Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive128

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

Noticeboard archives

Relisting of AfD discussions is getting ridiculous[edit]

Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 19. It's ridiculous to see how many discussions have been relisted on this one day alone. Make a decision, people. Either come down on one side or the other, or call it a no decision, don't just leave these things hanging for weeks. AfD's are supposed to last five days, not ten, not fifteen. Corvus cornixtalk 04:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, as a frequent closing admin for AfD's, unless you rather see a lot of "no consensus" AfD's even for articles that is suppose to be deleted, I don't think it is a good idea to make 5 days a hard rule, a lot of deletion debate do need input from experianced editors to point out whether if the article should be deleted or not, and I don't think the process needs to be rushed. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
so what happens if there's no difference after relisting? Does it get relisted ad infinitum until it gets to a point where it's at the point a particular user wants it to be, at which point they pounce and say, "closed"? Corvus cornixtalk 04:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
On discussions where no one participates, I'll relist it twice at most, and then close it as no consensus if no one participates. If only a small number participate and there's no clear consensus, I'll relist it twice before closing it no consensus. Just my little personal rule, others may do differently. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want them relisted, vote on them! Give admins something to work with! 04:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I do no think that admins are purposefully "looking the other way" and ignoring closing AfD's, they are just busy and there are a lot of AfD's. Give it time. Tiptoety talk 04:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If I see an AFD that has been resisted more than once, with only delete votes or only a nom, I'll usually close it as "Delete" based on no one caring enough to try to keep it. Mr.Z-man 04:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
OMG! Really! That's quite disturbing. Just because people aren't watching over articles like a mother hen so they see one has been AfD'd they could be deleted. As someone who has been sidelined from working on articles only to try to rescue an article at AfD I find that highly problematic. Not everyone who I looking for information is also watchlisting every article worth keeping and many are not here every day or even every week. I would much rather err on keeping something borderline that needs improving rather than deleting something because the right set of editors hasn't shown up to fight to keep it. Very discouraging to creation of articles in my opinion. Benjiboi 05:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If an article could go two weeks on AFD without a single vote, that means it could have been PRODed without opposition anyway...Someguy1221 (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The hope is that if the subject is truly encyclopedia-worthy, there will be more than a couple users in the pool of about 5000 active ones that want to see it kept. Mr.Z-man 06:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
(ecx2)I understand your objection, but disagree that repeated relisting is a bad thing. If you read the time stamps on many relisted AfDs, you will see they are busy in the first few days and then completely drop off. In these cases, you can suspect that relisting will lead to further discussion and consensus can often arise. Yes, at some point no consensus has to be concluded, but five or six people disagreeing is not enough to determine that consensus on the issue is impossible to come to. SorryGuy  Talk  04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Falls Police Department. It's been relisted twice now. How many !votes does one discussion need? And relisting things doesn't make the number of AfDs go down, it makes things worse. Corvus cornixtalk 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with it though? If it makes the consensus clearer, then so be it. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
i don't think that is what happens. I think people will just harden their positions, the discussion will become heated, or else people will just say, "how many times do I need to repeat the same arguments," and drift away because they're bored with the whole thing. Corvus cornixtalk 04:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so, a lot of times, the relisted debates are the ones with so little comments or a debate with a nomination statement like "WP:N" with absolutely nothing else on it. I don't think people will "harden their positions" if there isn't any position there to begin with. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
As it currently stands, there is no clear consensus (or even a slightly muddy consensus) in that discussion. If, after relisting it twice, no clear consensus is reached, I would lean toward closing it as no consensus myself, though. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't relist ones like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Falls Police Department. I only relist if there is no quorum, e.g. a nom. and one keep or just a nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I likely wouldn't have relisted it the second time. I'd have to think about the first one. I think there was enough discussion after the first relist to close it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If you want to fix this, try spamming AfD at the village pump and elsewhere. What's needed is more people participating, as noted above. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisting should only be used where the debate is so sparse that it is not even possible to see that there is not agreement over what should be done (or if there was some other causal reason for restarting things). Merely having a split debate is fine - it means there is no consensus, which is a logical outcome of a process that tries to determine whether there is consensus to delete or not. Relisting just because making a decision is tricky is not correct; unless there is a consensus to X, the result is no consensus, and to answer Yamamoto Ichiro's question at the top: yes, more no consensus closures are fine if the community has not reached a consensual position on what should be done. Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Falls Police Department was unnecessary the first time, and just wrong the second time. Admins are charged with calling the community's position on the debate, and if there is no consensus over what should be done, then they must say so, not re-spin the wheel until faced with an easy closure. Splash - tk 10:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just closed that onewith a merge and redirect to the Great Falls, Montana article since there is more then enough discussion even after the second round of discussion (after the first relisting). The majority didn't want to keep the article and many of the arguments on the Keep side was weaker then the Delete/Merge side. It is now merged and redirect although those who to fix/add/remove stuff can do so if necessary.--JForget 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Generally, I had always considered that 4 or 5 votes (or more of course and even sometimes 3 when it is 3 delete or 3 keeps or 3 redirects) in 5-7 days is more then enough for an AFD discussion to be closed without re-listing it.--JForget 15:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that nobody votes at AFD. If an AFD gets relisted, it's because there's 3 votes, all of which conflict with each other. A solution would be if after one relist, if there's something like 4 delete, 2 keep, 2 merge for example, an admin makes a call based on the article's merits rather than consensus or lack thereof. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is a good example of when a relist is the thing to do - with 3 divergent opinions being the only material, it's not really possible to even see if argumentation might make a difference, and so a relist is ok. But relisting in the example given above was unnecessary even after the first time around; as in some other cases, relist was used (in good faith) despite the fact that it was apparent that there was no agreement on what the disposition of the article should be i.e. there was 'no consensus'. Splash - tk 16:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You can also help out by closing them as keep. See WP:NAC. But then you deal with the weeks of WP:DRV that you'll have to go through. Consensus not being reached yet and discussion ongoing and article improving are all a natural and beneficial part of the process. What is so bad about relisting them? What is harmed? Why rush to make some half-assed decision or waste the discussion with a no-consensus. I relisted over a dozen on the date you listed, yes, including the fire department one. Look what happened after that relist... 5 people !voted delete and 1 merge. If the people are only participating because they are pissed off at the relist.... then good! If I closed more than a dozen in a row as No Consensus, I'd get screamed at, and delrevved to death. You can't just whine about relisting with no concrete plan for how it can be done better. Well, you CAN, but why???? JERRY talk contribs 22:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with Jerry's assessment here. As a relatively new AfD closer, I can't imagine intentionally closing something with only a !vote or two as keep, delete, or even non=consensus without pissing someone off (either the nominator or the !voter). Relisting is the only way to go in those instances. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've closed far more than that in a day as no consensus, and have never once found such a closure properly executed go to deletion review. If there is no consensus, say so; it is not a waste of a process to evaluate consensus if it concludes that there is, in fact, no consensus. People wanting to delete an article merely to get it off AfD is an extremely bad situation to try to encourage, as it has nothing whatever to do with the article. A concrete plan for not relisting is to close as no consensus where no consensus exists and there are more than a few people contributing. If the debate is too tough for you to make a decision on, then leave it to a more experienced admin to handle - the trouble with relisting is that it draws the process out for weeks on end (literally, in the case of a double relist) and overburdens AfD with discussions that could have been dealt with adequately earlier. It also tends to freeze articles as noone wants to contribute to an article that might die shortly, whereas a no consensus closure gives the concrete reprieve that is needed. Splash - tk 13:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • One thing that often helps get a discussion going is to post the nomination in the appropriate Wikiproject's deletion list. Sancho 22:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Falls Police Department isn't a good example because it was initially relisted by a participant right after her own comment. In general, lack of useful input is a recurrent problem, advertising might help, but opining can also be time intensive. Nevertheless, commenting on an AfD with few contributions can sometimes be more helpful than relisting.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It is also a poor example as my suggestion, merging it, was the ultimate result (and, obviously in my own opinion, the best result). However my comment could easily have been ignored for its singularity, especially on an AFD which was already due to close, so I re-listed it, mostly hoping that the previous participants, particularly those who argued for outright deletion (and of those, particularly my good friend Mr. Goodman) might still be watching the discussion and possibly willing to reconsider the need for deleting, which is rarely a genuine "need" per se. Then there was a flurry of mixed opinions by several new participants, and thankfully a closer well-endowed with common sense. Yes I took a gamble here, but I don't believe I wasted the time of anyone who wasn't already actively seeking to waste their own time (it was, after all, an AFD). Some might accuse me of "gaming the system" too Smiley.svg but I'll let the result speak for itself. — CharlotteWebb 15:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We had a debate earlier where an article on a band was nominated for deletion on 3 February, citing notability. No comments were made, by the author or anyone else, for or against deletion. The debate was relisted on 13 Feb, and again received no comments at all. Since the AfD tag, the article had received no edits at all. This article was likely have been a good candidate for WP:PROD, and another admin agreed. Would it be worthwhile to treat debates where there was no discussion whatsoever after 10 days as an uncontested prod? Obviously, a request to recreate such an article would be approved immediately, as with a prod. It would be an alternative to relisting over and over again. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in a case like this you could gently "prod" the contributor(s) with one of those impersonal and incredibly verbose talk page templates. I believe there's one that uses some 500 words to say "Warning, your shit's on AFD, you might want to look into it", but I can't seem to find it this instant. This would actually be useful in cases where nobody shows up, while still annoying the rest of the time. — CharlotteWebb 15:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLPN anyone?[edit]

