Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive109

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Can open, worms everywhere[edit]

It's worth noting to all administrators (in fact, all editors period) that the recent kerfuffle about no longer tolerating trolls on the 'pedia doesn't mean that any and all annoying editors/editors we disagree with/SPAs/similar are trolls.

Just like how the terms "vandal", "vandalism", "incivility" and "NPA" are now vastly overused by all and sundry when they mean "doesn't agree with me" or "is enforcing policy" etc, we should all avoid debasing the words "troll" and "disruption"/"disruptive" just because they are fashionable.

New editors pick these overused terms up quickly (in the case of "vandalism-only account", helped by Twinkle offering them a helpful checkbox to tick for AIV reports to accuse clueless newbies on their first edit or regulars on their 25,000th) and start misapplying them. We don't help this as regulars here by seizing on the term "troll" and applying it liberally - something we've started to do in the last 24 hours and are already getting thrown back at us on ANI and here.

There are trolls, there are disruptive users, there are pointless idiots we would be well shot of... but labelling thus anybody and everybody who we would have blocked anyway dilutes the power of the words and plays into the hands of the trolls themselves.

A little cautious language again, perhaps? <sideshow type="bob">And I'm aware of the irony of being the one to mention "cautious language" so there's no need to point it out</sideshow> ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I almost uniformly use the term "disruptive" because words like "troll" and "vandal" are little more than pejoratives. I think disruptive is a good, general term for anti-social behavior in this community. It's also good because it has no bad-faith assumption attached to it; you can be disruptive while acting in the best of faith. --Haemo 01:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Yet oftentimes, "troll" and "vandal" are the only apt and succinct descriptions of editors who act as such, and serves as an eye-catcher to the problem(s) at hand. Of course, no one disputes that the words must be used with care. —Kurykh 03:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. We should refrain from commenting on editors. Describe the actions (disruptive, unencyclopedic, spam, conflict of interest, pov warring, etc). --Rocksanddirt 18:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
So we can't call people trolls, but we can say they are trolling? ;) EVula // talk // // 18:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we should have a special place where people can go and troll, just to blow off steam. Oh wait, it already exists. It's called /. - Jehochman Talk 19:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Or call the comment what it is. Personal attack? baiting another user into incivility? be clear in descriptions of behavior that violates policy. IMO "troll" and "trolling" are meaningless. --Rocksanddirt 21:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between people who occasionally make personal attacks or bait other users versus those who constantly do so. Neither of those behaviors are tolerable, but people who are always attacking, baiting, disrupting, and vandalizing should be shown the door. The people who occasionally attack or get overheated in the middle of an argument, but whose editing is otherwise productive, don't need to be driven off the project. That may have been what Jimbo was referring to in his block reasoning -- that Miltopia had a consistent track record of being disruptive and that he was no longer positively contributing. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Good essay, Redvers. That is why my preferred term is "troublemaker". Keep in mind that Socratic questioning could be understood as trolling. (AFAICR, I've used "troll" only once -- & that was a special case.) -- llywrch 22:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Couillaud[edit]

Couillaud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Couillaud has already warned for a 3rr violation earlier today [1]
Personal attacks, racially insensitive language and inflamatory language with: " he still can't spell either my name or the country "Namibia". " [2]
Saying that "YoSoyGuapo is bad at spelling and grammar is like saying that Elvis is a dead rock'n'roller" [3]
Mocked my hispanic heritage with "If it turns out that Wikipedia doesn't have the cojones to deal forcefully with this kind of trolling, I don't think I'll stick around" [4]
Calling me "googleman" because I research articles. [5]
stating that I learned English last week [6]
commenting on my spelling and stating that he was a grammar nazi [7]
YoSoyGuapo 00:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a larger thread about these users here. IrishGuy talk 01:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that's why it's been largely ignored there ---- it's toolarge. Many individual comments made by the participants is a monitor screen-full or more! (See my talk page for more examples). YoSoyGuapo (talk · contribs) above has been indefblocked for edit warring and was unblocked (by Tony the Marine) with the stipulation that edit wars - like this one - would end. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Wknight94, Thank you for alerting me to the situation. You are right, I did give User:YoSoyGuapo on the condition that he acted in civil manner. I have looked into this outrageous situation as you have recommended in my talk page. I will therefore proceed to comment.

1. User:Couillaud is a valued editor whose knowledge and contributions are well appreciated in Wikipedia. I can understand your frustration in the Josh Gibson issue and I can also understand that User:YoSoyGuapo, wanted to post that Gibson possibly had 800+ homers. The problem here was that you, YoSoyGuapo pushed your observations resulting in revert war which should have been settled instead in the articles talk page. You both should have agreed to simple consensus and I'm sure that you both would have found an agreeable solution. That should have been the end of it. Instead this was the beginning of a war between both of you.

2. User:YoSoyGuapo, I told you when we made the agreement that you should no longer edit under the IP: User:64.131.205.111. However, I see that you have done so in various occasions, especially to the article King's Daughters. This not only can be considered trolling, but not only are you in violation of our agreement but, you maybe be accused of sockpuppteering which is against our policy. I can understand that at times a person may forget to sign in. It has happened to me, but if you use this IP address you will be blocked.

3. User:YoSoyGuapo, User:Couillaud was right in the fact that you should not have inserted the "Namibia" section into the "King's Daughters" since it had nothing to do with the main subject of the article. It could have gone into a "See also" section. However, User:Couillaud I can understand YoSoyGuapo's anger at you taunting his "English" which was out of place.

4. YoSoyGuapo, you cannot warn anyone about clearing thier "talk page". Users are allowed to clear their user pages and your "warning" without authority seems to me a hostile act on your part.

5. YoSoyGuapo, what did I ask you in our agreement? I asked you that you should avoid wars and whenever a situation came up that you should ask for a mediator for a solution. Neither of you did this which has resulted in this senseless war.

I'm going to suggest that both of you put an end to this nonsense. End it right now. YoSoyGuapo lay off the "King's Daughters" article because it seems as if you are stalking Couillaud as a result of the "Josh Gibson" incident and go about editing in other areas where your knowledge is well appreciated. Do not indulge in reverting wars and look for mediation whenever a situation comes up instead of this back and forth arguing which ends up in a hostile situation.

The same goes for you Couillaud, plus refrain yourself from making comments which may offend other users, even if it is done in a third party's talk page. This said, I want you to know that I appreciate your baseball contributions in Wikipedia and that you should not leave. I have been tempted myself many times, but I have overcome worst situations. Tony the Marine 06:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Important![edit]

Resolved

Hesperian (a well-known administrator) has been blocked for no particular reason. He is a user in good standing and has done nothing to deserve the block (it was possibly directed at a vandal school IP). Please unblock if possible. Thanks, Auroranorth (sign) 05:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

He's unblocked now, Aurora. I think it was just an error. Thanks, Sarah 05:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was just about to strike the request. Auroranorth (sign) 05:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the current policy on 'Secret Pages'?[edit]

I suspect this has come up before, and I don't normally care about such things, but looking at the autograph page above made me link to a couple of the signees, and I found many of them had text on their user page that say, 'Find my secret page!'. So I went to google, and got this result. While I realize a lot of these links are to user talk pages, congratulating them for finding it and things like people creating barnstars to congratulate each other, 10 and 20 pages down the search I'm still finding so-called secret pages. I *believe* that this has, in the past, been treated as silly but ignorable, but we're nearing 70,000 ghits on secret pages limited just to en-wiki. Is this something that can/should be dealt with, or is it just disk space use that we need (as in 'can't stop') to let slide? --Thespian 21:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MYSPACE balanced against WP:COMMUNITY. If these are proactive editors who want to enjoy the community then why not. Bandwidth et. al. is not our concern. I personally think secret pages, signature pages etc. are a waste of effort, but if the editors who create them for themselves also create meaningful content / revert vandalism / identify CSD stuff / generally contribute then on balance I'd prefer to keep the secret pages if we can keep the editors. Pedro :  Chat  21:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
These editors often don't make useful edits, though. I'm fine with allowing useful contributors to have autograph pages or whatever, but if someone is using Wikipedia as a webhost or a game, then I'd say nuke 'em. Natalie 21:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
At least one of the edits signing one of the pages is an administrator (@pple)! @pple does make useful edits.Miesbu 16:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
(To clarify, I don't think the users should necessarily be blocked, but the time-wasting pages should be deleted and the user warned. Natalie 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
If they don't make useful edits, WP:MFD is what you are looking for. I would advise against a mass nomination of multiple users' pages - someone tried that with signature books I believe, it was a disaster. Mr.Z-man 21:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm not commenting on individual issues. Autograph pages (as an example) may be contrary to WP:ENC but if the editor has made (arbitary figure) 200 good edits then let them keep it. If they've turned up and done nothing but work in their user space then that's an MFD issue. Per Mr.Z-Man wholesale deletion with or without warning will just irritate potentialy valuable future editors. Pedro :  Chat  21:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm usually seen arguming for t olerance for editors expressing their individuality, but I think such pages and autograph books are expressions of jvenile lack of seriousness, and should be removed. expressing one's affiliation is fine; cultivating friendship related to WP is fine; obtrusive activities that have no conceivable relationship to the encyclopedia are quite another matter. Let's start as Z-man suggests, and go slowly, beginning with the worst of them. DGG (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless the secret pages are the only thing an editor has worked on, I don't see a problem with it. I've certainly got a plethora of private pages in my userspace (though they're generally only private because I'm the only one that would find use for them). EVula // talk // // 22:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, the correct figure is about 300 pages not 70,000. Addhoc 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, though it gives 350+, not 300. It's not as bad as I thought, but I still think that's excessive (and won't count variant names and the ones I saw labelled 'Page of Secrets!' and such). The user pages that I peeked at that had these links were....messy, and it might also be my RL (I do user interface design engineering for software and web sites) that's adding to my reaction, since my first reaction to several pages was 'Dude, I can't find *anything* on your pages, let alone a secret link!' ;-) --Thespian 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Results 1 - 10 of about 71,000 from en.wikipedia.org for secret page. (0.13 seconds)SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
May be, but a lot of those pages are just pages which contain the words "secret pages" – only about 350+ are actual secret pages. ~ Sebi 10:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
There are entire clusters of users who spend time doing their own secret pages and finding other users' secret pages and autograph books. I agree that the disk space and resource usage isn't a big concern, but it definitely seems like users come together in clusters. And there's a difference between private pages used for article development versus private pages being advertised with, "Find my secret page and sign it!" I've never asked anyone to sign User:Elkman/Cook County NRHP, for example. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Its also really easy to find such pages if you know a user has one. Mr.Z-man 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that if users want to have them, let them have them. If it keeps them in a good mood and excited to get on Wikipedia every so often, that's great. Even if they only make a few edits while they're on, they're making a difference. нмŵוτнτ 23:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Secret" pages? What the eff is the point? They must not know about Special:Prefixindex. Delete the stupid nonsense as a violation of WP:USER. We should've done this awhile ago with the signature books: now the cancer is metastasizing. --Cyde Weys 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care that much, but just an FYI: the good ones I've seen hide them well enough so that they don't show up using the prefix index. нмŵוτнτ 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Erm, that's not possible...unless it's in someone else's userspace. — H2O —  09:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, a page of relating to secret pages that isn't a secret page, strictly speaking. ~ Sebi 10:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind people having secret pages, as long as they can be coaxed to contribute to the encyclopedia and not just each other's talk pages, etc. Perhaps there are some people who will join Wikipedia because of the opportunity to make a secret or autograph page, and then become productive editors. I do object to people treating Wikipedia as if it is nothing more than a game, and I think the secret pages of such users should be deleted. I don't know what the cutoff point for productive vs. nonproductive editor should be, though. People have different standards. --Kyoko 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone provide an example of these "secret spaces"? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't provide you with an example of a secret page because it wouldn't be a secret any more. (Ha ha.) Actually, though, here are a couple example: User:Uchiha23/Secret Page, User:Penubag/Secret page, User:Efansay/Secret Page, User:Zenlax/Sandbox2, and anyone who's credited at User:Vic93/HiddenLinkAwards. Or, better yet, anything that links to Image:Missing barnstarPn.png. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
In principle, I agree with Pedro. The problem is, no one is going to police this (I mean, check to make sure that people who create or spend their time finding secret pages are also making quality edits). I agree that the activity as such is harmless .... but nevertheless i think it ought to be discouraged if not outright banned because it sends the wrong message. I think Wikipedia needs to tlerate if not cultivate a freedom of expression, but I think that that stops on the user-page itself. I think all other pages should have some relevance to the objective of Wikipedia, which is to build an encyclopedia. This includes sandbox pages and talk pages which yes, build community, but community organized around the common goal of building an encyclopedia by working on articles. Secret pages are just a game and one that trivializes Wikipedia. Surely Wikipedians who happen to like these sorts of things can join facebook or some other internet forum to support their pleasures. Let Wikipedia be Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
How do you define Wikipedia community? Just for curiosity. @pple complain 08:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Many talk pages, including those of adminstrators, are similarly guilty of idle talk, thanks, hellos, etc. The main difference is that they are not called "secret pages". Lighten up! Even one of the signers of a secret page is an administrator who has made useful edits. Miesbu 16:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Since I saw my name brought up in this discussion, I want to have a few words. Miesbu, I think you misunderstand what people are talking about. Secret pages are acceptable, as long as their owners make useful edits to the encyclopedia other than just strolling around and advertising "Finding my pages, plz". As I recalled, Deskana used to make massive nominations of autographbook for deletion but he still signed his adoptee's. I personally favor these kinds of subpages, since they bring excitement and promote friendliness among editors, but there should be a limit. @pple complain 08:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Secret page is a valid use of userspace, helps strengthen the community spirit and encourage mutual acquaintance. PeaceNT 12:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocks and Unblocks[edit]

