Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

 Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Phishing from wiki@wikimedia.org ?

I received this strange e-mail:

Someone (probably you, from IP address 24.121.44.189) requested that
we send you a new Wikipedia login password for en.wikipedia.org. 
The password for user "Janke" is now "XXXXXX". You should log in 
and change your password now. If someone else made this request 
or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to 
change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password.

What's going on here? The IP above is not even close to mine! Is someone else trying to get my logon password? Greetings, --Janke | Talk 06:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's someone else asking for a password reminder, it sends that to your registered and confirmed email address, as the message you got says "If someone else made this request ... you may ignore this message and continue using your old password". As to the other persons motivation, as an IP that user only has one edit[1] so I can see no obvious connection. Beyond that it's guessing, could be someone thinking they could get your password (though that seems unlikely), could be someone who can't remember their own account details etc. --pgk 06:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Only one edit, yes, but probably from an anon IP that is changing with each access (such as AOL)? That edit was certainly not a newbie edit... --Janke | Talk 06:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

For a brute force attack, requesting a new password increases the size of your target, because there are now two passwords that will work. However, I tend to ignore such emails - six random numbers and letters are fairly hard to crack (2 billion variants). I suspect there are admins here who receive several of these every week, especially those with accounts on several Wikimedia projects. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. I'm a little wiser now... ;-) --Janke | Talk 12:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already had a few of these. I don't know what the wiki source code is like, but depending upon how these random passwords are generated there may well be a vulnerability here that someone is trying to exploit - I can certainly think of some hypotheticals. Dave 00:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The most probable explanation is that the person attempted to register an account with your name. This failing, they supposed that they might have already created it, and had a reminder mail sent. When this didn't work they gave up. Deco 02:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

POssibly, but several of us had at least half a dozen of these a while back all generated by the same IP address - clearly up to mischief. Alas I don't remember the IP, but I blocked it. --kingboyk 21:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Politics of Israel

This article is blank. Somebody has vandalized it. I don't know if that's proper place to put such an information, but I don't know where else do it. 83.238.15.162 06:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Next time you can fix it yourself by going back into the page history, editing the last good version, and saving it. That overwrites the vandalised copy. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Please note that IP 65.105.179.195 appears to be on a blanking-vandalizing spree on Israel subjects, and needs to be blocked immediately. --Janke | Talk 07:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Seems to have stopped vandalising yesterday. -Mgm|^(talk) 07:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia, yet again...

At Template_talk:EU_countries_and_candidates#Regarding_.7B.7BMKD.7D.7D, Niko Silver refuses to acknowledge that the neutral form in use on Wikipedia is "Republic of Macedonia", even in articles on or related to the European Union. Or am I wrong? —Nightstallion (?) 10:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno - the Hutchinson Encyclopedia says that "Republic of Macedonia" is the "official internal name" and that "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is the "official international name". --Telex 10:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• If it's worth anything. They're referred to as FYR Macedonia in Eurovision song contests. But I don't see why either would be more neutral than the other. Removing Yugoslavia from the name may come across as hiding info that is significantly important. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I was aware, RoM would prefer "Macedonia", Greece would prefer "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", and most Wikipedia pages use "Republic of Macedonia" as a neutral compromise. The question is whether this should apply to all pages, or only to some; by Niko Silver's arguments, Republic of Macedonia should be at Macedona (country), however... ;p —Nightstallion (?) 14:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, no. That is not the case. Greece would prefer "Republic of Skopje" or "Slavomacedonia" or "Vardar Macedonia". The country itself would prefer "Republic of Macedonia". The compromise solution in the UN was Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. So, this is not Greek POV, it is int'l POV, as described in featured article Macedonia (terminology). EU calls that country FYROM, and the country itself addresses officially the EU as FYROM. Not as RoM (and definitely not as "Slavomacedonia"). Interested parties kindly contribute to this discussion in the template talk. •NikoSilver• 10:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe 10 years ago. - FrancisTyers · 02:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Influx of users using personal experience over verifiable sources

Apparently, User:Lentower has invited his friends (at least six of them) to oppose the deletion of his self-bio, filed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard H. Tower Jr.. Most of them have only a single contribution, which is to that AfD (which Lentower created and contributed to). At least one, Special:Contributions/Gonzopancho, has now started to contribute to other articles, with a tendency to refer to his own experience rather than verifiable sources. I'm busy, can someone keep an eye on these users? Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I not that User:Gonzopancho gave a reasonable reference for the change, from the subject's own website no less, and a credible reason why the original date was wrong. Guy 13:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Subjects' own websites are generally not considered reliable sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not always true. It really depends on who the subject is and what is being referenced. 172.190.124.131 19:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Subjects' own websotes are generally reliable sources for facts regarding the subject (e.g. you can cite a company website for numbers of employees, or a person's website for their date of birth). I can't say I've formed a firm view on this particular edit, but it looks OK on the surface. Guy 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has ruled in the past that it's inappropriate for users to add links to their own websites. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's as simple as "never add a link to your own Web site". Doing so is a bad idea upwards of 90% of the time, sure, but I don't think there's a hard and fast rule against it and it sounds like this might reasonably fall into the other <10%. PurplePlatypus 07:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned user: Please block

User:Pnatt's latest sockpuppet, User:Hockeypuck, has been vandalizing MySpace with a Pnatt-like motive and results. He also appears to be talking to himself on the talk page, but that is not necessarily true. -- Chris chat edits essays 14:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User:LordByronKing

I have indefinitely blocked LordByronKing (talk · contribs) for repeatedly inserting his name and nn books into articles all over Wikipedia. He has yet to respond to any messages on his Talk page. I have indicated that I will entertain an unblock request if he pledges to stop the spamming. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction in the Kosovo arbitration case

For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned, by an uninvolved administrator, from Kosovo or related pages for disruptive edits.

Affected users are listed in the case, and have all been notified. The affected articles (and two templates) have all been labelled with appropriate notices.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy Accused of violating sock protocol

What is going on ? I was visiting with DreamGuy when I found the WP:SOCK matter. Anything to this matter ?Martial Law 18:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

According to this checkuser request, Essjay found it likely that Victrix is a sockpuppet of DreamGuy. Both disappeared in the next few days; DG has only made a few edits.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just got home from the pub so excuse my bad grammar. This has been discussed before. Nothing much more to add bar the info above but the evidence is overwhelming. Both had similar edit times, had similar edit summaries, edited the same articles and the account was used to voilate the 3RR rule, e.g. Victrix would rv 3 times then DG would step in and vise versa. Englishrose 23:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Pistonheads

Loads of vandalism in the last hour, a second ip is just starting to get to work. Needs sprotecting really. Probably at least half my fault because I posted on the message boards at the site saying that we really needed to get a decent page up that was proportionate to the size of the site. Current vandalistic users on wikipedia are banned from the site too. Dave 23:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected, hopefully in a reasonably non-vandalised state. The article does need some serious work though. Gwernol 00:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Favouring admins involved in 3RR violations?

I was going to drop this matter, but I am still uneasy about it and decided to interrupt my wikibreak to get at least get some community comments on the matter. User:UtherSRG, an admin has recently engaged in revert war with 154.20.161.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with a total of 6 reverts over two days (including 4 reverts within 24 hours) on Paranthropus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) within 24 hours labelling the revers as vandalism. However, the anon editor was trying to discuss this matter on the talk page, and in a very civil way. The dispute was over the accuracy of the article and the reliability of the article sources. The anon user reported the UtherSRG to WP:AN/3RR where he was himself blocked by User:Winhunter for 3RR violation and UtherSRG was left without as much as a note on his talk page.

I came into this incident when 154.20.161.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) put up an unblock request describing the matter. I found his 3RR report, reviewed it, and not realising that User:UtherSRG was an administrator, I have blocked him for 24 hours and put a note on his talk page informing him of the block. A couple of seconds later, on the admin channel on IRC, I was informed that I had just blocked an admin. After 10 minutes of discussion on IRC, User:Glen_S decided that because a lot of his reverts were reverting {{unreferenced}} tags on a "referenced" article he could be unblocked.

However, at the beginning of the revert war, there were absolutely 0 references in the article (see the version at the time of the first revert), later on the anon explained his concerns on the talk page, put in an unreferenced tag, and a disputed assertion tag on one of the statements, this again was reverted as vandalism using admin rollback. The admin anon reverted the revert asking for discussion, this was removed again using admin rollback, more links were added by the UtherSRG, the anon expressed futher very legitimate concerns about the reliability of the online sources and about neutrality of the article and put in POV and unreferenced tags but was again reverted multiple times. UtherSRG has made only two small comments on the talk page, not even bothering to address the last detailed statement describing his rationale for each tag - instead of addressing it 4 reverts were made, including 3 admin rollbacks.

I am not happy that an admin was favoured in this case for what clearly looks to me like a revert war NOT vandalism reversion as the edit summaries suggest. And I am not happy that admins can run around using their admin rollbacks in revert wars without decent attempts at discussion. I don't agree with the technicality used to lift the block on UtherSRG, that was pointed out to me on IRC - i.e. that the Template:Tk tags are meant to refer to articles with absolutely 0 references. An anon has no way of knowing all the tags available on wikipedia, otherwise he could have used something more like: {{Primarysources}}, which even I did not know of until just a couple of minutes ago! And in any case these are not the only tags that were reverted. For me it looks like that UtherSRG, who got out of this unscathed, is more at fault than the anon who was blocked for "3RR violation and disruption" while actually trying to discuss the matter and being the one who reported the incident in the first place!

So I would like to know what everyone else thinks on this matter.--Konstable 00:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have found one place where I write "the admin" instead of "the anon" so I went back and replaced the instances where I referred to UtherSRG as "the admin" with his name. Nothing else is changed--Konstable 00:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mark any of the reverts as vandalism. I often use the admin rollback as it is very convenient and gives an automatic and very neutral edit summary. My first rollback was followed immediately by an edit where I add a reference, countering the anon's complaint. Etc. If the anon has relevant information to add to the article they should do so instead of complaining at the state of the artcle and slapping tags on it. I didn't add the majority of the information, but I helped clean up the edits of several other, well informed, editors. Perhaps my biggest offense is WP:BITE, where I have little patience for non-productive armchair quarterbacking. The anon showed little interest in editing, only in complaining that the article didn't reflect the POV they felt was more valid. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:ADMIN and the Guanco, MarkSweep, et al arbitration case says to never use the rollback for any old reason, for only vandalism. Rollback summaries are essentailly blank ones: vandalism is the only self-explanatory reason. Otherwise it should be explained. Hbdragon88 07:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This I did not know. I do not (and can not) keep up to date on all of the Wiki rules and policies. There are way too many and they change way too frequently to keep current on. Taht said, the edit summary of the rollback must be changed to indicate it is reverting vandalism if, indeed, that is the current policy. Until the edit summary matches the policy and is changed from its neutral wording to one that states it is revertin vandalism, then the policy is flawed and should be disregarded as it doesn't match the effect of the software. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So UtherSRG was unnblocked because he technically didn't break the 3RR since he only reverted the {{POV}} tag twice, and removed the {{unreferenced}} tag. But if that is so, then I technically did not break 3RR either. How can I be at fault but not him?

I was not aware that adding external links was considered citing sources. On the Paranthropus talk page I explained why I had added the unreferenced tag. If it is true that external links are considered references, that could have been explained to me on the talk page and I would not have re-added the same tag.

"If the anon has relevant information to add to the article they should do so instead of complaining at the state of the artcle and slapping tags on it. I didn't add the majority of the information, but I helped clean up the edits of several other, well informed, editors. Perhaps my biggest offense is WP:BITE, where I have little patience for non-productive armchair quarterbacking. The anon showed little interest in editing, only in complaining that the article didn't reflect the POV they felt was more valid. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2006"

I find this statement offensive and erroneous. In the Parathropus talk page I clearly said: "There is no consensus in the scientific community that the species A. aethiopicus, A. boisei and A. robustus belong in the genus Paranthropus. They are commonly referred to as A. aethiopicus, A. boisei and A. robustus in current peer reviewed articles and books. To provide a neutral viewpoint, both models of classification systems should be described in detail. For these reasons I have added a disputed tag. Please do not remove until article is updated to be NPOV." and "What I am suggesting is that BOTH models of classification systems are mentioned and described in detail. For these reasons, I have added a POV tag. Please do not remove the tag until both classification systems are given the equal attention which they deserve" I was not trying to promote my own POV as I do not have an opinion on which genus the three species belong to. All I was attempting to do by adding the tags was trying to bring attention to the false statement that there is a consensus on that subject in the scientific community. I even provided references on the talk page to show that it was not my personal point of view, but that of textbooks. There are many different ways to contribute to wikipedia, just because I don't make major changes to the article does not mean my edits should be discounted. IMO, alerting others that an article is POV is productive editing (if not, why even have the tags). I would also like to note I tried to continue the discussion on the talk page with UtherSRG, but he responded by saying "(rv I tked, we disagreed, i have nothing left to say.)" which I found to be very discourteous. 154.20.161.143 03:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you state the case briefly? If the point is that someone who has a sysop bit was given false favor in an edit warring situation, then this is a serious matter. Nobody should edit war. Admins especially should not edit war. --Tony Sidaway 03:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Very brief summary edit war on Paranthropus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) between anon 154.20.161.143 and admin UtherSRG. On anon's report to WP:AN/3RR the anon was blocked, UtherSRG was not blocked. I blocked UtherSRG when responding to anon's unblock request,without realising he was an admin, after IRC discussion someone else unblocked him on what seems to be a technicality over tag definitions to me. Either way, even 3RR was technically not violated, they were both revert warring.--Konstable

I don't understand what you mean here or what Glen S means in the unblock summary. I count 5 reverts by UtherSRG within 24 hours. It makes no difference that both were revert warring or that he was removing a reference tag on an ostensibly referenced article. —Centrx→talk • 05:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the {{unreferenced}} tag does say that the article cites no sources, since the article has no sources putting in this tag is techincally wrong, that is what User:Glen S had meant at least. Though I don't really see this as a valid excuse for reverting.--Konstable 08:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove Template:Afd2 whitespace

As I'm not trusted with admin tools, could someone go and remove the excess whitespace at Template:Afd2. It's because it has now been edited with a hidden comment warning, telling users to be more considerate to outside users to stop people mailing WP:OTRS and complaining. I'm not too happy that there's any message there at all as I mentioned in the talk page, but before anything is done about the message, please remove the whitespace. - Hahnchen 00:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the commented warning for now, because, as I said in my edit summary, this is a template which people subst without ever reading the full text contained in the template. And, frankly I couldn't care less if spammers are whining about their spam being deleted. That I didn't say in the edit summary. I suggest further discussion is taken to Template talk:Afd2. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that such a warning should be manually inserted in situations where civility actually becomes a problem. The majority of AFD pages consist of drive-by, pile-on "votes" in one direction or another with very little accompanying commentary. However a few of them actually evolve into meaningful, or possibly inflammatory, discussion, and may require a warning shot across the bow. Perhaps as an ironic counterpoint to {{afd-anons}}, we need a {{afd-regulars}} template. Thoughts? —freak(talk) 21:19, Sep. 17, 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Wikipedia Page

if you search for Jeffree Star the page is deleted and i don't realise why this would be so. I'm not that good with the user tools so could someone put the page back on or at least start it up? Thank's :] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.137.162 (talk • contribs) .

