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

*If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

For advice: Putative anti-wikipedia-"porn" campaign probable

Admins may wish to be advised that the one Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues of the Concerned Women for America, a Biblically principled organization, is currently fulminating in the press at sexually explicit images on Wikipedia, and his press release has turned up on the Christian Newswire as "Wikipedia Peddles Porn to Kids".

You may want to anticipate some incoming flack from this - we've had a first inquiry on the reference desk this evening. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So, somebody nobody has ever heard of is attempting to use Wikipedia to generate free press for themselves then? Resolute 23:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement "Children will be exposed to this destructive material if you fail to protect them." sums it up pretty well. Of course, so does Raul's comment here. - auburnpilot talk 23:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

zOMG think of the children if we don't BAN THIS EVIL FILTH it's a VICTORY FOR THE TERRORISTS</sarcasm>. We survived Daniel B & his chums, I assume we'll survive this. — iridescent 23:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally find it odd a man is in charge of making policy for a religious woman's group. Hypocrisy much? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hypocrisy and religion? Those have never crossed paths before, have they? Regardless, if mommy and daddy are going to use religion as an excuse to hide natural functions of humanity from their kids, better Wikipedia teaches them than most anything a google search would turn up, imo. Resolute 23:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A women's organisation founded by Christians as part of the opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. Quite. — iridescent 23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certian wikipedia articles stick to natural functions.Geni 23:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither does google, heh. Resolute 23:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmp wikipedia.com again.Geni 23:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Scary, dont these people have jobs? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's minds of their own they lack, not jobs. DuncanHill (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest we prepare a statement with our site's disclaimer, a selection of family-friendly mirror sites, and some suggestions about parental control software. Durova^Charge! 23:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any open source parental control software?Geni 23:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, when even WR thinks they're a pack of crackpots, I think we're probably safe (note to the badsites police - that link is permitted as it it's directly relevant to the topic and not to ED) — iridescent 23:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's the Foundation's job, not the community's. As for wikipedia.com..._sigh. Keegan^talk 05:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone show me where the "hundreds, if not thousands, of hardcore pornographic images and online sex videos" are available here or on Wikicommons for, ur, my research into this terrible obsenity? Seriously, haven't responses centred around WP:NOT#CENSORED been the standard response to these kind of campaigners in the past? Nick Dowling (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

zee only video would be Image:Blonde_stag_film.ogg. Only hardcore photos (we have a lot of softcore tends to pick a lot of copyvios mind) would be commons:Category:Pornographic film.Geni 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There are some fairly dubious photos here - anyone want to explain exactly how NudeSamStripper.jpg, Model in bondage.jpg or my all-time favourite ridiculous image (and Jimbo lookalike) Suspension-bb-lorelei-9016-jonwoods.jpg are encyclopaedic? (Warning; all three are NSFW!) — iridescent 00:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea about the first image, but the second & third are used to illustrate the article Hogtie bondage as any fule kno. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Commons isn't concerned with 'encyclopaedic value', it is a repository of free media. -- Naerii 04:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not specifically "encyclopedic value", per se, but images on Commons do have to be potentially useful to current or future Wikimedia projects. Powers ^T 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes!!, i mean , its all in artistic taste obviously. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was really conservative. Not that much, apparently. I don't think this will turn out to be anything big. I still think, however, that a parental control option would be good. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 23:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i think it falls under the usual CENSORED argument, ive fallen victim to that thing a number of times, yet i respect it. Wikipedia is not censored, we shouldnt give in to the political/religious ideology of ANY group. It will be bad for the community, a lot of people are already tired of this sort of pushing.Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

But not one wikipedia will support. Of course if some third party were to develop one we could hardly object.Geni 00:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

They also say "With great power comes great responsibility." Good thing to keep in mind in case you get bitten by a radioactive spider. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a boilerplate message as outlined by Durova would be quite handy, both in this instance, and in the future, and to me personally. I know I, for one, would be interested in the location of family-friendly mirrors (if any exist) that I could feel comfortable sending my kids to. I seem to recall hearing about a CD version for school, I wonder if there's also an online version. No need to make fun of people who want to take advantage of the best online encyclopedia in the world, but don't want to expose themselves, or their kids, to images or subject matter they find objectionable. Delicately pointing out that they are responsible for what their kids see on line, not us, but giving them other options would be quite magnanimous of us, I think. --barneca (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Online version of the Wikipedia for Schools CD at [1]]. DuncanHill (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, I think you have a valid question - but I wonder why parental controls for pages aren't being used? After all, most of our images that are objectionable are on the body part and pornography articles. Setting parental controls to filter for certain key words would take care of many of these articles. --David Shankbone 00:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So a teenage boy couldn't read about testicles, but could read about testicular cancer? A teenage girl couldn't read about breasts, but would be able to read about breast cancer? Dan Beale-Cocks 09:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we also have something for article that link to hate sites aswell then? There are a number of articles that provide URL's to some very hateful places. Do we need something for that aswell? I find thinks like that more worrying than a few naked bodies. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

& if no family-friendly mirror sites exist, we should certainly encourage CWA or anyone else interested to create one. If someone wanted to create a 99% mirror that specifically left out the 1% or so sexual content, they could presumably filterg mainly on the basis of removing all articles that are in certain categories, then do some blacklisting and whitelisting to deal with the outliers. I think that would be a great project. I'm actually surprised that no large city school system (for example) has done this. Of course, knowing CWA, they have a lot of other objections Wikipedia & are just using this as a convenient stick to beat us with. But objecting to us containing reasonably neutral articles on socialism and the like wouldn't make as big a splash in the press. - Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• In case no one's linked to this here yet: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Porn for prudes. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• *Ahem* *Cough* seicer | talk | contribs 01:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Following up on the above, I'm planning a blog post about family-friendly options. Some outreach and communication could help here. Really, a lot of the public doesn't fully understand how wikis operate and North American social conservatives are accustomed to asking for child-appropriate content at the provider level on a local or regional basis. We can't fulfill this type of request in the way they expect. Any unprotected page could get vandalized at any time, so it's possible that someone's eight-year-old could download an article about a Disney movie two seconds after someone replaced the content with obscenities. If we tried to prevent that from ever happening we'd stop being a wiki. What we can do is educate them about their other options. I welcome input from other Wikipedians about preparing this post and making it useful. Durova^Charge! 07:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to

• • • After communication with Bastique, I have a list of images that one of the emails to OTRS has got. I, along with him and others, are going to sort thru the images and see what should stay and what should go. As for their location, many of the ones pointed out to OTRS exist on the Commons. Plus, porn to them is probably a lot broader definition than what we think. I found many pieces of historical art in the list of images to look at. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You're aware that I'm an admin on Commons? Durova^Charge! 07:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • No, but I do now. I am also a Commons admin, so I can help you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Won't fly to well. We need something like a firefox plugin that can blacklist certian pages. I'm sure there would be wikipedians who would help in provideing blacklists.Geni 16:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As an interesting aside, I'd like to point out that when I checked earlier today, we were getting anywhere between 1 and 5 emails per hour to OTRS about this. That's a significant amount (though not nearly what the height of the muhammad controversies were). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually in favor of such a campaign. I find it disgusting that there are Wikipedia users who will do things like crap on plates and then insist such images be used in articles. We don't need explicit stuff when a scholarly diagram or something similar can do the job just as well. Jtrainor (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not all images in such articles can be done up in such a manner without confusing the picture. Any diagram of smegma, for example, is going to end up looking "moldy" and thus be confusing. And, indeed, there's been some concern about the image on the page currently (as well as some glacier-mo edit-warring over it), but unless we have a useful diagram (read: one that doesn't make the subject look like mildew, cum (pardons), or bread mold) then we can't remove the picture quite yet. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 08:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While I do not see how poop on a plate would be worthwhile (I do not see any value in the stripper picture linked to above, either), I think that images that some people find objectionable have a place on Wikipedia. Most of the potentially objectionable images I have seen relate to medical topics, and you find graphic images all of the time in certain high-quality medical publications. Dermatology books and journals have some particularly delightful ones. ;-) In regards to diagrams/drawings, unfortunately, it can be hard to find one that can be used on Wikipedia legally. Also, as Jéské Couriano mentioned, it can be difficult for Wikipedians to create their own.

It's not poop on a plate, it's in a toilet, for pete's sake. Powers ^T 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a drawing request page for articles for which a photo or drawing cannot be found. We already have photo requests, and this would allow those with the skill to create drawings know what topics need them. -- Kjkolb (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• If anyone complains just redirect their user page to Category:Bad images Jackaranga (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• The way to deal with issues like this is to make absolutely sure that when we include content that is of an explicit nature, it is clearly evident to the impartial observer that it has self-evident merit in illustrating the subject. The image at fluffer seems to me to fail that, as do many other images originating in the world of "teh pr0n". We should aspire to a quality of image that would not be out of place in an anatomical textbook. Such images tend not to be particularly titillating. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of Kiddie Porn?

At least one of the OTRS messages concerns children in pornographic images (full frontal, prepubescent, sexually provocative)which are posted here. Maybe we should reconsider our demand that anything goes. After all, if a child posts personal information on his talk page we delete and oversight it - but if they are nude it's acceptable? Doesn't make sense. -JodyB _talk 11:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Kiddie Porn" images is a favourite meme of pro-censorship interests. Are the pictures intended as sexually provocative? If a picture of a naked child in a "natural pose" excites sexual desire in someone then it is the problem of that viewer, not the host of the picture, and the potential of the reaction of a small minority should not disallow the use of an image in an appropriate context. So, are examples of images of naked children acceptable? Within context, yes, as this is an encyclopedia that uses various media to illustrate subjects. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can only think of two images of naked children - one is a child (and her father) in the naked bike ride article and the other is an album cover. Neither is porn. Viridae^Talk 12:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Sexually provocative" is the key word (well, words). If we have any sexually provocative photos of nude children, that's undoubtedly against our policies and they should be deleted, rather than defended with the usual "no censorship here" rhetoric. But I doubt such images actually exist here currently -- people tend to just see nudity and recoil in terror. I know beans and all, but specific links to the photos people consider to be "sexually provocative" are in order in this case, if we are to discuss this productively. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it refers to the Scorpion's album cover, which the "World Net Daily" (whatever that is) is currently trying to publicise as much as it possibly can, see [2] DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Killer - That's an interesting problem. It's provocative, but at the same time it's not merely a photo taken for that purpose, but a historical (artistic?) album cover from the '70s. This could really go either way. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Its also not the only one. Srsly, and I speak this as a born-again Christian myself, these people are only out for self-aggrandizement and aren't really making these statements to "make the world better". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also the famous re-imagining of Dejeuner sur l'herbe in the Bow wow wow article. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, those news sources have questionable intentions, but that doesn't mean we can't re-examine the issue for our own purposes. That first article does feature a provocative photo of a naked 10 year-old, whether or not some tabloid-esque news magazine is who's responsible for informing us of it. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to use the girl Virgin Killer picture? Since there is an alternate and the girl album cover is not the subject of the article or of any critical analysis...I'll be bold. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw, when I said critical analysis, I meant that what was there already wasn't really enough to make a strong argument to keep the image. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why give in to a few hate-mongers on a fringe website? DuncanHill (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have done it anyway if I had known before. It was brought to my attention from this discussion. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I oppose what you did. The album cover was controversial and having it in the article does help greatly with illustrating the controversy.-Wafulz (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a wiki. Feel free to revert. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wafulz that the image does help the article. The only thing I'm not sure about is if the image is in line with our policies -- but if it is, then it should probably stay, as the replacement image isn't just as good. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG CHILD PORN. WND is horribly sensationalist and they’ll put a spin on anything to rid the world of "liberal" values. I suggest we carry on with business as usual.-Wafulz (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

An earlier removal of the image was reverted as vandalism, I think content issues such as this should be discussed on the article talk-page. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already left a message on the talk page. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, that is the image I was referring to. It was simply a gratuitous image that was even dropped by the record company. I appreciate Seraphim's boldness. As one who has professionally with victims of child pornography I will not give space to those who seek to excuse it. As a parent of three young boys the image was horribly offensive. This is not merely a naked picture, but a deliberately provocative pic of a child. We should at least have some small standard of decency here. -JodyB _talk 14:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's... a mass-market heavy metal album cover, of which no doubt tens of thousands (if not more) were produced. Everyone who owns this Scorpions album is a child pornographer now? Come on. World Net Daily is a right-wing Christian fundamentalist "news" (used very loosely) outlet pushing an extremist, anti-American censorship agenda. We should not be gratuitously publishing porn, because we're an encyclopedia, not a porn shop. But if the worst that WND can throw at us is "omg noes an ALBUM COVER," I'd say there's really not much to be concerned about. FCYTravis (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This might be the appropriate point to mention that Balance was one of the biggest selling albums of the 1990s - is every record store on the planet distributing kiddy porn, too? — iridescent 17:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed these emails are fun to deal with. But we are not censored, and in this case in particular the image does help the article (IMO; note, it's been removed). The album isn't porn, and I'd be more worried about people who think it is than the image itself. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

perhaps the positions should be reversed, and the revised cover put at the top, changing the labels appropriately. DGG (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both Mike.lifeguard and DGG on this. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As was suggested, this is being discussed at the article's talk page. Come take part in the discussion there :). Seraphim♥Whipp 15:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I do recall a situation a couple of months ago where a minor was taking photos of his bits and uploading them here to articles such as "Puberty" and "Penis", and we dealt with it by speedying the photos and warning him. I'm not sure what came of it, but it seemed a thoroughly sensible approach. Orderinchaos 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a pretty obvious "delete, no questions asked" issue. FCYTravis (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, World Net Daily is certainly right-wing, but it's not particularly Christian, unless "Christian" is just taken as code for "Moslems not welcome." This bit of moral panic is sheer opportunism. - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It's interesting that they hired Matt Sanchez, former gay porn star as one of their correspondents, isn't it? --David Shankbone 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The image is up for ifd in today's log anyway. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That IfD should be closed extremely quickly as it starting to garner unwanted attention. Rgoodermote  18:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, have these people taken a good, long look at the genre of medieval paintings? An awful lot of them show the Virgin Mary with the naked infant of Christ. So when will they get around to nominating for deletion all of that smut on Commons under Category:Circumcision of Christ? -- llywrch (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

On a related topic...

Might I point some admins besides me to Talk:Smegma? I've practically been the only one to rebut the calls of IPs for censorship on that page, and other IPs are being emboldened by this and deliberately removing or redlinking the image on the article, seeing it as consensus. I need to walk away from it at this point; if I continue there I might blow a gasket. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 08:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for 1 week. Rudget (Help?) 11:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The article, yes, but not the talk page, which is where I'm asking for assistance. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A solution

I knew this would come up someday. In fact I'm surprised it took this long. I can sit here editing from behind an educational filter, look at Vagina, and see some of the sort of images such software was intended to block. All because it only reads the domain name.

And only Geni, in the above discussion, seems to have hit on what is to me the obvious way to solve it, that could make everybody happy. We (wisely) rejected TOBY a long time ago. But that doesn't mean the problem went away.

MediaWiki is open-source. I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me that would make it very easy to write a similarly client-side open-source free filtering program that could block images some people and institutions do not want displaying on their computers. Not that we have to develop and make it available ourselves, but certainly someone could. I'm sure there are enough programmers out there, and enough money in the constituencies CWA claims to speak for, that it could be created independently of any effort on our part.

We don't censor ourselves, but we can't stop other people from doing it as our experience with China demonstrates. And I wouldn't want to, even if I find the example I gave a regrettable one. For our right to run this project the way we want to and not censor it for the protection of minors is someone else's right to censor what goes on a computer they own and administer.

Such software might also help us ... a cooperative LAN administrator could issue client-side blocks to the local accounts of vandals, sparing us the auto and unblock requests from users at large shared IPs and overall reducing the amount of blocks we have to administer. Or, a school could perhaps protect its own article from its own vandalizing students, so we don't have to.

Any thoughts on this? I've thought about this for a while and mentioned it at a few meetups, but this is the first time I've posted anything about it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with what you're proposing, I sincerely doubt that it will work to alleve the fears of people like CWA. You're offering a solution that would handle the pictures, but their principal problem is not about the pictures, but that they'll read the articles & might start thinking for themselves. -- llywrch (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think conservatives created Conservapedia in the first place? :-) Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocking articles would also be posible. Some of the hostility towards web filtering software is due to it's secretive nature. In theory a far more open version should appeal to the free software community but in the end there isn't much we can do to make it happen.Geni 12:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth it?

I have serious doubts that most pornography-related images are even needed. I mean, take a look at Sex industry. What purpose does the image in the adult films section of that article fulfill? Is it illustrative? Educational? Does it demonstrate something that would not be as easily grasped or understood if the image was not there? (I also have problems with a gay pornography image when straight porn is by far the best-known and most commonly depicted form of porn, but that's a different discussion) If we're putting pornographic images in articles just to fill up blank space on the sides, or for aesthetic reasons, or (worst of all) to stick it to our critics, we should reconsider it from an editorial perspective. In short, does having an image of two guys having sex really improve the encyclopedia? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"I also have problems with a gay pornography image when straight porn is by far the best-known and most commonly depicted form of porn, but that's a different discussion" indeed it is a different discussion - so why raise it here? And why use "an image of two guys having sex" as your example? You have a problem with pornography-related images - OK, discuss it and see where that goes. Don't single out one form of sexuality for special treatment unless you can demonstrate really good reasons for doing so. DuncanHill (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Because that was the first link I clicked on from this whole grandiose discussion? I wasn't singling out any form of sexuality. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I really fail to understand how a photograph of the making of an adult film, complete with filming crew, is in any way questionable when attached to a section about adult film. I seriously doubt the same kind of skeptical questioning would arise if there was a photo of an assembly line next to a section about the automotive manufacturing industry. Vassyana (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever one thinks about the debate overall, I think it is highly dubious to claim that there is no difference between a picture depicting a sexual act and one depicting a car assembly line. This does not mean the former should not be included, but the contention that there is no difference between them is not tenable. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Car manufacturing and hardcore pornography are two different things. Good thing too, or else we'd have even more problems with gas prices. But we're digressing from my point: what purpose does that image serve? What educational value does it provide? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The fluffing picture shows a fluffer, complete with latex gloves (sensible chap). Try substitution: would you object to a picture of a welder welding on a welding article? Or a car fitter fitting on a car fitting article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Or let's not try substitution, since all we're getting are examples that have nothing to do with the topic at hand and are just red herrings. Was I talking about the fluffer article? No. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I's an article about the sex industry. It shews people who work in that industry doing their jobs. DuncanHill (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I had fluffing on the mind. Okay, we'll do this on your terms: What purpose does the image in the adult films section of that article fulfill?: Per Duncan, above. Is it illustrative?: Yes. It illustrates a gropup of people in one aspect of the sex industry. Educational?: Yes. It reminds us that there are others in the studio besides the naked guys on the bed. Does it demonstrate something that would not be as easily grasped or understood if the image was not there?: At a glance, yes. Were there enough well written text, perhaps not - though given that a picture =1,000 words, I do not find your last test very compelling. In short, whether by substitution or whether by point by point answers, your doubts are at least being met; whether to your satisfaction is entirely your business. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a good argument to be made that showing a gay porn image in an article on adult film might be seen as, to choose three words at random, violating undue weight. That said, there's a balance to be struck between avoiding illustrations simply because some people might be offended by them, and adding dirty pictures as fast as we can upload them, simply because WP:NOT#CENSOR. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the image released under an editable licence? Why don't people just crop the shagging people out of it (whatever their sex) and leave the film crew? Dan Beale-Cocks 15:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Or people who don't want to know what goes on in the sex industry could simply not click on sex industry. DuncanHill (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Of the two pictures in that article, the picture discussed was in the top screen--a non-objectionable picture was further down. I want to maintain non-censorship as strongly as the law permits. The way to do that is to insist on having the material that is needed, but using some degree of discretion in how to show it. This could even be done without rearranging, simply by expanding the article, (which it very much needs in any case) so the picture does not show up on the initial screen. Then nobody would see it who a/ did not come to this article specifically, as DH says just above, and b/ did not actually continue reading it. Any reasonable person who actually scrolls to see all the content on an article such as this knows what to expect. As Samuel Johnson said in 1755 to two young ladies who congratulated him for omitting naughty words from his dictionary "What! my dears! then you have been looking for them?" [3] DGG (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed research test for better editing

I would like to propose a research experiment that may help better Wikipedia.