I'd like to propose two ideas that might need to be communicated to the admin community:

  • When placing a potentially controversial block, announce it and invite discussion. State in advance the conditions on which you would approve unblocking. This can save a lot of drama in case you are unavailable to discuss your block.
  • Before undoing another administrator's actions, except for blatant mistakes or bad faith actions, try to contact the other admin, and if that fails, let the discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI run long enough that you get a WP:SNOW consensus before doing what you want to do.

Does this make sense? This advice may seem obvious, but a lot of administrators seem to have missed these two points. - Jehochman Talk 10:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd certainly support that. CBD's unblock of Privatemusings, for example, was absolutely not supported by anythign like consensus, and most of those opposing the block don't actually know the identity of the aother account. Everyone I've spoken to who does, appears to support the block. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Why should a block made without such discussion stand if consensus is split and policy does not support the stated reasons for the block? I'm all for discussion. Rather than an involved party placing a controversial block a discussion can allow comment from others and then any needed action can be taken by a neutral admin. However, if a block is placed without discussion, the stated reason for the block is not supported by policy, and extensive subsequent discussion shows the existence of strong opposition to the block then no... I do not believe that consensus for unblocking need be found before that action can be taken. Someone acting without consensus or any clear policy support, without discussion, and without even any prior warning does not get their controversial action 'certified' as the default case. --CBD 13:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I am with CBDunkerson; in cases of immediate disruption, then blocks should be placed without delay. But where there is an underlying and longrunning problem, there is no harm from suggesting a course of action and waiting until consensus has emerged. Indeed it is far more disruptive to have a controversial block placed, and then to have a long debate over whether it should be overturned, and whether an overturning was premature, and a meta-debate about whether policies were followed. A considered and debated block is far more likely to stick even if there is discontent with it. Sam Blacketer 14:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't look for a snowstorm to undo a block. If the block is not well supported, it possibly should be undone (or just allowed to expire if it's short.) Blocks are a blunt tool; we should sometimes try less drastic measures first. Friday (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I was just about to post something like this. This seems OK for long-term blocks, but for short blocks like 3RR, it seems that something different is needed. Discussions can sometimes take longer than 24 hours (though they shouldn't really be so protracted), so the length of discussion should be somehow proportional to the block length. I strongly support the idea of making clear under what conditions the blocking admin would agree to an unblock, though in some cases this might be obvious. An important point is to mention (and if possible, link to) any such discussion in the blocking/unblocking log. Being around to discuss things is important. If you are not around, there should be no complaint if a discussion overturns an action in your absence. Admins don't own their actions. User talk:NoSeptember/admin policy seems relevant here. Carcharoth 14:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with the above; as I often take up 3RR reports I am always willing to unblock if it seems likely that they will not be disruptive, and there can be no objection to another admin undoing a block for the same reason. The blocks are for the benefit of the project and not for my ego. Sam Blacketer 15:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "potentially controversial" is the stumbling block here; what can be obviously "in the right" to one person can easily be seen as dickish by another. EVula // talk // // 15:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • When undoing another admin's block (except for obvious mistakes or ABF) then you should ALWAYS contact that administrator prior to removing the block. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • No argument here. EVula // talk // // 16:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Not sure what ABF means, but what if the blocking admin is unavailable? How long do you wait? I still maintain that discussion among other admins can overturn another admin's actions. WP:WHEEL uses the term "unilaterally" (I thought I did...) for a reason. Always requiring discussion gives the impression of ownership of admin actions. I'm not advocating overturning for no reason, but discussion and a good reason can lead to a good faith overturn in the absence of the blocking admin. Maybe the blocking admin will return and explain further, but unless the blocking admin had left notes behind, the unblocking admins would not have been aware of these further reasons. This all depends on the timescale of course. Blocking someone for a week before you go on holiday for a week is not a good idea. Blocking someone just before you go to sleep for 9 hours might be unavoidable, but things don't stop until you wake up/get back. It also depends on the urgency of course, and this should be weighed against the urgency of the original block. If the block prevented ongoing disruption, undoing it may restart that disruption. Other considerations can come into play as well. It is a complex judgment sometimes, with many aspects needing to be weighed against each other. You should still notify the blocking admin, and discuss if they are around, but no need to wait until they get back. But, as always, have a good reason for blocking and unblocking - and except people to object if you don't provide a good reason. Carcharoth 16:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Getting advice when you are in doubt is essential, but I would draw the line at "doubt", not "controversial". As for unblocking, it is current policy that you should not undo another admins block without first getting their agreement or a greater consensus from the community to do so. 1 != 2 16:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Some of the "don't revert an admin action" sentiment comes from inappropriate feelings of ownership. Admins, we should not own our admin actions. It's sometimes reasonable to undo one, even without "permission" from the person you're reverting. It shouldn't be common, and we should tread carefully, but undoing an admin action without persmission is not automatically unreasonable. Friday (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it's generally something we should be careful about, but admin actions are hardly sacred -- I figure it's mainly the sudden actions, or the repeated reversals of administrative actions back and forth, that can set a bad example and potentially reflect poorly on the community, in the few cases where such arguments are prominent enough to garner some media attention. We do need some stability to keep good people around. Sanity checks and group discussion are useful, and if it's better off for a blunt action to be done or undone to allow a discussion to continue, or a situation to calm down, then timely response may be of particular importance. "Ignore all rules" shouldn't be taken as a "license to kill," but as a "license to think." Take a few moments to consider any administrative action, whether deleting, protecting, blocking, or reversing any such action, not only in terms of how it may affect the people involved, but also the project as a whole. Mistakes will be made, from time to time, let's all just try and improve situations when and where we can. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have always seen it more as "Don't revert an admin action without discussion and/or consensus". It is not about OWN, it is about not edit warring with admin actions. It is about setting a good example for the editors that instead of reverting back and forth a consensus can be formed. 1 != 2 16:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's try again. Read the following:

"I trust that my fellow admins' actions are done for the good of Wikipedia. So if any of my admin actions are overturned I will not consider such an action to be a "Wheel War", but rather an attempt to improve Wikipedia. If I disagree with your action, I will try to discuss it with you or with the admin community, but I absolve you in advance of any presumption of acting improperly. We should all extend the same benefit of the doubt to our fellow admins, until they repeatedly prove that they are unworthy of such a presumption."

After reading that, can you explain what is wrong with a good-faith revert of an admin action? Continuous reversion, when discussion has shown the matter is not clear, would be wheel-warring, but a single, reasoned overturn is not. It is balance between not letting the first admin to act to be the one to set the status quo, and avoiding admin warring. Carcharoth 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think 1=2 agrees with me - sorry! Carcharoth 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of AGF can result in "Good faith" edit wars where one user reverts in good faith and another reverts in good faith, ad infinitum. AGF doesn't exist in a vacuum as a policy, You also need to discuss changes that might be controversial before making them. Undoing another admins actions when they aren't clearly a mistake almost always causes controversy and dispute and thus shouldn't be done. Talk about it first and if a agreement can't be met between the two parties then take it somewhere for further discussions and consensus. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That fails to recognise that sometimes urgent action is needed before discussion can take place (eg. reblocking for a new reason after the unblock - which wouldn't be a wheel-war anyway), or that sometimes discussions can take longer than the block length. It also opens the door for wikilawyering over blocks while the blocked person's sense of injustice increases. In all cases, some common sense should help, recognising that while there are exceptions, you need a good reason for the exception, and that continual action back and forth is harmful. Again, it is a balance and there aren't really bright-line rules that help. If someone thought one of my actions was wrong, I would prefer they undid it rather than wait for me to get back. The caveat is that if I disagree, I will discuss it with them! :-) Carcharoth 17:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
If you block a trouble maker another admin unblocks them and the person continues to cause problems then you can simply re-block per the problems caused since the unblock. No big deal there and no need to discuss. If someone is blocked and you want them unblocked and want to discuss it and the discussions occur longer then the block, so what? The person is unblocked anyway and maybe a note can be left in their block log notifying of the decision from the discussion. Wikilawyering doesn't work and it never should, ever. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree that we need a SNOW consensus situation to overturn a controversial block. A block (or any admin action) should only be upheld with consensus. A lack of consensus should be enough to reverse. Often, I feel like Wikipedia favors inertia a little too much. Sometimes a lack of consensus is enough to merit some sort of action. In fact, I was inspired enough to write my first essay. -Chunky Rice 18:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If there is a consensus to overturn one of my blocks, please, go right ahead. Bearian 19:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, so leave the discussion open for a few days, or until it snows, whichever comes first. Given the traffic on this board, that's like 30 minutes - 48 hours depending on how interesting and important a case it is. Avoid unblocking without agreement of the blocking admin, or else a reasonable amount of discussion and a consensus. We all need to respect each other more. Wikipedia is not an anarchy. We look like a madhouse when admins run around unblocking each other without any discussion whatsoever, and the chaos encourages trolling. - Jehochman Talk 21:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Per the original proposal; am I right in presuming that a "potentially controversial" block is one where there isn't a series of escalating warnings, or discussion, regarding some behaviour or other, on the talkpage, and isn't otherwise obvious vandalism and disruption? If so, I would believe that an invitation to review such an action would be most wise. If then consensus appears split, or against the block, then another admin might unblock, but should always give a clear reason to the original blocker. The block/unblock might then be discussed until a final consenus is concluded. Thems my thoughts on the matter. LessHeard vanU 22:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that the second point is already covered in the blocking policy, in the part about unblocking. --bainer (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, nice timing, Jehochman. El_C 08:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please lock my userpage and talk page.[edit]

Resolved

User page and talk page protected. Hut 8.5 10:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've grown tired of this fighting. Maybe i'll be back in 2008. If ever. thanks for everything. muchas gracias. YoSoyGuapo 00:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Merkin POTD[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Michelle Merkin POTD over concern over proper forum for discussion. Please move to a better location if there is one. - Wikidemo 01:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Further move - have moved to WP:POTD, as this is something relating to POTD. This is not an admin concern. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
All this fuss over a rather scrappily Photoshopped composite! What joy. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that Guy's response to this discovery has been to go around deleting the image from all relevant (and admittedly irrelevant) articles. See my note on Guy's talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Um, no, actually my response has been to review the articles in which it's used and see if it's appropriate. We don't just include an image because the caption says (without benefit of a source) that this person embodies the ideals of physical beauty, that's POV. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
We have ideals of physical beauty? looks appropriately shocked at such news I wish people would tell me about these new fangled inventions sooner.--Alf melmac 14:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I had set up User talk:Howcheng/MerkinPOTD for discussion exactly for this purpose... howcheng {chat} 17:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Instruction creep issue[edit]

