behaviour (Bart needs to speak up and say something). From reviewing this, I think he is crossing the line (he actually alters what other people have said). Whether he is continuing to do that (the diff provided here was merely removing a comment that was off-topic) is debatable. Providing old diffs may not be enough to prove that he is slipping back to his old behaviour. I recognise that he has done this in the past, but I don't think an indefinite block is needed for this (it is not dangerous disruption, just highly annoying and misleading). I would also note that there is history between Bart and Canadian Paul on the "oldest people" articles. Unblock Bart and let him respond here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support block True, the diff provided indicates a very minor incident - but one that is part of a long standing problem with this editor. We have been here many times, and often BV has promised to reform and not edit other peoples contributions and the community has given them another chance. Once again, it has been found that BV is incapable of keeping to that undertaking. Rather than commenting on the admittedly minor nature of most of these edits, can anyone give a reason - by indication of the valuable and necessary other editing the account contributes - why BV is needed to remain on WP? If that is not possible, then can anyone indicate why they think that this "last chance" will alter BV's attitude toward editing other peoples contributions?
  It is fairly obvious that a ban is not possible - there are too many good opposes to it - so I am content to support the indef block. The block can be lifted when there is community support for allowing BV to edit again, under such restrictions, mentoring, edit paroles, as is considered sufficient to resolve the matter, or not lifted as is deemed necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That would make sense. Someone should tell him about this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I will make a note on the user talkpage. If there is sufficient reasoning in any unblock request I recommend unblocking to allow BV to participate here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "can anyone give a reason - by indication of the valuable and necessary other editing the account contributes - why BV is needed to remain on WP?" Well, LessHeard vanU, I'd say Bart Versieck's contributions speak for themselves in that respect. Since his last block, Bart has made 195 edits. Only one indicates a continued behavior, when he changed the word merger to merge (simply removing an "R"). The majority of his edits remain unaltered (not reverted/still the top edit), and that would suggest they are valuable and beneficial to the project. - auburnpilot talk 14:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Which is good, but are they edits that are of particular value that could not be made by anybody else? Is the community risking a noticable dip in the quality of editing by blocking this account, or will others likely take up the slack? I am trying to determine whether there is a case for the community allowing yet another last chance, or to provide assistance to stop this behaviour, rather than allowing the indef to stand. It seems to me that if this behaviour is to be "tolerated" rather than sanctioned there should really be some gain to the encyclopedia for doing so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • LessHeard vanU, to play the devil's advocate here, what edits have any of us made (and you in particular) that could not have been made by anyone else? That is a very dangerous line of reasoning you are following. Thank you for posting the note to Bart's talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
        • That is exactly my point. I would (like to think I would) not expect dispensation for a repeated problem of mine based on my contributions. I don't see why the far greater majority of good edits should allow a pattern of disruptive edits be ignored or passed over. This is not an isolated incident, but an apparent inability to not slide back into bad habits, and to remain true to an undertaking. It needs to be resolved and not allowed to continue on the basis of "it was only a little one, and the rest of the time they have been okay." LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec)That's simply not how we determine whether or not somebody should be indefinitely blocked. We don't say "Yeah, your edits are good, but they're not good enough". Of course somebody would pick up the slack, just as somebody would pick up the slack if I disappeared after making this edit. Yet, nobody is proposing I be indef blocked because somebody else could do what I do. One questionable edit out of 195 since his last block does not warrant a ban or indef block. Bottom line. - auburnpilot talk 15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
        • • But it isn't just one in the last 195, but the last in a long line of disruptive edits over a very long period. The other points I have covered in my response to Carcharoth. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Completely uninvolved editor checking in here, but isn't this editor already blocked indefinitely? I would suggest that this is the case, see: Block log. I still didn't see the reason clearly enunciated for the block, certainly the dif provided seemed quite insignificant and could have been attributed to a vandal's adding onto a page. FWiW, I have tried to sift through the very extensive edit history of the aforementioned editor, and what some would characterize as "disruptive," others may see as examples of content disputes. I would caution restraint and suggest a mentorship based on the "critical friend" model that allows the editor to initially seek a counsel before entering into contentious situations. Bzuk (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC).
  • • comment I edit on alot of the same pages as Canadian Paul and Bart. Which mostly are the supercentenarian pages. Im curious to ask if anybody has asked Bart why he deleted the comment on the talk page? --Npnunda (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban per nom. Postoak (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how there is clearly no consensus here for a community ban, I suggest he be unblocked, especially given the horrible evidence used for blocking in the first place. On a side note, unless there is some sort of an emergency which there clearly wasn't in this case (the edit used as reasoning was 3 days before the block), isn't it customary to discuss before applying the block? Mr.Z-man 17:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ban It is bad to edit or remove others' talk page comments, but I don't think it would be correct to ban him from the project. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose ban Very out of proportion block/ban. -- Ned Scott 09:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A compromise?

Seeing as there's some pretty strong opposition to a ban, I won't object to cutting the block down. But seeing as he's engaged in this behavior with many warnings--even if he isn't banned, I would think a long-term block is in order in light of his past behavior and his repeated broken promises to stop. Indeed, in one of the earlier discussions, quite a few admins wondered why he hadn't already been slapped with a long block. Blueboy96 19:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a deal where:

1. He is unblocked now
2. He voluntarily accepts a restriction that he can be immediately re-blocked for one month by ANY administrator, even an involved one, if he touches anyone else's Talk page comment in the slightest way, even to remove what appears to be a vandal comment. Such a block would require only a simple announcement by the blocking admin at WP:AN that the reblock had been done. The reblock would double on each occurrence.

I suggest this mostly because the most recent example of a violation seems too harmless to issue a long remedy. But under the new plan it would be blockable. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

While I much prefer the indef block, I could live with this. The biggest trouble is having to rejustify and rehash every single time he's disruptive. Issuing a month-long block is likely to attract the attention of other admins who may think it silly to give such a long block for minor offenses, which means we have to do a whole other long discussion recapping attempting to convince others about the nature of his behavior. If I (or anyone else) can point to a community decision, that makes things a lot easier. I'm a little hesitant to unblock him immediately, however, because he also violated the compromise that took forever to hash out on the Ruby Muhammad page, where he has caused a lot of problems in the past. It might be useful to add that the same blocking solution be applied for WP:BLP violations. Cheers, CP 20:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I wouldn't be adverse to an immediate unblock so they can take part in this discussion - but there needs to be the unblock request first. Any sanction can then be applied after the discussion when there is consensus. It would be beyond foolishness for there to be any problematic edits during the discussion, so it wouldn't be placing the encyclopedia at risk to unblock under such circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's understood that it'll eventually go up to indef with repeated violations of this restriction, I can go along wtih this. To my mind, knowing that a bunch of admins are hovering over him with banhammers at the ready is just as effective as a long block. Blueboy96 22:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Having admins hovering over you with the banhammer is enough to effectively end someone's wiki-career. I know it was his own actions that brought him to that point, but just stop a moment and think whether you would be able to edit under that sort of pressure? I sometimes think it would be more dignified to put someone out of their misery. There is also an unwritten assumption here that he has to be squeaky-clean for some undefined period of time. Will he ever be able to relax again or not? A year, two years, three years? These sort of probationary periods should always have a time limit on them, and should never be open-ended. I will personally say here that if Bart agrees to this and edits with no problems for three months, then a breach of the conditions after three months should lead to a short block and reimposition of a three-month probation under the hair-trigger banhammer (or Sword of Damocles, as we should call it), rather than a jump to indefinite. Otherwise, you may get the silly position of people, a year later, pointing to this discussion to justify a ban. In my view, just as we warn before most blocks, we should also warn before a ban discussion. An official last, last chance if you like. Not everyone realises they are running the risk of a ban until the ban discussion starts. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

