Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive507

Mass replacement of www.talkorigins.org with www.toarchive.org

Resolved

 – Site back online. flaminglawyer^c 22:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Relatively new user Armchair info guy (talk · contribs) has been replacing www.talkorigins.org (registered to the TalkOrigins Archive Foundation of Houston, Texas) with www.toarchive.org (registered to a .edu address in Staten Island, New York) when http://www.toarchive.org/foundation redirects to http://www.talkorigins.org/foundation/ -- That seems very suspicious to me.

It looks like several dozen such AWB changes were been made two days ago on January 10. 69.228.82.93 (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

From googling, it looks like toarchive.org was a domain name temporarily used last month while resolving DNS problems with talkorigins. See [1]. Why he made those changes two days ago, I have no idea, you'd have to ask him. --B (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That groups.google.com thread seems to agree with rolling back. 69.228.82.93 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the site notice near the end of http://www.talkorigins.org/ which is repeated on http://www.toarchive.org/ -- Note that the bug report address on http://www.toarchive.org/origins/contact.html goes to talkorigins.org.

Please roll-back or as appropriate. 69.228.82.93 (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the Google Groups thread cited by B above, this is likely harmless, but I believe the admin's request on that thread supports mine to roll back. 69.228.82.93 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Weird. I'll try and take a closer look in a sec. Protonk (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, so we are clear, the URL changes were to (for whatever reason) avoid a DNS caching problem that seems to have been resolved? If it is, shouldn't one site redirect to (rather than mirror) the other? And if that is the case, we should roll back the changes to ensure that all EL's link to the same place? Or is there more to this? Protonk (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes; I don't know; Yes, No: I think you have it all, please roll back if it's not too much trouble. No biggie, apparently, just a nice guy at a .edu putting up a backup archive. 69.228.82.93 (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As no-one else has, I have informed the user in question about this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I just did. This appears to be discussed here as well. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Alright. I was going to work through the contributions and roll them back, but I decided against it. I'll let the user comment here before I do anything. Protonk (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm the guy who made the changes. I already notified the TO community weeks ago here and here. But I'll go into a little more detail here, since there's nothing to be suspicious about. I've only recently started reading up on evolution a few weeks ago, and had never known about TO before. But I found archived versions of the refs at archive.org and thought it was a great resource, so I would've changed the refs to those if I hadn't googled and found the toarchive mirror. So as I read more and more articles I manually changed the refs to the working mirror. Since it's ref'd all over the place, I did a google search and saw there were at least a hundred sites with TO refs. So I decided to get AWB approval and take care of them all myself, which I did.

Just being bold and making useful contributions like I have been since the past summer when I first started editing. Personally I don't care if you change any or all of them back so long as they're working links. That is by far the #1 priority. (As of this moment, talkorigins.org is still down). I stand by what I did 100% because the Evolution article alone gets several thousand hits a day and broken refs are always disappointing.

--Armchair info guy (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

edit: One additional item I didn't think to mention earlier - if consensus is to change all the links back to "talkorigins.org" instead of the perfectly good mirror "toarchive.org" then please don't blindly revert all my previous edits. When I manually changed a couple dozen of them a few weeks ago I typically cleaned up additional reference info beyond just changing the URL. So please don't clobber that. But the AWB ones were just a change of URL. --Armchair info guy (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My vote is to leave the links as they originally were, but make a little note to the side of the link, along with a link to the archived site. Like:

• Talkorigins link example (site under repair, see the archived version)

which gives a working link, but also lets people know that they're not going to some knockoff site. flaminglawyer^c 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I have a vote here or not, but if I do then I agree with Flaming's idea. Best possible scenario for working links, which like I said earlier is the #1 priority for good refs. --Armchair info guy (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Here's an idea: remove the links to both, as failing WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've argued this many a time myself. Some of the talkorigins content has been published in a book, The Counter-creationism Handbook, and where possible, claims should be sourced to that book imo. And the website is a good resource for copies of documents and so on. But a lot of claims I found cited from there were just self-published do-it-yourself messageboard-style debunkery written by amateur enthusiasts and drop-ins. Some evolution antagonist/s have set up a similarly styled creation site of their own[2] -sometimes editors come demanding to reference claims from there as well. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Have to concur there, even though it's hardly an issue for ANI. It's a very useful site, and probably the best evolution site targeted at the average internet user. That said, much like Wikipedia, it's best used for pointing you at a reliable source rather then being treated as one.—Kww(talk) 11:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As of today,http://www.talkorigins.org/ is back online, and http://toarchive.org/ is there as a stable alternative so there seems to be no urgent need to change the links back. My thanks go to Armchair info guy for keeping our links active during this temporary blackout which lasted longer than I expected. Perhaps worth asking if they intend to keep the alternative site up and running indefinitely. . dave souza, talk 19:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Superdoopergipsy

Resolved

 – blocked by Chris G --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• User:Superdoopergipsy seems to be a vandalism-only account or nearly so: see Special:Contributions/Superdoopergipsy. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

a.) You are an admin, b.) as an admin, you should know that this type of vandal is supposed to be reported at AIV. (this feels familiar). John Reaves 14:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock lookout

Please could admins be alert for the type of vandalism (usually relating to Drake Circus shopping centre, but also involving impersonation and attacks) carried out by the listed users at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mike-Jones-at-dc, and add suspects to the list there? They seem to be popping out all over. DuncanHill (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Certain phrases related to this sort of vandalism have been added to some of the vandalism reporting bots. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User undoing good edits

Forgive me if this is not the place to bring this up, but when user:Leszek Jańczuk undid some perfectly good edits of mine, I noticed he has a habit of doing this. What can be done?--88.227.200.19 (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided diffs, however having glanced at some of your edits on Duman (band) I can see that you were bold in making changes, and they were reverted. Unfortunately, many of your edits were not overly helpful - the deletion of approximate title translations, fragmentation of sentences, introducing confusing word order - I can understand why they may have been reverted to the previous WP:CONSENSUS version. To call them "vandalism" may not have been correct, as they appear to be good faith edits. Please note, that many editors look less closely at edits made anonymously - I do recommend you obtain a userid to prevent that propensity. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As I believe in the occasional use of WP:Do template the regulars, I advised Leszek of him being a little WP:Bitey, and have also advised him of this ANI (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I see where you are coming from about my particular edits, even if I do feel my edits were extremely helpful :) Thing is, I noticed a couple of other users complaining with similar issues, and a quick glance at his edits with undos shows that many other deleted edits were worthwhile. A lot of times, it seemed the original good edits went unnoticed and were lost forever. I will make sure to include diffs in the future.--88.227.200.19 (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The user in question made this revert of an edit of mine, which I considered to be appalling. O Fenian (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be in good faith, but yes, an awful reversion. Perhaps the user just needs some talking to about why his reversions are inappropriate? — neuro^(talk) 18:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure one could call it an "awful reversion". The reason is that it was material about a living person, and therefore comes under the policy of WP:BLP. The material was totally unsourced, and, in WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material we read: "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." So, the removal was permitted, if my reading is correct, under the policy concerning biographical material about living people.

Whether a simple removal was advisable, however, is a more tricky question: in situations like this, my own feeling is that one could have conformed with policy if the material was transferred or moved to the talk page, with an invitation to the editor who added it to the article to supply the appropriate verification, on the talk page. The material could then be transferred back into the article space if verification by means of suitable citation from a reliable source were found and added to the material on the talk page. If no verification was forthcoming, then it could be deleted from the talk page as well.

I thought this might be a way of acting in conformance with the policies about BLP as well as giving editors who add reasonable, yet unverified material, the chance of completing their obligations and not seeing their contributions simply deleted. However, my reading still is that the removal of the material was acting in accordance to policy.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The material I removed should not be described by any competent editor or administrator as "reasonable", assuming they have actually read it? O Fenian (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Argh! I read it, but got it completely the wrong way around partly because there was more than one reversion happening, and so I misinterpreted it. What you write is, of course, correct, and the material should have been removed under WP:BLP.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Userpage with excess detail

Resolved

 – Sorted. — neuro^(talk) 23:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen, underage users are normally discouraged to reveal excess personal details. I came across the userpage of Mr. Chicago (talk · contribs) which reveals his full name and his school information. Could someone look into this? ^LeaveSleaves 18:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a big concern to me. I'll leave a note at the user's talk page, however. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the edit history of that page is rather bizarre; see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Thomas_J._Gaudette. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the age and the article category. John Reaves 18:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how this is tagged sorted. There was no note left on the user's talk regarding the issue, nor was it made obviously clear that this is a non-issue. ^LeaveSleaves 02:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Socks, of a sort

B b b 123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Malub0ii94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two users created 7 minutes apart, one making minor vandalistic edits, the other reverting. I warned the one making the vandalistic edits, and no action since. Just kind of an oddity maybe worth watching. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The most common profession held by convicted arsonists is... firefighter. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A comforting thought. Naught. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Weirdness, revealing of personal information from an apparent child

Resolved

 – Incident resolved. — neuro^(talk) 06:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Amidst bizarre contributions to User talk:Kyle6, there appears to be a child revealing his age. I can't recall the proper protocol for dealing with this sort of thing, so if someone would help me out that would be great. Thanks, Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The proper procedure is to remove the information, hope the removal sticks, and not make any kind of fuss that would just draw attention to it unless the removal doesn't stick. I've removed the age claim; we'll see what happens. Note that I haven't done anything about the general tone of his talkpage. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CHILD. — neuro^(talk) 05:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw another, & removed it. I left some advice, which I hope will be understood. DGG (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how age alone is dangerous. Maybe if he was giving away name or even DOB I might be worried.--Patton^t/c 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily "dangerous", but potentially so. Better safe than sorry. — neuro^(talk) 11:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It keeps us from having the same pedo problems that Myspace has had to deal with. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What keeps us from having those problems is that (1) we are not a social networking site, (2) we are not a place where young teens and preteens hang out, (3) everything that happens here is public, and (4) we keep a complete record of who does what. Compared to that, preventing minors from posting personal information is minor. --Carnildo (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Block without warning

I want to block this user even though there is but one edit and no real warning. Sole edit was to disparage person by same name. Need feedback so as not to be an evil, power hungry admin. Dlohcierekim 23:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

User has been warned. No further editing since last warning. It is probably likely that the user may continue vandalizing wikipedia, but we should AGF for now and wait for that to happen instead of preemptively blocking someone.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I was concerned that the only purpose of the account was to disparage the real person by the same name. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the guy's "contribution" was deleted, it's hard to judge good faith, although the fact of it being deleted tells you something. I typically don't bother with a vandal with just one entry, but if a pattern begins to emerge, I turn him in to WP:AIV. Warnings are a courtesy, but are not required for registered users who are obviously there only to wreak havoc. IP addresses get cut more slack due to often being shared IP's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If we have a user called "Leroy Fakename" (pronounced 'fah-keh-NA-meh' - it's Japanese!), and his sole edit is to make an article talking about how Leroy Fakename is a horrible evil piece of filth who should be killed... then clearly we should block that user for "impersonating Leroy Fakename". DS (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Although in your Japanese example, I'd like to see the pronunciation guide for "Leroy". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's simple: it's 'ルロイ'. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Awright, that clears things up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise the Silver-washed Fritillary --Rodhullandemu 15:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, DS. That was close to my reasoning. Did I mention the sole contrib was to disparage a person of that name? I was kinda hoping another admin would review that contrib and decide whether or not the extraordinary action of an immediate block was n order. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The user has now been blocked, but FWIW, based on the content of the edit, I would have blocked on the spot. People who would write that aren't the kind of people who would contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. – wodup – 04:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Turning him in to WP:AIV after just the one entry probably would have resulted in a block, if the one entry was offensive enough. It never hurts to use AIV. The worst they would do, is to do nothing. And it may well get faster results than posting here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this case much different from KANES FAT and User:Musella74. Are you telling me that I should have blocked Musella74 on sight for that one edit? I know I have strong feelings about users who I think may become repeat offenders, but we have a warning system for a reason, no (and AGF)? And seriously, how many of you guys' first edit was a test or even vandalism (perhaps from an IP address)? I know it isn't likely at all that every single account whose first edit is vandalism will eventually turn admin, but still... Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm not comfortable blocking users without warning (except in cases of confirmed sock puppets, inappropriate usernames, or rare legal issues with an accompanying call to the authorities). I don't see the harm in letting the warning system play out. But maybe I should be harsher, or maybe we should change some of our policies to allow for such single edit/block scenarios. Looking through my admin logs, maybe we should block User:Musella74, User:Babilingbaboon, or User:TsukasaSonozaki (among others for sure) retroactively because they creating new articles for the sole purpose of disparaging a living person (not that blocks are even supposed to be punitive). Am I alone here? Have I missed the point somewhere?-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? I see them as very different. Musella74's article is extremely mild compared to the article written by the subject of this thread. "... is fat and worthless" vs full name, physical details, birthday, several disparaging remarks and accusations, and a suicide threat, too. – wodup – 06:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Request to have username ARYAN818 reviewed

To whom it may concern,

It is respectfully requested to have the username of ARYAN818 reviewed for deletion or for username change. This individual has had a review for six months with regards to changing his controversial username and was blocked during that time for also his disruption, vandalism, and intolerance of other racial or ethnic groups. There was a condition that the block would be lifted when he changes his username. However, he has not done so and has stopped editing ever since. However, just last year, he came back again and it looks like his previous edits from 2007 have been removed including those on his talk page at the request of the user. Now, this individual is back again with the username he refused to change due to previous requests from other admins and continues to be disruptive on Wikipedia. Please have a look into this. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Condition? Vandalism? WP:DIFFs please. About the username: if this has not gone to WP:RFCN yet, it is premature here.  Sandstein  07:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are some previous complaints against him:

• June 2006 complaints about username
• July 2006 of WP:NPA (includes personal, religious and racial abuse), WP:CIVIL and for committing vandalism and WP:TROLL.
• July 2006 behaviour (...) disrupting the articles and attacking other editors, without adding anything fruitful to the articles in question
• January 2007 about whether the username is really offensive or not, and why
• January 2007 for potentially offensive user name (...) He keeps claiming that his name is Aryan and he lives in the 818 area code, but won't listen when it's explained to him that the two things put together are Nazi-speak (...) Wikipedia:Username clearly says Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by those who find the username inappropriate, not by the creator of the name.. ARYAN818 has been counseled for more than six months to come up with a new user name.

Please take this to WP:RFCN, which is the right place to ask for review. -- The Anome (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do that. Thanks. Wiki Raja (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

False information posting

Ccwstandard has been editing the Northland Cable Television page and adding incorrect information regarding broadcast station carriage and suggesting that the company would file for bankruptcy.

Specifically, KMVU mentioned in the post is carried in both the Mount Shasta and Yreka cable systems AND the company has NOT and is not in the process of filing for bankruptcy.

Request that user be blocked from posting information regarding Northland.

Northland (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Request that YOU stop editing the same first. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You do not seem to have contacted Ccwstandard (talk · contribs) in order to attempt to resolve this issue. Please do this first. Read WP:DR for advice on how to proceed. And yes, as Jéské Couriano says, you should not edit articles about your own business.  Sandstein  19:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Correcting unsourced claims that your business is going through bankruptcy seems acceptable to me. Although the editor should read our conflict of interest policy such an edit seems reasonably acceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to chime in - yeah, Northland's actions so far seem fine to me. Northland, you definitely should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, our policy on editing topics you're personally involved in, but removing unsourced negative information is defintely allowed. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There was some sourced material which I've restored, but the rest needs to be properly sourced; and the username was clearly a problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wierd behaviour from User:Caloss

Resolved

 – Talking to contributor elsewhere about how to handle disputes. No admin action necessary, imo, unless behavior continues. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks,

I have a bit of a weird situation with User:Caloss whose only response to messages on his/her talk page is to blank the page. They appear to be following me around a couple of articles, undoing reverts or edits I've made. For example this edit rolled back the removal I'd made of uncited claims, using an unverifiable citation to put them back. When I pointed that out and removed them again they restored them, this time using a URL that only backed up one claim. this revert rolled back bits on the Death of Baby P I'd reverted because it had named the child and parents, luckily oversight had responded to an email I'd sent, so they didn't revert to the deleted revisions where the names were mentioned. And finally today [restoring a spam link (well a link I consider spam) to an article I put up for a prod because it looks like it only exists as a vehicle to promote the link the first place. The only interaction I've gotten was when I reverted the spam link (and I can't do it any more due to 3rr) and put a user warning on their talk page in the hope they might respond was a failed attempt to respond with a warning on mine and a lie in the revert summary, "several editors claimed that the link is not spam, define spam or stop vanalizing" when the only persons editing the pages are him and I. In the edits on Marcus Brigstocke the edit summaries were rather untruthful too, claiming the references proved the edit when they didn't. It's all rather bizarre and amusing in its own way, but I don't know how to proceed, if it counts as vandalism or just pettiness (on theirs or my part) , or even if it's worth bothering with at all. I wouldn't have brought it up at all, except for the edits on Death of Baby P. --Blowdart | ^talk 12:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

From the sidelines, it looks like it's being done in an effort to harass you, possibly in retaliation for your earlier engagement at File hosting service. Under the circumstances, I suspect the place to start may have been WP:WQA, since being advised by any outsider might de-escalate matters. I'm not sure admin intervention is necessary at this stage. Since it's here, though, I'll speak to him (or her). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah you're right, wrong place entirely, apologies. Not had any interaction with WQA, so completely missed it! --Blowdart | ^talk 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Since Blowdart removed my edits on the talk page User_talk:Blowdart&oldid=264025072 I have to respond here. Both me and Davidbroooks posted a link in Dep_musician. The link does not meet the requirements to be Wikipedia:SPAM, and no other arguments besides removal have appeared.

--Caloss (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Einsteincorrea

Resolved

 – blanked per WP:CHILD

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

If taken at face value, this is nothing more than a "vanity" user ID of a 15-year old with a little too much info. What should be done, if anything? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Blanked, informed of WP:CHILD. Toddst1 (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to restore the Talk:Albert Einstein page? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done my best to meddle here and will let WP:OVERSIGHT finish the job. Bencherlite^Talk 14:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I got the major "Wikpedia has encountered error" message -the one that usually means the servers are down (not the usual delete error message) and assumed the page hadn't been deleted. Toddst1 (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

66th Golden Globe Awards

Rio de oro (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC): There has been several attempts of vandialismn on 66th Golden Globe Awards. Some should keep an eye on it.

Semi-protected for 3 days. — Edokter • Talk • 16:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

The article discussing the Gaza conflict is obviously controversial and not surprisingly has generated some soap-boxing on the discussion page. I have attempted to remove the most severe soapboxing which generally has no relevance to the article (change , roughly 10,000 bytes of text ) but other users are restoring the deleted text saying the deletions hurt the flow of conversation history. I am attempting to follow Wikipedia:Talk#Editing comments when removing the text. I am not one-hundred percent certain but I believe it is appropriate to remove this text and so I hope for assistance. I apologize if I am in the wrong. Some guy (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I do something wrong here? I'm surprised to have gotten no response. Some guy (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Some -- but definitely not all -- of the "soapboxing" does seem to be at least marginally germane to improving the article. Instead of clearing out whole sections of a thread to get rid of the distracting, futile chit-chat, point out in the thread that the Talk page is not a forum, and if that fails, paste a {{uw-chat1}} (or chat2 or chat3 or chat4 as it may escalate) on the Talk pages of those editors who choose to continue engaging in silliness. You'll have a situation where clear warnings have been given, after which heavier-handed actions like reverting unhelpful thread posts and requesting administrator intervention can be undertaken with a clearer conscience and greater force for consensus. --Dynaflow babble 10:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope that made sense; I'm rather sleep-deprived. Actually, come to think of it, ArbCom has imposed sanctions for all editors of Israel-Palestine conflict articles, so you may want to read through this to see what it suggests is appropriate behavior on those articles and what to do about it if someone is "misusing" the encyclopedia: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. --Dynaflow babble 10:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You've scrubbed one side of the soap, and left the other side's lather in.Hard articles generate sweat. But it is improper to ask only one of the two contendents to scrub up and off after each round. The point is valid, its execution partial.Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sudsy metaphors aside, the sanction applies to all editors involved in those articles. --Dynaflow babble 11:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

For Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles, the decision states: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." That seems pretty straightforward. --Dynaflow babble 11:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. And to stress Nishidani's comment: Especially in these cases, it's important to step back and treat all sides equally. Other tools that are useful are archiving and hiding of obviously off-topic threads. But in any case, don't remove just one side of the discussion and in particular don't remove or archive comments that have been commented upon without removing the replies as well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Pears-Soap-barbox.jpg

Among the things that Wikipedia isn't, there is the soapbox. So do like the soap in the picture, and get out of the soap box. Besides, is better when you are neekid™.

On the matter of trolls, feeding them is not really kindness, nor really necessary.We kindly ask you refrain from doing so.

My preferred method is to use my template User:Cerejota/soapbox for clear soapboxing that has very little article value, and User:Cerejota/trolls for plain trolling, which is when people try to derail discussion.--Cerejota (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to treat anyone unequally. The page is really long and I didn't want to dig through all of it. Honestly I just noticed the pattern that basically all of "NonZionist"'s posts were soapbox rants and I searched for and removed the ones that (I thought) had no relevance to improving the article. I tried not to put any political bias into it, while I sort of felt that the people arguing the text should stay were clearly biased. Whatever, this has taken way too much time, I don't care anymore. Some guy (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

NonZionist seems like a certified troll, I sometimes wonder if he is either a false-flag operation, or some 4chan lulz seeker, or simply a very misguided pro-Palestinian editor - kind of a Zeq with out the edit warring. Best recipe for dealing him is to ignore and don't feed, he ain't serious about anything Wikipedia stands for, or at least his behavior in the talk page doesn't betray anything other than that. I will say, however, that anyone who wants to put discretionary on him should do it. He adds nothing of value to the articles, unlike other editors with POVs. --Cerejota (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet at Little Green Footballs

Resolved

 – indef blocked as a sock of an indef-blocked troll. Horologium (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, a POV vandal hit the articles Little Green Footballs and Charles Foster Johnson. I wrote this up on WP:ANI [3]. After his initial account, User:LGOutcast, was indef blocked, he came back as User:LittleGreenVolleyball and IP address 98.194.194.45. LittleGreenVolleyball was indef blocked himself, the IP was blocked for a month.

New user Lizard1000's first two contributions were POV-pushing on Little Green Footballs. The username and the general attitude are an easy pass of the duck test.

• Special:Contributions/Lizard1000
• Special:Contributions/LittleGreenVolleyball
• Special:Contributions/LGOutcast
• Special:Contributions/98.194.194.45

McJeff (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/Lizard1000 has been indef blocked for block evasion. DUCK applies. Horologium (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Mangalorean Catholics

User:Sanfy has redirected Mangalorean Catholics to Mangalorean Goans. The User was previously blocked for such vandalism as can be seen from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sanfy. He had logged off and using his IP, he had redirected the Page from Mangalorean Catholics to Mangalorean Goans. Even today, [4], he redirected the Page. This is nothing but vandalism. How many warnings should we give this User? The User cannot be let scott-free. Kensplanet^T_C 15:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism, how can you say its vandlism? I have provided this relaible source from the Daily Times (Pakistan) newspaper which clearly states that the community is called Mangalorean Goans and not Mangalorean Catholics.--Sanfy^talk 16:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

VANDALISM BY SANFY
(1). [5] using his ID
(2). [6] using his IP
(3). [7] using his ID.

Inspite of repeatedly warning him do not move the Page, he has moved it again. This time he has something new. Under the pretext of the Daily Times (Pakistan) newspaper, he moved the Page again. He knew it that that was considered vandalism previously. Still, he didn't even bother to discuss on the Talk Page. Kensplanet^T_C 16:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is going by a relaible source vandalism? Mangalorean Catholics are actually called Mangalorean Goans and to prove it this was the best source. As per informing on the talk page I did'nt knew that I had to do, otherwise I would surely do so.--Sanfy^talk 16:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please have a glance on a simple Google Book search on Mangalorean Catholics: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=Mangalorean%20Catholics&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

A Google Book Search on Mangalorean Goans: http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=Mangalorean+Goans&btnG=Search+Books

• Lobo, Michael. A Genealogical Encyclopaedia of Mangalorean Catholic Families.
• Lobo, Michael (2000). Distinguished Mangalorean Catholics 1800-2000 - A Historico-Biographical Survey of the Mangalorean Catholic Community. Camelot Publishers. ISBN 9788187609018.
• Lobo, Michael (1999). Mangaloreans World-wide: An International Directory of the Mangalorean Catholic Community. Camelot Publishers. ISBN 8187609001.
• Lobo, Michael (2000). The Mangalorean Catholic Community — A Professional History / Directory.
• Prabhu, Mohan. Ancient and pre-modern History of the Mangalorean Catholic Community.
• Prabhu, Alan Machado (1999). Sarasvati's Children: A History of the Mangalorean Christians. I.J.A. Publications. ISBN 9788186778258.

So many Books have been published on the Community by experts. What reliable source are you talking of? That Page is just a matrimonial column. Kensplanet^T_C 16:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you have not read the whole page, the article is titled Teri Mary maa please pay more attention to the article.--Sanfy^talk 17:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not have to read any article. Books are considered 100 times more reliable than such articles. I don't think after browsing through the books, you have anything to say. Kensplanet^T_C 17:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view

This looks like an excellent discussion to be having on the talk page of the article. Is there anything remaining that would not be solved by:

• Sanfy: don't move the article again until you have consensus to do so on the talk page.
• Kensplanet: stop calling Sanfy's edits vandalism.

--barneca (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• barneca, that is vandalism. [8], [9], [10]

• And the place to report vandalism is here: WP:AIV. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We had repeatedly warned the User not to vandalize and move pages. Still he seems to repeat the same things for which he was blocked. His Intention was vandalism. This time with the help of some silly newspaper. From day 1, he has been behind the Page.[11] I suggest strict punishment for Sanfy. Sanfy has been here for 5 months wih 7000+ Edits. Kensplanet^T_C 17:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, there is a difference between edit warring in a content dispute, and vandalism, and calling someone's good faith (incorrect, IMHO, but good faith nonetheless) opinion on what the article name should be "vandalism" is actively making things worse. So is saying you don't even have to look at his article or talk to him. It's very simple; now that it is clear to Sanfy that his move is disputed, he will need to get consensus for the move on the talk page before moving it again, or be blocked for disruptive editing. If he tries to discuss it and consensus is against him, he's either out of luck, or he can go to WP:DR. If he tries to discuss it and people won't do so, then he can go to WP:DR to get more outside intervention. Unless he moves it again, this is not an AIV or ANI matter. --barneca (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Subversion attempt re-write

As people will recall, there was a concerted attempt to secretly undermine the processes of Wikipedia by a pressure group, details here. There appears to be an attempt to re-write the record going on here, justified by statements such as "The conflict was not between CAMERA and Wikipedia, it was between CAMERA and Electronic Infifada(sic)".
As best I know and can tell, there is no justification for the claim that EI was ever involved, other than as a messenger. The members-only Google Groups mailing list was established by a member of staff of CAMERA. The e-mails implicated at least one long-standing Wikipedia editor (who had nothing to do with EI either). PR^talk 17:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How does this require administrative intervention? — neuro^(talk) 18:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I perhaps started this round of editing with my edit here. My interest in this issue is more to do with its involvement with Wikipedia than with I/P, so I had previously done extensive reading on the conflict. My reason for making the edits was to correct what I perceived as several inaccuracies in the original version:

• As PR states, the conflict was between CAMERA and Wikipedia, not CAMERA and EI, as EI was only the messenger (indeed, Harpers also carried the emails)
• In the original version, it sounded as if the issue was a dispute about POV. If you read the details of the affair, the reason for those editor's suspension was for refusing to answer questions about the email campaign, and for the attempt to recruit editors to push POV, a clear violation of WP:MEAT
• Half of the discussion of this issue consists of links to clearly biased sources such as Honest Reporting. I have not touched these, as I am always loath to remove material from articles, but I do believe that the version of the article after my original edits was already tilted in favour of CAMERA's POV
• While my original edits have now been reverted a few times, the article itself has been drifting in the opposite direction: the fascinating links to the Wikipedia discussions which led to the censure of editors have now been removed from the article, leaving it more biased than when I made my first edit.

I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to know what can be done to address this situation, but I believe that this article is being progressively pushed towards the CAMERA POV, and away from the reliable sources which document this issue, including the IHT and also the primary sources of the Wikipedia pages which document the errant editors' behaviour. cojoco (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this noticeboard is not for settling disputes about the content of articles, so I'll just ask one question: What do you want administrators to do in this situation?  Sandstein  19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

When I was barred for a month, then two months, then one month, the excuse was that I'd been inserting POV and (presumably) trying to damage articles (no evidence ever presented, I'd not been doing so). See here for the idiotic lengths that this was subsequently taken.