I invite all administrators and editors to examine Wikipedia:Translation, an area I used to frequent all of the time but can no longer understand (or do not have the attention span to go through all of it) for example, here is a (once) deleted revision of when the translation process was much simpler: User:RyanGerbil10/GermanOverhaul. If you can figure out our current system, kudos; I wish it would go back. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I used the system a year or so ago, I think. It was bad, but I got an article out of it at the end. Carcharoth 16:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with persistent copyright abusers[edit]

Friends, I direct your attention to the upload log and talk page of someone I think we can all agree is a problem user. As you can see, he continued uploading copyrighted images long after his talk page was riddled with copyright notices, and long after the images started to be deleted en masse. Now that Shell Kinney, who pointed him out at PUI, and I (and you) have our eye on him, obviously he'll be monitored if he continues to upload images, and blocked if need be. But I think we need to have a conversation about how we deal with such users in general. Is there an easy way to track the people who Orphanbot and the others are hitting most frequently? Should they be blocked on sight? It's pretty obvious they're not paying much attention to their talk pages, so it becomes hard to reason with them. Thoughts? Chick Bowen 02:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say use one of the 'Uploading inappropriate images' templates, probably, for this excess, at level three, and then follow up on it the next upload. The copyright notices only work, as you know, when someone actually pays attention, so warn him, block him (or have him blocked) despite the fact he's ignoring the page , and then force him to have nowhere to talk except his page. None of his current (excessive) warnings mention being blocked, so he has no reason to pay the slightest attention to them. The tools are there, but they're not clear, and perhaps we need some more (severe) image warnings for users like this (the image warnings are sparse at WP:UTM) --Thespian 02:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
IMO, it would be more effective to talk to the editor without using templates... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.244.249 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It usually is, and I prefer it, but if the editor has persistantly ignored posts to his talk page, and it is unsure that they are even *looking* at it, it does lend itself to becoming time to get his attention more forcibly. There are 53 warnings on his page, almost all of them about this issue, and almost all of them about images that were deleted because the user didn't respond to them (to save them or otherwise). If the user doesn't respond to talk pages (and in this case, they haven't ever posted to a talk page for any of the articles they write for, either), it does call for a stronger way of getting their attention. I am unsure, in this case, if the user will pay attention and work with the project (which would be nice, as they're obviously very enthusiastic, though they don't grasp/pay attention to copyright law) or simply create a new account. --Thespian 03:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

ETA: I wonder if it might be worth looking into adding 'blocked from uploading' to Help:Block_and_unblock#Blocking_options the blocking options, as this user doesn't seem to have any real problems with content, just images. I'm also going to post a note letting them know of this discussion, on the off chance they'll see it and respond. --Thespian 03:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet, the only way that we can effectively stop the uploads is by blocking the user from doing anything on Wikipedia. I knew it was mentioned before that we can block for this, but we just need to dig it out saying where it can be done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
right. I know that we currently can't, I was just wondering if it could be made into an option. I didn't mean just adding it to the page, I meant to the blocking options as a whole; this is a tech musing, and it will certainly not happen in time to deal with this user! --Thespian 03:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I have thought about it several times; that would make things a lot easier if we could just turn off uploads for users without having to block them. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, perhaps, but in this case the problem is simpler than that: the user does not seem to be reading or heeding the messages. This is a good reason to block him, in my view - he will then have to engage in dialogue, at which point we can find out if he is one of those who rejects the whole idea of copyright, or whether he simply doesn't get why it's important. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah; that's why I made the suggestion as above (and indeed, why I notified him, to see if he was just ignoring warnings or the whole page), so his attention could be grabbed. But I suspect him not having upload privs, since that seems to be most of his work, would do the same. --Thespian 09:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
And what Guy said before worked in one case; I blocked a user over the images and I got an email from him months later. I agree a block should be done now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I've indefinitely blocked the user. In cases like these, all of those messages serve as warnings. In a recent case, the user agreed not to work at all in the Image space as a condition of his unblocking.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
And I have put Template:Indefblockeduser on his user page. Greg Jones II 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Request review of WP:U block on User:Sexybeast6989[edit]

Resolved

This username was reported at WP:UAA. I regarded it as borderline, but ultimately judged it to nominally violate #3, bullet 5 at Wp:u#Detailed_examples. User:I, who created the account as a legitimate sock and has since created User:Sbfw for the same purpose, asked that I have some other admins review the block. I don't have strong feelings about it, so if someone would like to unblock it, please go right ahead and let I know. Thanks! Dppowell 04:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not create the Sexybeast account, actually. I created the sbfw one, and was trying to figure something out with the html tags using this account's preferences, and forgot to restore this signature. Just to clear that up. i (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies; I was drawing an inference from your objections on my talk page and from your new account name, which appeared to be an abbreviation/variation on the blocked account. Dppowell 05:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't unblock it. The username is marginally in violation of the username policy but it's one deleted contribution was a nonsense article [8] so I don't hold out too much hope for useful edits.--Sandahl 05:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Sandahl. If it were just the "Sexybeast" I could probably see it as okay, but with that edit and "69" in the name, it's a violation in my view. RlevseTalk 12:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Also 89 is synonymous with titty fuck, (pardon the expression). Combined with 69 and sexybeast is an obvious reference to sexual slang. Jackaranga 12:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow! It's ... ummm ... amazing what you can learn on Wikipedia - Alison 21:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. Dppowell 13:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be that 89 is the user's birth year? Lemon martini 14:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User block[edit]

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

The Guy have blamed user Necator for MPOV pushing without adducing any proof. [9] And did not even let the user go through WP:DR Just banned him when he tried to rise request for mediation.

I'm requesting to unban user Necator. 91.122.11.224 22:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Which is you, right? The block was for POV-pushing, WP:OWN, forum shopping, blaming everyone else for the fact that everyone else reverts your edits, and generally not getting it. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

AWB requests to check[edit]

I'm supposed to nicely point out that there are requests at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage that are over 24 hours old. Thank you :) TheHYPO 22:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done --After Midnight 0001 01:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce impending ban (and effects at AFD)[edit]

I am watching the Alkivar ArbCom case unfold and it appears that Burntsauce (talk · contribs) will soon be banned as a meatpuppet of JB196 (talk · contribs) (see ...#Burntsauce banned). I mention this because I see quite a few !votes by Burntsauce in open AFDs which I figure need to be disregarded as banned user edits. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Disregard away. Picaroon (t) 03:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:Copied with attribution to the Bureaucrat's noticeboard. Keegantalk 05:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought he'd participated in RfA recently but I am wrong. Whoopsie. Keegantalk 05:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:Gene Nygaard[edit]

Resolved

I am extending the block of Gene Nygaard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to indefinite duration, given his long track record of WP:POINT violations and disruptive incivility. My feeling is that the project can survive perfectly well without his contributions, and that he has been sufficiently warned to have enabled him to change his manner should he have so desired. To clarify matters before any accusations of wheel-warring, my decision is revesible by any administrator. Physchim62 (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. I considered that myself at the time. Nothing personal, I think Gene's personality is simply too combative to be conducive to consensus-based editing. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I object to the indefinite block. I don't see evidence of consensus for a community ban. Gene is frequently uncivil and overly-stubborn, and I have been on the receiving end of his sarcasm, but he has (and is, up until his block) been doing some fine work on the encyclopedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't object to the block, but I believe that the admins involved need to look very closely at the various IP's and users (I specifically refer to User:Greg L) who have been baiting Gene. SWATJester Son of the Defender 14:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The man has 50k mainspace contributions, the great majority of which are just fine. Until this week he had a total of three unreversed blocks, the longest of which was 48 hours. I feel that going straight to an indefinite block at this point is not called for. The weeklong block, straight on the heels of a 72 hour block was already a very substantial action. Haukur 14:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus for a community ban is not needed before an indef block. I have noted the above comments, I'm now going out for a coffee :) As I mentioned above, if an administrator feels that I have been too bold, especially following the discussion above and any further discussion here, then they should replace the original 7-day ban. Otherwise, I stand by my action, at the same time opening it for calm discussion. Physchim62 (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Can you prove a small selection of diffs to illustrate the WP:POINT behavior? There is nothing wrong with an indefinite block because it can be refactored if the user admits mistakes and expresses a sincere desire to improve. - Jehochman Talk 15:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

FOR BACKGROUND ON THIS: See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_of_Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts_by_Rlevse RlevseTalk 15:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  • My contribution to the calm discussion is that there is no need for an indefinite block at this stage. Apart from the incivility, the contributions are good. And to be frank, some of the incivility is stuff that could be shrugged off if people looked past the incivilty and saw the point being raised. If someone says something relevant to me, while being incivil, I try to look past the incivility and learn from the advice that is being given. I try not to ignore the advice and, hackles raised, get all upset about the incivility. Also, the escalating lengths of the blocks has only been 24 hours, 48 hours, 74 hours, 1 week (not yet served) and then suddenly a move to indefinite. I would suggest reblocking at the one week level, and then escalating further to a month and so on, if the incivility continues. Carcharoth 15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How hard would it be for the user to apologize and promise not to repeat the same mistake? I think that's a very easy condition for an unblock or reduction. - Jehochman Talk 15:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Many users react to a long block with an outburst of outrage. So far, as far as I know, Gene has been silent. We can't really hold that against him. Not to mention that for all we know he went camping after his last edit yesterday and doesn't know about the block bidding-war since then. Haukur 15:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Noting that I'm the person who issued the 72-hr block, I think the block should be reduced back to the 1 week block, per Carcharoth. RlevseTalk 15:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "How hard would it be for the user to apologize and promise not to repeat the same mistake?" - by that argument, all blocks should be indefinite until the person who is blocked apologises for whatever behaviour allegedly caused the block. That sort of system would soon collapse as it would actually promote wheel-warring ("because he hasn't apologised!") or would promote bad-faith apologies. It also presumes that all blocks are correct, and makes blocking a more humiliating experience than it is at the moment, and brings up the disturbing image of some admins dangling a carrot of "apologise before I unblock you". Apologising should be natural, not forced. Carcharoth 15:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect to Physchim, I feel an indefinite block at this point is counterproductive to building encyclopedic content, and have restored the seven-day block. It is very clear that Gene has been uncivil and has made personal attacks, per this. However, comments on the administrator's noticeboard indicate that several users feel that the method of prevention of disturbance to the encyclopedia in this case (an indefinite block) is excessive. As Phychim has indicated he does not object to undoing the indefinite block, I have done so. It is my hope that Gene can reform his habits and return to building the encyclopedia when his block expires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firsfron (talkcontribs) 15:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • When a pattern of behavior has been long term, I think it makes sense that the block should last until the user expresses a desire to change. The apology thing, Carcharoth, wouldn't be necessary on the first or maybe second incident. This user was given several short blocks, so he was clearly on notice that the behavior needed to change, yet he continued. We're sending a message, but he's not getting it. Thus, there is a logic in blocking him until we have evidence that the message is received and understood. It's no big deal that the block was refactor to 7 days, either, because P62 invited that. - Jehochman Talk 16:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Carcharoth, actually that would be a good idea. If we never unblocked anyone until we were sure that they appreciated what they'd done wrong and were determined not to do it again, life might be a lot quieter. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That depends on how you define "we" and "sure". I don't think it would be workable. The real trolls would always show enough contrition to get someone to unblock them, and there would be arguments over the detail of apologies that would be too lame for words. Carcharoth 18:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think making unblocks conditional on contrition is a good idea. We're encyclopedists here, not confessors. Their moral state of mind should be none of our business. It's not hard to issue escalating blocks over behavior without once considering motivations. That way lies... complications. It's a simple cause-and-effect thing: "Act this way, and you'll be blocked; if you wish not to be blocked, don't act that way." -GTBacchus(talk) 19:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As a long time editor Gene is serious, rational, competent and hard working. He has always shown the best intentions for this project. The problems with his manor are small compared to all that, in my opinion.

