Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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.
If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}}

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 seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither does google, heh. Reso lute 23:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thought I was really conservative. Not that much, apparently. I don't think this will turn out to be anything big. I still think, however, that a parental control option would be good. bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 23:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think we need to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allegations of Kiddie Porn?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On a related topic...

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

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

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

A solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it worth it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Schlafly

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

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

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

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

Erik Moller protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unauthorized bots

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request review of 2 week block of User:TTN

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

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

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

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

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

This is absurd wikilawyering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TTN has violated the ArbCom restrictions imposed on him at least three times since April 22. On April 23, TTN requested that Sgeureka redirect the Meowth article.[4] On May 8, TTN requested that the Bulbasaur article be redirected.[5] On May 11, TTN requested a merge of Sonic the Hedgehog character articles.[6][7] The sentence "He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate." does not allow him to violate the rest of the restriction: "TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly." --Pixelface (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ec) TTN posted on a project page requesting a redirect.[8] This is explicitly in violation of his restrictions, which regardless are supposed to be "interpreted broadly".[9] Contrary to some assertions, he was not responding to a prior conversation, but rather the first party acting.[10] I truly cannot fathom how an increased duration block for a blatant and unquestionable violation of ArbCom sanctions that are framed to be interpreted broadly should be in any way controversial. Vassyana (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pixelface

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over a week old
Already settled by discussion between Eusebeus and Jac16888 on their talk page
Already settled by a parallel discussion between me and Alaskan Assassin on my talk page? [11][12]
Doing this during the middle of this particular storm?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban for TTN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not the talk namespace. He requested a redirect in the project namespace, which is explicitly against his ArbCom restriction.[13] Vassyana (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TTN is prohibited...from making any edit to an article or project page...that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor. TTN started a discussion advocating a merge, the result of the arbcom made it clear thats he's not allowed to, and the arbcom clearly meant that a prohect page counts, otherwise why would they include it. While TTN probably should have only been blocked a week, as per the ruling, it should be noted that he hasn't requested an unblock himself--Jac16888 (talk) 05:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Encyclopedia Dramatica restored

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

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

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

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

zOMG - nuked!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

... and back again!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links everywhere

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Backlog

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

User:Desione

Is making several uphelpful edits on wikipedia, in particular on Invasion of Goa, which he decided to change without any concencous and totally off his own back the actual name of the page to `Liberation of Goa` as with edit [14]. Can you please help and administer this user. Please also see the concencous agreement for no change which was ignored by Desione [15]--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Barbara Bauer

Resolved

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

Due to the newfound newsworthiness of this subject (see, e.g. [16] [17] [18] [19] etc), I'd like to create a new page about her. However the page is currently protected from creation with the comment 'Per WP:ANI'. I can't find any discussion about protecting this page, though; the only reference to Barbara Bauer is in this discussion, which doesn't concern Bauer at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I had it wrong. Only the leading char is case insensitive: [20]. -- Agathoclea (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism only accounts

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

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

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

A couple of comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exposed - Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can check what Honest Reporting has to say about Hari's reponse: ([21]). Because this is a matter of strong opinions, even the moderators should check their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.9.167 (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

More coverage here from the Jewish Week News: [22] -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Oboler and "Zionism on the Web"

I see that Dr. Oboler (cited in the HonestReporting link above) has also written on this subject in the Jerusalem Post's online edition ([23]), and his own Zionism on the Web project ([24]). I suspect his assertion (in the JP article) that "Electronic Intifada is ringing alarm bells, probably because those getting involved are Jews and supporters of Israel" will be met with less than universal approval.

The latter article is particularly interesting for its efforts to determine the real-life identity of User:Bangpound. I'm using the term "interesting" because there's currently a Wikipedia editor named User:Oboler who openly identifies Andre Oboler ([25]), and is actively participating in debates on this subject. I was under the impression that "outing" rival editors is something that we're not supposed to do.

