Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive156

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

Noticeboard archives

Moval of SB on Portal:Denmark[edit]

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

User:Boy2boy[edit]

WP:CIVIL disputed tag[edit]

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

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

While there is a crisis in the enforcement of civility at this point, saying it should not be policy is a little over dramatic. I have started a discussion on the talk page(usually where you go before tagging a page disputed). I have asked if the community truly wants the civility policy applied equally, or for special exceptions to be made for established users. Instead of tossing the policy, lets work with it. See Wikipedia talk:Civility#Should established users be treated different?. Chillum 14:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I see that Sceptre probably means something WP:POINTish, here, but ArbCom is itself increasingly uncivil in its discussions of users, and it tolerates scurrilous talk nearly everywhere, so long as it is aimed at those who have insulted them, personally. It is the interjection of personality and ego that I find disgusting, here. The open source environment demands that we focus on the damned work and not the damned workers. For some, though, what they desire is not the work, but plaudits and importance and social networking. MyFace.com is that way. Geogre (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why "Civil" is no policy[edit]

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

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

I agree that the net formed by other policies like WP:Consensus, WP:NPA and WP:AGF is enough to define civility, since incivility without violation of othe rpolicies is not something that is exactly common. Circeus (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This is not an administrative issue, these discussions belong at WT:Civility. Chillum 18:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

Locke Cole/Betacommand mutual topic ban[edit]

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Edited section title. - brenneman 07:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