The page Jeffree Star was deleted because it does not assert the notability of its subject. If he became notable he'll get an article until then this was correctly deleted and won't be recreated. Please read WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC for details on the specific notability guidelines that apply. Thanks, Gwernol 03:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. The article has been deleted now by 'six' different admins. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Unblock

I take my rejection straight to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway_4 on this so called "community ban." Since it is through the community users rather than the formal committee i feel that RFC is sufficient rather than Arb-comm. Please let me come back Le Wiki Brah 06:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Le Wiki Brah. Perhaps it would be a better idea to speak to Tony Sidaway first as opposed to filing an RfC? -- Samir धर्म 12:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Silly me, I didn't see the thread above -- Samir धर्म 12:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Code bug

Sigh hope I'm in the right place. Bug in the page code for the entry on DDT. Box content on right-hand side not able to appear.

• I'm afraid this is the wrong place. Try WP:HD. = Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Block to review

I have blocked User:133.41.4.46 for the 3RR violation on Holodomor - 5 reverts in two hours, user was warned. Posting here since I was involved in the disputeabakharev 11:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, don't block users you're in a dispute with. If they need a block, get another admin involved. — Werdna talk criticism 11:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Werdna on this matter; I also agree with the need for the 3RR block. I would recommend allowing the block to stand, but definitely don't do it again. Captainktainer * Talk 12:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:133.41.4.46 made an edit to add Category:Genocide to the article Holodomor. The following edits were all concerned with adding and removing this category. There were 5 reverts to delete it. He only made 4 reverts to reinstate it (the first of his 5 edits was not a revert). His first edit was at 10.28. The first and second reverts against him were at 10.32 and 10.36 by User:Irpen. The third was at 10.43 by User: Alex Bakharev. The fourth at 11.47 10.47 by Irpen (his 3rd revert) and the fifth by Alex Bakharev (his 2nd revert) at 11.16.

This was an edit war which all three users engaged in. As it was two editors acting against one, 133.41.4.46 would inevitably fall foul of 3RR first. It does not speak well of any of the editors involved, particularly an admin, especially when the latter blocked his opponent and made his preferred edit 2 minutes later.

133.41.4.46 made his 3rd rv at 10.46 and was warned for 3RR a minute later. However, at 10.43 the 3rd rv had actually been made against him (Bakharev's 1st rv, following 2 by Irpen).

At 10.57, 133.41.4.46 had left a justification for his edit on Bakharev's talk page.[2] There was no response to this and at 11.07, Irpen made his 3rd rv and the 4th in total against 133.41.4.46., who rv 3 minutes later and was blocked. Then Bakharev made his 2nd rv and the 5th in total against 133.41.4.46.

The net effect is that an editing decision has been achieved by force rather than argument, and that an adroit use of the rules has been employed to achieve this. It is not in wiki's interest to tolerate such practice. Two users acting in concert have been as guilty in spirit, if not the strict letter of the law, as the single user.

I commend Bhakarev for bringing this to AN, but he cannot expect to receive a "get out of jail free" card for doing so. I propose that all three editors involved need to back off and cool down, and if Bhakarev considers that a block is needed to do this, then he and Irpen should also receive one; or he may decide that the block on 133.41.4.46 was unjustified in the circumstances and remove it, in order to respond to continue the dialogue which 133.41.4.46 initiated on his talk page. and which he has so far ignored. See clarification below

Tyrenius 14:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: 133.41.4.46 made the post initiating dialogue at 10.57. 133.41.4.46's final edit was at 11.10. Bhakarev responded to 133.41.4.46's post at 11.12 and then immediately blocked 133.41.4.46 at 11.14 (at which time Irpen also responded to the post).

Tyrenius 17:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This situation needs some more responses to it. Tyrenius 21:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The edits to Holodomor were repeats of the edits of User:Alex Kov (see e.g. this dif) so all the five edits are reverts. The edit were intensively discussed by Irpen on Alex Kov's talk page User_talk:Alex_Kov#Rurikid_image_and_Holodomor and User_talk:Alex_Kov#Holodomor he did not answer. User:Alex Kov and the anonim are the same person. They not only do the same edits to Holodomor, but also highly unusual edits to Rurikids princes see history of Sviatoslav I of Kiev, Yaroslav I the Wise, Vladimir I of Kiev as well Japanese prefectures. He did not answer Irpen's comments. In any case I warned the user about the 3RR rule but he choose to ignore it. That is my explanation. If you feel that I should be blocked, please go ahead, but Irpen did not do anything illegal, no violated any policy. abakharev 22:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer of being blocked, which shows integrity, though it is not something which I will do unilaterally. I wondered if something of what you said was occurring, but, assuming that it is true, a different approach is preferable. You are stating that a user is employing socks abusively, and the tack should be to resolve that situation. The anon has been editing as such for some time. Two against one, as in the current situation, always looks bad, especially when one is a blocking admin. It doesn't help our reputation for fairness. Tyrenius 23:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW I find the Tyrenius's interpretation of WP:3RR to be extremely unusual. In my opinion the whole point of 3RR is that it is a surrogate of polling: if three editors prefer one version and two prefer another than the most popular opinion wins. So do not worry if you are right somebody else will restore your version. Now, if the interpretation is that you are not allowed to revert if somebody did two similar reverts before you then the effect on the editing process is quite dramatic. I am not sure how Wiki is suppose to work if everybody is allowed to revert against the consensus and the consensus is not allowed to revert back. abakharev 03:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a completely nonsensical interpretation of 3RR. 3RR applies to individual editors, not groups of editors. If one were to rule according to Tyrenius's view, it would mean that one editor could hold an article hostage against the will of any number of other editors, and we would have a "1RR rule", not a "3RR rule". Rather, if one individual is reverted by three other editors, that is not a sign that they have all violated 3RR, but rather a sign of consensus against that first editor's view. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree with you there. The 3RR exists to encourage that people stop reverting, and actually take the issue to the talk page. Those reverting changes which are not vandalism should include "discuss on talk page" in their edit summaries. The 3RR rule can only be broken by a group when enforcing recient agreed consensus. Edit summaries do not provide enough space to include reasoning, preventing most forms of informed consensus being reached without having to use the talk page. If groups could act to ignore the 3RR, meatpuppetry and gang actions would become the prefered means to edit. LinaMishima 03:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR in no way applies to groups, and never has. Groups who agree on something are not a "gang", or "meatpuppets", but rather "consensus". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with JayJG, at some stage I thought I have gone mad. Besides the talk page to the article and its archives are plastered with the discussion if the Holodomor was a genocide and how to better formulate the facts. The latest section Talk:Holodomor#Genocide_once_more is specifically about the category. There was also a discussion on the User Talk:Alex Kov page that belong to the blocked user. Really the Category:Democides is a result of long arguments and is a compromise abakharev 04:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. 3RR does not apply to "groups", but to individual editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, consider a fairly common case wereby a group of editors wish to refuse to follow policy. In cases like this, their acts are simply not consensus. Wikipedia uses informed consensus, based on an understanding of policy, guidelines, good practice and so on. One does not create informed consensus through the brute pushing of a viewpoint (about all that's practical in the edit summary length), but through detailed discussion and evaluation. If 3RR represented a consensus, this would send the message that ignoring the concept of informed consensus is perfectly acceptable. 3RR must apply to groups also to stop group edit wars, another common occurance wereby the editors of an article all take sides, and there are enough of them to prevent 3RR from being noticably reached. If a consensus has formed on the talk page, the best approach is for the first reverter to state "See the talk page". If the original editor cannot find the entry, they then may leave a summary of "could not find the section". The next revert should then either point out the most recient clear consensus, or state "Let's dicuss this". It seems to me in this case that the group reverting was justified, but they allowed an edit summary argument to occur rather than continuing to attempt to drag the matter onto the talk page LinaMishima 04:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR appling to "groups", not just individuals? No. Never has, and never will. Talk about "policy creep." Lina, you've been contributing to the project now, what, like two months? You may want to consider spending a little more time contributing to articles and getting to better understand policy and convention here before lecturing us on how policy is applied. Especially to arbcom members. FeloniousMonk 05:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that you choose to use the age of my account as an argument, rather than actually debating the subject via reason. WP:BITE probably applies here. If you check through my edits, you'll see I am contributing quite nicely, and the situations I am refering to are occuring in articles I am editing. The literal interpretation behind the 3RR rule does not apply to groups, no. But the spirit of the rule is to prevent edit wars, which often may not consist of only two users, or one user verses 'the rest'. LinaMishima 05:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a case of BITE, rather, this is a case of experience mattering. FM clearly stated that you might want to spend time "getting to better understand policy and convention here" - a gentle reminder that perhaps you simply don't understand the policy well, not a bite. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

She understands it perfectly: "the spirit of the rule is to prevent edit wars." Tyrenius 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

More so to prevent single editors from edit warring against consensus. When there are many editors in two groups edit warring protection is in order. If a single user disagrees with the general consensus it is that users job to either convince the other editors (or if that fails) get an outside mediator or opinion to step in. 3RR simply has no bearing on groups of editors. JoshuaZ 20:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I just came online and found out this amazing thread from the note left by Tyrenius at my talk. If he had some questions on the issue, he could have asked for details if he is too busy to spend a little time to clear this up from the edit histories on his own. I would have happily answered all his questions and so would Alex, who found himself bizzardly accused in Admin abuse.

Here is the situation. Anon IP 133.41.4.46 (talk · contribs), who is also User:133.41.4.47 which both are also Alex Kov (talk · contribs) who chooses to edit without logging in switching between these two IPs and in all likelihood also Oleksiy (talk · contribs) appears to be a non-responding sterile revert warrior. He has his views. That's fine of course. What's not fine is that he resorts to abusive methods to force his POV into the articles, such as switching between IPs and usernames, not responding to attempts to talk, to calls to register and/or edit from an account, and when he finally said something, he just made a bunch of curt statements that defy days and days of talk discussions.

His entire edit history to this day consisted from:

• removing multiple times a well referenced piece from History of Cossacks article
• sterile revert warring in several articles trying to insert the WP:OR images he drew in defiance of historical research (see his images). Involved articles include Sviatoslav I of Kiev , Yaroslav I the Wise , Rurik Dynasty and Vladimir I of Kiev (in the latter he was also removing a photo from a historical monument as well as the dab on top
• Finally, on the very same day something got to him to start a sterile rv war aimed at adding cat:Genocide to Holodomor. The latter issue has been discussed at talk:Holodomor to death and the current version reflects the outcome of that discussion that the article should reflect that some researchers consider it a Genocide but such a view is not as generally accepted as e. g. for the Holocaust. I am well involved on that article and I wrote much for it. I participated in lengths of discussions at the talk. I am intimately familiar with the state of the art in the research of the issue. The anon/sock was first reverting in silence and after multiple calls at several talk pages to talk, he defiantly stated that some laws exist that claim that Holodomor was indeed a Genocide. I pointed to him that no law can say such a thing. The law he probably means is the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Convention provides only a definition and does not list any specific cases. As such, it is up to scholars to agree or disagree on whether the definition fits a specific case. The scholarly debate is still unresolved as presented in the article. He did not respond and resorted to sterile reverting despite being warned multiple times.

When finally Alex Bakharev blocked the editor who did nothing but disruption we get these strange "reviews", like the 14:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC) post by Tyrenius. More can be seen at anon's talks and User talk:Alex Bakharev#Holodomor. The statement that "The net effect is that an editing decision has been achieved by force rather than argument," is plain incorrect. The article was simply restored to pre POV-push attempt that it reached through prolonged discussion and search by multiple editors. The "..don't be reckless" clause at WP:BB is there for a very good reason. I thoroughly agree with statements above that revert wars are harmful and useless and discussion should be always preferred but with certain editors it is imnpossible to discuss things. Editors who refuse to talk, ignore calls to read past discussions, refuse to use registered accounts and instead use multiple IPs to circumvent 3RR by such activity exhaust the WP:AGF guideline and need to be tought to become responsive if they can't be talked into that. If Tyrenius or anyone else has more questions on the matter, I am looking forward to hear from him. --Irpen 07:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I spent some time analysing not only the edits, but also the article talk page. Each situation has to be judged on its own merits. I am not suggesting a rigid rule that should be imposed everywhere. I am assessing whether this situation was conducted properly, and I find there are aspects which don't meet the standard we should aim for. Accusations of sockpuppetry are being made now: those things should have been addressed initially, not afterwards here, when the editor is not even able to participate. 3RR is never an excuse to get away with reverting 3 times: it is a barrier to reverting any more than three times. The spirit of this is that there should not be mindless edit wars.

