Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive156

Moval of SB on Portal:Denmark

As with the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive155#Moval of SP on Portal:Denmark |announced process of SP moval]], i have begund the moval of the selected biographies on Portal:Denmark, as per Portal talk:Denmark#SB moval. Because of that i will create a large amount of moves (in the area of 92 moves) and sequently a similar amount of pages will be tagged with {{Db}}. It will all be with reference to Portal talk:Denmark#SB moval!. Progress can be somewhat followed on User:Hebster/Sandbox/Portal:Denmark/SP. --Hebster (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Boy2boy

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

I was concerned aobut this individual's username, user page and what I perceive to be subtle trolling. My concern over this individual's username was basically reverted by an administrator who identifies his/herself as LGBT. Hey, live and let live. However, that does not in any way trump the fact that there are people who find this kind of behavior abhorrent and promoting it through a username which is offensive coupled with the comments on this user's userpage is unacceptable. I am a big supporter of the NPOV system and yes, I have reverted hurtful and bigoted entries on homosexuality-related articles. However, I will not, under any circumstances, look the other way on what I feel is a clearly immoral issue. I'm no bigot, but I am revolted by this user's choice of username and the comment on his user page. I would appreciate another administrator investigating the matter. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh - you would really have to be looking to interpret his username as advocating homosexual behavior (not that there's anything wrong with that^TM). Live and let live. Added - my comment refers only to the username, not to the merit of the user's edits. Kelly ^hi! 23:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As the "administrator who identifies his/herself as LGBT" involved, I want to make it clear that while I did lodge my objection to blocking the user for a username violation, I was not the one who removed it from the UAA page. Shereth 23:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned with this user's edits along with PMDrive. I think his edit to Saint Dominic was rather inflammatory. bibliomaniac15 23:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the username or the userpage. DuncanHill (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Bibliomaniac. And Shereth, please accept my sincerest apologies for concluding that you'd removed my concern from the username page. However, what we have here is a potential POV-pusher, one who's flaunting the rules with a potentially inflammatory username and comments. I honestly don't care what this person does behind closed doors, but I find him to be a serious study in contradiction. He claims to attend Mass, but he promotes a lifestyle totally contrary to Church doctrine, no offense to our gay users. I simply smell an odor of rodent here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken, PMDrive. I think what is key here is your statement that "what we have here is a potential POV-pusher", emphasis added. I believe that in a case where there is the potential for POV-pushing or other such problems, the appropriate thing to do is discuss it with the user, make them aware of Wikipedia policies that they may be in violation of, rather than going straight for the block - let us not forget WP:BITE. Shereth 23:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit-conflicted) PMDrive1061, Boy2Boy's faith and his sexuality are a matter for his conscience, his confessor and his god, not for us Wikipedians. To question or criticize an editor's faith, or his practice of it, is to my mind unacceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - we should be looking at actions only in terms of managing these things. If he acts as a POV pusher, then we treat him as one. If he does not, then more power to him. (Have used the male pronoun here assumptively.) Orderinchaos 01:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So far as the username is concerned, I recommend {{Uw-username}} or WP:UAA. Kelly ^hi! 23:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive already brought it up at UAA. I questioned it and another admin removed the report without a block. Hence, the report here. Shereth 23:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend doing nothing about the username. There's nothing wrong with it. --Carnildo (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Carnildo. There's nothing wrong with the username. If there turn out to be problems with the editor advancing a biased agenda, we will handle that at that time, as we would with any other editor. To imagine that such a situation will exist in the future based solely on the username is unfair and contrary to established principles. Boy2boy, welcome to Wikipedia. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody but the user has any idea whether or not the user is a boy rather than, oh, possibly a man. That includes real boys who edit Wikipedia. I'm not sure, but hasn't MySpace gotten into trouble for having accounts operated by men looking for sex with underage children? I think some state attorneys general reached arrangements with MySpace to try to prevent that kind of thing, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong. If we allow user names that seem to encourage sex between boys, and at the same time don't have any regulations on who can create that kind of account name, do we leave ourselves open to -- at the very least, some very, very bad publicity? That doesn't sound too good for Wikipedia's reputation. How much of a burden is it on editors not to have these kinds of names? In any event, I'd watch that kind of account name really, really carefully. I wonder how many more we'll get. And how much watching would then have to be done. Just guessing, but this user might turn out to be a very friendly, very sociable Wikipedian. I don't want to actually assume bad faith, but personally, my good faith gets a little stretched and thinned out when a user name and a user page like that gets put up. Noroton (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thought: The user doesn't really have to aggressively propose much to boys: just be friendly with people interested in certain topics and let the provocative user name and statement on the user page do the more explicit work. And of course, keep the email function open. But what do I know? I'm just an 11-year-old boy. Noroton (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A third thought: I found this edit interesting, because when I do a search for "sex", "sexual" and "homosexuality" at the Google Books page for this book that B2B cites, I don't come up with any results. Amazon makes available the book's index, and I couldn't find "chastity", "sex", "sexual" or "homosexual" in it. It's such an academic, expensive book, too, but perhaps Boy2Boy is wise beyond his years and has access to a very, very good library. Also, note the edit summary for that edit. Well, I've done my part in looking over his first six edits. Anyone care to keep watch in the future? I won't be. Noroton (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fourth thought: In this edit, if you look at the change in line 106, you'll see misleading wording linking to a list of gay-friendly Catholic parishes. In the modern day U.S. Listed in a biography article. Of a saint who lived from 1170 to 1221. In Europe. After he was reverted, he added it back, so these amount to two out of his six edits. Noroton (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I indef blocked. I read this twice, reviewed the edits twice, read the user talk page twice, and kept asking myself, why the hell is there so much debate? User is non-responsive to the talk page comments, and edits are clearly POV and agenda-pushing. SPA; indef block. If someone is shocked - SHOCKED - that I did this, I'm not going to be offended if the block is reverted. However, I have a feeling most admins would agree here. Tan ǀ 39 05:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I support that move. Noroton (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right, but do we really need to do an indef right off the bat? What about a shorter block and see if that at least gets the guy's attention. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Indefinite" doesn't equal "infinite". If the user wants to protest, he can make use of the unblock request template and plead his case. Tan ǀ 39 05:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it. yep. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He's already shown that he's deceptive (in the edit summary, in the description of the link he added and, it appears, in the book he cited). I hope he's not deceptive in other ways. I think we're better off with his inattention. We're lucky he's not more sophisticated. Noroton (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a bad block, obviously punitive rather than preventative, and I am appalled at some of the comments above, which IMO border on the libelous. The whole thread arose from the bigotry of one user. That Boy2Boy is unresponsive is no surprise - when the "welcome" he got was to have his faith and his sexuality attacked. DuncanHill (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also concerned by the behaviour of Noroton relating to this, both by his spectacular assumption of bad faith above, and by this comment on PMDrive's talk page [1]. DuncanHill (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why spectacular? WP:AGF specifically states that bad faith moves by one user justify loss of good faith in that user. Do something suspicious, and you raise my suspicions. And I state the reasons why. If there was something "spectacular" in what I said, you should be able to point it out. I laid out my reasons why I'm suspicious about the user name and why I think that kind of user name is a spectacularly bad idea to allow. I laid out my reasons for why I think the user is lying in Wikipedia mainspace. If editors think the user is worth keeping on Wikipedia for the good of the encyclopedia and won't harm other editors, then fine. But DuncanHill, all I've seen you do so far is wave your hands and mention "homophobia". Given the specific concerns and reasons for the concerns that I reaised, what is the justification for not blocking this account? Noroton (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You launched into a catalogue of what are essentially accusations against an editor with no evidence to support them whatsoever. The username does absolutely nothing to support your contentions and your entirely irrelevant fantasies about the editor in question's motivation. I personally don't see any benefit to Wikipedia in allowing the kind of attacks that PMDrive made on Boy2Boy's sexuality and religious beliefs, yet apparently you do - and you will also encourage an editor to blank your comments in waht looks to me like an attempt to hide your activities. PMDrive's comments are blatantly homophobic, both in his attack on Boy2Boy (which included improperly removing valid talk-page comments) and in his entirely false equation of an editor's declared homosexuality with pædophilia. I see no justification whatsoever for blocking, and you have provided none, only poisoned the well with your nonsense. DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down, Duncan. When someone does a series of suspicious things, it's worth laying them all out. Reread what I wrote. I went as far as the evidence led me and no farther. I accused him of nothing that I didn't have evidence for and I stated reasonable concerns. I get the impression that your own motivation in supporting Boy2Boy is because PMDrive doesn't seem to be supportive of gay sex. But that's not my reason for supporting a block. I don't think your entirely irrelevant fantasies about the editor in question's motivation is a fair description, given this Google search for "boy2boy", which shows there's a very good case for that user name being inappropriate. Is his entirely false equation of an editor's declared homosexuality with pædophilia entirely false? Maybe. But we're not here to prove someone has an interest in pederasty, we're talking about what's inappropriate and imprudent for Wikipedia. It's not to hard to drop an inappropriate name and sign on again with a new account when you've only got six edits to it, and "boy2boy" is a provocative name that should raise red flags. Raise enough red flags and an indef block becomes prudent. We're here to build an encyclopedia and we don't need that kind of distraction from it. The person can get a new account and act appropriately far easier than we can constantly monitor whether that person is going to add another lie to mainspace or is trying to make contact with boys. If you want to criticize PMDrive's personal beliefs, don't make that statement through an unblock. Consider the block on its merits alone. Also, I've explained to you why I had suggested my comments be removed from PMDrive's talk page. Your failure to WP:AGF makes you the wrong person to suggest that others do. Again, please calm down. Noroton (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please undo this block, there is no consensus for it earlier (when regarding both the name and the choice of subject being edited - there is a relevant essay here) and the violations/gaming of WP policies and guidelines should have drawn an only warning before any block was contemplated. I suggest that the block is lifted as time served, and the specific concerns with Boy2boy's editing be presented to him for his responses.

I would further note that when I socialise with male friends I refer to it being "out with the boys" - and none of us are under 35, so the assumption of boy (as in "boyfriend") being of a certain age may be erroneous - terms like "girl to girl" does not make the same assumption of age. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, I really doubt your male friends use phrases like "Boy2Boy" because it seems to have a common-enough meaning: [2] It seems to me that a provocative user name, including the possibility of looking for involvement with boys, given what Google tells us about that phrase, along with what is either vandalism or POV-pushing (or some combination of the two?) which involves outright lying on mainspace pages, is enough for us to tell the person behind the account that they should not only shape up their behavior, but get a less provocative account name. You don't have to be a homophobe to be concerned by this collection of behavior, and we shouldn't be overly protective of the existence of an account with six edits to it. Noroton (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I do perhaps have some advantage over you in this matter, since it is a fact that some of my social friends are homosexual males and I am more familiar with gay culture than some straight guys. I am aware that "boy" is a term for those who do not identify as "mature" - which is as simple an indication of a relative relationship as is giver/receiver. It is outlook rather than age related. I realise that my familiarity with the culture means I may be less outraged (as in, not at all) than some by the use of terminology - but I can speak with some confidence regarding the misapprehension in respect of the username. It is not pederastic, nor is it promotional but it is openly a gay reference. However, I thought the username question was done and dusted; I am more concerned with the indef block for what may or may not be falsely referenced content - which would usually draw some sort of warning, with a block (usually of a short duration) in the event of no response which may lead to an escalating series of sanctions if the account continues to edit while ignoring valid queries. Straight to indef with possible perceived bias provided by a misunderstanding - not alleviated by asking for clarification - sends a rather chilling message to anyone who may identify outside of a definition of heterosexual. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agree, so far it does not seem to warrant a block. Editor has made only 6 edits, of which only 2 in mainspace. Neither one of those warranted an indef block. If he turns out to be a blatant vandal c.q. pov pusher he can always be blocked later. Note, if the source he added turns out to be or is false, then perhaps. But this block seems too fast. Garion96 (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Good block Tan, the edits, particularly [3] are very troublesome. MBisanz ^talk 11:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think the block is unwarranted and should be undone.
  First of all, how is the usename violating WP:IU? PMDrive1061 says it's inflammatory - how so? Are users Boyslikegirls98 and Girls4girls also inflammatory? I think it's a very big stretch to say it implies sex between minors or advocates homosexuality, and even if it were promotional of homosexuality: expressing a lifestyle in a username is in my eyes absolutely OK, just as it is ok to express a love of books (bibliomaniac15) or love of football (Football4life) or love of some specific book (Tanthalas39).
  Second of all, about the block. Tanthalas39 says the user is "unresponsive to talk page comments". Boy2boy was active for 40 minutes in total. His last comment was on his talk page. He can't be called "unresponsive" if he simply wasn't on Wikipedia since Friday. His is a Single-purpose account? A lot of accounts start out that way, and the response after a minor disruption is not to block him, but to talk with him. POV edits with misleading edit comment? Talk with him. He's a newbie, he makes mistakes. AGF.
  Reading the Blocking policy again, the only reason to block him at this point is an inappropriate username, which I don't see, and most of the editors here don't see as well.
  Amalthea (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think the block is extraordinarily harsh, quite frankly. Please bear in mind that this is (I assume) a new user. An indefinite block for a misleading edit summary? I think any block is an over-the-top response, and I think the ugly homophobia that has precipitated this action is disgusting. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think lying in Wikipedia articles is disgusting, Scjessey, and I don't think you in particular are a very good judge of how inappropriate it is to lie in mainspace editing articles, given my previous complaints at AN/I about your behavior in specifically that area (no action was taken against you, of course; a bad precedent for this situation). Suffice it to say that a "misleading edit summary" and "homophobia" is hardly what this is about. If we're all about building an encyclopedia, we need to consider lying -- when we've got solid proof of it -- a very serious offense. Noroton (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC) replaced crossed-out word for accuracy -- Noroton (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep this discussion relevant. Accusations of homophobia as a reason for this action are unfounded, and probably completely untrue. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter, have you actually read what PMDrive posted both here and elsewhere on this subject? I think it is very obviously homophobia on his part, as well as a completely unacceptable questioning of Boy2Boy's religious beliefs. DuncanHill (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I thought it was a reference to Tan's block. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a reference to homophobia precipitating the action - that speaks to PMDrive's actions in starting this thread (and in improperly removing valid talk page comments by Boy2Boy), I make no comment on Tan's motivation for such a bad indef block. DuncanHill (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. I am not saying the block was motivated by homophobia, just that homophobia appears to have precipitated this discussion which resulted in a block. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Apologies for the misunderstanding. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

To make it clear: any admin is free to overturn this block; I will not be offended or retaliatory. I, however, will not be lifting it; I have the endorsement of other admins and I think the reaction to this is not warranted. I could care less what this user's sexual preference is; I am here in part to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. This user threatened that integrity. If other users want to scream "homophobia" and create a discrimanatory issue about this, I want no part of it. I don't see how treating this user as a baby bird who got stepped on by the big bad admin is going to help - and the fact that the user hasn't edited his/her talk page yet to request an unblock (or otherwise) is telling. They've probably moved on to their next sock or, even more likely, abandoned the enterprise alltogether. However, at DuncanHill's request on my talk page, I want to again make this clear: any other admin can lift this block for whatever reason. Tan ǀ 39 16:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Tanthalas, do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your suggestion that Boy2Boy is a sockpuppet? I agree it is likely that he has abandoned the enterprise altogether, I too sometimes wonder whether a community where attacks on an editor's sexuality and religion are so widely endorsed is worth bothering with. DuncanHill (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The comment was meant hypothetically, I believe, and not literally. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the block. This is an extreme example of biting the newby. Yes, the mainspace edits are unfortunate—all two of them—but they seem more indicative of bad judgment than bad intent, at least if one is assuming good faith. For a new user to be blocked indefinitely after receiving no warning other than a homophobic personal attack is really disquieting. Moreover, I have reviewed the blocking policy carefully and can find nothing in it to justify any block in the first place. Even blatant vandals who blank pages get fair warning and, if they persist, a block that expires. As for the username, it is innocuous if one is assuming good faith. No evidence whatsoever has been presented at this time that it is anything other than innocuous; what we have so far is innuendo and coincidence. Rivertorch (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 1. How do you interpret those edits, including the initial misleading edit summary as anything but bad intent? WP:AGF has its limits as that page specifically states. 2. As to the username, see [4], and see WP:USERNAME: Any block issued as a result of a user's behavior may take their username into account, if it is part of the problem. Such a block may be extended to an indefinite block in order to disallow the username, also Offensive usernames make harmonious editing difficult or impossible, also The line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is based on the opinions of other editors. This user name is inappropriate, given the history of how it's been used off Wikipedia and how it's being used on Wikipedia. If you don't mind user names that "troll" for sex, using words like "boy" that bring up the possibility of the kind of sex that gets people arrested and websites' names held in disrepute, here's a good precedent. Noroton (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking your questions in order: (1) I interpret them as bad edits. Assigning intent to their author would be making an assumption for which there is inadequate evidence. The standard response to bad edits is to revert them, which was done. Very bad edits may prompt a warning, which was not (properly) done. Horrible edits might warrant a block. On a scale of 10 to 1, 10 being the most hideous vandalism imaginable and 1 being a careless typo, this was maybe a 4. As for the misleading edit summary, I interpret it as a misleading edit summary. Many of us have committed that faux pas inadvertently and innocently enough. While it's doubtful that was the case here, it cannot be summarily ruled out. Good faith isn't something to be assumed only when everything is running smoothly; it should always be assumed in the absence of significant evidence to the contrary—and those two edits don't cut it, imo. (2) The username was not cited as a contributing factor for the block. If it had been, that would merit another discussion. It is unfortunate that the username issue is getting mixed up with the editing issue because they do seem to be separate topics. Since they're already mixed up, I will say this much: if a username is deemed inappropriate for some obscure reason, it is appropriate to disallow it, but good faith still should be assumed. Instead, we've had personal attacks, motives impugned, and guilt by association. I have no idea whether the person who created the Boy2boy account is a good person or ever might have become a good editor, but unless I'm much mistaken the tactics used to thwart him or her will pretty much rule out the latter; if allowed to stand unquestioned, they could set an unfortunate precedent for the way new editors, particularly those who self-identify as members of minority groups, are treated. Rivertorch (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Boy2Boy arbitrary section break

I was directed here by another user who asked my opinion on this case. I reviewed the information available, and my primary concern is not with the vandalism of the user, or the username, but the length and type of the block itself, which was spectacularly inappropriate.

1. There was no warning given to the user to tell him that his edits were contrary to policy. According to WP:BLOCK, "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking." I simply did not see that happen here.
2. This was the user's first block, and it was indefinite. According to WP:BLOCK, "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy." Once again, I don't think two bad faith edits constitutes a significant disruption, especially considering they were the same edit to the same page, just reverted.
3. If the user's name played into this at all- it shouldn't have. Administrators at UAA usually only block really bad usernames, when it is not obviously bad (i.e. in this case you have to be viewing it through a very narrow context) then the user is supposed to be notified and asked to change his name. That did not happen, and from reading the user's interactions I got the feeling that he would probably be willing to change it.

All in all, I think this was a bad block. A very bad block. As I've shown, it was completely contrary to our major policies, and frankly I don't see any reason to invoke IAR here. This user may not in fact have bad faith, he may simply be unawares of our mores and if we take the time to educate him, I believe there is a good chance we may have another productive editor. People have come back from far worse. L'Aquatique[review] 17:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Vandalism that seems to provide a false reference is the most harmful type we have, for obvious reasons. When that kind of vandalism is not just in it for the lulz, but apparently part of an agenda, it's reasonable to assume that the chances for reform are less likely. When the user name is linked to the bad behavior, it's a justifiable reason for an indef block, as WP:USERNAME states (although TAN didn't give that reason). If this user is unblocked, who is going to go around checking the accuracy of the references he puts into articles? If some other editor who seems to be a boy becomes very friendly with this editor, we're unlikely to have proof of something inappropriate. The time to be prudent about this name is now, and you don't have to be a homophobe to see it. Noroton (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the indef. block is unfair. A block may be warranted, that is arguable but I wouldn't have thought an indef. comes into question. --Cameron* 17:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He hardly seems like an unrepentant POV pusher. And he tried to cite his contributions. While it is possible to read something sinister into his contributions, it is equally possible to read something innocuous, an overenthusiastic new editor who familiarised himself with WP:CITE but got bitten. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Please don't unblock him. We can't let someone pushing so hard of an agenda have free reign. Beam 17:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How can someone with two mainspace edits be described as "pushing so hard"? What we have here is nothing less than a completely over-the-top block for a new editor, based on very little evidence of wrongdoing, that appears to have been enacted after a concerted campaign by homophobic pushers of a Catholic world view. Absolutely disgraceful behavior by the reporting editor and supporters. And comments like "if some other editor who seems to be a boy becomes very friendly with this editor, we're unlikely to have proof of something inappropriate" are disgusting. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, worrying about boys being sexually abused is disgusting.... Beam 20:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan, there is no evidence whatsoever to support any contention that Boy2Boy would be in any way involved in any such activity. I am disgusted that these unfounded and libellous allegations have been allowed to remain on Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Did I say ANYTHING about evidence? All I said is that someone, whether rightly or not, worrying about sexual abuse of a child is anything but disgusting. And your pettiness, and assumptions are poor. Beam 20:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That's logic for ya. Maybe we need to block Beamathan to prevent the torture of kittens. Now granted, there is no EVIDENCE that Beamathan has anything to do with kitten torture, but better safe than sorry right? Or... something? I mean... what the heck? --CBD 20:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, where did I say anything about blocked? I support the block because it's a single purpose account pov pusher. But to say that it's DISGUSTING to be worried about sexual abuse of a child...that's ridiculous. Further, to want to block me over kittens, well that's just ludicrous. Beam 20:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

To dismiss an editor as "single purpose POV pusher" after just 6 edits is idiotic. DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had enough of your insinuations, veiled insults, and personal attacks. This is your last warning for not being able to discuss things in a civil manner. Tan ǀ 39 21:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludicrous? Yes, it was meant to be ludicrous. I was drawing a parallel. --CBD 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this thread, in itself, shows the username is very disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it shews that it is very easy for an editor with a stated prejudice against gay people to create a hostile environment. It also shews that admins refuse to take action when an editor is attacked for his sexuality and his faith. DuncanHill (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No one was attacked. Your overreaction and lust for conflict over homosexuality is kind of odd. Beam 21:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, folks, lets stop the attacks of each other, please. The situation is flammable enough that we don't need ill-considered attacks on each other making things worse. As for the situation. Neither the editing pattern nor the username by itself would give me the administrator heebie jeebies. Together, though.. it's greater then the sum of all parts. I'm not necessarily endorsing an indefblock, although I certainly feel like that's an option that should be on the table. SirFozzie (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you endorse PMDrive's comments on Boy3Boy's faith and sexuality? Do you endorse Noroton and Beamathan's unfounded suggestions of issues of child-abuse? DuncanHill (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The only comments and suggestions I endorse are my own. I speak for nobody but myself in this discussion, and nobody but myself speaks for me. SirFozzie (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

LessHeardVanU just unblocked the user. Everyone move on. Tan ǀ 39 21:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

With enough digging one can find bannable reasons for everyone. --AdultSwim (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Link to my unblock rationale, plus level4im warning in respect of false referencing of content and caution against lifestyle advocacy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

WP:CIVIL disputed tag

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

Because of the increasingly apparent double standard on how civility is enforced - with not even AC able to quash incivility effectively - I've tagged WP:CIVIL as disputed - if it's unenforceable, it shouldn't be policy. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

While there is a crisis in the enforcement of civility at this point, saying it should not be policy is a little over dramatic. I have started a discussion on the talk page(usually where you go before tagging a page disputed). I have asked if the community truly wants the civility policy applied equally, or for special exceptions to be made for established users. Instead of tossing the policy, lets work with it. See Wikipedia talk:Civility#Should established users be treated different?. Chillum 14:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that Sceptre probably means something WP:POINTish, here, but ArbCom is itself increasingly uncivil in its discussions of users, and it tolerates scurrilous talk nearly everywhere, so long as it is aimed at those who have insulted them, personally. It is the interjection of personality and ego that I find disgusting, here. The open source environment demands that we focus on the damned work and not the damned workers. For some, though, what they desire is not the work, but plaudits and importance and social networking. MyFace.com is that way. Geogre (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why "Civil" is no policy

1. Although no policy besides WP:AGF is cited as often, no policy, including WP:AGF, is read less or misused more than WP:CIVIL. If people read it, they have to actively forget what they've read to go around using it as a blunt instrument. This is the first reason that WP:CIVIL is not a policy, even though civil behavior is: it is used as an acronym rather than a thought and just plain used as a hammer, when it's supposed to be a description.
2. It is no longer a policy in any sense, because it is so frequently a label. As with catachresis, any figure of speech or any phrase repeated without thought becomes a nullity. It becomes a substitute for other thoughts. People who cite "Civil" no more mean "civility" than those who cite "AGF" mean that a person should assume that an edit is done without malice.
3. It is a policy that never could have been a guideline, because it was always nebulous by design. Until the term it recommends is comprehended and comprehensible in a reliable manner, there is no way to say that one person's speech or actions conform to it or not. Because it is civil among high school boys to belch and talk about how they'd like to do things to this girl or that, it is not civil for executives to do the same at a meeting. "Civil" behavior is a question of the civilization in question, and feminine and masculine have different codes, Americans and Argentines have different codes, Belgians and Germans have different codes, Russians and Japanese have different codes. Because there is no way to come up with an International Standard Civility, there is no way to encourage a person to moderate behavior in this way or that.
4. The civility policy, as it reads, says that extreme cases of bad behavior may result in a block. This is just one of those statements that you hand out at the door to the club: "If you're too much of an ass, there is every possibility that you might be blocked from the site." It is a "Well, duh!" policy that neither ennumerates block lengths nor the types of offenses that are "extreme." It has no "warning" system or anything. That is because it was never meant to fix the quicksilver of conversation and describe a set of good and bad speech acts.
5. The civility policy has, instead, come to be used (passive voice intentional) rather than to be useful. Instead of acting as a guideline, or even a CYA disclaimer, it has been invoked by people who wish to block and cannot find another reason. When they do, they cite "civility" but never define what exactly was uncivil about the person. This is, of course, because civility cannot be defined, but it is also because the policy is being used to mean "politeness," and that is a far cry from the sum of "civil behavior." It is also being employed to mean "deference," and that is anathema to any open source project.

Therefore, I completely support putting a disputed tag on it. I'd support even more people looking for actual policy violations, if they must look for something, or looking away from the annoying person, if they can't. Geogre (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the net formed by other policies like WP:Consensus, WP:NPA and WP:AGF is enough to define civility, since incivility without violation of othe rpolicies is not something that is exactly common. Circeus (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not an administrative issue, these discussions belong at WT:Civility. Chillum 18:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I love you Geogre. That is my exact feeling. Overzealous admins abuse civility to get rid of users they don't like. That doesn't even take into account bad admins who don't know wht they're doing... Beam 18:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is pointless and rather shameful drama-mongering. If Sceptre has nothing better to do on Wikipedia than wilfully instil conflict, then I would invite him to not edit Wikipedia at all until he can think of something more useful to do. Furthermore, as Sceptre knows very well, even if this were a vaguely sensible thing to do, he's using quite the wrong noticeboard though, no doubt, a reason for using this one can be engineered if desired. Splash - tk 19:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Locke Cole/Betacommand mutual topic ban

This hasn't had any comments in a while, so I think its race is run. Since it's a ban proposal, someone has to eventually make a summary of it. I haven't looked at this thread in days, and what I see now, overall, is significant support for the idea that Betacommand and Locke Cole should both avoid comments directed at the other. The most common objection to a ban is that it should be limited in length - not that it would be completely inappropriate. Franamax is right that a fair resolution can't be subject to a first-mover advantage, and it may be debatable whether there is consensus for an absolute ban. But there is certainly enough accumulation of opinion here for Betacommand and Locke Cole to know that they need to take extra care to stay within the bounds of civil discourse. For the immediate future, if the need arises, any admin will be able to link to this discussion as evidence that Betacommand and Locke Cole were each already aware they had stepped outside community norms. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Some people have issues with Betacommand, but Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken it from civil discussion to harassment. Every time there's an issue with Betacommand, he attmepts to muddies the water in every discussion and resorts to uncivil comments and attempts to bait Beta. Just today, whilst Beta was blocked, he attempted to bait him with these edits [5][6], but there's many others than just those. His Wikipedia space edits show he has hindered discussion on many occasions. There have been legitimate concerns raised about Betacommand, but nobody deserves abuse Locke Cole has given Betacommand. I propose a topic ban on commenting on Betacommand. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• That's not baiting. Baiting is using edit summaries like "rvv" for material which clearly is not vandalism. Baiting is saying someone is "banned" from a page when they clearly are not banned from that page. I would challenge the allegation that Betacommand has received any abuse from me whatsoever. Now please put down your torch and pitchfork and maybe try and deal with the actual issue at hand: how is someone who routinely flaunts the wishes of the community allowed to get away with it? We've been over the issue of inappropriate edit summaries before (during the Sam Korn solution/discussion), and yet it continues. What will you try to do about that? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • He's blocked, yet you've continued to harass him on his talk. This is old news, with all the problems you caused in past discussions about Beta. You've yet again baited him on his talk whilst blocked - I stongly believe a topic ban is the only thing that will get you to stop. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not harassing him. Are you even reading what I said on his talk page or are you being reactionary and assuming the worst? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment As long as he refrains from doing such in the future, I don't see that it's needed. Hopefully he'll see this and understand that the community would prefer he stop without being forced to do so under threat of ban. Kylu (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)FWIW, after he removed my good faith comments again, I was done. I'm still not seeing how attempting to point out to a user how his conduct is inappropriate is "harassment" or "baiting", but some people have more liberal definitions than I it seems. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Someone leaves a note on your talk, you remove it. Someone reverts your move (You forgot to edit the timestamp on your non-revert, btw), they're now violating policy. He read your post and removed it, choosing not to answer. You don't have a "right" to an answer from him, so don't repost the question until he replies. Sorry. Kylu (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • But in removing the remark, you add a snippy edit summary. Sorry, but that's an answer. And of the sort you've been explicitly told not to make. You're right, Kylu. All you have to do it turn your back. Just remove the note clean without comment. But to pretend that there's no reply being made just because the edit summary is used as the vehicle for the message instead of the talk page undoes the argument. There was a clear choice to make an answer in an uncivil tone. Again. BC does not need another apologist (or another critic I suppose). He needs to learn to make disiplined and civil choices. Wiggy! (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah, my English skills need honing, apparently. I only figured out the bridge gag after your comment. (o.O;;) I'd suggest we both support keeping them from speaking to eachother at the moment, then. Kylu (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
          • This is good. I was wondering how it might pan out. Good eye. :) So, while I see how LC's approach might be unhelpful, I can also understand his frustration. Yeah they should probably both stay away from each other, but that's just a narrow slice of it all and it still leaves behind BC's (on-going) intransigence. Wiggy! (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Indeed, and Ryan needs to put his efforts towards resolving the issues with Betacommand rather than trying to single me out because I only tried to point out one of things he does that the community finds unacceptable (the misleading/false edit summaries). Instead we waste our time here trying to silence another voice of the community simply because we're unable to assume good faith. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning Oppose While Locke has had issues edit warring in the past, I am concerned about treating only 1/2 of the continued incivility issue, these sort of edit sums [7] [8] by Beta were made when he was not reverting Locke Cole. I'd propose if anything that both of them be put on civility restrictions and topic banned from each other. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I thought that was obvious that Betacommand couldn't comment on Locke should this topic ban proceed. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • (EC) Yes, of course Beta should not comment on Locke either. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Okey, apparently I am not being pointed enough, any civility restrictions on Betacommad are obviously not working, any edit restrictions like 3RR on Locke Cole are also not working. The result are these uncivil revert wars. This non-interaction proposal treats the symptom not the problem, limiting both editors to 0RR on all pages for all content might be a step I'd support. MBisanz ^talk 04:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • To elaborate, they would both be prohibited from interacting with each other or referencing each other, and would be limited to 0RR on all pages with all individuals, this sort of remedy should solve the global behavioral issues I've noticed over the last several months, while still permitting them to pursue their areas of interest. MBisanz ^talk 06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support Topic ban for Locke, and Betacommand. Also maybe a suggestion about 1RR on Locke and Betacommand on the WP:B page due to edit warring? We really don't get anywhere if they keep reverting each other on all kinds of bot releated pages. --Kanonkas :  Talk  11:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support only if applied both ways, as others suggest above. Locke needs to stay away from Betacommand, and Betacommand needs to stay away from Locke. Neıl ☄ 12:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per Jayron32's well-worded thoughts. Horologium (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Per jayron's reasoning. SQL^{Query me!} 14:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Neil. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Edit summary usage is only 74.6%, and not enough edits in Template Talk namespace. Wait, this isn't an RfA? :) MastCell ^Talk 20:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Neil and Jayron. There are many others ready and willing to deal with the uncivility issues that Beta sometimes succumbs to. —Giggy 10:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Excellent news. Now my question remains: where were they when he was being incivil? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Kick him out! Baiting people has no place in this social mesh. --harej 17:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I wasn't baiting anything. WP:AGF anyone? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• I am uncomfortable with the idea of an externally imposed indefinite ban. Could a limit such as 3–6 months be implemented? Support closed-ended, Oppose open-ended. -- Avi (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment We're not talking about kicking anybody out or indefinite bans. And while baiting is not called for, BC is just as bad or worse on the other side. This is heading toward a more even handed set of sanctions that applies to both users. Wiggy! (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Baiting? Assume good faith much? Or maybe we should go and turn AGF into an essay since apparently nobody pays attention to it anymore. From WP:AGF: If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is never necessary or productive to accuse others of harmful motives. And yet here we are, with Ryan leading the charge accusing me of "harmful motives" rather than trying to determine the point of my two edits. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, I'm on your side in priniciple if you bother to read the discussion above. BC needs folks on him to keep him in line as he's pretty clearly unable to manage himself. You might may wish to go with a straight up statement of the issue rather than chippy rhetorical questions. I don't agree with what's being done here and I'm not fussy on the attempt to put the chill on discussion while BC seems to be free to violate his civility parole despite being blocked. If that was dealt with promptly and effectively, I doubt we'd be here. Wiggy! (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as written, support some time-limited restrictions. LC has been helpful in pointing out some issues and keeping them visible, but they also often use vastly overblown rhetoric which doesn't help their cause. See for example the less-than-helpful attitude they show in this thread - LC you may be completely and absolutely right, but even so, it's not often productive to just tell everyone else they're wrong, wrong, wrong (even when they are). The problem with a mutual ban on commenting on each other is that it leaves out the mutual interest in image policy and bot policy - both of which the two editors will not leave alone. An "each-other" ban leaves open first-mover advantage on project and article pages - one makes the first change, then if the other wants to revert, this can be construed as commenting on the other. The mutual-comment ban should be combined with a restriction to talk page discussion on the subjects of bots and images. Franamax (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Someone, anyone, submit a further RFArb, linking to the old one ([9]) which was rejected until and unless CSCWEM resumed blocking without communication. It's not even worth blocking him, as you can, I believe, still block others whilst blocked yourself. Neıl ☄ 12:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews of the blocks and actions taken

Of the 5 users he kicked, I certainly disagree with the block of 65.69.81.2, apparently for two (somewhat) disruptive edits made more then two weeks ago.[10][11] Perhaps I'm missing something, but that doesn't sound like a good reason for a 6 month hard-block without any prior warning. Can someone please remove that block? Cheers, Face 12:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, I've known CSCWEM for some time (since crossing paths vandal fighting) and have a number of personal contact for him. Its incredibly odd that since he took a break several months ago (before this year started even?) I've not ever seen him online during any of these blocking sprees - that's something that had never happened before, I'd always see him online when he was working on Wikipedia and have never had trouble contacting him. Since the last RfAR came up, I've tried getting a hold of him and have had no luck through *any* means. Honestly, since this was last brought up, I've started to wonder if someone else doesn't have control of the account (as far as I knew, he was giving it up entirely) and has just been testing things to see how far they could go. I hope that the Arbs can quickly come to the conclusion that the bit should be removed for now just in case. As a meta note - if folks bringing de-sysop requests were less "OMG rouge evil bad no-good admin" and more "concerned there might be a problem here" they probably wouldn't get such a negative response to their requests. Shell ^babelfish 17:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Update from ArbCom

The Arbitration Committee is aware of the concerns raised in these this thread. Thanks to the folks for doing the block reviews. The Committee has done some spot checking of blocks as well. Expect the Committee to take some action soon-ish. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Motion: Desysopping of User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. - auburnpilot talk 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion was quick and well participated. Due to concerns of problematic blocks if left, and the visible majority (8-0), the case has been closed without the customary 24 hour period, and the appropriate request filed (linking to the Arbitration Committee decision as backup). It should be noted that if Clowns does reappear, and feels that the tools are in fact going to be used without these concerns in future, then the decision would anticipate discussion and (when issues are satisfactorily cleared up) reinstatement. At this time, clowns has had administrative priveleges removed to prevent more of the same problems as evidenced in the case. case, decision. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, I think it would be best that, if CSCWEM does reappear and explain, the reinstatement of his sysop tools should be approved by the community rather than ArbCom alone, given the serious nature of the problems delineated. We don't know how many good-faith editors have been driven away due to the bad blocks. Kelly ^hi! 00:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree with this; a new RfA would be best in light of this user's inappropriate behavior spanning several months. Everyking (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, CSCWEM on a good day is plentifully endowed with Clue, let him take a break and then get the tools back per the No Big Deal clause. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Trying desperately not to read between the lines, I think CSCWEM could do with a break for his own good. Having worked in a job where burn-out was a well-known phenomenon, although an unpublicised one, and suffered from it, I recognise the signs. He should be allowed to chill and return when he's ready. I wish him well. --Rodhullandemu 01:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He's had several bad days in recent months, and on the intervening days he hasn't done anything whatsoever. Even if he were to come back now, acknowledging and communicating with others, the erosion of trust caused by this bizarre behavior has been too great for restoration of the tools to be appropriate without community approval. This is a case where adminship was lost "under a cloud", and an RfA should occur if he wants it back. Everyking (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that WP:RfA has the sufficient "long sight" to evaluate a request by someone who has been desysopped by the ArbCom; there would be too many "ZOMG - deadminned by ArbCom? No way!" !votes, when it is the fact of non-communication that has lead to the decision, and not the quantity or percentage of egregious blocks. As Keegan says below, the amount of queries in relation to the actions is very low - and if CSCWEM were to have responded to the queries we would not be having this discussion; therefore the cloud that you refer to is not the (mis)use of the tools, but the failure to respond appropriately to the community. As you have indicated, this specific circumstance of the decision to desysop CSCWEM is likely to be missed at any RfA. In this matter, the experience of ArbCom members of the pressures of adminship and the indicators of burnout is the best basis in which to determine whether CSCWEM is suitable for having the tools restored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In support of CSCWEM

What Guy said, about him having a clue. The user has performed more rollbacks and blocks than I could ever dream of. There are inevitable problems that come with that, statistically, and for two years he has been faithful to his mopwork. If you'd performed xK,000 blocks, you'd have holes to poke at too. Let's calm our fears of sysop abuse in this case and not cry for ArbCom. CSCWEM, for his productivity, is markibly laking in complaints. Keegan^talk 06:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said, both of you. -- Ned Scott 00:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

technical advice re admin tools

Hi, I hope you don't mind me asking this here. I have been given admin tools on cy:, and have a couple of technical questions arising from this, and there are more people here who might know the answer.

1. Is it possible to set a preference (or maybe a "monobook.js" thing) so that I don't get "block" links by everybody's name the whole time in the recent changes? If I ever (rarely) need to block someone, I can do it from their user page or contributions page, and I would prefer not to have the screen space cluttered with lots of links for blocking our valued regular contributors (perish the thought!)
2. Is it possible to set a preference for a confirmation dialogue box to appear when I use rollback? I don't see myself needing it very often, so the risk of an occasional mouse slip may outweight the benefits of having it set to single-click.

In answering these questions, feel free to describe it as if the interface is in English. I can go figure how to map that onto what it would say in Welsh.

Many thanks. — Alan^✉ 05:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The answer to both questions is "no", as far as I know, at least not without using a script.  Sandstein  12:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, pity. Thanks for letting me know. — Alan^✉ 13:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

When he says script that does include the monobook.js file. I do believe both of these are possible in some form or another. Check out WP:JS for a listing. -- Ned Scott 21:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The simplest solution might be to add the following line to your monobook.css on cy:

body.page-Arbennig_RecentChanges a[href^="/wiki/Arbennig:BlockIP/"] { display: none; }

This should make the links invisible, at least in browsers that support this particular CSS3 feature. Unfortunately, it won't hide the separator bar before the block link; for that, I think you do need a script, not that it would be a particularly complicated one. (Well, maybe you could do it with CSS3 sibling selectors, but it would get hairy.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange Watchlist additions...

I don't know if this is the right place, but if an Admin would get back to me on my talk page that would be great. I clicked to view my watchlist and I found some items that I have no idea how they got there. They include (quoting exactly from my watchlist):

• Cancelled page
• Don’t vote. Your one measly vote isn’t going to make a fucking difference.
• HAGGĖRʔʔʔʔʔʔʔʔʔ
• Heath Ledger loving Brian Peppers' pay which he uses to buy a brand new copy of the latest edition of the Encyclopedia Dramatica on stilts, the most comprehensive guide to the lulz ever.
• HΑGGER？？？？？？
• HАGGER?    
• Niggernigger Niggernigger Niggernigger Niggernigger

I never added these to my watchlist (for very obvious reasons) and it is definitely vandalism. I'm wondering if someone could have added these without logging into my account. There doesn't seem to be any other damage to my account, and there are no contributions from my account that I haven't done myself. Has anyone else been attacked like this? I don't know how long ago this happened, but for now I will change my password. Let me know if there is anything else I can/should do. Thank you. --Mac OS X 23:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

These were targets of page move vandalism, you likely had the original page on your watchlist. For example: (diff) 03:50, May 13, 2008 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs | block) (25 bytes) (moved HAGGĖRʔʔʔʔʔʔʔʔʔ to Netherlands over redirect: revert). Have you ever had Netherlands on your watchlist? –xeno (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It's because of move-vandalism; every time a page on your watchlist is moved, the new title is added to your watchlist automatically, and stays there ever after the move has been reverted. — Edokter • Talk • 23:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, guys! I wasn't aware of page move vandalism. I didn't think anyone hacked or used my account, and wondered if there was some other way this could happen. You guys solved it and I don't have to worry anymore. Thanks again! --Mac OS X 23:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK update

Resolved

Can an administrator update DYK? It's almost an hour late. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay,  Done by User:Wizardman. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to semiprotect the Template: namespace

I've posted a proposal to semiprotect the Template: namespace at the Village pump. Please comment there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review

I've indef blocked Ǝsoɹ uɐqɹn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism, as well as a username that is similar to an existing user (Urban Rose). If it was just one or the other, I would have been content to warn. With both, I felt an indefinite block was called for. The odd thing here is that there are some seemingly valid edits mixed in with the vandalism, and there were no direct attempts to harass Urban Rose, as far as I know. I don't think I was out of line in blocking, but I thought I should list it here in case anyone else feels differently, or sees something I'm missing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

With the vandalism and the username taken together, I'd say you probably made a good call. At the very least they should explain their edits and choice of name. Yes, there were some valid minor edits mixed in, but no real major contributions; this isn't really unusual, attempts to dilute one's contribution history like that are pretty common among our smarter vandals and other nogoodniks. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Along with the above, the deleted contributions are either attacks or A7 CSDs. I don't see much of anything helpful in the short contrib history. Looks like someone testing the wiki for what they might be able to get away with. The block seems fitting to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I should also say this is clearly someone's sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That Article

Over on WP:ANI there is a teapot tempest in respect of Historical pederastic couples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Leaving aside for a moment the vexed question of how it was handled, I have done some digging around and so have some others, and a rather singular fact has come to light.

Of the entries in this list which are sourced, a large number come only from a book called "Drum Beats: Walt Whitman's Civil War Boy Lovers," written by Charley Shively. Shively is a college professor, radical gay rights activist... and cofounder of NAMBLA. Which means that as a sole source this is clearly inadmissible; whatever his academic credentials, Shively cannot be seen as being neutral on this specific issue, and to report his research as fact is, on the face of it, a textbook case of WP:UNDUE.

I would ask that some of those admins who are essentially uninvolved, and who have access to good academic libraries, take on the task of policing that article and pruning the advocacy. I strongly believe that the project is being abused to advance an agenda, and having a list like this sourced largely from a book written by the founder of a fringe advocacy organisation is a red flag if ever I saw one. Polite POV-pushing is still POV-pushing, and it seems that important policies are indeed being violated.

Please go to the article, and its cousins, bring your academic non-admin friends, wield the mops and stand guard for a while. We know from long experience [e.g. Adult-child sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)] that although the pro-paedophile activists are a tiny minority they are very vociferous, expert wikilawyers and extremely determined. It is of huge importance to them to legitimise their activities via Wikipedia. I think that is what is happening here, with good Wikipedians sucked in by misdirections, politeness and wikilawyering. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is indeed a NAMBLA biased article, does it not then fall under THAT P WORD and should be referred to the ArbCom? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, I don't know. It needs careful handling, Haiduc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long-standing user but makes a worrying (to me) statement about his agenda on his user page and even his early edits were serving to advance an agenda; check his deleted contributions and his early edits to articles like J S Bach. I think this is an iceberg with only the very tip visible right now. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not the first time Haiduc has come up around a P issue - though im struggling to recall when the last time was. Viridae^Talk 11:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc is certainly an extremely problematic user with an intense POV agenda and no qualms whatsoever in misusing sources. Last time I caught him in the act was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian pederasty. I'd say we should seriously consider sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that he has a stable of simple articles, such Pederastic couples in Japan that, I suspect, will show similar sourcing problems. Nandesuka (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I can find no sources other than a wiki describing Shively as a NANBLA founder. His writings have appeared there, and reviews ofhis books, but that does not make him a founder. Could somebody please provide a reliable source stating this is fact? Our article on NAMBLA does not mention him at all. ~He is a professor and writer. He seems ok to me until definitely proven otherwise. In fact, in the absence of proof, this seems positively defamatory. Do BLP considerations holdno weight on discussion pages, or are we allowed to libel at will? Jeffpw (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether he's a founder or not, he certainly publishes with them [12] and campaigns on their behalf [13]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it a BLP violation to describe a person as a founder of such an organization without reliable sources to back it up? DuncanHill (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly seem so to me. Further, having one's article published in a magazine ( a section of a book he wrote),and signing a letter as part of a group unassociated with NAMBLA, 15 years ago when there was still controversy about the group's association within the LGBT community, is simply guilt by association. We're on a slippery slope here if we allow unsubstantiated accusations (defamatory ones at that) against living persons. Is this Wikipedia or HUAC? Jeffpw (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, the claim that he is a co-founder of NAMBLA may be unjustified. There are, however, a large number of individuals who state that he is a pro-paedophile activist. Not to the point that I'm off to see that any article on him says so (I've not even looked to see if we have one) but [14], for example, certainly gives me sufficient grounds to dispute Shively as the sole source for such claims, and that is the issue at hand: adding large numbers of entries to a contentious list based solely on the word of an activist. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think that the website you linked to (operated by Concerned Women for America) could be described as in any way a reliable source. DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So, for the sake of correctness, Guy, I suggest you strike out your remark about "co-founder of" on the article talk page and replace it with something like "associated with", which seems easily justifiable, and you'll be okay. We certainly don't want to be breaking BLP against pro-pedophilia activists out there, now, do we. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Future, please find a reliable source listing him as a pro-pedophile activist, otherwise you're just libeling him further. All refs of that nature should be oversighted, in accordance with WP:BLP. Jeffpw (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I just did. [15] is reliable enough for me. He was publicly campaigning for a pro-pedophilia organisation, full stop. By the way, even this [16] website is reliable enough for me. It's not a wiki that anyone can edit, it's essentially just a private homepage, run by a fellow American professor, a friend, sympathiser and long-time fellow activist of Shively's. I don't see why we shouldn't trust his information. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Actually no he wasn't, he was, along with other respected activists in the LGBT movement, campaigning for "free speech, free association and inclusiveness at the Stonewall 25 events. They were all stating that teh Stonewall 25 organizers didn't have the right to censor as such. Hmmm, similar to what was stated by myself and others regarding this entire debate. And now we're busy painting an editor and an author with accusations and piles of bad faith. Banjeboi 16:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On another note, the claim that Shively is being used as a "sole source" and/or the source for "a large number" of the entries in the article must be based on some kind of new math. Of the 88 references currently in the article only ONE is to Shively. Of the 108 references in the article before it was pared down only THREE were to Shively.

"I strongly believe that the project is being abused to advance an agenda, and having a list like this sourced largely from a book written by the founder of a fringe advocacy organisation is a red flag if ever I saw one."

The statement that the list is sourced largely to Shively is demonstrably FALSE. Your description of him is a BLP violation. Who exactly is abusing the project to advance an agenda here? --CBD 20:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Update

I have relisted it at DRV here - 24 editors out of 000s is not enough. I can't see how this article is compatible with WP sorry. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously vendetta driven by a group of conservative Wikipedians who have moral distaste for the subject. I cannot believe how one admin's rash actions could lead to all of this senseless drama. It's situations like this that take all the joy out of editing here. Jeffpw (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please watch where you point that "guilt by association gun", Tex. I, for one, am offended by the implication that I have any other concern than the encyclopedia having articles that don't egregiously violate our dictate against original research. Nandesuka (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is also (in my case at least) almost comically wrong. I am a European liberal, which makes me practically a Communist in American terms. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Label yourself what you want, Guy. Your ideology is clearly showing in your stance on this article, and that speaks far more than any words about your political/geographical politics. You've also lied about the number of refs Shively had in the article, which speaks volumes about your character. Jeffpw (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(E/C with JzG) JzG was the creator of the "wing-nut drivel" template, and personally responsible for removing every single link to Free Republic in article space. He's hardly some fire-breathing conservative. Horologium (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Because Free Republic is a forum, not a reliable source of information. seicer | talk | contribs 17:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, because Free Republic is a massive violator of copyright, a source of some spectacularly defamatory claims, and because it's full of OR, not to mention it's a discussion board. However, Democratic Underground, which is essentially a mirror-image of FR, still has a buttload of links (310), an unknown number of which are links to articles in mainspace. (I haven't bothered to count them all.) The point I was making, though, is that to accuse JzG of conservative bias is laughable. Horologium (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Ugly stuff, gentlemen. What I see here is an entire thread based on a "denunciation" which is a barefaced lie ("Guy" accuses me of using as "a sole source" one that makes up perhaps 3% of the sources of the article with over one hundred sources) and is only caught red-handed by ONE other individual!
Another gentleman then proceeds to label me "an extremely problematic user," and wants "sanctions." I see. All I can say is that I hope that the two examples I have given are not the standard fare of administrator debate. It would be a pity if that is where the Wikipedia is heading.
I am frankly not amused to be turned into the pedophilia whipping boy of the moment. My contributions here have to do with the history of homosexuality. My "error" is to not have been squeamish about calling a spade a spade. If I am wrong on the facts, please feel free to discuss that. I am open to feedback, and have learned a great deal from other, wiser users. As for the threats and the lies, it is not me you expose, it is you. Haiduc (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI currently unreadable

Can somebody do that anti-Grawp thing? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now sorted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me what's actually happening with this, and how to fix it? Or point me out to a discussion where it's already explained? Tan ǀ 39 21:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is very easy to fix.

1. Open an edit window for the problematic page. You can type the url in the form http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&title=Foo if you can't see the edit link
2. Scroll to the bottom and look at the list of templates transcluded
3. Find the one that is not protected
4. Protect it
5. Remove the vandalism from it

It takes about 5 seconds. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

on this note, should someone protect Template:Unresolved? I seriously doubt that template will need to be changed in the near future, and it is frequently transcluded on both AN and ANI. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See Honda CBR600RR --AdultSwim (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is possible to use javascript and/or css to prevent important buttons from being covered up by massive floating vandalism. If somebody could give me a diff of example vandalism I can test this, and possibly get it enabled by default. — CharlotteWebb 17:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Stopping a bot

User:CorenSearchBot is a copy violation detecting bot. I have reason to believe that it is giving a lot of false positives (see the bot's user contributions and messages at User talk:Coren) for various reasons, including not recognizing Wikipedia mirrors or splitting off of articles. It seems the bot's "owner" User:Coren is no longer on Wikipedia or responsive to the issues. Since the bot runs unsupervised, I believe it needs to be shut down. I think the amount of copy violation is has found is rather small compared to the amount of time it has wasted for editors. --C S (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you give evidence (diffs) of your reason? As someone who works with a lot of new spinoff articles I haven't noticed any issues from this bot. Mirrors shouldn't be too much of an issue as the articles are new and take a while to show up on the chinapedia and hollywoodapedia clones. You may want to file a note on the BO noticeboard as thats where to bot gurus hang out. User has not edited since May 8th, Bot has not edited since June 2nd and only has 5 edits since May 8th. Is this really an issue? --AdultSwim (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I and (if I can speak for her) Collectonian work over at the CSV page and remove them when false positives arrive. Everything is under control. Wikipedia will not melt down. ^_^ Synergy 08:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Ehm? Coren seems to have indeed dropped off the face of the wiki since May 8, but CorenSearchBot is still actively editing. As far as I know it's generally doing useful work, and it would be shame to lose it, but it is true that such a task does require an attentive operator to regularly maintain the exclusion lists etc. I've no idea what's going on with Coren, but if he's no longer willing or able to handle that, it might be best for someone else to take over (at least temporarily). Someone should probably e-mail him about it. The bot is written in Perl, so I suppose I could do it if no-one else really wants to, though I'm rather busy myself right now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the mistakes the bot is making is just plain silly. Coren is not responsive, so I hope somebody will take the bot over. Anyway, that's all from me. If you look at the contribution history, I guess the false positive rate is about 25%. While it's true that the CSV people are taking care of these (and seem happy to do so), I think they're often taking care of the listings after an editor has already been inconvenienced by having to check if there is a copyvio and removing the tag. --C S (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence? I would have thought it was clear if you looked at the bot's contributions (which you didn't). Pretty much every article that is still a blue link is a false positive (with some exceptions). I estimate about 1 in 4. --C S (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. A lot of times people get the notice on an article then rework it (or just remove the notice). As Synergy noted above, I'm one of the editors regularly patrolling the page. Most of the hits are accurate enough. The bot can't distinguish between other GFDL wikis and copyvio pages, but those are not often the sources of the articles. A few times yeah, it mismarks a tracklist, but again it isn't often enough to be a major issue. Most alerts are indeed copyvio issues, at the time the alert is made, or copy/paste page moves (nothing bad about having alerts on those). CorenBot is working fine and doesn't need blocking. its better to actually look at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations to see how many "false positives" there are, keeping in mind entries are removed if the article is fixed or redirected, not just because it wasn't accurate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the "mirrors shouldn't be...an issue" remark. If I break up an old article into two articles, the bot will tag it as a copyvio since the material is old and has already well propogated. The bot doesn't seem to check very accurately if the site is a Wikipedia mirror, which is a major flaw. Many times just checking for the word "Wikipedia" would be good enough (of the bot's most recent edits, I saw such a copy on a mirror that even properly attributed the material to Wikipedia, but the bot didn't seem to care). Another typical mistake is with things like song lyrics or album listings. Generally the people that make these articles put them in the proper categories, so it should be possible for the bot to check if the article is in such a category. --C S (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should make an attempt to distinguish Wikipedia mirrors with other sites, but these should still be tagged (whether as "copyvio" or not) as it can be useful for finding copy and paste moves, and recreations of deleted articles (some of which may have previously been deleted as the result of AFD or as copyright violations, making them eligible for speedy deletion). Snydale (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Song lyrics aren't supposed to be posted anyway unless they are public domain (and even then, if thats the whole of the article, it will get CSDed). Yes, it does sometimes catch a page split, but it isn't a major issue most of the time (and easily solved by making sure to do the split in a timely fashion). I've done plenty of page splits and never once had an article tagged. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found the bot to be extremely useful in the past- sure, it occasionally tags wrongly (it tagged an article I wrote once, because it included a tracklisting) but that's why we have administrators to do the deleting, the bot just searches. J Milburn (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

All tags should be investigated by admins/NPPatrollers before applying the CSD#G12 tag. As long as admins don't take the bot's word for it every time, and actually check, it should be no problem. Either way, I've found it extremely useful in the past. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Even the false positives are "1 in 4" as has been claimed, finding and deleting three copyvios—in exchange for having to read one legitimately written (and possibly quite interesting) new article—is much more than a fair trade. As says PeterSymonds, all flagged articles should be human-reviewed anyway, regardless of the bot's presumed accuracy rate. It would be foolish to block this bot until an equal or better better one is created. — CharlotteWebb 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with CharlotteWebb. The bot does a great amount of good, it is well-known and intended to have false positives, and everything it does should be reviewed by a brain before any action is taken. --- RockMFR 18:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Kurt/RFA-related thread

Resolved

 – Compromise reached. –xeno (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Only distantly related though. In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Okiefromokla, User:Xenocidic moved the discussion following Kurt Weber's oppose to the talk page. I moved it back for the reasons I tried to lay out at Xenocidic' talk page.

This has to do with Kurt Weber's opposes only insofar as some people feel compelled to "defend" him and his right to comment as he sees fit, which is generally fine by me. But it has become usual practice to simply move every single comment following his opposes to the talk page, even where such a reponse is not at all disruptive or uncivil, but might in fact provide food for thought for those who consider following in his footsteps (and possibly for Kurt himself, too). What disturbs me is the blatant inconsistency in allowing his opposes, by far most of which are not related to the candidate in any way, but moving the following discussions to the talk page for no reason other than they have nothing to do with the candidate. Well, of course they have got nothing to do with the candidate — they are about an oppose that has nothing to do with the candidate!

After I had moved the discussion back since there was nothing uncivil or disruptive about it as far as I can tell (and ignoring things you don't like is always a choice) and after having contacted Xeno about it, he moved the thread back to the talk page, stating that it has nothing at all to do with the candidate which is, imo, an excellent reason to move it.

Well, I surely hope someone here gets my point. Mind you, this is not about Kurt Weber or his opposes, or his right to oppose and whatnot (so don't please bother commenting in his defense, he is not being attacked here whatsoever). This is about people who refuse to be consistent and refuse to accept the consequences of their own opinions and judgement: Allowing Kurt to comment freely, even in a way that has nothing to do with the candidate obviously results in discussion that has nothing to do with the candidate as well. Then how exactly can anyone simultaneously arrive at the conclusions that (i) Kurt's opposes are not disruptive and that it isn't asked too much of people to simply ignore his opposes (something I have come to agree with) but —at the same time— that (ii) the discussions his opposes instigate are disruptive, even where such a discussion is civil and may provide relevant commentary for other users' consideration?

I'm hoping to clarify the rules here. What is the rule? Is it ok to comment in an RfA in a way that has nothing to do with the candidate (a) as long as your username is Kurt Weber, or (b) only as long as you're not responding to such a comment? Or what? Consistency please. Give me something to rely on. user:Everyme 09:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and please don't anyone give me bullshit about "the comments are still there, right over the talk page". A fraction of users ever look at the RfA talk page, and I've put my comment exactly where I intended it to be. So if anyone moves my comment around, I do take issue at that. It's very unfriendly, and it's effectively the same as telling me that my comment is worthless. Well, I wouldn't even have a problem with that, but then at least tell me straight up. The automatism of moving all discussion following Kurt's opposes must imho either stop immediately, or be declared official policy — simply because, to me at least, it so very counterintuitive to allow one user's comment because it's opinion and he has a right to state, even if it has nothing to do with the candidate, but to declare as worthless each and every single potential comment following such an oppose. Either way, I don't mind. But at least be honest about the shit you're doing. And shit it is to declare, through conclusive action, another user's comment as worthless. If anyone thinks e.g. this reply to this question is disruptive, uncivil, or unuseful given the context, please tell me now. user:Everyme 09:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I once proposed a guideline that all threaded discussion at RfA should take place either in the discussion section or on the talk page, with the only permitted replies to comments in the support/oppose/neutral sections being brief procedural notes (such as "this user is not eligible to participate" as well as "replied on talk page"). Didn't get a consensus for it back then, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think votephobia is the only reason why that isn't done. Anyway, separating voting and discussion into different sections would probably make RfA a less stressful experience for everyone involved. Kusma (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Although there is no firm procedure on this, it has become an accepted mechanism to remove protracted discussions to an RfA's talk page, as long as in doing so a summary of the discussion and where it has been moved to is placed in brackets directly below the support/oppose/neutral statement. In the example quoted by Everyme, Xenocidic was merely performing this accepted mechanism. Although there are positives and negatives for moving the discussion, the main concern is that a debate between two or more people that does not involve the candidate can unfairly prejeudice a contributor's opinions of the candidate. Although you are welcome, and indeed encouraged, to dispute the rationale between a contributor's support/oppose/neutral statement, if the discussion becomes protracted it is an accepted mechanism that it can me moved to the talk page. Please note that this is not the same as archiving, as you are still welcome (and encouraged) to continue the discussion there in order to resolve your concerns. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 10:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• accepted mechanism — Well, I'm currently challenging it.
• "the main concern is that a debate between two or more people that does not involve the candidate can unfairly prejeudice a contributor's opinions of the candidate" — Huh? Comments which challenge the validity of an oppose should be moved in order to prevent them from influencing other users' opinion against the candidate ? That makes no sense. user:Everyme 11:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Moreover, who decides what is and what is not a protracted (and eso. unuseful) debate? And who says that all of the comments have to be moved?
• Also, apparently I am not welcome to says anything about that particular brand of opposes, however civil. Or rather, I may do so, but then, when too many other people decide to also comment there, somehow my comment magically becomes disruptive all of a sudden and has to be removed. I don't think so. user:Everyme 11:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, and a true aside for that matter, the Colts suck. Manning sucks as well, both brothers. But as far as Everyme's concerns go, they seem valid. And it's obvious Everyme has taken offense. Beam 12:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Gaz basically already said everything I would've said. As I noted to Everyme on my talk page, this is standard practice (i.e. there was nothing personal about this particular action) and if I am the one who sparks the protracted discussion, I'm usually the first one to suggest it gets moved. –xeno (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

... I replied to Gaz above, did you catch that? user:Everyme 12:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I re-read the moved discussion and imo, it still has very little value to evaluating the candidate at hand. It's also an exercise in futility, for the reasons I mentioned to you at my talk page. I believe what Gaz was driving at is if people see huge long discussions in the oppose, they might think "oh hey look at all this discussion about the candidate in the oppose section - must be something wrong with them" - when in fact it's really just discussing the merit's (or lack thereof) of kurt-brand opposes. As far as "who decides", typically disinterested parties should be doing the move - someone not involved in the discussion or close to the candidate (just to allay any concerns of impropriety). And no one is saying you are not welcome to say anything about kbo's (I'm coining that term) but if they don't relate to the candidate and extremely long discussions result, then they'll likely get moved as well. And for the record, I never termed the discussion disruptive. –xeno (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• "very little value to evaluating the candidate" — My comment was elaborating on precisely that fact, in response to this question. Kurt himself replied to me and conceded my point while elaborating on his own oppose. I daresay that bit of the discussion is definitely relevant to the RfA.
• they might think "oh hey look at all this discussion about the candidate in the oppose section - must be something wrong with them" — I'm having a hard time taking this at face value. Do you really participate in Wikipedia on the assumption that other people don't actually read comments, but rather evaluate the sheer amount of text? I have to say I have more trust in my fellow editors.
• "I never termed the discussion disruptive" — Disruptiveness of some sort is the only reason anything gets moved or removed ever. If it isn't at all disruptive, there is no reason to touch it. So by moving it, you are quintessentially stating your opinion that it is disruptive, there's no way around that.
• "no one is saying you are not welcome to say anything about kbo's" — You know, I will start believing that as soon as my comments are not moved on some random editor's hunch. user:Everyme 13:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Solid points. I've undone myself. Can't guarantee someone else won't come along and move it. –xeno (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion which is pertinent to the candidate and relevant to any discussion should remain on the actual RfA. I've seen on too many occasions where it seems like as soon as anyone replies to a Weber comment it's moved to the talk page. Why do people feel it necessary to comment on something irrelevant to both the candidate or RfA? Only that way will we see these discussions stopped and thus no more moves. Easier said than done though. Rudget (logs) 13:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's such a fine line. I thought about moving back just the relevant stuff, but that's too tough a judgment call to make. –xeno (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on this one incident individually, just more generally. Rudget (logs) 13:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in responding to your points, Everyme. To respond to them in turn:

• Yes, procedures and mechanisms should be challenged, and it's only healthy to do so. I'd encourage kicking off a debate on this subject at WT:RFA so that the situation can get thrashed out and we can reach some consensus.
• I remember reading somewhere that this exact scenario happened - a drawn out debate between support and oppose camps where the candidate themselves weren't involved put people off contributing to the RfA. I can't dredge up diffs right now, so I won't hold this up as a major concern, but it was something clawing the back of my mind. Another that I remember reading was making it clear for the 'crats to sumamrise at the end of the process, but again, I can't find diffs so it can't come up all that often.
• It doesn't have to be an unproductive debate or heated dispute to get moved to the talkpage, just a discussion where there have been a large number of replies by contributors.
• As above, I wouldn't reserve this for concerns of civility either - I don't think you were being uncivil in your responses to Kurt, just firm in your opinions.
• I wouldn't say that comments aren't moved purely for disruptiveness - comments have been moved in the past to improve the legibility of the main RFA page, or for procedural reasons such as accidental double voting etc, although this is probably splitting hairs.

To summarise though, I'd suggest that the comments were moved in good faith using a previously accepted mechanism. If there's concern about this (which there seems to be), I'd encourage a proposal to be drawn up on WT:RFA so that we can thash the issue out. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 13:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to do so. Also, I posted here primarily to get some more attention on the issue in general and the situation at hand in particular. I probably should have posted at WT:RFA to begin with, somehow didn't occur to me. user:Everyme 14:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think we've reached a compromise that addresses both sides of the coin. I copied the entire thread to the talk page and then trimmed out the stuff, that wasn't related to candidate, leaving a less lengthy discussion behind. –xeno (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As I told Xeno at his talk, I think he made a good call and successfully separated the wheat from the chaff (..... did I just call other users' comments "chaff"? Oh for laughing out loud about my own inconsideration; sorry for that). Something to be learned here. user:Everyme 14:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I'll get the ball rolling at WT:RFA on sorting out this issue in the longer term. Shall we tag this as resolved (for now)? Gazimoff ^Write_Read 14:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This case is definitely resolved (tagged). If I were you I wouldn't bother raising it at WT:RFA. It's a bit of a perennial discussion. Just point here for precedent in the future =). –xeno (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer requesting an unblock

Resolved

 – Editor unblocked with conditions and mentoring--Kubigula (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer is requesting an unblock, and has asked that notification be given here considering the number of people involved in the block's history. --Stephen 07:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In before drama. —Giggy 07:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, this goes to the blocking admins talk page, and does not necessarily need its own post to AN or AN/I. Hes been informed already by the way. Synergy 07:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

See his talk page; he requested an AN note, and the blocking admin has been informed. —Giggy 07:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

giggy: I did see the talk page. Its a bit early for an AN post. Synergy 07:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

...which is specifically why I pinged the blocking admin first off. No objection to discussion here, though. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. I was informing anyone who was reading any of this that the blocking admin was informed. I guess I'm the only one who sees this post as being a bit premature. Regards Synergy 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• I declined it. That was a very disruptive user who was banned quite recently. He can email the arbitrators for a review, but I don't see any realistic chance that the community will consider him reformed after so short a time. 14:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well - I'm going to stick my neck out on this one. I interacted with Homer a bit, and he was usually a productive editor who reacted very poorly in certain types of disputes. He's been effectively banned for about four months, and I see the apology and coming clean as sincere and an excellent sign that he may have come to terms with the problems he sometimes created. If he can steer clear of User:Calton and limit interaction with User:JPG-GR, I think he would return to being a positive contributor. As I do feel he was previously a useful editor, I would be willing to monitor and mentor him.--Kubigula (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Limiting interaction between NH and JPG would be difficult, as both were very active in the TV and radio projects, and short of topic-banninh NH, little can be done to rectify that. Asking JPG-GR to not edit pages Homer is active on is not realistic, as he has never been sanctioned for his editing. Horologium (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

True enough. I have, however, seen NH and JPG edit productively together (I even gave them both barnstars for cooperative editing). I've notifed JPG of this thread as I think he should have input here. My thoughts were that we would go into this with NH understanding that there would be no tolerance of disruptive contact with JPG.--Kubigula (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• If it wasn't for the fact he used two Checkuser-confirmed sleeper accounts, I'd support lifting the community ban. It's sad, though--we both shared an interest in TV and radio station articles. But his use of Flatsky and his intended use of Alostnickel--sorry, that sort of block evasion can't be rewarded. Blueboy96 21:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't indef-block the original OrangeMonster account (whose original contributions were hoaxes) was because it was clear that the user behind the account was quite intelligent and could actually write articles. NH gave that up and was productive for a long while, but disputes with other editors (of which there were several) overshadowed that. Given some mentoring and direction, there's no reason NH couldn't be productive again. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with ya, Firsfron ... but this wasn't just ordinary socking we're talking about. This involved use of two sleeper accounts. Ordinary sockpuppetry is one thing, but keeping a sock in the drawer until you're blocked again? That doesn't sit well with me at all. Blueboy96 03:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No question that by the end his behavior was unacceptable - bad enough to get him rightfully banned. However, the block is not punishment, it's for the protection of the encyclopedia. To me, the key questions are whether he recognizes what he did was wrong and if such behavior would resume if allowed back. I have to say that his apology and recognition of the error of his ways are about the best I've seen, and I'm confident he's sincere. The question then shifts to whether he is likely to repeat the bad behavior. Obviously, there are no guarantees, but I'm more inclined to take the chance when someone has been a productive editor - there's more liklihood of it being a net positive to WP. I will commit to the mentoring and a short leash, and I think the risk to the encyclopedia and our editors is sufficiently contained to give it another try.--Kubigula (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess the fact he used sleepers leaves a bad taste in my mouth. However, if Kubigula's willing to keep him on a short leash, maybe it's worth trying--especially if it's understood that even one slip-up will result in him being indefblocked with no preliminaries. Blueboy96 15:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I had positive interactions with NH prior to his block, and my assessment is similar to Kubigula's: I'm willing to keep an eye on his edits, and more importantly, his interactions with others, on the condition that he has no interactions with Calton or JPG-GR. I'm not comfortable with rejecting an apparently sincere request to participate constructively, under whatever conditions we care to impose - we're not in the punishment business. Acroterion _(talk) 19:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hoo boy. Where to begin? I knew it was only a matter of time before NH returned, and I'm glad it's as NH and not under a cloak of some sort. I don't take kindly to the fact that my greatest "fame" on Wikipedia is likely due to my unprovoked run-ins with NH (I'd much more prefer no fame on Wikipedia, thank you, as I have enough to keep me content elswewhere). I'm undecided as to what I prefer the outcome to be at this point, trying to balance the facts with feelings, etc.

However, I will say this - if NH's first edit back is, in fact, wasted on an apology to my user talk page as promised, please keep him blocked. A large part of my frustration with him was repeated and unnecessary postings to my talkpage (he has more edits to MY talk page (267) than he does to his OWN talk page (222)). Any non-content related comments from him I'll either see in passing or I won't - they aren't relevant to the encyclopedia.

(Also, for the record, I'm not a member of WP:TVS and any work I do in that particular field is either local-station related or simply because it overlaps with WP:WPRS (i.e. FCC-related stuff). If the end result is a return with a partial "content ban", let him run as free as is allowed in the land of television.)

I may very well want to chime in more later, but that's what I've got to say for now. JPG-GR (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the discussion above, and with the gruding agreement of the blocking admin, I have unblocked Neutralhomer. The conditions are that he have no contact with Calton or JPG, avoids articles edited by JPG and not undo, revert or change JPG's edits, and does not create any alternate accounts. As promised, I will mentor and monitor him (and block if any problems resurface). I am determined that this will either be a success story in terms of giving a second chance or a short lived disruption if that fails.--Kubigula (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Good editor being forced away by legal threats?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:BenBurch has put up a "Retired" sign, saying he's not going to edit any more if he has to defend against legal threats. Apparently, the subject of Violet Blue (author) and her boyfriend, User:Wikiwikimoore, are threatening to get a restraining order against Ben for his edits to her article and his efforts to expose Moore's COI, claiming that they constitute "domestic violence"?! --129.89.246.127 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr IP, where are these legal threats? Can you post diffs, please? I had a look and I'm willing to block if necessary but I couldn't find them. Thanks, Sarah 23:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask User:R. Baley, he knows "apparently". Mion (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean? I dropped Ben a note asking if he had any differences showing legal threats. I also left a note for an admin who has had past experience with this article. KnightLago (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's about this one [17], if User:129.89.246.127 has some other diffs to support his question, that would be welcome. Mion (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well I dropped R. Baley a note as well as he blocked the IP as a banned editor. KnightLago (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks KnightLago, saw this earlier and recognized BenBurch's name, but did not connect it to the Roskam article stuff from earlier. I am still not sure how the diff given by Mion above, or my IP block, is connected to the VioletBlue article, and I am in the dark about any legal threats with regard to this situation. If there are any diffs showing any legal threats (I didn't find any) I will block the account that made them. . . R. Baley (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody asked Ben about this? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have. I emailed him and he has replied to me but I'll leave it up to Ben to decide what, if anything, is said publicly. I don't think there's any benefit in leaving this discussion open anymore. Sarah 02:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It can be closed. KnightLago (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've exchanged a few emails with Ben. As the IP said, he has been served papers by Violet Blue (author) who apparently is requesting a court order preventing Ben from editing her bio on Wikipedia. I'm going to block User:Wikiwikimoore under NLT: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." Sarah 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If those edits were good edits, by Ben, I'm willing to reinstate them. Wikipedia will not be threatened to stop writing good articles on my watch. Beam 04:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to go through that article yet, but there seems to be an awful lot of bullying going on. See this Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ninavizz where, apparently, the same pair that are now harassing Ben also harassed and publicly outed another editor. Sarah 04:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed Mike Godwin with a link to this topic, so he's aware of what's going on. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 07:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nwwaew. I did actually suggest to Ben that he might email the legal queue so they're aware of what is going on as there are potentially some big implications for Wikipedia and WMF in general but I don't know if he has or not. He has an attorney, though, and is doing as he's advised at this point, as far as I can tell. Sarah 10:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There aren't any edits to the article by Ben that were removed due to a lawsuit that I'm aware of. The current version is mostly consensus, to which BenBurch was a part of. The primary point of contention was inserting information about the subject having a different birth name, but without a source it just wasn't appropriate. -Chunky Rice (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know nothing was removed because of the lawsuit and it's not about the name either but I'm not going to go into the details of the lawsuit here. It's basically as the IP says at the top. Anyways, I'm going to archive this section because I don't think anything else of benefit can come from discussing this further here. The relevant account is blocked until the legal matters have been resolved per WP:NLT. Ben says he intends staying retired and I don't think anything else can be done so I think it is best to let this go to archive now. Sarah 15:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:FuturestarMatt

Resolved

 – Message left for user. –xeno (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I can across some very disturbing videos posted on YouTube.com by FuturestarMatt (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) on his account channel at http://www.youtube.com/user/FuturestarMatt

It is pretty obvious according to the videos that he hates Wikipedia. This all came about yesterday when I reverted the edits he made to the article Internet celebrity, by adding himself to the page claiming he is a YouTube celebrity. I believe other RC editors reverted his edits multiple times before he actually stopped putting it back up when he got his final warning, has shown here, [18]. Anywho, I found these videos when he acutally decieded to subscribe to my channel, for what reason? I have no clue. So, I'd thought I would bring this issue up to the admins and other editors to give a heads up and warning about this particular user. Also, I actually left the reason why his edits kept being undone on his talk page at the bottom when he came to me asking a question, here. He has yet to respond to it on here or on YouTube. --Eric (mailbox) 22:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not an admin, but I don't think we can do anything about the guy when he's on YT. On the other hand, an admin certainly has the power to do something about his editing rights. IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So you want the admins to... do what? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't watched the Youtubes, but if he understands that he's not to edit in a conflict of interests, I don't really see a reason to make any blocks for off-wiki business. The explanation Eric gave was sound and he seems to want to improve his edits. as long as he observes WP:3RR and WP:COI. –xeno (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a message for him, so I'm tagging this resolved. Thanks, –xeno (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Coolio. Thanks xeno. --Eric (mailbox) 00:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know that I dont hate wikipedia but I dislike the editors--FuturestarMatt (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)FuturestarMatt

Deleting many redirect pages

Resolved

 – Retargeting work done by Nihiltres & yours truly. The DRV discussion shall continue there. –xeno (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a technical question directed at experienced administrators. Pokémon types (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), now deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd nomination), has a zillion redirects pointing to it. Is there a practical method of deleting them automatically, or will a bot take care of most of them? Thanks,  Sandstein  17:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Only 51, shouldn't be that hard. Just to confirm, none of these should be retargeted? –xeno (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is why the site was so laggy for a while... As a note, you missed the talk page in all the excitement. As for the redirects, there's User:RedirectCleanupBot, the only bot with the +sysop bit. You could ask WJBscribe to run it for you. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The list is here. –xeno (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The bot can't act on the redirects with more than 1 entry in the history. –xeno (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks. I knew that there was a bot that does this sort of thing. Actually, Xenocidic, you're right: a redirect to Pokémon game mechanics would probably be better, and the same goes for Special:WhatLinksHere/List of Pokémon items, whose article is now also deleted per AfD. Could someone who has WP:AWB do this? I'd be grateful.  Sandstein  18:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

 Doing.... –xeno (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

err, Nihiltres has already deleted 'em all =) –xeno (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm, can't we still make redirects from your permanent list? I've added the crudely regexed redirect list of the other article to your sandbox.  Sandstein  18:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with loss of the prior edit history though. (GFDL concern?) –xeno (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As indicated at User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FPok.C3.A9mon types .283rd nomination.29, I'm not sure the article in question is totally hopeless and thus perhaps we should relist it taking the published sources into account and hold off on deleting the redirects for the time being. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We usually don't relist a closed nom; frankly, I'll be surprised if that ever legitimately happened. The two available routes are DRV and userfication, and neither require the restoration of the redirects at the moment. —Kurykh 18:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems as good a reason as any to reform AfD then. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reform it how? —Kurykh 18:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that we are a volunteer site, we should not expect volunteer editors to have to come up with sources in a mere five days and if they don't then the discussion stops. If they do find sources and as in this case return to the disucssion only to see it closed, instead of having to start an all new discussion at DRV, we should merely relist the old discussion as a more efficient and considerate way of finding consensus. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please pardon my idiocy; I'll undelete the articles I've deleted and repoint them all to Pokémon game mechanics. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It was not idiocy, I was close to doing it myself :-) Redirects can be created for all links in User:Xenocidic/sandbox‎. I'd do it myself if I had the automated tools for it.  Sandstein  18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'll do the list of items then. –xeno (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  I've done all of the Pokémon types-related redirects. Who says one needs automated tools? Tabbed browsing and the epic speed of Safari do it for me. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  ...and here I am, still hopelessly trying to figure out how to write a regex =) –xeno (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  (ec) Thanks, again, to both of you! My Firefox on XP slows to a crawl with 15 tabs or so...  Sandstein  19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  No problem, the items are  Done, and I'm quite proud of myself for figuring out the (what turned out to be a very simple) regex. –xeno (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

Resolved

 – CSD no longer backlogged. Pew pew pew. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A HUGE backlog exists. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

 Doing... I dunno about "HUGE", 116 is pretty typical. –xeno (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that bad - working in it. Pedro :  Chat  20:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Time to get out my raygun and join the fun, I guess. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet of Lawinformationhelper

Resolved

 – Sock of Lawinformationhelper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef.  Sandstein  07:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, folks. You remember that guy I complained about here? Well, it seems he's back under a new name.

I'll leave you to decide how to handle this matter. --Eastlaw (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Huggle edit advertising

There has been a call for "Less intrusive advertising" here for the huggle anti vandalism tool. The current advertising for huggle is (using Huggle). As you can see this is rather big e.t.c. The proposed change is that the advertising will look like other advertising of anti vandalism tools. The proposed summary is (HG). I'm hoping that this will be more of an announcement than a discussion as there really is no reason for it to be as long as it is. Many people have called for this change and If there are no major opposes then I will make the change in the next few hours. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 09:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with the change. It also makes it consistent with the edit summary tag used by Twinkle (TW).Gazimoff ^Write_Read 11:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This has now been changed. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 14:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind removing these labels altogether. If I wanted to know what tool or client somebody was using I would use spyware to find out their user-agent ask them on their talk page. — CharlotteWebb 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You can suppress the others, but I don't think people should be able to supress huggle's indicator, due to the tendency of some people to use it in a sloppy manner. –xeno (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Those little backlinks in edit summaries can be quite useful, and I'd strongly advise anyone writing or using semiautomated editing tools to include them. Of course, as long as everything goes fine, it shouldn't matter how you make your edits — but if the tool you're using turns out to have a bug, or if someone simply gets suspicious about your editing speed, having an explanation and a link to more information right there in the edit summary can do a lot to minimize confusion. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For an edit summary, the more descriptive the better. -- Ned Scott 03:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Log and image oversight

I've just made a proposal here, and I'd appreciate a few admins to weigh into it. Many thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Posting people's uncompleted sandbox into mainspace: okay?

I came across a dispute between Kare Kare (talk · contribs) and AdultSwim (talk · contribs). It comes down to AS having nabbed a very incomplete article draft from KK'S sandbox and posting it in mainspace. KK is (understandably, as the article was not only very incomplete, but an entire section had not been corrected that had been written for a different article), and AS's reaction is not exactly, to say the least, Gracious. I find it at best impolite, at worst dickish, and have told AS so on his talk page. I think it'd be a shame for KK to get disheartened over behavior no sane editor would condone.

Anybody got further comments? Circeus (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

GFDL requires attribution. Probably should be speedy deleted as a copyright violation. Just because something is posted on Wikipedia doesn't mean it can be copied willy-nilly wherever. --- RockMFR 19:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with RockMFR. Should be deleted per G6 or G11, so that the writer can receive proper attribution. –xeno (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it as an A7, with a link to this discussion. Since the primary author was the one who was irate, A7 is appropriate in this case. Horologium (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you meant G7, and that is what you wrote in the deletion, but then you restored it? –xeno (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He probably meant G7, which is appropriate here, although I could see a case for G11 working as well. Typically, such drafts usually have only one author, so if the author took the material into the mainspace, then it's fine by GFDL concerns, but if multiple people worked on it, a history merge is probably necessary. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(after E/C) Yes G7, and it's been re-deleted. For a moment, I thought I had deleted the wrong article. I verified that it was the correct article and redeleted it. Considering the work that Kare Kare has put into a series of fish articles (witness all of the DYK's on his talk page), it is only right that he receive credit for his work. Horologium (talk)

CSD:G0, "generally doing the right and obvious thing". Guy (Help!) 21:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

AS has gotten more and more confrontational ("Being an admin for 1 month and 16 days does not make you the all knowing authority on all issues.") and appears to completely miss the point of GFDL violations. I've given him a 24 hours block. Circeus (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? Bad block. AS should learn from things like these threads, not through spankingblocking. -- Ned Scott 23:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the situation, and I don't really disagree with what happened (the speedy deletion), but it does say on every editing window "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."... All AS would have had to do would have been to mention KK in the edit summary to satisfy the GFDL issues. -- Ned Scott 23:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In theory this could satisfy GFDL attribution requirements, however, rather than listening to people's concerns (not just about the attribution, but about the lack of courtesy involved in making someone else's work "live" before it is ready and without consulting them) he instead tried to justify his actions through wikilawyering, and when that didn't work, resorted to incivility and personal attacks. –xeno (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Which certainly wasn't very nice of him at all. -- Ned Scott 00:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the block was based on the discussion on AS talkpage: User talk:AdultSwim#Stout whiting. --Amalthea (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Which still makes it a bad block. Heated discussion should be defused, not hit with a baseball bat. -- Ned Scott 00:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is difficult when someone refuses to admit that they may have made a mistake and instead decides to lash out with incivility. –xeno (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

He was blunt, cold, and uncaring in responding to KK, but nothing blockable. It wasn't until other people started to pop up and say "we think you should feel bad about this" that he started to get agitated. -- Ned Scott 00:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that gives him free reign to violate the WP:NPA policy. The original act and his response to it was bad enough; refusing to even consider the fact that maybe he should not have done it and attacking those trying to explain why, even worse. –xeno (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he just doesn't give a fuck. He was cold, he was detached, but he didn't actually do anything wrong. The GFDL argument was just an excuse to delete the page, because we can all think of many ways to fix it without actual deletion. Keep in mind that I agree with the deletion, and I don't think he was right to be rude like he was, but come on people. I sure would be annoyed as hell if you guys came on my talk page and started lawyering about, rather than just saying "hey, that was rude, try to consider thinking about how this person felt" and leaving it at that. You all had good intentions, but that was a bad way to handle the situation. -- Ned Scott 00:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

KK tried that. Anyways, I was willing to let the PA's slide, which is why I took my leave of his page, but not the GFDL violations and his treatment of KK, which is why I went there. By the way, from that essay you cited: Using apathy as rationalization for a dickish action is a patent abuse of the live-and-let-live ethos of Don't-give-a-fuckism. seems rather appropriate. –xeno (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not defending his actions, I'm trying to put them into a reasonable context. Lets help the situation instead of making it worse. -- Ned Scott 00:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The deletion seems appropriate; unless talking back to admins became a blockable offense somewhere along the line, I don't see anything that calls for a block at this time. Shouldn't you folks have thicker skins than that? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

eh, like I said, I didn't care about insults. I'd support unblocking if he agreed not to harvest other people's sandboxes. –xeno (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that in itself is an actual issue here. There doesn't even seem to be any lingering issue between AS and KK. KK's last post to AS's talk page was:

"Again i quite realise that it is not "mine", however, i believe that other editors, such as ryan who i have worked with in the past, would rather they posted the words they wrote as opposed to someone else. I do realise after editing here for around a year now that blanking a page does not get rid of it, but there was no information of any quality on them anyway. I very rarely venture into the admin and non article generating side of wikipedia, and couldn't care less about it most of the time. I understand your point of view; it was there on the sandbox, so why shouldn't it be used? I just thought common courtesy existed on wikipedia. I wish to put an end to this discussion, again i know you have done absolutely nothing wrong in terms of policy, i just thought you might use a bit of courtesy. I apologise that i came over quite strongly in my first statements, i am sorry if i was uncivil towards you. Thanks Kare Kare (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)"

I'm not sure what else we're waiting for. -- Ned Scott 01:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems or issues with AdultSwim, i had intended to chalk this incident up as a lesson learned and presumed it a dead issue. I am heartened to see Circeus picked up on the issue and the article was deleted, but i am done with the whole incident. Thanks to all the admins who looked into the problem. The full stout whiting article should appear in the next day or two, i'm just finishing the article now. Cheers Kare Kare (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll have the Template:The Trout Barnstar for you when the article is posted. --AdultSwim (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

3 comments:

• I detect a faint, if not unanimous, consensus that the block should be overturned. As a completely uninvolved admin, anyone have any serious problem if I unblock early? As a cool-down measure? (for a refreshing change, let's ask about cool-down unblocks at the next RFA)
• If "policy" allows someone to take someone else's work and post it as their own, we should change policy. However, I don't believe it does; I think this did, in fact, violate policy.
• Based on the last two responses above, I propose an immediate IAR sysoping of KK, without the need for an RFA. We need more of that here.

--barneca (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but my impression is that we're mostly waiting for someone to go ahead and do it, at this point... so I went ahead and did it. AS is unblocked. Should consensus determine I acted in error, take action as needed (I'll be heading offline for a bit, soon, myself). – Luna Santin (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never been clear what we were supposed to do when faced with personal attacks if block "should never be punitive". In any case, should anybody wish to revert the bock, I won't throw a fit. At least there seems to be constructive discussion on the deeper issues. Circeus (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

- Stretch - Now that my talk page has tripled in length, let me state the above comment concerns me. Admins that are unsure of what to do, should probably call in others before blocking. Why thats exactly what the blocking policy states to do when the Admin is involved in the dispute. Look how handy it is, it covers both 'no cool downs' and 'disputes'. Gosh those policy guys were smart. What will they come up with next? Some kind of way to address these issues on a noticeboard? Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts perhaps? Perhaps they may even come up with a Wikipedia:New admin schoolfor new and 'unsure' admins. --AdultSwim (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi AdultSwim. Please, please let this drop. You did two uncool things. The block may have been an over-reaction to that, although one could reasonably disagree with that. You are now unblocked. I really don't see how being snide is going to help. --barneca (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would, but somewhere down the road some other admin (or even perhaps the same one) who has a dispute with .0001% of my edits will look at my talk page and block log and in spite of policies against such things, will use it as a record to justify another no-warn, cool down, dispute block. Since there can be no vindication of an unblock and wikipedia has no further review of either unblocks or expired blocks, my only requiem is to fully log the issue here for future reference.--AdultSwim (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any chance at all that you might have caused this problem, AdultSwim? Hesperian 02:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but with lesser power comes lesser responsibility. However in the interest of making unnecessary promises beyond the general polices and guidelines that effectively govern and protect us all equally, simply to place the community at ease, let me vow the following:

1. "From now on I will not write off as 'trolling' random comments that call me 'dickish' and then go on to complain of a general lack of 'Graciousness' (Grace v. Dick perhaps?) instead responding to them here with great haste in spite of what ever else I may feel is more important, productive, or less contentious and regardless of how old the issue at hand is or weather it has already been cleared up with the user in question.
2. I will be less knowing of wikipedia policies and suck up what ever comments are posted at my talk page without question.
3. I will click the move button instead of satisfying GFDL requirements through the traditional method, so help me Jimbo" --AdultSwim (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, the move button was the traditional way of satisfying the GFDL. Mr.Z-man 03:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

AS, don't worry about your block log. A lot of us have quite a rap sheet, some deserved, some undeserved. It happens. Rumor has it that if you get more than twenty entries you get a free sandwich at SubWay. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Take that Jarod. --AdultSwim (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A block is only a big a deal as you want to make it. From what I've seen in the past in threads like this, requesting further review of blocks after they expire, and especially after they are manually undone tends to make things worse, not better. Continuing to complain about a block that was overturned by consensus tends to reflect more poorly on the complainer than the blocker. Mr.Z-man 03:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And what about all the users that don't complain, that don't know how to appeal, that don't know the policies, that don't know how to defend themselves. What do they do? They leave the project, sock, or turn to vandals. And wikipedia is worse off because of it. --AdultSwim (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

They're not going to read AN. You are accomplishing nothing for the oppressed masses. Horologium (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a horrible and ugly block. Quite petty. It was rather punitive and served no preventative purpose. I would urge the admin to apologize. Admins don't realize what a huge consequence their blocks have. As recently happened to me, it's quite discouraging. Beam 03:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a good idea to understand the GFDL before you make arrogant pronouncements about it. Here's a primer:

1. Your contributions to Wikipedia remain your personal intellectual property. If someone claims you don't own your contributions, they don't know what they are talking about.
2. Your contributions to Wikipedia have not been transferred to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. If someone claims that Wikipedia owns your contributions, they don't know what they are talking about.
3. By licensing your contributions under the GFDL, you have neither given up your intellectual property rights, nor transferred them to another party. All you have done is specify a set of conditions under which others are free to use, copy and modify your contributions; one such condition is that your authorship must always be attributed. Anyone who copies your contributions without acknowledging your authorship, or otherwise without complying with the GFDL, has stolen from you in both a legal and moral sense. If someone claims the right to do whatever they want with your contributions, just because you have posted them on Wikipedia, they don't know what they are talking about.

Hesperian 03:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said Hesp. Where were you 12 hours ago? =) –xeno (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

He was in Perth, the capital and largest city of the Australian state of Western Australia, and the fourth-largest city in Australia, with a population of 1,554,769 (2007 estimate), shouted Wikipedia Brown for no reason. --AdultSwim (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh good for you, you know where I live. Which means you probably know who I am too. And you know how to tell me so without breaking the letter of policy. And now I'm supposed to be scared of you and say "Hey everyone, AdultSwim was right after all when he tried to defend his rudeness by hiding behind a license he doesn't understand", right? Bah. Hesperian 06:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, things could be worse. You could have been from Nigger Head, Queensland. Most uncomfortable userbox ever. --AdultSwim (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

AdultSwim section break (revised issue)

The more I think about it, the more uncomfortable I am with AdultSwim's Perth comments above, and (yes, I know, groan) I don't think this thread should close yet. I don't know where the info came from, I don't know whether it is common knowledge, but no matter what, I can't think of a legitimate reason to bring it up. I can, however, think of an illegitimate reason to do so; it appears to be some kind of ill-conceived attempt at intimidation. AdultSwim, please show me I'm wrong and give me a different, harmless, believeable reason for doing so. If you can't, then at the risk of further inflaming a situation that many of us wish would go away, I'll have to make you give me the "scary ghost hands" too, and say that further instances of attempts at intimidation will result in another block. I know you feel mistreated by the block, but this is a truly unacceptable way to lash out. -barneca (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to play the devils advocate, when I read it, I took it as a kind of "lighten the mood" comment rather than a "I know what major metropolitan centre you're from so watch out" idle threat. At least I hope this is how he meant it, even if it wasn't well-received. The person he mentioned it about is in the Australian wikiproject so it's possible the information was found in the project pages somewhere. –xeno (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't strike you as an extremely creepy kind of humor, then? Even if that info was taken directly from H's user page or something, I don't see how that could be construed as humor. AS had to actually go looking for this information. If everyone else thinks I'm over-reacting, I'll grudgingly drop it, but with at least a caution to not use that kind of "humor" anymore. But calling it humor strikes me as similar to the "my evil twin brother was using my computer" excuse you sometimes hear; it can't be completely disproved, but it smells wrong enough that I don't feel compelled to take it at face value. --barneca (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate, no. Neither do I think his follow up was. –xeno (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Dedent, Oh for the love of Jimbo's Beard. H is a member of Wikipedians of western Australia, 80% of the population lives in or around Perth as its the only major city in the region. Simple statistics state thats where he was or at least associates himself with (as was the question). The response plays to an actual answer to a rhetorical question. (Perhaps the youtube video helps carry the humor inspite of your lack of an ability to laugh.) The second response plays to the old userboxes and the fact that Australia has some really weird geographic locations that no one could imagine having in a place like the United States ('Nigger Head High School?' Home of the fighting ...? ) As far as intimidation by outing let me see what else I can do with statistics, he is a white male, 20 to 30 years old, some college education, owns a computer, spends a lot of time on the internet (most of it at wikipedia), drives a toyota less than 7 years old, complains about the price of petrol, opposed AU involvement in Iraq, watches soccer... ScaryGhostHands:Now everyone put your hands up to chest level, palms out, shake them and say oooooooooooooooooo. As far as 'lashing out', Do I really have to justify my self on every edit on this manufactured issue or are you just digging and needling till you find something blockable? --AdultSwim (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that I am at a computer where I can see the YouTube video, I'm willing to assume good faith and accept that this wasn't a clumsy intimidation attempt, so while I still think it was somewhat inappropriate, I retract all the talk of blocking, etc, above. I would point out that I was in favor of unblocking AS earlier, so the talk of "just digging and needling till you find something blockable" seems odd. --barneca (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Warning

There are two editors [[19]], [[20]] which have already aroused some discomfort amongst the other editors because of their nature of grouping, backing eachother in order to defend a particulat ideology[[21]]. They heavily involve in articles about masons [[22]], [[23]], even they edit an opposive natured article [[24]], [[25]] which seems that they create misinformation. And the way they post to me personally not very acceptable [[26]]. I may not know the wikipedian rules profoundly yet I know that this is not a personal forum site and no article page is closed to general criticism and brainstorming[[27]]. So they (Blueboar, MSJapan) are suspected sockpuppets and the articles about Freemasonary should be observed more closely. (cantikadam (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

(Hey look, he saved me the trouble of having to inform him). Cantikadam is in need of a block. He has made zero main space edits and is clearly here to do nothing more than trolling. See User talk:Cantikadam#AN/I and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive449#Longterm nonconstructive editor... for warnings, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks and harassment. This means that I will be declared part of a Masonic conspiracy faster than you can say Jahbulon... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no chance that Blueboar and MSJapan are sockpuppets, I'm afraid. As for LessHeard being a part of one of the ubiquitous global Masonic conspiracies, well, duh. He has several barnstars, which are of course architectural symbols, which means he associates himself with building, which is what Freemasons do, and it is his way of covertly communicating his status as a Mason to the almond-eyed greys on the mothership so that they don't mistakenly pick him up for an intrusive physical by one of their unlicensed physicians. How obvious can you be? John Carter (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you are trying to intimidate LessHeard by outing very personal details about him on this page. Your insults of greys who as we all know have olive colored eyes is unacceptable and should be withdrawn. The use of the phrase 'intrusive physical' espouses a dark views and to claim it is humor or satire is reminiscent of <file 'feigning outrage by mentioning random unrelated scenario 47.txt' not found> and is defamatory against both people who perform physicals and those who like intrusive medical procedures by persons who may or may not be medically inclined. Now turn your head and cough. --AdultSwim (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been set up! The barnstars were awarded to me by other lizards... people, I mean, people! LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For those of you keeping count, since the thread on cantik I started here on July 16, he's made fifteen edits: two went here, and the rest were talk and userpage edits (as well as an attempted reversion on my talk page). I realize that the 24 hour block is supposed to be a punitive measure, but so was the earlier warning. Exactly how many unconstructive edits are we going to allow from a given user before an indef for a total lack of contribution to WP?

On an unrelated note, I noticed Beam didn't complain publicly here that cantikadam didn't notify either myself or Blueboar there was a thread about us here on ANI (as he did on the last two threads I posted here). If there's going to be public lambasting, can we at least not have a double standard? MSJapan (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed it. My apologies. Beam 16:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't address why Beam didn't notify you, but Blueboar has been notified now. I also note that as per here Cantikadam doesn't seem to have a single mainspace edit yet, only a comparatively few talk edits that aren't dubious, and a lot of userspace edits. If someone were to propose a community ban on that editor, which anyone can do, I think there's a reasonable chance others might agree to it. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would ask, then, that a relatively uninvolved party make the recommendation. MSJapan (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor in question has been blocked for 24 hours, with notice that if he continues in similar fashion when the block expires, he can expect to be blocked indefinitely. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Goodness... you leave Wikipedia for one day, and suddenly you find yourself accused of being a sockpuppet! Thanks to those who have taken care of this matter. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Notification looks like a fine task for a bot. Perhaps even one that can update links for reference after the issue gets archived. I'll look into it over the weekend. --AdultSwim (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible admin collusion and conflict of interest?

Greeks and Macedonians? Check. Arguing over a map? Check. Content dispute? Check. —Kurykh 04:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

First a disclaimer. I have a very strong POV on a certain politically charged issue discussed on Wikipedia. I have no regrets about it and 100% believe I still have the integrity to be factual in my reporting and accept accurate reporting provided by the "other side" (even if I don't like it). I think it is intellectually honest to admit this upfront.

The issue

I feel their might be admin collusion going on with certain articles but because I am relatively new to Wikipedia I'm not going to say the article and admins in question. I don't wish to ruin people's reputations on unfounded charges but I think it is important to lodge a record that this would said (in case this isn't my imagination and the problem continues). Any feedback would be appreciated. (incidentally I'm not being blocked... I'm just using this IP to keep the parties in question confidential)

Sequence of events

1. I added several distinct edits over several days to a highly charged political issue... which user 'A' decided to undo in one fell swoop. All the edits I did I believe were factual information related to the article so when they undid the edits.... I also undid them back. I very politely requesting in the edit description for justification for undoing so many edits at once and to review them one-by-one.

2.I then went to user 'A' talk page to politely discuss their revisions. Instead of discussing the points in detail... they deleted me from their talk page.... and user 'A' reported me to admin X... and admin X did the revert back.

3. I am a programmer who could find plenty of ways to proxy my way back but I respected the revert because it was an admin doing so. However, I made a (polite) formal request for admin x for point by point justification for the revision (on their talk page).. which they did not reply back. (been over a week and they've replied to subsequent requests from others)

4. After logging my request with admin X... I when went back to user "a" USER page where I had noticed some material I thought was offensive (a link to a page that showed my country half occupied by their country) and a links to several articles with sensationalist titles that were both factually inaccurate and focuses solely on puttin my ethnic group in a bad light. I didn't remove anything but I asked him (politely) to remove the link to the page that showed my country occupied by his (or I would take it up with admins for arbitration). Instead he apparently made someback channel request to another admin (admin 'Y').. and admin Y accussed my "harassment and trolling".

5. I then went to admin Y talkpage... and to be blunt... accused him back of unfairly harassing me at the whimn of some user without gathering any facts first. I then pointed out (politely) my issues with user X and asked him for a written review of my concerns. Instead this is admin Ys exact reply.

Every sane person with normal adult intelligence can see that your allegations against B.F. are nonsensical. If you can't see that yourself, it's probably no use me trying to explain it to you. I will simply block you if you continue with this topic, for being either a malicious troll or too clueless for rational discussion

Conclusion

I spoke politely to all three... (other than rebutting any rude accusations in like)... I made honest factual edits... I was willing to work with rewordings or discussions as to why someone might feel they were wrong.....and yet I had my edits removed... I was threatened with blocking... my concerns were ignored....and I was even cursed at by an admin?

Now is this just me or is naming calling completely inappropriate for ANY admin of Wikipedia? And don't admins also have an obligation to review the complaints of all sides before applying threats of blocking or doing reverts?

To complicate matters further... I've done a little superficial investigation and noticed that both admin x and admin y seem to be focusing on harassing people from my particular ethnic group and have made edits themselves to several articles related to the thorny issue in question (the one's I've seen so far have always been towards the other side). They both also seem to have an ongoing relationship with user A (who shows a much clearer documented agenda against my ethnic group)

So... what am I supposed to think here? I realize I am new here so the kneejerk reaction by other admins might be to protect one's own (and the admins in question might be reading this)... but am not a newbie to the Internet nor do I believe name calling from an admin is appropriate. And when you compound it with everything else I really believe it is possible some admins are abusing their power. What would people advise I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.239.132 (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The first thing you need to do is to be more specific. What exactly are you talking about? Link to an article? Links to the postings you're quoting from? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My first piece of advice would be to stop being coy, and identify yourself and the other editors, so someone can see whether you're yanking our chain, or if you have a legitimate complaint here. Otherwise, I doubt you're going to get anything useful here. If this is theoretical only, we have other things to do. If it isn't theoretical, give names and diffs and article names. --barneca (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This anon (apparently User:Crossthets), is an apparent POV Pusher, evidence below

THIS is what he's talking about. We explained about the "provocative map" to him. I called him a troll because, as I explained, it seemed like trolling and harassment. But it was feigned ignorance. So me and BalkanFucker took the time to explain the map, which should have alleviated all of this anon's concern. But he continued to complain which leads me to believe he is a troll. Please review that talk page section and the "Provocative" map. After I realized that he, at least, didn't think he was trolling we explained it. He still continued to harass. I would like a block if he continues to try to get BF in trouble, it's bullshit. I think it's obvious he's trying to push a POV and was stopped by good editors. Beam 01:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the provocative map??? Someone with a high tolerance for irony should explain the purpose of that map to him. --barneca (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read THIS where I thought he was trolling, fell for it and explained it to him (as did BF), and then he still continued to troll us. Beam 01:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I assume your little nickname for BalkanFever is an in joke, and isn't incredibly rude... --barneca (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. Beam 01:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw, this is the map in context (click the good example at the bottom) that he is trolling and harassing BalkanFucker, and me over. He also, apparently, is claiming that my sexy self, and FutPer are conspiring against him. Beam 01:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, and the purpose of this post is...? Any immediate administrator action needed? If not, can we mark this as resolved? The OP made no mention of the article and the post was generally vague and winded. seicer | talk | contribs 02:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... I explained exactly what he was talking about. The user is trolling, and trolling hard apparently. And, as you see below, he won't stop. Something has to be done, about him. Beam 02:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

---

I noticed Beam is already on the defensive is already trying to get me blocked here without even giving me a chance to speak (even though I didn't even bring him up). I would like to note that he too has an ongoing long relationship with balkanfever. (there is currently even an award from balkanfever on Beams user page that says.

I, BalkanFever, award you the Barnstar of Good Humor, for your constant hilarity on my talk page. Keep it up! BalkanFever 11:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed after I posted my intial anon query to this page... this threat was just added to my talkpage by Fut.Per. (the admin who had previously cursed me)

If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Fut.Per

Considering Futper obviously knows he is one of the parties in question I think his threat was highly inappropriate and does lend credibility to my argument that there is a potential of conflict of interest in this instance. I therefore request that admins that have no history with either Futper and Beam (nor the controversial articles in question) do the arbitrating.

I'm accusing two admins (and possible even someone else) of very very bad behavior and I'm a newb here. I know this will be an uphill battle. I'm going to take the advice of the first two admins to respond to me and provide a precise report. It will take me a few days to write up something more exacting with precise links. It's going to be pretty long. Should I post it here or somewhere else?--Crossthets (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, because I'm not seeing any issue here. You are blowing this entirely out of context and proportion, and for the amount of legwork you are doing here, it is pretty needless because no administrator will take action. As several have stated above, the issue seems to be over the "provocative map" which was explained to you in detail.

I don't understand this, "I noticed Beam is already on the defensive is already trying to get me blocked here without even giving me a chance to speak." You began the thread with an anonymous post, and then get all hasty when he actually replies? seicer | talk | contribs 02:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As I say on his talk page, if you're going to make a report than do it. Stop trolling BF and others trying to get them "punished." If you actually aren't trolling, please review what has been said on that talk page regarding the map. There is nothing provocative and you constantly misrepresent what BF and I have said, to the point of trolling. Beam 02:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

---

-I will do it but as I said it will take me a few days. I don't want to get tit-for-tat into this right now but to address your points.

A. I have not "trolled" (aka talked) with BF since the incident with Futper.

B. Even though I was anon... I admitted right up front with my initial disclaimer on this page that I have a strong POV on the issues. I don't believe this is a problem as long as I remain factually accurate.

C. The map that you suggest is harmless shows half of Greece occupied by something called "Greater Macedonia". As mentioned....Greece has currently accused FYROM of acts of irredentism.

(one of many many examples) http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/category/fyrom-news/

The US Congress last year even passed a resolution condemning FYROM for failing to meet their UN obligation. Among other things it specifically accused it of (verbatim)

1. "hostile activities or propaganda" against Greece.

2. Whereas the aforementioned acts constitute a breach of FYROM's international obligations deriving from the spirit of the United Nations Interim Accord, which provide that FYROM should abstain from any form of `propaganda' against Greece's historical or cultural heritage;

3. "whereas a television report in recent years showed students in a state-run school in FYROM still being taught that parts of Greece, including Greek Macedonia, are rightfully part of FYROM;

Whereas some textbooks, including the Military Academy textbook published in 2004 by the Military Academy `General Mihailo Apostolski' in the FYROM capital city, contain maps showing that a `Greater Macedonia' extends many miles south into Greece to Mount Olympus and miles east to Mount Pirin in Bulgaria; and (one of my edits that were initially removed incidentally)

(Full text: add colon ':' to end of address bar if link doesn't work) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.Res.300:

Considering the third resolution... images like Balkanfever linked to are clearly highly provocative and not in the spirit of the above resolution meant to encourage better relations. When you compound this with his long history of anti-Greek sentiment and current tensions between FYROM and Greece... it hardly seems innocent and appropriate as you suggest. At the very least it was worth a serious discussion.... and certainly not threats of blocking me or futper name calling me insane for bringing the issue up.

As previously mentioned because of the potential conflict of interest (and admins that may be friends with those I am accusing may be possibly biased against Greece.... breaking Wikipedia NPOV guidelines) I request this issue be handed to someone with no prior relationship with either Futper and Beam and no relationship to articles related to Macedonia. I thank you for taking the time to review my concerns. --Crossthets (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. You continue to claim that map as something it isn't. It's been explained to you multiple times now. Good luck with your report, but please accept that the map isn't against any particular group of people, as explained to you repeatedly and clearly. Beam 03:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That may very well be your personal interpretation but I can assure you millions of ethic Greek Macedonians would reject your assertions. Users will often have strong POVs but I thought Wikipedia admins were supposed to be respectful to all sides and focus on maintaining a polite NPOV? (regardles friendships and personal politics)

I would say your continued brushing off of this issue (even after showing you a US resolution condemning maps showing Greece occupied by FYROM... and my repeated complaints and escalating of this issue) clearly shows you have little interest in respecting the ethnic-Greek Macedonians side here. --Crossthets (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No. You haven't read the explanation, or you're trolling. Beam 03:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Crossthets, you have been made aware of possible sanctions against disruptive editors regarding to anything Balkans-related. Your harassment of other users and the witchhunt that has ensued is, quite frankly, getting annoying. Unless you have something that is actionable and within reason -- this coming from an uninvolved administrator -- then nothing can be done. I'll mark this as resolved, and I'll be leaving you a notice to move on -- unless you are willing to bring forth your detailed summary which may take "days." In that case, feel free to reopen it at that time. seicer | talk | contribs 03:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, you claim you are an "uninvolved administrator". Straight question then. Do you have any prior dealings with either Futper or Beam that you have not disclosed to me?

I say this because you are suggesting marking an issue "resolved" have used the words "witchhunt", "harassment;" and "annoying" to describe me.... after TWO prior admins requested me for more details but BEFORE I've had a chance to give them that report? (which I've already said would take a few days).

All I asked for was a fair hearing by someone that doesn't know them or have anything to do with Macedonia article. And if you did know either Futper and Beam and didn't disclose it.... I would like to add you to that list. --Crossthets (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Really, that's enough. I asked you to give real names and pages so we could see whether you were yanking our chain or not. You are. You need to drop this issue now. The map does not show what you are claiming, and it is simply not possible that you don't understand this by now. Please feel free to make one, last bitter comment about my unfairness, I will let you have the last word (I'm going to bed now anyway), then I recommend someone block this user if they continue after their one freebie. --barneca (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Outside of general communications amongst other editors and administrators on this noticeboard and elsewhere, no, I do not have any direct dealings. So I ask you (for the third time) -- present your case when you are ready -- not days from now. This isn't a noticeboard for inaction or for comments that are not actionable. Bring something more concrete, but this is being marked as resolved until that has happened. seicer | talk | contribs 04:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, you've been very fair till now. It was Seicer who claimed to be uninvolved, called it a "witchhunt", called me "annoying", and wanted to close the issue. I asked him if he had prior undisclosed dealings with Beam and Futper. (to which he has now answered yes) The point being... how can I be expected to get a fair hearing if admins have the appearance of backscratching each other? Have I been rude to anyone? Didn't I originally come at this as an anon?

I feel like the guy reporting their may be a bad cop at the policeman's ball. :(

As I mentioned... the map is only one element in this issue of what I feel might be a case of non-NPOV admins related to Macedonian issue. Hell maybe I'm too sensitive but I can assure you I know far more about Macedonia issues than any admin here. Again, all I want is a fair shot to discuss my beefs with someone uninvolved with the parties and articles in question. I don't think this is unreasonable request given the nature of the problem I am suggesting. If you recall, I did original state I wanted to keep this low key rather than cause a ruckus (in case its me being overly sensitive) but I was specifically requested to provide further details.

I haven't even been given the opportunity to provide that requested report and some are suggesting the discussion should be closed and still others that I should be blocked?

As I said... is it possible just to assign me an uninvolved admin which I can send that report with PRECISE links and references as requested within a few days. I would give it to you this second but it will take hours to prepare and I have other things to do besides Wikipedia edits. I promise I won't make a peep about the issue after my report about the issue after has been reviewed and will stick to my edits. (at least now that this is out in the open now and logged... it should be a little incentive to keep everyone honest). Heck.. I'll even apologize to the admins in question if the arbitrator can convince me I'm being too sensitive.

I'm not trying to be unfair here. I just want to be heard and be treated fairly myself --Crossthets (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arabic Wikipedia

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

Resolved

 – left for consensus to emerge. Or not. --Rodhullandemu 17:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

please protect this page, A user (his name is Stayfi and was banned several times in ar wikipedia) puts his ideas and thoughts about ar wikipedia in this article thinking that wikipedia is like a blog where anyone can put his thoughts and feelings. thanks --Osm agha (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the offending (unsourced) material and left a warning for this editor. I don't feel protection is warranted, but if there's any repetition, other steps may become necessary. --Rodhullandemu 03:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

...however, I've now fully protected the article while we empty the sock drawer. --Rodhullandemu 05:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you --Osm agha (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please, any other admin to consider the removing of protection from this article, i'm fully writing it, with evidences to be put today, about its content, but users from the Ar wiki, r here but to prevent facts on it, Mr Rodhullandemu averted me to do so.

Then any admin, can judge my references, Regards. --Stayfi (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel inclined to unprotect Arabic Wikipedia at present due the the flood of apparent sockuppets adding this information, and, who, incidentally, I am about to block. Put your references on the article's Talk page please, and let them be judged for reliability. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 14:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• hi Rodhull, it's done, nd i hope u'll help it, and refine. regards --Stayfi (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hello, I ask, some of the admins here, to remove the protection for the article, Arabic wikipedia, i want to add facts, but we didn't reach a solution with r rodhull, since he isn't able to read arabic, my references are simple, please do take a look at the talk page. Regards. --Stayfi (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with my lack of language skills, it's a matter for other editors of Arabic Wikipedia to evaluate your sources. Assessing content is not something for admins to do as admins. The page will be unprotected once consensus is reached. --Rodhullandemu 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Eh, which consensus ur talking about, rodhull? the guys (editors in the sunni wikipedia, are telling me, u, that there's no censorship (never been), nd i'm simply replying to them, that, beside restricting its content, about caliphs, nd islamic subjects, even, a biased view toward Israel nd its history, beside this all, i'm telling them, u, that they banned the images of vagina, nd mohamed, just because they r not muslim! but sunnis also (see the persian wiki, wich is more free than the arabic one) so let me add just those facts, nd we'll wait, for a major english study, to be put here, as a reference.

Closing this as no further Admin involvement is necessary. Further discussion should be taken to article's talk page. --Rodhullandemu 20:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikizlle948 (talk · contribs)

Wikizlle948 (talk · contribs) repeatedly inserts copyrighted images uploaded under various accounts ([28] [29] [30] [31]), and has ignored multiple requests to stop, both here on English Wiki and at Commons. The user has also ignored requests to provide reliable sources with edits. --Mosmof (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No uploads here, so we can't do anything about that. Edits, while all wrong, are not blockable offenses or anything like that so I doubt there's anything we can do. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You may question the adequacy of the warnings (I don't), but surely repetitively mislinking images is a blockable offense. Violation of WP:IUP is blockable, even if the offense is creating a to a legitimate image from an article that isn't permitted to have it, like including a character image to illustrate an actor's biography.
Kww (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough that it's disruptive (I need to remember that is a blockable thing), but it looks like nothing short of an indef will stop the guy. It could be done, but it still seems a bit extreme. Blocking for 24 hours to prevent more abuse for right now, but next time take it to WP:ANI, which is where things like this are supposed to go technically. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's where I thought I posted this - I got lost on the vast interwebs. Thanks. --Mosmof (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone...

please point me to the correct page to report vandalism on other language Wikipedias? (Im guessing somewhere at meta). Thanks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the vandalism is on-going here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you looking for this? Gary King (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep! Thanks a lot Gary, its been an interesting day... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on giving accountcreators override-antispoof right

There's a discussion ongoing at WT:ACC regarding giving account creators the ability to override the anti-spoof block during account creation. As far as I can see from a search of the archives, it's never been noted here, so I am leaving this notice. –xeno (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

BMD-2 created from content of BMD-1 without following Wikipedia:SPLIT#Procedure

Part of the content of BMD-1 article has been split off into BMD-2, but the new edit history never included a GFDL attribution notice. How to fix this? —Michael Z. 2008-07-23 16:09 z

Doesn't look like a split the way it's defined at WP:SPLIT, but the proper action would probably be a null edit with the summary "Split from BMD-1" or "Created from BMD-1". I'll go do that now. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. —Michael Z. 2008-07-23 16:54 z

User:MagdelenaDiArco - 2

Despite being blocked, she seems to have immediately created one new account, User:Gianovito and to have started editing with permanently changing UK-based IP addresses (User:78.151.145.115, User:84.13.166.223, User:89.243.39.216 - identical to User:89.242.104.114, who was blocked earlier today), their common focus being the Maltese language talk page and, oddly, banned user User:Giovanni Giove and his various blocked sock puppets that seemed to be her obsession before she was blocked. She is mostly mocking us, as far as I can understand the meaning of her comments to talk pages, where she comments on her own sock puppetry. --Anonymous44 (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Per checkuser, MagdelenaDiArco (including those IPs, and User:Fone4My and his sockpuppets) is likely the return of banned user User:Iamandrewrice, and, therefore, any sockpuppets should be reverted and blocked on sight. For the record - and please take this in - Giovanni Giove does not have "various blocked sock puppets", although Magdelena et al would very much like you to think that. I can only speculate what their interest in Giove is. – Steel 23:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if someone would clarify the Giovanni Giove situation. There was a recent checkuser which, in spite of its name, actually implicated Generalmesse rather than Giovanni Giove. The true scoop on Giovanni Giove, a supposed edit warrior in Italian/Croatian nationalist disputes, would be helpful. Both Generalmesse and Giovanni Giove are indef blocked. There are some related SSP reports that can be found via [32]. I think the problem may be that nobody has gone around and tagged the blocked accounts that are supposed to be socks of GG. Maybe there are none? EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The "true scoop" on GG is that he was a belligerent inflammatory Italian nationalist who eventually exhausted the community's patience, but despite several cases launched by well-intentioned editors, not apparently a sockpuppeteer (see last point in this post though).

Generalmesse was entirely unconnected to GG. He was running his own sock farm from somewhere in Australia. So far, there are absolutely no confirmed socks of GG, despite several false alarms since he was banned. In my view, the false alarms have all been hopelessly wide of the mark. It appears he made these remarks Special:Contributions/84.220.68.146 and then disappeared.

Until yesterday, that is, when User:Marco Pagot showed up, the subject of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (5th). Marco Pagot, in my very firm view, is GG. How it relates to the other fun and games seen yesterday and previously regarding User:MagdelenaDiArco and others I am unsure. My best guess is a bit of well co-ordinated merrymaking at our expense from a group of users that share the same strong Italian nationalistic POV, namely Andrew Rice in England, Brunodam in the US and GG in Italy. The results of the SSP and the ongoing investigation into the MagdelenaDiArco shenanigans will indeed be interesting. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, nothing to add to that. Alasdair is spot on. – Steel 20:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Keep an eye out please folks. This incursion of trollishness seems not to have ended just yet. Our magnificent (and, if I may say so, rather fetching in their new uniforms) firefighters seem to have the current blaze under control, but, while the main action was yesterday, we've had this flare up Special:Contributions/Tlilita very recently. Move forward onto your toes, girls and boys, pounce position, that's it, bit of "grrrrr" also helpful.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Australian MPs

http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/2008/07/exclusive-federal-mp-tutored-in-art-of.html

More or less self-explanatory, but the biggest problem is that some bio articles are being replaced with copyrighted articles from the Aussie parliament website. Just a heads-up. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Largely, situation is, the Australian politics editors are handling it reasonably well, and all edits to date are we believe accounted for, but some articles may not be on our watchlists and may evade detection. If you see an editor making an edit like this or this, or making a seemingly unnecessary page protection request at RFPP, you now know the background situation as to why it may be happening. If you see anything you think we should know about, drop a note at WT:AUSPOL or WP:AWNB where most Australian editors regularly read. Orderinchaos 13:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Something to consider is that some of the edits may be valid and by valid editors. Looking through a few of the talk pages, there seems to be a couple of overzealous editors jumping all over the newbies (any of them) and given them a good nibble. This really should stop. Shot info (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Credible author

Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus so I did the same, but another editor said to ask an administrator instead. Al-Haytham, by the clause of Richard Powers, was FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. For your information, the other editors' arguement is in respect to "UNDUE" weight or more laughable: that Richard Powers isn't credible enough to constitute a reliable source. Can you help your fellow InternetHero??InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Can you help your fellow InternetHero??

I think I've got a workable compromise on Telescope done. Try to work it out on the talk page. Any further edit waring, by you or the other parties, will result in me protecting the article and possibly blocking those involved. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder

This user was blocked a couple of weeks ago for legal threats -- importing a dispute with Oscar from the Dutch Wikipedia. As far as I am concerned, the block was correct -- people are not allowed to use the English Wikipedia to get involved in legal disputes. If they do, they leave until the block is no longer necessary.

I have, however, recently contacted Guido to see if the block is still necessary. He gives a commitment not to refer to or continue in any fashion the dispute with Oscar. I feel this makes the block no longer necessary and am happy to unblock.

Any comments?

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• With such a chequered history as Guido's is there any real chance this last chance could be of worth? Rudget (logs) 13:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • An indefinite block for violations of WP:NLT becomes a permanent ban? There's been no suggestion that a ban is warranted for anything else. I don't see this as "last chance" but as "situation resolved". Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Apologies, I didn't mean to write last. Rudget (logs) 13:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• I endorse this, just keep an eye on him/her for a bit, obviously. Tan ǀ 39 13:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• I think he has to officially withdraw the legal threat, no? –xeno (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought as long as they resolve not to make further threats or discuss... well honestly he didn't really make a clear threat here I thought. I remember reading the original story about the dutch beef coming here, I need a refresher prior to further comment. Beam 14:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

He needs to "genuinely and credibly withdraw" the threat. I would gather in some kind of on-wiki fashion. But I could be wrong, I'm just reading from the NLT policy. –xeno (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I think than Sam Korn needs to be specific on what was said. Beam 14:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to Sam Korn, I think it really needs to come on-wiki directly from the blockee. –xeno (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• My position (as the blocking admin, incidentally, but I really have no personal stakes in this) is that a promise not to talk about the legal conflict any further really isn't enough. NLT means not just that we don't talk about legal conflicts, it means that we don't engage in them, while editing. Guido needs to clarify whether he in fact has initiated legal proceedings or whether he still considers doing so; if either of the two is true and he's not prepared to call it all off, he should remain blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What NLT means is that we don't try to resolve on-wiki disputes through legal means. The point is that this isn't an enwiki conflict -- it's an nlwiki conflict. We don't block for the mere presence of a legal threat to another editor. We block to ensure that the situation is resolved on-wiki. This dispute has nothing to do with enwiki provided that Guido doesn't continue the dispute here. I don't see how continuing the block has any positive effect on the English Wikipedia (in fact, I don't see how it has any positive impact for anyone). Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Let me quote: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." This has been in WP:NLT basically from day one. Now, in principle I might agree to an unblock if Guido promises not to edit Wikipedia at all until the legal matter is resolved, but that really seems like splitting hairs. Mangojuice^talk 01:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can roll jive with that reading of it. Make it happen Sam Korn, if Guido wants to that is. Beam 14:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• He should do two things, withdraw the threat, and do so on wiki since this spilled over into en.wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse if the user does withdraw these threats. If they do, then the issue will be resolved. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

  I think you mean endorse if the user does withdraw the threats...? –xeno (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, fixed. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Per Fut.Perf, I oppose this unless the legal action has actually come to a complete stop. Promising to keep this off of Wikipedia now is a little late. I remember hearing that the WMF legal people had been contacted... I'd like to hear something from them before we unblock. Mangojuice^talk 18:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unless all legal threats are fully and officially retracted. This requirement in WP:NLT is very clean, and is there for a reason. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Clean, yes, but irrelevant. There appears to be no thought to question why the policy exists. This block is achieving precisely nothing and is therefore harmful. "Because policy says so" is an unsatisfactory reason to shoot oneself in the foot. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:NLT oppose unblock until Guido den Broeder unequivocally and unreservedly retracts all legal threats, and confirms that no legal proceeding are currently ongoing.  Sandstein  19:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse unblocking only after Guido den Broeder unequivocally and unreservedly retracts all legal threats, and confirms that no legal proceeding are currently ongoing. Think positive. . . dave souza, talk 21:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock until legal threats are retracted. I really don't want to seem like I'm sticking the knife in, but GdeB has a history of tendentious editing on chronic fatigue syndrome and related articles. He also had some problems with conflict of interest on User:Guido den Broeder/ME/CVS Vereniging (now userified) and another organization he is affiliated with - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ME/CVS Vereniging, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vereniging Basisinkomen, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Guido_den_Broeder. I'm not sure his return would benefit the encyclopedia, but he has to withdraw the legal threat at the very least. Skinwalker (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Guido

[33]

• I have not made a legal threat, ever, anywhere.
• WMF is not involved and will therefore not comment.
• Editing history is irrelevant to WP:NLT.
• WP:NLT does not say 'don't engage in legal action'. What is says is 'don't threaten to'.
• Blocks must have a purpose.
• Note that while en:Wikipedia has noticeboards, mediation, reviews, a functioning arbcom, access to designated agents and to an information team, etc., nl:Wikipedia has none of this. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how accurate the first point is (I happen not to speak Dutch), I disagree with the fourth point, but much of the rest is valid, and the final point is, I think, irrelevant, but I don't think any of it presents a convincing reason to keep the block running. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the unblock on the basis that Guido has clearly stated that no legal action is ongoing regarding en wiki activity, and that he won't engage in any further discussion of any aspect of any external dispute. By my reading, quite a few of the 'oppose's above are actually 'supports' in this light. It is a point of debate whether or not a legal threat was ever made here on en - indeed it might actually be subjective - but the fact that Guido has clearly and firmly committed to no mention of or activity in the legal arena related to en-wiki is great news... I'd thank him for his patience, and Sam for his work in this matter.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I support unblocking at this point and I basically agree with what Sam has said. The issues raised by Skinwalker probably need to go through dispute resolution but they're not a reason to keep him under a NLT block. Sarah 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Guido shouldn't be unblocked until he can be educated that he is quite incorrect about point #4 above. --Golbez (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

if you get the chance, Golbez - could you review my post from yesterday over here - it's my feeling that this is the heart of that particular misunderstanding - I agree it's worth clearing up... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, I do agree that he is wrong when he says "WP:NLT does not say 'don't engage in legal action'. What is says is 'don't threaten to'." NLT says: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." I think Guido should have another read of that and reconsider point 4. I think the policy is clear that you can take action but you can't continue to edit Wikipedia until it's resolved. Sarah 02:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock unless Guido affirms he is not pursuing legal remedies. In his statement above, he doesn't reveal whether he is still pursuing legal action. His most troublesome sentence (for me) is this one:

WP:NLT does not say 'don't engage in legal action'. What is says is 'don't threaten to'.

He is misreading the plain language of WP:NLT. (How does he want to interpret do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved)? He should not be editing Wikipedia until he affirms that he is not pursuing legal remedies against the Foundation or against *any* editors on any of the Wikipedias. User:Oscar edits on both en.wiki and nl.wiki. If Guido is planning legal action against Oscar he is planning action against an editor in good standing of the English Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

the comments of the arbs, and other users, at the recently rejected arb proceedings are relevant here... it's not clear in my view that your position is current policy. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)I really think that the 'point 4' argument above may be a bit of a distraction.. however it may not be too hard to clear up....

So he doesn't understand a policy... If he isn't pursuing legal action, as he claims not to be, why should that mean he shouldn't be unblocked? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it leaves things open for him to pursue it in the future and again argue that he is not merely threatening, therefore he cannot be blocked. It's the same reason we ask people who are asking to be unblocked to say that they understand the actions under which they were blocked was wrong. --Golbez (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And also, I don't think that's clear. I think Guido is being careful with his words and he means that he feels he never used a threat of legal action, but this doesn't mean that he never actually took legal action. My understanding is, he has initiated legal action. His inclusion of his mistaken point #4 backs up this interpretation. But we really shouldn't have to be arguing over interpretation -- if he has really done what's required he can easily make a completely clear, unequivocated statement to that fact, at least as a starting point. Mangojuice^talk 14:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just establish that he is not engaged in legal action arising from Wikipedia editing, and is not threatening to do so. No weasel words, no abstract conditionals, etc. Legal action is not compatible with one's status as a Wikipedia editor. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Interesting talk page, especially the latest response. Oppose unblock until..see post right above mine. Garion96 (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• The policy is quite clear to me: Editors engaged in, pursuing, or threatening legal action will be blocked until such actions are withdrawn or confirmed non-existent. No one is asking him to surrender any future right to pursue legal action. Oppose unblock. xeno (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Having not looked at the policy in some time, my intial response would be that as long as it is not affecting editing here, I would see no problem. My mental image was that NLT existed to ensure an editting environment free from the "T" part, that is to say it was the threatening that was the problem as it created an assymetrical environment. However, the policy is pretty clear, and appears to have widespread support... although I'm not clear on if people are supporting the idea of the current policy (which I'm not) or simply saying that we should follow it as it stands (which I am). This is probably more appropiately placed first on the talk page of NLT then perhaps the V-pump. - brenneman 07:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The argument that while it is not acceptable to threaten legal action on Wikipedia against fellow Wikipedia editors, it is nonetheless OK to actually pursue it, shows a clear need to continue the block. I find it hard to beleive that can have been said in good faith. DGG (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

<- in the nicest possible way I think we may be suffering from some less-than-rigourous woolly thinking in places above - with conflation between discussions (and understanding) of current policy, discussions of perceived established practice, and very (very) few people actually swinging by Guido's talk page to ask the questions they feel would clear this up. In a discussion about wikipedia's problems with biographies yesterday, I mentioned that there's a troublesome tendency for folk to find the angle which closes the discussion, without demonstrating any engagement in the meat of the issue/s at hand.. and I'm afraid I sense that occurring (to a lesser degree) here. I would hope that the best thing for admin.s to do in cases like this is to ask 'is there anything I can do to try and help an editor who seems to be willing to be able to continue to contribute?' - the project loses if you don't, and some haven't. Privatemusings (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

His most recent comment seems to preclude us asking him whether he is engaged in legal action, nevertheless, per your suggestion, I left a message for him. –xeno (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I really fail to see any reason for Guido to remain blocked. The policy has to do with legal threats. Guido has indicated that he has not made any and no one has brought forth evidence of legal threats, therefore he should be unblocked. We cannot block someone for legal action that regards nl.wp. If he becomes a dick, we can always reblock him. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NLT states that it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved. This edit (on en.wiki) seems to indicate that there is an unresolved legal matter. –xeno (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)