After seeing Carcharoth's view, looking at the Ruby Muhammad debate, and going through this editor's Talk archives to peruse the discussions around the block notices, I'm changing my position to Support the indef block. There was more than just the Talk-editing problem here, though that was the most flagrant issue. If indef is too long, how about one year. EdJohnston (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I've run into this guy and things haven't improved. Sadly, support a long block. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: why don't you formally topic ban him on ever removing or editing *any* comment by other editors on talk pages instead of doing a full ban? That would leave him an opportunity to continue his work on articles. If he violates the ban, then you can temporally block him for a long time or indefinitely --Enric Naval (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't support a longer block. I think the suggestion of EdJohnston is good. Unblock him, and if he edit or remove other's talk page comments, any admin can block him for a longer period. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, this has been done before. Refer to his Block log and the most recent deal on his talk page where he made a promise to accept conditional editing privileges with the edit comment "good deal". Can someone explain why it'll be any different this time? Moondyne 04:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• sure, give him another last chance, it will result in an indef ban anyway at some point. he simply doesn't appear to see what he is doing wrong, every block he opposes shows he doesn't (want to) understand why he was banned. the suggestion by EdJohnston is nice (though he himself sees later there is more to it), give it try and see where it goes, it got my money on another talkpage edit within weeks, maybe days. Boneyard (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• We've been through the block -> "promise not to do it again" -> repeat violation cycle so many times with no results. Versieck is warned at each violation that he will be blocked for an extended period or be banned. Time to practice what we preach. I feel that the original 3 month block should take effect as originally defined by the administrator. His ability to edit articles should be restored after the block. If it happens again, then he is banned. Postoak (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• User is asking again for unblock with a template on his talk page. See also his comments below in the transcluded section of his talk page. While I'll admit, I'm new to this situation and have not gone through all Bart's checkered past, I don't think that the removal of that forumy comment should be the straw that breaks the camel's back. That being said, should he be unblocked, I do endorse a topic ban on all editing of others talk page comments (no matter how forumy or trollish) and Bart seems willing to submit to such a topic ban as seen below. –xenocidic (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

initally he again doesn't appear to understand why he should keep away from talk pages, then he gives in with a single line, a line we have seen several times before. then finally he again doesn't accept the reason for the block, he keeps thinking it is unfair, without him understanding what he is doing wrong it will never stop. Xenocidic when someone keeps breaking the same (perhaps small) rule then at some point a small edit will have a huge effect. to the admin who unblocks this user please make it very clear to him to which rules apply to him once he starts editing again and be willing to follow up with an indef this time. Boneyard (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The below was a section of Bart's talk page that was transcluded during the discussion, and was subst'ed to WP:AN for the historical record. –xenocidic (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Partial transclusion of User talk:Bart Versieck

• I have created this section of Bart's talk page so he can make a statement to the WP:AN thread. –xenocidic (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a very big problem indeed, because my computer's browser at home doesn't accept cookies anymore since a couple of days (hence my anonymous contributions yesterday evening, which have been deleted afterwards, and now I'm at my job's), but I honestly don't understand at all why I have been blocked this time around (no harm done): could you explain, please, for that so-called "violation" has just been a justified deletion, and one that has been restored by someone else, by the way, so I'm definitely going to appeal this block, plus, moreover, an eternal ban is absolutely out of proportion. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit is not "a violation of the talkpage consensus", it's just mentioning the fact that her claim is not proven, so it's a longevity claim: alternative date of birth and "ostensibly". Extremely sexy (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But why would it be forbidden for me anyway to edit a talkpage at all, especially since the one concerned is justified? Extremely sexy (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of keeping this unarchived at WP:AN - since the block appears still to be in place, you may be glad of it - I would reply that it is very dangerous for you to remove (wholly or partly) any editors comments, be they vandalism or not. You have a record of doing this inappropriately, and (as can be seen on the AN thread) very few people are going to get into a debate of whether it was justified or not. I would suggest, should you be allowed to edit again, that the next time you see something that needs removing you report it to someone else to review and act. It might not seem "fair", but you do need to accept the consequences of your previous behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the best solution. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And I repeat, for "Postoak" and the like, that my so-called "violation" has turned out to be a legitimate edit, which was, moreover, restored only a couple of hours afterwards by another editor, so this ban is utterly unjustified. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As noted, it is agreed that any removal in whole or part of any other accounts comments on a talkpage is inappropriate and prohibited, and you will seek the review of another editor (and I am willing to look at any such matter) in respect of any potential vandal comment. On this basis I have unblocked the account. Again, as I have commented, this is the very last of the last chances you have had and if this matter arises again I will be the admin proposing we first melt down the key, grind it into tiny pieces, and then fling random pieces among the high mountains, dry deserts and very deep oceans (or enact a community ban, if easier). LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Please, just get on with editing the encyclopedia and consign this episode to the past!

Please help me

My user name was blocked a long time ago, even though my page had information typed in from other wikipedia users that my name should not be blocked. And yet I got blocked anyway.....the person who blocked me thinks im some white nazi person or something when im not. Im actually Indian. My user name is User:Aryan818, can you please unblock me? Ive been blocked for a billion years now. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing message was posted to one of the MedCom pages. Sunray (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This account is not blocked, according to the block log. Kevin (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Could be an autoblock - what message comes up when you try to edit? Hut 8.5 06:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The actual account may be ARYAN818 (talk · contribs), which is indeed indefinitely blocked. ANI discussion may be of interest. Admins may want to browse the user's deleted talk page as well; especially of interest would be this edit (admins only), which was from May of this year and is an uppercase personal attack more than anything else. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this diff from the above IP is also of interest. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that adding "DO NOT BLOCK THIS USER" to one's User page does not apparently prevent admins from blocking one. Now, the IP's contribs are overwhelmingly to Indian related topics (with the notable exception of this rather scary item) but without access to deleted contribs I can't offer much more info. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, for the record. It was a good block at the time, and I don't see that anything has changed since then. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing has changed since this ANI discussion. It is unlikely that the user, who claims he is of Indian background, has the name "Aryan," a word which doesn't exist in any Indian language; the Sanskrit word for "noble" is "Arya." Besides, even if his name is Aryan, he should find another user name, since "Aryan" offends many people. If my parents had made the mistake of christening me with one or all of the seven dirty words, it wouldn't give me the right to demand those usernames as an act of filial homage to parental stupidity. No reason why Wikipedians should be wasting their time on this tired nonsense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you are being are tad harsh Fowler. I also oppose unblocking him because he has been reluctant to realise the sensitivity of his username and he has responded very rudely whenever anyone has tried to make him understand this. However, chances are that his name is Aryan since it is a quite common name in India, regardless of whether the word exists in Indian languages. Also he hasn't edited in any Nazi related areas so to almost accuse (I realise you only use the word unlikely) the user of pretending to be Indian and having the name Aryan is assuming bad faith. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So when are you going to block this? Or this? ;^) — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you do your research you will find that the Hindu Swastika has been under a lot of controversy and many editors wanted to remove it from all Hinduism related templates and have it replaced with an Aum sign. It wasn't going to be removed from any article because on an article, the context can explain the significance and relevance of the swastika. Also, the unfortunate thing for Aryan is that the number 818 also has Nazi connotations. One part of a username having Nazi connections doesn't seem that bad, but when both parts can be related to Nazism it most people who see this user at first glance won't believe that it is a coincidence. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 06:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads up re Huggle

