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

Move-protection

Hello fellow admins. I recently move-protected a batch of policy and guideline pages (I took {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} and made sure each page was move protected). My reasoning was that these are high-profile pages that are juicy targets for some page-move vandals we have around here. After protecting said pages, I have had one editor who questioned my protection of WP:MOS and WP:NAME (see here for reference) and another editor question my protection of WP:NC (see here for reference), a page which ironically was at WP:RM (wasn't aware of that). Neither editor has really given me compelling testimony on why these pages shouldn't be move-protected, thus I have not unprotected them myself, but one has called for a wider audience to gain consensus, so here I am. I want to point out that my actions were what I felt was the best for Wikipedia, and I still feel they are, but if the consensus here comes to un-move-protecting these pages, then any admin, feel free to un-move-protect any of these pages. For ease of reference, you can see which pages I protected at my protection log. I probably am not going to be a part of this discussion here, because I really am tired of discussing this and I have better things to do, so if anyone needs farther clarification, feel free to hit me up on my talk page. Cheers everyone, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I somehow endorse this action if it's really a big issue with vandalism (Grawp attacks and as such). Otherwise the protections aren't really needed unless the policies are a big vandal target. What I will not endorse is a possible full protection from editing the policy articles (Just including this here, even though Gonzo didn't edit protect the policy pages). --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Batch move-protection over a certain class of articles should almost always be avoided. There's nothing specific or special about the pages you move-protected, other than them being Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That is to say, if a pagemove vandal is targeting policies and guidelines, the vandal could just as easily be targeting all articles about countries, numbers, shapes, porn stars, athletes, or any other category. It's fairly anti-wiki to disallow pagemoves is such a broad fashion. And, it's fairly inefficient, time-consuming, log-clogging, and in the end accomplishes very little except to disrupt legitimate future pagemoves. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a compelling reason to unprotect pages. We need a compelling reason to keep them protected at all; is there one, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there isn't. They should be batch-unprotected. I noticed this when WP:MOS was protected, and I checked the history. Going back 12 months I could only find one move, it was good faith, and it was bold-revert-discussed. Livitup (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with unprotecting them. Haukur (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Any admin volunteer to start undoing the protections? Thanks! Livitup (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision#Question remanded

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.

Putting this out of our misery as an uninvolved editor. This has degenerated into sniping each other, rather than discussing the issue. Let's let ArbCom do what it's meant to first, before we swat this hornet's nest again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

---

It's technically before the case has closed, however, in the event the remedy did pass, I don't think it will make a difference if we begin the discussion now or later. Although, I wonder if we will come to a consensus here.

Short blocks have obviously not been working in fixing the problem in the long term. Ban proposals seem to get the same negative responses from the same set of individuals on the public pages, while the more positive responses seem to be voiced in private (whether by email, or chat).

Civility is not an optional policy, nor are vested contributors exempt from following Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and norms. So...the question is simple: what ideas does the community have to deal with future outbreaks of such attacks? How should we proceed? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Geogre and William are both adults, they should be capable of understanding that a change is required in the way they interact. Both are clearly committed to the project of building a great encyclopaedia, so I doubt their differences are irreconcilable. Whatever, I don't see the need to discuss this in a vacuum: what current issue needs addressing? Guy (Help!) 09:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Proposed remedy 5. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please use the arbitration pages and spare the rest of us the farce. El_C 09:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think now I get it. El_C 10:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Make Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks policy. —Giggy 10:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a nice idea to an extent. But, although the page notes "People who make personal attacks do damage Wikipedia, and it is right that we do our best to prevent personal attacks from occurring here", it doesn't really help fix our issue in how to prevent them from occurring in the long term. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • That's the point - rather than try and prevent them, just ignore them. (And to rebut the inevitable response; read the third paragraph of the essay. I don't think most of the Giano civility drama comes as a result of egregious stuff.) —Giggy 10:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
      • There are differing opinions on whether it's egregious. I think some of it is, with other bits not so much. In any case, I don't think it's unreasonable for any person to expect a standard of decorum; professional commentary and so on - when it isn't maintained, a lot of contributors are put off in some way or another. Creating a high quality free encyclopedia does not mean we become Wiki-Personal-Attacks-Central. I also don't think Giano is the only user who has made positive contributions to Wikipedia. I therefore don't see how ignoring them will be a net benefit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oh dear. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Stop Giano from contributing until he learns to be civil. I was for a stern warning originally, thinking that this has only started recently, but seeing as the proposed decision page highlights a chain of progressive stricter warnings dating back nearly two years... it's becoming a problem. While he does get a bit of lee-way for being a good article contributor, he's getting too much rope as it is. I'm frankly appalled at the admins who wish to give him more. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• What's wrong with using the standard procedure: if editors persistently engage in misconduct, ask uninvolved administrators to apply appropriate sanctions through WP:AIV or WP:ANI?  Sandstein  13:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge, the standard procedure has been used several times - except, unlike usual circumstances where blocks escalate in duration, the same short blocks are applied (presumably because of being a vested contributor). That, and the fact the ArbCom remedy mandates it. Yet, the (mis)conduct still does not cease. That's why we're here - what can be done to fix it in the long term rather than the short term (in the event the community needs to deal with it yet again)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• If there is one thing I'm learning, it is pointless to initiate a drama based on something a single arbitrator says on a case proposed decision page. That is a level of support insufficient to be meaningful, and the drama never seems to have much effect on the rest of the committee's deliberation - which is a good thing. GRBerry 14:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• A little late in the day for that now GRBerry, you have all fallen into the Arb's trap tp create even more drama about me [1]. I just hope you are all ready for it. Giano (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not just act like we would to any other user acting this way? _{1 != 2} 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we wait until the remedy actually passes? Right now there's just one arb supporting it, which doesn't mean much, especially in a case like this one. There's no point in starting an endless discussion that might turn out to be, er, pointless, anyhow.--Conti|✉ 14:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Waiting ehh? Okay I was thinking we could do something new and treat him like everyone else, but since waiting has such a long history of reducing immediate drama lets just keep doing that. It has worked to reduce drama for several months now, except when it has not. I do agree however that this is a moot discussion until the arbcom case is over because currently arbcom has passed a prohibition on blocking Giano, there really is not much for administrators to do about any of this. _{1 != 2} 14:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If the goal is to reduce drama, telling the community to deal with this really isn't the way to go. We have discussed this countless times before, and we couldn't find a consensus on what to do, and I dare say that this discussion won't end with a consensus either way, either. --Conti|✉ 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we don't find a consensus, then the remedy should not pass as it is ineffective and pointless (as you say). If we can find consensus, then there's no problems. So rather than sitting back with uncertainty until the case closes, we'll know for a fact (as opposed to imagine) if it's a tragic remedy or one that's worth considering. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly would welcome a community consensus on this issue, but I don't see why one would form now. It hasn't worked in the past, which is why we had all these arbcom cases in the first place, right? So I don't think there'll be anything resembling a consensus this time, either. I'll be glad if I'm proven wrong, tho. --Conti|✉ 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I find the whole thing completely baffling. Giano is a prolific writer of good content for whom English is a second language (albeit his command of English is substantially better than that of many for whom it is supposedly their mother tongue). People persist in baiting Giano, and the result is never good. For some reason this appears to be blamed on Giano, as if Wikipedia is supposed to conform to some grade-school ideal of personal interaction. Wikipedia is not Usenet for sure, but the vast majority of supposed incivility I see from Giano is simply forthrightness, and many of the comments made to him are really quite remarkably rude. Teenagers would, in the real world, hardly be surprised if they received a trenchant response to a patronising comment directed at someone older and likely better educated than themselves. The plot appears to have been lost at some point - we should be educating people on how not to piss off people who do good work, as well as trying to help those who snap back, to resist the temptation. In any work situation this would be perfectly normal and hardly need saying; I guess the problem is that many of our less tactful contributors have little or no experience of the workplace. Giano has said nothing, as far as I can see, that would lead to disciplinary action in a workplace - at least not recently, if at all. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. I know it's not RFC but who cares - I couldn't have said it better... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Careful with the generalizations - they may not apply as widely as you seem to believe. It may be down to a pure cultural difference in expectations, but many people view the comments in the opposite way you do - as hardly offensive comments generating quite remarkably rude responses. If my employees routinely called eachother ignorant and stupid, its quite likely that some disciplinary action would result. Avruch ^T 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• A reasonable change to the civility policy might be limiting enforcement to those cases where incivility results in disruption - i.e. barring incivility with disruptive effect, rather than incivility by itself. Of course we'd get into long, philosophical debates about what consists of "disruptive effect." Clearly the remedy isn't having its intended effect, and clearly Giano represents a corner case where the civility policy as written can't be applied. Perhaps its because the policy doesn't truly reflect the will of the community - if we can't have a consensus on enforcing it, then it needs to be written into the policy that the enforcement bar needs to be higher than Giano-like conduct. Avruch ^T 14:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Threat of disruption

I'm sorry for pointing this out, and I'll no doubt get shot down hard for it, but this is a clear threat to disrupt the project - he's calling out for other editors to participate "in what is going to be Wikipedia's biggest punch up ever!" Then threats of bandishing around a few emails to finish it off - I don't like that, I don't like that one bit. Any other editor would be blocked for that, and I mean any. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom has passed a prohibition on blocking Giano, you will need to appeal to an arbcom member, administrators cannot take action regardless of the appropriateness of the block. _{1 != 2} 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe he knows that. Wow, Giano taking advantage of his invincibility? Who'd have thought he'd do that? - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am reminded of Mario Bros, running through all the turtles with that cool music playing. Only problem is that it does not last long. _{1 != 2} 14:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Until 1==2, let me be frank here. Some have accused Giano of a campaign. Even if his actions do amount to a campaign, things like IRC and ArbCom reform are broad targets. You, on the other hand, have made things increaasingly personal. Ever since (and maybe before, I haven't checked) Giano pissed you off with that comment, you have been commenting on him ceaselessly, with the above comment you have made being typical of your attitude. What does that tell us about you and your campaign? Carcharoth (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Er... if the "above comment" is about the Mario Bros one, I'm not sure what the deal is. The music in the game really doesn't last long... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really accurate, in fact downright unfair. You can see by my edit history that I have been perplexed as to why Giano is not blocked for his actions long before we ever conversed. The comment was rude and I was offended because I have been stalked in the past, but that has no bearing. The fact is that anyone who points out Giano's behavior is called bias. I think that if you do some real research you will see that I have only spoken to and about Giano regarding his behavior. I am not really upset with Giano, I am upset with the communities inability to deal with the situation, I think it stinks. _{1 != 2} 15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that means what you think it means. I think Giano means that he's a victim of "what is going to be Wikipedia's biggest punch up ever". No? And then he will send some e-mails. What do you think he's threatening to do? Spam us all to death? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect he's going to smear some of the committee in an email campaign - that's what it's implying - "to finish it off". I don't think you can honestly interpret the first part as Giano being the victim, he's trying to lead a vigilante mob. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wknight94, did you see the edit summary: "They want a fight - they got one"? The context is clear. _{1 != 2} 14:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but those of us who have been unfortunate enough to come across Giano have probably been subject to incivility and unecessarily heated discussion. Look at the state of his block log. In light of all this, why is he still being allowed to edit Wikipedia? Lradrama 15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of Lradrama's statement: at some point don't people with chronic civility issues just need to be shown the door? –xeno (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, Lradrama, it's because sometimes we have spines of wet spaghetti, and balls the size of raisins. I've always been baffled at how Giano can get away with so much. If someone adds a single penis picture to an article, they can be kicked to the curb without blinking an eye, but for someone that repeatedly showcases a severe disinterest in civility or positive collaborative contributions, we must bend over backwards and coddle them. Ridiculous. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that basically sums up the answer. Have a guess why he hasn't been community banned.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason he hasn't been community banned is because most of the time he is civil, he collaborates, he talks nicely to people, he does good work. In fact, he spends more time doing that than engaging in drama (I wish I could say the same for some of the names I see popping up here). Giano does react poorly to baiting, but his incivility has long ago been blown up to be a problem larger than it is. I recognise some of the names here, and I can point to cases where they are in all likelihood harbouring an unsettled grudge against Giano. I'm not going to name names, as that would be unproductive, but I would urge everyone to examine their consciences and look at why they are reacting the way they are. Carcharoth (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I have worked closely with the vast majority of the names in this discussion. You may have been refering to me, but I can confidently say that each of us engages in highly productive work on Wikipedia, and avoid drama at all costs (hence this debate). Most of us are administrators like yourself, and we got where we are through hard, hard work. Lradrama 15:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, do it: name names. Please, point to examples of why some of the people here harbor grudges. That would be far more productive than your subtle and blanket dismissal of people's attitudes. I've seen lots of statements about how people are biased, but none of those claims have been backed up with diffs or talk page archives or anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - 0 out of the 2 edits Carcharoth has made to this discussion have been productive so far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's make it 0/3 then. About as productive as your edits here and here. Do you really think removing people's comments, or retracting and changing your comments, will help in a thread like this? Carcharoth (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreso than your edits so far, the latest which is no different to El_C's addition here. I don't expect Giano to understand the purpose of this thread (or anything else in relation to this matter), but several of us are keen on having the dispute (among many others) resolved in some way, with or (if you choose), without your/his participation, and currently, it has not helped in doing so. Stop casting aspersions, and instead, please focus on the matter at hand, if you wish to participate. NO ONE gives a toss about vague assertions - if you have issues, you should be well aware of WP:DR. If you have personal concerns, use user talk pages and I'm sure you'll get a response when a user is ready to give you one. Please also do not reply to this message (unless it's on my talk page), as I will not respond further (at all) if you do. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No kidding! Let's see some evidence, instead of just calling people bias and dismissing them. _{1 != 2} 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup EVula put it well. _{1 != 2} 15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You see, what none of you know, is that while you have all been putting the boot in to me, encouraged by the Arbcom adding me to the case, I have been quietly minding my own business, working on a page as an alternate account, with the full permission and knowledge of the Arbcom, only stopping when I became tired of outing myself (as a sock I'm not very good) you see no drama, no nothing. Then suddenly the strings are jerked and the jackals and hyenas enter the arena as prophesied here [2], Oh and Ryan, please do relax, calm down, you seem very jittery, you know how you re-act when you become over-exited, I can promise you any emails I post will have the full permission of their senders, unless of course they are one's I have sent to others. As for this being the biggest punch -up in Wikipedia's history, yes, it probably will be, that is not a threat, it is obvious to anyone who studies Wikipedia form and it's probably what the Arbcom want, then you can all say Giano is causing more drama. I suggest you look at those who started to promote this debate, rather than me. Now I will leave you all to bray and scream to your heart's are contented - I have a page to write. Giano (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You know Giano, I've always seen you as a force for positive change. Always thought you were right more than wrong and a net gain for Wikipedia. I hoped to see you succeed in the effort you've put forth. But I think it's gotten to the point now that it's gone too far. I don't understand why you think you can talk to people like that...I guess it's fine for a while in a kind of IAR way but at some point we need to be clear about what's an acceptable way to speak to each other and what is not. I just think it's gone to far. RxS (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed probation on comments to Giano