If anyone is interested, an objective opinion would be useful at WP:BLPN#Mike Lupica. Summary: my two edits removed a criticism section that was larger than the entire rest of the article combined (check the article sizes before and after). A POV-pushing IP disagrees. Input is much appreciated. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Article probation - proposal[edit]

As the community knows, I've recused on editing Prem Rawat at this time, but one would expect that in this situation experienced contributors would know better. Should the editors there be encouraged to to engage in WP:DR in a constructive manner? It do not think it possible to make progress in improving the article in an environment in which edit-war is the rule of the day. I ask uninvolved admins to take a look, and assess if article probation may help restore some normalcy to the editing process there. I ask the community to consider article probation -- 1RR per day, or per week, NPA, and talk-page disruption probation for 30 days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so that's what article probation means. I've been applied it recently, actually! El_C 16:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes.... see Wikipedia:General sanctions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Never! El_C 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd support an indefinite probation. It can always be revisited later and changed if nothing else goes wrong. Lawrence § t/e 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Article probation would likely be very helpful in getting the situation in-line. Vassyana (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Bad idea, as far as I'm concerned.
Jossi committed to not editing the article, which I appreciate. Then he tries to get hold of the article via proxy (...Momento, anons &c). Which I don't appreciate. Then we have to deal with the disruptive POV-pushers, like Momento. Jossi still wants to protect his favorite POV-pushers, which I don't appreciate. And he knows he won't hold it that way, so tries to get measures passed for a general restriction of all editors of the article, which I don't appreciate. He has tried a protection request before. But that would still not solve the fact that we have to deal with the disruptive editors like Momento. This is only what I can tell from my personal experience. The fact that I got little or no appreciation for jumping in to work out solutions on a topic I'm barely interested in, doesn't bother me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Your accusations are unneeded and unwelcome here, Francis. You are now involved in that article, and would hope that you would appreciate ways to encourage orderly editing there, such as this proposal. Let uninvolved admins weigh in on this and evaluate the need or lack thereof for article probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a counter-proposal to my proposal. You're too heavily involved in preventing edits to the article. That's all I wanted to say. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You can present evidence of that, if you have any, and make any other proposals. (and please do not refactor this page) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a counterproposal to the above #Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs), so I propose to keep them together, not as separate sections. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Concur with Lawrence and Vassyana. Support article probation per evidence. – Steel 21:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Article probation is fine in some instances, but keeping an article in a sort of unmoving purgatory isn't exactly a good solution either. If the agreement is for probation of the article and that'll still help the information to grow, then that's fine. What would be ideal is if the involved parties would hold off and wait for uninvolved editors to weigh in first, and then a solution could certainly arise rather quickly. Jmlk17 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, as per the evidence, I believe the best course of action at this juncture would be probation. Jmlk17 21:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I protest, involved as I am in trying to get the article on the right track again, and humbly ask to have a look on my proposal above, which comes down to (more explicitly than I stated above) checking disruption, starting with the most disruptive long-term editors. So please take note of #Slightly disruptive editing of Momento.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7 contribs.29. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "talk-page disruption probation " is. How do we define "talk page disruption"? I'm also concerned that that list of involved editors is not complete, including Cirt, Francis Schonken, and Momento, but excluding Rumiton. Momento has edited disruptively by repeated reverting material claiming the BLP exception, so I'm concerned that he will not comply with a 1RR limit either. I think that rather than target specific editors it would be better to implement a strict 1RR limit on all editors of that article. And dispute resolution is always appropriate. Will Beback NS (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Neither did I speak of nor remotely suggest "talk-page disruption probation", nor do I know what it is supposed to mean. I suggested to get Momento in line with harmonious editing. With usual measures. Two times 24H block (as already happened in a short time span), if keeps disrupting, longer block, if never reforms, get him out of the system. He cost us enough time as it is. I'm hesitant to let myself, and other more generally constructive editors, be restricted on the same par as rather clearly uncollaborative editors. That's not what we should deserve.
BTW, why do you use an alternate account? Or is that not unusual? --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If Momento breaches 1RR, he will get dinged big time under probation. Dispute resolution was proposed, and there are no takers, Will. And, in any case, page probation will only assist in providing an orderly debate during dispute resolution. And yes, 1RR restrictions on all active editors is what this probation proposal is about. Talk page disruption is breaches of WP:NPA, and other such behaviors at the discretion of uninvolved admins. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that editors actively editing that article should allow uninvolved editors to assess if article probation is needed or not. So far, three four such editors have argued in support of that measure. Let others evaluate this without further comments from involved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm involved, and for that reason said what I said. So I still invite not to look only at the list Jossi provided (and which doesn't say much when you're acquainted with the situation), but at least also have a look at the material I presented in the previous section #Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs), which takes a bit more time to read the stuff I referred to, but hopefully gives a clearer picture. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis, you do not need article probation if there is one editor that is misbehaving. You may need article probation when there are 'multiple editors engaged in edit-wars, SPs, dormant accounts, personal attacks, and other such things. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, my experience (and I've been following the article quite closely for the last weeks) is that neither SPEs nor dormant accounts aren't all that much of a problem. You don't edit the article, so no worries there either. All the other editors balance more or less, without causing disruption, except Momento. I gave part of the evidence why I came to that conclusion above. I didn't want to bore anyone, but said I was prepared to give more. I don't think edit-warring is all that much of a real problem currently, and if so, I'd rather go back first to semi-protection, but even that seems uncalled for currently. The most acute problem is really one editor misbehaving quite somewhat more than the others. And I still hope Momento gets the gist of it, but the disruption he's causing has to stop, either with him behaving, or increasing periods without him. Really, I only speak about my personal experience, as an editor completely uninterested in the subject of the article (as said, I think the article's subject boring), but trying to make a high quality Wikipedia article on the subject nonetheless. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps as a compromise, editors could be told that article probation is being considered, and that to avoid it becoming formal (with the attendant risk of admin action if it's not adhered to), they should stick as closely to 1RR as they can bear to (one revert per editor per week). And the article could be sprotected to avoid drive-by reverting. Then we could re-assess in a week to see whether it has helped, and if not, impose the probation. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As said, I think sprotection uncalled for at this time. Maybe propose it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if you'd think it useful. 1RR/week would even be less fruitful as far as I can tell. The article is still undergoing needed changes, as part of the outside criticism levelled at it was to a certain degree justified. The process is dynamic, but apart from a single to my taste too pedantic editor, not disruptive (for comparison: I have the Fibonacci article on my watchlist for some time which is, for some reason unknown to me, favoured by anon trolls and vandals - at a certain time, after a period of several anon abuse per day I suggested sprotection, which was declined: by comparison the Prem Rawat article is currently relatively calm)
The suggestion to notify editors about this discussion, is probably a good idea though, see Talk:Prem Rawat#Notification --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Things have cooled off a bit (maybe because of the possibility of probation was looming), although trolling and personal attacks have continued happening. If the situation deteriorates again to a point in which probation may be warranted, I will bring this again to AN for evaluation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it valid to semiprotect an IP talk page to keep the IP from removing warnings?[edit]