An indefinite ban of this type of editor is rare. I'd like to ask that any off-wiki conversations on this topic be noted here now. --Duk 16:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am against an indefinite block but would support the case to be taken to arbitration. Some kind of parole could be an option. I have had clashes with him in the past over trivial issues that he stubbornly blew out of proportion. His campaign against anything with diacritics on has made him no friends in many occassions. Nonetheless, I agree that he is a hardworking contributor and it would be particularly cruel to impose a community ban. Regards, Asteriontalk 17:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Block reduction noted. In the light of the above comments, the restoration of the original block has my support. Physchim62 (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Complicated cut and paste move needs fixing[edit]

Resolved

Bronx-Whitestone Bridge (old history) has the old history of Bronx-Whitestone Bridge, which does not appear in the current article. Bronx Whitestone Bridge has the history of what's now in Bronx-Whitestone Bridge. The two histories overlap in time. Can somebody fix this, and let me know if I could have handled it better? Thank you. --NE2 10:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll also need Queens-Midtown Tunnel deleted (no real history here, fortunately) so Queens Midtown Tunnel can be moved. --NE2 10:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Dang! That was indeed complicated. It's been fixed, anyway. :) PeaceNT 10:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

みんなはこの”神との対話”を読む。いや、読まなくても良い。[edit]

Could an admin who reads the above language take a look at the deleted edits on User:Akanemoto. This user has requested the deletion of his/her user page nearly 50 times. Curious, I submitted some of the text to a translator, and Akanemoto appears to be using the page as a way to communicate with somebody. Interesting stuff (phrases such as "everyone is healthy", "I want to be free"), but this page may need to be protected from recreation or the user blocked. Comments welcome. - auburnpilot talk 22:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That "somebody" seems to be God (神). --BorgQueen 22:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Babelfish, always useless even between related European languages, suggests Everyone reads "the conversation with this God". Well, you do not read and also the [unknown character] is good. Which makes a certain gnomic sense. Personally, I'd undelete the entire page, then blank it, then protect the blank version. Most work, but least trouble and eliminates the problem in future. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Appears to be Japanese, as it usually makes more sense when spit through the Japanese translator than the Chinese option. Either way, I've protected the page. Akanemoto requested yet another deletion just minutes ago. - auburnpilot talk 23:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The sentence is somewhat non-sensical. It says, "Everyone is reading this sentence to God, or, you shouldn't read it." It is Japanese, using Kanji and Hiragana script. Cla68 00:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so put this down as someone who likes to talk to Kami-sama. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP backlog[edit]

This is starting to back up again. Can we get more admins involved? Tks. RlevseTalk 23:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fuck SSP, check out the backlog here. It would be greatly appreciated if any admins who are even remotely versed in image policy could help out. east.718 at 05:27, 11/4/2007
that's not very appropriate language, esp for an admin. Pointing out other backlogs is fine, but disparging another admin task is hardly appropriate.RlevseTalk 11:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't disparaging anything; sometimes you can use profanity to humorously make a strong comparison. east.718 at 19:05, 11/4/2007 19:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I really don't appreciate the use of foul vulgarity. Please refrain from it in the future. I am disappointed it came from an admin. Bstone 01:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Should today's Featured article be protected?[edit]

Since it has been protected and unprotected and protected again once already, i feel this should be decided by consesnus. Todays FA GameFAQshas revieved a bit of vandalisim due to the fact that its a) The FAOTD and b) the last day of the character tournement. Should it be protected or not? I oppose protecting it, but am open to disscusion to cahnge my mind. The Placebo Effect 01:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

TFAs are protected when they're subject to insane levels of vandalism... like now. There are currently several thousand teenagers wetting themselves because their home website is on Wikipedia's front page. Unprotect if you feel like reverting all of them. – Steel 01:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I think all FAs on the main page should be protected, they're nothing but vandal magnets and it's ludicrous to proclaim it as wiki's best when they are vandalized so much. We sure want new comers to come see the main page FA as our best when it has profanity, porn, etc on it--NOT.RlevseTalk 01:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Almost one a minute. Ouch. I think this is appropriate. --Haemo 01:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Our policy is very clear. FA must not be protected unless there is reason beyond doubt to do so, like adding libel information. -- ReyBrujo 01:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to head off the inevitable admin who'll unprotect it with the summary "We never protect the main page FA", they should read Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection first. The old axiom isn't really true. --W.marsh 01:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be unprotected. We've had much worse hit FAs than this one. Vandalism was being reverted quickly and protection being determined in less that an hour seems very hasty. This is far from insane levels of vandalism - we could cope with this by watchlisting and reverting. WjBscribe 01:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh, apparently my attempt didn't work because it's now been unprotected with pretty much the edit summary I predicted. --W.marsh 01:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you think Wii fare much better when it made it the home page? ;-) -- ReyBrujo 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
If the article suffered, leaving it unprotected was probably a bad idea. Some people seem to enjoy leaving articles unprotected like they're the guy who stands in front of a cannonball at the state fair... we don't allow IP editing to show we can take a beating, we allow it (in theory at least) only because it usually tends to improve articles. In cases where improvement doesn't seem to be occurring... it's just masochism. --W.marsh 02:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, while I understand your position, I am one of those who still think a good anonymous contribution is worth the hassle. What I would change in the policy is that those who deface the page (replacing it with another text) should be warned just once and then blocked, or just blocked, depending on the administrator's judgment. This is because the user is vandalizing a very transited page in order to gain notoriety. -- ReyBrujo 02:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone name the last FAOTD that was semi-protected for more than an hour? The Placebo Effect 03:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Islam? Anyone who thinks "we never semi-protect the main page FA" should look at that one. --W.marsh 03:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, both the articles on Gerbils (I think?) and the article on Intelligent Design were protected a third of the day last month. We shouldn't do this; it is bad for the project long term. -- Kendrick7talk 03:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
What's bad for the project, protecting them or leaving them unprotected? Mr.Z-man 03:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Protection is bad. -- Kendrick7talk 03:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
W.marsh, let's not compare the vandalism an article like Islam, George W. Bush or similar could get with the one GameFAQs gets. This one is childish vandalism, by young people with a lot of free time to browse internet but little to think. The others border libel and racism. -- ReyBrujo 03:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I just object to people saying "we never semi-protect the FA" when we obviously do sometimes. --W.marsh 03:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Featured article is aways hit the hardest because it's the first thing the little bastards charming young souls see. HalfShadow 03:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, I understand. And I used to think we should protect them (I even reported once that it should be protected before realizing there is a policy against it). You must excuse my behavior, I believe the perfect article must not be protected, and therefore vouch for the unprotection of featured articles, unless there is something more than childish vandalism. However, that is just my point of view, if vandalism reaches a high peak and cannot be controlled, it could be protected for a few minutes. We cannot know if they have posted a note at the boards pointing to this article (although I am almost sure they did). -- ReyBrujo 03:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Eh, s'alright; I felt the same way for the same reason, once (first thing seen=hardest hit). Of course, it also means closest screened... HalfShadow 03:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for unprotecting during this discussion. I didn't realize this was going on. (I need to pare my watchlist down a bit). I haven't noticed that the vandalism level is particularly higher than usual main page FAs, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected - I'm a regular RFPP patroller and in all my time, I've not seen a mainpage article get so beaten up. As this is an extreme case and because we've had precedent before, I've upgraded protection to semi-prot, sysop move. Anyone can feel free to review and change this at any time but for the moment, give the article a chance. It's being vandalised faster than it can be reverted and the brakes need to go on, even if for just an hour or so - Alison 04:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
sic transit gloria mundi. -- Kendrick7talk 04:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
And now here come the sleeper socks. When is the last time we needed full prot on a main page article? At that point, it might need to be taken down IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The more sleeper socks we block, the better IMO. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Zero tolerance on the sleepers. I would have prefered to keep the page unprotected longer though :(. Ah well, we can try unprotection again in a few hours... WjBscribe 04:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, they are likely creating accounts which become sleepers because they can't use them right now ;) -- ReyBrujo 04:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Normally, the main page isn't protected. But come on, this amount of vandalism is ridiculous. It should slow down once all the GameFAQs migrators get it out of their system. Leave it sprotected for 2-3 hours I'd say. Wizardman 04:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
well, if it is that bad, fine. But an hour or two is stretching it. -- Kendrick7talk 05:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Did You Know?[edit]

Did you know... that Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, placed on its front page DYK section an article about Dave Teo, a Singaporean conscript whose court case has not yet even started, let alone furnished a conviction? "We will laugh at your calamity: we will mock you when your fear cometh" (Wikiproverbs 1:26) Guy (Help!) 20:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh, please note, this is not a dig at anyone, updating DYK is dull handle-turning and nobody loves a dull job, I was just thinking that perhaps we should all have a look at some of the DYK noms from time to time and decline some of the more contentious ones. Including election candidates in current elections. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • More screeners are always welcome at T:TDYK, a reasonable objection usually keeps a nom from reaching the main page. Anyone can make comments there, even IPs... screening is a pretty dull process though, as you say, but if no comments there in the 5-day period... it's hard for admins to catch everything, unopposed nominations are added by default unless there's a backlog. In this case, no one objected, although interestingly the original nom didn't mention the conscript's name. It's now off DYK altogether. --W.marsh 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Sadly, DYK has joined WSS as the hive of instruction creep here in the last year. Both processes, when I last used them in 2006, were simple "post a line here, work done by others there, output to be seen here" things. A year later, both require their blocks lined up in a neat row and fuck the rest of the 'pedia, both are effectively being run by a tiny community with nothing better to do, both have huge hurdles to climb to get anywhere, both slap down anyone who complains with the crappy and creepy "well, other people manage okay so there isn't a problem (except with you)" rubric, and both make egregious errors that it is impossible to challenge safely.
The result is a process so in love with the process itself that awful rubbish is given priority without review because someone active in the clique in question has given it the nod without really thinking about it.
Root and branch reform is needed in DYK and WSS, but the clear fallout deters many people, myself included.
And, random surfers, please note the lack of personal attacks here. I'm stating my opinion and naming no names (I don't even remember any names), so save yourselves the threatening emails. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I only became involved with DYK in the last three months or so and I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. As far as I can tell it's the least bureaucratic project on Wikipedia. I have no idea who the ruling community is. Maybe give DYK another chance? Whatever problems you have with it must have changed. --JayHenry 01:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
And I don't mean to be dismissive of your concerns, I just don't know what DYK was like a year ago, so it's hard for a newcomer to see what the problem is. The whole reason I like DYK is (what I perceive to be) the complete lack of bureaucracy. There are no votes, although certain lengths of hooks and articles are suggested, anyone can do the updates and ignore the suggestions. I've frequently updated articles that are shorter than suggested, have too long of hooks, were written too long ago, or whatever, and nobody has ever given me any grief for it. --JayHenry 01:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dave Teo ... article was created by an administrator and there had been a comment/suggestion from a known DYK participant, so it was reasonable to assume it was up-to-snuff. As a side note, I don't do much DYK updating these days, but it had been 17 hours (!!!) since the last update and I'd had enough spare time to get that done. howcheng {chat} 22:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I might be considered part of the DYK Cabal. I would have more time for checking items like Dave Teo if I could get any interest in automating some simpler edits I do routinely, most of which aren't even in the instructions but draw complaints if they aren't done. My main contribution to instruction creep is User:Art LaPella/Long hook, but that's good instruction creep - it doesn't pop up unless it's needed, you usually don't have to read beyond the first couple sentences, and it's better than the previous un-system of constant complaining that selecting administrators should edit more for brevity. I'm puzzled by "egregious errors that it is impossible to challenge safely" - I've never worried about anything other than accuracy when challenging an error, so come on in, the water's fine. Art LaPella 01:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. At the risk of more instruction creep, though, I think we should strongly discourage DYKs about people actively running for office, people with legal cases in process, anything where there is even a faint whiff of WP:BLP issues. My own view is also that allt hose cases where ten possible hooks are suggested by a single editor looking to get his own article on some wrestler or college baseball player on the front page should be speedily rejected, but that's just me :o) Guy (Help!) 12:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

whats wrong with having dave teo on dyk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.19.150 (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I think WP:DYK does a pretty remarkable job at spotting some of the newer gems amongst the dross and keeping the Main Page interesting. The DYK section on the Main Page is completely rewritten at least once, and usually two or three times, every day. It brings 5 to 8 new articles to general attention each time - around 20 per day; most are improved even further by the increased eyeball; and very very few are subsequently deleted (just look for the redlinks in the archive). Compare WP:TFA and WP:POTD, which change once per day and can be set up several days in advance; WP:ITN, which turns over perhaps one, two or three bullet points per day; and WP:SA, which now has complete annual coverage.

