Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive163

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

Noticeboard archives

Editor has set out to correct historic errors in Wikipedia's concept of Money and History of money[edit]

Protomoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is an enthusiast for a term, which he calls 'protomoney,' which seems to have been overlooked by all previous works on economic history. I blocked him for a week on 11 August for edit warring to insert his novel concept into our articles about money. He's made about 250 edits since he began work here on July 15, nearly all devoted to promotion of his concept. A dialog on his User talk this afternoon did not lead to an agreement to follow Wikipedia policy. The tone of his typical interaction with other editors is captured at Talk:Money#Redone history of money section, where Skipsievert said:

As near as I can tell Protomoney you have pretty much destroyed all the good work that has been done on this article. You have a strange sense of history . It is not neutral. It is like you are not even in the right topic here. Nothing you are doing makes particular sense. The information about One of the first Greek coins were the"Swastika"[8] ,,,,, look sorta of crazy or gibberish or nonsense like. skip sievert (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to issue a longer block if editors believe it is appropriate. The first block seems to have had no effect on his thinking at all. His first article edit after the original block expired was to restore one of his own pre-block versions of the Money article). The only advance is that his original neologism 'protomoney' is replaced by a fresh neologism, 'pre-money.' (In his view, this is the stuff that was used for trade before money existed). He can't produce any economics text that uses the term 'protomoney,' so it appears to be original research. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User appears to be a crank, but this should be a long enough block. Just add a warning on his talk page that further promotion of fringe/OR material will result in an indefinite block. Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
For clarity, he is not currently blocked. He just came off the original block today, but he is continuing the same style of edits as before. A discussion on his Talk page involving two administrators did not lead to any promise of reform. My suggestion for a new block would be either a month or indefinite, since he won't agree to change his behavior in the slightest. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with an extended block. Money is one the pages on my watchlist and I frequently see this editor trying to push his OR into the article and arguing on the talk page. GlassCobra 21:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User is now blocked for a week. I have tried to explain the situation on his talk page. This may well not work, but we need to AGF and give them a chance to be reasoned with and cooperate going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:USPL[edit]

Zodiac appears to of messed up the template, scroll down the page a little bit and you get a big black box with white writing. D.M.N. (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Gone now. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia[edit]

I've done an IAR semiprotection of Template:Wikipedia preemptively in anticipation of a horde of editwarring SPA led here from this WR thread. I have no strong opinion as to whether there should or should not be a "critics/watchdogs" section on the template (and until the WR thread, it doesn't appear anyone else did either). If anyone thinks it's out of process etc. etc. etc. feel free to unprotect it. – iridescent 22:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Support semi-protection (and wondering why it isn't full protected like many many other highly trafficked templates...) Keeper ǀ 76 22:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

Resolved

I hope this is the right place for this. So, per this discussion which has been dead for a few days, we (3 of 6 active members of wikiproject eurovision who responded) decided that "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest" should be merged with "Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest". The Federal Republic, its legal name at the time only participated once, in 1992. We wanted to merge it with the main article because having 2 pages for Yugoslavia would be confusing, and the EBU which runs the contest, considers the 1992 entry to be the same as all past Yugoslavian entries. Sims2 merged the info and I followed suit with redirecting the page when I noticed that he took action. User:Imbris is completely against the merge and keeps claiming that the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) is not the "Holy Bible" and has no right to decide the name [1]. In my opinion, they have every right since it is their contest (his responses to me). Its sort of like how all Macedonia related article about Eurovision are "FYR Macedonia" [2] since that is how the EBU acknowledges them. I know that my way of redirecting was a little bold, but was it right? I didn't want to revert him without on outside opinion. There seemed to be plenty of factors backing me up. Grk1011 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

After looking at his talk page and reviewing some of his edits, he seems to be doing the same thing to other pages like the Olympics. Grk1011 (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Can I please get some help, now he's editing the pages to reflect his views. Where is everybody? Grk1011 (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally uses the common and practical names for articles. Wikipedia usually does not take sides of a political dispute. Another example in the world is the question of who is China, the People's Republic of China or the Republic of China (Taiwan). Wikipedia tends to be neutral. Therefore, trying to please one side or other should be avoided. I have given some advice for guidance but have not declared that one or the other use is preferred. Spevw (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I hoped to acomplish was neutrality. It would be biased to add the appearance of Yugoslavia in ESC 1992 to both Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and to Serbia and Montenegro. This is mainly of the fact that Bosnian and Herzegovinian participants competed in the contest. That local contest elected the representant of three nations of the former SFRY as the representative for the ESC 1992. Despite that fact and due to lots of reasons the representative of SFRY became the representative of FRY (MNE+SRB) but it couldn't have represented the FRY only because it represented Bosnia and Herzegovina also. This is why this article exists and it would be biased to merge it to both the articles Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest and the Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest. The Olympic editors agreed to simmilar position and in other cases there is no attempts to continue the heritage of SFRY by any of the successor nations. Even if FIFA and UEFA have on their respective web-sites the notion of succession of SFRY by the FRY and beyond. -- Imbris (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
My problem is that he is going against the source, the EBU which runs the contest, because he does not believe it is right. Since when do we put aside sources that we don't agree with, especially when the source is the official site. Grk1011 (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Your problem is not the source but the interpretation of that source, since the EBU website shows that appearance under the flag with the red star when we both know (and the crowd in the Eurosong project definately know) that it appeared under the flag without the red star. -- Imbris (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The flag is not the problem, its the name that they were represented as which is the same as the '91 entry and those before. Grk1011 (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There is now an official merger proposal if anyone is interested: Talk:Yugoslavia_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest#Merger_proposal. Grk1011 (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We reached a compromise. Grk1011 (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Disco house[edit]

Resolved: Sock blocked

Can somebody delete the Disco house article? It explains nothing and it has no sources. Auto Racing Fan (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You should nominate it for deletion, then. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm. That article was previously blanked by Fclass (talk · contribs), who shares your interests in electronic music, auto racing, and, I'm guessing here, sockpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It's very likely. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It's confirmed. Thanks for the block, Gwen. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Blamecity[edit]

I first encountered User:Blamecity yesterday. I had some discussion with him regarding inappropriate articles he was creating (too many to list individually) and ended up giving him a short block after he left a couple of pretty rude messages on my talk page ([3] and [4]).

Today he returned and left this message on my user page, so I gave him a longer block. On reflection, however, I think he deserves an indef block right away, especially having had a second look at his user page, where he seems to be impersonating an admin. He seems to be very familiar with the workings of Wikipedia, and admits to being a vandal with numerous accounts. I'd appreciate it if someone else would do it -- I don't mind being a target for him, but I don't wish to seem like I'm retaliating. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I extended the block to indef as it is clear that the user is not here to be a productive contributor. His userpage was copied pretty much verbatim from User:Versageek, so I blanked it as well. —Travistalk 01:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I figured it was copied. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will's DYK topic ban[edit]

Resolved: The community's concerns have been allayed and the topic ban is lifted. Further discussion of the ban itself is not necessary here. Since Wilhelmina has thousands of articles to create before requesting anything such as tools, etc. enough time will pass that this topic ban will be irrelevant. Nonetheless, discussion of these issues is underway in another forum in Abd's userspace. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems only a short time ago that we were discussing it, but the issue of Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) has to be raised again. The background to this is that Blechnic (talk · contribs) called for this ban based on discovered copyright violations, the worsening of articles to make them meet the requirements of DYK, etc. Accordingly, a discussion was held here.
When Wilhelmina appeared to ignore the ban, it came up again [5], where I realised that, since WW refused to engage the community at the noticeboard, to assume good faith would be to assume that she hadn't noticed. I thus notified her, and closed the request, despite some protestations by Blechnic on my talk.
This led Abd to regard me as the "responsible party" for the ban - I accepted that I had effectively closed the discussion, and thus could be regarded as "responsible", which I did principally to give Abd a point of contact since he seems to have styled himself as WW's advocate in these matters (see her talk page and archives, and here for examples). Subsequently, Abd has decided that the community consensus was illegitimate because the evidence the community used did not exist. He consequently believes that I should overturn the topic ban. Now despite my naturally high opinion of myself [/sarcasm] I felt that I can't undo what I believe was the will of the community. I therefore invite another admin to check whether my judgement of community consensus at the first discussion was correct, although some editors here seemed to agree.
Furthermore, there is the question of when the topic ban may be overturned. I believe the consensus was along the lines of There exists a DYK ban for Wilhelmina at least until she tells us she understands and is willing to abide by copyvio rules and stop treating DYK medals as an end in themselves. I have invited, on her talkpage and through Abd for her to give me such an assurance that I could bring to the community and say "there it is", but no such assurance has yet to be received. I defer re-assessment of my closing arguments to other admins, and the latter question (once again) to the community at large, since my judgement has been repeatedly called into question on my talkpage, and for all I know, I may very well be wrong. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