Gurch seems to have vanished, shutting down Huggle as his final act ([6], [7]). User:Atyndall has since reactivated Huggle, but without Gurch to keep an eye on it, users are already starting to make their own tweaks to the configuration. Be aware that unless/until Gurch comes back or someone else takes over the maintenance, it may get buggier & buggier. As a last resort, Huggle can be shut down by restoring this version and protecting the config page; unless we start getting problems, I don't propose doing this at this stage given the disruption it will cause to those who use it. – iridescent 18:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With Gurch gone apparently forever, we should have another .NET programmer take over maintenance, the source code is up for grabs, there's a link at WP:HUGGLE (for convenience, it's [8]). Someone has to take over maintenance and construction, a quick look at the WP:Huggle/Feedback page shows quite a few outstanding program bugs and requested features. Anyone volunteer? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Temporarily disabled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary section break

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

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

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

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

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

Ummm...I may regret this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mellie/Gurch

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protection?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider me in

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

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

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

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

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

Avoiding the Drama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offensive Barnstar

On User talk:Jeanne boleyn a barnstar of "Racial Purity" . Content of user's page suggests to me that user may not be aware of the implications. Ning-ning (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

From some of her contributions, I'd say she is very well aware of the connotations. The Barnstar should go.DuncanHill (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP is absolutely aware per its contribs. Removed. giggy _(:O) 10:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I saw this on her userpage. My politics are far- right; I'm a Monarchist, I believe in God, and I despise the current PC mentality. Clearly she didnt care about the connotation. This should probably be monitered. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 17:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This less than civil "editor" just left this message on my talk page. Could an admin resolve it. [9].— Realist² (Who's Bad?) 06:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given the editor the standard "free speech does not apply on Wikipedia" speech. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I was concerned about this comment; I have the right to detest the PC mentality, which is rearing it's hideously ugly head right at this moment and breathing it's foul, rancid , stifling breath into my face and trying to strangle all individuality and freedom of thought. Which is a person attack against myself. Seriously is my breath that bad? — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 06:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Now she has reported me to another admin seen here. Please this is a little silly. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 07:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't see that as a personal attack. It seems to me to be an attack on the general movement of the PC culture, not on you. You are reading too much into that, as you are to the Pigman thread. They are entitled to be riled somewhat, as are you. Just let it go now I think, move on, if they act in a racist manner in the future, then they will be blocked. Woody (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say diffs like this [10] suggest to me that the editor should be very closely monitored for both racism and personal attacks. She has apologized to the target of that attack, but still I feel that she should be watched. DuncanHill (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Hill, I should inform you that I am married to an Italian, two of my children are Italian citizens as well as half Italian by blood. In fact, my 17 year old Italian son is beside me now. I have seen hateful remarks directed at the British, the Irish, Americans,Jews, etc. I have never used an ethnic or racist slur. I always profusely apologise when I let my impulsive temper get out of hand. Might I suggest that you men resent a female who has strong opinions of her own? I'm sorry but I feel ganged up on by a group of young men because I'm a woman whose political views do not coincide with your own. I have the right to my opinions as you do your own. Monitor me if you wish-it's your right to do so as it's my right to protest this bullying.jeanne (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't give a damn if you are a woman or a man, if you make offensive racist comments such as the one I linked above, or say that you appreciate a "barnstar of racial purity" then I will call you on it. Profuse apologies are all very well - but to complain when an editor rightly removes racist material from a talk-page is to me very suggestive of your underlying attitude. DuncanHill (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way - thanks for calling me young - I don't get that much nowadays! DuncanHill (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Might I suggest that you men resent a female who has strong opinions of her own? I'm sorry but I feel ganged up on by a group of young men because I'm a woman whose political views do not coincide with your own" - oh come on now, you surely realise that you're skating on thin ice. Appart from all else, everyone knows that internet users are unisexual, as it's very rare that a user goes their whole life without being mistaken for the opposite gender ;). Now, in case you're being serious, I can assure you that anything going on here has nothing to do with anyone's gender, just as it has nothing to do with anyone's race, religeous belief, political views etc. _TalkIslander 12:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As a lurker on the AN page, I think I can safely say that sexism is not an issue, since gender is mostly not evident in a username. Some of the most revered members on Wikipedia are women. I think people are taken back by your opinions, as you stated on your user page that you are prone to expressing them as you wish. --Moni3 (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The most ironic part of this controversy is that there is no such thing as an "Irish race" or an "Italian race." There are no human races. The only way such people differ is in culture. Even people from lands as distant as Africa are almost identical genetically to people from Ireland. Humans are far more similar to each other genetically than other animals. What a idiotic barnstar! And her comment that somehow an Italian should feel guilty for the actions of his ancestors is also ridiculous and offensive. Even though I am also of "Celtic" ancestry I find such chauvinism deeply offensive to my humanity. No one, regardless of their surname, deserves to be addressed in such a manner.--Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well put, Hello I'm New Here. DuncanHill (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Duncan. :) --Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as there's no such thing as race, how can I be called a racist? You just walked into that one with your eyes wide open. Also, I AM MARRIED TO AN ITALIAN, TWO OF MY CHILDREN ARE ITALIAN, I DID NOT PUT THE CELTIC CROSS ON MY TALK PAGE I AM NOT A RACIST. Now can we call an end to this pathetic farce of an Inquisition?!!It really has become, like, totally BORING, so if you'll excuse me I'd like to take a jaunt over to YouTube and have a wee listen to The Undertones, Cockney Rebel and Lene Lovich, so I can really be entertained. CIAO.jeanne (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You are not a racist, yet you express appreciation of a "barnstar of racial purity". You are not a racist, yet you only want to see "Irish faces" when in Dublin. You are not a racist, yet you base an apology on an editors "Celtic blood". Bollocks. DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop taunting each other, both of you. This is unseemly and against our policies to assume good faith and behave in a civil and adult manner towards one another. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Beware of new Grawp tricks

Grawp's most common IP range is under a hard block. He has figured out a new trick to get the block modified so he can vandalize.

He makes rapid vandal edits to the IP talk page (which is the only page he can edit while hard blocked, [11]). Some unsuspecting admin blocks the IP for "vandalism" anon-only and ACB. However, single IP blocks override hard blocks, so this now allows him to edit from that IP using previously registered sleeper accounts.