I am concerned that there was not dialogue, and that, even though the anon tried to initiate it,[3] it was only responded to 2 minutes before he was then blocked. That is not something to be encouraged. The editors opposing him were relying on being able to escape the strict 3RR by having more reverts at their disposal. This is not in accord with the aim of the 3RR rule. That rule operates when there is a consensus to stop a rogue editor, but two editors is hardly a consensus. I don't find that this short but intense session of reverts over a single category in this way reflects well on any of the participants, especially when it is finally resolved by one of the involved editors blocking his opponent.

Irpen's basis of argument is also questionable, as he has decided that the term "genocide" can only be agreed if scholars are united in its application, and that its use by governments is invalid. This, to say the least, is not definitive, but is now seen as the arbiter of consensus over the issue in this article.

Some of the arguments above have descended to ad hominem (and pro hominem). That is not the sign of a good argument. Let us address the points on their merit, not on who made them.

Tyrenius 11:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius, with all due respect, it is not up to one individual to judge what is or not "in accord with the aim of the 3RR rule." The dialogue on that was established ages ago on the talk page, so if a rogue editor omits to read the dialogue, it's just about his problem.

And btw, the editor in question probably created socks to avoid the block, making his behaviour even more questionable. The issue was debated and is explained quite well in the "Was holodomor genocide?" section of the article. Being rogue does not prevent one from reading the damzor thing.

Consequently, I would rather not push things further and not run against a respectable and well-established policy.

Personally I endorse Alex's block fully. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the block, so that is irrelevant. Nor am I challenging the policy: WP:3RR makes it clear that there is no licence to neatly nip up to 3RR and be in the clear. If there is edit warring it is blockable with less reverts. The policy is the spirit of that, and not the letter of the law. I've made my points above, but if there is no consensus that they are of concern, then I'll leave it. Tyrenius 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole purpose of 3rr is to let tempers cool down when a conflict between two people gets too heated. It is obvious to me that if others revert a particular user, we are dealing with an entirely different situation. Sometimes this happens with very obvious cases of vandalism or trolling. Sometimes it happens in more complicated situations. But no matter what, when it happens it is not because one person has lost his or her cool. Multiple people reverting a user is an example of the community at work.

Let's really look at this proposal to see how absurd it is. What is being suggested is this: once a person has been reverted three times, they are immune from being reverted. is this really the situation we want here? I do not think so.Slrubenstein | Talk 10:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What is being suggested is that 1RR is optimal followed by other solutions. This should involve discussion if the involved editors are in good faith. If there is a deliberate violation of consensus, then they can be warned for abusive behaviour and sanctioned if they persist. If thre is a sockpupper, then they can be blocked as such. I hope you find these suggestions less absurd. Tyrenius 20:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Tirenius, I find your suggestions not just non-absurd, but excellent. The problem isn't that what you say is wrong. It isn't! However, you are making a set of entirely correct statements but the problem is that they are not applicable to the particular case. 1RR is optimal, true. Non-reverting is even better. Discussing at talk between many editors with different views who are all acting in good faith in search of consensus is an ideal solution for an ideal world. This solution could not be applied in this case because the situation is different. The rogue user resorted to a series of sterile reverts using anon ip accounts. He repeatedly defied all attempts to engage him into any meaningful discussions. He was asked to log in which he also refused to do. Finally, he supplied his final revert with a frivolous statement that cannot be interpreted as a "discussion" but makes it clear that he either did not read the talk page where it was discussed or choose to simply disregard everything said there.

Socks are to be blocked in their own right. Users who resort to sterile reverts, then are asked to discuss, refuse to do so and persist with reverting are not proper candidates to have discussions with. In such case, there is nothing else to do but revert the user. That many users do so proves the consensus or at least violation of WP:BB "...but don't be reckless" clause. 3RR is by no means an entitlement. It is a guideline based on the principle that edit warring is harmful but discussions are preferable. However, you can't force the user into the discussion if he adamantly refuses to and ignores all the past discussions. There is nothing else left to do with such user but revert him, ask him many times to explain himself and, and if he persists with sterile revert wars, he's got to be blocked. 3RR is a very useful guideline both by a letter and by a spirit. --Irpen 22:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai bus deleted by mistake

While editing Shanghai Bus, the server went down. Now the text is deleted, and I can't get it back no matter how many times I try to paste my edit in. It's blank. I don't want to be named a vandal. --Outlook

It's fixed; don't worry. Take a look at the five bullet points at the top of Help:Reverting to learn how to do this yourself in the future. Happy editing. ~ PseudoSudo 13:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

G.I. Joe character list DELETED without cause. It was a valid list.

Dream Focus 14:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am the creator of a page that was formerly found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Joe_character_list

It listed a name of every character from the series. Dozens of these names also had links to wikipedia pages others have created about those characters.

I believe it is a very valuable and valid page.

Why the sudden deletion?

I checked the deletion logs, but they don't even list it.

Since I see other series have pages with list of all characters from that series, complete with links to wikipedia articals about those characters, I don't understand why mine was deleted. Surely it is the result of vandalism.

This information is listed nowhere else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_Joe The main G.I. Joe page has a link to my list. And the list of hundreds of names wouldn't really fit on that page.

Can someone undelete this please, and tell me if it was a vandal that destroyed it somehow?

Um, the list seems to be there: G.I. Joe character list. Am I missing something? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I still see it - G.I. Joe character list. —AySz88\^-^ 14:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There was some sort of weirdness going on. I went there and it gave me the "Wikipedia does not have an article by this name" page, but didn't have a deletion log. In fact, the history log was still available and when I clicked "edit this page" it looked like the article. I clicked "save page" without changing anything and the page was back (with no record of any edit by me). Seems like some sort of glitch? --Fastfission 14:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not clearing your cache resulted in this? Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it perhaps had something to do with the database error of yesterday. I had someone today thinking I deleted an article. The article indeed seemed gone. Purging did the trick. Garion96 (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I noticed what appears to be the same problem with a different article, on 16 or 17 September. On the page Neo-noir, I clicked on the link for 8mm and got the "Wikipedia does not have an article by this name" page. I did Search for 8mm and got the same results both from the Go and when clicking on 8mm in the list of Search results. 8mm is fine now, though. -- Writtenonsand 06:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've had that error a few times in recent days with different articles and category pages. The article history was there though and a null edit brought it back. --kingboyk 11:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mccready is issued a 30 day community ban from editing all articles related to Pseudoscience

Based on this discussion on AN/I [4] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is issued a 30 day community ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 22:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hm, interesting. There was a discussion about community probation last week (i.e. deciding that a user should stay away from certain articles, as opposed to a community ban which decides a user must stay away from the entire 'pedia). Based on the response there, it sounds like a good idea to give this a shot. Based on the heavy mailflow on the Admin Noticeboard, I figured it might be a good idea to log all current probations on a single page (but please keep all related discussion on this page). I've created a log at Wikipedia:Community probation with some deliberately vague language at the top (feel free to edit) because I'm quite sure we don't need a formal legislative process for this. >Radiant< 22:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Logged here. [5] --FloNight 23:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. FeloniousMonk 05:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich

Jason Gastrich has emailed me asking that his community ban be rescinded. He promises not to use sockpuppets and to serve out the term of his one-year arbcom ban, counted from the date of the last sock activity. Opinions? Stifle (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem was not in the main the sockpuppetry, although that was a massive problem in itself, the problem was his contempt for policy and consensus, his use of external sites to solicit support, and abnove all his apparnet desire to use Wikipedia first and foremost as a vehicle to promote his own agenda. Guy 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JzG's no. View the edits made at Louisiana Baptist University by new users. I strongly ask that his ban not be lifted. There is no compelling evidence his behavior has changed or will change.

During RfAR he didn't even bothering apologizing, admitting sock puppets, or coming to terms with his actions.[6] He denied his actions, had contempt for other users and the rules. Arbusto 22:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Count it from the "last day of sock activity"? So yesterday? Shog5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made the same edits as a new user a few months ago.[7] He is permantently banned from the Louisiana Baptist University article and it still gets hit.[8] Here's a new user adding Gastrich's webpage to the article.[9] Here's different a new user adding the same Gastrich page.[10] Adding another Gastrich page.[11]

The links added recently, go back to what he stated in the RfRA[12]: "I disagree with JzG and Arbusto's viewpoint that a link to one of my web pages or a link that I agree with should be discussed on the talk page first, in fact I find this downright unfair and wrong." He was here to promote himself and his views no matter what the rules are. Arbusto 22:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinions? Sure, I can do that. Here it is: No. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the silly season. All the daft banned trolls are crawling back and asking to be given another chance. No. --Tony Sidaway04:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. Not one of our prolific and disruptive biased sockpuppeteers. FeloniousMonk 05:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems pretty close to negotiating with terrorists. He promises if we let him back he won't use sockpuppets? Maybe when the LBU page isn't hit by him for a few months we could consider it possibly. That is not this point (we'd still have the problem that he had few if any productive edits). JoshuaZ 21:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich is the worst sockmaster I've ever dealt with. No. Mackensen (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Its also worth noting his presence on metawiki, where he plugs his goods. For fun, count how many times he refers to himself as "Dr", and count how many times he mentions that his doctorate is from an unaccredited, mail order "school". Arbusto 21:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Given his complete lack of any contributions whatsoever at meta (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jason_Gastrich) I see no reaosn why he should be allowed to use his page there to spam his websites and books. I'm all for giving people a second chance if I think there's a chance of redemption, but here? I see absolutely no hope that Gastrich will ever place policy and consensus above his own personal bias. Guy 22:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone want to go find somoene with some authority on Meta to go blank his userpage then? Otherwise I'll do it myself (yes I know the previous link is not a meta policy). JoshuaZ 22:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I did it already. JoshuaZ 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, is there even a question of this? No, no, and again no. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

He's even got a sock puppet there. (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ruth_Ginsling). Harvestdancer 16:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If Jason is genuine, then I would welcome him back - but he would have to make a full apology to the community. --LiverpoolCommander 09:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A full apology means admitting he did something wrong. The few apologies he's ever given have been to apologize for being misunderstood - for you misunderstanding him. You're chances of getting a real apology ... I'd support lifting the ban if he made a full apology, which means I'm not in favor of lifting the ban ever. Harvestdancer 14:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Gastrich's inability to concede LBU's lack of meaningful accreditation as a problem because of x, y and z (for example, notable guest speakers at LBU); is an unfortunate indication he has firmly held POV's that aren't reconcilable with being a constructive Wikipedian. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks at google[13] Arbusto 22:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And another sock: Special:Contributions/Hebrews102425. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• The community might also want to consider this page, where we read, "spiritually, me and some other believers were becoming unequally yoked with unbelievers, having to form close relationships as we dredged over the minutia of each Christian entry and what should and shouldn't be included. In every case, the unbelievers wanted sensational, ridiculous, unencyclopedic, and in many cases incorrect information included and some others and I insisted on including the truth and excluding that nonsense. This opposition met us head on and I was eventually banned for one year. I don't see myself returning to Wikipedia because I have shaken the dust from my shoes. In fact, we even decided to end the Wiki4Christ.com web site that was sending Christians to Wikipedia. It is an awful place for Christians who sincerely want the truth fairly represented." All emphasis added was by me. So, if Wikipedia is an "awful place for Christians" such as Gastrich, why would he want to return? Notice that Gastrich implicitely denies using sockpuppets in the same commentary. Regardless, Gastrich has had a few unkind things to say about Wikipedia since his expulsion, and that includes recent comments. Those were certainly "sour grapes," but they're enough to bring his sincerity into question. WarriorScribe 18:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, wiki4christ.com now redirects to Jason's own ministry. Why am I not surprised. Such issues aside, one of the reasons I supported the final indef ban was the complete unacceptability of using an outside source to attempt to get outside help target and overwhelm articles here. If he has stopped doing so, for whatever reason, that is a good sign. Unfortunately, the reasons he gives for stopping in no way indicate he will be at all a helpful Wikipedian. JoshuaZ 04:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• During the discussion in arbitration, Gastrich wrote, "I'm going to avoid Wikipedia for awhile. However, I am going to encourage everyone I know to continue contributing. Therefore, don't expect to be hearing from me, but expect to be hearing from them [emphasis added]." The community certainly did hear from "them," didn't it? It might be especially noteworthy that Gastrich denied using sockpuppets during the arbitration discussion, and also on his "response" site, but then seems to tacitly admit doing them, according to what was related by Stifle at the beginning of this thread. This wouldn't be the first time that Gastrich has changed his story so that he might accomplish whatever it is that he wants to accomplish. What is clear is that he saw the problems at Wikipedia as being one of those who believe as he does being in battle with "unbelievers." He's posted that sort of commentary a few times since his expulsion, and it's clear from those comments that he still believes that. That should be taken into consideration during any discussion of a lifting of a ban that was imposed with good cause by the consideration of good evidence. WarriorScribe 18:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe Jason should undergo some form of mentorship, and agree not to edit the controversial Christian articles - is this a reasonable suggestion?? Also, he'd have to make a full apology to the community. --LiverpoolCommander 09:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  As I noted before, a full apology is unlikely because it means admitting he did something wrong. However if he were to do that, I'd be willing to accept the role of mentor, as unworthy as I am of it. Harvestdancer 15:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

LiverpoolCommander, Gastrich has been banned from the very articles that are getting hit right now with links to his websites. So what would asking him not to edit those articles do? Also go through his edit history. I have received two or three apologies from him. Yesterday, there was a personal attack on me and others posted on wikipedia and an off-site forum. Your two conditions for including have been met already, and he has not changed. Arbusto 16:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at [14] yet? A request at m:Talk:Spam blacklist may be overdue. Guy 16:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Gastrich's back posting at meta wiki. See the AfD discussion for his comment on his behavior. Arbusto 00:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comedy: Gastrich uses puppets on this very page.[15] The reason his "new user" signed up for an account he was angry at links like this being removed. In a strange twist, its Gatrich's page. Arbusto 01:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, "Rick56505" is Gastrich, as evidenced by the commentary and his edits, as well as the appearance of this article at Gastrich's stolen-domain-name group. Notice that this same material has appeared on Wikipedia, and Gastrich was outed as "Fraud Buster" long ago. I would submit that he's none too pleased that his efforts at reinstatement at Wikipedia have been rebuffed, and he's back in full-blown revenge mode. Remember, Gastrich sees this whole thing as a war of sorts between himself and "unbelievers." WarriorScribe 01:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Rob Levin