From a review of the above, I would suggest that a topic ban consensus was very apparent and that the subsequent discussion was properly closed once Wilhelmina Will had been advised of the ban and invited to participate in the discussion of its implementation. I feel the argument that the ban is invalid because there is no determined time period is hollow; the editor is topic banned until such time the editor engages with the community with regard to the concerns raised - at that point the appropriate period (if any) before the editor can be allowed to contribute to DYK nominations can be determined. It appears that Abd's conclusions and requests are driven by considerations other than policy interpretation and application of the communities consensus, and are not shared by the majority. I see no reason to vary the sanctions on Wilhelmina Will's account until such time as Wilhemina Will starts a dialogue with those who have expressed concerns regarding her editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with LHvU - until and unless Wilhelmina Will makes an assurance the poor behaviour will cease (even accepting the behaviour WAS poor would be a start), the topic ban must remain. Neıl 10:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
In fairness to Abd, he appears to now be contending that the consensus was flawed, and thus my close showed a "lack of wisdom" (or words to that effect) because there was no problem to begin with. He says that there is no evidence of copyvios and so the topic ban is an error that I should not have made. I'd paste the discussion over here, but it's pretty lengthy - it's at the bottom of my talk page. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
His is, and was then, a singular viewpoint. A lot of people apparently reviewed the evidence and concluded there was a problem. You did not make a decision, you enacted one made by the community. Perhaps Abd might consider that when they are the singular voice against the majority, then it may be them who is wrong. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
That would be true if I were a singular voice. I'm not. I've written an extensive response, but it is sitting on another computer. This topic ban would not be sustained through an RfC or ArbComm review, I'm certain of that. What has happened is that a lot of editors did not review the evidence and came to a conclusion based on an assumption that the charges were true, and they !voted in that line, some actually stated, "if the charges are true, then a topic ban is appropriate," and I will, in a full comment, provide diffs. Fritzpoll, however, has not fairly presented my argument, though I believe it was his intention to do so. To date, no significant evidence, enough to justify a ban, has been presented for a topic ban. Therefore Fritzpoll has made a closure decision without reviewing the evidence, but, apparently, based on his own opinion outside of what was presented in the discussion, but not only without expressing that evidence, but also not expressing it later, when questioned about it (specifically, about the copyvio charges which he stated were central). He was therefore not a neutral administrator, one more flaw in this affair. At this point there is enough evidence -- but not presented here yet -- for a neutral administrator to reverse the decision, perhaps also sending it back to that community (AN/I) for review; though I would contend that this was the wrong forum in the first place for dispute resolution. AN and AN/I are not part of W:DR, which corresponds to a legal system, whereas AN/I is like calling 911. 911 makes immediate decisions for the protection of the project, but not binding or lasting ones, in the presence of significant disagreement. --Abd (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
As I indicated on my talkpage to you, I based the closing decision both on the consensus of the community and the AN/I discussion (that I have not linked here) which dealt with her copyvios and introduction of inaccurate material. You are being disingenuous in saying that I acted in a non-neutral fashion when I have already described to you how my decision was reached, and in saying that I have not responded to your request for information, which I did on my talkpage. I also invited you to ask another administrator to "close" the discussion, on the presumption that, if they disagreed, the topic ban could be overturned. I asked you to supply the proof to back up your statement that she had clearly learned her lesson, so that I could propose overturning the topic ban. I asked you to get WW to talk to me so that I could propose overturning the topic ban. Instead you decide to attack my position by disputing my neutrality or helpfulness in this matter - I have not vested interest in WW being banned from DYK (hardly an overbearing restriction in itself), and certainly not indefinitely. Perhaps you need to choose your words with greater care? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Once again, Fritzpoll has failed, apparently, to understand the basis of the problem. Yes, Fritzpoll has "described" the basis of his ban. He based in on two charges. I have a detailed response at [6]. What you call, below, "the facts of his argument," have not been presented by you, or anyone at AN or AN/I, ever. My argument is that there was no evidence presented showing that the charges were anything more than Blechnic's warped and exaggerated allegations. (Which opinion, by the way, has been expressed by multiple editors at various times, before I was ever involved.) In short, there were two "facts" underlying your ban: (1) copyvio, and (2) padding an article to meet DYK 1500 words. The latter is so trivial that it's hardly worth mentioning, but you did mention it. Unless it were shown that this editor continued to do this, and more than rarely, it's not worthy of a topic ban, and the padding would disappear if it actually damaged the article, rather quickly. As it did. The first charge, though, copyvio, would be serious. How do we deal with editors who plagiarize text? Do we topic ban them? No! I don't know of any other example, though possibly there might be an odd one. We warn them, and we block them if the action is repeated after warning. Often we will warn them more than once. However, no evidence showing any pattern of copyvio, nor even a single example, as I recall, was asserted in either AN/I report filed by Blechnic -- and this is what you referred me to when claiming that you had acted based on evidence. No evidence was asserted here, either, nor did you, in bringing this here, note the very clear basis for my effort to persuade you to lift the ban, which I am required to do before proceeding with further process. The basis wasn't what you claimed. There was a consensus at AN/I. It was, however, a consensus of editors who aren't responsible for confirming the evidence, and a number, indeed, noted that they had simply assumed the charges to be true, and therefore their approval of a topic ban was conditional, and you failed to confirm the condition. And many others, I'm sure, did not look for the evidence, or were confused by the red herrings presented, the few allegedly outrageous mistakes of WW, which, however, were really only outrageous if they were repeated, particularly if repeated after warning, plus some sort of dark assumptions based on WW's "failure to respond." Which should have been irrelevant. (A positive response would be a basis for not topic banning, based on AGF, but a lack of response is never an offense, only the repetition of problem behavior after warning.)
I did not bring this report to AN, nor would I have done so, until I'd exhausted WP:DR, though there is a basis for an attempt at AN/I (I consider that the ban has seriously damaged the project and should be lifted promptly). But it's here, so I've responded. And I will go to the next step in DR, unless some admin takes a look at this and lifts the ban, which, having been discussed, could now be done without wheel-warring. Had anyone confirmed the evidence, sufficient evidence to block, it would be another matter. --Abd (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I will note, now, that I'm accused, via a warning on my Talk page, by User:Jehochman, of failing to AGF for Fritzpoll. I might have made a mistake somewhere, but I am not aware of ever questioning Fritzpoll's good faith, and I have assumed it all along. I have concluded that he erred, and I requested that he review his decision, and then questioned its correctness, but I do not believe and have never believed that he intended anything other than the welfare of the project, and I assume this, as well, of the editors who have been, the last few minutes, piling onto my Talk page to "second" the warning. It's not over, folks, until the diva sings. There is a reason why we don't make decisions based on the first few !votes that come in, they are often biased. We'll see. I'd say, given that I haven't filed any AN or ANI reports, started any RfCs, or even edit warred or maintained tendentious debate against an informed consensus, that blocking me based on my history would probably be disruptive, I'd not advise it. But, then again, maybe some good would come out of such, you never know. It was just suggested, yesterday, to me, that I go again for RfA. Last time the !vote was about 50-50, after the canvassed votes due to an SPA -- blocked for it -- were disregarded. And the reason given by most voters was that I only had something like 1400 edits at the time. Might be disruptive for me to self-nom, though. I won't do that. --Abd (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I didn't want to be accused of forcing bias in a response by not presenting the facts of his argument. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have now commented on your talkpage that Abd should bring his concerns regarding the basis on which consensus for a topic ban was created back to the community which expressed it, and not on the page of the admin that enacted it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that, LHvU Fritzpoll (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It may be a bit late to say it, I've been indisposed, but this is the issue of general value here. There is a view of administrative responsibility here that conflicts, certainly with my understanding of it and with that of some admins whom I respect greatly. Generally, short of ArbComm, we don't make decisions by vote. Rather, a rough consensus may -- or may not -- be expressed in some discussion. And then an administrator reviews it, reviews the arguments and evidence, and makes a decision. The administrator makes the decision. This is very clear at AfD. It's also clear when a block decision is made after a discussion. The blocking admin becomes the go-to person for unblock or unblock permission. I have never seen it be considered necessary to go back to AN/I to get an unblock if the actual blocking admin consents to it. So I assumed that a topic ban would be the same. The closing admin is the actual judge, and would never make a decision contrary to their own opinion after review of the evidence, on the idea that "the community decided, not me." I have seen quite a solid supermajority be reversed by a closing admin because he didn't accept the basis they were asserting. And because this "judge" can decide any way, the exact way that the admin decides at close is not binding on that judge, the admin can reverse it later upon consideration of new evidence or argument. Further, all that I've seen about dispute resolution guidelines indicates that, when we disagree with an admin close, the admin is where we go, first. It's disruptive to go beyond that when it might not be necessary. The closing admin can say "bug off!" That is totally within his or her discretion. And then there would be further process, each step involving slightly more fuss. --Abd (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Fritz, I also agree your reading of the consensus was entirely correct. I was considering closing that topic ban discussion myself and I would have closed it exactly the same way. As others have said, if Wilhelmina Will wants the ban overturned, she needs to engage with the community. Sarah 02:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Sarah. I figured my first AN/I close was probably worth checking Fritzpoll (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This was an obvious one. Fritzpoll divined consensus (and an overwhelming one) rightly, and until and unless WW engages with either Fritz personally, or the wider community with regards to the topic ban, it should stay. S.D.Jameson 14:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes although some of the way the conclusion was arrived at might be arguable, this was definitely the consensus. What I will say though is that WW herself hasn't edited in five days, and she hasn't done anything to violate or even question that ban herself in the meantime, so the 'blame' for this being made an issue again shouldn't fall on her and I hope this won't effect the outcome. I wish she would talk to the community though to discuss mentoring etc or ask for help, and hope she isn't gone for good. :( Sticky Parkin 13:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It is correct, there was a "rough consensus," but this affair shows why AN/I is the wrong venue for complex user conduct investigations and response, it is only good for ad-hoc, easily reversible decisions, made necessary by some immediate hazard. Had there been no rough consensus (and from vote count alone, it was a strong one), I'd have been advising WW to ignore it, and Fritzpoll's later comment to her I would characterize as a warning from an involved administrator. But that's not the case. Hence I've advised WW to respect the topic ban, even though I believe it to be seriously defective. It's also true that WW has not challenged the ban, not once, nor did she repeat, after warning, any of the allegedly improper behavior, not before the ban, nor after it. Mentoring would be a good idea, if it were not an utter waste of time. We propose mentoring for good editors who don't learn from their mistakes without it. Quite simply, that isn't Wilhelmina Will. She is far above average for editors. --Abd (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
When he took responsibility for the ban, Fritzpoll gave this reason for the it: The general argument was that WW was introducing copyright-violating material (despite repeated requests not to do so), and reducing the quality of articles in order to achieve a DYK nomination. As such, I interpreted the situation as a threat to the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. In this context the community consensus for a DYK topic ban was justified.[7]
Now, the "reduction of quality" argument was based on a single incident, and, as was noted by an editor at one point, her problem was that "she didn't know how to bloviate well enough." Clearly, she made a mistake, but it was not even close to being a reason for a topic ban. Copyvio, though, would be much more serious. Indeed, it would be a shortcut to her goal, DYK nominations, to simply copy existing articles that she finds somewhere. Was she doing this?
Repeatedly, in the AN/I reports in question, requests were made for evidence, and I continued this with Fritzpoll, and evidence wasn't provided. The copyvio charges were trumped-up, I must conclude. I suspect that there was some incident, somewhere, but, since there was active request for the evidence at AN/I, and a participating editor -- tendentiously participating -- who would presumably have had access to the evidence, and who did not provide it, there must not have been much! Definitely not enough to justify a topic ban. And there was, in addition, no evidence that she had been warned and persisted beyond the warning. Topic ban, quite simply, was not justified by the evidence presented in the AN/I report, and Fritzpoll has not responded to this particular issue. Instead, he brought this matter here as if the question were the consensus at AN/I, which then produced the simple answer: there was a consensus at AN/I, something we already knew. And, since, Fritzpoll is unwilling, as closing admin, to reverse the ban without going back to AN/I, the simplest recourse is to go back to AN/I with a request to unban, which I intend to do. He shouldn't have brought this here, nor should he bring it there. Going to AN/I simply because someone criticizes something you've done is not appropriate. The reason I would go to AN/I: the project has been damaged, damage continues, and thus the matter justifies an AN/I report requesting immediate action. An unjust topic ban can be expected to drive away some productive editors, and it seems it is doing just that.--Abd (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
No, AN/I is probably not the venue for that discussion - I would suggest proposing the unban elsewhere, since AN/I is for incidents requiring immediate administrative assistance. The reason I brought it here, Abd, is that you questioned the validity of what I had done - not being so arrogant as to believe that all my words and deeds are without fault, I brought my actions here for scrutiny. Wilhelmina was on a Wikibreak, so it is hardly surprising that she hasn't been editing (look at her edit summaries for today) and she is creating new pages again. I have consistently responded to your request for information, including the original AN/I report where the copyvios were discussed. I have offered opportunities to resolve this repeatedly - that you refuse to counsel WW to engage with the community, refuse to accept my offers of compromise in the form of discussion (where I even offered, under certain conditions, to request the unban myself) and instead embark on this crusade on her behalf is bewildering to me.
You also persist in this idea that I can overturn a topic ban on my own. This is not true - administrators in these instances, as I understand it, enact the will of the community. They do not decide that will - admins are no more special in that regard than any other editor. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to recap this thread into a clear discussion, there are three elements together which brought about the DYK topic ban against Wilhelmina Will. These are discussed in detail in the threads linked to in Fritzpoll's opening paragraph, and can be summarised as follows:
  • Wilhelmina Will was found to be introducing copyrighted material into DYK candidates that were being prepared.
  • Wilhelmina Will has been found to edit war with others working on DYK candidates in the interest of meeting DYK minimum requirements.
  • Wilhelmina Will has been found to be uncivil to others when the subject is discussed, working against the collaborative ethos.
While one of these issues on it's own would cause concern, it is the three together that have generated this situation and all three that need to be improved upon before the ban is likely to be rescinded. It is also worth bearing in mind that blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive. In this case, they are designed to prevent DYK submissions from being created that are potentially damaging, either by worsening the experience of other editors wishing to collaborate on the article or through potentially copyright infringing material being introduced. It is also why, in this instance, Wilhelmina Will has been encouraged to demonstrate an admission that these problems exist and a resolve to avoid repeating them in the future so that the topic ban can be lifted.
In addition, consensus does not equate approval without dissent. Although there are some editors who disagreed with the topic ban and felt that other measures were appropriate, the broad consensus was for a topic ban to be applied. Such a measure does not require the approval of ArbCom or an RfC to be implemented, and is a common remedy introduced by the community in response to editor concerns in a particular area while allowing them the freedom to contribute to other unrelated areas.
To conclude, I would encourage Abd and Wilhelmina Will to work constructively through this topic ban, demonstrate a willingness to contribute to lifting this through positive means and in the fullness of time rejoin the DYK contribution process with the consent of the community at large. I am concerned that any protracted argument or dispute will only cause further contributors to leave the project, which is somehting I think we can all agree is an undesirable outcome. Consensus has shown a clear way to resolve this issue, and I would humbly request in the interests of all concerned that it is followed. Many thanks, Gazimoff 14:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, now User:Fritzpoll has been chased from the project for at least awhile. Good grief. S.D.Jameson 13:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
That's unfortunate. All that happened was that I questioned his close decision (made something like a week after the apparent AN/I consensus which had, however, never been closed, with no administrator taking responsibilty for a topic ban allegedly decided there). I did not call into question his editing, ever. I claimed no administrative misconduct rising to a level of bad faith, for I believed, and continue to believe, that he simply erred by not confirming the crucial copyvio claim, not that he intended to harm anyone. He was the one who brought this report here, when a simpler and more direct response, following WP:DR would have been more appropriate. He did not need to insert himself into this, he could have simply done nothing when I pointed out to him that he had warned Wilhelmina Will of a topic ban that was never properly decided. And then he could have made his decision, and continued to do nothing more. I didn't make this into a drama, he did. But, still, he had options, and continues to have options. He has taken one of them, which is, essentially, to do nothing, unless he changes his mind. It's a legitimate option: let the community sort it out. It's the option that Wilhelmina Will took; however, the paradox here is that he held it against her. I won't. No process was begun that he had any obligation to respond to, at all, with no immediate risk from silence, so I find his withdrawal puzzling. --Abd (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Part of the reason for people's reactions and the withdrawal, I think, is that it is difficult sometimes to understand exactly what it is you are saying, Abd. I say this as someone who thinks you often say some very perceptive things, and as someone who disagrees with the views that others are developing about your contributions (see your talk page section and warning). I think the problem is that to engage in a full and frank discussion with you on a topic can be rather difficult due to the length and abstractness of your responses, and the end result can be uncertain. I don't think what you do is harassment, but I can understand some people getting frustrated with the approach you take. I did ask before whether you had considered putting some of your views into an essay? Sometimes the points you are trying to make are best made in the abstract, before alighting on people as examples, if you get what I mean? For the record, I have supported Blechnic (someone you are criticising at the moment) over their flagging of copyvios in the past, so I think you both make good points, while I'm not 100% sure exactly what started this latest incident (I've been away for a few weeks). Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Carcharoth. It should be noted that when I have an agenda, a decision I've made and I'm trying to persuade the community to act, eventually will I take the time to boil it down to brief, effective speech. It takes a lot of time, so when I write at greater length, it is in discussion mode, it is not intended as persuasion, but rather exploration. It should also be recognized that this rewriting takes a lot of time, discussion is far easier, and that this problem is typical for writers like me. I did not file this AN/I report and am simply responding here, with information and analysis. While it could save a lot of fuss if someone looked at what I've written in the past about Blechnic, I'm not expecting that, though I've been succinct, actually, in some comments on AN/I that were simply ignored. But I've seen long-term, highly experienced administrators filing cogent reports ignored on AN/I. That's part of the problem that I really want to address. I do intend to write about "what started this incident," unless it becomes moot, in which case I may get distracted from that. Yes, I understand why some people "get frustrated." I've been seeing this for better than twenty years of on-line conferencing and communication experience. I don't hold it against them. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that I shut up when I have something I think important to say.
I develop the ideas that I might put into an essay by communicating with that part of the community that cares to read what I write, not for the tl;dr crowd. Some people read what I write, some don't. Unless I'm in action mode, which will be obvious, nobody has any obligation to read what I write, and there is no serious hazard from skipping it. Again, thanks. --Abd (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
goes beyond that doesn't it? more firmly implied by your dire threat on your talkpage that my "administrative future" might depend on reading your 11KB post. --87.114.149.224 (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Holy Shit! 87.114 is a User:Fredrick day IP. Two possibilities: Fritzpoll is Fredrick day, a banned editor, which I absolutely did not suspect, though it now does make some kind of sense, or this is Fredrick day is trying to stir up shit by pretending to be User:Fritzpoll. It's checkuser time, to clear Fritzpoll, if nothing else. (I would not argue that Fritzpoll should automatically be blocked if checkuser confirms that he is Fredrick day, but I think it is essential that we know, given what has come down here. (FYI, folks, Fredrick day was himself exposed most clearly because he apparently forgot he was logged in and edited signing his post with the sig of an identified vandal; if Fp is Fd, this, then, could be him forgetting that he was not logged in, thus revealing his IP. But it would take checkuser of Fp to verify this.--Abd (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Em.. I'm quoting the guy - doesn't the link to his statement give that away? I know you like to go on fishing trips and accusing people of being me - but your harrassement of fitzpoll should stop at this stage, you drove him away, what more do you want?--87.114.149.224 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In the same edit, though, we have: "...until I'm sure that I can edit without feeling the dread, without waiting for you to tell me..." - I read that as Fritzpoll saying 'it's you or me and I'm not coming back until you avoid me or are gone'. I can understand that is being written under stress, but it is equally unhelpful. I have very little sympathy with people who say things are too stressful due to someone's edits, and then argue against that someone from halfway through the door while saying they are leaving. Wikipedia is a stressful place, and the balance has to be struck between reducing that stress and not skewing discussions. Take a break or reassess how you do things here (one of the lessons to learn is how to handle people like Abd, as well as how to handle departures, and, to be fair, for Abd to reassess how he does things as well), but don't use leaving as a parting shot at someone. Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC) For example, if Fritzpoll now says he is leaving again because of what I said, the cycle starts again. See User:NoSeptember/Leaving for more on this.
I find your characterization of Fritz's message incredibly unfair. I didn't see it as a "parting shot" at Abd, I saw it as a final response to an editor who had hounded him over the course of several days over a properly made administrative call, threatening all sorts of process-related recourses, until finally Fritz just had enough of it, and decided to take a long break (at least). If you look at Fritz's initial responses to Abd, he was accomodating in the extreme, unfailingly polite, and in no way contributed to the mess that this has currently become. Fritz is not the problem here in any way, Carch. To suggest otherwise does him and the work he's done here a great disservice. S.D.Jameson 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, Fritzpoll withdrew that comment. I was trying to make clear that I didn't think Fritzpoll intended it as a parting shot, but was trying to make the point that it could still have that effect. Until you've had it happen to you, it is difficult to communicate how powerless an editor can be when trying to refute an argument made by someone the other side of a still-swinging exit door. I will just repeat again that I appreciate the work done by Fritzpoll. The problem seems to be more social here - many editors getting heavily sidetracked and losing sight of the initial dispute and examining the evidence for that, rather than whether Abd or Fritzpoll dor other editors did the right thing along the way. See my comments below where I say that the best thing would have been to re-examine the whole thing afresh. Carcharoth (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
But it's a pattern of behaviour - if you look at Abd's user page - he's been warned off before of making those "you need to listen to me or it's trouble for you" warnings to administrators. Everyone has a right to speak but you don't get to try and force people to listen with vague threats of trouble. --87.114.149.224 (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This changes the complexion of this entirely. I had no general complaint about Fritzpoll, which is why the departure made no sense to me. However Fredrick day has bailed from attempts to persuade him to negotiate a return because he knows that I'd maintain some kind of notice of his activities, which he seems to be totally allergic to. Given what he's done in the past, some level of awareness is necessary. He has stated, elsewhere, that he had other accounts, so it would not be surprising if he is Fritzpoll, but quite surprising that he'd make the mistake of editing as him without logging in, he's usually much more careful. There remains the possibility that he is merely pretending to be Fritzpoll, but there is now strong reason to suspect Fritzpoll is a sleeper account for Fredrick day. There was very, very little hazard to Fritzpoll here, unless he persisted through much more process, starting with RfC (which would, of course, require another editor's certification, I could not do that on my own), so the strong reaction does make sense. That's how Fredrick day would react if he imagined I was harassing him. We'll see. --Abd (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a pretty low trick - you are now trying to knobble the guy by saying out of the side of your mouth "psst.. he might be one of THEM.. he cannot be trusted" - have you no shame? --87.114.149.224 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
No such charges were made, Fredrick. I couldn't continue this not only because of the block, but because before the block I had promised to stay under voluntary house arrest, so to speak, to confine myself to my Talk on all these issues until the smoke cleared. In other words, the block actually did nothing except make it impossible for me to edit stuff irrelevant to this. And to handle archiving my own Talk page, among other nuisances. On th eother hand, I got to find out who my friends are, and who is helpful weven then they aren't my friends, so to speak. You didn't have to face this inconvenience, when your IP, the vandal "Section 31" was discovered to be Fredrick day, you just packed it in, immediately. (You'd slipped up, in a manner somewhat similar to how you made the edit that triggered this whole sock mess (but reversed: that was conclusive, this merely created a weird suspicion). When I filed a checkuser for Allemandtando, you, again, bailed immediately, before the checkuser result came in. Now, here, Fritzpoll had already -- it appeared -- bailed. I think you saw that, and saw an opportunity to stir up trouble by planting that edit. While it's possible that it was inadvertent, that you didn't intend the post to create the appearance that you obviously recognized it did, it was awfully fortuitous for your goals. I think you crafted it, practically a stroke of genius, I'd say, so that I'd see it and comment on it, and then someone else would look deeper at it and notice the exact quote and then have a reason to dispel it -- and make me look foolish. However, I never had any intention of pursuing anything against Fritzpoll. I doubt I would have filed an SSP report, or requested checkuser, because, while the suspicion was strong, I had previously had stronger suspicion about Allemandtando, said so at AN/I, and didn't file. I'd have supported checkuser but not to "get" Fritzpoll or "knobble" him, but to clear him of the suspicion you created. In the very first edit, the Holy Shit edit, I noted that this could easily be, not Fritzpoll, so to speak, thinking he was logged in and signing, thus revealing his IP, but you creating this false impression to cause disruption. That part worked. It did cause disruption. The coincidence of your edit, plus his mysterious departure with cries that he'd been harassed -- something you were known to do -- certainly raised suspicion, but it was far short of proof, which I said again and again. And Fritzpoll wasn't a disruptive editor, and I had only one reason to suspect the quality of his adminship, a single decision. Far, far from any kind of actual opinion that something should be done about him. No, I was focused on the case which he had closed. I approached him for clarity on it, asked him questions about it, and none of that could have been considered harassment. Or any editor seeking clarity on a decision would be considered to be harassing. At any time, he could have said to me, as to his Talk page discussions, stop, and I would have come to a dead stop, full brakes. Had I filed an AN report on him, likewise, before exhausting reasonable simpler remedies, it could have been considered harassment, but that wouldn't have been my next step and, in fact, as the smoke cleared, we discovered that we agreed on the next step. Big surprise: it's dispute resolution policy, involve a neutral editor to mediate or make an independent decision. But it was he who filed the AN report, and it's still beyond me why he did it. It wasn't necessary. I had acknowledged that there had been a consensus, my question was about the close and who the closing admin was, and therefore who could make decisions regarding the ban. When I discovered, after my return from a trip, that he had filed the AN report, and commented there. he resigned, and people were blaming me for it -- which remains quite mysterious to me, since I'd done nothing drastic (this was before the sock puppet flap, which was itself a mountain made from a molehill). So then you showed up with your little poison dart. Anyway, I'm back, Fredrick day. I'm pretty sure you've never been gone, and I might just get motivated enough to finish that sock discovery research. Active socks can be identified (i.e., simultaneous accounts), it should be pretty difficult to conceal them once one knows where and how to look. But, I do, in fact, have other stuff to do. Such as, even, occasionally, working on articles, but more often, children (7 ranging in ages from 5 to 40), grandchildren (5), business, and, of course, trying to change the world. Of which Wikipedia is only a small slice. --Abd (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic[edit]