So I'm informing administrators that some in our number are attempting a much bigger version of what was falsely claimed to justify my blockings. There is an attempt to white-wash an organisation that tried to subvert our work. Despite the conclusion of various RSNs and other discussions, "evidence" from this organisation (known for the same faults as David Irving, fabrication and hatred) is still being pushed in articles because of its utility to POV-pushers. I'm sure administrators will know what to do. PR^talk 08:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I see PR handwaving, but PR - what is the PROBLEM that you are bringing here. As best I can read it, is EI now really attempting a mass POV push? Is that what you're saying? ThuranX (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think it's a problem to deflect attention from subversion of the encyclopaedia, and instead point the finger of blame at those who helped us protect it, then of course I must bow to your superior understanding of these affairs. PR^talk 13:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

YOu're being an ass. I specifically asked you :What is the problem you're reporting? You haven't answered taht. An answer would be 'IE, after accusing CAMERA of organizing off-wiki to alter our content toward their POV, IE is itself doing that, here are diffs: diff1, diff2, diff3. ' You haven't done that, but that's the gist of what I understand from what you've said above. I have asked you, rather bluntly but without malice, to explain. Your reply is hostile. I'm asking you to be clear about what problem you see. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

David Irving is the notorious English Holocaust denier and pseudo-historian who was exposed as a fraud and a racist in a court of law. He associates with neo-Nazis and served a prison sentence in Austria. Not a single reasonable person takes Irving seriously as an academic, a historian, or even a responsible human being. Comparing a pro-Israel advocacy group to this racist is embarrassingly falsifiable at best and offensive and disgusting at worst. This has been explained to PalestineRemembered multiple times.[12][13] I ask that PalestineRemembered not repeat this false analogy again. --GHcool (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This might be a good candidate for mediation. I looked at the edit history, which shows something of a slow-motion edit war. But there's not much convergence. --John Nagle (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

CoreEpic and chronic, persistent personal attacks

CoreEpic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account, with attention being entirely focussed on the Family Foundation School article. User is also confirmed as editing under 167.230.38.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a sockpuppet account Cicatriz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Despite many warnings [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26], two blocks [27] [28], and being confirmed as using multiple accounts to edit (though apparently not enough to be considered a sock puppetmaster) [29], the user makes regular use of personal attacks against other editors, (e.g. baseless "vandal"/"vandalism"/"vandalizing" accusations against other editors [30] [31] [32] [33] [34], baseless "bias" accusations against other editors [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41], in addition to other ad-hominem attacks [42] [43] [44] [45] [46].

I humbly submit that this user has no respect for the no personal attacks policy, and therefore request that a strong message be sent to this user, by blocking him from editing for at least 72 hours. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 23:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of valid, verifiable information is by definition vandalism, and I have accused no individual user of bias, however if one reads the discussions in which I participated, there were clear examples of bias. A spade's a spade even if it doesn't like being one. Moreover, I have never had a sock puppet account and I never will, there was a dispute filed against me and it was dismissed because cicatriz is NOT a sockpuppet account. As far as 167.230.38.115, that is my IP address and I forgot to log in once. This was all discussed on the failed sockpuppetry accusation.CoreEpic (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Possible Featured Article issue

In two days (UTC), the article 4chan is set to go on the Main Page, and that has already prompted a couple threads at same planning to give the article merry hell as a result at /b/. Already there's a couple users (an IP and Raul654 (talk · contribs)) calling for a preemptive prot of the article when it hits the main page, but we're not talking a semi - we're talking a full-prot (the link Raul references in his post 404s; likely because admins there have been playing whac-a-mole with invasion threads, according to my sources).

For obvious reasons (hint: SIHULM) I'm very concerned that we may be opening to a can of worms here. Now, notwithstanding the fact it's a FA due to be featured in ~38 hours, should we really preemptively prot this article and keep it that way while it's on the Main Page due to the obvious fact vandals would orbit it relentlessly while MP'd? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 10:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should. If you don't mind my asking, why in the name of all that is good and holy was this chosen as TFA? Doesn't Raul keep a list of FAs never to be displayed on the Main Page? Shouldn't this be on it? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support full protection Personally I don't see that we should disrupt our usual practices by choosing this article for TFA, but if we are, then full protection is the only possible way to get the article through the day. Unfortunately, offering a sub-page for editors to propose changes and having a few admins on hand will only end in tears. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone on WR managed to capture this archive of the forum thread from before it got canned. Reading through it a bit (I feel dirty now), there appears to have been an effort to register accounts yesterday specifically in order that they become autoconfirmed by the time that the article is on the main page. Full protection is going to be necessary. Zetawoof_(ζ) 12:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That was me - I tried to comment on the /b/ thread (so sue me) and found it to be closed, I figured it'd be gone soon. Giggy (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's rather heartening that 4chan doesn't want their article featured because they don't want "newfags" after the page hits the front, and are talking about DDoS'ing themselves in retaliation... talk about ironic. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support full protection and hoist the jib. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we have plenty of featured articles out there and if one has to be fully protected to be on the main page then it shouldn't be on the main page at all. Semi protection perhaps, but if this really is going to be the main page article it shouldn't be fully protected - what kind of message does that send out to new contributors? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That we aren't mentally retarded? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We are mentally retarded for letting it go on the MP in the first place :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

full protection (and does that include move protection?) seriously, it would only be policy wonkery and frankly stupidity not to fully protect the article for the period that it's on the frontpage - it's not like we are discussing an off-chance of problems, we *know* what's going to happen. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, we know so it shouldn't be on there in the first place. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The page is (unsurprisingly) already move protected. Zetawoof_(ζ) 12:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fullprot and suggest a quick check of Raul's brain--what were you thinking, man? ;) //roux   12:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support (we did the same for Israel when it was on the main page), and trout Raul. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Infinitely easier if it just didn't go on the main page in the first place - the problem thus corrects itself. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 12:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So we allow random trolling sites to dictate the contents of our front page? Sorry, but that's not the sort of bending over I favor. Full protection is appropriate in this case, IMO. — Coren ^(talk) 12:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So we're allowing random trolling sites to dictate changes in our protection policy instead? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 12:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Full Prot indeed, but that was a crazy idea to start with to be honest... -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support prot—the internet has no fury like 4chan, and it's clear they will try and disrupt Wikipedia to make a point (or just for the lulz). We know what's coming, we have an easy solution. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support nailing it down - It will end up fully protected anyway! --Chasingsol^(talk) 12:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've changed my mind. Support nailing it down and 20 articles on either side of it... the collateral damage is going to be obscene. To be honest, not only do we need to ignore all rules in regards to protecting the featured article, but I think we should reconsider this being featured at all. --Chasingsol^(talk) 13:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• suggest semi protect intialy if only to flush out sleeper accounts.Geni 13:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support full protection. We also need to impress upon some of the more militant admins that unprotecting this particular TFA is a very bad idea; some admins relentlessly unprotect TFAs regardless of vandalism, simply because "we don't protect front page articles". In this case, we do, and I really wonder what possessed Raul to choose this article as a candidate. Not all featured articles make it to the main page; this one should have been one of them. Horologium (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support semi to start, with full latitutde for any admin to raise. I found this out last night, and I raised it with some other users. From talking to some friends who go on 4chan, I've figured out that there is no way to avoid a massive attack from /b/. Also, why the hell was this chosen before January 10. I suggest that people in the appropriate IRC channels be extra vigilant about marking down sleeper socks for this. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 13:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Do note that 4chan threads naturally disappear after becoming sufficiently old. Since /b/ moves so fast, a thread can disappear after a mere 5 or so minutes without posts. Also, if a thread gets long enough, bumps no longer work, so it will automatically die in a few minutes. If you need to reference 4chan threads, I would recommend something like WebCitation. 74.233.202.165 (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Semi-protect and block on sight it can always be upgraded later. Just get a few admins that know their memes and have them block without warning if they get added to the article. If we had a CU on as well I would think the problem would go away rather quickly. /b/ has huge numbers, but those willing to rack up edits to get autoconfirmed it only a tiny subset (how tiny, we shall find out). BJ^Talk 14:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Full Prot of 4chan article (see below in "Let Em"), and I strongly urge everyone to watchlist every blue link on the main page while this article is TFA. When they find they can't edit TFA, they will browse the other articles linked from the main page. Oh, and make sure the featured image is protected too, as it sometimes is not properly copied/protected. Oh, the "lulz" that could arise from that oversight... :( Arakunem^Talk 15:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of very relevant quotes from above, QFE'd:

Support nailing it down - It will end up fully protected anyway! - Absolutely true. Semi prot will last an hour at best.

The collateral damage is going to be obscene. - Again, nail on the head.

We know what's coming, we have an easy solution. - Common sense here. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and protection is used to prevent damage to the article. I know we don't protect TFA as a rule, so my last QFE is:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Arakunem^Talk 15:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support full protection and SHAME on you people for complaining about the article being on the front page. Come on. There better not be a list of FA's that never go on the front page because we are too squeamish to put them up. I know that isn't censorship (I'm been 'round and 'round about that), it's just silly. Protonk (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Raul has said that Jenna Jameson will never be TFA. Why I don't know. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • About Jenna - I've never absolutely ruled out featuring her on the main page. I've been careful to point out that I'll avoid featuring her for now, but I reserve the right to revisit the decision in the future. Oh, and as for why, I would have thought it was obvious - to avoid inciting a moral panic. Raul654 (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• that was "moral" with an "m"??? You're talking about Jenna Jameson here...the "m" is not a specialty there. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support full protection -MBK₀₀₄ 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose auto fp. Seriously, I think you've all gone silly. Semi first, then upgrade if needed. Block, block and block. Synergy 17:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's not silliness. It's just a huge pain in the ass. Protonk (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Sometimes, if it looks like it might rain, I'll still leave the top down. When there's a Hurricane Warning though, you gotta put it in the garage. Arakunem^Talk 17:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• We're putting 4chan on the front page? Well, that'll be a good day to take off from logging in; even if we *do* full-protect that, they'll just spill over and trash everything else, and I'll just get depressed over the fact that someone let the lunatics out of the asylum. Semiprotect and block the asshats, I guess. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support full protection - although I'm glad that people are not backing down from having this as TFA, there's no need to leave the doors wide open and allow a bunch of raving nutters in. I know that anyone should be able to edit WP, but there's a time when pragmatism must come above idealism. Saves us time and effort playing 'whack-a-fool' with the vandals. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support full protection –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support full protection, and I suggest someone Semi's Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 14, 2009 as soon as possible. D.M.N. (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done. It was just trolling and nonsense, anyways. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support full protection or removal from main page: We should probably set ClueBot to 'angry' mode for all articles, too, to prevent collateral damage. (I can't wait for FlaggedRevs) Dendodge Talk^Contribs 19:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Full-protect and a good swift kick to Raul: what about 4chan is worth undergoing the inevitable nightmare that will ensue from putting this on the main page?—Kww(talk) 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that we should save it for April 1? :) Raul654 (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • April 1 is already taken. :P Giggy (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support full-protect - 4chan-style vandalism happening at various places as a sort of pre-strike, I suppose, and if it isn't bad enough already I can't imagine what it will be like when that article hits the front page. — neuro^(talk) 19:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support full protection if it's considered necessary, though I would personally have been tempted to keep it semi-protected but be a lot more free with short-term full protection during the day if a real attack does materialise. I'd certainly strongly oppose swapping this off the front page, it's a well-written and balanced article that does a great job of showing off Wikipedia's professional coverage of non-mainstream and very modern topics. Removing it out of fear of reprisals sets a seriously disturbing precedent. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose preemptive FP. If it comes to that, then so be it, but your fears are unfounded. Besides, a lot of us are both Wikipedians and 4chan regulars. There's no reason we can't handle this like we normally do. -- Ned Scott 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"handle this like we normally do..." Kicking and screaming and pointing fingers at each other? *grin* I do support Full protecting the article for the length of time it's TFA, and mercilessly blocking any IP's trying to strike up the /b/and on various other articles, with longer blocks for IP's in /b style vandalism SirFozzie (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Four IPs vandalized my talk page, and one vandalized Giggy (talk · contribs) (Giggy nominated 4chan at FAC). I'm unaware if the IPs who vandalized my talk have been blocked, or if they can be blocked through the 15th. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalised Giggy? :| (as opposed to his pages) :D Orderinchaos 05:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As a semi-related question: is there a persistent archive of TFAR discussions? I'm having trouble finding this one. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No (it would be time consuming to maintain one). Also, not all scheduling is done via WP:TFA/R; it is used for five community requests at a time. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-18/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support semi, run up to full if necessary From what I know about 4chan, it's more than likely that we'll have sleepers--semi-protection would be a good way to catch them. If it gets too hairy, run it up to full. Blueboy96 21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support full protection per IAR. With all the sleeper accounts that will be used, vandalism will be intense. Xclamation point 21:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Full Protect. After reading threads like this, I can't see how the page cannot be fully protected within a 48 hour window of its display on the main page (12 before and after), plus an immediate desysop of any admin who vandalise the page during that time (as they may be compromised in one way or another). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Pick another article Far better choices could have been made. And since when do we auto FP the TFA? Let it get beaten up like all the other TFAs. If our policy is not to prot the TFA, let's follow it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is, Rvlese, that /b/ itself (a section of 4chan) is planning either to DDoS the page, post pornography links on it, or goatse it with a table (my guess). There's massive vandalism planned as it sits; keeping it unprotected is just inviting disaster. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't expect any kind of real organization that we saw with the Scientology raids. A few threads maybe but none of the offsite work. A DDoS attack would be very unlikely (a real one that is, they may try to do mass image scraping). BJ^Talk 22:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is /b/. I don't expect organization from them, I expect determination from those who are after brownie points or mindless following the shepherd from whose who revere JA/G. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's the concern, THEN PICK ANOTHER ARTICLE. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to agree, Rlevse, it's only dodging the issue - eventually it will be mainpaged and this thread will appear once more. The question here essentially is, should we FP 4chan now or later? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does it ever have to be on the front page? Not every featured article is the FA OTD. --B (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Rlevse on this one - picking this article was an all around bad idea. (Assuming, though, that there's a zero chance of that happening, I support full protection.) --B (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already said that once in this thread, but I'm happy to associate myself with B and Rlevse again: it shouldn't've been picked for the main page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 22:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It should never appear on the main page, IMO. Now that news got out about this, I'd recommend full protection for the next few days and I definitely recommend against going ahead with putting it on the main page. There are plenty of other articles that deserve their day in the sun. Enigma^msg 23:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(Deindenting) - I knew when I selected it that this could provoke a controversy. (I was hoping it wouldn't) I'm open to the possibility of changing the article, if there's a consensus here that we cannot handle it. However, as a principle, I don't think Wikipedia should be censored; that this article should be eligible to be on the main page, just like any other FA. Also, I think rescheduling it because of the potential for vandalism to Wikipedia sets an awfully bad precedent.

As for protection - speaking as the one who wrote that policy - the policy is normative, and this is anything but a normal situation. I think, for the whole day it's up, it should at least be semi-protected (as it has been for months), if not fully protected. Raul654 (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there's pretty strong agreement here that it should be fully protected. Semi-protection could be tried to start off with until it becomes apparant it will be insufficient. Regarding censorship, let me ask a hypothetical if I may. If child pornography or some of its related articles were to ever become featured, would you use them on the main page? What about something profane like fuck or with explicit photos like penis? I think there is a line somewhere that has to be drawn for what can be eligible to appear as a featured article. No, Wikipedia is not censored, but that doesn't mean we should open the floodgates. --B (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not big on answering these hypothetical questions because realistically, very few people are willing to go to the effort to get them up to FA status, so discussions end up generating much angst over something extremely unlikely to happen. But I'll reluctantly answer yours. If someone got them up to FA status, yes, I'd feature penis with an explicit photo; yes, I'd feature Fuck (good luck finding a relevant picture); child pornography - I'm not sure. That's a tough one. Certainly not with any picture that could be reasonably construed as child pornography. Raul654 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh, this may have already been suggested, but just do not make it a TFA. It is definitely not worth the trouble, discussion, inevitable drama, et cetera that this will bring. We stand to lose nothing by not making it a TFA (or at least a shit ton less than we stand to lose by making it the TFA). John Reaves 23:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not featuring it wouldn't be censorship. The article would still be just as accessible as it was before. John Reaves 23:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Leave it unprotected If this was a poor choice for a featured article, then it will become evident, and then maybe better choices will be made in the future. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting. A sort of punitive interpretation of WP:NOPRO? ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an element of that, but it more has to do with whether wikipedia has the courage to stand by its own principles. Protection of pages is supposed to be reactive, not proactive. We are constantly admonished that it is our responsibility as editors to be vigilent. As WP:NOPRO implies, featured articles should adhere to the same protection rules as any other articles. If the article is already semi-protected, the rules say that's fine, it can stay that way. But if it's unprotected now, it should stay unprotected until (or if) vandals strike. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a fun suggestion; we can still have it on the main page, but put it up a day early or late (might be too late for early at this point). A /b/ raid can get thrown by something unexpected happening. At worst, delay featuring it for a week. /b/'s attention span isn't such that raiders will wait. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Guess again, Mendaliv. Once they read this and this is enacted, the threads at /b/ will just pop up again a week later and it'll be *easier* for them to create accounts to bypass semi-pro. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please PLEASE do not full protect it - for the very selfish reason that I'd rather like to keep it in a state that doesn't suck, and I'm not an admin, and I really don't want to waste my time (and yours) with editprotected requests. I wouldn't be opposed to picking another article. Giggy (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Delay to an unspecified date to be decided amongst the FA crew; failing that, full-prot on whatever day it gets. Do NOT deny mainpage. I did not state my opinion before, wanting to see what people thought about it. Having read the views and thinking a little bit about my own thoughts on the matter, I believe that it may be best to, in-camera and privately, keep the 4chan article's mainpage date up in the air to prevent /b/ from realizing we're gonna MP it (as Mendaliv states above, /b/'s attention span isn't too great, but the moment we put a definitive date the disruption-planning starts up again). if this is unreasonable/unrealistic, then when it is MP'd, whether on 01/14 or another date, full-prot it. But do not prevent it from getting MP'd; it looks like cowing to 4channers. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Semi-protect initially, as soon as it goes up, and then switch to full protection once things start to get completely out of hand three or four minutes later. I would also suggest semi-protecting Anonymous (group), Project Chanology, and the other closely-related pages linked from the main article, since that is probably where the /b/nuts will go once they find themselves deflected from the TFA. Pre-emptive protection is a no-brainer here. The CVU will be having a hard enough time keeping up; why make it any more difficult to contend with the ineluctable chaos by ignoring prior warning and keeping the featured article wide open to inevitable attack? I would suggest that a sysop or three create a special heading on the Talk page for suggested improvements and camp out there while the article is embargoed, so that passers-by can still contribute to the article, at least by proxy, and that the protections be set to expire the moment the article leaves the main page. --Dynaflow babble 02:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• We are making mountains from molehills. /b/ is a bunch of trolls and vandals. We don't need to wring our hands about what they might do if we mainpage it. And we don't need to keep it off the main page out of fear that they will do something. That's pathetic. It's a featured article. It got a date from TFAR. It goes on the god-damn main page. End of story. We semi if we need to (Giggy makes a good argument for why it might be good to semi rather than full) and we fully protect it in the obvious eventuality that some channers register accounts just to vandalize. Anything less is cringing in the face of 13 year olds. Don't do it. Protonk (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose any protection at least initially. For exactly the same reasons as Protonk above. Why the panic? What is the worst that could happen? If and when vandalism occurs, revert, block, ignore; the same as any other article. -- 06:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• WP run out of FAs? Seriously, pick something else. The m:dicks are going to run amok; so can this per WP:DENY. Ruin their fun.
  OK, I know this will go ahead, so I'll watch the shit hit the fan tomorrow. Someone keep count of the sleepers flushed out; bonus points for any admin sleepers found. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose preemptive full protection - Come one, if we treat this any other than all the other FAs, then we are making ourselves look weaker than we are. It's today's FA, there will be a bunch of admins on it and they will surely be able to upgrade protection if and when necessary. Is there really any need to protect it when nothing has happened if it is possible to do so later once something happens? SoWhy 10:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Deal with it like any other FA -- unprotected initially, semiprotected if necessary, block sleepers agressively (no warnings) if semi-protection doesn't seem to work. Full protection shouldn't be on for more than a few minutes to sort things out. Kusma (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support inital Semi Protection Semi protection will allow us to see if it really is going to be the vandal storm they are threating, or if its just all talk. Generally threats to have an organized vandal attempt aren't quite as bad as they seem, and if nesseccary we can always bump the article up to full protection. After all they can't break anything (except maybe our credability). --Nn123645 (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Let 'em

Semiprotect is fine, but don't full protect unless it becomes necessary. Let /b show us exactly what they are: either they'll blow it off and snark about what a big deal we made; or they'll show up and vandalize the article… and it'll go right back to normal in a couple days. Either way, they'll have a laugh and be childish about it, and Wikipedia will keep going on as normal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The spirit of Wikipedia is to prevent future problems. How would your suggestion do that? It seems more like it is taunting 4chan. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think it counterintuitive, given that /b/ tends to be nutless and following JA/G or doing something just to have a laugh at someone else's expense. I heavily doubt the article will go thru the day unscathed, even by FA standards. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is all rather similar to the "what shall we do?" fretting in connection with Colbert and his occasional wikipedia pranks. The answer on those occasions, as it should be now, is to do nothing until they actually do something. All the anxiety here just plays into their hands, as part of the fun is seeing wikipedia editors scramble like ants. Treat it as you would treat any other article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, their motivation is to keep 4chan's /b/tard population down, as noted in the thread linked to in the section above. Our running about is a side effect. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 07:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to keep the /b/tard population down, you're wasting your time. People will be jerks. We can't control 4chan, and going into DEFCON 1 is an overreaction. Let them try to troll, let them fail. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 10:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support full protection. While it is uncommon, I believe it's a good idea to ignore common protection practices regarding featured content when there are clear plans for vandalism. If we give in and not feature it, then it would allow vandals to dictate our featured content simply by threatening with vandalism. We don't give in to unfounded legal threats either. This should be no different. _ Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Go through whatever protection cycle we would with any other article, but also apply this to the talk page. When (and it will be when) they hit it from IPs, semi-protect. When they hit it from sleeper accounts (I've already blocked Tripfag (talk · contribs) and I'd recommend reviewing the recent user creation logs to find any other usernames with obvious or obscure /b/ memes that wouldn't otherwise be flagged by the bot, or that other users have missed, and then block them preemptively), then go to full protect.

  Leaving aside the issue of looking like we're scared of them, I would point out that if they can't hit the 4chan article (and let's also apply protection to the talk page if it starts to get vandalized), they'll hit every other article linked from the Main Page, making more work for us. I would also recommend reporting any abuse that's reportable to the relevant ISP or school. They can be "anonymous" all they want over there, but I somehow doubt they'd be so (ahem) bold when their IPs get recorded for everyone to see, and if they are there are quite a few sysadmins who would be interested in knowing about it.

  I will also say that I strongly oppose changing the article. In theory, every article here can be a featured article, and if we send a message that an editor's hard work on an article will not be eligible for the highest recognition we offer (featuring on the Main Page), we will deter a lot of necessary improvements. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Treat as a normal article. I supported full protection above, but on further rumination, I think changing our policy on TFA proactively, flies in the face of WP:DENY, to say nothing of "You can edit this page". I think its a given that the article will be brutalized if unprotected, and sleeper-vandalized while semi-protected, but its also fair to say that there will be many extra eyes on the main page for this, and it will be dealt with more rapidly than normal. Changing the FA to another article, or indeed changing one of the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia based on "the if's" is not what we're about here. Proceed as normal, react, RBI, have lunch, protect based on established policy. Arakunem^Talk 16:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Don't do anything just yet Simple let the usual vandalism hit and IF the article gets to be a mess, lock it down. There will be more than enough eyes on the article tomorrow anyway to revert vandalism that might occur. In other words ignore what MIGHT happen and treat things as business as usual. We've got enough admin support here that can take care of whatever vandalism may occur. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Honeypot (computing). Let's make sure we have a few Checkusers available for plowing the sock farms and picking off the IPs and open proxies that appear. Let them burn their resources trying to attack this article. We have the upper hand. We can semi or protect if the situation gets out of hand. I recommend short periods of protection to give the sysops and CUs a chance to block whatever accounts have been found, then unprotect and trap a new batch. Jehochman ^Talk 17:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The main page turnover is about 6 hours away, so it's time to make a decision. Having read this thread through, I've decided to go ahead with the 4chan article as scheduled. Right now, the article is semi-protected from edits and full-protected from page moves, which is the same level of protection it has had since February. Per Giggy's request, I think that is sufficient for starting purposes. I'm not worried about sleeper accounts, because in order to edit a semi-protected article, they have to be 4 days old, and I scheduled the article less than 2 days ago - not enough time for them to mature. So the rules of the day should be: (1) Revert vandalism when you see it and (2) Block the offenders (3) If there's an unusually large amount of vandalism, increase the protection level. (4) Feel free to protect any other high-profile related articles. Raul654 (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone else support a zero-tolerance policy on these? Namely, block after first offense? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Jehochman ^Talk 18:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If they want to be unblocked after it is no longer featured, we can deal with it them. Chances are, a 4chan user wouldn't waste enough effort, so we can figure out who should be around or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would if it's clear that the editor is not just saving test edits, but is here to troll or whatever they're here for. Also, if the article needs to be fully protected, I would recommend doing so for just a short while at a time, then reduce to semi- and see how it goes. – wodup – 18:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Side comment: My fear is that 4chan will find a random page, that likelyhood is only one or two admins are watching and will snap for it.... I'd urge admins to keep an extra eye on WP:AIV and [[WP:RFPP] tomorrow. D.M.N. (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

<Engineer>Buildin' a Sentry.</Engineer> (Goes to turtle on 4chan) -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 19:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do too (I could swear you scheduled it earlier than that, but whatever). Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely what we really need, then, is tonnes of people checking Special:RecentChanges? Because vandalism to articles found by random can often have little to no active editors watching them. Sometimes I've came across blatant vandalism on such articles that has been months old. We need people scouring over Recentchanges, I think. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but use short blocks (>31 hrs) since they will likely be hopping off the ip anyways. –xeno (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I sent my user talk history to RFCU/IP to kill off any OPs and sleepers that may be in this batch of bleating wethers. There's wisdom in providing channers an administrator to pester - it gives their IPs up for complaints to their ISPs. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats a perfect plan. What a brilliant way to flush them out. Nice one--Jac16888^Talk 16:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fuck 4chan. Fuck 'em right in the ear. Anything they do gets reverted within seconds. All they're doing is making our job easier. HalfShadow 03:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose any protection: Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, it doesn't look very good to have the main page (or to clarify "the featured article on the main page", for those of you who require an extra explanation) protected from editing. There's obviously enough people interested in this to be watching for vandals 2mora. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Some user adding pictures of Mootle on the talkpage

User:Kjootle (and later User:93.97.201.77 who admitted as User:Kjootle) is putting up pictures of 4chan's founder on the article's talkpage (please see history) which I reverted it both, stating that it is not the place to put those pictures and the article is about 4chan and not its founder. Can any users here guard the talkpage from this user and probably delete those redundant pictures plese? Thanks. E Wing (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I will, but she seems to be taking heavy offense to the additions being characterized as vandalism. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem. There already is an image of moot in the article, this user is merely suggesting other images he/she sees as better. Besides calling you stupid, the user seems to be doing everything right. Am I missing something? -kotra (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite block/ban of FT2

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchiveBishonen-FT2 but probably not worth transcluding now since ongoing discussion is rightly at the RFC page per WP:DR. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot Policy

Several times in which I have looked upon this page, I have seen several complains about various bots, all operating within our editing policy, but none operating within our bot policy. That is, that bot may not be operated unless they are approved.

Several times I have seen that these bot cases have been dismissed, and the bot is allowed to continue operation, even though it has not been approved.

If we are just going to let bot who are not approved operate anyway, why don't we change the policy page to reflect this. Or, we could follow the policy as it's written out, and block bot which are not approved. They may meet policy in regards to the edits, but bots, as far as I've read, are also approved in regards to their technical status.

But as I was saying, why have a policy which states something, if we aren't going to enforce it?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This (AN/I) isn't strictly the correct place for your thread, but anyway, we didn't start writing this encyclopedia with a whole slew of policies in place, instead, policy as we see it today grew around the encyclopedia, to try and make things easier for our editors, so things like our manual of style was created so articles were written in the same way. We're not writing an encyclopedia where everything has to be done according to rules and regulations or our material is useless, we're simply writing an encyclopedia, period. The various bots you're complaining about don't damage the project but they do help improve it in various ways, so there's no good reason for a strict adherence to policy. We're fairly easy going here, if something damages our content, it gets blocked, if it improves our content, we ignore it. We might even get round to writing a policy to expressly permit something, but writing the encyclopedia is the priority, not writing policy to facilitate writing the encyclopedia. Nick (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That isn't exactly an argument in regards to this thread, or maybe it is, if you look at it in regards to the fact that the Bot Approval Group was created for created to prevent disruption before it started. It doesn't exactly have anything to do with writing the encyclopedia. Most bots have to do with the maintaining the encyclopedia, at least in regards to the small things that not all users like to take up their time with, such as date linking, template dating, etc. Your argument in this matter, to say things in a simple matter, is directed at policies as a whole, instead of this specific policy regarding bots.

