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

IRC admin channel

Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops, with a specific mandate to keep Wikimedia IRC channels polite and courteous. Behavior on the IRC channel may be taken into consideration with respect to arbitration cases if it results in disruption on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder for the Arbitration Committee 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not enough. The worst offenders are themselves chanops, as demonstrated by logs submitted to the ArbCom. IMO, their removal from the channel is the very least the ArbCom needs to do for the abused community and mistreated individuals. (The fact that the chanops in question are not actually admins should make the removal all the simpler.) What I see in Fred's message, however is not even a proposal to remove their chanop privileges. Are you serious? Bishonen | talk 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Indeed. Without some community involvement regarding who the IRC chanops are, this is unlikely to make much difference. I'm not sure who the worked-with "leaders" in Fred's message are; is it a secret? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was a proposal to speak of, where is this being discussed? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid, when arbcom have constantly declined to address rank and obvious incivility on-wiki, they forfeit all credibility in any attempt to extend themselves into IRC. Send out out strong signals that incivility stops on-wiki and perhaps that will filter through to IRC. Until then.....showing teeth isn't going to convince.--Doc^g 02:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's no different to the claim "we have article X which is clearly rubbish, so we cannot delete article Y" often raised by n00bs at AfD. If the Arbcom feel that these relatively simple steps will reduce incivility in IRC, then they should go ahead, not stop because they haven't solved everything on-wiki first. the wub "?!" 02:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. If arbcom have shown a total and continued failure to deal with incivility on-wiki, threatening to come down hard on off-wiki incivility just isn't credible.--Doc^g 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

how often have they been presented with on-wiki incivility to deal with it, though? Considering the issues that the channel has apparently given in past/current cases, it seems like they're simply doing what's asked of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the issue actually being raised here, in full public view, and not in private with the parties concerned though ? There's already enough disruption on-wiki concerning IRC channels (and this channel in particular) and as nobody outwith the sysop pool (and a few selected others, I'm led to believe) can see what goes on in that channel, posting about it here is perhaps a little overly transparent. I heartily support any promotion of civility however. --Kind Regards - Heligoland ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume Fred brought it up here to notify us of a change of policy. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

All this will start is anoth shit-storm (sigh)--Doc^g 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should work to fix incivility on-wiki too. These proposed remedies are more strict than how misconduct has been handled on-wiki as of late. --Cyde Weys 02:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is becoming a joke. Judging from the title of the heading alone shows that we are no different from Legislative Yuan. - Mailer Diablo 02:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I find a regulation of off-wiki activities by a panel with jurisdiction ONLY over this wiki somewhat disturbing. — Werdna talk 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

They aren't claiming jurisdiction, note Fred says they have been working with the IRC leadership. They are simply stating that IRC activity may be considered in on-wiki cases if it is relevant. the wub "?!" 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but why is this being discussed now? Efforts have been made in the past few weeks to put a stop to whatever negative activities are occuring in the channel. Frankly, I think most of us support the shutdown of the channel entirely, rather than creating more mess with the same parties, which is what's happening right now. —Pilotguy (ptt) 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to shut it down. RxS 02:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is shut down or not, the behavior we are trying to stop can easily continue through other means if people really want to do things subtly, but nonetheless I think that shutting the channel down is a poor move. The channel has its uses for immediate issues and things that require administrator intervention. Rooting out the behavior that would not be suitable even on-wiki is definitely a positive step in making the channel more useful so that there is less cause for disruption in the future, though. Cowman109^Talk 02:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but discussing administrator intervention issues there is what started all this in the first place. Sensitive foundation/WP:BIO stuff can find a new home, sometimes it's easier to shut something down and start over then trying to fix ongoing systemic problems. But maybe all it needs is an influx of new users/admins with these conversations in mind. RxS 03:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone point me to the discussion that everyone seems to have read, because I am lost here, what is everyone so pissed off about? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, ignorance is bliss. Just slowly step away and never look back. --Cyde Weys 02:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC comes up from time to time...buried in WP:AN and WP:ANI archives. Some admins are firm believers in it, some editors (mostly non-admins) are vocal against it, and others such as myself qualify to join but decline to do so. The civility aspect dovetails with another recent hot button topic not necessarily confined to IRC. On January 5 I set off a firestorm (quite inadvertently) after I left a civility warning on another admin's talk page. If I'd anticipated how heated some reactions would be I would have handled the situation with greater circumspection, yet the admin I warned wasn't offended and two other editors awarded me barnstars. It sprouted some threads in my most recent user talk archive and the top of my current page if you're curious. Durova^Charge 03:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is not sufficient, in my view. Lest I be counted merely among the "burn it down" camp, let me delineate:
  1. Additional ops would be enough if there were a suggestion that there were too few. In fact, in this case, the ones with "ops" have been implicated several times in the incivility.
  2. Additional ops are also not going to answer the glaring problem that at least two people with "ops" are not administrators on en.wikipedia. One of these was implicated in using that IRC channel inappropriately in September of 2006 and then again in December 2006. This is not a one time problem but a serial problem with two or three people.
  3. The channel still has no justification, as it is populated by non-administrators as well as being a place only a small fraction of en. administrators ever go.
  4. The channel will not be capable of behaving properly unless the people with control of it understand what it is that they have done that is not proper. So far as I have seen or heard, they still are in the dark about how calling for someone to be "killed, slowly" is bad, and there is no hope at all for them to understand how "let's start a pool on when X will be banned" is improper.
  5. The central problem remains undefined. If no one knows what "civility" means, then we're going to have more boots and blocks for someone using a wordy dird while detailed character assassination is cheered on. There is no actual guideline yet for the ops or users to employ for determining when they're acting improperly. In fact, one of the most hostile and reductive and bullying editors I've encountered is up above crying about on-wiki "civility" not being enforced. Obviously, what he means and what Fred means, and what I mean, are different things. He seems to hyperventilate about calling a he a she or a jerk an ass, while I care about trying to get people blocked so that their voices are no longer heard.
• I do think the whole thing should be disbanded, as I cannot see any room for it to help Wikipedia and built in ways for it to damage Wikipedia, but that would be merely philosophical if it weren't for the fact that ArbCom cannot act here and now because the people "in charge" are the people in the dock. They do not admit wrong, cannot conceive that they could be wrong, and will therefore not do anything differently, especially in the long term. If this is merely round two of a three round fight, if we have to wait for yet another horrendous case of star chamber blocks and rallying to destroy users, then that's a disgrace that proves that it's not what you do, but who you know. Incidentally, that is the charge trolls make all the time, and it's disgusting that we would make them right. Geogre 03:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, I think it's apparent that there isn't a definition of civility that everyone agrees on. Your comment above, "a he a she or a jerk an ass," illustrates the problem nicely. You didn't think anything of it, and still don't, but several people regarded it as one of the meanest, nastiest things ever said by one user about another, and the fact that you don't agree does not for one moment diminish the effect that it had. Mackensen (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• And, on the other hand, many people see absolutely nothing wrong with spending hours talking about users who aren't present and talking about how they're all "idiots" and how they should be banned. They see nothing wrong with it still. So, if we were to balance out the two, where would we be: one person saying, of another who says frequently that she is pleased to be able to identify either way, one particular thing about gendered speech, versus three sitting about every night with an enemies list and coordinating provocations, blocks, and actions to generate a ban? You're right, Mackensen, I don't see that there is any comparison at all. One is being disagreeable and the other is trying to interrupt Wikipedia. One is where all sides may defend themselves (or take revenge, which seems to be the preferred reaction), and the other is where only like-voices can be heard as revenge. That you could be such a blushing violet and see these as anything like the same is strange to me, you are correct. Geogre 13:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Geogre, you seem to be taking the same line that Giano is: incivility on the encyclopedia is justified by perceived off-wiki conspiracies. Let's say you're right, just for the sake of the argument: Kelly Martin and other persons are conspiring to drive you and Giano off the encyclopedia. How does that, in any way, justify you making the aforementioned statement? An eye for an eye, Geogre? If I allege an off-wiki conspiracy against me by User X, on flimsy evidence, may I start trash-talking them in public? Mackensen (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• No, Mackensen, I'm trying to illustrate to you the difference between being unpleasant (me) and disliking someone (as I do) and character assassination with the intent of blocking. I am justified in calling you a worm, if I want. That's my opinion, to which I am entitled. I would probably hope that you would be affronted, but I would have no expectation that you'd block for that, as no policy says that anyone may be blocked for expressing an unpleasant opinion. On the other hand, if I spend hours with only my friends in Wikipedia Divine Actions IRC, and we talk non-stop about how horrible Mackensen is, how he lies all the time, how he spends all his time complaining, how he's corrupt, how he's a hypocrit, etc., and then, when new people come in, that's all they see. If they protest, we all take turns telling that person that she should not be at our channel, because she may get blocked. Now, suppose, Mackensen, that you actually saw a log of that. How would you feel if I got sanctimonious about it? How would you feel if I threatened to block you (or did it) for telling anyone about the log? As for me, let them conspire. They've been doing it, and they'll do it still. I'm a big boy and am not threatened by pufferfish. The issue is much more concrete, much more precise. We are all free to be unpleasant, disagreeable, cantankerous, and ill humored, but we are not free to conspire to block other users. Or, in simpler words: we have to obey policy, not our inner rage. Geogre 00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, call me a worm if you like. That's not very collegial but I suppose if it floats your boat I won't argue. I wouldn't block you either, but I might start bringing up next time you ran for arbcom. I don't like civility blocks, and I'm on the record stating this numerous times, so let's move on. For all I know there are IRC channels where my name is mud; certainly there are talk pages on this encyclopedia that fit said description. I can't say that those bother me either. People of sound judgment can tell the difference between intelligent criticism and prattle, and I know whose opinion I value. Now, as it happens, I've been in a position where private evidence of someone bad-mouthing me was presented to me. I didn't do anything about it because frankly I didn't give a good damn. You're quite right that we have to obey policy. Last I looked WP:CIVIL was a policy, although not one with much weight any more. You talk about character assassination: why don't you look down below, where Giano is making slanderous remarks. You wanted to be an arbitator: is this your idea of handling a dispute? Mackensen (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe in ignorance is bliss, that has always seemed like a myth to me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom has discussed this at great length. Clearly there is a problem. However, with an issue this complex, involving this many actors, there is no solution that will please everyone. On one extreme is people who advocate shutting the channel down, and on the other is people who advocate doing nothing. I think the solution Fred mentioned - working with the structures currently in place to enforce civility in the channel - is a fair compromise. Raul654 03:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What structures? Is there any clear methodology for who and who isn't a chanop there? Who are the "leaders" Fred Bauder mentioned? It's a wild-west free-for-all where the most entrenched clique wins in there. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but how can you confess ignorance at the leadership structure and then characterize it? Mackensen (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin IRC? Is that the place where admins rubs their hands saying mwhahaha? -- ReyBrujo 03:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You joke, but I'm left with the impression that some people think just that. That's what happens when you cherry-pick from a log file. Sure, you'll find something objectionable, but extrapolating from that and coming up with the idea that the whole channel is rotten to the core is just bad propaganda. One should never build law on outlier cases or personalities, but we seem to be headed that way. Mackensen (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me point out, specifically, that I acknowledge the existence of specific abuses in the above comment. Mackensen (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never set foot ... err ... keyboard ... in the admin IRC channel. Is it any different from the regular one? On there, people ask for help. They bounce ideas off of each other. They talk about non-wiki things. They point out funny/silly/ludicrous things they've found while editing. Sometimes there's profanity or other rudeness. It's pretty much like life in general. Is the admin channel any different? --BigDT 04:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, except that the people in there discuss administrative actions too. The controversial nature of any admin action is squared if "IRC" is breathed, since it implies a conspiracy. Mackensen (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On the whole, the incidents which have prompted this constitute well under 1% of all traffic. Unfortunately, they also represent between 50%-100% of some users total experience with either this channel, or IRC in general. This is a problem, but I think it's a problem in search of a targeted solution. Mackensen (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, replying to Mackensen at 04:00) Thankfully, my knowledge about IRC is limited to /connect, /join, /alias and /quit, so I am pretty neutral here. Hmm... I once tried to download some movie through a channel, but it said something about being at position 5,000 in a queue, and after half an hour I was 7,000, so I turned the computer off and bought the DVD.

I know IRC is necessary to discuss in real time, but undoubtedly, it creates a separation between administrators, just like Category:Administrators open to recall. There are those that can/want to connect through IRC, and those that can't/won't. It is inevitable. Even I feel that difference when someone reports a user at AIV stating "sockpuppet of blocked XXX", and when reviewing XXX's block, I find a "[Un]blocked per IRC talk" or similar. However, I must assume good faith, especially without logs. Others just can't (because of personal experience or anything), and raise in arms. It is a real pity that we do not have a Special:Irclogs where to check the public conversations in the channels, available only for admins, that would make things much clearer for everyone. -- ReyBrujo 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There's the rub: you don't why an administrator is acting period, regardless of what discussion took place. Even when an administrator cites a specific policy, it still came down to the functioning of various processes in his or her head. There's a thousand IRC channels out there, and most of them prohibit logging. It only comes up with #wikipedia-en-admins because a) some things said there really aren't for public consumption because there are privacy issues, and b) the relative size makes it possible to enforce the rule. Mackensen (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course! However, if an off-wiki action (as in, a IRC chat) brings a on-wiki reaction (in example, blocking a user), I think it would be just to include at least some information about that, just like you would point to the AFD when deleting an article, or the external link when deleting a copyvio. Ok, so full logging is not a solution, but at least consider some way of IRC board where to post the juicy parts (as in, the statements that were used to build consensus about something). We can quote an AFD, a URL or a report, we can even quote a mail to the mailing list, but we can't quote an IRC conversation? As I said, I assume good faith even though a vandal has broken two test4 warnings. However, others are less patient, and you need to comprehend them. I would even say that everyone's priority is to open the process as much as possible. -- ReyBrujo 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I've said before, I see no reason to invoke IRC at all; every administrator is responsible for what they do. Heck, every editor is responsible for every edit they make. Whether it was discussed on IRC or not is frankly beside the point. Anyone should be able to give a rational accounting of their actions. The problem is that the mention of IRC often leads to an assumption of bad faith--not always, but it happens. Mackensen (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not that different from, in example, asking to review a block here, is it? I mean, some users may bring a review here (like #1 month block of 88.104.202.232), others may feel more comfortable with reviewing there. You are right, if you do something, you take responsibility. But if they can't and use some IRC chat as justification, that chat should be made public.

No need to reply, though, we will keep going in circles like the Line Rider avatar :-) -- ReyBrujo 05:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of this seems a bit moot. Even if the admin channel was shut down, it is technically impossible to prevent private communication between any group that decides to communicate privately. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The admin channel also serves as a place a lot of newer admins with questions go to get their questions answered. They hang out there, and see how abusive behavior is tolerated and encouraged. In short order they may come to believe such behavior is the correct and expected behavior for administrators. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point grapes, I went there when I was new at the mop for advice and it was very helpful. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It's a good use for IRC. We don't need an #admins channel for it; were there very many highly-sensitive issues you were asking about, that couldn't have been as easily asked and answered in #wikipedia-en? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you go where the people are. If you have a specific question about administration, you go where the administrators are. I find #wikipedia a bewildering place; I never got the impression that #wikipedia-en was highly patronized. Mackensen (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with private communication, some questions need to be asked in front of experienced users, instead of everyone. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but no reason to not ask a few well regarded administrators privately via email for the same advice or direction. Rarely, is something so immediate that it can't be resolved via email.--MONGO 06:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In camera (aka arbitrary section break)

It's been asked a few times, but I'll ask again: What discussion with whom? Would it not make more sense to have the whole thing conducted "in public" as it were? The easiest questions to answer are:

• Who are the "leadership of the IRC channels," and
• Who has been "appoint[ed as] additional channel ops?"

brenneman 04:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• The channels are under the control of James Forrester. The leadership is best described as James and Essjay, with help from others. The chanops on this channel in question include the following: FloNight, DavidGerard, Sannse, Fennec, Danny, Mackensen, Morven, Mark Ryan, Jimbo, Essjay, Angela, JamesF, Kelly Martin, Uninvited Company, Mindspillage and Dmcdevit. Mackensen (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good questions. Please, don't assume everyone knows what you are talking about, I only have a vague sense of what is going on here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm a bit thick I like it when things are spleed write out: this channel in question is the admin channel? JF is "in charge" of #wikipedia and #whateveritis-admins, and that list are the chanops for #admins? And "include the following" is hazy to me. Sorry to be pedantic, but can we have a complete list of

• Existing/previous chanops for vanilla wikipedia channel,
• Existing/previous chanops for admin channel, and
• Whomever are the "additional" chanops and what channels they are assigned on?

The more I read that response the less feeling of security I get... "with help from others" leaves a lot to be desired as well. Was this discussion conducted via mailing list, IRC, something else, and is it written on water or is there something that Morlocks like me can refer to?
brenneman 04:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, #wikipedia-en-admins is the only channel under consideration here. Latent abuses in other channels remain unexplored pending someone of importance getting wronged in one of them (no, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm quite serious about that). New chanops for #wikipedia-en-admins are: FloNight, David Gerard, Mackensen, Morven, Uninvited Company and Dmcdevit (thereabouts, anyway). JamesF, as I understand it, is controller of at least all English-language channels because of chaos at freenode following Rob Levin's death. There're numerous chanops on #wikipedia, too many to list here. The information is publicly accessible if anyone wants it. This was discussion on the mailing list of the Arbitration Committee, which happens to include the people responsible for the IRC channels. A happy coincidence proving that no good deed goes unpunished. Mackensen (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. I appreciate you having patience while I catch up. No, I'm not being sarcastic. ^_^
  brenneman 06:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Mackensen, a minor point about your list of 16 #en-admins chanops above. You say that the list "includes" these people; does that mean it's incomplete? I ask because a couple of weeks ago I was kickbanned from the channel by somebody who's not on the list. I won't inflame matters here by naming him, but you certainly know who I mean. Was he an op? Or temporarily opped in order to kick me? Is he an op today? I'm over it, but the action was random and remains unexplained, so I think the answers are of some general interest. Bishonen | talk 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

• I omitted all level 10s in the interest of brevity. It was also late and I knew I'd miss somebody. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Bishonen, that was awhile ago now. I think it's best to just get over it and stop constantly bringing it up. IRC channel actions really don't mean a lot. --Cyde Weys 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I have placed a copy of the access list, obtained via ChanServ, in my userspace (User:Bbatsell/IRC) so as not to clutter up AN. I have removed all those under accesslevel 10, which to my recollection is the level of CMDOP in the channel. If anyone objects to this list (although it is freely available in IRC), then I will remove it. The names there are registered nicknames, and may or may not correspond with Wikipedia usernames. —bbatsell ¿? 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am glad to see other syops on the channel will have the ability to boot those that are being incivil, but what level of incivility is needed before this happens? The problem as I see it has less to do with incivility than with the channels being used to speak a bit too openly about other editors...that should be reserved for private email only. I recognize that IRC would have usefulness if the sole purpose was to expedite a block on a troll, but all decisions to make blocks on established editors should be determined by consensus on wiki, not off it....so what pupose does it serve? Really now, are we a chat forum or are we a collection of encyclopedia writers?--MONGO 06:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Chatting vs. Encyclopedia-writing" argument is moot on IRC. IRC is for discussion of all types, and WMF has nothing to do with Freenode. Those who use IRC are not using Wikipedia as a chat forum, they're using IRC as a chat forum, whose initials, by the way, stand for "Internet Relay Chat". —bbatsell ¿? 06:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the chatting has led to blockings and has led to reverting blocks made by established admins and has led to formulating abuses that have taken place on wiki on established editors. I am well aware of what IRC stands for...I never use it however and won't.--MONGO 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it has. But it's very easy to pick out singular events that happen every so often, paint all of IRC with the same brush, and in so doing lose sight of what actually happens the majority of the time, which is positive discussion. I know that I personally have been talked down from blocks that I was ready to make when I asked for second opinions, I know that discussions take place that are very positive. I know that sometimes it's okay for someone who has been blocked to be able to get on IRC, get a one-on-one chat with an admin, and explain their side of the story that often doesn't come out on-wiki. The {{unblock}} template is great but sometimes it isn't very conducive to an in-depth review of a block. If an unblock happens based on that discussion, then it is absolutely the responsibility of the unblocking admin to monitor their contributions to ensure that they were not being disingenuous on IRC. Admins make mistakes, and discussions about what we do or about Wikipedia process or about the general goings-on can almost never be bad, in my humble opinion. I guess I just don't see the basis for the "OMG EVIL!" attitudes that some people (not you, MONGO) harbor towards IRC. Do people sometimes get into heated discussions? Sure, I got into one last night. Do sometimes administrators make bad judgments? Of course, that's true with or without IRC. I just think that people are looking at a very tiny subset of what goes on and are ignoring what goes on 99% of the time, which is very positive for Wikipedia. Anyway, just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary, etc. etc. —bbatsell ¿? 07:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course...the point is, I see that IRC allows less transparency than we should have. I don't have time to bother with IRC and am simply encouraging all admins and ArbCom members to do all they can to discuss matters on wiki and use IRC for non-harassing chat.--MONGO 07:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC

• My experiance with the plain olde #wikipedia channel is almost universally positive: People collaberating on articles, rational discussions of policy interpretation, etc. When the atmosphere turns poisonious there are enough people around to either tell the person to can it or for the offender to get the boot. (Once it was me, and I deserved it.) #admins I lurk in all the time, and the ratio is reversed: There are too many like-minded people there, and the toxicity gets multiplied. I have never, not even on one occasion, seen anything discussed there that would not have gotten a better airing on the main channel. More ops isn't going to solve this, when the list supplied above has listed as ops several of those often painted as "unrepentantly uncivil." - brenneman 07:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• You really need to try the channels again. #wikipedia is pretty much universally acknowledged as a cesspit. #admins at least has well-reasoned discussion, although it's going downhill a bit what with the recent influx of teen admins who don't seem to realize that it isn't for extended off-topic chatter. --Cyde Weys 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• The one thing I have never understood about the admin channel is that it appeared to me, on my infrequent visits, that people weren't using their Wikipedia username as their nickname. I guess I'm probably a little dense, but I never understood why. Steve block Talk 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How many people have access to the channel who are not admins? How many are former admins who resigned their sysop status, or were forcibly de-sysopped? Because not one of those should have access to the channel, yet they do. Proto::► 12:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've yet to hear why an admin who voluntarily relinquished adminship is no longer trustworthy. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Not to kick salt in someone's eyes when they are down, but if the ArbCom has said that you _must_ re-apply for adminship if you want it back there is clearly a grey area with regards to trust. - brenneman 12:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Plus at least some of those who voluntarily relinquished adminship jumped before they were pushed, so to speak. Proto::► 13:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Fred Bauder says "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behaviour absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops" Fred gives sufficient reasons for closing down the channel but then shows the complete lack of understanding of the problem by failing to say that some of the existing channel ops are not only the worst offenders but at least one is a member of the arbcom. He then goes on to say "we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels " again the self proclaimed owner of the channel; is not only a member of the arbcom, but yes, you've guessed it - one of the worst offenders. Well done Fred we yet again see that this arbcom is beyond redemption. However, I am glad that after so long of being told by Wikipedia's hierarchy that I am imagining these things, they do now seem to be completely unacceptable gross incivility even though the IRC logs show them to be far more serious. Bullying and intimidation are just two words which immediately spring to mind. It should also be remembered that the deplorable events which have been permitted on IRC (certainly in my own experience) are 100% to blame for any incivility which has happened on-wiki. However I must be careful what I say or Fred, Jim and Dm will be RFArbing me again for even thinking such things. Giano 12:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're still responsible for your actions on-wiki. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well of course that is true, and entirely why IRCadmins has been such a successful harassing operation, goad and plot against editors in secret, and then ban than when they respond it public. Thank you Mackensen for pointing that out so clearly. Giano 12:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• You're free to allege that; I've seen the evidence and it looks more like a comedy of errors than some deep rooted plot. How do you justify your incivility towards editors who do not use IRC, or who do use IRC but have never been a party towards comedy or malevolence? Feel free to ignore my earlier statements denouncing incivility towards other in IRC. It's also worth mentioning that as an ex-arbitrator I had a hand in drafting Fred's statement and fully endorsed it. There are no free passes here. Mackensen (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Of course it's fair to add more channel ops to combat incivility and personal attacks, but if some of the older channel ops are in fact party to making those attacks, it makes a lot of sense to replace them with friendlier ops. Otherwise, this will just turn into a rehash of "both parties are incivil but we're going to point at one of them and ignore the other's behavior". >Radiant< 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but this would seem to be wikidrama for the sake of it. Is there a point to this wikidrama? Is there a point to the admins channel? If something needs sorting out, AN and ANI exist for a reason. If something needs sorting out privately or you want a private opinion, as MONGO pointed out email should be perfectly adequate. If you are worried about privacy, IRC will hardly assuage your worries, as there would seem to be log leaks left, right, and centre. Does and has the admins channel caused harm, problems, and unnecessary wikidrama? That does not seem to be in dispute. The obvious solution is to nuke the admins channel and every other Wikipedia IRC channel with the exceptions of #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en, where on occasion I have had some enjoyable conversations that have benefited the encyclopedia. That will certainly put a stop to the wikidrama. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Mackensen, some of your arbcom colleagues have had a fee pass for far too long. I concur with Moreschi, any new channel ops will still be under the old disgraceful management? The arbcom's credibility can only be restored if this channel is abolished and its self proclaimed owner de-sysoped for bringing Wikipedia into disrepute along with the other admins involved. It must be remembered that leading members of the arbcom have known and approved of this deplorable situation for years. Now it is in the open heads have to roll for Wikipedia's reputation to be restored. Giano 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Then by all means bring an arbitration case, or appeal to Jimbo directly. I certainly don't consider myself JamesF's "agent," I can think for myself and act independently, for better or worse. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

First, Mackensen is arguing pretty vociferously, and he's one of the ops for the channel, so I'm not sure he's uninvolved. There are so many bad arguments being made that it's hard to know where to start.

1. First, is there "cherry picking logs?" What is the difference between "cherry picking logs" and "citing evidence?" Of course you're going to "cherry pick" because you're going to cite the dang evidence. The :15 when no one is there is not going to be cited. Sheesh. That's a Karl Rove like argument. The point is that the abuse is taking place by the same few people, who are chanops, on several occasions and arguably regularly. The evidence is clear enough for "several occasions," and "regularly" is what's in dispute.
2. That it's the same few people no one seems inclined to discuss. That these people are not administrators is similarly not being argued. As far as "giving up" status and having it stripped goes, an ArbCom decision said that Kelly Martin "left under a cloud." It demoted Tony Sidaway. Both are at en.admins.irc, and Greg Maxwell is simply not an administrator at en.wikipedia. He's a meta administrator, but I'm not aware of his being an admin at en.wikipedia at any point. However, people who give up their status give up their status, and being at that cursed channel is part of the status. If it's not, then why not open the channel to people who one day will be administrators along with people who once upon a time were administrators? I'm not being vindictive, here: it's simply built into the very definition of the thing. The arguments for its creation were that administrators needed to speak of sensitive materials. Well, why? So they could act. These people who are not administrators can't act. This isn't me being petty: I never supported segregating the beautiful people from the hoi poloi, but it's what the channel was supposed to do.
3. Go where the people are is, in fact, the critical feature. Admins are all over the regular wikipedia irc channel. Go there, because there are enough people there to turn the conversation away from abuse. In fact, the admins.irc channel is nasty precisely because it's not where The People are, but where only a small group is from time to time. The more populated the channel, the less commonly it goes into abuse. Every log I have seen of abuse has been when there are few people there, mostly like-minded about the central issue that admins are superior to users, that "clueful" people run things. They are philosophically inclined to believe it their right and responsibility to do what's "right" without policy.