Just a couple of quick words on this topic if I may. Firstly, like Abd and a number of other users, I feel the initial ban was hasty, ill-considered, and made on some pretty flimsy evidence. I also found it pretty distasteful, quite frankly, to see a 16-year-old girl pilloried the way she was at AN/I, and it therefore doesn't in the least surprise me that she might be reluctant to participate there. It also bothered me that no-one thought to notify any of the DYK regulars to see if they might have want to express an opinion, and I didn't even know about the ban until the topic had been closed.

Subsequently a second thread was started by Blechnic, in which I tried to clarify just what the nature of the ban was. It transpired that most people merely felt that she needed to acknowledge some mistakes and accept a mentor, but since no-one put up their hand to act as mentor and the discussion petered out without much response, I decided it would have to be handled ad hoc. Since then two articles by WW have been nominated on behalf of her by other users, one has been promoted and one IIRC was not.

So just for the record, I would like to say, firstly, that I personally have no problem dealing with submissions to DYK from WW provided they are on general rather than technical subjects. Secondly, I think I should add that I frequently see much worse copyvio offenders on DYK than WW (in fact I haven't actually seen a copyvio from her in spite of all the accusations), but my response has just been to disqualify the article and warn the user. So why WW has been singled out for a DYK ban I can only suppose has been due to Blechnic's persistence in frequently bringing her case before AN/I. At this point then, I think we need to make our minds up whether WW's trangressions were really so exceptional as to deserve a ban in the first place, and if so, what exactly needs to be done in order for her to have the ban overturned. Some clarification at this point would be very useful. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely, and I say that as someone who initially supported the ban. While User:Gazimoff is correct below when he states that copyvios were not the only or even the primary reason for the ban, the copyvio issue was by far the most serious issue. The rest of the issues were one inappropriate revert, one uncivil remark in an edit summary, and some statements indicating a lack of comprehension on certain topics she has been editing on, leading to some inaccurate statements in articles she creates. None of those would - or even all together - would seem to warrant any sort of ban, maybe a short term block at most, if it wasn't for the copyvio issues. And so far the only copyvio that has been uncovered is an item that is 7 months old, and apparently was a result of some misunderstanding with another user (possibly an admin). And by the way, BOTH of the articles that WW created and were nominated for DYK by other users were ultimately accepted. Rlendog (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that some important clarifications are required, in a restatement of my original response to Abd:
  • As part of this thread, a temporary ban was put in place. Copvio concerns were not the only (or even the primary) reason, but civility and edit warring were heavily discussed. It was the combination of these three areas that brought about the topic ban. Stating that it is purely regarding copyvio is, regrettably, only part of the problem.
  • Copyvio evidence, as has been repeatedly requested, is documented in this thread under the section 'Her existing copy vios and vandalisms that need edited'. Please note that this is not the only concern, as stated in my previous point.
  • Fritzpoll intervened in this matter due to the convoluted nature of mutiple AN and ANI threads on the topic, in order to act as a single point of contact and simplify matters. Since taking up this role, the majority of discussion has been around the legitemacy or otherwise of a topic ban, and not (as was intended) progressing onwards from this point.
  • User:87.114.149.224 has no contributions to wikipedia outside of this topic. The IP is used by PlusNet, an ADSL broadband provider in the United Kingdom. As such, it is exceedingly difficult to level accusations of sockpuppetry without strong, (usually checkuser based) evidence. If you have such material available I would strongly urge you to come forward with it or drop what ammounts to a fundamental accusation of bad faith.
It wouyld seem that WW is prepared to work within the guidelines set to improve the quality of DYK submissions and regain the trust of the community. I reiterate my request to Abd and WW to progress in this avenue. Constant resortion to debate and argument tends to stall progression on the isse and only perpetuates a needlessly tense situation. Many thanks, Gazimoff 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I thank Gazimoff for taking the time to investigate to the degree to which he has. However, it's not adequate, there are aspects to this situation which can rather easily be overlooked until one researches it depth -- or reads an RfC or other discussion that thoroughly explores it, and such doesn't exist yet, and I've been hoping the whole thing could be resolved more simply. So some corrections and points in response:
  1. Yes, other matters were discussed, but Fritzpoll based his eventual closure on only two points and the rest not only wasn't considered important enough to mention, in our discussions, but I'd agree they were moot, minor faults; however, minor faults pointed out in the context of other allegations that are much more serious can add to an impression of wrongdoing, which clearly happened.
  2. Fritzpoll intervened, first, without realizing what he was doing, if I AGF, which I do. There was an AN/I discussion where a clear majority supported a topic ban, but no administrator investigated it and drew a conclusion for closure. As a result, WW was not informed of the ban and made another DYK nomination. Blechnic complained, and Fritzpoll then took it upon himself to warn WW that she had (allegedly) been topic-banned. It took me a day or so to sort this out and realize the implications, so I can easily understand that others might still not get it.
  3. We don't make decisions by vote. Ever. Votes represent a rough consensus, we make decisions through servants, closing administrators, trusted by the community to review not only some apparent consensus, but also the evidence and the analysis, and a closing administrator is obligated, in fact, to make his or her own decision, being informed by the community as to evidence and opinion. Part of this is a responsibility to investigate the evidence, to understand the basis for the decision. However, when Fritzpoll went to the WW Talk page to warn her, he denied that it was his decision, he essentially said, "Don't shoot the messenger," I'm just reporting the community's decision. He most explicitly did not take responsibility for the decision.
  4. I raised at one point the possibility that Fritzpoll was not neutral in this affair, but that's not a point that I pursued. Rather, I acted as if he were, in fact, neutral, and thus able to properly close if he agreed with the evidence and conclusion.
  5. When the community makes a decision through a polling process, there is always a close by an administrator, or sometimes another editor; when a topic ban is involved, custom is that this is an administrator, because the administrator then becomes responsible for enforcing the ban with blocks if necessary. Since there had been no close, the ban was not in effect, it was not merely that it hadn't been communicated to WW. However, when I discovered this and wrote about it (on my Talk page?) I cautioned WW to continue to assume that there was a ban, until it could be sorted out. But I also wanted to give her some hope, so that we might avoid losing her entirely. As well as, possibly, to assuage her probable hurt feelings. At least she could know that somebody was trying to sort it out!
  6. So I went to Fritzpoll and pointed out that there was no close, and invited him to review the situation. I mentioned several options: He could simply not act, in which case there would be no ban, and I'd return to AN/I with that, probably, or at least to DYK (which is where most of this should have happened in the first place.) He could close the discussion, either with a ban or not. He elected to close it, to take responsibility. I considered this as progress, even though I considered the decision incorrect. Now there was a responsible administrator, and I could attempt to negotiate with him, or could ask others to do so. It never came to that, because Fritzpoll continued to insist that the decision had been the community's, not his. I asked him for the evidence of copyvio, and he provided only a diff to a former AN/I report by Blechnic, which didn't show copy vio. I'll note that copyvio evidence recently posted here, taken from Blechnic's Talk page, posted after the ban, was a single example, from many months ago, with extenuating circumstances. I understand there is another example, it's been mentioned, but I haven't seen it myself, though I've looked. It's not important. If there were a pattern of violation, worthy of a topic ban or even a warning of a topic ban, we'd have seen it by now. This has been a very productive editor, with many, many articles, and it's quite possible that going over it all with a fine-tooth comb would turn up something else. But we don't ban for this level of problem. 'Wilhelmina Will was a productive editor, with 29 DYKs to her credit and many short articles created and standing. I look now, and I see, to my relief, that she has resumed editing. She was gone for a week.
  7. While I was negotiating with Fritzpoll, and then while I was traveling for three days, he took the matter to AN for review -- without necessity, it was his choice --, but he didn't present the crucial argument: the lack of copyvio evidence. Instead, he was looking for what he thought important: confirmation of the consensus at AN/I on the ban. He thought that if there was an apparent consensus, that meant that he was justified in his close. It's an error, but it is an error which, I assume, could be corrected; the appearance of a consensus was never challenged. What was challenged was the underlying arguments and evidence, or lack of same. Some !voters at the AN/I report specifically prefaced their comment with a disclaimer: "If the charges by Blechnic are true, and I see no reason why they would not be, ...."
  8. Yet Blechnic was an editor, fairly new, previously blocked for harassment, who, I'd already concluded, was, indeed, harassing WW, beyond all reason, tendentiously arguing against every positive thing said about her or questioning his report. While it is proper for editors to AGF and make a prefatory remark like that, it was not proper for an administrator to consider those !votes as being effective unless the administrator personally verified the evidence. And, absent evidence to the contrary, we can assume that most !votes are, in fact, dependent upon the evidence visible when they !voted, so such verification is crucial, or, at least, when a close without personal examination of evidence is made, and challenged, it should be immediately investigated and fixed. Which Fritzpoll apparently never did. (I don't think he needed to consider the !votes at all, the matter is simpler. He should have looked at the charges de novo, and verified the evidence. If the evidence was verified, then he'd have presumably made his own decision based on it, which might or might not match the community's apparent consensus.
  9. It seems that Fritzpoll had some impression in his mind that there had been copyvio problems, I've mentioned this "other" incident. But one incident can create such an impression, yet a ban should be based on a pattern of incidents, likely to be repeated. Now, lots of admins make close decisions, and then change them when aspects of the decision are questioned. There is no difference, in principle, between an AfD or an AN/I poll decision, and it is fairly common to reverse an AfD and, in fact, the standard first action, before challenging an AfD at WP:DRV is to discuss it with the administrator, who can change the result, and going back to the community (i.e., re-opening the AfD), isn't necessary, because there is simple recourse available for any member of the community who disagrees with the new admin decision.
  10. Eventually, I came to question Fritzpoll's competence as an administrator, based on a series of factors that I won't review here, since it is moot now, but never his good faith, and there was no risk to Fritzpoll's admin bit unless he tendentiously opposed the community in possible ensuing process. My reference to hazard had to do with the possibility that he would do this, and I made that clear in my full comment (on my Talk page, by the way, not pushed in his face). I did not threaten that further process, I move very slowly, normally, unless pushed by circumstances. He didn't need to do anything. The fuss that ensued was caused by his report here, and then my answers to it. Further process only becomes burdensome at the RfC level, which would require quite a bit of preparation, including independent efforts to resolve the dispute. And I continued to make it clear that Fritzpoll wasn't the problem. The problem was unclear process and practice at AN/I, for which the community is responsible.
  11. Yes, this is long. But quite a bit shorter than a full RfC would be. Nobody's obligated to read this. I'm not pushing for anyone to be blocked, and this is not where I'd ask for a reversal of the WW ban -- though it's once again questionable due to the departure of the closing admin, for whatever reason.
  12. And I haven't provided diffs. Don't trust me? Don't worry! You won't personally be held responsible. I've been threatened with being blocked, twice today, most seriously for the sock puppet issue, so I should address that.
  13. 87.114 is Fredrick day IP, the possibility that this was other than Fd would be minute, and I've read that 87.114 has acknowledged being Fd, not that this was ever in doubt. See Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day for a list of IPs, known or reasonably suspected to have been used by Fd, together with some other sock puppets. I do know what I'm talking about. As to Fritzpoll being Fd, I do not consider it proven yet, there is merely reason for suspicion, most notably since Fd did use the first person singular possessive pronoun, referring to Fritzpolls' administrative status. I'll decide later if there is reason to file checkuser, which would simply be routine at this point, it's possible that a checkuser coming across this would do it on their own. Or not. Fritzpoll was not a disruptive editor, as far as anything I've seen. It would be the community's decision as to what to do if it turns out that Fritzpoll is Fredrick day. Continuing the sysop status would be out of the question, I'd say. (If you know what Fredrick day has done, I think you would agree.) But blocking would be another matter. Wikipedia does not punish, we protect, and that is exactly what I'm doing all this work for, to ensure that the policy and guidelines are a reality. --Abd (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The only thing I'll respond to here, Abd is your last point (#13). You are not getting it and need to read your user talk, which I presume you're doing. You have completely misunderstood the "possessive pronoun" bit, and I can't find another way of explaining it to you. The IP (who admitted to being F-day), copy/pasted from Fritzpoll's talkpage, not from your talkpage. The "MY" in the post is a direct copy paste from the person who said MY, Fritzpoll. Your "suspicions" are laughably unfounded and are serving you no purpose other than to deflect from the core issues. Type less, think more. Keeper ǀ 76 21:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Two more points of note that I see in this latest missive:
  • Carcharoth has just made the point (elsewhere) that it's unfair to see Fritzpoll leaving (hopefully not for long) as an exacerbating factor in re Abd, yet Abd in #6 above is directly using the tactic for their own benefit "I see, to my relief, that she has resumed editing. She was gone for a week."
  • And in point #8, "Blechnic...previously blocked for harassment" which seems to elide the discussion where Blechnic's block log was subsequently modified to indicate that the blocks were unjustified.
And of course, to continue with a sockpuppet discussion of any kind, especially based on the premise of the leading two octets of an IP address (that leaves 65,000 possibilities doncha-know) somewhat strains credulity. Franamax (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Good Lord. What a mess. I'm going to ignore the sockpuppet accusations, while noting that Abd has been blocked indefintely for the accusations (see his talk page). Somewhere in those points 1-12, though, there is an important point, which is 'individual admin responsibility for their actions', versus 'actions that "enact community consensus"'. It is incredibly easy to hide behind consensus and the conclusions of previous discussions, instead of standing up for your own admin actions and examining the evidence de novo. In that sense, Abd is right: when asked to look into something, admins should examine the evidence afresh (no matter how tedious it might seem), and not just rubber-stamp previous decisions. This is similar to the way "unblock" requests are supposed to work. An admin answering an unblock request might end up agreeing with the previous decision, but they need to make clear that they have done an independent examination of the situation, and not just briefly read the previous discussion and nodded a few times. It is difficult, but that is the only way to avoid confirmation bias. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My what a wikidrama this whole thing has turned into. I have not read every single word in this tomb but I have read enough to get a sense of what has happened and who has done what. As a totally uninvolved editor here, I would say that people just need to chill out for a bit and stop being so sensitive to perceive slights and defending entrenched positions. While there are many bit payers in all of this, here are the most significant points as I see them:

  1. WW appears to be a 16 year old who is enthusiastic and motivated to help create content for the project. This should be viewed as a good thing and she should be encouraged not tarred and feathered.
  2. As such expecting a professional level of maturity from her is unrealistic and totally unnecessary. So being motivated to win some DYK award may seem trivial to some here, it is quite conceivably important to a 16 year old. If she has made mistakes, the can be corrected. Finding a support structure to help her improve should be the goal here, not deriding her because she is intimidated to come here to the "Hall of Authority" to defend herself and her actions before a group of much older and ofttimes much more uncivil authority figures.
  3. As far as I am concerned Abd has done a good thing by taking up an advocate position for this user who may simply lack the assertiveness to deal with the BS that goes on here that only comes with experience and maturity beyond her years. While he may be verbose, and while some of his ways of putting things may appear as threats, his underlying premise in this case appears to be sound: an early consensus was formed simply by uninformed editors piling on (with all good intent) because they were hearing accusations of copyvio violations which is the only substantive charge I see in this whole mess, but for which I have seen essentially zero evidence given the amount of discussion space already dedicated to discussing things ... well there was that single 6 or 7 month old one liner ... which has apparently already been dealt with. This warrants a more thorough investigation whose goal should be simply to find and repair and past damage and to compile a list of example to present to WW so that she might learn to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
  4. I will agree that it is important for WW to engage the community but there is no need for this to be a threatening experience for her as I am sure it must be. Simply allow Abd to continue as her advocate and adviser so that she has the structure to help her to properly engage in the experience. This would be a valuable life experience for her in the long run and as long as she embraces the changes that need to be made she promises to be a prolific contributor to the project. This is, after all, what the goal should be here, right?
  5. As for Abd leveling accusations of sock puppetry, I think that things are being over blown here. His statements were hardly clear cut accusations. They were mere stream of consciousness suspicions as is Abd's way. In the end after Thatcher's post and some reflection Abd clearly acknowledged that Fritzpoll is NOT Fredrick Day and apologized for any distress that his suspicions may have caused. This is, I believe, the trigger that people were expecting to lift his ban? If so the threshold would appear to have been reached.
  6. For what it's worth, I find Carcharoth and Gatoclass to be the most level headed voices of reason in all this. i found their positions and assessments to be the most compelling. Most of the pointy sticks in this discussion were based on entrenched positions and a lack of willingness to admit a rush to judgment.
  7. I clearly believe that Fritzpoll was acting in good faith when he closed the original ANI imposing the DYK ban. There was a clearly stated consensus there so his actions were justified but it is also important to note that many of those voting had admitted that they had not actually looked into the matter personally and were taking the word of other editors on the charges. I have no reason to doubt the good faith intentions of those whose findings these others listened to, but I also note a distinct lack of verifiable diffs to back up all the bluster. As such, I think Abd was correct in his assertion that this ban was premature and potentially a rush to judgment that should be corrected.
  8. I also believe the Blechnic was acting in good faith in his actions here and his desire to protect the project from what he saw as harm. While this is admirable I think that he is being overzealous in his pursuit of WW, especially in consideration of her age. To the extent that his actions have prevented further damage he has been vindicated, but now that the threat has been halted I would hope that he would switch his focus towards finding a positive solution to this situation which allows WW to continue to be an enthusiastic contributor to the project regardless of what motivates her to do so. There is no reason that the desire to achieve a DYK award should be considered a negative as long as his primary concerns regarding copyvios, the padding of articles just for padding's sake, and a couple of thinly veiled insults are addressed. With the exception of the copyvios, neither of these issues is worthy of a ban, IMHO. On the issue of extensive copyvio allegations I am seeing very little here in terms of actual diffs. That does not mean that they don't exist, but without them a ban is clearly premature given the number of conditional votes in the existing consensus which is all Abd is claiming, also IMHO. Even if they do exist a ban should not be the goal. Correcting them should be and WW will probably be more than willing to help in that effort as long as the process is not pursued in such an intimidating manner.

--GoRight (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The main problem here is that Abd, whilst claiming to have tried to follow WP:DR, seemed to lose that in a quest to be "right". As I felt was appropriate, I offered, as one means of resolving the dispute, having another administrator review the close (since I can't unilaterally overturn what I perceived as a community ban). Following Abd's block last night, I asked Carcharoth to perform this task, which will hopefully be to the satisfaction of all concerned. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think an independent review is a fine step, but I don't see that as a resolution moving forward. As I said above I believe that you were acting in good faith and given what you had before you that you were justified in your actions at the time. The question now becomes what is the best positive outcome that can be achieved here and what is the best means of effecting that? What the community has done only the community can undo, which is the core of your point, correct? So let us formulate as best we can the conditions which have to be met so that the ban can be lifted by community action. Whether the ban was right or whether it was a rush to judgment is rather moot a this point, IMHO. It is done so let's focus on moving forward and let the independent review serve as a retrospective to help everyone avoid similar problems in the future (if it is deemed a problem at all). If the independent review reveals an injustice was done in the form of a good faith rush to judgment then it should be easy enough to garner community support for the lifting of the ban. If the judgment was justified, well, then the issues identified need to be addressed by WW in a construction way for the obvious reasons.
Clearly actual participation by WW here would facilitate this process. While WP:AGF coupled with her age can explain (but not excuse) her alleged actions she will eventually have to step up and become accountable if she is to be taken seriously. More than anything I think the main complaint or uncomfort I am hearing in this whole discussion is a lack of active participation in this process by WW, which I think is fair, and this then becomes her first challenge in getting this matter resolved. I simply think that this will be most effective if Abd continues to be an advocate and an adviser but ultimately with her direct participation here. In that context I would urge Abd to encourage WW to take some responsibility and engage the process. 16 years old or not if she refuses to address the community it should be no surprise that the community will view her with suspicion and in a negative light (regardless of whether that is justified or not). It is simply the reality of the situation.
Personally I prefer to wait for the results of the independent review before formulating any next steps. This will not prevent WW from working on additional contributions as part of her DYK goal, as far as I can tell, as long as the ban on her self-nominating is respected until this is resolved. Personally I have no particular problem if others within the DYK community want to nominate her work within that process so long as the nominator takes responsibility for insuring quality concerns are properly covered before making such a nomination. Do others have any serious objections with such an arrangement? It seems she has some support from within that community so perhaps that could be a workable arrangement? --GoRight (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all of the sentiments above, and, to be explicit, I don't think it should be considered "ban evasion" (as it was once termed by an editor) if another editor nominates on her behalf, provided that editor takes the same responsibility for the nomination as if it were their own Fritzpoll (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a secondary problem here, which is that WW has apparently not been communicative with anyone in recent days and has successfully avoided addressing any concerns. It's nice to see people standing up to protect this poor frightened sixteen-year-old - except that she professes leadership such that she's unable to join in a project, she doesn't have time to read about what's happened, she's still creating technical articles and she's guessing at them. I suppose these issues are subsidiary to the big show and I won't pursue them. I'll just make my prediction that this topic will recur here, some new players, some the same old same old. I'll try to watch more quietly next time. Franamax (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that you raise valid points, some of which I have addressed above. On the issue of leadership and not having time to read what's happened I think the WP:AGF view of that is simply her rationalizing things so she can avoid the trip to the principal's office, as it were. This seems to make perfect sense in a 16 year old frame of mind, IMHO.
On the issue of her creating technical articles on material which she does not understand, I would suggest that Abd convey to her that this is no longer an advisable set of material for her to work on unless and until a suitable reviewer or reviewers can be identified to volunteer to vet her work. Still, if the material is sufficiently above her level of comprehension that she is writing incomprehensible gibberish then obviously this would be of no value to anyone, including herself in her quest for the DYK award. Clearly it would be best for her to confine her activities to topics that she can reasonably understand, but even on technical articles IF she is able to get things into even a 90% usable state this can be a way to make those interested in such topics much more efficient at creating new content since they would only need to help her get the last 10% completed. This is obviously only a viable option so long as suitable arrangements are made with other appropriate contributors who are capable of and willing to invest that extra 10%. Thoughts? Concerns?
I would also suggest to Abd that he convey to her that quality is just as important a goal here as quantity. In other words, 5,000 really well written articles is probably a more laudable achievement than would be 10,000 sloppy and inaccurate ones. Agreed? --GoRight (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. It depends on how sloppy. Creating 5000 "really well written articles" could be an extraordinarily difficult task. Wikipedia creates really good articles through a cooperative process, and every article must begin with some seed, a stub, at least. "Inaccurate" is quite a relative term, in fact. But even an inaccurate article can quickly evolve into an accurate one, and much more quickly than a non-existent article. So I really don't know which is better. I'd say that if it was the same amount of work, i.e., she simply spread out the same labor over 10,000 articles than 5000, there is a very good possibility that the 10,000 articles, though likely to be less well done, would be more beneficial to the project in the long run. Many times I've looked up some topic, and it was almost always more useful to me to have some article than to have none. Very many articles have no sources at all, and they can sit that way for a long time. WW creates articles with sources, and so improvments become easier, there is some place to start. If she was actually creating lots of "sloppy, inaccurate articles," she'd probably be frustrated in her DYK efforts. No, nobody seems to have really sat down and thought this thing through. I don't see any more reason to suggest to her that she keep away from (non-existent) technical articles than from anything else, or than any other non-expert editor. What actually happened in an article where she made a technical error was that it was quickly fixed. Her work was useful and was, in fact, the bulk of the work that went into the article. --Abd (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd blocked[edit]

Just a quick note as the blocker; Abd was blocked solely for the de facto campaign of harassment against Fritzpoll (even after the blocking, the closest he can come to an apology is that Fritzpoll "could" be innocent. This has nothing to do with the wider issue re WW (FWIW, somewhere in the thread you'll see me actually arguing in support of WW; I'm not trying to "suppress the opposition" here). As I've said, I specifically mean "indefinite" as "undefined", not "forever". If someone genuinely thinks this was an abusive block (but note the seven warnings after the final warning), or Abd comes up with a legitimate reason to unblock, I won't oppose anyone unblocking – although having done some research through his contribs, he seems to have some very serious COI issues; as the self-declared inventor of a voting system, more than 50% of his mainspace edits are to related articles; there also seem to be some off-wiki issues, for what they're worth. – iridescent 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you've made the right call here. Much as I often agree with Abd on more general topics, his behaviour here was beyond the pale regarding Fritzpoll, who is an excellent contributor to mainspace. Orderinchaos 00:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
For the benefit of anyone trying to resolve this mess, and to save reposting a huge chunk of diffs, the "personal attacks following final warning" on which the block was based (incidentally, despite what Abd is saying, the warning was not given by me), are listed here. Even after all that, the closest he's coming to a retraction is that "the whole thing could be a trick", a claim that I somehow cooked this up because I wanted to block him but couldn't find a reason, and a threat to take me to Arbcom for "putting him in talk page prison". – iridescent 00:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
For what its worth, there is no technical evidence of a connection between Fredrick day and Fritzpoll, and substantial circumstantial evidence to actively refute a connection. Thatcher 00:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the reference to a "trick" was that Iridescent was tricking Abd. The reference seems to be that F.D. was trying to trick Abd into thinking Fritzpoll was a sock of F.D. Which apparently succeeded, although rather than being an attempted trick it was apparently a case of missing quotation marks. Rlendog (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
No – read it in context. "I've seen these kind of arguments before. They come up when admins want to block someone, but need to figure out a reason. This affair has, so far, to me, all the signs of that. It's fine with me. I don't need to be able to edit Wikipedia to prepare an ArbComm case" is explicitly referring to this block being an admin conspiracy and/or a deliberate abuse by myself, and an implicit (albeit laughable) threat of an RFAR. – iridescent 13:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I made one of the last warnings, asking for input from others at the same time. I thoroughly support this block, more so now that Abd is claiming in the aftermath he was "tricked." His hints about Fritzpoll were utter smears and whether in good or bad faith, were disruption. He is clearly here to drum for his own interests, in his own meta-talk ways, far above and beyond anything else. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see on his talk page just now what i take as a rather full apology, so the block has served its purpose. I support an unblock. DGG (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I also support an unblock as Abd has thrice made my list of wise wikipedians. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
What? How silly. Iridescent, the blocking admin, also appears on your "list of wise wikipedians". So I guess really you should be neutral? Keeper ǀ 76 14:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not think either Abd or Iridescent should be blocked indefinitely. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
On his talk page Abd has clearly acknowledged that Fritzpoll is not Fredrick Day and has apologized directly to Fritzpoll for any distress this misunderstanding may have caused and they seem to have parted on friendly terms. This seems to be a significant constraint that those who supported the ban wanted from Abd. He has now provided it. I support unblocking him. --GoRight (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is Abd's "apology" to Fritzpoll [8]: "I can also, now, apologize for my thoughts, expressed above, calling into question Fritzpolls' competence as an administrator. I still think he made some mistakes, but.... what matters is what happens next, and it looks like he's properly handling it now." Although Abd uses the term "apologize", he still claims that the mistakes were on Fritzpoll's side. Abd apologizes only because Fritzpoll "is properly handling it now". Yellowbeard 11:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowbeard (talkcontribs)