When dealing with IP vandalism from the Grawp range (mostly 71.107.x.x and 71.108.x.x) check for rangeblocks first using the rangeblock finder on the IP talk page, and then protect the IP user and talk page if necessary, or hard-block the IP, but do not soft-block the IP. Thatcher 11:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Enlightening. Thanks. Rudget (logs) 14:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not fix it so a single block doesn't override the rangeblock? Jtrainor (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Jtrainor. Isn't this a bug that should be fixed? Or has it already been filed at Bugzilla? hbdragon88 (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's deliberate, so that if there's a "good" IP caught in a rangeblock, it can be unblocked. What we should do is have a bot or someone with AWB drop a note on all the talk pages there, with a summary of Grawp's new trick. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: what about an option in the block form that disables the ability to unblock an individual IP when setting a rangeblock? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That bot/AWB idea of Nwwaew's is a good one. It should be on the userpage, though, not the talk page (or both), as I would imagine the first thing that would go woul dbe that notice. Neıl 龱 19:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it be simpler to include Grawp's ip range as part of the "sensitive ip addresses" notice on the block form page, with a note to hard block ip's rather than soft block. I admit I don't pay as much attention as I did to that template, but it would be of assistance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, other vandals are also creating sock accounts for Grawp. I caught JtV doing it yesterday. If certain vandals persist in that and wish to make a career of it, they also risk rangeblocks (yeah, even on telecomitalia.it) - Alison ^❤ 19:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I ran into that yesterday and wondered what was up with that. I protected the page, but didn't issue a block. Another admin did. Anyways, it would be nice if the block screen would give a warning that a range block is in effect for a particular IP. The rangeblock finder is easy enough to use, but it's yet another step that I would have to remember to use. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconding and emphasizing the above comment, “…it would be nice if the block screen would give a warning that a range block is in effect for a particular IP.” —Travis^talk 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thirding. Has anyone proposed that anywhere? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have opened bugzilla:14634 requesting currently active range blocks be listed on Special:BlockIP, all inerested parties should feel free to add appropriate comments. The ball is now in the developer's court to determine if it is practical to add this enhancement. --Allen3 ^talk 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... you guys should know about 76.172.178.99 which was editing mainspace freely without receiving any prior block to mine, I don't think that this one was using that particular trick. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that's Grawp. Enigma ^message 06:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Doppelgängers aren't of much help either, but I don't think that by a matter of chance this user appeared today a few hours after a series of Grawp moves. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, that's pretty clever. Sad that someone wastes what is probably a gifted mind on vandalizing Wikipedia. After looking again at the conversation above, I agree that the block page should prompt somehow or have a notice that the IP is already blocked via rangeblock. That would effectively solve the problem, as I doubt admins would block anon only if it's already part of a hard rangeblock. Enigma ^message 06:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also suggest lobbying whoever takes over Huggle (currently User:Fritzpoll) to disable the "automatically block repeat vandals for 24 hours" feature. I personally don't think this should ever have been an option - at the very least it should force you to read the IP's talkpage to see if they're explained why their edits weren't vandalism - but at present it's possible for a user to go through warnings 1-4 and be blocked without anyone ever seeing either the talkpage or the BlockIP screen. – iridescent 17:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations

...is backlogged again; some of the entries are a week old. All users are welcome to help out. shoy 13:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Doing what I can to help out, but more eyes would really be great. GlassCobra 23:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Please do not make backlog requests on this page. As the template at the top of this page points out, the proper procedure is to add an {{adminbacklog}} template to any area that is backlogged and requires administrative attention. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've cleared it out, waiting on an admin to come through and process all the CSDs. bornhj ^(talk) 13:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What is notable and what isn't notable

Although I have been on wikipedia for a while now, I am getting rather confused about what meets the notability requirements. A number of English football (soccer) clubs (such as Garstang F.C. have been put forward for AfD, however, the reasoning for their deletion is not based on any policy but on what are descibed as "generally accepted notabilia requirements for English clubs" which apparently are agreed on the WP:FOOTY project but no-one seems to know where it was originally agreed. I am sure all these clubs will end up being deleted as that just seems to be what happens, but there just seems to be a lot of ambiguity over what is and what is not notable. And some well written and well sourced articles are being deleted. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The article says that this club is this club plays in a league that is at the 11th level of the English football league system or "football pyramid". You should ask on WP:FOOTY at what minimum level an english club needs to be play on to be notable. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves me, clubs in the top seven tiers are considered inherently notable. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 01:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy of clubs from the top 10 levels was originally on WP:CORP, but was unilaterally removed in this edit. However, it has remained as a well-estbalished consensus since amongst WP:FOOTY members as shown in this discussion in March 2007, and in all the previous AfDs mentioned in the Garstang one. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've stayed away from football aside from Norwich City for the last year or so, but in my day it was always "top 10 tiers of the pyramid or fully professional" as the criteria (that "fully professional" bit was to let AFC Wimbledon stay, I believe). I don't see any reason to change that. – iridescent 00:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem with The Martin Luther King jr. page

One of the users, Malik Shabazz, has tried to block some of my accurate edits about MLK's ties to some people who were investigated by the FBI for ties to Communism. I hate to say it, but the user is violating the neutral point of view and good faith policies. I am only trying to say how Myles Horton was never proven to be a Communist, and the user continues to block my edits. While I respect this user's want to reduce hate, unfortunately Jared Taylor, the editor of the white nationalist newspaper American Renaissance, has tried to label Wikipedia as "propaganda" of black nationalism in one of his articles yesterday. If we do not include more facts about MLK's ties to alleged Communists, we may very well expand the White Pride movement. Me, I hate racism. Thank you.Kevin j (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Though this doesn't reflect on the reverting, I don't concern myself one whit with what the White Pride movement views the world, no more than I would the Flat Earth Society. Were I motivated to do anything by the White Pride movement, I would be very concerned about my sense of reality and self. --Moni3 (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Kevin j is adding original research. His source barely mentions Dr. King and doesn't mention the SCLC or its critics at all, but he has spun it a lengthy sentence about how critics tried to discredit the SCLC by its association with the Highlander Folk School (the subject of his source). — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the source says "On the 25th anniversary of the Highland Workshops in 1957, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the featured speaker." Kevin j has written "Critics of King's organization [the SCLC] tried to tie him with Communism through a speech he gave at Highlander Folk School in 1957; the school's head, Myles Horton, had been investigated by the FBI at the time for allegedly being a Communist, but had repeatedly denied being a supporter of the Communist Party and was never convicted of the charge." Trying to write about critics of King or the SCLC based on a source that only mentions that a speech by Dr. King is WP:OR. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Having spent ten minutes looking at the diffs, I tend to support Malik Shabazz's take. Kevin j appears to be adding unsourced information, MS appears to be checking the sources and reverting, Kevin j has decided to forum shop to AN. Per Mon 13, Kevin j's arguments (that we should change our article because of the possible opinion of that article held by a repulsive group of losers) is not very compelling. I respectfully suggest Kevin j should slow down and consider very carefully what he is about. Meanwhile, there's nothing to see here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr Tagishsimon, you are wrong. The ADL has stated recently that the number of internet activity has increased among white pride groups.Kevin j (talk)

Which does not amount to an argument for adding unsourced assertions into articles, does it? Nor does the increase of internet activity mean that the information you were trying to add was either appropriate or required, even were it sourced. There is, in short, no connection whatsoever between the internet habits of so-called white pride groups, and your editing of the article, except in your head. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, YOU ARE MISTAKEN. You are not seeing things from a neutral perspective sir. YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ MY SOURCE-WHICH YES, I DID INCLUDE- AND ARE JUST BELIEVING ANOTHER PERSON'S OPINION.Kevin j (talk)

Hmmm, ALL CAPS. Not exactly the best method of getting everyone to take you seriously. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick browse of the OR edits Kevin J made to the MLK article, and some other recent edits make his claim that his edits are somehow motivated by a concern about expansion of the White Pride movement a bit tenuous. If anything, they seem the opposite, including adding info to Brown v. Board of Education he originally gleaned from that great anti-racist crusader Lew Rockwell. In any case, editing that is guided by concern abuot the White moron movement one way or another is a no-no. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's see a little AGF here, folks. I'm inclined to suspect the possibility that a well-intentioned, young and naive (and not highly literate) editor may be the problem, rather than any covert racist agenda. I could, of course, be wrong. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed...the editor might very well be simply well-intentioned, young and naive (and not highly literate). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Gaming the system

Resolved

 – General vandalism by an IP. Suggested that the user tag any further removal of the agreed upon image as vandalism.