I don't know how familiar people here are with him but apparently a large number of people on the Wikipedia IRC channel knew him. No disrespect intended, but this article is recreation of previously deleted content. See the first AfD which apparently he himself initated by saying he didn't feel he was notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Now I know I could tag it as db-repost but I feel even tagging it as such may generate some ill will. I'd like to get a consensus about what should be done here first, perhaps circumstances have changed and the community indeed feels he is now notable enough for an article. VegaDark 02:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The AFD was about 9 months ago, and circumstances have changed so db-repost isn't sutible, another AFD would likely be kept as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) In that case the article should state what makes him more notable now than when he was at the time of the first AfD. From what I can by the information in the article, his claims to notability have not changed since January, hence the first AfD would stand. VegaDark 02:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the log and history, the article was restored today to restore the edit history after content was merged; before that it had been redirected to Peer-Directed Projects Center since January. The redirect has now been undone, but if content has been merged it can't be simply deleted. The thing to do would be to get consensus to re-redirect the article in the normal way. Incidentally, dying is not a claim to notability. I would have been perfectly willing to delete this per CSD G4 if this was just a standard repost (which it isn't). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(Just got edit conflicted twice) Well, I think he is a lot more notable now then ever before.... but freenode only has a few thousand users, and I haven't a clue if that makes him notable. Personally I think we need to find a reliable biography to use as a source, because as it stands, all we know about is his death. (which earlier incarnations of the article didn't even have). Ok, time for google. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• The page has been reverted to a redirect and reverted back to an article twice each now. I still have yet to see any new information towards his notability that would show why he is more notable since the AfD in January. VegaDark 19:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We've also become more inclusionist since then. You know we have articles about farm roads, right? Give it up. —freak(talk) 21:12, Sep. 17, 2006 (UTC)

We've had thse farm to market roads since long before that AfD (I've checked one, and it survived an AfD in January 2005 with no consensus). So your example is invalid, and the idea that we have become "more inclusionist" is not reflected in policies or guidelines. There are some categories of articles where we have (sadly, IMO) become more inclusionist, to the point of dropping all questions of importance, notability, or even being somheow remarkable or exceptional, and where the only necessities are verifiablilty and NPOV. But for most articles, I don't have the impression that the "rules" have changed or that more articles are kept. If it's not notable, delete it. Fram 08:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Circumstances have changed since the original nomination to AFD, if someone contests the notability of this person they should renominate the article and allow it to be discussed there. Yamaguchi先生 00:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting this without discussion on the basis that it was "previously deleted content" is process over substance. It should not be speedily deleted on that basis. As many people have pointed out, standards of notability have changed. I personally think that Rob would be considered notable under current standards; in any case, there should be a proper discussion rather than an attempt to strongarm misunderstood policy to circumvent such a discussion. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Desg

I am sorry, I am very, very green and I doubt I am doing this correctly, but there it is.

This user is a spammer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Desg

All his contributions are adding his commercial links to Wiki pages.

In particular, on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stained_glass

He has removed a very valuable link about stained glass restoration and replaced it with a link to his newly formed forum. He has added a very plain stained glass window of his in the middle of the world's best examples, with a link to his commercial site.

On this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_came_and_copper_foil_glasswork

He added a link to a tool he sells and did a similar trick with the external links as he did for the page above.

Most importantly, after the pages were restored, he promptly returned to spam the Wiki pages again, and added his spammy links once more.

I understand there is some sort of warning system but I am not confident enough to do this, I cannot be sure I will do it right.

I would appreciate if someone could oversee this matter. Thank you.

Recommend adding downeaststainedglass.com on the spam blacklist. Hbdragon88 06:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

With spammers, you usually warn them incrementally with templates {{spam}}, {{spam2}}, {{spam3}}, {{spam4}} each time they return to their activity. Use their talk page for that. If they persist, you report them at WP:AIV. See WP:UTM for other warning templates. Conscious 07:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

He is also spamming with stainedglassville.com and free-recipe-site.com RogerJ 09:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This person Roger J has a personal hatred for me and is attempting to destroy my credentials. Please call me by phone to discuss further if you have any questions. My phone # is at the bottom of my website Down East Stained Glass I can produce legal harrassment papers to back my claims. DESG

Whether or not this is the case (it is certainly odd that his only contributions here are related to you), for the most part he is correctly interpreting Wikipedia standards. Our External links policy strongly discourages editors from adding links to their own sites and/or to commercial sites. FreplySpang 14:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this user has removed warnings to his talk page with this edit. I have restored the warnings and added {{subst:Wr0}} as appropriate, as it appears this user may not understand our policies regarding talk pages but did not appear to remove the warnings in a botched archiving attempt or as part of a formatting error. Captainktainer * Talk 15:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

He's been temporarily blocked for violating 3RR. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Presently he seems to be testing the limits of tolerance of Wikipedians regarding linking to his website. The new strategy involves gratuitious mentions of his website accompanied with a link to some page or other of downeaststainedglass.com [[16]], [[17]], [[18]], [[19]]. Given his past behavior I suspect he is curious as to how many times he can insert his link outside of the "External Links" sections before being warned. I also suspect he is venting his frustration about being caught spamming with a NPOV dispute on this page Lead_came_and_copper_foil_glasswork. It's a lot of work to protect the Wiki pages from his dogged pursuance of a personal and commercial agenda. Assistance from the community would be much appreciated. RogerJ 13:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I don't know enough about stained glass to evaluate whether he is an eeeevil spammer or a good-faith contributor with valuable information on the subject. Dispute resolution is the way to bring in people who are experienced with Wikipedia (and hopefully even some with stained glass experience) to look over the situation. This page is not for dispute resolution; please do not try to carry out the argument here. FreplySpang 15:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting sites

Please redirect U-Pass to Universal Transit Pass as [[U-Pass] applies only to Vancouver area whereas the other one is in a broder sense in being Canadian.

--Cahk 07:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Followed up on user's talk page. Herostratus 07:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Protected deleted pages

This category has grown overly huge over the years, and frankly it is pretty ugly to visitors of the encyclopedia that might even end up there via Special:Randompage. In my opinion we should prune it. I have been trying to replace a few with sensible redirects, but for most of this list I can't think of any. What I'd like to do is generate a list of all PDPs that are older than, say, three months, and delete the lot of those (because I don't think most recreators are all that persistent in the first place). What would people think of that? >Radiant< 10:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, this is horrible clutter - and in some cases it's even blocking the creation of legitimate articles. I proposed cleanup procedures a while back at Template_talk:Deletedpage#How_temporary_is_this.3F. Haukur 11:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. Most of the recreators are just bored schoolkids who will have wandered off elsewhere by the end of the day anyway. Deleting 3 month old deleteprotected pages should be no problem (even 1 month old should not be a problem in general), I think most of the "backlog" is simply due to the fact that most admins, myself included, just protect a page and then forget about it. --Sherool (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd also support this as long as a suitable time period is given (such as one to three months, per Sherool (talk). While I don't want to name names, there is an administrator who is currently arbitrarily undoing these deleted pages with the edit summary "Old deleted-protected page unlikely to be recreated." The problem is that a number of the pages he/she is undoing were protected only days ago. While there is nothing wrong with getting rid of these pages once the risk of vandalism and such has passed, doing so after only a few days is a a waste of everyone's time. --Alabamaboy 11:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be opposed to assigning specific time ranges for this. Some unprotection after a couple of days would be fine, for some I've seen 6 months later people still wanting to recreate an article delted as not a crystal ball based on the same "sources" available when initially deleted. This should be a common sense thing. --pgk 12:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I found this: User:Kotepho/reports/deleted page by cl timestamp. Sounds useful. >Radiant< 12:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting page but not very useful since it must be manually updated. Is it possible to create an automatic page along these lines?--Alabamaboy 12:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well cl_timestamp is actually a field on the categorylinks database table, so I would suggest that this is actually being extracted rather than manually produced. That timestamp has its problems since IIRC it gets updated each time the page gets changed rather than when the category was added, however for this purpose that shouldn't be an issue... --pgk 13:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's defenently possible, it requires accesss to the database though, and unfortunately the toolserver still doesn't have a working copy of the enwiki database. Guess the best bet is to download a dump of the categorylinks database (the most recent ones is only 6 days old as of now) and run some querries offline. --Sherool (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Luckily, even regular users have limited access to the database; see m:Query or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php (I know that at least two bots use this method to get cl_timestamp data). --ais523 09:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it not possible, in addition to whatever pruning we might do, to get the developers to come up with a way of not picking them up on random? Guy 17:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked about whether special:random would find them a month ago. However, now that I think about it, if the developers applied a way to make exceptions to finding these from special:random, there would be a clamor about "excusing this article," "excusing that article," and excusing all articles with deletion, wikify, and NPOV tags, too. In my opinion, when sysops deal with this category, the goal should be to keep it tidy and miniscule, not to dump things in it and hope they're gone. They should just use their common sense about what needs to be protected against recreation indefinitely, what can be removed from this category after a week, and everything in between. If effective pruning is carried out, then there will be very little need to excuse these protected deleted pages, if only due to the tiny amount of them in total. Picaroon9288 19:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've gotten a protected deleted page twice recently while clicking random article, so yes this is beginning to be a problem. I would support a way to not be able to get pages in this category if the developers can do that. If not, I think finding redirects would be the best way to get rid of a lot of the pages in that category. Who knows how many are YTMND related, perhaps everyone should do a scan over the category and make redirects to anything they recognize. VegaDark 20:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of these are protected after having been deleted for legal reasons and whatnot; perhaps we need another template (identical but for the category) for these? — Dan | talk 20:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, let's just keep them protected and redirect them all to bad title or something similar. A template could be used to categorize such redirects for later perusal, in fact it could even be the same template we're using now. —freak(talk) 21:09, Sep. 17, 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say that rather than making feature requests, our easiest solution is to delete most of those pages. I'd be happy to give it a shot, and if two or three other admins chime in it's not really that much work with a tabbed browser. >Radiant< 22:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It would make sense for someone to go through and clear out the old ones, but it is absolutely essential that we maintain a list of these pages somewhere so that we can, in the future, look over it to see which redlinks turned blue and determine if the recreation was valid. How about maintaining the list at Wikipedia:Deleted protected deleted pages? --Cyde Weys 02:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia:List of pages protected against re-creation or a new bot generated list? --Sherool (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see deleted protected deleted pages, so new list then, nevermind. Yeah, usefull to keep taps on recreations. --Sherool (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Also, you can watchlist deleted pages, and they'll show up if recreated. And also, you can check in your deletion log whether any page you deleted has been recreated. >Radiant< 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• A watchlist doesn't do nearly the same thing because: it only works for one person not everyone; if multiple people are deleting these protected deleted pages then no single person will have the list; and watchlists are generally used for lots of other stuff, and if you aren't editing for over a day or so, you will totally miss it. Thus, it is essential that we create a page somewhere where we list all of these protected deleted pages that are deleted so everyone can keep an eye on the redlinks that turn blue and make sure that it is valid content. --Cyde Weys 02:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Having a list of deleted deleted-protected pages might be over-kill unless it can be done extremely easily; most are not re-created and when they do they seem to be mostly found, and then that's just another backlog that has to be cleared of dead items. Keep in mind also that many of these topics actually do warrant articles, mostly for different persons other than the one that was deleted. That's the main reason for getting rid of these deleted pages. There are so few relative to the number of articles that readers getting them on a Random article is not a significant problem, but when you have major political figures, etc. blocked because some bozo with a similar name created a vanity page in a space of 2 minutes 6 months ago, that is a problem.

The list we currently have at User:Kotepho/reports/deleted page by cl timestamp will last at least for the deletedpages until 8-10-2006. Whereas bots are necessary to do things on a daily basis, this list doesn't absolutely need to be created more than once a month really. It would be nice though to have it automatically created.

Another way to help out with deletedpages is through Special:Shortpages. Recently protected deletedpages show up there (mostly at 15 bytes). If the page was created in the space of an hour 4 days ago, delete. If it looks like it's a little more chronic problem, append a little comment that pushes it off the list, like <!--Excess long comment to prevent listing on [[Special:Shortpages]]............................................................-->. This is an automatically generated list and is cutting down the backlog from the other end, as well as doing it from the Kotepho list. —Centrx→talk • 03:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The rule of thumb I've been using whether to keep them protected is whether the amount of time between the first deletion and the last deletion is longer than the amount of time between the last deletion and now, with leeway if someone has talked about creating a legitimate article on the talk page. As you can see from the list, most don't stay protected. —Centrx→talk • 03:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• This purging has started; I've already seen some others work on it besides myself. Any help would be appreciated. >Radiant< 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

What the hell? Protoss Archon 15:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Same as #G.I. Joe character list DELETED without cause. It was a valid list. A null edit did the trick. Conscious 15:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. ParalelUni's community ban is endorsed. Any of the single-purpose accounts mentioned identified in the case, or any other accounts or IPs an administrator deems to be an account used solely for the editing of St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages, may be banned from that article or related pages for disruptive edits.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 17:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Lollywood Block review

I have blocked Lollywood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely as he has continued to insert copyrighted text into various articles despite warnings. This includes Undivided India [20], Durand line [21], Pashtunistan [22], Pakhtunkhwa [23] etc.