Abd has clearly apologized for the sock puppetry related suspicions and any distress those may have caused. Unless I am reading things incorrectly this was the primary motivation for his block. That now seems to be settled. That he still believes there was a rush to judgment in this case and therefore an injustice had been done is a separate matter. Both Fritzpoll and Abd seem to be in agreement that an independent review is appropriate and I suspect most people would accept that this is a good course of action at this point. The outcome of that review will set the tone for any next steps in resolving this matter. If an injustice was done then it can be easily undone. If the judgment was proper then corrective action can be put in place. The bottom line is that simple, IMHO. Either way I agree, even if Abd does not, that Fritzpoll was justified in his actions based on the consensus expressed there and the information Fritzpoll had available to him at the time.
I also believe that people may be misinterpreting Abd's position and intent. When he says that Fritzpoll made mistakes, knowing what I do about Abd, I don't believe that this is intended as an attack on Fritzpoll, per se. It is merely an observation (without prejudice or judgment) about the process that was followed, where it might have gone wrong, and therefore what should be done to fix it. I interpret Abd's comment as being a statement about the process as opposed to about Fritzpoll personally, but I can certainly see how others might interpret it differently. Abd is focused on improving the process to avoid similar issues arising in the future as far as I can tell. So in that light I think that YB's issue above takes on a whole different tone. Perhaps this is just my interpretation, though, and your mileage may vary. --GoRight (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell (I find it hard to follow 15,000 byte polemics) he hasn't provided a retraction and unconditional apology for his baseless sockpuppetry accusation. –xeno (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's as close as I'm going to get, and I have accordingly assumed good faith and accepted it on his talkpage. The block, from my vantage point was triggered by the accusation, but not the sole issue for iridescent, which is something you should probably check with him. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
As I say on his talkpage, I'm neither going to endorse a block or an unblock here. I am getting very irritated at being the butt of a sub-WR level conspiracy theory that (despite never having interacted with this user or Fritzpoll in any way prior to this incident, AFAIK) I somehow engineered this situation to give myself a pretext to block him. Since, given what appears to be a totally warped view of what Wikipedia is for (this is not another Giano or Vintagekits who has had disputes with some editors but has a basically sound pattern of editing; this is a user with less than 20% of their contributions being to mainspace, more than 50% of which are on the voting system he claims on his userpage to have invented) I believe that any endorsement I make of either blocking or unblocking, he'll either see as "proof of the vendetta against him", or as a "defeat for the cabal", as appropriate. That is not to argue against an unblock – he'd hardly be the first disruptive editor given another chance – but it's a decision I want no part in taking. – iridescent 17:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
That's fair enough, but I think you should go further and say that you won't stand in the way of an unblock. Simply blocking and then sitting on the fence doesn't really help. Fritzpoll has taken an admirable and pragmatic stance and has decided to accept the apology, as far as it goes, and move on. I can understand your frustration, but really, the sockpuppet accusations and the block of Abd, and even his comments about you, are a sideshow. If we could get that cleared up and move on to how to handle (and not handle) editors producing (sometimes) problematic content with DYK as a motivation, then that would be good. We could even try and persuade Abd to take a different approach (I haven't read all he has written recently), but that is a separate issue to what you blocked him for. Carcharoth (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
"If someone genuinely thinks this was an abusive block (but note the seven warnings after the final warning), or Abd comes up with a legitimate reason to unblock, I won't oppose anyone unblocking" (...) iridescent 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC). I suppose we are just waiting for Abd to throw up an unblock template. –xeno (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I was clear but these threads are starting to get rather tangled; for the record, I will explicitly not stand in the way of, or argue against, anyone unblocking. As Xeno quotes above, if you genuinely think this was abusive – or if you think he's "served his time" – feel free to unblock. I specifically said both on the block log and the block notice that this was not "indefinite" in the sense of "forever". The point I was trying to make above is that I don't think I should be the one to make the decision on this one since after the string of attacks on me I'm not going to be unbiased. – iridescent 18:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I must protest the continuation of Abd's block at this point.[edit]

While I accept Iridescent's good faith in her making of the block, the use of an indefinite block was perhaps not the best choice. When she made the block she stated "If someone genuinely thinks this was an abusive block (but note the seven warnings after the final warning), or Abd comes up with a legitimate reason to unblock, I won't oppose anyone unblocking ..." While I agree that it was not Iridescent's original intent, I am here to claim that this block has become abusive and punitive, and as such I would ask that someone please unblock him at this point.

In looking over WP:BLOCK can someone please justify the continued blocking of User:Abd under any of the sections listed in WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_be_used because I am having a hard time understanding how the continuation of this block serves any of the purposes listed therein. Can someone offer a rationale here, please?

I will also note that this particular block, IMHO, has now reached a point where the first two sections of WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_not_be_used seem quite applicable. It is being used, for all practical purposes, to settle a dispute [9], [10], and the edit summary of [11], and for others here with the power to unblock I suspect that they see this more as WP:CDB. If this is not the case please state your rationale for allowing this to continue.

--GoRight (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd has not asked to be unblocked yet. I'm sure if they were to request to be unblocked and retract their comments regarding iridescent, someone would unblock them. I think even Keeper76 has offered to under these circumstances. –xeno (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Has yet to* and he's a she. Synergy 15:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
User page says his name is "Dennis". Tan ǀ 39 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Tan {{trout}}. I meant iridescent. Synergy 16:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Fixed --GoRight (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Fixedxeno (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
But I never referenced irid with a gender-specific pronoun. –xeno (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
My fault. GoRight started off by saying him, and its now corrected. /end confusions. Synergy 16:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is a requirement for Abd to make such a request before an unblock can be performed. I am arguing that, as Iridescent said at the beginning of this, enough is enough. If the block is no longer justified under WP:BLOCK it should be lifted. --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, to try and answer some of your questions: If he has not requested an unblock, there is no reason to unblock, since it was done in good faith and appropriate. Its indef only because there is currently no fixed duration (this is of course up to how Abd proceeds from here on out). When and if he chooses to request it, conversation can flow in that specific direction on his talk page (so long as its not misused and subsequently protected). I hope this helps you understand this situation a little better. Synergy 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
He was blocked for making baseless accusations towards Fritzpoll (which have since been resolved) but exacerbated the situation by making baseless accusations towards Iridescent. I see no reason for him to be unblocked without a retraction of the latter. –xeno (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems the cabal is out to get him and prevent him from saving wikipedia - "So, there's a task for me, write about it on the policy pages. Which is, of course, exactly what some admins, explicitly, are trying to prevent. --87.115.24.199 (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is a kind of cabal, the real kind, which is mostly virtual and informal, which is clearly out to get me, but, apparently, they aren't in firm control. Yup. I find out about cracks in policy and try to patch them, usually after someone tripped over them. There are some doozies. Anyway, folks, that's a Fredrick day IP, in case you haven't noticed. Up to his usual. You might notice I'm unblocked, now, courtesy of Xenocidic. Thanks to all who supported me through this block. It took longer than it might otherwise, I didn't put up an unblock template till today. When I put it up, unblock was denied, no big surprise, but the alleged consensus that I should continued to be blocked unravelled quickly with no further action by me. --Abd (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back. Looking at the length of my last two posts I think you may be starting to rub off on me. :) Rlendog (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
One of the big problems is that we have a process whereby editors are encouraged to make comments that become decisions based on knee-jerk responses to incomplete analysis of situations, and often highly biased presentations of arguments that exaggerate what evidence does exist. Garbage in, garbage out. We can see, now, that the charges against WW were not based on evidence of copyvio, that evidence still hasn't shown up, so whatever exists must be minor. The other charges looked bad, except that her lack of repetition of each offense (and she had made mistakes, no doubt about it) wasn't brought out, because nobody went over the charges in a systematic way: had she done the thing (often yes but sometimes no), was she warned, did she continue after warning? If not, there was no need for any sanction, the basis warning/behavioral change process worked. I've claimed that AN/I is a terrible place to decide long-term remedies, it's great for deciding on escalating blocks, which are harmless if there is review process that will exonerate an editor who is wrongly blocked. But we actually don't have a good process on that. We have a process that usually works, but which can seriously break down, it's far too unreliable. In any case, we aren't going to fix these problems through shallow, knee-jerk responses, which can easily be very brief. If someone works a half-day to develop an opinion, sure, they can summarize the opinion, sometimes, in a few words. And then people who haven't done that research simply dismiss it as without evidence. If they put in the evidence needed, it is quite likely to be a long post. There are solutions to the problem, but Wikipedia doesn't even agree that there is a problem yet, so implementing a solution is way premature. I'm attempting to experiment with solutions in narrow environments, and even that is quite difficult. But I think we will get there. If I didn't think that, I'd abandon the project. It's far too abusive as it is. --Abd (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I came across your account as the result of a comment I made on someone else's userpage that was copied to yours. I saw you were blocked and had a look at your history. When you get past the massive massive comments that you make everywhere, you seem to be a SPA - you have some sort of voting system that you want to push and everything you do seems to be geared to getting us to adopt it and nobody is interested. Part of the reason that nobody seems to be interested is that you seem to have no interest in getting engaged in the core function of this project - to produce a quality encyclopedia. Your mainspace edits account are @ 18% but once you remove the edits to the article on your pet voting structure (which I think you claim to invented), it's actually near 9%. Would you consider becoming involved in our core function? writing and producing quality articles? --Hank Pym (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Please note that User:Hank Pym has been confirmed as a ban evading sock per checkuser. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Pym (Fredrick day) knows that if you throw enough mud, some of it sticks. But he's quite confused about this "voting structure" thing. Sure, I'm one of six independent inventors that I know of -- there are probably more -- of what I call Delegable proxy, but the article on that, which I created as Liquid democracy in 2005, I think, for that was the name from another inventor, that was, at the time, better known than my own term, I only edited at the very beginning. Later, I didn't touch it because of COI, so that isn't what Fred is talking about. Must be Instant runoff voting, which isn't exactly my "pet voting structure." For sure. But I happen to be a bit of an expert on it and on the politics of it. Delegable proxy is not a "voting structure," it's a communications structure that can be used to form and estimate consensus on a large scale, efficiently, see WP:Delegable proxy a proposal that was, of course, rejected, because, in spite of all that the creator of that page and I explained, editors considered it a voting method. And, of course, "we don't vote." Of course, when the attempt was made to actually delete the project page, and the majority of editors !voted Delete, and the closer closed with Keep as Rejected, they screamed. How dare the closer disregard the "consensus"! Such is this place. Little by little, we are either waking up or going totally mad. --Abd (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Abd's unblock came too early. Abd succeeded in getting unblocked without having to show any insight. It is clear that Abd will interpret his unblock as a community approval of his behaviour. And it is clear that he won't change his behaviour after these events. Yellowbeard 11:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yellowbeard is an SPA that became entirely devoted to me and my associates or work, since December, 2007. He's correct. Hopefully, this discussion here will cease. Pending resolution satisfactory to me, I have taken voluntary action which largely restricts me to my own user space: [12] --Abd (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2008

While the issue has already been resolved, I just want to say that I disagree that Abd's behavior at any point has warranted a block. The sockpuppet "accusation" -- if that's what it was, as I read it, he went out of his way to avoid an explicit accusation -- turned out to be unfounded, but it was not totally unreasonable. A simple "Hey, I'm not a sockpuppet," would've been sufficient. Chasing him onto his talk page and continuing to press the issue was unconstructive at best. Additionally, the comments of a number of editors on Abd's talk page were just barely within the bounds of civility. I'm glad Abd's been unblocked. But he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place, and regardless of whether or not Abd needs to be more concise or whatever, the whole thing could've been handled with way less drama. Just my two cents. J. Langton (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So the state of play is?[edit]

I note that no-one has yet replied to my question, which was, what exactly is the state of play regarding WW and the supposed DYK ban? Hopefully I can get an answer this time. If I don't, I think I am just going to have to assume that there is no consensus and that it will be up to the DYK regulars to formulate a response for themselves. Gatoclass (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That a topic ban is currently in place, but that I have asked for it to be reviewed by a neutral administrator, who will get around to it this evening. Hope that helps Fritzpoll (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ho hum, the drama goes on. Thanks for letting me know. Gatoclass (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
One minor correction to your summary above, Gatoclass. You stated "It transpired that most people merely felt that she needed to acknowledge some mistakes and accept a mentor, but since no-one put up their hand to act as mentor..." however at least two people offered to mentor her. WW simply "archived" those offers along with anything else put on her talk page with in minutes of seeing it and did not respond to them. I, myself, am one of the ones who agreed with the bans because her reactions to them showed she didn't care at all about the guidelines and made it clear that she was her because she felt she "had" to make 10,000 articles and get a lot of DYK's to make a name for herself. I am mildly concerned that she has such an obsession at a young age, one that would daunt many older, more experienced editors.
I felt a topic ban was necessary to stop her from violating WP:COPYRIGHT (which I know she has done frequently in other topic areas, such as films and television because I was the one who went behind and corrected her and thought, mistakenly, that she had learned rather than just moved to a new area) and from violating WP:V with her inaccurate additions where she admits to not knowing what she's reading or writing about, her actually sourcing herself in some articles, etc. These are two very core policies that editors can not just be allowed to ignore because they are "young" or "inexperienced." I know another editor who is about 10 who has learned about those and come to understand both reasonably well enough that he even checks to make sure a source is WP:RS if he isn't sure himself. If a 10 year old can learn that without having to come to this extremely, sure WW should have gotten it by now? Her talk page history shows that rather than learn, she is ignoring, and that is not good. I would like to see her get turned around, as I think she does have the potential to be a good editor if she'd stop ignoring the community, policies, and guidelines, to do so. I worked with her on a few articles and it took some time but I thought she'd learned something, but it seems she hasn't learned to apply those teachings across the board, and has allowed herself to become obsessed with amassing DYKs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
When did the copyvios that you refer to occur? The most recent copyvio that I have seen evidence of to date occurred more than 6 months ago. If you know of recent copyvios I would like to see evidence of that, because that would likely impact my current position that the ban (that I originally supported) was probably inappropriate. But if the copyvios are from a few months ago or more I do not think we should be sanctioning her for that now, as that issue would have already been addressed. The quality issue is still outstanding, but I have looked at some of her creations, and while there have been errors it has hardly been the situation that was represented at the original AN/I - that she either just copies straight from her sources (no evidence in the past 6 months that I've seen) or changes some words to avoid copyvio but doesn't care about whether the result is correct or not. Sometimes the result has been incorrect (which is a legitimate issue, but not the overwhelming one presented at AN/I), but more often than not she gets things right, and the inaccuracies are typically minor. For example, I nominated her Jillian Clare article for DYK. I had to expand the article and add references to get it to be eligible for DYK. But the only error I found in the original article as WW created it was that she referred to Star Trek IV as an "episode", rather than as a "movie". And given that it is one of now 10 movies, describing it as an episode is arguably accurate. Rlendog (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed the various threads myself for the first time I can now comment. There was a clear community consensus to topic ban her from DYK. The most important underlying problems were concern about plagiarism and writing articles that just weren't right. The intent of topic banning her from DYK was to get her to slow down and do a better job herself, instead of depending on the rest of the community to repair her articles to an acceptable standard after the page has already been on the main page. Thus someone who quickly forwards her suggestions for DYK noms is undercutting the intent of the ban, and in the long run is likely to lead to further restrictions being placed. The community was open to mentoring - which would require the mentor to actually review her work closely - but WW did not indicate any such openness (and some evidence from her talk archives seems to indicate that she is not willing to work with or learn from anybody).