Perhaps to stave off any problems the community should put comments to Giano on probation, so that any user or admin baiting him is subject to the same sanctions Giano may be subject to if he responds negatively. Poke a lion to get him to bite you, you get blocked as well. That would stop a lot of nonsense. Nothing else has worked, why not try it? If anyone baits any user they deserve no less, but in this case the benefit would be to stop troublemaking and drama. rootology (T) 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and while we are at it nobody can revert his edits, or even have hurt feelings when he is nasty. If a policy gets in his way we should change it to allow for his actions. Surely there are other ways we could make his behavior cause less drama? How about no talking about him in the third person either? _{1 != 2} 15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And when no one acts like an idiot and doesn't insult or bait Giano he vanishes into his user pages and spits out FAs. Would it be bad to rigorously enforce NPA in regards to comments made to and about him? rootology (T) 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

FAs are not a currency that can be used to purchase exemption from civility. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

When someone is a problem, why do we need to set up special rules just for them? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you shit on someone's head, it's understandable for them to get heated. I'm just saying we should apply the same standard to those passing their bowels. :) rootology (T) 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, when you are not allowed to block them and those who are allowed to do not, you need to get creative. If he won't change and we can't block him we will just have to change everything else to make it work. _{1 != 2} 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments aren't helpful since you obviously have a problem with Giano. Maybe let others posit here, and less snark from ya would be helpful. You can step back now. rootology (T) 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How about you provide some diffs showing that Giano's incivility is due to baiting? _{1 != 2} 15:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, surprise surprise, lots of people have a problem with Giano and his behavior. Maybe we should let those people posit, rather than telling anyone that doesn't like his disdainful behavior to stuff it? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Enforce civility both ways for real, rather than half-assed towards Giano and eighth-assed at pokers? Might work ... WilyD 15:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's all I'm saying. If nothing else has worked, actually ENFORCE all civility standards evenly and see what happens. rootology (T) 15:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else care to participate in mine & Xenocidic's query as to why he is still allowed to edit here? Why are we this lenient with such a disruptive editor? Why can we not learn, despite a block log the length of the River Severn? It's at the bottom of that sub-thread up there ^ Lradrama 15:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rootology, you seem to think I was being sarcastic. I am completely serious. If Giano will not change, and we cannot block him, and those who can block him do not, and disruption keeps occurring then we do need to take drastic steps to stop this disruption.

Wikipedia policy should be set by our best practices. Our current best practice for dealing with Giano is to hold him to a different set of rules, we have been doing that for months so lets just codify it. Lets make an alternate civility policy for him, restrict what criticisms can be made etc... otherwise this will just keep coming up. This is of course my third choice, my second choice being blocking him, and my first is him being civil. We cannot however keep this double standard hidden, if we are going to keep it lets make it official. _{1 != 2} 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dramatic, much? Beam 15:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Civility is overblown and abused in Wikipedia. Admins who have an issue with a user, rightful or not, abuse the civility policy to ban/block them. Passive incivility or borderline incivility shouldn't be a reason for a ban/block. I wish this blessed essay was used more often, in certain cases, than admins going on a crusade against a user masked in WP:CIVIL defense. Admin power abuses are plentiful in this way, and having been a victim (in my eyes) to this previously, it totally ruins the project. Anyway, to those asking a question in response to the suggestion that admins and others be civil towards Giano: Hypocrisy much? Beam 15:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone should be civil towards Giano and every other editor, if anyone can point out who is baiting him then we can take action, but nobody provides any diffs to show his incivility results from baiting. _{1 != 2} 15:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I definitely include you among those repeatedly baiting him. But I'm choosing not to take action. GRBerry 15:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuh-uh, that's a cop-out. The whole point of this sub-thread is that we hold both sides accountable. If you've got solid evidence of baiting, present it so that the baiting party can be held accountable. What you're doing is laying an insult at someone's feet and then acting like the bigger person for not doing anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you missed the part when I said diffs. I have seen lots of accusations, but no evidence. Come one, you just made a real nasty accusation show where I have baited Giano or remove your comment. _{1 != 2} 15:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necessary to post diffs because I believe almost everything you have said in this discussion constitutes baiting Giano. Anyone reading the conversation will have already seen your statements before they saw mine, because they were above them. If your really want me to go link 40% of your last 50 contributions, I'll go through the mechanical exercise of proving that you made the contributions in this thread signed with your username. GRBerry 16:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is the same as baiting? Really? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if that is what you call baiting then you need to take a second look. I support either he follow policy, we block him, or that we change policy to suit his presence. If that prevents him from following the civility policy then I can't take the blame for that. Sorry man, but that is a very weak evidence for such a nasty accusation. Please remove it or provide some real evidence. _{1 != 2} 16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You [3] know] well that Giano is sensitive to your comments about him. (If you really want us to dig up more evidence of this, it could be done.) Your seem unable to accept the criticism you have repeatedly received that your behavior here is a problem. Do you intend to change your behavior, or should I treat you as I would any other editor whose conduct is unacceptable? GRBerry 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A problem that arises when you try to push people into following policy is that those who ignore it see it as "harrasment" - even if they're totally in the wrong. POV pushers serve as proof for this. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• feh. 90% of this comes from the inability of folks to deal with the problems created through the use of IRC to hassle users and foster a culture of "us v. them". The committee has not delt with management of irc as they requested of themselves. Ban everyone who doesn't use irc, and the problem goes away (except then so do most of the users). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day...

At the end of the day, you can tell this will be one more of those situations where nothing changes, nothing gets sorted out, because no one can agree. There is a big divide of opinion here. Giano has plenty of supporters, as it is, many of whom are administrators like ourselves, and that means no action can really be taken. Which is really sad, and really depressing, because any one else would have been blocked indefinately a long while ago for behaviour like that, and it appears no resolution can ever be reached if we keep squabbling like this.

My view at the end of it all is this. Why must we change our policy to suit one, incivil, repeatedly blocked individual? Why? All the rest of us can cope, I think we'd be going out of our way to bend the rules for someone unable to work decently within our community. Surely we're not that tolerant of inhumane behaviour are we? Lradrama 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but reading that i seems you're just upset you're not getting your way, not that "the right thing" isn't getting done. Seems very selfish, honestly. Beam 16:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

My own way? It wasn't even me who started the discussion. I'm just stating what myself and others think is right. But if this is going to cause yet another rift, then I'm not arguing it anymore. You try and improve Wikipedia, but more often than not, nothing is done. All that happens is people fall out. Lradrama 17:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Point of this discussion?

I am sorry but why are we having this discussion? It seems to me one overly divisive to have "just in case" ArbCom wipe their hands of the matter and refer it back to the community. I happen to think that would be a ridiculous step for it to take - ArbCom exists to solve conduct issues the community cannot, not vice versa. But can we not shelve this whole discussion until after we know what the ArbCom decision is? All this thread is doing is raising tempers and discontent. I think bringing this here now was a poor decision. WJBscribe (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No. If the community is unable to come to a decision now, we will not later. This is to make it clear, factually, whether we can come to a consensus eventually or not. It's futile and stupid to think it's even possible within a few hours, let alone a day - I was well aware that it would take a bit of time. I myself will archive this if the tempers and discontent remains. But it's too early, and once part of it has washed away, I think we can make a bit of progress; however little or great. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano-bashing: vituperative rhetoric in order to harass perceived adversaries

I can't believe that this whole slugfest is posted on the Administrators' Noticeboard because one arbitrator has proposed "The question of what, if anything, should be done about Giano's continued public attacks is remanded to the community as a whole. The Committee asks the community to come to a consensus on how to proceed within a month of the closing of this case"? Ask yourself: how many individual propositions on the RFAR page generally get enough arbitrator votes to pass into the Final Decision? One in ten? Less? Much less, that's right. In the case I know best, RFAR/IRC, it was a lot less. And yet this vituperation, this character assassination, this blithe assumption that Giano makes public attacks, and Giano is in bad faith, is started on the noticeboard from a proposition signed by one single arb (Kirill Lokshin)? Started here, yet, before the case is closed, nor anywhere near being closed? Why this timing—could it possibly be because the proposition obviously is not going to pass? And if the Giano-haters were to wait for its close, there's maybe one chance in a hundred that they would get to have this kind of fun on the WP:AN? No, that can't be it, because I need to assume good faith—never mind that the amount of good faith people are here assuming from Giano wouldn't cover the nail of my pinky?
I suggest you apply another quote from Kirill, from the same Proposed Decision page, to what you're doing here, oh most noble Giano-bashers: "Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engaging in unbridled criticism across all available forums. It is unacceptable for editors to engage in vituperative rhetoric and public attacks in order to harass perceived adversaries."[4] OK? That's well put. ...rather than engaging in unbridled criticism across all available forums. It is unacceptable for editors to engage in vituperative rhetoric and public attacks in order to harass perceived adversaries. This thread is completely irrelevant on this board. And it's an utter disgrace. Bishonen | talk 17:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

I think Bishonen makes sound points above. This is one of the more ill-advised discussions brought to a board where ill-advised discussions regularly abound. A proposal by a single Arb should not be enough to start something quite so introspectively self-destructive. If the point of this thread was just to prove to the Arbitration Committee that the community cannot resolve the matter I suspect it will succeed - though I would have thought the long history that has brought us to that point made it clear enough already. These flair ups reflect sadly on the ability of the community to manage itself when tough questions are asked. Until someone comes up with a solution, one likely to be acceptable both to Giano and those who find his conduct troubling at times, I am not sure what point there is in discussing this. If anyone is unable to sketch in advance an outline of how any discussion like this one will deteriorate, I would be astounded. WJBscribe (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary 1 & Part 2

As expected, the discussion has only gone so far. Sifting past all the incivility, irrelevant crap, and so on, we have the following suggestions so far. A suggestion that:

1. We should be able to Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks - but using that, it's applicable to WMC's initial block, but doesn't resolve the overall problem I think.
2. We should be able to treat problematic conduct in this case (should it occur in the future), no differently to problematic conduct by other users.
3. We should (in the future, if it occurs) treat users baiting Giano the same way as we treat his incivility in the same way we treat other users incivility.