Finally, the people are the problem, but the medium gives them their freedom to abuse. It's like LSD: the sane people will have a slight entertainment, while the mentally unstable will make a very bad trip. Geogre 13:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of one active non-admin wikipedian who requested "admission" to the channel and was last I heard roundly ignored. If that makes ay sense, it's a bit late and too hot for thinking. - brenneman 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Start an on-wiki procedure to appoint channel operators, so that we don't have clique accusations later. Remove all the non-admins from the channel. Seems like the best solution. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

First, Geogre, if you'd read the discussion you'd note that I'm a newly-appointed chanop, which makes me part of the solution, not part of the problem (note: this presupposes that the arbcom is sane). I don't appreciate the comparison to Karl Rove and wonder whether it was necessary. I mean, you score some points but it hardly helps matters. I say "cherry-picking" because there's an indictment on the channel as a whole based on the selected behaviour of individuals. That does not make sense. As you rightly note, certain individuals are the problem. That's cause for individual condemnation, not some broad-based approach. If you're going to indict the "medium," you have to actually prove that the medium is corrupt; to assert it is simply not enough. Mackensen (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A note of clarification, none of the new channel ops were appointed by the ArbCom. Paul August ☎ 17:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the comparison to Rove, but it's a Rove argument. It's exactly the kind of rhetorical flourish he's famous for. When evidence is presented of abuse, he says, "They cherry picked it." Well, how much would it take? The reason this is an issue, to answer the question the people who haven't followed all of this keep asking, is that on-wiki actions have been orchestrated on the "invisible" and unaccountable medium of that IRC channel. Each one of these actions has been quickly, if not instantly, reversed, but they just keep coming. Yes, the people are this problem, but there remains no rationale for the channel that shows any advantage to Wikipedia. What purpose does it have? What purpose does it actually serve that is not better served by media already in place that are already regulated, like AN/I? I asked that question a month ago and, unless I'm really biased, didn't get an answer that stood up. If, therefore, we have people who have to be "worked with" to get permission to change that channel and if these very people are demonstrably problematic, then what the heck are we doing? This is especially the case if they violate the very elitism the channel was set up to create.

I've tried to be helpful, to offer positive solutions, as well as to condemn what exists now. My essay was an honest effort at working out the inherent strengths and weaknesses. Although some of my points are getting repeated, the hatred and scorn poured out on me by the problem users will prevent their ever admitting that there is a problem.

Finally, I remind you of what we're talking about here. The subtext is not "play nice." That's lily livered. The subtext is "don't team up to beat on people in a private clubhouse." It's far more pointed than someone like me being obnoxious to Kelly. It's about blocking. It's about harassing. It's about pretending to be powerful. It's about encouraging new administrators to run roughshod over the project because they are important people. It's about learning to show some respect for the people who make Wikipedia, as those people are not the chanops who spend their lives on IRC. Geogre 00:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Geogre: Greg Maxwell is an admin on Commons. We need as many Commons admins in #admins as we can get. Yes, technically, English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are separate projects; in practice, they have a lot of related issues, and we frequently need actions taken on Commons (such as nuking shock images being used for vandalism). --Cyde Weys 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 2

Some insight into the reasoning:

• the AC has no jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins. Really, it doesn't.
• The channel was originally set up as a hotline for admin help being requested, particularly by Jimbo or Danny, and it's damn useful for that.
• It's not just for admins, it's for "trusted Wikipedians" of all sorts. There's Alphax on there as a Commons admin, Greg as a developer, etc. (That someone here may feel they have conclusive proof that a given chanop is a minion of Satan out to destroy Wikimedia is irrelevant to this - it's not yours to decide. I don't care. Really.) *and Greg is on as a Commons admin too, of course.
• It's also a good place for admins to sanity-check their personal decisions (or find another admin to deal or not with a matter they feel would be a conflict of interest to deal with or whatever). I'd like it if all new admins were invited onto it and someone should write up some suitable how-to process page.
• Many of the IRC logs received from the AC have clearly been edited and even when not don't include a metric shitload of off-channel communication that serves as context.
• There are admins already avoiding the channel because the cries of the torch and pitchfork toting mob above are making them afraid of what people would do with an out-of-context quote. So the AC going over the last six months of logs sent in from viewers looking for people to bring the vengeance of the Lord down upon really just is not likely to happen.

So the course of action chosen is to try to improve the tone of the place by leading from the front, hence the current /topic: speak like the person you're discussing is reading. And my frequent strong suggestions to behave better. YOU'RE ADMINS, DAMMIT, YOU WERE CHOSEN FOR YOUR GOOD JUDGEMENT. Mostly the channel shows that, by the way. Anyone characterising it as a festering snakepit that must be abolished is IMO smoking crack and I really can't take them seriously.

Note: I am an ex-arb and still on the AC list to kibitz advise. I have level 40 on #wikipedia-en-admins because Jdforrester landed it on me. I'm in there a bit lately, when I'm home and my laptop is on and I remember.

Any questions that show evidence of a shred of good judgement? - David Gerard 13:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

David I hope you will take my concerns seriously. Paul August ☎ 17:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "It's also a good place for admins to sanity-check their personal decisions (or find another admin to deal or not with a matter they feel would be a conflict of interest to deal with." Is there a reason why AN, ANI or even email cannot be used for this? Why the insistence on spurious - spurious, because this is clearly not happening - privacy that is only ever going to feed accusations of a cabal? Given that this channel seems to be causing far more wikidrama than it's worth, is there really a compelling argument as to why this should be kept? Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Because sometimes one wants a quick answer, because sometimes one is dead wrong and when ten people say HELL NO one gets awareness of it, because in many cases it creates less drama than ANI. Though I prefer ANI as well. Saying "we decided it on IRC" on admin matters is not a good way to do things, way definitely. Your point is a really important one and one to keep in mind: transparency has to be consciously worked for - David Gerard 14:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And I want the channel kept because it's damn useful for what it's damn useful for, and abolishing it would lose that without, my psychic powers predict, diminishing the dramatists' valiant and assiduous defense of the wiki or whatever they're doing one iota - David Gerard 14:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know is David Gerard making the above comments with the sanction and public approval of the arbcom, or are they just using him as a barometer of our opinions. No, I'm afraid a comment alone from Fred will not suffice, something a little more concrete from the arbcom is required. 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC){{subst:unisgned|Giano II}}

The above are David's private views. They do not represent the consensus view of the ArbCom. Paul August ☎ 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not speaking for the AC (I'm not on the AC, as noted), I'm speaking for me, though the matter is in a lot of discussion at present and I've asked the AC to stop by and clarify if any of them feel I've misrepresented things - David Gerard 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain your role in regard to the arbcom mailing list? Giano 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I did, above: "I am an ex-arb and still on the AC list to kibitz advise." Ex-arbitrators stay on the AC list as they choose - David Gerard 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's really very simple. It is said there are too much nasty remarks on the channel, and that the solution is to make more people channel ops. That makes sense. Then someone points out that the nasty remarks are in part made by the older channel ops. No solution for that has been proposed, but the obvious answer seems to be to de-op those. Note that I have never used the channel, nor do I believe it should be nuked. It's appears simply to be a case of two parties being incivil, and only one party being examined for that. >Radiant< 14:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If it was that simple it would have been resolved centuries ago, ergo it's not that simple. If someone wants someone removed from being a chanop on #wikipedia-en-admins they get to convince Jdforrester, because I'm certainly not going to, I can tell you now ... - David Gerard 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not just incivility, it is bullying and harassment and attempting to "get rid" of editors. This been condoned by the arbcom, by their assenting silence, - the only solution is to abolish the channel, then no-one has to worry about tackling Jim Forrester (I'm not frightened of him anyway) Giano 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is more than just incivility, and I don't assent. Paul August ☎ 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest it is unlikely you're going to get the lynching you're after. I also suggest you're barely on Jdforrester's radar - David Gerard 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I think you'l find our Jim knows exactly who I am - and I think you know that too! Giano 14:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're the one I blocked for egregious personal attacks that no other editor making would be tolerated. If you read what I wrote, by the way, you'll note the AC does not have the power to abolish the channel. I don't know if you've ever heard of "diplomacy" or "assuming good faith", but you could give them a go and see if they give you more results you want rather than less - David Gerard 14:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And the solution is not just to make more people ops, it's to ask people to be nice and use their admin-given judgement more. These are smart people, and if they have bursts of stupid then the first thing is to try really hard to stop those. This is the diplomatic solution and lacks the emotionally-satisfying and crowd pleasing character of a really good 'Bungee Saddam' Christmas special, but I submit is more likely to make things actually better - David Gerard 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are so disgusting as to mention "Saddaam" in this context is indicative of the behaviour and level of rubishing anyone who opposes that channel receives. I have been on the receiving end of long enough to know every nasty little trick used. You are going to have to find new depths to sink to now. Giano 14:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Any other questions? - David Gerard5 14:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've already implied that I'm among those who in your opinions "are smoking crack" and can't be taken seriously, so I suppose it would do me little good to ask a question, O your excellency. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I was speaking as someone who's actually on the damn thing and knows precisely what the usual content is, against those who characterise it in a manner bearing no resemblance to what I see. Of course, it may just be that my crack supplier is much better - David Gerard 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question - who is it that leaks all those logs to Wikitruth? Proto::► 15:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, but the best course of action I can think of is to treat it as a working-channel-with-chat like a sensible admin - David Gerard 15:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrrmm — if we knew, we'd definitely have done something about it already ... Cyde Weys 15:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• So to sum up,
  1. People should not be nasty on the channel,
  2. If you see someone nasty, you can ask a channel op to kick that person, but he is not obliged to comply,
  3. If you see an op being nasty, you can ask Jdforrester to deop that person, but he is not obliged to comply,
  4. The arbcom can request that certain people be opped, deopped, kicked or unkicked from the channel, but the channel ops are not obliged to comply,
  5. Being nasty on the channel can be taken into account in arbitration cases, and
  6. The cabal puppy eating contest is next wendesday.
• That broadly correct? >Radiant< 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Any chanop is no more obliged to take an admin action than any particular en: admin is obliged to take an admin action, i.e. not at all. People should not be nasty on the channel because it's bad for what is after all supposed to be a working-space-with-chat rather than a cesspit being a working-space-with-chat rather than a cesspit; and I think I'm asking nothing unreasonable by asking admins to act with GOOD ADMIN JUDGEMENT AAARGH. You can indeed and James is actually pretty approachable (if busy) and not insane and stuff. Not only does the AC have no jurisdiction over the channel, the Wikimedia Foundation specificially disclaims jurisdiction over the #wikipedia-xxx channels for reasons of possible legal liability, so bitching about it here does nothing and annoys the pig. Being nasty anywhere that affects the wiki can be taken into account by the AC. The puppy eating contest is Thursday. And NO CANNIBALISM - David Gerard 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• K, fair enough. >Radiant< 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 2.5

A somewhat more-to-the-point explanation, perhaps: the operative issue here is David's first point. The ArbCom does not have any power over the IRC channels. We cannot shut them down; we cannot replace the ops; we cannot, as a group, force anything to happen on IRC (except insofar as some members of the Committee happen to be ops on some channels). The ArbCom simply lacks that ability, and no amount of indignation—justified or otherwise—is going to magically grant it to us.

(As for anyone wondering why there's no desysoppings, etc.: well, the ArbCom has decreed, in the past, that off-Wikipedia matters were not its concern. This is likely not to be the case in the future—hence Fred's note—but it would be quite crass of us to extend this retroactively to past events. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.)

(And, on a further note, for anyone wondering: no, the ArbCom does not have Secret All-Seeing IRC Logs(tm).) Kirill Lokshin 15:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Further on this note: the AC has no power, but currently James, Mackensen and myself (arb and two ex-arbs) - not James very much in practice, he has plenty of other stuff he does - are working to make the place sweeter and happier for all concerned. i.e., we'd like it not to suck kthx and consider such important for the wiki - David Gerard 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You, Mackensen and Forrester - who do you immagine has any confidence in you? This is a joke! Giano 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that my judgment and capacity to serve were in question. I have always served at the pleasure of the community and if my services are no longer deemed necessary I will happily withdraw into private life, as it were. Mackensen (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you are aware. But compared to the unremittingly combative David Gerard, there's still hope for you. 88.198.5.138 16:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Joyous news, I am not a complete failure yet! Prithee, when did thee supplant our Fair God-King? Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So ... is this IP Giano? Or someone else? --Cyde Weys 17:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're definitely failing the community by consistently Cyding with the IRC gang, against all reason. But that is neither news nor new. 88.198.5.138 17:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde why not ask one of the secret channel to do an ilicit check user - and find out, that does happen there doesn't it? Giano 17:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I've just seen "Cyding" that really is very funy, I wish I had thought of that Giano 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You should withdraw that, if you had any concept of decency. Mackensen (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is indecent? I have seen far worse(far far worse) said by your heros on IRC, so is it vecause I'm saying it in public? Giano 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You are publicly insinuating that checkusers are breaching the Foundation's privacy policy, and possibly local law, by making unauthorized disclosure of private information. You are publicly accusing someone of an incredibly dishonourable, if not illegal, act. If you can't back it up then you should withdraw it. Mackensen (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Who knows what has been buried and concealed concerning that channel - nothing you people get up to there would surprise me. Giano 17:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I will ask one more time that you retract that statement. I'm quite serious. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Read what I wrote - "that does happen there doesn't it?" why not stop shouting and answer the question Giano 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Having to deny such accusations is degrading. I might as well ask whether you beat your wife. It does not. It would be a grave breach of the trust if it did. That you blithely assume so speaks volumes of the utter contempt you have for all concerned here. I wonder why you stay, when you're surrounded by such fools. Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I stay Mackensen, because in spite of the frequent clumsy and very obvious attempts by your colleagues to get rid of me, I know I am of use to the encyclopedia - a progect to which i am totally committed. You are quite correct on one point though "Having to deny such accusations is degrading" - I'd change my friends if I were you. Incidentally, why would saying "No! Check user has never been abused" be "a grave breach of the trust"?. Please Mackensen don't start clever games with me that you cannot finnish, because I see everything through to the end no matter how bitter (for some) that end may be. Giano 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Without wishing to cast aspersions at any users with checkuser access, it is certainly possible for checkuser privileges to be abused. I understand that there has been at least one complaint regarding checkuser being used outside of policy. Perhaps I have misunderstood what I have read (I can't guarantee that I could find a link if asked) but I understand the relevant person admitted that they undertook the checkuser complained of, "could not remember" why they did it, and that person subsequently lost their checkuser access. As I understand it, there are checkuser logs, but they are only available to other uses with checkuser privileges. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you count banned trolls and sockpuppets we get complaints all the time. Some of these were deemed important enough for investigation, but the checkuser was cleared in each instance. I am not aware of a direct link between any investigation and any loss of privileges. I've seen that story floating around too, but I've never seen it substantiated, and I first saw it months ago. Mackensen (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that IP and I are acquainted. It's a webserver in Germany with open ports. I had to deal with a nasty privacy violation coming from it just a few days ago. Could be anybody using it. Mackensen (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP troll blocked for 48 hours (not his first offense, either). And Giano, you shouldn't be cyding with trolls. --Cyde Weys 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, block duration changed to indefinite as open proxy per Mackensen's findings. --Cyde Weys 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's right Cyde, knock em senseless if they say something you don't like. Giano 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, how shocking that Cyde should follow policy! We can't have that. Mackensen (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How unshocking it is that when Cyde breaches the civility and personal attacks policies, Mackensen, David Gerard, and the rest of the IRC gang are nowhere to be found. Looks pretty one-cyded to me. 88.198.5.138 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello open proxy! France, this time. Mackensen (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello! It may surprise you, but I admire your work. I just hope you can find it in you to internalize these criticisms without becoming reactively defensive. [p.s. please block this latest open proxy silently] 88.198.5.138 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 3

"Behavior on the IRC channel may be taken into consideration with respect to arbitration cases if it results in disruption on Wikipedia" Fred, does this mean that the door is now open to launch RFA's relating to the orchestrated blocking incidents and use the logs as evidence? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deep breaths everyone. To sum up;

• Fred's statement
  1. ArbCom recognizes that a problem exists and has been discussing ways of dealing with it
  2. New channel procedures and operators are being pushed in an effort to increase civility
  3. Comments made on IRC may have 'on Wiki' consequences if they cause 'on Wiki' problems
• Outstanding concerns
  1. Channel continues to exist and thereby damages 'faith in Wikipedia'
  2. No punishments for past abuses - banning from the channel and de-sysoping were suggested
  3. Non en-wikipedia admins on the channel
  4. Failure to enforce civility on Wikipedia itself / double standards
  5. Lack of details about new channel operators/procedures that Fred mentioned

Disclaimer: After long avoiding IRC (ick, ptooey!) I requested access to the admin channel when this blew up about two weeks ago, and (after not hearing back) asked again and got access yesterday. This likely makes me either 'an evil insurrectionist mole', 'irredeemably tainted by IRC toxins', or both.

As to my opinions; I'd say that the changes Fred described all sound like good things. On the concerns/complaints: I have no doubts that if the channel were removed another (or several) would be set up - without any sort of civility requirements or access to people who might object to 'cabalism'... the same would be true for removal of the non admins. It has been de facto policy until now that 'what happens in IRC stays in IRC' - retroactively applying IRC bans and Wikipedia de-sysopings would thus seem improper to me (not to mention rather vindictive). Incivility on Wikipedia itself certainly has been a major factor here, but we have existing procedures for that which generally work - despite glitches and disputes over application. Finally, I would like to hear more about who is being asked to help operate the channel and what sort of guidelines / directions for civility are being contemplated.

My impression based on one whole day would be that the channel was 60% silly, 25% productive admin work, and 15% complaining about things... the last including occasional incivility which I'd consider on par with what is normally seen amongst admins on Wikipedia. One person was called a 'clown', there was a joking suggestion to ban everyone who supported a particular featured article, an old major dispute was discussed and one of the primary participants complained about, et cetera. Not perfect and surely not the worst which has taken place, but nothing which couldn't be managed. There was markedly less nastiness than this discussion for instance. --CBD 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• CBD has the thread here. It's part of the last 15% that we'd generally like to deal with, but sometimes it can't be avoided–especially when this very topic came up and partisans from both sides were in channel. On the other hand, as you rightly note, nothing was said there that wasn't said here, and it's also my impression that the conversation on IRC was more polite. This may be because on IRC you can be kicked for being a jerk. Mackensen (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you CBD, for actually investigating on your own and not just believing the mindless hype. The way some of the way people on here talk about it, you'd think #admins goes through a dozen kittens a day, and that's just the ones used for sacrificial purposes (feasts not included). --Cyde Weys 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• So how do you propose we deal with people on Wikipedia who are jerks? I'm not thinking of anyone in particular but this place frequently turns downright nasty. >Radiant< 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, blocking used to work, but recently this whole place has become downright partisan that the blocks are overturned even when the person really deserves it. As a result, the person feels vindicated, and continues on with the bad behavior. --Cyde Weys 15:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Obviously the answer is to delete WP:AN and subpages and salt them. Also, if we make a rule against incivility, that should stop it in its tracks - look how effective m:Don't be dense is - David Gerard 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, we definitely a board where people can come complain to mommy that "that nasty person hit me after I kicked him". >Radiant< 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• This always confused me. Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over the IRC channels, fine. If they were closed down people would only find other ways to communicate, yes, that's all well and good. But Wikipedia currently explicitly sanctions use of these specific IRC rooms, by pointing people to them on WP:IRC and meta:IRC. If Wikipedia wishes to bear no responsibility for these rooms, and insists that what happens in there does not relate to what happens on Wikipedia, then they should not be plugged on-Wiki, right? Proto::► 15:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Paul August ☎ 18:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we tone down the discourse and look at this in cost-benefit terms? Sure the channel has uses, but noncontroversial alternatives seem to exist for all of those uses. Wikipedia is almost entirely a volunteer operation. Part of the reason why millions of people have joined up is because it's an open meritocracy. Admin-only IRC introduces a degree of opaqueness. Although the overwhelming majority of that may be responsible dialog, a small number of serious problems can discredit the undertaking. I doubt effective fail-safes can be implemented. If ArbCom doesn't have authority then I'd like to see that formalized by disaffiliating the channel from Wikipedia. It's a recipe for trouble to have a secret-but-leaky chat that 1000+ people can visit that lacks firm admission criteria and that putatively has a formal connection to Wikipedia outside the reach of ArbCom. I'm an eventualist on this issue, which means I've always suspected the channel will sink under its own weight but maybe the folks who like it can patch the hull. Durova^Charge 15:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly for you Cyde the logs show it is not "mindless hype" and that is why we are all here. According to you Mackensen above - there is no problem of huge concern? No wonder they chose him to be chan op! It's going to be another "let's wipe it under the carpet and save the arbcom" - He is of course on the arbcom mailing list. I think we are having our intelligence insulted here by Cyde, Mackensen and David Gerard, I expect as we speak they are rounding up further little IRC admins to come here with their 10 pennies worth - it is truly amazing - what are they going to come up with next? Watching these peole on the run is truly wonderous Giano 15:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Your support is appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I in no way support you. You have been a member of that chanel and known full well what has been going on for ages, so suddenly why have you decided to do something about it, you have condoned it for ages with your silence. You just want to save the "club" at all costs, and when this has died down it will be just as it was before. Giano 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

For all of one day. It's that dangerous, is it? Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(Note: Giano wasn't talking to CBD, he was talking to Mackensen. I've moved CDB's comment down to make that more clear. Paul August ☎ 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Giano, much as I am really enjoying the humor value in the implication that I am a 'little IRC admin in cahoots with David, Mackensen, and Cyde' (ROTFL)... 'not a battleground' comes to mind. Yup, people have done things they shouldn't have. Welcome to the human condition... you need to get over it. 'An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind', 'forgive and forget', and all that. If everyone insisted that every wrong be punished we'd spend all our time fighti... <looks around> oh wait. You haven't been above reproach either and in expecting such lapses to be forgiven you should also understand the need to do so for others. People agreeing to 'try to do better' is a victory for everyone... and insisting that 'there will be no peace until vengeance is satisfied' a loss for all. --CBD 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 4 - ArbCom mailing list

It seems to me that the main issue here (other than the incivility that brought the issue into the open, and that official policy seems to be to sweep past indiscretions under the carpet) is that use of IRC is encouraged, as a quick and dirty way for interested parties to discuss issues as they arise, but there is no official relationship between Wikipedia and IRC (by design, it would seem, on account of legal concerns). There is no clarity about what the #admin channel for, and who should have access to it. Should it be limited to current admins? Should it be available to ex-admins too, or indeed any editors in good standing? And if it is being used to formulate consensus for taking admin actions on-wiki, shouldn't it be logged and transparent?

Reading User:David Gerard's comments above, I have a second concern: he says he is on the ArbCom mailing list, as a former arbitrator. I had forgotten that non-Arbitrators have access to the ArbCom mailing list (I seem to remember User:Kelly Martin calling herself an "arbitrator emeritus". And someone is bound to ask for a diff now). Who else, other than the current members of ArbCom, have access to the list (is there a list somewhere?)? Should they? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I beleive there is over 20 of them, and when somthing interests them they all but in and have a say, which is why they can't reach concensus on this problem at all, they say they can't abolish the channel, but they could easily abolish the admins who use it, and of course the members of their own comittee who like to make such questionable use of it. Giano 16:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

All former ex-arbitrators in good standing are permitted access, as are certain other trusted persons (people with oversight, checkuser). I should think the committee is capable of cleaning its own house. Mackensen (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I for one appreciate all the cleaning help I can get ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The committee have proven themselves far from capable of cleaning any house let alone their own, in short they appear incompetent. Now, how many are on that list, precise number please? Giano 16:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ginao, I one called you a knight errant, I now see you are getting back at me ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a list-admin so I don't have the exact number, but I suspect you can count as well as I can. Take the current committee, add all former members plus Jimbo, throw on a checkuser or two, subtract Kelly Martin since she unsubscribed when she resigned her adminship and other offices, and you have your potential list. Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No No NO we don't want throw in one or two, we want how many, and perhaps who, then we could amuse ourselves laughing at how many use the "secret channel". Why not ask David Gerard he runs the list doesn't he? He's bound to know. Giano 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The subscriber's list is available to every member of the list. There are 29 members of the ArbCom mailing list. Paul August ☎ 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure the ArbCom is capable of looking after itself, but then we peons have an legitimate interest in knowing who is copied in on the internal ruminations of what is essentially Wikipedia's highest decision making body, and which is privy to the most sensitive information about all sorts of topics.

There is no mention of an ArbCom mailing list at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, or indeed m:Mailing_lists/overview. But, given what you say, it seems rather odd that there are more people on the list who are not members of ArbCom than those there are (12 current members listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, compared to 21 former members on the same page - less one - plus more from Wikipedia:Oversight and "one or two" from m:CheckUser policy). Given the overlap between the various categories, presumably the list at Wikipedia:Oversight is quite close? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the names of those participating in the arbcom mailing list and the arbcom IRC channel should be public. Most input is useful. Although occasionally former arbitrators can weigh in with old issues I would rather not revisit. Fred Bauder 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fred. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The committee's internal mailing list is private, as is the committee's IRC channel. Subscriber lists for neither are published. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But why can't we just know who the recipients are? Surely that can be transparent - I know who the director of MI5 is so I'm sure the members of the ARBCOM mailing list can demonstrate similar openeness to the wiki community. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was not aware that there was an ArbCom IRC channel too. Something else that is not mentioned on any of the ArbCom pages. Anyway, I'm not sure why the names on the participants need to be kept "secret". For example, m:CheckUser policy mention a similiary-sensitive closed list, checkuser-l.