The fact is is that the Bot Approval Group was created for a reason, and if we just let every matter fall into AN/I before the bot is approved, what is the point of their existance then? Bots, at least by policy, are supposed to be approved before they are let loose on the wikipedia. So far what happens, if they are not approved, is nothing. As I said: Why have a policy if you're not going to enforce it?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you brought specific cases to the Bot Approval Group's attention? Canis Lupus 05:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No I haven't, I will do next time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit-war at Anarchism

Resolved

 – Appropriate action taken. — neuro^(talk) 02:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That old reliable, Anarchism has flared up again in recent weeks. There is a content dispute which has been discussed in an RfC on the talkpage over the last two days, and at the same time a group of editors have been reverting one editor who has repeatedly restored the disputed material. If an uninvolved admin could assess this report, I'd appreciate it. Input in the RfC from interested editors welcomed also. Muchas gracias, Skomorokh 00:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety ^talk 01:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your taking the time, I appreciate it. Regards, Skomorokh 01:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd that these anarchists seem to find it difficult to follow a few simple rules. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Who knew? Guy (Help!) 19:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2 steps down from ArbCom

ArbCom has issued a statement on FT2's departure, which may be found here.

For the Committee, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it, good call though. All the best to FT2. — neuro^(talk) 21:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite block/ban of Martinphi

I am indefinitely blocking/banning User:Martinphi. After a notification on WP:AE about a pseudo-outing, or in the words of WJBScribe, giving out the description of the genie and his last known whereabouts after his escape from the bottle, I looked at Martinphi's contributions and have found his primary - and nearly sole contribution to Wikipedia is furthering his personal conflict with ScienceApologist

Martinphi and ScienceApologist have what might be charitably described as the most dysfunctional working relationship on Wikipedia. It is so dysfunctional, that the disruption they cause eachother spreads like a virus, infect the articles, their fellow editors, and editors-as-administrators who attempt to intervene. I am bloody well tired of it - so should we all be.

I'm going to try cutting the Gordian knot here - what Martinphi did may or may not be acceptable by the letter and even the spirit of the personal information policy. However, on face it is on its own a violation of acceptable Wikipedia norms. In addition, MartinPhi's behavior is now essentially to treat Wikipedia as a place to do social violence unto Science Apologist, a conflict that is essentially personal - instead of working on improving the information resource. To describe his recent actions as disruptive is a simplistic summary of the sad end of a problem that has been festering as long as I can remember.

This action should not be taken as an endorsement of any of the antisocial behaviors ScienceApologist has undertaken - and I couldn't give a damn about the content philosophies involved. I am however, dealing with what has been presented to me for now, if more is presented, more may be done.

Martinphi has abused the privilege of editing here. In my capacity as an administrator, on behalf of the community, which I hope will endorse this action, I am revoking that privilege.--Tznkai (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Regretfully, I endorse this indefinite block. While Marginphi may have been a valid contributor in the past, although limited to a very specific range of articles, he has engaged in POV-pushing almost exclusively. It should be noted that he has made contributions to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, and that his notes there may need to be reviewed in light of the above incident. seicer | talk | contribs 15:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I support this action, unfortunate as it is. Hopefully this will allow people to move forward, and will calm other editors (particularly SA) that have been baited by this user. Now the baiting will stop, perhaps the lashing back will stop. Verbal chat 16:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally.—Kww(talk) 16:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is relevant to the blocking but it has become clear to me during the course of the Fringe Science arbitration that Martinphi is treating it as a zero-sum game in which he finds himself in opposition to people he describes as "debunkers." While there is certainly a problem with one or two over-zealous editors (ScienceApologist's attempted removal of information on homeopathic use from articles on plants seems to have been particularly ill-conceived) I found Martinphi's characterization of the affair as a battle between two factions unhelpful. If he's to continue editing, he must stop this because it only exacerbates our problems of balance in articles on fringe science. --TS 16:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I support Tznkai's action and think that a ban of Martinphi is long overdue. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• An unblock request has been posted: User_talk:Martinphi#Indefinite_block. If someone more familiar with the case than myself would mind taking a look... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd decline it as insufficient, but since I am biased, I will not edit the unblock request. Protonk (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The reason for blocking is quite clear, here and at WP:AE, and was linked from the notice. Verbal chat 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh he's just gone and outed an editor on his talk page (not linking for obvious reasons). Perhaps his page should be locked now to prevent further abuse. Can an oversighter deal with it? Verbal chat 19:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Without comment on the situation as a whole, Martin has indicated that this was an error on his part rather than intentional "outing", and has rectified it himself (again, omitting diff for privacy reasons). MastCell ^Talk 19:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• <- Agree with MastCell that the "outing" seems to be unintentional. I reviewed Martinphi's recent contributions, and this block seems sound to me; I've gone ahead and declined his unblock request as well. Also of interest is his checkuser  Confirmed sockpuppet Durga's Trident (talk · contribs), which was used to perform a hitjob on SA under the guise of anonymity during the Cold fusion RFAR. For reasons unknown to me, ArbCom seems to have let him off for that, but I suspect the community will not be as forgiving. — east718 | talk | 19:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Outing in the unblocking process has been taken to Oversight. This is completely unacceptable. seicer | talk | contribs 19:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

He's just attempted to evade the block as OneJustMan (talk · contribs), the account's been blocked. Hut 8.5 19:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

M has nothing to do with OneJustMan. OJM is davkal - and while you're doing the checkuser to confirm it - do one on Verbal as well. Slowansure (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already earned my CU wings. I'm sure it wonk be long before your little sockfarm is cleaned up. Verbal chat 20:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Side note - I'veEast718 has indef'd Slowansure as a sockpuppet of davkal. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that was by accident too... I'm a bit shocked that ArbCom took no action then. I'd like to hear their reasoning. Verbal chat 19:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the same information that Martinphi posted was prominently posted by another editor to SA's talk page (not in bad faith, IMHO) and remained unreverted for almost a week (I'm likewise hesitant to post diffs). Given that Martinphi seems remorseful, I hardly see an indef as a proportionate response here - especially when compared to the response when SA googled for derogatory personal info on me to post. Ronnotel (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had an email exchange with Martin in which among other things he said that "I intend to keep doing exactly what I have been doing". JoshuaZ (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am uneasy about this block. Apart from the "outing" allegation (which has been oversighted so we cannot judge its seriousness, and which Martinphi claims was accidental), this user seems no more or less problematic than his principal antagonist. It makes no sense and seems contrary to natural justice to ban one and let the other continue. Am I missing something? --John (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • He gave the users real life name. Pretty serious. MartinPhi's bating and socking have been the cause of many of these problems, and his repeated outings just add to it. Verbal chat 20:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I can confirm, as the one who e-mailed Oversight, that Shoemaker Holiday's real name was prominently stated as part of the unblocking discussion that ensued on his user talk page. He retracted this and used his username, offering that it was a mistake in the edit summary. seicer | talk | contribs 20:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Tznkai seems to have gotten this right. Wikipedia does not need drama-only accounts. If MartinPhi wants to edit again there must be an undertaking to focus on content rather than conflict, and if there is a willing mentor, I would also view that as a positive development. Please do not unblock the account until there is a consensus on unblocking conditions. (I am a party to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science.) Jehochman ^Talk 20:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • (multiple e/cs, replying to John) Natural justice? Wikipedia isn't an experiment in egalitarianism where all editors on opposing sides must be treated fairly: editors' fates are determined by their own behavior, not that of whomever they may frequently be in opposition against. That said, we should follow Tznkai's advice about not endorsing SA's methods and be very wary of treating this as a "victory" or "defeat" for any party. Particularly, this block for combative behavior and "outing" shouldn't be seen an as opportunity to partake in grave-dancing; that is detrimental to the atmosphere and must be avoided. Despite his iniquities, Martinphi should be treated with dignity and be unblocked if he wishes to continue participating in the Fringe science case. — east718 | talk | 20:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If Martinphi wants to continue participating in the Fringe science case, he can post to his talk page or email the committee. Unblocking wouldn't be required. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Whoever does that would be engaging in meatpuppetry for a banned editor, a serious offence. What is often done in such cases is to strike through (or even delete, but I favor strike throughs) the users comments. I have often done that with a note as to why: ^{Comments of banned user.} That keeps the historical record intact, and makes the responses of other editors understandable. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• No opinion on the outing issue, which I haven't studied, but I heartily endorse the indefban per Battleground. Martinphi is not a useful editor. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC).

• I don't know the full details about this, but I've never liked it when an editor is banned while there is an open arbcom case which they are a party to. -- Ned Scott 20:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not for sure why he is listed as a party in the arbcom case, when it was initially just three: SA, myself and Jercho. seicer | talk | contribs 20:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Evidently, because he ignored the notice saying not to change the page, and added himself [47]. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. Whack SA later if necessary (but I don't think it will be). It's time people started thinking about the encyclopedia rather than the rules and processes that have accreted to the encyclopedia like barnacles. Thatcher 20:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - Thatcher has it right, and Akhilleus points out if necessary he can participate in the fringe science case even when blocked (although I do not think it would be appropriate), he seems to plan to continue given some statements above. The first sockpuppet should have led to a block anyway, the most recent one confirms the need for ban. I agree that this should not be seen as a victory for anyone. dougweller (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment As mentor to ScienceApologist I recuse from an opinion on the block itself, but do have a couple of other comments to add. Martinphi has been in touch with me today offsite and denies that the OneJustMan account is him. The indeffing of editors for outing while arbitration is underway is not without precedent: Ilena was indeffed by SlimVirgin while Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal was open, although that instance was a classic privacy policy violation and repeat behavior. I suggested to Martin that the old WP:CSN board used to use a template so that blocked editors can participate in their own sanctions discussion on a reasonable footing; he liked that idea. Would someone who's a bit more code-savvy than I am please nick the code? Most of the time, whatever the outcome, it proved helpful. Roughly 20% of the time the blocked editor had input that swayed the discussion, the rest of the time that person could walk away with the satisfaction that he or she had a voice in the decision (and thus possibly less likely to sock). And if the template got abused it was easy to take down. Might be helpful to try that here, because regardless of one's opinion about Martinphi he has been an active editor for quite a while. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think OneJustMan is likely Davkal. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Indef block. I hate blocks. I hate indef blocks. I do not believe they are good for the community. This is my second choice (obviously), but a user who states that they will continue a persistent behavior is turning this into a war zone. It doesn't matter if their intentions or good or anything, no one should be allowed to use Wikipedia to seek vengeance, persistently attack, or just constantly feud with another. It goes against every principle of Wikipedia. I do not like Science Apologist. I do not support him in any way. I also do not believe that he is innocent. However, this is my view on the situation unless I see a lot of clear evidence to point to the contrary in regards to Martinphi's actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm slightly confused why this is being handled by the community, considering ArbCom are currently voting about blocking him. That said, in the context of his latest post, which appears to be arguing that if somebody attempts to out an editor, it's some how ok to make further attempts, there is no way I could justify an unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sometimes events move faster than Arbcom does. Thatcher 22:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Moreover, the Committee is only for handling problems the community cannot. It does not, as a rule, pre-empt or obstruct reasonable actions taken with strong community consensus. --TS 22:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
      • ArbCom has me on proverbial speed dial if they want my attention - if they disagree with my action, you can be sure I will hear no end of it.--Tznkai (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
        • This wouldn't be the first time the ArbCom has handed out a one year ban, and the community has handed out an indef ban. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Let's get on with editing more peacefully. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• First: I have no problem indefinitely banning Science Apologist if I get a substantive (severity), valid (read: not from sock puppets) and recent complaint about him. Has he been outing Martinphi or anyone else? I haven't heard anything.I am not looking for reasons to ban people, sometimes they simply drop into my proverbial field of vision.
• In addition, in my duties as a clerk of the Cold Fusion case, I had a CU run on Durga's Trident - the issue was forwarded to the committee via e-mail but Durga's evidence was removed in the meantime - and some pointless minutiae later the issue was more or less settled. Considering the volume of e-mail the committee gets I wouldn't get too worked up about it. The actual harm done to ScienceApologist was minimal if extant.

Seriously people - enough of this mess. Raise your hand if you think that the community or the encyclopedia will benefit from Martinphi (keeping mind his continued behavior) sticking around with things as they are. And who thinks that leaving him unblocked will lead to disruption? It really can be that simple.--Tznkai (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've set up a section for Martin below. I'm not thrilled he outed me, obviously, but Durova makes a compelling point, and letting him say his piece is only fair (obviously, if he uses it disruptively, this boon can be withdrawn). I think he should be banned, but think he should have the right to defend himself. That said, one more outing, and that's it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• It seems that Martinphi has outed yet another editor that required oversight, and has been confirmed and removed. As a result, his pages have been indefinitely protected. If he wishes to inform ArbCom of any future comments, or wishes to post comments in relation to this ANI, he can do so via e-mail. seicer | talk | contribs 22:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If that was the intent, his user page should probably be protected as well. It's his user page that I set up to transclude, since it's easier to noinclude everything necessary on a page that other people would be less likely to edit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, he outed someone a third time today? Two oversight requests? I strongly support an indefinite ban. This has gone on for far too long. I'm still amazed arbcom let him off for sockpuppeting during the cold fusion case. Skinwalker (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition to that sockpuppetry, he was also up to some meatpuppetry further back, including using it to get around 3RR rules. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Martinphi --Minderbinder (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion its comments and the treatment of an editor is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and to me as part of this community. You are so eager to tar and feather another editor that accusations and inaccuracies are being tossed around in so overwhelming a number that I don't even know where to start to question or explain them. JoshuaZ, is you email comment taken in context? Shoemaker you attacked Martin on the Fringe Science case. Dalabtot and I tried to tone it down. I didn't report it. I didn't want to create a disturbance. That's not the first time you've attempted to create a disturbance around this editor. The discussions were going well I naivly thought, so I left things alone. Why not check on why Durga's Trident was posting instead of making assumptions? Is getting rid of Martin going to ease up SA's unfounded attacks on the multiple other editors he attacks? Why not find out if Martin is running sock puppets? So now all of Martin's comments on Fringe Science case are concerns because of this block even if some of the proposals so obviously come out of his statements. You have created a scapegoat and laid the ills of Wikipedia on his back. But you've got it wrong, upside down. Fix and uphold the rules that support the environment and you will go a long way to fixing Wikipedia's problems. Throw out the editors, especially unfairly, and more will take their places and the same problems will arise. If we ban an editor indefinitely you have to get it right, and you haven't. I would like to see other editors comment here who are aware of the inaccuracies surrounding this, but I doubt they will. Some for sure I know of are afraid and why not. Look what is happening here. I may feel regret later in posting this but for now I'm just feel heartbroken for the mistake being made, and for the Wikipedia community in general. I know Tznkai's was sincere in his understanding and subsequent block, but this is much, much deeper than it appears and the fix is not an indefinite block.(olive (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

• Note: I have recieved an e-mail from Martinphi with assurances that he did not intend to pseudo-out, and that he wants to write content, and something about how every time he edits an article he gets reverted. I am not assured that Martin actually understands the problem at hand here - of which the quasi outing attempt is only the latest incident. However, if other administrators are so inclined, they can ask Martinphi for the same e-mail he sent me and they may be more convinced. I am not however, skeptical of his claim that ScienceApologist reverts Martinphi whenever he tries to edit. There have been various threads stating as much. I would very much like for all of us to admit to at least this much. ScienceApologist and Martinphi are at the bottom of the list of Wikipedians we would like other Wikipedians to act more like.--Tznkai (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  He gets reverted nearly every time he edits because his edits are completely orthogonal to our policies on NPOV, undue weight, reliable sources, and so on. It's not just SA who reverts him. When he got tired of that, he tried to edit the respective policies to fit his idiosyncratic opinions of them, and got reverted yet again, and again, and again. If he had outed someone once, and showed contrition, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt - but he outed editors three times today, twice of which were after the indef block you placed, and two of which required oversight. Not to mention that he disrupted the cold fusion arbcom with a sockpuppet. Please, it's time to show him the door. Skinwalker (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Two editors, myself and another, requested Martinphi to remove the link that he had inserted. The response he gave to the other editor was that he hard linked to the history and the rest was blanked. He said he saw no reason why he shouldn't post the information. I then requested politely for the removal completely and no response came. Now reading the above about socking and meatpuppet that was confirmed has me convinced this action was correctly done. The meatpuppet information was posted to the new case from the Cold fusion case with questions of whether a blocked users information should be used. The response was he would take the information as his own and be responsible for it. Well, sorry but that just blows me away since he knew it was his writing to begin with but others who questioned it did not. This is gaming the system totally imappropriately. I feel his additions to the new case on fringe should be stricken from considerations since I feel it was an illusion of sorts to get what he wants. He has tried to change policies to no avail, he has bent over backwards to get SA sanctioned, permanently blocked. I assume there is more that I am not aware of but I think the decision should stand as is with the block/ban. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not supported What have you done? Most of you commenting here are the usual hardcore conservative editors I have come to think of as "the skeptics" who are determined to push paranormal articles out of Wikipedia or to make them seem obviously false. You have run off virtually all of the editors who are willing to try to make the article fairly represent the subjects. MartinPhi was the last and most knowledgeable. I watched him go from a person bending over backwards to be appeasing other editors to a person who now reacts to the poisoned atmosphere you have allowed to develop in Wikipedia.

You have taken the cowards way out by banning martin and not doing something about ScienceApologists. You banned him on what has to be considered a pretense because ScienceApologists freely and with great pride announced his name and place of work in that interview. I often refer people to the interview because it is such a great example of the good and bad of editors. ScienceApologists certyainlyhas your protection. Tom Butler (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom's comments here are a perfect example of what the problem has been all along. There are a number of editors who simply disagree with NPOV and particularly WEIGHT and feel like "fairly representing the subjects" means giving equal time to the advocates of a fringe theory (if not more to that side) and the prevailing mainstream scientific view (and if a subject is so fringe that mainstream science has ignored it, they see that as grounds to just present the advocacy of the topic since it hasn't been "disproved"). Wikipedia policy says that if a purportedly scientific topic isn't taken seriously by mainstream science, then the article should make that clear when it describes the topic. In addition, I don't see how productive work on an encyclopedia can take place when editors take an "us versus them" attitude, attacking those making good faith attempts to follow wikipedia policy and make articles that follow NPOV. In MartinPhi's case, when he was unable to edit articles to meet his goals (which he spelled out in various manifestos, including his own personal variant on wikipedia NPOV policy in his userspace), he tried to change WP policy instead.

Are MartinPhi's edits worth all the drama and disruption that has been going on for years? Is there ever going to be a resolution when an editor refuses to accept WP policy and tries every possible method to either change it or get around it? Full disclosure from me, I have had to deal with MartinPhi and Tom Butler in the past, including what was probably the first of many ArbCom cases MartinPhi has been involved with.

I think the key question is this - if this block is lifted, who really thinks that there won't be a similar situation here before long? How many times does wikipedia need to go through "he said it was an accident and he won't do it again" before saying enough is enough? --Minderbinder (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Minderbinder, you do realize that a RFAR is open regarding Fringe Science, more specifically, about the actions of several editors? seicer | talk | contribs 00:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Minderbinder is one of the primary examples I was thinking of in my comments above. He and many of you have studiously refused to see that some of us, especially martinphi, only want the articles to correctly represent the subject. It is obviously easier to harp on the same old skeptical mantra than to seek to understand our issue.

I will say it again. SA has announced his real name. It is here and there on the Internet with no apparent effort to hid it. The interview in question is still there and it is an important example of the balanced view demonstrated by MartinPhi contrasted with the radically skeptical view represented by SA and further stated at the top of his user page.

To block MartinPhi for the reasons stated here is simply hypocrisy. To block him without blocking SA as well is all the proof I need that Wikipedia is in the hands of the skeptical community. Tom Butler (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Seicer, yes I am aware of the ongoing arbcom case, as well as a number of others over the last couple years. In cases of disruption, sometimes it's necessary to take action immediately rather than wait for a lengthy arbcom case to finish. --Minderbinder (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support with some regret. Martinphi's contributions have varied in their value, but have unfortunately included both POV-pushing and efforts to unilaterally alter NPOV's undue weight provisions (POV-pulling? - certainly the same thing from the other side). The feud with ScienceApologist has gone on for too long. No comment on SA's conduct, as that's a separate issue. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this will work. Can't a blocked user only edit their talk page, not their user page? He has made a statement on his talk page. User_talk:Martinphi#General_statement--Crossmr (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That was because of multiple outings and abuse of the talk page. As already stated, he can e-mail whatever he needs. Talk page access is a privilege, not a right. seicer | talk | contribs 03:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well. If he can't participate because he kept outing people, that's his own fault. I tried to help. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming we know why an editor posts what he does in an Arb case or anywhere is a slippery and dangerous slope. Every editor posting on the Fringe Science ArbCom case has an agenda of some sort. Attempting to judge what that agenda is, or singling any of those editors out by presuming we know why they say what they say is highly presumptuous. We have to trust that the Arbs by careful and neutral sifting through the material presented will make the best decisions humanly possible at that time.

As well, as I've said now in multiple places, editors are admitting privately to being afraid to post on this kind of case because there is retaliation in the editing environment. Editors must feel that there are places where civil expression of concern and opinion will judged on the merit of the opinion alone. Editors must feel safe and many don't right now. Arbs need to know that, and they need to patrol the pages of these cases so editors are not attacked either. We, as editors need to stop making value judgments on editors in these situations or any situation. That is where WP:ASG is critical. We don't and can't know what underlies another's actions and we need to stop thinking we do.(olive (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

I've no idea what underlay MartinPhi's actions, but those actions were disruptive and unacceptable. Endorse the block. . dave souza, talk 22:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Olive, you said, "Editors must feel safe and many don't right now." People--not just editors--need to be responsible for what they say. The major problem with Wikipedia is that it has become the Lord of the Flies all over again with people hiding behind screen personas. Many editos, especially SA, are saying things that any face-to-face social situation would cause them to be ostracized. Protect the honest citizens from the thugs hiding behind their masks! Tom Butler (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As an editor who contributes under his real name, support ban. Long-term pattern of POV pushing, abuse of multiple accounts and battleground behaviour. Overall, he was hurting the project much more than he was helping. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No abuse of multiple accounts. Durga's Trident, the only sock, was known to the Arbs and was used to prevent off and on Wiki retaliation which some editors have had experience with. There is a difference between fact and POV. We've built a POV skyscraper that has no foundation.(olive (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Martinphi. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• This has been inevitable for some time. Martinphi's aims are increasingly incompatible with WP:NPOV, to the extent that he has tried to rewrite WP:NPOV to better enable the uncritical coverage of pseudoscience, paranormal and other crank ideas. If this went to ArbCom as a conduct case I suspect a ban or topic ban would result. Either would, however, have a determined time; I woudl therefor suggest that we ban Martinphi for a period of either six or twelve months, to see if some time away form the project will enable him to regain composure and perspective. Martinphi has, on occasion, helped to forge a workable consensus on the appropriate weight to give to a fringe view. Unfortunately, at this point in time, the joint problems of conduct and the runaway horror of fringe advocacy on WP - now the single most important place in the world to get your kook theory expounded - makes a ban or at least a lengthy block a regrettable necessity. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support ban. Agree with Tim Vickers and JzG in all points. Martinphi's editing, while civil, is incredibly disruptive to the production of an encyclopedia with any credibility, and I certainly hope that's what we're aiming for here. Tznkai asked somewhere on this page for people to raise their hands if they feel the encyclopedia would be well served by Martinphi's continued presence here, and if his remaining unblocked would hurt the encyclopedia. No, I don't think it would on either count. He is a center of continual disruption, obfuscation, misdirection, and tendentious, circular arguments and eccentric misconceptions of policy that he shops from one forum to another around the project. Just read the pages of the fringe science arbitration to see many examples of arguments that have been rejected again and again on policy pages, article talk pages, other project space pages, but brought up again in this arbitration, confusing issues and muddying waters that are in desperate need of clarity. Enough.Woonpton (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorse ban - Martinphi's effort to enhance the status of certain fringe subjects on Wikipedia began with overt advocacy in article spaces and evolved over time to superficially civil but ceaseless maneuvering on policy pages to bring WP:NPOV into line with his own idiosyncratic interpretations. After years of encountering community-wide resistance to his efforts one might expect he'd modify his thinking. But in his most recent Talk page statement he remains convinced he has done nothing wrong, blames Wikipedia for his troubles, and feels he has left a "legacy" for others to follow. Maybe it's time for the community to admit that he's just not suited to edit Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse this block and support a community ban.  --Lambiam 23:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban. I don't think he should be unblocked unless he makes a credible case that he'd stop with the behaviour that caused all the issues in the first place He's found Wikipedia endlessly forgiving - documented sockpuppetry, editing policy for the self-confessed reason of wanting to use it to get SA blocked under SA's arbcom restriction, and other such behaviours have failed to result in as much as a slap on the wrist for him. He was under an Arbcom restriction for a year, encouraging admins to restrict him from editing any article or set of articles on which he became disruptive, and yet he instead got an endless supply of second chances. He's taken full advantage of our lenience, progressing into worse and worse behaviour. If he wants a second chance again, he'd better show credible evidence of a willingness to reform. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - Never met Martinphi, but the community seems to be making itself clear that it's had enough of him. --Dylan620 (Contribs) 00:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - for disruptive and unrepentant behavior, not for Martin's bizarre reinterpretations of reality. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So, what happens now?

Resolved

 – not a speedy, take to WP:AFD if you'd like, but no one here seems willing to delete it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Escape Orbit put a CsD tag on Leonora Linter at 23.57. The author of the article User:Digwuren, removed the tag at 23.59. As that was Escape Orbit's last edit for the day, I replaced the tag at 01.04 and left a message on Digwuren's talk saying "I have replaced the tag which you removed. Please read the information on the tag and you will see that is says do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself". At 1.08 User:QuackGuru removed the tag with the edit summary "Send it to AFD if you disagree". I'm tempted to restore the tag, but need advice from you sysops -- will I be leaving myself open for some sort of bollocking if I do? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Any user except the author can remove a csd tag, best to take it AFD, restoring the tag is inadvisable, and besides, its not really deleteable under A7 anyway--Jac16888^Talk 01:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Tks. I could ask why anyone bothers to put a csd tag on if anyone can remove it (but I won't).

Because it indicates that the deletion is non-controversial, so people wouldn't want to remove it. The very notion of removing it indicates that a CSD is likely inappropriate. — neuro^(talk) 04:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But if it was removed by the author (reputedly a no no), and then by (example) one of his chums? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just taken a look, and the article does not qualify for speedy deletion, so this is all a moot point. Generally, speedy tags should only be removed by administrators, but I've no problem with an experienced user removing them if the article doesn't meet the criteria. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC)If it was removed by an SPA or obvious sockpuppet, that might be a matter for admin attention. However, QuackGuru is neither, so the removal of the CSD stands. I agree, they're kind of a waste of time in some areas. Dayewalker (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Hersford's "speedy tags should only be removed by administrators" comment - CSD tags may be removed by any editor. — neuro^(talk) 06:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Neuro, I have never before seen a guideline or policy that says non-admins shouldn't remove speedy delete templates. The only restrictions for removing the templates I have seen is the page creator should never remove the template themselves. Where does it say that non-admins shouldn't? Theseeker4 (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-admins are perfectly entitled to remove speedy-tags from pages they have not themselves created. DuncanHill (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the tag itself says it can be removed by anyone that isn't the article creator...--Smashville^talk 19:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hersfold is right. The person is the subject of multiple references that might be independent and reliable (I don't know the language). That would qualify this person for inclusion under WP:GNG. If you doubt the validity of the sources or think it's not notable anyway, then that's indeed a discussion for AFD and not speedy. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the reason I said "speedy tags should only be removed by administrators" above is along the same line as the rationale behind non-admin closures at AfD. While I know they can be removed by anyone, it's probably best practice to leave borderline ones for an admin. This, again, was not borderline, and the removal was appropriate. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Pattern of attempted bullying by Tool2Die4

Resolved

 – Request made on user's page to think about using a less abrasive tone. Tan | 39 20:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I experienced what initially seemed like WP:UNCIVIL conduct by Tool2Die4, and found it to be part of a wider pattern of bullying and otherwise inappropriate activity reported by other users. Examples:

(1) offering an express Quid Pro Quo involving an unrelated WP:RfA to induce an admin's "help" with a false accusation of sock puppetry against me. [[48]] (The admin investigated, requesting a WP:CheckUser that cleared me.) Offering a QPQ instead of using the WP:SSP channel may have been intended to drive an otherwise unjustified investigation, or at least to create the appearance of special influence in order to intimidate me.

(2) uncivil conduct frequently dismissing others and sometimes including profanity [49]

(3) Even generic warnings are 'enhanced' with fake threats, as in pretending to have an admin's authority to block users [50]

(4) I am not alone in noticing Tool2Die4 "bullying other users ... often."[51]

(5) I also question the appropriateness (and doubt the accuracy) of the user name, "Tool2Die4."[52]

(6) edit warring instead of discussion, e.g. [53]. Editors participating in discussion had reached WP:CONSENSUS, but Tool2Die4 (who had not provided any substantive discussion, only false and disruptive accusations) reverted until eventually dissuaded by a WP:3RR warning. (Tool2Die4 also mischaracterized the issue on the BLP noticeboard [54], where no one supported Tool2Die4's reversion. Tool2Die4 then stated falsely of me, "Anything not to his liking, he will threaten you with "an RfC". That was clearly false because I had never even typed the letters RfC until encountering Tool2Die4, whose conduct drove me to seek venues for dealing with bullies.)