I'll add any others to the list on request. Is there any disagreement with that summary of the suggestions relevant to the spirit of the thread? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree. This is the summary as far as I can tell:

1. BBBBBBAAAAWWWWWWWWW GIANO BBBBBBAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWW

There is no point to this as Scribe pointed out. Just drop it until there is a point, for the love of all WikiGods, drop it. Beam 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Since the community has failed to come up with a satisfactory solution to the "Giano problem" (i.e. an approach that has broad consensus and avoids drama), the suggestion that Arbcom, "the final step in dispute resolution," would toss the issue back to the community is profoundly disfunctional. Until such a proposal is passed by a majority, it should not have been brought here for discussion. Thatcher 17:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, I don't think there will be 1 Giano in the history of Wikipedia - if it happens again, at least we have some sort of place to follow up on rather than starting a bare discussion and going through the yearly cycle again. I'll be clear - I am not fond of this idea of ArbCom passing it back to the community. Nevertheless, why should it preclude our own discussion? Rather than imagining no consensus being formed at all, why not go through this properly instead of all of us raising our hands in the air and walking away, again and again? Let's focus on the issues and see where we can go - a little further at least, hopefully. Assuming the rifts and personal tiffs can be controlled or closed off whenever it starts getting out of hand, what's there to lose? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

At the current time this is a waste, and can only lead to problems, imAWESOMEo. Beam 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on what 'problems' you're talking about? Or did you happen to miss the assumptions and the 3 genuine suggestions made amidst the discussion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OH ye of little good faith, I guess I care not to elaborate, as I do not care for your tone or assumptions. :) Beam 18:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too subtle earlier. But I, for one, find it revealing that Ncmvocalist, Kiril's favourd clerk-to-be, is so quick to consider his patron's single vote as the vote of the entire committee and is already on the remanded train. It all works to inspire little confidence in our future clerk. El_C 18:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider Kirill's vote to be the vote of the entire committee; indeed jpgordon explicitly opposed (and I agree with both the reason and the vote wholeheartedly). I've made it explicitly clear more than once here that this will either provide solid evidence of why the remedy should not pass, or if it is to pass, not to leave a 1 month limbo of what to do if it occurred again. Perhaps I was too subtle in not replying directly to your disruptive trolling the first time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also revealing how quickly Ncmvocalist's politeness facade cracks under the satire. Not a good sign. El_C 18:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Albeit for me to label his very first comment that started this entire thread as "trolling" — clearly, he has monopoly of the inflammatory. El_C 18:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This will be my last comment, as imo any further comment by anyone here isn't productive. I feel that Ncmv has an agenda to push and is masking it in "for the good of WP" bullshit. That's just me though. Beam 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• What a shameful disgusting and manipulated debate, in the history of Wikipedia, I think this is probably one of Wikipedia's most revealing and repulsive days. If this had happened to any other editor (Any) I would be defending them left, right and centre, no one deserves to be to be at the eye of such a contrived storm. Yet Not one Arb said, this debate is not what we intended or wanted, and that rather proves my point. You who have shouted here today, screeching for my blood, are nothing more than manipulated thugs. Well, I am better than you are, I am more moral, I am more just, and I am a better writer and contributor to this encyclopedia (remember it's an encyclopedia) and what's more, I am here, and I am here to stay. So get used to the idea! Giano (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The above was archived with this comment [5]. I think all who posted here are entitled to an explanation and an appology, or was the thread only for those who agreed with the thread's starter. Is this now what this noticeboard is now for? Giano (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Really, when it comes to this sort of thing, the only winning move is not to play. My thanks in advance to whichever party is able to be the bigger person and drop this first, regardless of how justifiable their grievances may be or seem. How about a nice game of chess? MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Concerning user page comment

User:Ksofen666 states on his user page that he watches a certain sport because he likes to see people have the shit beaten out of them. Is this appropriate? It's certainly not as offensive as a swastika but still, it's just not...decent. — Realist² (Speak) 23:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well he is talking about ultimate fighting! --Allemandtando (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection. Is it indecent to enjoy bloody sports or to announce one's enjoyment of them? I don't see who could be offended, or how it would bring disrepute on the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm maybe it's a cultural thing, where I come from it is really controversial. Maybe the american version isn't quite as brutal. Hehe. — Realist² (Speak) 23:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you posted this at all Realist...? Beam 00:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's no less offensive than the message you've got at the top of your talk page. –xeno (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC) (This is directed to Realist2)
  • My goals aren't offensive.... BBBBAWWWWW :( Beam 02:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    • That's directed at Realist2. (clarified) –xeno (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
      • So you like my goals? Beam 02:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I like watching people get the ever-living tripe knocked out of them too! :-) That would make a funny userbox caption, actually. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry template overhaul

A few weeks ago, MBisanz asked me to merge a few templates that dealt with sock puppetry. I said okay and went to work. I looked at the ones he wanted merged and thought "No problem," and merged them into Sockpuppet. My mistake. In come the people who complain about how my changes have broken other templates that use the one I changed as a base. I am thinking to myself that they could just switch to the new shorter template and everything would be good again. No such luck; they didn't want to take the time to change the templates out. Also, I found out just how badly organized the whole sockpuppet process was.

I found out that there are times when there are puppet strings through several Suspected sock puppet cases, and the same is happening at Check user. I feel this is counterintuitive.

If I am understanding things correctly, the process is really complex. Let's say that they suspect PuppetMaster 1 of having two or three puppets. They may start a SSP case or not. Now, let's say that they do. After a while they find that PuppetMaster 1 is actually a puppet of PuppetMaster 2. Instead of moving the case from PuppetMaster 1 to PuppetMaster 2, they just start a fresh case for PuppetMaster 2 with a link to the PuppetMaster 1 case. Well, PuppetMaster 1 is not a puppet master but a puppet. Would it not be better to keep all of the puppets of one master on one page with just one case opened?

As I see it, that area only needs five templates.

• Puppet
• Puppet master
• Puppet notice
• Puppet discussion
• Puppet category

With parser functions, these templates can cover all of the work that is currently being done with almost 20 templates. It would take a little work on the part of those involved with puppetry cases to make all of the switches, but I am sure that someone could come up with a bot to do it.

Hopefully, this will be a spring board for a more streamlined sock puppetry process. - LA @ 07:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I think that I forgot to mention that this is not just for socks, it is for the meat as well. So, when these templates are written, they will be for all puppets, not just footwear. - LA @ 21:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As SSP2 is already in the works, I will continue this discussion there with the people who are currently working on overhauling of this process. I will work with them to make the suite of templates mentioned above. Thanks for all of the support. - LA @ 22:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuing this here. - LA @ 22:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Support this proposal. Lady Aleena has put a lot of work into this template which is commendable. A cleanup of the templates is overdue, and with Lady Aleena's efforts, the process can be simplified. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• While in principle I naturally support this proposal, we need to make sure that all the requirements are met. An RFCU may be useful for some sockpuppets, but many will be blocked either on behavioural evidence or a CU investigation not listed at RFCU. Equally, an SSP case can exist and have no mention of a sockpuppet on it. It would certainly be useful to have all these automatically mentioned in the sockpuppet tag, but we need to do so in a fashion that does justice to the complexities of sockpuppet investigations. I think we really need to plan everything out before the templates are designed -- and perhaps we can also consider the proposed merger of WP:SSP and WP:RFCU? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Which way would you suggest; SSP to RFCU, RFCU to SSP, or both to a new ubertopic such as Sock puppet investigations (SPI)? - LA @ 17:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    • LA: please see WP:SSP2. Tiptoety ^talk 19:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Tiptoety, would you let me know when it is finalized so the templating can begin? - LA @ 19:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Can do. Tiptoety ^talk 20:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Being the guy to ask for this of course means I support it. I'll also toss in some AWB hours to go through and update pages when we figure out what a final tag looks like. MBisanz ^talk 11:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per PeterSymonds' statement above --Atomican ^{[ T | C | WC+ ]} 19:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Peter. D.M.N. (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per Peter Symonds, and Lady Aleena's clear explanation of what needed to be done. One of the reasons I stay away from that area of Wikipedia is the arcane and byzantine system that is currently in place; streamlining it is a great idea. Horologium (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Sure, why not? - Seems reasonable. Tiptoety ^talk 20:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, just make sure that any template that adds the userpage to a sockpuppet category includes {{do not delete}}, or else this could cause problems. Templates that don't put the user into any category probably don't need it, as the page won't be needed for tracking. Mr.Z-man 21:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, I'd be happy to give MBisanz a hand, if he was alright with that. Seems quite a large task for one person ;). Steve Crossin (contact) 09:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Same here. Sounds a good proposal, so I will support it at this time. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 07:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

• Two things: 1) needs to be meshed with FT2's work on SSP/RFCU reform and 2) the category should keep the distinction between suspected/confirmed socks. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This realy will not effect or be effected by the SSP/RFCU mereger, and the things that are can be easily worked out. Tiptoety ^talk 03:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rlevse, rest assured that I will work very closely with FT2 and Tiptoety when writing the templates that will go along with the merged process. I have no intention of disrupting the category structure that is already put into place. My part will be taking the 19 templates which currently exist and boiling them down to 5. MBisanz has already stated that he will be willing to log hours to switch from the old templates to the new ones. All I am waiting for is for a finalization of the process so that I can start writing the templates. - LA @ 04:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandal user:AlasdairGreen27

I report vandal user:AlasdairGreen27 for these actions:

• 1
• 2

I am editor in Portuguese wiki then I add related links but vandal removes appropriate links. 16 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.87.105 (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The board you're looking for is WP:AIV. shoy (reactions) 13:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

PIO, what are you doing? Have you forgotten that you are banned? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just returned from denying the AIV report, and blocking 151.67.87.105 for 31 hours. I noted the Portuguese Wiki editor is based in Milan, Italy, and was labelling your reverts as actions by a banned editor... so I blocked on suspicion. Nice to see it justified. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks LessHeard. My friend PIO crops up most days with an edit or two, despite the fact that he and his several subsequent socks have all been firmly escorted to the exit by our burly security officers. The problem is that it seems he's on a dialup connection which assigns him a new IP address with each logon. Would a range block of 151.67 be appropriate or would it catch too many good faith editors in its indiscriminate net? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I shall allow someone with more technical knowledge of rangeblocks to answer that one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What are the IPs? All I see are:

151.67.87.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

151.67.85.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hard to guess the full range on only two IPs. You can get both of these with a 151.67.84.0/22 but I'll bet the range is larger than that. Whois says 151.67.0.0/16. Surely semi-protecting the two articles would be preferable but even that's overkill on only two edits apiece. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) See [Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PIO] and [Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_PIO]. There are lots of others, as yet untagged, nearly all in the 151.67 range. Would it help if I tagged them? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I stand corrected. The first category you gave is exactly what I said: 151.67.84.0/22. The second category has a few well outside that range but it looks like a /22 block would pretty much do it. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The non 151.67 ranges are stale. Nothing this year - all this year's have been 151.67. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandalizing my pages

The IP 86.128.210.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has vandalized my user page, talk page and an image I have uploaded. Also he has added some acsi code to an article twice. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Next time please take this to WP:AIV for a faster response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Resolved