Fine, the contents of the ArbCom list e-mails are private, and I am not asking to be able to read them or for them to be logged publicly (although it may be interesting to look back on them in 30 or 60 or 100 years) but Mackensen (who, I understand, participates on the list as a former arbitrator) has essentially told us the answer anyway: "All former ex-arbitrators in good standing are permitted access, as are certain other trusted persons (people with oversight, checkuser)." plus the current members of ArbCom, of course. So why not have a public list of people who are on the mailing list? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they have very good reasons ALoan, why the names of those who govern us are on a peice of paper known only to he who guards the list, and incidentally decides not only what is allowed to be on it, but even more crucially WHEN! These things are not to be discussed openly, but I do happen to know "he who guards the list" did a check-user on me very recently, while performing himself yet another wrong and again reverted block of me. Obviously he felt I was a serious risk to the Encyclopedia, on the other hand perhaps he was just curious - who knows! Giano 19:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I've added a new section to WP:AC called Mailing list, which lists the current subscribers to the ArbCom mailing list. Paul August ☎ 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

break 5

why are we discussing IRC? IRC is off-wiki. AC has no jurisdiction there, we have no jurisdiction there, case closed. If there are problems, spell out in giant letters somewhere that IRC channels, even if called "wiki" have serve no official function on wikipedia, whatsoever. I've been an admin two years, and I've never been tempted to look into IRC. It's not part of Wikipedia, period. The AC must be out of its mind considering accepting evidence from IRC logs. Are they bored? Have they considered the difficulties, such as identity-theft and verifiability? Leave IRC alone, but crack down on anyone that takes IRC-feuds onto Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as that IRC channel bears Wikipedia's name, and is, or is seen to be, an official organ of Wikipedia administration, then Wikipedia needs to be responsible for that IRC's actions. If on the other hand that channel were to be no longer affiliated with the encyclopedia, by changing its name, and by suitable public statements of disaffiliation, then the encyclopedia could wash its hands of any responsibility. Paul August ☎ 19:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify a few things for the purposes of this discussion:

• There are 272 people with access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel which constitutes about 25% of all English Wikipedia administrators. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia administrators asking for access for the very first time and not being given it (however I believe there have been instances where channel occupants have had their access revoked due to abuse).
• These days there are usually between 40 and 50 people in the channel at any one time.
• James Forrester is not the "self proclaimed owner of the channel". He is the IRC Group Contact for the Wikimedia Foundation, and in that WMF-sanctioned role he is the person authorised to deal with Freenode on behalf of the Foundation.
• If Wikimedia/the ArbCom requested (e.g. through James Forrester) that the admins channel be shut down, then there would be absolutely nothing (apart maybe from goodwill on the part of Freenode) to stop people from creating an identical channel and picking up where they left off. The IRC channel is not a service of the Wikimedia Foundation, and as such the Foundation only has peripheral authority through the fact that several of those with high-level access on IRC are also deeply involved in one way or another with the Foundation or Wikipedia.
• I think I got given operator access in this channel because I asked for it, to fix some faulty channel mode:s or something like that. From there, I have just done the occasional access-giving to admins new to IRC. Rarely have I had to use my operator access to op myself in order to diffuse a situation. I am more hesitant to kick or ban people from the channel, or remove their access, because they are admins. But I've always been a devotee of civility, as some on the WikiEN-l mailing list might know, and I'm happy to enforce a stricter level of civility in the channel into the future.
• The channel is more useful than some people are giving it credit. At least twice in the last week I have found the channel useful to discuss extremely sensitive matters, which would be entirely inappropriate to discuss in larger, more public channels like #wikipedia.
• I would like to know what this new position of the ArbCom means when it comes to IRC logging. At the moment, public logging of #wikipedia-en-admins is strictly prohibited. How are the ArbCom going to take into account statements made on IRC if such logs which they take into account cannot be posted as part of their decisions?

I hope some of that made sense to someone. - Mark 16:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: arbcom... Logging and showing the log publicly isn't allowed, however private logging and mailing the logs to the private arbcom list is acceptable. (eg. many users probably have automatic IRC logging turned on for all channels) --Interiot 16:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But they're not exactly good evidence, since they can be so easily redacted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let alone altered or falsified outright. On-wiki the diffs do not lie. There is no such guarantee with any logs, especially when logs are furnished by parties with vested interests. The last logs I saw being circulated were three statements by James taken entirely out of context. If that's all that's being distributed, why in the world would ArbCom get involved and try to mete out punishment when they know so little of the situation? --Cyde Weys 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No that is not "all that's being distributed". The many logs I've seen have been apparently complete and unedited, and some have been independently verified. Paul August ☎ 19:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

However, the logs posted publicly were redacted, and that's what most people have seen. The decision to supply complete logs to the committee came after multiple people on the mailing list pointed out the severe problems that redacted evidence posed. Mackensen (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Because folks who think they've been wronged are threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue because it's unfair to them. SirFozzie 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It applies to both sides. Everyone just needs to let it go. However, there's one person in particular who can't seem to do that, and as a result, it just goes on, and on ... Cyde Weys 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue" - Cyde are you really suggesting that this is all a terrible fit-up and the ArbCom have been mislead? Hardly credible - I'd like to know why Freenode prevent public logging, perhaps there's some means by which they will make an exception for us - we could then release the logs in something akin to the 30 year rule - except 30 days perhaps, this would bring transparency to the channel, but preserve the immediate effectiveness of it for private deliberations. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Much worse things have been said on-wiki than anything the ArbCom has looked at from the #admins channel. ArbCom didn't seriously take any actions against the on-wiki stuff and they aren't seriously taking any actions against the #admins stuff either. This is just an advisement message. And no, the thirty day thing wouldn't work. Some of the stuff dealt with is stuff that needs to stay private over legal lifetimes — that is, decades. The only possible way for public logging to work would be for someone to go through and redact everything that cannot be said in public. I don't see that as being workable. Alternatively, #admins could be opened up and a new channel for dealing with private issues could be started elsewhere. I don't think that would solve the accusations of cannibalism, however. --Cyde Weys 17:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Cyde knows what logs the ArbCom members have seen. Paul August ☎ 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So do we ever get to know what logs have been considered in reaching any given ruling? The standard seems to be "discussing off-wiki is okay, but it must be justified on-wiki". --Cyde Weys 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the leaky nature of the channel I would have thought anything that sensitive should be confined to emails anyway. What other arguments are there against publicising the logs? --Mcginnly | Natter 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If much worse things have been said on-wiki then where are the law-suits?--Mcginnly | Natter 18:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're conflating two separate and highly different issues. One issue is common incivility against other Wikipedians (which happens on and off wiki). There are no legal ramifications. The other issue is stuff that must be discussed privately to avoid legal complications. This is not ever discovered on-wiki. As for the leaky nature of logs — yes, that is why, largely, other channels are being used to handle the tricky legal issues. --Cyde Weys 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is all getting very nastily near to the truth for Cyde! Giano 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that Freenode no longer uses the concept of "group contacts" for channels with no official relationship to the thing being discussed. I don't believe that any change to the logging policy is being proposed at this point. While I could be mistaken (and would welcome a link to the salient Freenode policy if I am) I believe that the logging policy is a tradition carried over from #wikipedia rather than a Freenode matter. I would hope that everyone involved in the channel would adhere to the highest standards of Wikilove. Be excellent to one another and to those not present. If there are any current and ongoing problems with misuse of the channel, I would welcome any logs emailed to me privately. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would hope so too, but this has demonstrably not been the case - so, in your opinion public logging is possible? I'd be a lot happier with a published, unredacted log for everyone to see and comment and be judged by. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that additional logging is warranted unless there is still a problem. I am unconvinced that there is a present or ongoing problem at this point, since the users of the channel largely cleaned up their act in the wake of the recent public criticism of the channel. I repeat my offer to investigate any logs emailed to me privately that show a present and ongoing problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but the point is I'm still in a position where I, and every other non-admin - just has to take your word for it. What I've seen over the past months, leads me to believe that there are personalities at wikipedia, in positions of trust, that abuse that trust. with 1000 admins you'd expect a few rotten apples - but when ArbCOM are implicated - you'd expect resignations really. It seems they are unable to police even themselves, let alone the rest of us - I'd prefer to be in a wikipedia, where behaviour like that isn't condoned by the authorities. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Step right up to WP:RFA; if you ask I'll probably nominate you myself. Got a problem with the process there? So do I; visit Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship and make yourself heard to help get it fixed. Want to join the channel but not an admin? Become one of the trusted non-admins in the channel by making your case to any chanop. I'm not convinced that the arbitration committee is implicated in anything other than inaction brought about chiefly by jurisdictional concerns. Until recently we treated IRC as completely outside our jurisdiction. Obviously, this is changing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom isn't implicated. There's one person making lunatic claims that are wholly unsupported by any evidence. The channel is being watched by a multitude of people. --Cyde Weys 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you wont mind the logs being made public from now on then. I think I'd like to be one of the multitude --Mcginnly | Natter 18:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Any chance you'll open up your correspondence? I'm certain you've nothing to hide either. How about the other commentators on this thread? Come on, give us your emails. Phone conversations would be good to. Talk to your wife about Wikipedia before bed? We'll need that to, thanks! Please transcribe private thoughts on a section of your userpage as you have them as well. This is an open project, after all. Call it reducto ad absurdum if you must, but where does it end? Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Even #wikipedia doesn't allow logging. It would hardly make sense to have the private admins channel logged, but not the general users channel. Go try to get logging allowed in #wikipedia first, and then we can talk. --Cyde Weys 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, you know damn well there's evidence - it's been submitted to the ArbCom - again, do you think it was a fit-up? Your mates got caught conspiring in the most reprehensible way, and the best we can come up with is "people have been quite naughty on both side - please stop. For those of you looking on we're going to keep the doors shut for legal reasons, but just trust us everything is going to be ok from now on." mmmmm -And for that matter - no, I'd have no problem with any of my wikipedia business being made public, in fact, wait a minute - it has! I don't use back channel communications.--Mcginnly | Natter 18:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And we're just going to have to trust that last assertion? Mackensen (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I think if this damning evidence of conspiracy that you spoke of actually did exist, the ArbCom might take some action. As it is, all they're talking about is minding civility on the channel. Stop repeating this hurtful, false, and unsupported accusation. It's not helping anything. You haven't even seen this so-called "evidence", merely blindly repeating something you've heard from others. It's wrong. Stop repeating it. It's little more than vicious gossipy rumors. --Cyde Weys 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't make the same assumption Cyde is making here. It is possible that the ArbCom has choosen not to act yet, for other reasons than lack of evidence. Paul August ☎ 19:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You should assume good faith until it is proven that doing so is untenable yes. My point is that I can't do that now with certain individuals. I'm not looking for complete transparency (from your comment above Mac) - I see the necessity of private communication - but this channel has been abused, to correct the public perception of it, no amount of assurances are really going to work and the scramble to protect it just adds fuel to the suspicion that there's something wrong with it. Let's make a clean breast of things, lets have some openeness, frankness, honesty and integrity. --Mcginnly | Natter 19:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, no amount of arguing to the contrary will convince people of the innocence of the accused. Mackensen (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 6

"But this channel has been abused" — Can you please, please, offer up some evidence to support this assertion? And especially the assertion of, "Your mates got caught conspiring in the most reprehensible way." These are very bold statements, but they also happen to be unsupported. It's not a good idea to make damaging and controversial assertions without evidence. Until you have more to go on than "But someone else said it", please desist. --Cyde Weys 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, I'm not here to trade insults or argue semantics with you. I have seen the logs and we could argue whether conspiring to remove an editor from wikipedia might be considered grossly uncivil. - The whole problem with substantiated arguments is precisely what I'm arguing - make the logs public, and everyone gets to see the behaviour, remove the rather convenient - "you can't substantiate that accusation" because no-one can publish the log. --Mcginnly | Natter 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please forward these logs to me then, so that I might review the evidence (and compare it against my own logs to make sure it is accurate). --Cyde Weys 19:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Or at least clarify what it is that you're talking about. If these are the logs regarding Giano's block, well yes, I've seen them and I'm dismayed by them, and steps are being taken. This, I believe, has already been discussed. If you have something new, say so. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's still not very clear. That could be any of a dozen times. Which block are we talking about? I at least want to go through my logs and see if I can find any of this evidence of a vast conspiracy. --Cyde Weys 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the best thing now is for Cyde to become cylent, and allow the arbcom to finish their deliberations. Giano 19:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And I think the same would apply to you as well. SirFozzie 19:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, fun. Cyde's back to the "I demand evidence! (If you give it to me, I will block you.)" <sigh> Then we get to "if there were evidence, ArbCom would do something" from one head, while another announces dismissively that ArbCom can't do anything and that no one on the channel has to give a rat's fig what ArbCom says about who is or is not an op there. This kind of spirit of cooperation, this level of self-examination, this desire to make sure only the highest standards of behavior are upheld by administrators is, in fact, what keeps this "drama" ongoing. If the actors would only leave the stage, we might at least get a new play. Geogre 00:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm honoring Cowman's closing of this thread (even though it's been overturned by Fred) and I'm refusing to continue with this mudfight. It's as plain as day to me that this isn't going anywhere productive. --Cyde Weys 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We really could do better than this. Giano (and Geogre too, for that matter) whenever you feel moved to make a personal attack on someone, please consider not doing so. And if goes without saying that if anybody really is engaged in some kind of conspiracy against Giano, they should also knock if off. While people are engaging in these gross and unacceptable personal attacks they are not helping Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• "if anybody really is engaged in some kind of conspiracy against Giano" "if???" You are behind the times Tony! However, you always have been a little out of touch with the mood of things here, anyway having proved my point beyond all reasonable doubt, I have now cancelled all wikipedia donations, and advise others to the same. Donating our time is enough from now onwards, if the money is ro be wasted in this fashion [1]. The whole thing is now ridiculous if you, Cyde, Mackensen and your friends want to inhabit a private world of spite then you may, so long as it is poweless and all opinions which eminate from it are shunned, ignored or laughed off, then what the hell. The place and its occupants are now thoroughly discredited. I don't see there is a lot more to say, and unless I am yet again commented on and attacked, I shallbe saying very little more on the subject. I shall not be funding but ignoring the actions and views of all IRCadmins and their non-nadmin cronies from now on. As far as I'm concerned they are in effect de-sysoped as they have forfeited all respect. I advise all others to do the same, thus leaving wikipedia a better place. Giano 10:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please consider carefully your use of language above. This isn't a school playground, it isn't about one faction or another "winning", being discredited, or whatever; as always it's about the continuation of behavior that is obviously damaging the community and the encyclopedia. If you've given money to the Foundation in the past, as a fellow editor I say thank you. All such donations are voluntary but nonetheless welcome. I'm just asking you, next time you feel that you should make a personal attack like this, to reconsider. That's all. It's no more than Wikipedia policy expects of all editors. That includes you. --Tony Sidaway 10:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Go tell it to IRC Tony, you have more credence there. Giano 10:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Within moments of the advising Tony to tell it to IRC admins he was indeed on the channel denouncing me yet again, denying any wrong doing on the IRC admin channel. Apparently I'm a fantasist. Where I wonder are the amazing new policemen? - well I told you nothing would change, but I did rather think they might behave themselves for longer than half an hour. They just cannot help themselves, so within seconds of me saying publicly all over this site I was through with the subject, they are all up to their old tricks. What would happen if I quote the logs here? Do I have your permission to quote your words, Tony, Doc Glasgow, and Phil Boswell? Giano 12:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you can manufacture some kind of conspiracy out of what I have been saying in the admins channel today, you are more than welcome to try. So long as you quote everything I said, providing proper context (timestamps would be nice also), without any kind of elision, summarising or editorialising, fire away. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think I'm daft enough to give you the timestamps! Giano

Whilst trying to answer a question about how this whole thing started I said on IRC "Doc_glasgow> The problem is, that when people believfe [sic] Giano has a free pass, they DO conspire, from a sense of injustice, to find a way to convince the community to act and stop his nastiness". I stand by that remark as my impression of what has happened. I was not 'denouncing you' in secret. There is a vicious circle: 1) your incivility isn't dealt with. 2) People feel aggrieved and discuss it. 3) You get paranoid and indulge in more incivility. I said nothing I haven't said on-wiki before. I have posted this analysis on an arbcom talk page in the past. Why anyone felt it helpful to send you the logs I have no idea! But that person out to be booted, not for breaching confidence, but for trying to stir up trouble and feed trolling. You are appearing like a fantasist, you are seemingly paranoid, and you are being quite nasty. And please don't try to have a civility contest with me - you lose.--Doc^g 13:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to Doc - you do a fine job yourself. Giano 13:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You have my permission to quote anything I've said or will say on #wikipedia or #wikipedia-en-admins. (Those are the only channels I visit, and indeed I plan to keep my involvement with #wikipedia-en-admins to the strictest minimum in future.) Bishonen | talk 15:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, you're a fantasist. This isn't a secret, nor does stating this as a fact amount to a personal attack. You have repeated false claims of a conspiracy, most of them made up out of whole cloth, some of them supported by dubious readings of purloined logs. Please stop. It is harming Wikipedia and the community, --Tony Sidaway 13:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Let nobody say you weren't warned, lets see who dares to block you for personal attacks. lets see where your free pass is. Come on Mackensen where are you?, what you Kylu? Lar? have you an opinion Giano 13:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As it happens I'm working on the Harzburg Front. Since I've never blocked anybody for personal attacks and as I've stated openly that I don't support such blocks I cannot begin to fathom what you're trying to prove here. Mackensen (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm proving that the new policing by yourself is none too imptressive - is it? Of course this whole business is just another example of the IRC goading that one has to contend with, they say these things on IRC to infuriate (they succeed) . Sadly their days on their poisonous channel though are now numbered. I shall not insult any of the above (as they would like me to) I'm sure all other editors can see exactly what sort of people they are, without my adjectives. Giano 13:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not, actually. Nothing was said in the channel today that in any way contravenes civility. Go ahead, post all the logs you want, because there's nothing there. What goading? What are you even talking about? Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not responding to your bait any longer. We obviously have very different interpretations of civility. I cannot be bothered to argue with you and your cohorts any longer. The channel is doomed, it has lost all creditability along with those of you who inhabit it. Please just stay away from me, do not comment on me and if possible do not discuss me on your sordid channel, that way their will be peace on wikipedia. Thank you Giano 14:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing would give me or anyone else any greater pleasure. I daresay no one on that channel wants the least bit to do with you and would gladly stay out of your way. In turn, of course, you have to stay out of theirs. I'm not baiting and I'm not goading; I'm asking honestly and with restraint how you think civility was breached this morning. If you're not willing to answer that's fine but don't then turn around and criticize me for not doing anything about it. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You had your chance - now go away and leave me alone - please! Giano 14:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be prolonging this thread here, but this is a direct response to what Mackensen says above. Mackensen, I don't understand your thinking when you insist that Giano should quote the log for today, or when you ask that he show how civility was breached (which is in turn hardly to be done without quoting). Aren't you asking rather a lot ? Tony Sidaway, the person who (in my opinion) did make attacks this morning, has been asked for permission to quote his words, but hasn't replied. Consequently Giano would be banned if he did quote them. Wouldn't he? Bishonen | talk 17:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

I think the question has been rendered moot. I have the impression that Giano would like to leave the matter where it sits, and I want to respect that wish. However, since you asked, allow me to clarify: I didn't ask Giano to post logs, though it's quite obvious he has them. A private communication would have been more than sufficient. I was mainly asking for clarification as he had me (and, still has me) at a disadvantage. Again, I've reviewed the logs from this morning on my own, and I see nothing–from any party–that rises to the level of a personal attack or would be construed by an uninvolved party as incivility. However, if you'll note below, I've taken the step of banning all further discussion regarding, mention of, or inference to Giano and these related matters. Under the circumstances, it isn't possible for those things to be mentioned without someone taking offence, and I've had more than enough drama this month. I should think we all have. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, in my opinion not one word that I have said about Giano on that channel comes close to being a personal attack, I consider none of the words I have uttered about Giano on that channel or anywhere else to be confidential. Nothing I have said there about the ongoing problematic behavior of Giano and one or two editors, to wit, their baseless personal attacks and their fantasies of a conspiracy, is other than what I have said on the wiki. Giano is a problem editor as long as he continues to launch false and baseless attacks on other editors. We have to recognise this fact in order to achieve a solution. --Tony Sidaway 11:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm hoping that draws a line under it all. Please, just stop now, it's not getting anyone anywhere. You think other people actually enjoy this? You think it makes us feel one jot better about contributing? You think it improves the mood or the tone? Think about the impact you have on others. If you have to do this, go and do it at arbitration and agree a settlement for once and for all. Let us have our encyclopedia back. Please, simply end it now. No more words. Thank you. Steve block Talk 12:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Wikipedia talk:Off-wiki policy discussion is probably a better place for this, although Wikipedia talk:Off-wiki discussion would be a better name for it. Can I ask that those involved here mosey over there so that we can try to acutally work out a stable solution?
brenneman 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If ArbCom cannot deal with this, why are we having this conversation? Only tempers are flying. If Jdforrestor controls the wikimedia channels, can we not have a simple appointment process for channel operators who can deal with off-wiki civility issues off-the-wiki? It is as simple as that, otherwise I do not see anything other than hypocrisy. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice

Per Giano's (and, frankly, my own) wishes, I have banned all in-channel discussion of him and related disputes, regardless of content and motive. We're at the point where good faith simply cannot be assumed, and it's time to move on. We have articles to write; an encyclopedia to build. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen, I think this is a very good idea, and want to thank you for doing this. Paul August ☎ 19:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion (2nd)

I haven't read all the above, but David Gerard did emphasise that the WMF and Wikipedia organisations like ArbCom have no jurisdiction over wikipedia IRC channels, which is fair enough, though I wonder whether they are allowed to use wikipedia in the channel name if this is the case. Maybe the names should be changed to include the qualification 'unofficial'?

My main point is that if they are unofficial and Wikipedia has no jurisdiction there, doesn't that place the wikipedia IRC channels in the same class of organisations, like Wikipedia Review, Wikitruth, Uncyclopedia and similar critical, humorous and attack organsiations, that are clustered around the behemoth that is Wikipedia? ie. Related to but not really part of it? If someone set up a website staffed by Wikipedia admins for Wikipedia admins to go to to get advice about admin actions on Wikipedia, would that be any different from the wikipedia IRC admin channel (apart from not being IRC)? If not, then I suggest leaving the IRC channels to stand or fall on their own merits, and simply make clear, here, on Wikipedia, that these IRC channels exist, but they are not official. Make them ex-officio, if indeed they ever were official. Then, if the IRC channels get a reputation for being closed and cliquey, and/or the wrong place to go to (I don't know the truth of this, as I've never been there), they will start to wither and die, and people will learn (or be prompted) to use on-wiki processes instead. Carcharoth 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• This seems a sensible reading of the situation. My only quibble is purely grammatical: ex-officio doesn't mean what you think it means. IRC channels don't exist by virtue of any office, unless you're implying that administrators have, ex-officio, an expectation to entry in one or more channels. Mackensen (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Presumably they will be handing Wikipedia's money back accordingly. Giano 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As they've never received any in the first place (that I'm aware of) that should prove a simple exercise. Mackensen (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh dear, I do hope the cheque [2] didn't bounce. Giano 18:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        • WMF gave a donation to Freenode, which is a free, open-source IRC network that provides much more than simply #wikimedia channels — it is in fact the largest FOSS IRC network in the world. None of the donation went to the people who you feel have wronged or conspired against you, it went towards the upkeep of an organization with similar goals as Wikipedia. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 19:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Interesting, I didn't know about that. Well, go take it up with the Foundation if you like. As that donation was in the name of the Foundation, it would also include all the channels for the other-language Wikipedias. Mackensen (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well I think it was a lovely charitable idea, I wonder who thought of it, and in spite of constant appeals the foundation can afford to give money away. Giano 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is one reasonable approach to take. Paul August ☎ 19:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • It is only reasonable if you start from the point that the channel is of net detriment to Wikipedia. Perhaps some dispassionate person should do a cost-benefit analysis to the project. I'd strong suspect that the net benefit is immense. (That's not to deny there may be some costs and problems.) I handle OTRS - in many instances I need help, second opinions, or oversight. I can't request that on-wiki for obvious reasons. I could e-mail, but that's inefficient. I'd have to e-mail dozens of people to guarantee a response - and each wouldn't know if it has been dealt with by the time they are reading it. The admins' channel allows me to call on, and discuss the issue, with a cross section of trusted people, and they is normally someone in there with the time to assist. (And yes, before someone points it out, some OTRS issues cannot be discussed even in that channel). Killing the channel would lose that, and I'm not convinced it would stop incivility. Frankly, I've experienced more incivility on-wiki.--Doc^g 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Disaffiliating it would not mean killing it. And the issues with that channel are more than incivility. Paul August ☎ 20:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well then I don't understand. If you disaffiliate it, what is the intention? If it is to discourage its use, then you lose the benefits or at least decrease them. You also forfeit some level of control. Will arbcom still watch over a disaffiliated channel. And wouldn't the 'issues' still continue? Either the intention is to diminish/discourage the channel's use - in which case you are saying it is a net loss to Wikipedia. Is it? Or you are not intending to diminish its use - in which case, what's the point?--Doc^g 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Will arbcom still watch over a disaffiliated channel" Please someone, anyone tell me I have not just read that phrase, after all that has been said, all the lies told, is Doc seriously suggesting that the arbcom have indeed been watching over the channel all the time? This whole thing is sickening me. Giano 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Giano, the way I read Doc G, he is referring to the way ArbCom members are currently watching the channel. Things are being done, by the looks of it. Even if it is not precisely what you want done, can you consider stepping back for a bit to let things settle down? Then things can be reviewed in a month or so. Constant argument is not productive. Unless something really bad happens, please let things calm down. Carcharoth 21:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I stepped back once today - remember? Giano 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't been following the whole thing that closely, so no, I don't remember. Carcharoth 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Off-wiki policy discussion

• #wikipedia-en-admins was proposed [3], given specific mandates [4] and announced on the WikiEN mailing list [5]. It continues, by all accounts, to be a place intended for discussion among wikipedia admins for wikipedia issues. The foundation donates money to irc in recognition of its importance to wikipedia. [6] All actions there, including who becomes channel ops, should be accountable to the arbcom and the wikipedia community. The latest posting by the arbcom only partially acknowledges this [7], they need to do better. To start with, a complete review of channel ops should be done - on wiki and transparently (for the #wikipedia-en-admins channel only). --Duk 05:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If WMF and Wikipedia organisations like ArbCom have no jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins then who does? The operators of the channel? If so, then the wikipedia community should choose who these people are (for the #wikipedia-en-admins channel only). --Duk 19:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• There's a flaw in your reasoning. The Foundation donated money to Freenode recognizing the importance of all IRC channels, and not just the English-language ones. #wikipedia-en-admins is a comparatively small operation (#wikipedia, for example, usually has at least 250-300 people in it). Mackensen (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intent to say the money was in recognition of #wikipedia-en-admins in particular. Yes, I should have been clearer. donates money to irc in recognition of its importance --Duk 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read between the lines of the post you linked to. The post says: "We hope it [the donation] will help the servers to keep running smoothly" - ie. there had been problems with the servers (which also explains why it was a one-off donation). The post also ends with: "We also renew our condoleances for the death, 2 months ago, of FreeNode founder, aka Lilo." - this refers to the death of Rob Levin. My reading of the post is that the donation is to help Freenode through a difficult period following the death of its founder. The Wikimedia Foundation is big enough now to stand on its own two feet (and maybe Freenode is as well, I don't really know), but consider what might have happened if Jimbo had died suddenly (Rob Levin was knocked down by a car while cycling) during the first year or two of Wikipedia. Imagine the chaos that could have caused, and how a donation might have helped. Carcharoth 21:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Who runs the #wikipedia-en-admins channel and who do they answer to in that regard? What is the chain of command? And is the following quote correct? --Duk 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

...as per Freenode policy, any channel with the word Wikipedia in it is an official, sanctioned to, and belonging to the Foundation channel. It doesn't matter who wants to put what there, if its not offical, it can't go there... [8]

If I remember correctly, it's James_F. But who cares. Just shut the damn channel down already. —Pilotguy (ptt) 21:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[Bah, edit conflicts.]