  • Support: This has been a long time coming. His attempts to provoke Betacommand are inappropriate, and unacceptable. We don't need him continuing to cause things to get worse. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Considering you just threatened me with a block for supposedly revert warring, why am I not surprised you'd endorse this as well? —Locke Coletc 04:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps because your edits to Betacommands talk page tonight were the 'straws that broke the camels back'? I have no idea about the specific reasons for Ryan P. bringing this to AN tonight, but ... who knows. So, I'm supporting something that would prevent me, or anybody else, from having to tell you to stop with this behavior. Anyhow, Im not discussing this with you anymore. I've made my opinions known. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not baiting. Baiting is using edit summaries like "rvv" for material which clearly is not vandalism. Baiting is saying someone is "banned" from a page when they clearly are not banned from that page. I would challenge the allegation that Betacommand has received any abuse from me whatsoever. Now please put down your torch and pitchfork and maybe try and deal with the actual issue at hand: how is someone who routinely flaunts the wishes of the community allowed to get away with it? We've been over the issue of inappropriate edit summaries before (during the Sam Korn solution/discussion), and yet it continues. What will you try to do about that? —Locke Coletc 04:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • He's blocked, yet you've continued to harass him on his talk. This is old news, with all the problems you caused in past discussions about Beta. You've yet again baited him on his talk whilst blocked - I stongly believe a topic ban is the only thing that will get you to stop. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not harassing him. Are you even reading what I said on his talk page or are you being reactionary and assuming the worst? —Locke Coletc 04:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As long as he refrains from doing such in the future, I don't see that it's needed. Hopefully he'll see this and understand that the community would prefer he stop without being forced to do so under threat of ban. Kylu (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec)FWIW, after he removed my good faith comments again, I was done. I'm still not seeing how attempting to point out to a user how his conduct is inappropriate is "harassment" or "baiting", but some people have more liberal definitions than I it seems. —Locke Coletc 04:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Someone leaves a note on your talk, you remove it. Someone reverts your move (You forgot to edit the timestamp on your non-revert, btw), they're now violating policy. He read your post and removed it, choosing not to answer. You don't have a "right" to an answer from him, so don't repost the question until he replies. Sorry. Kylu (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • But in removing the remark, you add a snippy edit summary. Sorry, but that's an answer. And of the sort you've been explicitly told not to make. You're right, Kylu. All you have to do it turn your back. Just remove the note clean without comment. But to pretend that there's no reply being made just because the edit summary is used as the vehicle for the message instead of the talk page undoes the argument. There was a clear choice to make an answer in an uncivil tone. Again. BC does not need another apologist (or another critic I suppose). He needs to learn to make disiplined and civil choices. Wiggy! (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Ah, my English skills need honing, apparently. I only figured out the bridge gag after your comment. (o.O;;) I'd suggest we both support keeping them from speaking to eachother at the moment, then. Kylu (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
            • This is good. I was wondering how it might pan out. Good eye. :) So, while I see how LC's approach might be unhelpful, I can also understand his frustration. Yeah they should probably both stay away from each other, but that's just a narrow slice of it all and it still leaves behind BC's (on-going) intransigence. Wiggy! (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Indeed, and Ryan needs to put his efforts towards resolving the issues with Betacommand rather than trying to single me out because I only tried to point out one of things he does that the community finds unacceptable (the misleading/false edit summaries). Instead we waste our time here trying to silence another voice of the community simply because we're unable to assume good faith. —Locke Coletc 03:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral leaning Oppose While Locke has had issues edit warring in the past, I am concerned about treating only 1/2 of the continued incivility issue, these sort of edit sums [7] [8] by Beta were made when he was not reverting Locke Cole. I'd propose if anything that both of them be put on civility restrictions and topic banned from each other. MBisanz talk 04:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I thought that was obvious that Betacommand couldn't comment on Locke should this topic ban proceed. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • (EC) Yes, of course Beta should not comment on Locke either. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Okey, apparently I am not being pointed enough, any civility restrictions on Betacommad are obviously not working, any edit restrictions like 3RR on Locke Cole are also not working. The result are these uncivil revert wars. This non-interaction proposal treats the symptom not the problem, limiting both editors to 0RR on all pages for all content might be a step I'd support. MBisanz talk 04:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • To elaborate, they would both be prohibited from interacting with each other or referencing each other, and would be limited to 0RR on all pages with all individuals, this sort of remedy should solve the global behavioral issues I've noticed over the last several months, while still permitting them to pursue their areas of interest. MBisanz talk 06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
While I can completely understand the need for such a request, I think that this needs a separate discussion. I'd be all for reiterating the fact that on this topic-ban, both users have a 0RR in effect for each others edits. However, to impose a 0R rule on any edits seems outside the scope of what this topic ban will do, and that is to stop BC and LC from interacting with each other, for obvious reasons. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - If the above is true (that both Beta and Locke would not be able to comment on each other). Tiptoety talk 04:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: I just want to point out / clarify that this thread doesn't appear to be (at least in my opinion) the result of one specific incident. These two users have a history of problems, that would be solved if they'd just leave each other alone. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thats wishful thinking, we would hope users would use common sense now wouldn't we? Tiptoety talk 04:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The core of this thing is BC's incivility. Its on-going and it has been a characteristic of his long before this block or any others. I can understand Locke's frustration because BC blithely ignores advice, admonition, and sanction directed his way. Always has. Instead of his being sent on his way to contemplate for an extended period of time (and maybe come back with some understanding of the fact that civility is one of the things that makes this place run) the whole thing deteriorates into the consideration of topic bans for frustrated editors and the disqualification of involved admins. That is just plain backwards. Sure BC has got down to some of the necessary dirty work, but that does not excuse him from following the rules and respecting consensus, nor does it entitle him to ignore the sanctions placed on him that he agreed to abide by. Wiggy! (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban, noting that it would be that Beta and Locke wouldn't be able to comment on each other. As an observer, seeing past ANI threads and conduct on the WP:BOT page, and elsewhere, this sort of conduct doesn't go un-noticed. I do think that it might be difficult to enforce, and I think MBisanz's idea might be useful. Perhaps in addition to the topic ban from each other, a 1RR is imposed on both Betacommand and Locke, for all bot policy related pages. Thoughts? Steve Crossin (contact) 05:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Locke Cole seems to seek out Betacommand and bait him at every availible opportunity. This has been going on for months. While it in no way excuses Beta's incivility, the converse is also true; Beta's incivility does not justify Locke's stalking of him and his incessant and unhelpful additions to any discussion of Betacommands behavior. It is not Locke's job to be the personal "cop" on Betacommand patrol; Beta is a public enough figure at Wikipedia that any steps out of line will be noticed by multiple users. Nothing suffers if Locke is proscribed from commenting on Betacommand, and since his comments invariably escalate rather than diffuse the situation, this seems to be needed.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Those are some pretty damning accusations: do you actually have anything recent to prove this with? Also, how is the community involvement helped if you begin censoring users simply because the person being discussed is "high profile"? How long before other editors suffer similar "bans" simply because they wish to voice their opinion? —Locke Coletc 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pointing out Betacommand's bad behaviour can hardly be construed as harassment and stalking. Perhaps Betacommand should be given a topic ban from anything related to image tagging, since he is at least as rude as Locke Cole is claimed to be in his attempts to enforce such policies. Jtrainor (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Pointing out bad behavior is not in and of itself harassment. Pointing it out in the manner in which Locke Cole does so is harassment. --Carnildo (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • And how was my "manner" in any way harassing? I made a grand total of two edits to his user talk page. —Locke Coletc 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Jayron32 said it better than I could. James086Talk | Email 07:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure we need to formalize this. Temp blocks for harassment is pretty standard. -- Ned Scott 08:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it has come to this. If you review the history between LC and BC, you'll see that temporary blocks, and warnings aren't really effective. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Topic ban for Locke, and Betacommand. Also maybe a suggestion about 1RR on Locke and Betacommand on the WP:B page due to edit warring? We really don't get anywhere if they keep reverting each other on all kinds of bot releated pages. --Kanonkas :  Talk  11:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support only if applied both ways, as others suggest above. Locke needs to stay away from Betacommand, and Betacommand needs to stay away from Locke. Neıl 12:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as per Jayron32's well-worded thoughts. Horologium (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Per jayron's reasoning. SQLQuery me! 14:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Neil. Sceptre (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Edit summary usage is only 74.6%, and not enough edits in Template Talk namespace. Wait, this isn't an RfA? :) MastCell Talk 20:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Neil and Jayron. There are many others ready and willing to deal with the uncivility issues that Beta sometimes succumbs to. —Giggy 10:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Excellent news. Now my question remains: where were they when he was being incivil? —Locke Coletc 02:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Kick him out! Baiting people has no place in this social mesh. --harej 17:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I wasn't baiting anything. WP:AGF anyone? —Locke Coletc 02:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I am uncomfortable with the idea of an externally imposed indefinite ban. Could a limit such as 3–6 months be implemented? Support closed-ended, Oppose open-ended. -- Avi (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment We're not talking about kicking anybody out or indefinite bans. And while baiting is not called for, BC is just as bad or worse on the other side. This is heading toward a more even handed set of sanctions that applies to both users. Wiggy! (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Baiting? Assume good faith much? Or maybe we should go and turn AGF into an essay since apparently nobody pays attention to it anymore. From WP:AGF: If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is never necessary or productive to accuse others of harmful motives. And yet here we are, with Ryan leading the charge accusing me of "harmful motives" rather than trying to determine the point of my two edits. —Locke Coletc 02:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Actually, I'm on your side in priniciple if you bother to read the discussion above. BC needs folks on him to keep him in line as he's pretty clearly unable to manage himself. You might may wish to go with a straight up statement of the issue rather than chippy rhetorical questions. I don't agree with what's being done here and I'm not fussy on the attempt to put the chill on discussion while BC seems to be free to violate his civility parole despite being blocked. If that was dealt with promptly and effectively, I doubt we'd be here. Wiggy! (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written, support some time-limited restrictions. LC has been helpful in pointing out some issues and keeping them visible, but they also often use vastly overblown rhetoric which doesn't help their cause. See for example the less-than-helpful attitude they show in this thread - LC you may be completely and absolutely right, but even so, it's not often productive to just tell everyone else they're wrong, wrong, wrong (even when they are). The problem with a mutual ban on commenting on each other is that it leaves out the mutual interest in image policy and bot policy - both of which the two editors will not leave alone. An "each-other" ban leaves open first-mover advantage on project and article pages - one makes the first change, then if the other wants to revert, this can be construed as commenting on the other. The mutual-comment ban should be combined with a restriction to talk page discussion on the subjects of bots and images. Franamax (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me[edit]