(7) passive-aggressive retaliation: when I express disagreement with Tool2Die4's false accusations, (s)he tends to retaliate with edits or posts on other boards (for example, WP:SSP, where Tool2Die4's proferred "evidence" against me includes the statement that "TVC goes out of his way to make sure everyone knows Scarian's CU came up negative."[55])

I asked an admin for advice how to proceed, and this venue was suggested.[56] I apologize for total length: each paragraph is short and could have been overlooked by itself, but it's the pattern that adds up.TVC 15 (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, and without any judgment, it looks like #3 is erroneous - that is a standard level 4 template warning, and is not "enhanced". Hundreds of non-admin editors give this warning every day. Tan | 39 04:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've had the chance to review all the diffs, my opinion as an admin is that there is really no action to be taken, other than to ask T2D4 to perhaps turn the abraso-meter down a few notches. I see nothing wrong with his username. Tan | 39 04:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And as a user, I would concur. He's pissed off, ya, but nothing seems too out of line. I also hope you aren't claiming his username is inappropriate because it's misleading. Grsz¹¹ 04:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no direct evidence as to whether the username is misleading, that wasn't the point, although now that you mention it I wonder regarding WP:RS who carries the burden of proof (so to speak) on something like that.TVC 15 (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

:Regarding the standard warning, as I saw it the issue was about implying the ability to hit someone with a specific result beyond what Tool2Die4 is authorized to deliver. Standard warnings do refer to policy, but I have not observed other users guaranteeing the outcome of decisions that are entrusted to admins. As with the QPQ, it goes to the difference between warning and bullying: a warning may be standard, and may even be a courtesy, but bullying involves an additional implication ('I have special powers, don't disagree with me, just be very afraid').TVC 15 (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that warning is standard, there is nothing wrong there. See {{uw-vandalism4im}}, for example. — neuro^(talk) 06:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I see what you mean, and you're right. So, I've struck that example, leaving only the other six. Meanwhile, I have also requested a WP:CHECKUSER regarding an anonymous IP ([57]) and, depending on how that goes, I may get another example to add.TVC 15 (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well this is unfolding about how I expected. Waste of bandwidth. I'll consider this matter closed. Tool2Die4 (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with Tan and don't think there's a particular need for administrative action at this juncture, you really may want to rethink your approach to civility. "It takes two to tango", the saying goes, and from a cursory glance at the situation I think a little more calm and consideration may have kept this from becoming a problem. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: The CheckUser on the anonymous IP turned up unrelated, but admin Deskana commented to Tool2Die4: "your behaviour with your alternative account User:WikiKingOfMishawaka wasn't exactly above board."[58] That account was banned indefinitely, and wrote offensive edit summaries (e.g. [59]). BTW, Admin Deskana also cleared me of Tool2Die4's false accusation of sock puppetry, just as Admin Scarian had previously.[60]

I may have cleared you both, but that's not to say that I approve of the bickering that you two are doing. TVC 15 now seems to be trying to grasp anything and everything that he can to get Tool2Die4 blocked. I see this kind of behaviour from two serial sockpuppeteers; lots of accusations of sockpuppetry and incessant bickering. Acting like serial sockpuppeteers isn't a good way to go about things. --Deskana (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice and determinations but, respectfully, this isn't a 'he said - she said' situation where the facts are unknowable or both sides are equally guilty. I never actually requested a block, although I did ask Tool2Die4 to apologize. Of all the examples I found, only one has been shown to be an error on my part and I retracted it promptly. I have never created a sock puppet or even an "alternative account," so the comment about "acting like serial sockpuppeteers" seems misplaced. I appreciate WP and am not trying to reduce the number of contributors - only the instances of bullying. Bullies continue until someone stands up to them; although online, they may then resume under another name.TVC 15 (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlike you two, I am capable of saying that I have no interest in bickering further. --Deskana (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks, especially after this is resolved. Tool2Die4 (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Further to the above, regarding bickering, please see this [61].TVC 15 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL. While I won't deny that my ego loves the attention, the Wiki-stalking is getting a bit tiresome. Did you happen to see the green checkmark at the top of the section? Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Calm it down. Your constant heat and condescension are not appreciated. — neuro^(talk) 21:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither is being wiki-stalked. But never let facts ruin a good rant, eh? Tool2Die4 (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

University department asking staff to post their bios on Wikipedia

See Talk:Brent Nelsen (probably about to be deleted as a copyvio) where Akheagle5 (talk · contribs) editor says "I am working for the Political Science Department at Furman and they wanted all of their Bios from our website posted on Wikipedia." Up for deletion also as copyvio is Dana Adams from the same department. dougweller (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Point him to WP:PROFESSOR and make it very clear that subjects not meeting our criteria cannot have Wikipedia articles about them. If content taken directly from the University's website is to be used, they also need to provide evidence of permission. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also point them to WP:NOT#WEBHOST, as their Poli Sci department is clearly using Wikipedia as their own web host, which is not allowed. MuZemike 15:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

These may be appropriate for http://www.wikibios.com/ --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And WP:COI --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(ecX2) Even if we get past the question of notability and reliable sourcing from secondary sources, we still have conflict of interest issues and general spam. You can't give permission for a copyvio, only a free license. Even with that, a freely licensed curriculum vita is spam. It's not okay for a corporation to try to promote articles for all of its executives, or a record label for all of its acts - we're not a forum for press releases. Having said that, even though not all tenure-level professors are notable, many are, so filling out articles on professors is a good thing in my opinion if done in , even if selectively done for a single department at a single university. So if they're willing to play by the rules, and preferably post stuff in a sandbox for experienced editors to review, what's the harm? BTW, has anyone notified them of this discussion? If it gets out of hand and we're not reaching them onwiki, you might consider a real-world email to the dean or administrative coordinator for the department - if you patiently and kindly explain that what they're doing, though well intentioned, is against Wikipedia rules and makes them look bad, they would probably understand. Wikidemon (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

at least a few of the people there would clearly qualify for articles by the usual criteria. My advice to the ed. involved would be to go slowly, starting with the most distinguished, and see the reception. For the one mentioned above, I'm quite sure he;s notable,and also sure that the bio as posted contain material which we would immediately remove as promotional regardless of licensing, & analogously omits information such as reviews of the persons books that we would normally include as showing notability. My experience with academics with COI is that they as often say too little, as too much. DGG (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we also be nice to them? Bombarding them with acronyms and "your article doesn't deserve to be here" isn't going to help - but all to often happens.--Tznkai (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinated efforts to place non-notable bios on WP shouldn't be encouraged. I agree with DGG's go-slow approach to see where the notability starts. Given the common politics in academia I wish I were a bug on wall when the profs all discuss which of them is the most notable to go first. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Block of HS server?

Hi, I got an email from somewone at Harrison Central High School, URL: http://www.harrison.k12.ms.us who has possibly been blocked under his own Username. Can anyone check on this to see if the IP has been blocked to prevent account creation? If so, the block ought to be tweeked. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, what is the IP? — neuro^(talk) 21:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

He goes to a disambiguation page? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

He goes here. There was a URL, you know. ;) — neuro^(talk) 21:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the IP address, and I don't know how to find out; that's why I posted it here. If I knew the IP, I'd do it myself. :-) See User talk:Kev8551. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'd need the IP to see about the block, nothing can be done without knowing it. — neuro^(talk) 22:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

None of these appear to be the school's ip addresses but these are ip addresses that have edited the school's article and have been blocked, it might be one of them: 63.3.5.1, 205.188.117.12 and 152.163.100.9. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

None of those IPs are currently blocked. Hmmmm. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Paroxetine edit war needs admin attention

There is an edit war going on at Paroxetine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the (non-)inclusion of a claim (unreferenced of course) that the drug can cause suicidal thoughts. At least one editor (Literaturegeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has said that they will "revert until consensus, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean! As such edit wars cause me depression (although not to the point of suicide), and as I no longer have a sysop bit, I would be grateful if someone else could pile in and sort things out. Physchim62 (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Without looking at the edits themselves, a brief look at the history would show that both Mwalla (talk · contribs) and TVC 15 (talk · contribs) are probably at 7RR by now. D.M.N. (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like only yesterday that TVC 15 was edit-warring on the Anderson Cooper page. Oh wait, that was yesterday. Tool2Die4 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the article. If any of these users have been edit-warring elsewhere I wouldn't object to blocking, but I'm inclined to give them all a chance to work things out under protection. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This article has, like many of our antidepressant articles, been a cesspool of soapboxing, ownership and citation misrepresentation. Paul gene did an excellent job in keeping a lot of the cruft out of this general class, but unfortunately he has not edited in some time. I myself gave up after being accused of shilling for Glaxo Smith Kline and of pushing a "pro-suicide" agenda. Editors who have some experience weeding through clinical studies would be greatly appreciated, as would some continued admin attention. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

After speaking to Tim, I've unprotected the article. The parties to the edit war have been warned, and one blocked for edit warring. If further edit warring appears, protection may become necessary, but I think it can be handled with blocks at this time. seresin ( ¡? )  00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this tomorrow. Shouldn't have missed this at WT:PHARM—perhaps this whole mess could have been avoided. I believe "reverting until consensus" was meant as "reverting to a pre-edit war version". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User not accepting my explanation

TheMadFam (talk · contribs) is not accepting my explanation of why the page he has posted is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The article he has posted is CoolHandNuke, which is about a website that hasn't even gone live yet, and that receives 8 unique google hits. He has engaged with me on my talk page, which is fine, except that he is now saying that he will not accept that I am right and is demanding this be escalated to the next level for consideration & that a real world phone conversation take place. I like to help, but I am now officially out of my depth. Can someone please help out? -- role^player 23:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty clear A7. I deleted it. If he doesn't like it, he can take it to DRV. Also gave him a warning about spamming. --Smashville^talk 23:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And based on the other Contribs, this is an obvious case of COI. Adding the spamlink to competitors articles. I move for immediate banishment. Tool2Die4 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for intervening. -- role^player 23:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice that I started this whole thing by daring to mark the page as a CSD G11 for blatant advertising...00:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD-G4

I was going to nominate DiskCryptor for deletion, but I saw that it was deleted in a previous AFD. I don't know if this version is different from the version that was deleted. Can one of you please check to see if it fits csd-g4? Schuym1 (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Meh. If anything, the new article is worse. It's not quite the same, though, so it might be better to nominate it for some other good reason - such as not establishing notability. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

68.34.4.143 and It's Christmastime Again, Charlie Brown

User:68.34.4.143 has no less than three times reverted my removal of a trivia section from It's Christmastime Again, Charlie Brown — a removal of poorly written information that wasn't backed up by sources. Each time, the IP has accused me of vandalism (the three diffs). I really don't know what to do here, since a.) the IP is shared so a block wouldn't be a good idea, and b.) it's only one IP so WP:RPP would turn down a semi-protection. I don't want to keep playing whack-a-mole with this article, so what should I do? I've already asked the IP why they think my removal of unsourced trivia is "vandalism". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• You should go to Talk:It's Christmastime Again, Charlie Brown and start a conversation, explaining that refactoring a "trivia" section into two sections with better titles is not vandalism. Also explain the grounds upon which you removed the other content at the same time. Your edit summaries gave no such explanations, and indeed made it seem as though you were removing all of the content outright. (As, indeed, does your explanation here. I only found out what you were actually doing by looking at the diffs.)

  Furthermore: Don't make thoughts of blocking and protection your first reaction to edits by an editor without an account. Going down that road does not make one into a good editor. There are people with accounts whose maltreatment of people without accounts makes Wikipedia a horrendous experience for the general public. Don't become one of those editors. Uncle G (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  • How is thoughts of wanting to block an incivil editor "maltreatment"? For the record, I have explained the changes to the IP on their talk page. Yes, maybe I should've explained my changes better, but I don't usually like writing long edit summaries as my computer tends to slow to a crawl when I try to type an edit summary of more than five characters. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • There is no incivility in xyr edits, only very poor spelling and taking you at your own word. You need to remember that section blanking often is vandalism, and that an edit summary that says "kill trivia" can be mistaken for section blanking. It's not uncivil for the editor without an account to take you at your word and think that you are section blanking like a vandal, and to revert it as section blanking vandalism. Good edit summaries on your part would have prevented this. And I very much doubt, based upon my knowledge of the transport protocol and of graphical user interface programming (I've written 'bots from the ground up in C++, remember.), that edit summaries more than five characters long affect the speed of your PC in any way whatsoever.

      Immediately reacting to edits by an editor without an account by thinking of, and indeed asking about, blocking and protection leads down the road to where one becomes the kind of editor with an account who maltreats those without. These people exist, and one should avoid becoming one of them, by avoiding starting down that road. Remember what it is like to edit without an account. If necessary, remind yourself of it by logging out and seeing how badly you are treated by some people, for the very same edits that you would normally do, based solely on the lack of an account to associate with those edits. Those people make Wikipedia a worse place, and they started where you are, in the position that their automatic reactions to edits from accountless editors was to think about blocking and protection, because they automatically equated "IP address" and bad faith/incivility/attacks/so forth.

      Here's a little mental experiment for you to perform that should drive the point home: Look at your edit, edit summary and all, and assume that instead of "TenPoundHammer" next to it in the edit history, it had "68.34.4.143" next to it. Coming across such an edit, by an editor without an account, that apparently blanked an entire section of the article, with an edit summary of "kill trivia", what would you have done? Would you have reverted it as section blanking vandalism? If the editor then came back and did the same edit again, with much the same edit summary, would you revert it as vandalism again? Would you have linked your edit summary to Wikipedia:Vandalism to make the point? If that editor then came to your talk page accusing you of "re-adding" a section that xe had "removed", would that change your opinion in any way about it being section blanking vandalism? Would you dismiss the complaint for being a groundless one that is coming from a vandal? What would you think when the next step by that editor was to come to the administrators' noticeboard seeking advice upon revoking your editing privileges and protecting the page, for what, to you, was simply reverting yet another persistent, long-term, section blanking, IP address, vandal?

      Here's another thing to consider, in the vein of remembering how badly people with accounts treat people without accounts: 68.34.4.143 expanded an article in good faith on 2009-01-04. It was reverted as vandalism, using the vandalism rollback tool, that very same day. This is how editors without accounts get automatically maltreated, simply because of their lack of accounts. Ask yourself: Had you made that very same edit, using your account, would it have been reverted as vandalism? Or would people have come along, assumed good faith, and corrected your typing mistakes? Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

      • I think TPH usually treats IPs pretty well, and has treated this one reasonably as well. I concur that a bit of work on the edit summaries is in order. 68.34.4.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a.k.a. 76.111.64.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of those chronic problematic, but not quite blockable, editors, prone to making odd accusations and strangely pointy edits. While anonymous IPs do get the short end of the stick, I tend to view this particular IPs edits suspiciously, and, if doubtful, would revert rather than retain them.—Kww(talk) 02:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
        • It's my hope that TenPoundHammer will eventually become the sort of good administrator that is a positive benefit to the project. Xe certainly has the potential. That's why I'm strongly encouraging xem not to go down the road that eventually leads to being the sort of editor who isn't. Uncle G (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• I think we can call this resolved. The IP hasn't touched the article in over a day now, and I left notes on their talk page and on the article's talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Good. Exactly the course of action called for: talk page discussion. Uncle G (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:91.150.25.72

Some of the edit summaries from this IP [62] (apparently shared so couldn't be blocked indefinitely?) are pretty bad. Can someone clarify when attacks are oversighted and when they're left as is? Am I overreacting? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• We don't block IPs indefinitely, especially shared IPs (they usually get shorter blocks than usual because the vandal isn't likely to be on it for very long). Oversight is usually only used for the removal of private information that should not be shared. These edit summaries don't merit anything more than a block after a warning or two. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Isn't that a loophole that allows graffiti, vandalism, and, most problematic, serious BLP violations? This troubles me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • This isn't the place to discuss policy issues. — neuro^(talk) 06:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Allowing edit summaries that refer to people as rapists and nazis shouldn't be dismissed as a policy issue that can't be discussed here. But c'est la vie I suppose. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
        • We cannot control edit summaries, and oversight for nasty edit summaries is just headache inducing (let alone the problem of later verifying that anything actually happened). We can just block faster in response. template:bv needs to be used more in my opinion. The IP seems to have said his nonsense and stopped. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Xe has stopped because xyr editing privileges are currently disabled. The block has a further 2 months to run. Uncle G (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

←I'll clarify when attacks are oversighted and when they're left as is. :) According to Wikipedia:Oversight, it's done if our lawyer suggests it should be or if the subject requests it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input and clarifications. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Harshray contiues blatant vandalism

Harshray is repeatitively and blatantly deleting the content and references section on the article Brahma Chellaney. A checkuser complaint filed on editors involved in vandalism shows that its likely that socks (who are deleting exactly the same information) are operative on this article. Harshray and other suspected socks in the checkuser report are deleting exactly the same information from the same article, and repetitively --Roadahead ★ 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)take n

Can someone please take a look into this issue, Harshray is still deleting information repeatedly. --Roadahead ★ 05:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Vague sockpuppet report

This is going to be vague - there is a guy it's something like Jean Latour? Constantly banned, like to troll the VP with on the fact of it sensible conversations that are just nonsense. this is him right? _{very vague I know but I'm completely bollocked and off to bed and thought I should mention it somewhere first.} --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean User:JeanLatore and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wiki brah. And yes, the above named has a similar MO but it's not conclusive. If he had shown up at the RefDesk it would be pretty much certain though. Checkuser can usually flush out his rather predictable socks. CIreland (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Why is there a sudden influx of new accounts attempting to edit this article to advocate rather bluntly for homeopathy? Has some homeopathic forum launched its minions at us or something? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(ECx2)Because word is out that SA is hamstrung? Duh. I'm not surprised. ThuranX (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just one account but diluted many times over.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well-played, sir. shoy (reactions) 06:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin misusing viewdeleted

Collapsing. Durova^Charge! 20:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed for discretion and courtesy: an editor who edits under a real name might be related to a problem, but nothing has been confirmed.

It has come to my attention that an admin by the name of "John Soong" has been misusing viewdeleted in order to retrieve an answer key to a test used by employers for potential new employees. According to the article, he retrieved the deleted revision, and posted its content on Facebook. This is a completely inappropriate use of admin tools, and whoever John Soong is should own up and face consequences for his actions. Majorly talk 03:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Could possibly be the admin hand of User:John Riemann Soong. John Reaves 03:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Looks to be one and the same, going along with a comparison between what the article reported and what is on that userpage. John Riemann Soong (talk · contribs) has an alternate account, although he is unwilling to disclose it publicly. seicer | talk | contribs 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC) After running a comparison tool, I believe that Ja24896kin (talk · contribs) is related to the administrator above. seicer | talk | contribs 03:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC) This thread is a joke, right? I mean, the part about Majorly actually being angry about this, and Seicer actually looking into it, etc. Please, please tell me this is all tongue-in-cheek. Tan | 39 03:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I feel that it is an inappropriate use of administrator privileges. Nothing to desysop over or anything. seicer | talk | contribs 03:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC) There are other ways to view deleted entries (i.e. websites that cache old entries and the such). Are we sure that the article is even correct? Would it really matter in the long run? Seems like a waste of time. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I tend to agree - it seems a difficult task to prove that the information posted came from WP's logs. Short of that proof, there is little we can/should do. --ZimZalaBim talk 04:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC) It's not. If the administrator deleted the page, then it is recoverable; if the administrator used an alternate account (he has indicated that he does use another account) to create or maintain the page, and it was deleted, then that is recoverable. seicer | talk | contribs 04:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC) What did he do wrong? Deleted edits are not copyrighted material. No personal information was "outed". No BLP violations were made. I see zero wrongdoing. Tan | 39 03:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC) What he did wrong was this: he used a privileged facility for his own selfish ends. The information that had been deleted was almost certainly copyright, if I understand the scenario correctly - answers to proprietary tests. Such tests would be expensive to replace should the answers be leaked. It's probable that this is the sort of copyright infringement which would upset the copyright owner. The suggestion is that admins should not use privilege to assist a copyvio. (At least the second part of this rant pre-supposes that there was a copyvio involved.) Finally the whole thing would lead some to question the judgment of the admin in question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) "selfish ends"? I edit here primarily for "selfish ends" (it allows me a quick reference for my own research without having to drag my notes around). Most people operate selfishly. Sure, if you applied such things as removable, then half of the community would be taken away. I don't think "selfishness" is against policy. I could be wrong... Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC) (e/c)I think the main issue is that the text lifted is proprietary and is subject to United States copyright laws. At this point, if the company does request assistance, we would need to direct them to the WMF as this has hit mainstream press. seicer | talk | contribs 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Are you referring to the GFDL? If so, all he would have to do is attribute it and then it can be used. Are you referring to something else? If so, I don't think Wikipedia is concerned in the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I don't think it has anything to do with GFDL. If this admin used the tools to recover material that was specifically deleted for copyvio reasons, and then reposted it on Facebook, AND apparently claimed he did it as an admin, he 1) possibly did something illegal, as the WSJ explicitly says that the copyright owner sent the WMF a request for it to come down; 2) he may have used admin rights to circumvent OTRS or OFFICE--possibly, since it probably came through that route; 3) thats just not what the tools are for; 4) it's a frankly stupid black eye for Wikipedia caused by a stupid act. rootology (C)(T) 16:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC) As I pointed out before, I know of at least three websites that I could use to recover deleted material. Also, if its not hosted on Wikipedia, then it is not Wikipedia's problem. If the content violates Facebook's ToS, then they will delete it. If the company wishes to sue Soong, then they can. However, none of this seems like it is Wikipedia's problem. Plus, when did people start believing everything in the Wall Street Journal around here? Not that I mind. I like the paper. But still. It seems odd. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I'm not an admin, but if I'm not mistaken, admin tools are a privilege to be used only to better Wikipedia. Even without copyright infringement, using admin tools for non-Wikipedia purposes seems wrong, no matter how "altruistic" that purpose is. -kotra (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I'm sure admins have harmless fun with tools every once in a while. I would assume the tools are sometimes used for copying deleted content (hopefully with attribution) to specialist wikis where people will care about Bruce Wayne's mother's dog. To prohibit any of that would be silly and cultlike. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">ance, that any copyright concerns are between Soong and the copyright holder (be that Kronos or the poster, or a third party the poster copied it from, or a combination). If it actually was the work of the poster, would all have been right if Soong put at the end "copyrighted whoever, released under the GFDL"? If not, copyright is a red herring, and you get into whether it's ethical to spread the "answer key", and whether we should care if our admins have ethics. (Maybe Kronos can make us a test for that purpose? ) Finally, why the hell would Soong say where he got it, unless he doesn't care about being an admin anymore, or is framing someone? --NE2 07:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Comment I am never one for making outrageous suggestions however given the nature of what has occured, I think desysoping is a consideration that we need to think of. As I said, I do not make this suggestion lightly. Seddσn talk 03:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) If he used the admin tools to "liberate" deleted material that was copyrighted to Facebook post it, that's just not a good thing at all, and probably should be referred to Arbcom for a public review, if that is the case. The Arbcom can task the checkusers to see what the admin account is, if it's not known to the AC. I sent an email to arbcom-l to direct their attention here. rootology (C)(T) 04:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC) John Riemann Soong has been made aware of this thread. No attempt has been made to e-mail, as his e-mail functionality has been disabled. seicer | talk | contribs 04:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC) As stated on the English Wikipedia mailing list, I am fully prepared to initiate a request for arbitration and request desysopping for abuse of the view deleted edits tool. Awaiting the admin's response before moving forward. DurovaCharge! 04:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Given the account's infrequent use, I believe that you can go ahead and proceed, Durova. seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Given that the Foundation's lawyer, Mike Godwin, has expressed the opinion in that past [63] that the view-deleted userright carries extreme legal risks for misuse, I would concur with Durova and Seddon that Arbcom might want to consider desysopping, as least pending an explanation. Also, if the account cannot be located via Checkuser, it may be worth asking the Sysadmins if there is any additional help they can provide given the legal risks associated with the situation. MBisanz talk 04:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Who are we going to desysop? Are we going to checkuser John Soong under the impression that he has an unknown administrator account (and there are no other john soongs)? What if it is another John Soong? How do we know? Protonk (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I'm fairly certain I know who the admin is, it is rather obvious if you study the history of the account. I've emailed my findings to arbcom. MBisanz talk 05:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I'm prepared to wait 24 hours before proceeding. Let's see what develops. DurovaCharge! 04:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC) He's User:La goutte de pluie. krimpet✽ 05:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Ok, you saved me that email. I agree that is him. MBisanz talk 05:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I can't think of a diplomatic way to bring up WP:OUTING, but I do think this discussion has an odd witch hunt feel to it that doesn't seem appropriate on AN/I. --Onorem♠Dil 05:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I must admit that I am a little dismayed on how 2 administrators just outed a fellow editor's alternate account and therefore real name on a public forum without evidence of abusive sockpuppetry... -- lucasbfr talk 17:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice this, but look at the images that account uploaded. Very troublesome if it's the alternate account of an administrator. Enigmamsg 05:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Which one's, exactly? And are admins not allowed to upload certain kinds of images that would otherwise be acceptable? (Not sure what you're getting at) --ZimZalaBim talk 05:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Please look at the alternate account's talk page. Administrators can view what things he uploaded that have been deleted. Some of them appear to be copyright violations, although I am not an administrator. Enigmamsg 05:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I have seen some of the images uploaded by the account back when it was a different name in 2005 (Natalinasmpf). Many of the images tagged public domain are actually images created by the Government of Singapore. They hold copyright over works made by them. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC) What a ludicrous witch hunt. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. The self-satisfied sanctimonious defenders of the wiki should fine a better use for their apparently ample time. Dance With The Devil (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC) The Arbitration Committee is aware of the matter, and is currently investigating. More information may be available, along with a statement, shortly. — Coren (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Thank you very much for your prompt attention, Coren. DurovaCharge! 05:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the quick response. seicer | talk | contribs 06:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Sigh, I reported this to the committee privately via email roughly 8 hours before this thread opened. I'd hoped to avoid this sort of public drama because the reliable source article gives everything needed to out the admin except his username. Too late for that now. An admin using view deleted privileges to take material deleted for copyright violation and post it elsewhere is certainly a serious abuse of the tools that merits review by the committee. And the deletion log for the Wikipedia article in question does show a deletion and partial restoration for reasons of copyright violation. Unfortunately, view deleted is an admin tool that never leaves a log entry, which makes any detected occasions of abuse of the tool even more concerning. I don't think it will be fruitful for us to discuss the specifics of this case further here given the outing issue. GRBerry 14:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I am strongly opposed to any secret ArbCom action on this matter, or to any desysopping without giving the administrator in question a chance to present a defense at a full ArbCom hearing. It's not at all clear that the material in question is a copyright violation, and there has traditionally been no objection to administrators providing unencyclopedic deleted material to those who wish to use it on other sites. We're supposed to be about free content, not preserving a set of bureaucratic rules. I am very concerned that a decision in this case might have a chilling effect on those who wish to obtain and use deleted content for perfectly legitimate reasons. If any deleted material is so problematic that no one should see it, then we have oversight available for these exceptional cases. *** Crotalus *** 15:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Crotalus is right that it's important for this administrator to have a fair opportunity to present his side of the matter. If there is going to be a case please announce it formally and allow the individual at least a week to respond. Although in order to protect this person's pseudonymity and future employability, it might actually be a good idea to hold the actual case offsite. DurovaCharge! 15:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Just on a side note, he appears to be open to recall if anyone would rather pursue that option opposed to ArbCom. Tiptoety talk 16:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) As I just posted to WikEN-l, I see this as a minor, if stupid, abuse of the tools. A liberal application of WP:TROUT seems more appropriate than more severe action. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 17:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Sam, how is it "minor"? A comparable case is User:Everyking, where he was emergency desysopped for even suggesting that he might disclose deleted information on Wikipedia review--and that pales in comparison to this. This admin did disclose information that was apparently deleted for copyright purposes, posted it onto one of the busiest non-WMF websites in existence, and then had it splashed over one of the major media sources on the planet Earth that he did it with his WMF admin tools. This is minor how? rootology (C)(T) 17:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC) The Everyking decision was a travesty, driven by pure paranoia. Wikipedia is supposed to be about free content, and if someone wants deleted content to use on a third-party site, they ought to have access to it. *** Crotalus *** 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC) And your thoughts on the fact that this material in this case was deleted by a legal take down request via OTRS? rootology (C)(T) 17:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">says they sent a complaint, not there was a formal DMCA request. Did I miss something? I am still personally disappointed by the people who brought the alternate account of this user here without their consent nor abusive sockpuppetry concerns. Note that I am not disputing the basis for the arbcom investigation, but what was said in this public forum. -- lucasbfr talk 17:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC) It's not an issue that is covered under policy, as it is not personal information. It's a user account. If an account was used for malicious or purposes unbecoming of an expected editor, and it was being controlled from an alternate account, then it qualifies as a disruptive alternate account. Per policy, it is never acceptable to keep one account "clean", while using another account to engage in disruptive behavior. seicer | talk | contribs 17:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC) There's policy, and common sense. I don't get how having this account released to the community before he had any chance to respond to these allegations is achieving anything. Arbcom is the right venue for that kind of things, and while publishing deleted information is wrong and is a breach of community trust, I am pretty sure what people had in mind when talking about disruptive alternate accounts and good hand/bad hand accounts was trolling and team tagging, not screwing up with one account you rarely use. I'm sorry but I still feel this was inappropriate. -- lucasbfr talk 18:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Why do you think that "publishing deleted information is wrong and is a breach of community trust"? If material is deleted from Wikipedia for not meeting guidelines on reliable sources, no original research, etc., and someone else wants to reuse it on another site, why shouldn't they be able to do this? *** Crotalus *** 18:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I did not mean {{user recovery}} of course :) See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-05/Everyking desysopped. -- lucasbfr talk 18:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC) My own wider take on this would be that using the bit for any goal or task not straightforwardly meant to help the encyclopedia in good faith and which one would not want to disclose to a neutral admin or arbcom is likely going to be a breach of trust. I do know some admins who peek at deleted contribs only for fun and do nothing further with them, I think that's within good faith and harmless. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I don't want a situation where people have to guess as to what is and is not an acceptable use of deleted revisions. To leave this open to desysopping on a case-by-case basis would have an unacceptable chilling effect against the preservation of free content - even if it's free content that we would rather not have, if someone else wants it, it is not right for Wikipedia policy to stand in their way. Again, if something is so bad that no one should see it, then use oversight. *** Crotalus *** 17:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) It's not so much of a guess. Put it this way, so far as doing stuff with the admin bit, if one wouldn't want to tell arbcom about it, one likely shouldn't do it. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC) That's a slippery slope to hell. Imagine a website called "The Deleted Wikipedia: Information Wikipedia Doesn't Want You to Know" - picture the embarassment/legal issues that could arise. As an example, if I was an admin, and deleted an article that listed the names of people who were on a flight where something went horribly wrong, GOD FORBID someone checked it out, and printed that list somewhere else for shits and giggle (if I AGF) or for financial gain (if I don't AGF). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Was that meant as an answer to my post or Crotalus'? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Sorry Gwen, it was a reply to Crotus that got EC'd, and I had to run withouth time to fix the indents :-) Fixed now though! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC) That already exists Bwilkins, Deletionpedia. MBisanz talk 18:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Well, this strikes me as the key paragraph in the article: Melanie Shebel, who has a blog that often focuses on the alleged unfairness of Unicru, says she's seen a huge uptick in traffic as the economy has worsened and people have grown more frustrated by the job-seeking process. After an anonymous poster on her site put up an answer key to the Unicru test, she took it down, fearing a lawsuit from Kronos. But recently, she says, she re-posted it, after reviewing her legal rights. If he did anything wrong, it was brag to a newspaper about it. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I meant my last comment to be where it was originally, but no harm done. I do want to amend my last to also say that this dif from Soong does indicate POV editing unbecoming of an admin.Hiberniantears (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC) It's quite simple, really. The report stated that a site administrator used sysop tools to gain information that was apparently under copyright, and then republish that information in violation of that copyright. It appears that financial conflict of interest played a motivating role, since this material was used in employment testing and the report stated that he was looking for a job. Now if that report was accurate, then the action was a serious breach of ethics and perhaps also a breach of the law. Identifying the individual may or may not involve privacy policy issues depending on whether he self-disclosed, and of course it needs to be certain that the correct individual is identified. This issue is a matter for arbitration attention if anything ever was, and if the report is accurate then I would expect this person's administrative access to end. A reasonable period for response and clarification is natural, of course, and circumstances may change the outcome. DurovaCharge! 18:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I haven't seen the content, but I wouldn't rush into saying there was any true copyright violation to it, the content may have been fair use criticism. As for using the admin bit to gain an edge in getting an everyday job, to put food on the table, during a depression, which is otherwise unrelated to Wikipedia content, yeah, that was maybe a bit dodgy, but the kerfluffle and worry has been stirred up because he rashly, openly bragged about it to a reporter and the tale got published. That may not have been at all clever and maybe, it links up with what some in the community would think of as trust, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Gwen, the report tells that he republished the answer key to an employment test. And it appears that the copyright owner sent a formal request via OTRS to have it removed from our site. If those facts are accurate then it is a serious breach of trust for one of our own administrators to use his access to republish it without permission. And the conflict of interest noticeboard is filled with people who are just trying to put food on the table. It's one rule for everybody, and sysops have accepted an obligation to set the standard in terms of proper conduct. DurovaCharge! 19:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I think you and I can easily agree, something untowards has happened here with an admin bit. However, the article I read didn't say it was a stolen answer key, but a set of seemingly successful answers which had been gathered more or less through trial and error and then published by people who had taken the test. Not having had anything to do with the OTRS ticket, for all I know, they made a mistake in granting the deletion request. WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy. COI becomes a worry only when an editor puts their own interests before the encyclopedia (after which the wonted notability, sourcing and weight policies kick by themselves and strongly so) or if it stirs up disruption (edit warring, most often). For me, the worry is trust: Is distributing or otherwise using deleted content for any meaningful outcome one wouldn't at least want to disclose to arbcom (on wiki or off) something most editors would think of as ok? Only sharing my thinking. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Very good thinking, Gwen. Thank you for explaining it. Here's a rundown of mine: one of the reasons we select people for sysop access is because we trust them to exercise discretion in sensitive functions such as the ability view deleted revisions. Crotalus has a point: there are many instances where the ability to gain access to deleted revisions may be properly used, and we don't want to create a chilling effect. The iconic example of his objection is the emergency desysop of Everyking (whom I later conominated for RFA). Yet other material certainly ought to remain out of public view--that's why deletion exists. If the admin thought OTRS made a mistake, then the proper thing to do would have been to challenge the ticket--not take it upon himself to overrule OTRS and republish the material. And the addition of a palpable conflict of interest does not settle well: one of the reasons we have an OTRS system is so that serious concerns can be handled in an orderly fashion. If every administrator were free to republish deleted material for personal gain or vengeance, then why would an article subject bother with the OTRS process at all? We try to keep Wikipedia from becoming a battleground, and administrators aren't exempt from that. DurovaCharge! 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Has anyone actually seen it published on facebook? Or confirmed that he actually did retrieve it from the deleted revision (it is easily found elsewhere on the internet)? All this talk about desysopping and mistrust seems to be a bit premature, if you ask me. --Kbdank71 19:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Yes, I would wholly agree with you, policywise, skirting an OTRS deletion with the admin bit is where trust may have been broken. As an aside, I'd be much more worried if this had to do with negative, unsourced BLP content or personal information which was then used to smear, out or otherwise do harm to someone. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Maybe this happened today, but he doesn't appear to actually have the mop... Hiberniantears (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC) See above for the outing. --Kbdank71 18:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Yep, there's another account (an "admin hand"), which has been part of the worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC) If the report was accurate then the individual could read deleted edits, and hence obviously did have the mop. Now we don't actually know if the real name user was the same individual or someone else with a similar name: this site has over 8 million accounts. And we don't know (unless they self-disclosed, which I haven't seen) whether these two accounts under discussion are the same person or not. Obvious concerns such as that are one reason this belongs in ArbCom's hands: in this economy we wouldn't want to unfairly taint anybody. DurovaCharge! 18:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Well said. Might I then suggest that we hide this thread? Hiberniantears (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Excellent idea. DurovaCharge! 19:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Especially as since apart from two unprotections on 14 September, the admin account hasn't used the mop for 9 months - so it's hardly urgent. Black Kite 19:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee involvement

