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.

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.[1] On May 8, TTN requested that the Bulbasaur article be redirected.[2] On May 11, TTN requested a merge of Sonic the Hedgehog character articles.[3][4] 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.[5] This is explicitly in violation of his restrictions, which regardless are supposed to be "interpreted broadly".[6] Contrary to some assertions, he was not responding to a prior conversation, but rather the first party acting.[7] 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)

Note. I have made an unblock proposal to TTN.[8] If he agrees to fully refrain from initiating merge/redirect/etc discussions, and to avoid getting others to so do on his behalf, until the ArbCom clarifies his case, I am willing to unblock immediately. Vassyana (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN accepted.[9] He is unblocked. Vassyana (talk) 15:14, 17 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)

Sceptre, I reported TTN to AE because I was reading WT:AFD, which Masem linked to from WT:NOT, which you know I've been commenting at for quite some time now. At WT:AFD, Masem mentioned TTN and linked to a thread TTN started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. I looked at that thread and Anomie asked TTN "Weren't you restricted from requesting merges, redirections, or deletions of character articles?" I looked up the thread and TTN had requested a merge of TV character articles on a project page, which is a violation of his restrictions. My two recent blocks have nothing to do with TTN and your suggestion that reporting an editor to AE for violating their restrictions is "inflaming the dispute" is ridiculous. You say I was blocked twice "for being disruptive in fiction" but that's false. Refuting all your false claims about me is getting really old. Now excuse me while I disengage. --Pixelface (talk) 06:44, 17 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? [10][11]
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.[12] 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)

Policies and guidelines? That's a bit outside the scope of reason. It's highly unlikely he'd be making an edit "that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding" to such a page. It's even more improbable that such a narrow restriction was intended. If such limited scope was the intent, ArbCom almost assuredly would not have used a wide reference to project space, nor used the qualifier "to be interpreted broadly". Vassyana (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We specifically talked about it on multiple occasions, regarding if TTN was allowed to ask another editor to redirect or merge something, during and after the arbcom case. As a party of that case, and one who agreed that TTN was going the wrong way about some of his tactics, I can assure you that most of us were under the honest impression that there were no restrictions to discussions. It doesn't make any sense for arbcom to restrict him from project talk spaces.

Further more, TTN even stated that he wasn't under that impression, and pleaded that we get clarification from arbcom. We had requests for clarification for that same case that was weeks old, and we still haven't heard anything from them.

TTN is a good editor. Just because someone has arbcom restrictions placed on him doesn't suddenly make that person a delinquent. I don't think TTN ever had any real issue with civility, and get I see people bringing that up. You guys don't even know what you're talking about, and you're just assuming that he's out there to be a bad boy. We don't throw away AGF for every aspect of an editor, simply because they had some problems handling certain situations.

And yet you still went and blocked him. Talk about completely missing the point. -- Ned Scott 04:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ned, I respect a lot of what you say, but you need to calm down. I'm not "campaigning to drive TTN off the project." He's welcome to contribute to the site. But he violated the restrictions that the ArbCom imposed upon him. And I'm not the only one who thinks that. And I suggest you send an email to the arbcom mailing list for clarification of their ruling, lest you find yourself blocked for meatpuppeting for TTN through email. --Pixelface (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't get blocked for meat puppetry if I'm not acting as a meat puppet. I've offered to consider TTN's requests, but never to blindly act upon them. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 17 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)

He wasn't fighting about anything, he was engaging in valuable discussion on actual article issues (and ones where several other editors in good standing agree with him). TTN is already under a restriction, because the only thing he was doing wrong was forcing edits/ edit warring. This activity in discussions was never an issue, and it certainly isn't here. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• TTN is prohibited...from making any edit to an article or project page...that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor. TTN started a discussion advocating a merge, the result of the arbcom made it clear thats he's not allowed to, and the arbcom clearly meant that a prohect page counts, otherwise why would they include it. While TTN probably should have only been blocked a week, as per the ruling, it should be noted that he hasn't requested an unblock<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s"> himself--Jac16888 (talk) 05:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything. He could be guilty, he could be willing to take the block, or he could be holding back an unblock request because of what I perceive as a lynchmob who will stick him into a room with Charles Manson and not look back if he so much as pops in colored contact lenses. I'm guessing the third. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 06:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Damn, you've found me out. Now what should i do with my charles manson room? Seriously though, the arbcom ruling does clearly state one week, he would be perfectly justified in asking for a block reduction at least. I would grant him one--Jac16888 (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• He has contacted me asking me for assistance. He believes that his latest block is unjustified. I can see his point, but, as you can see, I haven't been fighting for that, because a literal reading of the text does prohibit that edit (although I will say that I believe the "project page" language was intended to prohibit creation of AFDs and similar pages, not postings on noticeboards or wikiproject talk pages). I think that it is worthy of clarification, and that his existing block should be shortened to time served.Kww (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment from TTN (posted by request from his talk page) I go with that I am not allowed to merge, redirect, or delete articles, and I am not allowed to make requests for such actions on articles or project pages. I am allowed suggest such things on the pages of the articles and projects, and contribute to XfDs and other similar discussions. I started discussions on a few projects, so that shouldn't be a problem. If someone really, really wants to be literal about the fiction noticeboard (it is an open forum like any talk page) not being acceptable, fine, but that should come with a warning rather than a block. Until they clarify it otherwise, this really seems unwarranted. TTN (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Topic Ban for Kww

For people that care to register an opinion on the topic, Kirill has proposed a topic ban for both me and TTN here. Can't say that I'm thrilled.Kww (talk) 23:51, 18 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: ([13]). 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)

I have no interest in what "Honest" Reporting have to say. It is wingnut drivel of the worst kind. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

excellent point, one does not have to read something to have an opinion about it. yes, i understand your npov. quite revealingDavidg (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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

And Gershom Gorenberg in the Atlantic Monthly here. His conclusion:

But the Wikipedia affair is a hint at the psychology of CAMERA's advocacy. It aims at defending the story it already knows by presenting only what is necessary to bolster that narrative. CAMERA's story is an un-nuanced, hard line version of Mideast history in which Israel can do no wrong. It's a narrative that disturbs many thinking supporters of Israel. When CAMERA fights for "accuracy," what it really wants is for the media -- or Wikipedia -- to promote that narrative. In defense of such "fair and factual reporting," it might even recruit some volunteers to misrepresent themselves in the Wikipedia wars. Let the reader beware.

It appears Gorenberg did some independent investigation of his own, as well, attempting to speak to CAMERA in Boston. There are some very apposite remarks about conflicting narratives, consensus and speaking in Wikipedia's voice as well. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:00, 18 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 ([15]), and his own Zionism on the Web project ([16]). 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 ([17]), 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 ([18], [19]). Given that Wikipedia's article about the site was deleted as non-notable ([20]), 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)

• A lot of links (see linksearch). Is this the next candidate for User:JzG/unreliable sources? Guy (Help!) 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not able to conduct the linksearch for some reason, but I think it may be a viable addition one way or the other. CJCurrie (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome someone checking the links, they were mostly to copies of archived material related to academic boycotts in the UK. This particular set of materials is referenced in an academic paper by Prof Charles Small (Yale University) [21] (note I renamed the subdirectory when the boycotts came back for the second time, but the old link still works - also that link is to google so you can see the paper reference, else you need to pay to get access to the full text). It is also listed as a reference by the Jewish Virtual Library [22] who also acknowledge the use of copyrighted material (specifically photographs related to original research published at ZionismOnTheWeb) [23]. Other links are to pages with relevent original research including photographs and audio recordings of the counter boycott event. I believe there is an explicit provision to link to your own original research. Given I am posting under my own name, and I include the name in the link when it is material I wrote (rather than material I repost under fair use, or with explicit permission which I usually seek and get), I would have thought that was enough evidence of good faith on my part. I can't speak for the good faith of those above however.

If someone wishes to review whether Zionism On The Web is notable enough to be included (and wishes to write an article on it) that would also be welcome. I figured it was at the time and was told no, I think things have moved on a bit since then. Zionism On The Web has been given an award from the Jewish Agency, participated in the Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism (the premier event on the topic), you can see Zionism On The Web listed here... [24] but ignore the rest of my profile (someone messed up at their end), and has been mentioned a number of times in the press. The report on Antisemitism 2.0 published by the JCPA is cites all over the place, Zionism On The Web is listed there as well.

while I do thank you for the interest, references talking about editors and linking that to their identity and activites outside Wikipedia could be considered outing. Even when the editor like myself makes that particularly easy. Just a thought. Oboler (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on what is here, I'd say Zionism On The Web is notable enough for an article. I also think Oboler is making sincere efforts to be a productive wiki editor. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, it may be worth noting that Zionism on the Web gets a grand total of zero hits on the Factiva search engine (the phrase "Zionism on the web" appears in one article, but in an unrelated context). This strikes me as a not insignificant point to consider when determining the site's notability.

Without commenting on anyone's behaviour, I might also note that several of Wikipedia's ZotW links were to simple reproductions of articles already available on other online sources, including the databanks of the Guardian and the Anti-Defamation League. While I'm certain these links increased ZotW's traffic rate, I have to wonder if they really added much value to our project. (Some other ZotW links were to original essays of (IMO) dubious encyclopedic merit. To be fair, there were also a few links to transcriptions of archival material ... but even these generally came with non-notable introductions and commentary.)

I almost wonder if this could be described as an instance of "spamming, in effect if not intent".

In any event, I have yet to see any evidence that materials printed on "Zionism on the Web" are inherently notable or encyclopedic, notwithstanding that the project may have received an occasional award, citation or invitation. If a more established source (like the Jewish Virtual Library) chooses to print their material, a link may be in order. Otherwise, I would say not.

Btw, (i) it's permitted to link to one's own original research, but only until strict conditions that do not appear to have been met in this instance, and (ii) it isn't "outing" if someone's identity is already a matter of public knowledge. Cheers, CJCurrie (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The above actions, i.e. Dr. Oboler adding his website, seem to be trying to promote either the website, or its content or both. Thus, this may be a violation of conflict of interest.Bless sins (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, If see my talk page you'll notice I started talking with Rlevse after he warned me off for providing the evidence of Bangpound's identity (in the ArbCom evidence page) after he had been outed in the press. By your definition this wasn't outing, but by Rlevse's it was. I don't know which of you is right but the explanations don't tally.

As to factiva, try searching for "andre oboler" and you will get two hits now [25] (mentions my name and Zionism On The Web - misformatted though) and [26] (article by me, Zionism On The Web not mentioned). There will soon be another one for this new article [27] (which includes Zionism On The Web). Factiva seems to miss this [28] which has my name but not Zionism On The Web and this [29] which has both my name and Zionism On The Web, not to mention [30] and [31] (both news articles mentioning me and Zionism On the Web). All this said, the information regarding the Antisemitism Conference is in my opinion the most "notable", a quick look at the program and who the other speakers were will explain why.

I maintain that the links are to good quality references, much of which may not be available else where. If people want to redirect links to the newspapers archives (where such items are archived and still available, and where I did not link them directly), please feel free. The edits are an improvement to Wikipedia, and they are there since 2005. That they are accepted for years by the community might suggest something both about Zionism On The Web as a source for material on this topic (see my comments on this in my earlier post) and on the value of the information to Wikipedia. Then there are the links to original materials and these too have been maintained. This is looking more like a witch hunt on the admin board than anything else. Oboler (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that these links are subject to our citation guidelines in WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which are more fully explicated in Wikipedia:Convenience links#Existing policy and guidelines regarding convenience links. In general, we would have to make an independent determination of the reliability of your website. Wikipedia welcomes those who announce their affiliations and open it up for discussion, but in future I would suggest you exercise some caution in adding your own site as a reference. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Relata, thank you for the clarifications. I haven't added link to my site in articles on Wikipedia in some years. As mentioned above the 2005 academic boycotts were a topic for which Zionism On The Web was the leading resource. I'd suggest we are now also a leading resource on Web 2.0 issues affecting the Jewish community, but as predicted here Wikipedia:Convenience links#Existing policy and guidelines regarding convenience links, the best material is now published else where (academically or in the press) and then simply republished at the site. The discussion above has covered the issue of whether it is a notable enough site to have a listing (it currently doesn't have one), you've raised the issue of reliability. This was varified independently the Jewish Agency when they gave us an award, but I assume you mean independently by Wikipedia admins. If someone wants to go through the site that would be welcome.

Some of the material is originally published in the main stream media (written by myself or quoting me), some is peer reviewed academic work and published originally else where. Some it could be argued is self published, I've looked at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 policy re: Self published work and in the case where it could be said to be self published, (e.g. excluding original source documents now out of copyright that I've reproduced), the material I believe meets the requirements of being from an expert who is published else where on the topic. Looking at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it also says that "Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are welcomed", my site is reference by the history teacher site [32] (itself referenced very positively in the NY Times - see their home page), it is also used as a reference at the Jewish Virtual Library [33] which is itself run by an academic and is in many scholarly bibliographies. I've just edited the Jewish Virtual Library page to add references for this (the article said it needed references). Zionism On The Web is also referenced by Library at the University of Southampton [34].

I hope this information is of help and that someone has the time to review it. Oboler (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oboler: As mentioned above the 2005 academic boycotts were a topic for which Zionism On The Web was the leading resource. My response: That's not exactly right. I believe it would be more accurate to say that "Zionism of the Web" was used to convey the views of certain parties who were directly involved in the debates concerning a proposed academic boycott, most notably Dr. Oboler himself. It doesn't even come close to being a reliable source, though I see that this didn't prevent someone from referencing it several different Wikipedia pages related to the subject.

I might add that being referenced in a handful of academic sources does not make one an "established expert", and that none of the sources you've provided constitute "scholarly bibliographies" in the way that the term is normally used. CJCurrie (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oboler: CJCurrie, If see my talk page you'll notice I started talking with Rlevse after he warned me off for providing the evidence of Bangpound's identity (in the ArbCom evidence page) after he had been outed in the press. By your definition this wasn't outing, but by Rlevse's it was. I don't know which of you is right but the explanations don't tally. My response: I believe the situation is a bit more complicated than that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Bangpound's identity revealed in the press by Andre Oboler? This strikes me as somehow relevant.

Concerning Factiva, you might be interested to know that "Andre Oboler" actually gets eight hits, albeit that two of these are simple reproductions of a previously listed article (and one other is a letter to the editor). I'm not certain the JP piece will be showing up, though, as Factiva (wisely) distinguishes between that paper's print and online editions ... just as it omits the "Comment is Free" section of the Guardian's website from its archives.

I could add that the mere fact of attending a notable conference does not make someone inherently notable.

In any event, while it's possible that "Andre Oboler" may deserve his own article page, "Zionism on the Web" clearly does not, and its non-notable commentaries should not be used as authoritative statements for subjects covered in Wikipedia. I don't doubt that you've kept a careful record of your press clippings, but the handful of references you've provided cannot possibly justify the staggering number of external links that were added to WP in the last few years. CJCurrie (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, you seem to have an axe to grind here. You also don't seem to have checked the information I provided above. The references to an academic library (The University of Southampton) is I believe EXACTLY what is meant by scholarly bibliographys (I say that as a scholar), you can argue about the other two but they are highly used resources on the topic designed for educational use - hence are peer reviewed by experts on the topic (in anycase these are additional to the university library listing). The Jerusalem Post does not publish things online that are not in the print edition - so give this new article a little time. The reason the other searches give things for my name but not Zionism On The Web is due to (a) a fault in one article (which inserts a huge space in the middle of the name), (b) because the Jewish Week (respected paper with a large circulation) isn't included in the database, and (c) because you need to search for the URL not the name (with spaces) if you want to catch the jpost articles - the address and not the name is used. These are technical short comings and ignoring them by running the wrong search then claiming there are no results is not helpful. As for the conference, I wasn't attending, I was speaking. That makes a huge difference given people speaking at this conference are (by definition) notable on the topic of antisemitism. You may want to ask an experts in the field to varify this. I spoke specifically on Zionism On The Web. I'm about to be interviewed by RAM FM (if anyone wants to listen online or is in the broadcast range)(... I have a feeling Factiva won't pick that up either - it is a quick tool, not a replacement for other research). All the best, Oboler (talk) 06:55, 19 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)

What enthusiasm? You really need to try sticking a little more closely to what people actually write. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:10, 16 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)

I agree that no one should be considered beyond redemption. However, this should be considered extremely carefully, given that someone who unblocks Moulton is most likely demanding the commitment of hundreds of wasted hours of other volunteer's time.

I also ask, are you in favor of discarding WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and WP:COI and WP:RS ? Are you in favor of unleashing someone who has repeatedly stated and continues to state repeatedly and aggressively he will not abide by Wikipedia's core principles, and summarily rejects them in favor of his own dictates and fiats and fatwas? If you are in favor of these things, then unblock/unban Moulton. Because that is what you will get.

Until such time as Moulton renounces his current positions and shows some acknowledgement of the part his own positions and actions played in this saga, I fear this will be a collosal waste, and a price that the person who unblocks will be visiting upon the community.--Filll (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis states it rather well here. If he returns and is not disruptive, where's the problem? It's pretty much self-evident that Moulton was never banned but remains indefinitely blocked. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption to the project and right now, I'm not seeing him as being much of a risk. Having said that, I was not involved with this editor in the past, as many others here obviously are, so may not be aware of the entire history. If someone like User:Vintagekits can survive more than two indef blocks yet return rehabilitated, I daresay Moulton could too - Alison ^❤ 17:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In answer to the question of "why no?" I would direct people to MastCell's section below. He does not appear to have acknowledged that his blocking was in any way related to his behaviour, let alone resolved to change his behaviour. No one is beyond redemption, but there has to be, at the very least, a commitment to change. Guettarda (talk) 17:31, 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: [35] 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)

• Firstly, I would like to commend Dihydrogen for bringing this to the AN board for a review. I think we can all agree that this is the best manner to go about any controversial unblock. If we learned anything from Stifle's handling Iantresman case, its that these sort of things need to be explained in full view of the community, as he did. If the_undertow would have done this, a great deal of the drama would have been avoided. Since we can't live in the past, let’s look at the case. What this boils down to is should a user who exhausted the good faith of the large majority of editors he dealt with be allowed to return, as many have previously mentioned. We have to temper that with the knowledge that Moulton has actively attacked the entire membership of the WikiProject for intelligent design and additional editors that he feels are associated with the ID project. Of course, he is not the only person to attack this group on WR. He has also engaged in what could best be described as drive-by psychoanalysis of several of the members of the project. It was a little insulting, to say the least and I am sure the other members will agree, especially those who were on the receiving end of the doctoring. I guess you could say that I am involved with this because Moulton believes I am a sock puppet and/or a troll of some sort and has made his feelings public about this. He had also, during his very brief period, contributed nearly nothing of value to the project. So, basically we have some very respectable admins and editors asking for a good faith unblock for a user who has attacked other editors, showed no remorse for any of his actions, and appeared to be incapable of working within WP policies to construct an encyclopedia and would rather argue for his own ideas on policy. With Lar clearly stating that Moulton shows no change in his behavior, there is no way that this block can be overturned, without proper consensus. Also, someone previously mentioned how campaigning off-wiki is not always frowned upon. But we need to use common sense on this one. Are we seriously going to extend any good faith to a website that has entire sections devoted to vehemently attacking single editors? I am sure SlimVirgin and JzG would love to know that we think so highly of this sort of off-wiki canvassing, since they are some of the favorite targets. If there are editors wishing to mentor Moulton, as a few have mentioned they are willing to do, if Moulton agrees to stay away from articles in which he has a serious COI problem, and if he ceases his attacks on the editors who he has had previous dealings, the unblock could be considered. Short of these being addressed, I see no reason to overturn this block. Baegis (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Moulton hasn't done enough admitting that at least some of his problems are caused by his own improper behavior, and some of his views are mistaken or inappropriate. But the same can be said of some of those here who are fighting him; some of them still don't seem to admit that there was any problem whatsoever with the "coatrack" status of some of the versions of the articles in question. Perhaps some apologies and adoption of greater humility would be in order on more than one side. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully beg to differ. I was the editor who constructed the RfC. I was also the editor who volunteered to call Moulton and talk to him for several hours about his concerns about the biography and tried to help him resolve these problems, with repeated emails and phone calls to a variety of Wikipedians and others. I have never denied there was a problem with the biography on August 22, 2007; otherwise, why would I have devoted so much time and energy trying to fix it? There are reasons why it was in that state which I will not bore anyone with here. There are reasons it did not change to its current consensus state for a few months after, which I will not bore anyone with here. If you want a more complete explanation, contact me.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, for instance, there's Raul654's comments way up on this page, "he never really did accept that he was flatly wrong". This exhibits a mindset of "he's totally wrong; we're totally right; we must never even think about un-banning him until he admits it and grovels before us." This excludes a position where both sides have made mistakes and have problems. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not have to defend the behavior and attitudes of everyone else. I can speak for myself and relate the positions of those who have shared those positions with me. I do not believe that everyone maintains that "he's totally wrong; we're totally right". It is not a matter of groveling. It is a matter of writing an encyclopedia according to our accepted principles. Do you favor discarding the five pillars? Do you favor unleashing people who have not demonstrated any evidence of being able to work with others on Wikipedia and follow the principles of Wikipedia?--Filll (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I do not speak for others who engaged Moulton in discussions, it has been my observation that many others were unhappy with its status on August 22, 2007 for similar reasons to Moulton. However, again, there is a lot more to this story. And just pointing fingers without any knowledge of the background or the facts is not helpful. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• It appears the ball is now in Moulton's court. There were real BLP problems with that bio (since improved by the community), and he made mistakes common to overeager new editors. He had the door closed on him quickly, and several of the accusations made in the RfC were simply unfair. But as MastCell outlines, his willingness as a new user to understand and edit within all of Wikipedia's policies was wanting. We're not a justice system; in the end, "what's good for the encyclopedia" must win out; he needs to put aside his bitterness and acknowledge that he will live within the rules. - Merzbow (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To go back to Dan's point, I think there's some validity there, in that these sorts of disputes are rarely purely one-sided. Moulton's not crazy - he had some legitimate points (though his manner of addressing them was unproductive), and the ensuing fracas didn't bring out the best in any of its participants. The more all of us recognize that, the better, and I understand the appeal to basic fairness. Still, the immediate question, to me at least, is whether unblocking Moulton is going to help the goal of building the encyclopedia. Even if we accept that the actions of others warrant individual scrutiny, I don't see the answer being yes. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To respond to the request that I back my claim that tools were abused. These are the admins editors that formed the "community ban":

1. KillerChihuahua
2. MastCell
3. Moreschi
4. Baegis
5. SheffieldSteel
6. OrangeMarlin
7. Guettarda

Three are members of Wikiproject Intelligent Design, five participated in the RFC, which the result of was the basis for the block. The RFC was initiated by Filll. Among the certifying parties, FeloniousMonk was listed. The discussion was closed by WP:ID member KillerChihuahua, who had otherwise participated only in keeping order. The block was then carried out by involved FeloniousMonk. And then KC carried out the block. Lara❤Love 19:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with LaraLove here that the situation was handled in a less than ideal manner. I'd always rather see a neutral, uninvolved party enact "consensus", and I would have also liked to see greater participation from a wider array of editors before the actual block was ultimately enacted. hmwithτ 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was developed in a publicised RFC. The decision was posted to AN/I for consideration by the community. The decision was reviewed by the arbcomm. How do you suggest that one widen the array of editors involved? Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the WP:ANI discussion could have used more editors who did not have prominent roles in the RfC. hmwithτ 19:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How? We can't force people to participate. Generally, if something is uncontroversial and uncontested, people don't chime in. The question posed with a block review at AN/I is, in essence, "anyone have a problem with this block?" I'm pretty sure I've posted blocks before that got zero feedback on AN/I. I didn't take that as an indication that I should undo the block, and I don't think that anyone else would either. Guettarda (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just talking about this type of situation in general. I didn't even say that I objected to the actions of any editors. However, in ideally, things would certainly be different. However, I readily realize that an ideal situation is not always possible, as well. hmwithτ 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, no, those are not the admins who "formed the community ban". Those are editors who felt that a block was appropriate, following a public RfC. The block was then posted for review on WP:AN/I, the most public and widely-read forum on Wikipedia. It was reviewed via an {{unblock}} template, by the uninvolved admins at unblock-en-l, by the Foundation legal counsel, and by at least one admin whom Moulton contacted by email. The entire situation was then reviewed by ArbCom. After all of that exposure, which goes well beyond "6 admins", no one was willing to unblock Moulton. It is reasonable to equate that situation - a block which no admin is willing to undo - with a community ban, just as it's reasonable to consider Moulton unbanned since there are now admins willing to consider unblocking him. This whole line of argument - that the block lacked transparency or was not properly reviewed - is completely at odds with the easily verifiable reality of the situation, and I'd suggest that further discussion be informed more by those facts and less by zOMG cabalism. MastCell ^Talk 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all of those people are administrators. Not that they would have to be to comment on a block notice. Just trying to set facts straight, Lara. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a look at some rough numbers. About 17 editors expressed displeasure with Moulton's editing style at his RfC. In addition, Killer Chihuahua closed the RfC and has expressed her unhappiness with how Moulton was behaving, and this is still true, as can be observed above. Only 3 other editors supported Moulton at his RfC and expressed no reservations with his editing style, and 2 of those had not edited with him or interacted with him. Some of these clearly were doing so for ideological reasons, and not to do with the subject of the RfC, which was inability to follow Wikipedia policy. At the RfAr another 3 independent editors chimed in, of which only one thought that an Arbcomm examination of the situation was warranted. So if one adds this up, one finds in the two proceedings, about 20 editors expressed some misgivings about Moulton's editing style, and only one editor who had edited together with Moulton did not (while 2 further editors supported him, but based on limited experience and knowledge). This does not appear to be a particularly good ratio, at least in my opinion. What do you think?--Filll (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is, though, a tendency for some fairly tight cliques to develop and to gang up on people they dislike for whatever reason. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to be how WikipediaReview operates. Raul654 (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not dislike Moulton, no matter what you have read. I would not have put so much effort into trying to help him otherwise. Unfortunately, Moulton showed no willingness to follow the principles of Wikipedia, and has stated repeatedly that he does not want to abide by the principles that Wikipedia is founded on. And that is why Moulton was the subject of an administrative action. It was not because he was ganged up on by a clique or a "cabal".--Filll (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the admins to editors. My issue is how the RFC closed and how an involved editor carried out the block. I believe an uninvolved editor should have done this. Lara❤Love 21:13, 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 xyxabc 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)

In the example given above, a careful consensus was achieved by discussion on the article talk page, then at Moulton's bidding a new user (albeit one who says they had edited previously under a different account) effectively reverted the agreed version to a previous version which had not been accepted. Is that a BAD edit? Does that make it ok to recruit editors to make changes that disregard consensus on Wikipedia, to conform to arguments put on an outside forum? ... dave souza, talk 17:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a case by case sorta thing. Considering Moulton's past and his attacks on the ID project, making edits he advocates are questionable at best. Baegis (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all criticism is an attack. This was the state of the article just before Moulton's first edit. If anyone thinks that this is an appropriate biography of a living person, we don't really have anything further to talk about. This is an attack piece containing nothing but criticism of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. When Moulton attempted to fix it, he was attacked by the ID project, who turned around and banned him. The vast majority of those commenting on the RFC are ID project members. The person who instituted the block is an ID project member. When someone does something worthy of criticism and is criticized for it, that is not a personal attack. The way that this "ban" was handled was absolutely terrible and is very much worthy of criticism. There comes a point where the differences are irreconcilable, even though the fault may be Wikipedia's not Moulton's and an unban isn't helpful to anyone. I haven't formed an opinion yet as to whether we are at that point, but I have formed an opinion that Moulton was wronged at least as much as he was in the wrong. --B (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

B, saying that this was the state of the article when Moulton first editing it, as if that were the consensus on the article, is deeply misleading and prejudicial. Hrafn, then a brand new editor, had removed the unsourced material per BLP. What ensued was some heated between two new editors; one (Hrafn) who understood sourcing, but not the idea of (UN)DUE weight, and the other who did not understand the idea of sourcing. Neither of them properly understood sourcing policy. So what happened? They managed to hash things out to the point where the article reflected the sources that they had. Not bad for a couple of newbies. Then what? Moulton spent the next few weeks insisting that the article should explain that Picard signed a blank petition, that she didn't know what she was signing, that she wasn't a supporter of intelligent design (and that he could knew it as a fact because he knew "Roz"). And since then - Hrafn, like any newbie, refined his understanding of policy. And Moulton continued to complain about the system. Both started out with an incomplete understanding of policy. One editor adapted to the principles of Wikipedia. The other insisted that Wikipedia adapt to him. Guettarda (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, no disrespect intended, but did you even read my post above? If I did not feel the biography should not be cleaned up when I first talked to Moulton August 23, 2007, why did I devote many hours to trying to do so? I sent out emails and made many phone calls. Why did I do so if I wanted to keep the biography in its August 22nd, 2007 state? Your claims are not supported by the evidence.

As I offered above, I will be glad to give you some information about why the biography was in that state on August 22nd, 2007 and why it did not drastically improve until a week or two ago, if you want to contact me. Otherwise, I will not clog this page with trivia that most people are not interested in. Ask me if you want to know; do not assume.--Filll (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I will not unban Moulton, as I am going out of town shortly and will not be around to be responsible for the consequences. However, as giving difficult users second chances is SOP, and given the issues surrounding the article and block, it seems that a second chance is appropriate. Thatcher 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Even though the editor does not seem to be aware of the problem with his behaviour? That seems rather odd. Guettarda (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In brief, yes. The block button will still be there in the event it is required again. Thatcher 19:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Odd. Then why do we permaban anyone at all? It seems to me that there needs to be, at the very least, some sort of assurance that the problematic behaviour will change, a willingness to abide by our core principles, like WP:V. Guettarda (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • We have blocked or banned (for example) Hkelkar and his socks so many times that it is clear he will never be an asset. I'm talking about a second chance, not a sixth. Thatcher 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Here is my current position on the situation: User:Filll/Moultonunblock. If you want more details about the Picard biography and why it was a mess and why it remained a mess for a few months, then ask me and I will be happy to help you out. This is not the result of some nefarious plot or an attempt to smear someone or to get revenge. This has a far more prosaic set of reasons, and in fact I suggested repeatedly that we just delete the Picard biography if it was going to cause so much rancor, but I was overruled.--Filll (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Alternatively to asking you for your view, one could just walk the edit history of the article and its talk. That's what I did. Why exactly several of the ID project members are viewed by many as apparently seeming to favor giving undue weight to this petition seems a different and larger matter, that may not be amenable to determining from the histories of the articles, so perhaps you could shed some light on whether that is an accurate impression, and why or why not, and if it's inaccurate, why it seems to be held by at least a few folk? As for deleting the article entirely I would probably now comment favorably if it were brought to AfD again. ++Lar: t/c 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Why he was, and why he is, blocked

We seem to have different ideas of just _what_ he did "wrong" to get blocked. The RFC seems unusually focused on the blatantly false claim that he is anti-evolution and is lying about it and is lying about other people not being anti-evolution. To all accounts this seems to be what he was, at the end of the day, banned for. Yet now people are saying that his engagement style is disruptive. Well - maybe the two are related - maybe he was driven to it - to the "trolling", even, by people who were making false accusations about him and trying to keep BLP-violating stuff in articles. He can't commit to improving his behavior if he isn't even told that _this_ (whatever exactly "this" is) - rather than supposedly lying about his own and others' beliefs - is what he's doing wrong. And continuing with extremely tenuous accusations such as "recruiting meatpuppets" isn't the way to go - let's focus on what (if anything) he's ACTUALLY doing wrong, rather than trumped-up misinterpretations. --Random832 (contribs) 19:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The fundamental reason he was blocked was that he could not work with others, could not work towards consensus, and disregarded the policies of Wikipedia like WP:NOR and WP:COI and WP:RS and so on. And announced frequently that he intended to do so and continue to do. And still does.--Filll (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In short - if he keeps being told that he is a liar and a creationist, then of course he's not going to accept that there are problems with his behavior, and of course he's going to think the problem is the people telling him that, because he knows that those are false accusations. I think that the ID project members in general, and Filll and FeloniousMonk in particular, need to post a retraction of those accusations before we can move forward. (or, if you still think he _is_ a liar and a creationist, we can redo the RFC - if your evidence of those claims is as good today as it was then, I should have no trouble refuting it.) --Random832 (contribs) 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe I ever claimed he was a creationist. I am not sure what I believe about his personal position, since he changed what he claimed often. He could have easily been "gaming" the system or testing us and our responses, as he claimed he was doing in outside publications documenting his experiences on Wikipedia.

I do not believe it is relevant, frankly. I think the only thing that is relevant is the reason the RfC was filed; inability or unwillingness to work with others and abide by the principles of Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"In addition Moulton presented himself as a supporter of evolution, someone opposed to intelligent design, someone opposed to creationism and the agenda of the Discovery Institute. Moulton did this in private emails, on the telephone and in numerous Wikipedia postings (for example, [101]). However, this actually is incorrect, and Moulton was falsely representing himself and his views: [102] [103][104][105] [106], which became copiously clear." these being links that, to my reading, contain neither evidence that he was falsely representing himself and his views, nor that his views were other than being pro-evolution / opposed to ID/creationism / opposed to the DI which you all but explicitly claim. Still want to say you haven't claimed that? --Random832 (contribs) 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As Random points out, the RFC did contain strong accusations that Moulton was an ID/creationist sympathizer (from several different editors). But the evidence presented did not back that up, and I haven't seen any statements from him since then that do. This doesn't change the fact he needs to promise to change his behavior, but in turn we as a community need to be more careful about what we do claim about another editor's real thoughts and intentions. - Merzbow (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And you say NOW that inability to work with others was the reason the RFC was filed, but from what I can tell, calling him a liar is what the RFC is all about - and I wouldn't want to work with people who call me a liar either. --Random832 (contribs) 20:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are picking out one small section of the RfC to focus on. The actual complaint, without endorsements, has 95 links and is 18,430 bytes, and does not include this material at all, but only focuses on some behavioral problems. The "Inside View from Filll" has 12 links and 2755 bytes, and is not the main complaint but a small addendum to clarify something that I found dismaying that I felt I had to reveal and complain about.

The "Inside View from Filll" describes my experience at being manipulated by Moulton, which really took advantage of my assumptions of good faith. I have no idea what Moulton's personal religious positions and beliefs are, nor do I care. What I object to is being manipulated. I am not sure I would call it "lying" exactly, since from his later publications, he maintained that he was trying to cause disruption on Wikipedia on purpose to test Wikipedia's response to disruption so he could publish about it. This was certainly being disingenuous, and a misrepresentation of Moulton's purpose on Wikipedia, but I am not sure I would call Moulton a "liar".--Filll (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And, if it's simply behavioral problems rather than anything wrong with his ideas, then it's not clear why he shouldn't be allowed to point out problems in articles for others to fix in their own way, and how this "recruiting meatpuppets" is even an offence at all (since despite you calling them meatpuppets there's clearly no-one that's offering to uncritically regurgitate any and all edits he suggests) --Random832 (contribs) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I read this long thread, and do not find any convincing arguments to lift the block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Moulton would be willing to abide by Wikipedia's rules, if unblocked. I was engaging him in discussion on his talk page shortly before he was originally blocked, and found him to be pretty reasonable, once he had calmed down from his interaction with several members of Wikiproject intelligent design, which had left him a bit aggravated and confused, IMO. I don't know if he has much interest in editing beyond addressing the coatrack, undue weight, and BLP issues he ran into on Rosalind Picard and James Tour, but I do believe it's time to give him a real chance here. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense but that really is not particularly compelling since this is at best 2nd hand. --Filll (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

His behaviour is closely tied to his ideas that WP should produce original research in some sort of "journalistic standards". The suspicion that he was claiming to be anti-ID while appearing to support their views was only part of the RfC which came in the context of his tendentious conduct on talk pages, and was not commented on or supported by all those taking part. Looking over the evidence now it seems to me that his expressed support for an ID proponent comes from some similarities in ideas and his use of buzzwords gave an unfortunate impression, but that's not the meat of the problem. The essential is that he conform to policies and talk page guidelines, but there has been no indication that he is willing to make such changes in behaviour. .. dave souza, talk 21:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after only a few exchanges with him, Moulton told me that "I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Wikipedia." [36] Also note in that diff that he had been confused by the use of sarcasm, and had not picked up on the misconceptions regarding his beliefs.

So of course his exchanges with Wikiproject intelligent design did not help him become a good editor. They didn't deal with his actual issues and attacked him for something he didn't believe in, serving to further confuse him. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You miss out the rest of his paragraph – "I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Wikipedia. Which begs the obvious question. If Wikipedia is not an instance of journalism, then what the devil is it? Is it sui generis?" That's hardly an agreement to work within the constraints of Wikipedia policies.

I assure you that I did my utmost to deal with his genuine concerns about biographies, but as stated earlier in that thread do not consider that Wikipedia should exercise censorship of reliably sourced non-defamatory information on the basis of hearsay evidence. His beliefs remain obscure, but his citing at least one ID proponent with apparent approval and his use of the common creationist claim that microevolution and macroevolution are distinct gave the impression of some sympathy with their cause. However, open creationists have been welcomed at ID articles when they discuss issues constructively and work within policy. My concern, and evidently MastCell's, was with his tendentious and extended arguments and failure to accept NOR. .. dave souza, talk 23:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the comment was the end of the dialog, but it clearly demonstrates that Moulton is not as inflexible as he's made out to be. He has been willing to learn and understand what Wikipedia is and how to go about it. I have also seen that he's learned a lot about Wikipedia's policies in the time since his block was enacted.