I'm having a problem on the Solar energy page with an IP user. This user has insisted on a lead graphic which I and many others have objections to. I tried an RfC to work out a resolution back in Nov-Dec and despite a 6 to 1 vote to remove this picture it keeps coming back. Why should something this simple be such a big problem? The issue bogged down the GA process and it looks like it's going to kill the fledgling FAC process. I think if there were other regular editors on the page this IP would go away but it's basically just me and periodically Itsmejudith. I've brought it up here twice before with no response. I'd love some help. Mrshaba (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I restored the image. I worded the summary wrong. But I suggested you all go to the talk page and discuss changing the image. I will warn the user for Edit Warring. Rgoodermote  00:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that. We've discussed things extensively: Rfc Pictures, Images (note: Apteva is a sock the IP uses), Picture change, Image selection. Others have had issues with the picture here. It ticks me off that someone could carry on so long against so many different people. Mrshaba (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If the IP continues just label the image removal vandalism. Because it is clear that the image is agreed upon.Rgoodermote  00:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh my... Thank you so much. Mrshaba (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is far from being resolved. Mrshaba is an SPA with a possible COI who is simply blocking content from appearing on the page. Apteva (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The above is the IP. I would say sock but I haven't seen others. Also, we resolved this on your IP's talk page. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  06:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved. And no, not a sock. A long term editor who rarely uses a username. Have asked for mediation, but see no hope of resolution, short of chastising Mrshaba. Apteva (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hadn't called you a sock, but sorry if I made you feel like I did. Anyways, to resolve this you shouldn't be annoying the user. You should first all find an agreed upon resolution. You already have my suggestion and I feel that is the best. I also believe you two should sit down and talk it out peacefully. You are both near the realms of incivility and have both of you have been in an edit war. I am hoping nobody blocks you two and they will not if you agree to just talk it out and listen to each other. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  06:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Need a second opinion

I don't know if I am in the right place, so I apologize up front for that. I am a new contributor here, and I thought I was making good decent edits. But, I feel like I got a back handed accusal of Conflict of Interest sneaked in with a Welcome, which I felt to be patronizing for the real warning. Can someone take a look at 1) my edits; 2) the history of my talk page (I deleted the "Welcome-COI" note); and 3) the message I left on my user page, and tell me what I have done wrong? If things aren't right just tell me and/or block me. Best O Fortuna (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're a new contributor, deleting warnings from your Talk page so early in your career is not advisable. User:Herbythyme tends to have good judgment about external links, and you could probably have a conversation with him as to what links might be included per our Wikipedia:External links policy. The COI warning is routinely given when it appears possible that a new contributor might have promotional intent. Your addition of links, combined with your user name which suggests you might have an interest in an organization based in Fortuna, may be what gave rise to that. Having a sensible conversation with Herby would be a way to dispel that impression. Using the word 'vandalism' in edit summaries when removing removing a good-faith edit by an experienced contributor is not likely to win friends or influence people. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I got the warning BEFORE I added any "External links", other than as references. I had not added a link to the "External links" section. The "History" section did not have any references before I added some. The person should have looked at the additions, not just because they were links, but how and why they were used, before slipping in a warning under a "Welcome" banner. I think it was cheap, and discourages me and possibly other new users. So, tell me what I did that was wrong? This beating around the bush, or hinting, double-speak, isn't sitting well with me. Best O Fortuna (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay: you've asked for a second opinion. Here it is, square on the nose. Are you ready? Having looked at your edits, as well as the timing of the COI message, I can find nothing wrong with your actions, and on the contrary, in the time dedicated to looking at your work, I judge it to be of higher than normal quality. My view: Herby was a way too quick off the mark with the COI. Hope that helps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So, I guess I will take that as it is safe to go back in the water? I don't see any fins, but I didn't see any before either. I just want you guys to actually look at the edits before handing out COIs and the like. I am guessing that some good quality contributors have been lost like this. Less good editors mean more bad ones as a percentage. Please let your fellow warning distributors know. Best O Fortuna (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right about lost contributions due to overzealous RC patrollers; there are lots of people here who are more concerned about following to the letter guidelines and general statements like "We shouldn't have too many external links because some of them might be bad" than producing a relevantly-hyperlinked encyclopedia article. There's nothing wrong with what you were doing. While I'm not condoning the actions of Herby, you have to understand that we get a lot of linkspam, and not everyone who watches contributions always assumes good faith and tries to reason it out with the other editor before engaging in edit wars; while it isn't a good thing, obviously, it happens. Just live with it, don't feed the trolls, and keep on improving the project. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

But it is probably worth reiterating that poor innocent Best O Fortuna had not touched the external links section, fullstop.. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I apologised to the user without hesitation for any offence caused. However I also pointed out that the template clearly says may have a connection. Equally my edit was reverted by the user as "vandalism". --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Potential ban evasion?

Resolved

I'm not really sure how to proceed with this one, so I'm just posting about it here. Artaxiadisaloser (talk · contribs), a new account, just made this somewhat inflammatory post on a talk page. The comment mentions the banned user Artaxiad, so I'm wondering if this new user is somehow involved with whatever issues went down with that. This doesn't really strike me as a WP:UAA, but I thought I'd bring it to someone's attention. *shrug* — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Banned as an obvious sock. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, its the liberal elite!

Resolved

 – Not an admin issue. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

These are just some for the "articles" (they are mostly stubs) I have found on anti-liberal/left wing slogans.