I also find it interesting that Dr. Oboler once had a habit of adding "Zionism on the Web" links to sites that he visited ([26], [27]). Given that Wikipedia's article about the site was deleted as non-notable ([28]), some might be tempted to interpret this as spamming. Admittedly, these links were posted some time ago and there probably isn't anything that need be done about it now ... but it still strikes me as ironic under the circumstances. CJCurrie (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanos Papalexis

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

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

Possible IP trolling at help desk

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

User:I LIVE IN A HAT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editing on page Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya or HEMU

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

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

Some personal attacks

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

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

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

Results of the ill-founded Betacommand decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because "Blocking or sanctioning Betacommand needs to be weighed against the generally productive and much needed work he brings to the project. He is honestly quite irreplacable…" [29] Mike R (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Odd new account creations?

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

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

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

TFA move protection

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

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

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

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

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

I concur with Gimmetrow. Raul654 (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solution

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

I was actually coming here to suggest that exactly that be done. This seems like an ideal task for a bot/script. Reso lute 18:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tor node

Resolved

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

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

Disgusting vandalism

Resolved

– warned, not active, moving on

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

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

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

24.3, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Grand master ka 08:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton (un)ban

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

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

Relevant links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In answer to the question of "why no?" I would direct people to MastCell's section below. He does not appear to have acknowledged that his blocking was in any way related to his behaviour, let alone resolved to change his behaviour. No one is beyond redemption, but there has to be, at the very least, a commitment to change. Guettarda (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deconstructing "recruiting meatpuppets"

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

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

Here Moulton calls for very specific edits to two specific articles: WikipediaReview, May 12, 2008 And here a new user, one who is engaged in the same behavior as Moulton in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose - Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets the very definition of a meatpuppet, making his first two and only edits in the article namespace matching Moulton's above requested content word-for-word within hours of Moulton's request: May 12, 2008 May 12, 2008 And here's the new editor acknowledging he acted in response to Moulton's call: [30] An editor who is engaged in the same behavior as Moulton and in the same context, and who appears to be editing solely for that purpose is by defintion Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets meatpuppetry. I have 16 more links of Moulton directing others, calling for certain edits. Would you like to go through each one as above? FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary section break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I corrected the admins to editors. My issue is how the RFC closed and how an involved editor carried out the block. I believe an uninvolved editor should have done this. Lara❤Love 21:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying meatpuppetry edits and banned users

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will not unban Moulton, as I am going out of town shortly and will not be around to be responsible for the consequences. However, as giving difficult users second chances is SOP, and given the issues surrounding the article and block, it seems that a second chance is appropriate. Thatcher 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though the editor does not seem to be aware of the problem with his behaviour? That seems rather odd. Guettarda (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In brief, yes. The block button will still be there in the event it is required again. Thatcher 19:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Odd. Then why do we permaban anyone at all? It seems to me that there needs to be, at the very least, some sort of assurance that the problematic behaviour will change, a willingness to abide by our core principles, like WP:V. Guettarda (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have blocked or banned (for example) Hkelkar and his socks so many times that it is clear he will never be an asset. I'm talking about a second chance, not a sixth. Thatcher 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my current position on the situation: User:Filll/Moultonunblock. If you want more details about the Picard biography and why it was a mess and why it remained a mess for a few months, then ask me and I will be happy to help you out. This is not the result of some nefarious plot or an attempt to smear someone or to get revenge. This has a far more prosaic set of reasons, and in fact I suggested repeatedly that we just delete the Picard biography if it was going to cause so much rancor, but I was overruled.--Filll (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why he was, and why he is, blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, after only a few exchanges with him, Moulton told me that "I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Wikipedia." [31] Also note in that diff that he had been confused by the use of sarcasm, and had not picked up on the misconceptions regarding his beliefs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not requesting an unblock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conversation with Moulton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete a redirect?

Resolved

– Redirect deleted. MBisanz ^talk 21:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halp, I stumbled on a Video Game stub named "Inside Moon" and found that the game is just called "Moon" so I moved the page but could someone delete the redirect? [32] It doesn't link anywhere. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Probably {{db-r3}} would fit better. But if it fits to two deletion criteria... well.. delete :-) - Nabla (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia logo

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

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

Murder of James Bulger is one example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New logo