 – De-sysopped by Drini and indef blocked by WBOSITG. Thanks are due to the good samaritan. –xeno (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. This is an admin account. It is insecure. You know what to do. --User:Zoe|(talk) 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How odd, Mine too! --Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, wtf? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Upgraded to WP:BN. –xeno (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing someone trying silly passwords at admin accounts. Anyone know a steward nearby? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Daniel (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Drini. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI folks, Kelly Martin posted to Wikipedia Review that she knew the passwords to both RickK and Zoe, and they were the same password and fairly easy to guess. She used this as evidence to prove that RickK and Zoe are the same person (which for this context is irrelevant). She wrote, half-jokingly, that someone in "Wikiland" would probably soon notice and disable those accounts, and apparently, that's what just happened. Yechiel (Shalom) 15:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that an experienced editor logged in as the above - not the users themselves, or a WR regular. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Gee, this was handled with maximum efficiency, well done. Chillum 15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was jolly decent of the hacker to give us a fair chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a jolly decent hacker. Chillum 15:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jolly decent indeed. Tagging as resolved. Thanks are due to the good samaritan. –xeno (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Use this event to inspire a re-reading of Password strength. Be sure to change your password on a somewhat regular basis. Kingturtle (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I wouldn't call him a hacker. They looked at his email address and guessed it from that. Also I wouldn't call him a hacker as he did not mean any harm by using the accounts but in a way just to prove a point. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 15:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That would make him a white hat hacker. Not all hackers are bad. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess so. In a way we were lucky such a nice person "hacked" the accounts :>. If it was as easy as was said in the forum posts then imagine what would have happened if a "bad" user or vandal had got hold of them. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Do we have any more abandoned sysop accounts back from when password security was more lax? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The developers have already run a password cracker on all admin accounts and changed those that were easily hacked. This was apparently a password that was not "weak" (as defined by the developers' method) but was still easily guessable if you knew certain other information. Thatcher 16:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Just another reason why inactive admin accounts should be desysopped after, say, three months or so. If they return, it can be restored by 'crats or stewards easily enough. In this case, somebody (Kelly Martin, Greg Maxwell, or another user) let us off with a warning. Horologium (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think desysoping hundreds of admins for a problem that barely comes up once a year would be a gross overreaction. I would say the old sysops come back and be helpful far more often than their accounts are hacked, what is more any damage caused by a compromised account is easily reversed and any gain from an admin that comes back and is helpful is kept. 24.68.249.114 (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You apparently missed the part about simply having a steward restore the admin flag should the user return and request it. Since it would be removed under non-controversial circumstances, policy already allows for reflagging upon request. Horologium (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, other than I'd change the duration of inactivity to a year, I'd agree with that, but then, I seem to recall that this has been discussed before (and trailed off...) - jc37 04:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, propose a policy. Just a warning, the last 3-6(not sure how many, more than a couple) proposals of this nature had a clear consensus against the idea. The community generally decides that compromised admin accounts are a very small problem here. Chillum 15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Does ArbComm needs to confirm the desysoppings?

After what happened with Robdurbar last year, do we need to have the Arbitration Committee confirm the desysoppings, since they were done on an emergency basis? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you want them to confirm, that they have been desysopped ( can be confirmed by checking the user rights log) or that emergency desysopping of a hacked account is a good idea ( which is blatantly obvious isn't it?) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the previous case mentioned but in theory they could be re-sysopped if their identities could be confirmed (if they ever return), so perhaps this is what Arbcom needs to confirm. –xeno (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I could see there being a point in notifying the Committee members that this has taken place. That way, we don't make any unnecessary process for what appears to be a no-brainer... but on the off chance any of them feels that there is anything even remotely controversial about this, they could initiate a deliberation as a group. (or they could just have on of their members issue a unilateral proclamation about it on the Friday before a holiday week.... oops, did I just say that aloud? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, Jay, tell us how you really feel? On point, having had a failed RFA, I would submit that a community consensus (the failed RFA) would trump a ruling from Arbcom in regards to a previously desysopped user. If Arbcom's intent was that this user could be resysopped at any time, then requesting an RFA and having it go unsuccessful would seem to close that door. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. Technicaly arbcom can resysopp even if the community has rejected the person in an RFA but trying to operate as an admin under those coniditions would be tricky. Realisticaly they would be limited to saying that they no longer considered whatever got the person to be desysopped to be a current issue or that they supported the person's RFA attempt. If the case was based on non public evidence it could be argued that they have a duty to do so if they belive that to be the case otherwise not so much.Geni 23:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Depends on the "failure." We consider an RfA "failed" if there isn't a supermajority of independent Support !voters. Yet we wouldn't desysop on that. On the other hand, if a there were a supermajority of Oppose !voters, it would be worrisome for ArbComm to ignore it. It would depend. Suppose the "failed" nominee failed because of yeoman work done enforcing ArbComm decisions? Now, if that oppose consensus were real and not merely an artifact of participation bias, it would still be worrisome for ArbComm to disregard it.... ArbComm can override a rough consensus process, for good reason. But it also would properly be quite careful, and would avoid doing it unless it considered the matter necessary. --Abd (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"she" ditched both of the accounts a while back and does not look like she is going back - where is the big drama in 1) informing arbcom that the flags were removed and that 2) they can be restored on whatever basis they see fit but we'd like to know about it/feel secure that verification of the account holder had taken place? As far as I'm aware, she left in good standing (leaving aside the wikidrama towards the end). Do we really have to have long drawn out conversations about something a normal organisation would decide and deal with in about ten minutes? --Allemandtando (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the Wiki way! "Wikipedia: The Free Endless Meeting Where Anyone Can Fillibuster!"

Seriously though, I heartily agree. I will send a note to jpgordon (since I respect him most of any ArbCom member at the moment) and let him know this action was taken. We can now all move on with our lives. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Redirects for discussion

Redirects for Discussion currently has open discussions dating back to June 27, several of which could use some love from an admin experienced in closing contentious deletion discussions. Most of the regulars have commented in the oldest open discussions, so outside assistance is going to be needed to do things properly. Thanks in advance for anyone who can help out. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection (Page)

Is it possible if an admin could re-delete my userpage - I have requested an Administrator previously to do so and have done - but certain user's have been constantly re-creating them - including the recent attempt by one of the "newest" user - as such I'm requesting my userpage to be erased again and re-create the userpage and talkpage but have it fully protected - I'm getting extremely fed-up with this constantly happening - I'm no-longer interested with the wikimedia sites and am leaving permanently - this site I'll have blocked as well as the other wikimedia sites from my PC, I don't want any problems with this site. Terra (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Page deleted and creation set to sysop. Let us know if you ever want to be able to create it. –xeno (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - but is it possible if you could do it to my talkpage as well. Terra (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to defer that request to a more experienced admin. I'm not sure if we protect user talk pages like that. –xeno (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Shall I stay active on this site - the reason for me leaving previously was due to the increase of vandalism and other reasons - which I explained here on Wikisource. Terra (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's policy or not, I don't have a problem protecting the talk page so long as it is understood that protection will be removed if any further edits are made with the Terra account. - auburnpilot talk 18:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please protected my talkpage - the userpage itself has been protected by User:Xenocidic, I'll be active on meta only for the time being, if a there is a problem please inform me on meta on my Terra account. Terra (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) I would not support deletion of talk pages. I've already had a problem with an admin that simply deleted an article talk page where a large discussion for an article had been and refused to explain why. This kind of stuff is annoying to deal with. Talk pages have an important history. Why not just add soft cross-space redirects to his meta account (and perhaps protection)? If there is a problem, someone can inform him. This way, nobody has a clue what to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems resonable - however though on meta I've recently had a username change as I'm no-longer interested in using the name Terra - if you want I could leave a softredirect link on that talkpage, this here is a confirmation of my request for a username change, I will remain active on meta as I wouldn't mind helping out there - if there is a problem, please contact me on meta I won't be viewing wikipedia that much as I used to, I'm currently unifying my new username. Dark Mage (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at articles for speedy deletion.

Resolved

 – The backlog is gone, for now. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just noting.link . ThuranX (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unable to create User Talk page

Hello, following a new user's test edit, my attempts to create the user's talk page (to welcome and notify) were met with an "Unauthorised" message here. Their username is User:Oobah??? - this word means nothing to me... it may to someone else, however - but it seems they were able to create an account, so the username wasn't autoblocked, but the creation of a user or talk page is not permitted. Could somebody possibly look into it? Thanks. - Toon⁰⁵ 18:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Rodhullandemu 18:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, and thanks for the speedy response. - Toon⁰⁵ 18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There are currently two comments on that talk page. -- Donald Albury 18:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Um... it's already been fixed, per above.- Toon⁰⁵ 18:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation page problem

I recently created a disambiguation page for Bauhaus. I moved the original page to Staatliches Bauhaus and then had it moved to Bauhaus (design). The problem are tons of links to Bauhaus disambiguation actually meant for Bauhaus (design). I'd like to move the page back to Bauhaus and move the disambiguation to Bauhaus (disambiguation), but I can't since I'm not an administrator. Could anyone help? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I think the disambig page needs some work to meet styleguides. –xeno (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User Thegone is vandalizing the articles Kelsang Gyatso and New Kadampa Tradition

User Thegone is repeatedly vandalizing these articles, adding long tracts of unsourced material cut and paste from dalailama.com without any discussion. He has been reported here before and seems to have deleted it. Please see the talk pages for those articles for a history of his actions. He is using hateful and unsubstantiated language. He will not accept any edits whatsoever of the material he has inserted. This material does not belong in these articles at all -- if anywhere, it should be put in Dorje Shugden controversy (although it is all covered and discussed there already). Please help. He is breaking wiki codes of conduct. He is removing even our complaints about him and no one seems to be doing anything about him. (Truthbody (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

Please provide the relevant wikilinks and diffs for us.  Sandstein  00:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think he means these: "Marketing vandalism by a cult editor: The history of this topic shows it is being censored by the marketing members of the NKT organization and is biased and one sided." Special:Contributions/Thegone Kylu (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 h for editwarring and copyright violations.  Sandstein  09:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: After Thegone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made comments on his user talk page that make clear that he does not intend to comply with some core behavioural policies, I have blocked him indefinitely for the reasons explained on his talk page. A review of that block is welcome.  Sandstein  10:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

He's still ranting on his talkpage, about Nazis, and mediocres, and morons, and how the gods will punish his oppresors or something. I thought about protecting the page, but it's probably better to let him vent. Neıl ☄ 13:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Locke Cole/Betacommand mutual topic ban