Try /cs access #wikipedia-en-admins list, but the highlights (in no particular order) are myself, Dmcdevit, Essjay, Jimmy, Angela, Mark Ryan, Mackensen, sannse, Uninvited Company, David Gerard, Kat, and FloNight. The "top dogs" are Essjay, Jimmy, and myself. I'm in eventual command of all Wikimedia IRC channels, by virtue of being "Group Contact Chair". The quote is correct, ish. We have an odd relationship with Freenode - I'm "officially unofficial", as it were.

James F. (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi James (may I call you "Group Contact Chair"?) - just out of idle curiousity, just to humour me - which of those names above are not on the arbcom mailing list? Giano 22:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but I'm certainly not involved with the arbcom in any respect, beyond voting in the elections. - Mark 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you've done a wonderful job managing 99% of the irc channels. #Wikipedia-en-admins is a special case - it holds a unique amount of power and influence, has special status from the way it was set up, and it has cause this incredible mess.

Do you answer to the community with regards to irc, the arbcom?

I'd like to suggest that the admin community from en and commons select the ops for this channel to serve under your leadership. I think that would address many of the fears, some of the pathological symptoms the arbcom has acknowledged, and maybe some of the underlying illness too.--Duk 21:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree that the channel holds "power and influence" - the people who hang out there have wiki-priviledges, and have influence through people's trust in them. It also hardly has "special status" - there are quite a few private invite-only Wikimedia-related IRC channels; this is merely the most publically-known.

I can control the channel (in the technical sense), but I cannot control the people - I feel that a great deal of the concern in the channel is actually mis-placed, and should be directed at the members of our community with whom some have issues.

In my rôle of Group Contact Chair, I "answer" neither to the community (IRC, enwiki, metawiki, mailing-list, or otherwise), nor to the Arbitration Committee; in the end, I suppose I answer to the Board, but that is something that has never come up, so I'm not sure that there's a conceptual framework with which all interlocutors readily agree.

I worry about accepting a concept of having a formal hold of who the "admin community" of a wiki is and isn't - were I to fail to talk to someone (through my ignorance), would it be seen as a snub of said community's ideals? I'd feel uncomfortable, I suppose - it's not my (currently) place to deign to designate the aristocracy of a wikicommunity. Note, BTW, that I'm a member of the Committee whose noting of fears you reference. :-)

James F. (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(The following comments on the above by Duk have been moved out of the body of James F's comments where they were originally embedded, in order to make it possible (for me at least!) to read James F's comments. In the following, I am inserting a brief reference to the paragraph to which Duk responds so that the context of Duk's comments can be understood. --Tony Sidaway 13:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree that the channel holds "power and influence"...

Then we disagree. The channel does hold a special place, not only in the way it was set up, but in who gets invited there. And also because of the special problems it has caused.--Duk 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I can control the channel (in the technical sense), but I cannot control the people...'

You can control who the ops are, correct? --Duk 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In my rôle of Group Contact Chair, I "answer" neither to the community (IRC, enwiki, metawiki, mailing-list, or otherwise), nor to the Arbitration Committee...

Agree, its murky, I don't envy your position. But now it has come up, in a big way. This channel is different since it was discussed and set up in WikEN-L, and the foundation partially funds it. --Duk 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I worry about accepting a concept of having a formal hold of who the "admin community" of a wiki is and isn't...

We *do* have a formal admin community - it's here on the wiki. Come on James. --Duk 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The the channel in question (and possibly more, as you say) is an invitation only place that has accountability designed out it by virtue of secrecy and no logging. In reality, like minded friends go there and interact. It crackles with social energy. The arbcom (some of whom are regulars in that channel) has found "incidents involving gross incivility", only grudgingly after months of non-stop work by the victims, one of whom was threatened with banning while defending himself. They haven't yet corroborated (or denied) the allegations of character assassination and conspiracy. A quote from one of our articles (and I'm not implying criminal activity, this is just conceptual) - Under the common law the crime of conspiracy was capable of infinite growth, able to accommodate any new situation and to criminalize it if the level of threat to society was sufficiently great. So what's the level of threat when a secret, closed group allegedly gangs up on and trys to drive away some of wikipedia's greatest contributers? What other cases have there been where the victims weren't lucky enough to see the logs? What consequences have been given to the people responsible for this "gross incivility"? What is going to happen next time - when the victims probably won't be lucky enough to see the logs

This isn't about on-wiki-incivility on vs. off-wiki-incivility. When it happens on wiki people get a chance to hear each other and are therefore on a level playing field to resolve conflict. When "incivility" happens in irc and the victim isn't there, it can be predatory and destructive, opinions and minds can be poisoned against the victim, who might never know why everybody starts treating her worse and worse and worse. --Duk 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been numerous completely false and extremely damaging allegations of a conspiracy. The problem is that these absurd allegations have been taken seriously when they should--in the interests of the encyclopedia and the well-being of the community--have been rightly derided. The channel poses no threat to Wikipedia; indeed without this channel and others like it the work of Wikipedia administrators would be more difficult. --Tony Sidaway 13:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• You know very well what has been going on, in addition to other matters, certain admins have arranged for editors to be wrongly blocked by other less experienced admins. The arbcom is aware of it, and are dealing with it (or have you been shown an arbcom mailing list which denies this?). Stop denying what you know to be true. Multiple logs have proved that the admins channel has been abused in a disgraceful way. The arbcom are only making this situation worse by allowing this matter to drag on, and people like yourself to make false and ridiculous speeches from decrepit and rotting platforms. Giano 15:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I'm guessing that this situation is doubly hurtful to you, since you've campaigned for openness (a year ago on WikiEn-L with regards to an admin-only mailing list) and offered permission to publish all your comments from #wikipedia-en-admins. Very commendable and consistent. Maybe you're worried about guilt by association of what the arbdom calls "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility", but the closed nature of the channel is preventing you from defending yourself, or from showing that the channel isn't always such a bad place. It could be worse - this discussion could be going on in a secret channel you're excluded from, where some of your worst enemies are grossly and uncivilly maligning you. Secrecy and censorship suck.

But still, the main problem here isn't "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility", as bad as that is. Sometimes tempers flair and people get grossly uncivil, sometimes in self-defense. When it happens on wiki, back and forth communications and a road to dispute resolution is still open, people hear each other. However, when it happen behinds people's backs, in a secret closed meeting room of like minded admins with no intent of dispute resolution, then it's destructive in nature and corrupts our leadership and our culture. People who go down that road should take a long look at themselves and ask whether they are really interested in creating a free encyclopedia, or if they are more interested in power and status and destroying their enemies. --Duk 20:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm afraid Tony's mouth is only part of the problem. The crux is the arbcom itself, who are so ashamed of some of their members behaviour in this matter (and equally importantly the behaviour of some of their closest friends) they cannot reach agreement on how to solve the problem. If they had a grain of common sense, and feeling for wikipedia, the matter would now be firmly closed and finished, but they are torn between their loyalty to each other, and their duty to wikipedia. I suppose they should all resign if they can't reach agreement, but I don't think they have quite enough honour between them for that! So they will allow this to drag on rather than finish the totally discredited #wikipedia-en-admins which is the obvious solution. I had dropped this matter, but the arbcom's friends (i.e. Tony) cannot help themselves, they are so afraid that their power base is going to be completely destroyed they have to keep digging away seemingly unaware it is the admin channel's justly deserved grave they are digging. Giano 20:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins (section break)

• What I find strange about this whole thing is your stance that the whole channel is (insert hyperbole here). It's a channel, no different than many on wiki pages, and there are various contributors to it. Taking the fact that there has been some bad behavior (actually I've not really personally seen it, I just take that on faith based on the number of people that have said as much) and equating that with a need to completely shut it down is equivalent to saying the fact that there has been some terrible behavior on wiki means the whole wiki needs to be shut down. Not very many people nor evidence back your claims that everyone in the channel is behaving terribly, nor that the whole channel and all it's participants are disgraced. In fact claiming that all participants in the channel are deplorable people as you have essentially done, just reflects poorly on you. The reality is some relatively small percentage of the discussion there ranges from terrible and regrettable to not helpful. Hopefully the current efforts will be enough to clean up the channel, and allow the useful efforts there to go on. - Taxman ^Talk 22:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• It dosen't matter if the "terrible" (which means what? just "incivility"?) accounts for 5% or 50% of that channel's activities, because we, the community, are not able to tell. If you wish to speak about "evidence" (which is not sensitive — and it is not) backing up anything, it needs to become publicly available. Otherwise, invoking the word feels rather absurd. It was interesting to see how the Committee became divided over this issue, and how those whom I consider the more sensible arbitrators (before any of this happned) opposed the wildly pro-IRC "remedies" against Giano. But nevertheless, as a body, the Committee has been —and remains— far too equivocal, which, by extension, reflects poorly on it/you. El_C 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

...where some of your worst enemies are grossly and uncivilly maligning you: Wow, Duk - that's some paranoia (no offense). First, this is the internet, not real life - nobody's worst enemies exist online. Secondly, are people grossly and uncivilly maligning you/anybody? And if so, how do you know? Personally, I've never been in an admin-only channel/list and never will, but I've never assumed that people are even thinking about me in one - I'm simply not that important and, respectfully, neither are most other non-persistant-vandals. 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please go read the very first sentence of this section; Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. This statement is from the arbcom. There isn't a problem with paranoid people imagining things - instead, there's a problem with documented events that people are blind to, even when written down and explained (no offense, VEЯS). --Duk 21:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input Taxman. I remember well how you promoted Carnildo to adminship when it was quite clearly against consensus, and how the usual leading names from the channel trotted out to say what a good idea it was. While I'm here it would be interesting to know what exactly Tony Sidaway is doing in the channel anyway as he is not an admin. Giano 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting that you jump straight to ad hominem instead of addressing the argument. It's clear from your biting sarcasm that you're not really interested in helping things improve, but that you're so emotionally tied up in conflict you don't see your part in causing problems. At least I made a good faith decision in consultation with other bureaucrats and can feel good about making a decision in the best interests of the project, and that my behavior throughout carried in it not the least bit of incivility. Can you say as much? But clearly it's not going to be fruitful to continue discussion. Steve brings a link to some pretty insightful words. - Taxman ^Talk 14:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps Taxman, it is for others to see their parts in this. It is always convenient to shoot the messenger but in this instance the messenger is refusing to lie down and die. The channel has been abused, if people gather to discuss others in secret places, they cannot be surprised if they are accused of nefarious deeds, especially if they carry out some very strange acts following those secretive discussions. Giano 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't think so. It is perfectly possible to give criticism while not engaging in behavior as bad or worse than those you are pointing the finger at. If you had maintained civility then there would probably be less controversy surrounding this, and more productive discussion, because the facts appear to speak for themselves. - Taxman ^Talk 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Taxman, I realize that you don't know with any precision what has actually been going on in the admin channel, and still to a certain extent goes on. The evidence situation makes the discussion absurd, as El C says: the actual events must not be presented or discussed. I despair when I see the necessarily vague descriptions of "gross incivility", "character assassination" and "conspiracy" dismissed as "paranoia" above, and when I see you sarcastically suggest "(insert hyperbole here)". All I can do is make some bald, non-evidence-supported statements, and you, Taxman (and you, dear reader), will have to decide if they bear the stamp of truth, and if I have any personal credibility. Thus: I know what goes on in the way of character assassination in en-admins because I've been ganged up on and attacked to my face, and I've seen others ganged up on and attacked behind their backs. I've seen admins asking for help in getting Giano blocked. The most distasteful thing I've seen there is the way instant decency has broken out when Jimmy Wales has dropped into the channel, and been as instantly withdrawn when he has left. I've sent my record of a couple of incidents to the arbcom, logged by myself and without one pixel edited, removed, or added; that's how the "numerous incidents involving gross incivility" were brought to their attention. (Perhaps other people have sent logs also, I wouldn't know. One neutral person, at my request, submitted his own logs for the same times as mine, and I hope that the two versions were compared.) Please don't shoot the messenger Giano—he wasn't there, though he is a victim of the bad channel culture—better shoot the witness if you don't believe me. One thing I've noticed is that when people actually manage to get hold of those or similar logs (not apparently a startlingly difficult feat, as many log the channel 24/7), they tend to stop saying "paranoia" and "hyperbole" and start saying "I'm shocked", and "I had no idea". (Quoting an arbitrator—I won't name him, but perhaps he'll name himself.) And here's an expressive small item on my talk.

Even if these things are true, why do I rake up the past, now that measures for cleanup are being taken? Several reasons: the channel isn't very clean, in my opinion—I've just decided not to go there any more, as there's now precious little support to be had, with both Bunchofgrapes and Rebecca having given it up in disgust. The new chanops no doubt do their best, in an authoritarian manner, to keep it civil; but they're not always there, and the more effective and proactive of them are far from always there. Is a channel that needs so much policing worth trying to keep on course? Its own culture is bad. Social meeting-places do develop cultures of their own—to say so is not indeed to claim that the members of it are all bad people, as you suggest in your reductio ad absurdum above. This one has a troubled past. In the very last exchange I saw in channel, yesterday, the policing was merely pushing the tone of discourse (in, as it happens, a discussion of Giano) from attack to insinuation. Secondly, the abusive chanops are still chanops, though they've chosen not to be active at the moment. The arbcom is, as far as I can gather, leaving them free to resume these leading roles at any moment of their choice. This, to me, is offensive—I actually find it hard to believe—and it seems to me a good reason to either shut down the channel, or open it to all. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

• Mcginnley raised this matter on my talk page, and I have responded there. Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note that I accepted from the outset that such behavior was going on, so you don't need to convince me. Terrible behavior goes on on wiki too. Should we shut the whole thing down? Deal with the behavior, don't throw out what's valuable. And no, I don't have any problem with removing chanops from people that have been shown to abuse them. I would hope that would be the norm, and yes, I would agree that's a problem if it's not happening. But it's also not shooting the messenger to point out that the way the message is delivered is making the problem worse. - Taxman ^Talk 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed that you insist on the margin rather than the center. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
• I'll just note that my disgust with the culture of #wikipedia-en-admins was a major motivator for my resigning as an administrator -- anything that distanced me from the goings-on in there seemed like a good thing. I know I only spent time in there to try to reign in the abuses of a few people like Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin -- people the community here would not trust as sysops but who, last I saw, still were among the most frequent chatters in the channel (and Kelly was still one of the chanops). I'm glad I no longer have access -- it was like a prison sentence. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Get real Taxman and put your own house in order first, This messenger refuses to be polite to <personal attack removed again> who feel they can be as abusive as they like in the secrecy of their own disgusting channel, and then scream incivility when anyone publicly answers them back or rebukes them on wiki. The arbcom are too reticent to deal with these people, so that leaves me no choice but to handle them in my own way, at least I'm still here which is more than many of their victims are, so perhaps my way is best for wikipedia. Giano 18:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would hope the incongruity of refusing to be polite (while insulting others) at the same time as pointing out the incivility of others is not lost on anyone. You're just as bad as they are. Pray tell why should your behavior be ignored, while others are sanctioned for the same thing? Just because you're still here doesn't mean all your actions are helpful, or that there aren't better ways of approaching it. But again it's clear you aren't interested in following the civility policy, so I'll do my best not to respond further. I think my points have been made. - Taxman ^Talk 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is a huge pity Taxman, but I suspect your hostility to me comes from these two edits here: [9] and [10]. Taxman you need to get over it, as you yourself say of me above "you are so emotionally tied up in conflict you don't see your part in causing problems" perhaps it is not me that needs to do some serious soul searching! Giano 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• There was no intended hostility in any of my comments. In fact I'm not sure how you could claim any, and most certainly not remotely in comparison to the level of yours. I was simply pointing out a problem in the most constructive way I could. We can carry this on at someone's talk page instead, but this is not the place. - Taxman ^Talk 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding my reversion of your edit here [11] personal? personal? nobody's supposed to know I'm talking about!they're defined only by their cowardice! and of course the incidents to which I refer, are all of-wiki. You people can't have it both ways. Giano 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it patently absurd to say that something with Wikipedia in it's name is not under the jurisdiction of the same authorities that police Wikipedia. If it isn't going to be answerable to these authorities than frankly I don't think it should bear the Wikipedia name, and should be usurped, or deleted. However, I'll also say that attacking the venue of the discourse is also patently absurd. People are people, and the people that are acting up on the admin channel would not be better people without it, I'm sure I can say. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins (not incivility but conspiracy is the core)

It's outright strange that so many people concentrate on incivility of #wikipedia-en-admins while omitting the real problem. The channel has become a venue where certain current and former admins and (amazingly) assisted by sitting ArbCom members conspire how to give a Wikipedia an enema (sic!) and rid it from the editors who oppose them. There is a log from the last year somewhere out there where the self-styled "arbitrator emeritus" discusses with a then (and still now) sitting ArbCom member how to "get rid of Irpen" through a "slow and grudging process" with another ArbCom member (still sitting as well) who professes a chairmanship of the channel watching and proclaiming that "idiots should go". ArbCom has been made aware of that log, they tell me. Still no action. There is plenty of evidence about blocks orchestrated via the channel and I saw no desysopping and instead we concentrate on "incivility". Big deal! I am not worried about incivility. I am by far more worried about teaming up to find an excuse to block Giano (or Irpen or Ghirlandajo) and the names of the conspirators are well known.

Anyway, I am going to act at this point. Within days I will submit a case to ArbCom backed up by evidence of the orchestrated blocks. We will see what comes out of that.

In the meanwhile, please drop the nonsense about incivility. Whoever wants to discuss manners, go to alt.fan.miss-manners or other fora. Time to address admin abuse, violations of existing blocking policies and broken RfAdm. --Irpen 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Let me note that while I've otherwise withdrawn from this discussion, I support Irpen's intention to seek arbitration and will of course recuse myself from public (and private) discussion of the matter. Mackensen (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• This instant archiving [12] of threads pertaining to these discussions is becoming not only tiresome but deeply irritating, and it is going to stop. I have been asked to clarify elsewhere what I understand by the term conspiracy. As I understand it, a conspiracy is two or more people discussing in a secret place how best to deal with a third party not privy to those discussions. Of course in a place like Wikipedia some people i e the Arbcom should have a private place to discuss matters. There is no need for every "quickly come lately liitle admin" to require such a place. I am delighted Mackensen intends to recuse, it is so unseemly when as in the last aborted "Giano case" arbcom members such as J Forrester were forced to recuse after they had already (with strange haste) voted. I very much hope Irpen's case will prove that he was not only unjustly blocked, but that strange things (which the arbcom accept, but we are not allowed to mention) have happened on that channel. I won't comment further on the details of that case, as Thatcher seems to be concerned by Sub judice rules, but of course we all know (don't we Thatcher?) these things don't apply on wiki - so no worries there. It is such a pity we have to have these repeated and damaging cases because the arbcom, whose members are so numerous and clandestine (why is there not a readily available list of those entitled to receive and pass comment on the arbcom mailing list?) fail to deal once and for all with the notorious abuses which have taken place and are taking place in the designated "admin channel." Giano 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've already been taken to the woodshed [13]. If the real issue is conspiracy resulting in misuse of admin tools, my thought was to archive this 150kb monstrosity and open a new discussion on the real issue [14]. Obviously you and Irpen disagree [15]. I would like to note in passing that I do not and never have used IRC, and furthermore have a very low opinion after it was reported someone on the regular channel was canvassing people to oppose my RFA. I regret any missteps. Thatcher131 22:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is interesting to note that the ArbCom mailing list's member list is private. There's really no good reason it should be. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP:AC#Mailing list. FreplySpang 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's not a mailman members list. With chanops in the admin channel that aren't even admins, I think it warrants a look as to whether there's people in the ArbCom kitchen that aren't cooks, too. Transparency is vital to the health of the wiki. Of course, the actual discussions should never be made public, as they are made in confidence and often contain confidential information of various sorts (from what I gather), but there is no good reason a list of the members of the list could not be made public. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Peter, I recently added the usernames of all the subscribers of that list at the link Freply gave above: WP:AC#Mailing list. So a list of the members of that list is now publicly available. Paul August ☎ 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Did you forget Rebecca, or is she not on it? Musical Linguist 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Rebecca is not currently subscribed to the list. Paul August ☎ 23:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are many good reasons. ArbCommers are frequently privy to checkuser information and other sensitive details. Chick Bowen 22:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Or did you mean that the member list itself is private? In which case, as FreplySpang indicates, it isn't. Chick Bowen 22:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• 28! That is not a committee, it is a parliament, and seemingly a hung one. Giano 22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple thoughts regarding some of the membership listed:

• Essjay - I respect and trust Essjay greatly, but he isn't an Arbitrator, so should he really be on the list?
• Mindspillage - Didn't Kat step down from Arbcom?

I do appreciate the gesture of transparency, though, Paul. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Quoting from that list's information page: Subscriptions (allowing posting to and receiving from the mailing list) are limited to current and former Arbitrators, and Jimbo Wales. Essjay is an exception. Paul August ☎ 23:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is Essjay an exception? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong but it could have to do with one of the many hats Essjay wears. Essjay is a bloody valuable contributor and I can see why he'd be the exception if anyone was going to be. Round my way we always have an exception that proves the rule, and I guess in this instance Essjay is that proof. Hope that helps. Personally, I'd hate to see Wikipedia get that far up its own arse it couldn't have exceptions to rules. But I guess I'm a rules are made to be broken kind of person. That's why I have a great fear of writing rules down. I take it there's no chance people are just going to let this whole issue die quietly? (cf stage two of dispute resolution.) Steve block Talk 00:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not contesting it, but I am interested in knowing what the reason is. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves, Essjay was added at about the same time he became the first non-arbitrator on en to get checkuser (I'm fairly sure he is still the only one). It was decided since the arbcom mailing list was the primary venue to discuss checkuser related activities, it was logical for him to have access. A secondary benefit to this was that we thought he would provide valuable insight into other committee discussions. Raul654 01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers, 02:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins (Section break 2)

A friendly pointer to step two of the dispute resolution process. Steve block Talk 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well for the past 4 hours it was mostly irrelavent stuff in the channel with some discussion abot currentdate template, DYK and Cplot, im never in the channel when most of the conflect occurs though Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion from someone on the outside of this whole thing, but this discussion may benefit from being on a subpage, with a link from here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some facts

1. Giano, Irpen, Bishonen, and Ghirlandajo (among others) have made many enemies.
2. Those enemies talk about them behind their backs, including ways to get rid of them.
3. Changing or shutting down #wikipedia-en-admins will not change either of the above.

--Ideogram 01:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

They don't care who discusses them and how much. The problem is the abusive blocks that violate our policies. What needs done most urgently is punishment for abusive blocks. If the channel continues to run, but abusive blockers get de-adminned, the abuse would stop at once. --Irpen 01:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I look forward to an in-depth discussion of abusive blocks in your RFAr. --Ideogram 02:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Cplot

Anyone think it's time to call up his IP or file a WP:ABUSE report? I'm not sure how to go about this, and I don't know his IP range. But this is getting entirely out of hand. Patstuart^talk|edits 23:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already an investigation going against his IP there... a second... the one under the 68.30.65.203 heading. -- ReyBrujo 23:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He has recently used:

• 24.148.7.123
• 64.241.37.140
• 66.73.80.206
• 66.149.74.142
• 67.167.7.81
• 67.167.7.187
• 68.30.156.41
• 75.22.229.188
• 75.57.102.247

I suggest we start gathering a definitive collection, to be followed with ISP complaints and range blocking. Raul654 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Add:

• 68.251.35.198

To that list. --Wildnox(talk) 00:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a cplot ip blocked for a month. Since we blocked the ips for a week and did not work, I suggest extending to one month, until the investigation is finished. -- ReyBrujo 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My theory about Cplot, although probably flawed, is that Cplot is probably multiple people using different IPs. And yes, a WP:ABUSE report will probably help. --SunStar Net^talk 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you can't have a single person with so varied internet accounts. -- ReyBrujo 01:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Sunstar means that it is being used as a Role account, possibly with access gained by the posting of the name and password to something like a forum or BBS, to be manipulated by multiple users to game the system. Teke ^(talk) 01:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, gotcha. I suggest keeping a bot deleting posts that are over 60kb automatically :-) -- ReyBrujo 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• They'd have to be really dedicated to carry out this much of an attack on Wikipedia. BTW, I found a "parody" of Wikipedia, which is also called Wikipedia (confusingly enough), maybe Cplot can take his stuff there?? --SunStar Net^talk 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to knock on SBC's door and tell them to tell this guy to put a sock in it. —Pilotguy (ptt) 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This may be a role account, per Teke's suggestion above. I'm sure some forum will probably have a thread somewhere on this. --SunStar Net^talk 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I just searched google for the terms "government" and "cplot" and came up with nothing but many questionable sites syndicating wiki content (including user talk) in order to increase their page rank. I also came across a Harvard law site with a discussion involving a user called "thewaythingswork" which seemed to digress onto Cplot. Either there's nothing out there, or I need to refine my search terms. Could a proxy service be responsible for the numerous IP's? Crimsone 01:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably some open proxy, if that's what Cplot's using... --SunStar Net^talk 01:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that possible? The IPs resolve to major commercial ISPs. Chick Bowen 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but to say specifically how might offer ideas if it's not the case. It's not a particularly common thing to see from average internet users, but it is possible.For example, my IP is registered to PlusNet (and yes, it's static), but I could still be running a proxy on a second machine for others to connect through. Crimsone 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I always figured it was a bunch of guys from the same area working together, given the various Chicago ISPs listed in the suspected sock list. I don't really have any experience with this kind of thing, though. WarpstarRider 03:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

From a nontechnical angle my hunch is it's one person. A group of people would manifest a variety of writing styles. Yes, this means prolific and dedicated effort from one individual, but some irrational people are prolific and dedicated. This person ignored my repeated offers at Village Pump to accept evidence via e-mail and conduct an independent investigation. So while the emperor has no clothes, it's also human nature for the emperor to insist he's wearing fine duds while the crowd giggles. Durova^Charge! 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

At one point, I began thinking they were common people who had been cheated by Cplot to post those comments there. However, noticing how the sockpuppets try to insert the text in as many sections as possible reflects careful planning. Suppose Wikipedia asked for confirmation whenever it detects more than XXkb of text is being inserted at the same time (a copyvio warning, in example), wouldn't that stop him from doing this automatically and also help catch some copyvio infringements, especially when User:Wherebot is down? -- ReyBrujo 04:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So the question, is, now, would anybody like to call up SBC and give them the nastygram? (that's me honesetly asking for volunteers). We will need some checkuser information from Mackensen that we can email to SBC. Patstuart^talk|edits 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked an IP last night who was either Cplot or a Cplot wannabe which resolved to the University of Virginia computer lab. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite sure there are Cplot imitators out there. Cplot himself uses a few different ISPs. I'm willing to discuss via e-mail, but not here. --Aude (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the IPs that originate from Chicago should be the ones that are targeted in an abuse report? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Another IP used today by Cplot: 24.14.241.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).--Wildnox(talk) 20:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Several more used today:

• 68.29.19.14
• 70.8.72.109
• 75.22.229.188
• 24.148.87.100
• 75.3.20.158
• 24.148.64.151

Range blocked for 6 months. Raul654 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiPrograms that are not useful