Update from ArbCom[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Motion: Desysopping of User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. - auburnpilot talk 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion was quick and well participated. Due to concerns of problematic blocks if left, and the visible majority (8-0), the case has been closed without the customary 24 hour period, and the appropriate request filed (linking to the Arbitration Committee decision as backup). It should be noted that if Clowns does reappear, and feels that the tools are in fact going to be used without these concerns in future, then the decision would anticipate discussion and (when issues are satisfactorily cleared up) reinstatement. At this time, clowns has had administrative priveleges removed to prevent more of the same problems as evidenced in the case. case, decision. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
As stated above, I think it would be best that, if CSCWEM does reappear and explain, the reinstatement of his sysop tools should be approved by the community rather than ArbCom alone, given the serious nature of the problems delineated. We don't know how many good-faith editors have been driven away due to the bad blocks. Kelly hi! 00:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Strongly agree with this; a new RfA would be best in light of this user's inappropriate behavior spanning several months. Everyking (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Nah, CSCWEM on a good day is plentifully endowed with Clue, let him take a break and then get the tools back per the No Big Deal clause. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Trying desperately not to read between the lines, I think CSCWEM could do with a break for his own good. Having worked in a job where burn-out was a well-known phenomenon, although an unpublicised one, and suffered from it, I recognise the signs. He should be allowed to chill and return when he's ready. I wish him well. --Rodhullandemu 01:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
He's had several bad days in recent months, and on the intervening days he hasn't done anything whatsoever. Even if he were to come back now, acknowledging and communicating with others, the erosion of trust caused by this bizarre behavior has been too great for restoration of the tools to be appropriate without community approval. This is a case where adminship was lost "under a cloud", and an RfA should occur if he wants it back. Everyking (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that WP:RfA has the sufficient "long sight" to evaluate a request by someone who has been desysopped by the ArbCom; there would be too many "ZOMG - deadminned by ArbCom? No way!" !votes, when it is the fact of non-communication that has lead to the decision, and not the quantity or percentage of egregious blocks. As Keegan says below, the amount of queries in relation to the actions is very low - and if CSCWEM were to have responded to the queries we would not be having this discussion; therefore the cloud that you refer to is not the (mis)use of the tools, but the failure to respond appropriately to the community. As you have indicated, this specific circumstance of the decision to desysop CSCWEM is likely to be missed at any RfA. In this matter, the experience of ArbCom members of the pressures of adminship and the indicators of burnout is the best basis in which to determine whether CSCWEM is suitable for having the tools restored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In support of CSCWEM[edit]