I should note that the same user has in the past edited from the ip block 82.159.*.* as evidenced by exactly same copypasting in these articles ([24], [25] etc.) and was warned/blocked several times in the last 2 months. --Ragib 18:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Added: Further evidence of vandalism/disruptions include [26], [27], [28], [29] and so on. --Ragib 18:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I support Ragib's actions.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z. Kehrli is prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation. Should Kehrli violate any ban placed on him by this decision or engage in substitution of notation, he may be blocked for an appropriate time. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 18:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove loong talk diatribes per SOAP?

Is it ok to revert long diatribes on talk pages per WP:SOAP? Andrew Cuomo has been protected due to large additions of POV text, and now its moved to the talk page, with no real attempt to construct proper content for inclusion. Can the most recent cut/paste be removed? [30]. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's not copyvio I would say the best idea is to archive it. —Nate Scheffey 19:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't think of the copyvio issue. As it stands, the diff above is a large cut/paste from the newspaper article (but it cited as such). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Some input to List of African-American writers

I'm going to assume good faith and not revert, but this edit (actually a series of small edits) added lots of red links to the List of African-American writers page. Can anybody determine if these people are notable writers? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the first three are legitimate authors, and IMO they meet the notability criteria. However, the article is a List of African-American writers, and there doesn't seem to be a notability threshold for inclusion. I didn't read up enough to figure out if they are actually African-American, which is an issue and should be verified. But what's the existing standard of verifiability on the article? Have all the 'blue-linked' authors been verified as A-A? If the issue is the red-links, IMO the discussion should wait until actual articles are written about them, whereupon it can be decided whether or not they are notable enough to warrant them. Anchoress 21:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From what I can tell they appear to be notable writers, although I haven't checked every one. Should serve as a good guideline for creating some new articles in an area Wikipedia is short on. —Nate Scheffey 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the input from both of you. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Unblock

User:Agquarx has requested to be unblocked after being indefinitely blocked in July 2006. I wanted to post here to try to gain some community consensus as to whether or not Wikipedia would benefit from giving this user another chance. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at a random selection, all this user's "contributions" to Wikipedia seem to have been torrential outpourings of utter nonsense - this looks to be typical. No unblocking, please. --ajn (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The unblock request was recently reviewed and denied by Centrx. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's just ... bizarre. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use the "unblock reviewed" template so the user was still listed at CAT:RFU and Centrx must have been working there and missed my comment on the user's talk page mentioning this thread and made the decision to deny the request. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I just erupted in laughter after reading that. Yeah, the indefinite block is completely warranted. I wonder if this overdescribing of everything couldn't be caused by some mental disorder, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I also went through this user's contributions, and I think ajn's assessment is spot-on. In fact, I'm not sure I could find a single diff which cannot be characterized as a "torrential outpouring of utter nonsense". For example, woah. Perhaps I've missed some, but can anyone point me to good edits by this user? --- Deville (Talk) 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not rely, I remember running into him a while back when he made a royal mess of the Love (disambiguation) page with one of his philosophical rants and a page move. I've never seen anyone capable of writing so much nonsense and still somehow stay on topic on some level, almost a Malkavian quality to his "work". A usefull contributer his is not thogh, he would write lengthy rants on his talk page defending his works when people called him on his vandalism. --Sherool (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

He was indefinitely blocked for making death threats, and didn't consider that he might need to apologise for them before an unblock request would be taken seriously, instead trying to claim that "There is only one way to deal with bullies - a gun. If you are collecting my articles, you must to be shot to save humanity, per your own definition - a Darwin Award" [31] is a "figure of speech". Should we unblock? Hell no. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed ban of JarlaxleArtemis

According to the terms of an Arbitration on JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he can be banned for a year with the agreement of any three administrators. I suggest that we should do this, following his recent trolling. He's also been guilty of copyright violations, flagrantly violating the MOS, removing deletion tags, POV/vandalism edits, posting the source code for a vandalbot, etc. (as seen on his current RFAR). We can save the ArbCom a bit of time by dealing with this ourselves. They don't need to re-examine this case; they've already looked at him twice before, and what came out of it was that we can ban him for a year as necessary. I propose that it is now necessary. --Cyde Weys 23:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am JarlaxleArtemis. I think that Cyde is the one who is trolling and should be banned. Of course, no one will believe me, but I just want to at least try to counter this admin's lies. His lies regarding me are here. My message telling him to stop are here and here. He then blocked me for trolling, even though he is the one who is trolling. [32] Another lie about me is that he is saying I was trying to make a vandal bot. What will I gain with that? I pasted the script for Checkuser (yes, Checkuser, not a vandal bot) on a freaking Sandbox page of mine. Great vandal bot that is, isn't it?--4.168.33.6 23:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

According to [33], the second arbitration case was closed early because he was "permanently banned" for spamming account creations with impersonating user names. After he was unblocked probationarily in November 2005, he has been blocked 8 times since for various disruptive behavior. In total, he has previously been blocked by 9 different administrators a total of 20 times. Based on looking at the comments in the block log and the arbitration case, it is clear that this user is repeatedly disruptive and is not amenable through promises, probations, or mentoring. —Centrx→talk • 23:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, the source codes are readily available at Special:Version, which is linked to from Special:Specialpages. I am mistaken; the source code was for renaming users, not Checkuser. As if I could benefit from that. I need to be a bureaucrat or something like that to rename users, which I don't even want to. Please ban Cyde. 4.168.33.6 23:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The comments in the block log are deceptive. The admins repeatedly make overstatements and/or flat out lie there.--4.168.33.6 23:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin number three here. Get it over with. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course you listen to Cyde. You are a fucking cabal. Goodbye, then corrupt admins!--4.168.33.6 23:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Did the three-admin-ban thing actually pass? The case was closed, but it's not clear whether the proposed decision was ever put into place. (Not that I have any objection to banning him, mind you, just curious.) Kirill Lokshin 00:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? He is disruptive, always has been, just block him. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. He ended up being banned outright, but for some unknown reason, he was unbanned and then continued to get into all sorts of trouble in the following months. I'm reinstating the indefinite community ban. --Cyde Weys 00:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak thought he could be reformed, if I recall correctly. In any case, a community ban sounds fine. Kirill Lokshin 00:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there even a single test case of this working? "Reforming" just doesn't seem workable to me. This is just an Internet site; if someone is an asshole, they're going to keep being an asshole, and no mere Internet site is going to get them to reform. Seeing a psychiatrist regularly, maybe. But not this. --Cyde Weys 01:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been known (there is also the issue that we have been around long enough for certain people to just grow up).Geni 01:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Geni. According to information he posted on Wikipedia, JarlaxleArtemis started contributing to Wikipedia last year when he was in the tenth grade. Some young people lack the maturity, discipline, and people skills to contribute to a serious collaborative project like Wikipedia, but they may gain these skills as they grow older. —Psychonaut 01:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that you've blocked him, prepare yourselves for a flood of vandalism. He did this the couple last times he was banned or blocked for a long period. Favourite tactics include mailbombing and mass creation of user accounts. —Psychonaut 00:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

He's just violated WP:3RR on User talk:JarlaxleArtemis by tampering with his block template (changing it from "reviewed" to unreviewed). If his ban doesn't prevent him from editing his own page, then perhaps it should be protected. —Psychonaut 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Kirill Lokshin 00:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been JarlaxleArtemis' principle mentor for the last several months. During that time there have been many complaints and instances of JA repeating the specific behaviors which led to his previous bannings. Since this new ban has been placed on him he has once again acted in an immature manner. His negative inputs have exceeded his positive contributions, and I regret having to endorse this ban. -Will Beback 05:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Vandalism

The following was posted a few minutes ago at the Vandalism talk page by an unregistered user:

Someone in Deffective By Design suggested a "wikipedia-bombing" on October 3rd, to change all occurrences from "Digital rights Management" to "Digital RESTRICTIONS Management". Although I am completely against DRM, and think that DbD has some interesting ideas, this one in particular would cause more harm than good. I think the DRM article should be watched to avoid edit wars and vandalism.

here is the link to the Deffective By Design site.

00:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC) An Anonymous reader

It may not be anything, but then again, it may be something. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding the page to my watchlist. The somewhat... erm... intellectually challenged person who made that suggestion apparently never bothered to consider that a) what he writes is visible to everyone and b) administrators' actions can be reversed, very quickly, and often are. Truly one of the lamer "OMG LET'S VANDALIZE T3H W1K1P3D14!!!11!!!oneoneone" suggestions. Captainktainer * Talk 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't exactly say they've set up us the bomb. Still, it'll be good for a few of us to be watching the pages in question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Defective by Design has now taken down the page that that links to. I wonder if their admins decided it was inappropriate, or if they're trying to hide something? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's because I sent them a message pointing out how much it discredited their project and how futile an exercise it would be, especially since their suggestion that any DfD members with admin rights protect the page after vandalizing it would lead only to an immediate revert of the protection and an emergency desysopping with a speed not seen since the Everyking scandal. Aside from a few odd DfD members who saw the notice, I don't think we'll see anything now. Captainktainer * Talk 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite ban of Karwynn

I have indefinitely banned Karwynn following recent CheckUser revelations that he was using a slew of sockpuppet accounts for some rather malicious vandalism. The sockpuppet accounts blocked include ShintoSabe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Rostafar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mai Ling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), GomeonaFinnigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Juan Gonzales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It has become rather obvious that Karwynn is nothing but an ED troll trying to raise a ruckus on Wikipedia, and his long good-bye statement from last week where he gave us all the finger and told us to "sit and spin, bitches" is going to be his last statement. --Cyde Weys 02:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I was unfortunately very wrong about this user. Endorse block. JoshuaZ 02:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, an end to a monumentally huge waste of time. Thanks, Cyde.--MONGO 05:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorse, we really shouldn't take sooo long to rid ourselves of patent trolls. As MONGO says, this stuff really does waste the time and patience of good users. --Doc 09:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorse block. AnnH ♫ 09:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Block endorsed. Glad it was blocked and the sock farm detected. --LiverpoolCommander 22:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, interesting how users can show completely different faces depending on what username they're using. Powers ^T 12:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I always saw the same face from Karwynn. Granted, he was talking out the side of his mouth most of the time, but the horrible visage of a bridge-dweller remained constant throughout. --Cyde Weys 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Arthur Ellis is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie. Arthur Ellis is required to use one registered account. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

One to watch

Chelsea Tory (talk · contribs) is causing a ruckus at Gregory Lauder-Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He attributes motives to all editors including User:William Pietri, who is just about the most civil person I've come across on the project. Trolling, tendentious edits, assertions of illegality. If one or two uninvolved admins could keep an eye I'd be grateful. Guy 10:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible this could be legal-threat-extraordinaire Sussexman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) again? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but I doubt it. They are undoubtedly connected in some way, though. -- ChrisO 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Trouble with User Jim62sch

Dear Admins, over the last few days I have run into trouble with User:Jim62sch on the Pope Benedict XVI article. Our actual disagreement is about whether to include certain comments or not: [34]]. I opposed this as I think the comments uninformative and bloating the section, while he readded them time and again. But the real problem with him is that he does not assume good faith when I state my reasons for removing them, instead accuses me of trying to "censor" or "whitewash", and is extremely uncivil in trying to use my religious persuasion, which I did indicate on my user page to ban me from editing in this issue. He has made similar remarks towards User:Musical Linguist, when she commented on the issue. Now, I want to be clear that I am not aiming at Jim being blocked or anything like this. I am sure he is a valuable contributor. However, could some admin please admonish him to desist from his uncivil and unwikipedian behaviour. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Please take it to dispute resolution. Jim is acting in his capacity as editor, not admin here. Please note that revert-warring is not endorsed as a way of resolving content disputes. While the relevance of individual criticisms may be debatable, there is no doubt that at this moment the controversy in question is headline news around the world and we need to give a flavour of that. The content in question is cited and stated accurately, so it's a judgment call, and that is not something we can fix by admin intervention, I'm afraid. Guy 14:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My query is not about a content dispute, but about Jim's behaviour of trying to exclude editors from certain topics based on their respective religions, and of constant insulting and bad faith comments. I have not asked you for your opinion in the content dispute, as you have voiced that on that talk page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Still a content dispute. I know Jim, he is a fair-minded guy. Have you tried talking nicely ot him? I often find that works a treat. Guy 17:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT a content dispute. If you don't want to help, then don't. Jim might otherwise be a nice guy, but he has attacked and assumed bad faith at me since our first disagreement on this issue. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

How silly of me to suggest that a dispute over the inclusion of content is a content dispute. I'll know better next time, I guess. Guy 23:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute. This isn't the place for it. Work it out on the talk. Arbusto 00:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I will stop this here, since apperently no one here cares about AGF and civility any more. How silly of me to think problematic behaviour is a behaviour problem. (And to repeat it one more time: I did not come here to get the content dispute solved, so please don't comment on it.) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't go overboard, please. It's a content dispute, there is no administrative intervention required. Honestly. There's no need to try and make a Federal case of it. Guy 14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't go overborad. And I am disappointed that no admin wants to tackle it. But most of all, I am astounded how someone can repeatedly declare something a content dispute when it is quite clearly not the content dispute that I have raised here. There was a content dispute, but what I raised here was Jim's behaviour. The way you talk, Guy, everything is a content dispute, as I hardly can think of a conflict not related to content in some way. For me the case is closed, so don't reply here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible sock?