Well, it appears to be the month for reforming or deprecating projects that have gotten out of hand (doesn't WP:CREEP call for a regular pruning of process?) I invite people to take a look at Wikipedia:Editor review and Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Both purport to be pages that help new users towards overall constructive behavior, and eventually adminship. However, both have gotten out of hand. They now steer people towards socially acceptable behavior as judged by the alleged RFA crowd. Thus, they reenforce editcountitis, as well as all sorts of arbitrary criteria like "an admin candidate must put X amount of work in AFD/RC patrol/AIV/whatever". This is certainly not good for the encyclopedia. Comments please on how to deal with this. >Radiant< 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to suggest we MFD them (see my comments on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Editor_review_.28and_admin_school.29.2C_and_RFA and Wikipedia_talk:Editor_review, but Editor review used to be a useful aid to newer editors before being subverted (perverted?) into its current use as a tool to shape user's edit counts so they perfectly fit the RFA hole, so I am reluctant to see it just cast asunder. Lose the school, redefine the aims of Editor Review. Proto::► 12:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally (having spent a good time doing editor reviews), I agree with Proto that ER used to be useful. While in the beginning most asked for counsel about how they handled a particular situation, what they could do to complement their current self, and why determined areas were useful. Nowadays, most ask advice about how to become admins. I am not sure, but "I think" it is because now the RFA page advertises it. While many would have posted their [unlikely successful] RFA, now they read the line that says If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try an editor review first. and ask the same in the editor review. Maybe, and it is a big maybe, if we change that line to If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try to get advice at Admin coaching then ER would go back to what it used to be. -- ReyBrujo 12:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin school has serious issues, and I'm not sure they can be "fixed" - which would render ReyBrujo's well reasoned suggestion ineffective. An Mfd may be the solution; whether an Esperanza solution is adopted or not, the attention and input would be beneficial. I concur with Proto that Editor review has the potential to be a useful tool, but I'd like to hear ideas on how to redefine it effectively. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

We can't say "Don't ask about becoming an administrator", can we? We can't put a minimum threshold (5,000 edits or over), can we? We can't remove editor reviews that ask whether the subject would pass a RFA at this time, can we? Well, what we can is to turn the "unfriendly" switch to the maximum, don't praise users but criticize them, so hard that they will think twice before asking for another editor review or RFA. "I want to be an administrator, what do you think?" "With only 7 Wikipedia namespace edits? Sure, post your application on WP:BJAODN." But then, we would be biting them. No, as of right now, I don't have any idea about how to improve it. -- ReyBrujo 12:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As a relative newcomer, I've just signed up for editor review because I'd like to be a better editor. I've made a specific request for advice in my submission. If people use it to fit RfA better, why not? Then again, if they use it to improve themselves, why not? What's the big deal. No need to delete it. The biggest problem I see with it is lack of participation from the experienced users, actually reviewing us. It takes a certain amount of guts to put oneself in the stocks... it's a bit disconcerting when few people can be bothered to throw tomatoes. --Dweller 13:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• The point is that the intent of the page is good (indeed, encouraging people to be better editors is obviously a good thing) but what the page actually does is not good (in that it actually encourages people to mold themselves to arbitrary standards that are allegedly but not really required to pass RFA). In that, it is gaming the system: it's going by the letter of the (perceived) rules rather than the spirit. >Radiant< 13:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My own opinion of admin school is that it's basically telling people what to say at RFA. Nothing wrong with that if the person in question really should be an admin, but I think it's too easy to abuse to push unsuitable people through RFA and to trick, so to speak, the RFA voters. I would certainly vote delete at MFD. Editor review I think is O.K, if only as a way of preventing RFAs that are never going to pass in a million years. And it is useful, on occasion. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Per Moreschi, I'd keep ER if only to avoid giving Bureaucrats even more work. yandman 13:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have seen a fair few editor reviews that go like "I'm about to run at RFA tomorrow!!! Any last-minute tips????" - followed by "You're a complete newbie. You haven't got a hope in hell at RFA, and you need to seriously rethink your attitude towards adminship". That sort of thing is useful, I think, to avoid clueless newbie RFAs. But admin coaching sucks. Shall I wheel out my fellow deletionist cabalists to nom the admin coaching MFD, or does someone else want to have a turn? Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Per baby/bathwater issues, I've not experienced admin coaching, but the arguments against editor review don't, erm, hold water. --Dweller 14:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

One possibility is that the concept of improving as an editor (and possibly being more suited to being an admin) is becoming too focused on editor review and the concept of an admin school. There are many different ways of improving as a Wikipedia editor. Recently I tried to list some of the more interactive methods at Wikipedia:Coaching. Maybe that would be a good link to have in the "If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try ... first." bit? i.e "If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try one of the options at Wikipedia:Coaching first." Though I've always been more in favour of the concept of learning by yourself, and improving by experience. Indeed, I was recently complimented on this quote:

"Enculturation really just needs people to talk more and demonstrate how they do things (rather than just doing them). Takes certain types of people to be role models. Actually following someone's edits, or meeting in person and watching how they do things, can be very instructive." (Carcharoth)

My point is that there are many ways to learn. If we work to diversify the options, that might help any one area degrading and becoming unacceptable.

Right, now I'm off to post this in the other two threads on this matter. Please focus this thread on specific things, um to do with the Administrators noticeboard? Why the hell is this thread on this noticeboard anyway? <sigh> Gathering admin views on what to do with admin coaching and editor review? Fair enough, but this thread really needs to be focused and directed towards the places where the discussion should really be happening (and that is also an apology for lengthening the thread). Probably best to close this thread and direct discussion to here and here. And if there is an umbrella MfD nomination, can all the pages be listed this time, and the post-closing actions be planned a little bit beforehand? Carcharoth 14:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If it were up to me, it would say, "If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, don't." -- Merope 15:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My complaint about ER is that it seems to be a den of back scratching. Despite not being a very active project, I am constantly seeing talkpage notes like, 'Man, thanks for the props on my ER; I'll be sure to reciprocate'. It doesn't inspire confidence in the process. Anchoress 00:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Section break 1: crunch the numbers

Yes, I worry about the quality of some WP:RFA nominations that succeed. Part of what it takes to be an administrator just can't be taught: it's about temperament and judgement. I waited until I had 9000 edits, three featured pages, and shared authorship of a guideline before I thought I was ready. Yet there just aren't enough people to keep this site running if we set the bar that high. WP:ER and admin school have their flaws. Yet I've been telling myself lately I ought to spend more time over there because we have to make a priority of ensuring that the growth of the administrative pool keeps pace with the growth of the project. If this is accurate we've got over 3 million registered accounts Wikipedia.en and 1090 administrators total (including inactive ones).[16] There are systemic issues and long term trends at work here and we're kidding ourselves if we don't address them. Durova^Charge! 15:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia.en has a sysop to user ratio of 1:2774, which is the third lowest ratio among all Wikipedia languages.[17]
• That ratio has fallen steadily at this project for two years.[18]

Durova^Charge! 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the active admins to active user ratio? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I'm the writer - most of you guys are the techies. It amazes me that you don't already have bots to track this and that I'm the one raising the issue. Durova^Charge! 15:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Possibly if there's a feeling we need more admin's, people would like to run their eye down the list at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits and discuss nomination with anyone who jumps out as a likely candidate. Maybe we could all nominate one candidate each? Steve block Talk 17:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Though the discussions will likely move elsewhere, I'd like to add a couple of things about Wikipedia:Admin coaching (I am not much familiar with Editor Review). Admin Coaching clearly states, and has always stated, that it is not for the purpose of teaching someone how to do well in an RfA, or to teach someone what is needed to pass an RfA. It is about learning the skills that administrators use, so that when/if an editor does become an administrator, they are well prepared to use their new tools. How many of us felt nervous to delete our first page of nonsense, block our first vandalizing user, or protect our first page undergoing an edit war? Admin coaching helps editors understand the tools of administrators, and to learn their usage. Those editors undergoing admin coaching are able to practice deciding if something is appropriate to be deleted under the CSD, to learn when to and when not to protect a page, and to become confident and deciding what is vandalism and what is not. These skills mean that if an editor goes through an RfA and is successful, they will be well-versed in the tools they have acquired, and will be able to benefit the encyclopedia by using them in the best fashion possible. -- Natalya 17:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I for one would like real action and not cheap talk. The way to get ready for admin, and an effective admin, is to do RC or CVU and you will know how to deal with the vandals and dubious material. And to get involved in image tagging. Talking about it doesn't prove anything, my RfA participation works upon "runs on the board", not because somebody did a theory "Q&A answer" - I think that for anybody who even played sport or music at an amateur or school level, their coach or teacher would have said that what you gain in 15 minutes of actual playing time on the field or stage, can't be substituted for lots of practice. Personally, as soon as Essjay tweaked my access, I slaughtered about 50 pieces of rubbish in the first two or three hours [19]. A lot of people don't have any proven skill in the mopwork and pass simply by giving the "politically correct" answers and then don't use them much anyway. In any case, if they get too smooth sounding without actually having done anything, I am likely to ignore their RfA and perhaps even oppose it. I would have to say that no practical skill improvement is gained from AC from observing the coaches, only PC, PR and toilet training. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen, part of the coach's responsibility is to say, "go do this." It's not just about preaching to a user. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oooh er, Natalya, I'm not sure. The damn thing even has a disclaimer: "Admin Coaching does not guarantee that you will pass the RfA. Ultimately, this is your responsibility, not the responsibility of your coach. So if you come here looking for a personal coach in order to pass RFA, you're at the wrong place." Either this needs serious rewording or it does make it sound as though the whole point is to get you through RFA, as does language like "Admin Coaching is a program for people who would like the special attention that only one-on-one coaching can provide" - and the purpose of the coaching is to get you through RFA, eh? I remember looking at User:Riana dzasta/Admin coaching - I mean, at one point, semi-ironically, Glen says "Depends if you want the "RfA" answer, or my real thoughts". Sorry, but even as a joke, your RFA thoughts should be your real thoughts! My fingers are itching over the MFD button, cause at RFA I don't want a product, I want the real deal. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem with fishing through the high edit count list is that a lot of the people who are on it don't wan't adminship or have failed nominations - or haven't tried because they know nomination wouldn't succeed. It's the people who registered last July and who raised a couple of pages to GA and are becoming active in one of the WikiProjects that we should look at, but mostly they aren't on our radar yet. So a couple of people have set up places where they can go. I applaud that. We need to be there too and honestly tell some of them they're good editors but maybe not cut out for this and foster the ones who seem to have the right stuff. If these efforts are undermanned - and a lot of things are undermanned because sysops are scarce - then of course they don't work so well. Now I'll put my money where my mouth is (or where my typing fingers are) and go follow my own advice. I welcome others to join me. Durova^Charge! 17:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be no difference; hearing "Depends if you want the "RfA" answer, or my real thoughts" makes me want to cringe. However, in my opinion there is still much potential, as long as the purpose of it is made clear to all participating. Is it bad to prepare people who may become administrators for the tasks they will have to perform? It doesn't seem so. -- Natalya 00:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

RFA is so broken that experienced editors are scared to go near it until they're 100% sure they'll pass. This, in effect, delays potential admins for several months. I cite Newyorkbrad's current RfA as a primary example, and I can think of one or two other people who are as well. 150.101.239.146 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean the Newyorkbrad RfA that is passing with 99% support? —Centrx→talk • 23:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think his point was that Nyb should have been nominated months ago. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That is true though, RfA is a very scary procedure to go through, because, if you fail, you are probably going to have to wait about 3 months before trying again. RfA is 'broken' only because there are too many people. RfA is more effective when the 'voters' actually know what the person they are 'voting' on's character is from personal experience, rather then using edit count and other arbitrary factors to try and guess. Prodego ^talk 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I sometimes wonder if it would offer some real insight if it were possible to run a small experiment. Simply pick a pre-rfa candidate about to "run the gauntlet", (secretly, so as not to affect the outcome) collect opinions from existing admins on whether or not the candidate should pass if RfA were running perfectly and as it should ideally be (or perhaps based on WP:SYSOP alone rather than any arbitary criteria), and then compare that with the actual result. Maybe even repeat it a few times. The results may then be evidence either of a problem, or of the lack of a problem. I'm not saying that it could or should be done. I have no opinion there. It's just an idea I've thought on a few times. Crimsone 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think admin coaching, etc. shouldn't be about the RFA but about all that comes afterward, as in what the tools are for and what sort of stresses go with them and whether the kind of participation someone wants to do would really be helped by that - and getting to know the site well enough that they'll use the tools correctly. If they've learned Wikipedia well enough that they're ready for adminship and they've got the right temperament for this, then RFA shouldn't be a problem. It's not the admissions board at Harvard. Durova^Charge! 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. They will pass RfA when they are ready, and now they'll be ready for what comes afterward. -- Natalya 12:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• See, I have a problem with the whole concept of admin coaching. Mentoring, yes, but being an admin is not something one should aspire to and work towards, it's something that should be suggested by others based on how they see you working within the project. Self-noms based on technical needs (template Wikignomes and so on) are fine, but "make me a sysop, I'll block vandals and delete everything emanating from the firehose of crap" is a seriously bad rationale. Anyone who actively sets out to be an admin may not be here to build a great encyclopaedia. Plus they are stupid: the pay sucks and you get abuse from all quarters. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather turn admin coaching into something positive then. Somewhere along the line each of us sysops learned what adminship is about and decided that was where we want to be, but the site isn't particularly user-friendly for editors who are interested in exploring that option. Rather than proceeding from a presumption that an editor ought to get sysopped and showing them how to jump through certain hoops, let's make it a place where they can genuinely learn what we do and see whether this is the right fit for their styles. Plenty of good editors are better off writing articles. Durova^Charge! 21:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, suggestions are always welcome... Titoxd^(?!?) 00:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Durova, that hurts! Surely the first priority of all of us, non-admins and admins alike, should be just that - writing articles? WP:ENC and WP:5P, after all. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that everyone is here to do that. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bishzilla have way better PC, PR and toilet training than that Newyorkbrad, grrr! Admin school diploma! Personal coach! Dispute resolution skills! Excellent edit summary usage. Not ripping off users' heads (that was newbie mistake!). Have not eaten user since Bastique! Will apologize posthumously to Bastique if required, will not destroy Tokyo! Give tools! Nom Zilla for adminship now or she show you unilateral! Bishzilla | grrrr! 06:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Eeeeeps! Here: User:Bishzilla/Nomination. Remember to fill out the questions and accept the nomination before posting! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

1 week block on Ilena

Today I extended a 24 hour block against this editor into a 1 week block. The situation is sensitive for several reasons and I would like to get some feedback.

• The blocked editor is the successful defendant in a case that went before the California state supreme court.
• The blocked editor alleges that Fyslee, another editor in her Wikipedia dispute, is an employee of the other side from her court case.
• Fyslee denies that this is true. He says he used to volunteer for that person's website and stopped volunteering a while ago.
• User:Wizardry Dragon, Ilena's informal mentor, has been a heartfelt advocate for her. Unfortunately that advocacy, in my opinion, has become so counterproductive that I left a request at his user talk to change his approach or recuse himself.
• Ilena's post that prompted the block extension included a link to her personal website in which she identified Fyslee by his real world name. I consider that post to justify the block extension on several grounds - this element is particularly troubling.

There are two bright spots here. First, no one appears to have crossed the line into a blockable legal threat. Second, Fyslee has been cooperative about retracting objectionable statements when requested and generally responding well to feedback. User talk:Ilena and its tangled archive are relevant reading for this.

Have I handled this appropriately? I welcome suggestions. This is a tough nut to crack. Durova^Charge! 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

People giving RL identities of editors (whether these are in fact the correct RL identity or not) actually on wikipedia, or linking from wikipedia to that information, can be blocked indefinitely if it is considered that they will repeat the action. I trust the link has been deleted. It has been considered that what is posted on external websites is outside our jurisdiction, as we're not here to police the internet. Tyrenius 01:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Bannable offense from someone who has been here to continue an offsite war and has contributed nothing of value to the project. alteripse 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to comment -- if people are going to go around changing ilena's text on talk pages, please do so by changing it to something like (personal attack removed) or (link to attack site removed) and sign, rather than altering someone's signed message to say something different with no indication of a change. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call. There were so many issues floating around at once that I didn't cover that one, other than to encourage strikethroughs. Durova^Charge! 03:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had some exchanges with Fyslee over this, although he is clearly insulted and annoyed by some of Ilena's abuse he does seem to be making an honest effort to resolve the conflict, fair play. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef block for this?

I guess I should give the question its section. I understand the limits of Wikipedia sysop authority and understand this is bannable. Due to the surrounding fireworks I didn't want to be the sole admin to make that call so I gave a comfortable margin for decision making. My opinion is that a Usenet veteran who carries all the baggage that implies and hasn't adjusted to this site in over half a year has already been handled with kid gloves far too long. Durova^Charge! 01:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather unfortunate. Clearly a talented person and could be a valuable contributor. But, it's just not that hard to get along. If not an indef block, how about a quickly escalating one? Looking through her talk page it doesn't seem she makes much effort to get along, nor understands the give and take of a collaborative site. Assuming that continues and she demonstrates no desire to change that by discussion on her talk page, then perhaps go with the indef block before the week is up. Linking to an editor's real name is unacceptable, so the one week block to sort it out is a good call. - Taxman ^Talk 03:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Taxman. It would be more fair to warn her of a possible indefinite block and give her a chance to rectify the situation. I also agree that the linking to a real name has to stop. Jance 03:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I notified her of the WP:AN thread when it opened. I've updated to state that banning is under discussion and invited her to comment or take conciliatory steps. Yesterday I gave her a link to WP:DR so she's been made aware that a community ban is a possibility. Durova^Charge! 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to be yet another battleground in her ongoing drama. There are other better places. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could be a bit kinder than the above comment? At least giver her an opportunity to understand what the problem is and what the consequence will be if she doesn't rectify it.

I do not see that she has been here a year and a half - I looked at her contrib. and it looks like she has been here since July 06. So about 6 months. Maybe suggest she try editing some different articles. And Durova's invitation seems like a good way forward.Jance 05:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"over half a year" was the wording above. She has also edited under many different IPs (especially from Costa Rica), so it's hard to really know for sure how long she's been here, but she is definitely not a newbie, unknowing about how to make a diff, how to provide evidence, or how to make severe enough accusations about others that it got her sued for libel. The only reason she won is because of a totally new application of a new law that protects republishers of even the most defamatory material. No matter how unethical and immoral it is to do so, she and any other republisher is now totally protected. (The original publisher in this case is now awaiting an upcoming trial. Original publishers are not protected.) -- Fyslee 05:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I misread it. Thank you for pointing this out.Jance 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I don't support an immediate indefinite block, even though I am currently the primary target of her accusations here. The suggestion of a "quickly escalating one" sounds good, with an increase in increments from the current one to a month, then to six months. After that an indefinite block or permanent block, considering the severity of the offenses, and in the light of the fact that likely no other user has ever gotten away with so much for so long after so many warnings. -- Fyslee 07:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't support an indefinite block at this stage, much less a ban. I encroached on this territory when trying to mediate Breast implants and I don't think either side has behaved very well. Ilena's bad behaviour has been well documented, however, Fyslee, for his part, has editorialised about Ilena, accused her of "hate speech", posted links to a blog that attacks her and generally provoked and aggravated the situation. He didn't even try to pretend the blog was posted for any constructive purpose but acknowledged he was posting it for other editors' "enlightenment and enjoyment". The edits identifying Fyslee should be oversighted but if Ilena indicates that she understands posting other editor's possible real life identities is completely unacceptable and may result in an indefinite block, and if she promises not to do it again and agrees to follow policy, I think she should be allowed to return when the current block expires. I hope all parties become willing to participate in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barrett v. Rosenthal that Peter has started up and that they understand that we are not looking for a slanted or sanitised article but an accurate and unbiased one. Sarah 11:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, this is a much broader issue than a content dispute on Barrett v. Rosenthal. It includes many other barrett related pages. In its current name this mediation request makes little sense. Especially since the disputes on the Barrett v. Rosenthal article are cleared up. Why not an RfC or does everyone seem to think these are too negative? It seems like a much better forum for such a discussion. David D. (Talk) 19:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey David. I do agree that the problem is far more widespread than just Barrett_v._Rosenthal. In fact, it was actually on the talk page of The National Council Against Health Fraud that I first encountered them, having stumbled across from Breast implants. I had a poke around and also discovered them bickering at Talk:Stephen Barrett. I would favour giving mediation a go first and failing that, I would support an RFC. I just haven't seen many RfCs actually achieve anything. They seem to generate a lot of words, but in the end they just sort of die off without any conclusion and everyone goes back to where they were when it started. Maybe I just haven't been involved in the right ones, I don't know. I understand what you're saying about the mediation request as it stands, but it can be renamed and refactored to include a far broader and more appropriate scope. Sarah 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This user's behaviour is deplorable on occasion, but as Sarah mentions, by the same token so has Fyslee on occasion also. Provocation is a bad thing on Wikipedia, especially when dealing with a touchy sitatuion like this.

I think that both users, but esp. Ilena, should be told in black-and-white that if they do this sort of higher-end naughtiness, for want of a better word, again - ie. linking to attack blogs^{"Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking", Arbitration Committee in /MONGO, October 2006}, speculation about real life identities^{"Posting another person's personal information ... regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct is harassment", Harassment guideline, January 2007} et al - they will be blocked for an appropriate period of time, even up to indefinite. It is then that discussion about a community ban may be appropriate. But for now, I feel it is premature.

Like Sarah above, I wait with great anticipation of the end results of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barrett v. Rosenthal. If all goes well, and these users sort out their differences and problems, then all well and good. If it descends back into chaos and nuisance conduct, then the time may be right. But I'm not comfortable with blocking/banning this user right now, given that this situation is a two-way dispute which may be resolved. Play it by ear, I say. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't want to make it sound like I'm giving Fyslee a free ride here. The provocation has got to stop. Fyslee, if we don't see significant improvement in your handling of the situation, you're just as likely to be sanctioned. Both of you need to stop, tone down the rhetoric and attacks, and work with the facts. - Taxman ^Talk 16:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Everyone would say I'm "for" Ilena, but Taxman said exactly what I've been saying all along. Ilena's behaviour is poor, and is regrettable, but so is Fyslee's, and we should not be giving him a free ticket. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Which is the very reason several people have been suggesting an RfC. Such a forum offers an opportunity to look at both sides as well as a chance to mentor. David D. (Talk) 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The previous threads regarding Ilena and Fyslee happened before Ilena linked to a disclosure of Fyslee's real name, which in itself can be bannable. From what I have seen, Fyslee has been reasonably responsive to feedback and appears to be making a genuine effort to abide by site standards. From the evidence that I have noted: providing a diff and subsequently behaving as if she did not understand what diffs are, then altering Fyslee's post header into something inflammatory while she accuses him of inappropriate action, Ilena's lease on WP:AGF is past due. She appears to be gaming our system. Durova^Charge! 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Posting another person's personal information", could someone remove Ilena's repeated breaches from her talk page, including the two she made today [20] [21]? I don't think she'll take kindly to my doing it. --Ronz 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I will request the diff be oversighted. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the real story with those links are, but if Fyslee has chosen to put his real name on that site then it's not appropriate for oversight. In addition anything that is available through a quick google search isn't really appropriate to oversight. It doesn't make it appropriate to add such links, but oversight is just not the proper solution. It's for things of such a sensitive nature that there should be no chance any admins should see it. I haven't seen the request come accross oversight-l, but if I do, I'll say the same. - Taxman ^Talk 03:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would certainly support a final warning here. I am pretty confident that Fyslee will pull back from the brink, less so that Ilena will. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, her response at her user talk is entirely in line with her pre-blocking norm: it boils down to accusing Wikipedia of persecuting her. She's ignored my suggestion to enter WP:ADOPT, which KillerChihuahua endorsed, and provides little documentation for her aggressive accusations. She hasn't supplied any additional evidence for her previous allegations or rescinded anything. It's as if she expects this site to accept proof by assertion or else Wikipedia must be biased against her. Per the discussion here I won't extend to indef at this point, but I hope some of the experienced editors at this thread drop a few words at her user page. The formal mentorship program in particular might be the best thing for her. Durova^Charge! 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about an intelligent, educated adult woman, editing under her real name, who, as an activist and campaigner, has something of a public profile. You wouldn't have been able to pay me to sign up for an adoption program when I first came to to Wikipedia and I don't blame her one iota for not wanting to sign up to be adopted. In fact, I would have been completely stunned if the response had been anything but what you say you got. Sarah 02:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that on the adoption bit. But being an intelligent, educated adult makes her behavior all the worse. The recent diff show that behavior to be getting worse, not better, and does not demonstrate any desire to improve. Based on her repeating the same thing we made clear is inappropriate, it seems now she just wants us to ban her so she can be indignant about it. - Taxman ^Talk 03:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've recommended WP:ADOPT to intelligent and educated people before. The ones who take up the advice usually benefit from it. Mentorship is about adjusting to site standards and - one would hope - avoiding problems. Most people would be more insulted by a long term block or a siteban than by a chance to improve their experience here at Wikipedia. When those appear to be the likely alternatives I advise mentorship. Durova^Charge! 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Her behaviour has gotten both better and worse. When I first encountered Ilena, she was little more than a POV-pushing, linkspamming, edit-warring user. Since she's at least taken my suggestion to take disputes to talk pages, although her conduct there has been less than desirable. She has been responsive to my prompts, for some reason, and it's more or less why I have tried to mentor her, since she's been unresponsive and sometimes hostile to other's attempts at mentorship. Now since Durova appears to be threatening me with a block, I'm left in a bit of a conflict - do I keep on trying to improve a user's conduct to the betterment of the encyclopedia, and risk a block, or to "give in" and allow the encyclopedia be damaged by the actions of a heavy-handed administrator. *sigh* Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to clarify on that: I haven't threatened Peter with a block. I did discuss the possibility of a user conduct RFC very seriously until I realized Peter had a death in the family this week. In light of that I've withdrawn the suggestion - which seemed at the time to be the only practical alternative to a block warning. I've been perfectly candid about this with Peter. He has challenged my administrative judgement repeatedly and I have invited him to raise his questions here (or in RFC - he knows I'm open to recall). So far he has declined to do so. Durova^Charge! 21:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is challenging "administrative judgement" a violation of a policy? Discussion of administrator actions, and even expressions of disagreement with them, seems to me to be a healthy part of discussions on talk pages. Any given administrator doesn't have a monopoly on refereeing or making decisions about disagreements. kmccoy (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That question seems to be rhetorical. This will probably get discussed in greater depth at arbitration, but of course editors are welcome to challenge my actions. Several times at Ilena's and Peter's user talk pages I informed them of several meaningful ways they could do so. I even initiated this thread in order to request community review of my decisions. That particular diff may look a bit awkward out of context, and if so I apologize. One of my trademarks when some thread gets particularly contentious is to blow the referee whistle, which often succeeds in getting people to cool down. I don't know of any other editor besides myself who does that habitually so Peter's post did raise my eyebrow. It looked like an attempt to intimidate Fyslee on a very minor point, although as you can see I also asked Fyslee to comply in good faith. Peter took other and stronger actions at that page that did lead me to question his judgement and ask him to recuse himself. Durova^Charge! 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• ArbCom may well be a good way of solving this, since there is no real hurry and it requires a detailed reading of the evidence. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We need a new idea...