Hypothesis: Anonymous editing leads to less responsible editing, more edit warring, worse encyclopedia.

Practical considerations: Naturally, changing the requirement that prohibits editors from hiding behind a user name is such a large change that it will not happen.

How about asking people to do so, instead, so it is purely voluntary?

Research design: I propose to edit by my real name and will verify it with a trusted person, such as an Administrator who edits by their real name. Then I will ask up to 50 new editors if they wish to participate. After 30 days (can be extended), I will look at the behavior of these editors versus up to 50 randomly selected new editors and see if disclosure of real names promotes better writing compared to the other group.

Opinions? Are you opposed to this research or will you allow it to start? JerryVanF (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I just thought of how some cynics might think. So we'll use a random number chart to select the users whom we will ask to participate. The details are not yet important. The first step is to get opinions about this research project. JerryVanF (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a structural "issue" with your proposal: there are 2 variables. The first is use of a "real" name. The second is the message from you asking them to participate in a study and to use their real name. To make this a randomized controlled trial, you'd have to be able to assign editors to the "anon" and "realname" groups. Self-selection, which is what would happen here, is a powerful contaminant.

You could create a cohort study, wherein you ask the next X hundred editors if they are editing with a false or a real name, then aggregate their activities into "anon" and "realname" groups for purposes of analysis. This would still be subject to self-selection, but then at least you're asking both groups the same question. It wouldn't really answer the question you're trying to ask, but it'd be interesting, anyway. Antelan^talk 06:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I was afraid the first reply would be "shut up Jerry".

Self selection is a factor. However, it may be a practical first step. I think it is too big a change if the research project shows better editing with real names so that effective Jan. 1, 20--, all editors must edit this way. A more practical change would be that Wikipedia encourages people to edit by their real names and this would be based on our study. If the new policy is voluntary then it's ok that we allow people to choose real names or not when then start participation.

The trouble with asking if people are editing with real names is that few usernames even sound like real names so I would think that <1% of editors do that. JerryVanF (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, my name is my name, for what it's worth, and that's an interesting idea for a sociological experiment. From my practical experience, I've found that continuous edit warring usually comes from registered accounts and the fact that registering an account hides IPs, thus anonymizing the edit warring with sock puppets. IPs usually just prove that Friends of gays should not edit Wikipedia. So I think that your hypothesis would prove what we all have observed to be social practice. Is it practical? Give it a try. Keegan^talk 07:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Using your real name online is rarely safe, and it is officially advised against by at least the British government. Why would you encourage people to perform dangerous activities when government (expert?!) advice is to the contrary? —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not encouragement, but asking for willing participation.

Now, to get philosophical, Wikipedia was started to flesh out articles for Nupedia, whose articles were authored with real names. From what I understand (I wasn't there), Wikipedia started out with everyone knowing everyone's name, an signing with initials. Now as the project grew in size, membership, and web ranking, obviously anonymity became important and still is. Off wiki harrassment is a very real thing.

The point of the GFDL and free distribution is the selflessness of authorship- some are proud to put their name on the work and then release it, others do it under a pseudonym. It's not an exercise in vanity, but an exercise in awareness of freedom from intellectual property.

I think that however one chooses to participate online in a community of such internet standing should be fully aware of the consequences of either anonymizing or openness. Such a study could be greatly interesting in that regard. Keegan^talk 07:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is this on WP:AN? MickMacNee (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC). And the proposed 'experiment' is clearly set up to prove a point. The Kansas schoolboard would be so proud. MickMacNee (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We have done some number crunching already. Over half of unregistered edits are useful, that's why the wiki tends towards order over time. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC) There's this company this one economist(?) ran (he down-shifted from his previous job to an office confectionery delivery company ;-) ), where he relied on the observation that ~80-90% of his customers were honest. I'm sure the story is on wikipedia somewhere in an article. Now where was that again?

You probably mean Paul Feldman. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 18:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

HYPOTHESIS: Editors who tend to edit responsibly would be more willing to disclose their real name than editors who do not. How does this proposed experiment distinguish between this hypothesis and your original hypothesis? I don't believe it does, which means you can't distinguishe between cause and effect. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC) (not my real name, BTW)

Nice idea, but selection bias would be too big a problem. Andrew Jameson (if that isn't his real name), says it best: There's no way to tell if people are editing well because they're using their real name or their using their real name because they intend to edit well. --Tango (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There is the possibility that a person could be using another person's name and claiming to be them while potentially ruining that person's name by making really bad edits. We have seen that on AN/I before some one (no names will be mentioned) used some one else name and blanked AN/I. I my self use my real name to edit and as so I try to make non-controversial just in case. But that is me. There is the second part here. A user could use their real name to edit but not care what others think and just make whatever edits they feel regardless of it's potential post-effects. I myself am not opposed to this. But I do see it being a little flawed. Rgoodermote  20:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not in Kansas analogy territory anymore; more like Durham Country Council, I think. Regardless of flaws, I can't see how this project could ever generate benefits that would outweigh the harm. How do we reconcile "use your real name" with "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" and with the longstanding policy that registration is not necessary? The majority of contributors would be put off registering, I think, and we have enough issues with death threats and harassment already. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You forget lawsuits. (added) I really thought this guy was studying the difference between those who use Pseudonames and those who use their Real Names to edit. I was kind of for that. Rgoodermote  20:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

HYPOTHESIS:The research proposer wants to prove anonymous editing is bad for the 'pedia, and therefore once proven we can launch the zomg bots on them and the world will be a better place, free of lies, bullshit and deceit. I ask only for US$3m to be able to research this. MickMacNee (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your replies. (unlike MickNacNee, I will work for free) I plan to begin a very small pilot study of maybe as few as 10 users. I plan to find an administrator who could work with me as either co-author, question answerman/woman, ethics review panel, etc. Since I will ask users if they are using their real names, I will ask the same question to myself and reveal my real name. I do listen to others. One said that there should be some sort of privacy. So I will change the research design so that only a first initial or a shortened family name will be requested (for example P. Hilton or Paris Hilt instead of Paris Hilton).JerryVanF (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments on mail below. JerryVanF (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Any administrator with a post office box?

REQUEST relating to above discussion: Is there an administrator who has a post office box and is willing to receive a letter from me. I wish to send a legal document for my study. You don't need a post office box but I would feel more comfortable not asking for your street address. You can e-mail it to me. JerryVanF (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to email the Foundation about that. Administrators are volunteers, and we have no affiliation with the legal matters of Wikipedia. The WikiMedia Foundation maintains in-house as well as outside counsel for document review. Keegan^talk 05:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a legal document pertaining to WikiMedia. I wish to send me research plan and my real name to an administrator, who will act as sort of an ethical review board. This is the best way to run a research project. If I mail it to WikiMedia, they will have no idea what is going on. There are some administrators who say who they are and whose address can be easily googled but I want them to volunteer, not for me to force a letter on them. JerryVanF (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is the document a "legal document", then? —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It may just simply be an agreement. Dunno. Does it have to be an administrator? NonvocalScream (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Jerry, I have a postal address and I use it for WMA and a number of people here have it already. If I knew you and if you had taken the time to establish a reputation here I would have been willing to accept mail from you, but you've been here for a week and have around 100 edits to your name and I think anyone willing to accept mail from you under these circumstances should seriously reconsider, especially given your very short wiki short career here (at least with this account). Frankly, saying you don't want to force snail mail on one of us by looking up our addresses is extremely alarming. If you have a legitimate reason for sending mail then you need to send it to the Foundation. There are administrators who work there and if your purposes are genuine and legitimate then I'm sure they'd consider helping you. Other than that I do not recommend any users give out their real world identities and postal addresses to a new user with one hundred edits to their name and some very strange and suspicious behaviour. If this is in relation to User talk:JerryVanF#proposed_test then you don't need our mailing addresses to do that. You can simply email an administrator you trust (although that may be difficult for you to decide given your short wikicareer) and provide said information electronically, if you really want to. The rest of that proposal, selecting the fifth username after "troublemaker" usernames and making them part of your study whether they like it or not ("I will then ask every 5th name if they want to participate...If they don't, they will be assigned to the anonymous group.") sounds very peculiar and I might suggest that you would do better spending the time working on the actual encyclopedia, which is what we're here for, not mandated studies of other users. Sarah 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of my request is simple. I want to let an administrator know who I am and prove it to the administrator. Anyone who proves their identity is going to be on their best behavior. This is the first step of doing a good research project. I think it even has worked with me. I was going to edit something a bit silly then I thought that people will know Jerry did it and not some anony-user.JerryVanF (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward G. Nilges edit warring on Herbert Schildt

An anonymous user with various IPs from Hong Kong, identifying himself as Edward G. Nilges – also known as Spinoza1111 (talk · contribs) – is edit warring on Herbert Schildt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He claims BLP issues because we are reporting public statements by experts saying that Schildt's books contain factual errors. Looks like a conspiracy theory to me. I am not familiar with the exact status of this user (banned or just blocked) and the fine points of our policies. Is it OK to edit war with him? How about temporary semiprotection of this BLP page? --Hans Adler (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

While I haven't decided on the third source in that section, "public statements by experts" are irrelevant as far as BLPs are concerned, when those statements are negative. In fact, no criticisms should be included that are sourcable only to self-published sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

From the BLP noticeboard discussion I was under the impression that this is not a BLP issue. If you think otherwise you should comment there. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please have a look at Talk:Herbert Schildt? Edward G. Nilges seems to claim that while the user account Spinoza1111 is banned, he, as the person behind it, is not affected. Does this make some sense because of BLP exemptions? Note that he doesn't claim to be the subject himself.

As a German mathematician I am also a bit sensitive to comments like the following:

I think what you are doing is creating a mathematical model of ethnic cleansing and genocide, since all you have to do is say I am "banned", to have people disrespect anything I might say.

This is in fact a cybernetic and virtual way of calling a person a "jew" in order not to have to deal with him. I say that subconsciously you may be repeating a nasty historical theme in a new way.

I don't think I have done anything that warrants such an extreme reaction. FCYTravis has protected the article on Nilges' version after these absurd accusations (probably without reading them). Since Nilges is currently the only person who argues for the "wrong version", do we have to seek a consensus with a banned user to get it changed? --Hans Adler (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Since User:Spinoza1111 is indefinitely blocked, if he edits using an IP, that represents block evasion, and the IP can be blocked without further ado. (I'm willing to do so, but since it seems to be a dynamic IP such a block would be pointless. It would be more logical to semi-protect Herbert Schildt). Since Nilges is not banned, his edits don't qualify for immediate undoing without discussion. I'm tempted to think he has a point about Schildt's book. Though Schildt's work may be of dubious value, if the only negative review is from a self-published site on the web, that makes it questionable whether we should include the criticism. I bet there is a way of rephrasing the point so the criticism doesn't entirely depend on self-published material. Maybe there is published criticism elsewhere.

I see that Hans Adler removed a lengthy tirade by Nilges from Talk:Herbert Schildt and that removal seems correct to me. Nilges' claim that we have to listen to him since he is not banned doesn't make sense; I believe that editors on each talk page can agree to remove Nilges' comments. Before getting into an edit war with Nilges you should first ask an admin to semi-protect whatever page it is. EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the careful explanation, and especially for the clear instruction not to edit war with Nilges. I actually agree now that a section "Criticisms of Schildt's books" was too much, even though I still believe that this criticism is his main claim to notability and must not be swept under the carpet. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User keeps removing sourced statistics and suspected sockpuppet

The user Muscovite99 is continually removing sourced statistics from the Putin article. First he said the material was OR, then after I explained it to him he attacked the sources (Associated press and MSNBC). He said "The hacks you quote have absolutely no idea what they're writing" and "the figure plucked from MSNBC wiretape was written by some one who (CIA or not) is an absolute ignoramus." (see discussion), even though I made it clear that he was violationg WP:V. He ended up getting blocked for 48 hours for violating 3RR. Now he's back from his block, and the first thing he does is revert back and remove the statistics. He now says the material is poorly sourced/original research, even though the material is clearly and perfectly sourced.

Also, during his block a suspected sockpuppet, Trysty, removed the same material here. The suspected sockpuppet is a one purpose account (looks like he made some very minor edits to other articles to try and make it less obvious, as well as making his name blue), and notice how he used the comment box citing wiki policy, and even uses the same rationalle for removing the statistics.

Muscovite99: "Put back the proper source - the article is about Putin and his word should be taken over AP claims or Krawn's original research about PPP and "nominal GDP"

Trysty: "Apparent WP:OR -- the cited source does not speak of PPP or "nominal GDP" -- per WP:V" Krawndawg (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

One of those articles Trysty edited, Gennady Timchenko, rather obscure, has been edited by Muscovite as well diff. Krawndawg (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note: i removed Krawndawg's conjectural interpretation of a source (the AP article he bases his claims about GDP in terms of "PPP" and "nominal GDP", contains no such thing, and thus his frivolous insertions of the terms constitute original reaearch) in accordance with WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, which inter alia states: "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals". I mention the latter as I avail myself of this opportunity to state that my recent blocking was not per WP:POL.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Also I should like to draw the attention to the exceedingly rude and obscene language that is habitually employed by Krawndawg in his communication with other editors, such as these [4] [5].Muscovite99 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Lets look at the differences here.

• The version you just reverted said: "the economy bounced back from crisis seeing GDP increase six-fold"

• The article says: "Average wages rose eightfold during Putin's eight years as president, from roughly $80 a month to $640, and GDP sixfold."

What's original research? What's contentious? (do you even know what that word means?)

And even though I've already explained it to you, Putin was talking about the PPP GDP, which did indeed grow 72% over the past 8 years. There is no conflicting information here, the only problem is your ignorance on the subject and your inability to differentiate between nominal (normal) and PPP GDP.Krawndawg (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I am not going to discuss any thing related to the subject of the article as it is pointless to debate with a person who had already opened the debate with the assertion addressed to me «you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and I don't feel it's my job to educate you»[6]. I shall only repeat your correct words (apply them to your very fascinating inquisitions about "PPP" et al): "That's a very interesting opinion, but wikipedia is not a soap box or blog, nor is it the place for original research."[7].Muscovite99 (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[Also all this economics numbers have no place in a biographical article per WP:BLP].Muscovite99 (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please look at this. That's the economic growth of Russia, in both nominal and PPP figures, according to the IMF. Those figures are identical to the sourced figures that I inserted into the article and that you continually remove.

Please revert yourself and in the future do your research the next time you decide to bring up such a silly debate about verifiable facts. Krawndawg (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute, although one that appears to also include possible socking, allegations of incivility, the questioning of sources that have been held as reliable in many other contexts, and the interpretation of sources. In all, this is not a sysop matter (as yet). I suggest that a form of dispute resolution is attempted, possibly a request for comment. That said, my reading of the above suggests that Muscovite99 is arguing from fairly shaky grounds - the statement of a politician (especially regarding their own constituency) being more reliable than a reliable source? I think not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that nominal GDP is irrelevant. Most serious studies analyze real GDP (i.e. inflation adjusted GDP). --Doopdoop (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My main complaint here isn't about the content. It's the fact that he's violating WP:V by removing correct and well sourced information (regardless of what it is), and is suspected to have used a sockpuppet during a block. Krawndawg (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus you can point to that indicates that the sources are agreed as being reliable, rather than quoting the policy? While I have sympathy with your argument that reliable sources are being removed it is not considered vandalism where there is good faith belief that it isn't a reliable source - or can you provided evidence that it is not a good faith belief no matter how inappropriate it might seem. Until there is evidence that the editor is acting either against consensus or in bad faith there is nothing an admin can do except suggest taking it to dispute resolution. Once there is a clear line then an admin can act to ensure there are no violations of policy/consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well isn't the fact that he keeps changing his story enough evidence? He stopped calling them unreliable sources, then started using the "PPP" argument to justify removing it. To me it's pretty clear that he just doesn't want the information that GDP grew 6fold on the article no matter what, this is evident if you look at his posts in the articles discussion page. Krawndawg (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Is there a consensus you can point to that indicates that the sources are agreed as being reliable, rather than quoting the policy?" - Does that mean if I gain consensus on the reliable sources notice board it will change anything? Krawndawg (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the opportunity to fully review the complaint, and while I feel that it is still in the basis of a content dispute I acknowledge that Muscovite99 was incorrect in insisting that the sources mentioned should be removed, and for edit warring over their removal; the guideline being Bold, Revert, Discuss. The content should remain unless Muscovite99 can change the consensus to that they are inappropriate by use of debate on the article talkpage. I shall advise Muscovite accordingly, commenting that any further removal of content without consensus is vandalism and can therefore be reported to WP:AIV as such. I suggest, although with little expectation of agreement, that you continue to engage this person in discussion regarding the validity of sources and their interpretation. I hope this suffices. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Krawndawg (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a dispute about sources. It is a dispute about which facts taken from the sources are relevant for the article, and which of them amount to POV pushing. As nominal GDP is distorted by inflation, citing nominal GDP growth as an example of a successfull policy is misleading POV. Real GDP growth should be cited in such contexts in order to comply with the NPOV requirements. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Question...