I can confirm that the Arbitration Committee has received multiple reports of the incident, and is discussing the matter. --Deskana (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Make a separate log for view deleted edits

Moving forward: I've mentioned this idea before: why not have a log of the use of the view-deleted ability? Such a log could be made to be only visible to admins. This would make these sorts of situations easier to deal with. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is 'view-deleted' even a function? I don't think would be possible (nor necessary). John Reaves 20:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it isn't a separate function per se. But admins are allowed to see deleted edits. It wouldn't be at all hard to make the software keep a log whenever a deleted edit was viewed. Keep track which edit, who viewed it and when. As to necessary- this is not the first time we've had a problem with deleted edits leaking out. Having a log of them would take minimal resources and would help prevent this sort of problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There'd be so many and sundry unintended outcomes: It would make witchunts, fishing expeditions and smears much easier, never mind adminship is all about trust, to begin and end with. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What Gwen said. And this sounds like a solution looking for a problem. Also, I can't see Brion going for it - a log that can be added to by about 1000 users just by one link being added to a busy noticeboard? I don't think we'd get useful information, just a big, big BIG ol' list that keeps getting bigger and bigger. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 20:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As with any sort of log we'd set it up so you could look at the entries created by any specific admin. I doubt the total log size would be more than an order of magnitude larger than the complete block log. The total server use would be tiny. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not how large it would be but how large it could be. All of our existing logs get entries only after someone has positively done something - saved, deleted, blocked. All with a positive-challenge mechanism. This log would be triggered by passively doing something - clicking a link, bang, you're logged. Easy to fool people too. See my additional reasoning here. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 20:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good one... but what would anyone accomplish by tricking people into viewing a deleted edit in such manner? If the edit were actually viewed inappropriately, and was then posted in the manner you just used to cover someone's tracks by causing a multitude of admins to view it, we'd still have the time stamps to sort out what happened. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And we'd also have a record of whoever set up the clever link. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's lucky that sockpuppeting is so difficult to do here, then, isn't it? ;o) No, obviously not (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Point. Taken. — Satori Son 21:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope you turned off the autoblock flag on that one, because it is about 99% likely that it was a one off comment made for this discussion from a participant. Not "disrupting wikipedia to prove a point". Jeez. Protonk (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough.[64] — Satori Son 00:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Solution in search of a problem. I mean, I went and looked at the 'bad' edits in question. We'd have a log of that too... Protonk (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, but with a timestamp. The set of admins who had the relevant timestamp would be tiny. This isn't the first time we've had this sort of problem. We've had multiple prior issues with content deleted due to BLP or OUTING concerns being leaked by mysterious admin. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Having a log only works if you assume the copying occurred at the same time of the viewing. The material in question was on the article for 15 days before being removed, when the whole world had access to it. --Kbdank71 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Content deleted to prevent OUTING or severe BLP problems (like personal info) should be oversighted without exception. As for the 'other' problems, ask yourself if having a log will fix them or if we have had past 'unsolved' dissemination of deleted content. Protonk (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - There are multiple websites in which you can view deleted material. Why would this matter? Because it would be monitoring usage when someone who might (if it is even possible) go to those websites for a malicious viewing deleted material usage. Thus, we would have a large portion of decent people being monitored for no particular reason. It seems completely unnecessary. Also, why would we allow for the possibility of people challenging others later saying "oh, you viewed this deleted items 5 times, that has to be awful". The drama potential is through the roof. The fact that there are other websites nulls any benefit for really involving any further analysis of viewing deletions. It seems as if there is outrage over and article and not an actual problem that is fueling this right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Limited usefulness - where such a log would be useful would be in seeing if seemingly inactive admin accounts had been potentially compromised and were being used to view deleted revisions. If an admin account that last edited in 2005 suddenly saw brief activity in the "view deleted edits" log, then that might warrant a closer look, especially if it turned out that what was being viewed was potentially sensitive. Ideally, though, inactive admin accounts could be desysopped to prevent this, and sensitive material would be oversighted or a "future access will be logged" deletion would be done, where admins accessing the material would be first warned that the action is about to be logged, would have the access logged, and would have to provide a reason - a reason other than "being nosy", probably a reason more like "reviewing decision made by X". Kind of a level between deletion and oversight. Though having: visible on page, visible in page history, deleted edits, access-logged deletions, and oversight, and root-access full developer wipe, would bring the levels of visibility to six (though that last option isn't, I hope, ever used), possibly too many. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Some alternatives - I've felt for a long time that viewing deleted articles is one of the more powerful and dangerous admin functions. The argument that other sites mirror deleted stuff is only partially relevant, since they tend to not be updated very frequently, and the most sensitive material tends to be deleted from wikipedia almost as soon as it is added. One idea is to log every use of the feature, as proposed. The arguments against logging given above make sense, though. One compromise might be to make the logs accessible only to checkusers for use in investigations like this one, under policy similar to existing checkuser policy. The alternative, I think, is to abandon once and for all the notion that "adminship is no big deal". That notion is grounded in the idea that all admin actions are supposedly (fairly) easily reversable. But disclosure of sensitive deleted material is near-impossible to reverse, and with no logging, it's hard to even detect.

  Yet another idea (probably with good arguments against it too) is make "hard" deletion (the ability to delete material so that it is recoverable only by oversight users) available to all admins; it would be used for copyvios, personal info disclosures, etc. as opposed to ordinary reversable deletion for non-notable articles, routine vandalism, etc.

  Regarding this specific incident: I'm a believer in m:avoid copyright paranoia but the disclosure that has been alleged here, if true, is outrageous; it's like a police officer running the license plate and getting the home address of a woman because she has nice tits rather than because of some legitimate LE requirement. If the accusation turns out to be true then I think desysopping is mandatory, preferably accompanied by a ban of significant length. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• There's a balance to be achieved here: we want the public to trust the discretion of our admin corps, and we want our admins to think twice before using their ops in ways that would undermine that trust, yet we also want admins to use their tools with reasonable confidence that good faith normal action won't be gamed against them due to partisanship or confusion. Joshua's suggestion is something to bear in mind, and if similar problems recur (which I hope they don't) it might become necessary to implement a suggestion along these lines. Durova^Charge! 04:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• I don't know if I support or oppose this proposal, but take a look at the hit count for Special:Undelete/Daniel Brandt [65] and Special:Undelete/Brian Peppers [66]. I can't imagine that there have been reasons other than "I'm just curious" to access these articles in a good long while, but they seem to be getting a few hits each month. (Then again, six people wanted to block Jimbo last month, so maybe this isn't that bad.) --B (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - we should all be subject to reasonable oversight. –xeno (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC) To be painfully clear, this is an oppose
• Oppose. This seems like a really, really, really bad idea when you consider there is no way this doesn't get thrown back into an admin who can't remember why he was looking at a deleted edit two years ago while investigating a conduct complaint. This really does seem like putting the cart before the horse... --Smashville^talk 14:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Sets up a witch hunt, where an admin might have to (much) later defend having looked at deleted material. Do we have to keep a log of what route we followed, from WP:ANI to some admin's talk page, to the talk page of someone who complained about his article or image being deleted, to looking at the deleted image to see if the admin action was justified? I may follow up 100 things a day, and it would be an unjustifiable burden to require keeping notes as to why I looked at some deleted item. I doubt I look at more than 3 deleted item a week on average, but I would hate to have to explain the course which led me to look at a given one, weeks later. I might have no way of reconstructing why I looked at each thing I looked at, while doing my best to be a good Wikipedia administrator. If you want some tribunal to later review each of our uses of one of the admin tools, then put in a comment field for us to explain contemporaneously why we looked at the deleted material, and make it self-documenting. Edison (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as a passive log (records without letting the user know) but i would easily support a system where if the deleted content was from X period ago (maybe a month or two) that they would have to input a reason (just like a edit summary feild) of why they are viewing it and then it is displayed for them to look. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 06:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, this seems to be an overreaction to a relatively minor incident,there are a multitude of ways that this list could be misused, misinterpreted, and the sheer size of the list would make actually tracking anything done quite difficult. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC).

let me explain my actions

Firstly, I am rather unhappy with how Vanessa (the journalist) represented my statements. When I said "maybe vengeful", it was rather tongue-in-cheek and intentionally self-deprecating. I had no idea she would cite me in that way.

Note, the only reason why I didn't go through all that trouble with contesting the OTRS ticket was because I discovered this action a year and and a third after it happened, didn't feel like going through a dozen different AN archives to find out what triggered it, and I was busy with life at the time (scholarship applications, job-seeking, as you can see). I did not really feel like challenging another administrator and thus I did not restore it. Maybe I should have done this in the first place.

But I was superbly annoyed by Unicru, not actually because I was unable to find retail positions -- I easily found others; I mentioned this to Vanessa but she didn't say this in the article. My annoyance was because it appeared to be purporting that "tests" based on a Myers-Briggs typology were a valid way of evaluating worker efficiency, that people who enjoy solitude (some time off reflecting on the lake by yourself, you know!) and people who don't think every trouble of their own is always their own fault, made bad workers.

I did not really agree that it was a copyright violation. (I totally empathise with the woman quoted who reviewed her legal rights. Furthermore, I had no idea the journalist would call the article a culture of cheating; to me, it was something else entirely.) It's just at the time I didn't really feel like getting involved in the bureaucracy again -- I love you all but I thought I would get back to hardcore dispute resolution at some point later in my life, you know? I suppose a basic courtesy would have had been to inform people what I had done, and I regret that.

Furthermore, answer tests don't really belong in an article, in as much you don't publish the source code of the Linux kernel to the Linux article. That was really the final reason why I did not pursue a reversal of the deletion. Even I MYSELF would have deleted it anyway had it been there, for copyediting reasons. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground.

Now on the other hand, I didn't really see anything problematic about viewing the deleted revision. It wasn't libellous or slanderous. It was a rather handy list of what you're "supposed" to answer and why Unicru was ridiculous. It wasn't as much for the purposes of allowing other people to "cheat" and take advantage of the system, in as much that telling someone about to take a rehabilitation test in North Korea that you should say "strongly agree" to the question "Kim Jung-Il" is a Great Leader is helping them cheat. I mean, I quite discovered the idea that you weren't supposed to answer honestly (e.g. that you were an introvert at heart) quite too late. In fact, I majorly disagree that publishing a key of this sort amounts to "cheating". I hope it's quite self-evident. The only reason why I didn't document the absurdity of the test line by line itself -- was that I thought someone else had done it. When I first viewed the article for the first time, I was expecting to see a 40kb+ article with an NPOV dispute where some editors would have brought up the controversy over some of Unicru's questions. Instead I found a stub.

I am fairly certain you are not legally prohibited from ridiculing personality tests consisting of questions like "you like to be alone," etc. What I was trying to point out to Vanessa was an argument not unlike that found in Myers-Briggs#Unscientific_basis_of_the_theory. If I thought it was wrong for me or a "misuse" of admin tools to have recovered deleted material in that way, I would have not admitted that to the Wall Street Journal with my real name!!

RE: concerning my two accounts. I had this whole androgyny/tomboy fetish when I was 11 and that was the basis of many of my internet personalities. (Also, at the time, despite being male, I had this urge to prove to the world that girls could do anything boys can.) With time though I found that I grew out of it, that it became rather a hindrance not to be able to show my real self, and to avoid the public embarrassment of having to admit it, I have since mostly edited with my real name (unless I found something that needed sysop tools to fix). As you can see, I have had not much free time to do that much editing either. I guess I don't need two accounts now, huh? I had no idea people would kick up a fuss over this. John Riemann Soong (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What is it that gives you such confidence in your ability to evaluate copyright? A surprisingly high percentage of your image uploads have been deleted and, if I understand correctly which admin account is yours, your userpage has 14 separate notifications of disputed fair use rationales, etc. The most recent of these notifications occurred only last month. It does not appear that your learning curve has been progressing because this has been happening for two years. In bypassing OTRS (the proper channels) you certainly did challenge OTRS--you held yourself above it, and apparently still do. Durova^Charge! 05:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhh except I uploaded the disputed ones years ago. Some are only being noticed now. At the time, I had mistakenly conceived that the IP of the Singaporean government was public domain / fair-usable (believing it to be as benovolent as the US Federal government), as well as the IP of state governments. I have since had not the time to go back and correct these errors of mine.

And unless I am wrong, OTRS is used for emergency removal of potentially damaging information that would cause trouble for Wikipedia, something rather akin to office actions. In hosting the data somewhere else other than Wikipedia, it is I who have taken legal risk. Note that I did not try to host it somewhere that would cause the project legal harm, e.g. my user page. John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, some of the speedily-deleted images were my own creations. =) I was the one who originally invented the Goban template (inspired by the chess template). I used my own images then, using mspaint. As you can imagine, they were 2D and not terribly aesthetic (well, rather minimalist), but they sufficed. Someone else came along years later and built upon my idea. This made my old images obsolete.

The upload of Singapore images came at a time when the SG community was still in its infancy, Wikipedia was less strict about fair use, and we lacked any good photographers. None of the editors at the time called me out on it. Later, I realised that my rationales were not valid; as you can see, I attempted to change or delete some of them, but I had too many uploads at that time to hunt them all down. Other editors caught them for me later, but by then I had taken a break from the project. John Riemann Soong (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a reasonable answer, actually. I checked Commons:Licensing and it doesn't have an entry for Singapore. Found the law from an external link at the bottom of the page, but it takes a bit of surfing to hit upon a PDF document nearly 200 pages long. It's always best to double check these things first, but an understandable mistake and I appreciate your efforts at self-correction. And yes, reporters do sometimes quote selectively. So what will we do if some editor ends up at the conflict of interest noticeboard, cites you in that article, and says his conflict of interest actions are no worse than actions by this site's sysops? Durova^Charge! 06:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I do thank you for having some trust in me. I'm going to bed soon so I may not be able to engage in more replies til tomorrow. However, I do not believe I have committed a "conflict of interest". My biggest mistake I think, was not telling people what I was going to do with the deleted information (simply because I was pressed for time). My potential conflict of interest I think, is quite of a different nature than say, a US Congress intern editing his employer's article with bias, or using my admin tools to gain advantage in a dispute. An analogous conflict of interest would be using my admin tools to enforce my particular edits to Unicru. This I did not do.

Now again I reiterate, I did not compromise anyone's personal life or safety, nor their reputation or privacy (*cough*); the questions are freely available if you do any Unicru-based application online, and you can easily ask other people how to answer. It's not exactly 'leaked data'. You can get nearly-identical questions doing spin-off Myers-Briggs tests. In fact I suspect the bulk of Kronos' intellectual property as far as Unicru is concerned is the computerised system that judges 'red', 'green', 'yellow', etc., and an automated system to tell employers. Now on the other hand, instead of compiling my own list of how to answer every single separate question (since it's a rather mindless job), I found that the list already had the work cut out for me. I apologise for my laziness. John Riemann Soong (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am committed to upholding the integrity of Wikipedia

There is a reason why I stated I was open to recall. The community gave me trust; they should also be able to take it away. I did not believe I had broken that trust, and still do not believe so. I do not believe it was a misuse of admin tools. The journalist seemed to have this initial impression it was some big leak -- to me it made more sense if it was someone's "learned" experience of what were the right answers (or maybe a collective experience). I was willing to take personal responsibility if Unicru decided to assert that I shouldn't have the right to post answer keys (in fact, if you see from the article -- Unicru seemed to be rather legally powerless to do so). How is it any different from Wikipedia's normal reportage of reverse-engineering on its articles? (Again, I did not seek appeal of the ticket because the test answers were badly formatted, didn't have enough prose at the time to warrant splitting into a more relevant article, and were ruining the stub.) Suppose if Wikipedia were legally required to take down the code contained on the DeCSS and illegal prime articles? Would it be considered an abuse of admin privileges to view the previously deleted content? John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You mention being open to recall. Out of curiosity, have you specified a procedure for this anywhere or do you favour the default process? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Default process. John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that initiating your own re-confirmation RfA now might be an appropriate way of determining whether you still retain the trust of the community? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it is 0108 EST and I would rather do it tomorrow; I only realised this issue because I logged in to edit the genetic engineering article. John Riemann Soong (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems an honourable way forward. Presumably you'd gladly undertake not to use the tools at all until the RfA is concluded? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I had no intention of doing so. John Riemann Soong (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Roger Davies about this being the honorable way forward. Don't know how others would feel, but I'd be willing to give a reasonable interval for dialog so that everyone moves forward in an informed manner. The natural format for that is a request for comment. Would you consider RFC instead of an immediate RFA, John? And does anyone object to this suggestion? Durova^Charge! 06:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would go with any method that allows the community to best carry out its will. I am not sure which is the best method, so I leave it up to the others' discretions. Thank you all for at least some understanding. =) I am going to bed now and shall return tomorrow. John Riemann Soong (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If you keep the tools it'd be good to see that happen in the way that minimizes the chances of a few good faith errors leading you here again, and whatever choice people make to support or oppose it's best if the decision is fully informed. Rest up, and post when ready. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 07:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think this particular case was an abuse of the tools, but I should have consulted the community first. (The thought did not hit me that this was problematic.) John Riemann Soong (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

May I clarify to make sure I got this right: you used your abilities as an admin to further an agenda you consider noble? Although that is a basic view, I just want to make sure that is accurate and I am not misunderstanding. --Moni3 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is why I had little hesitation to tell the WSJ reporter of my campaign against pseudoscience. For example, she said she was rather surprised at the influence this company had on retail; I thought she was agreeing with my position that this company's pseudoscientific influence needed to be curbed. (How naive I was!) However, Vanessa stated none of my primary motivations in the article and made it look as though I was doing it out of personal spite. If you look at the article carefully, you can see how she selectively quoted me in order to make it look like I was doing it out of a motive I didn't have, without her saying anything explicitly false. John Riemann Soong (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

• Having read the WSJ article and the explanation above,let me be very charitable and say that I don't trust John Riemann Soong with an admin account. I request an emergency desysop, so that he does not have access to private deleted (unoversighted) information, which he may choose for reveal/use for his own interest or from a personal pique - as he has admitted to doing once before. If my view is found to be in minority he can always be handed back the admin tools without any permanent damage. Abecedare (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am sorry you feel this way, but I am unsure how I betrayed confidential information. The strategy to succeed on the test is not secret -- in fact, it's available on the WSJ article itself. I chose to use the "show deleted edits" feature primarily to find out what had been deleted (whether it deserved to be restored), and upon finding that well, answer keys weren't really good for the article given their unencyclopedic nature, I did not seek restoration. However, I found Unicru's intimidation quite unacceptable, and chose to broadcast the data somewhere where I would not endanger the project. This is not like say, revealing the phone number of another user, or you know, further propagating sensitive information, or outing somebody *ahem*. Personally I find the comparison to using police privileges for my own voyeuristic benefit rather ridiculous. John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• John, I am talking about loss of trust, not "betrayal of confidential information", which is a secondary issue that can be dealt by Unicra and/or wikipedia office, if they so care. My basic concern is as follows: You, as all other admins, were handed some tools, because the community trusted you to use them for the betterment of wikipedia and its editors. Instead you chose to abuse that privilege for a personal crusade/pique that was in no way intended to better wikipedia, but instead was liable to, and in fact did, bring the project to disrepute. This, for me, is sufficient reason for you to loose access to admin tools, while continuing to edit wikipedia as a "normal" editor (just like me). In fact, I am uncomfortable with you being able to access potentially private deleted information, while your recall/RFA/RFC is underway, especially since you can do so without leaving any trace behind - and would urge you to voluntarily renounce the admin bit while the process runs its course. That may even convince me to rethink and support you in a future RFA, although I admit that is unlikely. Abecedare (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) I concur with John. The retrieved deleted content appears to be entirely unproblematic with respect to our project. That it may violate someone's copyright is a problem between the rights holder and John Riemann Soong, and not a problem of Wikipedia, since the content remains deleted here. We are not the world copyright police; there are many well-paid lawyers doing this job already.  Sandstein  07:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I heard about this on wiki-en.

It sounds to me like the people who want John punished are really objecting to the "cheating" or whatever (or are just too credulous when it comes to believing what a journalist writes about the Internet), and they're trying to catch him on a Wikipedia rule violation as a pretext for punishing him for something they're not supposed to be punishing him for. This isn't right.

And I'm not convinced it's a copyright violation either. Companies love to get criticism removed from the Internet by making insincere claims of copyright violation that may not hold up in court, but because of the unbalanced way the DMCA is written and the high penalties for copyright violation, usually result in its removal anyway. Ken Arromdee (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ken and Sandstein, consider Mike Godwin's opinion on a related proposal.[67] If John were acting solely on his own behalf that would be one thing, but in his position of trust as a person who has the ability to read deleted edits, it appears the misuse of that trust carries more serious implications than ordinary user copyvio. Durova^Charge! 08:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel like chiming ing. This is the most FASCINATING story I've seen on ANI in quite a while. It's very complicated, legally as well as ethically. I don't think Mr. Godwin's proposal is on point, is it? Here's the real issue: Durova and Sandstein could both be right - it's neither totally unproblematic, nor totally problematic. It's a gray area. Personally, I favor freedom of dissemination, but must admit I am persuaded by Soong's analysis (that the test is malarky, and deserves to be criticized). Now, though, we get into a fine line between DMCA and Fair use, and a fine line between opinion and tortious disparagement (a.k.a. trade libel). Law is not always just. Soong is obviously a very intelligent and ethical editor, but I wonder if he is aware that justice is not always results from legal processes - there are often serious financial consequences, even for people who did nothing wrong.

Then there's another problem: even if Soong did nothing illegal, or out-of-policy, if he did something technically legal, with intent of harming third parties, did he still act wrongfully? You could debate this. Maybe he intended to do more good than harm, but who here believes the ends justify the means?

One other thing doesn't sit right with me: if this test is such a secret, why would its creators put an answer key on wikipedia where Soong could find it? Did I miss something here?? Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly Soong has been the unfortunate victim in this persecution. The copyright status of this material was likely sufficiently questionable to keep it from a public page, but that determination is solely an interpretation of wikipedia rules, not of copyright law. Plausible arguments such as ones based on the merger principle are available, and if someone wants to accept the legal risks of using this material on another website he should be free to do so without fear that some mob may try to restrict that right.

There should be no general rule against the use of deleted material, only specific rules regarding material whose further use would be clearly harmful, such as the invasion of personal privacy.