Edited section title. - brenneman 07:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Some people have issues with Betacommand, but Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken it from civil discussion to harassment. Every time there's an issue with Betacommand, he attmepts to muddies the water in every discussion and resorts to uncivil comments and attempts to bait Beta. Just today, whilst Beta was blocked, he attempted to bait him with these edits [6][7], but there's many others than just those. His Wikipedia space edits show he has hindered discussion on many occasions. There have been legitimate concerns raised about Betacommand, but nobody deserves abuse Locke Cole has given Betacommand. I propose a topic ban on commenting on Betacommand. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: This has been a long time coming. His attempts to provoke Betacommand are inappropriate, and unacceptable. We don't need him continuing to cause things to get worse. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering you just threatened me with a block for supposedly revert warring, why am I not surprised you'd endorse this as well? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because your edits to Betacommands talk page tonight were the 'straws that broke the camels back'? I have no idea about the specific reasons for Ryan P. bringing this to AN tonight, but ... who knows. So, I'm supporting something that would prevent me, or anybody else, from having to tell you to stop with this behavior. Anyhow, Im not discussing this with you anymore. I've made my opinions known. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's not baiting. Baiting is using edit summaries like "rvv" for material which clearly is not vandalism. Baiting is saying someone is "banned" from a page when they clearly are not banned from that page. I would challenge the allegation that Betacommand has received any abuse from me whatsoever. Now please put down your torch and pitchfork and maybe try and deal with the actual issue at hand: how is someone who routinely flaunts the wishes of the community allowed to get away with it? We've been over the issue of inappropriate edit summaries before (during the Sam Korn solution/discussion), and yet it continues. What will you try to do about that? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • He's blocked, yet you've continued to harass him on his talk. This is old news, with all the problems you caused in past discussions about Beta. You've yet again baited him on his talk whilst blocked - I stongly believe a topic ban is the only thing that will get you to stop. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not harassing him. Are you even reading what I said on his talk page or are you being reactionary and assuming the worst? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment As long as he refrains from doing such in the future, I don't see that it's needed. Hopefully he'll see this and understand that the community would prefer he stop without being forced to do so under threat of ban. Kylu (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)FWIW, after he removed my good faith comments again, I was done. I'm still not seeing how attempting to point out to a user how his conduct is inappropriate is "harassment" or "baiting", but some people have more liberal definitions than I it seems. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Someone leaves a note on your talk, you remove it. Someone reverts your move (You forgot to edit the timestamp on your non-revert, btw), they're now violating policy. He read your post and removed it, choosing not to answer. You don't have a "right" to an answer from him, so don't repost the question until he replies. Sorry. Kylu (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • But in removing the remark, you add a snippy edit summary. Sorry, but that's an answer. And of the sort you've been explicitly told not to make. You're right, Kylu. All you have to do it turn your back. Just remove the note clean without comment. But to pretend that there's no reply being made just because the edit summary is used as the vehicle for the message instead of the talk page undoes the argument. There was a clear choice to make an answer in an uncivil tone. Again. BC does not need another apologist (or another critic I suppose). He needs to learn to make disiplined and civil choices. Wiggy! (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah, my English skills need honing, apparently. I only figured out the bridge gag after your comment. (o.O;;) I'd suggest we both support keeping them from speaking to eachother at the moment, then. Kylu (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
          • This is good. I was wondering how it might pan out. Good eye. :) So, while I see how LC's approach might be unhelpful, I can also understand his frustration. Yeah they should probably both stay away from each other, but that's just a narrow slice of it all and it still leaves behind BC's (on-going) intransigence. Wiggy! (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning Oppose While Locke has had issues edit warring in the past, I am concerned about treating only 1/2 of the continued incivility issue, these sort of edit sums [8] [9] by Beta were made when he was not reverting Locke Cole. I'd propose if anything that both of them be put on civility restrictions and topic banned from each other. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I thought that was obvious that Betacommand couldn't comment on Locke should this topic ban proceed. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • (EC) Yes, of course Beta should not comment on Locke either. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Okey, apparently I am not being pointed enough, any civility restrictions on Betacommad are obviously not working, any edit restrictions like 3RR on Locke Cole are also not working. The result are these uncivil revert wars. This non-interaction proposal treats the symptom not the problem, limiting both editors to 0RR on all pages for all content might be a step I'd support. MBisanz ^talk 04:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • To elaborate, they would both be prohibited from interacting with each other or referencing each other, and would be limited to 0RR on all pages with all individuals, this sort of remedy should solve the global behavioral issues I've noticed over the last several months, while still permitting them to pursue their areas of interest. MBisanz ^talk 06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

While I can completely understand the need for such a request, I think that this needs a separate discussion. I'd be all for reiterating the fact that on this topic-ban, both users have a 0RR in effect for each others edits. However, to impose a 0R rule on any edits seems outside the scope of what this topic ban will do, and that is to stop BC and LC from interacting with each other, for obvious reasons. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - If the above is true (that both Beta and Locke would not be able to comment on each other). Tiptoety ^talk 04:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: I just want to point out / clarify that this thread doesn't appear to be (at least in my opinion) the result of one specific incident. These two users have a history of problems, that would be solved if they'd just leave each other alone. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats wishful thinking, we would hope users would use common sense now wouldn't we? Tiptoety ^talk 04:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The core of this thing is BC's incivility. Its on-going and it has been a characteristic of his long before this block or any others. I can understand Locke's frustration because BC blithely ignores advice, admonition, and sanction directed his way. Always has. Instead of his being sent on his way to contemplate for an extended period of time (and maybe come back with some understanding of the fact that civility is one of the things that makes this place run) the whole thing deteriorates into the consideration of topic bans for frustrated editors and the disqualification of involved admins. That is just plain backwards. Sure BC has got down to some of the necessary dirty work, but that does not excuse him from following the rules and respecting consensus, nor does it entitle him to ignore the sanctions placed on him that he agreed to abide by. Wiggy! (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, noting that it would be that Beta and Locke wouldn't be able to comment on each other. As an observer, seeing past ANI threads and conduct on the WP:BOT page, and elsewhere, this sort of conduct doesn't go un-noticed. I do think that it might be difficult to enforce, and I think MBisanz's idea might be useful. Perhaps in addition to the topic ban from each other, a 1RR is imposed on both Betacommand and Locke, for all bot policy related pages. Thoughts? Steve Crossin (contact) 05:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Locke Cole seems to seek out Betacommand and bait him at every availible opportunity. This has been going on for months. While it in no way excuses Beta's incivility, the converse is also true; Beta's incivility does not justify Locke's stalking of him and his incessant and unhelpful additions to any discussion of Betacommands behavior. It is not Locke's job to be the personal "cop" on Betacommand patrol; Beta is a public enough figure at Wikipedia that any steps out of line will be noticed by multiple users. Nothing suffers if Locke is proscribed from commenting on Betacommand, and since his comments invariably escalate rather than diffuse the situation, this seems to be needed.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Those are some pretty damning accusations: do you actually have anything recent to prove this with? Also, how is the community involvement helped if you begin censoring users simply because the person being discussed is "high profile"? How long before other editors suffer similar "bans" simply because they wish to voice their opinion? —Locke Cole • t • c 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Pointing out Betacommand's bad behaviour can hardly be construed as harassment and stalking. Perhaps Betacommand should be given a topic ban from anything related to image tagging, since he is at least as rude as Locke Cole is claimed to be in his attempts to enforce such policies. Jtrainor (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Pointing out bad behavior is not in and of itself harassment. Pointing it out in the manner in which Locke Cole does so is harassment. --Carnildo (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And how was my "manner" in any way harassing? I made a grand total of two edits to his user talk page. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Jayron32 said it better than I could. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Not sure we need to formalize this. Temp blocks for harassment is pretty standard. -- Ned Scott 08:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it has come to this. If you review the history between LC and BC, you'll see that temporary blocks, and warnings aren't really effective. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for Locke, and Betacommand. Also maybe a suggestion about 1RR on Locke and Betacommand on the WP:B page due to edit warring? We really don't get anywhere if they keep reverting each other on all kinds of bot releated pages. --Kanonkas :  Talk  11:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support only if applied both ways, as others suggest above. Locke needs to stay away from Betacommand, and Betacommand needs to stay away from Locke. Neıl ☄ 12:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per Jayron32's well-worded thoughts. Horologium (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Per jayron's reasoning. SQL^{Query me!} 14:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Neil. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Edit summary usage is only 74.6%, and not enough edits in Template Talk namespace. Wait, this isn't an RfA? :) MastCell ^Talk 20:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Neil and Jayron. There are many others ready and willing to deal with the uncivility issues that Beta sometimes succumbs to. —Giggy 10:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AFD discussions concerning WP:BIO

This is probably old news to most of you but I thought a heads up just in case might be in order.

Per a recent discussion at WP:BIO, it was generally agreed that the current pointers regarding WP:BIO categories being guidelines as to notability and that failing to meet one of them (such as WP:ATHLETE for example) does not confer inherent non-notability and that if an article passes WP:N in terms of sourcing then it still remains notable despite failing the sub criteria.

This is obviously nothing new but a very, very large number of AfDs have been being closed recently with a lot of "Fails WP:ATHLETE" !votes counting towards deletion.

Again sorry if I'm bringing up something that you all already know just thought given the confirmation in the discussion it was worth mentioning. BigHairRef | Talk 08:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

All of those pages, BIO, ATHLETE, N, are just guidelines. Failing one and passing another doesn't automatically make it notable or not notable, despite whatever might have been decided on the guideline talk page. It might point out that there's certainly a strong argument to see it as notable, but that's still just a guideline. -- Ned Scott 08:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see Category:Politicians wiped out by "Fails WP:ATHLETE" mass AFD !voting </sarcasm> It could do well to make it clear on all of the N subguidelines that the alternative criteria are merely circumstances in which we assume the basic criterion is met, and not arbitrary rules we crafted to not see our favorite up-and-coming football players and bands have their articles deleted. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The relationship between the general and the special guidelines is undecided. My own personal view is that the general guideline is a fallback in case there is no other way of deciding, and the specific guidelines take precedence when applicable. But it is also true that an athlete who qualifies under some other guideline, including the notability guidelines for people in general, will be notable as such. In practice the current situation seems to permit making either argument if something passes one guideline and fails another. Perhaps we might even need this flexibility. But this does not seem the place to discuss it.DGG (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is only one guideline worth having: has the individual been the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources? If not, they could be the fastest man on the planet and we still could not have a policy-compliant article. And to be fair not all the BIO subguidelines are actually a deliberate attempt to obscure this, only a few of them. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This is simply a failure to parse. All of the subguidelines include the general standard as applying. WP:ATHLETE is a section of bio which contains the general standard that a subject is presumed to be notable if it has received... It ipso facto, then, defines additonal inclusive bases and not exclusionary bases that trump the general standard already defined as applicable.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • here's the real question: given the total disagreement between good wikipedians on this, how are we to resolve it. The last 18 months oat least of discussions, and the totally variable result of discussions since then, has clearly shown there is no consensus whatsoever. The only time this was actually brought to a true community-wide discussion, for WP:ATT, it was determined that using Attribution alone for notability did not have consensus. I would ask Guy if he really means there are no other factors at all? Would he really support an article on someone who was the oldest man in Ohio in 1911, if there were two independent reliable newspaper sources to prove it and no other notability? DGG (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I can't answer for Guy, but that wouldn't be substantive/significant coverage, now would it?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Suppose it were--suppose it were a full page feature on him and his life. Bored newspapermen in need of copy do that. DGG (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Then we're talking about the exception to the rule. That fact pattern occurs but not often and we write rules to address the common. When we come across the exception, logic, analysis and commonsense has to take over. Despite that these are guidelines we are discussing, and despite the fact that no rule here is hidebound (+IAR), there is no denying the tendency of some to treat any written down rule as obdurate, often without consideration of whether it's marked policy, guideline or even essay. But when we write them and when we consider changing them, we must not travel down the road of bowing to how they may be misinterpreted or treated as something they are not. So yes, sure, this may come up but so what? And even if some technocrat fastens onto the letter of the rule, we always have WP:NOT#NEWS.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Dice Clay stubbified

This is notification that I have blanked the article Andrew Dice Clay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for constant violations of our policy on biographies of living individuals, in particular: "Obvious bias unfixed for three months; only two references for 20kb". I request that all editors do not revert, but work to include verifiable material. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, wow. That article sucked pretty bad. Nice job. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that was throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Looking through the removed material there is material which is obvious and non-controversial, like his brekthrough films etc. I do agree some of it needs referencing though. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that was throwing out the baby with the bathwater. not really, if an editor thinks there is a serious problem with an article and he thinks stubbing it is the best way to go - he should do it. The material is all still there and can be restored on review. It's better to have a one line BLP than one that is incorrect or slanted. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I can recall alot of those things mentioned happening, but I am not so good at sourcing hollywood stuff as I am science and medicine material. Are any of you guys familiar with the Diceman? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're doing a fine job so far. Some of the stuff Sceptre removed was sourced by Youtube of all things! —Wknight94 (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this on AN? 86.44.20.40 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To alert administrators of a future problem? I don't have a big qualm with that. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Vous en avez pas marre d'ergoter à l'infini sur votre site communautaire à la con, sans déc ? Herve661 (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Donnez-moi les pommes de terre. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Unified-login SUL issues

I (finally) got motivated enough to try my hand at unifying my login. It was successful except for the following sites (I added annotations on each one):

• de.wikipedia.org benutzer:Alexf exists but is inactive since December 13, 2007
• fr.wikipedia.org Utilisateur: Alexf exists and is active
• it.wikipedia.org Utente:Alexf exists but is inactive since October 19, 2007
• it.wikiquote.org Utente:Alexf does not seem to exist
• pt.wikipedia.org Usuário:Alexf exists and is active
• ru.wikipedia.org Alexf exists and is active