I have no idea what the complaint from User:Redvers above is about. DYK is one of the lightest processes on Wikipedia I know: write a new article (or significantly expand an existing stub), add a hook to T:DYKT, and wait. -- !! ?? 11:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Janitorial tasks from multiple accounts[edit]

An editor recently requested my assistance when Resurgent insurgent (talk · contribs) reviewed and declined WP:CSD taggings. [10] [11] [12] When asked why he noted "Well, I'm an admin." [13]. The editor noticed Resurgent insurgent was categorised in Category:Wikipedia administrators, but not listed at Special:Listusers/sysop, leading to the editor suspecting Resurgent insurgent was impersonating an admin. Anyway, turns out Resurgent insurgent is one of a number of declared socks of Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) which does have the tools. Both accounts are currently active and appear to be used interchangeably. While I don't think this set up is used with any intent to mislead, it nevertheless appears to be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia:Administrators: "Although multiple user accounts are allowed on Wikipedia in certain circumstances, only one account of a given person should have administrative tools." and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Administrative sock puppets: "The community has strongly rejected users having more than one username with admin powers... only one account with access greater than that of a normal user account should be operated." I asked Resurgent insurgent if he would consider restricting the janitorial tasks we ask of admins (such as declining CSDs, protection requests etc) to the account with sysop status, if only to stop this type of confusion happening again. He doesn't appear particularly amenable to this, suggesting his account is "policy-compliant". I thought wider opinion may be of value. Rockpocket 21:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the main issue that causes confusion is not appropriately labeling or declaring these sock accounts. For example, I have a secondary account that I use on public computers, but this account is clearly labeled (and even has the same signature), so any confusion should be short-lived if I chose to do admin-like tasks with this account. As long as the user does some kind of step like this to reduce ambiguity, I don't think occasionally using a secondary account for janitorial tasks should cause too many problems. Eric (EWS23) 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, he does list all his sock accounts on his Resurgent insurgent user page, and all accounts redirect there. The problem is this account is not the one with sysop status. I don't really have a problem with declared socks doing the odd non-controversial janitorial task, but I would expect the principal account, the puppeteer, to be the one with the tools. That isn't the case in this instance. Rockpocket 21:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
any user can remove CSD taggings, not only administrators, per WP:CSD. Thus he was technically not using the tools on the other account. I agree, though, that it is a little confusing. 00:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think there is any administrator action needed. The person has the tools at his disposal even if the account does not. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
So, the tools are given to a person then, and not to an account? That surprises me. How do we find out enough about a person to decide about Adminship, then? It would mean that any admin could open up mutliple accounts and use them all as "pretend" admin accounts? That's going to be very confusing to the average editor, I think. RFAs seem to be very much focussed on a single account. Perhaps I am missing something basic here. Bielle 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
No, the tools are given to the account that is owned by the person, that's why you can have multiple accounts, but not multiple accounts with sysop rights and why you can't have shared accounts. I have a sock account that I use for testing things that I need a second account or a non-admin account to do. Even if I made thousands of construtive edits on it, I could not get admin tools on it. You can't have pretend admin accounts because only the account with actual admin tools can do the admin actions, the rest can only do administrative tasks that any user, admin or not, can do. Mr.Z-man 20:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the simplest way to avoid this sort of confusion is to require admins with sockpuppets to have the account with the tools as their primary/default account and all socks directing towards that. This way anytime a sock claimed "I am an admin", when someone went to query it they would end up on the talkpage of an account that actually was an admin, rather than the page of someone who maintains an admin sock. Rockpocket 21:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Whenever anyone is operating a legitimate sock they realy should make it clear on each sock's page who it belongs to. This common-sense approach shouldn't be limited to admins. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
If any editor claims to be an admin (that is, as in Rockpocket's diffs #4, above, says on the editor's user page "I am an admin") when it is not, to this unsophisticated editor, that is an impersonation. The fact that the editor making the claim is a sock of an editor who is an admin, and claims that makes it all right, borders on wikilawyering. While there may well be degrees of culpability that mean this sort of claim is not as bad as impersonating an admin when neither the puppetmaster nor any of its socks is an admin, is still unnecessarlly confusing. Any solution that makes it clear to any editor who checks just which account is an admin and what that admin has done has to be better than confusion. Rockpocket's solution would achieve this; perhaps there are others that will do the same. Bielle 22:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
No one has done anything wrong, and the goals of the encyclopedia are being met in a good user who happens to use multiple accounts in a way that may sometimes be slightly confusing. I do not recall any limitations in process set up for admins and admins only to fulfill. Though I do not remember where I saw it, or if it has been removed, but something that is inherent or, at least should be, in the spirit of Wikipedia is that any user may act in a way befitting an administrator. Certain tasks in process usually fall only to administrators because they are the only ones with the tools to perform the task - you cannot fully close an AfD as delete without the mop, but anyone is allowed to close a discussion as keep if the consensus is clear (unclear nominations will be squabbled over because the point doesn't appear to have been arbitrated). Any user can and, in an ideal world, should behave in a way befitting an administrator.
That being said, I do think that it is a good idea for administrators who maintain alternate accounts to have the administrator account remain primary - people tend to anthropomorphize accounts as the presence of the person at the keyboard, and using a secondary one as a front to the powers of the primary does seem somewhat questionable if not actually a bad thing. Nihiltres(t.l) 22:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it may help if I explain how I came to end up using 2 accounts in the first place.

In August last year I asked to be renamed from "Kimchi.sg" to the more real name-ish "Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh". Very quickly I realised it is a mouthful and problematic for users passing messages. So I asked last November if I could swap the two accounts again, (I had created Kimchi.sg again, to prevent impersonation.) but the 'crats declined. So I've used an alternate account for much of the past year mainly to make my user name more readable. (I know people will just say "You could have signed as...", but how do you sign in the page history or move log?) I've never intended this to confuse other editors, thus I've asked again to usurp the Kimchi.sg account. Resurgent insurgent 08:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Reviewing speedy deletions isn't always an admin task in the first place. Personally, I'd say away from grey areas since I'm not an admin (let them take the heat :) ), but I've gone through speedy deletions before and either removed them or listed them for AfD instead when they didn't meet WP:CSD. -- Ned Scott 08:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Procedure for dealing with banned vandal[edit]

What's the procedure for dealing with a banned (not just blocked) vandal who is continuing to set up multiple sockpuppet accounts each day and is using these to launch personal attacks and to violate privacy? That is, is there anything more that can be done other than blocking, reverting, and perhaps oversighting? One problem is that he is on one of the Big ISPs so he hops IP addresses. I'm not sure if we can really block account creation from a Big ISP for any significant length of time. That is to say, I think we probably can't unless the vandal is stunningly abusive. --Yamla 15:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If the situation is that serious, it may be a good idea to block account creation for the ISP - we have the unblock mailing list (as you know) which easily copes with a number of large ISP blocks (my IP's blocked from account creation as I'm on Tiscali for instance). Maybe a two week range block followed by some evaluation? Ryan Postlethwaite 15:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Who is it? User:Daddy Kindsoul or User:Verdict? Wikidudeman (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who it is really, let's not give them any credit. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Is notifying the ISP possible? Wikidudeman (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, notifying the ISP is an option, but unfortunately, they don't tend to do much - it's much more effective to sort things out in house. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions (and I welcome any more ideas). If it does become necessary to block the ISP, I'll make sure the unblock mailing list knows ahead of time. I suppose I should probably set up one of those long-term abuse pages as well. --Yamla 16:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Misc[edit]

[relocated to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP editor and caste articles]

For the archivebot, east.718 at 22:40, 11/5/2007 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

help![edit]

Is there anyway to block someone from viewing your Wikipedia userpage, because my parent's saw that a few of my contributions got deleted, and they think Wikipedia is gay, and that I've been an ass hole for helping the cause, please help me block them from viewing my profile, they said that if I help out Wikipedia any more, I will get grounded for a year. SO SHIT HELP ME PLEASE!!! BLOCK THEM FROM MY PAGE!!! I LOVE WIKI!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xgmx (talkcontribs) 23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe that is possible. FunPika 23:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Create a new account and don't tell your parents what the new username is. Tim Vickers 00:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is gay. Ground your parents. --Tony Sidaway 00:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Did your parents really say Wikipedia is "gay"? -- John Reaves 00:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You on the drugs, boy? JuJube 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And if so, can you give us some?? -- Kendrick7talk 01:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It likes other Wikipedias? shoy (words words) 01:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Invoke m:right to vanish. Change your username, delete and salt user and user talk pages. hbdragon88 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I hear you can get parental control devices to stop your parents snooping in your browser history. This could help. --Tony Sidaway 02:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[needlessly complex solution] If you can buy a good book on the subject, you could always figure out how to set up another partition on your computer, install Linux on it (try Ubuntu (Linux distribution) as a beginner), set the bootloader to automatically boot into Windows unless manually overridden, and you would have yourself a nice, parallel operating system that a Windows user on the same PC would never become aware of. That worked for me for years. (Not responsible for any adverse consequences of following this advice whatsoever.) --Dynaflow babble 02:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
If you are serious do the name change as suggested. One thing you can always do is log out, clear your browser (cache) when you are away from your computer. Rationale for that is they can see your username at the top of any page when you are logged in. If someone else gets control of your account that way it's a compromised account and blockable. --Sandahl 02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Article bullying[edit]

(Moved to WP:ANI.)

Timestamp for bot: Resurgent insurgent 01:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Canterberry (talk · contribs)[edit]

Can someone uninvolved take a look at the spaghetti-like discussion at User talk:Canterberry regarding blocking/unblocking? (See this discussion for the original background to the indefblock.) Basically, Canterberry 'fessed up to abusive sockpuppetry and was indefblocked; I offered to unblock a couple of weeks later on strict civility parole (basically, if anyone had any valid complaint of any kind against him he'd be reblocked), which has been turned down. I think this would be workable, given that it was only a limited number of editors he's been in conflict with & he works solely in a specialist field of articles (railway lines of south-east England) & it would be fairly obvious should he return to sockpuppetry, and it does seem a shame to indefblock him when the virtually identical case of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lucy-marie resulted only in a three-day block. Anyone not previously involved in this able to take a look?iridescent 01:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As the original blocking admin, I've been on record since the original block as not objecting to someone adjusting the block. In my RfA I said I would have limited activity in blocking, and in 10+ months as an admin I've issued only 46 other blocks, so I always wanted review by those with more experience of our typical block durations. GRBerry 02:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm back![edit]

Hey everyone, I'm back from a wayyyyy long wikibreak (over a year!). I'm going to get back into the swing of things and hopefully be editing on a somewhat regular basis again as well as doing RfA promotions and name changes and the like.