That the material may not be included here because of POV problems associated with the controversial nature of the personality test, does not imply imposing NPOV on any outside site. There is no disrepute or loss of integrity arising from Soong's action. He should perhaps be commended to keep up the good work! Eclecticology (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is likely that Mike Godwin's (and thus the Foundation's) very understandable opposition against allowing wider access to deleted material is mostly due to BLP concerns, which can give rise to slander/libel charges against Wikimedia. That is not an issue here, but, of course, if this particular episode does lead to legal trouble for the Foundation, then there would be a much stronger case for desysopping John Riemann Soong.  Sandstein  14:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing it, nobody has pointed out the elephant in the room here — it was conduct similar to this that got Everyking desysopped. Really, Everyking's case was more mild than this. --B (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Arbcom is explicitly not bound by precedent. There is no stare decisis rule on Wikipedia. In fact, we have a rule that says just the opposite: Consensus can change.

Secondly, the Everyking case was in 2006, and things were a lot different back then. Not a single member of the ArbCom remains from that era, and some of them were defeated at the polls by decisive margins.

Thirdly, the Everyking case isn't directly analogous. Everyking was accused (rightly or wrongly I do not know) of trying to reveal "sensitive personal information". See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-05/Everyking desysopped for details. There are no such allegations in this case. Instead, it is claimed (incorrectly in my view) that the information may be a copyright violation. John Soong has denied that it is a copyvio, and, since it's not being hosted on Wikipedia, I am inclined to leave this decision up to him. If someone decides to sue him over it, that's his lookout, not ours. For what it's worth I do not think that will happen.

Fourthly, the Everyking decision was a disgrace and ArbCom should be ashamed of ever having issued it. Ideally, they should apologize and give him his sysophood back, but I know that's not going to happen. On the underlying issue (Gary Weiss/Judd Bagley), Everyking turned out to be right, and his enemies ended up having been duped by a clever sockpuppeteer. At a distance of three years, ArbCom comes out looking much worse than Everyking over this. *** Crotalus *** 15:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, while undeleting the content on Wikipedia might have been all right given the circumstances, I personally don't want my fellow admins to think they can copy content that has been deleted here on an external website, where there can be no log and community oversight of the action. I think a clear line needs to be drawn here, regardless of the content that was hidden (I think that's up to arbcom, in light of this event, to clearly state what can and can't be done with deleted material) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There has never been a consensus that it's inappropriate to use deleted material on third-party websites, except in a few narrow cases like serious BLP violations. Moreover, any such decision should be made by the community, not by ArbCom acting on its own initiative. They're not supposed to make policy. *** Crotalus *** 16:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How often has the question been asked? There are certain things that it's just understood you shouldn't do, regardless of whether or not there is a formal rule against it. For example, even if we didn't have a rule about it, you ought to know that no Wikipedia editor may climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spider-Man in order to gain advantage in a content dispute. --B (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't often been asked because, most of the time, it is uncontroversial. I'm sure there are numerous cases where an administrator accessed deleted fancruft in order to move it to Wikia, and no one even noticed, let alone cared. *** Crotalus *** 18:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And in those cases it is indeed uncontroversial - a request for temporary undeletion at DRV would immediately be granted. Would that be the case for, say, a exam cheat? Not hardly. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The test isn't for an exam though. It is for a rather pseudoscientific Myers-Brigg-derivative test. My intention in copying the revision was to show (perhaps rather naively) the nonsense of the company and how they worked. Again, if you look at the test, you can see how unreasonable some of the normative standards are: You *must* believe that any trouble of yours is your own fault. You must never enjoy solitude and reflection. If you are a messy person at home -- never mind what you would do at work and at school -- God forbid you answer truthfully. And so on and so forth, for each of the questions. The WSJ article itself broadcasts some of the answers. Again, I did not secure any sort of position with these answers -- I easily got a non-unicru job elsewhere. I was only rather ticked by the pseudoscience of the company and how such nonsense was allowed to permeate the workplace. I used the answers to publicly campaign against the company. If it helps other people to pass the test, so be it: the test is rather crappy (if not patently unjust) way to evaluate someone's suitability for a position. Now I ask you -- if you had to take a personality test for a higher-level position, how honestly would you answer? Would you be rather annoyed if the test is set up to discourage you from being true to yourself? And for example, if you decided not to admit that once in a while, you just like to be by yourself, reflecting -- would you consider that cheating? John Riemann Soong (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

John - I'm sure you're right - I like your analysis of the test. But that wouldn't be a justification for violating someone's privacy or property rights. For example, say I suspect that the NBA fixes games in a vast conspiracy run from th league office. Do I have a right to wiretap their phones, intercept their e-mails, or trespass in their property? The answer should clearly be, "no." We can't do that on our own initiative. The end does not justify the means. However bad we perceive the evil we're fighting to be, no man has the right to take the law into his own hands.

However, in this example, you would have a right to take and read their garbage (however weird that may be.) In this case, I think what you did is more comparable to sifting through the garbage. Once the information is on wikipedia, any property rights that arise out of the secrecy of the content are all but gone. Non Curat Lex (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I was trying to take the law into my own hands. I believed what I did was legal and would be upheld in any court case.

Btw, I'm either a deontologist or a rule utilitiarian. Or at least I think so, cuz those are the general lines of argument I generally follow in parly or LD. Why I thought it acceptable btw, stemmed from observing the fact that we generally have the moral right to discuss the questions and our answers (although the test administrator may also seek to revoke our results for it, but not sue us publicly). Thus, I thought it moral to broadcast such answers. This is not the same IMO, as broadcasting "live answers" (e.g. questions and answers to the February 2009 SAT) -- the Unicru company never changes its questions nor its answers! John Riemann Soong (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation: It's more important to you to deserve to be right, than to win. On a personal level, my ethics are deontological as well - which does in large part explain why you have a measure of my empathy. On the other hand, based on my experience with the justice system, I can tell you that it is quite naive to expect those results from the real world. If you have read FMM or The Second Critique, you would realize the impracticality. And if you are truly deontological, you won't care. But as an admin, I think it's fair to say that if you get WMF in legal trouble, even if you're ultimately right, you run the risk of being desysopped, because part of your job is about avoiding legal trouble for WMF, right or wrong. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Apparently you have never dealt with a reporter before. Our job is to print a story that will be read. We may or may not have a slant before we talk to you. We will always use your direct statements in the context we wish to use them. There is no such thing as truly "off the record", because that gives us the direction to investigate a new path. You were unwise to go into any form of media interview unprepared...indeed, you are our favourite type of interview in many cases :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe... scroll up --NE2 18:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone hasn't said this already, maybe someone has - couldn't he have just as easily picked it up from a cache? If he didn't have admin tools, that wouldn't have stopped him from retrieving a copy of the deleted article. That he used admin tools seems to be not all that relevant - what policy did he actually violate? He didn't break copyright here, admins are allowed to view deleted content and allowed to pass that content along to third parties at their request (and no copyright review is necessary, that I've seen). If this needs to go further, an RfC is the way. A reconfirmation RfA is just unnecessary.

Further, the well poisoning references to the Everyking case need to stop. The folks quoting it (devoid of any detail) are perfectly aware that the situations bear no resemblance to eachother. There is no personal information at issue here, nothing that will harm any person. So knock it off. Avruch ^T 15:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop poisoning the well, since Everyking did not pass along any such information. --NE2 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say or imply that Everyking did anything at all. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear from my comment, but English is the only language I speak. Avruch ^T 18:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds to me like people are trying to punish him for posting the material outside Wikipedia, and that the "copyright violation" is being used as a pretext. (In fact, when I look at those Everyking links it sounds like something similar happened to him and he was actually punished for off-wiki behavior with the 'personal information' as a pretext.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the copyright status (or lack thereof) of the answer key, this whole situation does reflect poorly on Wikipedia. For readers of that article, they will undoubtedly get the impression that Wikipedia put someone into a trusted position of authority, who then used Wikipedia's privileged administrator tools to help people cheat.

Whether or not that's exactly what actually happened is debatable; but that's what a reputable newspaper says. And whether this impression is Soong's fault or the reporter's fault (or some combination) doesn't matter: the damage has been done, Wikipedia looks bad in this incident. By "letting it slide" Wikipedia would be condoning Soong's actions. Is this something we should consider? -kotra (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, It is something to be considered. However it should also be considered that, as you say, "the damage has been done". Desysoping Soong isn't likely to be published in the news, and the damage isn't likely to be undone. Also, let's not overestimate this damage: The article isn't about Wikipedia or Soong. Soong's actions are just mentioned there as an example of how people hate the test, not as an example of common Wikipedia conduct. Rami R 21:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't punish one person because another person makes Wikipedia look bad. Unless it's the user's fault, in the sense that he actually did something wrong (and not just that he's been misrepresented by a reporter), he shouldn't be punished.

And even then, punishing people for off-Wikipedia actions that make Wikipedia look bad has really horrible implications. By that reason if a Wikipedia administrator is homosexual, and a newspaper reporter writes a big article "Wikipedia Adminstrators Support Gay Agenda", we would have the right to de-admin him because Wikipedia looks bad. In fact, by this reasoning even just publishing an article which gives a higher profile to a genuine Wikipedia problem that we would rather be low profile, is cause for being de-adminned.

Like I said, pretext. Ken Arromdee (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This action was not an "off-Wikipedia action". The issue in my mind is that the user used privileged on-wiki tools for a personal, off-wiki purpose. If the user got the content from somewhere else, we wouldn't have a problem with it.

As for if the reporter misrepresented the user: I'm not entirely sure if that's the case. Perhaps she left out some details, but everything she reported about him is basically true, by his admission. It may have been presented as "facilitating cheating", but that's just as much true as "exposing pseudoscience" as the user presents it. -kotra (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is very firmly established that wikipedia does not per se have a problem with doing things that the advocates of various tests argue will result in the destruction of their effetiveness (see commons:Rorschach inkblot test.Geni 05:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if one example equals "very firmly established" (also because that's the Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia), but I take your point: Wikipedia's position might be that Soong did nothing wrong by posting the answers to the test. However, even if this is true (which, considering the discussion above, I'm not entirely convinced of), that still leaves the other problem: Soong used privileged admin tools for a personal, off-wiki purpose. If this is an abuse of admin tools or not is probably somewhat dependent on the situation; in this situation I would say it's a mild abuse of admin tools, emphasis on mild. -kotra (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I think using the mop for off-wiki purposes should be done very sparingly, if at all. If I had time, I would have argued for a reversal of the OTRS ticket such that the answers were restored into the history, just not into the article. (The Unicru article probably did not enjoy as much attention as the Rorschach test articles, because potentially all people from all walks of life could be subjected to a fallacious blot test, while if you're a 30-year-old i-banker you probably might never be involved in hourly retail again.) Thus, had I the time (at the time), I could have made it an on-wiki purpose. Admittedly, getting back into the bureaucracy was not what I wanted to do at the time.

I even told the reporter explicitly: the reason why I posted it on fb was so I would not harm the project. Now, Wikipedia has gotten bad rep, but primarily through the association with cheating, and rather to my surprise, as I had outlined my motivations to her. This to me is an unjust association, and I would rather not be desysopped for it. But if the community wishes to pursue this course of action, then I will accept that. John Riemann Soong (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This whole situation appears to be a solution looking for a problem. In answer to Kotra above, we let thousands of actions "slide" every day without in any way condoning them - expressing no opinion whatsoever and condoning are very different animals. Orderinchaos 04:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You just expressed an opinion by saying there's no problem (i.e. it's acceptable). By thoroughly discussing it and, in the end, doing nothing, we are saying it's ok. But I agree with Rami above that this probably isn't a big deal, and I doubt a follow-up story will be published headlined "Wikipedia helps you cheat". Except maybe by The Register. -kotra (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I wanted to make this point clear: there is a difference between a reporter doing some dumpster diving to find out information (which I don't do, BTW), and being provided a document that was in the "TO BE SHREDDED" bin. Providing it may have been bad enough, but to actually speak on the record to a reporter about said document...?! What would be the repercussion in your place of business if you did that? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I don't believe the shredding analogy is accurate. Wikipedia has no vested interest in whether the information is public or hidden -- in fact, given the goals of the project it would rather have it public, if it could (though perhaps referenced to on a much more mature article). Furthermore, I think Geni's comparison to the Rorschach tests is quite apt -- this test is widespread enough and the questions are hardly a secret, while third-party suggested answers and strategies abound. The primary motivation for obeying the OTRS is that a company contested our right to broadcast this information to the general public. If I took a poster hidden away in the backroom (no one wanted it) that my company had been forced to take down for legal reasons, thought it cool, and hung it up on my own house instead, have I wronged my company? John Riemann Soong (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I would still like to know how the information got on wikipedia for Soong to be able to viewdelete it in the first place. Did the copyrighter post it, or did someone else? Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Change the scenario a little

Ok, I've read through all of this and have to wonder, how different would things have been with a few minor changes. If a user came to you (as an admin) and asked for the contents of a deleted page, who wouldn't have provided it? I can only think of two scenarios where I wouldn't give the contents of a page to a user: 1) an obvious attack page and 2) an obvious copyvio. John has indicated that he didn't realize that he was getting something that was deleted as a copyvio. If that is true, eg the page wasn't tagged/deleted as a copy vio and there wasn't an AFD indicating that it was a copyvio, then I can't get too upset with him. (If, however, the page was clearly labeled as a copyvio, then I support the desysopping of him.) But as it appears, it looks as if this has been blown out of proportion.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 00:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Even something which is a copyvio is OK to provide, as long as it's made very clear to the user who wants it that they cannot republish the content on Wikipedia. Most copyvios are simply lazy editing - they could easily be rewritten as proper articles. (I realise this situation is a different form of copyvio, but unless OTRS or something was mentioned in the deletion, the admin concerned would have no way of knowing it was *problematic* copyvio in this sense. Orderinchaos 05:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't provide something that I knew to be a copy vio, but it is clear from his statement that he didn't know ti was a copyvio, which tells me it wasn't deleted as such. Thus, I have no problem with his actions. If he had come to me and asked me for the information, I probably would have provided it to him...and I think most admins would have done so as well. I think this is a case of hindsight and scapegoating (and I am critical of the rally around the admin mentality I see here at ANI, but I think this is a case where we might be on a witch hunt.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a side-note: something which is a copyvio is not ok to provide, unless you don't mind breaking copyright law. By "providing" it, you are breaking copyright law. It gets complicated with selective permissions, but 99% of the time this is true. -kotra (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This absolutely was a copyright issue all along, and there is simply no excuse for the admin having been ignorant of that. To provide the content elsewhere, you first have to look at it yourself. To get there, you must use the undelete interface for actually restoring the content, and that interface starts with the deletion log. Both log entries for the page in question specifically say that the admin who deleted revisions was doing so for copyright reasons. So ignorance of the copyright issue is not a plausible statement, unless the admin intentionally choose not to look.

The log does not mention an OTRS ticket (which unfortunately was standard practice for early 2007 even when OTRS was involved), and while the WSJ article says it was removed at the request of the company, I see no evidence in the public data to support this. So even if there is OTRS and/or a company complaint involved, I don't consider such involvement to have been knowable. GRBerry 15:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If that was the page in question, then his claim of not realizing it was a copyvio, doesn't hold weight, and he did use the tools inappropriately as the page is clearly labelled as a copyright issue.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhh guys ... I personally disagreed with the idea that it was a copyvio. I just didn't want to challenge the ticket at the time because I was busy. That's why I thought it acceptable to take it elsewhere. It would have almost pointless to push for its restoration into the history -- it would have been removed anyway for "What Wikipedia is not" reasons. John Riemann Soong (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

One big problem with the idea that he should have known that it's a copyvio is that a "copyvio" isn't the same thing as a copyright violation. A copyvio is a statement that Wikipedia doesn't want it, for reasons that may or may not actually be related to copyright violation. You can't defend against a copyvio by claiming merger or fair use, let alone by claiming you're copying it to supply commentary, even though those defenses can negate any copyright violation. And you can't even contest a copyvio except in the context of putting the material on Wikipedia--someone who wants to use the material off Wikipedia has no way whatsoever to prove that the material is not one. It's ludicrous to think that labelling something a copyvio gives it any particular status other than "we're not using this on Wikipedia". Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not sure of what you are trying to say, but if a page is a copyright violation, then we shouldn't have it and admins shouldn't get it for themselves or for others.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In my universe, copyvio means "I suspect this is a copyright violation". That, to me, makes the content toxic. That, to me, makes it a gross error of judgment to liberate the article content and disseminate it on facebook. Even if the original article was not a copyvio, the posting to facebook absolutely was, since the admin in question did not own the copyright nor seek approval from whoever was the copyright holder. That is why I think the admin in question should, at the least, request desysopping & go back through the nomination process to let the community at large decide whether they still place their trust in him/her. He/she has lost my trust for the stated reasons, and then for a whole host of errors of judgment succeeding the incident - talking naively to the press; failing to understand why others see his/her actions as objectionable; failing (at least as far as I know) to follow through on an undertaking to put him/herself back up for election. YMMV, of course. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Even if the original article was not a copyvio, the posting to facebook absolutely was, since the admin in question did not own the copyright nor seek approval from whoever was the copyright holder."

The law allows certain types of use without owning the copyright or seeking approval from the copyright owner. Wikipedia is in no position to decide whether someone's use of material is one of those. We can say we want to be safe and not allow the material here, but we have no business treating it as an offense outside Wikipedia.

"failing to understand why others see his/her actions as objectionable"

That's Kafkaesque. It basically states that proclaiming your innocence is another thing to be guilty of.

Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to follow through an RFA, but others want an RFC. I thought the community should choose this one -- but I'm not getting any clear response? I've been waiting, actually. John Riemann Soong (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you have not yet revealed which admin account is your primary account. Nor, per WP:OUTING, should the community or any member of it require you to do so, since the WSJ article indicated that this account is your real name and gave your age and the college where you are a student. Without knowing the admin account, the community can't meaningfully evaluate you overall contribution record as an admin to make a decision. Thus I personally would prefer that you discuss this privately with the Arbitration Committee and let them make a decision. You could alternatively choose to voluntarilly reveal yourself which admin account is yours and then do an RFA or RFC - but I do not recommend this. An RFA would me more likely to reach a clear decision, an RFC would get more nuanced views from those participating. I believe that Lar has clerked a few admin recalls and probably would be the best provider of advice on which format would work well. GRBerry 16:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I explained the circumstances of my two accounts above. I believe which two they are has been made public. Why I currently chose to use this one for most of my content edits from now on has also been explained. John Riemann Soong (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested unblocked of User:Simulation12

Resolved

 – Based on the rather strong response so far, I think we can safely snowball this one to a close. For the record, we usually don't accept third-party appeals like this - it has to come from the blocked user. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A lone loon

Before you start calling me a loon, i'd like to present my point. If there's one thing i've learned from the Manhattan Samurai case, it's that every one deserves a second chance, so i'm requesting temporary probation of indef banned Simulation12 (with several terms). First of all, i might support this idea, but some of my associates won't, so Riley is banned from Gladys j cortez, Barncea, and Bearean Hunter's talk pages. However she may ask me a question, with a limit of two questions only in 48 hours.

She would not be allowed be allowed to touch my subpages, or re-create hers, and her editing would be limited to articles beside Martha Speaks and Arthur. If she asks me more than 2 questions in 48 hours, or leaves a message on anyone else's talk page without their permission, we tighten the lease. If she returns to her disruptive editing, we block her permenantley without any chance of second parole. So, what do the rest of you think? Elbutler (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why bother? I mean yeah, second chance, fine.. but seriously, how much did she contribute that was actually useful versus the problems? She was repeatedly told to stop doing various things, and didn't. I have extreme doubts that any probation would be useful in any way. We'll just be back here in a week or two with the opposite discussion. //roux   00:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose unblock. She was just TOO disruptive. For however long she was here--what, 2 or 3 weeks?--I felt like I was doing nothing else except following around with a broom and dustpan, just cleaning up her bad edits and listening to her newest story of who she was, how old she was, and how it wasn't her fault for whatever reason. Plus, even her GOOD edits were pretty weak. Let her mature for a few years, and learn some more advanced communication and social skills, and then come back and try again under a different, unconnected username. But right now, it's too soon. Sorry...GJC 01:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. Let the user go through a normal unblocking process, as there is no need to bring this up on ANI. Abusing alternate accounts and an overall trolling attitude leads me to decline this unblock. seicer | talk | contribs 02:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• No. I see no conceivable benefit, and likely harm. --barneca (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - No reason to deviate from procedure, and anyway, there is no reason for me to believe that she will stop acting in her former ways. — neuro^(talk) 02:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Why would we let a person continue to act out a character on Wikipedia? We're not an off-Broadway play...part of what was so disruptive was the character this person decided to portray...more importantly, why would we EVER unblock someone with a history of DEATH THREATS? --Smashville^talk 02:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The part about being sent to jail after being killed is especially disturbing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that the user has not even asked for reinstatement, let alone the poor record of the user prior to being blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Elbutler, please note for the future that it's generally considered polite to first discuss an unblock appeal with the blocking administrator before bringing it to ANI and then to inform them when you do post an appeal here. I indicated I was willing to consider unblocking at some point when I blocked this user so I'm rather surprised to see this appeal here without you bothering to discuss it with me first. I'm not upset about it, just saying it would be nice... Anyway, I also oppose any unblock of this user. The quality of his/her mainspace contributions was not sufficient to justify the work this proposal would entail or the further time wasted. Let her go in peace and return with a new account when she's matured enough to cope with this environment. I'm all for second chances but we need to see someone has the ability to contribute productively or it's just not worth the time and effort. Also banning her from the named users is fine and everything but it just means that a new set of admins will have to step in and deal with him/her and keep him/her on this "leash". The user can appeal in the usual way or via unblock-en-l. If they can't speak for themselves and present their own unblock proposal then it doesn't bode well for their future editing. Sorry, I know you mean well but I too oppose unblocking. Sarah 23:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a bit more, I had a look at the archives and I disagree with your statement that Simulation12 is banned. I believe s/he is merely blocked indefinitely by me and that there is no ban in effect. I can't find any ban discussion in the archives, there's no ban notification on her page and no listing on the list of Banned users. Thus s/he is merely indefinitely blocked by one administrator (me) and any administrator who disagrees with the block may follow the blocking policy and pursue an unblock. However, it's unlikely any administrator will actually want to unblock given the user has continued disruption after being blocked. Also, when looking through the archives I noticed that you (Elbutler) have initiated several ANI discussions about this user in recent weeks. In fact, ten days ago you started a section in which you stated in your opening post your opinion that Simulation12 "is more than a typical troll, instead a psychotic nut who thinks he/she is a kindergartner and is using a santiarium computer". I'm rather confused what has happened since then that would lead you to reverse your opinion so severely in a matter of ten days, but I would like to suggest that you have become too focused on this particular user. Please just forget about Simulation12 and focus instead on writing articles. If you want to help people, that's great but please consider perhaps helping new people and people who are actually trying to be productive contributors instead of giving air to someone who has been a most unproductive disruptive user. I don't think your focus on Simulaation12 is of benefit to yourself, Simulation12 or the community in general and really it's just wasting time. As Smith Jones told you ten days ago, the best way to handle cases like this is to ignore and by continuing to give this person responses you're effectively encouraging them and giving them air. If you notice him/her socking by all means report them but beyond simply reporting the socks to administrators or checkusers there's no need to have start and have discussions with or about them and speculating about their mental health and personal real life circumstances and whatnot is not appropriate (WP:NPA) and it's just going to encourage them to keep them coming back. Please just move onto other things and ignore this person. Sarah 02:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A ban is simply a block no admin is prepared to lift, though. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A banned user also gets swifter attention by checkusers when apparent sockpuppetry arises. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Broken formatting due to massive pseudo-automated revisions to Wikipedia.

The multi-listen template defaults to left aligned, non-floating. The listen template, after recent changes, floats to the right, though it can be set to float to the left. It cannot be set not to float.

User:MelonBot has attempted to replace all instances of {{multi-listen item}} with {{listen}} through bot work. This has completely broken the formatting on hundreds of pages, including:

• Sonata_in_E_major_for_flute_or_recorder_and_basso_continuo
• Sonata_in_C_major_for_flute_or_recorder_and_basso_continuo
• Jules Massenet (fixed by me, old version: [68])
• Cello Concerto No. 1 (Saint-Saëns)
• Music of Hong Kong (Heading deleted)
• Piano Concerto No. 2 (Rachmaninoff)
• Redemption Song (This article almost certainly shouldnð't have this long list of fair-use samples, but...)
• Hungarian Dances (Brahms)
• Variations on a Theme by Joseph Haydn
• Kathleen Ferrier
• Carl Maria von Weber
• Irving Berlin

In most of the examples given, a section labelled "Media", consisting of a list of files, was turned into a list of files in a box on the right descending into an irrelevant section, and ruining page layout.

I cannot go through every one of the thousands of changes to find all the broken formatting created by this move, which, furthemore, was done apparently without discussion (none of the template talk pages contain any such discussion, nor am I aware of any discussion elsewhere, and was not directed to any when I asked). I have attempted to discuss the issue with the bot's owner (User_talk:Happy-melon#Multi-listen_item), but was told that if the bot caused format to break, that this was a good thing - it highlighted deficiencies in the way articles were formatted, and lists shouldn't have been used anyway.

I don't want to create drama, and firmly believe Happy-melon's intentions were good, but what can you do if a bot is effectively, though unintentionally, vandalising Wikipedia, and the owner doesn't see it as a problem, because he dislikes lists of sounds in articles?

Obviously, I don't think Happy-melon should be sanctioned. but if the changes cannot simply be undone, then we're going to need a lot more people than just me to fix all the problems that arose from the rather poorly-planned implementation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussion from User talk:Happy-melon#Multi-listen item

The Melonbot conversion of {{multi-listen item}} to {{listen}} - basically, a left-aligned non-floating template into a right-aligned floating template in a box - has broken the formatting of hundreds of articles. Please have the bot go through and revert itself. If you geive me a list of all the places it can't undo, I'll help put the remainder straight. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for bringing this to my attention. However, following discussion at Template talk:Listen and the comprehensive update of the {{listen}} template, the functionality of the {{multi-listen start}}, {{multi-listen item}}, {{multi-listen end}} templates is deprecated in favour of {{listen}}. Multi-listen uses a nasty hack to add the loudspeaker, which is now strongly discouraged, and has various other disadvantages compared to the new {{listen}} template.

I was quite careful in constructing the regexes that were used in that conversion process, and did confirm every edit manually. Where the samples were left-aligned before, I attempted to ensure that they were left-aligned afterwards, eg. If I wasn't completely successful in ensuring that that was done, I apologise; if you show me some examples I can improve the regular expressions so that it doesn't happen in future.

With regards the conversion from a non-floating to a floating box, I don't believe this is an issue when the samples were correctly positioned in the article in the first place. WP:SAMPLE is quite clear: "It's better to insert the samples next to paragraph mentioning them to justify their fair use, instead of grouping them in the end of the article"; audio samples are not supposed to form their own section; they should be used to supplement the text inline. I agree that the conversion eg here leaves the article somewhat confused, but that's because the "audio samples" section should not exist in the first place - the audio samples should be distributed through the text, as I did with Bassoon. Having audio samples in a non-floated arrangement is undesirable encouragement for this sort of use. In the few situations where it is acceptable, as in Antonio Vivaldi, {{listen}} can still be used.

I hope this clarifies the situation. Happy‑melon 10:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, the appearance and use of multi-listen item is very different. Look at, say, WP:FS, which uses it extensively - if that was made into listen templates, the description text would be forceably wrapped to fit the box width, and everything would be put in ugly boxes. Also, even if left aligned, the listen template still *floats* left, meaning that things are placed to the right of it.

Examples of where the format was broken:

• Sonata_in_E_major_for_flute_or_recorder_and_basso_continuo
• Sonata_in_C_major_for_flute_or_recorder_and_basso_continuo
• Jules Massenet (fixed, old version: [69])
• Cello Concerto No. 1 (Saint-Saëns)
• Piano_Concerto_No._2_(Chopin)
• Music of Hong Kong (Heading deleted)
• Piano Concerto No. 2 (Rachmaninoff)
• Redemption Song (This article almost certainly shouldnð't have this long list of fair-use samples, but...)
• Hungarian Dances (Brahms)
• Variations on a Theme by Joseph Haydn
• Kathleen Ferrier
• Carl Maria von Weber
• Irving Berlin

And on and on for dozens, if not hundreds more examples. The thing that was broken by this change was a standard format used in classical music articles and elsewhere VERY WIDELY. Not to mention half the time it says it's replacing multi-listen with listen it actually failed, and thankfully kept the multi-listen, just adding format= instead. Don't fix that, it's the only thing preventing the problem from having spread to hundreds more articles. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it

{{PromotedFSC}}, {{UploadedFS}}, {{CreatedFS}}. Thank-you templates should not have a big white box ruining a standard format shared with the Featured picture templates.

If Listen had been left with the same appearance as it had had a month ago, that would be one thing, but major formatting changes have happened to listen, not least changing it from left-aligned to right aligned.

And I'm rather upset about all this. I have 50% of all featured sound credits. I am one of the major people working on sounds on Wikipedia, and probably have put more sounds into articles than anyone else. You've basically ruined the layout for about half the articles displaying my work, and, if I fix it, which will usually require multi-listen item, I risk having your bot changing it back.

I don't want to be running around for the next month fixing accidental bot vandalism of almost all the articles I work on.