However, I don't see why he would understand policies at that time, when they were applied unevenly. It took intervention by far more experienced editors on two separate occasions in order to improve the undue weight, coatrack, and BLP issues on Picard's article. He didn't know policy, but he knew the article was wrong, so why would he accept policy when it was quoted in order to defend something clearly wrong? Now that he's got a better understanding of policies regarding undue weight, coatrack articles, and BLP, I believe he's likely to accept policies against OR as well. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a mischaracterization of the situation isn't it? After all, when did we finally get access to a statement of Picard's personal beliefs? Just last week, even though we and others had asked for it many many many times for months and months. If she supposedly thought that intelligent design was nonsense, then we had to have a source. Were we supposed to publish this with no sources based on nothing? You think that would have been reasonable and ethical, even even reasonable and ethical "journalism"? And the reason there were many editors involved was that a huge war erupted when people attempted to white wash the sourced material out of the article. And the reason the article became a "COATRACK", or violated UNDUE, was material that violated copyright, or was plagiarized was removed from it last August. And although assorted BLP warriors such as Moulton appeared, they were unwilling to actually write anything, but instead just wanted to fight. This could all be solved if people (1) followed the sources (2) actually wrote something instead of plagiarizing.--Filll (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is blatantly obvious that if an article has some content that was a copyvio, it should be removed; if the article then winds up blatantly lopsided and unbalanced, that should be corrected by further removal. None of this is unusual except, apparently, in this particular sector of Wikipedia. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. For example, see the history of Mike Cox. I found this version. It had copyvio, I threw up a notice, announced my intentions on the talk page and waited. I then removed the copyvio and unsourced/unreliably sourced text, what remained was massively unbalanced, so it went too, and we are left with a stub. This is standard practice in handling BLP articles. If the ID project doesn't do things that way, that's a matter for considerable concern, I'd say. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that the ID Wikiproject is any different from any other in this respect. And I did not remove the copyright violation and I do not know if a current member of the project removed the copyright violation at that time, but it was removed. And it was unbalanced. So Moulton and I and others tried to address it. And things went downhill from there. And it was so contentious I suggested several times just removing the article completely, as you suggested. But others did not want to go down that route. And so it had certain things done that needed to be corrected, and there was a request to the parties involved to correct them since last August. And finally, the cooperation that had been requested repeatedly materialized, and then things moved to their present much improved state and continue to improve, with a small firestorm or two in the last couple of weeks that was uncalled for. So what is the problem?--Filll (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Um... "what is the problem?" That it took this long and caused this much contention to fix one coatrack that seemed apparently to be a focus of the ID project. Take a read through what Sam Korn says, below. His dispassionate review of matters draws significantly different conclusions about several matters about which you and other ID members have been asserting, and I for one am a bit curious as to why that is. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Several people have already mentioned that the ID wikiproject is different in terms of BLP cleanup, so your basic premise is wrong. I note with amusement that the recent improvements, which were at the time attacked as meatpuppeting, are now being touted as a success. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And for that matter - on the ground, Wikipedia _does_ have some elements of journalism. For example, these articles. Or these ones. Yes, it's not supposed to be, but in practice articles do violate that principle, more often than NOT. --Random832 (contribs) 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So you claim that most Wikipedia articles violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and that these are standards we should discard? Do I have that correct? --Filll (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll: That is a false dichotomy, and I suspect you already know it, but used it for rhetorical effect anyway. To be precise: I can feel that there are some (who said "most" ??) articles that violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR without wanting to discard them., the two views are not dichtomic. If this is the typical level of your argument I can see why Moulton had trouble with trying to work with you, but I'm going to assume instead that you've overexcited by matters and it wasn't typical at all. Just as a tip though, if you want to be taken seriously outside your own project where everyone knows you, and make effective points, it may be more effective not to use such rhetorical flourishes when they are likely to confuse or distract. ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I will ask you to spare me the personal attacks and to WP:AGF it at all possible and avoid such aggresive and tortuous argumentation. It reflects quite poorly on you. Just a friendly suggestion.

And I of course was asking this for clarification because I wanted to repeat back what I thought I had heard since it seemed a little hard to believe. Do you think this is not permitted? I was under the impression that was a good technique to avoid misunderstanding. Do you dispute that?

Also, I interpreted "more often than not" to mean "most". Do you dispute that might be a common interpretation of the phrase "more often than not"? How would you interpret the phrase "more often than not"?

Also, the aspects of asserting that Wikipedia should function as "online journalism" that Moulton was advocating that got him into trouble were pushing for the discard of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, among other principles. Now in a journalistic setting, you can argue a point or take some sort of editorial stance that is decidedly not NPOV. And you are expected to do your investigation and not follow NOR. But those are our principles here, at least at the moment. So I was asking for clarification, since I did not want to misinterpret what positions of Moulton's you were advocating we adopt, or what positions you were defending. Is this inappropriate? Please show me the place in policy where it shows that I cannot ask these questions to understand better what you position you are a proponent of. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"So you claim that most Wikipedia articles violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and that these are standards we should discard?" which is a quote of your statement, is the FIRST mention of NPOV and NOR in this section. So it's not clear who you are talking to, now that I think about it. Who were you asking that of, anyway? Random832? Note that his "more often than NOT" was a link to a section of what wikipedia is not, rather than just an assertion about probability. Couched that way, it's too clever, and thus both confusing and true. True, because WP:NOT says "never should an article be X" for a lot of different Xs, including "news story like". But it is true that there is at least one article in WP that is "news story like" (I could find one, and so could you). Hence that's more often than "NOT" (which == 0 by that reasoning, 1 is more than 0). But it is also confusing, because it does read, at first glance, like "51%" which is the conventional meaning of "more often than not". It confused you, it confused me, and it was a rhetorical flourish I wouldn't have used were I Random. So, apologies there for not spotting why you were confused and jumping on that point. But I still think your own false dichotomy wasn't useful. As to you or anyone asking for clarification, it is absolutely a good idea. I just don't think that it's a good idea if it's not clear what you were asking! ...which I don't think it was in this case... The way your phrase was worded, it read like you were only posing that as a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. I'm not Random, but I don't think Random, you, or I are claiming that most articles actually are news stories at present, although some are. Apologies if you took offense.

All that aside... I personally don't think that Wikipedia should be "online journalism". We have Wikinews for that. I also don't think that "journalistic ethics" are a perfect fit for our environment. SOME sort of ethics clearly are, though, in my personal opinion (some others disagree but I think they're wrong, an ethics free project is not a good project). And starting from some tenets of journalistic ethics to develop ours may give some value (rather than starting from, say, ditch digger ethics, which have far less in common with writing articles...) From journalistic ethics, I'd keep the part about not deliberately doing harm, and telling the truth, or at least reporting accurately on what others are saying, but drop the part about it being OK to have an editorial opinion (a POV, in other words) that is so common in journalism which is often written to persuade rather than inform. We don't have POV here, nor should we. We have RS and V rather than "truth" and we have NPOV rather than editorial opinion. Those are foundational principles, and no one can edit effectively here for long without editing within the lines they proscribe. One doesn't have to AGREE with them, you just have to abide. Moulton did not abide before. Until and unless he does agree to abide now, regardless of his personal view, he would get blocked again for straying, (you know lots of people would be watching for any straying), sooner or later. That being so, it is still completely seperable from whether he found a problem in some of the articles that ID was apparently perceived (at least by some) as "owning" at the time. He did. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for any confusion caused by "more often than NOT" - I saw an opportunity to use a pun to emphasize the issue, and took it. That said, while it's obviously not really a straight majority of articles, the problem is systemic, and we should be responsible in the way we - if at all - cover recent events and in particular real people that are related to those events. To put it in clearer terms, my point is that whether we should or not, we do often engage - irresponsibly in some cases - in what can only be called journalism, and that Moulton should not be faulted for calling it what it is. My post was specifically in reaction to the statement "I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Wikipedia. Which begs the obvious question. If Wikipedia is not an instance of journalism, then what the devil is it? Is it sui generis?" That's hardly an agreement to work within the constraints of Wikipedia policies. --Random832 (contribs) 07:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely think you are right. It certainly isn't such an agreement on his part. And until Moulton agrees to work within the constraints of Wikipedia policies, unblocking him would be a symbolic gesture, because as soon as he didn't, bzzt, that would be it. You know it, because lots of people would be watching. That's why my primary advocacy here hasn't been for an unblocking, it's been that there be some examination of how we interact with academics. Further on, Filll relates an excellent example of how his experiences and Moulton's presuably were very similar, up until the part where Filll apparently decided "OK, there's a lot here that's different but I am going to work within the system" and Moulton apparently decided "This is BS, this will never work, these people need to have some other principles explained to them" and flamed out. I posit that both Filll and Moulton are outliers. The vast majority of academics, I suspect, merely give up in frustration, quietly, and go away, and then have nothing kind to say about Wikipedia or working there to their peers and students. Successful participation here is rare. Too rare. That's the bigger problem than unblocking one academic who is by his own admission not likely to change his approach from one of "here's what you all need to do to change, embrace it now!" to "I'm here to work with you under the current terms, and as I work and build credibility maybe I can advocate for some changes". ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me just now. My original statements about the problems with current events coverage were, rather, a reaction to the statement by dave souza: <<"I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Wikipedia. Which begs the obvious question. If Wikipedia is not an instance of journalism, then what the devil is it? Is it sui generis?" That's hardly an agreement to work within the constraints of Wikipedia policies.>>, which I marked by placing in italics - you seemed to think I was talking about the statement of Moulton's in quote marks, and that souza's remarks were my own. --Random832 (contribs) 03:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that that argument -- WP engages in journalism [paraphrasing here] -- will gain much traction. But, I could be wrong. Nonetheless, even if you and Moulton are correct in that assertion, it certainly does not excuse his behaviour. Not sure what part of this is difficult. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not requesting an unblock

Note that Moulton is not requesting an unblock, which may moot some of the discussion above. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the question should be asked rather than making an assumption. When I read his arbcom statement way back when, I remember thinking that while he was probably right more than he was wrong, it was a non-starter because it was all lawyering. If he is saying and attempting to prove, "I was blocked unjustly" as a prerequisite to "please unblock me", then that's fine and it deserves a legitimate review. But if he merely wants to point out flaws in the system and does not wish to return (If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve) then you are correct, it's time to move on with life. --B (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, before we possibly move away from the Moulton issue, a lot of important notions have been raised about what to do with a community ban/indef block, including the difference between the two, and how to go about bringing back a user if an admin is willing to unblock (which negates the community ban). While this probably should be expounded on in a new thread, this is something that does need to be addressed and, if possible, standardized. We have recently had two separate editors come up for block reviews that elicited a lot of response and confusion about the lack of a system that is in place. I know that these have been carried out on the AN/I board and/or on this board, but it seems clear the community is confused by the whole issue. Short of any guidance from ArbCom, maybe we could work this out somewhere. Thoughts on that? Baegis (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Current practice is that an indefinite block must have the unanimous tacit consent of those with the ability to undo the block (administrators). In society outside of Wikipedia, such cases are tried by a selected jury. The problem with a decision based on a popular vote on the former community sanction noticeboard or on ANI is that it would be like impaneling your jury from whoever happened to show up in court that day. So if 12 of the prosecutor's best friends show up in court, the evidence doesn't really matter. So in order to demonstrate that a ban is a community ban, rather than merely a lynching, it needs to have unanimous consent or it needs to be determined by an impartial select group (Arbcom). --B (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

But there is obviously still confusion about the whole issue. Codifying it can't hurt. Baegisthesock (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

@B: I was looking at his statement in the above diff: "I am not seeking to be unblocked." Of course you're right, this all may be a prelude to an unblock request, but I'm not sure how much more angst we need to expend on the unblock issue at present when he's flatly stated he isn't seeking to be unblocked. MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the next sentence, "Rather I am seeking a review of the circumstances surrounding my encounter with the WikiProject on Intelligent Design." If that review is for the purpose of saying "ha ha, told you so", we have better ways of spending our time. If that review is for the purpose of demonstrating that the block is invalid and asking to be permitted to contribute to the development of the encyclopedia, then it is more worthwhile. --B (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That he is requesting a general review of events, rather than an unblock, suggests to me that he really doesn't understand how Wikipedia operates at all, which is very surprising given the amount of time he spends on WR. I was sympathetic to unblocking him earlier, but now I agree that it may be best to just forget about him. Everyking (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Listen to his statements in the NTWW episode below. He wants to demand huge reforms of Wikipedia, based on his whims, including discard of several of its core principles, and he wants to have bad things happen to all those who "wronged" him. And then and only then will he be interested in returning. Or at least that is how I understand the situation.--Filll (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is free to advocate whatever reforms they wish on the appropriate policy talkpages and off-wiki. I don't see the relevance of that. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've advocated several myself, some quite radical indeed. That in no way shape or form means that I am "demanding" them as a condition of my participation here (and such a statement should be met with "ok, then, don't participate, then..." User:Mindspillage/userpages is a special case statement of that notion, and you'll find it on my user talk). But the issue I have is that I'm not seeing Moulton's statements before the block as "demanding" changes in governance. I see them as suggestions. To the extent that they interfered with his ability to edit effectively, with his ability to participate in article discussions, in policy discussions, etc, they were a self imposed hindrance. But I don't see them as a blockable offense in and of themselves or else we would never be able to propose any policy changes at all. So I see Filll as presenting a bit of a red herring here with this. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I think there is no problem with advocating changes at Wikipedia. After all, what am I doing at User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing and User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal, among other places? The reason this is relevant is (1) it is expressed as part of the preconditions and (2) it is expressed as part of Moulton's goals, and always was, and was the root problem that Moulton ran into at Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole issue is surreal. Claiming, in essence, that Moulton was standing on principle in refusing to follow WP's various policies -- no he was flouting the policies -- and that his absolute abject refusal to cooperate, his extreme COI problems, his inability to either comprehend or abide by NPOV and NOR are also indicative of a principled stand, is singularly ridiculous. There are things I think are problematic (i.e., broken) at WP, but I don't go around wreaking havoc to make a point; and that, my friends is precisely what Moulton has done: wreaked havoc at every conceivable opportunity. And, in light of all this, some folks think that, despite his continued belligerence garbed as martyrdom, he should get a second chance. If at first you don't totally screw the project up, try, try again? Meh. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I care awfully, but a couple of examples of said havoc would be good. None in this entire thread. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch speaks strongly. I think others come to different conclusions, including myself. I think Sam's analysis below rather belies Jim62sch's assertions. It will be helpful if Jim62sch internalizes that the fault in this case may not be entirely with one party. ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Lar, I didn't realise that you were involved with Moulton from the get go. Oh, you weren't? Those of us who were there remember the series of events quite well.

As far as anyone's analysis belying anything, that's really just a matter of interpretation, both on the part of the analyst (in what he chooses to present) and the audience (in how they choose to internalise the presentation). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 15:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, I don't have to be involved with something from the get go to be able to recognize when something is not completely one sided. Your recounting of things makes it seem like everyone else acted perfectly throughout and the fault is all Moulton's. Others come to different conclusions. Why is that? They're all confused and only you have the truth here? ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That is sure not how I read Sam's analysis. And that is sure not how I read the RfC. To claim the RfC contains not one example of problematic behavior? My goodness. Incredible. And no one caught that? Not the Arbcomm during the appeal. Not the handful of editors supporting Moulton. Not the 20 or so editors who thought Moulton was problematic. That is quite a story.--Filll (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll: Sometimes I'm amazed at your perceptiveness (my comment made just before this one references your analysis of your experience and Moulton's as similar up to a point) and at the good work you do (such as User:Filll/AGF_Challenge ... were you ever going to do some rollup analysis on what was said?), and sometimes I am not sure you're reading what I am saying and/or twisting it around. This is one of the latter times. Focus on my last sentence... "It will be helpful if Jim62sch internalizes that the fault in this case may not be entirely with one party." That's what I see here. Certain parties continue to assert that the fault here is entirely Moulton's. I think the truth is more nuanced than that. I think Moulton went about a lot of things all wrong, and there is a lot of truth in that RfC. " To claim the RfC contains not one example of problematic behavior?" Please give me a precise cite where I say there is no fault for Moulton. I after all have been saying I didn't support an unblock without a commitment to adhere. (now it's been advanced that it could be symbolic... ok...) Filll, please slow down and read what I say more carefully. "may not be entirely with one party" != "is all with the other party" Unless of course you were talking to Relata??? In which case never mind... (this is where using the "to userX"/"@ userX" construction or sticking your remark above the other so it is below who you are replying to, but indenting it deeper to show it came later, might be effective) ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

While I'm sure that everyone has done things that can be criticised, editors accept the need to negotiate towards a consensus and then accept that consensus or follow dispute resolution procedures. The problem I found with Moulton was that he would agree to a compromise aimed at meeting his objectives, then resume tendentious demands for changes,[37] while describing Wikipedia as a "profoundly dysfunctional" "rigidly rule-driven bureaucracy" unable to meet his ideas of "ethics on online journalism".[38] . . dave souza, talk 14:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Conversation with Moulton

'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' has just finished an audio conversation in which Moulton participated. You can hear it here (episode 16). I believe it's fair to characterise Moulton's position as wanting / demanding some sort of statement that his treatment was not representative of 'due process' before he would be willing to re-engage in the editing processes. We had some discussion as to how this might work (an arbcom statement?) - or indeed if it is even possible. I would support an unblock as and when Moulton lets us know that he wants one. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea there. Demand a statement/apology for the way he was treated even though he contributed nothing to the project. So when can I expect his apology for calling me a sock and a troll? Or when can the entire ID group expect apologies, both to the group and many of the individuals? I demand an apology from him for his behavior. Since I have contributed far more to the project, I would hope my request is honored if his is honored. I also want the apology written out and certified by a notary. Maybe gold leaf printing, I will get back to you on that. Come on... Baegis (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, I looked through your contribs and basically you created your account, went head on straight into Moulton (without editing near him before) Then after he was banned you went after others supporting a few counter to the ID crowd (reverting vandalism off and on but usually between 10 or so "rough" sounding "talk" with people that didn't agree with the Project ID crowd. Odd. 195.216.82.210 (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering you are hiding behind an IP address I will take your flimsy accusations that I am either a sock (well, technically this account is, but in line with policies), a troll, a meat puppet or what have you with a big giant chunk of salt. Did you ever think that maybe I was watching a great number of these articles before I ever started editing? Probably not, because it is so much easier to hide behind an IP and throw around accusations. Methinks this whole thing is slowly becoming less and less about Moulton and more about attacking the people who work on the ID articles. Strange that they have been advocating this attack on the WR pages for some time now. Strange times indeed. And I do want that apology from Moulton with gold leaf lettering. Baegisthesock (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the ID group also owe apologies. I don't recall that _he_ ever demanded them, but specific blatantly false accusations were made. --Random832 (contribs) 03:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"He contributed nothing to the project" is bullshit - he certainly drew attention to BLP problems. But I guess that's not worth anything, nor is anything else he could have done in the past eight months had he not been banned. --Random832 (contribs) 03:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He created more BLP problems than he solved, NPOV problems too. In fact, the articles he campaigned on remain essentially the same, in fact are now more complete, than before his attempts to whitewash them. Furthermore, you have a strange notion of solving problems: tendentious editing, edit warring and ignoring consensus are far from best practices if your goal is solving problems; creating problems, certainly, not never solving them. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If you waste several hundred hours of volunteer's time, and end up with an article that is essentially unchanged in the particulars you are complaining about, I do not see that you have really solved many problems.--Filll (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure everyone agrees with that characterization. I'm assuming you were talking about Rosalind Picard... here it is just before Moulton appears on the scene. The last section is a WP:Coatrack of unduly weighted, negatively slanted material about what is, after all, a relatively minor incident, and it is placed out of the proper context. And that's AFTER considerable editing, including edit warring, had happened. The way the petition section reads now is much better, it places this controversy in a larger context of her overall views, all appropriately cited. If that is your view of an "essentially unchanged" article, then I suggest you may not be the best person to work on BLP issues. Now, was Moulton the only person to try to improve the article? Hardly. Did Moulton go about it the right way? Hardly. (but go read WP:DOLT for some perspective here... we have a real problem with fitting academics into our processes effectively). Yes, it took the efforts of others to fix it. But how long would it have sat unfixed? Therefore, to say that Moulton did not contribute to the encyclopedia in a positive way is false, in my view. Bringing problems to the attention of those that can effectively resolve them is goodness. Oh, and strolling through the talk page briefly, I'm not seeing your positive contributions, but I may have missed them. What I see is that it took Kim Bruning to try to straighten this out and that a goodly number of the same voices here decrying Moulton's every word, decrying his very presence here, were the very ones that seemed to be advocating that the article stay all nice and coatracky instead of balanced. ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think before you make any such claims, you should know a bit more than you do. Because almost everything you just claimed is wrong or a misrepresentation of what the situation was and what happened. Is this really the time and place to rehash this? And how many times do I have to repeat myself? If I do it a couple times, and people exhibit WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, then it is clear that there is some other agenda being pursued here. And that is what starts to become apparent. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Some other agenda? Yes, I suppose there is. I'd prefer that we not have even the appearance of projects exerting ownership over articles to retain problematic information. I'd prefer not to see so much difficulty and resistance in fixing one BLP. We have 250,000 plus of them after all, with conservative estimates that hundreds or thousands are problematic or highly problematic. I'd prefer we find better ways to deal with editors that don't understand our ways. I'd prefer that we not move from an RfC to an indefinite block quite so fast. I'd prefer that we learn to accept valid input even if it's presented in invalid ways. I'd prefer that we not let things fester so long but address them sooner. I'd prefer that ArbCom not summarily dismiss quite so many things but instead maybe put a bit of effort into explaining matters. Again, I found Sam's analysis quite illuminating. Why is he not on ArbCom any more? As to the suggestion that the claims I make are invalid, I gave the diffs. The article was a mess before Moulton arrived. Now, it's not as bad a mess but it still has issues. I only go by what I saw, and what I found on the talk page. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see Moulton make any statement that one, acknowledges his behavior was a source of disruption and pledging to not recreate the same situation, and two, expressing any interest in actually contributing to building a neutral accurate and complete encyclopedia. If that were indeed his goal, rather than returning to the same articles he's disrupted, he's be clamoring with guarantees and solemn promises that he would avoid those topics and edit constructively elsewhere, I'd think. Unfortunately, Moulton has made no such statements, so I see no reason to let him return to his old ways. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No-one has, to my knowledge, yet explained exactly _how_ his behavior was a source of disruption in a way that was not intermingled with demonstrably false claims about the nature of his behavior. Could it not have been other users whose behavior caused the disruption? --Random832 (contribs) 04:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moulton is a good start. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As I mention above, I find few article-specific diffs reported there that are different in content from what a dozen previously uninvolved (and unrecruited!) editors have recently argued at Talk:Rosalind Picard in that article's recent push towards consensus. So your statement is going to need something more than that link to be credible, I think. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I find that to be an absolutely amazing and fantastic claim.--Filll (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I aim to please. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that they are polysemes of course.--Filll (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but I'm assuming the only meaning compatible with good faith and basic rationality. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 20:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I find it interesting that Privatemusings is so keen to give a platform banned users through this medium. Perhaps he should hand the microphone to someone with better taste in friends. Moulton was banned for good cause, and his whining and special pleading are simply offensive to the many users he attacked. I'm pleased that Moulton demands an apology before he will deign to grace us with his presence again, that makes it much easier to keep him away by simply not apologising for doing the unambigously correct thing. While we're laying down conditions, I'd not let Moulton back until he acknowledges that WP:TRUTH does not trump WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, since he violated the last three in pursuit of the first and without acknowledging the problem he's not going to overcome it. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Guy sums this up quite well and with much less sarcasm than my message about this apology. Since when do blocked users get the chance to demand things from WP before they will return? How asinine is that? And who even speaks for WP? The ArbCom doesn’t speak for the whole of WP. Arguably, Jimbo is the only one who does (maybe WMF), so maybe Moulton should take this up for him. Baegisthesock (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

People can make whatever demands they like. But I would say that a statement of the form "I can't return to supporting the Republican Party until they drop their plank advocating school prayer" is not a demand to the GOP, it's a statement of principle. Moulton's communications to me highlight that he sees serious problems with project governance and other issues and that until they are addressed and corrected, he won't return. That's not a demand, it's a statement of principle. I happen to not agree, I see problems with WP but not such that I wish to withdraw, but to call it a demand , as Baegis and others seem to be doing, is rhetorical twisting, in my view. That seems actually less helpful to matters than making principled statements. To say that one would like one's case looked into is not unreasonable either, if one feels that the previous investigations didn't get to the root of the matter. It may not be one that ArbCom, the community, whatever, choose to do (my reading of the tea leaves says probably not going to happen in this case), but it also isn't a demand. ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, Lar, I respect you as an editor and admin. But it appears as though you are just fighting for Moulton’s right to do and say whatever he wants and it appears you want to give him anything he so desires. Moulton claims he was not afforded due process. But he had an ArbCom appeal rejected regarding the circumstances of his block, in which he felt it was more appropriate to ramble instead of appealing his block and admitting any fault. Since I gather you may not have examined the serious details of this case, I can assure you that Moulton has been making these “statements of principles” for quite a long period of time. There comes a point where these are no longer “statements of principles” so much as they are declarations of ill intent and of a wish to be the center of attention. If someone continually harped on the same topic over and over and clearly stated their goals, especially when they are clearly not inline with the betterment of the encyclopedia, when can we call a spade a spade? Moulton has become a less prolific version of Awbrey, with his arguing tendencies (bet $ that comment gets mentioned on WR). This is nothing more than a user who was blocked continually throwing up the unblock template, looking for a sympathetic admin. Baegisthesock (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I've confused matters. I am not "fighting for Moulton’s right to do and say whatever he wants". (much less to give him whatever he wants...) No one has that right here. We ALL must edit within the project's boundaries and basic principles, and do so civilly, or we lose the right to do so. I can say both that Moulton still doesn't look likely to be willing or able to do that, and also at the same time decry the way that he's been portrayed by some of his detractors. He seems to have been railroaded, at least a little. See Sam's analysis, below. The thing is, the project doesn't DO due process. There is no reason to expect it. This is not a governance experiment, a society, or even fair. Asking for systemic correction is going too far and Moulton isn't going to get that just on his say so... When we see an out and out troll or vandal, we don't give them much other than a swift block, we don't have time for more. But still, that said, Moulton wasn't an out and out troll. Didn't fit in here? Sure. (the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is PR. It's more true that not just anyone can edit here for long, it takes a certain mentality and willingness to do things the wikipedia way to fit in and be successful) But his detractors paint too black and white a picture. I haven't changed my view that I don't see the absolute need to unblock him at this time, what's the point? We're not going to change things to fit his conditions and he's not going to edit if we don't. But I also don't see the harm. As many have said, if he DOES act up, that's it, second chance done, gone.

At this point I'm more interested in what could be done differently in future with the next very smart person who comes along and points out things in articles that really do need fixing, but who doesn't fit in here (again, as I said before, see WP:DOLT for some views on this, they are tangential but very appropriate)... rather than just rushing them off and feeling self satisfied that we blocked another troll, maybe flappers/consiglieries/editorial assistants, whatever you want to call it, are needed. Because we don't need the bad PR from treating academics roughly.

I'm also more interested in trying to undestand what is going on with the ID project. Why are there these things swirling around saying that "the Anti ID forces are taking things too far" and the like? What really is going on there? ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Moulton has been advertising his intellect for some time now. I don't doubt that he is smart in many ways, but he showed a disdain for nearly every other editor he faced and dismissed them while basically trying to bore them to death the long meta threads about tangential topics. Awbrey was arguably a very bright person as well, but he was shown the door because could not properly apply his intellect to the betterment of the project. Frankly, it wouldn't matter how smart a person was who came to edit. The current president of Mensa could try to edit here. But if they can't adhere to policies, tough shit for them. The policies can't be bent to accommodate every editor that is "smart". If they could be, can you imagine the chaos? And we already have a somewhat questionable reputation with academics as it is. The supposed mistreatment of one very minor person in academia is not going to cause any great problems. The problems that academics see with us have been noted in a variety of other places so I will not explore them here. But this incident is just a grain of sand in that desert. And that is not a problem easily fixed.

As great as this entire conversation has been, including the large amount of space devoted to it, the simple fact remains that there is an editor who has expressed zero, zip, zilch, nada, no concessions that his editing created problems. He has made no statement that could even be considered to indicate a modicum of change. When has a user ever been unblocked when they have never even admitted fault for their actions? I am not against the unblocking as much as some others, as long as it is tempered with a full assurance from Moulton that he will avoid all areas in which he has a COI violation and his attacks on other editors will cease. But I have yet to see that statement. So, for however much longer people want to continue this, Moulton should never be unblocked if he shows no signs of change. It is as simple as that. And it really goes no further,

The "problem" with the ID articles is that the editors of those articles are constantly bombarded by a trolls, vandals, and POV-pushers who seek to change the articles. It is the same problem that occurs on creationism articles and evolution articles (among others). But some of the editors may have become a bit jaded because, I would wager, that at least 70% of what gets posted on those talk pages is nothing more than trolling. A number of those posts are reverted or archived on sight, per WP:TALK because they do seek to improve the article. I guess some people have a problem with how we carry out business on what is probably the most trolled/vandalized group of articles on the project. Of course those people don't edit the topic or articles, so it is easy to make a drive-by assessment of the problems. Baegis (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

ID is only one of many different areas of this encyclopaedia regularly bombarded by trolls and cranks, and nowhere near the worst. (That changes from time to time.) We do not need special pleading on behalf of its overzealous defenders. May I note that the people "don't edit" but "who have a problem" might well be those whom your methods of "carrying on business" are likely to cause them to merely "drive by." --Relata refero (disp.) 13:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have edited in 3 different controversial areas. And several other areas. And the Intelligent Design Wikiproject editors operate no different than those in any other area.--Filll (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I accept that it is possible that you genuinely believe that to be true. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

To Baegis: "But if they can't adhere to policies, tough shit for them." At one level I agree. At another level, I think that's why Filll is an outlier, an academic who can edit here successfully. Those are too rare, unless you think we don't need any academics here at all. For some topics we don't, but for many encyclopedic topics, we do. That's a much bigger problem. I think it stems from how very hard it is to get an understanding of how things are done here, really. There is a forest of rather impenetrable jargon and policy. Most academics don't get that adequately packaged up in a usable form. Moulton was an outlier too... an academic who had it all patiently explained (that's rarer than the more common, 3RR and you're out sort of interaction) and chose to insist on doing things as he personally thought they should be done. You can call that "disdains us", I guess. I've pled with Moulton privately to commit to edit within the rules and with guidance, and he has declined. I haven't yet pled with him to look within himself and admit the things that he could have done differently (that is, admit there is some fault on his side), but I suspect I know the outcome there too. So, unblocking would be symbolic. But the problem here, the reason I keep worrying at this, is larger than Moulton. If he stays blocked, it's not the end of the world, it's one small pebble (maybe a bit bigger than a grain of sand! but not much). I'll again advance the notion that maybe we need a more structured assimilation program for academics. Not bending rules, but working to help guide. Maybe even interpret and stage material back and forth or something. Because we do need academics. Badly.

(cont'd) As for the ID project, I think you put your finger on part of the problem. We don't as a rule suffer fools gladly, and when a project sees a lot of fools turn up, it may cause members to get a bit embittered and rigid, and then throw some of the wheat out with the masses of chaff. Perhaps your project needs some new blood. If that new blood gets in turn corrupted, or if the older members drive that new blood out, then there is a bigger problem. But I'm also concerned that some of the charges that are being levied (about pursuing those that signed that stupid petition by making their articles coatracky...) that either there is some validity to those charges, or you have a big PR problem. Again, it's a sign of siege mentality to say "the problem here lies ENTIRELY with the other side, not at all with anyone involved with the project, and we refuse to apologise for anything" which (it is my perception that) some of the ID members have been saying, right here in this very thread. Relato rightly calls you on the special pleading aspect. ++Lar: t/c 13:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the need for academics with the need for academic experts. What the project does not need are academics, like Moulton, who come and and make no sincere attempt to understand our policies or to understand how things operate and instead would rather bellow from the top of the nearest soapbox about how things need to change because they say things should. The project does not need these kind of academics. We have enough as it is. We don't need people who will constantly tell us we are doing it wrong and apply their own personal standards. We don't need an editor who has mentioned, on numerous occasions (damned if I can't locate the diffs for this message) mentioned how his entire case has developed into something that he is planning to write about as a study. These are the people we don't need. What we do need and should address, and the conversation has been raging for years, most notably on the Expert Withdrawal page (link further up) is the lack of experts, specifically ones from academia. These are the people the project needs to apply their specialized knowledge within the areas in which said knowledge applies. Moulton never did that. But we need to attract experts to the project and retain them. These are the people who need to be taught how to work within WP policies to contribute. They will help the collective articles and total knowledge base grow exponentially. Moulton, for all of his vitriol, never made an attempt to edit within the areas he was most knowledgeable. I am all for bringing in and retaining experts. There probably aren't many who would be opposed to that general premise.

And with regards to ID, Relato's comment must be taken with the knowledge that, until recently, he never (maybe rarely) appeared on these article. He made one brief appearance a month or so ago and is now holding what will probably be the world's longest grudge because his case for a source being unreliable meet with serious opposition. He has constantly sniped at any and all he feels wronged him, so it is hard to take anything he mentions with any seriousness. Sorry, but if you are going to hold a grudge like that, your advice will go wanting.

But there is a problem with the whole petition issue you brought up, Lar. This petition that these people signed should always be mentioned in their bio and in accordance with policy. Undue weight should not be placed on it. But when does it become the entire ID project's fault when a number of these people have a bio so short that any mention of the petition places it in violation of undue? The bio's need worked on, that is true. But why does it come back to us to fix them because we entered relevant information about them signing this document. Moulton's goal was never to work on adding to the bio of Picard. It was to eliminate or minimize the references to her signing the petition. For a person who claimed to know Picard so well, he was able to contribute shockingly little to flesing out her bio. Moving away from the Moulton issue, I don't know if some of the people here properly grasp what signing this petition means. No matter how much some will try to minimize or distort the implications of the petition, especially since the ultimate use of the petition has been made quite clear, putting your name on this petition is akin to signing a petition declaring the Earth is flat. It is at that level of complete ignorance for everything involving science. Does anyone wonder why no prominent biologist or evolutionary scientists signed this petition? You don't see Dawkins putting his name on this. So, in the world of academia in which Picard and many of these people exist, where your name and work is the best form of currency, the signing of the petition will be mentioned. They, being consenting adults, put their name to a propaganda piece that is being used by a group to try to hijack science education in the States. But I do concede that it should be mentioned in the bio's in accordance to the undue weight clause. But this is an issue that should be addressed on each biography article. Some of the outside commentators on this case feel that we are, for lack of a better word, libeling these people by making prominent mention of these the petition. In reality, these people signed this petition and are fully capable of removing their names. Remeber, it is verifiability not truth. We can't parse their intentions, we can only report that they signed it and how the petition was used. Baegis (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In response only to the bits addressed to me specifically: my dear chap, if you think a month is a long time to bear a grudge....! In any case, if I noticed that the manner in which doing some routine BLP cleanup was exceptional, I would have forgotten. If it appeared to be merely unusual, I would have not bothered. If I observed that it happened all the time but had no major effect on article quality, I would have not have given it a second thought. None of those things are true. However, I note that since then I have not even once brought up my own experience; and have, with one 48-hour exception, followed the order handed out on my talkpage to "stay away from our articles". I do wish that other people would stop bringing it up, though it does tend to poke a rather large hole in the claim that I am the one "holding a grudge".

As for the rest - "But why does it come back to us to fix them because we entered relevant information about them signing this document...'" and ", I don't know if some of the people here properly grasp what signing this petition means...They, being consenting adults, put their name to a propaganda piece that is being used by a group to try to hijack science education in the States" pretty much sums up why BLPs in this area, as in Middle Eastern studies, are unduly politicised. WP isn't anyone's weapon to strike back at those harming teh childrenz, thanks. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, for people who are constantly claiming that our goals are to be neutral or to be unbiased or not to take sides in any way, I find it somewhat comical that all of a sudden the signing of this petition is viewed as negative. Hey I thought we were not supposed to take sides? Do you think that the Discovery Institute views signing their petition as negative? Do you think that the Institute for Creation Research thinks signing a similar petition some sort of black mark? What do you think Answers in Genesis would say by the implication that standing up for what you believe in is some terrible slur against someone? This is the biggest load of hypocrisy I have seen in a long time. Whoever said signing was bad? Claiming it is bad stinks of bias and nonneutrality and assumptions, which we are forbidden to make. The only thing that is bad about stating a person signed the petition is if the person did not really sign it, or the subject does not adhere to the beliefs expressed in the petition and was tricked into signing. Then, the person has to ask to be removed from the petition, or to issue a statement rejecting the position of the petition, so we can use that as a source, which many have done. What is the problem?--Filll (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

For anyone wondering: yes, that is a genuine argument, not sarcasm, amused wordplay, or some form of irony. It has been made several times to support the retention of poorly-referenced negative - sorry "negative" - material in and about BLPs, by implying that it is a violation of NPOV to claim that such material is negative. The mind reels. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am stunned that you try to argue that it is negative necessarily. Huh? We are not here to judge. If they want to believe, what is wrong with that? You know there are claims that it is discrimination to not let people just believe what they want? I would agree. Don't judge. --Filll (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if I am not mistaken he has had his case looked into a few times and continues to do so in variety of fora. Am I wrong?--Filll (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. But the germane question is was it adequately looked at? Perhaps not. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets? Please elaborate, that is the first time I heard of that accusation... Why don't we toss around some more accusations... I'm sure he's a vandal, a terrorist (oh wait, WR makes you a terrorist automatically), and ... actually I'm not very good at fabricating accusations... I'll let the experts handle that, they're doing very well atm. 195.216.82.210 (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Guy's statement about how Privatemusings ought to find "better friends" brings to mind this exchange from the first Harry Potter book:

Draco Malfoy: You'll soon find out some wizarding families are much better than others, Potter. You don't want to go making friends with the wrong sort. I can help you there.

Harry Potter: I think I can tell who the wrong sort are for myself, thanks.

*Dan T.* (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment from someone who was there

The episode itself primarily dealt with the present conflict as a springboard for a conversation about relevant policies and procedures. One observation raised in that discussion was that the community tends to deal with these flash point situations as if they were microcosms unto themselves: too much focus gets placed on evaluations of individual editors without enough attention to whether they may have been acting in faithful accordance with flawed policy. This very discussion about the episode--unfortunately--has become a demonstration of that dynamic.

When I recorded episode 10 I opened a thread at this noticeboard regarding one banned user who was part of the panel, and the responses were not only unanimous but somewhat indignant that a discussion was necessary at all. Now Privatemusings initiates a similar thread and the responses are radically different. I wonder why this dichotomy exists.

It's no secret that Privatemusings spent a short time as a banned editor and that he's made a legitimate return. He's one of a couple of editors whose bans I once supported and whose returns I also supported: both he and I are interested in finding out what works in these situations and how to replicate the success stories. We don't expect perfect success (or anyway, I don't) yet we've also observed that sometimes a voice environment is better than a text environment for communicating nuances and finding common ground.