Could someone be so kind as to inform me of any major changes that have occurred during the year that I was gone? Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 01:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. There's always a need for active admin and crats... WjBscribe 01:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Um. Do you want to read 52 issues of the Wikipedia:Signpost? :-) I can't actually think of what the major things were that happened. As always, check the CSD wordings and policies, as subtle changes might have happened that could trip someone up. Oh, there was a Community Sanctions Noticeboard that opened and then closed. There was an Essjay controversy. Something called WikiScanner caught loads of people, including the US Congress, editing their bios to make themselves look good. I'm sure others will add some of the more important stuff I've forgotten. Oh, RfA is (still) "broken", but managing to function OK despite perennial calls for reform. There were a few controversial RfAs. Oh, and the first adminbot got approved a few weeks ago. There was a big kerfuffle about something called Wikipedia:Attribution. There were also ArbCom Elections nearly a year ago, and you are back just in time for this year's elections. Jimbo also pulled a few rabbits out of hats every now and again, to keep everyone on their toes. What else happened? Did Esperanza close this year, or was that last year? Ooh. Need to start keeping a diary! :-) Carcharoth 21:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia Yearbook, anyone?
You guys forgot Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimbo Wales. Welcome back! Neranei (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh look! Another adminbot RFA! Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TempDeletionBot. And anonymous page creation is about to be turned back on in a few days, so people are gearing up for a big flood that might never arrive. Carcharoth 21:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Welcome back indeed. Your reputation precedes you :) It's hard to know where to start on the news, though. WP:SIGNPOST and its archives? - Alison 21:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, we need to start hiring historians. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 22:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
They are currently busy writing our encyclopedic content on history... Carcharoth 23:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Claps! Keegantalk 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Good luck with that RFA thing, it's kind of a cabalish mess at the moment. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Needing some Help[edit]

I want to request permission from WikiMedia to allow the use of a history written by someone else. A gentleman at the Newtown History Center in Stephens City, Virginia, wrote a very detailed, very well written history about the town of Stephens City and I would like to use it. The permission I sent (by email from NHC's Adminstrative Assistant) was not valid according to the rules. Could someone tell me if this is what I need them to fill out? I don't want to have to ask them a 3rd time for permission if this try doesn't work. I appericate any help I can get. Take Care....NeutralHomer T:C 23:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would work. Replace "LICENSE [choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_tags ]" with "GNU Free Documentation License (link)" (as the all textual content must be submitted to Wikipedia under this license). --Iamunknown 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks! :) - NeutralHomer T:C 06:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Insignificant Ban[edit]

Hi there. I was banned for a reason that I don't think was justified. I clearly had a direct quote to correspond to the verifiability act, yet I was "overidden" by a mere "consensus". I thought that having verifiable sources outweighed the mere possibility of a group of people forming a consensus to edit and place unreliable sources. If I am wrong, then I will clearly adhere to this possible, yet unlogical, principle. Sincerely, InternetHero 03:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the ban was by RobertG (talk · contribs) due to this edit. --W.marsh 03:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring is never a good way resolve anything, and the block has already expired. I did offer a suggestion to InternetHero about the painting so maybe that'll take some of the heat out of its inclusion in the article. Gnangarra 04:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to show me the part where "but I'm right!" is an exemption from WP:3RR. We know you think you're right, that's why you're edit warring -- problem is, everybody else thinks they're right too, and we find ourselves at a bit of an impasse if people just revert back and forth to their own personal versions of rightness. Yes, talking and negotiating is a complete pain in the ass sometimes, but it also happens to be one of the few ways to really accomplish any form of consensus. If your reasoning is really as good as you say it is, convince everybody else of the same thing with your conviction and persuasive ability, instead of edit warring and throwing up silly challenges, and then you won't have as many problems to put up with. It's not a battleground, it's a collaborative project. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't have said it better myself :) my thoughts on edit warring are basically summed up in this template, which I strongly urge InternetHero to have at least a glance at. Anthøny 19:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that none of you have read the actual discusion, otherwise, you'd know that the only reason I failed to adhere to the WP:3RR rule was because I screwed up on an edit, and had to revert and correct it. It is also obvious that because of my age you think that I "offered up silly challenges". Yes, it is true that I was 'edit-warring', yet it was the supposedly more mature editors who had no other reasoning faculties at work other than a simple, "I agree with so-and-so".

My arguements were simple enough to understand, yet they completely ignored them. When I did refute some of their arguements, and used it against them, they COMPLETELY ignored their own basis in such respects - such as the concept of Mozart looking sad in the painting done in Bologna. As a testament to such claims of singular 'rightness', the painting in Bologna was completed BEFORE the death of his mother, thereby making the Croce-Mozart more faulty since that particular painting was done AFTER his mother's death. I can never accept such analyzations as having more reasoning at hand than my arguements; so, I have contacted as much teachers and professors as I could to help me in this manner. Indeed, I am grateful to myself that I was a very good student who have gained their respect enough to actually do this for Leopold. Nevertheless, it is my teachers who have instilled such particular notions in me and who have also agreed that such edits aren't corresponding to Leopold's approval of the painting. In addition to that, we believe that the "principles" shown by the other editors have not refuted the fact that Mozart's sister and father aren't painted well in the Croce painting when comparing them with their singular portraits. I will be forming my own "consensus" soon, so I'm not too mad or worried. All I was trying to figure out was why it clearly states that the fundamental principles of Wikipedia includes not a consensus, but, verifiable and reliable sources under the neutral-point-of-view act. However, it is obvious to me now that it is a mere quantative formality that induces the accuracy of Wikipedia. All the same, we will forming our own consensus and put the portrait of Mozart as a child. Just kidding, I will put the 'Bologna Mozart'.

Anyway, thanks to you all for your time, although, I don't think that all of you have given me the proper, polite confidence I think I deserve. Have I not shown the same principle of confidence from the start of the discussion in question? Oh yeah, you guys/girls haven't read it.

P.S. It was the other editors that have made fun of my grammar, punctuation, and other things which do not at all adhere to my tests results from school that have been graded quite well. I guess thats just me being immature even though it was a personal attack adhered to by the more mature editors, and not myself. However, I guess it was actually a personal attack against them for some reason so I guess I should apologize, but I truly didn't know logic worked that way. If my English isn't as good as my teachers have scored me, then please correct the attempt above so that I may contribute to Wikipedia further, and let them know that their textbooks are wrong.

P.S.S. Thank you, Anthony. I have read the template you have given me, and I'm going to read the article it encompasses.

If that was the "only reason" you were revert warring, why didn't you say so, before? Why does the page history show repeated reverts, over time? If you're doing such a good job refuting and crushing everyone's points, why aren't more people noticing? How can I be prejudiced against your age, if I don't have the slightest idea or care how old you are? I certainly could invest a lot of time in sitting down to chat with you, I'd certainly love to do that for a lot of people, but unfortunately very few of us have the time, and most of us have other things to attend to, on- and off-wiki. I can spend a lot of time being polite, but only at the expense of getting across the more important message. Brevity is a must, in these situations; while I can appreciate your apparent offense that I haven't spent more time being polite, I think you're reading something into my tone that I hadn't intended. Now, did you have a specific aim in this thread, one we might be able to address? If particular users have repeatedly been causing problems, names and specifics, such as diffs or other supporting evidence, would be quite helpful. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't thinking properly there. I now understand that you can't just listen to everyones complaints. Anyway, I hope I didn't offend you. Here's my arguement: "All I was trying to figure out was why it clearly states that the fundamental principles of Wikipedia includes not a consensus, but, verifiable and reliable sources under the neutral-point-of-view act. However, it is obvious to me now that it is a mere quantative formality that induces the accuracy of Wikipedia."

I think I am a little immature still, so thanks for not banning me again.

P.S. I know you guys are 'making' me add the colons to your replies cuz you dislike me, but I don't care, I have to do it. Sincerely, InternetHero 03:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

InternetHero, the only way you can carry your point is to convince others of your arguments in debate: so far it appears you have failed to do so. This noticeboard is the wrong forum for settling content disputes. The ongoing debate is there, and the dispute resolution process is that-a-way; I hope you are convinced that the other option you have experimented with, edit warring, is not worth pursuing.
Everyone else, thank you very much for your thoughtful, helpful contributions here. Can I suggest that we now end this discussion? I originally thought that InternetHero was disputing the block: that would require administrators to look, for which this is a reasonable place to post. --RobertGtalk 10:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to carry out a point. My God, you people don't understand English. Oh well, if everyone was the same, life would be boring. Anyway, here is the point of my posting here - again: "All I was trying to figure out was why it clearly states that the fundamental principles of Wikipedia includes not a consensus, but, verifiable and reliable sources under the neutral-point-of-view act. However, it is obvious to me now that it is a mere quantative formality that induces the accuracy of Wikipedia. Is this true or not? Meaning, does the mere consensus from all walks of life override the fundamental principles of Wikipedia?"

P.S. It's obvious you really don't care what I have to say, and, I also understand that you're just trying to make me angry by ignoring my arguements. I know you're just going to ignore me again, but I figured it was worth a try. Keep working at trying to do your job, Robert - I know you must have good intentions. Sincerely, InternetHero 18:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with a repost of a deleted article that's been hidden in another article?[edit]

I was looking at the huge list at Unseen character which looked familiar. I checked, and it was deleted in April at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unseen characters. 74.32.96.183 re-added that entire list to Unseen character on 17 July 2007 here in an obvious attempt to bypass the AFD decision. Is there a standard way of dealing with this? Masaruemoto 03:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That article is way too long, and the content isn't encyclopedic, IMO. I'd say propose on talk to remove the content, and see if there is support. Or you could be bold and remove the content first, citing the AfD as previous consensus and wait to see if that gets reverted. I don't believe there is a specific protocol for this situation, but I could be wrong.-Andrew c [talk] 04:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I blanked it, per Andrew's suggestion, and left an explanation on the talk page. Let's see whether this was too bold. --Orange Mike 04:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The entire article's just been speedily deleted by Sandahl. It was only the list that was deleted at AFD, the rest of the content was there before 74.32.96.183 added it to Unseen character, as shown in the edit revision I provided. Masaruemoto 04:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, it's been restored. Masaruemoto 04:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Simulposted to the article talk page
I have deleted the page, per criteria G4 (ref: Special:Undelete/List of unseen characters, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unseen_characters). The article was substantially a copy of the previously deleted article. Take it to deletion review if you'd like. Keegantalk 05:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And like Sandahl, I have reverted myself. This is complicated, and I think that a new AfD would be the only resolution. Working through the revision histories, it looks like the list that was nominated for deletion was a fork of the original article, though they are substantially the same. So I'm not sure if there's any precedent on what to do with an article that's failed an AfD that's a copy of another article. I would think that they would both qualify for G4 deletion, but deletion review would be the only viable venue I can think of. Keegantalk 05:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I reverted it when I realized it was rather more complicated than a repost. Agree, they both would probably qualify for G4 deletion but WP:DRV might the best solution.--Sandahl 07:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Blankings? New AfDs? Deletion reviews? This doesn't seem that complicated to me, I just removed the list part (and the extraneous examples) leaving just the original descriptive text. --bainer (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, bainer. I have a tendency to complicate things. Hell, it took me a year of reading this site to figure out what the "edit" tab did :) Keegantalk 07:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the simplest solution was to simply remove the long list. This reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items where a list was spun out of the original article, then that list was deleted by AfD, and then the list was eventually restored to the original article. In that case, we had at least one user who was fighting to keep the content, so it went up for AfD again (and was kept). Hopefully things won't get that complex for the unseen characters, and removing the long list will be sufficient to resolve the situation.-Andrew c [talk] 14:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Imaginationland[edit]

There is a situation over at South Park's Imaginationland episode page. There is a huge debate whether to merge the three episode pages into one page, or to keep them as separate articles. The debate took place here. A wide majority of people say to keep the episodes separate, but the people who support the merge argue to the fact that the discussion was taken as a poll, and not a step towards making a consensus toward reaching a decision. This has indeed been the case. Since, an edit war has gone off between keeping the pages separate and having all three pages redirect to the main Imaginationland page. I think it is appropriate for admin intervention in this situation. As for me, I have decided to keep out of the situation (after inserting my opinion). The Chronic 07:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Protected the whole trilogy and the season 11 template at the wrong version. Please contact me for unprotection once the dispute is settled. east.718 at 08:06, 11/6/2007

User:CSDWarnBot malfunctioning[edit]

This bot has warned me five times about the same redirect, Grant Street (Pittsburgh). If this is an isolated issue, deleting the redirect should fix it. --NE2 08:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as a redirect to a redlink. DrKiernan 08:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --NE2 09:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

pending requests at AWB[edit]

thr are more than 24 hrold requests at Requests_for_registration. thx ~atif Talk 17:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Targeted sanctions for Gene Nygaard?[edit]