That said, I do understand you're trying to help, but this doesn't seem to have been thought through very much. We now have two templates with vastly different appearances and default layouts being interchanged. (Who depreciated multi-listen item in the first place, anyway? Why couldn't they depreciate something sensible, like {{Audio}}?) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy-melon did. I agree with this in principle, what with there being rather few omelette recipes which call for unbroken eggs. (though happy-melon: I'm curious as to why this is apparently skulduggery when others do it, and rather taken aback by the implied bad faith on my behalf there.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond separately. Happy‑melon 12:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let me apologise if you feel that I'm somehow attacking your work here. That certainly wasn't my intention; I have huge appreciation for seeing media in articles, and an equal respect for the people who put them there. I first found myself in this corner of wikipedia when I was cutting and uploading sound samples for Wicked (musical) - the templates that were available were without exception awful for inline media, which is what is recommended by the manual of style and what I wanted to add to the article. One thing led to another and I eventually in desperation coded and implemented an improved version, which was generally popular. See Template talk:Listen for the discussion. So I'm certainly not out to get you or your work, I'm hugely grateful for what you do.

That said, the way audio files are used in many articles (not usually by you, but certainly by others) is simply wrong, according to the MOS. Media should not be put in their own section, or used to adorn the "references" or "external links" sections. They should be inlined through the text where they complement the article prose. As such, {{multi-listen item}} is deprecated because it has no valid use: when it is used on its own in a "media" section it is used incorrectly, and when it is used with {{sound sample box}} or a variant thereof, the functionality of {{listen}} is far superior. So while I agree that the appearance of some articles after the conversion is not ideal and is perhaps in some ways inferior, I don't agree that reverting them would be anything other than a step backwards. Where the conversion has caused a visual problem, that is indicative of a deeper underlying problem that won't be addressed by simply reverting to an older template. Media samples need to be rearranged to be more closely integrated into the text; even when the text is very minimal it is possible to do this effectively, eg.

I'd like to work with you here, not against you. I agree that there are issues outstanding, but I think that we need to keep moving forward to best resolve them, not jump backwards when the first step uncovers deeper problems. I agree, for instance, that my initial conversion of the featured sound templates wasn't optimal; extra functionality has since been added to {{listen}} which enables a much nicer display, as I've shown on {{uploadedFS}}. Where listen should duplicate the appearance of multi-listen item, it can do so, but this is not in fact desirable in the majority of situations. Happy‑melon 12:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I by no means thought you were attacking my work, I just wanted to point out the problems with the bot implementation, and explain why it's a problem.

That said, there is functionality that multi-listen item has that listen does not. Listen wraps the sound file in a floating box, and that has consequences regarding how wide the description can be on the page, and how it interacts with other parts of the page layout. Also, listen can only go up to ten, some of the media sections have significantly more than that.

While I have integrated sound files into the text before, e.g. Charles Gounod, Tosca, there is a limit to how many files can be presented that way. For the composer and performer articles, a gallery is often necessary, to give a broad sample of their work and career.

There's another aspect. I do a lot of work with media files, and understand the templates, but for new users, multi-listen item is going to be much easier than trying to set up a media section with Listen and having to both figure out the pos=left, but also needing to end it with {{-}}, a not particularly well-known wiki function call.

I honestly do think that too many articles have been damaged not to revert the bot; however, that doesn't mean that it couldn't run again once the bugs were worked out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we disagree fairly fundamentally on how media should be included in articles. I see very little difference between a list of media files and a gallery of images, they have essentially the same appearance and purpose. Galleries are explicitly discouraged by policy, with WP:SAMPLE saying that "It's better to insert the samples next to paragraph mentioning them...". Also, "[while] there's no limit of how many samples you could use in one article, but you have to put in mind that music samples serve as tools for a better understanding of the article, so insert only relevant samples". These policies to me indicate that there is rarely if ever a need to create lengthy lists of audio samples, and so there is no need for the 'unlimited length list' that is the one advantage of multi-listen item. While I have demonstrated on Antonio Vivaldi that such a gallery can be created using {{listen}}, these policies indicate that these media should really be spun out into an article such as List of works by Antonio Vivaldi, as with other composition lists; the media files can then be distributed through the list as is being done (slowly but effectively) with eg List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach.

As such, it should not ever be necessary for new users to use {{listen}} in its 'list' mode; I agree it is somewhat esoteric, but since its use in that fashion is to be discouraged, that is not a bad thing. Equally it should rarely if ever be genuinely a Good Idea to use more than ten media files in one place in an article. Full adoption of this template is likely to encourage proper use of audio files in articles, as it becomes easier to add audio inline than to create a gallery, as is currently the case with images. So I don't think your concerns are valid, except in the context of perpetuating the underlying problem of using media files in contravention of policy. I know you're not yourself responsible for these widespread improper implementations, but a lot of people are, and we should be doing everything possible to encourage audio files to be used properly, to enhance and complement articles, not to dominate them. Happy‑melon 19:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "I broke hundreds of pages, but it's alright because they deserved to be broken" doesn't really help matters much. The pages are still broken. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether the result was to "break hundreds of pages" or to 'highlight a major style issue in hundreds of pages thereby encouraging it to be fixed', is entirely a matter of perspective. I don't think we're going to reach an agreement on this amongst ourselves, so outside commentary is probably desirable. Do you think we should continue this discussion here, or move to a more public forum (a template talk page, for instance - but which?)? Happy‑melon 14:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Normally I hate it when people butt in on a conversation on my talk page, but as you've asked for outside commentary here we go. I can see this issue from both sides, and as you're both trying to improve things and both are reasonable people I can't see why we shouldn't be able to sort this out easily :) Firstly I think we could make some headway if you could agree on any or all of the following statements.

1. People were consulted widely enough about this change to the templates, at an appropriate venue and given enough time to respond.
2. Image and sound galleries are generally undesirable.
3. Some of the pages look a bit uglier after MelonBot visited them than before.

Secondly I would be interested in how SMH thinks the pages could be best fixed using the new template system. For example, did this fix the formatting in his/her opinion? Martin 18:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Point 1: As far as I can tell, no discussion happened. There is no discussion on either template talk page. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Point 2: Not necessarily. In composer and artist pages they've traditionally been accepted, and lists have the advantage of always being in the same place, whereas images can push sideboxes around unpredicably on widescreen monitors.

Point 3: Well, yes. In many cases "completely broken" is a better description.

As for how to fix it: While something like your suggestion may be applicable in some cases, in most I'd say it should be reverted back to the multi-listen template until such time as revision is going to happen. Keeping pages broken is not a real option. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

1. H-M, can you address this point? SMH, note that just because you were not aware of a discussion, doesn't mean that it didn't take place ;) A discussion can be widely advertised and still miss people who perhaps should have been involved. It can be mildly annoying to propose something, get little input, and then later get complaints from people who didn't take part in the discussion ...
2. Well perhaps this needs to go be brought up at WP:IUP. If indeed they are deemed acceptable in certain cases, then the templates should allow for this.
3. SMH I think perhaps you are exaggerating here uneccesarily. Can you give me an example of a page which you think was "completely broken"? It looks to me that most of these can be fixed quite easily. Martin 18:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

End transfered discussion

To clarify a few points, redress a few inaccuracies, and provide some background, my perspective on the matter. Until recently, the preferred method for adding audio samples to articles was to use a set of three templates: {{multi-listen start}} to provide a surrounding frame with a background loudspeaker image, a succession of instances of {{multi-listen item}}, one for each item to be added, and {{multi-listen end}} to close the frame. These templates created by default a full-width div that formed its own section, pushing other content below it. To add audio files 'inline', it was necessary to wrap the whole construction in another set of templates, {{sound sample box align right}} or ...left, and {{sample box end}}. In October and November 2008, I helped completely overhaul Template:Listen, a template that attempted to make it easier to add audio files 'inline'. The new template now allows the addition of up to ten audio files in an 'inline' block, floated as SMH notes.

I note that, while there is very little policy relating directly to audio files, there is considerable similarity between them and other media, such as images. Since audio and video are relatively recent additions to wikipedia, it's predictable that most of our media policies largely focus on images. Like images, audio files can be used in two ways, either 'inline' in the article prose, or in a 'media list' analogous to an image gallery. Image galleries are "discouraged" by policy, with WP:SAMPLE saying that "It's better to insert the samples next to paragraph mentioning them...". Overuse of audio files is explicitly considered, with WP:SAMPLE saying "[while] there's no limit of how many samples you could use in one article, but you have to put in mind that music samples serve as tools for a better understanding of the article, so insert only relevant samples". However, the removal of image galleries is controversial, and blanket removal frowned upon.

Within this context, after the new {{listen}} template was deployed, I made a task of reducing the duplication and redundancy found in the various audio templates available. As part of this objective, I made an effort to convert articles using the multi-listen set of templates, over to using the new listen template. To do this, I used AWB's regular expression search-and-replace, constructing a series of increasingly complicated regular expressions to convert from one template syntax to another. During this process, I made 414 edits to article pages. Although User:MelonBot is a bot account, the 'semi-automated' functionality of AWB was used, with every edit manually confirmed, although I admit I concentrated more on the technical aspect of the transition (whether all the parameters were correctly transfered to the new syntax) than the final appearance of the article. With one exception, this was successful in avoiding technical mistakes.

Shoemaker's Holiday is correct in noting that when applied to a list of items in an 'audio gallery', the conversion causes in some cases a degradation of visible quality; the media list shifts to a floated column which, if the subsequent 'see also', 'references' and 'external links' sections are short, can result in the media protruding off the bottom of the article. I do not deny that this is undesirable. I estimate that around 30% of the edits involved conversions of audio galleries, so probably 120 or so in total.

My contention is that, since the underlying situation of having audio 'galleries' is itself an issue that should be resolved, merely reverting the changes is not a productive activity. Rather, the articles should be further improved to distribute the media through the text and so resolve the underlying problem. It is possible to do so whether the article is short or long. When there are too many media files to integrate them all properly with the text, that is indicative that there are too many media files in the article in total, and their inclusion should be re-evaluated. That is obviously not something that can be done by an automated or semi-automated script.

I can modify the regular expression such that templates in separate 'media' sections are not converted; when that process is complete the list of pages still transcluding {{multi-listen item}} will closely correlate with the list of articles which use audio files inappropriately, although there will still be legitimate inline uses that have not been caught by the conservative regexes. However, reverting all the uncontroversial changes in addition to those to 'audio galleries' is very much throwing the baby out with the bathwater, particularly since such changes would simply have to be made again.

I hope this clarifies the situation. Apologies for the considerable length. Happy‑melon 21:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's more a responsibility issue, in my eyes. You had a responsibility to test the replacement more carefully, and fix problems that arose. When problems were pointed out, you stonewalled, and argued that doing anything to fix them, such as reverting the changes until the problem with the script could be fixed, was unnecessary. This left me with no choice but to take this public, in an effort to get help in fixing all the problems caused. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea that the new version of Template:Listen was causing formatting problems when long lists of media were used. I'm blind, as it says on my user page, so I wouldn't be able to see these things. I've added a lot of audio to articles, and fiddled with the media sections of most articles about major classical composers. I've been adding them as media gallaries because that's how they've always been presented. I think that where possible, sound files shouldn't be orphaned on Wikipedia, so interested Wikipedia users can find out about them. For an example, see this edit; the audio for the organ version of Bach's Prelude and Fugue in A minor had been available for a long time, but no-one had bothered to add it to the article about the work. Re: composition lists, there was a full audio gallery alongside the Bach compositions list, but it was removed because of length and clutter concerns. I'm about to notify some relevant WikiProjects - WikiProject Classical music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Free music about this discussion. Graham87 05:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion to improve articles so that the sound files are discussed in the text is not easily implemented. Sometimes a composer is too obscure and there are no articles/books published with a complete analysis of his works. Other times, sound samples illustrate unimportant pieces, serving simply to illustrate the style (Nicolas de Grigny, Louis-Nicolas Clérambault). Certainly, in both cases a "Media" section is better, because a floating bubble makes the reader search the text for a discussion of the piece provided. There are also cases of tricky formatting, such as Johann Pachelbel: the section on fugues, for example, has three images, and so there simply is no room for the listen template. Which is, by the way, currently appearing on top of the next section, breaking the formatting. Before, the sound file simply followed the section.

Both the listen and the multi-listen templates are useful (and there's also the older template, the one used in Olivier Messiaen and Sonatas and Interludes—perfect, in my opinion, for inline examples). I can see Happy-melon's good intentions, but I don't think simply replacing one template with the other accomplishes much; as an editor, I'd rather have several templates to choose from, than be forced to use one and look at an ugly article, waiting for some scholarly articles to appear so that I can finally clean the mess by adding analysis. (I deal mostly in obscure composers, so this is a relevant issue for me.) --Jashiin (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that the audio files necessarily had to be "discussed" in the text, merely that they should be integrated. I can't see any reason why the media files in the two articles you give as exmples couldn't be integrated into the other sections of the article. I don't think that ANI is an appropriate venue for such a policy discussion; we'd be better placed at WT:PUI or WT:SAMPLE. My point is not that it is a Good Idea^TM to convert all 'audio galleries' arbitrarily to use the floating {{listen}} template; indeed I have said above that I intend to modify the conversion expressions to ensure that such galleries are not converted. What I am saying is that in this relatively modest set of articles in which conversion has already taken place, it would be more productive to take the opportunity to correct the underlying problem than it would be to arbitrarily revert all changes, good and bad, without making any such effort to fix the real issue. I have corrected some of the articles already, and I will do more when I have time. Happy‑melon 10:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

HM, you're using a semi-auto process, presumably you've recorded your regex'es, and you say you can avoid the problem in future. What is hard then about reverting all the previous edits and just doing them again with the refined version? Then no-one has to "fix" anything just because you ran AWB to "fix" something else. You'll still be able to revisit the articles yourself to address the style issues. Franamax (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please make a ranged block on socking banned User:Ekajati

Sorry if I've asked in the wrong place. At least 3 different similar IPs have now been used by Ekky, two are blocked, but he keeps coming back on a similar number. [70] , [71] and now on my talk page along with some of his old articles [72] . He's used some other IPs recently too I think, but at least we can hopefully doo something about this one. Anyway, after he turned up on my talk page, I think I'm done with this one lol. To explain, this is an editor who used to be highly involved in Thelemapedia, a wiki about Thelema, annd maybe some other esoteric wikis. He has filled the wiki with numerous articles on these subjects. Some of his work is great but he always pushes his fave view of a subject, he also thinks parts of these esoteriic subjects are more notable than they really are, as they're so important to him. So there are a fair few n.n, or WP:POV articles to clean up. Sticky Parkin 19:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Move along, nothing to see here. No vandalism occuring, just Wikignoming.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.130.162 (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• WP:RBI applies. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

eh? That IP was him, by the way, obviously. I just thought a small rangeblock, if possible, would make it less easy for him to keep coming up. As I'm not an admin it's probably more annoying for me as I can't actually RBI in so much as I can't block him by myself.:) Sticky Parkin 23:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

He's a trivial irritant at present, so blocking the IPs one by one is probably sufficient - although I am not a huge fan of the game of whack-a-mole as played with block-evaders. I have blocked and reverted. Please keep some kind of record of recurrence, so that we have a reference to support stronger action should it be justified. As a rule, rangeblocks are regarded as a pretty big deal, so we need to be able to document serious ongoing abuse in order to justify them. Does that now answer your questions? Guy (Help!) 11:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Admitted sockpuppetry by User:Fipplet

User:Fipplet was blocked for edit-warring on Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine for 48 hours from 8 January. Immediately, by his/her own admission, Fipplet began editing from IPs 85.230.108.108 and 85.230.108.247. These accounts were used for further edit-warring on several further articles. Full details at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fipplet. When challenged on this, Fipplet's comment was " I thaugh't you only were forbidden to create a new account wile being block, not just editing when you're logged out... I thaught you just blocked the account and not the person."

This is the second time this editor has acted in this way. Following a block in September for edit-warring on Palestinian National Authority. Fipplet created a new account, Habibmustafa, and also edited from 85.230.109.191. These accounts were blocked at the time, but no sanctions were applied to Fipplet.

A checkuser request on the first two IPs was refused on the grounds that Fipplet had admitted this. But, despite the admission, the blocks and the pattern of edits, the sockpuppets remain officially "suspected" rather then "confirmed". Consequently, Fipplet has removed the {{sockpuppeteer}} tag from her/his user page, and posted a {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} warning on my talk page for placing the tag.

So far, despite the concerns and complaints of several editors, Fipplet has received no official warning or sanction for this gaming of the system and disruptive behaviour. Nor has s/he learned from this experience, as s/he seems to be edit-warring now on 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.

I request that, at the very least, an admin replaces the sockpuppet tag, and gives Fipplet an unequivocal warning about what blocking means and what the likely consequences could be of any future arrempt to subvert this. RolandR (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that User:Fipplet got a topic-ban for a period from Israeli-Palestine-subjects... s/he has been, shall we say, a bit too entusiastic. His/her editing is becoming very disruptive. An example: 17-year old Fipplet insists on labelling buildings/structures in the Palestinian territories as being a part of Israel, in spite of the fact that this is not internationally recognised by anyone (except Israel). See Talk:Church of the Pater Noster. Lately, it also looks as if s/he has been stalking me, turning up at places I have recently edited, like Template:National parks of Israel, Tomb of Samuel. I think it is especially serious that s/he unilaterally change a template (Template:National parks of Israel), in spite of the fact that there is a long, recent discussion on the talk-page, which s/he just ignores. Please, a topic-ban for a period, ..or at least a ban on labelling churches etc. on the West Bank as "Israeli"? Thank you, regards, Huldra (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Flip has profusely apologized at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fipplet, stating that he was under a misconception regarding sockpuppetry rules. Let's not bite Newbies, let's assume some good faith, and not try to ban Wikipedians just because they disagree with our POV.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. So do you agree that it is ok to label places occupied by Israel in 1967 as part of Israel? If not, will you make Fipplet understand that s/he cannot edit that way? Oh, and that was Newbie Fipplets second checkuser/sockpuppet report. Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But Fipplet is not a newbie. S/he has been editing for over two years, and made more than 1500 edits. And s/he has previously been warned against precisely this behaviour. Surely at least my (very modest) requested actions above should be applied. RolandR (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just factually incorrect. For all practical purposes he only began editing in late June of 2008, which is a few months ago. He's a great asset to Wikipedia (has a number of DYK's already) and has great potential. We should be a little patient with him, and work with him, instead of finding reasons to get him blocked/banned. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A person can't be a newbie forever. Since Fipplet is obviously intelligent his protestations at WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fipplet aren't too credible. (This was his *second* case for abusing multiple accounts). If he finds WP:SOCK that difficult to understand then perhaps he shouldn't be editing hotly-contested articles. I've proposed a sanction in the sockpuppet case over at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fipplet (2nd_nomination). Since it is traditional to increase the length of any evaded blocks, I suggest that his evaded 2-day 3RR block from 8 January be increased to 4 days. If he would agree to some kind of an article restriction on Middle Eastern topics (for instance, a 1RR per week per article) then the block might be waived. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I just want to add a few comments. First: Mr EdJohnston, I would prefer being blocked rather than having restrictions on middle eastern topics and a sockpuppet tag on my profile. Secondly: What Huldra has said is very untrue:

1)"17-year old Fipplet insists on labelling buildings/structures in the Palestinian territories as being a part of Israel, in spite of the fact that this is not internationally recognised by anyone (except Israel)."

Huldra I suggest you take a look at this: Talk:Church of the Pater Noster. Since East Jerusalem isn't recognized as under Palestinian sovergnity or Israeli sovereignty, I and other editors agreed upon labeling the churches on disputed territory as just Jerusalem (not Israel or Palestian territories) since it will not imply anyones sovereignty over it and is a good compromise that should solve our dispute. I don't say this to solve the question of Jerusalem but to make Huldra understand that I am not labeling those structures to be within Israel and that I am wiling to discuss this question. But Huldra insist that I labell them to be within Israel. At first I did it, but because of the discussion I have now changed it into a npov version, just Jerusalem. Huldra seems to have completely ignored the whole discssion. "Right. So do you agree that it is ok to label places occupied by Israel in 1967 as part of Israel". Again, I haven't done that, it says just Jerusalem whch is the international view. Here is an example: Dominus Flevit Church.

2)"Lately, it also looks as if s/he has been stalking me, turning up at places I have recently edited, like Template:National parks of Israel, Tomb of Samuel."

I am sorry if I have given that impression but the reason I "turned up" at National parks of Israel is that I recently created two of the national parks, the Mazor Mausoleum and the Sidna Ali Mosque. The tomb of Samuel is also an Israeli national park. So no I am not stalking you.

3)"I think it is especially serious that s/he unilaterally change a template (Template:National parks of Israel), in spite of the fact that there is a long, recent discussion on the talk-page, which s/he just ignores."

I unfortionatly forgot to sign my comment so I understand why you think I ignored it. But know I have signed it and you can now see that I haven't ignored it. Take a look: Template talk:National parks of Israel.

I am not a stubborn editor that doesn't listen to what others have to say even though Huldra sees it that way. You can for yourself see the talk page of the Pater Noster church.

Anyway, I don't know how much I have to say in this, but as I already have said, I would rather be blocked for some days than have a sockpuppet tag on my user page and restrictions on middle eastern topics. I have two questions though: how long would there be a sockpuppet tag on my page and how long will I have restrictions? Thank you everyone for your patience.--Fipplet (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet notices should remain for as long as the socks are blocked; see Wikipedia:Userpage#Removal of comments, warnings. Since you have confirmed using these sockpuppets, the warning should be restored, and remain, "to keep (you) from gaming the system" and "to share important information about blocks and sockpuppetry with other users". RolandR (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since I don't want more trouble, it's fine with me if you restore it. --Fipplet (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflict in White Brazilian

User Donadio is being unrespectfull in the article White Brazilian. He removed an entire section arguing he finds it "not necessary" and removed several informations in this article. He also included several unsourced and wrong informations (he claimed Brazil gained its Independence in 1922, but it actually was in 1822). He has a "pro-Portuguese" point of view and wrote personal opinions about this subject. I showed him this is not right in his own talk page, but he did not even answer me and reverted. I told him not to remove sections and informations and not to be engaged in a edit-warring, but the user ignored me. He is also flooding the talk page of this article with several unnecessary comments. Wikipedia is not a forum. Opinoso (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see. The section I removed was titled "Demography by Cities and Towns", and consisted on a list of very small towns - those that are "more white" and "less white". Evidently, this is not Brazilian Demography "by Cities and Towns", it is merely trivia. A proper section on Brazilian demography by cities should address and compare the demography of Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Recife, Brasília, etc.

The 1922 (non-)issue was, evidently, a typo, which I have now corrected.

Some examples of the "wrong and unsourced" information I included:

1. that there is a difference between "immigration" and colonisation;
2. that France and Netherlands invaded and conquered parts of Brazil in the XVI century, instead of merely sending immigrants there, as the previous version appeared to imply;
3. that the predominant religion among Brazilian Whites is Roman Catholicism (and not Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, as previously stated), with Protestant, non-religious, other Christian, Kardekist, Afro-Brazilian minorities (instead of only a Jewish minority, as per the previous version).

I do not have a "pro-Portuguese" point of view (what would a "pro-Portuguese" point of view be, btw?). On the contrary, it is the user who accuses me that systematically includes distorted information, in this article and in others, in order to exaggerate the importance of Italian contributions to Brazilian demography and culture.Donadio (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Turkish genocide propaganda piece

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

lkerGx (talk · contribs), 88.240.45.218 (talk · contribs), and 88.244.81.254 (talk · contribs) are constructing an elaborate propaganda piece at Turkish genocide, a disambiguation page. Editors not well informed about the history of the Middle East need only take a casual look at the page under construction to establish that it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. This is not quite vandalism but certainly OR and POV. Please help. Aramgar (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. I believe that - even if it can be demonstrated that an article should exist at that title - it would be better to start from scratch than to attempt to fix the page that was there. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It was even dubious as a disambiguation page, in my opinion. Aramgar (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I've recreated and protected the dab page, since it is a plausible search term for several different historical events. If any of the entries on that page are inappropriate, you can either contact me directly or use the {{editprotected}} template. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks again. Aramgar (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Reporting suspected pedophile on Wikipedia

Resolved

 – edits 8 months old, IP hasn't edited in 6 months --Rodhullandemu 02:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

I would like to bring to your attention of an IP user who has posted some concerning comments on the talk page of the Pedophilia article here and Age of consent form article here and here. It is not known what this individuals intentions are, but to tell you the truth some of these posts sound pretty creepy. Please take a look into this matter. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

These edits are too old to be actionable; the person using it has switched IP address by now. --Rodhullandemu 02:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

She was just 17, if you know what I mean... --NE2 02:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In any case, this person was expressing legitimate disagreement with age of consent and statutory rape laws that are shared by many people I know who are not pedophiles; furthermore, pedophiles are not necessarily dangerous merely because they find minors attractive. It would really only be a concern if they were stalking or harassing underage editors, or POV pushing. Dcoetzee 05:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Deepak D'Souza seems to know who it is, and seems to think that they are a banned user. Anyway, case closed. — neuro^(talk) 16:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami

This admin has unilaterally renamed [73] an article on the phonemic system used by Wiktionary, claiming that the move is "non-controversial" (CSD G6). This is despite the fact of controversy (in which the admin has been involved) and on-going discussion (again, involved) both here and on Wiktionary. Simply put: MW does not have the right to claim use of the name "American Heritage Dictionary" for itself, and the name "English Phonemic Representation" is that chosen by vote on Wiktionary, from whence the system arrived on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've notified him and just want to note that the prior discussion is here. I do see that it still seemed like it was in dispute, but I'm going to give Kwamikagami the benefit of the doubt for being bold. It had been three days since the last comment there. I think you should go back to the discussion there and see if you get consensus for a reversion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ricky.

I did not claim the move was "non-controversial", I moved it because the enPR name is plagiarism. It is also not the same as the enPR system used on Wiktionary, not if we consider differences as minor as those EncycloPetey claims make it distinct from AHD. (Diff between AHD and Wiktionary enPR: format of the stress marks. Diff between AHD and Wikipedia enPR: none, since I removed a single unused symbol that was taken from Merriam Webster.) kwami (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I want just to note that:

1. "non-controversial" (CSD G6) refers only to the deletion of a redirect to make way for move, not to the move itself;
2. I see no evidence that Kwamikagami deleted any redirect to make way for move. See this and this. He deleted only two redirects recently created by him in error (Wikipedia:ADH representation and Wikipedia:AHD representation). It was actually EncycloPetey, who deleted a redirect to make way for move;
3. Since it appears that no admin tools were used by Kwamikagami, there is nothing to discuss here. Content disputes should be resolved on other forums.

Ruslik (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, doesn't look like there's any reason to bring this to ANI at this juncture. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletions were necessary to make the required page moves, and the rationale given by Kwamikagami for those deletions was (CSD G6), as recorded in the the Deletion logs. The deletions I made were to restore the pages to their pre-move locations, which Kwamikagi then proceeded to move again over the objections. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just block them..please

Resolved

 – contributions and contributions blocked 31h by seicer for violating WP:NOTMYSPACE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Again I come back with these two users. I am not going to bother warning them or notifying them of this post. Earlier I brought to the attention of the community two users who were using Wikipedia as Myspace. They were warned. Second time they acknowledged they were breaking policies (here) and here we are at number three. I look at my watchlist and look what I see in the morning (everything I edit is added to the watchlist) User_talk:11vegeta11 and User_talk:WaltDaMan are again acting like this is their personal blog space. I suggest block like the title says. But you can do what you want with these two. They have already been warned for thier actions and were given suggestions as to what they could do. Rgoodermote  15:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've notified both of them. Though it looks like seicer temp-blocked 11vegeta11 just before I posted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Noticed that myself, I wasn't going to notify them of this because this is number 3. After 2 of these it should have gotten to them. Rgoodermote  15:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I didn't see the harm in procedurally notifying them both anyway. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, your right. Hopefully there is no need to this again. I dislike bringing things to AN/I. Rgoodermote  15:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've run across these users, or an alternate account, before because of the similar editing patterns. I've deleted one user page per WP:NOTMYSPACE, and the other is dangerously close to that. Given that these accounts have almost exclusively been dedicated to idle chit-chat and not much else, I've given each a 31 hour block. They were given plenty of notices before. seicer | talk | contribs 15:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Or the wayward lovers. Similar pattern to them, just no flirting. Rgoodermote  15:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Like Seicer, I've noticed some similarities in editing patterns. Glad someone was on top of things. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible compromised account

Resolved

 – Blocked, possibly compromised (probably not), appalling spelling needed a block anyway :)

Got a weird one. User:Mechafool is a new account which started out fine yesterday but has descended into pure vandalism today. I think it may be compromised; most vandals aren't creative enough to begin legit and then start in to vandalizing. Any suggestions? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the "pure vandalism" today? Tan | 39 19:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at the deleted contribs. Black Kite 19:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(smacks forehead) Oh. Yeah. I dunno if it's compromised or not; definitely endorse the block, tho. Tan | 39 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) Actually, I feel bad about blocking the account, but if it's compromised, we're going to have a real "Jekyll and Hyde" on our hands. I hope the original contributor comes back. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not compromised. Looking closer at their first ten edits, this is a classic case of someone trying to get autoconfirmed. 10 edits in 4 minutes, all of them either adding an extra space to a line, or adding {{stub}} to random articles (including articles that already have categorized stubs). In other words, meant to look legit at a casual glance. It's just a vandal who couldn't wait 4 days to start vandalizing. --barneca (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call, Barneca. Might have been a Grawp sleeper that we caught early. GlassCobra 20:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

IP address:

Looking at several of these recent edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/12.96.207.126

I don't see anything of value here -- just random vandalism. It appears this IP has been blocked twice in the past (once for a week, once for two weeks), but this person keeps coming back to vandalize some more.