Per WP:VPR#New logo, the replacement of the current logo seems to be non-controversial. As I was told at bugzilla:14137, in order to perform the replacement, the new image located currently at Image:WikiNew.png needs to be uploaded to Image:Wiki.png. I would do this myself but Image:Wiki.png is protected. Once this is done, the bugzilla ticket can be re-opened, and the devs will implement the change. If an admin could please perform the upload, I'll re-open the bugzilla ticket. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whaaaaa? This pic weighs in 105 KB, and our current logo is only 19. We can't replace it until it's optimised well. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to optimize. It seems User:Cryptic has done that now though (thanks Cryptic). The image weighs 23 kilograms, er, kilobytes now (teehee). If someone could now do the honors, I'd appreciate it, thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, hold on - whilst I agree the image is better, can I suggest that this is premature? Have images been created for all the other languages? We can't have them being different. When this is done, I think it would be a good idea, but give everyone time to comment. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of the other languages have already had their logos changed in this manner. I initially got the idea from the German Wikipedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the new logo cannot be in public domain, as the current logo is copyrighted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ignore my license summary, I just wanted to get the thing uploaded. We'll of course keep the current summary that already appears at Image:Wiki.png. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Most other languages already have smooth globes, and some (like German Wikipedia, whose globe we are now copying) have for years. It's EN that is a legacy. Dragons flight (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^Yup. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be done, please check the licensing and what not. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ryan, I've reopened the bugzilla ticket. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should also be an opportunity to also fix the invalid japanese (and there was one other language that also had a problem, I don't recall). It should be ウィ, not ワィ --Random832 (contribs) 20:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it will work that way, the logo issue in this case deals with the shades and layering of the entire image, which can be done post-original creation. I don't think the characters on the globe can be changed without the original rendering settings, which Nohat lost years ago. MBisanz ^talk 21:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be possible. We could do a new rendering of a simple sphere with the new correct symbols, then just take pieces of that and edit them into the present logo in 2-D. I'm not good with 3D rendering so this is beyond me, but just saying, I think it's possible. I don't think we need the entire original 3D source, necessarily. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referred to here (from Village pump). Why is this discussion taking place in AN? Anyway, I found this image [33] to be really nice and less intimating than the current one. It also shows there is a way to create something similar to the current logo from scratch. And, of course, if the logo were to be recreated, some erroneous scripts can be corrected once and for all. (I, though, concur with the argument that since Wikipedia contains errors always, that the logo contains errors is somehow fitting. But showing that we are ignorant of foreign scripts isn't terrible good, I think. Shouldn't we solicit more feedbacks from the community at large?) -- Taku (talk)

Courtesy de-sysop of The undertow

Following inquiries from the Arbitration Committee, The undertow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has requested that his sysop privileges be removed temporarily. Prior to any application to reinstate The_undertow's sysopship, the Arbitration Committee should be consulted.

For the Arbitration Committee.

James F. (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of clarity, is this resignation under controversial circumstances meaning an RfA is required, or is he free to regain them at any time after telling the committee? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is controversial, as the committee have to be consulted should he want resysopping. Al Tally (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. What did he do (did I miss some huge controversial thing)? 2. He has to tell ArbCom if someone wants to nominate him on RFA? FunPika 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"did I miss some huge controversial thing" - yes, yes you did. See RFAR. Raul654 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to mention that I have in the past protested Arbcom's claimed right to prevent a someone not a party to the case from nominating someone at RFA. (not that I intend to do so in this case) --Random832 (contribs) 04:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "courtesy de-sysop" if I might ask? And if it was done only with his agreement, does that mean when he changes his mind the Committee will direct stewards to restore his bit? Avruch^T 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation here, Avruch, is that The_undertow has consented to the desysopping, suggesting that it is not an involuntary removal of rights, but the loss of permissions remains under controversial circumstances. Although the removal of rights principle would usually endure in circumstances regarding administrator desysopping, the Committee has noted here that they should be a vital port of call in any proceedings to resysop. As an incidental note, The_undertow has blanked his user talk page, and had his user page deleted. Anthøny 21:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds of cut and paste moves

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

you win, I give up. BVande (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen false information in Wikipedia. Before I used to let to go since I was too busy.

We need to put a stop to this. We should tabulate fake information and see who is doing it. BVande (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Fraud Protection Unit BVande (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breathless defenses (ZOMG! False information!) of new bureaucracies (We're really going to fill out a report for every insertion of false information so that someone might investigate more thoroughly? And we're going to have a "Chief of Unit" and "Deputy Chief of Unit" to assist in reporting and investigation?) are almost always unpersuasive. This seems redundant to several other more streamlined processes and should be shuttered in short order. 68.249.4.205 (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the IP edit?