What's the current position regarding a WP:BADSITE's campaign to add a slogan to your wikipedia page, which they then google to contact you? More specifically, should this be reverted? Blocked? Ignored? Could someone who understands our current policy (there must be someone) have a look? — iridescent 21:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My past interactions with this user suggests he seems to have serious issues understanding what Wikipedia actually is, and now he appears to simply be trolling. I support the removal of the comment and another reminder of what Wikipedia is about, and that his right to free speech is not what he thinks it is. J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with removal of that...it really has no place here, badsites or not. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I should point out BADSITES is, thankfully, a wholly failed proposal. My reaction would have been to ignore it. There's no policy against a user writing "tell the wikitruth". (just don't say it three times in a row!!) Neıl ☎ 09:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing what you guys are discussing here (If I got this right) is that I posted TELL THE WIKITRUTH in my page and it caused a problem? It seems the other problem is my debate on the Freedom of Speech and my site? If so what do you want me to do?

Just to make it clear my intentions are not to bring down the Wikipedia or to make it look bad. The only goal we have if you read our Freedom of Speech page is to ensure the protection of certain inalienable rights to the people. PediaOpeness.org is all about keeping options open for people and making sure that their freedoms are in tact. If we wanted to make the Wikipedia look bad we would write up bad things about the Wikipedia but the Wikipedia Administrators and other Wikipedia users already did that for us. All I'm stating at my Wikipedia link is that others agree that there is an attitude or belief at the Wikipedia that the Freedom of Speech needs to be much more limited than it is on our site. I don't understand this. Neutral777 (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly

Since Doc glasgow, who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly (2nd nomination) as delete, has apparently retired, I'd like to forward this question to other admins. It seems that there is sufficient reliable news coverage to have an article on Schlafly, beyond that which should (and mostly is already) included in Conservapedia. One examples of a source is here (NY Times), more can be found via Google News Archives here. Is it ok to create that article from scratch? Not asking for undeletion, just for your estimate of whether or not it would endure. dorftrottel (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Since most of the information would be pieced together from coverage of larger topics, I'd say it's pretty borderline-notable at best. Because he's involved in controversial topics, we should err on the side of our living persons policy and keep the information on him within parent articles like Conservapedia, Phyllis Schlafly, and others.-Wafulz (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• To paraphrase the above, who needs the hassle? Schlafly is a minor, minor figure. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks and nevermind then. (logged out Dorftrottel) 78.34.130.176 (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review Part of the Porn Smear Campaign

My guess is that it's WR's resident high school music teacher, TheFieryAngel, but somebody has been engaged in trying to whip up conservative frenzy over pornography, tarring me in the process and bringing in Wikia boy scout stuff that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Here are two posts on "The Lonely Conservative" website (the second clearly placed by a WR member - perhaps the one who suggested they bring it into the mix: TheFieryAngel):

• Wikipedia porn feedback - boy scout spanking art on Wikia
• Parent alert Wikipedia contains porn

So, for all you Wikipedia people who go on WR, if the defamation of the Deputy Director of the WMF wasn't enough, and their extortion negotiations of Newyorkbrad wasn't enough, now we have a porn smear campaign that doesn't even involve our website. --David Shankbone 20:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ignore. Wikipedia Review are a bunch of silly fools with little influence. Also, they are highly prone to changing their minds. Six months ago they were painting me as the biggest villain in the West since Al Capone. Now I'm actually reasonably popular over there. Doubtless six months from now they'll be so pleased with you they'll be trying to get jobs for you, and I'll be done in the tar pit again. Life goes on much as it did before either way. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering the Valleywag stuff may very well cost someone their job and working status in the U.S., this is quite serious. They have attributed statements to Erik that he never made - complete defamation. They have repeated my psychopathic troll's allegations that I live with Michael Lucas - which is why I came down so hard on User:SqueakBox, for listening to them and then coming here as if I live with Lucas and have a COI. They only have influence because some of us are foolish enough to hang out over there, and then bring their words over here. --David Shankbone 20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

David, not only have I never said or thought you live with Michael Lucas or encouraged others to do so but I also shifted that thread away from its focus such mindless gossip and onto talking about your actions and interactions at wikipedia, which IMO was a helpful thing to do as your actions here are anyway public and also what WR should be about, ie reviewing wikipedia instead of trying to out wikipedians rela life activities, which I have not ever engaged in and which i oppose always in principle and practice. Indeed I retuirend to posting at WR after several months of not doing sdo in order to get my pic removed from the old Hive Mind site that got reposted, and successfuilly got that page reduced 40% in content. Now that is really helping real live wikipedians. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, SqueakBox, that is why I was so pissed off with you - you had replied in that thread and quoted the allegations, and the thread was over my COI, and then you came here talking about my COI with the photos - that's why I thought you were repeating those allegations. For three months I had some psychopath vandalizing my work and threatening to come after me at Wiki events, and TheFieryAngel had to go searching not only on the Polish Wikipedia to find my troll's "I live with Michael Lucas" ridiculousness, but she had to find it in a cache since I removed the comments back in April (also on the Italian, French, Dutch, German...). The fact is, this pretty typical for WR - and their behavior has gotten more outrageous in the last few months. --David Shankbone 20:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

David, Squeak is a constant troublemaker when it comes to sluething other users he thinks are rotten apples. He's always quick to label them wikipervs and try to get them banned. I'm not surprised that he engaged in dubious tactics when it came to you. He's given cover to at least one SPA who come here solely to wikistalk and to attack editors who they believed to be immoral. I'm sure we all remember Pol from a few months back who was harassing everyone with all caps unfounded allegations for just editing a page tangential to the articles which shall not be named. Those two managed to drive away a pretty decent contributor who got sick of their screwing around with cats so that they could continue to fight so-called evildoers. Nobody dares to edit the controversial pages anymore, lest he go crying to arbcom with lies and innuendo about you being a supposed PPA. Just ask SwatJester, who he was terribly hostile towards for having the temerity to dispute him on a page about an anti-PPA. But his actions do lead to many lulz for the channers, so if we want to continue the dramaz, then by all means. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

David does have a point. We would all be better off ignoring Wikipedia Review as much as possible, though very occasionally the site can be useful. If people think something unethical is going on as regards Wikipedia's internal processes, I hear The Register is always eager is listen :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I certainly do not want to fight with you, David. I think WR makes for a good read but Moreschi may be right that posting there can create issues, David is nott he only person to have commented on my return there to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Moreschi. I think we need to stop paying attention and taking up their issues. I made the point over there that they only have themselves and Wikipedians as their audience. Good faith editors (like User:B, User:SqueakBox, User:Lar, User:Alison, User:LessHeard vanU and User:David Shankbone (me), amongst others) go there, listen to them, but in the end they are only trying to hurt Wikipedia - not improve it. Sometimes they have valid issues, and I used to think they were not so bad, but now they have gone crazy. Newyorkbrad was the last straw, and their defamation of Erik is OTT, actually attributing false statements in quotes to him that he never wrote or said. Repeating my troll's sociopathic comments is just par for the course. --David Shankbone 21:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• • David, with the greatest of respect you are a bit wide of the mark regarding Newyorkbrad because 1) Daniel Brandt is not Wikipedia Review. He is a member, just as you are and isn't even a mod, etc and 2) Brad quit due to a thread on Don Murphy's forum, not WR. Let's not try and criticise them for things they haven't done. If one person on Wikipedia uploads pictures of someone molesting a dead body, does that make me and you necrophiliacs? George The Dragon (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• In cases like these, I think we should just ignore them. I've been lurking around on their forums for the past few days. For the most part, it's filled with just crap. Every now and again, though, they bring up a few points about BLP subjects that no one else noticed, though, so I don't think we should shut them out entirely. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• We need to be exceptionally careful that no one does anything irresponsible like try to remove references to this brewing controversy from article space, if it's properly sourced--even if that sourcing "names" Wikipedia users or WMF employees. Many, many eyes are on this, and even if those are eyes we don't like, that doesn't matter. If we play games with this in any way it will burn a hole in us with the media. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Erik Moller protection

Can I ask under what authority the Arbitration Committee has enacted a content decision, as seen at Erik Moller? Yes, I'm aware of the current hoo-ha, but this person is the 2nd in command of a major world-wide organization, and is so notable that there is no way they wouldn't pass AFD today without flying colors. That begs the question of where did the Arbcom authorize a content decision, which they have neither the power nor authority to do?

• Please clarify when the AC gained this new power, and where did the community authorize that?
• Please address the edit protected request at Talk:Erik Moller to redirect it to Erik Möller.

The protection is thus improper, as the AC has no guidance or endorsement from the community to make editorial decisions on content, and if User:David Gerard misspoke in the protection log, it needs to be at a minimum redirected if not unprotected, as protection is not used for content/editorial decisions. We need to be utterly transparent in the handling of this case and treat it like any other article, or the media will roast us alive. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee granted itself the right to do whatever it wants on paedophilia-related issues a long time ago, purportedly to protect the reputation of Wikipedia. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User behavior, yes, but content, negative. They simply can't do that, and they can't empower themselves to do so. As a body the AC has no editorial power over actual article content (obviously including redirects and images, and text), and no individual user, admin, arbiter, or otherwise, has binding editorial power over any content matter at any time--that is 101% community derived exclusively. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:^demon has redirected it. Thank you. My major concern is that given the very visibility of the current "situation", that we do anything article-related that is tied into the matter absolutely above-board and by our own accepted community-derived rules. Or, simply put, "by the book", so that the media has nothing to latch onto here from our end. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairly obviously, I'm not a sitting arbitrator and any such message is a suggestion to other admins of good sense and clue. As for your assertion that they have no power over content, that's actually not the case - David Gerard (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Where and when did the community grant the arbitration committee as a body, with their nominal authority, power over editorial matters? They are empowered wholly by us, and I don't recall seeing this detailed on their official page. They can only do what the community proscribes. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The community didn't prescribe the Arbitration Committee the right to carry out a nineteen minute star chamber trial and then issue an indefinite block (not of one-year, as usual) to a user with over 7500 contributions for creating a userbox declaring a fondness for "young women" (and not even using it himself, or warring over it). But there was little objection to that. We've just slipped down the slope to content censorship, now. It's only a matter of time before we're invading ru.wikipedia to claim the server space that is rightfully ours. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Sounds like a fun game. All their server are belong to us. You don't happen to know an open-proxy sockpuppet army that could help us out with the invasion, do you? :-) -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the Arbitration Committee doing behavioral sanctions, and the like, but I'm in general opposed to things not being transparent. What I am opposed to however is anything that attempts to usurp control of article content from the community. If the Foundation themselves can't step in to do what except in rare cases when legal issues are at play, to not risk their Safe Harbor/Section 230 protections, the Arbitration Committee or individual admins certainly have no authority to do so for deeply embarressing problems. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 03:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Does deliberately violating Godwin's Law in that manner mean you have no intention of putting forward a valid argument? John Nevard (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever actually, y'know, read about what Godwin's Law is? I'm getting plenty tired of people mentioning this meme where it doesn't apply. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not making any assertions one way or the other, but I think we all have the right to know what the Arbitration Committee's powers are, where they are outlined, and how they are proscribed. It simply is not our way, otherwise. --David Shankbone 00:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fight the powah! There's some history to read up on, as I'm sure you'd be insulted if people assumed you needed to be spoonfed - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not averse to spoonfeeding, can you help a brother out and say what you are trying to say? Arkon (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The words "content" or "article" don't show up in the Arbitration page at all. The page in fact just details who was picked, why, where, how, and how Jimmy yielded all his authority over time to the AC, that leaves them... still with no editorial power over content. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 00:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note I did the move on a solely technical reason, and have no opinion on the article (or potential Arbitration) involving it. See my comments on the talk for clarification if need be. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As an update, Erik Moeller also now has an edit protected request; it was similarly protected by David Gerard. The Erik Möller article has now also been expanded, and is very heavily sourced--his notability is very clear and obvious. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This comment is slightly tangential but I don't think we can say something as clear cut as "the Arbitration Committee cannot determine matters of content". It is certainly true that they have traditionally refused to determine such matters, but to say they are prohibited from doing so needs some explanation. If we look at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Scope, "4. The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes" the use of the word "primarily" suggests they can hear other matters. That said, "5. The Committee will hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus" suggests that if there is a community consensus that the Arbitration Committee may not hear matters of content, they cannot do so. I'm not sure there has ever been such a discussion. These wiki-constitutional issues are not though I think what this discussion turns on. Whether ArbCom can or cannot determine this issue, it would I feel be unwise for them to do so here given Erik's status within the Foundation. WjBscribe 12:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be unwise, but also they can still only do what the community deems to let them do at the end of the day. We let them do a lot, but if the community ever totally rejected something by the AC, the AC can't really do much about it, since they rely on the trust and faith of the community to empower them. They were once empowered by Jimbo, but now that Jimbo no longer owns Wikimedia and is just one board member, the AC derives all it's authority from us. They are not autonomous to do whatever they want. As you mention, though, it would be very unwise for them to try to start without asking the community's permission first. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that as editors themselves, the members of the Arbcom should have as much power to determine content as any other user, but no more than that. Saying "because Arbcom says" isn't an automatic pass on a content issue. As the collective-entity-known-as-Arbcom have always refrained from making any judgement on content issues, they cannot suddenly start to do so because it suits them to do so. Neıl ☎ 13:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they have, I think their name has been used because Gerard believes the pedophile rulings give them the power over all pedophile issues including content - a simple mistake. Viridae^Talk 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As the person who initiated the pedophile directive with the AC, I hope this invocation of the AC by David Gerard was unrelated to this ruling. I devised of the ruling to protect minors from pro-pedophile activity (and by extension, the project from disrepute), and not for any other reason. El_C 05:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It has already been broadly used in the past to suppress accusations of pro-pedophile editing; I take it this was also not your intent? --Random832 (contribs) 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders

Would it be possible for an uninvolved and impartial admin(s) to close this centralized discussion?

I set up the discussion on 11 April, following a proposal (to suspend use of the image placeholder graphic on article pages) here. The debate was widely notified through WP (as a centralized discussion, RFC, on the Signpost and various projects). More than 50 editors participated in exchanges about this controversial issue. The discussion closed by agreement on 23 April. Conclusions were debated between 23 April and 11 May.

AFAIK none of us had prior experience of managing a centralized discussion and it's been difficult for to keep the process moving forward to secure a satisfactory outcome, given the lack of general guidelines and the inevitable difficulty of applying consensus policy to such a large and polarized group of people.

Please note I have no intention of criticizing any of my fellow editors here (or indeed of replying to any personal attacks). I just think it is time to hand over the discussion to neutral and disinterested parties for closure. Is this the right place to make that request? Thank you and regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this from ANI (where there was no response). Maybe this is a better place for it? --Kleinzach (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at drafting a solution: Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders#Advice_to_the_closing_admin_from_an_uninvolved_reader. Not being an administrator, I cannot impose a binding resolution, but this should help anyone who wants to step forward. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated given the scale of the discussion. I hope a 'closing admin' can draft the wording for Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions and indicate a suitable place for technical discussions to continue. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed policy change

There is a proposal at WT:PROT#Proposed change to policy to ensure that it is the "right" version (rather than the "current" version) that gets protected when protection is applied to stop edit wars.--Kotniski (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• It ended a little while back. It appears that they are singing "In the Army Now", "Down Down" and "Pictures of Matchstick Men". LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Is NPW dead?

Posting here to attract a few more eyeballs to the issue as posting to the relevant talk pages has gone unanswered. For over a month now, New Page Watcher has been unable to populate it's list of new articles. A user can log in, but that's as far as one can go. Early reports were that it was a server-side problem, but it's been several weeks since any replies have come in. Martin is apparently still on a wikibreak, and Snowolf quit completely. Is there anyone left to fix the problem, or is it time to declare NPW a dead project? DarkAudit (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Reedy Boy and Martijn Hoekstra may be able to help out, but they, as far as I am aware, were not as active as Martinp23/Snowolf in keeping the program running. Have you tried contacting them? It'd be a shame to lose it- I used it for ages before it died, and it's a great program. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My only contact with them had been through their talk pages. Martinp23 hasn't responded, and Snowolf quit before I could leave a message. DarkAudit (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've pinged everyone on the NPW IRC channel (me, Martinp23, Snowolf, Reedy and a bot who I didn't realise was a bot) and alerted them to this thread. J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Martinp23/NPWatcher#NPW_dead.3F - I've just been busy lately. And Martinp23 has been away since a wiki-drama... As per the NPW Page, when im past exams (about a week from now), i'll have time to look into sorting out the bugs and such. Martijn is semi-active on the launchpad, and sometimes on IRC. It wont die, just inactive for a bit... I need to start pumping more time into AWB too, but that will come post exams too =) —Reedy 16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just been busy with exams recently, and remain as such. The bug was reported some time last week I think. Hopefully we can get a fix out within the next week or so, exams and our time pending. Martinp23 16:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unauthorized bots

Resolved

 – Probably normal editors; no need to take action. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I recently discovered two new accounts making repetitive tasks: Plonker Bonker (talk · contribs) and Kwhit244 (talk · contribs). Their userpages are not linked on Wikipedia, so I doubt they have been approved. They have not been really disruptive at the moment, but WP:BOT says that unapproved bots should be reported. Cenarium (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Plonker bonker looks like a bot. Kwhit244 looks like a bored person. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Plonker bonker defiantly looks like a bot. And with Kwhit244 I still this account is a normal user although he does make the same sort of edits repetitively, but things such as his summary, Major/minor change. Also he isn't editing to fast and seems just to have made edits in one block.