• Hollywood Left
• Liberal elite
• Champagne socialist
• East Coast liberal
• Gauche caviar
• Limousine liberal
• San Francisco values
• Chardonnay socialist
• Massachusetts liberal
• Chattering classes

Could all these be merged together under the title of Anti-liberal hate speech or something. Some if these are so absurd. While I am a proud "Latté Liberal", this is a little OTT. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 04:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what talk pages are for. Naerii 04:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And added to that, Champagne socialist doesn't even mention liberals, and unless you can find an abundance of sources to the contrary, "Anti-liberal hate speech" is more than a little POV. Naerii

Yes, but lets be honest, there are so many articles it would take months to get a consensus on every talk page, ive never been involved in multiple mergers. They are all ment to mean the same basic thing. Thus hopefully an admin could help me? — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 05:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Slap {{mergeto|target}} on all pages and pick a talk page. — _Maggot^Syn 05:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, they should probably be merged to liberal elite. I will give it a go. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 05:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's Pinot noir socialist, if you have any real taste in wines. And Napa Valley is far too crass and commercial. Come, dear. Let's brush the dust off the leather seats in the Range Rover and do some tastings along the Russian River. And bring the Sierra Club manual so we can choose a good stroll; did you get the Bose stereo fixed like I asked? ;) Durova^Charge! 11:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

image renaming

Resolved

 – Someone deleted. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This file has a duplicate in the wikicommons, and I would appreciate if an administrator could rename it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Circumcision_by_Country.png

The newer version in the commons is a better version of the map to illustrate worldwide circumcision rates. Thanks Revasser (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to just delete the local version? Kevin (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The version on Commons contains this exact copy in it's history, so I would think it would be safe to use WP:CSD#I8. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the original version being deleted - but I'm not sure how to go about that. If you administrators could do so, that would be perfect. Revasser (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(I'm not an admin but) Certainly, though just to let you know, you can tag certain images and pages that meet the criteria for speedy deletion with one of the templates described on that page. Just add the template and reason to the image description page directly. This specific situation seems to pass WP:CSD#I8. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Done - now we wait. Thanks a lot for your help. :) Revasser (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Doing away with Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall

I have asked here - Wikipedia_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall#Is_it_time_to_can_this_page_and_process.3F - whether it is worthwhile continuing with this process. Is it fair that some admins are on it and others aren't, and also, what can be accomplished here that cannot with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct or arbitration? Anyway...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems backlog

I've been whittling at it for a couple of days now (finished off or consolidated 8 days today (in a measly 5 hours. Am I crazy, or what?), but there are currently 20 days worth of backlog here. When it was tagged "backlogged", on May 18, there were only 12 days backlogged. I'm thinking the tag isn't resolving the problem at the moment. Assistance would be most appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll direct some of my energy on CV. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Comic Book Bin

While The Comic Book Bin may or may not be notable, in its own right, in light of this all the assorted permutations of the name probably warrant some close watching. (This has also been mentioned on WR, so some assorted characters may also try to join the fun...) – iridescent 16:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Should I bother adding a comment to the article (on their website, not Wikipedia) telling them they're wasting their time? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No. WP:COI does not ban people from writing about themselves, despite what so many users think, and there's some chance that a viable article could come out of this. Besides, if you refresh that post you'll notice that they now have Kohs warning them, and for all his faults I don't think anyone would doubt that he (ahem) understands the COI policy here better than most. – iridescent 17:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, just wondered. I hadn't seen that other guy's comment. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

Resolved

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has (at the time I wrote this) 77 pages (not counting images) waiting for review. I marked one of them as patrolled nearly two hours ago. Just wanted to let you know... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Something odd is going on there...Aldeberan, Epsilon Eridani, Tau Boötis, and Upsilon Andromedae (all notable stars) are listed, but none of them have the CSD tag, nor does it appear that they have had it over the course of their last 100 edits. Anyone have an idea what's going on at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion? Horologium (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably one of the templates which is 'up' for deletion, which is transcluded onto those particular pages. Rudget (logs) 17:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

They all transcluded Template:Sciencearticles – iridescent 17:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an old unused template, now deleted. Purge C:CSD, the star articles should be removed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Can a proposal be made by an opponent to gauge the sense of the community?

• Is it proper etiquette to suggest actions for discussion, eg for articles to merge, when you tend to disagree with the suggestion but are unsure what consensus will be? If I get around to it I'm going to contribute the determination here to the "Wikipedia:Etiquette" page.

Argument in favor. Where there's recurring suggestion (eg in the case at hand) that an action such as a merge should be taken, some participants feel frustrated and simply want to know if the suggestion should be taken or not so that they can be contributing on an article in its proper placement or form. This leads them, though they disagree with the action, to formally propose it themselves to get a sense of the community and move on.

How I understand the argument against. A person proposing an action he or she is against is making a strategic action that forces (similar to a Zugzwang in chess) opponents' hand to have to explain their rationale, giving advantage to the proposer, which is rude and results in unnecessary bias; ie when other contributors continue to suggest some action but don't initiate its formal resolution----just ignore them.

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Following the questioned procedure has been termed by a user as disruptive, hence posting the issue here and requesting administrative input. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposals for administrative actions which are not per se supported by nominating editor are both appropriate and commonplace. As long as a proposal is phrased neutrally, perhaps including the general sense of informal arguments made in favor of a nominated action, it is completely irrelevant whether an editor "in their heart of hearts" initially endorses the action.

Obviously, as with most any action on WP, there are cases of abuse. A "push poll" that disparages or negatively insinuates about a proposed action is a misuse of process. I have seen those, but the merge proposal that prompted this inquiry was nothing along those lines. LotLE×talk 18:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would term it disruptive, but I struggle to understand how it would be an act of good faith to propose & presumably mount an argument for an action that you think should not be taken. Surely in all circumstances in which it is possible to do that, it is possible to do the opposite: for instance, on a talk page, to open a discussion, for example, merge thoughts in which you might state that you believe it's reasonable to discuss a possible merge, but set out arguments against it ... rather than propose the merge merely to precipitate the discussion. If discussion of an action is likely enough that you'd think it worth mounting a Zugzwang, the harm you'd occasion is to mislead others about your own preferences and about the extent to which the proposal has support. And that being the case, it sounds a rather hazardous undertaking.

It's worth noting that IINAA, I merely lurk here. I'm sure you appreciate etiquette questions are for the whole community not merely admins, just as I appreciate that asking admins is a reasonable shortcut to better informed input. I leave it to you to decide whether the outcome of this discussion is something that should be added to WP:Etiquette ... but if it is, then it should properly be discussed there and not here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have frequently seen good-faith AfD nominations by editors who do not necessarily support the deletion. Normally these arise from suggestions on talk pages that a given article should be deleted, but where the editors making that suggestion do not do the nomination (for whatever reason). In such cases, an editor generally supportive of the article existing puts the article on AfD as a "sanity check" to gauge opinion of previously uninvolved editors. In such cases, it's probably best practice for the nominating editor to skip voting him/herself (but even that seems borderline). The point is that all the additional editors are perfectly well able to use their own judgment about the notability, etc. of the article so nominated. All of this seems good, proper, and helpful. A merge proposal is essentially identical to an AfD (in fact, AfD's often result in "merge" consensus). LotLE×talk 19:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would depend entirely on the circumstances, and the form of the proposal. I would say that these things have a way of unfolding on their own, and an attempt to "force someone's hand" doesn't seem especially constructive. Rather than contributing directly to Wikipedia:Etiquette, it would be better to bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Etiquette. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