Header added and new section split off by Carcharoth 11:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a long history of conflicts with Gene Nygaard, although none is currently active (phew). Most of Gene's contributions to the project have been positive, but when it comes to diacritics things get ugly. I think that a probation against incivility and diacritics-warring would be the best way to deal with Gene's bad temper. A permanent ban should be issued by the arbcom, which I find unlikely. Húsönd 01:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"A permanent ban should be issued by the arbcom"? I think you've got it backwards. The ArbCom issues one year bans and various probations and paroles, but rarely indefinite bans. The community is largely the other way around. Picaroon (t) 01:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a community-imposed ban on page moves be the obvious solution? From what I can see (looking at his logs), he moves pages from spellings with diacritics to those without. He is right to ask people to find references to support the spellings with diacritics. What I can see is mainly a tendency to assume he is right and move things without sufficient (or any) discussion, and (to varying extents) to be incivil about it at the same time. He is quite right to insist on lack of diacritics in category and DEFAULTSORT keys, as diacritics (and lower case letters) do mess up the sorting. That is in the category sorting guidelines. So, again, a targeted community sanction based on page moves and incivility is probably what arbcom would come up with, so why don't we just do that now? He should still be part of the discussions on the topic, if he can be civil in those discussions. This is also complicated by the fact that he does lots of perfectly good page moves as well. It seems that the diacritics is really the bone of contention here. All this would only work, though, if he agreed to it, so maybe this discussion should reconvene when the block expires? If the community can't agree on a targeted solution like this, then take it to arbcom. Carcharoth 11:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to pile on but I've also had a couple run-ins with Gene Nygaard where civility has gone out the window from his first edit - and those run-ins go back years! Blocks of escalating lengths should have begun a long time ago IMHO. I can think of a few editors - Tecmobowl (talk · contribs) comes to mind - who were permabanned for similar levels of incivility over far smaller ranges of time (months instead of years). And Tecmobowl/Jmfangio was creating GA and FA-level articles during his tumultuous time here. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The Tecmobowl decision is here. It seems that was more for the sockpuppeting (not a consideration here, obviously). Before the sockpuppeting, it seems that a topic ban was being considered, though I haven't read the whole debate. Talking of escalating blocks, it would help if people clarified where the jump-off point to indefinite is. Tecmobowl seems to have been another case of various 24 and 48 hour blocks, followed by a one week block that turned into an indefinite one, in his case when he carried on his edits using sockpuppets during the CSN discussion (I think). Carcharoth 15:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Gene took a five month break. Since returning in September, he's made about 5,000 edits. Of those, 59 are page moves, and of those 26 involve diacritics or oriental characters - this includes talk pages - usually with good edit summaries. So in 5,000 edits, he's moved about 14 pages with diacritics (approximate counting). The dispute that spawned this section had nothing to do with diacritics (I think it was the kilogram page and Wikiquette). Husond comes here and asks for a community imposed diacritic-related sanction - and offers not a shred of evidence why it is needed. There is no need for any diacritic-related page move sanction. --Duk 00:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Gene Nygaard ALREADY HAS A MOVE BAN: Wikipedia:Community_sanction/Log#Gene_Nygaard_is_banned_from_non_consensual_article_moves_until_further_notice. For additional info, see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Is_this_disruption.3F, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Implementation_of_Gene_Nygaard_article_move_ban, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive130#User:Gene_Nygaard_pages_moves, Wikipedia:Community_sanction/Log#Gene_Nygaard_is_banned_from_non_consensual_article_moves_until_further_notice, User_talk:Gene_Nygaard/2006Aug-2006Oct#You_are_banned_from_non_consensual_article_moves_until_further_notice, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive210#User:Gene_Nygaard, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive227#Blocking_User:Gene_Nygaard. RlevseTalk 13:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, I see that now. All I was working from was his block log, which has no mention of being blocked per such a sanction. Is there a place to check for such community sanctions (I see there is a Log subpage - is that easy to search?), or did they all go out of the window when the noticeboard was closed down? I also see that the previous discussions didn't mention the CSN discussions. Did you only just find them? And why, oh why, did no one actual enforce those previous sanctions?? I still think that escalating enforcement is a good idea, but that jumping from one week to indefinite is too soon. Is there a scale somewhere that people use? Can you block for a month, two months, a year? I know Arbcom use (or have used) such lengths, so why does the community seem to jump from 48 hours to a week, and then straight to indefinite? Carcharoth 15:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
All one has to do is check "What links here" (what linked to Gene's userpage), and filtering to show only Wikipedia pages. Why no one has enforced this, I don't know. The community sanctions are still there and they are still in force. I only came across Gene recently. RlevseTalk 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Lar, who wrote up the CSN topic ban, can enlighten us? It is possible it was only a 6-month topic ban and has since expired, but the note doesn't mention that. Thanks for the tip about using what links here restricted to WP namespace - that will owrk well in some cases. We should still have a better record of these things - that is what block logs are meant to be used for! Carcharoth 18:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
What was the question? (this is in response to a request to turn up here) It was a while ago but I think I was trying to capture the consensus that I think had formed, see wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Is_this_disruption.3F particularly toward the bottom. The ban was "from non consensual article moves until further notice". That seems to suggest that it's indefinite, not any particular time (in particular there was not support for a 6 month period) but that if a new consensus forms, it could be changed. It also seems to suggest that it is limited in scope, if there are other issues (civility or edit warring or whatever) those are to be addressed separately The enforcement mechanism was short blocks, escalating if they didn't work. So what's the question? Is it "whether that move ban is still in force?" I'd say it is, until consensus forms that it shouldn't be. Is such a consensus forming? I see Duk making some good and valid points about how this is an important issue and how we need editors who can work these technical matters, but not a consensus yet. Anything else I can't really speak to. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe why it took us so long to find the previous topic ban? :-) Do people really use that log page of the defunct noticeboard? I saw a mention in that thread you linked to where you said

"There has to be an exit strategy... does this ban last forever? That's why I suggested clear consensus. If he is absolutely banned we will never know if he has changed his ways. That said I'm not driving here, just supporting what I see consensus forming to be and I am, as we all are, open to discussion, I would think. Community bans or article bans are an area we are still feeling our way about, so I'm not sure where this would be recorded even... seems impolite to hang it on his userpage forever, but it will get lost here quickly. No idea what to suggest (maybe there already is a page and i forgot)" - Lar 18:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That was followed immediately by a suggestion of a 6 month probation. I find it ironic that you emphasised not having an open-ended ban, and then that was what resulted (though as you said, you were not driving the discussion), but the bit about not being sure where to record it, and it "getting lost here quickly" is ironic. The page it is on is now marked "This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest." It was found again, but it seems people did forget about it! Carcharoth 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
(partly outdent) I supported the CSN and in particular the log subpage, when it was first created, as a way to not lose things. AN/I runs so fast it is very easy to lose track of long term probations, community topic bans and the like. What CSN mutated into is a different topic but to have a ban get lost as it seems this one did, just seems a bad outcome, so I do not support the marking of that page as historic. It logs bans that are still in force, in some cases, and the tag ought to be removed. I'm not sure what else you're asking though, if anything. If the community wants to change the terms of this particular move/topic ban around, they should feel free to do so, and this seems the place to discuss it and reach a consensus. I haven't thought deeply enough about this recently to have a strong opinion about what the right thing to do is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talkcontribs) 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, things seem to have slowed down again with this discussion. Did the CSN discussions have a set time to run, or did they just reach a natural conclusion? The old CSN Log page should probably be moved, or the current logs copied, to a Log subpage at AN, or wherever AN keeps its records... There definitely needs to be somewhere for community bans to be logged. You mentioned not putting them on user talk pages - well, there is some logic in putting a notice there, like for warning templates, but then you will get people saying that users have the right to remove them, just like they can for warning templates. An argument could be made that community sanctions are more serious, and so the notice should stay for the duration of the topic ban. It could be controversial though. What do others think? Carcharoth 21:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall how long things ran for before consensus was called on the CSN. But I think that irrelevant in this case, as this particular move restriction was arrived at, as I recall, at AN/I and only documented on the CSN. This is water over the dam at this point but I favoured the CSN for documenting things. Not necessarily for the later elaboration of being a place to arrive at things to document. There needs to be somewhere for bans to be logged that is independent of the user's own talk page, I think that is a better approach than saying "we have this rule about talk page removals which applies here and here but not there warnings are OK but ban notices aren't, except as applied under paragraph 3C but not in subsection 41g " :) ... ++Lar: t/c 01:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking into this a bit more deeply, and Gene does have a point. Not many people are aware that redirects are needed from non-diacritic titles, and that category sorting keys need to use non-diacritic characters (please be honest and say whether you knew the latter point about sort keys before reading these threads). Gene's method of using page moves to draw more attention to this sort of thing is not good, but rather than block him and brush this under the carpet, we need to consider how to make more people aware of the need for non-diacritic redirects and non-diacritic sort keys. I know a bit about this, because I recently suggested a bot to fix the use of non-diacritic sort keys (the bot would also need to make lower case letters at the start of words, into upper case letters, an eliminate punctuation like apostrophes). I also read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Is this disruption?, and one point Gene raised there was not addressed. Does anyone know whether search engines ignore diacritics or not? Gene's point was: "Redirects don't solve all the problems; articles can still be hidden from many search engine searches as a result of these moves accompanied by spelling changes within the article itself." Could someone try and address that, please? I did a test search for Ramūnas Šiškauskas, by searching for "Ramunas Siskauskas", and the Wikipedia article still appeared at the top of the search results (Google). I think that if we get a bot correcting the sort keys, and make an effort to encourage creation of redirects (a thankless task, but one that is needed), then we might be able to get somewhere. A similar case is for redirects involving middle initials, or forename initials. These too are desperately needed to turn redlinks blue, and this should be separated out from the disputes over where exactly among a plethora of alternatives the article should reside. Carcharoth 16:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, Husond, you are mixing the civility dispute with the diacritics dispute. Separate the two, and focus on Gene's recent edits to make your case. Otherwise your request for a targeted sanction isn't credible. more comments to come... --Duk 17:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, you're right that the diacritic indexing is little-known. But the correct way to educate people is not by calling them simplistic or calling them fools (that last talk page is a nice example of Gene Nygaard's diplomacy skills). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey I didn't start all this! :-) But be it, Gene's incivility comes from his views on diacritics so these issues can hardly be dissociated. I don't even think that there's much point in focusing much on recent events, as Gene's misbehavior has remained unchanged for years. Block after block, here we are. I think it's time for an effective remedy to be found. Húsönd 18:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It strikes me as odd that he mixes the two. How diacritics are sorted in a category hardly seems worth warring over and yet he has done so for years. I once suggested that he request a bot to take care of those but was met with yet another snippy response. If a bot could do something, it can't be worth getting uncivil for. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me, Husond, that your remedy is to silence an editor with views different than your own. You are using argument B (incivility) to win argument A (the content dispute). Have you no shame? --Duk 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me, Duk, that your comments will henceforth be largely ignored by me. Húsönd 18:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, can we concentrate on Gene, and not you two, please? :-) Carcharoth 18:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Some comments:

  1. Gene's incivility - This is highly subjective. It has never bothered me in the least - even when directed at me. For others, it is highly upsetting, and I respect their feelings. Others probably don't really don't care. And still others play up the incivility because they didn't do well in a content debate with Gene, even if these people can't recognize or admit it. Since this is highly subjective, there needs to be many views heard. This is a case where it is not acceptable for off-wiki collusion among buddies to make these judgments. There seems to be a growing consensus here for simple blocks of varying duration every time Gene pisses off enough people.
  2. Content disputes - In the past, I've seen people in content disputes with Gene who don't do to well debating him, so they switch to his incivility - trying to use argument B to win argument A. I hope we are all smart enough here not to accept this. Many of Gene's battles revolve around his familiar refrain "why the hell isn't the English Wikipedia written in English". Husond gets close to mixing these two in the first paragraph of this section. They need to be separate, and Gene has done well lately, I believe, in not revert warring over page name moves. Therefore, I don't agree with a diacritics-related ban. If Husond wants to make a case for this, he needs to separate the content dispute from the civility dispute, and to look at recent editing. It seems to me that Husond just wants to silence an editor who he has a content dispute with.
  3. Making a place for technical editors - I've seen many editors that are detail orientated. They tend to work hard and specialize in a focused area, becoming highly skilled in that particular area. They shoot for project-wide consistency, which inevitably brings conflict. These editors are generally non-social. They don't hang out in irc or come to the project to make a lot of friends, which puts them at a natural disadvantage when disputes arise. These types of editors also tend to be stubborn as hell, but valuable to the project. They are immune to social pressure and only listen to logic. There is a lot to gain by finding ways to include these types of editors, but many people don't understand how to interact with them. In a few cases, I've seen editors like this become embroiled in ever growing conflicts over amazingly trivial stuff - and eventually leaving. The important thing to realize here that both sides of the dispute were being stubborn. The inability to get along wasn't one-sided.
  4. All that being said - I support Guy's latest block of Gene and hope he comes back with better behavior. --Duk 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Duk's points here. I too see people (not specifically in this case, but it might apply), getting upset when they are shown that they have been doing something wrong. Wounded pride and that, but so unnecessary. It doesn't help if the person pointing out that you have done something wrong is being rude or uncivil, but words like "fool" and "simple" can be shrugged off if you take a philosophical view - though I can understand some people getting upset with that. The best response is to swallow your pride and thank the editor for pointing out the mistake. The next point is crucial (though it doesn't work well if no-one is watching): let someone else call the offending editor out on incivility (ironically, I think wikiquette alerts are meant to allow this, which is what started all this). As the person who has just been hurt, you won't be the best person to deal with the situation. If anyone then "uses argument B to win argument A", well, I agree with Duk, that is indefensible (note that I'm not saying anyone has specifically done this). Finally, Duk's point about technical editors is an excellent one. Good contributors are sometimes naturally cranky people, and not good at social interaction, preferring to call a spade a spade. If that spills over into incivility, it does need to be restrained, but, like Duk, I think technical editors are invaluable to the project. Strong warnings when they are incivil, rather than immediate blocks, might be best. A strong warning probably helps more than a block in some cases. Anyway, if anyone is interested in the bot proposal, it is linked from User talk:Gene Nygaard. Carcharoth 19:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand that some people are cranky by nature, but that doesn't mean that others have to put up with their crankiness. Strong warnings have proved useless with Gene, as he never apologizes or makes the slightest effort to change his behavior. On Wikipedia, all users have the right to communicate with Gene Nygaard (or any other user) without being spit on. Húsönd 01:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Husond, I partially agree with you here. I've never shortened or unblocked Gene, nor have I condoned his incivility. He doesn't get passes, unlike some of our more high profile admins. As for his being able to change: in his last 5,000 edits he's moved 14 pages with diacritics - all apparently straight forward, with proper edit summaries and no warring involved (as far as I could tell). That's a change, wouldn't you admit? Yet you come here asking for diacritic-related community sanctions. Things like this makes it very difficult to take anything you say seriously when it concerns Gene. Mayby Gene isn't the only one who needs to change a little.
Now, back to that high profile admin I mentioned - not going to mention his name because he's a great guy and I've no desire to run him down. There was an ANI discussion a while back about when to block for "persistent personal attacks". I noted that it was never a part of the blocking policy until recently. I went and found out who added it, then looked at his recent edits. In a period of three days I see him making the following comments:calling someone's opinion "ass clownery", "delete nominator", "Shut up and quit being a disgrace", "Ah, I see you're a different attention-seeking pissant entirely. My mistake." Suffice it to say that he is a well connected and popular member of the administrator community with a spotless block record. Again, I'm not trying to legitimize this behavior, but rather to put it into perspective.
I think we should drop these outdated diacritic-page-move charges, they are currently being used as a bludgeon with no facts to back them up. His category/page sorting is fine too. Hunsond should stay away from Gene and stop filing complaints. An impartial admin should hand Gene blocks with a minimum of fuss and drama when merited - call it a community sanctioned civility parol if you like, but I don't think the pomp is necessary. --Duk 03:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the incivility and the content/formatting issues should be separated as much as possible - there is enough of a problem with the former, and that's what we are dealing with here. I made this post to WP:AN/I with just a selection of Gene's interactions - just from the last month. I don't think you should underestimate quite how many editors have had problems with his incivility, and something really needs to change here.

  • Incivility may be "subjective", but how many editors' "subjective" annoyance are we going to ignore?
  • The problems may surface in content disputes, but there are always going to be such disputes - which is exactly why WP:CIVIL exists. He has every right to hold strong views, but he only has the privilege to edit and express them civilly.
  • I don't see why "technical editors" should be awarded privilege over other content-producing editors. Here we have Gene telling a new (and now valuable) editor to stop contributing new articles in an area Wikipedia was weak on, just because he didn't know about sort keys. The motto of Wikipedia is certainly not "The free encyclopedia anyone who knows our MOS and formatting rules can edit". How many new editors stopped contributing because their first interaction was with Gene? Is it worth losing all their possible contributions because they haven't read about DEFAULTSORT, or format a unit incorrectly? Is it worth losing them because we can't tackle one user's incivility?
  • If you want technical editors who tend to be "stubborn as hell" and who we "don't understand how to interact with them" to be better integrated, might it not be an idea as a first step to tell them not to pick numerous fights by placing rude comments on people's talk pages out of the blue? If they have already been asked not to, but still proceed to do so as in this case, how else are you going to persuade the rest of the community to get on with them?
  • "just let other people call him on his incivility" - isn't that exactly what we're doing now, anyway?
  • This guy has been here a very long time. Over this time he has had bans, blocks, warnings and complaints from more people than I have had any interaction with. And he hasn't changed a bit, he's still doing it. So, what is the plan? Mondegreen 13:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mondegreen - some of your post is correct relevant and I agree with it. Other parts are just fantasy. Nowhere did anyone say "technical editors" should be awarded privilege over other content-producing editors. Not even close. Or this: you want technical editors who tend to be "stubborn as hell". Where did you get these ideas? I'm quite sure no one is suggesting anything of the sort. I see where you picked and chose some of the words, but you present them with a completely different meaning than they were offered. Mis-representing what people say might be valuable as propaganda, but it won't help to reach a rational consensus. Please, lets try to be accurate here.
So, what is the plan? several people have made suggestions, including myself (see the end of my previous post). What's yours? --Duk 14:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The "stubborn as hell" is a pure misunderstanding due to my unclear wording - it would have been less ambiguous if I had written "you would like us to integrate better with even those technical editors, who are "stubborn as hell" and "who we don't understand..". Hopefully that makes it clearer, and easier to understand what I intended.
  • As for the technical editors' "privilege" - I just couldn't see why in the section "making a place for technical editors" we were making a distinction, perceived or otherwise, between "technical editors" and the rest whoever they may be. I think it's an untrue generalisation that people who specialise in detail, formatting and technical issues are different to interact with than other users. If someone places a rude comment on a talk page, we shouldn't feel less aggrieved because their contributions indicate a knowledge of the intricacies of punctuation/diacritics/formatting/units/etc.
  • I wish I had a foolproof plan - if I had one, I would present it. However, I don't feel what was presented will work for the reasons I gave above. Still, there is a lot of possibilities offered by the structure here - hopefully someone can find a creative solution somewhere between the unhappy extremes of "chastise, cross fingers and hope he'll learn" (tried, failed, the encyclopaedia risks losing contributors) and an indefinite block (the encyclopaedia loses Gene's skills). Mondegreen 15:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is not about whether he likes or dislikes diacritics —being the first person to have mentioned them by name a few paragraphs up I wanted to clarify this—, but the fact that he can get incredibly uncivil, accussed other editors of bad faith and upset many good editors non the way. He may think he has a point but there are many ways to do things. Regards, Asteriontalk 21:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Duk has left a note for Gene on his talk page which I believe sums up the situation and what the community wants from Gene almost perfectly - correct me if I am wrong, and many thanks to Duk for that. (I personally just disagree with the statement "a lot of people want to see (Gene) banned permanently" - I think the vast majority want his continued contribution, just without the rudeness). The response to this should dictate what happens next. Mondegreen 17:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Husond has left a message for Rlverse in which he credits Gene's break for a refreshing lack of diacritics conflicts. This is an outright bald-face lie. I earlier pointed out (here) that since Gene's return he's made over 5,000 edits with vastly improved behavior on the diacritics front. But this isn't enough for Hunsond: After losing his diacritics-ban request on merit, he then goes and tries to win it by unfairly maligning Gene behind his back. I'd like to ask that Hunsond stay away from Gene, cease filing frivolous complaints against him and stop misrepresenting his behavior behind his back. --Duk 17:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the problems with diacritic page-moves were solved by User:Lar and the discussions at AN/I and the then CSN. Hopefully the current and more pressing civility problem can be sorted just as effectively here. Mondegreen 17:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Duk's talk page message for Gene is a good one. I too share concerns about Husond's over-emphasis on the diacritics problem. I have taken another look at Gene's move log, and checked Duk's statement "in his last 5,000 edits he's moved 14 pages with diacritics". Going back around 14 diacritics-related moves, I get to 11 April 2007 (when 5000 edits takes us back to October 2007), so in my view Gene has been more restrained even than Duk is saying. Duk is right that most of the moves have informative edit summaries (eg. "revert undiscussed, unreferenced change of spelling of this Canadian's name which is contrary to that in all cited sources"). There are several moves I agree with. I think Husond will have to make a better case than he has made so far. Carcharoth 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that Gene tends towards incivility and that the incivility is made all the less necessary by the triviality of the subject (at least that's how I view the diacritics issue in general and the category sorting even more so), I don't think those add up to a topic ban. I think the civility issues are unrelated to the topic and that he would have civility difficulties no matter what room you locked him in. Block him outright or don't block him - but a topic ban is not appropriate in this case. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The community ban is still in place afaik. It's merely a sympton of the larger problem of disruption and incivility. He's had plenty of chances and warnings. If after the 1 week block is over, he continues in this pattern, he should be indef blocked.RlevseTalk 22:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse, I've been reading through the previous discussions you linked to further up the page, and I think what we have here is a case of the people who have dealt with Gene in the past not wanting to rehash the same old arguments, and calling for a block because they are unwilling to work with Gene any further, and pointing to his past behaviour as a reason for the block. In all the discussions I've read so far, Gene has argued his side well (even if he might not always be right), and sometimes (in my opinion) others have been wrong when he is right. Also, I'm not finding the massive incivility some are claiming here. More diffs on that would be appreciated. Anyway, to cut a long story short, I have an interest in sortkeys and naming conventions, and I appreciate the type of work Gene does, so I would be prepared to work with Gene on these issues, and to try and calm down any future disputes that may arise. If Gene accepts this (I'll leave a note on his talk page), would that be acceptable to those with an interest in this matter? Carcharoth 00:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Duk, please stop it. You should be well aware that users wishing to take part in a constructive discussion must assume good faith, so I ask you to please cease your accusations. It disturbs me that you decided to pick a comment I left on another user's talk page to fabricate a series of far-fetched judgments regarding my conduct or my intents. I'm not setting out to create a backstabbing complot against Gene Nygaard. Nor have I lost any diacritics-ban request, I just proposed something of that kind as a possible remedy for discussion. Again, assume good faith and refrain from accusing me for no good reason. And since I'm being pushed into this discussion again, here are my views on this matter very clearly detailed so that there's no further misinterpretation of my acts or position:

  • Gene Nygaard is an uncivil user who'll treat any users disagreeing with him with snideness at best, gross incivility at worst.
  • Gene Nygaard does not assume good faith.
  • Gene Nygaard is impervious to arguments but his own.
  • Gene Nygaard will exhaust other users with endless discussions around his very same point.
  • Gene Nygaard does a good job on Wikipedia when he's not butting heads with other users for his views on diacritics.
  • Gene Nygaard's conflicts are always related to diacritics usage.
  • Gene Nygaard is clearly not worth discussing with after this.
  • Gene Nygaard has wasted countless hours of users' precious time in discussions about his behavior, most of which were fruitless.
  • Gene Nygaard should be indef blocked from Wikipedia for the benefit of the project and its participants, unless he stops mistreating other users (unrealistic option) or is banned from dealing with diacritics (an option meant to hypothetically eliminate the root of all problems).

These are my views, which were already well known by users who were involved in previous discussions where I participated about Gene Nygaard's conduct. I would now appreciate if the subject of this thread keeps focusing on Gene instead of shifting to me. Thank you.