See User talk: and User talk:Rschen7754#User talk: - it's my understanding that this shouldn't be done, but I may be wrong. --NE2 04:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation is that this should only be done on a case by case basis and is not the guaranteed right of the administrator. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Please allow me to jump in, but I'm sure NE2 was asking someone else out there on the noticeboard. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 04:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a right to defend my actions... --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't do it. The only situation I can think of where it's necessary to prevent an editor from editing their own talk page is if they're blocked and abusing the unblock template. Most of us ought to know that a warning-free talk page does not mean a clean editing record, and the warnings are still in the history, so there's not that much reason to insist that they remain visible. It could look a little vindictive, to be honest. -- Vary | Talk 04:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
However, when deciding whether to block or not, the administrator frequently does not look at the history - neither do the bots. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Bots don't block and administrators damn well should be looking at editors' histories before blocking them. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Bots report people to be blocked. Also, in regards to AIV, the editor will never report the vandal to AIV if there is only a test2 template, even if the vandal removed 30 other templates. Finally, all an experienced IP vandal has to do is keep removing the vandal warnings, and then they would escape detection for a long time. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Not if people check the talk page history. I don't know how the bots determine what warnings to leave and when to report, so I can't speak on that, but I do know that checking the current revision of their talk page for visible warnings is not the best way to figure out an editor's recent history. Flesh and blood editors at least should not be relying on an admin to prevent an editor from removing warnings so they won't have to spend a few extra seconds checking out the talk page history. If you're concerned that the editor is going to 'escape detection' by removing one first-level warning, I'd think that watchlisting the talk page and keeping an eye on it would be a less bitey way to handle the situation. -- Vary | Talk 05:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
However, I do not stay on the computer 24/7 - I have to sleep and go to class and stuff. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
So deal with it when you get back. How much damage do you think one IP can do in twelve hours without someone taking notice, blanked warnings or no? -- Vary | Talk 05:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Quite a bit. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You shouldn't be blocking anyone if you aren't prepared to look at the talk page history each and every time. Frankly, I'm finding this conversation more than a little unsettling. Sarah 05:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(in rs) Unsettling? I find this potential for vandal abuse unsettling. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this wasn't even a vandalism warning; the IP blanked a talk page that was simply a redirect to another because he thought the non-talk title should redirect to a different place. --NE2 05:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't my call - however, the IP has been making disruptive edits anyway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this makes a difference, but the IP removed the warning with the summary "No Legal Threats"... —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I thoroughly endorse Yamamoto's unprotection of the talk page. I actually went there to do it myself. Sarah 05:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[1] --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
What's your point? I don't get what you're trying to say by posting a diff of someone restoring a message in reply to my endorsement of the unprotection. I don't really care if IPs are allowed or not allowed to remove messages but I do care that you seem to think it's a-okay and acceptable practice to go about blocking blind. If you don't have time to check talk histories or just can't be stuffed, leave the blocks to someone else. There are plenty of times when talk pages are very misleading and I find the idea of you going about blindly making blocks without checking the account properly very disturbing. Sarah 06:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
In this instance, the error would reside in not blocking the IP - so you can't say that the user would be blocked unfairly. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

IP's don't fall under Wikipedia:User page, page trolling and blanking on anon IP talk pages is Not acceptable and is vandalism.--Hu12 (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Says who? --NE2 06:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
So AOL or any other SHARED IP are treated the same under WP:USER, don't think so. We block shared and multiple user accounts, you can't assure against ths IP being a different individual in a month, can you? Wikipedia offers wide latitude to "users" to manage their user space as they see fit such as delete warnings. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community, IP's are not considered userpages. If they are, Where?--Hu12 (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
IP addresses are just like other users in the sense that they have every right to edit an article that any normal registered user can (with exceptions in the technical regard). Wikipedia:User page says "Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia" (emphasis partly mine). IPs are participants as much as any normal registered user, so blanking of a talk page is commonly accepted and should not be reverted or classed as vandalism. Not all IPs are vandals. Spebi 06:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree that there is a person editing behind the IP and he/she deserves all the consideration and respect as any other user, however IP's are not userpages, nor are they given the latitude under WP:USER. Blanking or trolling of a shared/dynamic/proxy/TOR/ect IP talk page is vandalism.--Hu12 (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm slightly confused here. I'm not particularly sure what the situation is here, but I am sure that any user, registered or not, is allowed to blank their own talk page to remove warnings. What do you mean by "however IP's are not userpages"? Spebi 06:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A user page is devoted to exactly one person. An IP page refers to anyone using that IP, which may well be many people, not just one. I may have the right to blank "my" user page; I don't have the right to blank one I share with others. - Nunh-huh 11:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Messages on talk pages are intended for just one user - the one who receives the orange message bar. If the message is intended for them and they have read it then they can remove it. If the message isn't intended for them they can remove it too because no one else is going to get the orange message bar. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Removing a message and blanking are two different things. An IP page and a user page are two different things. - Nunh-huh 12:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Blanking and removing a warning are exactly the same thing if the only message on a Talk page is a warning, which was the case here. And your assertion that "an IP page and a user page are two different things" is laughably false.
I tire once again of editors, particularly administrators who should know better, treating anonymous editors as second-class citizens in this project. --ElKevbo (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Nunh-huh is correct; IP address users are not allowed to blank their talk pages, only registered users. I'm not sure where that's written down,--or if it is at all, rather than being standard practice only--as I was told by Snowolf. · AndonicO Hail! 13:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Snowolf isn't the authoritative source there. I have no objections to IP editors removing warnings from their talk pages. If they removed "shared IP" notices, I would discuss that with them, but removing warnings is perfectly acceptable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know he's not the authoritative source, but I've seen what he said being put into practice (sorry for not being clearer). · AndonicO Hail! 13:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've just semiprotected this IP talkpage for the length of their block, (for somewhat obvious reasons) and I'd also do it for abuse of unblock, but that's about it I think. Black Kite 07:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If a person is abusing their talk page while blocked, then the page should be fully protected for the duration of the block. Black Kite's protection meets that sandard. When the block expires, the page should be unprotected. If a person (IP or username) is not blocked, their talk page should not be protected. In any case, removing warnings is not abusive, it is perfectly acceptable, even if it leaves the page blank. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • These things have to be handled on a case-by-case basis. The idea behind allowing users to control their own talk pages is that we don't want to humiliate people by forcing them to edit with warnings on their talk pages, as though we've forced them into the stocks and are throwing rotten tomatoes at them. So generally, if someone removes a warning, we know they've seen it, and that's the end of it. However, there are situations where the behavior of a user is particularly egregious and we have reason to believe that an administrator may shortly need to see the warnings — for example, during a block that might be contested, or where the behavior has been repeated — and then I would say it's valid to protect or semi-protect the page to stop the warnings from being removed. This applies whether it's an anon or an account, though the more established the editor, the more we should assume good faith. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 13:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think the opposite is true. IP users and new users are the ones who benefit the most from an assumption of good faith. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      • There's no opposite. Case-by-case basis is sound. Be flexible, use common sense, and do not invoke rules for the sakes of following rules, blindly. (I suppose that in your case, CBM, I may be arguing for naught, but still, perhaps you'll pick up on it — it's possible) El_C 14:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Case by case makes sense, but nobody should be edit warring over IP talk pages, that's just silly. Instead, make sure that any warnings given (including the level and page affected) are also in the edit summary so that others can quickly look and assess the situation. R. Baley (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754/Problems with Wikipedia --NE2 02:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not relevant to this discussion alone. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand any of this. The only case I've seen where blocking an IP solely because the IP was editing the IP's user talkspace is for materially refactoring others' comments. Blocking IPs for simply removing warnings is nutty. It's all in the page history and ought to be in the edit summaries, if it's not in the edit summaries, oh well, those were kinda pointless warnings now weren't they, would've been just as well not to have left them.--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The IP wasn't blocked: the associated talk page was semi-protected to prevent the editor from re-removing a first-level 'test' warning. All the talk about blocking comes from the protecting admin's justification for the protection: that other admins, when deciding whether or not to block the IP, might not check the page's history and see the warnings, and thus would get a skewed view of the IP's history. -- Vary | Talk 21:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah yeah, I meant that. Brain cramp. Everything I said about blocking I meant to say about protecting the page. I just didn't. :-)--Doug.(talk contribs) 02:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Sack[edit]