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

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

technical advice re admin tools[edit]

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

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

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

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

The answer to both questions is "no", as far as I know, at least not without using a script.  Sandstein  12:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, pity. Thanks for letting me know. — Alan 13:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
When he says script that does include the monobook.js file. I do believe both of these are possible in some form or another. Check out WP:JS for a listing. -- Ned Scott 21:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Strange Watchlist additions...[edit]

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

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

These were targets of page move vandalism, you likely had the original page on your watchlist. For example: (diff) 03:50, May 13, 2008 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs | block) (25 bytes) (moved HAGGĖRʔʔʔʔʔʔʔʔʔ to Netherlands over redirect: revert). Have you ever had Netherlands on your watchlist? –xeno (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) It's because of move-vandalism; every time a page on your watchlist is moved, the new title is added to your watchlist automatically, and stays there ever after the move has been reverted. EdokterTalk 23:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch, guys! I wasn't aware of page move vandalism. I didn't think anyone hacked or used my account, and wondered if there was some other way this could happen. You guys solved it and I don't have to worry anymore. Thanks again! --Mac OS X 23:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK update[edit]

Resolved

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

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

Proposal to semiprotect the Template: namespace[edit]

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

Block review[edit]

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

With the vandalism and the username taken together, I'd say you probably made a good call. At the very least they should explain their edits and choice of name. Yes, there were some valid minor edits mixed in, but no real major contributions; this isn't really unusual, attempts to dilute one's contribution history like that are pretty common among our smarter vandals and other nogoodniks. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Along with the above, the deleted contributions are either attacks or A7 CSDs. I don't see much of anything helpful in the short contrib history. Looks like someone testing the wiki for what they might be able to get away with. The block seems fitting to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I should also say this is clearly someone's sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That Article[edit]

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

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

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

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

If this is indeed a NAMBLA biased article, does it not then fall under THAT P WORD and should be referred to the ArbCom? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Possibly, I don't know. It needs careful handling, Haiduc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a long-standing user but makes a worrying (to me) statement about his agenda on his user page and even his early edits were serving to advance an agenda; check his deleted contributions and his early edits to articles like J S Bach. I think this is an iceberg with only the very tip visible right now. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Not the first time Haiduc has come up around a P issue - though im struggling to recall when the last time was. ViridaeTalk 11:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Haiduc is certainly an extremely problematic user with an intense POV agenda and no qualms whatsoever in misusing sources. Last time I caught him in the act was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian pederasty. I'd say we should seriously consider sanctions. Fut.Perf. 11:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that he has a stable of simple articles, such Pederastic couples in Japan that, I suspect, will show similar sourcing problems. Nandesuka (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I can find no sources other than a wiki describing Shively as a NANBLA founder. His writings have appeared there, and reviews ofhis books, but that does not make him a founder. Could somebody please provide a reliable source stating this is fact? Our article on NAMBLA does not mention him at all. ~He is a professor and writer. He seems ok to me until definitely proven otherwise. In fact, in the absence of proof, this seems positively defamatory. Do BLP considerations holdno weight on discussion pages, or are we allowed to libel at will? Jeffpw (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Whether he's a founder or not, he certainly publishes with them [12] and campaigns on their behalf [13]. Fut.Perf. 13:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it a BLP violation to describe a person as a founder of such an organization without reliable sources to back it up? DuncanHill (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
It would certainly seem so to me. Further, having one's article published in a magazine ( a section of a book he wrote),and signing a letter as part of a group unassociated with NAMBLA, 15 years ago when there was still controversy about the group's association within the LGBT community, is simply guilt by association. We're on a slippery slope here if we allow unsubstantiated accusations (defamatory ones at that) against living persons. Is this Wikipedia or HUAC? Jeffpw (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
You may be right, the claim that he is a co-founder of NAMBLA may be unjustified. There are, however, a large number of individuals who state that he is a pro-paedophile activist. Not to the point that I'm off to see that any article on him says so (I've not even looked to see if we have one) but [14], for example, certainly gives me sufficient grounds to dispute Shively as the sole source for such claims, and that is the issue at hand: adding large numbers of entries to a contentious list based solely on the word of an activist. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I hardly think that the website you linked to (operated by Concerned Women for America) could be described as in any way a reliable source. DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
So, for the sake of correctness, Guy, I suggest you strike out your remark about "co-founder of" on the article talk page and replace it with something like "associated with", which seems easily justifiable, and you'll be okay. We certainly don't want to be breaking BLP against pro-pedophilia activists out there, now, do we. Fut.Perf. 15:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Future, please find a reliable source listing him as a pro-pedophile activist, otherwise you're just libeling him further. All refs of that nature should be oversighted, in accordance with WP:BLP. Jeffpw (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I just did. [15] is reliable enough for me. He was publicly campaigning for a pro-pedophilia organisation, full stop. By the way, even this [16] website is reliable enough for me. It's not a wiki that anyone can edit, it's essentially just a private homepage, run by a fellow American professor, a friend, sympathiser and long-time fellow activist of Shively's. I don't see why we shouldn't trust his information. Fut.Perf. 16:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Update[edit]