It might be possible for another editor to review her new page creations, take responsibility themselves to make sure it is a decent article, explain to her the changes that were made and why they had to be made, and then nominate the resulting article for DYK under their own name. When they stop having to make changes to her articles to get them into decent shape, then it would be time to nominate on behalf of WW. It would be most effective if each type of change was made in a single edit with appropriate edit summaries - say one edit to clean up any copyvio/plagiarism, one edit to correct the article's wording and facts, one edit to bring the referencing up to snuff, and (it appears likely to be needed) one edit to use multiple sources. This would have the effect of mentoring her, though it would work better if she were actively participating in two way communication. Given the pace at which she has been operating, this may be more than any one editor can do on their own - and given her prior attitude we may have trouble finding volunteers. It takes me a couple hours to produce a decent non-stub article - and it will probably take about as long for any reviewer to make sure that a new article from this editor is in fact not just a stub (regardless of the presence of absence of a stub template). GRBerry 14:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. I also think we should not be spending lots of editor time, just to facilitate some editor who seems more interested in racking up a new high score than in collaborating usefully with others. Anyone who actively subverts the topic ban probably needs to also be topic banned. Friday (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? What in the original topic ban or consensus thereof indicated that the ban applied to other editors nominating articles created by WW? Some supporters of the ban explicitly stated that their conditions for lifting the ban were that other editors succesfully nominate at least 5 (or maybe it was some other number) of her articles to DYK. Surely they weren't supporting a ban on other editors nominating her articles. And while that wasn't my position, the ban as I supported it was applicable only to her self-nominations.Rlendog (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
GRBerry, I was going to ask/echo "is it worth it?" when I saw Friday had said rather much the same thing. As you hint, if there are volunteers willing to help out with this, wonderful but otherwise it seems to me she isn't ready to do this on her own yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
One of the problems is that, if you look closely at new articles (not just the ones being looked at here), lots of them have problems. That is part of the point of a wiki, after all, that people come along and improve what you have written. Where to draw the line with problems with articles and explaining this to those who start articles in a stubby state (we've all done that, I would venture to say), is tricky. I've spent time trying to find out more about Paul E. Pieris Deraniyagala, to see if WW's choice of one source over another for one date (1967, instead of 1937) was correct, but it is difficult. I agree with those that have said that an obsession with DYK is not good. The aim should be to improve as an editor overall, not rack up DYKs. Oh, and in case anyone thinks I write good stubs, List of Arctic expeditions needs attention... Carcharoth (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
So you have a verdict yet? Because I'm still not clear on what's happening. Is she barred from participating in DYK unless she accepts a mentor, and if so, who is putting their hand up for the job? Gatoclass (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
She is barred from DYK. Mentoring is a possible path to removing the bar. There are others, but they all require WW to do things she hasn't yet done - or even shown any understanding of. To put it bluntly, she is going to have to change her ways significantly for the DYK bar to be lifted, and thus far the only acknowledgment of problems I've seen is that she has admitted the need to check WP:AFC submissions for copyright issues. DGG, Tim Vickers, Fritzpoll, and S. Dean Jameson had previously offered to mentor and work with her to various degrees at various times. In late July, she did work a little with DGG. [13][14][15]. For Tim and S. Dean Jameson, she thought it was "wierd" that people were trying to help her, said that she didn't want anybody talking to her, basically said that she won't listen to anyone who thinks there is a problem with her work, and said that she'll only work with others if she is in charge. GRBerry 14:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding her "wierd" comment, I am certainly not alleging ANYTHING here on the part of those who approached her and who I recognize as being sincere in their efforts, but if you had a 16 year old daughter working on the internet today would you want her to be befriending everyone who approaches her out of the blue? From her perspective people she knows nothing about are approaching her, uninvited, and offering to be her friend. If I were her parent I would encourage her to be suspicious of such people, wouldn't you? --GoRight (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
One thing I have discovered is that this "topic ban" for WW didn't get added to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. So Abd's point that the paperwork wasn't filled out is valid, let alone the points that people are making that the original case may have been overstated. My verdict, if it helps at all, is that everyone should try and move on from the mess that resulted, and try and start again with assessing what needs to be done. ie. Restart disussion from the point of the topic ban proposal. Sorry if that isn't very helpful, but that's about as much as I can make out at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Since the most significant factor in the original discussion which made a ban even a consideration was the accusation of wide spread copyvio on her part, and since is it impossible for us to prove that these haven't occurred, perhaps those making the charge should now be required to provide diff's in sufficient quantity and recency to justify the continuation of the ban? --GoRight (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The discussion seems to have become focused on copyvio. I think many people joined this case during or after the argument at AN/I here, that started on 28 July, where the DYK topic ban was proposed. In deciding the way forward it would be helpful to forget the mess of accusation and counter-accusation that followed and re-read the discussion of Blechnic's original expression of concern about WW's activities on 21 July here which was not limited to copyvios, but included poor sourcing, taking articles from AfC without adequate checking, and inaccuracies caused by haste and by writing on subjects she did not understand. Mentors/nominators need to be alert to all these. JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Even the July 21 thread is heavily focused on copyvios and plagarism. Although even there User:Blechnic concedes that she copies "cleverly" - as far as I can tell he is saying that she copies but changes the wording from her sources. Which she does. But that is no longer a copyvio. Admittedly, that could lead to different problems - i.e., her inaccuracies when revising the wording - but I'll come back to that. Another problem discussed in the July 21 thread is poor sourcing. But that is not a problem unique to WW or to DYK. That is the case with many newly created Start class articles. That is the nature of most newly created start class articles - they have a limited amount of information and are often poorly sourced. At least with a DYK we know that one item from the article was traced back to at least a plausibly reliable source. And then there are the issues from the July 28 thread - the reverting an edit to keep an article over 1500 characters, using uncivil language in the edit summary while doing so, and trying to lie about the latter. But all that at worst was worth a short block, and most likely at most a warning. Which gets us back to the inaccuracies that sometimes emerge when she tries to reword articles or journals she doesn't fully understand. That is the one issue she has that is serious and recent (unless someone can show evidence of a recent copyvio; so far no one has come up with anything more recent than 7 months ago). But even that seems to be overblown. The only topics where any evidence of significant inaccuracies have been shown are in paleontology articles, which do seem to be a particular interest of WW's. Although as User:GoRight has indicated, there don't seem to be any such issues with her paleontology articles (alneit stubs) created since this whole drama erupted. But if the genuine issue is inaccuracies in paleontology articles (far less than the accusations in the July 21 or July 28 threads that led to the topic ban) then a DYK ban is hardly an appropriate remedy. At worst that ban should be limited to paleontology articles, or better yet, allow her to nominate paleontology articles to DYK but require a 2nd opinion from another knowledgeable editor before they can be used. Rlendog (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
One last point. Much was made in the July 28 thread (and to a lesser extent the July 21 thread) of her just creating articles to hunt for DYK "medals" and reach a goal she set for herself of 5000 DYKs. People felt that was inapprorpriate (I too at first). But even here there is more than initially meets the eye. First of all, a desire for DYK trophies is in itself hadly a bad thing. The purpose of the awards must be to encourage creation of DYK articles or else they wouldn't be there. Of course, if editors get sloppy just for the purpose of collecting DYK awards then it becomes counterproductive. But what was not mentioned in those threads was that WW's other goal is 10,000 newly created articles. That means 5000 non-DYK articles. That is hardly the goal of a mere trophy collector. It means her goal is to put in the effort to create 5000 articles that she would not expect to get DYK credit for. Also, having 30 DYK articles to her credit, she is entitled to the award for 25 DYKs. As far as I can tell from her user page or from the list of DYK contributors, it does not appear that she ever collected or tried to collect this award. Strange conduct if her sole goal was (as stated in the AN/I threads) just to collect DYK medals. And even after her ban (which apparently upset her very much) she went back to creating new articles with no expectation whatsoever of them achieving DYK status -and she seems genuinely surprised on her user page that 2 of her articles were successfully nominated during her Wikibreak. I think her ambitions are a lot more complex than was represented in the AN/I threads. She seems to genuinely want to improve the encycolpedia by creating new articles, and DYKs are just one element of that goal. And she seems to respond to criticism, even if she doesn't necessarily acknowledge it immediately, as she apparently stopped generating copyvios months ago when the issue was brought to her attention. Rlendog (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Having others nominate WW's pages for DYK[edit]

Since Abd's block has removed the voice of WW's advocate from this forum, I shall attempt to fill that role during his absence. I have argued above, and Fritzpoll has concurred, that it will be acceptable for others to nominate WW's material so long as the nominator accepts responsibility for any quality concerns therein, and any such nominations shall not be considered an evasion of WW's ban. Is there any serious objection to this approach? --GoRight (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, in the interests of time and effort, let us begin with a straw poll to gauge the level of consensus on this point.

Those in favor of allowing others to nominate WW's material for DYK per the conditions stated above:

  1. --GoRight (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. --Rlendog This is what the original topic ban was, at least as I supported it. Some other people supporting the ban explicitly stated that their conditions for lifting the ban would be that other editors successfully nominate at least 5 (or some other number) of her new articles to DYK. So I don't see how anyone can conclude that there was a consensus for the topic ban to be any more restrictive than this. And I will say that in the time since the ban I have become concerned that my support of even this version of the ban was probably hasty. I have yet to see ANY eveidence of a copyvio (the most serious infraction) from the past 6 months, so I am concerned that the discussion of copyvios in the original discussuion was a red herring. Maybe a serious issue in the past, but apparently long since addressed. The issue of accuracy remains, but even there, having looked at some of her other creations, the issue seems less prevalent than it was presented at the original AN/I. Rlendog (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. --Agree. Sticky Parkin 22:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. ---Agree. This is really standard. Nominating an article is often by other than the creator. She's not banned from creating articles. Wikipedia articles aren't expected to be perfect; DYK nomination actually results in rapid cleanup, much more often than not. If you look at what's being nominated, you'll see that a lot of pretty bad stuff is nominated. Her articles are way above the norm, so I wouldn't even think that an editor should be obsessive about checking the articles. I did one nomination for her, and I checked all the references and fixed some missing citations. I probably did a worse job of it than she would have, but others then helped some more. I don't see the reasoning behind the ban. It protects nothing. But it exists, so, in the meantime, we can avert part of the damage by simply recognizing what shouldn't have been controversial in the first place: anyone can nominate any article, and the community hasn't been banned from nominating WW's articles. --Abd (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. --Agree. This is similar to something I suggested on WT:DYK to remedy the situation, so of course I endorese this.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 04:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Those with different conditions:

  1. Nominators need to actually review the article themselves for accuracy, copyright/plagiarism, and reliable sourcing. They should make any necessary changes before nominating the article, not merely "accept responsibility for any quality concerns". GRBerry 16:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    FWIW, I had expected as much but thanks for the clarification. --GoRight (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Having just noticed it myself for the first time in a long time, I'd also be happier if they were processing User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult or Special:Newpages rather than specifically looking to get WW's contribs nominated. Not that this must be a necessary condition, but given the proxying policy, it would be a good idea. GRBerry 16:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Agree with GoRight. I would assume that anyone nominating an article (by WW or anyone else) would check the article for quality before nominating as a matter of course. Rlendog (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Agree (including GRBerry's condition). I agree with some reluctance, because I think the focus on DYK numbers is harmful, to her and to WP, and I am concerned about her continued refusal to engage in dialogue or accept a mentor or admit that there might (have been) a problem. But perhaps article discussions with other nominators will improve things. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Those opposed:

Review of the Specific Allegations of copyvio[edit]

I wish to review in detail any examples of copyvio alleged against WW. Thus far I am only aware of one specific example and here is what I turned up. Are there other examples which have already been identified?

Item 1[edit]
Original report:
From User:Blechnic, [16] and [17]
Chronology:
WW identifies a page that was started in the sandbox by another user but was never created, [18], she then asks a more experienced user if she should create it, Antandrus Archive No. 26., who then indicates that it is an "unusually good for first [try] by newbies". She then creates the stub from the sandbox version, [19], and begins to wikify the stub (see her edits in the history [20]). As part of the improvement process User:Jllm06 adds references back to the original source, [21], approximately 11 days later.
User:Blechnic creates a user page section to record notes, [22], and WW replies there with an explanation, [23] some hours later.
Conclusions:
  1. The actual copying of copyrighted material was done by someone other than WW. While she should have been more careful about using such a stub, this is something that could have slipped by anyone, especially a newbie. In fact, it even slipped by a more experienced editor who subsequently added the references back to the original source.
  2. Given the amount of text involved here it is not clear that this is even a copyright violation under fair use standards once it was subsequently referenced back to the original source.
Comments on this review:

Review of User:Wilhelmina Will's articles[edit]

WW maintains a list of the articles she has created here, Articles I have mothered (created).