Does anybody know the page to contact a bureaucrat in German and Italian? Or maybe someone reading this is an editor in these sites and can help me. I do not read German and don't know where to post (I assume posting in English there would be OK for this). I'd like to usurp the name in the unused sites, but probably will have trouble in French, Portuguese and Russian where the users with my same name (unrelated) are active. Let's take it one at a time anyway. Thanks for any pointers. -- Alexf⁴² 22:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Forget it for de. Someone made a couple hundred edits under Benutzer:Horologium in 2006 (last edit in October 2006), and they would not allow me to usurp. What's frustrating is that the user does not have e-mail enabled, and his (now dormant) account at en.wp (User:Horologii) also doesn't have e-mail enabled. de.wp will not do any usurpation as long as there is even one valid edit. Horologium (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, is there a reason you are concerned about obtaining your username for projects on which you don't speak the language? –xeno (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As said below, I sometimes like to add interwiki links., I do a lot of translations (mainly from Spanish to English) and then I go to es:WP and add the en.interwiki link. I'd like to do the same in other languages. NBD anyway. Thanks -- Alexf⁴² 23:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may interject, it can be useful for small things such as adding interwiki links, as well as preventing someone from impersonating you on other projects. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak Spanish (much), French (much), Italian (at all), Polish (at all), Dutch (at all), or Occitan (at all), yet I have contributions at all of them; in fact, I have created (stub) articles at all but the last two. While understanding a language makes it much easier to edit in that language, there are some functions that can be done without understanding the language. My creations have been cities in Florida which were lacking articles in the Spanish, French, Italian, and Polish Wikipedias, and simple updates in the Occitan and Dutch Wikipedias. (The Occitan article on Florida still had Jeb Bush listed as governor; he's been out of office for a while now.) I'll never be as active in the other wikipedias as I am here at en.wp, but I still can contribute. FWIW, Babelfish can help with translation from other Wikipedias as well, especially if one is familiar with the subject. Sometimes the articles may need some copy-editing from a native speaker, but it's easier to copy-edit an article that already exists than to create one from scratch. Horologium (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. No doubt you know this Alexf, but if you don't find users speaking the languages you need here you could always search the user cats and "what links here" for {{User fr}} for example. –xeno (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. -- Alexf⁴² 23:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Following the interwiki links from WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U on this project is usually a good way of tracking down pages with similar functions on other language projects. WJBscribe (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Good point Thanks! -- Alexf⁴² 23:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw, if you haven't used it already SUL:Alexf is a good way to check the SUL status across wikis. You should be fine to usurp the zero edit accounts on the French and Portuguese wikis. The others will depend on local policies for renaming accounts with edits. WJBscribe (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I had found and run that app just before I read your message. I also already applied in French and found a bureaucrat in Russian that speaks English, and posted a request in his talk page. Will do Portuguese next (a language I fortunately do speak). -- Alexf⁴² 23:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

For all the good it will do, here is the link on de.wp: w:de:Hilfe:Benutzernamen ändern/Benutzernamens-Übernahme. You can post in English, as at least one of their 'crats (w:de:Benutzer:Raymond) speaks English. You will likely end up on the same list as a bunch of us: w:de:Hilfe:Benutzernamen ändern/Problemfälle, which is the holding pen for people who want to usurp dormant accounts with valid edits. There's a guy on there with a global account who is held up by someone who made 27 edits in April 2003. That's just stupid. Horologium (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't perform the same request here. The problem is that some people suggest renaming people with non trivial edits without their permission violates the GFDL - in particular the obligation to "preserve the section entitled history". My argument has been that as long as we rename them to something that includes the old name (e.g. "Alexf" → "Alexf (renamed)"), we are simply adding extra info to that section, not altering existing information. That opinion is not uniformly held however and there has yet to be word on this matter from the Foundation. Without the go ahead from the Foundation's legal team that such renames are compatible with the GFDL I can understand - and share - the reluctance of bureaucrats to perform these requests. WJBscribe (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone applied boot to posterior to get a definitive answer from the legal team? Sometimes a little pressure will result in an answer. I would imagine that you bureaucrats (who have to deal with all of this) would be eager to see a resolution. BTW, the (renamed) or (usurped) tag is a great solution, especially when dealing with people who have turned off their e-mail (like Benutzer:Horologium) or never had it enabled (most of the other people on that list over at de.wp fall into that category). Horologium (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I also saw a guy with only 1 edit from Jan 2004 and that's it. You are right. Makes no sense. I read their request page (some are in English) and found this answer: "Nein, sorry, but it is not allowed on de.wp to usurp accounts with valid contributions. I have put your request on Hilfe:Benutzernamen ändern/Problemfälle for a solution in the future." I won't bother with German then. -- Alexf⁴² 00:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the response I got. I suspect that Raymond has a macro set up to type that out for all of the English speakers who have been requesting usurpation. Horologium (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review

User:Pats1 and I were unable to come to an agreement on his talk page, so I'd like some other opinions. Pats1 blocked Edtrash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a vandalism-only account due to this series of edits. I think this is a gross overreaction; most of this user's other edits appear to be just fine, and I believe a warning would have been sufficient in this case. Pats1 contends this was an appropriate block and refuses to lift it. Thoughts? --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a little extreme - the user's never been welcomed, never been warned, and hasn't even been given a blocked template with instructions on requesting unblock. I'd support unblocking with a stern warning. –xeno (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A warning would have been appropriate. A block is absolutely inappropriate and abusive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. While I wouldn't quite classify it as vandalism-only, It's definitely an anti-Patriots POV. I don't support an indefblock because there was no warnings on the talk page, and no attempts to discuss with them. Reduce to time served, post to their page that inserting anti-Patriots POV won't fly, and point them to our policies. SirFozzie (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The edits are unsourced and rather unhelpful but not vandalism, more like those of an over-eager newbie who truly does not understand Wikipedia. Meanwhile there is zero discussion on this user's talk page, not even a block notice. This block mustn't stand and should never have been made without warning and not for vandalism. I could understand a block for disruption after discussion about the need for sourcing, what article talk pages are for and consensus, but this seems beyond the pale to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I unblock this editor now? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus seems clear. –xeno (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer giving Pats1 a few hours to undo it himself, but in general, I have no problem with the unblock. SirFozzie (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

":It is a sound block, and it won't be lifted by me" - Pat's most recent edit. –xeno (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The half hour consensus by 5 people, now that is efficient. Chillum 01:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What about the standing community consensus to adequately warn users? (or warn them at all, for that matter) And the one against biting newcomers? I don't see as we need an hour long discussion to reverse this action. –xeno (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What about it? I also think the block was not the best way to proceed. I appreciate efficiency. Chillum 01:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - tone of voice does not come through well in text. –xeno (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I understood you Chillum but it's true, I had to read it twice! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

<sincere>Indeed, it is a real problem</sincere>, <sarcasm>I am sure we will solve it soon</sarcasm>. Chillum 01:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked. No way should this block have been made, the edits weren't vandalism (they may have been disruption) and there was no warning. We give lots of straight vandals 3-5 warnings before a block and even then it's not likely to be indefinite. Moreover, it looks to me like the blocking admin was involved in article content. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I predict the user will recidivate and be re-blocked before long, but I agree that the user has made enough good-faith edits to deserve warnings - more than one in fact. If the contributions are filled with nothing but "replaced content with 'YOU SUCK!!!!'", then a warningless block is fine - otherwise, warnings are in order. For the record, I wouldn't consider Pats1 an overly-involved admin in this case. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I believe you about involvement, I also agree the user seems likely to be blocked again (if he comes back) but the edits weren't vandalism and there was no warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I just read this, read the talk pages, reviewed the diffs, and this is complete abuse of administrator block privileges. Tan ǀ 39 03:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hardly the first or likely to be the last example of such abuse. Administrators need to be held to account for their abuses; not protected by the medieval guild system that seems to prevail here. How long before adminship becomes inheritable? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

From the sounds of it, Pats1 had a rough day. Hopefully it won't happen again and hopefully Edtrash will return with some better edits. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Well, not just a rough day - more like a rough past year. I've cleaned up hundreds upon hundreds of cases of users tagging every instance of "Patriots" or "Belichick" in articles with asterisks or "gay" or "cheater" since Spygate (hell, in the meantime, I wrote 99% of that article myself from scratch) in September. Most main Patriots articles have gotten lengthy protection at one point or another. It's been brutal, and besides vandalism to my user page for it, I've also had to full protect blocked users' user pages as they would continue to spew all of their garbage. This particular user may have been a little less obvious than others, but I've seen enough of this (as an admin "specializing" in WP:NFL) to know that saying the user "didn't understand Wikipedia" is probably taking AGF too far. Without my tireless efforts on a daily basis over the past year plus, NFL-related Wiki articles would suffer. There are times when I feel I'm going at it alone (well, aside from my trusty friend ClueBot) and I have to make a judgment call based off my experience in the matter. Pats1 ^T/C 03:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

From the sounds of it you're a fellow member of the guild, protecting another member who has clearly behaved abusively. Would you be so forgiving to a non-guild member? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems extremely naive to view admins as a monolithic, unified guild. To the extent that admins cut each other some slack, it's probably empathy more than anything else. The burnout rate is ferocious. People look over your shoulder waiting to yell "abuse! abuse!", and various forums are dedicated to critiquing your actions in terms ranging from the arguably fair to the legally actionable. There's always the threat that you'll be struck by a lightning bolt from Olympus without warning, and if you're lucky enough to anger a particularly obsessive headcase, you may find yourself pursued through cyberspace and real life as if you'd killed someone's child, rather than prevented them from contributing to a specific online forum.

Some might even call that "accountability". All for a zero-figure salary. Look, it's a volunteer job, and I do it cause I want to, but is it really so hard to understand why people in this situation sometimes give each other the benefit of the doubt or support each other? Do you think that making the atmosphere more polarized is going to convince people to uncircle the wagons? MastCell ^Talk 03:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh come now, a bad block does not equal abuse. The term abuse is bandied about far to often around here. Chillum 03:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is. But then, perhaps you've never been blocked by an admin who's just "having a bad day" yourself? try it, see how it feels. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec, reply to Chillum) Disagree. I can abuse anything once, twice, many times. A problem does not have to be persistent to be labeled abuse. Call it "misuse" if you want to avoid the a-word. It was a knee-jerk, irresponsible block. I'm not calling for action, but Pats1 hasn't even come close to being contrite - in fact he has a "fuck you, I'm right and everone else is wrong" attitude. Defend it if you want, I call it abuse. Tan ǀ 39 03:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, abuse implies bad faith, and I don't think there was any bad faith here. Bad block, undone, no bad faith. And Tan, don't put things in quotes when it is not a quote but rather an exaggerated paraphrasing, unless I am wrong and that was what was said in which case a diff would be nice. Chillum 03:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I wasn't quoting you. I was giving you an alternate wording. Great attitude tho, A for effort. Tan ǀ 39 03:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Abuse implies bad behaviour, not bad faith. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just like we don't (shouldn't) block people for one bad edit, we also don't make a federal case from one ill-advised block. So you can put away the propaganda generator now. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think every admin can fuck up occasionally without being de-sysopped - at least, I hope so. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Talking to those who cannot, or will not hear, is clearly unproductive. Which is why I rarely have very much to say to administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This all being said and my snaps with Chillum notwithstanding, I will say that I DO agree that bad blocks can happen, that abuse doesn't always have to be a big dramatic issue, and that we can all just forget it and move on. I can abuse my tools in a moment of heated debate or polarizing anger; I hope one block doesn't desysop me. However, it just would have been nice to see some admission that it was a bad block. Tan ǀ 39 03:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum, I think everyone hears you just fine - and it sounds like you're going too far. Edtrash is unblocked, Pats1 is presumably sleeping it off, so show's over IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

BLP problems at Joel C. Rosenberg.