[ec] Lulu, I thought I'd wait for more uninvolved people to comment on this, rather than having it as a continuation of our conversation on Talk: Lolo Soetoro#Merge proposal - I assume that was the reason that Justmeherenow brought it here (although I agree that maybe Wikipedia talk: Etiquette is a better place), and you and I have already stated our opinions on the Soetoro talk page. But since you are commenting here on this I guess I will too. (I would like to hear from more uninvolveds though.) My opinion is that making a proposal when you oppose it is inherently unfair to the proposal because you are not the best person to make the arguments in favor of it, or respond to other people's comments and defend the proposal. Supporters may or may not be available or think the article is at the right place in the process to make a merge or delete nomination themselves, and they may not be ready or able to participate in discussion at that time - when they are ready to make a proposal, they do so, and in any nom that is disputed they take the role of defending the proposal, sometimes vigorously. I think an opposer making the proposal is something akin to gaming to force their hand. My observation here has been that merge and delete noms are generally, if not always, made by supporters of the proposal, when they think it is the right time to do so, and they defend it, discuss it, hopefully reach consensus on it which sometimes includes their changing their own minds about their support. As Tagishsimon said above, part of making a nomination involves mounting an argument in favor of it; it's asking for an awful lot of good faith for an opposer to sustain an argument in favor of something he or she actually opposes. I suppose that an uninvolved, neutral person might be willing to take on the support role (that was not the case in the specific nom that precipitated this AN discussion), but I don't think I've seen even that and I don't think that is particularly fair to the proposal either. And I'm not talking about the technicality of who initiates the proposal - I'm talking about mounting a defense for a position: if a neutral party makes a proposal in order to move things along and a supporter is willing/able to come in and take over the support role, then I likely wouldn't have a problem with it, although would still question the timing if it is an opposer who does so. As for my referring to this in the Lolo (and Maya) Soetoro proposals as "disruptive", I'm not assigning motives or citing policy breaches (because I haven't looked for any policy/guideline on this), but they were not the action of a neutral party, and I think they were improper; they are disruptive, in my view, because they take attention away from the editing of the article. Tvoz/talk 21:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, I have great regard for you as an editor, and agree, non-Loloites (see Lolo Soetoro) are the best to comment here. But Justmeherenow invited me, so here, again, are my two cents. If any user is suggesting a major change to an article, I don't see why it matters who formalizes that request. From the Lolo discussion, the request was to merge that article with other Obama family members. I oppossed this request, however, since one user kept suggesting it, it seemed like it was worth getting further input from the broader wiki community. Therefore I added a reference request to the main merger page to get broader input over at Lolo. I later removed that request when it was clear nobody at Lolo favored a merge at this time, including the user who kept referring to it.

How is someone in favor of something inherently more objective than someone oppossed? If an issue is hanging then why not promote the discussion to get more input and encourage a consensus? That seemed to be what Justmeherenow was doing. There you have it, the wisdom of the wiki world from me. ; ) --Utahredrock (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said, for a change. I don't think someone in favor of something is inherently more objective, I think that someone in favor of a proposal is more likely to give a convincing defense of it and someone opposed is more likely to give a convincing argument against it. WHat's confusing about that? This is not unique to Wikipedia, it's a true point overall. In debate club one is supposed to effectively argue any side of an argument, but this isn't debate club. Tvoz/talk 04:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Still highly confused here. How/why is a proponent of an action uniquely qualifed to propose a debate/discussion? This is completely illogical. Anyone on either side of an issue is clearly equally qualified to raise the issue. Some really smart people can equally argue both sides.--Utahredrock (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus isn't voting, but by analogy: if you want one guy to win, don't vote for the other guy.

In the same way, when trying to form a consensus, always state/argue/open discussion on the thing you do want, lest you convince everyone to do the thing you don't want. ;-)

And try to avoid proposing things. Typically it's a waste of time, since there's a "revert button". Either do, or do not. If everyone else really hates the idea, they can just revert you. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Not following that. Consensus is reached after discussion (hopefully), and one of the best tools to make a decision is to have a vote--though I suppose it's also true to say that "consensus isn't voting." Not following the rest of your comments very easily.--Utahredrock (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Utahredrock - votes are discouraged as they don't lead to consensus, which means compromise. They separate into two groups and the "losers" just have to eat it. That's not consensus. Kim is saying that arguing the other guy's position is dangerous to your own because the other guy might "win" - I agree, but also think it is unfair. Tvoz/talk 04:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yin and yang: the political power of a mastery of deference and anticipating others' concerns, in a creative tension against an absolute need for boldness if anything's ever to get accomplished.

"It's simple: - Remain neutral - Don't be a dick - Ignore all rules."---- (Anonymous epigraph featured on Kim Bruning's homepage)

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Aren't votes combined with discussion the normal method of handling disputes on Wikipedia? I've seen that repeatedly in the Wiki-kingdom.--Utahredrock (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I recall that – once upon a time – WP:POINT contained a specific admonishment to the effect of 'don't propose doing something if you don't want it done'. While there are no doubt occasional exceptions to that principle, it is a good rule of thumb. Putting forth a proposal for something that you don't want is abusing the assumption by other editors that you are contributing in good faith. Wikipedia isn't a battleground, election, or chess tournament, and pretending to hold opinions as part of some sort of strategic feint or debating tactic is frowned upon.

If there is a genuine issue in question, misrepresenting yourself as a proponent of the 'other side' opens up the chance for all kinds of misbehaviour—deliberate or not. Dirty tricks may include damning by faint praise (clumsy or incomplete presentation of the other side's arguments), becoming a 'convert' brought over to a 'new' way of seeing things, and using straw man arguments (misrepresenting the 'other side' to a lesser or greater extent so as to make it less appealing). I've seen all three, done with varying amounts of good (and bad) faith.

In the particular case I really don't want to troll through the whole history of the article, but it looks like Justmeherenow added a {merge} tag to Lolo Soetoro and then went to the talk page and left a request for comments ([12]) without further explanation of why a merge would be either worthwhile or detrimental. A couple of hours later he went and opposed his own merge proposal ([13]). A while later, when another editor pointed out to Justmeherenow that his actions might be construed as fixing the debate (my characterization), he deleted his 'oppose' and comment with the statement that he had 'decided to stay officially neutral'.

Justmeherenow, you can't declare that sort of thing after the fact—you can't have back the cloak of neutrality simply because you decided to try to stuff the cat back in the bag. By deleting your comment you misrepresented yourself to every genuinely neutral editor who might subsequently look at the merge proposal. A third party coming to the page from Wikipedia:Proposed mergers would see only a proposed merge without any arguments in favour.

What I see here is an effort by an editor opposed to a potential merger of the article trying to dynamite any future possibility of such a merge. His intentions were good, but his methods were not. Looking through the talk page, it appears that Tvoz had occasionally suggested that a merger would be an appropriate eventual course, but Tvoz never acted on that. It's also clear that Tvoz is aware that such a merger would be opposed, and it seems unlikely that he would proceed with a merge without discussion. (Even if Tvoz did try it, it seems probable that the merge would be reverted and a discussion begun.)