Tyresias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Anyone want to weigh in on whether this user is a sock, and/or if a RFCU is indicated? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing a policy page as your first edit may indicate that you've been banned and are pursuing an agenda, or it may indicate that you've been editing as an anon, have gotten interested in policy articles, want to make a change and have realised, correctly, that you're not likely to be taken seriously editing a cornerstone policy page unless you create an account. If you're willing to name a sockpuppeteer, please go ahead and then we can compare the two accounts' contributions and request a Checkuser if necessary, but I don't see any proof of sockpuppetry based on this account's contributions alone. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding curt, I already knew that, as do most readers of this page. My hope was that if the user is a sock, someone would recognise the pattern and speak up. I have one sneaking suspician but would prefer others take a look and see if they see a similarity with any of the NOR edit warriors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind - someone else noticed, and he is indeed who I suspected and is now blocked. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And I agree as well. Seems this one is haviong a bit of trouble leaving, despite his repeated assertions to the contrary. Guy 17:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can get JA and JG together - the one knows Truth because he wrote the book (novel) on it, and the other knows Truth because he got it directly from God - and they're both banned sockpuppeting trolls. They have so much in common! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in article: Lebanon

The entire contents of the article Lebanon have been deleted and replaced with the content of the article Canada. The IP address responsible is 139.142.154.129. Please revert the page move/deletion and block vandal. LestatdeLioncourt 16:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for mediation has ground to a halt

Requests for mediation seems to have ground to a halt. There are 30 cases listed pending decisions to accept or reject, about 10 accepted cases that have not been assigned, and no substantive edits to the page in almost 2 months. Essjay, current chair of Medcom, hasn't edited anything in a month. I don't personally have anything pending but I noticed this through comments on Essjay's talk page, which I have watchlisted. Are there some former mediators who can take over temporarily and get things moving along again? It seems like a big part of the dispute resolution process is not functioning at the moment. Thatcher131 17:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not part of Medcom, but I've watched how they worked in the past, and I'm kind of wandering aimlessly looking for a Wikipurpose at the moment. If X number of admins are willing to sign off on it, I'd be happy to step in on an interim basis to do the clerical work and try to stir up the active Medcom members to elect someone else. --Aaron 01:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Medcom is kind of a closed club, with a closed mailing list and special procedures for accepting new members. I'm kind of hoping one of the mediators emeriti listed on the page will jump in as acting chair and get things going. If on the other hand there is no action in a few days and you fell like being bold, the worst thing that can happen is you'll stir someone else to action. Thatcher131 01:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if I might stir someone else to toss me into arbitration. Heh, could be interesting, couldn't it? I'll watch the page; if nothing at all happens after a few days, I'll come back and seek some sort of semiofficial sanction for my coup attempt. Hopefully they'll take care of it on their own, but it's already been an awfully long time for all those Medcom members to just sit on their hands, waiting for a sign from somewhere else. If nothing else, it's a sign that a couple of new rules should be enacted about the workflow, IMHO. --Aaron 02:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Essjay gone? He has not edited anything in a month.... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Essjay has not edited meta since August 7th, I think. Sugarpine t/c 03:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

He mentioned some real life issues, including the start of the school year and having more responsibilities. My gut tells me its more than that, though. Thatcher131 04:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:MW, he's currently overseeing the Board election. Scobell302 21:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've pointed a few current mediators here to see the discussion. Steve block Talk 19:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, I'd like to thank you for covering for ^demon in the Lost episodes mediation. I know its technically against procedure for someone who is neither a member nor a nominee of the MedCom to take MedCom cases, but considering the circumstances, I'm glad you did.

As for who should accept/reject cases, it was my understanding that MedCom came to some sort of consensus (presumably by mailing list), and some member of the committee (which for some reason always happens to be Essjay) accepted/rejected the case on behalf of the committee as a whole. But, not having been on the committee for very long, I've never actually been part of this process, so maybe I have it all wrong.

There are six cases listed as "unassigned" on the open tasks, and of those, three have received offers from a mediator (two from Drini, one from me), but are still pending agreement of the parties to that mediator. If there are accepted cases missing from that list, maybe you could add them? Or I could try looking around.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello as well. To start, I do apologize for the current backlog in mediation cases. As mentioned above, Essjay, who is our chair and does invaluable work, has currently been busy and inactive for a while now; I, too, have also been too busy to do much until recently. This has led to a large number of cases piled up - we've been postponing the (now) inevitable task of finding someone in the committee to temporarily do his duties. I will personally address these issues on our mailing list — it is our goal to serve the community, and we need to get the ball rolling again. Again, apologies for our lack of activity. In addition, I encourage any trusted users who wish to help to join us: we always are looking for new mediators to help us! Finally, a word of great thanks to the Mediation Cabal and other groups for doing their best in helping resolve disputes. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

IP request

First, sorry if this is in the wrong place. I really can't figure out where it should go.

I was wondering if I could request the user IP 150.101.113.199 be unblocked for people who sign in.

This is a school computer, so I can't really control what people use it to edit (especially since it's a k to 12 school), but it's dissapointing that I can't edit some articles.

Anyway, that's all. Thank you.

Reblocked 1 month with anonymous only and account creation enabled. Naconkantari 03:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We should probably block account creation from this address as well, but allow pre-registered accounts, otherwise there isn't much point in blocking the IP; it just makes our job more difficult to track abuse. In my opinion, the system administator should be contacted before blocks are released on educational networks which are proven as constant sources of vandlaism. Yamaguchi先生 10:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Zer0faults is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults#Log of blocks and bans. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 02:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone watching WP:PAIN tonight?

There is a clear npa violation, with requisite diffs, warnings, etc. at WP:PAIN right now (Éponyme) that has been open for nearly four hours now without any administrator attention thus far. Anyone want to take a look at it? · j e r s y k o talk · 03:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah--totally one-sided. Make them choose sides, especially the easiest side being that which has many numbers of apathetic lynchmobbers. Nobody has empathic Devil's Advocacy! Éponyme 03:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It was taken care of. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:John Spikowski

Myself a other editors of the Panorama Tools (software), Panotools, and PanoTools articles are having quite a bit of trouble with user John Spikowski. If you go through the history of those pages, the user pages, the user talk pages, and other related pages, you will find repetitive acts of vandalism in the form of spam, attention-seeking, user-page vandalism, talk-page vandalism, changing people's comments, and the list just goes on and on. It's not hard to spot once you check out some of the pages. This user has also made personal attacks to User talk:Wuz. It's pretty out of control and I ask the admins for advice on the subject. Never asked for anyone to be blocked before, but I think this case is extreme enough to ask for this request. We could really use some help right now. Thoughts? Roguegeek 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick note. I feel like myself and other contributing editors have made an effort in trying to understand the reasons for John Spikowski editing and have attempted to communicate intention rationally. The user simply resorts to defamation of others are removing comments all together. Please advise. Roguegeek 06:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN

Anyone for the idea that it should be redirected here? I seem to be one of just a couple of admins that even look at it. I removed alerts tonight that hadn't been acted on in over a *week*. What's the point? --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I worked their a bit, but the request are often not well formatted and require heavy research and context, so I tend to think "meh...let someone else do it".Voice-of-All 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I confess I also rarely visit that page. I have it it watchlisted, but many of the complaints are not only badly formatted, they are... well, not actually personal attacks being listed. Others are one foul-mouthed troll posting an alert about another foul mouthed troll, and frankly, I get enough trolling and accusations of heavy-handedness already. *sigh* I'll try to help out there more. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In the same category as KC. JoshuaZ 00:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So I think we should redirect it here. More admins can see the requests that way. Separate page for it is a great idea but I just don't think it's worked out well. Just not enough people working on it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Here, or AN/I since most of the things reported are incidents, aren't they? Support the notion that if it is thinly covered, better to point to the less specific place that does have coverage. ++Lar: t/c 12:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect (to either page). I've never been a supporter of the page from the start, as I've argued several times, and redirecting here seems more appropriate. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting is probably best. This seemed (and still seems) like a good idea. It might be useful to try to understand why it did not take off. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Issue surrounding Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

This article, which was created a week ago and had a fact in DYK a couple days ago is being claimed to be completely baseless. I'm mentioning it here and not in an AfD because it looks like it might be somewhat of a public relations issue. This article [35] on a site which is set up like a newspaper (although whether there's a hard-copy version I do not know), appears to be claiming that an official in the Pakistani government has announced that the page is a hoax. There is, however, no question that there is some kind of local control of Waziristan, and that an agreement was made, but whether it's enough to be called a de facto state is another issue. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (second nomination) Remain Fully Protected?

Approximately ten days ago, I made a request for the unprotection of this page at WP:RFPP so that I could remove comments made by an indefinitely banned vandal while he was banned, per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits-- see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Dr_Chatterjee. So far, the request has been neither granted nor denied. Since retaining comments made by an indefinitely banned vandal while he was banned seems to encourage other such users to violate their bans, how would one go about getting this page unprotected? John254 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the disruption from the banned user has already occurred and removing the comments that are integral to an existing archive would cause more disruption than their remaining and would gut the archive. The person already got his laughs; selectively removing the comments isn't going nullify the effect of him violating his ban. —Centrx→talk • 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course the comments by the banned vandal have already had some effect, but preserving the trolling contained in these comments indefinitely would seem to magnify their impact -- the comments were offered in a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia by weakening its defenses against vandalism [36]. Avoidance of future disruption that might flow from these comments seems far more important than preserving the coherence of an archived MFD discussion initiated by a banned user. It might actually be advisable to delete all revisions of the discussion that contain the comments, to prevent them from being reinstated later. In any case, as Centrx protected this page himself, I wanted a "second opinion" on this matter. John254 02:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you could please point to the edits you want removed, that would help someone to give a second opinion. Note also that there's no need to unprotect, you can ask for an {{editprotected}} and if it's necessary an admin can edit the page accordingly. --bainer (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the comments by the banned user in this edit. John254 05:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of those comments are part of discussions with other users. Taking out the comments breaks the discussion and makes it seem as if those other users are talking to themselves, so I don't think removing them would be the best option. --bainer (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just use a placeholder, something like 'comment by banned user removed per banning policy', and the discussion will look fine. --ais523 13:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Babychum

Given this edit, there is reason to believe that User:Babychum is a user that is evading a block or ban by creating another account. Is there a way to use Checkuser to determine if this is true? I have no idea what the blocked or banned account might be. --Richard 04:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Right you are, thanks. He's blocked, and I found and blocked one of his puppets, if there are others they'll turn up soon enough. Herostratus 08:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bazzajf

Bazzajf (talk · contribs) came back from a month-long block to a sanction imposed by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitJake. His first action was two uncivil user talk edits, so I blocked him. Part of his beef was a protected talk page, so I unprotected that. I've been talking to hiom, trying to eb patient, but I can't seem to make much headway. This user has many prodiuctive edits as well as many bad ones, can someone please help? I do want to unblock him but he seems to think that asking for an assurance he won't reoffend is some kind of effront, and I'm not very good at calm conversations with the pasionate. Guy 12:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

He does have a way with words, doesn't he... from (presumably his) latest post to the unblock mailing list:

Three Admins have enforced the block, one was responsible for imposing it and another was on the receiving end of one of my comments which was deemed incivil in this circumstance. I do not dispute the findings of the arbitration case, but if you analysed my two comments since, they were not personal attacks so I am paying heed to the findings of the case. Furthermore, I am sorry that only 190 edits are too paltry a number for you reflect kindly on but some us have a busy day job too and a social life after work. Is that understood? Good.

So... I'm not sure I'd counsel anything more than letting him ride out the block. ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

He's currently indefinitely blocked. The block he returned from was mine, and I don't think it's coincidence that shortly after he was blocked there were a couple of anonymous edits to my page from someone obsessed with gay sex and using an Irish dialup account. There was also a pathetically transparent attempt at sockpuppetry to evade the block, not his first attempt at that sort of thing. See User:62.77.181.16, User:Starsweep and Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bazzajf. There is the possibility that he might learn some manners and start acting like a reasonable person, but I wouldn't hold my breath. --ajn (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that this project will be a better place without Bazzajf. From my first encounter with him where he was changing another user's userpage because some userbox there said "This user is from the British Isles" and that was apparently "horribly POV against Irish", which quickly devolved into him ranting "Syrthiss is a byword for inept!" on my talkpage (in archive 5's history now). He has troubles with civility, harassment, and wikilawyering. Someone could offer to mentor him, but I don't think he'd listen to the mentor and they'd end up blocking him again. Syrthiss 22:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussing Special pages

I've been trying to find a way to discuss some textual changes to the Special:Categories page, but it (obviously) doesn't have a talk page. After some investigation, I found an old discussion here noting that some (but not all) Special pages indeed have custom talk pages. For example, Special:Mostcategories can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Special:Mostcategories. Shall we go ahead and create custom talk pages for those Special pages which lack them?