Sorry if this is the wrong place. I'd like someone to look at the recent changes to Joel C. Rosenberg. I think I've been right to revert some of the edits, but two IP editors have been putting it back. Seeing as how I don't _like_ the man at all, I really don't want to be the guardian of his good name... Thanks. Hobit (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not in bad shape right now. I'll watchlist it, but right now it's not crying for any semi-protection. I'm about to go to bed, so if much more happens in the next few hours someone should at least temporarly sproctect it. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 04:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I stripped it and watchlisted it. If it gets hit again, I'll protect. FCYTravis (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:BLPN in the future for this sort of issue. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

McCain and Obama

This should perhaps more properly be requested at VP, but I would like to request anyone who thinks they can help preserve NPOV in the face of extremely partisan bickering watch John McCain and Barack Obama at least until the forthcoming US election in November. I put both of these on my watchlist a few weeks ago and have now been sucked into both of these. I guess it's not overly surprising that these articles (and related articles, like Project Vote) seem to be attracting, um, heated debate, and the articles themselves at this point aren't too bad, but the talk pages are quite active. I haven't frequented pages like this in the past, and maybe it's all perfectly normal, but I'm about at the point where if it were up to me I'd ban anyone with an IP address originating in the US from editing either of these (and have suggested Jimbo consider radical action). In any event, I suspect it's going to get a lot worse until November and the more folks who understand NPOV who are willing to watch these pages the better. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's inevitable that these two articles are going to get a lot of attention until the election, with one of them getting a whole lot of attention for the next four to eight years. The two pages and Talk:Barack Obama have been semi-protected (I think Talk:John McCain will be too sooner or later), so there's not much we can do about IPs. Given the current states of the articles and the prominence of their subjects, there's isn't really much to do other than watch and wait. Arguably, the article that's facing more controversy than these two is United States presidential election, 2008, mostly over the infobox. —Kurykh 05:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

One possibility is that the pages get full protection, and that any changes to the article would have to be proposed and discussed on the talk page to the point that there is consensus on the talk page for the change. There should also be a warning that anyone found to be using obstructionist techniques to block consensus would be banned from the page. There could be a "zero tolerance" policy for personal attacks and other uncivil behavior. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Long-term full protection is considered harmful. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Long term full protection will stir up much more harm than help. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

XKCD Alert!

Resolved

 – Semi-protected by Bjweeks. - Icewedge (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Deconstruction got a mention in today's comic, and it's already getting vandalism. It could use a couple more eyes on it for now, and maybe a semi-protect later. Paragon12321 (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please review

This relates to Robbie Glover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The timeline is more or less as follows:

• In December 2007 we received a complaint from MN8 that someone was using their article to promote a singer, Robbie Glover, as an associated act. The complaint stated that this was false - "The band are not linked to Robbie Glover or his project in any way." VRTS ticket # 1242947
• I investigated the complaint and found that the article Robbie Glover was heavily promotional and edited solely by a single-purpose account, Crazymusicman2k (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs), which was also responsible for the problem with MN8.
• I conducted the usual "Google test", which yielded very few hits for "Robbie Glover" +singer; none of these hits looked to be a non-trivial reliable source. Right now Google gives around 600 hits of which around 140 are unique (search result), some at least of which are unrelated.
• While investigating I found VRTS ticket # 2006122910011329 from 2006 in which Robbie Glover complains that there is no article on him. His email address common name is Robbieglover2k, note the similarity to the WP:SPA Crazymusicman2k.
• I deleted the Robbie Glover article as WP:CSD#G11.
• It was re-created in March, again heavily promotional, again by a SPA, this time Officialrobbieglover (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs). I G11 deleted it again.
• Glover then complained to OTRS, VRTS ticket # 2008031510014321 which complaints made it plain that both accounts (Crazymusicman2k and Officialrobbieglover) were indeed the subject himself, which explains why they read to me as vanity.
• A couple of days ago the talk page popped up on my watchlist with a long discourse on how wonderful Robbie Glover is and how we should have an article, so I nuked that as the same self-promotion. I deleted this as spam, since all the arguments were already contained in the OTRS tickets and had been reviewed.
• Glover has now complained again to OTRS, making it clear once again that the talk page was him, VRTS ticket # 2008071710028742

Back in March I checked the supposed sources Glover listed, which were pretty much the same sources he included in the talk page I deleted. These are:

• http://www.discogs.com/release/1117272 - Discogs (Vinyl Release), a directory, "Vinyl, 12", EP, Partially Unofficial", Glover appears on one of two tracks on the B side.
• http://www.channel4.com/music/mymusic/E/e4musicvideo.html - E4 competition for unsigned acts, I suspect that this competition is the driver for wanting a Wikipedia article right now.
• http://www.akagraham.com - "Official Movie Site for Cinema release" does not mention Glover. See also User:JzG/Nigel Foster, someone who has been on a movie soundtrack and is I think just over the notability boundary, but I don't yet have sufficient independent sources.
• http://www.sound-leisure.com - "Sound Leisure Website (UK's Digital Leading Jukebox Suppliers in bars)" - directory listing
• http://www.robbieglover.com - Official Site
• http://www.myspace.com/robbieglover - Official Website
• http://www.youtube.com/robbiegloverofficial - "Official Youtube (Includes his ITV interviews for his HIT OF THE YEAR TV APPEARANCES & Hit single)" - er, not quite; the whole "Ft. Dee Tails of MN8" thing appears to eb rather misleading, it looks like Glover just mixed in that voice, the OTRS ticket from Dee Tails makes it plain that he did not actually collaborate in that project in any way.

Among the other claims I waded through was a claim to a No. 1 and "People's Choice" award "across Southern and Central Europe". This does not quite stand up: the sources (which are a couple of very short pieces from tabloids and YouTubes of two local news segments on morning TV) actually say that he's had a surprise hit in Macedonia, but that the radio station concerned paid no royalties because they downloaded the music for free. One of the pieces calls him a "struggling singer" and says that in Britain he is "virtually unknown". Hard to argue.

Here's an example of the kind of stretching that's going on: this picture is presented as "in Matt Goss video" - but all we see is one shot of the back of Glover's head, an apparent extra in a video for someone who is, in any case, a very long way from the A list. Sorry, age and many vanity spammers have made me cynical, I find that deficient as evidence of notability.

So: we have a young, apparently unsigned singer, who appears to have no representation (all the emails are from him directly), who says he went solo in 2000 and has been trying since 2006 to get an article on himself into Wikipedia, who asserts that "various people all over the net have [..] requested an article submission" but none of those people have ever come to Wikipedia, only the subject himself. He asserts that he has "no need" of a Wikipedia article, but has been trying via edits and emails since 2006 to achieve just that. He asserts that this is (his emphasis) an official legit wikipedia for Robbie Glover done by an OFFICIAL WIKI MOD OR REPUTABLE SOURCE, and it is essentially this that I am passing on.

Now, I am a heartless bastard and as subject as anyone to cognitive dissonance, the more a subject insists on their own importance and agitates for an article, the more inclined I am to be sceptical of their claims and sources. In this case the "sources" appear to me to be either original research, provably not indpendent, unreliable or trivial. If they are sources at all, I would argue that a still from a Matt Goss video showing the back of your head is not really a source as such. The sources which do exist are I think all related to the Macedonia business; there might be sufficient for a v very short article based on that one incident, but it looks to me to fail WP:BLP1E.

He states that he went solo in 2000, and that means seven or eight years in which he could have made a name for himself and appears not to have done so. I can't trace any evidence that he has achieved any kind of success or note outside of Macedonia. Perhaps the Macedonian Wikipedia has an article, I don't know. Either way, the people asking for an article thus far have been Robbie Glover, Robbie Glover, Robbie Glover and... Robbie Glover. My mean, heartless, callous side tells me that if the only person who's ever asked for an article is the subject, then the article is intended to benefit the subject rather than Wikipedia. Yes, that makes me a bad and cynical person.

If anybody here who is not Robbie Glover thinks we should have an article on the guy, and fancies helping him out, and thinks they can stop him turning any article into another piece of vapid self-promotion, then perhaps they would step up to the plate. I will remove the redlinks from my watchlist. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, delicious. But why ask on this page, populated as it is by heartless bastards such as yourself? Here you and Robbie will learn of an experienced and far more sympathetic Wikipedia user. -- Hoary (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Gee, and here I was starting to believe all those things that they say about you. :) I think you have this one nailed. -- Donald Albury 11:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Just a heads-up, Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is back and is making blocks without any talk page messages being posted to the blockee (and is also blocking account creation for IP blocks)Apparently standard practice, never mind. SOme are being blocked for obvious vandalism, others I can't figure out why they were blocked (for example, 194.74.190.163 (talk · contribs)). I know this was identified as a problem a while back, resulting in a request for arbitration and a note from an arbitrator on CSCWEM's talk page. I think the consensus was to allow him to come back and respond before desysopping (his e-mail is still disabled), but it appears that blocking has resumed without a response. Kelly ^hi! 11:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

194.74.190.163 was presumably blocked for this. --CBD 11:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And blocking account creation is standard practice for vandalism blocks. It's only disabled for softblocks. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yabbut there appears to be no real warning, and the more recent edits from that IP (probably a different person) are constructive. There's no block message on the talk page, either. However, this was just one minor part of a larger problem. Kelly ^hi! 11:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've notified the user. This should have been done before bringing it here. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have done, but that has apparently been done frequently in the past and he simply does not respond. Kelly ^hi! 11:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice right away that the issue was already on this page a few minutes before. Anyway, this is what I wanted to say. User 194.74.190.163 (talk · contribs) was blocked for 6 months by Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs) a few days after I left a vandalism warning and {{SharedIPEDU}} on the IP's talk page. I don't understand the reason for the block. The IP is a shared ip address of a school and the majority of the edits is constructive, including several edits after the vandalism on Dubai and Laser. Given the messages on the talk page of Can't sleep I don't think it is meaningful to ask Can't sleep for clarification. (Too bad, Can't sleep has done so much vandalism fighting in the past) I hereby request unblocking of this IP. Han-Kwang (t) 11:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, here is the previous discussion from WP:RFAR. Kelly ^hi! 11:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think if CSCWEM can't be bothered to respond to any of the concerns from earlier, or even to look in his talkpage archives and post an acknowledgment or verbal communication of any kind, then we ought not extend him further benefit of the doubt. Uncommunicative admins with a recent history of questionable blocks should be desysopped until they provide an explanation - the only reason that didn't happen before is because CSCWEM was presumed to be on wiki-break and it was hoped he'd return and explain. Avruch ^T 12:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Someone, anyone, submit a further RFArb, linking to the old one ([10]) which was rejected until and unless CSCWEM resumed blocking without communication. It's not even worth blocking him, as you can, I believe, still block others whilst blocked yourself. Neıl ☄ 12:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You can block and unblock others while blocked, so I concur that a block in this instance is worthless. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Before the discussion gets too long, I'd just like to point out that notifying blocked IPs on their talk page isn't really something one should attach too much significance to: talk page message notification (the "orange bar") for anons is somewhat unreliable, and in any case will only notify one user even if there are several behind the IP. The really important notification, which the users will actually see, is the block message itself, which CSCWEM seems to be filling in reasonably well (for example with "{{anon block}}"). The same applies, to a lesser extent, to warnings: if you warn a shared school IP on its talk page, the odds are the user who sees the warning will not be the one who vandalized. Having taken a quick look at CSCWEM's block log, I'm not convinced they're actually doing anything wrong — other than not discussing their rationale for the blocks, for which we should really give them some time (this thread was started several hours after CSCWEM's last edit or admin action), and maybe being a bit too hasty with the block length (though, honestly, 6 months is not unreasonable for a {{schoolblock}} for long-term vandalism, considering that it can always be lifted if it's a problem, and I've done a few indefs myself in such cases after consulting the school administration via e-mail). There may well be genuine issues here (I do feel that all admins should be willing to discuss and justify their actions), but before jerking your knee and crying "6 month block without warning!", it's worth actually considering if, under the circumstances, a warning would've done any good (or even been seen by the intended party), and whether a six-month anon only block of a school IP is really likely to be a significant hindrance to legitimate editing (please read the templates I've linked above). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue of notification is important, generally speaking, but irrelevant to this situation in my opinion. Given his history over the last few months, and the nature of the blocks he's been handing out during that period, and the fact that he is completely uncommunicative and has been throughout, it is about time that steps be taken to revoke his bit until he can explain himself fully. Avruch ^T 12:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I know, he was supposed to check in with ArbCom before performing any more administrative actions. –xeno (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• I previously brought a Request for Arbitration regarding CSCWEM's similar actions, which was rejected per this diff. The point of non-communication was noted by the Arbs, and it may be an idea to contact FT2 (who gave the opinion that other Arbs concurred with in rejecting the request) for his opinion before considering what further action might be taken. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Even though the case was rejected as such, would a request for clarification be in order? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The statement by FT2 on CSCWEM's talk page seem to indicate that unless the channels of communication are opened, the bit will be removed:

“ Can you just make sure that if/as/when you do return to block a problem editor, you'll be able to respond well to any block discussion and unblock requests by others, and maybe also drop a note here in reply to confirm that's all taken care of, or just let people know what the status quo is, and if all's okay. It matters :-)

... When you get a chance, please let other users know it's fixed and will be okay, before resuming use of these tools. If you don't then the bit will likely be temporarily removed purely until communication's resolved, and - it should be added - without at that point being "under a cloud" at all. But the tools need good care and part of that has got to be responsiveness if they're going to be used. ... FT2 (Talk / email) 03:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

”

so, definately he should be contacted. –xeno (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think FT2 should be asked whether a clarification, or a new request noting the previous one, would be the way to proceed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Neil, Xeno, and I have tag-team pinged FT2, and I think we should wait a bit for his response. No objection to a new case referencing the old one if a response is not forthcoming. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Waiting for FT2 to respond seems to be the right course of action. @Ilmari Karonen: That's all fine and good, but the point is that CSCWEM is not responding to any queries. If someone said, "Hey, I'm concerned about your block without warning," and he said, "IP addresses really don't get warnings, so what's the point," we probably wouldn't even still be discussing this. (On a side note, I think the orange bar is more reliable for IPs than it used to be, but as you point out it can inherently never be perfect) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

CSCWEM is choosing to disrupt Wikipedia by a long-term refusal to collaborate with other editors. He is misusing his admin tools, and the complete failure to respond to concerns shews that he is acting in bad faith. Either that, or his account has been hijacked. Admins either can't or won't stop him, and Arbcom is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. DuncanHill (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

admins can't or won't stop him... A 'crat is needed to desysop, and blocking would be pointless, since CSCWEM isn't trying to edit anyway (heh, in fact that's the whole problem).

I'd be really surprised if the Committee did not take action this time. The only reason they didn't last time is because they wanted to give him a chance to respond. Now that he is clearly active and still not responding, that logic fails.

Though I suppose the Committee could say that since he's now inactive again... No, no, I don't even want to think about it! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The last time it was brought forward, the blocks were a few days old, so they gave him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he should be afforded any such benefit this time. And I don't think a 'crat can desysop, it has to be ArbCom or a steward. –xeno (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks for the clarification - now, if anyone knows which idiot obviously jolly nice (but perhaps slightly less sharp than a sharp thing) person set things up to allow blocked admins to carry on blocking others.... DuncanHill (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Oh yeah, duh, you're right. I remembered it does not necessarily need to be ArbCom (see the Zoe/RickK case above) but I got the wrong title for who could do it :) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, stewards will typically only act in an emergency fashion though, AFAIK. –xeno (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Crats can't desysop, only stewards can (and Jimbo, and devs). They will do so only if a) it's an obvious emergency b) the user self-requests it or c) the Arbitration Committee request it. Neıl ☄ 14:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I got it wrong. I have struck the initial comment to avoid confusion.

I know there are conditions on when they are supposed to, I was just addressing DH's assertion that the admins "can't or won't" do anything about it. If, hypothetically, ArbCom were to choose not to do anything, DH would be accurate if he said "The stewards won't do anything about it." I can't imagine ArbCom not taking action, though, so I think it's a moot point. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• FT2 responded and noted that the committee is looking into this. –xeno (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

  There we go. I would imagine it will be something along the lines "desysop with no prejudice, to be restored only when CSCWEM starts communicating, explains himself, and makes a case for getting the tools back". Neıl ☄ 14:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

  If it were worded in that way, I certainly hope emphasis would be put on "and makes a case for getting the tools back". With so many bad blocks, over such a long period of time, he'd have zero chance at RfA. - auburnpilot talk 15:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Then why should he be allowed to have the tools back at all? Why all this navel-gazing? Poor administrators ought to be sacked. Period. It's no big deal, right? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We made a case for that last time, ArbCom deferred, and here we are. –xeno (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's become clear to me over time that once you pass an RfA, you are basically "tenured" -- and I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing. Admins get a lot of abuse from certain elements of the community, and if it were easy to desysop someone, admins would constantly live in fear of losing the mop because they crossed the wrong pov warrior. Same reason why no country except the US elects its judges (and we only do it at the local level). It's too easy for temporary popular opinion to swing against an admin.

That said, this desysopping should be relatively uncontroversial, since the user is inactive except to show up every couple of months and make a handful of blocks with a 40% success rate of not being overturned... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Reviews of the blocks and actions taken

Of the 5 users he kicked, I certainly disagree with the block of 65.69.81.2, apparently for two (somewhat) disruptive edits made more then two weeks ago.[11][12] Perhaps I'm missing something, but that doesn't sound like a good reason for a 6 month hard-block without any prior warning. Can someone please remove that block? Cheers, Face 12:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That... really does seem dubious. I certainly hope it wasn't for those two edits, given that, though a bit trollish, both seem nonetheless legitimate. In fact, looking at the IP's latest 50 contribs, their edits to article space seem overall positive. The worst I see in the list is this from early May. If the block was for the talk page trolling (which, incidentally, isn't limited to those two edits), it certainly deserves a clarification, since that's not our usual way of dealing with such behavior. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This block should be lifted immediately. Last edit July 2? Block are preventative, not punitive. –xeno (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion of this particular block down here to draw attention to it, I think the IP should be unblocked immediately. The block is wholly inappropriately. –xeno (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree in principle that it's a bad block, as there was no further warning for a shared IP that might be different people between blocks, and 6 months is quite harsh (the next tier of blocks I would have placed would have been 2 weeks, I think). That said, I'm confused about the constructive edits from this IP, in that I can't find any. There are some less disruptive edits, but I'm not seeing much substance. In the absence of an unblock request, I'm not seeing a really good reason to unblock. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

2 weeks would've been appropriate if they had been actively vandalizing, but there hasn't been an edit from that IP in weeks. –xeno (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(ECx4) Agree with the unblock. I went from yeah maybe to I'm inclined to unblock to this in edit conflict after edit conflict. I'll also watchlist the talk page, and keep an eye on the IP - just in case. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching the talk page too. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite - should we take a look at the other four blocks from this morning? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• User:GTAsoldier: Too many copyvios and noodling edits for me to unblock without talking with the editor first, not an IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. –xeno (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• User:97.100.103.139: Limited contribs, vandal only, but only blocked for a day. 13:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Might as well leave it. –xeno (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• User:165.130.136.208: Steady, vandalism only contribs, no need to unblock straight off. Sampled the edits again, may be multiple users here, dropped block to one week for vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse softening. –xeno (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• User:194.74.190.163: Clearly multiple users here, I've unblocked for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse, most recent edits were in good faith. –xeno (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So, out of 5 blocks, only 2 look ok to me. I've unblocked 2 IPs and lessened one to a week. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it strange that CWCWEM makes a load of moves/blocks/warnings in a very short space of time, then disappears into the middle of nowhere again. Since March 15th, he became very briefly active on April 1st, but that was only for three minutes, and since then all the things he has done are admin related. Any possible chance that the account is compromised? Does CWCWEM tend to not respond to messages on the talkpage? I just find it weird how he's active for a very short space of time then re-disappears into thin air. Although CSCWEM doesn't have e-mail activated, he does have his e-mail addresses listed on the right side of his userpage. Has anyone tried contacting him through them? D.M.N. (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, those actions don't really make sense for a compromised account. –xeno (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It all looks kinda pointy to me, rather than say a password breach. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The likelihood of this being a compromised account is not great. Not being open to discussion is very much the standard procedure for CSCWEM. - auburnpilot talk 15:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I was warning about this problem in October 2006 [|on this very board]. I was told to stop trolling, called stupid, dismissed out of hand, had my motivations questions and mud thrown at me on other matters. I hope everyone is very proud of themselves. Splash - tk 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Shalom

I am leaving Wikipedia. See my talk page.

Please do the following:

1. Full-protect my userpage.
2. Courtesy-blank all four of my requests for adminship.

Thank you. Yechiel (Shalom) 15:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done the first, I'll leave it up to someone with more experience to deal with the second request. –xeno (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sad to see that you are leaving. I have complied with your second request, if that's the least I can do for you. bibliomaniac15 16:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Need some admin opinions

Is it not abuse of admin privilidges/against the protection policy to protect a page to 1. your own preferred version and 2. a page you are directly involved in editing, and have edit warred on in the past? Or has the protection policy changed?pschemp | talk 16:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you give us some diffs, please? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Echoing Gwen Gale, but yes, that is generally considered abuse of admin privileges. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(after e/c) Impossible to say without context. If it were blatant vandalism or a WP:BLP concern, for example, then it would absolutely not be against policy. If it's a pure pov dispute, then yes, that would look pretty bad. And obviously there is a whole continuum of different possibilities in between.

Have you contacted the admin in question and asked them to explain their reasoning first? I saw a case earlier today where somebody raised an ANI about an admin doing just that, and the admin has already changed his mind and reverted back to the other (his non-preferred) version before he even saw the ANI thread... Most people are reasonable if approached reasonably, and those who are not, well, it is impossible to answer a hypothetical like this. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

LEt me tell you what, reasoning or not, it's against the policy to protect to your preferred version. The admin makes the change here [13] a short edit war ensued, he participates here [14] then protects his favored version here [15]. This admin has previously (about two weeks ago) edit warred about the EXACT same thing, which I as an uninvolved admin, protected the page to stop the edit warring. THis same admin then undid the protection then, even though he was involved - so I'm getting pretty tired of what I see as blatant misuse of the protection button on his behalf on this article where he is clearly involved and clearly using the tools to push his opinion. Doing it once you can claim ignorance. Doing it multiple times, no. pschemp | talk 16:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So do we have duplicate threads? seicer | talk | contribs 16:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend as a punishment that seicer be forced to personally unprotect the article, revert back to his non-preferred version, and then re-protect the article in the state that pschemp protected it in.

Oh wait. He already did that? Well, then WP:TROUT him or something. I just don't see the big deal here. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, he subsequently changed the version (again) to something he preferred,[16] without removing the protection. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The big deal is that Seicer is showing a pattern of misbehavior on this article, and it is not acceptable. These aren't duplicated threads because the issue is repetition of abuse of the tools, and an ANI thread where instead of even acknowledging the fact this is not acceptable behaviour, you go along and act like what he did was right. He still has not put the page back to where it was before. Jaysweet, you obviously don't think he behavior is a problem, so I'd rather here from other admins who aren't biased. AND, the protection should not be done by him, at all, period. He is involved in the edit war. pschemp | talk 16:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh lookie, what a little discussion will do. There was no "edit war" -- two reverts over one day != edit war. So I made a mistake in protecting the article, but that was rectified before I was informed of the ANI thread -- who hasn't made a mistake? Oh wait... seicer | talk | contribs 16:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

REverting and re-reverting is an edit war, and you were involved in it. In fact, that's the reason we protect articles, to stop these things. If you weren't stopping an edit war, why did you protect? TO keep it at your preferred version? THis thread is here because you have misused the protection button multiple times on the same article and haven't put it back the way it was before you started this. (that means it shouldn't remain protected by you either, because you are CLEARLY involved.) pschemp | talk 16:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, three reverts (in order): [17] [18] [19]. As per what I've done in the past (since you stalk my edits, you would know), I would have taken it to the talk page past that point. seicer | talk | contribs 16:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been unfairly accused of sockpuppetry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Grant23 None of those people are me. When I tried to contact them to prove they weren't me, they were already blocked. Someone is out there trying to spread dirt on me because they themselves were accused of using sock puppets. help me clear my name pleaseGrant23 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)