Agreed, Plonker has over 100 edits between 17:00 and 18:00 UTC; quite a few, even though it's a tiny change repeated over and over. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Block or warn?? There have been no warning so far Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed, Kwhit244 (talk · contribs) makes various contributions. Plonker Bonker (talk · contribs) makes always the same edit. Cenarium (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say warn; their last edit was 10 minutes or so ago, so it appears that they've stopped for the moment. Now would be a good chance to keep them from starting again. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either look like bots. That speed of editing is fairly easy to acheive with tabs, and the occasional lack of an edit summary by Mr. Bonker isn't very bot-like. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I am not a robot! Plonker Bonker (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Add to this that he is making valid edits and you'll have to wonder what it is he's getting warned about. Editing too fast? As long as he is manually reviewing each edit there is no problem. are his edits violating/igonoring some consensus? Policy? Guideline? In that case which one? EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, he's probably not hurting anything - I even noted that. It doesn't necessarily bother me, but if he were operating a bot, I'd prefer to have it be a properly approved bot to prevent problems for him in the future. On further analysis, though, there are inconsistent edits that point to a human's active involvement. No problem here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I also thought like this, the users make no harm. I hesitated to open a thread here, but I still was puzzled by the fact that they immediately started with this kind of editing. I'm unfamiliar with bots, so I preferred to let you know. Cenarium (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Commonsense wins this round. WP:BOT is only about malicious or potentially dangerous bots. Where were you guys when ol' miterbox got WP:guidelined out of existance? "I am not a Bot!" is the best and worst defence for this type of baseless charge. --Lemmey talk 17:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User name

Is it ok, for my username to contain celebrities, or famous leaders, or is it prohibited. Buddha24 (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not ok - see WP:Username policy. Neıl ☎ 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring you your current one? Buddha24 is ok, if thats what you meant. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As someone that's very active on WP:UAA, I can safely say that I would steadfastly decline a request there in regards to your username. I think it's perfectly fine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's generally only not accepted if you use the name in a way that either (a) looks like you're impersonating them, or (b) constitutes a verbal attack against them. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Endless edit war in Olympiacos F.C. during the 3 last days. - Sthenel (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It started a while ago. Multiple IPs are involved, and some logged in users too. Cenarium (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

MFD Backlog

Any non-involved administrator is invited to close the backlogged discussions at Wikipedia:MFD#Old_business. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Request review of 2 week block of User:TTN

This is to request review of the block issued by Vassyana (talk · contribs) against TTN (talk · contribs) for violating the terms laid out here of the Episode and Character arbitration case. I know; groans all round but bear with me here. I advocate alleviation for User:TTN because I feel this block is unwarranted and, at two weeks, excessively, almost incomprehensibly, punitive, given the issues involved. For the record, I have not been solicited by anyone. Moreover, I know User:TTN can himself request review of his own block. I would ask for wider review, however, since the issues here are important. The recent blocks and AE filings (including one involving me, referenced below via this AE case), put petty schoolyard enforcement over important dialogue.

I urge review based on the following considerations and I beg indulgence that these issues be duly considered. Briefly, they are:
1) The Messenger counts.
The block was issued after an AE was filed by User:Pixelface. This user has no direct involvement in the particular question at hand (a single Pokemon character; Sonic Hedgehog characters whatever they are). I will not speculate as to his motives, but will note that his recent tagging of almost every single Haydn Symphony was a pointy, passive aggressive, and seemingly petty retaliation against editors he considers to be inconsistent or unjust in their approach to the ongoing discussion concerning our fiction notability guideline and plot-summary injunction. By editor I mean me, so I use the term loosely of course. Still Pixelface still owes long-suffering User:Moreschi 30 minutes of his life back. Frequenters of the AN/I board will be familiar with other instances of this specific editor's fractious, pointy, disruptive and querulous behaviour.

This brings up Point (2): the Wider Spirit of the Ruling
The Arbcom wrote, importantly,

The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute.

Perhaps User:TTN's behavior can be narrowly construed as having violated arbcom's injunction (the timeline can be seen at the AE page and on the blocking admin's talk page). I disagree, but can see why the perception is there that this is the case. A two week block is still an over the top reaction. User:TTN's transgression was for issuing a call for attention (the purpose of the Fiction noticeboard/Wikiproject talk pages) of a single article/set of articles. This was clearly in good faith, since it was in keeping within an already extensively-discussed and widely established editorial practice, sanctioned by many from the relevant wikiproject. The issue raised at the AE, as succinctly put by User:Pixelface was: the restriction says TTN is prohibited from requesting merges on project pages. The phrase "He is free to contribute on the talk pages" does not allow him to request merges on project talk pages.

This is absurd wikilawyering.

The fact is that real, open and genuine debate remains as to the fate of fiction related articles and their appropriateness for Wikipedia. If, upon review, it is determined that User:TTN was engaged in fractious badgering or disruptive behaviour, then sobeit; I am humbled. But it seems forgotten that point (2) is AS IMPORTANT as point (1) in the arbcom's decision. Editors who are running to AE to obtain blocks based on scholastic, by-the-letter interpretations of TTN's actions are behaving in a way that both is detrimental to the project and runs counter to the spirit of the arbcom ruling. I request that this block be lifted or else substantially lightened. I further request that User:Pixelface and all editors be warned that the arbcom ruling is not license for actions more fitting The Crucible than Wikipedia.

A two week sanction for what is a minor infraction in an ongoing, sitewide dialogue about how best to handle fictional articles and the dialectic of central policy versus cloistered interest is excessive, if warranted at all. Eusebeus (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a 2 week block is GROSSLY overdone, and that this comes as a result of a concerted campaign to wikilawyer the terms of TTN's probation by Pixelface and others. I am going to bring this up with the blocking administrator, at the very least, and suggest the block be lifted quickly. SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Given what happened, I think a 2 week block was pushing it. Granted, TTN knew what he was getting himself into, but it wasn't as bad as I've seen. That being said, if a neutral party finds it to be grossly unjust then I'd be fine with a reduction, or even an unblock if the reason is good enough. If said neutral party since it justified, then I'd be fine with it as is. And this is coming from the Episode inclusionist side. (I'm pretty sure neither or us three that have posted thus far are neutral in the matter) Wizardman 02:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would argue for a block reduction on one simple argument: this is the first legitimate violation of his terms, even reading it hyper-literally. The sanction included that deadly phrase "to be interpreted broadly". The breadth of interpretation so far has been breath-taking, with the removal of unsourced material from an article being interpreted as "deletion".

In addition, the two-week term violates the Arbcom terms, which read Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, for up to a week in the event of repeated violations. A two-week block for the first violation doesn't even approach briefly blocked, for up to a week in the event of repeated violations. Kww (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

it was not the first violation. and the ed. had made it clear from his behavior that he was going to continue pushing the limits. Even without the arb com decision, a two week block for disruption would have been fully appropriate. DGG (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Except even if it was a repeat violation (again, he's free to work on talk pages per the ArbCom ruling, so there's no violation here), the max the ArbCom allows for is one week. SirFozzie (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN has violated the ArbCom restrictions imposed on him at least three times since April 22. On April 23, TTN requested that Sgeureka redirect the Meowth article.[8] On May 8, TTN requested that the Bulbasaur article be redirected.[9] On May 11, TTN requested a merge of Sonic the Hedgehog character articles.[10][11] The sentence "He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate." does not allow him to violate the rest of the restriction: "TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly." --Pixelface (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN has not in any way violated his arbcom restriction. It was specifically stated that he is still allowed to make suggestions, requests, and participate in discussions. We've been over this before. -- Ned Scott 04:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And for the love of god, the entire point of his restriction was to make him take these issues to the talk page. The "request" part is undoubtedly referring to tagging an article for deletion or merging. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And the part about discussion "initiated by another editor"? How could the "request" part only refer to tagging? TTN is going to put a merge tag on a project page? Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games are project pages. He can participate on talk pages but can't request merges or redirections on talk pages. If TTN could just request others do for him what he cannot do for six months, there would be no reason to restrict him at all. TTN is prohibited from requesting the merge or redirection of articles related to TV episodes or characters for six months. Period. --Pixelface (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He is free to participate on talk pages. Period. If you would understand that and abide by it, and stop making complaints when he abides by the ruling, the drama level would go way down.Kww (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So what do you make of it when Anomie asked TTN "Weren't you restricted from requesting merges, redirections, or deletions of character articles?" at the thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games? --Pixelface (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What's to make of it? He said that he was still allowed to do so on talk pages, which he is.Kww (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The block was a good call given the long-term problematic history. Unfortunately, the title of this thread seems to be ringing true. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna Endorse the two week block. After the prior one week block for violating the restrictions, and the fact the sanctions are to be interpreted broadly, this is clearly a good block. MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) TTN posted on a project page requesting a redirect.[12] This is explicitly in violation of his restrictions, which regardless are supposed to be "interpreted broadly".[13] Contrary to some assertions, he was not responding to a prior conversation, but rather the first party acting.[14] I truly cannot fathom how an increased duration block for a blatant and unquestionable violation of ArbCom sanctions that are framed to be interpreted broadly should be in any way controversial. Vassyana (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Both interpretations of "requesting" are reasonable, it's not as crystal clear as some on either side would make it out to be. If some people think it's what ArbCom meant, and some don't, isn't this a simple matter of using Wikipedia:Rfar#Clarifications and other requests? --barneca (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like there's something already sitting there on this with no ArbCom comment in two weeks. --barneca (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, what's not clear here? He posted on a project page to advocate for a redirect. Under even the most generous reading of his restrictions, it's exactly what is prohibited. Vassyana (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not arguing that your block is unjustified under the Arbcom rulings. What I am arguing is that every previous block has been an illegitimate stretch of the arbcom ruling, and the instance you are blocking for is the first offense. Two weeks for the first offense when the ruling says a maximum of one week for repeated offenses isn't appropriate.

As to why it's controversial, it's because of the history of unjustified blocks. If this was the first bad call, I might shrug. Instead, it's an overlong block following a wholly unjustified one. That tends to make me see a pattern. Kww (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The previous block was reviewed and left in place, which indicated to me that it should be considered as a valid previous block. Even some of the editors who expressed concern about the particular block reason noted that there were other likely sanctionable actions. I therefore saw no reason to treat this as anything but a repeat violation of ArbCom restrictions within a short period of time. Vassyana (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I now see there's an open ArbCom request to clarify this very thing that hasn't been handled in a couple weeks. This block is not justifiable. To block someone for something that there's grave doubt whether it's a violation of the ArbCom remedy is just not supportable, in my eyes. Once ArbCom clarifies the situation, and if the behavior continues, I'd be fine if there was a block then. Now? Not justifiable. SirFozzie (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to call the AC on this, if they've let it go so long. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A plain and blatant violation does not need to wait on ArbCom to clear up the particulars of the boundaries. I truly cannot begin to fathom how there is any doubt, let along "grave doubt", that TTN violated his restrictions. Vassyana (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN has been violating the spirit of the injunction as well as sometimes the letter of the injunction. Pretty much every edit he makes is with the aim of merging fiction articles, although he no longer backs up his suggestions with edit warring. What kind of sanctions are then in order, I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What has worked for other users' policy sanctions is to totally bar them from the area of interest that keeps getting them in trouble. TTN is a good editor. Perhaps a ban on any username of his from fiction articles for x months will put a stop to this? There are millions of other articles he can work on. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Peregrine Fisher - TTN has shown himself to be a single-purpose account with no other purpose to being here other than removing material. End of story. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Lawrence Cohen has a good point. A topic ban may resolve the issue without removing a contributor, and it provides a more focused solution. Vassyana (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How is a topic ban any different from the restrictions placed now? He will just interpret it some other way to continue what he wants to do. He has had months of AN/Is and other conflict to do something (anything!) other than work to deleting and removing material and has done none or very very little. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We've put "do not discuss" topic bans on people before. Privatemusings had one where he couldn't even discuss BLPs, Everyking can't even discuss Phil Sandiferer, and we've had others. It would be different if there was a total "no fiction articles discussed or edited in any space on this website" restriction. If he's here for Wikipedia and not his own ends, he'll keep editing new or different things. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, except he can email other people to do his requests. MBisanz ^talk 05:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And if similar disruption causes problems for the normal workflow with other editors, then we can look at sanctions there too. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 06:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see if TTN would start going after african villages, human genes, or whatever or if he would start writing articles. He might just quit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If TTN was to go and redirect all the unneccessary album articles, and have all of the non-notable schools and myspace bands deleted, i'd wouldn't have a problem with it --Jac16888 (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

doing this as TTN did, by mass redirects of hundreds of articles, would of course be equally disruptive on any topic whatever. DGG (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

For example (not endorsing this for TTN, nor am I not not endorsing it--its just an example), a similar ban was placed on User:Whig in regards to Homeopathy articles, as seen at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. Whig's activities have been almost non-existent since the sanction was Arbitration Committee endorsed, as seen here, which may reflect that without the area of focus he was so hung up on, he was not here for any other reason after all. If TTN similarly vanishes, without having the ability to eliminate fiction content from Wikipedia articles, the question would become how much net benefit do we get anyway from SPAs that leave waves of disruption in their wake? Things to consider. Should TTN be barred from fiction as Whig was barred from Homeopathy? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 06:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If we can agree to a topic ban, that TTN cannot edit, comment on, suggest, discuss, or mention any articles or content related to fictional media topics and projects, and that he may not contact other editors off-wikipedia to proxy edits, and that topic ban is to be construed broadly, I will unblock. MBisanz ^talk 09:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence's example of Whig is interesting. I also feel that SPA should sometimes be more broadly interpreted. People can get too involved in a single area even without being an SPA. Some people refuse to walk away from a subject area even if them doing that for a short while might be the best outcome. Short topic bans should be adopted voluntarily and should not be seen as a mark of shame. It is merely telling people to take a short break from an area and come back later. If the problems persist while x person is gone, then we know they are not the only source of the problems. If things improve, well then... (I'm thinking of other areas here, not just the fiction-related content). Carcharoth (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to endorse the two week block as well until such time that a topic ban is enacted. After reviewing the contributions, his imposed restrictions, and his previous one week block for violating said restrictions, this user deserves the block and a possible topic ban. No one editor is indispensable to the project, and if the discussed topic ban is enacted and the user all but quits editing (i.e. Whig example above), then there is a positive net gain: the disruptive editing and trolling ceases. Perhaps the editor can work elsewhere more diligently... seicer | talk | contribs 12:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

None of TTN's recent edits are disruptive, and they sure as hell are not trolling. Please use your head before making slanderous accusations against editors in good standing. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface

I know I've been asked to disengage on this issue by two people, but I think we need some comment on this - I'm a bit worried about Pixelface's actions. If TTN is disruptively deletionist, Pixelface is disruptively inclusionist, to the point where he got two blocks - one for harassing me, and one for edit warring on WP:NOT. This latest AE request looks like another instance of possible inflaming the dispute. Comments? Sceptre ^(talk) 10:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's not shoot the messenger or start playing tit-for-tat. Catchpole (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's shooting the messenger when the messenger isn't entirely blameless - two blocks on an E&C party for being disruptive in fiction doesn't look good on someone. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Pixelface, Sceptre, Eusebeus, TTN and others should all take a voluntary two month break from fiction related articles and see if the atmosphere improves without them? No offence intended, but sometimes removing the most active and forceful editors lets others participate and things go in a different direction, hopefully for the better. Carcharoth (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't take a break - I've agreed to help write some fiction articles in the near future - and as next week is Sweeps week, I doubt a break would be much help anyway. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sweeps week? Maybe Sweeps? Ah, right, I see: Nielsen Ratings#"Sweeps". Creating redirect. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, blame Bruce Almighty and my current location - turns out it's four weeks long, but regardless, most of the season finales for shows not impacted by the writer's strike too much (e.g. House, Grey's Anatomy) is next week (Lost's is two weeks time) Sceptre ^(talk) 14:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you will have your work cut out for you if you want to demonstrate that a successful AE request is disruptive, unjustified, harassment, or needlessly inflammatory. Pixelface certainly has disruptive things on his record, adding merge tags to Haydn symphonies comes to mind, but I cannot see that his activity in reporting TTN to AE was among those disruptive activities. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

On its own, you'd be right. But he's got a recent history of disruption, and as Eusebus points out, Pixelface had no interaction with TTN on the articles he was blocked for. I think even the AE result is being contested. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How about reporting Eusebeus to Arbcom enforcement for a series of edits that were

1. Over a week old
2. Already settled by discussion between Eusebeus and Jac16888 on their talk page
3. Already settled by a parallel discussion between me and Alaskan Assassin on my talk page? [15][16]
4. Doing this during the middle of this particular storm?

Classing his Arbcom enforcement report as "successful" is accurate only in the most sardonic of ways. He persuaded admins to block TTN when TTN had not violated his sanctions. He and others have managed to get admins to block him for a total of three weeks, and discuss his "pattern" of misbehaviour when, in fact, the first block was completely unjustified and the second was much longer than the Arbcom restriction he is accused of violating would permit.