Would it be possible for an admin to salt Benjamin Sack, as attack pages keep being created at this title. Thanks, EJF (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked the account doing the creating instead. No need to salt the article if it's just one disruptive account causing the problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Juvenile rape suspect's name?[edit]

This edit to Upper St. Clair High School doesn't look kosher to me. It looks like someone has added the name of a juvenile suspected of rape, even though, as of a couple days ago, the article (and this news story) stated that his name would not be released because he was a high-school freshman. --zenohockey (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, this may be a prank or it may be the defendant's real name. Either way, it's a breach of WP:BLP and probably worse. Difficult to tell if it's a case for oversight, however. Page will be monitored & semi-pp if required. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If the name has not been reported by any news sources, it should be removed as unverifiable. Until sources are found this is (at best) original research or (at worst) libel of a different person who had nothing to do with it. I would support blocking the "informant" if he continues to add unverifiable content, but recommend against protecting the page as that would impede legitimate edits (which would, by definition, be accompanied and supported by sources) in the event that further information is released. — CharlotteWebb 19:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The edit was oversighted and I've semi-protected the page. I noticed an IP from what I assume is the same range (probably the school) blanking the section, so we should keep an eye on it. John Reaves 20:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

George Stamatis[edit]

Could someone look at this article please. Two anon editors seem to be engaged in an edit war at present. I've drawn their attention to WP:3RR, but I'm concerned in case one of them is the subject of the article, which is tagged as an autobiography, so I'm not sure if protection or a block is the best solution. Any thoughts please? —  Tivedshambo  (t|c) 20:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC) is generally being quite constructive, it's the various other IPs that are the problem right now. It's just been prodded anyway, but I can imagine it going to AfD. One Night In Hackney303 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that, which is why I left a softer message on their user page than the standard {{uw-3rr}} warning. I've suggested s/he cools down, but I understand their frustration. The PROD has alredy been removed. —  Tivedshambo  (t|c) 20:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Suspect editing[edit]

Require a few other thoughts on the editing activities of User:Kbrian. I would normally just remove the added links as spam, but the editor is mass adding the links as references rather than external links. The editing pattern suggests the user is only here to do one thing, and that is to promote the site. It is telling that the 6th hit on google for the site is Project spam report, originally generated because of editing in November by an editor with the sites username. SFC9394 (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Can someone take a look and auth these 2 users? Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage One of them is for the german wikipedia. --Party!Talk to me! 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright issues, Jim Bailey[edit]

User:Williamkieffert and User:Campbellman222 are employees of Jim Bailey, an entertainer known in the 70s for his impressions of female celebrities. While I commend these two for editing fairly and collaborating with Orangemike and myself in cleaning up the Jim Bailey article and making it NPOV, I'm worried that the images they've uploaded may not comply with our policies. Since image policy is not my forté, I'm asking for additional eyes on this matter. Related links:

Thanks in advance. GlassCobra 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming they hold the copyright on those photos, everything looks in order. I'd be very leery of making that assumption, though, since a lot of them seem to be screenshots from shows for which I wouldn't expect Bailey to own the copyrights. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly my thinking. What do we do? GlassCobra 02:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We could list them at WP:PUI - that would be my suggestion, but I don't have time to do so right now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit desysopped[edit]

Since Archtransit became an administrator on January 10, 2008, a number of issues have been raised concerning his blocks, unblocks, and other administrator actions. His conduct has been the subject of a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archtransit, where the views of Archtransit's conduct have been generally negative and his responses generally deemed unsatisfactory. Substantial community time has been expended in commenting on the disputed actions and seeking to improve Archtransit's performance as an administrator, including on ANI, on the RfC, and on Archtransit's talkpage. An admin mentor has expressed further concerns on his approaches [2], and it has appeared that the situation may lead to an arbitration case being presented with a view to desysopping.