That's not the only reason NTWW exists; we discuss plenty of other things also and try to provide a good menu of topics and guests for the community. If you'd like to see new items on the menu, please come over to WP:NTWW and propose them: this kitchen accepts requests. :)

Regards from Chef Durova^Charge! 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

moar evidence of meatpuppetry

See my self-accusation here [39]. Basically, all the section at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#Meatpuppetry_evidence_since_ban Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#Meatpuppetry_evidence_since_indef_block is just an attempt to make User:Moulton guilty of meatpuppetry, using evidence that has undergone no review and has gone through no sockpuppet case. Notice that this same evidence is what caused the MfD on Moulton's user, and now it's being added to a page linked from there. If there is really meatpuppetry, then open a frigging case at WP:SSP even if the user is blocked, but don't post unproven unreviewed evidence on old unrelated cases. This RfC had nothing to do with puppets, and the timing is terrible. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sam Korn's review of the case

I mentioned before that I invited Moulton to email me with his side of the story and how he sees the situation. He has done so and, I think, has presented his views reasonably. I think he feels aggrieved that his ban resulted from his trying to help the encyclopaedia and to achieve the important goals that are set out in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There can, I think, be no doubt that his intentions were positive.

Furthermore, he is aggrieved that "due process" was not afforded him (he frames this as "I am not sure whether due process was afforded me, and so whether my treatment was systemic or accidental"). My impression is that this is, to a certain extent, true. The move from the RFC to an indefinite ban (I hold the distinction between an indefinite ban and an indefinite block without immediate prospect of unblocking to be spurious) was out of order. Indefinite bans should not be handed out so incautiously -- they are a big deal and they should be given with proper consideration. You should be very careful when considering a user in whose good faith there is no particular reason to doubt. The process by which it was affirmed was rather dodgy -- the brief conversation on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Moulton and a brief conversation on ANI were rather cursory (admittedly through no fault of the participants).

Frankly, I also think the Arbitration Committee got this one pretty badly wrong. This is exactly the kind of case where the Committee should be involved -- a good faith user who is apparently incapable (as I shall discuss below) of complying with Wikipedia's norms in a certain area. Community sanctions are a tool far too blunt to deal with situations like this: it needed the careful consideration of the Committee. As I shall explain below, I think there were ways in which this could have been more effectively managed with greater subtlty and care. Being so bold as to suggest the reason for the Committee's wrong decision, I would suggest that the wording of the request -- with its emphasis on "due process" -- would have been off-putting to the Committee members (had I been on the Committee, it would have been off-putting to me!); it would have made them think Moulton was attempting to rules-lawyer his way to an unblock. That said, the idea that the Committee should take on some kind of abstract "was the system wrong?" case is absurd: the Committee should make decisions that are entirely based on the future and ensuring the correct solutions are in place.

I have said all this in Moulton's defence to emphasise that his grievances have some merit. However, I do not wish to give the impression that I think there were no major issues with Moulton's editing. Moulton undoubtedly did engage in POV-pushing. I don't think he fully understands what the verifiability policy is about (in his emails to me he suggested that policies in this area were contradictory) means. This is a serious problem. Although the conflict of interest guidelines do not prohibit anyone from editing a particular area (and nor should they, as long as we have anonymous editing), they do rightly advise that anyone incapable of editing neutrally and without emotional involvement should recuse himself. This was a situation where that advice should have been heeded. Moulton's editing was not satisfactory and some remedy was necessary. The trouble was that the action taken was somewhat akin to knitting with a barge-pole.

The other policy violations that are alleged are somewhat spurious. The charges of edit-warring are, I think, accurate, but not particularly serious. The idea of "disruptive editing" is, again, accurate, but comprehensible, particularly as others in the dispute were also conducting themselves in an unhelpful manner. The charges of "personal attacks" are wholly unfounded -- while he may have (unreasonably) accused editors of malfeasance, I do not personally feel that his statements did indeed become personal attacks. The accusation of "disruption to cause a point" is similar if one makes a basic assumption of Moulton's good faith. The accusation of meat-puppetry fundamentally misunderstands what meat-puppetry is.

So what now? Moulton indicates that what he wants is some kind of statement that due process was not afforded. This is a problem because Wikipedia is not focussed on due process -- and rightly so. What it important here is that the action taken was not whollyy appropriate: that is indicative of the process being wrong. I don't know who Moulton would like to make this statement: I for one am happy to say "no, we didn't get this one quite right". From what he has expressed to me privately, though, he wants some declaration one way or the other: "this was the system as it should work" or "this was a malfunctioning system"; I am not sure we can give that declaration.

As to whether Moulton should be permitted to resume editing... As can probably be understood from what I have written above, I don't think the original block was correct. It could much more effectively have been managed with sanctions prohibiting the behaviour that earned the ban. Now, however, the situation is different. Moulton indicates to me (and I believe also in the NTWW conversation) that he requires the declaration of whether the system worked before he would continue editing: were the answer to be "yes", he would not want to; were the answer "no", he would want the system to be massively overhauled before he would consider editing again. Quite plainly, therefore, unblocking would have no practical effect.

That said, I advocate it in any case. A wrong should be righted. I advocate unblocking with a strict prohibition from editing in areas concerned with the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. We should, as a community, be prepared to say "we would like to see you editing productively", whether or not that will be upheld. We unblocked Lir and were right to do so. If Moulton is willing to return, there should be no obstacle preventing him from doing so; I see every reason to think he could be a productive editor if he was willing to engage with Wikipedia's policies.

Frankly, there is nothing to be lost from unblocking Moulton.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said Sam - hear hear. Privatemusings (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your belief that arbcom got this one wrong, I hope that this is being discussed on Arbcom-L (which I know you are a member of) as well. Do committee members agree that they got it wrong? Or are you alone in this belief? Mike R (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I perceive there are two lists now, one for those currently arbitrators and one including alumni. Sam is an alumnus I believe. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, Lar. This is very much my opinion; I have no idea what any other member of arbcom-l thinks. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There is merit in unblocking on the basis that we (the community) may have got it wrong, because we can always reblock if we later determine that we were wrong about being wrong - we were right but perhaps for the wrong reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent analysis, Sam. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sam, this is greatly appreciated. Thank you. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If he resumes editing Wikipedia, many people are going to emotionally experience first hand why the Athenian community finally told Socrates he had to leave one way or the other. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would bet on it.

So that is why, since we now know of a few areas in which Moulton has been unable or unwilling to contribute productively, we try to find some areas in which Moulton can potentially contribute productively. Just as we do here conventionally with hundreds if not thousands of similar problem editors. What do we do? We topic ban them. And we direct them to other places on the wiki to learn the principles of Wikipedia and to try to contribute.

In Moulton's case, this is what was requested in the RfC. This is what I have maintained personally for a long time and do suggest currently. And for those who are so loud and aggressive here on this topic, why do they not take Moulton into their own editing areas, and under their wing, and show him how Wikipedia works and why we have the principles we do, like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, which are the principles Moulton frantically wants to scrap or ignore. If you can turn Moulton into a productive editor on your part of the project, more power to you. I already tried. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Next!-Filll (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To Sam: If all Moulton wanted was a statement that "due process wasn't afforded", he already has that: "there is no due process on Wikipedia"... (note that this was a quote of what I said back on March 20, which says what I've been saying here all along... I've been consistent the whole time) If there isn't any in the general case, then there wasn't any in his case. That comment of mine was meant to be in the context of what Wikipedia is not... it's not a government, not a system of justice, not something that is designed first and foremost to be fair... it's a project to produce something. We don't necessarily need due process, it's not necessarily relevant to projects. We need effective remedies that move the project forward. Which is for the most part what we get.

To Fill:I'll gladly take Moulton under my wing, if he first committed to work within our policies and guidelines, and I'd reblock him myself if he strayed and became a disruptive influence again. As to a topic ban, we've used it before. I'd support one to be reevaluated after some time. But this is all hypothetical, Moulton has made no such committment and I don't think he will. If he gets unblocked symbolically, without such committment, and then starts editing in ways not compatible with our ways, I'll block him myself. If I could beat everyone else to it. I think Sam's statement: What it important here is that the action taken was not wholly appropriate: that is indicative of the process being wrong. I don't know who Moulton would like to make this statement: I for one am happy to say "no, we didn't get this one quite right". is spot on (and I'd like to see more people acknowledging that the fault is not entirely in one place, that the block may have been hasty, etc.), but I don't think it will satisfy Moulton. He wants a systemic reexamination of quite a bit of our underlying culture and processes. Even if we agreed that was needed (and I'm not saying that it is or it isn't, I've advocated for changes, but I'm not sure the basic model is as flawed as he thinks), we don't do that as a precursor condition of unblocking one editor, nor should we. Perhaps at some future date if there are changes, he'll feel the conditions are satisfied, and agree to abide, and come back. I'd like to consider that the door is open here for him to do that. But meanwhile we do have other fish to fry. ++Lar: t/c 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(Response to WAS 4.250) And the names of the Athenians who were no longer able to tolerate Socrates are...?

Fully agree that we didn't get this one quite right. A caution, don't know that there was a right way, the context was an accelerating waste of time situation and there's no way such a superior being could be satisfied. On the bright side it's provided plenty of material for a thesis or two on multi user internets collaboration systemic interaction failure and online ethics. Whatever :-/ . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why Moulton disdains WP principles

It might not be obvious to those here why Moulton would be dismissive of the principles of Wikipedia. He is a lifelong research engineer and research scientist and academic. And frankly, although there is some similarity between Wikipedia and academic writing, it is far from identical, particularly in the sciences and engineering.

And I can say this with some authority, since my background and experience is quite similar to Moulton's.

When I first came to Wikipedia, I saw pages and pages of contradictory policy. I didn't read it. It was too long. It was poorly organized. And I was sure I didn't need to waste the time reading irrelevant drivel. Just like Moulton.

When I first encountered WP:NOR, I was stunned. No research? Huh? That is what academics and scientists are always seeking. That is the goal. Original thought. Novel interpretations. New ideas. Innovation. And it is forbidden here? I was stunned and dismayed and confused. I was sure this was a mistake. Just like Moulton.

When I first encountered WP:NPOV, I was shocked. First, the very name seems contradictory. How can something containing all views in proportion to their prominence be neutral; it makes no sense. Then, we are not allowed to advocate for one position or another? Or at least not supposed to? Even Encyclopedia Britannica does that in their articles, written by experts! What on earth? I didn't get it. I could not understand what the reason for this was. Just like Moulton.

The ideas behind WP:RS and WP:V were a little more clear, but still confusing. For example, academics often use personal communication as a reliable source, which is forbidden here on Wikipedia. Some of what is a reasonable source on Wikipedia would be unlikely to be accepted in academia, like the New York Times. After all, reporters are just basically boobs; they are not academics, or research scientists. They get stories wrong. They misquote. They are idiots, right? So I did not understand this either. Just like Moulton.

Even the principle of WP:SYNTH struck me as dumb when I first encountered it. Putting together two or three disparate sources to demonstrate a point is exactly what you are supposed to do and trained to do in academia and research. But you are not supposed to do it here. I was puzzled about WP:SYNTH when I first encountered it. Just like Moulton.

However, I had senior editors here mentor me and explain these principles to me. And after a while, I came to understand why the principles of Wikipedia were what they are. And to realize the wisdom of them. But I was willing to learn. Moulton has had decades of experience in designing and using online environments. He is positive he knows better. He has rejected any effort to coach him or tutor him. After all, why should someone with his experience submit to tutoring by someone who is probably a teenager or an undergraduate ? (or at least, this is probably what he thinks). Moulton has not been interested in learning, at least so far. He is sure he knows better. And maybe he does. But while people have tried to educate him, he was extremely disruptive.

Therefore, it was quite natural that Moulton rejected all the principles Wikipedia operates under. It was to be expected in fact; I did. I understand perfectly. And it is also quite natural that Moulton continues to reject all the principles that Wikipedia operates under. And it is quite natural that Moulton is resistant to learning about Wikipedia principles and accepting them. This is no mystery. I was the same way for a considerable time at first. But I was more submissive and willing to learn, and eventually I did. Moulton has not reached that point yet, and might never. But if Moulton is to learn how to operate in this environment, I would prefer that someone besides me try to train him, in their areas, rather than me and my associates, in the areas in which he has already demonstrated he has difficulty. Fair enough?--Filll (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think anyone is going to necessarily believe your interpretation of Moulton's refusal to understand NPOV, V, OR, and SYNTH without specific diffs.

As far as I can see, he raised questions about those policies that other people on the mailing list and on the policy talkpages do all the time. See the old Covered Bridge discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) I believe there is an RfC which has over 100 diffs. Did you not see it? (2)RR is not particularly credible in these matters given his past performance in interpreting these kinds of policies, IMHO.--Filll (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people have pointed out the problems with those diffs elsewhere on this page, perhaps you didnthearthat.

My credibility, of course, is another matter. I admit that I do tend to admit to being mistaken now and then, but in my estimation that does not necessarily lessen my credibility. You, no doubt, think differently about such admissions. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You have to read what was claimed about the diffs and the responses. And do you really think that so many would look at them and miss some huge mistakes? Check for yourself. Maybe you are suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

As for your credibility, I have seen 3 examples now. And just confirmed a fourth misrepresentation of yours by probing official channels. I won't embarass you by dragging it out here. But... what can I say?--Filll (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the diffs don't back up what they claim to. I don't accuse anyone of deception -- for most of them the mistaken understanding is actually reasonable. A lot of the diffs in that RFC do stand up, but a lot don't. I have addressed this in my statement. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Sam) Official channels? Oh, my. I wonder what. I don't remember claiming to have had lunch with Jimbo, so I hardly think that "official channels" have any information on me. My dear fellow, I've told you before, endless gibes about the "credibility" of all the people who disagree with you over some trifling matter, and dark hints about the possession of damning private information are so tiresome. Nobody really listens beyond a certain point.

"..so many would look at them and miss some huge mistakes..." I believe that is an accurate, if extreme, statement of exactly the concern that most people have expressed. It is an understandable if regrettable consequence of editing in what can become something of an echo chamber. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. This is about Moulton, not about you, and I do not want to belittle you unnecessarily or expose past infelicities.--Filll (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to start a new section on this page with all possible exposure of past infelicities. I look forward to hearing them.

Incidentally, I believe what has caused a small proportion of the concern is the level of belittling considered "necessary" in these section of WP. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and may I draw everyone's attention to "me and my associates in the area..." etc. I note, again, nobody but he and his associates seem to be permitted in that area without being bitten.... someone really needs to do something about that sometime. Relata refero (disp.) 13:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In these areas new editors are welcomed all the time and edit productively. However, it is required that editors learn to abide by the principles of Wikipedia in these areas, as they are in all parts of Wikipedia. Is this a problem?--Filll (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, merely unrecognisable. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll: I think this is an excellent analysis, and as I said before, it highlights the "academic participation problem". I assert both you and Moulton are outliers. You figured the system out, he flamed out. Most academics, I suspect, just give up and go away quietly, or never even try to participate here, based on what they've heard already. That's a guess from anecdotes, rather than something backed up by study data but I think I'm right. That said, I think Relata makes some valid points. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not claiming that Moulton will never be able to come to terms with the system. I just would prefer someone else do Moulton's training, not me. And not in my area, if possible.--Filll (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In his WR post of 6 May 2008, Moulton refers to his essays which conclude "Wikipedia is a rigidly rule-driven bureaucracy without sufficient responsible supervision to ensure that the chess games produces anything of lasting value to the general public (such as accurate stories that one can rely on). No wonder teachers don't allow their students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source. But Wikipedia does provide an interesting example of a good idea gone awry. And it provides a good example of how a rule-driven system becomes profoundly dysfunctional"[40] and "Not surprisingly, the ethical scholar or journalist would find Wikipedia a bizarre medium in which to craft a high quality article, especially on a controversial subject where competing factions are pushing competing points of view. To survive on Wikipedia, it helps to be mean-spirited, evasive, and allied to a powerful guild. The ethical and scholarly journalist need not apply."[41] "..putting a spotlight on the failings of Wikipedia. That's what the reformers of WR are here for." Has he changed his views? ... dave souza, talk 15:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC) clarify last quote dave souza, talk 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need to do some fact finding. I have asked him some questions at User talk:Moulton#Fact finding mission. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thinking Wikipedia is ridiculous is not a reason to ban someone. Frankly, I don't think Moulton will ever be a productive editor for Wikipedia. There is, however, an enormous difference between us holding him to be banned and him deciding that Wikipedia's systems are not good enough to merit his editing. Everything I have seen tells me that Moulton is a person of very high integrity; his issues come from having different philosophical ideas about how the encyclopaedia should be run. We don't, however, ban for the opinions people hold. Also, be careful lumping every critic of Wikipedia with the worst. There are many who are against the site on not unreasonable grounds and who don't carry out vicious personal campaigns. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Moulton was not banned or blocked because he thought Wikipedia is ridiculous. I find many features of Wikipedia ridiculous, as I have stated repeatedly, and am working with others to try to change these aspects.

What happened to Moulton was that he was extremely disruptive and a net negative to the project. And he was disruptive and a net negative because he did not want to follow Wikipedia principles and policies and conventions. It was not that he was not told of these principles and policies and conventions. He was told what these are and instructed how to reach his goals within the system over and over and over. And he dismissed that approach, thinking he knew better, and became a disruptive element, unable to work constructively and productively with others in a consensus-driven framework. And that is what lead to him being blocked/banned.

Not that he "lied". Not that he had any particular view on some ideological issue. Not that he was not part of a clique or a cabal. Not that he was an academic. Not because he wants to change Wikipedia. Not for any of the myriad and sundry reasons I have seen posted to this thread. No, it was for something far more basic and far more fundamental and far more crucial. We have a way of doing things, and he did not want to do it that way, and did not want to follow advice. --Filll (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that was the reason he was blocked. It is, however, the reason a lot of people are advocating that he remain blocked. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the reason? Because he's academic? Part of a cabal? Ideology? "IT" is only of value when it refers to a specific antecedent. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

tl;dr. Can someone who's not part of the supposed "ID clique" summarise what exactly Moulton did to get banned? I know I'm going to come under fire for even using the phrase, but I have seen a bit of banding together from some of people opposing Moultion, and I (and I suppose many others) would like a true neutral summary. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I am part of the purported clique, let me try:

• neutral summaries do not exist
• he didn't follow the rules and just fought instead--Filll (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral summaries can exist. Someone can just read the discussions leading to the banning and make a summary based on the reasons and such. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Re neutral, see Rashomon effect. I gave my summary. --Filll (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, POV-pushing on a couple of BLPs (arguing that the presentation of facts related to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism was inaccurate and biased). He undoubtedly did have a point; however, he did not edit according to the standards we should expect. He did not conform, especially, to WP:V or WP:NOR. Whether this merited the ban it got is questionable. If you want to comment usefully on the matter, can I suggest you at least read the RFC (with care -- not all the claims it makes are substantiated) and my analysis above. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

More like he "had" a WP:POINT, and took every opportunity to disrupt WP. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's your view, yes. It's not necessarily universally shared, or even where perceived to be correct as far as it goes, may not be perceived to tell the whole story. I sense that we're not developing new ideas here, though. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Call the question

We have talked about this for a while. I'd like to suggest that maybe we should look for a consensus here, explicitly. Sam Korn has suggested an unblock, with limitations and restrictions. How do we feel about that? (keeping in mind that it's likely that Moulton won't actually edit much if at all after he's unblocked, if we go by what he's said). Is there a clear consensus that the original outcome was correct, Sam's analysis was wrong? Or is there a consensus that maybe it was incorrect but there's no point in unblocking as it would likely have no practical effect? Or is there a consensus that maybe we should unblock to correct the bad outcome? Or something else? Please note, I'm suggesting a consensus check, not more discussion of an open ended nature... ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What's going to happen is that, since there is the group of editors and admins who have dealt with Moulton in the past who do not wish to see him unblocked, especially without any statement from him about his past behavior that gives a hope for a new future AND a group of editors and admins who have less actual on WP dealings with Moulton but have listened to him give his skewed version of the story on WR for the past few months, there will be a wheel war if he is unblocked and everyone will become even more embittered. Since WP doesn't do symbolic unblocks and he shows no sign of changing, we are left right at the same place. Moulton stays blocked, he continues his campaign on WR for whatever grandiose change he advocates, and we just move on. And, frankly speaking, thats probably what is best for everyone involved. Baegis (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, if there is a consensus to remain blocked, you won't see me unblocking, and I don't suspect you'll see anyone else doing so either. On the other hand if there is a consensus to unblock, if I read you right, you are saying that there is some group of editors with long experience who would go against consensus and wheel war. I'm not seeing any such group, except for those that were at the start, the ID members... Am I understanding what you are saying rightly? I hope that I'm misunderstanding you. I'd strongly recommend against wheel warring to reblock, which seems to be what you're suggesting might happen. Sorry for replying but your statement wasn't a clear "I favour outcome X" sort of thing that we would use during a consensus check. Do you have such a statement? ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sam - the last three paragraphs of his analysis I found to be particularly clear (and concise). Privatemusings (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sam's analysis might be clear and concise. It is just inaccurate. But feel free to unleash a destructive force on your own project, if you feel so inclined. Just remember I warned you.

I see post after post from editors who have no experience edting with Moulton and who have not reviewed his record, or even the little bit of his record in the RfC. But they would do not seem to care about all the danger signals, or just want to ignore them. It is an interesting study in human dynamics alright.--Filll (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So there's absolutely no chance that anyone other than Moulton had the slightest bit of culpability, or could have done anything even the slightest bit differently? That's what I am hearing you saying, over and over. It's fascinating how every time anyone turns any attention to anything surrounding this, it always comes back to how Moulton is completely in the wrong.

Fiddlesticks. No one of us is perfect and I suspect the members of the ID project are no exceptions to that principle, despite their PR. Again, I don't expect anything to actually happen if Moulton is unblocked, despite repeated discussion, because he's continued to indicate he won't edit here the way things currently are construed. But if he gets too far out of the lines we color within, I expect him to last about 5 edits before reblocking happens. Maybe 6. Sorry for replying but your statement wasn't a clear "I favour outcome X" sort of thing that we would use during a consensus check. Do you have such a statement? ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• unblock per Sam's guidelines - I would rather see sam's analysis PROVEN incorrect. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• I've expressed my opinion above; to sum up, I think that unblocking a user disinterested in Wikipedia's core policies who has had absolutely zero evident change of heart and carries a chip on his shoulder over his perceived mistreatment is guaranteed to be unproductive. The block is not a comment on Moulton's personal integrity, value as a human being, or role in the cosmic soap opera. It's just a determination that his participation is unlikely to be a good fit for this particular website, and I think there's plenty of evidence to support that conjecture. But I'm one person and, quite possibly, a member of the ID clique (no, I'm not part of the WikiProject and I've never edited an ID-related article to the best of my memory, but since when has that stopped someone from being labeled as part of a clique?). I wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock if there was a strong feeling that one was warranted, nor would I wheel-war about it (that hopefully goes without saying). The only thing I ask is that the folks to whom he's an abstract cause at the moment help deal with him when he becomes an active editor. I appreciate Lar's offer in this regard, and I'd encourage as many experienced eyes on the situation as possible if he's unblocked, since much of the concern over the initial handling revolves around the limited response to the RfC, AN/I, etc etc. MastCell ^Talk 04:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say I agree wtih Sam K here, and I've found myself disappointed about the actions/behavior of a group of editors I had expected more from here. SirFozzie (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Time to end the prohibition on biographies of people known for one event?

Murder of James Bulger is one example.

Who are we trying to kid? The article is on James Bulger. Adding "murder of" is wikilawyering to try to get James Bulger covered.

Why not delete the George W. Bush article and change it to "Pre-presidential life and presidential life of George W. Bush"? We are just creating episode titles like TV shows.

The debate should be whether a local murder is worthy of an encyclopedia, not banning people's names and wikilawying a compliant title.

BVande (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a proposal for a guideline being considered at the moment that would address titling and content issues like this. Have a look at WP:N/CA for the proposal on criminal acts Fritzpoll (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case, this sort of discussion would be better held at the village pump or on the relevant policy talk page. J Milburn (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with J Mil. There has been so much discussion on this topic in other forums. There are certainly valid non-wikilawyering reasons for having "murder of ...." titles. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• No thanks. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• While I agree with JzG's no thanks. I do think there is plenty of tabloid material in en.wikipedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Bvande is advocating here, exactly. I reviewed the article. It seems to be about a rather horrific crime. It includes biographical material on the victim, as well as on the two people convicted of the crime. It also includes information about the crime's impact on society (information about the press coverage, petition drives, and the like) and on the law (information about the Home Secretary's participation in the case and revision of the sentencing and the aftermath of that resulting in a prohibition on the Home Secretary changing minimum terms, and lots of other material). I do not see this article, even though it contains a lot of biographical material about the victim as primarily a biography of anyone. It IS covered by BLP policy, and it may be good to review it to see if there is material that could be removed (lessening damage to the victim and the victim's family, as well as to the perpetrators and their families) without impacting the article quality. But I don't see how this article is an example that demonstrates that we should change our approach in covering material such as this. Perhaps Bvande needs a different example. So I agree with JzG's "no thanks" as well as with Rocksanddirt's observation. ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds of cut and paste moves

Recently I commented on a discussion at deletion review concerning the page March 23, 2004 (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 14#March 23, 2004). The discussion is currently ongoing but it's become apparent to me that the article in question and hundreds like it have been created through cut and paste moves which do not give any attribution to the original authors of the content - a violation of the terms of the GFDL license under which the content was released. I realise that facts cannot be copyrighted but the style, format and wording may well fall within the bounds of GFDL protection. Basically there was a pattern of taking a version of an article such as March 203 and then splitting off all of the sections into individual articles such as March 24, 2003 and then transcluding the split off articles back onto the main page for the month - (example diff). There is ongoing discussion about how the pages should be presented, whether the individual pages for each day should exist at all - irrespective of the GFDL issue - so maybe any action should be held off. Currently deleting or redirecting the individual articles would also destroy the main article for the month and even reverting them to their pre split-off state wouldn't be a complete solution as the individual sections have been worked on since the split. I don't know if any admin action is required at the moment (if G12 is discarded) but in the near future it seems like hundreds of deletions or history merges for the pages could be required. Sorry for the long post or if the issue has already been dealt with. Guest9999 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been going through and replacing the transclusions in the month articles for 2004 (January 2004 throught March 2004 so far) with substitutions, then redirecting all the individual day pages. I haven't checked through the histories of the days themselves, but this does at least leave the content readable on the month pages. As far as I can tell, this is a workable solution regardless of where the original historys lie, since the histories remain intact in one place or the other. I'd suggest keeping the redirects even if they were copy-paste moves in the first place, because they're reasonable search terms. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dang, I've got no idea what to do with April 2004. It doesn't transclude day pages like the others do, and the day pages are much more in depth than the month page is (see April 2, 2004 etc.). Could someone help me out with this month? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly revert to this version and then redirect the individual pages? Guest9999 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That worked, thanks. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Volunteers for the Wikipedia Fraud Protection Unit Доверяй, но проверяй.

User rights

What's all this Special/?User rights lark? Am I to assume there are wikipedia admins that exist who do not have to be members of :Cat:Administrators ? MickMacNee (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators do not have to place themselves in that category, and it is unreliable anyway- non-admins can and have placed themselves in it. However, checking the userrights is guaranteed to reliably tell you whether the user is an admin or not. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not something that a non-admin can seen. What is the procedure for determining if a person is an admin, if one is not an admin?

(timely e/c)Ah right. Lets go back to Newbie 101 then, what is the cast iron method to find out if a user is an admin, as I have apparently been labouring under a misinterpretation around here thus far. MickMacNee (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can find out using Special:ListUser, it isn't limited to admins. When you use that special page (listed under "Special pages" in the right hand column) you can see the various rights: accountcreator, rollbacker, founder, admin, checkuser, steward, ipblock-exempt and anything I might be missing. Avruch ^T 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed userrights could be seen by non-admins, but not modified. Should have used listusers. Tired... Bed time... J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I found the magic page [43]. What a pain in the ass, why not just make cat:admin compulsory, and ban for abuse? MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be instruction creep. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This is probably useless since I'm not pointing you in the right direction, but I know I've recently seen someone say they have a little thing they put in their monobook.js or .css that makes the signatures of admins do something; turn radioactive pink, or flash, or upside down, or maybe just be in bold, or something. If someone sees this and knows what I'm talking about, providing a link for MickMacNee would be good karma. --barneca (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts#Discussions there's an "Admin highlighter" script. -- Kesh (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, quickest way to use this: go to your monobook.js and copy & paste importScript('User:Ais523/adminrights.js'); there. Be sure to flush your cash, and it should start working. -- Kesh (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Depositing 10 quatloos in Kesh's karmic account. --barneca (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Woohoo! … wait, what's the conversion rate on a quatloo? -- Kesh (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But watch out for people who have given their signatures a blue background. Thincat (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to change the background color by putting .ais523_adminrights_admin {background-color: #<hex color code goes here> !important} to your monobook.css page. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to some external criticism

I meant to post about this blogging much earlier today, but unfortunately I had to make some money. I don't want to argue about the contents or points in, but Massey's comments raise some questions:

• Why is using the word "Wikipedia" in a user name not allowed? (Although I have no strong opinion about the matter, this is the first I have heard about it.) And why is this reason not clearly documented in a location a new user will see? Wikipedia: Username policy does not explain why.
• Why was an article indefinitely semi-protected? I'm not interested in arguing whether or not the article mentioned in this blog should be protected, but I would hope the usual procedure is to discuss the matter before applying any protection indefinitely. And if this is not policy, I think it should be: one can always protect an article for a couple weeks, then change the period to indefinite.

Or am I out of touch with reality, as I often seem to be nowadays? -- llywrch (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As to the name, for me that would fail under "an impression of undue authority" in Wikipedia:Username_policy#Inappropriate usernames. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the protection, indefinite != infinite. Anyone can request unprotection on WP:RFPP, on the talk page, or on the protecting admin's talk page. The article had been semiprotected 3 times in the past due to vandalism by anonymous users - 4 days in November 2006, 4 months in mid-2007, and then a couple weeks in late 2007. The blogger in question must have been gone from Wikipedia for a long time, protections are generally not discussed on article talk pages but on WP:RFPP. The length of the protection is up to admin discretion. I think the history of the page from late February (shortly before it was protected) makes it quite clear why it was protected. Mr.Z-man 00:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it might be helpful to link the relevant page protection discussion from the article's talk page, for the info of newbies who don't know about RFPP. Dcoetzee 02:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dcoetzee's suggestion would be the minimum needed to help someone with no knowledge about Wikipedia practices to understand why a given page is protected. And as for the semi-protection, a glance at the history shows that within the last 48 hours the page was vandalized by someone using a sleeper account. In other words, we make Wikipedia harder for the newbies while barely slowing down the vandals. That's not something to be comfortable about defending. -- llywrch (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So instead people should just spend their time reverting vandalism for days on end, yes, that's a much better solution, I don't know why we use protection at all</sarcasm>. Mr.Z-man 07:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is only going to get worse with the autoconfirm increase. Most people don't know how to navigate the various bureaucracies of Wikipedia that aren't part of the namespace. "Oh, you want to fix that typo? You'll either have to wait 7 days and get 20 more edits, or you can go to this other page called RFPP and fill out this form, where it'll get processed in a few hours ..." Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The message displayed when trying to edit a protected page gives: a link to the article's protection log, a quick explanation of semi-protection, an invitation to use the talk page, and a link to RFPP. If anything we're giving them too much information. Requests on RFPP are uaually handled within minutes as well. Mr.Z-man 07:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. That would happen if an IP clicked View Source, but why would one? The image Padlock-silver.svg now links to the relevant part of the protection policy when used as part of template:pp-semi-protected, which is a recent development. However this is often not placed on the article by s-protecting admins. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Username policy is fucked. You're welcome to participate in discussion at the various username places - RFCN, UAA, Username policy, etc. Dan Beale-Cocks 01:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the Username policy: no matter what the rules are, some body is going to be unhappy. What I'm concerned about is explaining the rules so anyone who is a stranger to Wikipedia can understand them. -- llywrch (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Names containing Wikimedia Foundation trademarks generally aren't allowed because, well, they're trademarks. Same if you registered a name with "Pepsi Hound": you don't own the right to use the trademark to represent yourself. Gracenotes^T § 17:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's very much not how the username policy works. If you look in the username policy, you will not see anything saying it should be used to enforce a dubious extension of trademark law. The name "WikipediaFixer" was blocked because TWINKLE users dig through the new user list to find every name they could possibly block under any crappy justification, to rack up a high score at the Award Center or in their admin coaching ("hmm, you might be qualified, but first you should go get 20 noobs blocked at UAA"). Feel free to help fix the username blocking process, so that people who invent their own rules don't keep alienating newbies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No one blocked WikipediaFixer: "wikipedia" is blacklisted. An older version of WP:U (which probably ranks as one of our most volatile policies) prohibited names with Wikimedia Foundation projects in it; it looks like that clause is no longer there, as is the clause about trademarks. The rationale for prohibiting WikipediaFixer was something like (and I guess I was wrong about the it): "In my opinion, 'wikipediasteve' is inappropriate, but borderline. I wouldn't suggest blocking anyone who is using such a name already, but they should be banned going forward. I don't understand why they haven't been already, always. It isn't about the trademark, at all. It's about good user behavior, I think. The point is, we should not represent ourselves as being official or whatever." —said Jimbo, Feb 2007. Gracenotes^T § 03:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry

• Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Betacommand2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BetacommandBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today, I noticed an edit that drew my curiosity. [44]. I mentioned it later to MBisanz, and, we discussed whom it may be. After going over the contribs, it became obvious to us, that it was Betacommand. The account talked the same way, and, even made a mistake or two. After discussing this for a couple hours, we came to the conclusion, that it was likely a sockpuppet, and, was being used at least [here to participate in an edit war, and skirt WP:3RR. So, we decided to get the opinion of a checkuser, Dmcdevit, whom confirmed for us that the two accounts were likely the same. It is with a heavy heart, and much disappointment today, that I ask for a sanity check, on an indefinite block on Betacommand (and associated socks), for prolonged sockpuppetry, and incivility. SQL^{Query me!} 07:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with this findings and have performed the blocks. MBisanz ^talk 07:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I support this. But what about Beta's bot(s)? —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The bot is blocked along with the other accounts, I have removed its rollback rights. The Bot right is inoperative due to the direct account block. MBisanz ^talk 07:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

They are blocked, and will be deflagged soon. SQL^{Query me!} 07:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I confirm the CheckUser findings. The match is extremely conclusive, and it is unlikely to be possible that it is anyone else. Dmcdevit·t 07:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We should roll back the thousands of bot edits to DEFAULTSORTs he just made with his main account, a considerable number of which were clearly incorrect. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If they didn't do harm, do not mess with them. SQL^{Query me!} 07:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

From the one (hybridism) I looked at, I believe it is a MediaWiki bug where leading spaces don't work in DEFAULTSORT. I mentioned this in Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive 6#DEFAULTSORT with spaces; I'm not sure if it's been listed on MediaWiki's bugzilla. --NE2 07:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's worse than that. [45] [46] He just went through and set a DEFAULTSORT on anything whose categories are all currently sorted the same currently share the same sort key or none, even based on a small number of examples with sort keys. (And even if the sort key was the special case " ".) I found two of these mistakes in a cursory check of 25 contributions, and again, he did thousands of these. These are going to subtly mess up category pages for months or years unless we mass revert. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so it also ignored categories with no sortkey. I remember AWB used to do that, but it was fixed a while ago. I definitely support the reverting. --NE2 07:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If need be, I will be able to help revert the additions. Let me know if it is needed. Nakon 07:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems correct. Ordinarily it would be sufficient to merely block the sockpuppet accounts and make clear that he must restrict himself to one, but Betacommand has a long history of poor behavior, so I think the block should be of significant length and possibly indefinite. Everyking (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Why indefinite? A year seems like forever enough, without being forever forever, if you know what I mean. Hesperian 07:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Because Beta is/was a determinedly nasty user IMO, and if they'd be willing to wait a year, the chances are they'll create socks before the year's up! —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The real question is why he wasn't blocked a year ago. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't do that, don't talk down about someone whom can't respond, please. SQL^{Query me!} 07:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a point there. It may have sounded more like an attack because of the way I hastily worded it, unfortunately. (It's hard to really think through edits at the moment, with all the edit conflicts.) The point was we've seen that a year passing is not enough to stop Betacommand from causing disruption. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't support an indefinite block if he responds to this appropriately, but I still think it needs to be a while. He's got quite a history. Everyking (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Most likely he could never be trusted enough to use a bot account for a long period of time. I would certainly only suppot unblocking after one-to-three months should there be a restriction limiting Betacommand to one account only, and that would obviously mean no bot accounts. Given the contentious nature of his use of bots in the past, coupled with the sockpuppetry, I would regretfully support such a restriction should it be proposed if he is unblocked anytime in the near future. Daniel (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. I never expected this. Presuming this is correct, if Betacommand owns up to the sockpuppets and says how many there were, and apologises for any abuse, and limits himself to one account (permanently) and no bots (for a longer period of time, but not indefinite), I would probably support an eventual (though not immediate) unblock. I do remember him saying that he had another account that he was intending to switch to, but if he was using an alternate account abusively, that is never acceptable. I do hope we hear something from Betacommand at some point, though. His bot pages and talk pages do need to be kept, regardless of what eventually happens. Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand's edit to the bot policy page as Quercus appears to have been made during the course of a session of rc patrol using huggle. It is not inconceivable that the edit might have been an honest mistake caused by being too rash to use the proper account. Edits under the Quercus account appear limited to rc patrol, awb formatting edits, and a few trivial afd votes (with no double voting under the betacommand account). Now I've had my share of disagreements with Betacommand's actions, but this appears to be a relatively benign, if undisclosed, alternate account. Block the sock, there's no dire need to shut down the main account immediately and indefinitely. Suspicions of sockpuppet activity should at least be disclosed to the suspect to offer an opportunity for admission or explanation before the matter is escalated to an AN/I notice and block. As for the defaultsort tagging, well, I'm not too surprised. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (e/c)