If we get to hand out two-week blocks like bags of candy, I think feeding Pixelface's sweet tooth would do more to calm this controversy down than giving one to TTN.Kww (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Arbcom clearly stated "Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions." We do not need to denigrate Pixelface for avoiding edit-warring and notifying administrators of problematic behaviour. Catchpole (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that Pixelface's current activities at least at WT:NOT over WP:PLOT could be argued "broadly" as failing to work collaboratively with others to resolve policy issues and could be considered a form of edit warring. Mind you, P is definitely standing up for something he believes in, which cannot itself be penalized in any way, but there's a difference between trying to work with other editors, and standing at the same spot and yelling until one is blue in the face, refusing to move from a position. Am I asking for a block on P now? Heck no, but I think it's important to look at P's larger activities as we are doing with TTN's larger activities to determine if a violation of ArbCom is occurring. --MASEM 13:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

When considered in the context of Pixelface's ongoing and passionate arguments against WP:PLOT, AfD comments such as "there is no real world information policy" certainly seem rather disruptive... Jakew (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, could you give me a link to the real world information policy? --Pixelface (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Masem, if you could tell me who was involved in the recent edit war at WP:NOT that led to the policy being protected, I would appreciate it. --Pixelface (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite protected it from the changes that Hiding, Collectonian, Ned Scott, and DGG had made to it in the last day, but in light that policy pages are not trivial toys to be played with; significant changes to policy pages should be discussed first before they are made. --MASEM 14:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And you think I haven't been discussing changes to a policy page enough? You're saying my comments at WT:NOT could be considered a form of edit warring? --Pixelface (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In light of the request by ArbCom that all parties work towards collaborative efforts to determine the resolve between policy and guidelines dealing with episodes and characters, and that by WP:EDITWAR that "confrontational edits" are considered a form of edit warring, technically yes. Am I going to ask for any enforcement on that? Definitely not, but it is appropriate to point to what's happening on WP:NOT as part of the larger consideration. --MASEM 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Pixelface is Pixelface, TTN is TTN. Arbitration has failed to solve this issue twice. Does anyone believe the community can do better? If so, maybe an rfc is the better venue. Build a consensus on how best to deal with such situations. Hiding T 13:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I had not the least objection to the protection,and Hiding also stated his agreement with it. B&R having been done to see if there was a consensus, its time for further discussion. I do not think it amounted to edit warring yet, but the disagreement was enough that the protection was a reasonable thing to do time, to prevent what probably would have been edit warring. I think we can reach an acceptable wording eventually. However, we do need away to mark that some section of a policy is disputed. DGG (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban for TTN

Several users have mentioned that a topic ban may be appropriate for TTN, an idea that may be very helpful. What length would be appropriate? (Three months? One year?) What particular scope would be appropriate? (All fiction and fiction-related topics, broadly construed? Articles to which WP:WAF is applicable, and all related discussions?) Is a topic ban even appropriate and necessary? Vassyana (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's probably obvious from my previous comments, but I will go on record as opposing a topic ban. I agree that the tantrum that starts every time TTN edits an article is disruptive, but he is not the source of the disruption, his opponents are. Let's take his previous block, for editing Final Fight:Streetwise. He was criticised for removing about 80% of one of the cruftiest articles around, and turning it into a reasonable video game article. He made three different passes at it, and was reverted by Zero Giga and an anonymous IP. Each pass made an effort to address the previous concerns. This editing was broadly construed as requesting a deletion, so he got blocked for a week. This event is one of the clarifications that Arbcom is so studiously ignoring. Black Kite shows up a few days later, and, instead of removing 80% of the article, only removes 65% of the article. Not a peep. None of the editors that so cheerfully reverted TTN's edits wholesale found a single line of Black Kite's edits to object to. The only conclusion I can reach is that the editors that were reverting him were not motivated by the material: they were motivated by the fact that it was TTN that had made the removals.Kww (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, as they say. Regardless, TTN blatantly violated his ArbCom restriction with his recent actions. Some may be baiting or harassing TTN, but that is a seperate issue about another user that should be addressed in another subsection or thread. It offers no bearing on TTN's actions, such as using project space to request a redirect (an action specifically forbidden by his ArbCom restrictions). While you raised points that may be worth addressing, the actions of others are not a legitimate defense. Vassyana (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No strong argument with the existence of the latest block, just its length. There are interpretations that say that he didn't violate his restrictions, but I'm not going to fight hard for them. The problem is that so many people are arguing like he is a flagrant repeat violator and the restrictions need to be escalated into a topic ban. In fact, he is not a repeat violator: he is, at worst, a one-time offender. The arbcom restrictions call for a block of less than one week duration for his behaviour, and discussions of escalating it into a topic ban are completely unwarranted.Kww (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - indeed, it does take two to tango, which is why I don't think it should be just one side that gets hit. I'd be much more comfortable with general sanctions, though. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, Kww, what would you recommend? A general topic probation? A time out for all heavily involved parties? What do you think would be most effective and fair to all involved? Vassyana (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Should I ever have suggested a topic-ban for TTN, then I was joking. I am doing the exact same trims as TTN (and this is my today's trim), I have redirected hundreds of episode articles, but still you'll find my talk page and block log surprisingly empty. Why? Because removing excessive plot summaries and unsourced trivia is not evil, it is quality control per policies and guidelines. And people see that I occasionally work on GAs and FAs (where massive trimmings are always the first step). And I ask nicely before I merge or redirect. And I tend to only edit abandoned fiction articles where people have lost their fanatic fan attachment. Too bad people are seeking revenge on TTN for his former bad civility habits and now for daring to politely suggest improvements to articles that are not abandoned yet - I can't think of another explanation for why he's in "ban"-worthy trouble and e.g. I am not. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As to why TTN is in "trouble" and you are not, the arbitration committee specifically restricted TTN from performing certain actions for six months. And you can read the E&C2 workshop page for past discussions of topic bans. While your block log may be empty, I don't have to remind you that you were an involved party of the E&C1 case. --Pixelface (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Even before the arbcom result became official, I asked nicely why TTN gets singled out. I never got an answer, and I still don't understand why he gets punished, and why e.g. you and I don't. Almost all of his old edits reflect policies and guidelines, but granted, he had occasional issues with incivility, boldness and editing speed. And now the restriction, which I sincerely hope was just intended to prevent his bad habits and not his good skills, gets "broadly interpreted" that he can't even improve the encyclopedia by being nice, not bold, and slow. Block TTN for gross incivility, block him for boldly merging stuff, block him for running around like a bot. But don't block him for nicely pointing out terrible articles (where others can decide if his judgement is bad) or for trimming material that shouldn't have been there in the first place (which was never part of the restriction). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If we could get TTN to work collaboratively like you, that would be great. He still isn't civil and still hasn't shown he can actually improve an article (other than deleting large sections). The feeling I get from his comments are that he would edit war in a second if that wasn't prohibited. Maybe a topic ban can help him learn to be like you. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a ban on edits other than adding sources? Forcing him to add some sources would probably improve his radar for what is fixable and what isn't. It used to be I'd revert him and add a source. He'd then revert. I'd revert him and add another source. He'd then revert, and so on. He needs to learn something about the improvement side of wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Trying to backdoor decisions that were rejected by arbcom, are we? Absolutely not. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussing matters on a noticeboard is hardly "backdoor". ArbCom has also made it clear that the community can discuss and enact restrictions on AN/ANI. Please take a breath. Vassyana (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, what's wrong with you? I read every word of that arbcom case, and was even a party of it, and I can tell you that I never once considered the restrictions to mean that he couldn't start a thread in the talk namespace. TTN dealt with a lot of things by force that he shouldn't have, but he was always willing to follow policy. He came back before his six month restriction to engage in discussion, something he was never sanctioned for, and something all of us wanted him to do more of. He does not have a topical ban specifically because such a ban was shot down by arbcom, and because it doesn't help anyone. TTN has made a huge amount of positive contributions to the project, and there's a lot of us that are going to make sure he's still able to continue to do that. We wanted him to improve his methods so that things didn't get so heated, and so that he would stop forcing things, regardless of who was right or wrong. If he thought that the arbcom ruling meant that he shouldn't be starting threads on the talk page, he wouldn't be. You have no clue about TTN, do you? It's so easy to see him as a villain, isn't it. It's sickening to see admins here not only endorsing this ban, but suggesting that running him off the project would be a positive gain for us. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not the talk namespace. He requested a redirect in the project namespace, which is explicitly against his ArbCom restriction.[17] Vassyana (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a talk page, just like this one, that is only in the project namespace because of technicalities. I can't believe you made a two week ban over such trivial nonsense. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ned, what do you think the term project page means in this sentence? "TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly." What action would TTN be doing if he made an edit to a project page that amounted to a request for a redirect? Does TTN have a history of putting merge tags on project pages? What do you think the arbitration committee meant when they included "or project page" in their ruling? Why do you think the arbitration committee included that phrase in their ruling? --Pixelface (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OH, I don't know, maybe guidelines and policy pages. Let me repeat something, since you are having such a hard time understanding it: "He came back before his six month restriction to engage in discussion, something he was never sanctioned for". It doens't make any sense, not even by a stretch, that they would sanction TTN from starting talk page threads. And on a side note, it is shameful the way you are campaigning to drive TTN off the project because of what amounts to a content dispute. Who's next? Will you be supporting a bogus block on me if it suits your needs? -- Ned Scott 13:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

While I have tangoed with TTN on a couple occasions, I've never doubted his sincerity in wanting to improve the project. While I don't like the tactics he's used in the past, if he wants to change, I'm all for it. If he can somehow learn to not act how he has in the past, let's let him do so. That's the whole point of what people were trying to get him to do, and now that he's showing some signs of it, people are wanting to slap him with topic bans for a year? That's just absurd. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Restrict him from any of the kinds of stuff he likes to fight about—essentially anything related to popular culture—for a year. Anyone else waging the same campaign with the same tactics should be subject to the same restriction. Everyking (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

I've noticed a relatively new account that I suspect may be operated by a particular indef-blocked user. Are such accounts usually tolerated unless they do something blockable themselves (so far this one has only some borderline incivility and disruption to its credit, but nothing rising to the level of a potential block) or is this something I should be reporting to SSP or RFCU? Deor (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that such accounts would constitute evasion of the original block, and as such are not permitted. Let me know if I can help. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If it's likely evading a block, you have good evidence indicating who it likely is, and the new account does have some incivility/disruption, I would suggest you request a checkuser as such behavior is generally unacceptable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Two things to be clear about for this to make sense: there are users, and there are accounts. Users operate accounts.

If an account is blocked, it is to prevent further disruption. Creating a new account to continue edit patterns of disruption is sockpuppettry on the part of the user, and that account is blockable to prevent further abuse.

If an account is blocked and the user goes a makes a new account an edits constructively, that is acceptable. This often happens in the case of inappropriate usernames, early vandalism, etc.

A ban is prohibiting the user from operating accounts. Those accounts can be blocked on sight because the user is unwelcome, no matter the account name.

So it depends on the situation. Keegan^talk 06:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I'm going to hold off on SSPing this guy until I see whether he's going to ramp up the disruption a bit more. Deor (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have a nice night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica restored

Link: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 8

I have closed the DRV here with a "recreate" result. I realize that opinions on this have been very strong, and for good reason, since the subject of the website is responsible for a reprehensible culture of harassment and attacks against volunteers who have done nothing wrong, but reading the discussion, it appeared clear that the consensus was against simply leaving the article deleted due to the presence of an independent source. (Personally, I continue to doubt the notability of the website.) The option of AFD is something I have left open, and I suspect someone will be nominating it in a few hours. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

no biggie, but could someone unprotect the talk page please? - Privatemusings (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Have done so. Davewild (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

zOMG - nuked!

... and it's gone again! Deleted by User:Adam Bishop with the cryptic message, "nice try". I was in the middle of declining a pre-emptive prot request on WP:RFPP when it vanished. Ah well - Alison ^❤ 07:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? Perhaps its a mistake? (ie wasn't aware of the DRV) Viridae^Talk 08:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Appears not to be the case. Bencherlite^Talk 08:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And you'd think that people would realize that it isn't exactly a good idea™ to wheel war with an article of this nature :/ ...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, but per this DRV, I'm seeing that as an out-of-process delete, but I'm not about to wheel-war over it - Alison ^❤ 08:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Its only a wheel war if someone restores at this point... MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It would also be common sense prevailing, considering it has *just* gone through a DRV to not force it through another one. Viridae^Talk 08:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize it was on here and DRV and all that. I saw Encyclopedia Dramatica and instinctively reached for the delete button! Adam Bishop (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Figured :) Viridae^Talk 08:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, no harm no foul! Just restore it so we don't have to plummet into further drama.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Undeleted as above and Adam Bishop's comment - hope to god I got that right! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

... and back again!

FT2 has restored it, referencing Adam's comment above, so I guess that's that! Drahmaz over:) - Alison ^❤ 08:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) ... Unless I undeleted the wrong version. I followed the "recreate" comment by the closer, plus Adam's comment that the following redeletion was mistaken. If that was mistaken, then someone correct it, of course. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what purpose this could possibly serve. Wouldn't this just create more "drahmaz"? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain that? The outcome of the DRV was to recreate - hoepfully the drama on the article itself will be kept under control by the watchful eye of many people. Viridae^Talk 08:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not say my re-deletion was a mistake. I was trying to imply that I do not care one whiffle for whatever process says we can keep a re-created Encyclopedia Dramatica article. If such a process exists I'm sure we can safely ignore it. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the strength of involvement in the DRV - i would say anything other han an AfD would be a very bad idea at this point. Viridae^Talk 08:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• To be honest I would say an AFD wouldn't accomplish anything either. As rubbish as the website is, there is an expressed consensus to restore the article and all that another AFD would do is generate more heat and no light. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If the article is to remain, I would submit that there will be quite a few admins and editors ready to regulate on any shenanigans that crop up. Hell, if it's neutral and well-sourced, it doesn't bother me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a very good idea to have the page protected fully - Acalamari, Nakon, and Maxim can all attest to the fact that semi-protection doesn't stop trolls from ED/slash-b-slash/4chan. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Only too true. Acalamari 17:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Links everywhere

Just a note that I mistakenly blocked (and then unblocked) User:I LIVE IN A HAT for adding a link to the ED article to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets‎. However, I see they are adding this link to lots of borderline places. I can understand that if there is consensus the site is notable, it should have an article, but I suggest coming down hard on adding links to ED's article in places like List of encyclopedias by branch of knowledge‎, etc. It's not like the floodgates have been opened. --barneca (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO disallows links to ED anywhere on Wikipedia, including on an article about the site itself. You may request clarification, but if he continues, he can be blocked because he knows not to. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He isn't linking to the actual site; just the article. I don't think anyone sincerely hope no one thinks external links to ED are now OK. --barneca (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There is a difference between an external link to ED on the article about ED, an external link anywhere else on Wikipedia, and internal links (wikilinks) to the article. I think barneca is talking about wikilinks to the article, not external links. Sceptre, have you misunderstood things here? Carcharoth (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding a reference to and a wikilink for an article unrelated to the topic in question can itself be disruptive. That said, I think the inclusion criteria of that list of encyclopedias could use some shoring up. I don't know that the other links are relevant to the topic, but - if they aren't - then they should be removed. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If anything ought to be banned, it's citing that awful MONGO case... by its own admission, ArbCom neither makes policy nor intervenes in content issues, so it has absolutely zilch authority over whether an article on a particular site should include a link to that site as is normal practice. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Another victory for the trolls. Splendid. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is that a drive-by comment? Carcharoth (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • How so? It is another victory for trolls. seicer | talk | contribs 14:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I voted to overturn because it just pushes into notability for web content. Just. Still, I can see where you're coming from: I do agree that wearing a Guy Fawkes mask passes WEB, but I don't agree with WEB's leniency itself because just a small spate of notability (q.v. Canada on Strike's plot) can get an article on a somewhat forgettable thing. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If it only just pushes over, it should stay out until it's unambiguous. They need Wikipedia to drive up their traffic and advertising revenue, they nearly went bust once. Incidentally, I LIVE IN A HAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has zero contributions outside of ED / 4chan and banninating him would be a rapid net gain to the encyclopaedia. We need ED trolls almost as little as we need 9/11 conspiracy kooks. I honestly think this was one of the most stupid things ever done on Wikipedia, after all h work we did to get d of their pointless elf-aggrandising article, they have agitated and agitated until it came back, but all their attacks on Wikipedians who advocated deletion remain, so the world is a bit more shitty thanks to this article. I remain unconvinced that anyone outside the ED community cares about the site at all. Guy (Help!) 15:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • More like a victory for common sense over fear and loathing, in the direction of something closer to NPOV even regarding sites our members don't like. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Precisely. Doc remarked on several occasions that our deleting Daniel Brandt would demonstrate our having, as a project and as a community, "grown up" (with which proposition I, of course, it happens, disagreed), and I'd suggest that our permitting recreation here, consistent with the principles that would guide our editing with respect to any similarly situated website, is a sign, albeit for reasons significantly different from those to which Doc refers, that we have matured in some not insignificant way. Joe 18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• I don't have a problem with trolls, but this is a trashy article about a trashy subject. I would attempt to make it less trashy but I don't have the faintest idea what it is about. An encyclopedia article should be reasonably informative to the average reader. This reads like some in-joke article written for a schoolboy magazine. There probably should be some article covering 'web culture', but it shouldn't be written in the language of 'web culture'. Translation required. Peter Damian (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

There is a backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves, in clearing which any help would be much appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Desione

Is making several uphelpful edits on wikipedia, in particular on Invasion of Goa, which he decided to change without any concencous and totally off his own back the actual name of the page to `Liberation of Goa` as with edit [18]. Can you please help and administer this user. Please also see the concencous agreement for no change which was ignored by Desione [19]--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed a double redirect here. This needs some more attention I can't give at the moment as the issue involves cut&paste moves. Agathoclea (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I made the necessary moves, deletions, and undeletions. El_C 10:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want to clarify: 1) user Rockybiggs has been following me around for months and will continue to do so in future. For him this is a personal battle. 2) There is no consensus on the name "Invasion of Goa". The original name of the article was "Liberation of Goa" and the name was changed to "Invasion of Goa" without any discussion and consensus when no one was watching. I am simply restoring move to original name. 3) I have shown evidence for the fact that the most common english name for this article is "Liberation of Gao" (see WP:COMMONNAME). Thanks Desione (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer

Resolved

 – See diff at end of thread to comment by Mike Godwin. Carcharoth (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Due to the newfound newsworthiness of this subject (see, e.g. [20] [21] [22] [23] etc), I'd like to create a new page about her. However the page is currently protected from creation with the comment 'Per WP:ANI'. I can't find any discussion about protecting this page, though; the only reference to Barbara Bauer is in this discussion, which doesn't concern Bauer at all.

Any chance of unprotecting the page? JulesH (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. The links (from May 2008, not from March/April 2007) are here and here. A WP:OFFICE action was taken to remove the planned Signpost story about this lawsuit. See here. I am presuming that this extends to the article itself. See the deletion log of Bauer v. Glatzer: "OFFICE-requested deletion; concerns should be addressed to Mike Godwin via e-mail." I presume something similar should be placed in the deletion log for Barbara Bauer, but possibly not. Maybe someone should contact Mike Godwin to get confirmation that Barbara Bauer should not be recreated either? I'm not even sure we should be having this discussion! But someone has to say "no", otherwise someone else might unwittingly unprotect and allow recreation. Please do just e-mail Mike Godwin and do not discuss here (or wait for him to say something here). Carcharoth (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Found it. See the diff from Mike Godwin here. That clinches it. I'm marking this as resolved. No action can or should be taken here, except possibly updating the article deletion log in light of recent events. Carcharoth (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've appended that diff to the Protection Log, so that it comes up when an attempt is made to recreate the article. Given that diff, I'm hesitant to restore the article, even briefly enough to append that notation, but the protection log skirts that issue. I also protected Barbara bauer, lower-case "bauer", as a possible alternative article title, citing the same diff. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Page creation is protected case insensitive - so the article is now double protected. Will need to keep this in mind in case of a future unprotection. Agathoclea (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right - this is why I don't do that many protections. Is it worthwhile to unprotect the lower-case article, or would that also unprotect the uppercase article? Or, given that the article is unlikely to be properly recreated in the near future (as per Mike Godwin), is double-secret uber-stealth protection acceptable? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I will do some testing. But at the moment I have the feeling either the case insensitivity has changed or it does take a while for the servers to catch up with it. See User:Agathoclea/ProtectionTest. Will check again tomorrow and then unprotect one to see how the second protect affects it. Agathoclea (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I had it wrong. Only the leading char is case insensitive: [24]. -- Agathoclea (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism only accounts

I often see accounts blocked as vandalism only accounts, yet when I listed Special:Contributions/RedHeffer which has only made negative edits since September, 2007 at ANI it was removed because it hadn't edited for 4 days. Isn't this completely mad? The editor clearly has no intention of making positive edits so should be blocked. If they really want to contribute positively they can start another account. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism in the sense of AIV has to be 100% obvious to everybody. A more complex situation is best handled elsewhere like on WP:ANI -- Agathoclea (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandal. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of comments:

• I can't speak for everyone, but if it's an account and not an IP, I don't care about the "must be vandalizing right now" requirement; it's the same person, they've seen the warnings.
• If it's blatantly someone out to damage the encyclopedia, I don't worry too terribly much about warnings either; but in the absense of clear, irrefutable evidence, I usually assume plenty of good faith that it might just be someone goofing around, who might, just might, be turned from the Dark Side, so I'll give 1 to 4 warnings clarify: I mean, between 1 and 4 warnings, depending on the severity, not that I always use the level-1 thru level-4 sequence. I don't. RedHeffer seems to me to be someone goofing around, and until your level-4im warning a few days ago (4 days after their last edit), they had never been warned, or welcomed, or anything. They haven't vandalized since you gave that warning.
• I don't think the account should be blocked now. If vandalism resumes, whether you catch it "active" or not, an indef "vandal only account" block is warranted.