Separate from the above, the Arbitration Committee has also received checkuser findings and extensive analysis of editing histories, and has independently concluded by an overwhelming weight of many types of credible evidence, that User:Fairchoice, User:Whoaslow, User:Bqwe123 and User:Lethte, who were variously blocked, unblocked or in on-wiki debate with Archtransit, are in fact sockpuppets of Archtransit himself. Archtransit was asked to comment on this finding privately and his answer was felt to be quite evasive, focussing on why it was better that an accusation should not be made, rather than evidence which might help refute it. Archtransit stated essentially as his defense, that if puppetry had occurred it would still not be a problem since (he felt) no false consensus was created. We do not agree with this reasoning. We conclude that abusive and disruptive sockpuppetry has taken place, involving at times gross misuse of tools. Our conclusion parallels the apparent view of the community that even apart from this, there is insufficient communal confidence in Archtransit's abilities to appropriately use the tools recently granted by the community.

Accordingly, Archtransit is desysopped. He may not seek to regain administrator status without the approval of the Arbitration Committee. All of the sockpuppet accounts will be blocked. Additionally, Archtransit may only edit Wikipedia through one account and any change of account name shall be reported to the committee.

The committee is continuing to investigate whether Archtransit himself may be the sockpuppet of any other user. Evidence bearing on this may be presented either below, or privately to the Committee. Further action will be taken if developments warrant.

By agreement of the committee

evidence summary:

  1. Archtransit and the named accounts edit exclusively from the same dynamic range in the same metropolitan area.
  2. (Point of information): There are four accounts with significant edits in the relevant area (Archtransit, Fairchoice and two others), as well as a significant number of accounts previously blocked for trolling and socking.
  3. Archtransit edits only during certain times of day and claims to have no internet access at other times. Each of the 3 other significant accounts on this range also edits during the same time window, and none has any edits from any other location.
  4. A number of the users blocked and unblocked by Archtransit are also within the same relatively small metropolitan location. This is considered very unlikely to be chance. The administrative actions of Archtransit included unblocking related accounts that had been blocked by others for "trolling".
  5. Further information from checkuser indicates that despite the confounding effect of the dynamic IP, these different accounts are still strongly evidenced as editing from the same connection.
  6. In January, on one occasion, Archtransit and another account (Lethte) edited from the same IP within 2 minutes of each other Lethte@21.40 Archtransit@21.42. These two edits were on the same IP. The IP is rapidly reallocated, but the gap between post and block is suggestive even so, because of the extreme brevity of the two minute time period. Additionally, some 9 minutes before Lethte, Archtransit was posting on that same IP [3].
  7. On January 22, 23, and 30 Archtransit blocked or amended existing blocks of Lethte, Bqwe123 and Fairchoice. These blocks were notable for having autoblock deliberately disabled. Other blocks for cause of other users (other than username blocks) did not have this setting.
  8. The edit windows and interleaving strongly support sockpuppetry rather than friends or strangers.

FT2 (Talk | email) 02:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirm and endorse. This is as serious an abuse of administrator tools as has ever been encountered. I would like to thank all those who tried to work with Archtransit, even though unsuccessfully, and thank the checkusers who determined that the problems were even more serious than originally thought. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I knew there was.. problems to say the least, but.. just.. wow. SirFozzie (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I knew this was coming much before this. 哦,是吗?(O-person) 02:57, 19 February 2008 (GMT)
Is there a way for a checkuser to make sure there are no irregularities at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 747? I'm fairly certain it's OK, but I had one heck of a time with Archtransit on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, there was a strange support early on, when the article was nowhere near featured status; if that's a problem, it's pervasive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Which user names? Thatcher 03:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Checked again, there were two supports that kept the thing going well before it met criteria: Dwarf Kirlston and Brískelly (who has a long block record on the Italian Wiki). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Both unrelated. Thatcher 03:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Thatcher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic. I've been really very troubled about this account since I learned about the block of Jeh and my suspicions about it only increased throughout the RfC to the point that I raised my concerns and suspicions with an arbitrator a week and a half ago. So I'm really relieved that ArbCom has investigated it and stepped in to desysop without us needing to drag it through Arb, which was an almost certainty. It's a shame that it took so long to get to this point and that we allowed him to continue trolling us in this way. Kudos to those who tried to assume good faith and tried to to help him, Ryan you don't owe us an apology at all, you're a good dude who tried to do the right thing by trying to help someone. Sarah 04:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry guys - I tried to help him through the RfC even when most were calling for his head, in retrospect I should probably have let this go straight to ArbCom. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ryan, you and Riana rock for giving it your all... ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)There's no shame in making some extra effort to help somebody out. Hopefully we can learn from this- apart from the above open question, there's also some broader questions: How did this happen? What can we do to prevent it happening again? Friday (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
A while back, I suggested that we start offering a 30-60 day probationary period, with new admins encouraged NOT to use their new abilities willy-nilly during this first period, and to perhaps set up an experienced admin as a guide for the probationary period to explain things and to ease the new admin in on their path. SirFozzie (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This was in my gut instinct well before his RfA, and from my earliest interaction with him over the Boeing FAC, but how can I oppose an RfA on gut instinct? As an average user (not an admin), I'll tell you that I'm extremely reluctant to oppose an RfA; it's not in the "no big deal" culture. I think the more important question is how can we more effectively desysop when problems surface? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per gut instinct. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ryan and Riana. R. Baley (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Archtransit's RfA was successful with unanimous support. No issues were brought up at the time, so there wasn't any need to think he wasn't going to be like every other administrator. Unless you're suggesting we revamp the entire RfA system, Friday, I don't think there's any way we can determine the rogue-like capabilities of one or two editors who previously had perfect track records as non-administrators. There are, of course, ways to handle troublesome users once they have the administrator tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
We could surely borrow the COS's testing machine and patch to "determine the rogue-like capabilities of one or two editors who previously had perfect track records as non-administrators". Daniel (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Another idea might be to require all RfA candidates to submit to a checkuser. Yes, it wouldn't prove their not sockpuppting, but it might prove if they are. MBisanz talk 03:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, COS? The only things fitting that acronym that I can think of are the Church of Scientology and Chamber of Secrets. The former seems to be a more logical fit. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Definitely the former :) Daniel (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse. Would be good to explore RFCU for all RFAs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not think RFCU for all RFAs is a good idea. False sense of security. ++Lar: t/c 03:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea of performing a checkuser on all admin candidates. For one thing, m:CheckUser policy says, "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects." I don't like the idea of using CheckUser as a fishing expedition, no matter how good our intentions are. Another consideration is that we might find evidence through CheckUser that's irrelevant. For example, Appraiser (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (who I've met personally) has been caught in several autoblocks related to Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and sockpuppets. Apparently, Appraiser works for a large company that funnels a lot of users (both registered and anonymous users) through a firewall/NAT connection. Any evidence found as a result of such a CheckUser request would be irrelevant at best, or harmful at worst. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Endorse Holy shit. That's rediculous. This was FAR worse than I suspected. I am shocked, as his RFA showed NO potential problems. This was clearly planned from the outset. As an aside, I see no reason to change or alter RFA. This shit happens, like any other system sometimes this stuff gets through. RFA is not to be held responsible as a process when someone clearly intentionally games it like that. Any system can be gamed, by anyone willing enough to do so. This clearly shows that, and any attempt to add a checkuser requirement to RFA will be pointless, since that will be gamable as well. Hot damn. I still can't believe this... 03:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that's probably a good argument for not adding a checkuser requirement to RFA. Better that people game RFA and then get blown up like this than encourage them to think up ways to game checkuser... Choess (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the "gut instinct" strategy outlined above is that the people following their guts tend to catch flak for it. This case with Archtransit is the perfect example. Not to say "I told you so", but I knew something was wrong with this block ... it just didn't feel right. I couldn't explain it, though, because it wouldn't have occurred to me that an admin would block his own sock (although I have seen the drive-by-self-vandalism tactic used before). I was not the only one to express concern over this block, but, without anything concrete to support it, I backed out of it.