The defaultsort bot edits, for one, were completely hypocritical (considering how strongly he insisted that nobody could run a bot without the BAG's approval, by which he generally meant his own approval). Also, his running of an unapproved bot because it seemed like a good idea to him at the time is a kind of abuse that he had done before, reluctantly apologized for, and promised not to do again. (In particular, I'm referring to when he spammed the main page history to "prevent it from being deleted"). It's also not very credible to defend his sockpuppet's reverting of the bot policy (a significant dispute that he is involved in) as an "honest mistake". How many more apologies and second chances would you give him? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall ever apologizing for Betacommand and I do take issue with his reckless automated tagging. There's a difference between not trusting him with a bot, or even administrative tools for that matter, and blocking his main account outright before he's had a chance to respond. If the edit to the bot policy was an accident then it was a monumentally stupid mistake - but an understandable one. I'm just not seeing indisputable evidence of malicious sockpuppeteering. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't even have any particular animosity towards this user but every other week there's a big heap of drama surrounding this user. He doesn't seem to want to operate according to the same rules we're all expected to follow. One or two or even three issues, okay, I can see a short block. But history has shown that short blocks have accomplished nothing. A one year block will accomplish nothing. If this was anyone other than the person in question, they would have been indef blocked eons ago and long forgotten. I'm sorry to say this but in the end, when someone cuases this much disruption to the project and even goes so far as to use a blatantly abusive sockpuppet, it's time to end the drahmaz. Like upper management everywhere says: nobody is irreplaceable. And that's how it should be. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Wait a moment people. I haven't yet seen evidence here that he was using the second account abusively. Double voting? Taking part in the same debates? (other than apparently by accident, as SQL seemed to be saying.) Faking an impression of larger support for an opinion? Those are the definition of abusive sockpuppetry. In the case of a high-profile account with lots of enemies, as Betacommand always was, an attempt at branching out part of his activities into a secondary account may be well on the side of legitimate secondary account usage. Before people (especially those with old grudges) rush to get Betacommand sanctioned here, I for one would like to see a more thorough discussion. It is indicative of the lynchmob atmosphere that is about to be forming here how Rspeer above jumped in calling for mass rollbacks of a series of edits – while those may well have been of questionable value, there is absolutely no evidence they were done in bad faith, and even less they had anything to do with abusive sockpuppetry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. Do you disagree that the mass rollbacks need to be done? Do you consider it good faith for a guy who goes on profanity-laden rants against anyone who suggests that bots can run without approval to run an unapproved bot? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please let's not anyone go on mass-rollback sprees. Many of these edits are correct and useful; many more are harmless. My brain's fried enough that I need something mindless to do for a while; I'm willing to take responsibility for checking all 5000+ of them. —Cryptic 09:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If we assume an honest mistake was made, there is no violation of 3RR on Wikipedia:Bot_policy. I count three.[47][48][49] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to all above) If you edit war on [[Page X]] with two different accounts, the burden is on you to self-revert the edit by the second account if it was an accident. If it wasn't an accident, then it's abusive sockpuppetry. Daniel (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm kinda disappointed he didn't (but I can understand that he doesn't want to draw attention on an alternate account). After a quick look, I see one instance where both users edited the same page (the instance everyone is discussing: rv1 rv2). Are there any other instances where that happened? (It could be a "oh crap I forgot to log out my alternate account" instance if it only happened once). A block could be in order (even if there is no 3RR violation, which makes me uncomfortable in this case). But indef? Seriously? I see grudges here (Or I'm gonna be much more harsh when patrolling WP:RFCU)... -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) In any case, an immediate indef block on the main account, before discussion here had even properly begun, and before BC had a chance to even respond, was way way premature. Blocks are preventative, there's no danger in waiting at least until the guy can tell us his side of the story. If I don't hear a good reason why we need him blocked now, I'm going to unblock in a couple minutes pending further discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object, it is well known that Betacommand has special technical tools that can edit up to 700 times per minute. Given the ironclad nature of the CU confirm, he can request unblock in the normal manner. MBisanz ^talk 07:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• A block was appropriate. He can request an unblock like everyone else. Considering some of the recent mass edits, we should be thankful that the block was made quickly. Enigma ^message 08:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Is abuse of sockpuppets not enough? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I'm not at all 'proud' or 'happy' about this situation, but, let us wait until we hear beta's side of the story, PLEASE. SQL^{Query me!} 08:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Came out wrong, was responding to future perf SQL^{Query me!} 08:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not indefinite, but going around the bot policy with a sock is a blockable offense. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support an indef block. Abusing sock puppets is awful for anyone to do, especially an experienced user like Beta. I would strongly disagree with any premature unblock and I would highly recommend against unblocking at this point. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 08:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I also object - he has just been through arbcom, let them handle this and the use of an unapproved bot on the main account (see ANI) Viridae^Talk 08:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of you may gasp and faint at the idea of anything good coming out of CSN, but bear with me: one of its best practices was to offer blocked users a chance to participate in sanctions discussions: we used a template to transclude a statement from the editor's talk page to the general thread. It was usually helpful but I'm no coder, so would somebody graft that template for use over here please? I'd like to hear Betacommand's side of this. If there's a rational explanation he'd be the best one to provide it. Durova^Charge! 08:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, what do people think the minimum/maximum block should be? Maybe that would be useful to establish. I say min 18 months, max indefinite, as now. —TreasuryTag—t—c

Sentence first, verdict afterward? Durova^Charge! 08:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Durova I've transcluded the non-template part of Betacommand's talk page below. His comments will appear there if/when he makes them. MBisanz ^talk 08:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 08:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea, only messes things up and leads to confusion. If people want to chat to BC, they should be using his talk page; if we want to hear BC's view here, we should unblock him and let him edit here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a chat though, is it? It's a ban discussion and his neck's on the chopping block. Please approach this with an open mind: if someone is banned for abusive socking do you think it's more or less likely that the socking would end if the person gets the boot without a meaningful way to present a defense? Durova^Charge! 08:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who keeps saying the chopping block was carried in a bit early. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, when an editor uses the opportunity well it sometimes sways discussions. If the editor abuses it the thing's easy to disable and that also sways discussions (by making a hard choice easier). Durova^Charge! 08:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The following edits by User:Ryulong may be relevant: [50], [51]. Ryulong also carried out the following deletions: [52], [53], presumably to avoid the creation and tagging of the page and category prejudicing the discussion. I've asked Ryulong if he would be happy to comment here on these actions. Carcharoth (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My comments at User talk:Nobody of Consequence is all I have to say.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in that discussion on WT:BOTS, and even when I saw the edit by Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs) in this sequence, it was obvious to me it was Beta working from one of his alternate accounts. Between the two accounts Beta did exactly three reverts, same as his opponent. Gimmetrow 08:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just adding my 2c here - support block for now unless a very good reason is provided, but I am loath to support any indefinite action against a user who, despite extreme moodiness and occasional strange or vindictive behaviour, is essentially a good faith user and not here for the purposes of harming the project. Essentially concur with Daniel's view above. Orderinchaos 08:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommandbot is now deflagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:INSPECTOR (more harm than good), block him for a short time, and then block him for evey instance of incivility. This may amount to an indefinite block, but while we're all watching him (and his socks?) now is the time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I recommend an RFAR. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

...assuming BC returns to defend this. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Actually, I don't. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(For the record,  Confirmed Quercus basaseachicensis = Betacommand. Someone might want to have a word with him, and tell him it's going to work out better if he takes their advice on what's being asked of him in all this. This isn't really a good thing :( FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC) )

Aside from the fact that this was obviously him (no checkuser needed), exactly how did he use this account to circumvent WP policy? He never presented or defended this account as an independent entity. How did this justify an indef block? Gimmetrow 09:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lucas and Gimmetrow here. This is absurd, if it had been any user other then Betacommand then the main account probably wouldn't have even been blocked: it would have been asked for an explanation. This looks to me like an innocent mistake, he had an alternate account, presumably to avoid the baying wolves. I saw more restraint from the Rangers fans in Manchester on Weds night. Woody (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite the opposite - had this been any other user, I'd have blocked him without even bringing it up here, just for the unauthorized and incorrect bot edits from a non-bot account. —Cryptic 10:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be wrong. Bot policy does not forbid users from running an assisted editing script from their regular user account. A script only needs bot approval if it's running in automatic mode, and otherwise maybe if its running "fast" or doing a very large number of edits. Since Beta has been doing the defsort work for a few days it's possible he's up in the "very large number" range, but it's a grey area. He's definitely not been doing the defsort edits "fast", and there are some edits where a defsort key is chosen when its not the only one present. This rather suggests he's making a choice for each one and not running in automatic mode. (He could have programmed some heuristics for an automatic decision, but I doubt it.) A new account might not get much leeway, but we do not block established users simply for running assisted scripts on their user accounts. Such edits are the responsibility of the users; if the edits are controversial the user should be approached and asked to stop, and only blocked if the user refuses. Gimmetrow 10:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through not quite 500 edits so far, and have not yet seen one where any but the first sortkey was picked; no human would approve an edit like this; and nobody can inspect and approve forty edits per minute. There is no way that this was an assisted editing script. —Cryptic 10:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Where did he do 40 edits per minute? In the sequences I've checked, it's typically 3 to 5 edits per minute. Gimmetrow 10:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a run of 42. —Cryptic 10:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be using a heuristic of "if all category sort tags are the same, replace with a DEFAULTOSRT". Doesn't AWB do this anyway if you set it up that way? Seems fairly straightforward, but would be more efficient to submit a bit request and do those ones at high-speed. Carcharoth (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunno on AWB, though it should be fixed if it does it too. Where there's more than one explicit sortkey, the others are preserved correctly; but where a sortkey is omitted intentionally, it gets trampled on anyway. (Unless you accept that articles in Category:Science museums should be sorted as "Science Museum".) —Cryptic 11:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If it were just "if all sort tags are the same replace with defsort" it wouldn't have any effect and wouldn't be much of an issue. But in edits like this, three categories do not have sort keys, so defsort changes things. And 40 epm seems rather high, even with maxlag. Agree the defsort tagging needs its own thread, as I can see someone making an argument about aspects of it. Gimmetrow 11:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely. I said earlier that people were forming a lynch mob, and now that mob has lynched Beta. Great. I hope you're all proud of yourselves (especially TreasuryTag, yet again there with the piano wire). ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 09:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That was completely uncalled for, and I would ask you to justify your comment about me, remove it, strike-through it or apologise. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well, this is too harsh. OK, confirmed he had alternate accounts, and the account was 'used' in edit-warring (though strictly, even in combination, there is no violation of 3RR, and I don't see any real abuse from the accounts, except the incivility). And that is now punished with indef blocks and de-botting/de-rollbacking of the bot-account, which were not involved in this. Indef the alternate account(s) (if needed, indef the bot), but I would suggest returning the flags, and to unblock the main account (so Betacommand can participate normally in this discussion). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Right now he's just blocked and we're holding a discussion. This is a controversial editor and it's not too surprising that a discussion is taking place. Redvers, please give reasons and evidence for your position and refrain from characterizing the people who disagree with you. The heat and speed of this discussion decreased quite a bit once the transclusion template went up; most people are waiting to hear Betacommand's side of things. Durova^Charge! 10:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still willing to unblock pending any further consensus forming here. I've told him I'll unblock as soon as he asks for it, on condition he refrains from mechanical / bot-like edits for the time being. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, we usually do not ban good faith editors for the first offense of sockpuppetry. It is usually 1 week to 1 month. As this is definitely the first case and the harm is relatively minor I would suggest 1..2 weeks. Obviously sockpuppeting is incompatible with the positions of trust including his participation in BAG. Otherwise the problems with the overzealous bot writing are completely separate. I was not aware the latest surge of BCbot activities were so bad (all defaultsorts on my watchlist seem to be put correctly), we might want to deflag the bot and in future apply more scrutiny to his changes, still no need to block it permanently, IMHO. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Last time I checked WP:SOCK, having an account for trivial wikignoming so that your main account does not get bogged down with edits, was acceptable - especially if you can't log on without the orange bar lighting up, as I'm sure Beta can't. You can hardly call Betacommand2 a deceptive use of an alt account. It looks to me as if animus against Beta's unfree image tagging is the major reason for blocking here, since with the exception of one edit which could be an honest mistake, there is absolutely no evidence of deception. Betacommand has 54,000 edits, an indefinite block for using trivially identifiable alt accounts hardly looks like the kind of thing to justify bannination. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly agree more Guy. naerii - talk 13:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking through Quercus basaseachicensis's contributions, and it does just look like an alternate account, not an abusive sockpuppet. I had thought Betacommand2 was the only alternate account. I don't see why this should be labelled a "mistake", and the only evidence that has emerged so far is the single edit to do with the edit war. If Betacommand acknowledges that was a mistake, I think we can unblock. The DEFAULTSORT stuff is a concern, and I would hope Betacommand would not do that again without testing stuff. Any human editor checking their edits would have spotted this. Anyone else reviewing a trial set of edits would have spotted this. Betacommand should have spotted this. It is good of Cryptic to offer to go through the thousands of edits and fix the ones that need fixing, but a bot would be much better suited to finding the wrong DEFAULTSORTs. See my ancient proposal (taken up by Quadell) at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 3, plus User talk:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run. There is a lot of biographical stuff that needs doing, but poor bot work could make things worse. It needs a lot of human oversight. Carcharoth (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would ask that any unblock not be performed until Betacommand actually comments here (ie. on his talk page, though the transclusion doesn't seem to be working). Future Perfect's comment above seems to imply that Betacommand is talking with others about this off-wiki. This is fine, but if Betacommand respects the community, he will say something here (ie. on-wiki) as well. If he posts here and acknowledges the single inappropriate edit identified so far, I will personally unblock based on the discussion here so far. Carcharoth (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Clarify: No, there's been no off-wiki talking that I'm aware of. I was refering simply to a talkpage note I left him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah right, sorry about that. I do tend to assume lots of off-wiki talking goes on. If anyone does chat with Betacommand off-wiki, could they ask him to respond on-wiki before any unblock? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The DEFAULTSORT stuff probably needs its own thread. Betacommand doesn't seem to have been responding to conceerns raised about it. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Grnngh. Hadn't realized he'd been doing it so long; obviously I'm watching entirely the wrong sort of article. (Though I'd thought it was weird that he started in the middle of the G's.) —Cryptic 11:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• My two cents: Ever since I've known Betacommand (starting with him blocking me in one of his username-blocking bot runs), he has constantly been under fire for performing poorly thought-out bot actions (a number of which are documented in his first Arbcom case). In several cases, time-consuming mass reverts have had to be performed to clean up the damage (such as his massive removal of valid external links documented in the Arbcom case, and the current DEFAULTSORT episode). His one bot task that actually helped the encyclopedia was the image license checking feature, but that has now been taken over by other bots such as the NFCC compliance bot. This means that now, Betacommand's bot runs either do aesthetic changes that have no real advantage, or actually damage the encyclopedia. The Wikipedia community has to constantly make adaptations to ordinary processes in order to accommodate Betacommand (bending rules that would have had other editors blocked, creating a separate noticeboard for Betacommand issues, and modifying the BAG approvals process so that Betacommand would not have to pass a community request for membership that he would obviously fail). This means that large amounts of volunteer time are spent controlling Betacommand, rather than improving the encyclopedia. Based on this, combined with Betacommand's chronic incivility which has not changed at all since the first Arbcom case, I am of the opinion that Betacommand has exhausted the community's patience. At the least, he should be indefinitely prohibited from running bots. Is he back? (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a very valid point. His behaviour (spec. civility issues) hasn't improved at all. If copius amounts of editors come up and say: "Hey, you're being mean!" - Surely you're gonna get the point eventually? You don't keep saying: "It's not me, it's them. They're all just nuts." - He hasn't heeded any sort of constructive criticism. I think this sock fiasco is the final straw. He knew he'd get caught. Perhaps he was relying on his allies and advocates to bail him out? Or his ability to get away with everything? I don't care how much crap he's taken for his bot, he isn't granted any special rights. If I, or anyone else for that matter, had a sock and was being naughty then I'd certainly be indef blocked. In fact, I'd support the block as a consequence of my own foolishness. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that IMO, a lot of the "crap" Betacommand received for his bot was caused by him giving poor explanations in his bot's messages, and not being willing to answer even legitimate questions about the bot, thus frustrating people who got their images tagged with "bad rationale per WP:NFCC#10c" without understanding what was the issue. When these people then asked Betacommand politely what was wrong, they got either no response or short responses like "read WP:NFCC and stop bothering me", instead of a simple explanation like "You need to link to the article where the image is used". I think that a less combative bot owner with better communication skills would have been able to run BetacommandBot without receiving a tenth of all the "harassment" Betacommand uses to justify his actions. When the bot started the task of checking images for article links, I contacted Betacommand in order to suggest a better wording of the bot's messages, but received no response. Is he back? (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This is actually quite an incorrect characterisation of BC's responses. A few weeks back I went and put together a list of examples of BC responding to questions on his talk page in a perfectly acceptable manner and found (to my surprise, considering the amount of hatred for the guy) that he responds satisfactorily nine times out of ten. You know, I've never seen anyone provide diffs to back up these claims of BC being horrifically uncommunicative, whereas in about 5 minutes on his talk page I could pick out plenty of diffs that show the opposite. And to be honest, people who don't understand NFCC probably shouldn't be uploading fair use images in the first place. naerii - talk 13:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we really talking about indefinitely blocking an established editor over what is effectively one bad edit? Even assuming it was intentional (which we shouldn't) it seems like a bit of an over reaction. Propose lifting the block (time served) with bot rights remaining suspended pending further discussion. Guest9999 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the block should be lifted. The rush to get the knives out for BC here is simply astonishing. naerii - talk 13:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this alternate account has been editing since October 2007. Since that timeperiod, Betacommand has been blocked on four separate occasions and experienced an RFAR. Per the good hand/bad hand account standards, how is this compatible with our Alternate Account policy? You can split up editing in areas to avoid overlap (something he hasn't done here, both accounts edit the same things), for security (thats what Betacommand2 is for), for mass edits (what BetacommandBot is for), or if your leaving one identity for a new one (but you stop editing under the old identity). Going 8 months with one account "clean" and another account under blocks, sanctions, etc, does not seem appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 14:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand's response

[Beta's talkpage is transcluded below. When comments are made, they will appear here.]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Preserved as a record of BC's userpage at the time of unblock MBisanz ^talk 14:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I was attempting to start over under a new username, I was every careful to avoid editing the same pages, and the edit at WP:BOT was an accident. I think this issue has been taken far far out of context. WP:SOCKs may be blocked for being abusive, how as that sock be used abusively? see this for a listing of all overlaping pages. other than random cleanup there is no overlap except for the one error on WP:BOT β^_command 13:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed unblock

I'm satisifed with Betacommand's response here. If there are no substantive objections, I propose to unblock later this afternoon. I'll give it two hours from this timestamp, and I'll let the blocking admin, User:MBisanz know. Please limit replies here to how to handle any unblock and any objections. Carcharoth (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, the block was an extreme overreaction in my opinion. Kelly ^hi! 13:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree per my comment above. Guest9999 (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I don't want to rush to judgment about the rush to judgment, but perhaps it was a rush to judgment. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My personal request is give Betacommand a second chance, considering his good contributions. I agree he is very aggressive but not a purposeful vandal -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't give him a second chance that was done years ago. 10th perhaps?Geni 13:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Providing the bot remains blocked, with its botflag removed, and he doesn't use a bot on his new account without clearing it - properly - with the BAG, no objections to an unblock. If he is attempting to start over with a new username, should the new name be unblocked, or the old one, or both? Neıl ☎ 13:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the best step forward is an unblock for BC here. naerii - talk 13:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2)Support unblock in manner proposed by Carcharoth, agree with Relata refero. Added: Unblock all three, request that Beta choose one. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 13:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse - starting over cleanly as an established user is hard - mistakes happen, and I see no evidence of maliciousness. WilyD 13:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse - BC may have been a casualty of ZOMG DHRAMA Week on the Wiki - is it something in the water lately? Either way, no concerns about the proposed unblock. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'll defer to the community's wishes in the unblock, although I would urge moderation along the lines Neil describes. MBisanz ^talk 13:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, plus returning bot rights on User:BetacommandBot. The withdrawal of the bot-rights has nothing to do with this block (which was in itself an overreaction), the bot has been very useful, and still is. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

How many times is he going to run poorly-thought-out and unapproved (one of the reasons for approval is to run the idea by someone else so they can point out problems) tasks, though? --Random832 (contribs) 14:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The bot policy is crystal clear:

“ Administrators may block bot accounts that operate without approval, operate in a manner not specified in their approval request, or operate counter to the terms of their approval... A block may also be issued if a bot process operates... logged in to an account other than its own ”

I think we've established that an edit series running at fourty two edits per minute is not a manually-supervised script. This is BetacommandBot operating on an unauthorised, unflagged account, in clear violation of bot policy; for which the bot may be blocked indefinitely, never mind for a few days. Happy‑melon 14:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblocking User:Betacommand, or whichever single account Betacommand wishes to edit from for the time being. Conditional on the other accounts remaining blocked for the time being, and BCB remaining unflagged until we've sorted out this mess. Happy‑melon 14:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Agree with Happy-melon, I mean are we seriously going to condone this type of behavior from him when he has so clearly had a track history of abuse? If the other account wants to be unblocked than it needs to go through BAG like everyone else, just because it is BC does not mean he does not have to fallow the rules. I will only support a unblock if certain terms are met like Neil describes above. Tiptoety ^talk 14:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) Re Happy-melon: Yes, he was running a script, probably botwise on his own account, as he has done before. But that was not what this block was about, nor was BetacommandBot used for that (and if this was an automated script, then still; loading 40 pages and hitting "Save page" 40 times in a minute might be possible). Hence I suggest unblocking Betacommand for this so-called sockpuppetry, and returning the bot-flags to BetacommandBot. If there is an issue with these edits, then that is a separate issue. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• To be fair, he's only had more than five edits per minute six times (I've only looked at edits April 20 and later): six at 17:11, 15 May 2008; six at 18:07, 15 May 2008; six at 19:17, 15 May 2008; eight at 19:49, 15 May 2008; fifteen at 19:40, 15 May 2008; and forty-two at 19:39, 15 May 2008. Even stretching WP:AGF to the breaking point, though, there's runs of dozens of harmful edits in a row, all harmful in the same way; if this is a manually-approved script, he's not competent to run it. A generous estimate is 10% of these edits being useful; 70% harmless; and 20% actively harmful. I think blocking him for the alternate account was probably an overreaction, but can't condone allowing him to continue like this. —Cryptic 14:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, the DEFAULTSORT edits need to stop. Some really bad ones there. Carcharoth (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Update - As MBisanz has replied (I've also discussed on his talk page), and there has been a lot of replies above, I'm bringing forward the unblock point. I'm only going to unblock Betacommand (the main account). There is a lot of other stuff that needs doing (pages undeleted and bot flags possibly returned), and at least two alternate accounts to consider. I'm going to let others handle that, and I suggest this is done on the basis of the case Betacommand himself makes for what should be done. In other words, an unblock based on this discussion and Betacommand's explanation, and to allow Betacommand to present his case about the other accounts and the bot account and flag. I'll still be around for another few hours if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand has a long history of violations of policy, including assumption of bad faith, incivility, personal attacks, drama and abuse of automated tools. This case of sockpuppetry is merely the tip of the iceberg. An arbitration case concerning his behaviour closed about one month ago, with no actionable remedies, though one remedy indicated that "further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time" if Betacommand did not improve his conduct. I would only support an unblock if such a review takes place, leading to actionable sanctions against Betacommand. The way we handle misconduct by Betacommand reminds me of a political cartoon from a source-based question in a History exam I took, which shows a dictator walking on a road with signs that say "WARNING", followed by "LAST WARNING", then "ABSOLUTELY FINAL WARNING" and subsequently...you get the idea. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to say no to an unblock - on the basis of once again violating bot policy and the recent incivility (see RfArb talk page). This needs to go back to arbcom. Viridae^Talk 14:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support requesting the ArbCom to take up that further review and oppose the return of bot flags for the time being. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Unblocked. I've now unblocked the main account, as I said, because Betacommand's explanation satisfied me and because there was only one instance of possible abuse. Predictably, people are now opposing since I left this thread. Still, I've left the bot account and the two alternate accounts blocked. I think it is only fair that Betacommand be allowed to participate here to present his case concerning the other accounts. There is still a lot of tidying up and discussion needed (I may have forgotten to do some of the stuff needed after an unblock), but that will have to be for others to do. I'll be around for the next few hours if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the unblock is appropriate. Also, I dont think that this needs to go to arbcom again. I would like to see Betacommand agree to not run a bot for a month, and to steer clear of bot related discussion. The suggested break is in order to let the dust settle, and to start things back on the right foot when he does request to run bot tasks as before. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He needs to be watched closely, he's been warned multiple times. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter is that this sockpuppetry hasn't been disruptive enough to warrant a block in itself. Other factors have obviously motivated this block, but the decision to block should be left to the community, or possibly be deferred to Arbcom. So I support the unblock, but this business isn't going to stop. Cenarium (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not oppose the unblock, as long as the "further review" by ArbCom takes place and we stop giving Betacommand infinite "last chances". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to be long winded. the reaction and actions taken by some admins was uncalled for. what should be done is Betacommand2, BCBot unblocked, BCBot flag is returned and "Quercus basaseachicensis" will no longer edit. I will also agree to a 30 day halt on BCBot edits, except for ant-spam related reports and the article by size see WP:DABS which are run on cronjobs. β^_command 14:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the sound of that. I think those two tasks, and any others which maintain specific pages in the project namespace, should be left running as suggested by Betacommand. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, do be long-winded. Reasonable concerns about the DEFAULTSORT edits have been raised. It would be helpful if you were to address them. The chance of your bot being unblocked, and no new arbcom case being opened, is directly proportional to the clarity and frankness of your replies. So far, I'd give youthem poor marks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

While a detailed response about the DEFAULTSORT edits would be useful at some point, above BC committed to a 30 day break from running any but the most mundane and non-controversial of bot tasks. Also, he would need to request BAG to run any new bot tasks, and I expect BAG would be very cautious in what tasks they approved BCB from now on, especially as BAG members were party to this block. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that Betacommand has violated the conditions set forth in his latest Arbcom case, more precisely "(B) To operate BetacommandBot and other bots only in accordance with all applicable policies and within the scope of their approvals by the Bot Approvals Group;" (my emphasis) Is he back? (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

also recently violated the civility conditions as well. This needs to go back to arbcom. Viridae^Talk 15:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I really do not understand how the fresh start rule applies here, per WP:SOCK:

If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner. Note that the "right to vanish" does not cover this, and repeated switching of accounts is usually seen as improper.

Even under it, you only get one account at a time. MBisanz ^talk 15:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Poorly written section, hastily cobbled together in response to ArbCom's setting of policy in the PrivateMusings case. It is merely advisory. And I really don't know who sees repeated switching as "improper", like socks with sandals. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No "start over" can be appropriate here. BC is nearing a community ban, after years of unhelpful conduct that has failed to improve. Starting over under a new account to escape well-deserved scrutiny is not a sensible option. Friday (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as he remains in good standing, he is entirely free to do exactly as he pleases about a new account. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider it good standing to be under an ArbCom remedy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the question is if his attitude will improve if he's no longer facing the wrath of image uploaders? If BC chooses to "start over" and focus on editing alone, without the drama his bots create, I see no harm in it. I'm certain various admins will be aware of his new identity, so while he might start with a clean slate, his new identity will still face the scrutiny his ... aggressive ... past has earned him. Resolute 15:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as long as both users contributions don't overlap, there is nothing preventing a user to have an alternate account. The way I read the "avoid scrutiny" part of WP:SOCK is when both users are used to do things that would raise questions if done by a single account. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't been facing image uploaders for months (thankfully). It hasn't really helped. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

How is it possible that Betacommand can get away with all of this? He was desysopped in his first ArbCom case for bot abuse, yet continues to abuse bots, and nothing happens. He was instructed by ArbCom to remain civil, continues to be incivil, yet noone could be bothered to do anything. Now we have sockpuppetry, and he can still get away with it. Seriously guys, what would Betacommand need to do to get blocked? When will you draw the line? How much more obvious does it need to get that Betacommand is unwilling to comply with anything or cooperate with anyone? Aecis^Brievenbus 15:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you take a nice cup of tea and read the thread? Many people here don't think this is abusive sockpupetry. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is chocolate milk okay as well? ;) I read the thread, that's what had me baffled and caused my reaction. How many more second chances/final warnings are we gonna give him? Aecis^Brievenbus 15:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the terms BC has set here. There will be a number of people monitoring his edits. I will also be watching closely, and will block him myself if he violates any of them. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock BetacommandBot

I propose to unblock BetacommandBot, based on this pledge by Betacommand, on the condition that the bot will be blocked if it edits outside those areas. I would, however, encourage Betacommand to continue to propose new BetacommandBot tasks, ready to be implemented at the end of the 30 day voluntary self-imposed ban. This will help the community in deciding if further Arbcom review is needed. I'll leave it to the bureaucrats and WP:BAG to decide about reflagging BCBot. I'm still here for the next hour, so as before any objections, say so below. I really will stick to the hour, or extend it and let someone else handle the unblock. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per what I have said above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the unblock, with the express condition that if BC starts to use an account (bot, or not) to perform unsupervised automated tasks with no prior formal approval, he will be blocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, with the promise of the block being indefinite. Resolute 15:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock in order to perform approved tasks. Kelly ^hi! 15:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the terms BC has set here. There will be a number of people monitoring his edits. I will also be watching closely, and will block him myself if he violates any of them. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but prefer lucasbfr's revised unblock proviso. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No. He can't be trusted with bots. You can't just keep giving him second chances for the same thing. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's more a probation than a second chance. Carcharoth (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's insane to allow him anywhere near a bot. However, if there are enough people babysitting... Friday (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Weren't the remedies of two ArbCom cases enough probation? Aecis^Brievenbus 16:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Being that Betacommand has violated the restrictions on bot use set forth in his most recent ArbCom case, I believe that an unblock should be cleared with ArbCom. However, if consensus is to unblock, I agree with the conditions set forth by Betacommand and lucasbfr. Is he back? (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. Betacommand's comments upto this point have neither explained, nor apologized for, the DefaultSort issue. Though he's made consessions regarding the next 30 days [54], he's also failed to make any commitment to follow bot policy beyond those concessions. The sockpuppeting issue was an overreaction, but the concern over the way he operates scripts is nonetheless justified. If we are going to give BC his (X+1)^th chance, then we ought to expect some evidence of contrition and commitment to improve. So far, I don't see that. An apology for the script-related problems documented above would be a good place to start. Otherwise I fear we will just end up back here again in a few more weeks. Dragons flight (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This will be short and to the point, to avoid losing my temper at the moment. due to the harassment and stalking that follows me even simple bot task request involve a large amount of hostility and disruptive editing by certain users, I wasnt in the mood for more trolling, and did not want the hassle and harassment. having trialled the script for several thousand edits without any issues I finally made it automatic. But to the known harassment that would come I just avoided BRFA. Ive been quietly attempting to fade out of the spotlight. for now -- β^_command 04:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to leave Wikipedia if you are sick of the trolling and harassment that you receive (some of which you deserve). We will throw a party when you leave, as there will be less assumption of bad faith, newbie-biting, incivility, personal attacks, drama, abuse of automated tools, harassment and abusive sockpuppetry on Wikipedia without you. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest Betacommand, that simple bot task request you linked to is a very good example of what I see as the problem with your behaviour: people are bringing up valid questions and concerns, and you respond by ignoring the concerns, arrogantly dismissing any opposition without answering the factual questions asked, and insulting people. The only harassment, hostility and disruptive editing that I can see in that BRFA is coming from you. Is he back? (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be inclined to unblock for 36 hours, then re-block, review every contribution for its value in itself, and whether it stuck to Beta's pledge, and then re-approve for more open editing. Note that I did disagree with the unblock of Beta at all, but consensus struck and my opinion on this issue has changed accordingly. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to reblock; I will be happy to put in a few hours at roughly the 36 hr mark to review every single edit by all of his accounts to confirm he has kept the pledge that I asked for. I am sure others will be willing to do the same. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If this were to happen, I feel it would take a great deal of time to review every edit by BCBot, as a bot that edits at a very high rate. Whether I agree with this idea or not, well.., but I can't see how reviewing every edit is practical, if even feasible. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve, the bot tasks that he has requested to keep running do not involve a high number of edits, and any review of his edits on his main account would need to carefully consider if the edit rate was feasible without a bot - if he went over 10/min it would be a cause for alarm, and if he went as high as 20/min for any sustained period within the first 36 hours, I would probably call foul and block him for having broken the spirit of these unblock parameters. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Update - I said I'd unblock the bot after an hour pending discussion, but based on the discussion so far, I'm not willing to unblock, particularly give Dragonflight's comment, which on reflection I agree with. I do think that an eventual unblock may be possible, but it looks like more discussion is needed. OK, that's me done for today. Over to someone else. Carcharoth (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at this time. Betacommand was instructed by the arbitration committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Remedies (at 1, B), to operate bots "only in accordance with all applicable policies and within the scope of their approvals". He has not complied with this instruction. It may be advisable to remit the matter to the arbitration committee, particularly if Betacommand remains unwilling or unable to articulate the reasons for his non-compliance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not going to take any action one way or the other myself as I've had runins with BC in the past so might not be neutral - but I'd support leaving the bot blocked. While it does save everyone else a lot of time, in my opinion the time taken cleaning up its mistakes, plus the (unquantifiable) loss to the project of good-faith new editors driven away by the combination of the bot's "kill them all and let God sort them out" approach to deletion-tagging and BC's rudeness, more than cancels out the benefits of the bot. I agree with the assorted people above that this really needs an enforceable decision by Arbcom or it'll keep festering. — iridescent 16:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. (ec) Agree with Lucasbfr, provided that the block is considered a ban. All bots, all socks, all editors that are in favor of letting him run unsupervised </sarcasm>, etc., should be blocked. As this more like his 20th chance, "starting over" does not seem fair, unless the Arbcom explicitly allows it. If anyone else had made this many clearly incorrect bot or script-assisted edits, he would have been placed on a timer parole, probably limited to 2 edits per minute. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Another comment I'm not entirely familiar with the whole situation, although as far as I am aware, he was blocked for his bot going out of control, and incivility, but since I'm not really up to speed on this, please can someone fill me in?? I hear that there was a separate noticeboard about this. Anyhow, maybe if ArbCom looks at this, it would be a solution, but whether it'd work is anyone's guess... Ta, --1qx (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I am completely confused. Since when is it illegal to use a second account? That has never been a blockable offense. Corvus cornix_talk 17:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, he's had far too many chances on the bot front. Good faith eroded. Stifle (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A few months back, there was a reluctance to block Betacommand and all his 'bots because there was a need to finish the non-free-use image tagging job, and his 'bot was doing that. But that job is done, and other 'bots, from less controversial editors and with better track records, have taken over that task. Betacommand has already been disciplined by ArbCom in two separate arbitrations. At this point, there's no essential task being performed by any Betacommand 'bot. So I suggest he be denied the ability and privilege to run 'bots and restricted to one (1) existing user account for ordinary editing. He also should continue to play no role in the Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group, from which he was previously removed. --John Nagle (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I am utterly fed up with adding to what is now pushing half a gigabyte of discussion over Betacommand's continued inability to use automated editing tools sensibly, within the confines of policy and the two ArbCom cases to which he has been a party, and most importantly, without breaking just about everything he touches. I've learnt the hard way: if you do things with bots, you make mistakes; if you don't do trials and tests, and get approval first, you break things. Why Betacommand hasn't been able to accept this after god knows how many incidents is quite beyond me. There is no justification here for blocking Betacommand himself, but User:BetacommandBot has utterly exhausted my patience, and (I think) that of a large swathe of the community. Happy‑melon 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose BCB unblock for now, if only to shut up those who say that BCB does indispensable work. I think a month off will show that if we dispense with the BCB bot work, then we can dispense with BC's vitriol as well. ➪HiDrNick! 19:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose bot unblock for now. I support the unblock of Betacommand but I don't support unblocking the bot at this time. I pretty much agree with what Dragons flight has said above in this section. I also feel the problems with Beta and his bots have been going on for way too long and taken up far too much time of too many people and I don't see any need to rush to unblocking the bot without ensuring a proper resolution is in place first. Sarah 01:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• User:BetacommandBot unblocked: Whether or not a block is appropriate for bot-related work, civility concerns, or anything else, what is clear is that Beta did not use his bot account as a sockpuppet. I truly don't the intention of jumping into this foray – if the community decides action needs to be taken, so be it. However, blocks should be done appropriately. This particular block was inappropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Just for my own clarity and hopefully for others, the preceeding title means that MZMcBride has actually gone ahead and unblocked BetacommandBot, not just that he feels it should be unblocked

((Block log); 21:04 . . MZMcBride (Talk | contribs) unblocked BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (inappropriate block) )

Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • A very bad move. The only reason Betacommand keeps getting away with stuff is because no sanction ever sticks to him. There's always someone unaware of the magnitude of his disruption who is willing to undo it. And then he just assumes that everyone who criticized his actions was evil and wrong and he doesn't have to change the way he operates in the slightest. (Update: ... He's making that assumption right now. Nice job, MZMcBride.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is against unblocking. I propose that MZMcBride be whacked with a trout the size of Singapore. Repeatedly unblocking Betacommand and BetacommandBot when they are blocked signals to Betacommand that he can get away with anything. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus can go sexually pleasure itself, fact remains that BC did not abuse multiple accounts. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. If using two accounts to edit war on policy pages is not abusive sockpuppetry, what is? His long history of assumption of bad faith, newbie-biting, incivility, personal attacks, drama, abuse of tools and harassment already warrants an indefinite block, if not a ban. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What's uncivil is using a misunderstanding as a way to attack an editor in good standing (who's under the microscope and far more criticized than the average Wikipedian). I don't think BC is perfect, far from it, but in no way is he deserving of the kind of comments that is coming out of your mouths. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I think it would be a shame to lose our automated image checker, but right now I feel that the issue Dragons flight brought up needs to be addressed. bibliomaniac15 04:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What's with this thread's fixation on the image checker? That task was de-approved a month ago! There are now several better-managed bots that perform the task of checking fair use rationales. Betacommand's current interactions with Wikipedia, whether constructive or disruptive, have approximately nothing to do with image copyrights. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • ...It occurs to me you might mean the task that looks for duplicate images between en:WP and commons. That task is replaceable and not urgent, though. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Not a sock, end of story (for this block). -- Ned Scott 06:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Please feel free to leave Wikipedia if you are sick of the trolling and harassment that you receive (some of which you deserve). We will throw a party when you leave JLWS, that comment is way out of line. For the record - I have had a problem or two with Betacommand's BOT, and yes, I lost my temper. However, the error was mine and not his. Was he a bit curt, sure, but I don't blame him for that. My messages to him were anything but civil. In short - mind Civil please. F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 13:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

After further consideration, I admit that the comment about throwing a party was incivil and wish to retract it, though I must comment that it pales in comparison to the incivility Betacommand and his supporters have been known to dish out. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed partial sanction

John Nagle makes an interesting suggestion:

• Unblock Betacommand.
• Restrict Betacommand to 1 existing user account for ordinary editing.
• Withdraw Betacommand's bot operation privilege.
• Endorse Betacommand's restriction from Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group.