I agree with IP. Too bureaucratic. If you see "fraudulent information", BVande, remove it. Or source it. Or bring it to a forum/talkpage for discussion. I don't believe we need yet another "forum". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look again, the office holders were removed BEFORE your complaint. If a sneaky vandal puts bad information instead of blanking pages, nobody knows about it. This board will help fight it. If you say "just remove it" then why not end all blocking and just fix vandalism, don't block vandals. I think my idea is good. There is no bureaucracy. If errors are just honest mistakes, then we'll see. If an editor has lots of wrong information, then we will know about it, not let it ruin wikipedia. Bottom line: If you don't like it, don't help out. BVande (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if we find out that the editor involved made 50 bad edits? This way we know. We AGF but verify. Доверяй, но проверяй. The famous Russian phrase "Trust, but verify". BVande (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really just warn a long-term editor for a likely typo/innocent mistake he made in 2005?? This is Item #1 in Wikipedia:Fraud Protection Unit. If this is how you envision this working, then count me out too. --barneca (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that this seems like useless process wonkery (Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy and all), it would seem to largely duplicate WP:CVU and WP:LTA. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you come across someone who has inserted bad info into an article is it easier to a) write a report for the fraud unit or b) check the user contributions of the editor to see if there's a pattern. Anyone with experience in this area on the wiki will always do the latter. Your first suspected "fraud" was an allegedly mistaken insertion of a person's age as 4, not 5, in a paragraph which otherwise was exemplary. This suggests to me that you do not even know what fraud is. With the best will in the world, your unit will not fly, because there are easier and less bureaucratic methods of investigation already available to us. I strongly suspect you are not very experienced in the mediawiki environment and have not grasped the fact that there are facilities - e.g. for enabling a users pattern of edits to be tracked - which render your unit redundant. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at MFD Nakon 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You win. I give up. BVande (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here 8 days. MickMacNee (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And apparently, User:Art LaPella is an administrator [34] MickMacNee (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness we only have BVande's word that Art is an admin. But the whole real name / drivers license check seems weird to me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art is an admin, but what does it matter whether Art is an admin or how long BVande has been here? J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found the magic page [35]. What a pain in the ass, why not just make cat:admin compulsory, and ban for abuse? MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to some external criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SWATjester's statement at WP:RFAR

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

Enough mud slinging for one day - if you wish to take this further, please do so ina a civil manner on talk pages or through dispute resolution Viridae ^Talk 06:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I would like the community to look into. Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) claims the_undertow is a White supremacist and requests that ArbCom desysop him for it. The link he provides as evidence contradicts his claim. It's a link to a news story detailing the death of one of his closest friends, who is Latino. During the time that this edit was made, the_undertow had been arguing with another editor who believed that White pride is the same as White supremacy. That is what his edit summary referenced. So, in short, SWATjester has taken an edit the_undertow used to eulogize his Latino friend and used it to call him a racist.

SWATjester elaborates that because the_undertow edited Stormfront (website) and related race articles, that his claim is supported. This and this explains the_undertow's argument for the article. Note that it is not an endorsement of the site. He also edited Black supremacy, an example here. And his edits to White supremacy exampled here evidence the attempts he made to bring consistency to related race articles, which was brought to his attention with the statements he questions here. During the time he was editing these articles, he was also gathering evidence for an RFC/U on an editor who was skewing the POV of these articles.