So the question then has to be, what good is gut feeling if it is rejected by the community? - Revolving Bugbear 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Another sock farm relationship[edit]

I'm convinced now that Archtransit is related to another long-running sock farm. My suspicions were raised before sockpuppetry on the part of Archtransit was confirmed. I believe that Archtransit is related to the Dereks1x sock farm. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dereks1x.

This comment by Archtransit seals it for me. In the comment, Archtransit makes a number of pronouncements and accusations that are spot on with Dereks1x and his socks. For example, Archtransit insists on "due process", a hallmark of Dereks1x and socks. Furthermore, Archtransit singles out Ryulong in the comment above, and I believe that some Dereks1x socks did the same in the past. Next, Archtransit discusses an ominous "letter to the editor" above and makes a veiled threat to discredit Wikipedia in the media if he's blocked. At least one Dereks1x sock has done the same (the exact sock escapes me at the moment, perhaps it was the most active sock, User:VK35). Finally, Archtransit's only interaction with me was regarding the "rights" of indefinitely blocked users. Archtransit insisted that the right to vanish allows an indefinitely blocked user who was blocked for a legal threat to come back and engage in the same discussion which ultimately led to their block. This is such an odd argument to make that it caused me to be a bit suspicious of Archtransit from my first interaction, as Dereks1x socks (particularly VK35, of that I'm sure) have made the same or similar arguments. Actually, that wasn't the only thing which caused me to be suspicious of Archtransit--his interest in aviation, a continuing theme for Dereks1x socks as well, also piqued my interest. I suspect that CU would confirm that Archtransit is editing from the same IP range as Dereks1x and socks, though the evidence for most of those is stale at this point, I assume.