Further, how do changes in Special pages actually occur? Back to my original concern, I'd like to change the opening text on Special:Categories to state "This is an alphabetical list of all the categories in Wikipedia." In lieu of a talk page, where should such a request be directed? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have changed MediaWiki:Categoriespagetext to include "alphabetical". Kusma (討論) 15:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The talk page for that message is at MediaWiki talk:Categoriespagetext. (The best way to find the appropriate MediaWiki page is to go to Special:Allmessages and use your browser's search-on-page function.) You can request an edit by placing an {{editprotected}} tag there, and administrators can make the edit by editing MediaWiki:Categoriespagetext. --ais523 15:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To your other concerns: Most texts displayed on Special pages are in the MediaWiki namespace. Some can be seen at Special:Allmessages (not this particular one, I found it by searching for the displayed string). Kusma (討論) 15:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, this one can be found there, I was just too stupid to search. Kusma (討論) 15:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts) It seems that due to edit conflicts, Kusma and I have ended up repeating each other. Still, we could do with more people knowing about the MediaWiki namespace... --ais523 15:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks to both! Didn't know that much special page text is managed via the MediaWiki namespace... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom Ellard

Apparently on Sept 19, Tom Ellard asked people to add spurious information to his page here. Needless to say, they have done so, and I can no longer tell what on the page is real and what isn't. If someone would like to sort it out, delete the crap, protect it, etc., such actions might be in order. --Bachrach44 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to the version before the anon edit on 19 September, protected. If anyone wants to find a better version in the history it can be changed to another wrong version. Guy 16:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been checking the entire edit history since then (it probably ought to be BJAODNd; some of it's quite amusing, especially seeing how after a bit the erroneous statements get further vandalised); it seems there was an image Image:Tte.jpg uploaded for the page that should probably be deleted. What would be the BLP considerations of BJAODNing this revision? --ais523 17:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OMG... Atmomic enema? It gets my vote for BJAODN. I don't think (as its labeled "nonsense" we need be concerned about BLP, which applies to actual articles. Please correct me if I am in error. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

the Giano thread

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Giano

Split to Giano. This is causing problems to us not on broadband when editing this page. It's huge, so I'm opening a subpage for it. /Giano -- Drini 20:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but half the thread had already been archived. Since some things in the archived bit are still "hot" and keep being referred to, I'm moving that part to the subpage also. Apologies if that makes the subpage itself problematically long! In that case somebody'd better revert my action. Bishonen | talk 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

New idea

I've written up an idea that's been floating around in my head for a few days and finally gelled this morning: Administrative nullification. Comments and flames welcomed. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Me likes. -- Drini 14:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

For a length of time to be determined, an administrator will be asked to stop using the tools. Who will be doing the asking? Unless the admin in question has done something particularly egregious, which should go through the arbcom anyway, I can see having contentious arguments between groups of admins and users as to whether or not what was done even warrants nullification (for example, policy wonks vs IAR wonks). Overall, though, I think it's a good idea. --Kbdank71 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read through User:Dmcdevit/Proposal for desysopping, which has some similar ideas. jaco♫plane 16:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we're making proposals, I have had one, too. I'm not sure that it's a thing for the general site to argue over as much as it is a proposal for a reconsideration of how ArbCom thinks about what it does. It's here[37] for those who care. Geogre 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The general idea of "easy way for desysopping (voluntarily or otherwise) for some time" seems to be common to these proposals. I think it's a good idea, as any proposal to desysop indefinitely is likely to fail. (Liberatore, 2006). 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My own goal is to have an expiring demotion, as Guy put it. When people demoted have to go through an RFA again, it beomes a truly onerous process. That's why I'm suggesting that, as we have blocks that go 24 hr, 48 hr, etc., we have demotions that time out, though not for such brief periods. What I'm really advocating is a change of mindset from ArbCom. It would demystify ArbCom a bit and make the stick held over administrators potentially shorter (and therefore easier to swing), but it's all possible already. Geogre 17:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to the idea. The more power that devolves from the center, the better. Mackensen (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then, let's just eliminate admins altogether. With all due respect, I just see so many pitfalls, as Doc says. We can't agree on how admins should be desysopped or when they should be...so let's open up another discussion on how to temporarily desysop them so we can all disagree on that. It's pointless. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

These ideas all have the same fatal flaw. You will not get any consensus to desysop an admin (temporary or otherwise) unless the case is so clearcut that arbcom would deal with it anyway. Take, for insstance, Tony_Sidaway who has obviously annoyed a lot of people right now, but I still think you'd get no consensus to take any specific action. I, for one, would oppose it. In short any of these systems will generate a lot of heated debate, but they'll never do anything that AC wouldn't have done anyway. --Doc 18:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The two proposals seem similar in general theory - Mackensen's suggests a voluntary break from admin tasks while Geogre's has it enforced by temporary removal of powers. I'd suggest leaving the details (such as duration of 'hiatus') to the ArbCom to determine on a case by case basis, but otherwise see no problem with either... or both. ArbCom currently tells users 'stay away from articles on this subject' and then only blocks if the user does not... they could similarly tell an admin 'stay away from deletions of this type' or 'check with other admins before doing anything that is foreseeably likely to be very controversial' (applying Mackensen's concept to only a particular type of admin activity) and only enacting Geogre's 'enforced vacation' if they violated the injunction. Heck, I'd like to see this concept applied as general practice without any sort of punitive element to it. We all have our particular areas that we feel strongly about and valid reasons to be involved in, but when things get heated walking far enough away to get fresh perspective is a good thing. More... 'go do something else while tempers cool' than 'you are wrong and we are gonna block you'. 'Andy Mabbet, stop working on Birmingham articles for now', 'SPUI, go work on something other than roads for a while', 'Cyde, you need to walk away from userboxes for now', 'CBD, you should leave off defending blocked users for a while', et cetera. I'd much rather see, 'ok you all stay away from this subject for a week', as a standard response to edit wars and incivility than warnings or blocks. (after conflict) I wonder if this latter would address Doc's concern - would people really object if it were a way of saying 'there is a problem on this issue and everyone involved needs to walk away from it for a while' rather than parcelling out 'blame' and 'punishment'. --CBD 18:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll echo Doc's concerns, and explain. I don't think this will work precisely because in the kinds of situations like this, sides are drawn. And sides think they're right, and cannot fathom why no one else can see it. Those with the Admin bit, using the admin bit feel they're protecting the project in these situations and telling someone like that to back off rarely works. I doubt you'd get two sides to agree at once, and I doubt you'd get anyone to be recognized as a mediating influence (i.e., completly non-partisan) outside of ArbCom. And sadly, the current kerfluffle above around Tony seems to have drug the ArbCom into it, so I'm not sure how that one will shake out. I'm sorry, this looks to me like a bit of instruction creep which isn't likely to really solve any problems, even though it's very well intentioned. --InkSplotch 18:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Conrad has the thread of what I'm getting at here. Administrators need to take breaks from administrating now and then. If anyone's looked at my contributions, they'll note that my first reaction after my...unpleasantness...on the noticeboard a few days back was to go and start a new article (still a stub, but I'm going to take some pictures this week). Re InkSplotch, I want to avoid instruction creep as much as possible. Formal processes, enshrined policies, page listings...let's avoid all that. What we need is a way to tell an administrator that he or she needs to go something else, and for that administrator to listen. Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, but we should not *force* breaks. As I said before, so many negative assumptions. It's a "one size fits all" type of idea. And what happens if vandals or other people who don't assume good faith try to get someone desysopped? As doc says, who decides that the desysopping be done? If it's other admins, then it's basically the arbcom. I just don't see the point of forcing it. It's very very unwiki. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that a "way to tell an administrator to go [do] something else" is a fine thing, but how do you make them listen without resorting to the use of admin tools? Or, rather, how do you make them listen without resorting to admin tools and without inflaming the situation? It's a tactical challenge beyond me, but if you succeed, I'll be fully behind you. Can I ask, is this in direct response to the Tony/Giano situation above, or just sort of tangential? --InkSplotch 20:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd been thinking about a workable desysoping idea (if only temporary) for a while. It's not a direct response, but it certainly influenced my thoughts. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the importance of taking breaks. One good way of taking a break from the Wikipedia admin grind, and other users that you might be in conflict with is poking around some of the other projects. Perhaps we could encourage people to do that (not "get the hell off en wp" but "hey, have you seen this Wikibook on <<insert user's favourite topic>>") the wub "?!" 21:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we call it 'going on wiki-walkabout'? :] --CBD 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more like "Wiki-rambling" or some such. Random article patrol is an oddly soothing exercise sometimes. Amazing what you find sometimes. Mackensen (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching RfA for a long time and here's my observation. Many people do lots of cheap edits and then stop after they "win" RfA in order to turn into political chatterboxes. An important reason for desysoping should be lack of main space edits (other then reversions). Those admins who write no new articles tend to ignore the names of quality editors. They know only those wikipedians with whom they chat for hours on IRC. If they have no recent experience in editing Wikipedia, what's the point of their presiding over the project? Wikipedia for them is a maiden aunts' tea party. After all, we are here to write an encyclopaedia. All the rest is of secondary importance. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

But there is still useful work that can be done outside the article space e.g whatever you think about the arbcom and its clerks, they are doing a job that benefits the encyclopedia by resolving disputes. XfD voting and closing has a direct effect, and welcoming newbies is important too. And you want to desysop those who mainly revert vandalism? Well good luck writing new articles whilst trying to keep vandals off all your old ones on your own. The point is, some people (myself included) might not be particularly good at writing new articles - or just don't feel like it. Users should be able to contribute in areas where they feel able to, if it benefits the encyclopedia. On the other hand I think there should probably be more recognition for "quality editors" - I have to admit I had barely heard of Giano before all this, which seems a real shame. the wub "?!" 09:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Again. Just too many negative assumptions by those who want this. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• So, because the admins will disagree, there is no point in trying? Sheesh. My point, if any of those objecting actually read it, is that we use blocks freely and demotion almost never. This is the opposite of what it should be. If I lose the buttons, I can still edit. If I lose the ability to edit, I can't use the buttons. ArbCom's informal practice is to reserve demotion for something horrible. That's a ridiculous situation, but it's understandable given the horrors of RFA. That's why I suggest either that ArbCom start issuing temporary demotions freely (and therefore Tony, for example, would have been popped about 8 times this year by now) with no "shame on you! you shall never be a trusted user again" involved or, if ArbCom cannot face this, a collective remedy through administrator review. Any misuse of the buttons should mean a loss of those buttons, precisely as an injunctive remedy. The fact that the administrators won't agree is irrelevant. It's easy to go Eeyore. It's hard to make things better. One thing is absolutely clear: the status quo is not working. Geogre 10:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Breaks and sabbaticals are an old-ish idea. I, for one, have floated the "reappointment by review once a year" idea before, with lots of attenuations to prevent the lynchings of RFA, and breaks are a fine thing. In fact, a break to write something is good. A break to clear backlogs is vital. A break to simply do any one of the thousands of things that are part of the admin task kit without any conversation on project pages would be wonderful. However, that's informal, and we need only announce a league to get that done. I will endorse any such, but it will be meaningless for me to do so, given my usual activity on Wikipedia. Geogre 10:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A once-yearly administrator review would add twenty RFAs a week. No thank you. --Cyde Weys 21:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Reviewing 1000 admins every year would be too much. So what about a yearly review on certain admins only when another admin (or two, or three) request it? There are probably 950 admins no one has any serious complaints about, so this would lessen the number of reviews quite a bit. --Conti|✉ 21:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-sabbatical?

How about to have a rule that every admin should be temporarily de-sysopped for two months in a year? They should be strongly encourage to use this sabbatical to contribute into the visible areas of the main space. Writing FAs, writing GA, writing DYK-able new articles, mass correction of the category tree - you name it. The benefits are two-fold. The admins would get an insight into the life of a productive editor. You know, fencing off POV-pushers without edit warring, attempts to reach a consensus with the orphanbot, DR with people whose Good Faith you have reasons to doubt. They would also got a vanity list to show those pesky editors then asked about their mainspace contributions. abakharev 09:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the value of that. This would be pre-emptive. I mean, I am an admin and I mostly do "regular editor" stuff. And I know I'm not the only one. There are just alot of assumptions in your proposal that I don't agree with. It's assuming that admins don't ever act like regular editors or that all they do is act like admins. It's completely incorrect. Even arbcom members do "regular editor" stuff. I am just against anything that makes negative assumptions about anyone, including admins. I think all stuff like this does is feed into the idea that's out there that we're not "real" editors and that we don't care about the quality of the encyclopedia. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sort of doing some editing as well. But I could certainly do more if not have to do the admin staff as well as to monitor the bloody 7K+ watchlist. Still if you look a few sections higher then there are people expressing contempt over respectful admins having much less contributions to the main space. Maybe I should make a wikisabbatical for myself abakharev 10:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't do any "regular editing", so a forced sabbatical would just mean someone else would need to take up the work at CFD that I'm no longer able to do. Nor would I attempt to do any "regular editing". I'd just sit on the sidelines until my time was up. Not sure how others feel about this, but I don't see how it would help, really. --Kbdank71 11:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty, you edit, and I edit. I am quite sure that quite a few of the people advocating unilateralism and power don't do much editing. It's not an assumption as much as inductive reasoning. However, if it is wrong, then the effect would be nil. I.e. people would already satisfy it and not be affected at all. There are some people who would be tremendously discomfitted, though. What is galling is the very real, very easily seen, attitude expressed by many of those who have gotten a little drunk from monolog on private mailing lists and IRC. That said, I do not and have not supported a requirement like this. It ought to simply be a thing we do, and I see the usefulness of calls like this as more rhetorical than actual. Geogre 11:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Kelly Martin offer

Kelly Martin offered, on her user talk page and on the -- surely now archived -- section of AN entitled "Giano," to step down from being an administrator if Bishonen and I and two others would ask her to. I did not answer immediately because, despite being called a diva, being told that I'm under scrutiny, etc., I take these matters seriously. Bishonen has a longer and much better thought out query and petition on user talk:Kelly Martin than I will here, but here is what I would request.

I request that Kelly Martin voluntarily give up subscription to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. I request that she cease advocacy on any and all particular arbitration matters where she is not named as a party, although, of course, she should continue to express her opinions and offer her advice on the best way forward for the arbitration committee in general. I would request this of all former arbitrators no longer on the committee as well, but they have not made any similar offers as Kelly.