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

This is obviously vendetta driven by a group of conservative Wikipedians who have moral distaste for the subject. I cannot believe how one admin's rash actions could lead to all of this senseless drama. It's situations like this that take all the joy out of editing here. Jeffpw (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Please watch where you point that "guilt by association gun", Tex. I, for one, am offended by the implication that I have any other concern than the encyclopedia having articles that don't egregiously violate our dictate against original research. Nandesuka (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
It is also (in my case at least) almost comically wrong. I am a European liberal, which makes me practically a Communist in American terms. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Label yourself what you want, Guy. Your ideology is clearly showing in your stance on this article, and that speaks far more than any words about your political/geographical politics. You've also lied about the number of refs Shively had in the article, which speaks volumes about your character. Jeffpw (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
(E/C with JzG) JzG was the creator of the "wing-nut drivel" template, and personally responsible for removing every single link to Free Republic in article space. He's hardly some fire-breathing conservative. Horologium (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Because Free Republic is a forum, not a reliable source of information. seicer | talk | contribs 17:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, because Free Republic is a massive violator of copyright, a source of some spectacularly defamatory claims, and because it's full of OR, not to mention it's a discussion board. However, Democratic Underground, which is essentially a mirror-image of FR, still has a buttload of links (310), an unknown number of which are links to articles in mainspace. (I haven't bothered to count them all.) The point I was making, though, is that to accuse JzG of conservative bias is laughable. Horologium (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

ANI currently unreadable[edit]

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

Okay, now sorted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone explain to me what's actually happening with this, and how to fix it? Or point me out to a discussion where it's already explained? Tan ǀ 39 21:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is very easy to fix.

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

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

on this note, should someone protect Template:Unresolved? I seriously doubt that template will need to be changed in the near future, and it is frequently transcluded on both AN and ANI. J.delanoygabsadds 22:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
See Honda CBR600RR --AdultSwim (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it is possible to use javascript and/or css to prevent important buttons from being covered up by massive floating vandalism. If somebody could give me a diff of example vandalism I can test this, and possibly get it enabled by default. — CharlotteWebb 17:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Stopping a bot[edit]