There was no urgent need to have a merge debate right this instant, and there was no reason why Justmeherenow could not have asked Tvoz to present any merge proposal at an appropriate time. As it stands right now, I would be concerned that editors in the future might erroneously rely on this tainted and flawed debate to conclude that the merge issue had been settled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, That's a long-winded way to say Justmeherenow acted in bad faith. I disagree. A user was repeatedly suggesting a merge. Why not ask for other input on the idea? To assume a proposal for discussing the topic is bad faith is itself bad faith. This whole discussion is pretty ridiculous, but kind of fun too--in that weird wiki way.--Utahredrock (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Board elections results announced

See meta:Board elections/2008/Results/en. Perhaps a watchlist notice might be in order? Naerii 18:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations are in order for m:User:Wing - Well done sir! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and good luck Wing. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats to Wing. I don't know 'bout no watchlist notice though. Really? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to Wing from me. Regarding the watchlist notice, there's an announcement of the results at the top-central part of the screen, so I don't think a watchlist notice is really needed. Acalamari 21:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mission SF Federal Credit Union

After I placed the speedy deletion tag on the article, the article's creator deleted the tag. Went to the user's talk page...apparently the article had been tagged before. Your thoughts??? Willking1979 (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted again. Kevin (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And again; I salted it this time. Horologium (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock opinions

OnTheMantle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made an extremely troubling edit here, which I indef blocked him/her for. At a glance, this editor appears to be a good faith contributor other than this incident, and my assumption was that the account had been compromised. It doesn't appear to have been compromised after all, but the user appears remorseful and has requested an unblock. I'm willing to accept that this was a momentary lapse in judgment, and I'm thinking of reducing it to something like three days, and an apology to Persian Poet Gal. Is this too lenient, or does it sound about right? --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the above edit is deleted, here is a link to it. I would be against unblocking. That is completely unacceptable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the edit but I thought it would be worth pointing out that OnTheMantle has explained what happened. ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 05:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and all, I'd vote for an unblock for a second chance, but I'll stay out of this for now. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a line in AGF...How can you possibly assume that the editor had good intentions with that edit? - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think since it was a direct attack again Persian Poet Gal she should choose whether to unblock. Also they should have to complete a {{2nd chance}} --Chris 14:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

4chan...it figures. That edit is awful, but 4chan is not known for mature and rational individuals. I'm inclined to unblock him, but any further inappropriate edits should result in an indef-block. As Chris G has suggested, I'd like for Persian Poet Gal to weigh in here. Horologium (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk page question

Hello... just wanted to double-check something regarding appropriate use of user talk pages, as I can't find anything in the regular guides. I've got a new user (User:Dumpster muffin) who is repeated blanking his/her talk page (their prerogative, of course) and replacing it with multiple copies of a very high resolution image. This of course results in multiple large files loading when one goes to that page, which (for all intents and purposes) renders the page non-functional. Use of the image appears legit, as it is a US government "public domain" file from Commons. However, I'm on the verge of blocking the guy because he keeps restoring the page. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like image vandalism to me. Granted it's not in the article space. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd want to say WP:DICK applies, but basically, it's just disruptive and a preventative block seems appropriate. If he's really nuts about it, his talk page will have to protected. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There was an interesting discussion on m:Talk:Don't be a dick about what constitutes being a dick. I reckon this meets the bill. Blocking won't stop them being a dick on their talk page, but protecting it will. giggy _(:O) 09:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, being a dick shouldn't be the sole reason for blocks (it'd be much quieter around these parts then), but protecting would make it so that basically no one but admins could use the talk page. That's still not useful. A block to stop them from continuing to do it is the key. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I know - the dick stuff was more philosophical than relevant. Block them, and if they keep going, protect the page. giggy _(:O) 11:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. The guy seems to have stopped for now, I'm assuming because WBOSITG also removed the images. (Strength in numbers...) Might be worth a mention somewhere as part of what is (and isn't) considered appropriate on talk pages. Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Kainaw

Could someone please block this user?! He is being a problem to me. He hates me for no reason. He thinks I don't want to listen to anyone, which is a BLATANT LIE. And as you can see on his talk page, he threatened to have me blocked. It's only fair that he gets blocked for some time. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 09:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Notified him. You are seriously going to claim he has "no reason" when you say "I have responded in your stupid little discussion", complain to WP:ANI with much worse stuff ("Would people stop fucking (sorry about the langauge) asking that question!"), get ignored, and then come here to complain once it's archived? Give me a reason why I shouldn't just close this thread and warn you to leave it alone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus WP:AIV forum shopping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition (what the hell), I see from this discussion on your talk page and at the Reference desk talk page, that you are being disruptive at the Reference desk as well. Stop accusing other users of being uncivil when you simply tell you not to do things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No input?

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive437#Where_do_I_go_next.3F

So there's nothing I can do about this? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 10:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Typically, follow the warning levels and report to WP:AIV. Is this a slow edit war or something that doesn't really fit there? Saying "repeatedly" doesn't help as much as diffs would. I can't tell from the other edits what's going on (that whole Warhammer 40,000 is WAY too in-universe if someone who knows a bit has no clue what's being argued). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI could be the right venue too. Supply diffs next time, that may be why you got no response, admins are busy and generally won't hunt for evidence, you need to provide it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my error - I thought I had placed this on WP:ANI - it was only when I looked at my contribs I released it was on the wrong admin page. Please mark as resolved or remove, as applicable. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 12:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect pages being tagged as uncategorised

A fair few redirect pages have been tagged as uncategorised by User 91.198.174.201 and User SoxBot VII - whether they're the same, I don't know. Is there a problem somewhere in the code ? CultureDrone (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ignore this - I see this issue has been covered at WP:ANI CultureDrone (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation errors

Has anyone else noticed an increase in the number of "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem" errors recently ? Normally, I can edit without seeing any, but today I must have had at least a dozen....the error itself is shown as "Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cable_barrier&action=submit, from 91.198.174.37 via sq23.wikimedia.org (squid/2.6.STABLE18) to 10.0.5.3 (10.0.5.3) Error: ERR_ZERO_SIZE_OBJECT, errno [No Error] at Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:32:24 GMT" - is there somewhere I should report this ? CultureDrone (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:VP/T is probably the right place for this. shoy 13:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) CultureDrone (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

More hardware is what is needed. But then, I would say that... I work for a hardware company... and I think it's being looked into. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee announcements

Main page: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements

A large amount of work has been in progress by the Arbitration Committee, in the background, for a considerable time, to look at a number of systemic problems deemed of importance, and possible solutions. These have now been posted up. They include a package of some 10 measures, mostly related to one of three things - things needed so the Committee can do its job without being clogged up; things needed to try and finally address a few of the more serious, systemic and perennial dispute resolution problems that repeatedly waste editor's efforts and time, and a number of clarifications and other matters.

Included in this is an announcement regarding Checkuser access.

It's been a lot of work, and a lot of deep thought. We do not plan to do it often, but we equally believe that if these work we have targetted each of the main problems we are aware of, in a very clear way, rather than "half hearted tinkering at the edges". The long term harm of these is non-trivial.

There will be discussion. I look forward to it. please take time to analyze the announcements as a whole, and read the small print carefully :)

With respect,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee

(Minor note, I will be away much of the rest of today, until Saturday. Please be aware of this if I do not myself reply immediately. There will be many comments, hopefully the pages are mostly self explanatory and most questions will sustain a day or two's delay if needed. It'll be discussed longer than that. It took longer than I thought to finish writing up. It's been some days in the writing. - FT2)

Main page: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements

Index of sub-pages:

• Appeals Review List
• Checkuser appointments
• BLP enforcement guidance
• Consensus seeking processes
• Clarifying the role of the Committee
• Activation of view-deleted-pages
• Skilled content warriors
• Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin

-- Thatcher 15:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC on Arbcom?

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

Per [14] he won't be around for a few months. MBisanz ^talk 18:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for volunteers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AEB1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orangemarlin and other matters

The announcements made today by FT2 (including both the Orangemarlin issue and the various other matters) were posted without the approval or prior knowledge of the Committee as a whole. Further, no formal proceeding, secret or otherwise, has taken place regarding Orangemarlin or any other editor named in that particular statement.

As far as I'm concerned, these announcements have no authority or binding weight whatsoever.

Not on behalf of anyone but myself, Kirill ^(prof) 21:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)