I do not believe it is appropriate, or an accepted standard, to call for an admin to be desysopped based on the articles they edit. Nor do I believe such libelous statements are acceptable from any member of the community, much less an admin, particularly when there is not only any evidence to support, but much to refute it. I have spoken the SWATjester about this and he refused to reevaluate the situation. Instead stating that he stands by his claim that the_undertow is racist. I not sure what action can be taken from here, but I believe something should be done. Please note, also, that the_undertow has already been desysopped for unrelated events, so this is not a matter of preventing that. This is about libelous claims and the appropriateness of this as reason to remove an admin's tools. Lara❤Love 02:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LaraLove, (also a "white pride" person, as admitted in IRC) who is extremely close to The undertow, is freaking out here, after wildly attacking me in IRC over this. She's obviously really distraught over this: since she's chosen to launch expletives at people all over my talk page. [36] and thinks WP:CIVIL is a bullshit policy. Oh, and this outburst is beyond unacceptable conduct for an admin. And now she's attacking me because I hold an opinion that is less than flattering of her e-boyfriend. With regard to The undertow, I stand by my statement. White pride and White supremacy are synonymous, especially in the deep south where I'm from. See our own article on White pride, which notes that it is strongly linked to White supremacy. The Celtic Cross, the international White Pride symbol, is listed as a hate symbol by the Anti-Defamation League. [37] I've seen first hand racism by "white pride" people and personally experienced the anti-semitism that often comes from them. Here, he seems to know what "self respecting neo-nazi's" think. Here, he defends well known white supremecist hate site Stormfront.org as well as here. Please also note the Anti Defamation League's statements on Stormfront, and the "white pride" phrase, noting that it is essentially equivalent to white supremacy. And the Southern Poverty Law Center agrees with me. Based on these diffs, I believe that he is a white supremacist, and I stand by my beliefs. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the "She's a woman, she's hysterical and isn't thinking straight" argument - offensive, as is your unsupported implication that both LaraLove and the_undertow are racist. Avruch^T 02:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding his claim that I "wildly attacked" him. I don't agree with that statement either and I would consent to logs of the exchange to be published. Lara❤Love 02:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that I was not asking for him to be desysopped because of his beliefs. He was and should have been desysopped because of his highly inappropriate actions. The beliefs are just supporting evidence of his poor judgment. :::Also, as an administrator, LaraLove should know better to throw accusations of libel around, and if she intends to do so, she ought to first look at what the definition of libel is, and what is excluded from libel and its defenses. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"White pride and White supremacy are synonymous, especially in the deep south where I'm from." As somebody born, raised, and still residing in Alabama, I must disagree (and that doesn't make me racist). The terms have distinct meanings, as well as different connotations. To say otherwise is to be uninformed or down right unintelligent. - auburnpilot talk 04:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the_undertow has already been desysopped, perhaps we could curtail the debate? I think we're violently agreeing that a person is desysopped for their actions and not their beliefs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't shrug off the feeling that this section is just one big ad hominem thread. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who usually agrees with SWATjester, I'll just note my utter bemusement at this entirely inappropriate statement from him. Unless the_undertow has blocked someone calling them a a racial slur, I don't think this really matters at all. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libel is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual. Nothing in SWAT's statement mentioned the actions that lead to the desysopping. Lara❤Love 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Key point there that the statement be false, and factual. My statement was my opinion, and truth is an absolute defense. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this thread in my opinion, its relevance to the project, is that even discussing whether an individual is a white supremacist at all is inappropriate on Wikipedia. Obviously all it does is stir up bad feelings and drama. It needs to be made clear to all parties involved that this is not an acceptable topic of discussion on the wiki, period. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now if another admin would just ~~attack~~do something that LaraLove feels is an attack, the cycle could continue... or perhaps we could all cool down. Just don't post anything for a while. If you must post, review it, tone it down a bit, relax. We don't need to attack each other here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What attack do you speak of? Lara❤Love 02:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was mildly facetious. A request for everyone to remain calm and relax (also doubt check your posts before saving). SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)See? I posted too soon too. Anyone can do it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably has something to do with the fact there is no point to this thread. There's no admin action required or even requested. Can we move on now? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why this is on AN and not ANI. Its at least informative. I suggest we archive if there is no one else who wishes to voice an opinion. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my share of disagreements with SWAT (and I've probably used up someone else's share as well), but I really don't see the "libel" here. I didn't realise that there's some insult in "white supremacy" that isn't present in "white pride". Guettarda (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Guettarda (whose post only appeared after me pressing edit) in that I too don't often see eye to eye with Swat but he strikes me as in the right here. And the white pride article wouldn't encourage me to take pride in being white. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. It can be archived now. I wanted to see what the community's opinion was and I now see that it's okay for editors to call others racists when they're not just because they feel offended my a comment they can't accurately comprehend. So I'll keep this thread as a reference the next time I feel like damaging the reputation of an editor solely to be a dick, in whatever fashion I chose... or is it limited to racism? Ya know what, don't even answer that. It doesn't matter. Lara❤Love 03:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a white supremacist is without a doubt using a derogatory term intended to smear. I found there to be very little relevance to the current dispute over Moulton. Enigma ^message 03:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that its not right to make such a statement without concrete diff's, and I do not believe Swat has done so. Being basically the same and are the same doesn't cut it (White pride vs. Supremacy). And regardless, its no reason to desysop. Thats like desysoping someone for being an athiest or a christian, based off of beliefs. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as most people interpret it, "white pride" and "white supremacy" both mean "racist". I realise that people who use the terms see some sort of a distinction (sort of like User:Sam Spade's insistence that "racist" and "racialist" were different). There's no libel in calling someone by a term that is seen by most people as synonymous with racist (white supremacist) when they are themselves willing to use a term to describe themselves (white pride) that most people see as racist. Guettarda (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's a matter of where you live. Because where I live white pride is nothing like white supremacy. Not even close. I have provided evidence that shows the_undertow's beliefs, showing statements where he's trying to educate others about this very misconception. His involvement in these articles, as I showed above, was spawned from another editor's changes and comments. They were POV and OR additions and the_undertow involved himself to restore NPOV to these articles as well as to bring consistency to them all. If you look in detail through his edits to these articles, you will find that he spends much time on the talk pages, discussing what is most appropriate. He does not push a racist point of view on any of them. He argued that "racist ideology" should be either included in both white and black supremacy, or neither. He supported the removal of details of a black supremacist from the black supremacy article as it was giving undue weight to a fairly non-notable person. His edits across all articles, including Stormfront, where, again, he was attempting to ensure the edits of the other editor were correct. SWATjester's comments were not based on fact, opinion or not, it was inappropriate and served no purpose but to discredit the_undertow and damage his reputation. It was, in my view, no more than kicking someone while they are down. Lara❤Love 03:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live white pride might mean not letting others criticise me for being white, but I have never noticed any need, to be honest. It appears you live somewhere different, Lara, but remember we are an international encyclopedia and we accept all editors based on whatever nationality, age, race, colour and creed. Whatever, love lasts for ever, as they say. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance of that statement for this matter. the_undertow has made no edits promoting a racist POV, he has not blocked any editors based on racial matters. Again, there is no evidence of any racist behavior. Simply that he identifies as something that, obviously, some have a skewed perspective of. The point was to keep the race articles NPOV and consistent, contesting the edits of someone with these ignorant beliefs. Your statement is very relevant in this context, however. Because we are an international encyclopedia. And while the black community deals with the slavery that took place in the U.S, the situation for the white community in parts of Africa, for example, pulls to the other side of the spectrum. Therefore, the claims made by this editor that the_undertow was dealing with on these articles were completely inappropriate and did not apply on an international view. All of this is being ignored. Lara❤Love 04:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming history of white people in Africa is the horrors of colonialism and apartheid. -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - are you complaining about SWAT's description, or trying to present supporting evidence? How does attributing standard racist talking points to undertow help your case? Guettarda (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The former. This thread was initiated by Lara. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. So why is she now providing evidence that makes undertow look like a racist? She's providing evidence against her own complaint. Weird. Guettarda (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear it is, perhaps, a matter of comprehension issues on your part. The links I'm providing show pretty clearly his stance on the difference between pride and power/supremacy. It seems to me there's just a problem with people having a misconception and being unwilling to understand that not all white priders are racist. And that white pride itself is no different than black pride, gay pride, etc. It's pride in your heritage. the_undertow attempted argued these points. And even if you don't agree with him, and you hold an ignorant belief that pride = racist, the links prove that he doesn't see it that way. Therefore, they are not links that support a claim of racist, rather they show that such a claim serves only to damage his reputation unfairly. Lara❤Love 03:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lara, I was with you until this point in the thread, but this just bakes the cake: "white pride itself is no different than black pride, gay pride, etc. It's pride in your heritage". Am I reading this right? Are you freaking serious? This is one of the most cliche and tired racist talking points out there. There is no more such thing as "white heritage" than there is "heritage of people with more than 9 fingers" or "heritage of people who are above 5' tall". Polish heritage, Irish heritage, French heritage, Finnish heritage, Croatian Heritage, or, if you like, American heritage, sure. But "white heritage"? Please, give me a break. Nsk92 (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So black pride is just that. Pride in being black. But white pride is racist because... why? I have to identify as American pride? What about White-American pride? Is that racist? German pride > white pride for the_undertow is acceptable then? But simply identifying as white pride is racist? Then why don't we just merge the article into white power or white supremacy? Since I apparently have a false and cliche view of what it means to be proud to be white while not believing that makes one better than anyone else. Lara❤Love 04:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you seriously need an answer to this, sure. "Black pride" refers to pride in the heritage of a group with unique and clearly defined cultural and historical identity in the American society. (It is not pride in the color of one's skin as such and, by the way, black pride itself is essentially an american phenomenon.) Same for Russian pride, Greek prode or Italian pride. They refer to specific groups that do have unique common cultural and historical identity. By contrast "white pride" does not refer to a group that has such unique common cultural or historical identity. It tries to lump together all sorts of groups where the only common denominator is really just the color of their skin, an artificial category. I am an immigrant from Russia (from Siberia), classified as "white" in this country (which I resent; I am always tempted to check the "Asian American" box on various stupid forms that we have to fill). I have travelled all over the world and all over U.S. If I suggested to my white friends in Geneva that they have some kind of a common cultural identity with white people from Arizona, they would laugh in my face. As they should. You want to be proud of something, fine. But choose a more well-defined group that really have something in common to celebrate. But, as I said, being proud of "white heritage" does not make much more sense than being proud of having 10 fingers on your hands. Nsk92 (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an immigrant from Russia (from Siberia), classified as "white" in this country (which I resent...) - So you resent being classified as white? Okay. Well, I don't. I'm a white American, and I'm proud of that. But I can't refer to myself as white pride, a term used predominately in the United States, without being racist? I have to say American pride? This is all so silly to me. I'm a white American and proud of it. Proud of my heritage. I don't think that makes me better than anyone else, and I don't see how labeling it as simply white pride changes that. Regardless, it's sad to see that you agreed with me about SWAT's comments until you read my "cliche" view. So, I guess that's to say you now agree with SWAT's comments about the_undertow because you disagree with the comments I made about myself. Lara❤Love 05:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't. Why? Because it's an idea promoted and embraced by racists. So if you use their terms of self-identification, if you use their talking points ("white pride is the same as gay pride") you are buying into racist concepts and a racist movement.