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

Can you give evidence (diffs) of your reason? As someone who works with a lot of new spinoff articles I haven't noticed any issues from this bot. Mirrors shouldn't be too much of an issue as the articles are new and take a while to show up on the chinapedia and hollywoodapedia clones. You may want to file a note on the BO noticeboard as thats where to bot gurus hang out. User has not edited since May 8th, Bot has not edited since June 2nd and only has 5 edits since May 8th. Is this really an issue? --AdultSwim (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I and (if I can speak for her) Collectonian work over at the CSV page and remove them when false positives arrive. Everything is under control. Wikipedia will not melt down. ^_^ Synergy 08:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Ehm? Coren seems to have indeed dropped off the face of the wiki since May 8, but CorenSearchBot is still actively editing. As far as I know it's generally doing useful work, and it would be shame to lose it, but it is true that such a task does require an attentive operator to regularly maintain the exclusion lists etc. I've no idea what's going on with Coren, but if he's no longer willing or able to handle that, it might be best for someone else to take over (at least temporarily). Someone should probably e-mail him about it. The bot is written in Perl, so I suppose I could do it if no-one else really wants to, though I'm rather busy myself right now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Some of the mistakes the bot is making is just plain silly. Coren is not responsive, so I hope somebody will take the bot over. Anyway, that's all from me. If you look at the contribution history, I guess the false positive rate is about 25%. While it's true that the CSV people are taking care of these (and seem happy to do so), I think they're often taking care of the listings after an editor has already been inconvenienced by having to check if there is a copyvio and removing the tag. --C S (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Evidence? I would have thought it was clear if you looked at the bot's contributions (which you didn't). Pretty much every article that is still a blue link is a false positive (with some exceptions). I estimate about 1 in 4. --C S (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
No, not really. A lot of times people get the notice on an article then rework it (or just remove the notice). As Synergy noted above, I'm one of the editors regularly patrolling the page. Most of the hits are accurate enough. The bot can't distinguish between other GFDL wikis and copyvio pages, but those are not often the sources of the articles. A few times yeah, it mismarks a tracklist, but again it isn't often enough to be a major issue. Most alerts are indeed copyvio issues, at the time the alert is made, or copy/paste page moves (nothing bad about having alerts on those). CorenBot is working fine and doesn't need blocking. its better to actually look at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations to see how many "false positives" there are, keeping in mind entries are removed if the article is fixed or redirected, not just because it wasn't accurate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the "mirrors shouldn't be...an issue" remark. If I break up an old article into two articles, the bot will tag it as a copyvio since the material is old and has already well propogated. The bot doesn't seem to check very accurately if the site is a Wikipedia mirror, which is a major flaw. Many times just checking for the word "Wikipedia" would be good enough (of the bot's most recent edits, I saw such a copy on a mirror that even properly attributed the material to Wikipedia, but the bot didn't seem to care). Another typical mistake is with things like song lyrics or album listings. Generally the people that make these articles put them in the proper categories, so it should be possible for the bot to check if the article is in such a category. --C S (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it should make an attempt to distinguish Wikipedia mirrors with other sites, but these should still be tagged (whether as "copyvio" or not) as it can be useful for finding copy and paste moves, and recreations of deleted articles (some of which may have previously been deleted as the result of AFD or as copyright violations, making them eligible for speedy deletion). Snydale (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Song lyrics aren't supposed to be posted anyway unless they are public domain (and even then, if thats the whole of the article, it will get CSDed). Yes, it does sometimes catch a page split, but it isn't a major issue most of the time (and easily solved by making sure to do the split in a timely fashion). I've done plenty of page splits and never once had an article tagged. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I've found the bot to be extremely useful in the past- sure, it occasionally tags wrongly (it tagged an article I wrote once, because it included a tracklisting) but that's why we have administrators to do the deleting, the bot just searches. J Milburn (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
All tags should be investigated by admins/NPPatrollers before applying the CSD#G12 tag. As long as admins don't take the bot's word for it every time, and actually check, it should be no problem. Either way, I've found it extremely useful in the past. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Yet another Kurt/RFA-related thread[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I once proposed a guideline that all threaded discussion at RfA should take place either in the discussion section or on the talk page, with the only permitted replies to comments in the support/oppose/neutral sections being brief procedural notes (such as "this user is not eligible to participate" as well as "replied on talk page"). Didn't get a consensus for it back then, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think votephobia is the only reason why that isn't done. Anyway, separating voting and discussion into different sections would probably make RfA a less stressful experience for everyone involved. Kusma (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Although there is no firm procedure on this, it has become an accepted mechanism to remove protracted discussions to an RfA's talk page, as long as in doing so a summary of the discussion and where it has been moved to is placed in brackets directly below the support/oppose/neutral statement. In the example quoted by Everyme, Xenocidic was merely performing this accepted mechanism. Although there are positives and negatives for moving the discussion, the main concern is that a debate between two or more people that does not involve the candidate can unfairly prejeudice a contributor's opinions of the candidate. Although you are welcome, and indeed encouraged, to dispute the rationale between a contributor's support/oppose/neutral statement, if the discussion becomes protracted it is an accepted mechanism that it can me moved to the talk page. Please note that this is not the same as archiving, as you are still welcome (and encouraged) to continue the discussion there in order to resolve your concerns. Hope this helps, Gazimoff WriteRead 10:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • accepted mechanism — Well, I'm currently challenging it.
  • "the main concern is that a debate between two or more people that does not involve the candidate can unfairly prejeudice a contributor's opinions of the candidate" — Huh? Comments which challenge the validity of an oppose should be moved in order to prevent them from influencing other users' opinion against the candidate ? That makes no sense. user:Everyme 11:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Moreover, who decides what is and what is not a protracted (and eso. unuseful) debate? And who says that all of the comments have to be moved?
  • Also, apparently I am not welcome to says anything about that particular brand of opposes, however civil. Or rather, I may do so, but then, when too many other people decide to also comment there, somehow my comment magically becomes disruptive all of a sudden and has to be removed. I don't think so. user:Everyme 11:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