Review results:

  • Today I reviewed numbers 357-374 (her latest submissions) with the following observations:
    • She has a number of scientific stubs created for various extinct animals. There is very little information on these pages but they are valuable as stubs, IMHO, as a couple of them have attracted additional user inputs. I reviewed the content and compared it to the sources she had used. I observed no copyvios and the information that is there is accurate per the sources. I can't speak to the WP:RS nature of these sources, however, but they don't appear to be alarming in any way. The images she used are from the Wikimedia commons. My conclusion: no problems.
    • She has a couple of pages on wrestlers. These pages have a lot of content which are mostly referenced to a wide range of fan sites. I expect that this is the norm for this type of article, but I could be wrong. They seem well written and provide a nice overview of the subjects, IMHO. I followed a number of the references provided on each page, but not every reference, and her use of the content from these sources seems appropriate. I did not observe any direct copyvio problems in my random checks. Other users have already begun to enhance these articles. My conclusion: good articles, no problems.
    • She has a couple of BLPs on people from the entertainment industry. The content appears reasonable to me and the text is well written. I checked a reasonable subset of the information against the sources she had used and I observed no copyvios and an accurate use of the information from those sources. My conclusion: good articles, no problems.
    • On all of the pages with significant content I would randomly select significant phrases and googled for an exact match. I found no hits based on these random checks.
    • I won't claim to have vetted every word of every article but I believe I gave them a reasonably thorough look in each case, but your mileage may vary.
Extended content
--GoRight (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I asked again and again for copyvio evidence, and nothing was provided, except the single old example. That doesn't mean there is none, this editor has written a lot of articles, and people can make mistakes. But I'd think that with Blechnic hot on her trail, he'd have come up with more if it was as common as would justify some kind of reprimand. What I saw was a quite respectable editor, with 30 DYKs. That is not a small accomplishment in itself. She made a few mistakes, but there is no sign that she repeated them after warning. And if there was a problem, it would be in article space. The alleged problem of her DYK nomination "greed" was a total red herring. If she's creating bad articles, the quickest way for them to be exposed and corrected is to DYK nominate them. As has been pointed out, if there is a problem, it would be with DYK policy. If we don't want to motivate people to create and nominate articles, why do we give awards? So she's motivated, and then we blame her for being motivated? There was one instance where she was a few characters short of 1500, the supposed requirement. And so she reverted an otherwise-proper edit on that basis, and very naively said that was her reason. Now, if she'd been faced with a sympathetic editor -- and we really should be sympathetic with each other, the other editor might have helped find some factoid to insert. Instead, he went ballistic. --Abd (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I invite you, and others who care to, to go through her articles in a manner similar to what I have done (I plan to continue going through them a little each day) and do a reasonable level of checking and report what you find here as I have done above. Interested parties can select a small range of articles and reserve them here with a first level bulleted one liner saying which ones you plan to go through. That way we won't duplicate efforts. And then when you are done replace the one liner with the summary of the results as I have done above. Soon we will have a good record to judge whether there is actually a problem here, or not. --GoRight (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I plan to next go through 340-356. --GoRight (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I finally completed the review of these articles. The results were basically similar to the above.
    • The only substantive change I made was to update one of the stubs for an extinct animal to "promote" one of her external links to a full-fledged reference and expanded her text a bit to clarify the current view of the epoch from which this animal comes, even though what she had was arguably fine. Here's the change: [24]
    • There were no problems with any of these articles, IMHO.
    • I'll discontinue my efforts here pending the outcome of the ongoing straw poll to lift her ban. --GoRight (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Extended content
Well, I'm not planning to do it. I don't think it is necessary. A number of editors have looked for copyvio in her edits, and little has been found. Whatever has been asserted was old, and, as you pointed out, not necessarily even copyvio when sourced. In the absence of evidence, we can assume that there is insufficient copyvio to be a basis for any remedy. If there is to be a ban of some kind, it would require other evidence. Further, the ban against DYK self-nomination, in place, is not preventative, it's apparently punitive. She can still create bad articles if she wants to or is unable to do otherwise. But that's self-punishing, she won't reach her DYK goals, which are indeed ambitious, if she creates bad articles, and if she's creating bad articles, that's a separate issue; should the net value of her contributions be less than the effort needed to fix whatever errors she makes, a remedy would be warning and block for ignoring or being unable to respond to the warnings, to protect the article space, which is, after all, what all this is about. If someone thinks her articles to be a problem, the answer is simple: watch her DYK nominations if you think DYK is the problem -- it isn't, it's actually part of the solution -- and check the articles. Might be one article per day. And fix the problems. In every case I've seen, that has involved a few edits, resulting in better articles that wouldn't have existed otherwise. Work with her, not against her. Help her, don't attempt to drag her to AN/I. Is this a difficult concept? I wouldn't think so, but apparently .... --Abd (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Both User:GoRight and User:Abd are not helpful in this thread. I recommend that they both back off and let other editors handle this matter. Jehochman Talk 14:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how reviewing her articles for the alleged violations is not helpful. Do you suggest that we instead let the unsubstantiated accusations stand, and thereby allow her DYK ban to stand based on no evidence? --GoRight (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The length of this thread shows signs of argumentum ad nauseum. Rather than continuing here, perhaps you could request a review by the body appointed to handle such matters. It does not seem you have had much luck convincing the community to overturn the ban. I take no position on the underlying dispute as I have not reviewed it yet. The length of this conversation indicates a problem, for sure. Jehochman Talk 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
"I take no position on the underlying dispute as I have not reviewed it yet." - Perhaps you should before commenting further. --GoRight (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Is Jehochman actually suggesting that we go to ArbComm when there is a neutral administrator, designated by the closing admin, reviewing the case, and that this may resolve it without further ado? Has he noticed that I suggested, many times, this wasn't the place to try to resolve this, but so many editors seem to have insisted on going right ahead? That I suggested we didn't need to compile evidence on WW's edits here, that's not what AN is for? I did not come here, in fact, to overturn the ban. At all. I came to respond to the issues raised by Fritzpoll. The ban stood, even though I considered it defective in certain ways, I advised WW to respect it, then developed a way to minimize the damage pending further resolution. This was a minimally disruptive plan. And, in fact, it is still going on. I'd suggest to GoRight that if he wants to continue to search for copyvios in WW's work, something I consider unnecessary at this point -- we don't have to prove that she never made any, and, in fact, she could have created *many* articles with copyvio as long as it wasn't recent -- he should do it on a user page. It could then be used in ensuing process if it is necessary, which it may not be. We already know that, in spite of multiple requests, the copyvio charge was essentially false. I.e., there may have been an isolated incident, perhaps, but there was no ongoing pattern, hence copy vio as a basis for the ban -- and this is the main reason the closing admin gave -- was defective. What happens here is that no clear decision is made, arguments go back and forth about this or that. There is no open case for AN to decide, this whole discussion was a mistake, that's what I've been saying from the beginning. It's like someone taking an AfD decision they don't like to AN. Or, more accurately, a closing admin who is asked about his decision and who comes here to find out if he "judged the consensus right," when that wasn't the issue at all. If he wasn't clear about his decision and willing to take personal responsbility for it, he should not have closed, period. He didn't close at the time, nobody closed, so I wonder at the comment of an admin above that she was about to close "with the same decision." The discussion simply petered out and went into archive, with nobody taking responsibility for a decision. I really wish people would take the time to either (1) investigate this or (2) assume a little good faith on my part when I present the results of my investigations. In an environment like this, too many seem to want a brief conclusion, not a detailed examination, and then they will agree with it or not, not based on reviewing the evidence, but on ... what? The name of the editor? The phase of the moon? The faction they perceive the editors as belonging to? But, really, my opinion is that nobody should vote in any of our processes without investigating the evidence, which would, yes, reduce greatly the number of people voting. But we'd get better decisions. --Abd (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal by Fritzpoll: rapid straw poll needed to lift ban[edit]

Per my discussion with User:Carcharoth (which due to time differences, he has yet to respond to - but this is of sufficient urgency to jump process), I would like to make the proposal to lift the topic ban of Wilhelmina Will, for the following reasons:

  • Concerns about her editing, so prevalent early on appear to have dissipated
  • Recent articles since coming back from her Wikibreak (as she described it) have shown to be good
  • Most importantly, she has engaged with other editors to check facts before creating articles [25]

In these regards, ignoring whether or not the topic ban should have been placed to begin with, the community's concerns there expressed have been satisfied per my original reading of consensus. A quick straw poll here over the next few hours to confirm the validity of this, and I'll let WW know that it's gone. This will be much faster than arguing over a discussion that is weeks old, which is ultimately better for WW anyway. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Addendum - I plan to review this around 24 hours after the above posting, and if there are no substantive objections, I'll overturn the ban and notify WW Fritzpoll (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support (and with thanks to Fritzpoll for having the energy to see this through, and GoRight for doing the work above) Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support WW's recent contributions show that she has taken on board the comments made here and elsewhere and is also showing more of a desire to collaborate and ask for assistance where necessary. nancy talk 07:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, thought it was over-harsh anyway. MSGJ (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - an editor who takes on board suggestions and shows improvement deserves our encouragement. Gazimoff 09:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, seconding the thanks to Fritzpoll who acted just as an admin should - took responsibility, acted with fairness and moderation while being attacked, as a peacemaker so often is, by those he was trying to help, and saw it through to a satisfactory conclusion. JohnCD (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Keeper ǀ 76 16:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly support lifting the ban, based upon the fact that WW seems to be improving in the areas that were previously an issue. It's good to see that she's taking to heart some of the concerns that were raised. I have felt from the beginning of this whole incident that she has some real ability, and I think that she's definitely on track to be a wonderful contributor to the project. Nice work throughout, Fritz. S.D.Jameson 17:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Even if the ban was proper -- which it was not -- it is clearly improper now, and totally unnecessary. My own behavior, with regard to my own, should be examined in a voluntary user RfC I've started in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. The participation of those who have been critical of my actions is especially invited; however, the purpose of this is to advise me, so that I don't repeat any problem behavior, so this RfC is under my process control, it's not going to be quite like a standard RfC, which, of course, anyone could open. But since I'm mostly confining myself to my user space pending review, that shouldn't be necessary, at least not yet. (As an ongoing issue, this is an exception I made in my voluntary topic "ban." I only mention this here because the "attack" of Fritzpoll is mentioned above, and I have a different view of what happened. Fritzpoll was not my focus, but rather an abusive process that could result in an unnecessary topic ban which nearly drove a very productive and valuable editor from the project, based on trumped-up and unsubstantiated allegations. That's my opinion, of course, and no necessity to discuss it here. I won't be, any further, unless my presence is demanded.) Please note, nothing in this edit criticizes Fritzpoll or claims that he acted improperly, or denies the view that he was harassed. Indeed, my RfC could conclude that I did unjustly attack him and ignored warnings, i.e., that my block was properly applied. I have my opinions, but would greatly value a considered consensus on the manner, developed in a rigorously non-disruptive manner. That's why it's in my user space, where nobody has any obligation to read any of it. --Abd (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support As discussed above, most of the issues that led to the ban were not as recent or prevalent as appeared when the ban was imposed. Since WW seems to be working to address the remaining issues (i.e., accuracy when summarizing information from technical sources, engaging the community), the ban no longer serves any productive purpose. Seconding S. Dean Jameson's comments, I think her energy, motivation and resiliance will make her a wonderful contributor to the project. Rlendog (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Thanks to both User:Fritzpoll and User:Carcharoth for taking the lead in resolving this matter. --GoRight (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Wisest way of addressing issues with the original ban. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Agreed with User:Fritzpoll. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Whilst it looks like support is there based upon the issues, it bears noting Abd is "coaching" WW - notably [26]. My concern is that this then places WW in a lousy position. Should she then contribute here in a way Abd has advocated, it raises the question of sincerity. The support, which I totally agree with, seems present; it doesn't need influencing. Minkythecat (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Hence my subsequent comment on that page that it is WW, not Abd or anyone else who is earning the lifting of the restriction. I'm concerned that this might otherwise be viewed as a triumph of advocacy over good editing Fritzpoll (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Agreed. As I've said, I'd support what has been proposed. It is and should always be WW's actions, words et al. that determine the end result, those actions, words, have to be honest actions whether good or bad - not coached. Minkythecat (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Of course. And I'd never suggest that an editor say something insincere. But many editors have advised her to tell us that she made a mistake and she won't do it again. Isn't that "coaching?" In any case, I only advocated for her because, when I checked, she appeared to be quite a good editor, with the claims made in her ban discussion being greatly exaggerated. I'm not only concerned about this one case, here, I'm concerned about a process that resulted in what amounted to a massive insult regarding her work here, unjustly critical to the extreme, and that I have seen befall other editors. There is no support for a ban being shown here, now that (1) GoRight took the time to document that a sample of her recent work was free of copyvio, (2) Many editors have reviewed her work and have considered it worthy, (3) It has become known that problem behaviors had ceased, quickly, when she was warned, and that these had been no more than isolated incidents. (4) And then, the new reason given for lifting the ban, an incident of obvious cooperative behavior. Previously, when she had been attacked, and then some of those who attacked her approached her to "help," she simply ignored it. And then they used this against her. I think she would have been "cooperative" all along, approached with sensitivity and compassion. But we don't block or ban editors for not being "communicative." We block or ban them for behavior contrary to guidelines that continues after warning. Quite simply, this condition did not exist, ever. I make this point for a reason. If the ban is lifted because "she has now opened up," but the ban is still considered to have been justified, we are maintaining the insult. I.e, "your year of work, your hundreds of articles created, your 30 successful DYK nominations, were 'crap' or 'vandalism,'[27], but now that you've shown you'll talk to us about it, we'll forgive you, maybe you can learn to do good work, so we will give you another chance." It's abusive. We don't have to decide, now, that the ban was improper, but neither should we emphasize her supposed conversion as a reason for unblock. And WW is not responsible for unsolicited advice I give her. She never asked for my advice, though she did ask for a clarification once, and, I think, it was that clarification, pointing out that the ban did not prevent other editors from DYK nominating her articles, and the proof of this that I and another editor provided by DYK nominating two articles she had created, successfully, that may have given her sufficient cheer to continue here.--Abd (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Though I strongly support the lifting of this topic ban, there was nothing improper about the initial community topic ban. There were several issues raised, and she has dealt with them. Both Tim Vickers and myself (neither of whom had "attacked" her in any way) initially extended offfers of help and support. She simply blanked them without comment. She has since improved greatly, and that--and only that (not any perceived "advocacy" done on her behalf)--has led to the topic ban being lifted. It really is as simple as that. S.D.D.J.Jameson 03:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Briefly, there were errors of substance and errors of procedure, of a kind that are common on the noticeboards, they are not good places to come up with well-crafted solutions. There was no specified term, though many of the !voters stated "short." There were requests for evidence that were ignored, and such evidence as existed was exaggerated, such that single incidents, of a kind that would ordinarily attract little attention, were presented as patterns of behavior (and the !votes showed concern for the patterns.) Irrelevancies were tossed in the mix, that the editor lied about a minor incivility was taken as a blockworthy offense, when it is not. There was no evidence of behavior continuing after warning, which is crucial before a ban or block. Her DYK motivation was widely condemned, when we encourage editors to seek DYK nominations, because it results in better quality articles. If her article work were bad, if the incivility or edit warring had been true problems, the remedy would have been warning and block, not a DYK ban. Then there was the procedural problem. No administrator took full responsibility for a close, and the discussion was simply archived. And the admin who did seem to eventually step in and act as a closing admin, held the opinion that it was the community's decision, not his; but a closing admin would, for example, fix the term, if any, and take certain other actions which weren't taken. And then this admin, being the one who actually made the decision, could also modify it. No other admin could modify it, it would be wheel-warring, without going through some new discussion. There has been only one change that took place after the ban: she requested the help of another editor on some fish articles. Once, a single edit. I have seen an editor's noncommunication cited as a reason for a block, but only when the user was engaged in reverting without explanation. It was improper to cite her lack of response as a reason for the ban, when she had not repeated any of the offenses for which there was evidence after warning. In other words, her lack of continued offense should have been considered sufficient response. Basically, there was no close so there was no topic ban. Fritzpoll's response to the issue was ambiguous. He told WW that it had not been his decision, it was the community's decision. That would be like an AfD closer who decides "Consensus is Delete" saying, it wasn't my decision, it was the community's decision, and I can't change it. But AfD closers can change the decision, and fairly often do, when presented with convincing arguments or new evidence. We could have been spared all this drama, in fact, if Fritzpoll had simply said, "Oh. It wasn't closed, there isn't any ban. But be careful, because that was a very strong vote, you should be sure that you don't repeat your mistakes." In fact, though, it was his decision, he took it by stepping in to declare a ban. And he appears to continue to think it was merited. This process here is not going to decide that question, and I'd not even be mentioning it if it were not being insisted, here and on WW's talk, that the ban was proper and needed and that what has caused this dramatic about-face is that she started being communicative. Remember the context: charges of massive copyvios. Her work is "crap," redacted to "vandalism." She is uncivil and edit warring. So she makes one edit asking another editor about fishes and she is "reformed?" No, it's the original charges that were "crap." And it's important that this be said, otherwise the massive insult that the ban represented -- by ratifying and believing and not verifying the charges of an editor who was harassing her -- stands, and that is dangerous. It is not necessary to resolve this disagreement, as long as I and others have the freedom to say that the community made a mistake. Fritzpoll made procedural errors, but he'd never done something like this before. He isn't the focus of my comments. It's the process. However, I do not like that he has insisted to Wilhelmina that the ban was proper and that what has made it be lifted is her communication. That is the reason he gave for bringing this here, but it's likely that the ban would have been lifted anyway, there was process underway that looked like it would come up with that. And he's also insisted, preposterously, that the efforts of myself and GoRight to clear this up had no effect. I don't think so. I don't think that she'd have returned, if I had not begun to advocate for the lifting of the ban, and especially if I hadn't nominated an article of hers for DYK, followed by another editor doing it, showing that the community would actually help her instead of simply blaming her. Fritzpoll would, I suspect, have taken no further responsibility at all. Nothing would have happened. And she would be banned, without, really, understanding why. --Abd (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You should know, this really isn't about you in any way. That you believe the initial topic ban was "crap" is well-established. That you think that you had something to do with the unban is also well established. What you think and believe, though, has little bearing on what is actually true in this case: WW has improved as an editor (she was already a good writer) and thus the lifting of the topic ban has wide support, just as the initial topic ban had wide support. S.D.D.J.Jameson 04:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Can we all please stop bickering about what happened? This straw poll is not the place to hash this out. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. While I'm not convinced that there are no problems, (in reviewing recent edits I noticed that WW still has a bit more to learn about reliable sources and interpreting sources accurately), I agree that an ongoing DYK ban is unlikely to help, possibly wasn't necessary anyway, and that dropping it is likely to be far more effective. And the problems I see in her edits are not ones that particularly relate to the initial ban anyway. While I agree with Abd in the above that asking another editor for help once shouldn't be seen as sufficient for arguing that she's fully "reformed", it certainly shows a willingness to seek advice, which is always the sign of someone with the potential to become very good. - Bilby (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Userpage usurpation[edit]