I do not feel that Kelly should lose her administrator status. I personally think that her worst moves have been due to a claquishness surrounding the invincible and invisible back channels rather than casual editing, development work, or scanning name space, so, therefore, I feel that if she were to forego association with officially unofficial ArbCom semi-membership, those problems would not arise in the first place. She is entirely free to accept or decline this request, and I will believe in her follow-through, whatever position she takes. Geogre 18:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How much discussion there is about checkuser and oversight issues on the ArbCom mailing list would be relevant here, no? NoSeptember 18:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly think that the arbitrator's mailing list is a valid topic here. Kelly is a developer, I believe, and all developers have checkuser. Unless someone wants to speak to Kelly's qualifications as a developer, and I certainly don't, I have been silent on that. (The grim irony that developers have no hesitation in telling writers how to act, while writers rarely tell the developers how to behave is probably not germane.) Geogre 19:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Developer status, checkuser and oversight are separate functions (the idea was in part to remove these tasks from the developer's workload). We have a shortage of active checkusers as it is, and Kelly is one of the few active ones. If discussion of oversight and checkuser cases takes place on the ArbCom mailing list, then access is important. For example, if Kelly did a checkuser on a puppetmaster and discovered it was related to a party in an ArbCom case, that would certainly be worthy of a private discussion on the mailing list. NoSeptember 19:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, but having one-way access (write access) or pass-through wouldn't be a huge deal. The point is that I feel that she has already demonstrated inappropriate use of the priviledge. I also feel that it has led her to some of the most controversial and insupportable actions. That's my feeling and remains my request. We do need more check users, but I no longer feel that an advantage in one place means that a disadvantage in another has to be ignored. Geogre 20:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Inappropriate use of privilege": You've mentioned this before, and so have others, but I've never seen anyone really explain what that means. I realize evidence might be hard to come by, seeing as neither Kelly nor the ArbCom ever discuss what is actually said on the mailing list. The most I've seen is whenever Kelly even mentions a topic has appeared on the list, an assumption is often made that 1)She mentioned it, 2)She's leading or even dominating the discussion and 3)Is biased in doing so. But no one will actually say what she's actually done, or how she's abused this privilege. It seems a pretty bold request without more support. --InkSplotch 21:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

They're not saying it because it's clearly said already. You'll now have to go to the /Giano subpage to find it, though, as some folks are sure that this matter is no longer worth discussion. Therefore, if you need this outlined, please go there. If I say anything here, it will no doubt be immediately archived in the interests of peace. Geogre 22:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am, sadly, familiar with the contents of the /Giano subpage, and I do not see it as clearly as you do. I see many things implied, but very little proven. --InkSplotch 22:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wire pulling and groaning

"I request that she cease advocacy on any and all particular arbitration matters where she is not named as a party" — that is absurd. Even anonymous users are allowed to comment on all arbitration cases. Why should Kelly be gagged?! --Cyde Weys 19:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

She's free to reject any part. I meant "advocating for a specific outcome on a specific case" that doesn't involve her. Again, she's free to accept or reject any part. Geogre 19:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So she would not be allowed to add one of those "Comment by uninvolved person" entries which sprout up on just about every single "Request for Arbitration"? As Cyde says above, even anonymous users are allowed to do that. You're coming across more like some sort of bunny boiler than anybody I would want anywhere near me. Stop it now, before someone gets hurt. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been answered already, but your input, as always, is appreciated. Geogre 20:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"before someone gets hurt" anyone in mind Phil, or just an idle threat? Giano 21:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Do you even know how to assume good faith anymore? The idea of Phil Boswell causing harm to somebody is absurd. He's trying to de-escalate the situation, as are others. How about you? Mackensen (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Mackensen, I regard you as a sane voice here, but I don't think "bunny boiler" and HTH HAND aren't exactly de-escalatory phrases. In fact, they are only matched in sarcasm by my response to them, which is why my response was what it was. Geogre 21:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I've often seen Phil append HTH HAND to his comments, so I really wouldn't put much stock in that. I would challenge you to tell me straight up that there's malice in his remark. I suppose if you're looking for malice you'll find it. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, straight up: accusing me of being insane is fairly malicious. Tell me that you see that as calming, as de-escalating. I'm not looking for offense, and that's why I was simply sarcastic in reply. Impugning all I do and all I have done with a comparison to a dangerously insane person is supposed to be a vague bit of malice? I'm stunned. Geogre 02:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• I think people are just getting so exasperated that you claim to be the voice of the "trodden upon" yet the actions you want taken are so harsh and draconian that no one else is stepping up to support them. --Cyde Weys 21:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Who are you talking to? The measures I'm suggesting? You would prefer it if Kelly lost her administrator's status? Again: she is free to accept or reject, so I don't see how I'm doing much of anything except answering her offer. You are free to be aghast at whatever you wish, though, as you are free to concentrate on a phrase instead of a sentence. Let's hear from Kelly, eh? Geogre 21:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• "You're coming across more like some sort of bunny boiler" good one, I'll try to rememeber that when I'm next trying to "de-escalate a situation" thanks for that tip Mackensen. Giano 21:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Mmmmm, boiled bunny ... --Cyde Weys 21:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Especially good with juniper berries and olives. Giano 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano, what is it that you want? After all of this, what is it that you want? That so much ruckus came of out a three-hour block reflects poorly on quite a few people–there's more than enough blame to go around. But that's over and done with. I repeat myself, what is it that you want? Mackensen (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• a perfect world - how about you? Giano 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• For starters, a sign you still took this seriously. Mackensen (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen's post above sums up the situation neatly. As for Kelly Martin, she is a highly regarded sysop, and I would not want her to be de-sysopped. --LiverpoolCommander 22:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your account is ten days old, and all of your edits (all of them) are to templates. If Doc is outraged and shocked that I speak for others, then he must be totally speechless at what you've just said. Geogre 02:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

She's like the little girl who had a little curl. When she's good, she's very good, but when she's bad, she's horrid. The point is that I have not advocated demotion, either. I have asked her to surrender the arbitrator-l priviledge and to cease advocating on cases that she's not involved in. Inasmuch as Kelly is an even more highly respected developer, I hope she will continue to perform that job in the sterling manner that she has so far. I also think that she can and does perform administrative duties well, and I hope she continues to. I personally feel the problems come from private clubs and presumptive speech on behalf of an arbitration committee that she is not a part of. That's my view. Geogre 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, you could deal with this by remembering that she no more speaks for the committee than I, or any other former arbitrator, does. If you think she's doing a good job with the tools then by all means let's all stop calling for her head. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not calling for her head. I'm calling for her access to the ArbCom mailing list. She can keep her head. Apparently, she is now predicting -- and it sure looks like it's meant to sound official -- that I am heading for a big blocking. She offered to lose her admin status, and I do not think she should lose that status, as I don't think she has been particularly bad with using those tools. I do think that coming to AN to inform us that we are being examined and breaching the privacy of the arbitrator's mailing list partially to create a threat was an exceptionally vulgar and obvious abuse of that priviledge, and I see her prior assurances that she is the center of the project, the indispensible person, and the voice of the ArbCom (tell me that you haven't seen her pull this schtick, please) as related. I'm only asking for one thing, and it's surely not her head. I was trying to be nice, but access to that mailing list must be valuable beyond gold or pearls if it's being treated with such dread. Geogre 22:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh don't be so dramatic, no-one wants her head, Geogre has explained perfectly well what is required, now do calm down and stop over dramatisig please. Giano 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Could've fooled me. Mackensen (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on Kelly one way or the other, I think that all former arbitrators should either be completely removed from the workingss of ArbCom, or abstain from making any comments about arbitration cases outside of the ArbCom mailing list and IRC channel, possibly both. It's not a question of personalities. Keeping up apperances is an important part of conflict resolution, and the current ill-defined role of former arbitrators isn't helping with that. Zocky | picture popups 22:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• No other members of the community are so restricted, and I fail to why people with important background knowledge should be treated any differently. Mackensen (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it might be a good idea if the ArbCom mailing list was, after a decent interval, made open. I mean an interval of at least a year and possibly longer. It should operate in some way similar to the Thirty year rule under which British government papers are released. I thought about proposing this when seeking election to Arbcom in January and now think it is even more pressing. David | Talk 22:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • One very basic reason for not doing this is that sensitive (e.g. CheckUser) is sometimes displayed on the list. This cannot be opened up, obviously. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Then redact them, dear Liza. David | Talk 23:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • That's a crapload of work though. You'd need a full-time Arbcom-l clerk just to clean up messages from over a year ago to release for public consumption. Considering this is a volunteer project, who would want to spend their time doing that? Who wants to be a censor for year-old messages that are now utterly irrelevant? --Cyde Weys 23:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree with Zocky on this one. There are certain benefits to having ex-arbitrators on the arbitration list if difficult issues arise, but at the moment, they are being far outweighed by the fact that people who have been voted off the committee or have long resigned and are badly out of touch have almost equal say in arbitration decisions through the arbitration list. I am one of the people who would lose my access, but, while this would be annoying, I think it's for the greater good. As for Dbiv's suggestion - the arbitration list is private for a reason. It gives arbitrators a place to discuss proper solutions among themselves and an appropriate means of discussing often-sensitive issues. Rebecca 00:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Agreeing with Rebecca, there really isn't a compelling reason to keep former arbititors that outweights the ascoiated proplems. . If anyone on the arbitration commitee feels a need to consult them they could presumably email them. Also agreeing that making ArbCom mailing list emails public is not a good idea at this point in time. JoshuaZ 03:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving along

Apparently Geogre and Giano don't want Kelly Martin desysoped. This is the latest, based on the above. I apologize if I've misread something. Instead, we're to remove her access to the Arbcom mailing list–if she consents, according to Geogre. Apparently that's to tbe outcome of this trial by fire. I hope it was worth it to all concerned. Now can we please, finally, bring the matter to a close? Is there anyone left to offend? Mackensen (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is why I opposed archiving. No, Mackensen, that is not all. That is all that escaped the "let's archive it now, now, now so we can say it's over" purge. All that was left over was, "Kelly Martin promised to give up her admin powers if Bishonen, Geogre, and two other editors in good standing asked her to." Well, I figured that access to the mailing list was much less important than administrative status, but, it turns out, she was not being sincere in her offer. On her talk page, she has explained that she's far too important to the Foundation itself to allow something like loss of the mailing list to occur, much less losing her administrative rights, which, paradoxically, she says she does not use. Never mind that, though. The point is that Kelly Martin was not the issue. Kelly Martin betraying the contents of the arbitrator's mailing list partially to intimidate people was certainly one issue, but it was not "all." It is because this betrayal of the privilidge occurred right before our eyes (or did, but now it's archived for peace) that I felt it was a certain and reasonable thing to ask. Silly me! I confined my suggestion to Kelly Martin because Kelly Martin offered. I assumed good faith. Apparently, the offer was not made in good faith. Now, of course, the discussion of whether former arbitrators keep getting access to the list will go back...to the list where no one can contribute except the involved parties and where we will never again know, unless Kelly decides again to tell us that we're being noted and discussed and disapproved of there. I apologize for taking such a harsh tone, but being intentionally reductive of the issues, and I can't read your comments any other way, is pretty much a slap in the face. Geogre 02:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the issues raised in this dispute are far greater than this, and shouldn't be quite so easily dismissed. I for one, in the wake of this week's discussions, believe that the practice of keeping ex-arbitrators on arbcom-l should be discontinued. I think we'd be even better off if we had a complete spill of the committee in December, but I guess that might be being a bit hopeful. Rebecca 01:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why a complete spill? Is AC doing a poor job? They were elected for 3 years, they are only 1/6 into that. Do we have to have a revolution every time a few people get upset. WP:NOT Trotskyite. --Doc 01:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying these things, Doc? They were not elected in the first place, and they were not elected for 3 years in the second place. Also, the answer is an emphatic "yes" to whether they're doing a poor job, but this has not been about whether ArbCom itself is a good institution or bad. (It's a bad institution because it doesn't scale. It took 3 months for a very recent and clearcut case to go through, and then the only two active arbitrators allowed their personal annoyance at one person to lead them to some bizarre and incendiary proposals.) The question is, "Should people be unimpeachable because they hang out all day with certain arbitrators who allow their likes and dislikes to stand far in front of the policies of Wikipedia." We have observed, here, that Tony Sidaway experienced a whole 24 hours block for disruption and then had one member of ArbCom and one "not really a member" come along and try to cow people into quiescence. Was that behavior appropriate? No. Is there remedy? No, apparently, and you say that we should be happy because, no matter how poorly an "elected" ArbCom member performs that one sprinkling of magic pixie dust means 3 years of unindictability. At least that's what it seems like you're saying, repeatedly. Geogre 02:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a much more modest proposal that was that retired and recused arbitrators refrain from discussing the ongoing cases along the private channels. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy#Recusals and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Question on the recusal. I was more naive last week and at that time the kinds of responses I got surprized me. I would not think so now but I invite you to take a look at the proposal and its perception. It is directly related to this issue. --Irpen 01:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a fundamental problem with former arbitrators discussing matters with ArbCom members if the current members iniate for some reason and even I have discussed matters related to ArbCom issues with different members of the ArbCom when I felt that something was too sensitive to be put out in the open. The real issue here is putting the former arbitrators on the list by default which seems to be much more problematic. As for George's comment- on the whole the ArbCom has been doing very well I think and by and large are doing a good job. It is unreasonable to remove Abritrators in an out of process fashion unless we can establish a very clear consensus for the matter. As for the issues with Tony, I suspect that he is on a short leash at the moment. Presumably if a similar incident occurs again I hope the ArbCom will be very willing to look into it. JoshuaZ 03:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Eigomanga and related articles

Can I get some other administrators to keep an eye on Eigomanga, its Talk page, Austin Osueke and its deletion nomination, and related articles? A bunch of anons and newly registered accounts seem to be on a campaign to exorcise all potentially negative material and process from the articles: see here, here, here, and here, as well as the articles' edit history. Moreover, the IPs all resolve to the Bay Area (see: [38], [39], [40]), where Eigomanga's offices are located, raising the possibility of an attempt by the company to sanitize its content on Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 20:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Formalization of Wikipedia:Community probation

Since one user now has been placed on "community probation", the following proposal is intended to formalize the procedure: Wikipedia:Community probation/Proposal. Note that this is a power many believe that admins already have, pursuant to the existing power to impose community bans on editors. --EngineerScotty 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on Anus

There is an ongoing edit war on the Anus article with people removing an appropriate image repeatedly from the page. The page is supposedly protected, but anons have been editing it. How is this possible? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I found the explanation. It was only protected from page moves. I have now fully protected it for a while. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

commons ticker

Many projects have a commons ticker (as described here: m:User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker) as, for example implemented at wikinews... some of the projects include other language wikipedias. Is there interest in having such a ticker here? I am willing to work with Duesentrieb to get it set up and be the responsible admin as outlined on his page. If there is no significant objection I will implement it. Also posted at the Village Pump proposals, where discussion should be held. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I'm being accussed of sockpuppets on my RFA. See Makemi's talkpage and my talkpage. Anyone to investigate it? Sugarpine t/c 03:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)