  • Gaz basically already said everything I would've said. As I noted to Everyme on my talk page, this is standard practice (i.e. there was nothing personal about this particular action) and if I am the one who sparks the protracted discussion, I'm usually the first one to suggest it gets moved. –xeno (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
... I replied to Gaz above, did you catch that? user:Everyme 12:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I re-read the moved discussion and imo, it still has very little value to evaluating the candidate at hand. It's also an exercise in futility, for the reasons I mentioned to you at my talk page. I believe what Gaz was driving at is if people see huge long discussions in the oppose, they might think "oh hey look at all this discussion about the candidate in the oppose section - must be something wrong with them" - when in fact it's really just discussing the merit's (or lack thereof) of kurt-brand opposes. As far as "who decides", typically disinterested parties should be doing the move - someone not involved in the discussion or close to the candidate (just to allay any concerns of impropriety). And no one is saying you are not welcome to say anything about kbo's (I'm coining that term) but if they don't relate to the candidate and extremely long discussions result, then they'll likely get moved as well. And for the record, I never termed the discussion disruptive. –xeno (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "very little value to evaluating the candidate"My comment was elaborating on precisely that fact, in response to this question. Kurt himself replied to me and conceded my point while elaborating on his own oppose. I daresay that bit of the discussion is definitely relevant to the RfA.
  • they might think "oh hey look at all this discussion about the candidate in the oppose section - must be something wrong with them" — I'm having a hard time taking this at face value. Do you really participate in Wikipedia on the assumption that other people don't actually read comments, but rather evaluate the sheer amount of text? I have to say I have more trust in my fellow editors.
  • "I never termed the discussion disruptive" — Disruptiveness of some sort is the only reason anything gets moved or removed ever. If it isn't at all disruptive, there is no reason to touch it. So by moving it, you are quintessentially stating your opinion that it is disruptive, there's no way around that.
  • "no one is saying you are not welcome to say anything about kbo's" — You know, I will start believing that as soon as my comments are not moved on some random editor's hunch. user:Everyme 13:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Solid points. I've undone myself. Can't guarantee someone else won't come along and move it. –xeno (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion which is pertinent to the candidate and relevant to any discussion should remain on the actual RfA. I've seen on too many occasions where it seems like as soon as anyone replies to a Weber comment it's moved to the talk page. Why do people feel it necessary to comment on something irrelevant to both the candidate or RfA? Only that way will we see these discussions stopped and thus no more moves. Easier said than done though. Rudget (logs) 13:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It's such a fine line. I thought about moving back just the relevant stuff, but that's too tough a judgment call to make. –xeno (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on this one incident individually, just more generally. Rudget (logs) 13:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay in responding to your points, Everyme. To respond to them in turn:
  • Yes, procedures and mechanisms should be challenged, and it's only healthy to do so. I'd encourage kicking off a debate on this subject at WT:RFA so that the situation can get thrashed out and we can reach some consensus.
  • I remember reading somewhere that this exact scenario happened - a drawn out debate between support and oppose camps where the candidate themselves weren't involved put people off contributing to the RfA. I can't dredge up diffs right now, so I won't hold this up as a major concern, but it was something clawing the back of my mind. Another that I remember reading was making it clear for the 'crats to sumamrise at the end of the process, but again, I can't find diffs so it can't come up all that often.
  • It doesn't have to be an unproductive debate or heated dispute to get moved to the talkpage, just a discussion where there have been a large number of replies by contributors.
  • As above, I wouldn't reserve this for concerns of civility either - I don't think you were being uncivil in your responses to Kurt, just firm in your opinions.
  • I wouldn't say that comments aren't moved purely for disruptiveness - comments have been moved in the past to improve the legibility of the main RFA page, or for procedural reasons such as accidental double voting etc, although this is probably splitting hairs.
To summarise though, I'd suggest that the comments were moved in good faith using a previously accepted mechanism. If there's concern about this (which there seems to be), I'd encourage a proposal to be drawn up on WT:RFA so that we can thash the issue out. Gazimoff WriteRead 13:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to do so. Also, I posted here primarily to get some more attention on the issue in general and the situation at hand in particular. I probably should have posted at WT:RFA to begin with, somehow didn't occur to me. user:Everyme 14:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we've reached a compromise that addresses both sides of the coin. I copied the entire thread to the talk page and then trimmed out the stuff, that wasn't related to candidate, leaving a less lengthy discussion behind. –xeno (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
As I told Xeno at his talk, I think he made a good call and successfully separated the wheat from the chaff (..... did I just call other users' comments "chaff"? Oh for laughing out loud about my own inconsideration; sorry for that). Something to be learned here. user:Everyme 14:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. I'll get the ball rolling at WT:RFA on sorting out this issue in the longer term. Shall we tag this as resolved (for now)? Gazimoff WriteRead 14:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This case is definitely resolved (tagged). If I were you I wouldn't bother raising it at WT:RFA. It's a bit of a perennial discussion. Just point here for precedent in the future =). –xeno (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer requesting an unblock[edit]