I'd be willing to review after 3 months if there are no new problems and he's doing useful work. Durova^Charge! 18:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Account restriction is unnecessary, there is no suggestion of deceit or abusive sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with JzG, I wanted to think about this overnight (it was well after midnight local time when the thread started), but by the time I got online today it was mostly resolved. If the other account was really an abusive sock, I would expect to see a little more ... abuse from it. And its not like its a secret who User:Betacommand2 is. Mr.Z-man 18:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • To clarify my comment, I endorse the other sanctions. I would reword the second to require all alternate accounts to be clearly marked as such. Mr.Z-man 19:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • JtZ, how has he not abused the sock accounts? He used his bot on another account to avoid the scrutiny that he would have received from his main bot account, its no different from a POV pusher who has a different account to make the same edits, but for the reason that the second account is not watched so heavily. I feel that using a bot on a unauthorized account is abuse. Tiptoety ^talk 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Many people intend to scrutinize his edits. They should be in one place for scrutiny. When his human edits are mixed between Betacommand, Betacommand 2, Quercus basaseachicensis, and even occasionally BetacommandBot, it makes them very hard to check. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Any defense of Betacommand and his actions has been predicated on the assumption that his automated tasks are indispensable to the project, that they are a net gain. Three months without bot activity from any of his accounts could prove to be a valuable sanity check for Betacommand and the community. His sense of entitlement to run whatever script seems like a good idea at the time needs to be curtailed until he develops some sense of personal responsibility for executing poorly thought out runs, angering people, and wasting everybody's time. I think the sockpuppetry concerns has been adressed, limiting Betacommand to one account is now a matter of practicality. With the exception of the recently uncovered sock, all alternate accounts he's used so far were created to handle specific types of semi-automated edits and bot runs. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that Werdna has volunteered to re-implement any bot task that is considered to be indispensable. --Random832 (contribs) 19:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse I think BC needs a serious sanity check: when he's on form, he's a bloody brilliant editor, but he is so good at shooting himself in the foot... Happy‑melon 19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, and I echo HM's sentiment above. BC's bot work is generally useful, but the constant incivility needs to end, and the abusive sockpuppetry just tears it. Since ArbCom did not sort this out properly last time (or the time before that), we can do so here and now without their help with Durova's reasonable proposal. ➪HiDrNick! 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse the last three. I had blocked this user a month ago for a spree of incivility and personal attacks that would have landed most users with a week, not to speak of any user under arbcom restrictions. Was frankly a joke, but he seems to be a special case. The community can leave Betacommand unblocked without any attempt to address his problems if it likes, ignore arbitration after arbitration, but it'll just have to deal with more stuff later. So I guess that's that's something that can keep the idle busy at a later stage. I'm guessing some people must just like this kind of thing. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think they call it Bunker Mentality or Us vs. Them. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse with caveat that no bot work remains in place indef - no review, not now, not ever. He hasn't used his bot responsibly the first 30 times he was told off, there is no indication that will change. Viridae^Talk 22:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Betacommand is unblocked now, so 1 is moot. Point 2 may be unnecessary as JzG says. Fine with 3 and 4. But surely we need to have no involvement with bots at all. Definitely no more unauthorised ones, no asking for authorisation for new ones, and no AWB either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Partial endorse Point 1 - restrictions on edit speed? Or will the same automated/semi-automated ops happen on the main account with the same attendant outcomes? Point 3 - per my point 1 and what is the timeframe/procedure to reintroduce bot activity, or is this indef/never? Point 4 - given some incivility(!) on bot associated pages, does this extend to a topic ban? Franamax (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Then I'll clarify: common sense applies. Actions that common sense would interpret as gaming the bot restriction--or as incivility--may convert a 90 day trial into a permanent restriction, and may bring forth additional blocks and restrictions. If Betacommand intends to embark upon a gray area, I expect him to open a noticeboard thread to explain his intentions and reasons in advance of acting upon them, and seek consensus for the step. If he acts in good faith and demonstrates that he can adjust to feedback, then I'd open a point-by-point discussion of each restriction after 90 days and the community can decide by consensus whether to keep or lift those measures. Durova^Charge! 04:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • With the notation that "common sense" often includes the argument that one can perform many edits per minute using tabbed browser pages, so beware; and with particular approval of GRBerry's comment below, in light of this clarification, fully endorse. Franamax (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Common sense also says that if he intends to embark upon edits that could reasonably be confused with bot editing, he should seek the community's consent in advance and explain his reasons. Durova^Charge! 07:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Frankly, I think "no bots" in this sense has at a bare minimum to mean "no fully automated tools at all and the only semi-automated tools he may use are those available in the Gadgets tab of Mypreferences". (Since I use none of the tools, I can't say if there are any that he should be restricted from using.) One account only is a needed restriction for the no bot restriction to be meaningful and for the review at the end to be meaningful. The problems have been going on far too long for us to not conclude on some sort of additional restrictions, and I haven't seen a better proposal. GRBerry 04:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose BC didn't violate a single part of WP:SOCK, and giving him any account restrictions related to that incident is retarded. For parts 3 and 4, leave that to the Bot Approvals Group, that's what they're here for. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the wording of WP:SOCK, I'm uneasy about the use of an undisclosed sock account to alter a policy page that a recent arbitration decision had instructed him to adhere to, and that he made no attempt to seek consensus for the change or to apologize for the mistake, if indeed it was an honest one. Taken in isolation that would not necessarily be something the community would act upon, but in fact this is not an isolated instance, and the supportive statements that have been offered on his behalf leave me both sympathetic and unsatisfied. Shall we interpret this instance of socking by a narrow parsing of the sock policy and ignore its intent? Shall we pretend that--because this is his first confirmed use of multiple accounts--he deserves the full breadth of lenient good faith the community accords to a civil new editor? I say no: reluctantly and with a heavy heart I say no. This is someone who has been asked to play nicely many times. We have reached the point where failure to act either renders policy meaningless meaningless or feeds the rumors that Wikipedia is all about which friends you make. I bear Betacommand no ill will; I also mean business. Durova^Charge! 06:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, with reservations; I think it should be toughened up. He needs to have absolutely nothing to do with bots anymore, and he needs to be restricted from engaging in any kind of incivility or poor behavior. Everyking (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse restricting Betacommand to one account and banning him from using bots or other automated tools, with additional requirement that in six months, he must write three GAs, as well as fly to Singapore and stalk five Singaporean celebrities to take photos of them. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse and suggest careful monitoring of civility. Maybe a group of three or four named admins could be formed to mentor/keep an eye on him? —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose:There is nothing to sanction. Beta was the subject of an accusation of abusive socking, which was later determined to be incorrect (in that the socks weren't abusive). The folks who oppose BCB & Beta in general have used this as a coatrack for all the complaints they've ever had about him - which is just plain wrong. Frankly, were I in Beta's position, I would have told the project to f-off some time ago. My advice to Beta is and has been for some time, to abandon all of his NFCC tainted Betacommand accounts & edit with a new, unconnected identity. He was in good enough standing to pass RfA before, which suggests to me that he's quite capable of being an editor in good standing - absent all the vultures and their persistent attacks. --Versageek
• Oppose. This is inappropriate. The thread was started because of alleged socking, not because of alleged bot abuse. The alleged socking was false. To nevertheless block the bot is at best fruit of the poisonous tree. Further, it's ineffective, because standard bot policy allows a user to do assisted edits from a user account. The bot account should be unblocked. The community could, however, require beta to do any bot or assisted edits from the bot account only; part of the reason the problems with the defsort edits weren't noticed is that the edits were not done from the bot account. Gimmetrow 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse I think this is a good compromise. Enigma ^message 03:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot reblocked

• Note: I've blocked BetacommandBot per the proposed sanction. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (to be unblocked pending a review in a period of a minimum of thirty days, as suggested by Betacommand's concession ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

What disruption was he causing just now that caused the need for the bot to be blocked? What were you preventing? There was never any discussion to block the bot in the first place. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read over the section you've just commented in. I've also detailed the reasons behind the block at Betacommand's talkpage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No consensus to block, as well as abuse of the blocking policy. At the very least, if you had consensus, all you would need to do is tell BC to not run the bot, and only block if he did not comply. It doesn't get any simpler than that, and I'm saddened to see even more admins simply don't understand that blocking is a last resort. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

IRC channel

It’s just been brought to my attention that Betacommand runs a secret channel on IRC. It’s for things that “can’t be discussed in the admins channel” and for things such as blocks and deletes – precisely the things that shouldn’t be discussed on IRC. Apparently there was quite a rush of early supports to the recent BAG memberships as well as they were discussed in the channel... Now... I’ve tried hard to clean up the image of IRC, so if Beta or anyone else with access here would like to elaborate further on this, and preferably passing full logs to ArbCom, it would be much appreciated. This is sort of a joke. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I may have to kill you for that. Or at least whack you about the head repeatedly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that's Freenode. Arbcom has no jurisdiction over it. Beta and his friends can do as he please in there, you really have no methods of stopping them. Maxim_(talk) 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course they do if people are making blocks because of discussion in these channels. I'm guessing this means you have access? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, while ArbCom may not be able to influence off wiki behavior, any off wiki behavior can be sactioned here. For example, if I canvass via email, my RFA, I can expect to be blocked, or otherwise sanctioned. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really - if you issue a block, you're accountable for it, but whether you've consulted an IRC Cabal, the FBI, an old episode of The Honeymooners or an astrologer is neither here nor there. WilyD 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't be against the community's interest to know who does and doesn't chatter there, esp. given the subversive purpose it apparently holds. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, no, I do not. I only found out by your post. You seem to misundestand a vital concept, and that is that arbcom does not have the power or authority to stop people from talking to each other. Maxim_(talk) 21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I must have misunderstood Jimbo when he said ArbCom can sanction for IRC conduct. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

While Arbcom can pass some silly bureaucratic, they don't have much of a way of enforcing it. And IRC logs are highly unreliable, it's very easy to manipulate them and have a few users back you up. Maxim_(talk) 21:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The channel in question, which I idle in (pitchforks!!), begins with a "##" sign. This means that it is outside the jurisdiction of the wikimedia group contacts, thus outside the jurisdiction of James and Sean, thus outside that of the ArbCom. I'd venture to say that AC can't prohibit discussion wherever it takes place. Martinp23 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I once discussed Wikipedia over lunch in a completely non official venue. We discussed all the things that can't be discussed with sandwiches, like protections, deletes, blocks, you name it. I fear I may have tainted the image of lunch permanently. Sorry guys. And I binned the crumbs unfortunately, so I can't send them onto ArbCom. Will (aka Wimt) 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't block someone over it though. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, you're making a lot of heat and noise over this. What solution, causing minimal disruption, would you like to see? Martinp23 22:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want to know exactly who got blocked, and who was involved. I've been told people did get blocked through discussion in there, so I think it's fair we can now open it up to community discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, you're asking for private logs of private communication in an off-wiki unoffical setting (less official than #wikipedia-en-admins ). I'ts not gonna happen. Martinp23 22:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to know who got blocked, because if there was some user who was blocked by Betacommand and friends in the channel, then it might be useful to check that the blocks were not placed abusively. However, I feel that it is unlikely that any blocks that still stand would have been placed inappropriately, and as it's unlikely we will find out, why don't we just let the IRC part of it just blow over? Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For a start there's no proof anywhere that anyone has been blocked in there, other than what Ryan is saying, and he could indeed be mistaken. On the other hand we have the users of the channel, including me, who don't remember anyone being blocked in there. Now who to believe - those who were there or those who weren't. In either case, I'm surprised such flimsy grounds can act as such a seemingly sturdy base for this teapot of storms we see swirling angrily before us (cunningly disguised as a wikipedian or two - what's new there?!). I *can't wait* until the "I hate IRC" brigade come out. Martinp23 23:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but you wouldn't know if I had, in the same way as you have no way of knowing (or stopping) a whole host of different forms of off-wiki conversation. The fact that this channel is on IRC, as opposed to MSN or real life or email or whatever should really be irrelevant. Will (aka Wimt) 22:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As much as I personally despise IRC and its use, ArbCom has absolutely zero authority over its use, or where I or anybody else choose to discuss Wikipedia. None. - auburnpilot talk 22:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No one on wiki has control over the channel except for the channel operator. no blocks were created there. any and all blocks are the sole responsibility of the admin who places the block. Ryan Im sorry if you like throwing mud, but the egg is on your face. the logs will not be released due to privacy issues. things have been said in private that should not be made public, due to the ability to link them to real life identity. β^_command 22:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ermm - is that a comment on the contributor, not the content? Franamax (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not one to jump to support Betacommand of late, but I must say that the fact that certain users seem to believe that they can regulate off-wiki discussion is absurd. As long as this discussion is not represented as consensus-forming for any group wider than the membership of the channel, it's perfectly fine. If I ask martin and frana about potentially protecting a page via email, and they both agree, I can say "martin and frana support my protection". I cannot say "the community supports my protection". Until there is evidence of the latter case taking place, no action should be taken regarding these off-wiki discussions. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, off-wiki groups will form all the time. But if someone questions me and I respond that they're throwing mud and egg is on their face, feel free to suggest that I should calmly respond to their substantive issues. And if I habitually respond to people raising issues with me by questioning their motives, knowledge or mental capacity, feel free to call me on that too - and please don't excuse me because I've been provoked or the other person is wrong or I'm so valuable. Just tell me flat out when you think my ideas are wrong. Honest, I'm a big boy :) Franamax (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

HOLYSHITSECRETIRCCHANNELOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGLOL. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah a secret channel, big deal... ...so what's the channel. Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of reason people please understand that no secrets is the same as no privacy. If people want to consult about their decisions in private it is their right to do so. Hold them accountable for their actions and that will be enough. This whole IRC thing is a witch hunt. _{1 != 2} 17:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion-Betacommand rap-sheet list to be created

Settting myself up for the obvious response of WP:HARASS, but frankly, I'm fed up of beta getting off on the ill-informed basis of his previous contributions or record. Several of the commenters in the above discussion seem to be under the impression beta is a one-off violater, or that he does enough good work to get off, or that even that the recent issues are something to do with NFCC (which ended a month ago) and are no longer an issue. I propose a dedicated page be created to actualy list the facts behind betacommand's mistakes, every bot mistake, every example of (spectacular) incivility, every example of a lack of cooperation, every mistake by sock. etc etc. This would be a diff verified list, nothing more, nothing less. I believe this would help the community, because frankly, parts of the community are starting to believe the hype in these long winded discussions, when some of the facts are present in discussions just two weeks prior, let alone two pages above the current drama. So if another incident occurs regarding beta, this list will serve as an indisputable record of past actions, and will prevent some of the more bizarre comments above regarding what people have and have not seen, or do or do not believe. MickMacNee (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is a rap-sheet also called an RFC here on en:wiki? Make one then. Franamax (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is far outside of community norms to maintain a laundry list of an editor's missteps or others' grievances against them outside the context of dispute resolution. east.718 at 01:51, May 17, 2008

its just yet another example of MMN trolling me, provoking and being disruptive. β^_command 01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Aggregation and collation of relevant information is not disruptive. Unless you really want to suggest your numerous and long standing contentious actions are easily summarised and recalled by every user in each ongoing debate about your conduct. It can be plainly seen that many of the above contributors have little idea of beta's ongoing behaviour or actions, and others make claims about what he has or hasn't done before based on memory alone. MickMacNee (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And, this is what beta chooses as only his sixth contribution today, inspite of this ongoing thread about him. I guess we know where his priorities are, to attack others rather than defend himself. It is no more than typical behaviour in my mind given my long exposure to his opinions, but without a rap-sheet on record, this is not so obvious to your casual AN/ANI contributor. MickMacNee (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that RFCs are over a short time period, and result in an actionable outcome. In this case, that would seem pointless. I propose merely the retention of an accurate record of infractions, over time, such that all commenters in future discussions can work from fact, rather than belief. MickMacNee (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And in that proposal, you are wrong. Do whatever you want on your own PC; or do it here and use it or lose it. We don't start up ongoing rap-sheets, even on you. Rely on the people who care what is going on - they all have good memories. But feel free to keep your own list, in private. Wikipedia is not a BADSITE. Franamax (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That is where you are wrong, there are plenty of contributors above who have clearly not recalled the facts correctly. The system is broken, no-one is willing, after 2 failed attempts, to continually go through the rigmarole of collating the existent piles of evidence for arbcom, so as a result, the facts of at least three recent threads here in the last few days get forgotten over time, let alone the past two years of numerous actions, and serve to support the vague arguments that betacommand is an overall assett. Surely you can see the people above talking about NFCC in respect to this particular thread, and the past two, are completely wrong, because the NFCC tagging ceased a month ago. Due to the lack of factual information, facts are being distorted. MickMacNee (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If people are completely wrong or clearly don't recall, you can easily present the diffs and entire threads to show that, right? If there are facts, you can easily show them, right? If it's all so bad, you don't need recruits, you can do it yourself. If it's so clear, you can bring all the occurences together and everyone will say "gee, that guy is right". Go for it. Franamax (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

After the last arbcom farce? Yeah I'll get right on that. MickMacNee (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that intended as a convincing argument? Or an expression of cynicism? Franamax (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A convincing argument? Of course. Have you ever gone through the arbcome evidence/proposed decision cycle? Or are you just telling me I don't know what I'm talking about? Are you telling me that even with the evidence of the past three threads and the above comments that people aren't still referring to NFCC as an exccuse? Are you telling me that if I created a record page of diffs off my own back without AN approval that beta wouldn'nt be screaming harassment? Heck, you've got what you wanted already, the calls for a topic ban are already in full swing below. Well, I'll leave you all too it. I trust you can deal with beta and socks in future because you all recall the evidence of previous incidents unfailingly based on the current thread (stifles laughter). A good read is beta's failed attempt at regaining sysop status in 2007. I presume I don't have to link you up, experts that y'all are. MickMacNee (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Every time one turns around, there's a BetaCommand thread going on and that is enough to block for disruption of the project - period. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 02:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly no, but you'd think people might get the idea eventually. But then again, as I said above, some defenders in the last few threads are actually still talking about NFCC, cleary not aware that that has finished, or of the current problems. MickMacNee (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The mistaken edits

Can someone explain to me the apparent gap of use of the sock account, which was first used on 8/9 Oct 2007, and then resumed in Feb 2008. And also, if someone can succesfully use a sock from February, that their first mistake is 3 months later, and just happens to be to the bot policy. MickMacNee (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The alternate account use is just a mistake, go back through the contribs and look at the timing, it was just a mistake, one session was set up for automated edits, one wasn't, shit happens, wrong window. Much as I hate using the phrase, this is an instance where you have to assume good faith. I nuked a company product line that way once. Show the pattern. Franamax (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I just find it highly dubious that this happened at exactly the same time as a BAG edit war. And just which alternate account was beta using between October and February? (by MMN 'til he signs)

The reliable CU editor above would presumably have found the other account(s). The fact that there was an edit war is precisely significant - war in the first available window; dammit, wrong window. That's called a mistake. The other usage of the alternate account seems uncontroversial. I don't agree with it, but many others have endorsed it, so I'll stay quiet. Franamax (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Another human mistake no less. Pop quiz, as you are seemingly an expert, list all the 'human mistakes' beta has committed in the past two years. Quickly now, you only have the couple of days it takes for an AN thread to dissappear into the archives and all is forgotten again. MickMacNee (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I tried to answer your questions from the opening of this thread. Thanks for your input. Nitey! Franamax (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Shit happens, move on. You must be blind to the hundreds of comments above then. Sleep tight. MickMacNee (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for drama reduction

I propose that User:Betacommand and User:MickMacNee are prohibited from interacting with each other. Since MickMacNee can't seem to resist provoking Betacommand, and Betacommand can't seem to resist obnoxious replies, the best solution would be for them to not interact. If either of them comments about the other, or replies to a comment by the other, they should be blocked. --Carnildo (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an extremely sensible suggestion. Kelly ^hi! 03:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Very sensible and I agree there is some baiting and charging going on. Is this accompanied by a topic-space restriction? Franamax (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already stated barely one day ago that it is absolutely pointless trying to get betacommand sanctioned in anything like an equal standard to anyone else here (I laughingly suggested he had to be caught breaking a major rule), so do you honestly think that I think my presence/absence in this matter will mean any (non)action will proceed differently? I really need to get some bandages, because this whole thread has my sides splitting. MickMacNee (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's pointless, why are you still trying? shoy 03:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You are confused, I am not attempting to achieve any sanction here, that is what I know is fruitless, but I am giving a suggestion to help future discussions, as current ones are often full of errors, due to the time lapse and complexity. MickMacNee (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

we will then still be left with the problem of beta's interactions withe all the other members of the community. Drama down 1%, the problem remains. DGG (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

With the noise from the perpetual Betacommand/MickMacNee fighting gone, we'll be able to tell for sure. I suspect it'll be more like 50% of the Betacommand drama. --Carnildo (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent> I think the point remains that not all of the problems lie with Betacommand; much of the issue lies with editors who who prefer not to bother with Wikipedia's copyright policy and who intentionally troll him as a result. Kelly ^hi! 03:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You are aware that NFCC tagging stopped like a month ago?, and that at least the last three complaints against beta came after it. Like I said, misinformation is occuring in this case, which would definitely benefit from a definitive rap-sheet. MickMacNee (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, MickMacNee is actually spot on here. None of the recent issues have had anything to do with copyrights, because Betacommand has not worked in that area for at least a month. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I endorse much of what MickMacNee has been saying. When the point is reached where MickMacNee makes valid points, and people clamber out of the woodwork to call him a troll or disruptive, then people are losing their objectivity and looking at the contributor and their history with him, not at his comments. Rather than ban MickMacNee from interacting with Betacommand, what is needed is for Betacommand to: (a) respond to the valid criticisms being made (I still don't see Betacommand acknowledging the shocking mistakes made with the DEFAULTSORT script - rather, I see Betacommand ignoring that and making unhelpful comments); and (b) stop calling people trolls when they are not (and that goes for others as well as Betacommand). MickMacNee is beginning to show that he has a better grasp on what is going on around here than some of the commentators in this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think MMN has said all that he needs to say thus far - he is falling into the trap of hyperbole and, in some cases, personal attacks as he continues to comment here. I would urge him to take a step back and perhaps leave this discussion and leave what appears to be his vendetta against BC. I'd also condone blocking him and/or Betacommand if he/they continue to occlude this process as we've seen so far. Martinp23 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mick has made some excellent points. Like many of us, he is frustrated that Betacommand seems to get away with anything, hence his tone. Other editors have also made harsh criticisms of Betacommand; why single out Mick? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How many times has it been now?

How many times has it been now that we've wrongfully blocked an established editor for sockpuppetry before talking with them, only to find out that the block was wrong and to find that all it did was generate tons of drama? It's been more than four times in the last year or so, I know that much. Unless it's necessary to block, for the love of God, wait and talk to the user.

tl;dr - blocking == last resort. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

but but but Ned, they love the drama. β^_command 05:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• The above is the comment of someone whose ignorance is only over-reached by their arrogance; two arbcoms, a seenmingly weekly appearance at an admins noticeboard, a reputation for incivility when not failing to communicate, and the exasperation of a significant faction of the community... and it is all the fault of the dramah-mongers...? Never mind bots, with blinkers like that you should be running a racehorse stable. Incredible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  The point painfully stands, some admins need a kick in the ass and it slammed into their heads, blocking is a last resort. I have no doubt that the other issues we're talking about would also come up eventually, but regarding the sockpuppet accusation, the drama from that, that at the very least, could have been avoided. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Time to start an RFAR?

Given that MZMcBride has unilaterally unblocked BetacommandBot even though there seems to be a large amount of support for prohibiting Betacommand from using bots, it seems to me that the community is unable to come to a decision on this issue. Should a request for arbitration be started? Also keep in mind the fact that Betacommand has violated the conditions set forth in his last arbitration case, namely remedy 1B. Maybe someone who knows the arbitration process well could comment. Is he back? (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm told one will be filed at 10:00 UTC over my failure to unblock, I've prepared my response in my userspace since I won't be around much tomorrow (moving), but should be around to copy it over once its filed. MBisanz ^talk 06:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The Betacommand 2 case closed about a month ago with no actionable remedies. One remedy stated that if Betacommand (or other parties) continued to misbehave, "further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time", possibly leading to severe sanctions against the offender (Betacommand, in this case). A month has passed and Betacommand is still incivil; he has even resorted to abusive sockpuppetry. Thus I believe that the further review should take place and appropriate punishments issued. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not be initiating action, I have merely been informed it will be filed by another user due to my failure to comply. MBisanz ^talk 08:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, what are you referring to? Has someone threatened you with an RfAr for not unblocking one of Beta's accounts? That sounds unlikely to go far. I think we should bring this back to JLWS's point: ArbCom decided that they would reconsider their Betacommand decision after a reasonable time, and perhaps it's time to remind them that they decided that. It's true that MZMcBride, and maybe you, might end up mentioned in such a reconsideration, but I really don't think it'll be a big deal in either case. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

On May 17 I was instructed by Betacommand in a private IRC message to unblock his bot within 24 hours or he would file an RFAR against me. MBisanz ^talk 08:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this never eventuated though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't happened yet, but I've got my statement ready at a moment's notice! MBisanz ^talk 08:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rspeer, for keeping the discussion on-topic. Could someone file a "clarification or other request" regarding Betacommand at the arbitration page? If nobody does, I will do so over the weekend. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

See here for instructions on requests relating to previous cases. --bainer (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why stop with an RFAR? Why not hang, draw and quarter him? The debate above shows that it was a defensible, if wrong, decision. Leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why let Betacommand stop at assumptions of bad faith, newbie-biting, incivility, personal attacks, dramamongering and abuse of automated tools? Why not let him run a vandalbot that fills all articles with expletives, harass everyone off the project and drop a nuclear bomb on the Wikimedia servers? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There isn't really an answer to that, is there? I might frame this and hang it on the wall as a classic example of taking rhetoric just a teeny little bit too far. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Call it beating JzG at his own game by meeting sarcasm with more sarcasm and meeting rhetoric with more rhetoric, through a parody. (Someone else misunderstood my comment above, hence the clarification.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Call it beating a dead horse. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A new suggestion

Rather than get into drama, shouldn't a civility parole be enforced?? Whether another ArbCom case will work only time will tell. Blocking him for a year could work, but some people here probably wouldn't like that. However, I agree with JzG/Guy's take on things in this situation. On a side note, however, the Quercus account has inspired me to edit the article of the same name - a stub that needs expansion anyway. Ta, --1qx (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as there exists a group of Wikipedians who will reverse every block of Betacommand, such a civility parole would never be properly enforced. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

More empty rhetoric. "Every" block? {{fact}}. This block, yes, because as noted above it was unjustified, but we don't know what might happen in the future. Input such as yours, which looks very much as if it is actually based on opposition to the Foundation policy in respect of unfree images, does not seem to me to help in analysing or resolving this situation. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Er... Betacommand hasn't done anything to do with non-free image tagging since April 1 2008, with any of his accounts. Check BC's and BCB's image namespace contributions. All of his work in the image namespace recently has been to do with images eligible for moves to commons - about as far from NFCCC as you can get within ns:6. If there's one thing that arguments in this particular chapter of the Betacommand saga can't be about, it's non-free images. Happy‑melon 13:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Check Betacommand's block log. He has been blocked eleven times and the only block that was not reversed was a one-second block. The last sixteen blocks placed on BetacommandBot were all reversed; the most recent non-reversed block was in November last year and for 15 minutes. To be honest, I only checked the block logs after posting the comment and did not expect the percentage of reversed blocks to be that high. Why do you think that my input is "based on opposition to the Foundation policy in respect of unfree images", when all my comments here have been about Betacommand's conduct? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You have to do more than that. You have to examine each block and unblock and determine their individual validity. Admittedly, that gets boring very quickly, but if that had been done at the ArbCom cases, people couldn't keep waving the length of the block log around as reason for anything other than needing a close look (which would have been done). Carcharoth (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the blocks were inappropriate, but I assume that most were valid (if not, our admins are horrendously incompetent). Why would all blocks be indiscriminately reversed? If only bad blocks were reversed, most blocks would not be reversed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know they were "indiscriminately" reversed? Have you checked the circumstances surrounding each one? This one has been discussed quite a bit now, I would hardly call it "indiscriminate." Mr.Z-man 06:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Pledge confirmed and Betacommand2 unblocked

I've asked Betacommand about the pledge he made here. Betacommand has confirmed here that he agrees to the terms he had previously suggested, and will not use the other alternate account again. Based on that, I've unblocked User:Betacommand2. I know this doesn't quite tally with the proposal here, but I don't think a self-identified alternate account used on public computers is too much of a concern as alternate accounts go. Anyway, the pledge in full:

"what should be done is Betacommand2, BCBot unblocked, BCBot flag is returned and "Quercus basaseachicensis" will no longer edit. I will also agree to a 30 day halt on BCBot edits, except for ant-spam related reports and the article by size see WP:DABS which are run on cronjobs." - User:Betacommand, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, 14:58, 16 May 2008 [55]

I would suggest that we be flexible about this, and allow other uncontroversial updates as well, such as the updating of User:BetacommandBot/Free Template Useage and User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage and anything else done automatically in Wikipedia (project space) and User space. Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If only a bookie would take bets on Betacommand screwing up those "uncontroversial tasks"... --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious you are frustrated at the way things are going, but your comments are not really helping. Please try and make constructive suggestions, not ones where you set someone up to fail. Carcharoth (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see what BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) has been doing since this unblocking. Looks like several thousand edits have been made, mostly undoing bad edits by MyBisanzBot and JohnBot. There was the removal of an old RFC [56]. All these actions violated Betacommand's pledge "I will also agree to a 30 day halt on BCBot edits, except for anti-spam related reports and the article by size see WP:DABS which are run on cronjobs."

Now let's look at Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs). For a few hours, that account was unblocked, and hundreds of edits were made, at a rate that suggests 'bot usage, or at least semi-automated tools. and despite the pledge "Quercus basaseachicensis" will no longer edit."

Any questions? --John Nagle (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Quercus basaseachicensis hasn't been unblocked. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The edits you are pointing to are from before this started. Dragons flight (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Said edits occurred afterbefore the recent "pledge" [57] (timestamp 14:58, 16 May 2008) by BetaCommand. --John Nagle (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they occurred before the blocks and before the pledge. John, please recheck your timings and if you agree you have this wrong, please strike out what you wrote. Carcharoth (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What may be confusing you is that the timestamps in peoples' signatures are UTC, while the timestamps in the block and contribution logs are in your local timezone. --Carnildo (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? That's crazy. Please tell me there is a bugzilla thread about this? Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's how it's designed; timestamps provided in the interface can be changed on the fly according to user preferences, but timestamps saved in a page's wikitext are just that - text. —Cryptic 23:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Its called setting your preference time to UTC and getting used to seeing weird times in the watchlist. The dev I spoke to made it seem like a WONTFIX sort thing. MBisanz ^talk 23:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a Gadget in the prefs that shows a UTC clock at the top of the page in Special:Preferences. It's been an incredible blessing ever since I've enabled it. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward with Betacommand's use of bot tools

One thing I must say is: unilateral action kills discussion, as has happened here: although I do personally disagree with the arguably legalistic actions of a few (actually one) editor in this episode, I am more disappointed that said action has effectively killed this discussion and compelled a return to the status quo in disregard for whatever direction consensus might have been heading. Now I'm honestly not sure whether the threads above are moving forwards, backwards, or sideways with respect to Betacommand's right to use bots and automated editing scripts on en.wiki. Three of BC's accounts (User:Betacommand, User:Betacommand2 and User:BetacommandBot) have been unblocked, but BCB remains without the bot flag. Above, we have a group of twelve editors (including myself) who support banning Betacommand from using any and all bots and automated editing tools for a period of at least 90 days; and one editor who has expressed opposition. Betacommand is currently suspended from the Bot Approvals group. What are we going to do here? Should discussion about BC's use of bot tools and scripts be conducted here, or moved to WP:BON, or to somewhere else? Ditto for BC's membership of BAG: move to WT:BAG or decide here? I'd like to think we're capable of sorting this out ourselves without running to the ArbCom... Happy‑melon 15:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would think that the community's confidence in BC using bot accounts has been sufficiently eroded that he should not be permitted to run them for the foreseeable future. I am less certain of the BAG membership - he is certainly technically minded and would do well as a member, but am not sure whether he would generate more light than heat. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few Wikipedians continue to blindly back him up. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As it stands I really will not be using BCBot for 30 days (except for the spam and daily stat updates that are set on cron jobs). BCBot's flag should be restored as there was no reason for removal in the first place. as it stands my only plans for BCBot are the current approved tasks, I dont see anything else in the future, if I do Ill file a BRFA. one thing I would like to point out is that personal attacks and other trolling towards me never seems to get the users so much as a warning. β^_command 15:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly true that there should be no causal link between your block and BCB's deflag (although in reality it does appear to be the case). This episode has been confused by two incidents occuring almost on top of one another: I think we've established above that accusations of "sockpuppetry" are weak, and that no real harm was done. However, the DEFAULTSORT issues are serious and add to what even you must admit is a very long line of incidents with your use of automated editing tools, which have twice already landed you in front of the ArbCom. What I am most disappointed with throughout this discussion is some editors' preference for strict interpretation of policy over the application of common sense. You were operating a legitimate second account which you accidentally revealed through a genuine mistake; yet you were blocked for violating a strict interpretation of WP:SOCK. By a similarly strict interpretation of policy, MZMcBride unilaterally overturned a growing discussion and unblocked BCB. The knee-jerk reference to NFCC work somewhere above is about as lacking in common sense as you can get :D. But only by a very strict interpretation of WP:BOT, and the suspension of just about all common sense, can we believe that this incident had nothing to do with bot operations. You are a bot operator (and at times a very good one), who is known to have methods of editing at fantastically high rates. You use a number of accounts with a variety of flags and features, and you have used (and, regrettably, misused) these automated editing tools on most if not all of them. Any judgement on whether or not you should be allowed to use account X for action Y with flags Z is completley pointless, because you are just one user, with one brain and one keyboard: which account your edits are attributed to is a technical detail. It's what those edits entail, and how you made them, that is important; and I'm afraid my personal opinion is that you've proved yourself incapable of avoiding the mistakes that we all make when editing quickly... and the only way to stop you doing more harm than good is to prohibit you, for a while at least, from editing faster than you can with your bare hands. Happy‑melon 16:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that, I made over a thousand manual defaultsort edits by hand I never noticed any issues and none where brought to my attention, I have kept my edit rate low (~5) edits a minute other than the recent group of 42 which was caused by a feature of pywikipedia which will not save a page if maxlag is over 5. In total I have had thousands of edits with just the recent issue that was brought up. as I stated BCBot will be inactive except for basic functions for 30 days, so that should meet your thoughts. β^_command 16:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], and so on ad nauseam. Would you care to reconsider your position? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're doing something seriously wierd with pywiki, I can't think how the throttle is going to bunch edits up like that. That said, it's entirely besides the point. 42 edits per minute is only significant because it proves to us beyond any doubt that you were using an automated script, and weren't just very bored one evening and decided to do the same edit 4170 times :D. Whatever you're doing and however you're doing it, you are responsible for whatever comes out of your computer onto en.wiki, and it's just depressing how often those contributions are doing more harm than good. We all make mistakes, and if you'd been doing those defaultsort edits by hand, someone would have pointed out what you were doing wrong while the number of corrections needed was still in two or at most three figures. As it is, someone had to do almost five thousand reverts just to repair the damage. If you'd asked for bot approval for that task, then there wouldn't have been any problems: your error would have been spotted in trial, you'd have fixed it, and then you could have run it on BCB and not spammed a thousand watchlists and flooded RecentChanges. As it is, you circumvented the BRFA system that, as a BAG member, you should have been enforcing, ran an automated process on an unflagged account, and managed to screw up four thousand mainspace pages before you got stopped. And this is incident #X, where X is now at least in double figures, and most of them fit almost perfectly onto the framework of "looked like a good idea at the time...". What are you going to do next? What's your next bright idea going to be? Because if you don't start talking about big projects before you start them, and get more eyes to spot your errors before you make them a thousand times over, we're going to be right back here in six weeks time, with yet another WP:AN thread which begins "I've blocked Betacommand(bot) for...". Happy‑melon 17:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

pywiki has a function called page.put_async() which places the page saves in a queue to be saved. if maxlag is high it will wait for it to lower. I started doing this very slowly manually several months ago, and the recent issues (last 48 hours) are the the first issues to be brought up. β^_command 17:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"the recent issues (last 48 hours) are the the first issues to be brought up" Are you serious? <quietly fumes in extreme irritation> I made it very clear to you that you had unanswered questions about this issue. I've spent some time composing a post on this, but I'm pasting some of it in here, as you cannot get away with saying that these are the first issues: see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here here. All those edits were before the block. Five of them (from the same person) were from April. That is nearly a whole month ago. You response so far to that has been im sorry it got lost the first time in other stuff. As far as I can see, you have not lifted a finger since then to actually respond to the concerns raised by User:Snowmanradio. Carcharoth (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

as I stated before I missed Snowmanradio prior posts or I would have addressed that. the others are very recent. β^_command 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sure you won't be shocked to know that if the code was wrong now, it was also wrong in the past (e.g. April): [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]