Is it allowed without due process? User:Avineshjose just redirected User:Avinesh's user page to his own. I reverted it and an admin reverted me. I asked him why, he didn't bother to reply. Uzhuthiran (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that. He could probably usurp the account anyway, per Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. The account is old, has one trivial, non-copyrighted edit from more than three years ago and does not appear to be active. If he wants the redirect (is it his global account?), I'd agree that that would be perfectly reasonable. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you read the page right. The page you linked about talks about User account usurpation. You request it and it is done by 'cats. Logically, usurping a user page without usurping the account through due process is improper. In any case a user doesn't seem to have the right to hold somebody else's user page. Uzhuthiran (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Uzhuthiran - it's probably an obvious usurpation-allowed decision, but...assuming the identity of the account without assuming the actual account isn't right. If he wants it as a doppelganger account, he should apply for usurpation at WP:USURP. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Uzhuthiran is on a personal edit war with me and my articles. The issue I posted as a new incident in this page. I don't find any issue with redirecting User:avinesh to my account as I noticed avinesh has only one old edit and not using the account anymore. Additionally, I did it because thats my name. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that is not the correct procedure. You cannot redirect another user's page to your own even if that is your real name. Bureaucrats have come to a consensus (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 11#Effect of SUL on certain rename requests) to prevent such doppelgänger accounts from being created. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No probs, it is going though the proper channel. My concern was about User:Uzhuthiran’s ‘complaint’ was made by bad faith. --Avinesh Jose  T  07:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Nichalp is correct, you can't just take over someone's user page, even if the account is dormant. You need to request formal usurp, which I see you've done. RlevseTalk 09:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
You can't redirect a userpage even if that user edited once, three years ago, to vandalise? If that really is the consensus, I think it's a pretty silly one... Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
My impulse would be to let it rest until the user whose page is so usurped objects - sort of how actual usurpation works. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Whether you think it silly or not, that is the proper way of doing things; userpage usurping is too closely tied to username usurping, so there's no reason for the process to be any different. EVula // talk // // 19:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No reason than common sense, of course. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I redirected that userpage as I thought it was my account. (When I started editing WP in 2005, I signed up with different user names). I guess including that one also. But I am not sure and forgotten the password also. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

section break[edit]

Isn't there a way to deal with this coi editor who hurls accusation around wildly and engages in PA at the drop of a hat? The guy has repeatedly accuse me of vandalism (one of which was for reverting his false usurpation) for adding maintenance tags to his COI articles. He filed a checkuser case [28] in extreme bad faith against a user who has been around for many years. Never, never did he apologise. I reported his disruptive and ignorant edits earlier on wp:ani [29],but it was ignored. I made no bones to admit that I am an avatar of a banned user. But anybody who know me knows that I have been instrumental in sending a very large amount of crap down the drain. My problem with this user is that he is a COI editor hellbent on promoting some business men and houses. He is merely adding crap and resisting any effort to improve it. Just see his latest contributions which are mere reverts that reinstate nonsensical crap in those articles. Uzhuthiran (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • User:Uzhuthiran looks like a bad faith editor targeting Labour India and its associates. His vandalism were reverted by many admins. Recent evidences are: 1, 2. It looks like he is a paid editor by Labour India's rivals. Evidence: The second last paragraph of Hindu article says that 1 Labour India One of the first institutions of its kind in the private sector, the Research Centre plans to formulate an educational curriculum of international standard and publish textbooks, educational journals. But User:Uzhuthiran wants to delete it that without any reason along with other attacks towards this firm and its associates. (I have no idea about this banned user). --Avinesh Jose  T  04:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This is what an admin commented about his behavior. --Avinesh Jose  T  06:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:National Library of Wales[edit]

It would be good to have some more eyes on what's going on with image uploads from User:Telor Roberts and User:Paul Bevan. They're working for the National Library of Wales and are uploading images from their archives. They believe they have the rights to those images but they're not uploading them under free licenses, instead relying on fair-use rationales. That seems a bit peculiar to me. There's already a threadlet at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#National_Library_of_Wales. Haukur (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I'll go talk to him. DurovaCharge! 08:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Haukur (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
There's also a brief discussion at Commons:Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Request_for_clarification. Given that a consensus to disregard UK claims of copyright on {{PD-art}} works is almost certain, I'd say warning them of an eventual transwiki under the presumption of public domain would be the best course of action. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's one of the things I have in mind. DurovaCharge! 08:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, PD-Art is usually taken to apply only to photographs of paintings, taken from a distance. We already assume that scans of photographs are ineligible for copyright worldwide. Haukur (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the people we're interacting with basically want to be cooperative and have a lot of encyclopedic material to offer, but also come to the table with a set of expectations and constraints that are somewhat different from the way we like to operate. I'm not suggesting we make special exceptions for them; I do think there's more to be gained in the long run on both sides by locating the most fruitful path that's compliant with both organizations' policies. It's already apparent that they're approaching this from a customary museum approch to copyright--claiming full control over everything and attempting to release permission on a limited basis. Our first organizational impulse to reject the fair use rationales and delete, and our second is to recognize the flaws in the copyright claim and grab what they've already uploaded. That's likely to push them away, especially because the individuals we're interacting with are probably not the organization's decision makers in terms of asserting those copyright claims: even if the organization is wrong they have orders to carry out, and could have professional consequences if they fail. If we find a way to cooperate with their structures without compromising our own, then we could get a lot more useful images in the long run. It might even open doors with other museums. I have a few ideas for where that could go, and those depend on input and dialog with their people. DurovaCharge! 10:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Right. I was hoping someone would have the patience to take this line and act as something of a liaison so cheers for you, Durova. It does look like in many cases they are claiming 'rights' for public domain material on the basis of holding the physical copy or producing the digital reproduction. Take a look at Image:Gwilym Marles.jpg for an example. That image looks like it's in the public domain but the licensing template is a completely inappropriate "non-free standard test image" and then there is some cookie-cutter fair-use rationale. This is clearly something of a mess. Maybe we could apply a public domain tag and perhaps humor them by creating a specific template with information on the NLW project? In any case I hope they can be persuaded to add as much information on the images they upload as possible. If they have information on the photographer or a publication date that's great. If all they know is that the photograph was donated to them at some point then that would be useful information as well. Haukur (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
There's no use in humoring them, the situation on our side is abundantly clear. I wish the best of luck to Durova in tactfully negotiating a continued partnership with NLW representatives, but there's no use in sugarcoating the truth. As far as formalities go, it would be easier to design a custom copyright tag/disclaimer for such images over at Commons. Throwing fair use templates in the mix makes hosting these images at en.wiki against policy. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually over on Commons where I'm an administrator we deal with claims like this routinely. A lot of museums, libraries, etc. assert copyright over derivative works of items that have lapsed into the public domain. Mike Godwin has stated the Foundation's opinion on that type of situation. Very few of these organizations would actually pursue the claim in court. But what they can do is make it hard or easy to obtain high quality digitized images of their collections. And if they see that it's to their advantage to make high quality files available to the public, they may change their approach and do so. DurovaCharge! 04:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Uzhuthiran is on a personal edit war with me[edit]

User:Uzhuthiran is on a personal edit war with me & my articles. Though he has a below 50 contribs, his main areas of interests are Labour India, Santhosh George Kulangara and run after my contribs and blindly reverting. His edits were reverted by many editors. (see Labour India's history). He is not at all listening to others and adding false edit summaries without a constructive discussion. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

He vandalised here also, Labour India Gurukulam Public SchoolI cleaned up and removed advert tone of wordings. But uzhithan reverted it blindly. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

His intention is well clear in here (comment by an admin). --Avinesh Jose  T  06:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"These get reverted so fast, it's pathetic."[edit]

4chan /b/ tried to do some coordinated vandalism in weapon articles but it is already ebbing and under control by normal RC control[30] and bots[31]. Anonymous commented "These get reverted so fast, it's pathetic." Fine. --Pjacobi (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's get a little bit more complicated, as the smarter ones stopped announcing their successes and are targetting more obscure article. Perhaps we can just ignore, what is not detected by RC patrol and bots and do a search for the typical pattern in 24h. --Pjacobi (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Winrar for the RC patrol and bot squadron. --mboverload@ 15:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm rather out of touch with current toolserver's capabilities. Would it be possible to search for links to Tony Stark and Stark Industries outside of Category:Marvel Comics. This would give a check whether something was missed when it was inserted. --Pjacobi (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This and this list may help, though obviously only for cases where those pages are wikilinked. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

hate speech[edit]

hate speech removed in this editMYINchile 03:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it's hate speech, but the user has been warned. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks like boring vandalism to me. The user last edited a week ago, so the IP address has probably been reassigned and there's nothing we can do about it. Hut 8.5 12:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Title of Christian Bautista's live album[edit]

Resolved

Hello! I want to create an article regarding the album of Filipino singer Christian Bautista titled "Just A Love Song...Live!" but I can't because I think the title is in the local title blacklist. Can it be removed from the title blacklist? I think the article is important because it is one of his successful albums here in the Philippines.Kleomarlo (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had any problems creating an article at that title. The title blacklist disallows too much consecutive punctuation, but three dots should be OK. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You didn't because you are an admin. The elipse does cause a problems with the blacklist for non-admins. I have created a stub article at Just A Love Song...Live!. ~ BigrTex 14:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Kanabekobaton[edit]

It's beyond time for a Japanese-speaking editor or admin to step in here. This editor has been making dozens upon dozens of edits a day for the last couple of years, and maybe has been bothered to use the edit summary twice. The edit history on the user's talk page shows that the typical response to warnings is to delete the message without comment and continue on just as before. Kanabekobaton has been asked on countless occasions to stop this behavior or at least give account for the actions. No change or explanation has been forthcoming. The userbox on the userpage suggests that English is not this user's first language. That's not important. What is important is that the total lack of response to the inquires of other users is not acceptable. DarkAudit (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User has been banned on ja Wikipedia since 18 April and has had similar bad faith edits on other wikis, endorse indef ban here and community block. treelo radda 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Editor has now switched to television-related articles after being run out of beauty pageant articles. Over 150 edits today alone. Every one tagged "minor", even the moves and redirects. And not a single explanation for why the edit was made. Something smells here. DarkAudit (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Has he been banned? His talk page at ja.wikipedia suggests that he got a UsernameBlock. —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
From the talk on the Korean Wiki comes implications of misconduct. he's been warned on the Simple English wiki, and it looks like there are a fair number of other warnings where he has edited. DarkAudit (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support a block if he doesn't engage with something other than a template. He's using Huggle to template anyone, experienced or not, who reverts him. Then, after editors remove the warnings from their own user talk pages, he adds them back. He's definitely disruptive and my good faith is seriously stretched for this user. KrakatoaKatie 23:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I informed user of this discussion within minutes of posting here, urging a response. None was forthcoming, yet hundreds of similar edits poured forth afterwards. I have subsequently informed them that with the evidence of a preexisting ban on another Wikipedia, continued silence could only result in further sanctions if the behavior persisted. DarkAudit (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I've warned him too, when I reverted a page move he made. He's been editing since 2045 UTC without a break, with only two or three minutes between edits, and this is his typical pattern. He does this three or four times a day, like this is all he's doing with his life. If he doesn't respond or stop these edits in a few moments, I'll block him myself for disruption until he explains himself. Review of my actions is welcome. KrakatoaKatie 00:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So he's not actually doing anything wrong? I've spot checked at least 20 different contribs at this point, and haven't seen any actual disruption. -- Ned Scott 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He's been doing moves and reverts without bothering to give any reason why, and refusing to respond when challenged on the action on talk pages, even when others have had to go back and revert. He has been given final warnings on his talk page, but merely undid the edit and continued right along. Each individual edit or block of edits may not be disruptive, but the sheer quantity of them combined with the utter refusal to engage in any