--barneca (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems pretty nonsensical to me. This person has repeatedly added false information to articles using possibly real names of people they dislike, some which stayed there for days. If they decide to contribute positively they can start another account. By tolerating this you just allow people to game the system and make a lot of unnecessary work for WP users in reverting vandalism. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is twofold. AIV deals with obvious and warned vandalism in progress - We also warn editors before they do get blocked - which now it has been done can serve as a precedent for a future block. Gaming the system? No as people like yourself will be quick to point out that a User X is following a particular pattern of blocked/banned User Y. In fact many do get blocked without warning if their vandalism gives the impression of someone familiar with Wikipedia (it does not matter whose sock they are - they are an abusive sock). In this case it would not be a case of reporting to AN/I like you did as reporting "vandalism" will get the static response "Go to AIV". You would need to report the situation why a block outside the usual parameters of AIV is warranted. As a matter of fact more often that not I succeeded in getting blocks on complex reports on AIV before I was admined myself by being verbose enough in the report "xyz was rcently warned as user zxy (and blocked) continuing same pattern". Content misinformation has to be very obvious though and it is best to get one of two admins to familiarize with the case at hand and notifying them of future incarnations. In this particular case we are no way near that scenario and I do recommend to let things be after your warning until there is further reason to act. Agathoclea (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like we will have to monitor this account more closely and try and get the warnings on the day and preferably after each edit, as per the numerous edits 09/05/2008, before referral to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism--Rockybiggs (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, if this user returns in June, (presumably) reads the warning, and then makes another vandalism edit, and then we stumble across it in July, I would have no problem blocking the account as vandalism-only. The emphasis on "currently active" is mostly for IP addresses, which are often shared and dynamic. What we're trying to say is, for run-of-the-mill vandalism, which this is, we generally don't block without warning. And I must say, implying that admins who work at AIV are "allow[ing] people to game the system and make a lot of unnecessary work for WP users in reverting vandalism" is a little galling. --barneca (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That would all be fine if people placed warnings on people's pages when they revert but very often they don't therefore the system doesn't work properly and we are left dealing with a lot more vandalism that could easily be avoided. We should now look at the situation, and say this person knows very well that they are vandalising yet people have forgotten to place warning templates on their page but it is clear this person is not editing in good faith so we shouldn't give them further license to muck us about. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Honest Reporting" alert, criticising WP anti-wikilobby action

Thought people might want to know that the aggressive media-response alert site Honest Reporting has issued what it calls a communiqué, on the subject of WP's recent blocking of six users for wikilobbying:

Exposed - Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia

Given that the site claims 140,000 subscribers, a quick factual setting straight of the record on the piece's talkback page might be in order. Some of their readers do seem to take account of at least the first handful of comments there. Jheald (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The so-called "Honest Reporting" site appears to have some difficulty in understanding the difference between "subject" and "author". DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes you can ignore the rules, and sometimes you can not, if you want WP to have any integrity. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The cynic in me makes me wonder whether calling a website "Honest Reporting" is akin to a state calling itself a "Democratic Republic"... -- ChrisO (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The point of Honest reporting is to *expose dishonesty* in the media. Wikipedia's editors are not maintaining objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.146.205 (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Amazing how reliably words like "honest", "truth" and "fairness" have the opposite of the usual meaning when used by zealots. Anti-Israeli bias my arse. I was reading the paper while waiting for a taxi the other day, there was a lengthy article by a Johann Hari discussing this kind of crap, The Independent, 8 May. "The former editor of Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz, David Landau, calls the behaviour of these groups "nascent McCarthyism". Those responsible hold extreme positions of their own that place them way to the right of most Israelis." Anything other than uncritical adulation is unacceptable to these people, and we should wear their anger as a badge of pride, a sure sign that we are doing something right. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You can check what Honest Reporting has to say about Hari's reponse: ([25]). Because this is a matter of strong opinions, even the moderators should check their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.9.167 (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

More coverage here from the Jewish Week News: [26] -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Oboler and "Zionism on the Web"

I see that Dr. Oboler (cited in the HonestReporting link above) has also written on this subject in the Jerusalem Post's online edition ([27]), and his own Zionism on the Web project ([28]). I suspect his assertion (in the JP article) that "Electronic Intifada is ringing alarm bells, probably because those getting involved are Jews and supporters of Israel" will be met with less than universal approval.

The latter article is particularly interesting for its efforts to determine the real-life identity of User:Bangpound. I'm using the term "interesting" because there's currently a Wikipedia editor named User:Oboler who openly identifies Andre Oboler ([29]), and is actively participating in debates on this subject. I was under the impression that "outing" rival editors is something that we're not supposed to do.

I also find it interesting that Dr. Oboler once had a habit of adding "Zionism on the Web" links to sites that he visited ([30], [31]). Given that Wikipedia's article about the site was deleted as non-notable ([32]), some might be tempted to interpret this as spamming. Admittedly, these links were posted some time ago and there probably isn't anything that need be done about it now ... but it still strikes me as ironic under the circumstances. CJCurrie (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanos Papalexis

I'm sort of at a loss here...appears we have a WP:OWNership problem here. Everytime someone tags this article for its various problems User:Nemesisman removes the tags without actually doing any repair work. I stumbled on it yesterday and thought it sounded familiar, but didn't realize until this morning that I'd seen it at New Pages when it was first created. At this point he's removed tags 7 times. I welcomed them and warned them a month ago, and warned again today...Whats my next step? (Yeah, I know, SOFIXIT, what ELSE can be done, the guy obviously can write an article so how do we point him in the right direction) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Have I missed something? The article looks like an obvious db-bio candidate but, history doesn't seem to show one being added. I can't see any assertion of notability whatsoever. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible IP trolling at help desk

This thread Wikipedia:Help_desk#A_question_about_wikipedia.27s_stance_on_pedophilia strikes me as being inspired by recent less-than-honest reportage in WND and other far-right muck sites. Would some admins care to take a look? DuncanHill (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:I LIVE IN A HAT

• I LIVE IN A HAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've block I LIVE IN A HAT because he's clearly an ED troll here to campaign for the website. Just a look through his contribs show he's only been editing Encyclopedia Dramatica and 4chan pages. A review would be appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd give serious consideration to deleting this image he uploaded a few minutes ago, too - while I agree a case could be made for including a screenshot to illustrate the article, this has clearly been selected for troll value (expand to full resolution and read it). — iridescent 15:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Sadly, his friends will be along soon to work on our shiny new article. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It was an orphaned fair-use image, so I deleted it. Also, it gave me teh lulz. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I think we all knew this would happen. I think Krimpet made a good decision semi-protecting it, pre-emptive or not. I think though, that several editors will be watchlisting this article, so any content that is, well, out of line, so to speak, won't last too long, but, well, we will see as time passes, I suppose. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• No objections to the block from me. Acalamari 17:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• I endorse the block. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment - Block makes sense to me. I have the ED page watched, knowing that there is likely to be trolling/disruption. I have some ideas about what may happen, but I won't mention them here for WP:BEANS reasons. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:09, May 14, 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've protected the talk page and replaced it with {{indef}}.-Wafulz (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• No problem with the block. Hut 8.5 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Back comes the ED article, back come the ED trolls. Same ol' same ol'. I say we nuke the article, it took a few months last time but they went away aprt from their monthly deletion review. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• We should once again nuke this useless article. The trolling level has already reached a fever pitch, including a request to unprotect it (which I almost immediately declined without elaboration), and a truly startling amount of edits in the few hours the article has existed in article space. I think we're better off without the ED trolls, who don't bother us much unless ED is being discussed. Horologium (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• And I say again, why is this useless, troll-attracting article still around? seicer | talk | contribs 02:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Because troll attraction is not a characteristic which is of relevance when considering whether an article should stay or go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• If you do not want the article on Wikipedia, despite it meeting our relevant criteria for inclusion (WP:WEB), it's currently going through AFD. Participation there would be more productive. Neıl ☎ 11:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note I have no opinion either way on the ED article but I do have a thought provoking question: Are trolls and rabble rousers the standards we base our content on? If so, Depictions of Muhammad, Don Murphy, and slew of other articles should not be here. If it meets the criteria we set forth for content, keep it, defend it like any other article we have. If it doesn't, nuke it and move on. spryde | talk 15:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing on page Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya or HEMU

While I was putting citations on above mentioned page, someone edited half the page. I am finding it difficult to re-frame it. Please help.

[email removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.130.63 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Some personal attacks

So perhaps I'm just growing soft, but I figured I should bring this here. I deleted an attack page that Ryanwwf (talk · contribs) created, and another had been deleted before that. I warned him that if he continued creating attack pages he would be blocked from editing. He then proceeded to entertainingly curse me out on my talk page, and hasn't edited since. He probably could be blocked, because he has continued personal attacks, but a) I didn't want to be the one to do it, because he's attacked me, and it could be a conflict of interest and b) He hasn't edited since, so I'm tempted to just ignore it if/until he continues. But I may be going soft, because it does seem pretty much like a vandlaism only account, but yet, I figured I'd bring it here to have another admin take a look. Thanks, -- Natalya 18:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked them. You warned them for the creation of the page, but I would say that kind of attack warranted a block regardless. J Milburn (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Natalya 18:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Results of the ill-founded Betacommand decision

Please see how well Betacommand is observing the recommendation/suggestion/whatever-the-heck-that-was, that the ArbCom did in the Betacommand case. Bellwether ^B_C 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and here is how he deals with an administrator calling him on the carpet about such nonsense. Bellwether ^B_C 01:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you contacted an admin about it? They still have the authority to deal with any disruptive incidents. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted it here, so that the Arbcom could see the result of their (in)actions. And there's already an admin involved. Bellwether ^B_C 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Post back here how this goes. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I told everyone that all the remedies are useless, but nobody listened. ArbCom is failing. --Kaypoh (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the Arbitrary Committee is working normally. -- SEWilco (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Was Kurt the first to use that phrase or is it spreading? The ArbCom do good work. Even if you disagree with them, or see their decisions as arbitrary, it would be very divisive to adopt such a dismissive nickname for them. Please focus on the decisions, not the contributors (the committee). Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to their "working". If more than pronouns are used then something more specific can be discussed. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But if you use terms like that, you may discourage reform or you may discourage people from standing for election. You may also discourage sitting arbitrators. If you think something is failing, do you continue to knock it down, or do you try and support it and make constructive suggestions? Carcharoth (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How are edits like that, irrespective of any AC decision, not block worthy as outright NPA violations? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I like to warn users before blocking them, even in serious cases like this. Any admin was free to overide that and issue a block, I just do things differently. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And thats the right thing to do. And I love Beta, but these NPA violations are what... every other day? Every second day? If there is no sign of stopping, and no one is preventing him from attacking others, something is obviously broken. Why is anyone exempt from NPA? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How many warnings does Beta need to get before being blocked? It's not like he hasn't been told that his behaviour is a problem. He has been told time and again, but apparently he doesn't change. I hate to make this comparison, but any other user would have been blocked a long time ago. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because "Blocking or sanctioning Betacommand needs to be weighed against the generally productive and much needed work he brings to the project. He is honestly quite irreplacable…" [33] Mike R (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No one gets exemptions to policy. No one. Any attempts to give anyone a free pass needs to be not just shot down, but executed. Anything that makes all editors not the same in this regard is incredibly disruptive and unfair. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion should be transferred to the noticeboard so the rest of the community can comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Everyone is subjected to policy. See WP:JAIL for my thoughts on exactly the same subject. Seems to sum this up well. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:50, May 14, 2008 (UTC)

We need good editors, but only those good editors who are capable of working cooperatively on the project. Both halves are important. At the next one after this, I suggest short blocks, starting maybe at 1 hour, increasing in the usual way if needed. We dont need arb com for this--just the usual standards.DGG (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

One hour? I was thinking maybe start with a week or so. Shorter blocks have not worked. I have no confidence that longer ones will either, but at least it's something that hasn't been tried yet. Friday (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggested a week's block in the last thread on this (see my comments here); given Beta's lack of attention to any of the attention s/he's stirred up, I suggest a 10-day-block. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, a lynch mob. And TreasuryTag leading the call for a piano-wire hanging of the accused, as usual. Glad to see things don't change. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was the fourth of five editors calling for sanctions against a user who told another user to "grow a brain" - I don't call that leading a mob, I'm not sure what as usual refers to (other than the fact that you don't like my signature, Reddy) and it's reasonable that users are blocked for violating WP:CIV. And I hope you accept that the insults Beta used were violations of CIV. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

CIV is probably the most misused policy here, almost always applied to "things they said that I don't like". And I didn't say you were leading this lynch mob, just that you were the one in the lead handing out the piano wire. Ten days? Ten days? Shockingly punitive and you should be ashamed of yourself. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see things don't change. You mean like certain editors being allowed to do whatever they wish, policy and ArbCom decisions be damned? Yep, nothings changed. - auburnpilot talk 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess one editor's "lynch mob" is another editor's "finally trying to actually do something about a problem that's been ongoing for a couple years." Friday (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, we've already got a discussion about incivility going on; let's try not to add more incivility to it, if we can manage. -- Natalya 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, β should have kept the high ground there, and he did not. I would prefer nobody got blocked over this, but if he gets blocked then so should those who baited and trolled him. Gimmetrow 19:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I seriously wonder why we still have an arbcom if they never come up with any decent remedies. All they seem to do these days is not look at the evidence and end up saying something like "please be nice". Practically all conflict solutions are de facto routed around the arbcom and resolved by the community (which is a basically good thing). dab (𒁳) 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

When dealing with editors whose excellent contributions are matched only by their difficulty dealing with other editors (Betacommand and Giano are the community's two most prominent examples), I like to weigh them on something I call the House test. That is to say, does the level of quality of a specific editor's contributions outweigh the negative effect said editor may have on community morale? What effect would that editor's absence have on the quality and continued building of the encyclopedia? Is that editor's focus something that any editor can do (such as categorization, image tagging, or other "chores") or is the editor's focus something less commonly found (DYK/GA/FA-level contributions on a continuous basis, expert in a subject, experience in a field)? We allow some editors to skirt the rules because they are positive forces overall, just as how Dr. Cuddy tolerates House's antics, Vicodin addiction and disrespect for rules because he saves lives that no one else can save. Similarly, we must balance Betacommand's willingness to delve into a darker section of Wikipedia policy against Betacommand's continued problems dealing with other editors in a civil manner. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with every word of this, Hemlock, including and and the. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course; as I've long said, we would do well to evaluate everything we undertake with respect to any individual editor in the context of what the net effect on the project of that editor's presence (or of his/her involvement in a specific area of the project) is. It happens, though, that I think it (and have long thought it) to be clear that the net effect on the project of Beta's involvement is (at least in the absence of his being willing to recognize that the community are paramount and may require of him whatever level of civility they think appropriate or his being willing to comport his editing with those guidelines and standards for which a consensus of the community exists) negative—the benefits of his involvement are, IMHO, greatly overstated. What is not clear, I'd say, is where the community stand on the "net effect" question here, although I think it is fair to say that although those who think the net effect of Beta's presence to be negative remain steadfast in that belief, those long situated on the other side of the issue are steadily losing patience and rather rethinking the issue, such that a consensus on the broader issue might develop in the not-too-distant future. Joe 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with any of this; House is a TV show and can be scripted. There is no acceptable reason for someone to continually be abrasive and act in ill-manner. No one is irreplacable on Wikipedia. To hold someone to a different standard because of pervceived need or want for participation is antithesis to the wiki idea. Keegan^talk 20:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

While it is undeniably true that BC is not irreplaceable, we cannot and should not deny the effect an editor can have on the encyclopedia. What would Wikipedia look like if RickK or NYB were still active? To use examples from active editors, what would our articles on cricket and Vietnamese history look like without Blnguyen's excellent work? Would we be as comprehensive about Norse culture without Berig, or Chinese history without PericlesofAthens? The House test (and I only use House cause it'll stick in your mind better that way) isn't to establish different standards for different groups of people, but to give us something to assess how best to respond to a situation like the one Betacommand faces on a regular basis. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Now Hemlock Martinis, you know very well that the questions you pose are rhetorical and have no response available. Dragons flight's comment below more succinctly explain how I feel. Keegan^talk 04:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There are really two philosophical positions here. Hemlock has articulated one of them well: That we should accept Betacommand for who he is and weigh the good he does against the problems he creates in order to decide whether his work is net positive or negative here. The other philosophical extreme, is to argue that a just society depends on the even-handed enforcement of the rules for everyone. In other words, to ignore transgressions undermines the foundation of fairness for everyone and creates a situation where others feel entitled to ignore social norms. We don't allow great scientists or doctors to ignore traffic laws simply because we value their other contributions to society. Personally, I hail more from this second school thought. BC is still wrong for being grossly incivil irregardless of how much good he may also do.