However, I get the sense that you may have intentionally or inadvertently changed the population of articles you were applying this script to. Early on it appears that nearly all of these edits were to Living People articles, which by their nature usually get resorted (e.g. First Last -> Last, First). Your script seems to have had very few errors at these. For whatever reason, in the most recent run your script appears to have targetted a broader collection of articles and consequently to have more frequently generated bad edits. Dragons flight (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've nearly finished going through these edits, and I haven't seen a population change at all. See, for example the run of 17 "Gulf of _" articles from 01:18-1:25 10 May 2008, and the species articles have been a problem since the start. —Cryptic 23:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you said somewhere that you thought he had started at "G" before you realised that he had been doing this for a long time? Is the order alphabetical or something? Betacommand, is there any order to the edits, or any list you are working from? Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the edits on April (Greenhouse Mafia and earlier); but they seem to have started at the start of G on April 4. At least, unless he started in January and took a couple months off in the middle; I stopped looking 15k edits back. —Cryptic 23:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Im not sure what numbers you say where changed I dont see any that have been changed. β^_command 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Now comes the difficult bit, Betacommand. When are you personally going to do to review the edits you made and fix them? Or do you intend to leave the clearing up work for others? And when will you see that you can avoid all this if only you submit such scripts for approval before you run them. Or do you still insist that you personally checked all those incorrect edits (see the diffs by Angus McLellan) and approved them? Carcharoth (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

id offer to mass revert but I no longer have the ability to do so. β^_command 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Submit a bot approval to find and correct the edits, or revert them if they can't be fixed. But that is only a partial solution. The issues run deeper. You need to sort out the attitude that makes you think you can do stuff like this and trust others to find and fix mistakes. You also only undertake the most cursory of reviews of your own editing. The redlinked categories issue never got fully sorted. Please, please build reversability and accountability into what you do. Carcharoth (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverting is not the answer - it's just the easy solution. By reverting, and thereby undoing what good edits you did do, you're actually doing more damage - all that's left to show for the time and energy expended is an extra ten thousand rows in the database tables, and wikimedia needing yet another server. If you can fix the script such that it can identify false positives in the future (and as Carcharoth says, if you intend to carry on with this, prove that it's fixed at BRFA), it should be easy for someone of your coding skills to apply the same code to your own edits and identify which ones are good and which ones are bad. Treating everything as a binary decision, and reverting the whole lot of edits, is rather short-sighted. If you'd thought this through a bit more in the first place (and, most importantly of all, got other people to think it through as well through BRFA), and not torn through the pile at such a rate, you wouldn't be in the position of having to look through so many edits to find the bad eggs. Since you have very little else you can do, and the community is going to descend on you like a pack of wolves if your edit rate so much as touches 10epm, I suggest you spend a few hours looking through those 4170 defaultsort edits and sort the whole bloody mess out by hand; because I think I speak for a substantial section of the community when I say that we have no intention of letting you do anything new with automated tools until you've cleared up the mess you've already made. Happy‑melon 19:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward: Proposal

In my opinion Beta should be allowed to continue using bots. He's done good work in the past and it's central to what he does as a Wikipedian. However, he needs to stop doing large tasks without prior testing and review. Just throwing the idea out, but the community could require beta to do any bot or assisted edits from the bot account only, and only with a suitably-discussed BRFA for the task. Any automated edits on the user account, or any unapproved edits on the bot account beyond 50 edits for testing before a BRFA, results in a block. Thoughts? Gimmetrow 19:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that is acceptable. We don't want BC doing anything unapproved. Really. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds perfect... we should really note that down somewhere, just in case we want to use that again... how about at Wikipedia:Bot policy... oh wait, that's already taken... :D. In all seriousness though, this is, almost word for word, exactly what we require of every other user on en.wiki who works with automated scripts. No large tasks without review and approval, no bot tasks from the main account, any violations result in a block. I'm not joking, this is the status quo. Now why can't we enforce it? Happy‑melon 21:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Two things - the bot policy was rewritten rather recently to address a loophole, so the dust may not have settled on this point. Also, the way I've phrased the above includes a restriction beyond bot policy. Gimmetrow 21:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How so? Happy‑melon 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to expect BAG members to know and follow the Bot policy. I think the best solution would be to have the Arbcom gently remind Betacommand of the Bot policy without need for any sanctions and what not. I'm sure Betacommand wouldn't ignore the Arbcom. 96.15.106.42 (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you: BAG members should be setting an example with regards to the bot policy: they are responsible for enforcing it, so they should know it inside out, and follow it fully. Happy‑melon 21:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I tihnk the BAG comment was sarcastic. I too agree that Gimmetrow's proposal is a good one. If Betacommand won't accept it, it should probably just be enforced anyway, as part of the bot policy. Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Melon, bot policy allows users to run assisted scripts on their user account. You should know this, since one of your BRFAs was ended on the grounds it was an assisted script and didn't need approval. This meant users could perform large numbers of edits without approval, so long as they could be called "assisted". The problem is that after a few thousands of these unapproved edits, they can form a critical mass and become a de facto norm. Bots should not be used in this manner for resolving disputes. I would expect, were such tasks proposed for approval as bots, they would be denied. Coren's recent rewrite to bot policy, possibly based on some of my suggestions, made it clear that some assisted scripts are subject to bot policy and do need approval - namely ones editing "fast" or doing "a lot" of edits - due to the effect mass edits can have. Someone who wants to use AWB to split a category with 200 articles, and does it at a "slow" 3 edits per minute, shouldn't really have to deal with a BRFA though. What I've proposed above is that Beta not do any bot or assisted editing from his regular user account, which is more than bot policy requires. If we can keep Beta's future BRFAs from becoming a circus, I think this might be workable. Gimmetrow 22:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea! CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would only support this proposal if the restrictions would actually be enforced. Admins seem to be afraid to block him and when any of his accounts are blocked, the blocks are almost always quickly reversed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Many past restrictions have been uselessly vague. The idea here is less vague and removes the big loophole. Gimmetrow 03:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not require him to link to the appropriate Bot Request for Approval in all edits made on BetaCommandBot, and restrict him to an edit rate of X edits per minute on any unflagged accounts? — Werdna talk 04:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be acceptable to me. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. BetacommandBot is a loose firehose. It is operated irresponsibly and has caused so many problems on Wikipedia I can't list them all. Betacommand is unwilling to follow proper bot procedures and is unresponsive to complaints. It would be absolutely irresponsible of us to continue to allow BetacommandBot to operate. This block should have been done years ago. Kaldari (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Every time I told him about a problem he would stop the bot and fix it. The number of errors were very much a minority, but BetacommandBot was so incredibly active, on so many different tasks, that it gives a false impression of a higher error rate than the average bot. -- Ned Scott 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Right now, BetacommandBot is blocked, and no essential tasks seem to be undone. Other 'bots are now tagging non-free images, and don't seem to be generating complaints. Effectively, BetacommandBot has been phased out as obsolete software. Let's leave the current situation as it is for a month or two and see if there's any remaining need for BetacommandBot. --John Nagle (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

there are a dozen task BCBot could be doing right now that have not been replaced, I am asking that you let me do what I do best, write and operate bots. Ive got a dozen more bot ideas that Im working on that Id like to get done. having BCBot blocked only does one thing, harm wikipedia. β^_command 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

John, no editor or bot is essential or needed, but to reject the work BCB can do is moronic. By your logic we shouldn't unblock anyone unless they're vital to the project. My point, on the other hand, was that BCB's error rate is just as low, if not lower, than any over given bot, but people blow it out of proportion due to the high amount of work BCB does. Not only that, but to call BCB obsolete software is totally off. Even without the account running, the code is still being used, right now even. facepalm.jpg -- Ned Scott 06:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand's communication issues

Sub-header changed; was inappropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)On reflection I agree and support the change MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No doubt this will trigger the immediate response from beta of trolling/personal attacks, but let's be clear about this, betacommand has a fundemental problem with communication. What is the point in continually debating what usernames he can and cannot use, what bot functions he can and cannot operate, whether he is or is not of good enough standing to be a BAG member. He is simply prepared to operate on wikipedia as close to the line as he can manage within his own wikiphilosophy, which departed from the mainstream long ago. He will take temporary blocks accordingly, as an annoyance, not an impetus to change. There never is, and never was, any change in behaviour in this user. Ever. Look at the contributions of this 'new start' (really?) sock account - are we seriously going to call this 'new' user, an invaluable member of the community in these endless debates? The fact is, take away a couple of bot functions, and beta is just an incivil and disruptive user, who has never ever learned from any block or warning. His time has run out. If only there was an admin with the balls to realise this. MickMacNee (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mick, this is getting to be a pain. This is an on-going conversation. I do not see any willingness to sweep this all under the carpet or forget things. A vast amount of this conversation has been your aggression. It isn't helpful and it makes the conversation both unpleasant and difficult to read. Please stop your inflammatory comments: if you can't comment in a helpful and productive manner, please do not comment at all. (Hint: the above comment is neither helpful nor productive.) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, I think MickMacNee does have some valid points here. Betacommand does repeat the same problems time after time, and he does have some communication and civility problems. Let's not lose sight of that. Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't doubt that for a moment. As I say, This is an on-going conversation. I do not see any willingness to sweep this all under the carpet or forget things. I am purely trying to take some of the venom out of the conversation. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen just about enough of your personal attacks, assumption of bad faith, disruption, attempts to create more unnecessary drama, MickMacNee. I strongly suggest you find something else to do here, and stop commenting on anything about, or related to Betacommand. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to disprove any 'personal attack' made above. Feel free to give me any reason to assume good faith to betacommand any more (just ignore all the above users while you do that, AGF has a limit as just about anyone knows). Feel free to point out how or where I created any of the last three 'drama' incidents about betacommand. You can't, but never mind that, you won't even want to either. I understand why my attempts at pointing out some basic facts to people might be unnacceptable to you, but to be honest, we might as well file you under /Redvers and /LaraLove in terms of objectivity in this matter, and don't even try to pretend otherwise. I would point anyone looking at this comment from you, to the input you made at the last request for approval of another betacommandbot task. MickMacNee (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've warned you. Do what you will with the warning. I'm not the only one who has had enough. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, he is not saying anything I wouldn't say. Please talk to him instead of threatening him with a block. Carcharoth (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that you manage to say things without being offensive. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If any of this drama was actualy about actions for being offensive, betacommand wouldn't even be a wikipedia editor anymore. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A warning has to be justified with evidence, otherwise it looks like exactly what it is, a threat. Do what you want, I feel confident you recent edits show that any action by yourself will be biased and unjustified per any reading of any policy. I await the names of the conveniently unnamed supporters, assuming they aren't the obvious users. MickMacNee (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Sam, you manage to tell MickMacNee that without overt threatening such as "I've warned you. [...] I'm not the only one who has had enough.". Mick, please don't take my defence of you as justifying the tone you are using. Just tone it down a bit and people are more likely to listen to you. Carcharoth (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, you know (I think you know) there is a long history with MMN and this type of behavior. People only get so many warnings. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The core issue being, do you honestly seriously believe that the standard of conduct to recieve a warning has been the same between me, betacommand, and any other user? He is untouchable, and what's worse, when he is ever even near being actioned, people's attentions suddenly switch to other people. You cannot expect every person who has ever been pissed off by beta to never contribute to a thread about him, in that case there will eventually be no-one allowed to comment on him. Hence my call for a definitive record of his actions. A perfectly reasonable request in the eyes of anyone remotely unbiased. MickMacNee (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"there is a long history with MMN and this type of behavior" - no more so than with others. I think this is something that is over-exaggerated. Surprisingly, on a place like Wikipedia, when you have all the evidence to hand, people tend to go on "reputations", and mud sticks sometimes (for Betacommand and MickMacnee, as well as others). For some, for instance, Giano has been built up to be something he is not. I think the same happens with Betacommand and (to a lesser extent) MickMacNee (and, more similar to MickMacNee, Betacommand's reactions to edits by Locke Cole). I personally don't find MickMacNee's behaviour excessive. I do find those the behaviour of those who jump on him excessive, especially when I find myself agreeing with lots of the things he says. I think Betacommand's reaction to seeing MickMacNee's edits is like a red rag to a bull - and it is Betacommand who needs to take a deep breath and calm down before typing out things like "troll", and it is others who need to stop and think before leaping in to defend Betacommand, or following his "lead". Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess you don't know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I do. The page that got deleted after an MfD as an attack page? I was there and I saw what happened. And no, I don't think it was an attack page. Carcharoth (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Beta is not untouchable. However, some are sympathetic because they think the current dynamic is not all Beta's fault. He's been under attack for a long time, and that's conditioned a defensive posture and a way of working. Unless the goal is to drive Beta of Wikipedia, it's going to take some effort to undo the dynamic that's developed. Some ways of addressing problems are geared to trigger a defensive response, and those continue to play those triggers are not helping matters. That's why I think people are hard on anyone who uses a certain tone against Beta. Gimmetrow 19:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the obvious fix is for beta to change his behaviour in recognition of blocks/bans/comments etc over 18months-2 years. My point is, he frankly never seems to do this. While others might like to continualy wikilawyer round this issue on a case by case basis, or continualy extend good faith, I would hope the majority actually see it for what it is, intransigence, leading to an impasse between those who accept him whatever, and those who hold the rules are equal for all, but it actually needs admin with the cojones to do something to break this impasse. As said numerous times in just the above case alone, the guy has more lives than two cats. It doesn't help with admins throwing around threats, when as he quite rightly says, Charcs has seen everything that has occured since I first encountered beta, and personally I don't know how he is still surprised when he is greeted with silence from beta on some issue or other. But what is interesting for myself, and something others should know, is that beta was like this well before even I arrived on the scene. Seriously, some of the reservations expressed at his failed second Rfa in September 2007, held around about the time of my joining, are as true today as they were then. No change in behaviour, xero, nada, nip, none. If he actually changed then I would turn the other cheek, as I presume would everyone else. MickMacNee (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Charcs"? That's a new spelling! :-) C.A.R.C.H.A.R.O.T.H. 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC) PS. I agree entirely with MickMacNee that some change needs to come from Betacommand himself. He might want to see changes in others, but I think if he changes the way he does things, he will see those changes come and the "attacks" on him will decrease. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, Betacommand has been blocked 11 times and the only block that was not reversed was a one-second block. The last 16 blocks of BetacommandBot were all reversed; the most recent non-reversed block was in November last year and for 15 minutes. These statistics suggest that Betacommand is indeed untouchable. Some of the blocks were inappropriate, but most were valid; why were they all undone? Repeatedly undoing blocks is considered wheel warring and is strongly discouraged.

I agree that the main problem with Betacommand is how he communicates with other members of the community. Any questions about his bot or criticism of his actions, no matter how well-intentioned, is, to him, trolling, harassment and drama. If he was more receptive to good-faith criticism and more willing to politely answer queries and discuss his actions, many problems (such as abuse of tools) could have been avoided.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, this page is long enough already... is this section really necessary? By the way, MickMacNee, I take great offense at your blatant personal attack on my balls... ;) –Alex.Muller 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

lol, redacted conditionaly per admin upon demonstration of record. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with MickMacNee's statements. Betacommand is unwilling to respond properly to complaints about his Bot edits. He has a loooonnng history of problematic behavior with running unapproved bot tasks and causing big headaches for other editors, but 99% of these problems could be forgiven if he would just be better at communicating and responding to complaints when they are brought to his attention. Kaldari (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Loose ends

A few more loose ends

• User talk:Quercus basaseachicensis - the notice should probably be changed.
• The block log entry for Quercus basaseachicensis should probably be updated, possibly during an unblock (see below).
• Given Betacommand's pledge, User:Quercus basaseachicensis should probably be unblocked to allow Betacommand to put a {{retired}} template on it, although a notice should be left so that people with questions about the edits made by this account can go to User:Betacommand.
• The DEFAULTSORT issue, which has now been raised elsewhere on this page. Again, should probably have its own thread.

That is most of the loose ends I'm aware of. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

With regard to User talk:Quercus basaseachicensis, I'm not sure which version you saw, but it previously used Template:Checkuserblock-account, which was not an appropriate template for the situation. (After consultation with a CU) I updated it to use a simple {{notice}} that was far more helpful and relevant. But, I have no thoughts / opinions about what should go there in the future. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That was a good Idea Carcharoth. Separates the facts from the drama :D CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed this version I was referring to. The current notice here is much better. It would be tidier to unblock and retire the account, but if Beta is not bothered, I'm not. My main concern here is if someone, months or years later, comes across an edit made by Quercus basaseachicensis, and wants to ask the editor who made it why they made that edit, they can still go and ask BC about it. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Quercus basaseachicensis should remain blocked, both to prevent him from breaking his promise and to prevent him from accidentally editing from that account. If a notice (or redirect) needs to be placed on the userpage, other editors can do so. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not very logical. He could just as easily make another account if he wanted to break his promise. BC made good edits with that account, and it's not fair that it has this block being attached to those actions. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

He has too many "alt" accounts as it, and I for one am getting really sick of things getting missed because of it (case in point: that he actually violated 3RR on WP:BOT, but it went unnoticed in part because of his use of Betacommand2 (talk · contribs) to perform his first revert). If I had my way, he'd have one account, Betacommand (talk · contribs). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If I understood BC's comments, the BC2 account is because his main account .js causes error messages on non-Firefox browsers which are "annoying". Thus a need for a second account(?) The BC2 account has caused confusion in the past (diff's on request) and has questionable utility. The Quercus account was intended to "make a new start", although there is a many-month overlap in the usage compared with the BC account. That account is obviously compromised as a new start, and in fact was never viable if Beta wished to continue operating BCBot, since the owning account must be identified. Neither of Quercus or BC2 are particularly justifiable at this point. Franamax (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That's for BC to decide, not us. Hell, you're allowed to have an alt account so you can pretend to be godzillia and talk differently. If you're really that confused by BC2 then maybe you're thinking too hard. Most editors who make a fresh start aren't going to do so over night. There's lose ends to be tied up with the old account, and you don't actually have to stop editing with the old one as long as you're editing different pages with the second account. Regardless if it's used now or not, BC's good contributions as Quercus should not be tied to a standing indef block that wasn't justified in the first place. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Something we all missed

Please see here. It turns out that Betacommand had breached 3RR despite at least five people above claiming he hadn't. There was an earlier edit by his User:Betacommand2 account that no-one seems to have spotted. Unfortunately, the other editor (User:Locke Cole) had three unblock requests declined despite pointing out Betacommand's edit warring with socks. Locke Cole was eventually unblocked, but he had retired three minutes earlier. He was understandably aggrieved at the seeming double standards and the lack of proper review, and the disinterest in his pointing out of the edit warring by Betacommand. Could we all (myself especially included) please try harder next time? I've left a strong warning for Betacommand about the edit warring and his use of multiple accounts in this way (it leads, as we have seen, to a lack of scrutiny, no matter how genuine the need is to use an alternate account). Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Locke Cole's statement

I've proposed a community ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_of_Betacommand, feel free to continue discussion there.

I'm annoyed that people are bending over backwards (and likely making chiropractors rich) to "help" Betacommand, all the while ignoring the obvious and continual disrespect for community consensus and community policy. Someone even went so far as to transclude a portion of his talk page into this discussion so he could effectively violate his block and make a statement visible here. We're talking about someone who has abusively used a sockpuppet in a dispute to evade 3RR (and he's seemingly gotten away with it too, while I was serving a 55 hour block for openly violating 3RR, he was helping folks craft his "punishment" (despite a consensus view that all his alt accounts be blocked)). Someone who has made obvious and unapologetic personal attacks and simply gotten yet another warning (YAW). He calls what's going on here "progress", I call it "a step back". When will the community say "enough is enough" and implement a community ban of Betacommand (or hell, actually let a block expire without admins tripping over themselves for the chance to unblock)? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Concur with Locke Cole. The above discussion (which I read in it's entirety) is simply "sound and fury signifying nothing." Nothing ever changes. Betacommand does what he does, misuses his bot, "mistakenly" uses his alternate account in an edit war, is grossly incivil, and--after some ducking and dodging, and some help from his friends--emerges on the other side, unscathed. Meanwhile, many editors he encounters choose to simply fade away. When will this end? Most likely never. How many editors will choose to simply fade away? Who knows? Bellwether ^B_C 08:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with much of this. I agree that his attitude in this thread has been pretty much devoid of understanding of the very real issues that have been taking place. His offering a particular "deal" is especially demonstrative of that: it gives the impression that it is his condescension that is imposing the limit, rather than the irritation of others. This is out of order. I think there are major issues with the manner in which he conducts his on-wiki affairs to the extent that he should not be permitted to operate bots. (This is the community's decision, not the Bot Approvals Group, if the community wishes to make it.) On the other hand, it is quite absurd to say that allowing Betacommand to make a statement on this page is "block violation" as you do. This is no different from anyone receiving an email from him and posting it on this page -- which would be entirely proper. There is a medium to be found between saying "yes" to the behaviour that has been going on and instituting a community ban: Betacommand does not need to be banned, but the abuses that have been taking place absolutely need to stop. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The page transclusion, taken together with the other circumstances, is the issue I'm trying to bring to light. By itself I would agree that the page transclusion isn't a big deal. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with the above as well. Whenever Betacommand does something wrong, nothing happens. I don't wanna come across as Dr. Phil, but Betacommand still hasn't owned up to anything he's done wrong. It's always everyone's fault but his. And if we continue to act like clawless and toothless tigers, nothing will change. Betacommand has had two ArbCom cases, there are now two Admin's noticeboard subpages devoted to him. How much more credit and patience are we gonna give him? Aecis^Brievenbus 10:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Concur with Locke Cole. Especially in light of the fact that BC actually violated 3RR to edit-war on that policy page after all. His friends were so quick to get him exonerated that they failed to noticed his abusing yet another of his socks. In summary, the original charge of Abusive Sockpuppetry was indeed Valid. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And hence, BC should be banned, if he isn't already. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Concur except that I don't think Beta was sockpuppeting abusively, I think he got his windows mixed up while trying to do too much at once. The edit-war and 3RR violations stand, and LC was disproportionately punished (oops, prevented) for their part. The part I do agree with is that in my view Beta shows no intent to modify his approach in a meaningful way beyond the short term, shows no advancement in communication, and still seems to think that it's someone else's fault for "trolling". Franamax (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If it was an accident through, why not admit it, self revert and deal with it? Instead he proceeded to revert a fourth time (from his Betacommand account) without any indication at all that he'd just used an (as yet unknown) sockpuppet to revert. Worse, once he was found out (and ultimately unblocked) he did nothing to try and rectify the situation with me (of course given all the issues he and I have had, I guess that's to be expected, but the community should expect better); instead he proceeded to engage in self serving discussion, proposing remedies that wouldn't cause him any real inconvenience. Someone who has been through two ArbComs and numerous AN, AN/I discussions should be on better behavior you'd think. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Why? He knows he has bodyguards to protect him. Bellwether ^B_C 21:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • C'mon guys - why would he not admit it? Because that is Beta's apparent style. There's no need to jump to abusive-sockpuppetry when there's so much evidence of simple inability to communicate, which is the real problem area. In any case, as was pointed out elsewhere about a different editor, we are talking about a real person, so speculation on their presumed methods and motivations is not appropriate. Lets just talk about the impact on the wiki, OK? Franamax (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Concur with Locke Cole. Up until this point I was generally sympathetic to Beta's situation, but I had a nagging feeling that there was more evidence that would come up. Very upsetting, but sadly unsurprising; this is the inevitable human cost of a Wikipedia career spent as a nuclear powered icebreaker (with the throttle stuck on Flank and the Captain asleep in his cabin with his iPod on and a GO AWAY sign on the door). I'd suggest a remedy, but we all know nothing will come of it. If 4 years of daily noticeboard viewing have taught me anything, it's that sacred cows are very real, and any sort of protracted public attempt to discomfort them gets you ignored at best, and MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN scrawled next to your name at worst. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 21:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll bite here, mene, mene, tekel, parsin - I just have to know? Franamax (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • See The writing on the wall :) Stannered (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess I should get ready for the "mene, mene, tekel, parsin" – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_of_Betacommand. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - "You have been measured and found wanting", is that the gist of it? Wow, the bible has a saying for everything :) And LC, I won't write it on a wall, I'll disagree up front (over there), Beta has not yet been faced with systematic escalating discipline, no-one yet has systematically addressed de-tasking BCBot, you are right that BC has essentially been getting a free pass - but that's the issue, nothing has been done to positively modify BC's behaviour. So I'm doubtful that proposing a community ban is helpful, as opposed to proposing lesser sanctions (yeah, I know, it's been tried in this incident). But let's see how your thread plays out, I'll "mene" for now (that's the weighing part, right?). Franamax (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"No-one yet has systematically addressed de-tasking BCBot" - I started a section below on that subject, listing all the approved tasks of BetacommandBot. Most of the tasks, and all the critical ones, are now being performed by other 'bots. The de-tasking of BCbot seems to be going well. --John Nagle (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually this type of transclusion was routine while CSN was active. It fits in with normal commonsense fairness to give a person a voice in the discussion when his/her head is on the wiki's chopping block. Durova^Charge! 07:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Concur. How long are we going to tolerate such abusive behavior from Betacommand? Our rules should be enforced uniformly. Kaldari (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Get off the stage BC isn't going to get banned, live with it. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Current block status

What with all the blocks and unblocks, it seems necessary to summarize the current block situation.

• Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indef blocked as sockpuppet by Versageek (talk · contribs).
• Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Unblocked by Carcharoth (talk · contribs). Hundreds of semi-automated or automated edits since unblock.
• Betacommand2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Unblocked by Carcharoth (talk · contribs). One routine edit since unblock.
• BetacommandBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Blocked by Anetode (talk · contribs).

--John Nagle (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So, basically he's using his main account as BetacommandBot now? Wow. Just wow. Bellwether ^B_C 19:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, according to User talk:Betacommand/20081201#Clean up using... ?. He's trying to clean up a previous mess he made with one of his 'bots, he's using a customized version of AWB to do it, and his own personal version is buggy. He writes "(Im using a SVN copy of AWB I think I accidentally changed the edit summary)". Several hundred edits were made with the buggy version, and have edit comments of "(clean up using)". --John Nagle (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if an AWB dev could weigh in here. AFAIK, the only way to disable the "using AWB" appendage, is to run AWB in Bot mode instead of in Manual mode. MBisanz ^talk 20:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the raw source code which I compile, thus SVN, also you cannot do typo checking in bot mode. I have only make 144 edits either typo fixing or fixing default sort so please dont say its hundreds. β^_command 20:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the release version of AWB? Until one minute ago you could even use the bot setting on your main account (no idea where that came from, given that BCB is listed as a bot as well). I think all things considered, the only way you can make yourself perfectly safe from criticism here is to do whatever you're doing for the forseeable future the 'old fashioned way'. Certainly using an automated script of any sort would be foolish in the extreme - I'm glad to see that you haven't been making large numbers of edits; but that begs the question of what you're doing with your custom version that you couldn't do with a regular (and bug-free) copy of AWB. Happy‑melon 21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

SVN allows easier updates and allows me to get bug fixes easier. β^_command 22:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Asking an avid technology user why he's using the latest code instead of the last stable release? Really? Who here has beta software on their computer? -- Ned Scott 23:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

His username is Betacommand, right? Kaldari (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was really asking why he was taking the latest version and screwing around with it, rather than using a more stable version. Of course using the SVN version over the older release version is his prerogative, and to the technically competent it can be a good idea for the reasons BC notes above; but I don't see anyone else on-wiki using edit summaries including "(using )" - so it's not (AFAIK) correct to say that Betacommand is just using the SVN version - it's the SVN version with a few added bells and whistles (and, clearly, a few amusing coding errors :D). Happy‑melon 11:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Tasks performed by BetacommandBot

There have been some questions as to what BetacommandBot actually did. This was its list of approved tasks.

• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 1

No such task on file.

• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 2

Change {{s-off}} to {{s-gov}} for specified list of categories.

One-time job; done in 2007.

• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 3

WikiProject Biography newsletter delivery.

Could be performed by other 'bots, such as DeliveryBot (talk · contribs).

• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 4

Orphaned fair-use image tagging.

Function now performed by BJBot (talk · contribs).

• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 5

Tagging of images without fair use rationale.

Function now performed by BJBot (talk · contribs).

• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 7

Moving of free images to Wikimedia Commons, with appropriate reference updates.

Useful but non-critical function

• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 8

Search talk pages for a pre-existing assessment and then add the same assessment to the other project tags on the same talk page.

Useful but non-critical function.

• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 9

Replacing all images on en.wiki with commons versions that have the same SHA1 hashes.

Related to Task 7.

--John Nagle (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

you missed some. β^_command 05:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What a helpful comment. Anyway, I've located some of the ones that John Nagle missed. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot contains the following four approvals (we can retroactively call them tasks 1a through 1d):

• (1a) Collecting external link statistics for WikiProject Spam
• (1b) Substing templates listed at WP:SUBST under "Templates that should be substituted" and "Templates that must be substituted"
• (1c) Adding WikiProject banners to article talk pages
• (1d) Removing or renaming categories according to the decisions of CFD.

(1a) and (1c) were still active up to the time the bot got blocked; I don't know about the others. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we missed a few unapproved tasks, such as flooding the Main Page with useless revisions. Could you please point us to any approved tasks we missed? Tasks 1a and 1c could be easily done by another bot. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Move to Commons tasks (7 & 9) are not "non-critical". Moving those images is an important task that benefits other Wikimedia projects, and it saves time of people wanting to move these files to Commons to create media collections on a topic of interest. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly non-critical to Wikipedia, although task 7 may be critical to Commons. (Furthermore, I think there were GFDL history problems in the moved articles, and related problems that, if Commons doesn't agree it's free, it gets deleted without being moved back to Wikipedia.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I thus question the usefulness of moving images to Commons. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not critical for enWP, but it is an important task for other projects. Part of the Wikipedia mission is to have useful articles in all languages. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The MTC task was useful and efficient, but the bot did not actually select the images to be transferred. Individual users still have an opportunity to transfer images using User:Krimpet/CH2.js and there is every opportunity for another bot operator to work on the compiled to-be-transferred list using similar methods. Not to mention that Commons and en.wiki have differing standards for allowable images or the fatal flaw of MTC not accounting for the presence/lack thereof of source information necessary to validate free license status. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Those problems are not the bots fault; MTC has a list of approved users, and it is those users who sign off on each transfer. It is much simpler for approved editors to approve an image than it is for them to do the transfer. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, a critical task would stop Wikipedia's normal operations. Not moving images to Commons, while important, doesn't really affect the way Wikipedia operates, it only slows down an interwiki process that can be done by operators on Commons as well. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I think those who defend Betacommand can stop saying that he does good work. To be honest, I think he is no better than Odex. Odex got their just deserts; Betacommand eventually will. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks. yeah I never said that what BCBot does is critical. there is one other task that I never filed a BRFA for, WP:DABS and related stats. what BCBot does is provide very useful stats and tasks. β^_command 12:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hildanknight, enough is enough. I've skimmed this discussion (ie. what's happened since I last commented) and Betacommand has been more civil than you. Please stop. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we can agree that moving images to Commons is not a vital task. I don't think a bot should be doing it full stop, but that's probably another story. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"You missed some" - the issue as always is that Beta has no idea what is even wrong with that reply, and never will. He does usefull stats tasks like prolonging edit wars over users' wishes not to be included in edit count lists, and duplicating lists that already exist in wikipedia space, in user space. This is how Beta spends the time he has been given to prove he is a valued contributor even without a bot. MickMacNee (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

MickMacNee, you dont know what your talking about. the WP space list only has the top 5000 humans (they remove bots). The list I maintain contains every account that has at least 5000 edits. Also please note that my edits are within policy and that the user who filed that report got warned not me. β^{_{command 2}} 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I know I don't know what I'm talking about, that would be why the wikipedia space list includes bots would it?. MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

what is listed as #1? its not cydebot the account with the most edits. the information presented there is for humans, not all users. the list I created does not filter the information, and contains all users with over 5000 edits compared to WP:WBE that only has the top 4-5k users. β^{_{command 2}} 15:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The list as I see it today has: 1-SmackBot (bot) 1193884, 2-Cydebot (bot) 971146, 3-WP 1.0 bot (bot) 726999, 4-BetacommandBot (bot) 674179, 5-Kingbotk (bot) 437167. So smackbot has more edits than clydebot. Or am I missing something? AKAF (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Same. They are clearly bots, although they are not numbered (to be fair to users), but they are still definitely bots. .:Alex:. 15:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Cydebot has 1.2 million plus edits and BCBot has 920,000+ edits so that list is not correct. Also it does not include bots in the counts thus squewing the results, unlike the list that I created. β^{_{command 2}} 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

With 920,000 edits and a questionable edit rate of say 5% means 46,000 potential errors. I don't know what the real error rate is, but we are talking about a lot of confused or angry Wikipedia editors. You should expect to get more than a few angry notes on your talk page. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Krimpet for blocking User:Joelster's IP

Admin. Krimpet has blocked Jolster's Ip for one mistake for a logged out comment and personally I think that is just not right. The User that he commented did not care Trees Rock ^{Plant A Tree!} 19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good block, given what the diff that caused the block. GRBerry 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with GRBerry, logging out to vandalize is definitely inappropriate. This should have been discussed with the users involved before coming to AN as well. Mr.Z-man 20:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A silly block, IMO. I agree with Tree rocks, especially since the "victim" has said to unblock. And not necessary to be here at AN. Recommend an unblock of Joelster. This is blown way out of proportion. And that picture was really bad. And LL is way better looking than that picture. Ok, I've said enough...support unblocking of Joelster, per Lara. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove may not care at the moment, but I do. Why would logging out to perform drive-by a attack on another user ever be acceptable? Jokes happen, but this does not look like one; I'm unable to interpret this edit as anything but malicious, at this time. I see the user has a pretty solid history of contributing, but it has to be asked: is this the first time they've done it, or the first time they've been caught? Might support a block reduction, if it's made clear we'll see a return to productive editing, but I quite support Krimpet's original block. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Keeper, I don't think this has been blown out of proportion in the slightest. This was a completely inappropriate edit and a good block by Krimpet. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support block. Krimpet took an appropriate action (1 week block)[72] against an anon, 59.101.188.187 (talk · contribs), that made a clearly vandalistic edit.[73] As it turned out, the anon was Joelster's account, so Joelster was caught by the block, and immediately requested an unblock.[74] East718 reviewed the unblock request and declined,[75] and then also blocked the Joelster account itself for 175 hours.[76] Joelster has since "quit" wikipedia (see Meatball:GoodBye), and admitted that he made the edit while drunk.[77] LaraLove evidently doesn't care about the edit, and says it's okay with her if he's unblocked.[78] If Joelster promises to avoid this kind of behavior in the future, and East718 is consulted, I'd support an unblock. But I see nothing wrong with what Krimpet did. --Elonka 21:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If they were hammered, I think it would be appropriate to show leniency, provided we get some assurance that it never happens again. That changes the dynamic from "harassment and avoiding scrutiny" to "making silly edits while drunk", and I don't think my reaction would be proportionate to the latter offense. east.718 at 21:23, May 17, 2008
    • As a postscript, Joelster says he does not wish to be unblocked, but does wish to apologize, to LaraLove, east718, Krimpet, and the Wikipedia community in general.[79] --Elonka 06:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • As a post-postscript, Joelster was unblocked by east718 in light of his contrition (had to look that one up). He promises to stay cyber-sober in future, and is greatly enjoying making his first real edit in three days. He would like to thank those who (whether wrongly or not) showed concern for his block. He would like to point out that a proper reason for the original IP block would've been appreciated. He would also like to say that any edits (or emails) made in the following hours after his block were made while either pissed or pissed off. He does, in fact, have cojones (had to look that one up too). He is also getting the hang of referring to himself in the third person. Thankyou, good bye, and good luck. Joelster (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What to do about Paul Vogel

I noticed that the date that shows when Paul Vogel gets unbanned is May 3, 2008. It is May 15, 2008. What should be done with this user page and this user's listing at Wikipedia:List of banned users? Jesse Viviano (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I also have noticed other expired bans at Wikipedia:List of banned users like User:Venki123 and am trying to remove them from this list as I see them. Jesse Viviano (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Paul Vogel never edited under the account of the same name, it's a placeholder for ArbCom direction. So blocking/unblocking the account isn't really relative here. His ban has expired, he can contribute accounted or as and IP. He never registered or has the ability to access the Paul Vogel account. Keegan^talk 06:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If IPs or registered cause the same disruptions as the Paul Vogel accounts then they'll be blocked too. The problem is not the editor, it's the editing behavior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well established hoax

Today, I was contacted suggesting that CSBC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and CSBC Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) were both total hoaxes. Upon checking Google and the external links listed, it indeed appears that I can find no mention of this bank. The sources provided by the image are dead and have never existed, nor have the official websites etc. etc.

I then contacted a Danish user, who also asserts that it does not exist. Before I delete this (very shortly), I would like to provide the opportunity for a couple of extra opinions from English Wikipedians just to make sure that we're all on the same page and not missing something, given this article has existed since September of last year. Furthermore, if consensus is that this is a hoax, we need to decide what if any action should be taken against Thrór (talk · contribs).