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

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

In before drama. —Giggy 07:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, this goes to the blocking admins talk page, and does not necessarily need its own post to AN or AN/I. Hes been informed already by the way. Synergy 07:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
See his talk page; he requested an AN note, and the blocking admin has been informed. —Giggy 07:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
giggy: I did see the talk page. Its a bit early for an AN post. Synergy 07:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
...which is specifically why I pinged the blocking admin first off. No objection to discussion here, though. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Right. I was informing anyone who was reading any of this that the blocking admin was informed. I guess I'm the only one who sees this post as being a bit premature. Regards Synergy 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I declined it. That was a very disruptive user who was banned quite recently. He can email the arbitrators for a review, but I don't see any realistic chance that the community will consider him reformed after so short a time. 14:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well - I'm going to stick my neck out on this one. I interacted with Homer a bit, and he was usually a productive editor who reacted very poorly in certain types of disputes. He's been effectively banned for about four months, and I see the apology and coming clean as sincere and an excellent sign that he may have come to terms with the problems he sometimes created. If he can steer clear of User:Calton and limit interaction with User:JPG-GR, I think he would return to being a positive contributor. As I do feel he was previously a useful editor, I would be willing to monitor and mentor him.--Kubigula (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Limiting interaction between NH and JPG would be difficult, as both were very active in the TV and radio projects, and short of topic-banninh NH, little can be done to rectify that. Asking JPG-GR to not edit pages Homer is active on is not realistic, as he has never been sanctioned for his editing. Horologium (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
True enough. I have, however, seen NH and JPG edit productively together (I even gave them both barnstars for cooperative editing). I've notifed JPG of this thread as I think he should have input here. My thoughts were that we would go into this with NH understanding that there would be no tolerance of disruptive contact with JPG.--Kubigula (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If it wasn't for the fact he used two Checkuser-confirmed sleeper accounts, I'd support lifting the community ban. It's sad, though--we both shared an interest in TV and radio station articles. But his use of Flatsky and his intended use of Alostnickel--sorry, that sort of block evasion can't be rewarded. Blueboy96 21:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The only reason I didn't indef-block the original OrangeMonster account (whose original contributions were hoaxes) was because it was clear that the user behind the account was quite intelligent and could actually write articles. NH gave that up and was productive for a long while, but disputes with other editors (of which there were several) overshadowed that. Given some mentoring and direction, there's no reason NH couldn't be productive again. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to agree with ya, Firsfron ... but this wasn't just ordinary socking we're talking about. This involved use of two sleeper accounts. Ordinary sockpuppetry is one thing, but keeping a sock in the drawer until you're blocked again? That doesn't sit well with me at all. Blueboy96 03:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
No question that by the end his behavior was unacceptable - bad enough to get him rightfully banned. However, the block is not punishment, it's for the protection of the encyclopedia. To me, the key questions are whether he recognizes what he did was wrong and if such behavior would resume if allowed back. I have to say that his apology and recognition of the error of his ways are about the best I've seen, and I'm confident he's sincere. The question then shifts to whether he is likely to repeat the bad behavior. Obviously, there are no guarantees, but I'm more inclined to take the chance when someone has been a productive editor - there's more liklihood of it being a net positive to WP. I will commit to the mentoring and a short leash, and I think the risk to the encyclopedia and our editors is sufficiently contained to give it another try.--Kubigula (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess the fact he used sleepers leaves a bad taste in my mouth. However, if Kubigula's willing to keep him on a short leash, maybe it's worth trying--especially if it's understood that even one slip-up will result in him being indefblocked with no preliminaries. Blueboy