The real problem, however, is that unlike traffic cops we don't have any effective tools for dealing with what are, in the grand scheme of things, small infractions. I'd love to see BC fined $10 every time he acts rudely towards others, but we don't have any mechanism for enforcing that. Basically the only tool we have is to block him (or not). I sympathisize with people here who think that a block is too harsh. It doesn't really fit the crime. We want him to be more controlled and more responsive to others. Blocking does litte, if anything, to accomplish that. That said, if the choice is between blocking BC for a short while, or admitting that there are no consequences for incivility, then I'd have to go with blocking. That follows from my belief that the maintenance of just and equitable social norms depends upon the reasonable expectation that those norms will be enforced. Others may disagree, but that's how I feel. Dragons flight (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the double standard of remedies, but I disagree with how we respond to it. We can't punish BC, partly because policy forbids it and partly because you can't slap a digital wrist. I would be extremely troubled by blocking BC for incivility especially given the flexibility as to what incivility is. For example, telling someone they lack a brain and to shut up is relatively minor in my personal assessment of incivility. I haven't seen (and I admit I'm not familiar with BC's history) any evidence of stalking or harassment or anything else other than snide remarks and rude comebacks. It's distasteful for such an editor to act in such an immature manner, but we can't force him to grow up. That either leaves us with blocks and bans, or warnings and inaction. And in this case, I'd rather err on the side of keeping an editor than losing one. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you, and others, look into his past in detail, it makes for invaluable reading. To cut a long story short, his behaviour as far as I see it and have been forced to read, is completely unchanged over a year to 18 months, despite 2 arbcoms, a desysopping and a failed application for re-sysopping. I am in no doubt as to the fact that beta knows exactly what the community is and is not willing to put up with regarding his behaviour, and that beta considers himself no longer part of the community per se, fully prepared to work outside it as long as his actions meet with his own personal standards of what is and isn't allowed. He has, with continual appeasement, developed his own standards regarding wp:civil etc, which, once you get into his mindset, are startlingly consistent (for which he can at least be commended), hence the complete lack of acknowledgement of any wrong doing for any infraction. Honestly, I challenge anyone to find an admission, at least without an accompanying caveat of two wrongs. Per his own personal policy framework, he believes he is acting in the interests of the community, justified due to their apparent failure to adequately protect him from attacks and people 'talking shit because they know nothing'. He is quite the creation. MickMacNee (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What's really sad about that statement is that it's true. We do allow users to skirt any rule they want to as long as they are a net positive, because there are enough admins around here who think we can't live without them. The few times someone has the balls to say, "No, that's not right, we all play by the same rules or we don't play at all", it turns into a wheel-war. --Kbdank71 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take a deep breath before commenting — we don't need to cause even more drama and flame-throwing. Thank you, Maxim_(talk) 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Asking the community to deal with Beta is like asking the African Union to deal with a diplomatic crisisAlleged personal attack removed after a warning from MSBisanz. Barring the usual staunch defenders, 99% of users just accept he is untouchable now, to pretend he is going to get blocked for anything non-capital nowadays is just pure fantasy. I pointed out a while back that reading the wording of the arbcom policy pages, remedies are actionable by administrators, and I pointed out bc's precise civility remedies. The silence was deafening. Since that case I'm aware of at least 4 cases of outright incivility from him. MickMacNee
  • Compare and contrast no less, the indefinite block I am threatened with for the above apparently unnacceptable statement. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I found a quote from Jimbo Wales that might be appropriate to all who say he's invaluable to the project...I haven't had any dealings with him but all I ever see is complaints, RFCs, ArbCom, at some point well...here it is:

"I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51 5 February 2008

Something to think about. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 21:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. I, for one, as a supporter of a "net effect" standard, certainly don't mean to suggest that the unseen consequences should be discounted; it is perhaps for that reason that I have yet to encounter a case in which I found a user's good contributions to be so great as to offset the harms caused by his/her being broadly and often disruptively incivil or otherwise unwilling to behave in a fashion that tends toward the promotion of collaboration. I simply don't think it appropriate to consider a user's problematic behavior absolutely without reference or respect to his/her constructive behavior, at least not in those cases where the effects of that problematic behavior can be roughly quantified, such that the harms caused by that problematic behavior and likely to be caused where it persists might well be weighed against the benefits accrued and likely to continue to accrue should the user remain with the project. (In this instance, I think it relatively clear that because Beta's behavior has continued for some time, including after the community expressed its disapproval of much of his manner of communication, and has caused, at least AFAIK, a non-trivial number of editors to leave the project or to edit with reduced frequency, the negative effects of his participation cannot be surmounted, or even offset, by the positive substantive effects of much of his editing.) Joe 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A more worrying cause for concern is his tendency to dismiss even people who extend him good faith in the technical aspect, that ask him neutral questions, namely the recent attempt to understand his assertion that because he uses a secret coding method, copyrighted to his employer (but shareble among trusted wikipedians), and that it is this that stops him from splitting his bot tasks, code that he is unwilling (or unable due to the unbelievable complexity and his view that the requester is an idiot and timewaster) to explain further beyond an apparently made up term. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I myself am prepared to put up with β, but there are too many editors here who are not, and we need them too. To keep this one editor, how many are we willing to risk losing? I would not assume he'll forsake us even if we prove we mean it about NPA. I don't think that poorly of him. DGG (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That Jimbo comment was his statement regarding his own blocking me "for being incivil" for a week (see here).. but BC can be uncivil all he wants, because, well, darn it, we just can't live without him and Wikipedia will fall into the abyss and be haunted by devil-smurfs for ever more.. </sarcasm>. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My essential problem with BC's behavior isn't even that he's not nice.. it's that he acts like a 15-year old. You cannot have an adult conversation with this person; he's simply not reasonable. He's unwilling or unable to collaborate in a meaningful fashion. And, since Wikipedia is inherently a collaborative project, where does this leave us? He's had plenty of time to start behaving reasonably, so it's now time to whack him with a cluestick until he either goes away or starts playing along. Friday (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone here is replaceable. If someone is capable of writing a bot or bots that can do the same work, by all means, give it a shot. I have not had the "pleasure" of direct communications with Betacommand, but from the volumes of material preceeding this discussion, it's clear to me that it is only the bot that saved this person from a long block. The bot and Betacommand can be replaced. Maybe it's finally time to do so. DarkAudit (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I dislike the equation X = a license to be rude. WP:NPA is policy; it applies to all of us. Yes, we can be lenient up to a point for temporary lapses, but no amount of useful work creates a permanent exemption from the consequences of habitual violation. Durova^Charge! 07:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the negative effect of Betacommand's style of communication that you can't see from just one or two diffs: it makes people reluctant to get involved with certain areas of Wikipedia policy, because doing so could get them into a nasty confrontation with Betacommand. Most people would rather work on things where they don't get insults hurled at them on a regular basis. The people who do get involved are mainly the ones who are already in a conflict with Betacommand. (I suppose I'd include myself there.) This isn't a good thing, because it severely hinders reasonable discussion. It's very hard to un-polarize a discussion with Betacommand in it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the above, I believe that if Betacommand acts up in such a manner again, it needs to be posted here, and someone can block him for a week. I know I'd support that. He's also on a last warning still not to fuck around with his bot and use it to disrupt things to make a point. Neıl ☎ 10:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And that is the problem, imo. BC does something, and we tell him that next time, he will be blocked. Next time, BC isn't blocked, but warned that he will be blocked next time. And again. And again. He gets away with disruption and incivility every time. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The "other" final warning is for dicking around with his bot (ie, spamming a user who he'd argued with with a few hundred templates), where I warned BC if he did something like that again, he'd be blocked for at least a week. He hasn't done anything like that since. Neıl ☎ 12:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Odd new account creations?

The user creation log bears looking at, for the new users added from 21:53 onwards ... two entries per new user. Not a normal pattern. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed the same issue on the RC feed and have alerted the system administrators. Nakon 22:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by brion. Nakon 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

TFA move protection

As mentioned in a previous discussion on this board, I am no longer going to be move protecting the main page featured articles. It seems nobody has filled the role, and today's article has been moved by a vandal. Can I have an admin volunteer to fill this role? - auburnpilot talk 02:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help out. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a good reason we shouldn't indefinitely move protect all featured articles? Gimmetrow 02:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking "Why should we indefinitely move protect all featured articles?" to which I would response "Why indefinite?" Move protecting while actually featured on the main page seems reasonable but doing so indefinitely does not. What am I missing or not understanding? --ElKevbo (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Because most FA moves are either vandalism, POV, or ill-thought forks. An article through FA usually has the appropriate name for its content. Gimmetrow 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but I disagree. In any case, this doesn't seem to be the right place for this discussion. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the right place? Gimmetrow 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the best place. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Seresin. - auburnpilot talk 03:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and move protected all the current scheduled TFAs with the exception of Lion which was indefinitely sprotected from editing/moving. Hope that helps a bit :).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Moves are only available to autoconfirmed users in Wikipedia by default, so the move protection status of lion was no different than any unprotected page. I've added move protection to the article. Graham87 12:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Solution

I discussed this with east718, and he worked out a simple script to run under his account to move-protect the day's FA for 24 hours and 2 minutes, starting at 23:59 UTC. Call it a bot if you wish, but it is a script to move protect the FA without anyone wondering why the FA redirects to Poop since someone went to pick up dinner. He's going to run it, and any criticism/suggestions are welcome here, at my talk page, or his. Keegan^talk 05:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Tor node

Resolved

Could somebody please block User:140.247.60.83, confirmed Tor node? Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 03:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 04:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Disgusting vandalism

Resolved

 – warned, not active, moving on

The IP User:96.245.92.31 has been severely vandilizing articals, replacing their content with some of the nastiest stuff I've ever seen. Just look at some of the edits they've made! It's sickening! I redid their edit on the Zenon page, but it was horrible!24.3.180.166 (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning on their talk page. Next time feel free to report blatant vandals at WP:AIV.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

They haven't edited in 3 hours. Any further action would be moot at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

24.3, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Grandmasterka 08:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Moulton (un)ban

Moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Given the recent dramaz relating to this user and the_undertow (see WP:RFAR#The_undertow), a fair bit of confusion has arisen as to if this user is actually banned or not.

Relevant links

1. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moulton
2. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Moulton#Enough
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive297#Moulton
4. ArbCom appeal

Let's try and treat this the way we normally treat a ban/unban discussion and put aside the_undertow's antics for a bit. To get the ball rolling I promise we as a community unban (and subsequently, unblock) Moulton and allow him to resume editing. I say this because I see no significant discussion in the original ban discussion (ANI archive 297) and am willing to extend a second chance, over six months later.

But I'm not the community; we are. Comments, please. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's banned. Tagging notwithstanding, if there is someone willing to unblock, he's "blocked without consensus to unblock" not banned. I'm not prepared at this time to support an unblock, because I'm not completely sure that Moulton would edit constructively within our norms, based on his own communications with me, but I think there is merit in investigating the matter, especially the manner in which we got to where we are now. There may well be learnings here on how to deal with academics more effectively, in a way that doesn't sour them on wikipedia. Were I to get a positive committment from Moulton to edit within our norms that I felt was credible, I would support an unblock, with probation and monitoring, as we have done for other users. ++Lar: t/c 10:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a probation and a commitment from Moulton would be necessary. naerii - talk 10:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't see enough "disruptive" behaviour in the original discussions to support a ban on Moulton. He's a bit of an oddball, yeah, but there was no consensus (unless a 'consensus' amongst a small group of editors counts) and I see no wider discussion. To be honest I've never really understood why he was indefinitely blocked in the first place, and would like to see him unblocked and given a chance to make helpful contributions. There is nothing to stop us reblocking if he does turn out to be disruptive, and I'm sure many eyes will be on his contributions should that happen. Moulton is obviously knowledgable on some topics and I think that if there's a chance that we could draw on that knowledge, we should take it :) naerii - talk 10:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see the people who support a continued block lay out reasons as to why it is inadvisable. As is obvious, nobody wants to let a disruptive editor back on. Please try and avoid unnecessarily drama-causing statements such as "recruiting meatpuppets" as also content-free phrases such as "Civil POV-pusher." Reading the original statement at the RfC, I see that the statements that are reported as being disruptive are almost identical to those made by a dozen outside observers in the recent push towards consensus at Talk:Rosalind Picard. I'd like to see more specific complaints about misrepresentation of sources, or extensive POV-pushing. I'd also like to see MastCell comment on talkpage abuse, and Moreschi on what he saw as OR, since those are two editors that I generally agree with. I lean towards not thinking an unblock necessary at this time, but I'd like to see some actual reasons, not mad rushes to judgment. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Given Moulton's experience with Wikipedia, I would be pleasantly surprised if he decided to contribute after this. An unblocking would be a reasonable manner in which to begin to try and resolve Moulton's case (for want of a better word). I believe Moulton's blocking issues stemmed from his opposition to the labelling of scientists (particularly Rosalind Picard) as supporting Intelligent Design on their biographical articles. Neıl ☎ 11:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As one of the editors who interacted with Moulton and tried to meet his concerns, the evidence presented understates the tendentiousness of his talk page insistence on justifying his edit warring by rambling on about his own ideas of "standards" which are very much at odds with Wikipedia policies. There is also a question of whether he actually made any constructive edits, his emphasis was very much on removing properly sourced information on the basis of his own original research. He continues to campaign off-wiki for Wikipedia to be changed to accord with his ideas. Has there been any indication that he has changed? . . dave souza, talk 11:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As anyone whose spent as much time whacking fringers and POV-pushers as I have knows, "removing sourced information" is quite frequently a "constructive edit".

Campaigning off-wiki for changes to WP policy are also, IIRC, not considered inappropriate. Or are we going to ban Phil Sandifer for campaigning on the mailing list prior to trying to change policy on verifiability here? Or Doc Glasgow for doing the same at the Stalk Board?

If the central problem is that he goes on too much, a strict enforcement of WP:TALK should certainly be enough, IMO. I tend to be pretty strict on the subject, removing or blanking off-topic discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, I look forward to your support should I find it necessary to apply it. I disagree with your enthusiasm for WR. .. dave souza, talk 14:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As some may know, I've chatted a little to Moulton, and will be chatting with him again tomorrow in a public conversation over at WP:NTWW (all are welcome, and if you'd like to speak with Moulton at all, it's not a bad opportunity). I think it's fair to say (without prejudice) that Moulton is quite angry at how matters played out here, and would like some assurance or recognition that something went awry in his case - I still haven't figured out quite what went on, despite having ploughed through an awful lot of material - it's very very muddy waters from my perspective. I personally would be happy for Moulton to be unblocked - particularly given the obvious level of scrutiny any and all edits would face - he's neither an 'under the radar' kind of guy, nor an irredeemable wiki-editor in my view. Privatemusings (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Moulton was banned because he was trying to whitewash away some embarrassing facts about his colleague of his - Rosalind Picard - from her article. It took months of tedious work on the part of several knowledge editors in this area to debunk his claims (that the NY Times are not a reliable source, that they didn't really mean to include her, etc), and he never really did accept that he was flatly wrong. His contributions were not beneficial in any way - he was an SPA whose contribution was to simply waste everyone's time. And he was community banned for it. Now people who did absolutely nothing to deal with the problems he caused the last time around are proposing we forget all of the above, and pretend like he was a useful contributor, or had the potential to be. He was no such thing. Raul654 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree I did nothing to deal with "the problem" when it took place—I wasn't aware of it at the time and am not pretending I was. But that doesn't answer the question being asked—is Moulton banned? And if not, why not give him a second chance? Admittedly, most of his work was done on the Picard article and in relation to other ID related issues, but he also made useful contributions to (to take a random example) Characterization. More of this, less of the undiscussed "whitewashing", and we have a good contributor. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Raul, please back up your assertions with arguments, as I requested. Diffs about "whitewashing" that are substantively different from arguments independently made recently by those who have absolutely no connection with either Moulton, Rosemary Picard, or ID-pushers would be a start. Nobody is going to unblock the fellow without taking your concerns into consideration, but surely you need to demonstrate their weight first. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be asking me to provide a "substantially different" set of problem behaviors Moulton was banned for then was previously discussed on the Rosalind Picard talk page. That simply is a non-starter. He was banned for the reasons he was banned -- that he tried to whitewash the article. This is documented in excruiating detail on his RFC. Edits like this (linked from that RFC) are par for the course -- notice the hagiographic tone, the fact that he has completely removed any mention of the fact that she signed the petition (a total whitewash, as it were). Raul654 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Raul: When I compare the Picard article as it was then to the way it is now, I see a previous article that was a WP:COATRACK, because it gave undue weight to one episode in this person's life. That the event was properly sourced is not disputed by me. What is disputed by me is the slant the article had. It was at the time, in my view, a clear WP:BLP violation, and badly needed correction. Moulton went about it all wrong. But guess what? So do a lot of other people. See WP:DOLT for some tangential but related thinking on dealing with newbies that have issues. See also some essays on how the academic model of discourse may not be completely compatible here. In my view, Moulton's old approach wasn't going to work here. But if there is reason to believe he now realises that, and wants to change his approach, I'd support an unblock. At the present time, I don't see that. But a blocked editor that we are willing to unblock under conditions is not a banned editor. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just had another round of communication with Moulton and I see no change in his position, which is (paraprhased and any inaccuracy introduced is mine) that he does not wish to edit here without a review of what occurred having happened first (in particular, he wishes that these concerns be addressed). I'm not sure that's going to happen. Therefore, I see no pressing need to lift the block at this time, but I however continue to state that he is not banned. There are conditions under which I, an administrator in good standing, would lift the block, therefore there is not unanimous consent for a ban, and therefore this user is not banned, merely indefinitely blocked. I have changed the template used on his user page to reflect that. It is a distinction with no practical effect on his ability to edit, but a distinction that matters nonetheless. ++Lar: t/c 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As the original blocking admin, I am involved, but would like to state (possibly pointlessly) that Lar is correct: under these conditions "indef blocked" not "banned" is the accurate term. That said, I don't know anyone who hasn't accidentally used the wrong term once or twice, whether "block" when they meant "ban" or similar errors, and it would be nice if everyone overlooked any mis-statements or disagreements about terminology and avoided nasty accusations and ABF. It doesn't help the situation a bit and only introduces bickering about non-issues. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What ban? there was no ban - FM just randomly decided he was the community and added the template on his on initiative - but the template does not make it so. Viridae^Talk 12:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

H₂O, would you be willing to "keep an eye" on Moultan for a while if you unblock him? Your answer to this question is the same as mine to whether I'd support your unblocking him. WilyD 12:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am if he isn't. Or jointly, because I suspect I already know Giggy's answer will be yes. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-admin idiot who changed his mind about Moulton during the RfC, I wonder if the Arbcom decision not to hear an appeal of his ban (and it's worth reading the arbitrator's opinions) has any bearing on whether or not he should be considered banned.