OK, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barrett v. Rosenthal was rejected as Fyslee disagreed to mediation. I have been doing some further reading over the last two-three hours, and although I wasn't in the mood to compile them all, I believe that they both acted as bad as one another (literally, in no way metaphoric). Both have made problematic and/or disruptive edits to similar degrees at similar frequency, and without a formal place to discuss any solution I'm at a loss as to what to do next.

For me, there's only two options: RFC them both, maybe even together (if at all possible), as well as some of the side-users to this who may ormay not have acted inappropriately. The other obvious one is RFAR, and for me this is becoming more and more applicable given the attitude of Fyslee towards optional mediation (which Ilena may or may not share, I don't know - she didn't give a statement of intent at RFM).

I'm at a loss here, but I'll sleep on it and see if I have any other ideas in the morning. With this recent rejection by RFM due to the situation, I honestly can't see this being resolved outside of blocking/banning (whether full or certain actions/pages)/one user leaving the project without the assistance of the upper ends of DR. Of course, I'm sure everyone wants to avoid those three possibilities, and look for the common ground solution, for which I personally feel a RFC or RFAR will be needed to do.

As I said, I'll sleep on it, but I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this, and any other solution ideas. I'm short on them, at the moment :| Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 14:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that nothing short of the intervention of the Arbitration Committee is going to sort this mess out. There's been a lot of misconduct here, and it's not all by Fyslee or Ilena. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I loathe arbitration that may be a fair assessment. It's disappointing to see that Fyslee rejected mediation. Based on the goings-on at Ilena's talk page I suspect an RFC would work out something like Jason Gastrich's did: a fractal business that leads to ArbCom anyway. Durova^Charge! 21:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I thought. I'll give it another couple of hours, then I'm going to force a resolution by proposing an ArbCom case at WP:RFAR. I really didn't want to do this, but I don't feel there's any other choice. Daniel.Bryant 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why I (Fyslee) didn't wish to participate

I am rather surprised to see my so-called "rejection" of mediation being discussed in a manner that makes it appear I did something wrong. Maybe I haven't understood what an RfM is all about. I have clearly expressed why I did not want to be a part of the RfM, but it appears to me that no one has read my explanation, or they do not agree with it and are not explaining why. I wish they would read the following and then discuss their reaction to my reasoning.

• If I have misunderstood something about the purpose of the RfM, I would like to be corrected.

• If I have done something wrong by not participating, I'd like to know what it was so it doesn't happen again.

My reasons are clearly explained on the RfM page, its talk page, and a couple of other places, as well as the edit summaries. Here are the links:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Barrett_v._Rosenthal&action=history

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Barrett_v._Rosenthal&action=history

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon&diff=prev&oldid=101444539

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon&diff=prev&oldid=101446810

Here are my statements in chronological order with the diffs (taken out of context, and without the edit summaries):

• 1. If I am not to be allowed to provide the requested evidence of my attempts to deal with her attacks, then what's going on? Have I misunderstood your RfM? It was made in the specific context of her personal attacks on myself, so why is it described as an RfM regarding Barrett v. Rosenthal? That is not currently an issue under discussion. If I'm not to be allowed to discuss the current problem, then maybe you shouldn't have added my name and obligated me to a lot more wasted time. Please explain and maybe I'll withdraw. -- Fyslee 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [22]

• 2. Okay, I misunderstood. In the context it seemed like it would deal with the current, rather than (relatively) ancient B v. R discussion, but you're probably right. Unfortunately this RfM will divert attention from the basic issue underlying all of her presence here, which is to carry her Usenet personal attacks to wikipedia. They got her sued before, and because she was reposting what someone else wrote, she got away with it. Now she thinks she can continue here. Oh well, I'll just withdraw. -- Fyslee 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [23]

• 3. Do not agree. This is an unnecessary revival (IOW recreating) of a not currently active issue, thus creating more controversy and wasting more time. It has been a problem, and if it becomes active again, then this might be valid. At present this functions as a diversion from the real and very serious current issue, which is an undeclared RfC on Ilena's conduct towards other editors. She is currently blocked for that behavior. -- Fyslee 10:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [24]

• 4. Peter (Wizardry), I believe you have some serious misunderstandings and assumptions about this issue. To the best of my knowledge, Barrett and Rosenthal have never had any serious discussions over the issue of breast implants. Barrett doesn't even comment on them or write about them, or even criticize Rosenthal's position on the issue. (Barrett may have at some long distant point in the past expressed views common among MDs, but he's never made it an issue in his activities. He concentrates on other subjects.) I personally support much of her position on the subject, but find her activities to be very damaging to her cause.

The attacks made by Bolen and Rosenthal against Barrett (that have led to libel lawsuits) have nothing to do with the breast implant issues, but are regarding Barrett's anti-quackery activism. Bolen admits that he is paid by alternative medicine practitioners (who have run afoul of the law) to defend them. He does this primarily by spamming (yes the anti-spam community is very much against him) a newsletter which he himself describes as "opinion pieces". They are filled with conspiracy theory rhetoric, ad hominem attacks, straw man attacks, and other forms of serious personal attacks, including libelous statements for which he is now awaiting trial. (Under deposition he had to admit that very concrete statements presented as absolute fact were nothing more than "euphemism".)

The whole issue is about alternative medicine practitioners, producers, and scammers, who don't like their methods getting exposed to criticism on Quackwatch. Rosenthal is among those who doesn't like those methods being criticized, and without herself being criticized first, has gone on the warpath against Barrett. Anyone who happens to share Barrett's (which are essentially mainstream POV) viewpoints then gets attacked as "Barrett syncophants" or other epithets that are designed to make it appear that we are all working directly with or for Barrett, and are paid by the pharmaceutical industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. -- Fyslee 10:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [25] & [26]

• 5. Misguided RfM that should be canned

If there is to be any RfM regarding Ilena and the breast implant issue, then Barrett v. Rosenthal is not the right subject for an RfM. A different RfM that might be relevant (if there is any dispute there -- I don't know), could be titled:

• [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Breast implant]]

This current RfM is totally off-base. It was announced and presented on the page and in the middle of a discussion of Ilena's personal behavior here at Wikipedia, which had nothing to do with breast implants, so when I followed the link and ended here, I was baffled. There was no "connect" between the current controversy, the situation in which it was announced, the place it was announced, or the reality of the situation. It was like a long dead ghost was suddenly being introduced into another discussion. The proper thing would have been to create an RfC:

• [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Behavior of User:Ilena]]

This RfM is misguided, ill-timed, and off-topic. It should be canned. -- Fyslee 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied relevant comment from above:

• This is an unnecessary revival (IOW recreating) of a not currently active issue, thus creating more controversy and wasting more time. It has been a problem, and if it becomes active again, then this might be valid. At present this functions as a diversion from the real and very serious current issue, which is an undeclared RfC on Ilena's conduct towards other editors. She is currently blocked for that behavior. -- Fyslee 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [27]

This RfM was simply the wrong venue and misapplied, so the error was not mine, but the error of the one who started the RfM in the first place. It should have never been raised, but something does need to be done, likely an RfC. That would indeed be appropriate. The issue is her attitude and behavior anywhere at Wikipedia, not the content of the Barrett v. Rosenthal article. Content matters can always be worked out through collaborative editing. Editors who refuse to collaborate need to have their attitude and behavior subjected to an RfC. That's the issue here. Wikipedia should not be used to further her Usenet wars, especially since I have never participated in them.

Again, please explain any errors in my reasoning. I am trying to learn here and am more than willing to correct errors. -- Fyslee 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I find this message posted to my talk page while I was composing the above:

• Since you have refused mediation, I have opened a formal Request for Arbitration regarding the matter. You may wish to make a statement. You may do so on the page here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[28]

Is this unnecessary and unprovoked escalation really necessary? I suggest that it be withdrawn and that the proposer (the same one who improperly proposed the RfM) disengage as he is not an impartial party to this matter, but has all too often favorized and defended Ilena in her actions, contrary to the first stated personal "philosophy" on his own user page: "I avoid taking sides in disputes." He has even prevented me from providing evidence in the form of diffs, and deleted them. -- Fyslee 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Every user has a right to request Arbitration on any issue. Mostly, it is people engaged in the dispute who file them. It does not matter who initially requests it, as everyone's behaviour who is listed as a party is scrutinised. Daniel.Bryant 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The request for arbitration was filed because there was at least one user (and apparently several) who believed there was no other way of resolving the disputes you are involved with. I haven't studied the issues thoroughly, but let me ask you this: Short of arbitration, what steps do you think can be taken to end this series of disputes so everyone can get back to peaceful editing? Newyorkbrad 03:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If I may...I am not a party listed in the Arbitration and have not been involved in the dispute, although I have edited this article. What I do not understand is why Wizadry included Breast Implants in the mediation, when Ilena only made one edit there, Fyslee had not edited at all there nor had Ronz. Please help me understand the logic in this? How did Wizadry pick his articles to mediate/arbitrate?Jance 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• The mediation was rejected and content disputes are not within the remit of the Arbitration Committee, so I don't see much use in discussing the matter further at length. Suffice it to say that is one place Ilena wanted to have her links added. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did not realize that. Thank you for explaining it.Jance 16:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Newyorkbrad, I was under the impression that the normal "chain of steps" would include an RfC, before the ill-fated RfM. I have attempted to deal with this situation by providing Ilena with an opportunity to document her serious allegations against me. She has not only refused my requests to provide documentation, she has also refused everyone else's requests to do so (and many have done so), and considers repetitions of the same allegations as the same as documentation. They are not. They are continued attacks. I dispute her allegations. That does not mean I deny that they may be based on some fact in reality. I consider them to be her gross misrepresentations designed to damage my reputation. She does this on her websites and here at Wikipedia, and such behavior is not allowed here. The editor who voluntarily (and commendably!) chose to mentor her unfortunately ended up favorizing her and thus "aided and abetted" her in her course of action, and even immediately deleted (before examining her allegation) my provision of documentation for one of her clear untruths. I then reworded it and added it back, where it remains. It was a classic example of her typical method of misrepresenting matters. After he did that, I lost faith in his neutrality and in any hope of my being able to defend myself properly. This left her allegations standing without any real defense from my side. They are still there, and she knows perfectly well that having them at Wikipedia will cause search engines to help her in her agenda against me. Undocumented charges should not be allowed to be made or left standing. Please read them, and do not believe them before examining my side of the story, which I will gladly provide once she has provided evidence. Right now the allegations are so jumbled a mess that it is nearly impossible to be sure where to start. If she will follow the steps outlined on my talk page, then I will have a starting point. -- Fyslee 10:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Favoritizing"? I'm sorry, but after reading all this I'm going to stick you in the exact same catagory as Ilena. And when you start tossing out words like favoritizing, I tend to see someone not assuming good faith. Should I blindly accuse Durova of "favoritizing" you? What a crock. RfAr can be brought by anyone who feels it's neccessary. If the ArbCom thinks differently, they won't accept it. If they accept it, and if you "really" did all you good to fix this dispute, then you have nothing to worry about. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 10:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Elara, I don't think it helps this situation to call something a crock. From the post Fyslee left at my page it seems that he loathes the hassle of arbitration. Having been through a few cases myself I share the sentiment. Durova^Charge! 00:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's no excuse for temper-tantrums or name calling. Wikipedia has a Code of Conduct. Occasional lapses are forgivable, but continued incivility is a breach of policy, and more importantly, it is harmful to the Wiki. Tangentially, "I don't like it" isn't really held as a strong argument on Wikipedia at all, last time I checked WP:IDONTLIKEIT anyways. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use issue

I noticed that this image Image:Parental_Advisory_label.png which is listed as being usable only to "illustrate the organization, item, or event in question" is being used in the following places, which I'm pretty sure is a violation of fair use on the image:

• User_talk:JosephBarillari
• User:Ace_Class_Shadow
• User:Ace_Class_Shadow/User_isn't_censored
• User:R6MaY89
• User:Clientele/DirectTV (its a userspaced article, but a placeholder can be put in until or if this returns to article space)
• User:Myselfalso/List_of_DirecTV_channels same

I'd remove them myself, but I just had a disagreement with one of the users in question and wouldn't want to be seen as harassing them, and it might look odd if I cleaned those all up but one. If there is an image page to report this, I'd appreciate a link.--Crossmr 17:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed them all. In short, I don't think there is a good place to do this, but most administrators, myself included, will do such removals. Ral315 (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Next time feel free to do it yourself, quoting Wikipedia:Fair use criteria#9 or simply WP:FUC#9 (fair use images can only be used in the article namespace). -- ReyBrujo 17:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ya, the RIAA especially is pretty possessive about it's copyrights. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I'd just had a disagreement with one of the editors so I didn't want to appear as harassing them.--Crossmr 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A wise precaution. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What about those two other articles which are linked to the photo? Surely those "lists" of TV and Radio stations don't need the the "fair use" picture. They could use a reference. Perhaps someone could place this discussion in archive or link to the picture? --CyclePat 00:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Globalwarming awareness2007/SEO world championship -- expect a spam onslaught.

FYI -- Globalwarming awareness2007 is the name of a new spam article -- and the name of a SEO (Search engine optimization) contest. In a nutshell, the goal is to "optimize" (i.e., spam) enough links around the web as to make your site show up ahead of everyone else's. See this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#SEO world championship and check out our new article above. (And consider deleting it after you look at it). --A. B. ^(talk) 03:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow -- that was fast -- thanks for the deletion. For the curious, I had already saved a copy to a user subpage at User:A. B./Sandbox10. When we get the chance, folks at WT:WPSPAM will start checking the links to see if we have any on article pages. And don't worry -- all links on non-article pages are coded by MediaWiki as "nofollow", so no spammer gets a page ranking boost from those links when they're on a user page.--A. B. ^(talk) 03:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The contest started January 15th, 2007 and will end in May 1st, 2007 so this will be a long drawn-out P.I.A assault. I'd expect all language versions will be aflicted. Keyphrase is "globalwarming awareness2007" so be aware of references or articles relating to this. --Hu12 03:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the links to the site should be spam blacklisted. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• The article should be deleted and salted to prevent it being used, and links posted in conjuntion to it should be meta blacklisted as appropriate. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've salted the article. Sandstein 07:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean protected. There's no need to bastardise English. Dan100 (Talk) 12:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Salting the earth :> -Obli (Talk)^? 13:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As every domain on the list was created on Jan 15 or after for this contest, we won't lose anything if we blacklist every single one and they won't be tempted to abuse wikipedia to play their sick little spammer games. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• This would probably help stem it, but there will still be other domains they will come up with, I am sure, so continued vigilance should of course be advised :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I just thought I would pop by an place a slightly different perspective on this. I am someone who works with SEO, but have never spammed Wikipedia, in fact the main reason I created this account in the past was to remove spam from entries I saw.

There are legitimate ways to SEO websites without spamming. The rules of the contest very clearly stipulate that any "blackhat" methods are forbidden. Any site entering the contest even has to list full contact details on the site. The websites that might win the contest most likely will be high quality sites that have gained links legitimately by creative techniques that encourage other people to link to you, such as maybe competitions of their own, or providing excellent content worth linking to. The change made will have a dramatic effect on search results unless Google decide to ignore NoFollow for this domain and there are other ways to control this. AndrzejBroda

• Note that per Jimbo's request to Brion, rel=nofollow is now set for links in all Wikipedia mainspace articles. Spamming Wikipedia will therefore be utterly futile (not that I expect that to stop them). Guy (Help!) 12:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Utterly futile" whilst half a dozen prominent mirrors run our links without nofollow? I think not....--BozMo talk 15:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Is Jimbo's request archived somewhere? If yes, could somebody please post a pointer to it? Thanks in advance (and sorry if I might have overlooked it). --Ligulem 12:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Found it: WikiEN-l Nofollow back on URL links on en.wikipedia.org articles for now posted by Brion on Sat Jan 20 09:30:59 UTC 2007. --Ligulem 16:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also if he gave any reasons? [29] and Wikipedia:Nofollow were both quite strong votes against this although there was a smaller vote since which was split.--BozMo talk 15:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You can check this feature out for yourself by having your browser display the source code (typically a menu bar command such as "View source code", "Source", or "Page source"); here's an example from the Bacteria article:

• "<a href="http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/70/7/4230?view=long&pmid=15240306" class="external text" title="http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/70/7/4230?view=long&pmid=15240306" rel="nofollow">Geomicrobiology of high-level nuclear waste-contaminated vadose sediments at the hanford site, Washington state</a>"

The MediaWiki software does this automatically when converting wiki-code to html to send to browsers.--A. B. ^(talk) 16:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The announcement is on the mailing list[30], but can't see any comment from Jimbo at this time. Once word gets out this should reduce the sneaky linkspam, like we recently saw on stub templates, HOWEVER, linkspamming Wikipedia will still be attractive for two reasons: 1) direct sales - like at the bottom of the vehicle insurance article the section called Cheap insurance quotes[31], and 2) the nofollow tag is not used by all search engines, and most Wikipedia mirrors (of which there are many) will strip the tag anyway. It's probably a step forward but not a silver bullet. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a step backwards... If every website out there starts to use "nofollow" then google will stop paying attention to it. This could backfire in the long run guys. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree totally. Mistake which will bite us. I will try to write it up somewhere tonight.--BozMo talk 20:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#NostraBozMos_predicts anyone taking bets? ;) --BozMo talk 21:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Google has asked us in the past to nofollow user submitted links. None of the search engines take it as gospel (which is yet another reason why nofollow isn't a replacement for the SBL), they simply use it as another factor in their analysis. In the future we'll be able to do better: Someday we plan on having some systems for content approval (not-vandalized flag, stable versions, etc.. there are many proposals)... such systems will ultimately allow us to have the community collectively approve links which are good. Until then we should be good netizens and tag our user submitted links as such. --Gmaxwell 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen Matt Cutts (he is notable again now) suggest there should be a way to have some untrusted links nofollow, but not all. One thing I think is overlooked is that followable links are one of the factors in determining duplicate content and the original source for information. By adding nofollow, it might be looked on that you are not citing your sources correctly in an ethical manner. Last time I checked, Yahoo still followed and indexed nofollow pages, MSN and Google do not AndrzejBroda 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Don't forget to watchlist obviouis targets like SEO contest. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Finally! This was a good decision. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Hmph. We'll see. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For your entertainment

• http://www.seorefugee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4655
• http://www.wickedfire.com/industry-news/7373-wikipedia-external-links-now-nofollow.html

Evil laugh. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the SEO gang doesn't like time out in the corner. Pity. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick glance of the links associated with posters in the threads Guy posted (not asserting non-notability), just interesting.

cre8asiteforums.com
7search.com
pobox.com
elogodesign.com
endlesspoetry.com
tubgirl.com
redboxcodes.com
--Hu12 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• And working backwards, it looks like one of the posters in one of the above forums is Thekohser (talk · contribs), now known as MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs). He's the one bragging about how Wikipedia is irrelevant now that he's found a NEW way to spam for his clients. Sounds like sour grapes to me. --Calton | Talk 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like he's found a new wiki directory that allows for ownership and protection of commercially-promoted articles, all while giving contributors the unlimited opportunity to earn Google AdSense and Amazon Associates revenues while they build out the directory's content. Would you say it's "spam" when a company lists itself in the Yellow Pages? That's the gist of your (weak) argument here. His company sounds like a much better financial deal than what Wikia offers its "volunteers". If that's sour grapes, Calton, I want me some. --JossBuckle Swami 04:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• And it's regugitated advertising buzzspeak like that which instantly trips my BS detector -- that, and things like spamming user talk pages trying to drum up business for your site, and also your edits to User:MyWikiBiz's user page. Back again under a new name, eh? Pimping your site on that forum above wasn't enough, you had to come here, too? --Calton | Talk 04:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Now, now. Assume good faith. I do not have ANY ownership interest in that company. You folks could learn a lot from the Wikia.com model -- when people are annoying you, find them a new home that welcomes their annoying little traits, and send them there. --JossBuckle Swami 04:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. So far, a metric buttload of evidence to the contrary, JossBuckle Swami/MyWikiBiz/TheKohser/whatever-you're-calling-yourself-this-month. --Calton | Talk 04:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Metric buttload! That's a good one. Calton, don't you see? It's so easy to keep contributing to Wikipedia when there are so many hypocrites offering themselves up for correction. You, like so many others, haven't even READ what Jimmy Wales did to MyWikiBiz, have you? Would it be so difficult to learn the whole story? You know, the one where MWB created a company based on the tenets of the Reward Board, then acted in the bright light of full disclosure, formed a mutual agreement with Jimmy Wales, then the community literally changed the rules by creating a "conflict of interest" policy out of thin air, which Jimmy then got behind and dismissed MyWikiBiz, then defaced MWB's user page, thus running off their business, all while promoting a donation-supported environment that serves as a link-farm for his for-profit Wikia.com? Get a clue. (Don't make me unplug my modem and come up with another anagram user name again.) --JossBuckle Swami 05:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's so easy to keep contributing to Wikipedia when there are so many hypocrites offering themselves up for correction. A metaphor involving ebony-colored cookware is coming to mind, however elaborately you spin your history here. One also wonders why if your site is so damned wonderful and profitable and just so much better than Wikipedia, you still feel the need to come over to Wikipedia to pimp it. The door? Over there, and be careful not to let the doorknob hit you on the ass on the way out. --Calton | Talk 07:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Something about not throwing stones when you live in glass houses comes to mind. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions

The case is now closed and the results have been posted at the link above.

• It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them.

• Given the existence of some uncertainty regarding how to determine if there is consensus in a particular case, no remedy is proposed concerning those who violated the consensus in this matter for past violations of policy.

• Izzy Dot's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 14 days.

• Any user who purposely violates the consensus decision in this matter during the next 180 days may be briefly blocked. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Administrators are expected to use discretion and judgment in enforcing this remedy rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109^Talk 04:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

A question: is the 180-days period of grace for the consensus applicable in similar situations (provided previous steps to dissuade users have been tried)? I guess the 6 month grace does not include new debates about the same topic, right? -- ReyBrujo 04:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be something to ask for clarification about at WP:RFAR probably. Cowman109^Talk 04:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Closing_of_a_consensus_decision_making_procedure establishes the general principle that admins should "close" extended discussions about policy (similar to how admins close deletion discussions), and allows admins to enforce the result with recalcitrant users after suitable warnings. However, the enforcement provision applies to "this matter." In other words, the arbitration committee doesn't want to permanently enshrine the current TV episode naming convention, but doesn't want to open the door to wikilawyering in a month that WP:Consensus can change. (Something which is my experience is usually cited after a debate has closed by the losing side trying to reopen discussion.) My own opinion is that once a consensus is determined, there should be a period of time where everyone has to live with it to see how it works out before reopening a potentially divisive debate all over again, but the exact length of time will depend on the situation. Thatcher131 05:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As you predicted: [32] —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out I only mentioned it as I did BEFORE [33] the arbitration as well. I am not trying to reopen discussion on this topic, which is why I have kept and will continue to keep my objections private until the matter is raised again. EnsRedShirt 11:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm, without having to read through the whole case, which I will get to, what does this mean in a nutshell? Teke ^(talk) 05:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I understand. If I do a requested move from X to Xx, that is supported, violations of that move up to 180 days are to be enforced and all other such discussion responsibilities must be handled. RM as an example. Teke ^(talk) 05:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the committee recognizes that a consensus to disambiguate TV episode names only when needed exists but was not recognized by all involved. For the next 180 days, editors who move TV episode articles against consensus may be blocked if necessary (presuming admin discretion, warnings first, not biting new editors, etc.) Other moves were not at issue, this isn't a general ruling on page move policy. Thatcher131 05:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, however remember that decisions create precedents. From what I see and understand, it is allowing administrators and others (in example, an informal mediator who had been called upon an issue who may not be administrators) to close discussions looking for consensus, not only for moves but for any discussion (in example, "Which image we should use for this article?", "Should we shrink the plot even more?", "Should we add more external links?", etc). I was asking about the period grace because it would be pretty helpful in any case when the "closure" is applied (who hasn't been inside a discussion that ended, just to begin again on the following week?). While 180 days is explicit for this case, it would be useful for those closing debates to establish a period during which the consensus is accepted, so that the article can move forward (discussions looking for consensus usually impact negatively on the article, as editors focus on dicussing instead of improving it). -- ReyBrujo 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can set a calendar on consensus. The period during which consensus is accepted is the period during which it is accepted, however long that is. (Wonderful circular logic.) If, after a discussion closes, one person wants to reopen it against the majority that is happy with the outcome, that's obviously a no-go, no matter how long it has been. If enough people have changed their minds that a consensus no longer exists, then the discussion needs to be reopened, no matter how long it has been. Consensus lasts however long it lasts, in other words. I read the ruling to give admins broad discretion. Anyone who can't handle it shouldn't be an admin, or at least leave these situations to others.

I would also be cautious in applying the arbitration committee's ruling, which mentions policies and guidelines, to more minor issues such as the ones you suggested. Thatcher131 06:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. The examples I gave are very simple ones, I was thinking in an extremely complex one. There is this concept that japanese articles should be in uppercase if they are written in a determined way, thus you may end up with many articles with titles like COLORS. Trying to move it to Colors (Utada Hikaru) may make others move it back to COLORS. If you move it to the correct location, people would just change the name from "Colors" to "COLORS" inside the article. In any case this is an extremely complex issue. I was thinking that, in seven months, people would be free to move the articles again to the "(Buffy episode)", since the period would have ended, and one would have to search for consensus again. While it may not happen in this case, believe me, Japanese topics are bound to this kind of problems. -- ReyBrujo 06:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the ruling is that people would be free to move articles to the "(Buffy episode)" naming pattern if and only if consensus at WP:TV-NC changed; and the "closing" part of the ruling is, as Thatcher131 indicates, meant to give the current consensus "time to settle". Of course consensus can change, but it can't be in a constant state of change — otherwise, it's not much of a consensus. Does that make sense? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Consensus can change" does not mean "ignore consensus if you disagree with it", although certain people have been wikilawyering that way. If you believe that consensus has changed, the burden is on you to demonstrate that, generally through dialogue. Proof by assertion isn't. >Radiant< 14:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User: Niohe

Niohe even repeatedly deletes relevant, valuable historical images from non-image-heavy articles, even from articles with only 2 images. For instance, see the history of Yixin, Prince Gong, Empress Xiao Xian Chun, Imperial Noble Consort Hui Xian. None of the images are identical, and they were all painted or photographed in different years. It can do no harm to leave these images on the articles, and even if these images should be removed, Niohe should have previous noticed me the uploader so that I could move the images to WikiCommons. The example Niohe provided Talk:Empress_Dowager_Cixi/Archives_1#This_article_is_image_heavy is just an extreme case where it was indeed image-heavy, and I have agreed and removed several images myself. There is absolutely no user complaints on all the rest of the articles. Also, I'm not editing images against image use policy, because I have resized all my images so that they do not exceed the maximum width it states (550px). Actually, most of them are within 300px wide and many of them are even smaller.

Look at these valuable historical images of extreme high quality and resolution that Niohe has been trying hard to destroy: (They have all belonged to different articles, and thus not space-occupying or redundant.)