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No objections to deletion...the URLs on the articles being down is just one of many issues here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely delete. As for Thrór (talk · contribs), I looked at his other contributions, and they seem to be fine. It baffles me then why he would create a hoax article. I suppose it's possible he didn't know it was a hoax, but that seems rather unlikely.--§hanel 09:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the one that links to the California Southern Baptist Convention. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, its revenue was said to be $700 billion, almost seven times that of the Bank of America, or a little less than the GDP of Canada. GG! El_C 09:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I missed that :) Thanks all. Daniel (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Whilst we're on the subject, could someone cast an eye over 24 hours in a day? It's the bit about Ancient Egyptians and complex regular polyhedrons (or CR4P, as it's said to be) that's got my hoax-radar bleeping. _GB^T/C 09:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I prodded it and left a pointer at WT:WPM. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's now been unprodded and taken to AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User: 68.9.124.254

Resolved

 – User has taken this to WP:AIV. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Could an administrator please have a look at this user. They have been continually removing the category from the List of 4Kids cast members article with no explanation (they may be right to do it, but a reason would be helpful). However, looking at their talk page, they've been continually warned for distuptive editing, and the last one was a 'you will be blocked'. Obviously, I can't do this, and it needs someone to review the situation before this is done. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops _ I see I should have dropped this into WP:AIV - apologies in advance ! CultureDrone (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Grawp

Last night, Grawp had more fun. He used about four accounts, before a checkuser found around 50 more. Grawp has taken a liking to rather common articles - yesterday, it was the letters of the English alphabet. I have move-protected all of them since. Now, following the pattern, I have a list of all number from 1 to 2500 (with talkpages) that can be move-protected all at will. Thoughts on move-protecting everything fro 1 to 2500, with talkpages? Maxim_(talk) 12:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. There's never going to be a legitimate need to move those pages. Need help? Seraphim♥Whipp 12:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, no help really needed. It's a protect script... I'm still waiting on a few more opinions, we're talking about protecting 5000 pages. Maxim_(talk) 12:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'm enthusiastic but, just like you, there's no way I would start something like that without seeing what other people think :). Seraphim♥Whipp 12:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, and as Seraphim says, there's no legitimate need to move pages like that. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, no need to move mundane pages such as numbers, and protecting is an especially good idea if they are being targeted by everyone's favourite pagemove vandal. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 13:12, May 17, 2008 (UTC)

Has there been any progress in getting his ISP to do something? Blueboy96 12:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Much as I dislike large-scale pre-emptive protection, the titleblacklist has been a complete failure and anything that slows this langer down or makes him less effective, I am in support of. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The titleblacklist has been ineffective because Grawp has demonstrated a fondness for obscure Unicode characters in his pagemoves. Unless we disallow Unicode in titles (which I don't see happening anytime soon), any flag that triggers on HAGGER?, HERMY? or somesuch will continue to be circumvented by Unicode. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe he is using TOR for the most part so any action against the ISP may be limited in its effectiveness. Like Willy on Wheels I suspect that there are imitators as well. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just imitators; it's rabid channers. I can attest to that; look at Ocean sunfish's day as FA and the fallout from that on my talk page (Administrator bit required to view the deleted revisions). It's why I don't allow any protection on my talk page aside from move-protection. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I might need a bot flag for this. I will clog RC for a few hours with this... Thoughts? Maxim_(talk) 13:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Before we just go adding bot flags to accounts, can this task be added to an existing bot and send it up for a quick run through WP:B/RFA? Or a new bot request would be fine. Should be quick and painless that way, but there's no specific reason to circumvent the standard way is there? - Taxman ^Talk 14:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, as this is an adminbot. Maxim_(talk) 16:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the comment below the header about a blockbot about? Which bot is it? Stifle (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a blockbot that triggers when someone moves a page to something with HAGGER? or GRAWP in it. It shouldn't trigger with a topic header, but I feel like playing safe. :-p I've removed it for now, it's obviously haven't been triggered. :-p Maxim_(talk) 13:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is because Grawp uses Unicode, as explained above. It's unfeasible to block all permutations that involve Unicode. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'd better vote the hell out of bug 13811 then. In the the meantime, can someone please title blacklist ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿H@GGER!, ¿H@GGER! and Grawp's cock is bigger. (use .*Grawp.*)? MER-C 13:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added .*Grawp.* to the titleblacklist, looks like someone is already working on the other odd character entries there. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped the numbers thing - it's just going to give him more ideas, and I might as well ask a developer to restrict moves to admins. I think now, the best course of action is to protect the FAs, as there's no need to move them, and Grawp targets them a fair bit. Maxim_(talk) 16:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Move-protecting articles and adding more filters to the titleblacklist are both a waste of time. You can blacklist thousands of variants of the word "HAGGAR" - he'll just change to another word or phrase, as he has already been doing. Move-protections on single articles that are obscure (like the number articles) will just add to the logs. Rate limiting page moves would be a good start to stop this crap - two moves per minute (article/talk) is enough for autoconfirmed users. Liberal usage of checkuser on these accounts is also a good idea. --- RockMFR 18:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any batch move protections. It's a waste of resources, it floods the protection logs, and it is only disruptive to legitimate contributors. While it is trivial to batch protect thousands of articles, doing so only prevents future legitimate page moves. If we protect every color, shape, country, etc., Grawp, et al. will simply pick another category (politicians, musical instruments, asteroids). Meanwhile, we've permanently harmed the wiki process. There is a very robust blacklist, as well as rate limits currently in place on page moves. There are far better solutions than locking everything down. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed Maxim's post above when I posted this. So, much of it is now irrelevant. Though, I did remember that, as far as I know, the title blacklist can be used to restrict moving while still allowing editing. So instead of 5,000 log entries, we can have one edit instead, if large-scale protection is really what is needed. It also can use custom error messages. \o/ --MZMcBride (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose any batch move protections, with the possible exception of FAs. "Numbers" as a genre of articles is really no different to "countries" or "actors"; at least FA articles are quantifiably different to the rest. SpamRegex is definitely the way to go. Happy‑melon 21:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Unicode

I've been doing some number-crunching on character frequencies in page titles, and I've come up with some surprising results. In fact, I'm not entirely convinced that I've done this right: according to my analysis, amongst all 2,500,000-some pages in the mainspace, we only use 199 distinct unicode characters. I'm having a pig of a time uploading anything meaningful on-wiki because I can't get my head around python's unicode handling, but if anyone who knows better than me can do something meaningful with the pickle string below, you can see what I'm getting at.

Pickled summary of unicode character usage in pagetitles in ns:0

(dp0
S'\x83'
p1
I8667
sS'\x87'
p2
I5965
sS'\x8b'
p3
I836
sS'\x8f'
p4
I1127
sS'\x93'
p5
I8396
sS'\x97'
p6
I1482
sS'\x9b'
p7
I2400
sS'\x9f'
p8
I8665
sS'\xa3'
p9
I6548
sS'$'
p10
I473
sS'\xa7'
p11
I7099
sS'('
p12
I520744
sS'\xab'
p13
I6434
sS','
p14
I379569
sS'\xaf'
p15
I2412
sS'0'
p16
I228797
sS'\xb3'
p17
I19070
sS'4'
p18
I95185
sS'\xb7'
p19
I1004
sS'8'
p20
I94296
sS'\xbb'
p21
I3307
sS'\xbf'
p22
I1291
sS'@'
p23
I639
sS'\xc3'
p24
I212176
sS'D'
p25
I515283
sS'\xc7'
p26
I592
sS'H'
p27
I499030
sS'\xcb'
p28
I167
sS'L'
p29
I584949
sS'\xcf'
p30
I1197
sS'P'
p31
I643932
sS'\xd3'
p32
I40
sS'T'
p33
I678567
sS'\xd7'
p34
I2151
sS'X'
p35
I36258
sS'\xdb'
p36
I157
sS'\\'
p37
I216
sS'\xdf'
p38
I1
sS'`'
p39
I854
sS'\xe3'
p40
I4355
sS'd'
p41
I2124404
sS'\xe7'
p42
I1331
sS'h'
p43
I2232388
sS'\xeb'
p44
I256
sS'l'
p45
I3803175
sS'\xef'
p46
I631
sS'p'
p47
I1120927
sS'\xf3'
p48
I1
sS't'
p49
I4557004
sS'x'
p50
I168328
sS'\x80'
p51
I15285
sS'\x84'
p52
I3660
sS'\x88'
p53
I1712
sS'\x8c'
p54
I2876
sS'\x90'
p55
I1674
sS'\x94'
p56
I2252
sS'\x98'
p57
I1704
sS'\x9c'
p58
I1643
sS'\xa0'
p59
I4377
sS'\xa4'
p60
I9531
sS"'"
p61
I134509
sS'\xa8'
p62
I9503
sS'+'
p63
I2681
sS'\xac'
p64
I1341
sS'/'
p65
I34933
sS'\xb0'
p66
I4370
sS'3'
p67
I105181
sS'\xb4'
p68
I4774
sS'7'
p69
I89432
sS'\xb8'
p70
I7232
sS';'
p71
I322
sS'\xbc'
p72
I14927
sS'?'
p73
I4102
sS'C'
p74
I1024979
sS'\xc4'
p75
I26885
sS'G'
p76
I457896
sS'\xc8'
p77
I73
sS'K'
p78
I307749
sS'\xcc'
p79
I426
sS'O'
p80
I288226
sS'\xd0'
p81
I10714
sS'S'
p82
I1212568
sS'\xd4'
p83
I15
sS'W'
p84
I390232
sS'\xd8'
p85
I3944
sS'\xdc'
p86
I97
sS'_'
p87
I8750337
sS'\xe0'
p88
I2944
sS'c'
p89
I2123339
sS'\xe4'
p90
I873
sS'g'
p91
I1464171
sS'\xe8'
p92
I1108
sS'k'
p93
I834028
sS'\xec'
p94
I428
sS'o'
p95
I5815444
sS'\xf0'
p96
I133
sS's'
p97
I4080203
sS'w'
p98
I587026
sS'\x81'
p99
I8341
sS'\x85'
p100
I3029
sS'\x89'
p101
I4784
sS'\n'
p102
I5154485
sS'\x8d'
p103
I12888
sS'\x91'
p104
I2112
sS'\x95'
p105
I983
sS'\x99'
p106
I7269
sS'\x9d'
p107
I1168
sS'\xa1'
p108
I30193
sS'"'
p109
I12967
sS'\xa5'
p110
I3596
sS'&'
p111
I21153
sS'\xa9'
p112
I50984
sS'*'
p113
I1406
sS'\xad'
p114
I18469
sS'.'
p115
I272324
sS'\xb1'
p116
I8996
sS'2'
p117
I181510
sS'\xb5'
p118
I2106
sS'6'
p119
I91242
sS'\xb9'
p120
I2255
sS':'
p121
I44462
sS'\xbd'
p122
I3697
sS'B'
p123
I698222
sS'\xc5'
p124
I42738
sS'F'
p125
I443437
sS'\xc9'
p126
I554
sS'J'
p127
I320434
sS'\xcd'
p128
I23
sS'N'
p129
I397009
sS'\xd1'
p130
I3590
sS'R'
p131
I570863
sS'\xd5'
p132
I251
sS'V'
p133
I227065
sS'\xd9'
p134
I3031
sS'Z'
p135
I64252
sS'\xdd'
p136
I24
sS'^'
p137
I150
sS'\xe1'
p138
I2807
sS'b'
p139
I897661
sS'\xe5'
p140
I3071
sS'f'
p141
I966671
sS'\xe9'
p142
I1175
sS'j'
p143
I121495
sS'\xed'
p144
I139
sS'n'
p145
I5579897
sS'r'
p146
I5339876
sS'v'
p147
I720713
sS'z'
p148
I261690
sS'~'
p149
I723
sS'\x82'
p150
I8308
sS'\x86'
p151
I1609
sS'\x8a'
p152
I1112
sS'\x8e'
p153
I1190
sS'\x92'
p154
I935
sS'\x96'
p155
I1612
sS'\x9a'
p156
I1716
sS'\x9e'
p157
I1845
sS'!'
p158
I11489
sS'\xa2'
p159
I6904
sS'%'
p160
I187
sS'\xa6'
p161
I2937
sS')'
p162
I520239
sS'\xaa'
p163
I2770
sS'-'
p164
I397060
sS'\xae'
p165
I1795
sS'1'
p166
I278978
sS'\xb2'
p167
I2435
sS'5'
p168
I92025
sS'\xb6'
p169
I12601
sS'9'
p170
I164084
sS'\xba'
p171
I6468
sS'='
p172
I290
sS'\xbe'
p173
I3843
sS'A'
p174
I847600
sS'\xc2'
p175
I2020
sS'E'
p176
I382678
sS'\xc6'
p177
I296
sS'I'
p178
I387321
sS'\xca'
p179
I570
sS'M'
p180
I825081
sS'\xce'
p181
I4585
sS'Q'
p182
I42798
sS'\xd2'
p183
I63
sS'U'
p184
I205217
sS'\xd6'
p185
I328
sS'Y'
p186
I103946
sS'\xda'
p187
I79
sS'\xde'
p188
I69
sS'a'
p189
I7388108
sS'\xe2'
p190
I15293
sS'e'
p191
I7600450
sS'\xe6'
p192
I2052
sS'i'
p193
I6114440
sS'\xea'
p194
I124
sS'm'
p195
I1806311
sS'\xee'
p196
I41
sS'q'
p197
I69488
sS'u'
p198
I2368771
sS'y'
p199
I1303725
s.

Assuming that I've actually got that analysis right (I can publish the source code too if anyone wants to check it, it's only about fifteen lines), implementing a brutal regex into the titleblacklist (and spamregex blacklist when we finally get it) isn't going to be nearly as difficult as we suspected. Happy‑melon 21:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

one way to reverse pickle and have pywiki save them to a sandbox one character on a line. β^_command 17:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, one of us seems to have made some mistake, since I count 6617 distinct characters in mainspace titles. Here's a breakdown by Unicode block (made using Perl, Unicode::CharName and the database dump from March 25):

Block	Range	Distinct chars found
CJK Unified Ideographs	U+04E00–U+09FFF	2120
Hangul Syllables	U+0AC00–U+0D7AF	279
Cyrillic	U+00400–U+004FF	189
Miscellaneous Symbols	U+02600–U+026FF	177
Dingbats	U+02700–U+027BF	176
Latin Extended Additional	U+01E00–U+01EFF	170
Enclosed Alphanumerics	U+02460–U+024FF	139
Latin Extended-B	U+00180–U+0024F	136
Arabic Presentation Forms-B	U+0FE70–U+0FEFF	132
Box Drawing	U+02500–U+0257F	128
Latin Extended-A	U+00100–U+0017F	124
Private Use Area	U+0E000–U+0F8FF	114
Arrows	U+02190–U+021FF	112
General Punctuation	U+02000–U+0206F	108
Arabic	U+00600–U+006FF	105
Latin-1 Supplement	U+00080–U+000FF	105
Halfwidth and Fullwidth Forms	U+0FF00–U+0FFEF	93
IPA Extensions	U+00250–U+002AF	90
Katakana	U+030A0–U+030FF	87
Basic Latin	U+00000–U+0007F	84
Greek and Coptic	U+00370–U+003FF	82
Syriac	U+00700–U+0074F	80
Hiragana	U+03040–U+0309F	80
CJK Compatibility	U+03300–U+033FF	78
Mathematical Operators	U+02200–U+022FF	74
Thai	U+00E00–U+00E7F	67
Geometric Shapes	U+025A0–U+025FF	65
Braille Patterns	U+02800–U+028FF	64
Georgian	U+010A0–U+010FF	63
Devanagari	U+00900–U+0097F	63
Control Pictures	U+02400–U+0243F	61
Armenian	U+00530–U+0058F	59
Hebrew	U+00590–U+005FF	54
Bengali	U+00980–U+009FF	45
Number Forms	U+02150–U+0218F	43
Letterlike Symbols	U+02100–U+0214F	43
Runic	U+016A0–U+016FF	43
Combining Diacritical Marks	U+00300–U+0036F	40
Tamil	U+00B80–U+00BFF	39
Greek Extended	U+01F00–U+01FFF	37
Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics	U+01400–U+0167F	36
Ethiopic	U+01200–U+0137F	36
Tibetan	U+00F00–U+00FFF	36
Old Italic	U+10300–U+1032F	35
Superscripts and Subscripts	U+02070–U+0209F	34
Spacing Modifier Letters	U+002B0–U+002FF	33
Gurmukhi	U+00A00–U+00A7F	33
Gujarati	U+00A80–U+00AFF	33
Gothic	U+10330–U+1034F	32
Telugu	U+00C00–U+00C7F	32
Unknown	N/A	30
Kannada	U+00C80–U+00CFF	28
Ogham	U+01680–U+0169F	27
Small Form Variants	U+0FE50–U+0FE6F	26
Thaana	U+00780–U+007BF	25
Khmer	U+01780–U+017FF	25
CJK Symbols and Punctuation	U+03000–U+0303F	23
Currency Symbols	U+020A0–U+020CF	22
Shavian	U+10450–U+1047F	21
Miscellaneous Technical	U+02300–U+023FF	19
Malayalam	U+00D00–U+00D7F	19
Phonetic Extensions Supplement	U+01D80–U+01DBF	18
Enclosed CJK Letters and Months	U+03200–U+032FF	12
Myanmar	U+01000–U+0109F	12
Block Elements	U+02580–U+0259F	11
Lao	U+00E80–U+00EFF	11
Alphabetic Presentation Forms	U+0FB00–U+0FB4F	11
Sinhala	U+00D80–U+00DFF	11
Oriya	U+00B00–U+00B7F	10
Arabic Presentation Forms-A	U+0FB50–U+0FDFF	8
Arabic Supplement	U+00750–U+0077F	8
Cherokee	U+013A0–U+013FF	8
Bopomofo	U+03100–U+0312F	7
Phonetic Extensions	U+01D00–U+01D7F	6
Optical Character Recognition	U+02440–U+0245F	4
CJK Compatibility Forms	U+0FE30–U+0FE4F	4
Musical Symbols	U+1D100–U+1D1FF	2
Supplemental Mathematical Operators	U+02A00–U+02AFF	2
Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols	U+1D400–U+1D7FF	2
Supplemental Punctuation	U+02E00–U+02E7F	2
Combining Diacritical Marks for Symbols	U+020D0–U+020FF	2
Combining Half Marks	U+0FE20–U+0FE2F	2
Coptic	U+02C80–U+02CFF	2
Hangul Jamo	U+01100–U+011FF	1
Hangul Compatibility Jamo	U+03130–U+0318F	1
Ugaritic	U+10380–U+1039F	1
Tags	U+E0000–U+E007F	1
CJK Unified Ideographs Extension A	U+03400–U+04DBF	1
CJK Radicals Supplement	U+02E80–U+02EFF	1
Specials	U+0FFF0–U+0FFFF	1
Mongolian	U+01800–U+018AF	1
Glagolitic	U+02C00–U+02C5F	1

But yes, one could certainly turn this list into a big regexp, especially if one was to ignore the CJK ranges and perhaps make some other simplifications. Note that I've already added some regexps to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist that should disallow most mixed-script titles, which should help a little. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides, that list includes single-character titles, which are whitelisted anyway. Excluding those reduces it to 4179 characters (most of them still CJK ideographs):

Block	Range	Distinct chars found
CJK Unified Ideographs	U+04E00–U+09FFF	2018
Hangul Syllables	U+0AC00–U+0D7AF	277
Latin Extended-A	U+00100–U+0017F	109
Latin-1 Supplement	U+00080–U+000FF	105
Cyrillic	U+00400–U+004FF	102
Latin Extended Additional	U+01E00–U+01EFF	89
Basic Latin	U+00000–U+0007F	86
Katakana	U+030A0–U+030FF	83
Hiragana	U+03040–U+0309F	73
Arabic	U+00600–U+006FF	71
Greek and Coptic	U+00370–U+003FF	64
Devanagari	U+00900–U+0097F	56
Halfwidth and Fullwidth Forms	U+0FF00–U+0FFEF	56
Armenian	U+00530–U+0058F	54
Thai	U+00E00–U+00E7F	53
Hebrew	U+00590–U+005FF	47
Latin Extended-B	U+00180–U+0024F	44
IPA Extensions	U+00250–U+002AF	41
Bengali	U+00980–U+009FF	39
Arabic Presentation Forms-B	U+0FE70–U+0FEFF	38
Tamil	U+00B80–U+00BFF	37
Greek Extended	U+01F00–U+01FFF	36
Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics	U+01400–U+0167F	34
Tibetan	U+00F00–U+00FFF	34
Gujarati	U+00A80–U+00AFF	32
Combining Diacritical Marks	U+00300–U+0036F	32
General Punctuation	U+02000–U+0206F	31
Ethiopic	U+01200–U+0137F	30
Gurmukhi	U+00A00–U+00A7F	30
Telugu	U+00C00–U+00C7F	29
Kannada	U+00C80–U+00CFF	28
Spacing Modifier Letters	U+002B0–U+002FF	28
Miscellaneous Symbols	U+02600–U+026FF	26
Thaana	U+00780–U+007BF	25
Georgian	U+010A0–U+010FF	24
Shavian	U+10450–U+1047F	21
Malayalam	U+00D00–U+00D7F	19
Superscripts and Subscripts	U+02070–U+0209F	18
Mathematical Operators	U+02200–U+022FF	16
Khmer	U+01780–U+017FF	14
Myanmar	U+01000–U+0109F	12
Syriac	U+00700–U+0074F	11
Lao	U+00E80–U+00EFF	11
Sinhala	U+00D80–U+00DFF	11
Number Forms	U+02150–U+0218F	10
CJK Symbols and Punctuation	U+03000–U+0303F	10
Oriya	U+00B00–U+00B7F	9
Cherokee	U+013A0–U+013FF	8
Bopomofo	U+03100–U+0312F	7
Letterlike Symbols	U+02100–U+0214F	7
Unknown	N/A	4
Arrows	U+02190–U+021FF	4
Arabic Presentation Forms-A	U+0FB50–U+0FDFF	3
Currency Symbols	U+020A0–U+020CF	3
Private Use Area	U+0E000–U+0F8FF	3
Geometric Shapes	U+025A0–U+025FF	3
Dingbats	U+02700–U+027BF	2
Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols	U+1D400–U+1D7FF	2
Combining Half Marks	U+0FE20–U+0FE2F	2
Hangul Compatibility Jamo	U+03130–U+0318F	1
Phonetic Extensions	U+01D00–U+01D7F	1
Control Pictures	U+02400–U+0243F	1
Supplemental Punctuation	U+02E00–U+02E7F	1
Combining Diacritical Marks for Symbols	U+020D0–U+020FF	1
Alphabetic Presentation Forms	U+0FB00–U+0FB4F	1
Enclosed Alphanumerics	U+02460–U+024FF	1
Runic	U+016A0–U+016FF	1

I also have a complete list of the actual characters at User:Ilmari Karonen/Mainspacechars. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PUI severely backlogged

PUI is backlogged by over a month. Can we get a couple of folks over to clean out the holding cells? (All it takes is verifying that there is no justification for keeping the image, and deleting it.) Stifle (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

CommonsHelper blocked

Just a heads-up that the upload bot for CommonsHelper has been blocked at Wikimedia Commons. Kelly ^hi! 14:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Another image improvement proposal

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Favicon improvement. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving long discussions to subpages

Lately there's been a lot of this at AN, ANI, and some village pump pages. I wanted to get people's takes on this, as while I understand and appreciate the intention, I myself find it rather annoying. Whenever a discussion is moved onto its own page, it can take a while for its participants, or even people just watching the discussion who haven't commented, to realize that the conversation was moved, since they of course won't automatically have the new page in their watchlists. The discussion could go on for a while before certain people realize what happened, with developments occurring that people may want or need to know about immediately. I don't think having a long discussion residing at AN or ANI is disruptive enough to warrant this and I'd like to suggest that the practice be stopped. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

at 200k for the discussion and still growing? Watchlisting will not help as the edits come faster than you can check - and when you see them missing you check the pagehistory and voila see what happened. Should be done more often for all the dramaz. Agathoclea (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't even necessarily notice anything's missing. When there are constant edits made to a conversation occurring at a page you have watchlisted, you have a lot of chances to see that it was edited. If a discussion gets moved off that page, you have one chance to see that happen. After that, you might not necessarily notice anything missing, even if you do happen to look at the page randomly afterwards. There are only a select few major participants who would go specifically looking for it. Casual participants or viewers wouldn't. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I know moving a page adds it to watchlists. If there was some way to have MediaWiki see it as a move, without moving the originating page it would be a good thing. MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. In the meantime though I think the practice should be, as we say, frowned upon. Or at least it should be proposed/discussed first in a subsection of the pertinent discussion. These moves are usually done by one person randomly, with little or no discussion about it. An effort should be made to at least make the participants aware that the move will happen/has happened. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have an (admin only) "add Bar to all watchlists that also include Foo" button, but I think you're overstating the problem. The length of this page pre-move, and its level of activity, was utterly ridiculous. If you got one edit conflict on an entirely different section, you'd get five more with contributors to the drama thread before you manage to get your comment in. Without the split, this page would now be over half a megabyte of wikitext: that means if you get an edit conflict, the page that loads is well over a megabyte in size. Spare a thought for those poor editors without the luxury of high-speed internet connections. Happy‑melon 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

One idea could be a bot that follows the subpage and made a null-space edit to the main noticeboard page indicating a changed as occurred at subpage:X. MBisanz ^talk 22:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that it's only a problem in the brief transition period before everyone realises that the discussion has been moved, I don't think something like that would be necessary. As I've said, I really don't think it's that much of an issue: it's really not hard for a competent wikipedian to track down where the discussion has gone. It helps if the splitter uses an informative edit summary, of course. Happy‑melon 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not an issue for people who realize the discussion is missing from the page, but it is an issue for those that don't. I think a bot is a good idea, although I was thinking more in terms of leaving a talk page message for all the participants. I'm afraid MBisanz description was a bit beyond me in tech-speak. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

SCORE! You got my name right. Basically it would be a bot editing the main noticeboard page and only creating an edit summary that there was a change at the split-off page. MBisanz ^talk 22:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be a similar problem though, just creating one edit summary that's easily missed. I think the user talk page message idea is better, and still feasible, I think. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole of AN's wikitext was about half a Gigabyte before the Betacommand discussion (which has surprisingly already grown about another 30 Megabytes since the move) was moved. FunPika 22:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this one of those british/american things. Right now I'm seeing the page as 348,567 bytes meaning 348 kilobytes. I know my connection could never handle a half a gigabyte page, which would be a little smaller than an entire CD-rom. Also, note, FunPika is referring to the split to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry, not the split to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand in February (Should the newer be merge to the older?) MBisanz ^talk 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean kilobytes. The subpage is at about 160 kilobytes now. 30 megabytes is more like a video clip. In any event, I understand the intention. I simply think the participants being informed should be more of a priority. A single edit summary isn't sufficient. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Even though the text is around ~700 kB for this page, it compresses down to ~200 kB, and transcluding the subpage negates the (relatively small) size savings.... 96.15.106.42 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• slaps self with wikitrout* Of course it was half a meg... FunPika 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)The split was actually proposed on the talkpage, and as such would be visible in the watchlist a little longer than here. Also to address the other point - at a particular size transclusion should be avoided as well. Agathoclea (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not have a navigation box for currently active AN subpages? I don't feel brave enough to copy the code from {{cent}}, but that would be the general idea. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Massive sockfarm or just a university class' project?

Maybe I was working in WP:SSP for too long and starting to get paranoid, but I think that many members in this task force share a striking similarity in their userpage design. Look at the task section and check out the 30 different members' userpage. They share a lot of things in common (too much in common in my opinion). Almost all have a very short userpage (few lines maximum), all have a link to their personal sandbox and most have a link towards the task force page. Some users mentioned that it's for an english course called ENG 102 at University of Kansas. I have tried to contact a user,User:Sld8719, and ask him about the nature of this project (I'm just picking him in random, because it would take a long period of time to contact all 30 members on that list), which he ignored me completely. Can someone enlighten me and see if this is a massive sockfarm or actually a class using Wikipedia to work on a class project?

Lovely. This is in Jbmurray (talk · contribs)'s territory, but I don't think he's around this week. If anyone needs it, be sure to refer this group to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-09/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the multiple references to English 102 at the Uinversity of Kansas, seems likely they're students on this course [80]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Or is it this one? [81] OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that it is for the class ("I have created this account to fulfill the requirements of an assignment for my English class.", from the second member's userpage), and that it's possible that they got strict guidlines for creating an account and what to put on their userpage, perhaps even because if they are being evaluated for their work, their professor wants it a certain way. On the other hand, it could be a very elaborate group of sockpuppets... but my gut says it's more likely a class. Of course, my gut has absolutely no references, so really has not validity at all. One sort of odd thing though, if it's an English class, why are they all a part of the Environmental Record Task Force? That seems like sort of a specific topic for a 100 level English class. -- Natalya 20:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not an admin but I thought I'd look into this for you. If you look at [82] you can see a note from User:Mcwabaunsee who is the classes teacher. Someone may want to contact them if there are questions (or if there is a better way to do this)? It seems the environmental interest comes from the teacher. Oboler (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) I just left a note on User talk:Mcwabaunsee. They don't look like socks to me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It registered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The teacher's userboxes seem to fit pretty well. The user is from Kansas and teaches at an institution for higher level of education. (Side note: It was me who left the welcome message in that teacher's talk page 10 months ago *jaw drops*) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[name removed] requesting suspension of bio for limited time period

Resolved

 – Article deleted for now by Rjd0060 per OTRS request. —Travis^talk 01:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What do we do about this? - Icewedge (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mass removal of material from an article? I just rolled it back to the previous version. —Travis^talk 00:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that what I was thinking, but do we do anything about her request at all? - Icewedge (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

They reverted again. I'm not quite sure what to do. I would recommend having the user email OTRS (info-en at wikimedia dot org) with more information. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have E-mailed the user with that advice. - Icewedge (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And I left it on the users talk page, and I've undone the blanking for now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It actually doesn't seem like too bad a request. If it can be verified that the user is who he says he is, I think we really should consider deleting the bio for a month - if this will affect his real life, and he's open to having it restored soon, it's not a big deal. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. If this is a genuine issue, blanking the page is clearly not the answer. —Travis^talk 00:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, but deleting the page as a courtesy may be. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the article per OTRS # 2008051810000246. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the name from the heading of this section for users privacy. - Icewedge (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to also do the same for the diff provided in the first line of this section if this censorship is truly necessary. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The diff is fine because the people who the information should be hidden from are not going to be combing through the archives of WP:AN randomly, she only wanted what could be picked up by Google dealt with. - Icewedge (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User seems to be stealing images and passing them off as their own.

Hello. I am not sure if this is the right place, but I suspect that User:Angela2109 is passing other people's photographs off as their own. Take Image:Clickorticket.jpg for example it can be found here (fullsized image here). Image:78adventurer.jpg appears to be a screen grab from a DVD.

Also suspect is that the images appear to come from several different cameras since the EXIF data is there see for example: Image:1971colt.jpg, Image:Lightning Storm.JPG, Image:Clickorticket.jpg, Image:RedOntdiplmtpltEDIT.jpg, Image:98Dodgeschoolbus.jpg, Image:1975MercMonarchG.jpg Image:1979Monarch.jpg, Image:85topaz.jpg, Image:1988 Dodge Van.jpg, Image:Datsun1979.jpg and when it is not there (or is) the date stamps seem to differ greatly see for example Image:84LYNX.jpg, Image:1977powerwagon.jpg, Image:RedOntdiplmtpltEDIT.jpg, Image:1978military.jpg

The stuff without the EXIF data (along with the stuff with it) appears to have been photographed over a wide geographical area ranging everywhere from Asia, the Pacific Northwest, Ontario, Florida, Pennsylvania, Germany, British Columbia, California, Illinois, New Jersey, etc.

They also attempted to pass of a photo of a Chevrolet as a Dodge Image:62Dodge.jpg see: [83] Given the resolution of many of their image images, like Image:1960townpanel.jpg, I suspect they obtained them from various websites.

The coup de grâce has to be Image:NYC1974.jpg which they claim is self-made, but they on their user page claim to be a "20 something photgrapher" - so unless they have a time machine, they could not have taken a photo of New York City in 1974.

I would doubt that any of the images that they have uploaded are in fact their own work. What is the next step? Should I leave it in the hands of an administrator? Die Profis - Die nächste Generation (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I have blocked the user for massive copyright infringement. Nakon 01:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. What should be done with the images now? Die Profis - Die nächste Generation (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably tag them as {{db-copyvio}} with an explanation of why you believe they are copyright violations. -- Kesh (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Massive tagging by Die Profis

Since I unblocked Angela (with Nakon's consent), Die Profis has gone and tagged every single image she uploaded as G12 speedy-eligible, and removed them from articles ... without specifying where the image was copied from. This appeared to be some sort of retaliatory tear, and I have reverted some of the edits and warned him that any further activity will get him block.

Die Profis only began editing six days ago, and the bulk of his edits are here on this thread or the taggings today. Is his behavior consistent with any other known editors or sockpuppeteers? Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. I just noticed that one of the photos that the person uploaded I have seen somewhere else before and checked to see if there were any more problematic images. I asked what to do here [84] and just followed instructions after presenting evidence. I have had no malice towards the person who did them, but there is something fundamentally wrong about taking images and passing them off as their own. Especially the most blatant one of a photo of New York in the 1970s which they claimed was self-made, but they on their user page claim to be a "20 something photgrapher" - so unless they have a time machine, they could not have taken a photo of New York City then. The evidence was a pattern of behaviour, something that hopefully will change in future. I had no malice or no desire to have anyone banned, just wanted to make things right. I did not take unilateral action, I asked what was the proper thing to do after finding a problem. Die Profis - Die nächste Generation (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User removing my cut/paste notices

For some reason User:Brian Boru is awesome‎ decided to WP:Stalk my edits and remove my comments from editors whose cut/paste moves I've had corrected in the past few months. These were legit notices and I'm curious as to why a random editor is deleting my comments. It also looks as if this editor has also removed many disrutived editing notices from their own talk page as well.

Maybe because they think chiding people for things they did over a year ago is a little over the top. Corvus cornix_talk 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, these error were only recently found. I didn't realize that going unnoticed for a period of time allowed uninvolved users to remove others comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.79.163 (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You clearly don't do RFA, do you, Corvus ;) Sceptre ^(talk) 02:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to say, Sceptre. Corvus cornix_talk 02:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it needs me to say "Zing!" at the end. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Or else I'm a little dense this evening.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 02:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain how its over the top when even Template:Uw-c&pmove states "Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.79.163 (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dy93

Dy93 (talk · contribs) is apparently recreating already-deleted articles about a hoax soap opera. I'm no expert on Australian soap operas, so I can't tell if these are real or not, but other editors seem to think not. But what drew my attention to this user was the creation of Maggie Reynolds-Webbers with a db, hoax, and unsourced tag already on it, which indicates that Dy93 probably copied it from somewhere, though I can find no previous history of any such article with this title. Corvus cornix_talk 02:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see what they did. They just copied over the content from Maggie reynolds-webbers. Corvus cornix_talk 02:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

They appear to be a sock of indef. banned User:Dylan93. Corvus cornix_talk 02:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, blocked, etc. Nakon 02:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fake article, sneaky tactics and probably not a newbie

Control The Nation With Discipline Tour, a brand new editer built this article in minutes which is suspictious enough. Myself and another editer who are up on all things Janet Jackson believe it to be fake. The sources dont support it. I believe it was built for the sole purpose of adding to Janet Jackson article. Additionally the user originally called it Control The Nation With Discipline. Someone requested that it be deleted so the "new" editer simply moved it by adding the word Tour to the end. He/She moved the article to avoid deletion. Also im not convinced this editer is a newbie. Thoughts are appreciated. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I warned them to stop. Lets see where this goes from here. I have my suspicions on who this is, but I am waiting to see what his response to the warning is. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Jayron. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

New law in Missouri (USA): administrators and editors should be aware of, penalties include prison

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24673350/ Mo. lawmakers vote to bar Internet harassment

Don't think that this doesn't apply to you.

When you read the law and the state senate's commentary, it is more eyeopening. Conceivably incivility and blocking may be outlawed if the administrator or editor is particularly harsh or causes distress.

From http://www.senate.mo.gov/08info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=147 Under this act, the definition of "harasses" is modified to include conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose, that would cause a reasonable person to be frightened or intimidated, as well as emotionally distressed. ....

FYI only. Keep on keeping on.....

In another topic, Warren Buffet expressed fear that an American city will be victim of a nuclear terrorist attack. Maybe not this year, maybe not in the next 5 years, but he thinks it will have within the next few decades. Buffet is NOT making a Wikipedia death threat or even a nuclear threat against anyone.

Police sometimes give advice on crime prevention. Prevent rape, robbery, or murder, they may advise. This, too, is NOT a death threat, rape threat, or robbery threat.

With that in mind, the following is NOT a death threat.

It is very possible that eventually there may be a murder related to something that happened in Wikipedia. Let's not let this happen!!! Prevent this by acting kindly and not being incivil. Too often, experienced users, inexperienced users, non-administrators, administrators are rude and cause flare ups in temper. Don't let this happen. Listen to what the other person has to say! Make blocks with care!

Just 2 public service announcements. Somehow, I think that there will be opposition even to these 2 basic public service announcements!? Olop 2 (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Would the admin who encouraged the above user to register this self-confessed block-evading account, please clarify the grounds on which the advice was given and/or confirm that the block evasion is within policy in some way? Thanks. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There are 137 active admins who fit the criteria Olop 2 describes. MBisanz ^talk 07:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Then all 137 admins must go to prison ;). Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 07:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That admin told me that there is too much sock hysteria in WP and that if he unblocked me, he would have to pay for it. He said that it was ok to create a new account as long as I was not the person originally blocked as a sock, if I edited responsibly, and if I waited a few months before editing. Someone also mentioned that I should always use wifi, not my home internet, to prevent stalking. (This is wifi). Olop 2 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Also, what happens in Missouri really doesn't apply to any of us, if that's what you're implying. Wikimedia's main servers are in Florida. Only Florida and U.S. law applies. Oh, and I wasn't that admin. Grandmasterka 07:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Shame (re the jurisdiction issue - not being "that admin"!) , I was hoping that US tax dollars might be deployed in having me attend some Missouri court. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC) ps. I would hazard a guess that the original account was blocked for trolling.

• • • Strictly speaking that's not true. As an individual, you are primarily subject to the laws prevailing in the jurisdiction that you happen to be residing in. As a corporation legally based in Florida, the WMF worries about Florida and US law, but you as an individual may be subject to a different set of laws. In rarer cases, you might also be subject to laws in the jursidiction of someone whom you are accused of harming. Dragons flight (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Dragons flight is most correct. Criminal law is very different than civil law, and even civil law is different from country to country and from person-to-organisation to person-to-person. Given that the law discussed relates to criminal law, extradition is most certainly possible, unlike civil law where extradition naturally does not occur due to it being private law. As an aside, on the civil side of things, Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 is certainly a most interesting case to read, especially given that the main principle is binding on all Australian courts except itself. Daniel (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Remind me to avoid Missouri. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many other reasons to avoid the State of Misery, this law is not even in the top ten... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that was what I meant, but I was trying to be delicate. Relata refero (disp.) 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool; if this passes I'll be sure to check for Missouri IP headers on certain posts and incoming e-mails. :) Durova^Charge! 07:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible sock

AdamNailor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) looks very much like a returnee, I am wondering if this is someone banned or sanctioned under a previous arbitration (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience). Guy (Help!) 07:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks likely given the editing patterns and articles that they are editing. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 08:57, May 18, 2008 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed...