Why is white pride different from gay pride? Why does gay pride exist? Because gays are taught to be ashamed of what they are, because gays are a spit-up minority. Because gays get told in church that they are going to hell. Why black pride? Because blacks are taught that they are second-class citizens. Why Polish or Irish pride? It goes back a little further, but they were also told that they were scum. That's what it means to be a minority in the US. Even "redneck pride" makes sense - it's an embrace of a subculture that is looked down upon by the mainstream. The "white pride" idea is based on the myth that whites are some sort of a downtrodden minority - one that happens to control the vast majority of the wealth in the US, one that happens to have held almost every office of power. It only appeals to people who believe that 98% of the wealth and power isn't their fair share, or to people who are racist. There are probably a handful of people in the former group who don't belong to the latter group. The ones who believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was real. Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an either/or choice. Either one can complain about someone implying that one is a racist, or one can use the tired arguments of the racists. My grandfather used to say "but they also did good things". And that is because, even though he was an admirer of the state of Israel later in life, he probably never really abandoned the beliefs he so fervently embraced in his late 30s and early 40s. Guettarda (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your edits here at all. They just don't make any sense to me. I'm not complaining about an implication. It's about his claim. There's a difference between implying something and stating something. Past that, I have no idea how your comment applies to this situation. Lara❤Love 04:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get this. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWATjester's comments are inappropriate, period. comment on content not on the contributor. I request that SWATjester strike the comments at the Rfar page. Or to reconfirm them in some other way, so we know exactly where SWATjester stands. (I havn't checked there recently to see if they have been) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a white person, I have to say white people are goofy, have nothing to be proud of, and everything in this blog proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt:http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/full-list-of-stuff-white-people-like/ -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pft. Tool is not on that list. It's incomplete. LAME! Lara❤Love 05:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinions on the difference of White Pride and White Supremacy. But I do have an opinion that ones beliefs shouldn't be uses against them if they haven't been used by them at all. Let's say User:Jane Doe is an admin, has {{User LGBT}}on her userpage and edits mostly in that category, and has several FAs and GAs, and is at ArbCom for a totally unrelated matter that happened at WP:AN/I. And say that User:John Doe makes a statement about her saying that she promotes being gay all over Wikipedia. That has nothing to do with the case at hand. Just because User:John Doe doesn't agree with the views of User:Jane Doe, he is basically being a troll. The white supremacy comment made by Jester had nothing to do with the issue at hand. Everyone on Wikipedia has different views, philosophies, beliefs, etc. But just because one person's supposed view or belief didn't match up with anothers, he tried to use it against Undertow. The said edit that Jester posted is deleted, so I am unable to view it. But if Undertow had been pushing White Supremacy in articles and such, he would have never been an administrator or would have had WP:AN/I cases before. The issue is not whether Undertow is a racist or supremicist, or pridist, or whatever. The issue I am seeing is that whatever beliefs or views Jester interpreted from Undertow, shouldn't be used against him. And for the record, I personally don't think Undertow is a racist. He hates everyone the same. And I am not supporting any one race, sex, age, sexual preference or anything. I am just trying to provide my 2 cents. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely endorse this. It's the core issue at hand, and people arguing over whether or not white pride or whatever is racist or racial is obfuscation of what's really going on. I was thinking earlier of posting something like this, but decided against it. For argument's sake, let's say the undertow was an Exalted Cyclops like Robert Byrd. How is that relevant? Enigma ^message 05:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think people on each side have said enough to thoroughly annoy and offend those on the other side. Personally, I think Swatjester's ArbCom statement was inappropriate because it placed too heavy an emphasis on Undertow's personal views in a way that was sure to enflame feelings, but at the same time Undertow's conduct has been very poor and desysopping is probably warranted. Either way, it doesn't look like any of this discussion about the purported difference (or lack thereof) between "pride" and "supremacy" is going to help resolve the problems, and certainly we don't need to be having it on AN. Everyking (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee finds that Tango (talk · contribs) has made a number of problematic blocks. It also states that Tango's administrative privileges are to be revoked, and may be reinstated at any time either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pointed out on the prop decision talk page that his desysopping did not numerically pass. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 02:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems 1.2 (Tango is suspended as an administrator for one month) has passed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actually seems like 1.3 is the operative remedy passing in this case, because it passes as the clear preference and supercedes 1.2. I'd suggest not posting definitively about this here or elsewhere until its cleared up. Avruch^T 02:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a 7 to 2 majority is not sufficient, but (1) it ought to be sufficient, and (2) the committee members agreed to close the case with remedy 1.3, i.e. Tango is desysopped, clearly stated on the Proposed Decision page. If this was an honest mistake, do correct it, but it looks kosher to me. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango/Proposed_decision#Remedies It appears it we had a fuzzy math problem! Lawrence Cohen § t/e 03:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The desysop has been done. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV has a backlog