(I'm not sure, but it looks like this is the place to report it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.72.2 (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP address hasn't edited in a couple days, no action needed at the moment. Thanks for reporting it; if you see IPs or editors vandalizing, the quickest way to get action is to list them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. GlassCobra 21:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Admitted sockpuppetry by User:Fipplet

User:Fipplet was blocked for edit-warring on Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine for 48 hours from 8 January. Immediately, by his/her own admission, Fipplet began editing from IPs 85.230.108.108 and 85.230.108.247. These accounts were used for further edit-warring on several further articles. Full details at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fipplet. When challenged on this, Fipplet's comment was " I thaugh't you only were forbidden to create a new account wile being block, not just editing when you're logged out... I thaught you just blocked the account and not the person."

This is the second time this editor has acted in this way. Following a block in September for edit-warring on Palestinian National Authority. Fipplet created a new account, Habibmustafa, and also edited from 85.230.109.191. These accounts were blocked at the time, but no sanctions were applied to Fipplet.

A checkuser request on the first two IPs was refused on the grounds that Fipplet had admitted this. But, despite the admission, the blocks and the pattern of edits, the sockpuppets remain officially "suspected" rather then "confirmed". Consequently, Fipplet has removed the {{sockpuppeteer}} tag from her/his user page, and posted a {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} warning on my talk page for placing the tag.

So far, despite the concerns and complaints of several editors, Fipplet has received no official warning or sanction for this gaming of the system and disruptive behaviour. Nor has s/he learned from this experience, as s/he seems to be edit-warring now on 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.

I request that, at the very least, an admin replaces the sockpuppet tag, and gives Fipplet an unequivocal warning about what blocking means and what the likely consequences could be of any future arrempt to subvert this. RolandR (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that User:Fipplet got a topic-ban for a period from Israeli-Palestine-subjects... s/he has been, shall we say, a bit too entusiastic. His/her editing is becoming very disruptive. An example: 17-year old Fipplet insists on labelling buildings/structures in the Palestinian territories as being a part of Israel, in spite of the fact that this is not internationally recognised by anyone (except Israel). See Talk:Church of the Pater Noster. Lately, it also looks as if s/he has been stalking me, turning up at places I have recently edited, like Template:National parks of Israel, Tomb of Samuel. I think it is especially serious that s/he unilaterally change a template (Template:National parks of Israel), in spite of the fact that there is a long, recent discussion on the talk-page, which s/he just ignores. Please, a topic-ban for a period, ..or at least a ban on labelling churches etc. on the West Bank as "Israeli"? Thank you, regards, Huldra (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Flip has profusely apologized at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fipplet, stating that he was under a misconception regarding sockpuppetry rules. Let's not bite Newbies, let's assume some good faith, and not try to ban Wikipedians just because they disagree with our POV.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. So do you agree that it is ok to label places occupied by Israel in 1967 as part of Israel? If not, will you make Fipplet understand that s/he cannot edit that way? Oh, and that was Newbie Fipplets second checkuser/sockpuppet report. Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But Fipplet is not a newbie. S/he has been editing for over two years, and made more than 1500 edits. And s/he has previously been warned against precisely this behaviour. Surely at least my (very modest) requested actions above should be applied. RolandR (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just factually incorrect. For all practical purposes he only began editing in late June of 2008, which is a few months ago. He's a great asset to Wikipedia (has a number of DYK's already) and has great potential. We should be a little patient with him, and work with him, instead of finding reasons to get him blocked/banned. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A person can't be a newbie forever. Since Fipplet is obviously intelligent his protestations at WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fipplet aren't too credible. (This was his *second* case for abusing multiple accounts). If he finds WP:SOCK that difficult to understand then perhaps he shouldn't be editing hotly-contested articles. I've proposed a sanction in the sockpuppet case over at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fipplet (2nd_nomination). Since it is traditional to increase the length of any evaded blocks, I suggest that his evaded 2-day 3RR block from 8 January be increased to 4 days. If he would agree to some kind of an article restriction on Middle Eastern topics (for instance, a 1RR per week per article) then the block might be waived. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I just want to add a few comments. First: Mr EdJohnston, I would prefer being blocked rather than having restrictions on middle eastern topics and a sockpuppet tag on my profile. Secondly: What Huldra has said is very untrue:

1)"17-year old Fipplet insists on labelling buildings/structures in the Palestinian territories as being a part of Israel, in spite of the fact that this is not internationally recognised by anyone (except Israel)."

Huldra I suggest you take a look at this: Talk:Church of the Pater Noster. Since East Jerusalem isn't recognized as under Palestinian sovergnity or Israeli sovereignty, I and other editors agreed upon labeling the churches on disputed territory as just Jerusalem (not Israel or Palestian territories) since it will not imply anyones sovereignty over it and is a good compromise that should solve our dispute. I don't say this to solve the question of Jerusalem but to make Huldra understand that I am not labeling those structures to be within Israel and that I am wiling to discuss this question. But Huldra insist that I labell them to be within Israel. At first I did it, but because of the discussion I have now changed it into a npov version, just Jerusalem. Huldra seems to have completely ignored the whole discssion. "Right. So do you agree that it is ok to label places occupied by Israel in 1967 as part of Israel". Again, I haven't done that, it says just Jerusalem whch is the international view. Here is an example: Dominus Flevit Church.

2)"Lately, it also looks as if s/he has been stalking me, turning up at places I have recently edited, like Template:National parks of Israel, Tomb of Samuel."

I am sorry if I have given that impression but the reason I "turned up" at National parks of Israel is that I recently created two of the national parks, the Mazor Mausoleum and the Sidna Ali Mosque. The tomb of Samuel is also an Israeli national park. So no I am not stalking you.

3)"I think it is especially serious that s/he unilaterally change a template (Template:National parks of Israel), in spite of the fact that there is a long, recent discussion on the talk-page, which s/he just ignores."

I unfortionatly forgot to sign my comment so I understand why you think I ignored it. But know I have signed it and you can now see that I haven't ignored it. Take a look: Template talk:National parks of Israel.

I am not a stubborn editor that doesn't listen to what others have to say even though Huldra sees it that way. You can for yourself see the talk page of the Pater Noster church.

Anyway, I don't know how much I have to say in this, but as I already have said, I would rather be blocked for some days than have a sockpuppet tag on my user page and restrictions on middle eastern topics. I have two questions though: how long would there be a sockpuppet tag on my page and how long will I have restrictions? Thank you everyone for your patience.--Fipplet (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet notices should remain for as long as the socks are blocked; see Wikipedia:Userpage#Removal of comments, warnings. Since you have confirmed using these sockpuppets, the warning should be restored, and remain, "to keep (you) from gaming the system" and "to share important information about blocks and sockpuppetry with other users". RolandR (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since I don't want more trouble, it's fine with me if you restore it. --Fipplet (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nurse practitioner & socks of User:Nrse

The history on this article shows a pattern of abuse going back to July 2008 by what appear to be sockpuppets of User:Nrse, who's habit is to revert to their preferred version without discussion, remove opposing opinions from the article talk page, and blank any warnings on their own talk page.. The most recent puppet User:DoctorDianeM seems to be an impersonation of another user who had reverted Nrse's edits in December. I attempted to engage User:DoctorDianeM in collaboration after they responded to one of my warnings, but it would seem that attempt was unsuccessful.. At this point, I feel a bit too involved to go blocking all the socks & protecting the article - plus, I've reverted the page four times in the last 48hrs.. not technically a 3RR violation - but too close for comfort.. Can someone take a look & do whatever needs to be done? Thanks, --Versageek 22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not an admin, but just wanted to let you know that I have added the page to my watchlist and will assist with reverts/discussion. Cheers, Basie (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Another development has just occurred.. the user has created another sock User:ChilllyMD as a clear attempt to impersonate User:ChillyMD who has reverted them several times. I've blocked the sock as an impersonator, but I really do need to back away now.. Please watch closely for socks.. --Versageek 23:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ummairsaeed CSD tag vandalism

Resolved

 – Blocked 31h by User:OhNoitsJamie

contributions has been putting deletion notice tags on all pages that contain images of Muhammad, which he apparently finds offensive. I've been reverting those, but he's applying the tags faster than we can revert.

I'm also not sure what to do about the deletion tags he's putting on images already in Wikimedia Commons. In effect, he's creating a page on Wikipedia that parallels the same page on Commons, and tagging it. An example is File:Gagarin PropovedMagometGRM.jpg. The Wikipedia page needs to be deleted, because it exists on Commons. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: The Wikipedia copy of the above-mentioned image seems to have disappeared, thanks. Ummaeirsaeed went so far as to go through the full AfD procedure to nominate Muhammad for deletion, and but an admin stepped in and reverted the nomination. The editor's disruptive activity appears to have quieted down now, although the editor has vowed on his talk page that further disruption will occur. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

He's operating so quickly because he's using Twinkle. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

He's not operating so quickly anymore: [74]. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Cali567 (talk · contribs)

I previously requested the protection of Demographics of Argentina nonetheless it was declined and the administrator claimed that this user should be report to block. Cali567 created an edit-warring in Argentina, Demographics of Argentina, White Argentine and Argentine American. Even though a consensus was previously reached user cali567 continues to make disruptive edits. This user was warned several times always for the same reason.

--Fercho85 (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave him a last warning for claiming a consensus here. There wasn't a discussion on the talk page like I told him to and I don't see anything more than a single statement by him. Is there some central discussion going on or is it just a case of shifting article after article in rotation? If not, at least post a section on each talk page so that admins know that it's been discussed and consensus is against him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear to everyone that consensus can change. However, I cannot find a centralized attempt actually discussing this issue in plain English. I see part single monologues from multiple users as to one or the other view but no real attempt at compromise. I saw one from months ago, but it's a mess. Would everyone be willing to agree to an WP:RFC, allowing for larger input? Pick a central location and follow the steps. Go to the other talk pages and provide a link. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked User:Cali567. He has repeated inserted the same text and refuses to engage in talk page discussion (no, saying "here is what I added" is not discussion) or further use of dispute resolution. I am not a fan of User:Fercho85's conduct either but I'm not sure if blocking him is necessary. Outside review please, and I would suggest protection at Demographics of Argentina until the warring calms down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, I was too harsh and reversed the block. I apologized to Cali567 and will try to work things out a bit. However, I think User:Fercho85 needs to be spoken to, since he doesn't seem to ever use the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine for me, I am not interested if this user is blocked or not, the only think that I claimed firstly was to stop the usual edit warring at Demographics of Argentina.

Cheers, --Fercho85 (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you then comment at Talk:Demographics of Argentina? We can discuss the images as well, preferably each one independently in its own section first and then as a whole. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Template loop

Resolved

 – Second template deleted, appears to be done. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to edit (i.e., try to salvage) Template:Infobox choir, which is currently unused, but there's some kind of conflict (loop) with Template:Choir infobox, which can be deleted. Any help appreciated...thank you! --Eustress (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox choir}} currently uses {{Infobox choir}} :). I have deleted the other template since it is unused. I'm guessing you need to use {{infobox}} in your template. Have a look at the documentation and Template:Infobox Person for an example. Good luck! ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Eustress (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Have I been a jerk?

Resolved

 – Discussion moved to WP:AN#Have I been a jerk?. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I recently came into some conflict with an Admin (and Member of the Mediation Committee), User:Tariqabjotu, over the inclusion of a picture of a 5 month old very badly burned dead Palestinian girl on 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Tariq said that the photo was sensationalist and should have been removed for that reason. [75] [76] I pressed him on the issue on his talk page asking for a specific policy.[77] His response that that "mere words were incomprehensible to [me]" took me somewhat by surprise. [78] I believe his comment was in reference to an argument I had made before that the photo should be kept. In that argument I used three capitalized words followed by exclamation marks: "TANTAMOUNT TO CENSORSHIP!!!!" [79] Tariqabjotu responded that I was being a "jerk". [80]. He then accused me of "making up your own comment and then responding to that". [81] He also made a comment that I found somewhat insulting to User:Sean.hoyland who had agreed with me on the matter.[82] I asked for an apology but so far have not received one. [83] (1) Am I being a jerk? (Possibly by making a big thing out of this by bringing it to Admin noticeboard?) (2) Was my comment defending the photo out of line? (3) Has Tariqabjotu crossed the line? Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Really unnecessary. If you want some personal feedback, start an editor review. If you want to continue the dispute, that's happening on the talk page. If you want to advance the dispute to another step, there's dispute resolution. Either way, there's no reason for admin intervention here. -- tariqabjotu 21:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll see. An apology would be nice though.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN and not AN/I is the appropriate place to place such concerns about Admin behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll move this discussion there.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

IP socks a'plenty

Would some admin please slap a semi-pro on Hed PE and Mudvayne. There are IP socks (from another discussion on this page here [84]) reverting nearly constantly. In addition to the first ANI report, I've filed a request at RFPP but it's been over an hour and a half and no admin has checked the page yet. The IP appears to be trying to get responsible editors into edit wars, and is then filing reports on them. Can we please get an admin to semi the pages? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sprotected both for 24 hours, removed requests at WP:ANEW -- Samir 09:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

None of these editors are socks. Dayewalker, Landon1980 and Daedalus969 have been repeatedly removing sourced information and warnings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.200.221 (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And you are baiting them. Blocked 31 hours for edit-warring and trying to game the system. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 09:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably relevant. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA issue

I think it's unusual for reports to be made about RFA proceedings, but I think they should be more often. I believe the comment under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 3, by Husond, is a violation of WP:NPA, and should be removed. I should note, I don't know either of the parties in question, have not participated in the RFA, and have no opinion on the candidate's suitability. But I believe participants in RFAs need to be as accountable to WP:NPA as they are anywhere else in the project. I think the problem is compounded by the fact that the commenter is an administrator; I would hold an administrator to a higher standard of behavior than others in a community decision, as they often set the tone. I submit this here, in the hopes that others not involved in the RFA will be able to make a considered judgment on the matter. -Pete (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Husond is basically begging to be de-sysopped. Tool2Die4 (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't abused his tools, so far as I'm aware, so this will lead nowhere. In a perfect world administrators would act as models for us plebs, but this isn't a perfect world. There's a curious anomaly that behaviour which would result in a block, or rule an editor out of ever getting through an RfA, becomes a mere trifling matter if exhibited by an administrator, but that's the way things work around here. Fair? No, just the way it is. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's not a tool issue, it's WP:NPA. 15 editors have pointed this out to him and made a very simple request: Please provide at least one diff to back yourself up. Over on my Talk page, Husond said he'll provide diffs for his attack when he wants, if he wants. This is egregious for an admin to be acting this way, especially at the Request for Adminship. 15 editors. Yet Husond basically is telling everyone to sod off. No wonder nobody wants to run for admin, we're losing admins, and the RfA process is a cruel travesty. Husond's defense, and his two supporters, appear to be arguing that WP:NPA doesn't apply at RfA. --David Shankbone 04:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You show me an example of even one administrator who has been desysoped, or even seriously admonished, for his/her behaviour unrelated to the use of admin tools, and I'll maybe start to believe in Santa Claus again. This is a waste of time. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Er, not to drum up dead horses, but user:Majorly comes to mind. If I can't get a commitment on Santa Claus, will you at least aknowledge the Easter Bunny?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay, let's look at this from another point of view. Were this comment offered by anyone else in an RfA, would it be considered a personal attack? Admins have been blocked before. This would be nothing new, and kinda reaffirms that admins put on their superhero costumes one leg at a time, just like the rest of us.
      • All we were asking for was some proof to back up the comments. Perhaps blocking the fellow will have the effect of giving him some time to put together these DIFFs. We could take whatever action is apropos at that time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I'm inclined to give you that one Balloonman, looking forward to the Easter Bunny's next visit. But the Majorly episode went on and on, to the point of becoming disruptive. This is just an isolated personal attack; it'll get swept under the carpet. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Actually, there was some tool abuse. It's documented in my RFC. Majorly talk 05:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Mt wife pointed out User:Essjay who was a crat but forced to retire due to activities unlreated to his role as sysop/crat. Do I get the Toothfairy now?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
          • You are a braver man than I; if I were to call the "old ball and chain" Mt wife I would be in a pile of trouble as high as... Mt Wife! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Me wife says that not only am I a braver man that you, but dumber for actually telling her that I wrote Mt Wife! Er, I'm not sure if that was a good thing?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 09:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• It really isn't about the attack, as much as Huson's pig-headed refusal to back up what he says. With diffs, it's not an attack. Without diffs, it's an attack. And nobody seems to be able to produce these diffs. But hey, we have the admins now saying WP:NPA doesn't apply anymore - that'll make quite a few people happy; or, at the very least, admins are immune to it. Maybe these rationale should be brought up for at the Village Pump. --David Shankbone 05:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this insistence that the comments would go from inappropriate to alright, just because diffs are added. Diffs are unlikely to be persuasive in this case. Husond's comments is very harshly critical, but RFA is the place where people give their opinions on the candidate. What exactly is being suggested? That people complain at Husond? That's already been done. Do you want him blocked or something? I don't see how this would help. Friday (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Eventually, the community is going to institute a desysop process similar to the RfA if this kind of stuff is going to go on and be pooh-poohed. It makes perfect sense. I could call you a baby raper, Friday, and that would be a personal attack. But if I call you a baby raper and provide a link to your police record, it becomes a fact. Get it? At this point, an official admin "You keep this up, you will be blocked" warning is warranted. He sees nothing wrong with the attack. But there's more editors than there are admins, and if a class system is going to be cemented like this, it's going to cause more problems for this site than you all may want. Editors leaving, deteriorating behavior, blah blah blah. This isn't a fine line. The only defense, as seen by Friday, is that personal attacks are allowed at the RfA - yet he has no ability to back that up in any guideline or policy. --David Shankbone 05:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think I have said that personal attacks are allowed at RFA - I certainly don't think they are. We have different notions of what makes a personal attack. Calling someone a "poopie-head" is pretty mild, but it's a personal attack and is inappropriate. Accusing someone of a (frankly disturbing- could you not think of a less offensive example?) crime and linking to their police record certainly is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, whether or not the allegations are true. Being civil is about keeping your arguments relevant, rather than just name-calling or saying bad things about your opponents. It doesn't mean you're never allowed to say anything negative. Husond has a negative opinion of the character of an RFA candidate, and he said so at RFA. On-topic criticism, even when harshly worded, should be allowed. Friday (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• When have we come to this on Wikipedia? Witch-hunters is nothing unusual, but never the double standards have gone so high. So many users accusing me of bordering personal attacks/incivility on my legitimate oppose to an RfA candidate, and however it seems to be fine to go around and say Now it's time to wake the fuck up. You have no business being an admin with this asshole attitude of yours - you had fourteen people, from opposers to admins to editors taking issue with you. So, just shut the fuck up and get off my talk page. I'm sick of this issue - you sound like a jerk. Clearly being polite with you when you are saying "I will do what the fuck I want" doesn't work. You have no business being an admin. Now beat it.. How admirably civil this is. And this comes from a person demanding me to do this and that. It is absurd and obnoxious. Húsönd 07:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• True, it was over the top, and I think justified. You've had 15 editors telling you that you're wrong, and you've basically told them you'll do whatever the hell you want. Second, it's my Talk page, not an RfA. Third, if the shoe fits... I'd give up on the pipe dream of becoming a Bureaucrat, Husond, and you're welcome to supply that diff in my RfA (d'oh! You don't supply diffs, and I don't want to be an admin!). Husond - you were the one who ratcheted this up. When you have 15 people from all stripes telling you something, it's clear you don't understand the collaborative, community-oriented nature of this project. That you're bringing it up is "absurd and obnoxious". --David Shankbone 15:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A few things... 1. People are quite capable of making their own decisions, so I doubt the RfA will be too adversely affected.
2. Husond should not have posted his oppose without having diffs in it to back it up, in the first edit. However...
3. As Friday said, harsh but on-topic criticism is quite allowable, and some of the stuff that's been posted against Husond is quite silly and over-the-top to me. Grandmasterka 07:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Matter resolved ass-backwards, as the candidate withdrew their third attempt at RfA and retired. I think we (and Husond, to be quite blunt) dodged a bullet. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That said, I think it would do Husond a great amount of good to provide those diffs anyway, so that it doesn't look like he was totally full of it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with EV here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the diffs will be helpful. In all likelihood, the diffs will make the candidate look really bad and it is far better to let matters rest. That the diffs (or off-wiki correspondence) exists is almost a given. Husond is fairly honest (if brash) and doesn't make stuff up and it is fairly obvious from re-reading Husond's RFB that there was something not so nice that happened between them. No. IMO, best to just drop the whole thing and move on. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 19:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Has Husond been involved in anything like this before? DuncanHill (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I honestly thing a desysopping would set a great precedent. Behavior like that is unacceptable. However, very few people have voluntary recall, so it can't ever be addressed. Its probably about time to remove the "voluntary" aspect. Admin is based around trust. People who abuse policies and guidelines like that cannot be trusted. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Further discssion below at #Real life stalking by Ecoleetage... — Scientizzle 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Husond, you did go about things the wrong way. When asked for diffs, as you were (and which is a quite reasonable request), you should have supplied them, rather than kept editing the discussion with nothing more than promises that diffs would be forthcoming at some indefinite point in the future.

I actually have some relevant diffs, and this was one of the very few requests for adminship where I have actually had strong objections to entrusting the person with administrative tools — objections strong enough that I was going to actually enter the discussion. I held off my contribution to the RFA until today because I simply haven't had the time to devote to Wikipedia during the week. Of course, the discussion is closed, now. But supplying the diffs/links along with your rationale, or at least holding off further discussion contribution until you could come back with the diffs/links, would have saved you a lot of discussion. It was going to be my approach.

The people who criticized you in such a vile manner, however, also deserve censure. They could have wholly disagreed with you in every way without crossing the line into gross incivility, as (most disappointingly) several of them did. I'm glad that some of them have already apologized.

And for EVula I provide this (since I'm almost sure to be asked, although I don't want to reignite the closed RFA discussion): My opinion was based upon spending almost a whole day patiently trying to explain AFD discussions, and how not to accuse obviously good faith nominators of bad faith, to this person on my talk page at User talk:Uncle G#Non-admin closure and upon observing xyr subsequent mischaracterization both of what I said and of how many incidents of this nature there had been at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive180#AfD needs reopening? (a mischaracterization that I note xe perpetuated in the RFA). And it was going to be that xe was currently unsuitable for administratorship because xe was still making no attempts to learn from xyr mistakes, or to learn from others here the very good reasons that we do some things in the ways that we do, based upon the past experiences that we've had doing them in other ways. There hadn't been enough subsequent AFD closures done by this person to indicate that xe had listened and learned, and there was plenty of evidence in the answers to the questions to the candidate that xe was continuing as before, blithely dismissing any and all attempts to point out errors as "insults".

I cannot confirm Husond's assessment of this person's nature. There are many interpretations that can be placed upon User talk:Uncle G#Best wishes for the holiday, especially now, after the fact. At the time I simply assumed good faith and went back to AFD patrol and to pushing articles upwards from the dank and dingy depths of deletion discussions. Uncle G (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Gather around little piggies and I will tell you a secret: On Wikipedia, all editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than others.

RE:But hey, we have the admins now saying WP:NPA doesn't apply anymore - that'll make quite a few people happy; or, at the very least, admins are immune to it. Maybe these rationale should be brought up for at the Village Pump. --David Shankbone 05:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Reality check Mr. David: admins and veteran editors with powerful connections are already immune to Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks travb (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• A point made above was that the use of admin tools was not involved, and therefore a case against this admin would go nowhere. May I remind everyone here, especially the admin concerned, that there are clearly stated general policy requirements on the WP:ADMIN page, as well as a set of specific requirements with respect to behaviour, especially Category 2. Tony (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrators are immune to Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks

Specific examples Wikipedia No Personal Attacks and WP:Civil double standard; In fierce debates about controversial administrators bad behavior, the reality of how wikipedians are treated unequally is illustrated. Argument at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive174#JzG.27s_personal_attack about administrator Guy repeatedly telling editors to fuck off: "The stuff about, 'we do not block for occasional incivility', is half right... we generally don't block admins and other 'high profile' users for such. Regular users, on the other hand, sometimes get blocked for saying a single word out of line. The philosophy that 'we look at the whole picture' inherently means that longstanding and/or popular users are held to lower standards of behaviour... which we have seen become a self-defeating trap over and over and over again. That 'occaisional incivility' adds up, and when people see users being incivil and getting away with it they respond in kind. If they then are then blocked/strongly warned for it while the other person isn't they get pissed off at the imbalance and the spiral of deterioration continues. It is obviously bad for Wikipedia and if it isn't stopped sooner or later it always catches up to people. There was a time when Karmafist was well loved and his 'occaisional incivility' let pass... until it got to be too much. There was a time when Kelly Martin was well loved and her 'occaisional incivility' not a big deal... until it alienated too many people. You want to 'protect' good users? Stop them from being uncivil, don't violate policies yourself and attack those who are pointing out problems, and do what you can to take on some of their burdens...It's not an 'either / or' equation. Incivility breeds more incivility breeds more incivility. Everyone who contributes to the problem is part of the problem." Durova: "I'll block him [Guy] for uncivil statements he's already posted unless he strikes through certain comments or pledges to clean up his language...If anyone other than an administrator had posted the statements it would be uncontroversial to characterize this as an escalating pattern of incivility. Normally in such cases I would block shortly after verifying the evidence... Guy hasn't threatened to leave the site but I'm beginning to worry about Ghirla whose contributions are about equally valuable but Ghirla's not a sysop and considerably less popular." (emphasis my own) Durova then quotes Orwell Seven Commandments Thatcher131 "it's far too early to think about blocking. Some supportive conversation would be very nice, as would offering to shoulder some of Guy's burdens. I'd guess most admins become experts in recognizing and dealing with one or two particular trolls and/or disruptive editors...Eventually it wears you down, and I think Guy has taken on more than his share already, so maybe we should let Guy pass the baton on some of his least favorite. We should support him and lighten his load, as we should have done for MONGO months ago." Ben Aveling "I'll say it. The rules are different for established contributors, not because they have a license to offend, but because we expect them to revert to form and because we know they're worth investing effort in." Grace Note "I am loving the argument that it's not really rude to tell someone to fuck off. I'll remember that next time someone gets on my nerves." Carcharoth "What is the correct procedure for handling things when you see an admin...several times over a few months step over the line, generating complaints, but each time managing to avoid showing genuine contrition, but responding in an aggressive "move on" style that discourages people from actually starting proceedings ("oh, it's not worth the hassle"-sort of thing), leading to things going quiet again until the next time?" ATren "...let's make it official and put this into policy. If there truly is an exemption for valued users, it should be documented on the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policy pages. I'm being totally serious here - those policy pages are unambiguous in their condemnation of incivility, but the reality is: incivility is justified for certain editors, and that fact should be properly represented in policy...this sentiment (that some users should not be blocked for incivility) should be expressed in policy. The current uncompromising text of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA does not allow for exceptions, but that doesn't reflect the reality - which is that a casual editor would be indef blocked for habitual incivility, whereas valued contributors are given a pass...it seems there is consensus that a certain amount of incivility is permitted as long as (a) you have a lot of edits to your credit and (b) you were provoked. Can we make it more clear in policy that incivility is permitted under these circumstances?" >Radiant< "...there's still no call for someone to loudly and repeatedly pointing out the incivility, and spend an order of magnitude more text on that than the size of the actual incivility itself. We shouldn't go around blocking people who are beneficial to the 'pedia." Christopher Parham "I don't like your way of thinking because it seems to presume that Guy and MONGO are somehow incapable of self-restraint. Granted they do a lot of good work dealing with editors who frustrate and annoy and attack them. Why does this cause them to use pointlessly inflammatory language like "fuck off" and "useless twat"?" MastCell "If your history consists mostly of vandalism or disruption, then calling someone a "twat" or telling them to "fuck off" should earn a well-deserved block. On the other hand, if you're a hard-working, productive contributor who makes the same comment in a moment of weakness when the Wikistress level hits DefCon 1, then a gentle word-to-the-wise should suffice. Actions should be viewed in context - why else are edit histories public? This is not a "double standard"; it's common sense. Policies actually reflect this - neither WP:NPA nor WP:CIVIL specify a punishment (except for egregious cases), but leave that to the discretion of the community." Quack 688 "...we don't accept bad behaviour from established contributors, we just handle it differently." General comments Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG2#Outside_view_by_User:GTBacchus: There is an idea, popular among some editors, that in order to block/ban trolls and POV-pushers, it is somehow necessary to be a dick. Habitual abuse of administrative powers Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley/ Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#FeloniousMonk Essays on the subject Wikipedia:Some Observant Words Regarding Editing And People: "Even though Wikipedia is not a social networking site, people, and the success of one's interactions with those people, will be the main reasons why someone stays here or leaves here. I may be new, but I think that I've seen enough of the good and the bad to know this to be true." VestedContributor: "Editors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Vested Contributors Wikipedia:What_adminship_is_not#Adminship_is_not_diplomatic_immunity Funny: G'Gugvuntts and Vl'hurgs Wikipedia:Practical process (Marginally applicable here)

travb (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)