WP:RFAR#JzG. Excellent timing, I'm off on holiday in a few days and have a three month project at work which has suddenly been telescoped to one month due to external events. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I wouldn't worry. They'll add it to that mistake of a Cla68 case which, since its scope requires everyone to substantially refight several previous ArbComs including Mantanmoreland, Durova, Jossi, and throws in the ID crowd as well, is extremey unlikely to ever get round to discussing you. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Guy could help us all by posting a timetable of when it would be convenient to him to have his behaviour scrutinized? DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

But apparently it's only JzG who makes inappropriate comments? I'd suggest that you strike that last comment, Mr. Hill. Horologium (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never suggested that "it's only JzG who makes inappropriate comments". In answer to your suggestion, no. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The point I was making is that JzG is the subject of an Arbitration request due to alleged incivility, yet he is repeatedly subjected to "drive-by shootings" such as your first comment in this thread. If I was subjected to such behavior, I'd be a little testy, too. Horologium (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he always seems to be "busy", "retired", "in Cannes", "on wikibreak", etc, when something like this comes up, yet his actual editing never slows down, could in fact be an issue the arbcom case should look at. If he really wants to spend some time on an actual wikibreak I'm sure the arbcom would be willing to suspend the case until he returns. --Random832 (contribs) 18:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(ri) Ever heard of WP:AGF? I also wasn't aware that you spoke for Arbcomm. If I have any questions in future about Arbcomm I'll certainly come to you first. Cheers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And to whom is that polite and insightful statement addressed? --Relata refero (disp.) 19:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking to me - having opinions on what sort of behavior arbcom could or should be looking at does not require me to "speak for Arbcomm". --Random832 (contribs) 20:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Replacement image has different subject than the original image

I've never encountered this issue before, so I don't know where or how to report it. Image:Morrison.jpg, which was formerly an image of Philip Morrison, has been replaced by an image that appears to be Toni Morrison. From the image logs, it appears that this is not a new problem; earlier the image was replaced by an image of Jennifer Morrison. Users apparently have already deleted the image from most of the articles where it was used to illustrate Philip Morrison.

Can the old image of Philip Morrison be restored, or is it necessary to upload a new copy from the NASA website? Is there an easy way to identify all of the articles where it was formerly used, so it can be restored? (I know it was used in List of polio survivors and Philip Morrison, but there may have been other uses.)

It seems to me that it shouldn't be possible to over-write an image this easily. Is that a bug or a feature?

It looks to me like this type of thing could be averted (at least in part) if the file name were more specific, such as PhilipMorrison.jpg. However, before it's renamed, it needs to be restored. --Orlady (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

On the image page, look under File history. Click on a date and it shows the revision. Save the image and reload it with a more descriptive name. ----— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted the last image change and restored the correct image the two articles that I'm aware of. Is there any way of finding out where else it was used? Is there no way to change the image name, short of uploading it as a brand new image? --Orlady (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You have to re-upload it. There is some discussion on the ability to rename images, but any results are down the road. ----— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also a deleted version of that image showing Kirk Morrison.

Anyway, the real problem is the image name; people are going to keep uploading their pictures of Wotzisname Morrison as "Morrison.jpg" and selecting the "ignore all warnings" checkbox on the upload form. We do have a policy that says images should not have names that are too generic, but it doesn't seem to be particularly well enforced; I've seen the same thing happen before with Image:Jake.jpg, which has a rather impressive deletion log and (for those who can see it) upload history. In that case, after IfD chose to keep it at the current version, I ended up reuploading the original, since deleted, version to Commons under a different name.

IMHO, the right thing to do in situations like this would be to delete the image and protect it against recreation, and then reupload (with a note about the original upload history) any freely licensed, non-copyvio versions at more descriptive titles. The idea being that, if there have already been four completely unrelated images uploaded with that name, there will be more. And, since it's the name of the image that violates policy, it shouldn't be merely reverted but actually deleted and reuploaded with a more appropriate name. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

New arb clerks and clerk helpers

On behalf of the arbcom, I am pleased to announce that User:Coren and User:Jayvdb are now official arb clerks and that User:Nishkid64 and User:Ryan Postlethwaite are now clerk helpers. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Clerk helpers? Oh the bureaucracy.... Mr.Z-man 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Merely clerks in training. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure why we need official clerks/helpers. Why can't anyone help out? It's a wiki... people shouldn't be prevented from helping if they don't hold a meaningless title. Al Tally (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here. Al Tally (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

It has recently come to my attention that many users are dissatisfied with the level of abuse and inappropriate editing resulting from use of the anti-vandalism tool Huggle, and some would like to see its use discontinued. While I am reluctant to push for such a move, as I understand some people find it useful, it would seem that there is a significant problem which needs to be addressed.

I originally developed Huggle some 18 months ago for personal use. I made it more generally available four months ago in response to demand. Anyone who has developed software both for personal and more widespread use will appreciate that there is a significant difference between the two, and I spent a long time trying to make the software more suitable for general use, and even longer fixing bugs and implementing requested features. The nature of Huggle is such that it needs to make edits quickly and make many edits in a short space of time. While it does not require that the user work quickly, it allows them to work much more quickly than would otherwise be possible, and it would seem that some contributors do not take full care in doing so.

I would like all administrators to be aware that use of Huggle by a user can be prevented if necessary, and that they should not hesitate to do so in the event of abuse or inappropriate editing. Huggle requires a subpage in userspace named /huggle.css – for example, User:Gurch/huggle.css. This subpage does not contain a CSS stylesheet; rather, it is so named in order that only the user and administrators are able to edit it. Blanking and protecting this subpage prevents use of Huggle. Additionally, a list of all Huggle users may be found at Wikipedia:Huggle/Users; administrators may wish to use this list to evaluate the contributions of less experienced users.

If necessary, use of Huggle may be disabled completely, for all users, by blanking and protecting Wikipedia:Huggle/Config.

I would appreciate suggestions as to what should be done next – Gurch (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As (I assume) the user who prompted this post; while I'm now persuaded Huggle shouldn't be disabled altogether, I do believe we need to be more willing to remove it from users if there's any misuse/abuse, and not to give repeated warnings before doing so; the speed at which it operates means a well-intentioned misuser (or an outright vandal) can do significant damage with it if it's not immediately taken away. To save reposting huge blocks of text, my full thoughts on the matter are here. — iridescent 17:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC with above) Don't blame the tools for the person... If a user is being a PITA with Huggle, they would be one without it. It doesn't make users "bad users"... it only makes the bad users more efficient. If a user is disruptive via Huggle, they should be dealt with just as if they had been disruptive without it. Many many editors use Huggle appropriately, and we shouldn't punish them just because some trolls have found a way to make themselves more of a problem... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above — in fact, a post like this informing others of how to disable it is probably the most effective thing that could've been done. Don't be afraid to remove it from anyone messing around Alex.Muller 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be discontinued (but I do think that this page should now be protected since Huggle depends on it!!!); removal is simple and should be used. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with protecting that page is that I then can't edit it. It's been only semi-protected for four months with no adverse effects, and indeed wasn't even linked to until today -- Gurchzilla (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, you should either remove the links (!) or be given adminship just for that! —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that anyone who abuses/misuses Huggle should have the ability revoked immediately, and possibly be blocked, depending on the severity of the abuse [e.g. someone who accidentally reverts some non-vandalism edits should have the privilege removed but not be blocked as long as it is a first offence, but someone who goes on a rampage, reverting and warning 100s of users, and then making false reports to AIV should be blocked]. We do the same for rollback, [in severe cases] admin tools and AWB, why not Huggle? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:52, May 18, 2008 (UTC)

Huggle is an extremely clever piece of work by an extremely clever person who was nice enough to share it with the community. I for one am grateful for that. That said, it's extremely powerful and I think we should not hesitate to take the ability to use it away from those who maybe aren't quite ready for the power... with great power comes great responsibility and all that. So I support the general sense here that tightening down who can use it and making it easier to take away temporarily or permanently if needed is appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 22:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If we could establish an administrator's reference page, listing the various automated and semi-automated editing tools such as Huggle, Twinkle, VandalProof, NPW, AWB, Rollback, etc, and how to disable them, I believe it would aid administrators in enforcing prompt sanctions proportionate to the type of abuse occurring. MBisanz ^talk 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

With regard to Huggle's main configuration page being full-protected, could we make an account for Gurch that is an administrator, but with the condition that he only uses it to edit the config page, if any other edits with the account show up, it would be immediately indef blocked? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think it needs to be fully protected, feel free to go ahead and do it. Just expect to be spammed with {{editprotected}} requests when I need to make configuration changes :) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Huggle is given a process similar to rollback. Users need to be screened beforehand and, possibly, must be recommended by an admin. Personally, I'd institute a stricter process for Huggle than for rollback, as a user without rollback (like myself) can still edit literally a hundred articles a minute with Huggle. --Sharkface^T/_C 02:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP used as advertising?

Two mediators have said that Barack Obama is a very contentious article and difficult to edit. That's why I seek a larger opinion. The question is not whether this sentence or that sentence belongs. The question is one of subtle advertising...is it allowed per WP:ADVERT?

Barack Obama's article has a political positions sections. This is being used as an advertisement. Those who support Hillary would probably like to smear Obama in this section and those who support Obama want the advertisement. So both sides probably want it. What is better for WP?

Richard Durbin is the other U.S. Senator from Illinois. No such section. Jimmy Carter is a former president, like Obama will be someday. No such section.

Political positions information may be ok and inserted into his biography if they are part of his Senate accomplishments and then would be in the Senate section. Political positions sections could also be in the 2008 Obama campaign article. Leaving out political positions also would help reduce edit warring as there would be no section to battle.

Admin attention and comment is requested because the larger issue of advertisement in WP is at stake. Uninvolved admin can see the forest and not the individual trees. They could comment here about whether my analysis about advertising is logical. That's why this is in AN. DianeFinn (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't live in the US and couldn't care less who wins, there's no earthly way a straightforward summary of a political position is advertising. Whyever would you think it is? The British equivalents (David Cameron#Policies and views, Gordon Brown#Policies, Nick Clegg#Beliefs), all exist perfectly happily, as do Hillary Clinton#Political positions and John McCain#Political positions. — iridescent 17:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The selection of which political position to write is very much opinion. So is balancing how one describes the issues. More importantly, why is the man's changing positions part of a biography? Why is it that just a campaigning politician gets such section, not other politicians? Why is it that issues that were important before and in previous campaigns not listed? (Is it that old issues are stale for advertising but current issues are ripe for advertising?) I bring the inappropriateness of such section up since it is a larger question for admin, not just specific for Obama. It could easily be used as advertising in Clinton, McCain, Cameron, etc. DianeFinn (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just a content dispute. There is no need for admin intervention. Suggest marking as resolved and leaving for dispute resolution (frankly, you have a better argument if you wanted to AFD Political positions of Barack Obama and force a remerge back into the main article). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT a content dispute but a larger question for Wikipedia. If you ask the advertisers, they aren't going to admit it is advertising. The larger question for WP is whether advertising is allowed and if sections can be used as advertising. Solving the issue here will solve the issue in several articles of politicians who are campaigning for office. Solving the issue here also eliminates the idea that it is an attack on Obama as the problem is solved systemwide (a few politicians), not just for Obama.DianeFinn (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is "a larger question for Wikipedia" then you should be bringing it up on the Village pump. AN is for administrator action, not for general consensus on Wikipedia policies and suggestions. -- Kesh (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback help needed

I recently indef'd yet another sock of banned user Codyfinke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--namely, CodySupermarketSweep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I could use some help rolling back his edits--my clicking button is getting tired. Blueboy96 19:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

i've looked through some of the edits yet to be rolled back, and I know that as a matter of principle, we do not allow editing by blocked users, however some of the un-rolled-back edits; I can't see where some of them aren't improvements. I endorse the block, and agree it should stay, but do we need to rollback every edit, even those that are ultimately beneficial for the encyclopedia? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a question we've never really resolved: what do we do about good edits by bad people? Policy and practice say we revert - they are banned and leaving their edits up hardly discourages them. But what do we do where reverting is detrimental to the article in question? One suggestion, ludicrous on first glance, was to revert and then make the edits anyway. This works, but is insane. And it is "editing by proxy for a banned user". I can't see a good answer to this conundrum, but Wikipedia has assembled some of the finest minds in the entire world when it comes to collaborative editing... so someone here should know. I hope. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As Redvers said, it's a tricky issue. Personally, I'd say that if an edit is unquestionably beneficial, it should be allowed to stand; we should not cut off our nose to spite our face. However, if the validity of the edit isn't obvious, it's better to err on the side of caution; if the edit was really something that should've been made, someone else will eventually make it (or something equivalent) again. Some familiarity with the user in question is valuable here; users have been banned for a huge variety of reasons, ranging from using Wikipedia as a MySpace substitute to real-life stalking of other editors, and it's important to know which kind one is dealing with. (Specific users deliberately left unnamed; grep the list if you want examples.) For instance, if the reason the user in question has been banned is repeated insertion of hoaxes and subtle misinformation, it's probably a good idea to take even seemingly valid edits from them with a big grain of salt. Similarly, while in some cases a useful solution may be to revert the edits but note them on the article's talk page, for some banned users this will just serve as a form of validation. If in doubt, try to find someone who knows the history of the particular user in question and ask them (possibly off-wiki). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:In the News

Can someone add the blurb, "Leonel Fernández of the Dominican Liberation Party is re-elected President of the Dominican Republic." to ITN, using the picture, Image:Developgains 05.jpg? It was approved at WP:ITN/C. Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 19:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done sans the image as it is a probable copyvio per Commons. Woody (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

History merge for Howlin Rain and Howlin' Rain

I was wondering if someone would mind restoring the history of Howlin Rain (speedy deleted criterion A7) behind the current page at Howlin' Rain. The newer page - created on the day the old page was deleted - contains indications of importance and several references from reliable sources. I thought I requested this at the time but looking at the history I guess I forgot to. Sorry for the trouble. Guest9999 (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Advise of concerns. ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Guest9999 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge history

Could an admin please history merge User:Serviam/Velites into Velites. I've been working on it for a bit on my userpage, thanks :-)--Serviam (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Done. You may consider editing the article itself, or copy/paste the new content you wrote (no copyright problem, I guess, as the attribution would be to you anyway) with a summary resuming the whole copyediting done. - Nabla (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Request To Block IP Adress 70.91.91.133

On some pages I have seen vandilism from an IP Adress from The Barrie Day Elementry School. I reviewed its logs and it has been typing nonsense and making personal attacks to people at the school. The talk page shows many warnings but only one block for one month or so. I think there needs to be a block for a year or better yet longer. I also think the school needs to have an email from a wikipedia admin. Thank You for your concern Plyhmrp (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Plyhmrp

A glance at the contribs shows that editing (and therefore vandalism) is sporadic. And some of the edits have been well-meaning, even if not perfect or even very good. On the basis that we attempt to encourage editing of Wikipedia (and on the slightly flawed basis that we have far worse IP addresses that we block sparingly), I'd be inclined to not block until there's evidence of prolonged abuse or nasty edits that would null the well-meaning stuff. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the logs but they reveal that more than half od the edits are random vandislim. That Ip Adress blanked one page and typed In comments like "I GET MONEY MANNY RULES" and they IP also says that people are so cool. There is also times where they typing gibberish and say hi. There have also been attacks to people who may be students. One of these edits to Rube Goldberg sayed "Willam Sucks" I assume Willam is part of that school. I think there needs to be more than one admin reviewing the logs like I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It's fine. No block needed. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Buckman

I'd like an admin to check the talk for this AfD. I'm not sure where else to take this. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There may be some sock-puppetry at work there, but the first keep vote is User:Dhartung, who is most assuredly not a sockpuppet of anyone else. I don't see a need to bring this to AN/I, so I am going to close it as no action required. Horologium (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that Dhartung was a sockpuppeteer. And this isn't AN/I, it's AN. I've removed the resolved template. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Betacommand

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry, I am proposing a community ban of Betacommand (talk · contribs) and all known aliases/sockpuppets, for a period of three months. If enacted, and per our banning policy, if he tries to evade the ban the block timer will be reset and his ban will start anew. Please see my statement there for my reasoning. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Based on the positive evidence of abusive sock puppetry, continued abuse of bot privileges, harassment of blocking administrators as detailed in my statement, continued incivility and continued failure to recognize and correct his behavior, I support the proposed ban. MBisanz ^talk 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, clearly exhausted community patience. I'd go for indefinite ban, but that may be considered too harsh by others. Seriously one of the rudest editors I've ever encountered on here. I cannot understand why this hasn't happened long ago. Al Tally (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• slow down someone will surely unblock, and that will be the end of the ban. I'd love to see something happen here, but only more moderate action will have general support.DGG (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose this action but support escalating sanctions under individual admin discretion. Ryan P already had this ball rolling, then the universe exploded. Beta needs a series of steps applied by the entire community to realize the consequences of unmodified behaviour. Franamax (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, did you miss Betacommand 2? Specifically, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Betacommand_instructed, where he was already told to remain civil, and violated that, and was told to only operate his bot for approved tasks, and violated that as well? The balls been rolling for a couple of months, but nobody will pull the trigger. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually I haven't missed a heartbeat, Ryan made an unequivocal notice, that looked like a good line in the sand to work from. I'm not unaware of previous history ;) Franamax (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You're saying the ArbCom remedy wasn't a line in the sand? If we keep up with giving out warnings without taking any action, we might as well change the Wikipedia:Blocking policy to the Wikipedia:Warning policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah it was, but there was some beach volleyball being played at the same time. ArbCom draws lots of stuff in the sand, some of it sticks, some of it melts. RyanP was poised on action, the Arb decision was there to back him up, the patent evidence was there - now we're getting on to several MB more server space without resolution, and many are focussed on the sock allegation and NFCC, which are far from the point. However, events are lately pointing toward a resolution, which is encouraging. "Mene mene", right? :) Franamax (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
          • This definitely isn't about the sock issue (and definitely not NFCC, that's sooooo two months ago), it's about the overall effect his actions have had, and his totally unapologetic attitude (in fact I can't think of a time during this whole situation where he's apologized for his behavior, only that he's tried to skew discussion towards unblocking his bot, his alt and returning to a mostly business-as-usual status). "Mene mene" indeed. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 06:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• This proposal, along with the rest of this recent Betacommand drama, strikes me as an extreme case of overreaction. I too was taken aback by the sudden revelations everywhere that BC was sockpuppeting, since malicious sockpuppetry by anyone is completely inexcusable - but then I read into it for myself and found that his "puppetry" was limited to a single alternate account that had only crossed paths with his main one once? Please, let's just calm down and let this small incident pass. krimpet✽ 23:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Betacommand is blatantly violating the ArbCom remedies from Betacommand 2, and you believe this is an "overreaction"? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Would support individual escalating blocks for continued incivility, but this proposal is far too draconian for my taste. Incivility needs to be stopped, but this sort of response is out of proportion to the offense at hand. I would support sanctions, just not this sanction. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Ugh...More overreaction. Looking at it, I guess I am not surprised. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, clearly overreaction, the community was expecting far too much by thinking he would abide by the Betacommand 2 remedies. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Question A few days ago I proposed one week, and some people thought it absurdly short and others thought it absurdly long. I propose it again as a basis for discussion. DGG (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• It was noted above (or on what has forked onto a separate page) that BC has communication difficulties. He tends to do the more drama-prone jobs around here, compounding any communication difficulties which may exist. I'd suggest that none of the commentators here would be able to comport themselves any better than BC has done, if they were to be placed under the same workload as him. We shouldn't be aiming to get rid of Beta, but more to provide him with more support. Much as we appear loath to refer to ourselves as such, we are a community and we need to care of one another, indeed more than we do already. We don't kick people out of the fold for being imperfect. Martinp23 23:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this action. As in strongly. While I won't call it precipitous (for fear of causing death through hilarity among certain members of the community), I will call it unnecessary. I totally agree without the slightest hesitation that concrete remedies are necessary. I would imagine them to function along the lines of these:

• Betacommand is not permitted to run bots

  Running bots should be a position of trust. It is plain that Betacommand does not have that trust. Criticism of his bot work has frequently unheeded and met with incivility. This is not good enough. Betacommand has no right to run bots. Any unauthorised bot activity should be met with blocking. I would suggest a minimum of a week.

• Betacommand is placed upon civility parole

  Betacommand's response to criticism has been totally unacceptable and must change. Any incivility should be met with an appropriate block. I would suggest that a month should be the outside; I do not expect anything less than three days to be the minimum. Unblocking should only be done with great care: I would be horrified if people continued to think that Betacommand can get away with incivility after the events of the last few days.

I don't see the point of a restriction on the use of alternate accounts. If they are abusive, that is already covered. Abuse would include attempting to evade the restrictions of this kind of decision. If they are not abusive, and Betacommand manages to get to a point where he has an account that is not identified with him and behaves acceptably, all the more power to him.

I feel this kind of set of provisions would be more useful than the considerably blunt instrument of a ban. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on his defiance of the BAG ruling related to the nature of his bot's messages, his continued abuse of bot privileges on multiple accounts, and continued incivility, this is also an acceptable sanction. MBisanz ^talk 23:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Scrap anything else I've said - Sam proposes an unacceptable solution, but it's better than all the alternatives. Churchill would approve. Franamax (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. DGG (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Support It seems like there's a new thread about BC's behaviour, civility, unauthorized bots, and now sock puppets? His supporters continually say he's being provoked..but that's the problem. If he could control his temper we wouldn't be here. An angry response to a stupid comment is never acceptable. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Sam Korn's version. Escalating and calculated sanctions are what are needed here, not a 3-month ban... Sam's sanctions (no bots, civility parole) is perfectly reasonable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• We'll never agree on a complete ban. Forbidding Betacommand to run bots may be acceptable for a week, but a lot of people think that some tasks of BCB are very useful. I propose this as a longer-term alternative :
  • Betacommand is forbidden from bot tasks on any account except Betacommandbot.
  • All the tasks of Betacommandbot must be BAG-approved.
  • Betacommand is on civility restriction.

For, say, three months, then see how it works and discuss again. Cenarium (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I also support Sam Korn's proposal, but we should find an agreement on the duration. Cenarium (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am reminded of a conversation I had with Betacommand, in which he indicated he had a special relationship with the WMF and/or developers. He indicated that this special relationship permitted him to be granted SUL accounts for him and his bot, among other undescribed privileges, despite not having an admin flag on any WMF wikis. I therefore contemplate if there is an existing WP:OFFICE or m:Developers ruling that would prevent the community from stopping Betacommand's operation of his bot. If an authorized individual could respond to this comment, indicating whether or not the community has the authority to impose such sanctions, it would help clear up this situation. MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as being a bit too extreme here. However, Support Sam Korn's proposal - Alison ^❤ 00:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment with regard to BCB's useful tasks: it is incumbent on the community to identify the BCB tasks with attention to mission-critical and other tasks and effectively "de-task" BCB with preferably open-sourced alternatives. This would at least defuse the argument over how important the bot is. Franamax (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Carnildo, his tasks are not significant or important, and even if they were, I disagree that his contributions are somehow relevant in the clear violation of policy. Even Betacommand says his bot won't be performing any tasks for the next thirty days, so a bot restriction wouldn't do much. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with the botops being un-needed, if some relevant authority would confirm that, so much the better. If indeed all BCB tasks are redundant, then BCB should under the circumstances be permanently blocked. If BC wishes to resume botops (which is not evil, a lot of people/projects come to him for help), then there should be some clear parameters, such as defined tasks amd separate bot names for clearly separate tasks, rather than the loosey-goosey "my code is too complex for you to understand" status-(no longer)-quo. But let's quantify where exactly BC/BCB is too valuable to block and eliminate those roadblocks. Then we can address the actions of this editor of themselves. Franamax (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The "civility parole" part of Sam Korn's proposal is reminding me of Roman legal history where the most unobeyed laws are the most restated. Besides normal wikipedia civility rules, he's already been placed under further civility restrictions by ArbCom. Unless I am misreading the date, this was only last month. Recommend restating to "Betacommand may actually have to adhere to his civility parole and some related wikipedia policies". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support with fire - I support the community ban. Enough is enough. Not only was it proven he violated 3RR with his sockpuppet, but the fact that he has virtually ignored the issue is repulsive. Thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread involving BC also amounts to disruption of the project. I for one am tired of the "Defend Betacommand At All Costs Cabal" and it must end now. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 00:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, a 3 month ban is an overreaction. Sam Korn's idea works for me. naerii - talk 00:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes us think he'll change this time? He's been to arbcom twice and it's had little if any affect. If Sam's proposal is adopted, it has to be his absolute last chance; if that doesn't work, I won't hesitate to support a ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Hesperian 00:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• While I believe Beta's work is quite irreplaceable, a line needs drawing. I'm in favour of Sam's proposal; Beta currently doesn't have the community's trust to run a bot. However, I think, he demonstrates that he can be trusted after three months, I don't see why not to give him back his bot privileges. The biggest issue here is the incivility; if you treat others with respect, they'll treat you the same. And if they don't but you do, they'll get blocked for disruption/incivility/harassment. Maxim_(talk) 01:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sam Korn's version. Enough is enough. ➪HiDrNick! 01:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Nothing will happen here. BC has deserved a ban for a long time. But even if the community coalesces around a long block, or an outright ban, one of his bodyguards will overturn it unilaterally. It always happens. Why should this time be any different? Bellwether ^B_C 01:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why do you always have to assume an evil cabalist will always do something you won't like? Evaluate the situation without flamethrowing towards someone who supports Beta. Frankly, your communications aren't exactly better than his. Maxim_(talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support your assertion that my communications are no better than BC's or retract it. It's ludicrous on its face. There's no need to "assume" anything. It's evident that BC has bodyguards that ride to his rescue every time he faces any sanction for his actions. Bellwether ^B_C 01:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sam Korn's version. I would support a bot ban for a year. It's not a basic human right be allowed use of a bot. Allow him to only use his main account. And have him on civility probation, although I don't think that will stick... --Pesco (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Absolutely positively hell no to the community ban. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sam Korn's version. I'd like to note, however, that the vast majority of the previous complaints about Betacommand have been either people unhapppy with our image deletion policies (which is not Betacommand's fault), people unhappy with the way the bot works, or people unhappy at Betacommand's incivility. Has anyone in the BC lynch mob forming here had any issues with incivility from the now-blocked alternate account? BC is stuck in an awkward position, only part of which is of his own doing. He cannot turn over a new leaf (because he'll be blocked if he uses a sock) and he can't escape the past because of a group of users who will not let go of the past. Horologium (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I just want to note that Betacommand has already stated that he will not use BetacommandBot for a month, except for one specific, uncontroversial task. See that statement here. I've spoken to BC about this and he said he does indeed have a list of tasks that he will hold off on, for this thirty day period. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment A ban of a user who has contributed much in the past seems a bit cruel and draconian. --Sharkface^T/_C 01:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that the value of an editors contributions allows him to violate personal attack and sockpuppet policies (amongst others)? That's a slippery slope that nobody should want to go down, but I keep seeing that attitude in discussions about Betacommand and his behavior. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: Blah. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose full ban, support Sam Korn's version. It's important for us to remember that blocks and bans should be preventative, rather than punitive--a major point brought up during the initial blocking was that Betacommand has a number of high-speed editing tools at his disposal. By banning the use of these tools for a reasonable amount of time, we ensure that the community has sufficient time to discuss their further use. While I personally have no reason to think that Betacommand is anything but sincere in his offer to refrain from bot editing, the fact that a full-on ban is being seriously discussed tells me that we need something a little more formal in nature. --jonny-mt 01:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn's version of it. Something has to be done. Enigma ^message 01:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support the burning with fire of any plan which would prohibit a user who participates only in bot work from operating bots, and then masquerade itself as a less harsh alternative than an all out ban. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you also support encouraging said user to make substantive article-space contributions on his own initiative, in areas of his own interest, by manual means? If so, I'll help as best I can. The sole focus of anyone on Wikipedia shouldn't be just to make the computers run faster. Franamax (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose :| CWii is not pleased. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I'll support graduated remedys here. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• He technically can't be banned now, so let's just concentrate on Sam Korn's remedy. Wizardman 02:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - overreaction Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of Sam Korn's remedy? Franamax (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support This goes on and on and on. Betacommand hasn't shown any self discipline and inspite of his contributions he needs to understand that, like everyone else, he has to respect the rules and other users. Instead he has a long track record of repeatedly breaking the rules and abusing others as he sees fit. That his work has made him a target is no excuse - he should have expected that going in and found more appropriate means to repsond. It seems like nothing applies to this guy and his bot work is a perpetual get of jail free card. Otherwise, someone might just want to get down to it and start work on WP:ßcommand immunity and just lay down some policy that makes it plain that he can do whatever he wants, to whoever he wants, however he wants to do it without fear of sanction or all kinds of wasted discussion. His behaviour is consistently appalling. It is fundamental that the folks who enforce the rules have to follow the rules themselves or face the consequences. Wiggy! (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of Sam Korn's remedy? Franamax (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I could have sworn we deleted CSN so that we could have discussions here and not do votes for banning. Silly me. I oppose the ban. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of Sam Korn's remedy? Franamax (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sam Korn's remedy Community banning Betacommand is an overreaction. There are specific problems with Betacommand's behaviour that can be addressed with the proposed remedy and I'm pretty damn sure there is an admin willing to unblock anytime so community banning won't work. If you want him banned you'll need to convince ArbCom to do so. EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn's remedy. A complete ban would just polarize things more, as Betacommand's defenders would go to even greater lengths to find him a way out, but Sam's remedy is reasonable, appropriate to the situation, and has a chance of resolving the issues. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Counting here with my trusty hacksaw, support = 3; oppose = 6; comment/indeterminate = 6; Sam Korn = 16. No consensus maybe, but a pretty clear preference. All figures +/- 4, 95% of the time. Franamax (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC) If anyone disputes my count, please comment and do not change my signed statement, thanks, or just do your own count, thanks. Franamax (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Absolutely not. We've already been over this, and BC hasn't even remotely violated WP:SOCK. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently you missed the proof? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 05:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• At best you have proof that BC was edit warring and breaking the 3RR, but the use of the other account is obviously a mistake. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Betacommand says it was a mistake. The things that Betacommand says to avoid scrutiny are not always true. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• (EC with allstar, response to ned scott)I'm not sure this is about a single incident, but rather a pattern of behavior over a long period of time. For the record, I don't believe that there has been any sockpuppetry here at all, but the pattern of incivility needs to be addressed and remediated... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to addressing those concerns, but the proposals in this thread are based on the SOCK accusations. That is what I am opposing. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• So, because one thing he did wasn't bad enough for you, he should be forgiven for all the others? His violating 3RR with a hidden sock doesn't bother me as much as his violating his ArbCom restrictions with a run of thousands of unapproved, disruptive bot edits on his own account, or any of the frequent uncivil and disruptive edits he has made in the past year. I'd say it's pretty clear that Sam's remedy is mostly about his misuse of bots, not his sockpuppeteering. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not opposing Sam's remedy. I take no comment (for the time being) on how to handle the bot issues and the civility. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, WTF? Locke Cole had conflicts with BC in the past, he shouldn't be the one who propses the ban. Sam Korn's propsal makes some sense, but was made at the wrong time, because many people seem to support is as an alternative of outright banning, not because they really feel like that. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 05:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • When I say I support Sam Korn's remedy, I mean I support Sam Korn's remedy. I imagine this is is the case for the others as well. Anyone who supports Sam's remedy in preference to a ban but would actually prefer no sanction at all is free to say so. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

    Such effect doesn't need to be conscious, in fact, we may see an example of Good cop/Bad cop effect. (I don't mean that Sam and Locke are acting together, but a softer proposal as alternative of a harsher one will always make such psychological effect, and I feel that even Sam's proposal is too much, although something certainly needs to be done). MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Well nobody else seems to be willing to step up to the plate and propose something with teeth. As you can see at the subpage discussion there was consensus that something should be done, though unfortunately it seems I overestimated the support for something that might actually get his attention. May I remind everyone that he's been grossly incivil (long after ArbCom "instructed" him to be civil), that he's abused a sockpuppet to evade 3RR (now you can take that two ways: 1) it was an accident, in which case he shouldn't have gone on to revert a fourth time and keep his alt a secret, or 2) it was malicious, in which case the reaction we should have should be obvious, but in either case, his use of that alt account was very inappropriate, and his attitude since then (unapologetic, wishing to brush it all under the rug seemingly) should not be tolerated or encouraged. Anyways, yeah, I'm involved, but something needs to be done with clear instructions on the results if he fails to abide by whatever is chosen (not vague references to "escalations", spell it out). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: We shall have no conspiring with the Forces of Darkness.--Hu12 (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - there were sanctions proposed in the original thread that were far more appropriate as are those that Sam proposed above. Mr.Z-man 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. He's been given far too many chances already. Everyking (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn's version, but oppose a complete community ban. The second would be an overreaction. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support either version. This has dragged on far too long. Leithp 06:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Ok, not going to bold my stuff, cuz votin is evil and all that, but.. WTF? There's a lot of folks who believe that a 1 week block was more then necessary, considering it wasn't actually sockpuppeting, but one mistaken edit.... and now we're going for a "community" ban, or other significant restrictions, with no further mistakes by BC? Are we going Argumentum Ad Nauseum here? Seriously? SirFozzie (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support the 3-month proposal due to repeated gross incivility, marginal sockpuppetry, disruption and abuse of bots. —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• He did not violate WP:SOCK "marginally", or at all. I have no comment on the other rationales you've presented. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps I didn't explain that well - I mean, given that Beta was already "in a hole", on ANI every other pico-second (a splendid phrase I borrowed from White Cat!) and on an ArbCom civility ruling that was clearly being broken, running a separate account without at least notifying ArbCom, privately, was a dumb idea, really. Beta must have known that if/when he made a mistake such as he did, it would be looked down on pretty badly. —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• He did violate WP:SOCK, he used an undisclosed alternate account to evade violating WP:3RR. This is a violation of WP:SOCK. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sam Korn's version, or at the very least a "bot parole": any rapid editing except that which has been explicitly approved by the Bot Approvals Group is grounds for blocking. He's had far too long a history of unapproved and disruptive bot-like editing. --Carnildo (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Sam Korn option. Betacommand has been given numerous "don't do it again"s for more than a year, and has systematically disregarded any criticism. His bots are now giving no real benefit to the project, only problems (messing up articles, adding large numbers of edits which then need to be reverted), and we have plenty of bot coders who actually can handle people and follow the rules. Betacommand therefore should not run any bots ever again. That said, I am concerned that this community decision will just end up amounting to nothing. His unapproved DEFAULTSORT bot violated an arbcom ruling only two months old, so how is he going to react to any conditions set forth by mere editors, whom he considers to be trolls and drama queens? Also, given past events, I see it as highly likely that any blocks instituted for violating the conditions will be summarily undone within hours. But I am willing to give it a try. Is he back? (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose (god I am so tired of these two), I disagree with the findings of facts above. I have no opinion on Sam's proposal (I have mixed feelings about it). -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Trees Rock

I've just issued a final warning to Trees Rock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for this joke edit. As I've issued multiple warnings to this user in the last couple of days [85], [86], [87] (albeit all in different areas), could someone else review this warning and let me know if you think I'm being too harsh, as I don't want it to look like I'm Wikistalking. (Consider this as express consent for any other admin to remove/reduce the warning). Thanks! — iridescent 00:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That was not a "joke edit". I ment it, but I withdrew it because I was instructed. Trees Rock^MyGoal 00:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And How is my Signature a "disruptive edit" as soon as I got that comment I changed It. Trees Rock^MyGoal 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you really the right person to be badgering people about their signatures? John Reaves 01:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

At nearly 700 characters, Trees Rock's signature was a bit much. - auburnpilot talk 01:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

After having to deal with Trees Rock, I do not think he is purposefully being malicious; rather, his inexperience with the project shows through his glaring mistakes. I believe he is well meaning and just needs to learn the ropes, maybe visit WP:BEHAVE WP:LOP and then WP:ADOPT before doing anything else. --Sharkface^T/_C 01:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, we run into a problem where I don't think this is bad faith, but regardless, highly disruptive. If Trees Rock doesn't think the diff in the RfA page is disruptive... then what more can we say? Irid was good to come here, and I hope other admins keep Tree on watch. Another obviously disruptive edit should resort in a short-term block, in an attempt to prevent more disruptive edits without a more serious reflection by the user. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

While I hate to be the one who brings this up, even if Trees Rock was able to become properly acquainted with Wiki-policy, inherent problems, such as maturity, could come into play. --Sharkface^T/_C 01:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The warning may be a bit rough. But the user is regularly in borderline violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE, and other concerns have already been raised. In case of further disruption, a short block may be in order. Adoption and the like have shown to have little effect in cases of maturity concerns. As for the biggest signature contest, it's getting ridiculous. Cenarium (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Peterpipper

Resolved

 – blocked per WP:NLT

A quick glance at the users talk page shows legal threats agents the wikimedia foundation. Also this edit also shows signs of legal threats and disruption. The user has already been blocked indefinatly as a sock of User:Chris19910. I beleve that a ban by the wikipedia community would be appropriate here. Mww113 (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Support As reporter. Mww113 (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

They have already been blocked per WP:NLT. This doesn't need all this voting stuff... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Mww113 (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

== Attention needed for Italian Empire, Italian Colonial Empire and Evolution of the Italian Empire. ==

Hello. I need immediate attention by an admin for User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's edits in these 3 articles. He does appear to really want to contribute to Wikipedia, especially in historical fields, but some of his methods are disruptive at least. At first, he cut and pasted the content of Italian Empire to Italian Colonial Empire' and then started a major elaboration of the article with more than 50 edits I think. I told him that this was inappropriate and then I signalled the case to [[[WP:SPLICE]]. After that, we regreted his move but...well I still can't understand what he did. I think he moved Italian Empire to Evolution of the Italian Empire, but couldn't understand what he was trying to do and especially why. So I need help to clear this mess up. For more understanding, I suggest you read our talk on this talk page and the splice entry along his comments. Thanks --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 02:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please ignore this for now. Thanks. Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 03:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad Old Ones tool - image deletion

After having used this tool Bad Old Ones tool for a bit, I did a test run and found out that it is giving many false "negatives" (images that are actually in use being shown as 'unused'). I've left a 'bug report' for the owner, and have informed DumbBOT to consider removing the tool from its generated new category pages (i.e. Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 22 May 2008). Just a 'head's up' to others that may be using this tool. Other suggestions on preempting use until the bug is fixed would be greatly appreciated. SkierRMH (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding an entry to {{watchlist-notice}} about Wikipedia 1.0 assessment scale survey

Would it be inappropriate to add a message about a survey regarding changes in the WP1.0 assessment scale to {{watchlist-notice}}? After all, the scale affects more than 1.25 million articles... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)