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

Look at how many images and galleries this article has. Most of my articles do not even contain one-third or one-fourth as many as the images that article contains. Highshines 22:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution, second on the left down the hall. Oh, wait - have you tried using the "width=xxpx]] syntax in images? That may help here. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• And much more preferable than explicitly sizing a thumbnail is to leave out the size. It will then be displayed at the size that the 'user has selected in their preferences... After all, they know better than you about the size of their display! Ta/wangi 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated above, I don't see any point in cleaning up the mess after User:Highshines, someone else will have to do that. Just to give you an idea what we are dealing with, please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Highshines.

This is an editor with several sock puppets who has a long history of throwing about accusations of vandalism and who refuses to listen to the kind of advice you just gave him. If you leave him alone for a while his favorite pages will start looking like this or like this (scroll down the page). You can also have a look at his most recent edit history. This is not my problem anymore, I have removed most of his favorite pages from my watch list. Hope you will enjoy the show.--Niohe 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have went through a number of the articles that Highshines contributes to and have fixed up the images to use thumbnails (rather than frames) and to remove explicit sizes where they are not required (and it's very rare that explicit sizes are required). I'll leave a note on the talk page. Thanks/wangi 14:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if all the articles you're fixing, Niohe, look like that, then please, by all means, rewatchlist them and keep fixing them. Not sure if there are other more subtle cases that Highsiness is talking about; but if not, please please fix them. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

More is to come, I promise you. Highshines has already made an undiscussed and a completely uncalled for page move of Fragrant Concubine twice. I don't know if you are familiar with Chinese history, but the person referred to in the article below is known as the "Fragrant Concubine" in English and nothing else. I can't undo this because I'm not an administrator.

• [34]
• [35]

--Niohe 20:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, someone with administrative power might want to take a look at this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Highshines. I have just posted a list of IP socks that Highshines uses.--Niohe 20:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian War

Basically, User:HarisM is utterly opposed to any reference to Jihadists being involved in the Bosnian War. This would be OK, however - he has knowingly contravened numerous Wikipedia policies. WP:V (he didn't present any sources to show there weren't Jihadists and dismissed reputable ones such as the BBC and The Guardian (i.e. not Serbian propaganda websites), see list of sources), WP:NOR (he edited the article based on your his own theories in the the face of sources which contradicted his views - the BBC source was dismissed as "propaganda"), WP:POINT (inserting "Crusaders" to refer to Russians/Greeks to make the point that there were no Jihadists, again with no sources diff diff2) and WP:AGF & WP:NPA (calling me "ignorant" and an Islamophobe). You can see the whole discussion here. All these policy violations were pointed out to him. His response? I'm a "funny guy." Basically it's like talking to a brick wall - sources, reasoned arguments etc all mean nothing to him, because He Knows Better and That's That. // Hadžija 12:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hadžija, as long as your sources are notable and verifiable, I would argue that it is legit for them to stay in the article. Obviously making sure that these comments are properly attributed (i.e. "According to the BBC, at the time..." Regards, --Asterion^talk 15:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added a footnote to the article. After a quick look in Lexis-Nexis I found almost 2000 articles regarding this, including a report from the Bosnian state prosecution. So I guess that if the term is good enough for the current Bosnian judiciary, it should be OK for the article. If in doubt, I suggest you place a request for comments--Asterion^talk 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixing a Copy and Paste move

Could someone please move Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation to The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Another user had done this as a C+P move, and I have placed a comment on their talk page, but having reverted both I am unable to conclude the fix so would be grateful if an admin could finish off for me. Thanks. Ian3055 16:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --pgk 18:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning IPs

Just pondering... I see many warnings go out to IP editors, and then it is expected of them to read those warnings too. But... how?

When not logged in, there's no userpage/'My Talk' link at the top, and there are no notifications of new messages popping up the screen. So, there seems absolutely no point in posting warnings or other messages to an IP talkpage. Am I missing something? --Edokter (Talk) 16:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

When you are an IP and you recieve a message...the link just comes up as the "you have new messages". Same thing as logged in Users. Arjun 16:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You can also go to Special:Mytalk. Cheers! S.D. ¿п? § 16:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Appealling

I'm in a bit of a layout dispute at List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. After being reverted twice, I mananged to coax User:AMK152 onto the talk page where I was addressing his concerns. I thought we were making progress but then User:Kitia came in a reverted it again [36] , refused to go on to the talk page, and threatened to block me [37]. I don't want to be blocked so I would like to appeal this. 650l2520 20:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're not a board of appeals, Kitia isn't an admin and can't block you, and you shouldn't have personally attacked them. Apart from that, I can only recommend that you continue to try and settle this content issue on the article talk page. Try and stay polite at all times even if it's hard to. It pays off, believe me. Sandstein 21:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Shawn Hornbeck

We requested page protection to end the reverts during our dispute resolution and mediation. Why are we reverting the protected version? This seems inappropiate. I believe the version initially found just before page protection should stay untill we can discuss this on the talk page. Reverts are disruptive. Navou ^banter 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a WP:BLP issue, it is best to tread cautiously at least until the issue is settled. Cowman109^Talk 20:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is what I did. Cbrown1023 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It just suprised me to see the change reverted, then reverted back on the protected page. I believe one version or the other should stay untill this is settled. Navou ^banter 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, guys, how is putting his birthday as July 17 "potentially libelous"? Worse, after another admin reverted Cbrown, he reverted back again. Navou is right, the change on this page is totally inappropriate, an Cbrown should undo himself. Airing on the side of caution does not mean removing a birthdate as libelous, and seems to go against the spirit of WP:WV, using one's admin priveledges to circumvent this problem. Bad move bad move, IMHO. Patstuart^talk|edits 21:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I quote WP:BLP:

Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.

I have absolutely no involvement in this, and yes, maybe Cbrown1023 was wrong to essentially wheel war, but this is what Wikipedia official policy says, and in this case, with how BLP can have potential real-world issues, it's better to err on the side of caution. However, I'm not Cbrown, so I won't speculate about his full reasoning; I just thought that paragraph would be interesting and relevant. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 21:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Per BLP, Cbrown's edits were absolutely the right move. Ral315 (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of that provision of BLP, which greatly removes a lot of the offense. Still, I think the wheel warring was inappropriate. Patstuart^talk|edits 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out BLP in more detail. It overrides normal restraints. Tyrenius 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• The only page protections that should not be edited, or reverted, are those placed under the provisions of WP:OFFICE. Any other protection is malleable under administrators' discretion, though of course they should show a good deal of sense and care when editing or reverting protected pages. Furthermore, edit warring and wheel warring are both counterproductive and harm the integrity of the Wiki, and should be avoided. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

PD-Soviet is deprecated

{{PD-Soviet}} is only transcluded into one file (which was recently uploaded), and uploads are no longer accepted onto it. Commons has long since redirected the version there to the copyvio template; I think we should do something similar with the en version, a TfD is not appropriate in my opinion as we may restore this template, and the discussion on its talk page may be useful. Any thoughts?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirected; that should do it ... Cyde Weys 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone fix the double redirect [38]? Hbdragon88 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't protected, you could've fixed it in less time than it took you to post here asking someone else to do it ... Cyde Weys 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've also fixed {{sovietpd}}, which was another old redirect. Does anybody know if there are any others hiding out there? Gavia immer (u|t) 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this appropriate for a user page?

This user believes that liberals are worse than Nazis.

I don't want to bring it up to said user and an admin sent me here for community advice. To see the full spectrum, check out my userpage. Jasper23 00:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out What can I not have on my user page. It probably covers most of what you have. Tyrenius 00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That is completely inappropriate for a userpage (or anywhere for that matter).--Azer Red Si? 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As the admin who sent Jasper here, my thoughts are the same as Tyrenius'. I also wanted to emphasize that the boxes on Jasper's page are not Jasper's boxes, but rather boxes he has copied from the as yet unnamed user's page simply for illustration (at least I believe that's what happened). · j e r s y k o talk · 00:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think having every one of those userboxes on a userpage is extremely bad judgement, this one particularly. VegaDark 00:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A different question: Bottom line is this. Wikipedians are given userspace to assist the project and to help them work with other users. Yes, we don't have too many rules - and Wikipedians have latitude, but if something isn't going to help the project or user relations then any good wikipedian should stay clear of it. This is obviously going to be inflammatory and at very least discussing it will be a distraction from important things. Thus, Jasper23, if you are here to serve this project, you will want to remove it, and anything similar, regardless of what the letter of policy might say. A good wikipedian will not want to take the chance of distracting us from real encyclopedic work. So the question is not 'is this allowed?', it is 'are you a good wikipedian'? --Doc^g 01:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The unnamed user is AmeriCan (talk · contribs) (God knows why you're all being coy about it). I have removed that particular box from his page. The rest should probably be dumped in the bit bucket, too, but that was so obviously bad I nuked it immediately. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, just to clarify in case anyone missed this earlier, these are not Jasper's userboxes, they are copied from another user page and he is asking for discussion. I found the original source's userpage with about 2 minutes of digging through and cross-referencing the images used in the boxes. The userpage in question also has a rather soapbox-y rant against Bill Maher and claims him to be in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden. It's rather intriguing, actually. (Edit conflict: Calton has unveiled above.) —bbatsell ¿? 01:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he's Talk Page spamming other conservatives (hmm, more evidence about why political userboxes are a Bad Idea, as they enable this behavior) to rally around some Categories for discussion issue, to fight off those nasty liberals. Lovely. --Calton | Talk 01:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated the page for deletion. Somehow I doubt that this user created it in good faith.--Azer Red Si? 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry everyone. I should have been more clear about where those boxes came from. I guess the "I stole these" on my page wasn't that clear. Reading back through my post I realize I should have stated the issue more clearly and identified the userbox owner. Well, thanks for quick treatment. Jasper23 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a violation of WP:CANVAS is going on with this user. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur with the WP:CANVAS and image deletion. The goal at Wikipedia is to describe political controversies rather than take part in them. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, all the userboxes, including the nazi one, are back. Although he did leave out the Bill Maher rant. VegaDark 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted to page again as a WP:CSD#G4 as the AfD clearly came to a consensus that those userboxes were unacceptable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Denying vandals recognition

I'm think it might help to apply WP:DENY to Cplot. At this point he's just trying to get as much attention as possible and reveling in every little bit he gets. If we stop making a big deal out of anything Cplot-related, but just revert, block, and ignore, hopefully the problem will go away. I can't really think of any reason these Cplot socks need to be categorized; they're all blocked indef, so there's no need to continue watching any of them. --Cyde Weys 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is really a question for the checkusers, whether any of the listings that are being made are helpful to them. Newyorkbrad 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule, no, they're not useful. Ask me in private for the reason why. --Cyde Weys 02:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

While I generally agree with you Cyde, I think descisions about how information on sockpuppets is disseminated and organised should really be up to the checkusers. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible addition to MediaWiki:Bad image list

User:Froth posted a message on the Help Desk yesterday commenting that Image:AUTOAMPUTATE1.JPG should be added to the bad image list. I'm not sure whether or not it exactly meets the qualifications for that list, although it appears like it might. I posted a message here regarding the image, however my message has not yet been addressed. If the image is added to the list, it should be added with an exception for the Gangrene article. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 02:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Help please, concerning an AfD

Hello. The Wikipedia Pro Wrestling project has a problem. User:One Night In Hackney nominated a bunch of articles under WP:PW for deletion, and a consensus feels that (and this is a unanimous consensus by the way) that these articles should stay, and some (including myself) feel that the nominator nominated those articles on bad faith. It's been a few days now, and so I ask, can one of you guys please close the AfD on those articles and if you can, do something about the nominator, concerning his possible bad faith nomination. Thank you for your time. --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  Contribs  02:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the debate, it appears there will be no consensus for deletion, and a consensus for keep has developed. Not an admin, but I have closed this AFD per the debate WP:SNOW and me closing it is WP:IAR. Navou ^banter 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Username?

I came across the username Reziladnav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Vandalizer written backwards) today. Is this ok per WP:USERNAME, or should this user request a username change? Aecis^Bravado 02:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the user's seemingly productive contributions so far, it seems that the user might be using his/her user name to demonstrate that he or she is, in fact, the opposite of a vandalizer. Reading the user page, I see that the user has been frustrated when editing in the past from public computers that had been blocked because of other people's vandalism. So, frankly, I see this choice of a user name as a way to demonstrate that he or she is actually interested in contributing constructively. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Even without jersyko's bit of digging, I wouldn't think this account is a violation of WP:U. —bbatsell ¿? 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad concern, but I don't think that it's a problem (especially given jersyko's psycho-analysis of the editor, which I think is terribly clever). EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Good analysis on Jerseyko's part. I'm satisfied. Durova^Charge! 14:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have some free time?

Because I've found something you can ocupy it with. I was browsing through the toolserver, when I found this, which lists talk pages with no article (aka G8). It was compiled by Rob Church, and I have no idea how long ago, but some of the pages are still around, and can be safely speedy deleted. Some of them are alos incorrectly archived talk pages, or redirects to those talk pages (which can mostly be deleted as R3's. There's no conceivable good reason for a talk page archive redirect). So, if you've got nothing better to do, this is a good place to come. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete all pages. -- Punk Boi 8 04:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, that's the point.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel like someone else ran this more recently, but I can't remember where. It's more useful on-wiki, so that one can see which links are red and which blue. If you have some free time, Royalguard11, you could copy it over. . . Chick Bowen 04:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Be careful to not delete any pages with information as on how to create a new article, one of the exceptions to CSD G8. Also, some pages may be tagged with {{Needed-Class}}, so take care of not nuking those too. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Since when is that an exception, especially as WP:CSD doesn't actually say so? >Radiant< 14:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, speaking of which, I've got a quick question about talk pages. I've been tagging some image talk pages (deleted through replaceable fair use), but is this right? FUC #1 discussion don't take place elsewhere. Hbdragon88 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Don't delete talk pages with non-redundant discussion about the deletion of the page on it. We want to keep that visible. --Robth^Talk 06:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh great. Can an admin view my deleted edits to the Image: space? I tagged at least three image talk pages. One was an image about an obese child, and two others were baout replaceable fair use images. Hbdragon88 06:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I put up a crudely Wikified copy of the first part of the list (A-J) here: (User:Calton/Talk Pages Without Articles), if anyone wants to take a stab at this. --Calton | Talk 05:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, a quick skim shows that almost all the orphaned talk pages have already been deleted, and from the dates on the few that remain, this list was probably compiled in May of 2006. Just so you know. --Calton | Talk 07:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Spoke too soon. Looks like the "K"s onward are chockful of orphaned talk pages. I've updated my list, and took a stab at tagging the "K"s. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to delete as many as I can. I've done up to "M". -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

CAT:SPEEDY

Nice backlog, folks. I'm clocking off. Tyrenius 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Help! I'm being crushed by the articles! Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the number stuck at 179178 for anyone else? Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ownership Issues, something not quite right.....

I came across User:Wizardry Dragon in the thread above, and thought something was a little odd.... He's self-listed as the 'head' of the WP:WNP - which seems to have some odd instructions on it (ie. don't edit this bit, wait until the co-ordinator or chairperson has done something or other...) - he also self-identifies as holding the responsibility of a Clerk office for CheckUser, and I found it a little odd that he also seems to have the same text about page vandalism as Jimbo.

Nothing massively untoward, but it seems to me that he's projecting false authority in about the nicest way i've ever seen it done...... perhaps this isn't at all un-wiki-ish and its all in my head, what do you think? Purples 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That bit about being the head of the WNP racked up a few oppose votes in his recent RFA. Hbdragon88 07:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish people would actually read the text of things before they complained about it. Really, it would make for a lot less hurt feelings and cooler heads. The text is taken from Jimbo's page (it's actualy templated somewheres, but I took the template code and changed it to fit my userpage). Jimbo's perfectly okay with this. Perhaps some attribution is in order though - I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Secondly, as the "head" (the title that was given was "chairperson", and it's actually mostly in jest per some early discussion on the matter when the project was still in the proposal stage) I have asserted numerous times on the talk page of the WNP that the WNP has no special weight in the matter, nor do I, myself. I'm just another guy. Really, really. My own role is mostly trying to keep the whole thing together and coordinated, I leave the "in the trenches" editing to subject experts and only reply to WNP requests for areas in my own area of expertise.

Just to be completely clear: The Wikipedia Neutrality Project has no special weight or authority. Consensus rules wikipedia, not a small group with similar interests - maintaining NPOV. Anyone who asserts the WNP has special authority is wrong.

It is my hope that addresses everything. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In either case, why is this something for WP:AN? Titoxd^(?!?) 07:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

They're legitimate concerns, although I agree this isn't the best venue. If it was refactored onto my talk page I'd be happy to continue the discussion there, so long as Purples is informed of the move. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the first thing that I thought. If I had been in your place, looking at the Noticeboard and seeing a discussion about me springing up from nowhere, I would be quite... shocked. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(Editing with Lynx sucks sometimes. Can someone move the further comments above Titoxd's comments so this discussion makes more sense? Thanks.) I was, very much so. But keeping a cool head works wonders sometimes :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Some further points I missed when first reading the comment:

The bits about don't edit "x" section are hold outs from a partially failed restructuring of the project. I should probably remove them. I will make that a priorty. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

The identification as a clerk is for identification purposes only, and for the same reason one identifies as an administrator, sysop, checkuser, steward, et cetera. I have knowledge of the processes of Requests for Checkuser being a RFCU clerk, so I identify as such so that people know that I am someone they can approach with concerns regarding RFCU cases.

As a RFCU clerk, I have absolutely no say in RFCU matters. That is the purview of the presiding checkuser. My only function is to organise requests, format them as appropriate, fulfill occasional requests for additional informations given by the checkusers, and archive cases when they are completed. It is a conflict of interest to voice opinions on listed or potential cases, and I have no authority to encourage certain descisions, challenge them, or overturn them. In short my authority on RFCU is nil. I just have knoweldge of that process that users may find useful, and therefore welcome approaches from users for help listing their cases.

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've edited the project page to remove its "chairperson". Wikiprojects shouldn't have hierarchies. >Radiant< 14:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What about (probably) the most successful one? I believe they are having elections right now. I think a properly handled hierarchy can work, but it has to be a very flat, decentralised one. I guess most times things can be handled by people volunteering for stuff and working together. Sometimes, though, leadership can keep things moving forwards, but I agree that formalising such things is often bad. There are also problems when too many people volunteer for a particular position. Usually the conclusion is that elections are needed to decide who gets the position, but actually, the conclusion should usually be that the position is popular because too much power has been centred in one position. Instead of holding elections, the position should be split up among the volunteers following discussion. Carcharoth 16:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd like to remind everyone that the WNP discussion page is here. This is not the appropriate venue. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use review

What do we consider to be the status of Category:Fair use review requested? Many images have been sitting there for a long time. What determines when or whether the image is removed from the category? Would it make sense simply to add all of these, en masse, to Wikipedia:Fair use review, and have a centralized discussion? Chick Bowen 07:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't revert archived talk page

I can't seem to revert my archived talk page: User talk:Tinlinkin/Archive 1 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Tinlinkin/Archive 1|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which someone redirected to Superman, and I don't see any other edits than mine. Quite funny, but I want my talk archive back. Tinlinkin 07:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the history, YOU redirected it to Superman... Viridae^Talk 07:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This was when I moved contents of my talk page to the archive. I even had to change a link in a to-do list to point to the archive. And the last time I checked (I admit in December), the archive was still there. Tinlinkin 07:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I have deleted the page, you can archive to it as you see fit. (BTW there we no deleted edit previously - possibly a database error) Viridae^Talk 08:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wonderful. Leave me to do the hard work. (sigh and sarcasm) But why would the database error (or other cause) resolve that way? And I'm a little disturbed that something like this can happen at all, since I didn't touch the page since it was created, and to my knowledge, nobody else either. (I know well enough not to create a talk page that redirects to an article, especially one I don't keep track of.) I will recreate the page. Tinlinkin 08:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You sure that you didn't leave yourself logged in on a computer that someone else had access to? That looks like the kind of thing someone would do as a joke. Syrthiss 14:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

The kind of Indian ruler that makes one stop wondering how this great country could have been dominated by foreigners for so long. Inept he is, to say the least. Accusing me of having continued warring on List of tall men after having been reported for 3RR, which is not true (is this warring ?) makes a sick joke of this man. User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington really is the kind of admin Wikipedia needs to ruin its credibility. RCS 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you kept switching back and forth between the two, then yes, that is edit warring. Also, it makes yourself look worse if you focus that much on his ethnicity. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 11:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally, Nick is a good user. Everyone makes slip ups. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What slip-ups? Check the history of the page. He has been revert-warring since a few days. Block came in warranted. Gaming the system, and don't you see the WP:POINT? User has been trolling and has left remarks in racial undertones on my talk page, and his own. >:) — Nearly Headless Nick 12:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't making a statement or judgment on this particular case. I was saying that generally, everyone makes mistakes and users need to be more tolerant of others. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've warned RCS about the lack of civility and specifically that it is unhelpful to make racist statements about other editors. --Guinnog 13:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually that particular list has been the focal point of a long-running user dispute. When I first encountered it I offered some constructive advice, yet I doubted the inclusion standards could ever be defined well enough to meet encyclopedic standards. I've voiced that at the deletion discussion. Durova^Charge! 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• As Durova notes above, I have taken the list of tall men to AfD, for reasons stated in the nomination. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Any more racist statements from RCS will result in a block from myself. The comments referred to by Guinnog and NHN verge on reprehensible -- Samir धर्म 05:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiPrograms that are still not useful

Based upon last week's thread (above), Wikipedia:Editor review is working on a reform and a change of focus, to help people with editor skills rather than gaming the system at RFA. However, Wikipedia:Admin coaching is not. For one part it is redundant with ER, for another it's still about telling people what RFA "wants to hear". I believe it would be best if AC was deprecated (no, I do not mean "deleted") so that novice users desiring guidance have one central productive place to look at. >Radiant< 12:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I remain of the view that admin coaching is a fundamentally bad idea, in a way that admin mentorship is not. I mean, what sane person would want this shit? Guy (Help!) 12:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, Pschemp, Rune.welsh, DakotaKahn, Petros471, Sue Anne, EWS23, Bucketsofg, just to name a few... they're all shit bananas, apparently. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Good point, Radiant. And Guy, that reasoning would mean all of us are nuts. Then again, maybe we are... ;) Durova^Charge! 14:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• 100% of a sample of Wikipedia admins in my house was found to be barking mad. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• HAY! I only came in for a pint! Syrthiss 16:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New Sock Puppet Policy Proposed

To deal with the fact that none of us are answering the reports at the failed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, I have proposed a new way of dealing with users approaching admins about potential abuse of sock puppets. Please see:

• Wikipedia:Simple sock puppets
• Wikipedia:Complex sock puppets

Robdurbar 14:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Review of Indef Ban User:Raspor

I am requesting review of the indef ban of User:Raspor. I have been in contact with this user and he is willing to not edit the ID article, submit to mentoring, and probation. I believe he is quite sincere Geo. 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

From someone who endorsed the community ban at ANI. For starters, it should be all articles even faintly associated with ID. Secondly, mentoring has had mixed results, as on occasion I have seen for myself. Thirdly, the problem is not merely one of bias. This fellow used an extremely unpleasant editing style: blocks for 3RR,WP:POINT violations, and on occasion some extremely unpleasant personal attacks. This sort of thing is likely to follow an editor around whatever they edit. Given all this, I feel that the encyclopedia and the community will not benefit from letting Raspor back in, but I suppose I could be persuaded. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He probably would agree to that. Geo. 06:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Given the fact that he has now evaded the ban several times, with at least one sock and an IP that I know of, I am not convinced. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I had typed up a very similar message; one edit conflict later and I will simply QFT Guy's comment. —bbatsell ¿? 20:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Gaming the system

i am watching an interesting case unfold with respect to the definition of a reliable source.

1. An editor wishes to add some content they consider notable. But there are no reliable sources.
2. After the fact, a blog is opened by a credible journalist with content that could be used as a source.
3. Editor claims to know the journalist.
4. Editor claims it is a reliable source since wikipedia accepts quotes written in blogs by credible journalists.

I would discount this blog as a reliable source since it seems just too convenient that the blog appeared with the required information during the dispute on wikipedia. How should one deal with such a case? David D. (Talk) 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this the journalist's personal blog or a publishing sponsored blog... i.e. Journalist X has a regular blog that he writes for and is hosted on Time.com? If this is a personal blog I don't think it matters if the journalist is credible or not... There is nothing in WP:RS that suggests this is in any way an acceptable source. In fact it says "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." If this has never been previously published I would say this is not a reliable source. Whether or not the editor knows the journalist is besides the point. If this is an "official" blog, I'd say it might pass muster, but again I don't think writing an article on one journalist's blog posting is the right way to go. I'd request additional sources. Of course it is hard to say in this specific situation without actually seeing the article, source, and journalist in question with diffs.--Isotope23 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: RS does not state that the journalist in question must have published the specific piece of wriitng elsewhere: else we would never accept self-published material from professional journalists, but always use the cite from the the "credible third party publication" instead. Admitting self-published material by professional journalists makes a distinction between the 60 million bloggers who are not professional journalists, and the slim minority who are. When they self-publish, they put their professional credibility on the line, in a way that the mass of bloggers do not. This credibility is determined by whether or not they have been published in credible third party publications. In this case, the journalist has self-published something in the area of their experise: language. While the specific material noted has not been published elsewhere, other similar specific material has been published in credible third party publications, and no reason has been offered to doubt the claims asserted by the author.-Cindery 22:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I could give you the specifics but i didn't want to drag people into the argument. The blog is not an official blog, in fact, it is not even the journalists primary blog. I think you make a good point re: the third party publication. it is possible that the blog is a fake too, although that would be stretching AGF at this point. I think requesting additional sources is the best way to go. Thus the arguments about RS and the legitimacy of the blog can be dropped. thanks for your input. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"it is possible that the blog is a fake too, although that would be stretching AGF at this point." There's your answer right there. AGF is irrelevant. We cannot absolutely verify that the named journalist is the author: it is not a reliable source. If it's on some site like blogspot, they have no way to verify authorship, and neither do we. Period. End of discussion. Fan-1967 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• It may pass WP:RS, but it might have WP:OR problems, as well as problems with WP:V's call to use reliable, third party sources. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23, the blog was created and the information was posted a few hours befor it was cited. No, the journalist dosn't have a blog on a his paper's website. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind... I found what David D. was talking about on my own while dealing with another issue... man what a mess that whole thing is... Regardless, that is a blogspot post, In my opinion, there is no way, even if this is a notable journalist and her identity can be proven, that this could be considered a reliable source for the grafitti info unless there are other existing sources to back this up. Fan-1967 is right, this should be non-negotiable even if there is some consensus to keep it in the article. It simply is not in anyway a reliable source under the current WP:RS guidelines; and the talk of changing WP:RS that seems to have sprung out of the RfC related to this situation is ridiculous.--Isotope23 21:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: There are other existing sources regarding the graffiti, both in general and in specific. The "talk" re changing the RS guideline was initiated by Milo H. Minderbinder, regarding establishing the identity of authors.-Cindery 22:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

part 2

Interesting development that needs further input:

The journalist has two blogs, one is an official blog. The second blog (blogspot), with the disputed facts, was started on Jan 15th 2007. The journalist has linked to the blogspot entry from his official blog, however, the link has been incorporated into a entry he made on Dec 12th 2006. To me (not assuming good faith here) it seems a lot like trying get vanity facts (in this cases specific examples of graffiti) into wikipedia by getting them a seal of approval from authority (the journalist in this case). I see this as exploiting a loophole in the guidelines. Is this any different to than writing ones own personal web site and then using it as a primary source? I am assuming that there needs to be an independant source in this situation. David D. (Talk) 22:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if the information were on the person's primary blog, its value would be dubious, as for all blogs. As for the other, anything on blogspot.com has to be rejected as not meeting the standards of a Reliable Source. Fan-1967 22:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and not what is stated in RS regarding self-published material by professional journalists.-Cindery 23:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

But we do not have any reliable source to verify that this material was created by that journalist. Blogspot does not verify article authorship in any way, and a dubious link in the purported author's own blog seems to predate this one by a month, which makes it suspicious at best. If we cannot absolutely, positively, without question verify the authorship, it's worthless. Fan-1967 23:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, it's rather negative and IDONTLIKEIT, and they don't seem to agree with you at RS--see ongoing discussion.-Cindery

They don't know, in theory, where the ongoing discussion is occuring. See Talk:Barrington_Hall David D. (Talk) 01:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User warnings harmonisation

Just a note to say that WP:UW is ready to "go live" with their new warning system. Comments are appreciated (here or there). Thanks, Martinp23 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, great, I'm going to have to retrain my fingers when warning vandals... A quick glance-through of the warnings looks pretty good to me - might be easier to find the ones I'm looking for in this package. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything looks great (except for a minor issue I made note of on the talk page). The only thing I dislike is the extra 3 characters at the beginning of each warning. "uw-" as a prefix for all the templates? Is there anyway to eliminate that? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea was to prevent conflicting with the old system right away, and to harmonize things, a bit like the db templates do. And it helps not conflicting with, for example, the {{pov}} template. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

grumble grumble -- Grumpy Old Man (T/C/WRE) 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, I will switch over when it goes live. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And they're now live. JS I've moded the template with respect to your point on the blocks. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 20:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the {{uw-mos3}}, {{uw-notcensored3}}, and {{uw-unsourced3}} tags in that they all indicate that a block is imminent and are intended to be followed up with a {{uw-vandalism4}} template... but none of those things are vandalism. Giving people who just disagree about style an excuse to 'tag' each other with threats of blocks for 'vandalism' is a bad idea... ditto turning every content dispute into a war of 'uncensored' and 'unsourced' tags. All three of these things are supposed to be directed to dispute resolution... not falsely labeled as vandalism. --CBD 11:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There's far too much throwing of templates on user talk pages going on at Wikipedia. And people are also too hasty to use the word "vandalism". Going against consensus is not vandalism. It's edit warring, and it's a Bad Thing, but it's not vandalism. Removing or adding POV tags is not vandalism, though there are times when it could be justifiable to roll them back or to revert without counting towards 3RR. (For example, if a user or an IP went to every article about every religion, and added {{POV}} on the grounds that all religions are POV and that articles about them can't be neutral, I wouldn't hesitate to use rollback.) But generally, content-dispute pettty squabbles should not involve hurling the word "vandalism" around. By the way, you say "none of these things are vandalism." I'd say they're "not necessarily vandalism". Under certain circumstances, they might be. For example, the "not censored" one. If you edit war at Feces to remove an image, against consensus, because you feel it shouldn't be there, then regardless of what others say, it's not vandalism, though you can still be justifiably blocked for edit warring. But if some anon or newly-registered user blanks the whole article on Toilet, with an edit summary saying that it's indecent to mention such things, I think that troll can certainly be treated as a vandal. But a standard vandalism warning template would be appropriate. There's no reason for the {{uw-vandalism4}} one. If it's a new user, put a {{3RR}} on his talk page. If he's not reverting fast enough to warrant a 3RR block, then the established Wikipedians should have time to write a short personal message, referring him (with a link) to the appropriate section of the page on the policy that he's inadvertently breaking. I get increasingly concerned at the proliferation of templates used as black marks to be publicly displayed on the page of someone who has been naughty, rather than to make someone aware of a policy in order to help him. Musical Linguist 11:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well said!--Doc^g 12:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm...

Not like this really belongs here, but I'm just wondering: did I really misuse "Wikify" (The context being that I thought the template should be moved, to "Wikify" article) and did my edit [39] merit a revert [40] and a warning on my talk page [41]? --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection expiry

Kudos to whoever decided to come up with the expiry time for protection. However, is there some sort of guideline on how long protections should last? Or is it just Your Best Judgment® for now? -- tariqabjotu 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is a fairly new MW feature I believe, and no policy currently exists regarding it, though some discussion on what protection lengths would be appropriate would probably be a Good Thing^TM. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Blame Werdna.[42] ;) Titoxd^(?!?) 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That is so cool! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow... Why didn't we think of this 6 months ago? :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. You know, more developers = more spiffy features for us... so, all users who have a decent knowledge of PHP should help out! :) Titoxd^(?!?) 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just noticed it. Also "protect pages transcluded on this". w00t! Guy (Help!) 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame that there's no note of the expiry of the protection in the page history, but still, that and cascading protection are awesome! --Deskana (request backup) 23:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone would ever thing of this... 68.39.174.238 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean an automated "protection has expired" entry in the page's history? That does seem like a bug, because isn't recorded in the edit summary of the protection null edit. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, you can repeatedly unprotect pages (even when not protected) and leave null edits in the page history. Just FYI. --Deskana (request backup) 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The protection log DOES record the expiration date, if we can get that in the auto edit summary it would be useful. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To help us all along with this great new feature I've updated/created:

• Interface: MediaWiki:Protect-text (new super-brief instuctions)
• Template for tagging: Template:Tprotected ({{tprotected}}) (includes end-user link to the expiration date)

  Short form redirect for template: Template:tprot ({{tprot}})

• Category for new tag'd items Category:Temporarily protected
  • — xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Important note, if a page has existing protection (e.g. Edit=Auto,Move=Sysop) and you change the protection to anything (e.g. Edit=Sysop, Move=Sysop) AND use an expiration, ALL protections will be removed upon expiration. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't almost all protections be temporary? I thought that was the point: to eliminate the interminable backlog at Wikipedia:List of protected pages by having expiration times for protections. -- tariqabjotu 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh what do we need a guildline for. The protecting admin should have an aprox idea as to how long the protection should last for.Geni 13:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We can figure it out on a case-by-case basis, and over time, admins can look at the lengths others are using and come to some sort of a consensus. --Cyde Weys 15:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

We can create a policy when a need demonstrates itself. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Slavery

Can someone take a look at the article history here? Some editor (and an anon who's probably the same person) keeps inserting a picture of Jabba the Hutt and Princess Leia in chains as relevant to the history of slavery. Fan-1967 22:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To judge the sincerity of the edits, the same editor(s), SolRosenBerg (talk · contribs) and 13.8.125.11 (talk · contribs), have also been repeatedly re-inserting William Hung's picture into Asian (people). -- Fan-1967 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, Jabba, that is funny. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

AmeriCan (talk · contribs)

Despite being warned for canvassing such as this, this user has continued in it. I recommend at least a temporary block. (See also the "Is this userbox appropriate" section above for details on his attack userpage which has since been deleted.)--Azer Red Si? 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something this user has not canvased since the warning. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I somehow made the exact same mistake as Azer last night when I checked his contribs. But nah, he hasn't done anything other than edit your talk page once complaining about free speech since he was warned and his userpage was deleted. —bbatsell ¿? 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to switch my time zone to GMT in preferences so that the times in the sigs and the times in the logs match, I am always getting confused. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Reboty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could an admin please look at this user's edits (such as this one). I think they are probably vandalism, but I haven't gone over them very thoroughly.--Azer Red Si? 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

They look fine to me; he's replacing red links to non-existent ranks with live links to existent ones. The trouble is he never uses edit summaries — but that seems almost de rigeur these days... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Spamming of Category:Board games

Category:Board games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been flooded by spam over the past months. If there are no objections, I will delete all the spam edits from the article and restore only the clean edits. The reason for this is the following: when the edits are in the page history, they can still be viewed by readers. Once they are deleted from the article, they will no longer be visible for normal readers, which makes spamming the category a lot less attractive for the spammers. Any thoughts? Aecis^Bravado 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A pair of protected edit requests

There's now a pair of {{editprotected}} requests, at MediaWiki talk:Common.css and MediaWiki talk:Edittools, respectively. The first of the two has been sitting in place for some time. Unfortunately, I am not entirely confident in editing these two MediaWiki pages that are quite central, at least not on my own -- anybody care to comment or have some input? Luna Santin 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:JossBuckle Swami

JossBuckle Swami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest ban-evading incarnation of Gregory Kohs (MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Thekohser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 207.8.215.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). Having descended yet again into trolling and pushing his agenda with relation to the blocking of his MyWikiBiz account, I have blocked him. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Appears like a sound desicision to me. I knew something didn't smell right, and it wasn't the fast food I had for dinner. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 09:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Um, he did fully admit to it above. Anyway, what's wrong with this guy being around? Just curious. Patstuart^talk|edits 10:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong is a few things. First, he was blocked by Jimbo and has not been unblocked, so any new account is a ban-evading sockpuppet, block on sight and delete any articles as WP:CSD#G5. Second, he honestly thinks Wikipedia is in business to attract companies to create articles. He thinks that we are failing in a findamental aim because we erect barriers to companies creating PR articles on themselves. In other words, he simple does not get it, despite having had the conept of Wikipedia explained ot him multiple times. Third, he keeps lapsing into vanity and spamming of his own websites. Fourth, he keeps trolling. Fifth, he is selling Wikipedia articles. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I'd figured out JossBuckle Swami was my MyWikiBiz (easy enough to follow the trail), but I hadn't realized he'd been banned. Oy, I could have saved the trouble of arguing with him. --Calton | Talk 13:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can consider MyWikiBiz to be community-banned, beyond Jimbo's personal block. Chick Bowen 15:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

We can assume two things: as long as his site is up he will be banned, and he will continue creating sockpuppets. -- ReyBrujo 15:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's make this official

I propose a community ban of MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Thekohser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), JossBuckle Swami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), et al. for disruption, spamming, and damaging the integrity of Wikipedia. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Jimbo did not ban MyWikiBiz, he blocked MyWikiBiz, and later unblocked MyWikiBiz with a strongly worded message on their user page disowning the practice of hiring editors to write articles on Wikipedia. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Up to a point, Lord Copper.

04:59, October 5, 2006 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "MyWikiBiz (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (inappropriate use of Wikipedia name in commerce; implying that people can pay him to get listed in Wikipedia)

• • So, banned by Jimbo. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef block != ban. Bans apply to a person or entity, and are enforced by a block. A block is just a mechanical means of stopping the edits of one account. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Seconded. If they won't go peacefully, then we need to get out the big guns. Shadow1 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Thirded. It's bad enough, IMHO, to offer that sort of business, but block evasion makes it even worse. Especially Jimbo-block evasion. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Yup. Disruptive, vain, spammer, soapboxer, disruptive, and disruptive. Oh, and he's disruptive, too. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• I support the idea, but aren't we differentiating between a ban made by Jimbo and a ban made by the community? What follows, a ban by the Arbitration or the Foundation? Just wondering... -- ReyBrujo 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • He was blocked by Jimbo. I think it makes sense to make clear that he is banned too. Personally I thought that was already implicit, but there's no reason not to make explicit. Chick Bowen 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Here's the thing: he was banned by Jimbo, and soon unbanned. I think we need to keep that in mind. Keep in mind, I'm not taking a stance on the current ban: I don't know him well enough. Striking, he was rebanned. Patstuart^talk|edits 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• endorse ban - please do... we don't want people paying mywikibiz for articles in wikipedia. Thats just not right, and exaberates the spam problem that we already have. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Chick Bowen 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Who's the brave soul who will start the MyWikiBiz article? "A company founded by Greg Kohs that charges money to create Wikipedia articles. Kohs is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia, and any articles created by him may be deleted without debate under WP:CSD#G5{{fact}}". Oh bugger, self-reference. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse permanent ban. This is so far from the principles of Wikipedia that I don't see anything wrong in having a declaration both from Jimbo and from the community that we will not have anything to do with it. Sam Blacketer 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Dck7777

I've spent quite a bit of time cleaning up after this spammer, to say the least. He has quite a pretty list of sockpuppets (all trace back to New York city) with something like over 200 edits between them, all of which took forever to clean up. The problem is, the spamming, which has gone for for over 3 months, continues to this day. The user has been warned and blocked endlessly, and continues to ignore the warnings. It involves the site *.ibtimes.com. I would appreciate it if anyone could help remove any last mentions of it from the legit articles (e.g., the 9 mentions we had out of 215 that weren't spam): [43] so we can see the site blacklisted (I'm convinced that any benefit from using it is outweighed by the problem of spam from these guys). Either that, or someone could write a letter to the ISP or the company. I would do it, but I'm short on time and I'm not sure when I'll be back on here. Thx. Patstuart^talk|edits 10:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone look into this?

A blocked user, Knowpedia (talk · contribs), requested my assistance [44], but I don't have any time at the moment to look into this. The user had previously been a responsible editor, but I"m unaware of recent circumstances. older ≠ wiser 11:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not too sure, you may wish to ignore this request. Terence Ong 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was this described in the block log as a "vandalism-only account"? That seems inaccurate. I've left a note at the blocking admin's talk page. Chick Bowen 15:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

PRODding other people's User pages and wiping out an existing User page with a Welcome template look like vandalism, to me. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting situation because while those PROD, etc were definitely vandalism, it appears the rest of Knowpedia's edits were reasonably good faith. I think at this point an indef is probably a bit harsh though there may be circumstances here that I'm not aware of.--Isotope23 19:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't disagree that those edits were vandalism. It's the vandalism-only that I'm questioning. As Isotope23 says, if there are other circumstances than fine, but if there's a discrepancy between what's described in the log and what appears to have happened then it makes sense to investigate. Chick Bowen 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• It was blocked in relation to a VandalProof tool abuse report. It was using VandalProof to tag user pages as CSDs, prod them, so on so forth. Betacommand revoked the user's access and they were blocked. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not what User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Abuse says Peter. You appear to be confusing the "test" speedy deletion tagging of an article (Gay icon here), with the later {{prod}} of three user pages. There may be contribs which have been deleted, but what's visible seems the sort of thing that merits a short (or even not-so-short) sharp block. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened the block to one week with consent of MrDarcy, the blocking admin. Please keep an eye on this user; I will too. Chick Bowen 01:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Block review Breathe Reprise

• Breathe Reprise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for a week for stalking Brookie (talk · contribs) (diff) - possibly related to Captaindansplashback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) part of an ongoing stream of attacks on Brookie. Other disruption includes Wikipedia:How to write a shit article. I was thinking more in direction indefinete ban, but I let someone else decide that.

• In the process I came across "moo" she said (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which I indef'd as an account created for the purpose of disruption. Agathoclea 12:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Another Linda Christas content pusher

Can we get a sock check on User:FredLevine who's currently at large on Talk:Margaret Spellings. He's extremely determined that a provably bogus quote be kept in the article even though it doesn't appear in the transcript of the interview in question. Thanks! - Richfife 15:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, his Talk page was a red link. I've now explained 3RR to him. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, yeah. Should have done that. I'm of the opinion that all Christas content comes from a single person (paging Ronald Bernard), though, so there seemed little point in posting pointers on the talk page. - Richfife 00:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

He should have been blocked on sight. This one is a notorious fraud/spammer of us, with many socks that have been blocked. I would do it, but I'm a non-admin. Patstuart^talk|edits 23:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone close this AfD please

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F@NB0Y$ has been a circus since it started, I think it is time to close, but I participated in it so cannot close it myself. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

*shudder* A webcomic AfD... has anyone else noticed AfDs getting more and more insanely argumentative lately? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is because the webcomic posted the AfD on it's forum and told everyone to come vote. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that one. I've seen a lot of others go crazy when they should be really easily dealt with. (Current case in point that I mentioned on here previously - SPAs all over the place, guidelines and policies be damned, and so on.) Is it a full moon or something? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Q: Comment, what evidence do we have that this webcomic is gaining in popularity?

A: Common sense alone should garner the growing popularity given it's increase feature in the Joystiq polls

Priceless! -- ReyBrujo 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Closed, with a rationale that probably took longer to write than it deserved. I tried to be kind. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good closing, way to educate. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

An exemplary closing. I'll have to try and summon the time and/or patience for something like it next time I see a mess like that. Sandstein 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at that F@NBOY$ AfD page for deletion just a couple of days ago, along with the web page that encouraged readers to submit keep, and it seemed like an unfair AfD. When looking back at the AfD, I wasn't sure if the people writing Keep, actually wanted to keep it, or just obeying the webpages authors views. Great Job on deleting that article. It needed to go! Thanks much again! Chickyfuzz123^{(user talk)} 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Yes ads and Wikipedia:WikiProject No ads

Should we allow advocacy WikiProjects? This doesn't seem to be the reason we are here. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, well, it is directly related to the ongoing running of wikipedia. But it's not realy a project, it's a narrowly focused discussion. Perhapse merging them and moveing it to WP:CENT would be better? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Aaaaaargh! No! There is endless precedent for not having, creating, keeping, encouraging or permitting Wikiprojects which advocate one side of a debate. All it does is polarise. It doesn't help that one of these had only three edits, one of which was from Greg Kohs. A meta-debate on meta-advertising, whether, and in what form, and so on, is fine, of course. Kohs seems to have interpreted it as implying we should have ads in mainspace though... Guy (Help!) 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject No ads is pretty long running and pretty harmless. Well unless you want adds on wikipedia of course. A bit like Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Any attempt to delete it would be somewhat silly and likely fall foul of the disruption clause. In short I don't think we need any more drama right now.Geni 20:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so it's harmless to those that agree with it. As JzG said, there is longstanding precedent that one sided advocacy is not a good thing. WP:CSB is totally different because it is directly working on improving the project by fixing a current problem. Obviously Wikipedia:WikiProject Yes ads is Pointy, but the point is actually valid. You can't disallow one, while keeping the other side. - Taxman ^Talk 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha, well, I'd like to see who'd be willing to slit their throat and put it up for WP:MFD :P. Patstuart^talk|edits 22:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, even for wikipedia-related issues. There are much better and far less divisive ways to go about this than silly advocacy wikiprojects. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please back up that claim with evidence. Remember the wikiproject did atchive it's initial aims.Geni 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I dont think that the First Pillar is very ambiguous about this. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Any interpritation that rules out the no ads wikiproject would also likey impact this board.Geni 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting personal information posted by a vandal

An anonymous vandal appears to have posted some very detailed personal information about someone in the Alyssa article. The edit has already been reverted, but the information still exists in the history. Can an administrator remove that edit for real? Valrith 22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've handled it temporarily by moving it to a subpage and deleting the details there, but in the future such information should be directed to those with oversight (and more discretely :P ) so that it can be removed permanently from the history. I'll see if I can find an oversight to handle the leftovers. Cowman109^Talk 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing for a non-Wikipedia related poll?

See this. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 23:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a nono, user warned. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, I'd suggest reverting his edits and deleting the user subpage--or at least MFDing it. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 23:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, NOT violations are not speediable, I created a mfd here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ANNAfoxlover/Pixar. Perhaps someone else may think of this as advertising and speedy it, I am not sure myself. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, G11 could cover it. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Spawnopedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been indef-blocked for WP:BLP violations, incivility, and abusiveness. Some of us suspect he is a sockpuppet of a banned user, but the checkuser did not confirm that. Thus, I'm wondering about his article Ruth Ann Moorehouse, which is also rather a BLP violation. Without checkuser confirmation I suppose it can't be deleted as WP:CSD#G5, but I'd propose deletion under G10. I'd rather not do it myself since I'm already involved, however. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It was pretty clear from the subjects of the articles the two chose to edit, and their aggressive discussion style, that they were the same person. But Spawnopedia got blocked serially by three different admins, anyway.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that the article was apparently written and pasted in one sitting, has anyone checked it for copyvio? Newyorkbrad 23:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is, and is now tagged for speedy deletion, but it's older than 48 hours. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Gone. Newyorkbrad 00:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it. I doubt that User:Spawnopedia was planning to take advantage of the grace period to request relicensing from the actual author. Jkelly 00:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, to Angus: note that the 48-hour thing is no longer part of the copyvio policy (there was a Jimbo order a while back). Chick Bowen 00:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Pay-per-edit?

[45] Just dropping a note. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiring an independent source to repair inaccuracies seems like a fine way to avoid conflict of interest, if that was really the deal. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has stated, and I agree, that this is a very unethical practice. It should be discouraged. Very strongly. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Jimbo said it then that is another matter... HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I quote:

“ Any potential customers of MyWikiBiz are warned that paying someone to write an article for Wikipedia is very strongly frowned upon by the community. Policy in this area is still evolving, because we have recently come to understand how serious this problem can be. I personally strongly recommend against hiring MyWikiBiz or any similar "consultants" to help you get a listing in Wikipedia. This is counterproductive and unethical.--Jimbo Wales 04:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC) ”

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo. The whole point of Wikipedia is that we are all volunteers, who are in this just for the love of it. We have no vested interests in this project, we have nothing to gain and nothing to lose (besides an off-wiki life ;). Paying someone to edit Wikipedia for you is absurd. Besides, wouldn't this make the blogger Microsoft's meatpuppet? And I don't think hiring meatpuppets will circumvent WP:COI. Aecis^Bravado 00:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Boy, I thought Guy was joking last week about not getting paid. You other sysops aren't getting the anonymous deposit of $5,000 (USD) from a numbered Cayman Island account each month? Teke ^(talk) 01:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I knew there was more to it when I didn't pass my RFA last week... so who got the extra cash? AH! HA! It was you wasn't it? (eyes turning left ... then right) Seriously though, what would be wrong, if considering I am a notable enough subject, WP:V, WP:NOR, etc... lets say Phil McNeely. And I wanted to pay a student to make sure my article was well balanced per wiki policy... or even to start an article on my bio. Perhaps, he may even defended the article on my bio from being edited or having information that may be libelious and negative to not only my political campaign but my life as well. If someone can obviously argue his way through the system, such as lawyers often does for their DUI clients, then I see no reason why we (an experienced wikipedian) can't be payed. Perhaps my hidden skills as an expert writer, lawyer, or something else will help propogate my POV. Perhaps a real paid lawyer could give me a fair representation during my debates. Perhaps a well experience wikipedian will know how to contour the rules in this persons favour. Remember every article is full of POVs (see the quote on my user page). I'm not saying we should keep the information, but if Microsoft wants to spend 10'000 $ during the launch of Windows Vista to make sure that certain POV are well sourced and properly reference as per wikipolicy, I'll make sure to argue it the best I can per my knowlege and experience in advocacy at AMA and as per my education. Jimbos opinion is exactly the same as mine. It's one man's opinion. --CyclePat 02:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

P.s.: It's funny you quote WP:COI. That "guideline" says "avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;" however as an independant contractor writing for an organisation, technically, I would not be related to the company. I obviously wouldn't be arms lenght but technically, I wouldn't be editing an article related to my organization. --CyclePat 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Letter vs. spirit. —bbatsell ¿? 02:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• People who take advocacy as you do make me question my membership in the AMA. What part of unethical is hard to get your mind around? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A few things here.

• COI is a guideline, and has next to no teeth. (All it says is try to avoid them)
• The whole point of Wikipedia isn't about the "love of it", but is about writing an encyclopedia.
• I thought the whole treatment of the MyWikiBiz scenario was an absolute farce, and involved drawing up some of the worst guidelines ever. (It involved the paid party writing articles off wiki for other unrelated users to copy over, which pretty much meant in was incredibly hard to trace compared to say drawing up articles in the userspace or AFC)
• I have no qualms over Wikipedia:Reward board.
• I believe that you can be paid to write something an still maintain a neutral encyclopedic stance, even if you are being paid by an involved party.
• I believe that if we maintain a high level of accountability of paid-edits they can be beneficial to Wikipedia. And a lot less damaging than the hordes of drive by vanity anon spam that we get.
• Having your firm/services connected to the use of a paid-editor is a hell of a lot less damaging for your publicity than having crap erroneous articles about your firm/services.

hahnchen 02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My first AFD closure (as non-admin) per WP:DELPRO

This article, The Cheetah Girls (TV series), is my first AFD closure as a non-admin. A peer review on how I did would be greatly appreciated. I closed the AFD, merged the information to the new article and redirect to that article. It feel like, assides from the the fact that I didn't blank and redirect the discusion page talk:The Cheetah Girls (TV series), like I left something out. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --CyclePat 01:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job on being bold! However, you might want to have left this for an admin to sort out because there were a number of delete motions. As WP:DELPRO says, "Non-administrators may only close decisions which are unambiguous "keep" [or redirect and merge] decisions. Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." It say this was kind of a close call due to previous AfDs. Anybody else have any comments? PTO 02:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That looks to me like a fair close, but in the future, I'd really recommend holding off on closing something that is that borderline. Not because you can't do it correctly, but because it tends to cause more problems than it solves. If all of AfD is that backlogged, then I'd drop a note on WP:AN and if it's just one article drop a note on an admin you know to be around. —bbatsell ¿? 02:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to close old RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had no edits since 30 December and no discussions since 25 December. It was archived on 22 January, as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Closing_and_archiving Disputes may be removed from this page and archived under any of the following circumstances:: If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped. and The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration. which were fullfilled as the dispute has progressed to both mediation and arbitration. I have filed some closing remarks on the discussion today, as I considered the RfC closed - it was however unarchived by a user who is having a recent disupte with me and who wrote There is no such thing as an official closing of RfC. I'd like if somebody could review this case and decide if this can be archived or not; I consider this matter closed as I don't believe RfC should be used as some 'black lists of greviances against a user'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, Piotrus? Why can't you just talk and run to various boards all the time? --Irpen 02:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It would also be nice if somebody could deal with the harassment above, it's getting tiresome.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you requesting someone to block your opponent again? Tiresome indeed. --Irpen 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Really Piotrus, this is getting very WP:POINTy. Please desist. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decist from what? It was Irpen who 'unarchived' my RfC (and it was not me who archived it).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Holly s&*%$, I can't even save my comments because of edit conflicts... this is a fisty subject isn't it. You may want to take a look at WP:AMA, open a case, and perhaps an advocate such as myself will be able to help you out. Send me an email once you've done this if you wish for me to help advocate your cause. --CyclePat 02:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I was the person who originally tried to close the RFC, but, frankly, it's not worth fighting over. --Ideogram 02:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed improper to close an RFC when you are the subject of it, Piotrus - it should probably remain open for a longer time as the original closure by Ideogram has been contested. However, we really don't need all the comments here about Piotrus being on a campaign to get you blocked, Irpen. Can we please be civil on WP:AN, of all places? This nitpicking between the two of you is disruptive. Cowman109^Talk 02:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I didn't close the RfC. It was done by another user. I just object to reopening it as it has progressed to mediation/ArbCom (and the rules state it should be archived in such case).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Piotrus, this is the, what, fourth board you've posted on about this, at least? It's starting to get annoying and disruptive, please desist. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFI submitted for deletion

I submitted WP:RFI for deletion for the very similar reasons why WP:PAIN is now deleted. I think this is worthy to be announced here. --Irpen 02:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Unless the server cache is acting up, it looks like you copied the instructions to MfD listing to the top of the page instead of the actual listing notice. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)