I also wonder why we are having this debate now (other than the_undertow's actions). Is there any evidence that Moulton realises that anything he did was wrong, and if so, where is it? I just can't reconcile the view that he's going to contribute constructively with the view that Wikipedia is responsible for turning a respectable academic into a... never mind. Let's just say that, if the WR posts I've read are anything to go by, he's quite sure that any fault lay on the part of Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I suspect it goes without saying, I would also find this sufficient. WilyD 13:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• In these more enlightened times, I'm pretty sure we can link to WR where relevant - Moulton's version of how he came to be blocked is here, which I think is relevant. If fifty percent of what he says is accurate, his block was unfair. Neıl ☎ 13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Banning policy, if no uninvolved admin is willing to overturn the block, he's banned. Maybe the undertow is in fact involved, but if another were to agree with his rationale and call for a review or unblock, would he not be de facto unbanned? Wizardman 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that we're ignoring that it has been raised on Rfar, and we are currently waiting to see if ArbCom will clarify, whether their declining to hear his appeal changed the status of his case at all; it may be that changed his status from indef blocked to banned. It may be that it changed nothing, in which case as Wizardman notes the undertow is arguably involved, and is not the requisite "uninvolved admin". If a completely uninvolved admin were to state his/her willingness to unblock, then I agree, he would be de facto not banned - but he would still be indef blocked, with no consensus to unblock, as noted by Lar near the beginning of this thread. All that said, FM was justified in stating he was banned per the evidence available - no uninvolved admin was willing to unblock - and I find Viridae's attack on FM sadly divisive to no purpose. Viridae, I suggest you strike that accusation.

As Moulton is either indef blocked with no consensus to unblock, or banned, what is the best course forward? I concur with SheffieldSteel, nothing has changed regarding Moulton except that the undertow unblocked him, without, I might add, even bothering to post such a potentially disruptive unblock on AN/I, which is done for even fairly minor changes of block duration, let alone for unblocking indef blocked editors. This is insufficient rationale for unblocking - that a rogue, possibly involved, admin unblocked without community input. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly wrong in one point, and with it crumbles much of your statement. An admin deciding that they are willing to unblock does not make them stop being uninvolved. If they were uninvolved before they made that decision, they remain uninvolved after it. I have seen zero evidence presented that the undertow is an involved admin; the lack of such evidence is significant given that almost every other smear under the sun is being thrown at him. With no evidence for the undertow being involved prior to the unblock; he is and remains an uninvolved admin for the purpose of considering Moulton. So it is clear, solely from his action, that Moulton is not now banned. (It is debatable if Moulton was ever banned; I haven't yet concluded on that.) GRBerry 14:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you were at all accurate about my reasoning, you would be accurate, but as you are "clearly" stating my reason is that he's willing to unblock makes him "involved" and you're dead wrong about that, your whole statement is pointless. Feel free to ask any questions about my reasoning, rather than leap to such conclusion in the future. It wastes everyone's time to read such fantasizing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would perhaps say that if you were involved at the time, or now, it was not because of the block itself but rather because of previous history, if any, in editing in the somewhat contentious ID related area, which was a focus of some of the article disputes that lead to the block as I understand it. There are those that assert you do edit in that area, is that a correct assertion? ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Lar? GRB and I are discussing whether the undertow is an involved or uninvolved editor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To answer Lar's question, which is relevant to the overall discussion but differentfrom this subthread, I think this diff is sufficient evidence that KC listed himself as an editor in the intelligent design area. He remains listed as a participant in that project. GRBerry 16:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nod. to KC (the first reply :) ): I would note that in my imperfect understanding, ArbCom declined to review the matter (with one possible outcome being an overturn of a community banning), that is, declined to review the actions OF the community. If there is no longer consensus for a community ban, that overrides ArbCom's decline to review it, in my view. Unblocking him is, in my view, not going against an ArbCom finding. (but I see no pressing need for an unblock, unless we are applying something akin to a "we don't think we did anything wrong but we are unblocking you anyway so you can go away in good grace" reasoning that has been used with other WR regulars, given what I said above that he's not likely to edit constructively, or at all, for that matter, at this time) To GRB: I agree, I don't see 'tow as involved the way that others such as Raul, Fill, FM, etc are. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the unblock of Moulton, and don't believe a community of six involved editors have the authority to ban someone. Powers were abused in this case, and I believe Moulton deserves a second chance, as he did make constructive edits. I'd also be willing to keep an eye on his contributions and be available to answer questions for him. Lara❤Love 14:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Powers were abused? Really? Whose? Mine, as the one who indef'd? If not, then who? Please either be specific or retract that very serious accusation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed to unblocking. Strongly. And a community ban remains a ban by definition: Wikipedia:BAN#Community_ban "Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" '". Moulton was not and remains not interested in collaboratively writing an encyclopedia, only in promoting a certain view on a single topic, consensus or NPOV be damned. The Arbcom recognized this when it rejected his request to be unblocked. As seen in his comments and efforts offsite, nothing has changed with Moulton, and he's simply unsuited to be editing Wikipedia, a fact the Arbcom recognized. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'd forgotten that, so yes, he's banned. No amount of discussion changes that. However, my point about bickering about terminology still stands - and I'm pleased to see that FM at least is not accusing those debating this point of BF. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, FeloniousMonk is misrepresenting what happend in that ArbComm appeal. Moulton asked the AbComm "to review the issues of due process that I am placing before the ArbCom" Wikipedia and the ArbComm doesn't do due process; so of course they rejected that request. The committee did not reject an appeal to be unblocked; the rejected a request for due process. As such, their decision there matters nought at all. GRBerry 14:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Further, a community ban requires consensus. Just as in the Mantammoreland case, in which a lack of consensus resulted in a reversal of a block, there is not demonstrated consensus for a community ban in this matter at this time. Certainly some are arguing for it, yes. And some are arguing against it. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think unblocking Moulton is a singularly bad idea. Aside from the actual edit warring at Picard's biography, and Tour's biography and at A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, which was considerable, and threats and other assorted bad behavior on the talk pages, the most fundamental problem with User:Moulton was his belief that a large fraction of the traditions, conventions, rules and policies of Wikipedia must be changed immediately if not sooner, by fiat issued by him. He has never renounced this belief to my knowledge and in fact continues to lobby for this position off-wiki extensively.

A more extensive discussion of my position is found here--Filll (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Having thought about this a while, and reviewed more of the evidence than I had previously, I come to the following conclusions. 1) The original block and the RFC are quite problematic, because the articles he was accused of whitewashing or otherwise inappropriately editing were at the time egregious violations of our policies, most importantly WP:BLP, but also WP:NPOV. 2) The undertow's unblock was quite bold, but reasonable; in the original ANI thread announcing the block, the blocking admin said "Per usual, if anyone wishes to unblock feel free." As such, the unblock could reasonably be understood as having the explicit consent of the blocking admin, so no discussion prior to unblocking was needed. 3) There are conditions under which I would be willing to unblock Moulton. They are broadly similar to those Lar has described, namely editing within norms and being willing to work with our communal processes. 4) Moulton is not now a banned editor. (It is not worth concluding whether he ever was.) 5) I doubt that Moulton is currently willing to deal with the fact that this is encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but I could be wrong on this point. 6) It is unlikely that a consensus for an unsupervised unblock will emerge soon. 7) It would be best if his return was accompanied by supervision, but I expect the supervisors will have as much to do in educating those opposed to Moulton but in the wrong themselves as they will in educating Moulton. 8) If any admin receives any private indication of willingness to edit within norms, Moulton's talk page should be unprotected so he can make such statements publicly here. GRBerry 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent with 1. I disagree with 2 -- when you have someone who has been indefinitely blocked for a substantial period of time, an unblocking should always be preceded by discussion. The block belongs not only to the original admin, but also to all those who did not unblock immediately. While the "one admin willing to unblock" standard is good for creating bans, it should not be interpreted legalistically when it comes to judging whether they should continue. I think the undertow had a significant lapse in judgment here.

With 4 -- the difference between "indefinitely blocked with no immediate prospect of unblocking" and "indefinitey banned" is very small. I would say, personally, that it is pretty much meaningless. Is he banned? Well, he can't edit Wikipedia from that account. That's the actual reality, rather than the theory, which can be highly misleading.

The question that needs answering is not "is this block valid?" (I say "block" rather than "ban" solely to avoid legalistic disputation) but "is this block right?" I would be interested in hearing from him -- he can feel free to email me (smoddy@gmail.com). Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is what I've been trying to say with my pleas to stop bickering about the terminology. Thanks, Sam. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Moulton was blocked because of his behaviour. There's no indication that he has any desire to change his behaviour. So why should he be unblocked?

Moulton's problem is with the core principles of Wikipedia - he appears to be unable to grasp the fact that he cannot substitute his own experience for a reliable source. It isn't all that strange a situation for a new editor. I'm sure most people have read a newspaper article and thought "they got that completely wrong. And many of us have, early in our Wikipedia career, changed an article, despite it being sourced, because we "knew better". It's a typical newbie mistake. But it's explained to us, we accept it as "the rules", and eventually, we come to embrace sourcing because we see how important it is to the accuracy of the project as a whole. Moulton never made it past the first step. As late as his RFC, he still expressed surprise when he was told that Wikipedia is not the place to publish original thought - that despite being told that Wikipedia is not the place to publish original thought for months repeatedly prior to his RFC.

Moutlon was blocked because he was unwilling to adhere to our core principles. If there was some indication that he recognised the problem and was willing to change, then an unban may be in order. But he has done no such thing. So why unban him? Guettarda (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I support unblocking him. I'm not sure whether or not his initial treatment was fair, but either way it's been long enough and he should get another chance. Everyking (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So what has changed?--Filll (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that we should never consider anyone beyond redemption. We block people who are actively damaging the encyclopedia, to prevent further harm to the encyclopedia. If Moulton returns and edits within our communal norms, then he's no longer damaging the encyclopedia. If he repeats offensive behavior patterns, he can be blocked again. So where's the harm? FCYTravis (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I give notice here that I am willing to unblock Moulton, on the (standard) requirement that he edits within communal norms and policies. I will not do so immediately, in the interests of reducing Wikidrama, but will give time for those opposed to propose good reasons as to why this should not be done. FCYTravis (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Deconstructing "recruiting meatpuppets"

What others seem to call "recruiting meatpuppets" actually follows a simple pattern - and one that involves no wrongdoing on anyone's part. Moulton says there is a problem with an article (he's allowed to have an opinion, and he's allowed to state his opinion, and this is as far as his actions go, full stop). Someone else, who is not banned and therefore who is free to edit articles, *gasp* _agrees_ that the article violates BLP or whatever, and makes an edit using their own judgement.

This is NOT meatpuppetry, this is not "proxy editing", this is nothing more than people fixing BLP issues with articles on people that for some reason a certain group of editors wants to smear as "anti-evolution". --Random832 (contribs) 13:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Here Moulton calls for very specific edits to two specific articles: WikipediaReview, May 12, 2008 And here a new user, one who is engaged in the same behavior as Moulton in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose - Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets the very definition of a meatpuppet, making his first two and only edits in the article namespace matching Moulton's above requested content word-for-word within hours of Moulton's request: May 12, 2008May 12, 2008 And here's the new editor acknowledging he acted in response to Moulton's call: [34] An editor who is engaged in the same behavior as Moulton and in the same context, and who appears to be editing solely for that purpose is by defintion Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets meatpuppetry. I have 16 more links of Moulton directing others, calling for certain edits. Would you like to go through each one as above? FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. If someone "calls" for an edit to an article by proposing text (on a talk page, in a blog, at some other site that I happen to read, or by mailing to me or whatever form the communication takes), and I happen to think that, after reviewing the article, that the text is good, or close to good, and thus use it verbatim or with little modification, that does not mean I am that person's meat puppet. It means that I am happy to take constructive input about ways to improve articles where ever I may happen to find it, and I stand behind the edit I made, not the other person. That was pointed out to you (in rather less detail) on your talk page, in the very diff you cite as evidence of puppetry. I think you may have overstepped a bit in your use of terms here. For the record, I am always happy to receive suggestions about improvements to articles, which I will act on or not, as I choose, and I am no one's puppet. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this does NOT contradict my stated intention to blanket mass revert the edits of editors who are banned and "singularly unwelcome" here. Mass reverting allows for someone else to then come in and selectively choose to incorporate material and stand behind it themselves. If I saw a sock of Moulton editing here I could very well revert all the edits that sock made without any inconsistency. ++Lar: t/c 15:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lar speaks very sensibly here. A good edit should never be considered "tainted" because of who supports it. Content can be considered strictly on its own merits, without regard to who is on which side. Friday (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. Are you saying it's ok to recruit meatpuppets if some editors in good standing decide to adopt the advice as their own? . . dave souza, talk 15:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, he's saying making a reasonable edit after noticing a blocked editor had suggested it does not amount to "recruiting meatpuppets" in the first place. If I see a blocked user point out a BLP violation on Wikipedia Review or anywhere else, my first instinct is to check it out, and fix it. I don't care if a blocked user was the first to notice it. I wouldn't consider myself to then be a meatpuppet for that user. Just in case I wasn't clear earlier, I support unblocking Moulton, as the circumstances of his indef block (not a ban - a ban indicates consensus - for which there is none, based on the above) were dubious, and as there's no doubt his actions would be monitored by more than one admin, if he does end up broaching policies, he can always be reblocked. Neıl ☎ 15:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would direct anyone who agrees with this line of reasoning to consider the recently forged and hard-fought consensus at Rosalind Picard which was almost immediately discarded by a new editor who admitted he was following Moulton's off-wiki direction. Is this the kind of editing environment you advocate? Where consensus stands for nothing?--Filll (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not remotely. Coming in and disregarding existing consensus is disruptive. This is true regardless of whether he was following some instructions or not. Friday (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure what this has do to with the discussion, really. I'm also not sure Moulton saying "I do not agree with the content of this article" can fairly be characterised as "off-wiki direction". Neıl ☎ 15:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Friday and Neil, but I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the consensus. Are you sure that the lowering of the amount of coatracking this article contains is due to your personal efforts, or is it more likely that it was a consensus reached against your wishes, that is, that the article is in a state you do not personally agree with is the correct weighting in that it doesn't emphasise the petition enough? The article in my view, still could stand improvement, even now. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I was on that talk page trying to get some discussion rather than the insult flinging and hate spewing I saw. I got threatened for my efforts with some sort of "outing". Consensus should not be built via wikibullying those who disagree with you away. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As I stated before, you were not threatened and that was a poorly stated post and a misunderstanding. I apologized before for any misunderstanding and I apologize again. That is off-topic in any case.--Filll (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Accepted. I will now disengage. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I would dispute some of the characterization of my position and editing as recounted above. But is this really the place for such a debate?--Filll (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

This will be a bit lengthy, but please bear with me. I'm going to speak carefully here, recognizing that Moulton is a real and identifiable person with a real career and real feelings. There are a couple of issues here:

• The legitimacy of his block/ban/what-have-you. Several editors have questioned this, some in more unfortunate and inflammatory language than others. The fact is that Moulton was indefinitely blocked after an RfC; his block was posted to WP:AN/I for comment; he appealed through numerous channels, from emailing various admins to unblock-en-l to Mike Godwin to ArbCom; and all of those lines of appeal were rejected. That was a legitimate and transparent block, according to Wikipedia's current standards - it was not unilateral, or unreviewed, or underhanded, or nefariously contrived by a handful of evil people, and anyone suggesting that it was is either ignorant of the facts or twisting this case to pursue a wider agenda (or both). The process of undoing such a block begins with discussion, not with a unilateral unblock, and I'd like to think that most admins have at least that much common sense. That said, there's clearly a feeling right now that this block needs to be reviewed again, so let's do it.
• My views were expressed here back in 12/07, and haven't changed much. When it comes to unblocking someone, the most useful question is: "Has anything changed since the block? Is there any reason to think that anything will be different?" I see nothing to suggest that it will. Virtually all of Moulton's attempts to get unblocked, here and on WR, are couched in terms of smiting people he believes have wronged him. Nowhere is any acknowledgement that his own actions or behavior might have played some role in the outcome of the situation, nor an indication of a desire to contribute useful content. These absences makes it much harder to believe that an unblock will prove constructive.
• I had no involvement in the whole Rosalind Picard thing; my take on the essential problem was that Moulton interacted largely in the form of abstract meta-diatribes. I hesitate to use the T-word, but I found his approach to be "trolling" in the pure sense - that is, editing with the primary goal of getting a rise or reaction out of other editors. It was a singularly unconstructive approach. Interestingly, my sense is that Wikipedia Review has been much more successful at handling Moulton's MO than we were. Many or most of his posts are simply ignored on WR, whereas Wikipedians, unfortunately, were unable to avoid engaging him on his terms with a resultant death spiral of argumentative silliness, to which Moulton was not the sole contributor.

I wish Moulton the best in general, but I'm against an unblock on practical terms - I see no benefit coming to the encyclopedia, particularly given that Moulton is still filing Petitions for Redress of Grievances which admit no responsibility, and has given no reason for us to expect anything other than a repetition of the same issues if he's unblocked. I'd like to see a separation between the fundamental question - whether an unblock will help the encyclopedia - and subsidiary issues like block vs. ban, grievances about the community ban process, etc. If the community consensus is to unblock, then I'd like to see specific guidelines in place on appropriate talk page use, along with one or more dedicated mentors to guide him on working within Wikipedia's policies and structures and review of his contributions at set periods to determine whether he should remain unblocked. I'm happy to go into more detail or discuss this further, but I think this post is long enough, so I'll leave it there for now. Incidentally, as the admin who protected Moulton's talk page, I'm going to unprotect it so that he can post directly there rather than having to email or post offsite to participate. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying meatpuppetry edits and banned users

Just to clarify a running thread in this discussion (no opinion on the fate of Moulton from me). So... if a banned user says "Article x on Wikipedia has a problem with content A-B-C for reasons X-Y-Z," anyone here making matching changes is then editing on behalf of a banned user? What if they are good edits--removing typos, BLP violations, or just really good suggestions for a content change? If that is reversible, because it's on "behalf of a banned user", if we enforse this, all that is required is for the banned people at Wiki Review to just keep giving good suggestions. Am I misunderstanding this? Wouldn't it make sense to only apply this standard to BAD edits? If, for example, someone at WR says to say Abraham Lincoln had a pet elephant, and someone added that fact (beyond it being stupid vandalism) that would be bad. But if someone at WR says that the 7th footnote on Abe's article would be better with different wording--and gosh, someone agrees--and implements that wording: is this a bad act? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete a redirect?

Halp, I stumbled on a Video Game stub named "Inside Moon" and found that the game is just called "Moon" so I moved the page but could someone delete the redirect? [35] It doesn't link anywhere. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. You can also request that by using {{db-author}}. Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought about it, but wasn't sure since it was an article move type redirect? I wasn't sure if it needed more explaination...thank you for sorting it out :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

New Wikipedia logo

Please see Wikipedia:VPR#Wikipedia logo improvement for a discussion regarding improvement of the Wikipedia logo. I've uploaded a new version of the logo, and since this would be a major change, I'm guessing it would need wide consensus, so I'm posting a notices around. Please direct any comments to the Village pump discussion. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)