I'd be happy to provide diffs of most of the above later, but I'm quite busy at work at the moment. I will refer interested editors to User:Tvoz and User:Bobblehead, who know as much about the Dereks1x sock farm as anyone. · jersyko talk 19:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I failed to mention that Archtransit began editing in earnest soon after VK35 was indef blocked. The timing of Archtransit's account creation also lines up with the creation of other known sock accounts, I believe. · jersyko talk 19:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, we are aware of this. It's good to have the same suspicion come up in multiple independent editors who were not part of the original investigation. We have the names from the last Dereks1x RFCU; if you have anything more recent, feel free to e-mail me. Thatcher 20:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, yes. I never had anything to do with that Dereks1x person, but now I only need to read two or three old comments from him. It's immediately evident it's the same style. Bingo. Fut.Perf. 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, all you need it to compare a single comment from Dereks1x to Archtransit's comments today:
...If ArbCom seriously will grant me a fair process and not just desysop without letting me respond, then I will respond. Otherwise, it's so time consuming to write a response. That's the ethical thing to do. -- Archtransit 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC) [4]
Are you also going to desysop my other administratorship? Archtransit (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC) [5]
...where I was banned for asking a legitimate ethics question to a candidate for administratorship. The person who nominated this person did not like the very proper ethics question and banned me. Those two and Jersyko are friends. This appears like a group within wikipedia are in cahoots against those who favor high ethical standards. I wish this wasn't true.Dereks1x 03:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[6]
Please note the references to both ethics and administratorship. Quack quack? — Save_Us 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well.. That explains why Dereks1x has been so quiet since his last sockfarm was pancaked. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems pretty flimsy to me, plenty of people talk about ethics, due process etc. You might be right or you might be wrong, but I certainly hope we don't start going around blocking anyone who (a) Has some dispute with Ryulong (real or imagined) (b) talks about ethics (c) complains of due process, we'll be blocking lots of people who meet all three, let alone meet two of them -- (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say we should set a campaign to block anyone who talks about ethics or due process, nor did I say block anyone at all. You seem to be twisting my language to make it seem like I want to crusade editors about potential involvement. I said they used similar terminology like "administratorship", which here on Wikipedia, is uncommon (most refer to it as adminship or [being a] administrator or sysop). I added the phrases about ethics to furthur the connection, the word administratorship is uncommon enough as it is, but Dereks1x refered to administratorship and ethics in the same post, as did Archtransit did in the same group of edits today. And as an aside, what do you have against Ryulong? Nobody even mentioned his name and you brought him up. — Save_Us 21:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
"Nobody even mentioned his name and you brought him up" you mean other than the opening post to this section which says "Furthermore, Archtransit singles out Ryulong...". Yes I was drawing a few things together from this thread, and no I didn't mean to seem to be twisting your language, if it came across as that then I'll happily apologise. My main point was that pointing out a few similarities and saying quack quack quack doesn't prove anything, if you like I was trying to give a slippery slope arguement. There maybe a strong similarity between them, and they may indeed be related, but a couple of points like "ethics" and "due process" do not a duck make. -- (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To be fair, I did mention Dereks1x's beef with Ryulong above. I understand the evidence may look "pretty flimsy" to someone who is not familiar with Dereks1x et al. Nonetheless I think the case is pretty open and shut for those of us familiar with the farm. Identical editing quirks + identical arguments + identical interests + perfect timing + identical phraseology. If CU evidence confirms, as Thatcher implies above, it's a damn strong case. · jersyko talk 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry I'm not unfamiliar with the process, I've certainly been in the position where I'm certain that two people are the same (or very close), but can't put my finger exactly on why since it's usually a combination of many things. I'm also conscious of a certain amount of bias in looking for confirmation, which is what I was really talking about. Take any two editors with a reasonable amount of contribution and look close enough and you'll probably be able to find some common traits, I guess I'm also a little cynical about the amount of reactionary stuff we get here, something like this happens and everyone is happy to stand behind such findings, another week an admin will block a group of socks on a similar strength of evidence (taking into account that checkuser isn't a perfect infalible way of showing sockpuppetry, it just adds technical weight) and will be crucified for it. -- (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Dereks1x has a beef with me? Since when?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
There is some technical evidence connecting Dereks1x to Archtransit et al, however, it is somewhat stale and therefore less conclusive on its own than the evidence tying Archtransit to Fairchoice et al. Which is exactly why it is useful to have the connection made by people who were unaware of the evidence (both here and in private e-mail), because it avoids the problem of confirmation bias if Jerseyko and friends don't know what they are confirming. Thatcher 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You can't eat your cake and have it too... Will (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll ask: if we conclude that Archtransit is a sock of someone banned more than 10 months ago, what do we do about reverting stuff per WP:BAN? I see closed AFD's, I see closed suspected sock cases, a handful of protections, a featured article apparently... Fruit of a poison tree? I think I know the answer but wanted to bring it up anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that reverting all of his edits will ultimately be doing more harm than good to the project. Just another instance where we need to WP:IAR. Tiptoety talk 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, since there is no  Confirmed its academic, but anything that he did should be evaluated on its own merits (and, ideally, will have been already) rather than reverted automatically based on WP:BAN. Avruch T 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing *requires* that the edits be reverted, in any event. WP:BAN uses the permissive language "may be reverted", not "shall be reverted". In any event, I agree that reverting all of these edits would likely do more harm than good, though his administrative actions should be reviewed carefully, obviously. · jersyko talk 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:BAN any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. Of course edits you disagree with may be reverted, but extra care must be taken so that vandalism, non-NPOV edits or violations of BLP aren't added to anything. But this is all assuming that this was made in defience of a ban (i.e. if this really is Dereks1x). Although Archtransit is banned, him being banned doesn't mean we go through the same process, reverting is mostly done because of someone editing in defience of a ban (again, assuming this really is Dereks1x, it could apply here). — Save_Us 23:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Having reviewed the contribs of all of the possible socks, I am now convinced that 1) there were no other FACs influenced, and 2) the Boeing 747 FAC is fine. It did receive substantial review from other editors at FAC, and the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation say they were watching all along, and it's fine.[7] From the FAC side of things, I'm satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[out] I don't have anything to add right now, other than to say that yesterday I also, independently, came to the same conclusion that Jersyko did, without any communication between us about it. Knowing the history of Dereks1x and those of his socks that we;ve uncovered, it is extremely clear to me that Archtransit is also one. This is not the first time he has tried for adminship, and I would take seriously his question "Are you also going to desysop my other administratorship?" and look into it. I'm available to reply here and by email if there are questions - I'm 100% sure they are one and the same, and also sure that there are many other of his socks doing damage to the project. Tempting as it is, I also don't think assuming good faith when it comes to this individual is warranted and I would recommend a very close look at all of his administrative edits, particularly closings, SSP cases and the like. This is, in his parlance, a "bad" editor and we need to be forceful in our response. He has already cost us too many hours of work. Tvoz |talk 23:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

One point I think should be raised is that similar phraseology can be adopted by different people. Probably not the case here, as there is other evidence, but phraseology on its own should never be enough. I've sometimes found myself starting to use phrases used by others, and that alone is not evidence of sockpuppetry. More is needed to confirm a suspicion like that, and as I said, it seems that further evidence is available here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, preparing a future defense for yourself, eh? Clever! Face-smile.svgWknight94 (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah ha, I did not know that. (Never tried). Oops! I've somehow managed to use the same wording as you. Let's see if I can adopt any other of your idiosycrancies and mannerisms... That will ensure you go down with me! Clever! Face-smile.svg Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Seriously, consciously copying others can rebound sometimes, for precisely the reasons raised here. Try to retain a distinctive style you can call your own, unless you want to deliberately engage in satirical imitation. A prize for guessing whose style I am imitating here.
Well, whoever you're imitating doesn't know how to close the </small> tag.Smiley.svg--Father Goose (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)