Resolved

– empty as of 05:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC). MCB (talk)

Could somebody take a look at WP:AIV? Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry

Today, I noticed an edit that drew my curiosity. [38]. I mentioned it later to MBisanz, and, we discussed whom it may be. After going over the contribs, it became obvious to us, that it was Betacommand. The account talked the same way, and, even made a mistake or two. After discussing this for a couple hours, we came to the conclusion, that it was likely a sockpuppet, and, was being used at least [here to participate in an edit war, and skirt WP:3RR. So, we decided to get the opinion of a checkuser, Dmcdevit, whom confirmed for us that the two accounts were likely the same. It is with a heavy heart, and much disappointment today, that I ask for a sanity check, on an indefinite block on Betacommand (and associated socks), for prolonged sockpuppetry, and incivility. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's worse than that. [39] [40] He just went through and set a DEFAULTSORT on anything whose categories ~~are all currently sorted the same~~ currently share the same sort key or none, even based on a small number of examples with sort keys. (And even if the sort key was the special case " ".) I found two of these mistakes in a cursory check of 25 contributions, and again, he did thousands of these. These are going to subtly mess up category pages for months or years unless we mass revert. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ec) If we assume an honest mistake was made, there is no violation of 3RR on Wikipedia:Bot_policy. I count three.[41][42][43] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards