Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive164

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Scjessey harassment[edit]

I have asked user:Scjessey to not post to my talk page several times [1], [2], [3], and to keep relevant discussions on the article's talk pages. The last time I warned him that I would report him for harrasment if he did it again. Evidently he did not care, as he posted again [4]. CENSEI (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably wouldn't be a bad idea for you and Scjessey to leave each other alone, I'd say. That's my first read, but I'll have a look. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires collaboration. Telling people to stay off your talk page is almost never a reasonable thing to do. Also, blanking a section with an edit summary of "removing trolling" is hardly a polite way to ask someone to not leave messages. How about just ignoring it and you two leave each other alone? Or is there something else you're hoping gets done here? Friday (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
While I understand Friday's point in principle, I have to say that (a) Scjesey's last 3 posts to CENSEI's talk page could be reasonably considered "baiting"; (b) saying someone is "trolling" your talk page is pretty much guaranteed not to improve a situation, and (c) I've asked people who were obviously only interested in pestering me to stay off my talk page before I've even blocked one who didn't listen, but don't tell anyone, as I'm pretty sure that broke a rule. Disengaging is a reasonable step in a heated dispute. I'll echo the "ignore it and leave each other alone" sentiment, with the added note that if someone is obviously posting to another's talk page to goad them, some here might consider that disruptive and act accordingly. --barneca (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Scjessey should have left me alone when I asked him to, not continue to harass and poke me. In a nutshell

Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information.

. I will be more than happy to leave him to his thing if he would leave me to mine for the time being. CENSEI (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I would like to thank Friday for informing me of this discussion. Secondly, I would like to say that this concerns a content dispute that involved CENSEI deleting text from the Dana Milbank BLP and then edit warring over it. My first message on CENSEI's talk page pointed out the problem with the first edit, and the response was edit warring and name calling. I dismissed the edit summary-based "threat" and posted again because of CENSEI's incivility. I won't waste any more of my time with this individual, but I recommend that he/she be "educated" about how to behave in a civil fashion. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Scjessey, this is not the place to talk about the edits to Dana Milbank, this is where we discuss why you continued to harass me on my talk page after I asked you 3 seperate times not to. The edits you made on Dana Milbank were grossly NPOV, and I was not the only user who agreed with that assessment. I would suggest you read up on civility, harassment and NPOV. CENSEI (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"Leave each other alone" means "Leave each other alone". Starting..... now. --barneca (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I will throw in a special door prize for whichever editor allows the other to have The Last Word. Go back to making edits that are "grossly NPOV". MastCell Talk 22:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree; we want "grossly NPOV" edits. --NE2 22:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

AN page proposal[edit]

(Well we've been here before with nothing beyond discussion, but let's try again : )

What would you (plural) think about us turning WP:AN (the main page) into a (protected?) nav page, which would list all the subpages (as sort of a directory, or index, or table of contents)? It would make things easier for everyone, and I think that we'd be more likely to see the subpages more correctly ustilised.

I think that this would help with every page/subpage of AN. Better to have the main page as a directory to point everyone in the right direction, than for this page to be (as it often is) the one-stop shop.

To clarify: This page (and its history) would be moved to a sub-page. (Consensual discussion can come up with a name.) And then this page would become the navpage/directory for all the subpages.

Thoughts/concerns welcome. - jc37 23:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am no admin, but it sounds like a long-overdue move to me. Brilliantine (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I actually have another similar proposal for how we could work things better. We could have a number of different AN subpages, each dealing with different editorial problems. We could have Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Editors, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Content, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Admin problems (to be used when people have concerns about admin behaviour), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Meta requests and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Miscellaneous requests. This would have a few advantages, with admins able to concentrate on the areas that they have expertise in. It would also significantly reduce the size that each pages gets to. WP:AN could be an index of each of these subpages, and AN/I would no longer need to be used, or replaced with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Urgent admin intervention. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like an excellent idea. Cirt (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
(I also have a proposal for AN/I on the talk page.)
But regardless of how we (re-)purpose the subpages, I still think we need a directory as the most likely "first stop" (here). (As you seem to agree: "WP:AN could be an index of each of these subpages...") So, at least for now, to keep this discussion sane, let's just focus on discussing this page being repuposed as a directory. A ReOrg to the subpages is a different discussion altogether. - jc37 23:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, we couldn't do away with AN altogether without additional boards - there would be too much pressure on the current boards if we did that, so I think it would be good to discuss options for complete reform. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I've always thought ANI should be known as 'User Conduct' and this one, as a subpage, could be simply 'General'. I would strenuously oppose there being an AN/Content board - for me, that would be an example of exactly what wikipedia shouldn't be about. Brilliantine (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, we get content issues brought up here all the time such as BLP concerns, off wiki legal concerns, image copyright concerns - a central place to discuss these would be good. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There is already a BLP board. The thought of yet another place begging for content disputes to be inappropriately shopped around to gives me the heebie-jeebies: keep them in talk space or as an RFC if they cover a wide range of topics, says I. Copyright etc fair enough... Brilliantine (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had a masterlist of noticeboards somewhere (not just admin ones), but I see that Wikipedia:Noticeboard is a redirect to something I've never heard of. I suppose Category:Wikipedia noticeboards is the closest we have. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think it's a great concept! This board is difficult to navigate at times due to long issues. Warning, though, that if we make a Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Misc, that's the board that will get all the traffic. Nobody wants to read instructions, it seems, and if they're angry, they're even less likely to bother. KrakatoaKatie 00:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I say this every time someone suggests drastically changing how AN works - Why does it need changing? Is it broken at the moment? Not convinced ... I think the current set up works fine, particularly as it's less busy now then it was a year ago (as with Wikipedia in general). Neıl 09:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, size was one of the issues we were discussing some months ago, but there are plenty of other issues for change. I'd support almost any proposal, so long as it cleans all of the noticeboards up (and there is reason to do so). Would anyone like to provide a comprehensive list of discrepancies that might be fixed with x amount of change? Synergy 11:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I support turning AN into a navboard, but I think there would need to be somewhere to post the kind of miscellaneous notices that AN is needed for. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd find it much more useful to extract all threads into subpages, one per topic, similar to the AfD logs.
    I have only been active here a couple of times, but found it very hard to follow my topic due to the noise, i.e. high number of other edits to this page. If every topic is in its own subpage I can watchlist it, and look at every diff if the discussion gets too confusing to just see at a glance which comments are new.
    There's a possibility of name clashes when creating a new topic page, but if they are prefixed with the date (e.g. WP:AN/2008 August 13/AN page proposal) that should be acceptable.
    The sub topics could then be classified however one likes, by having one or more AN pages that list or transclude all open issues.
    --AmaltheaTalk 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • God, yes. AN and ANI need to be reorganized like AfD or DRV's main list pages are. It would not only make it easier to track individual topics, but people could be referred directly to the old discussion when it drops off the main page, instead of having to sort through a bunch of archived pages full of stuff. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the above, this would seem to have consensus. But I'd like to give it at least another day before making the move, just to give everyone who would like to comment (for or against) that opportunity. - jc37 20:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is no where near enough support to make such a major change. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you start by creating pages for some of the suggested redlinks above, and see what people think at that point? Cirt (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
(To Ryan) - actually the only naysayers at that point were Neil, and you had a conditional support/oppose. Everyone else appeared to support. But even so, I still would like more comment (as I noted). - jc37 07:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

first things first[edit]

Not at all to interrupt what is above, but I'd think it would be good, before we dive into solutions, that we explicitly find consensus on what the problems are, if any. How about a project page? We could examine on that page what the strengths and weaknesses of the noticeboards are. We could easily make drastic changes, without understanding this clearly, first, and simply make things worse, if we don't stop and first agree on what the problems are. I can think of numerous solutions to problems that I perceive, and I perceive plenty, but ... it's like trying to decide what medicine to take when you haven't figured out what disease you've got. Sure, in desperation, we might do that. But I don't think it's a great idea. If there is a solution to some of the problems that is described above that is easy to implement, that is reversible, that does no damage, sure, we can do this simultaneously. But some of the truly major problems, I suspect, won't be solved merely by splitting up the noticeboards into subpages, unless other aspects of the process are also examined and reformed. The very purpose and function of the noticeboards should be examined. And I don't even want to go into that here, I think we should do what we should be good at: describing consensus, neutrally, on a page, that would have its own Talk page where open discussion takes place and the project page where consensus is summarized, revised, etc. Not signed, the project page is a report of the community participating on the topic. --Abd (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I very much oppose doing away with this noticeboard and splintering discussion onto a half dozen other boards; the last thing we need is yet another noticeboard (I don't have time as it is to read the 38 pages linked on {{Editabuselinks}}). I must a agree with Neil's comment above, in that this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. The Editabuselinks templates already serves as a list of noticeboards. Doing away with WP:AN will only increase the traffic on AN/I and reduce the number of eyes on topics sent to other, less trafficked noticeboards. I also don't see any benefit to an AfD style noticeboard, with each issue created as a subpage that is then transcluded here. That's overly complicated compared the current system and creates more problems than it solves. - auburnpilot talk 23:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm also concerned that the vandals which plague this page will find it easier to vandalize several individual pages, requiring protection across a wide range of pages. Corvus cornixtalk 01:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Starting over[edit]

  • The thread directly above is exactly why my initial proposal was (and is) merely for moving this page to a sub-page and using this location as a navpage. Nothing lost, and everything gained. Instead we have people hung up on ReOrg plans for sub-pages and the like. - jc37 07:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
If there are no further comments, I'm going to archive this and start over. Perhaps with a straw poll. - jc37 01:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a good idea, might be best to make it simple, and post a notice at central locations to get wider community input. Cirt (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Harassment, uncivility and POV editing by User:Cityvalyu[edit]

Something should be done about this editor and fast. His continual POV pushing edits and harassment of other editors, that do not favor his POV and are trying to maintain NPOV, is rampant. You can not try to come to a consuses, because he feels that anything that does not blatantly support his POV is simply the POV of the other editor even when sourced. His harassment then spills over to the editors talk page (see User_talk:Jmedinacorona) where he then tries to further push his point of view without end, using words stating he's using WP guidelines in editing and that everything said to him is lies. The talk page of 2008 South Ossetia war also contains discussion other editors have had with his edits, reverts and NPOV. Below are just a few examples of his edit style:

  1. Extensive weasel insertion
  2. Claims to remove weasel words then adds some of his own
  3. More weaseling
  4. Here he even admits to posting non neutral views
  5. See diff then read his edit summary, NPOV? In who's eyes?
  6. Here he makes a controversial revert and says in his summary to talk about such reverts in the talk page, where it was already being discussed for consensus, yet he makes the revert despite it.

I'm through with dealing with him now. I have spent way too much time having confrontations with him and it has destroyed any pleasure I found in trying to contribute to this wiki. Do editor's on WP really have to put up with someone like this constantly pushing their view and then following it up with harassment? I think this kind of incessant behavior discourages the participation of all and as a new editor myself, it has nearly discouraged me from participating further. I did not come to WP to have verbal confrontations of this caliber, I came to try and contribute as I can within WP guidelines. Thank you for your consideration and hopeful intervention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmedinacorona (talkcontribs) 05:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

16 hours and counting and not a single comment on my request, yet those immediately preceding and those following appear active. Should I take this as consensus that my complaint has no basis?--«Javier»|Talk 21:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You should take it as consensus that this is a "simple" content dispute and you should follow dispute resolution instead of here. — Coren (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I see. It's a "simple" content dispute. Then this is normal behavior if it is so "simple" and I decline to be involved in this kind of "simple" dispute when my reason for contributing was to improve articles, not get involved in verbal warfare and abuse. Thank you for confirming my understanding of WP after having gone through this episode. Peace. --«Javier»|Talk 23:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Page move done wrong - possibly controversial[edit]

Resolved: Page moved back, discussion open on article talk page if needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A user has moved Virginia Tech massacre to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University massacre, but the associated talkpage has not been moved. Also, there appears to be no discussion on the talkpage about this move, which may be seen as a controversial move. D.M.N. (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see ElKevbo (talk · contribs) moved it back. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Not at all "controversial". Just moving the article to a title that doesn't contain local slang, but the official title of the school. Wouldn't you move an article called List of tallest ppl to List of tallest people as the original title contains a colloquialism? I am apologise for mistakingly not moving the talk page, this shall not occur again. Dalejenkins | 18:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"Virginia Tech" is not local slang. I doubt that many people know the actual name of the university. The move is pedantic. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 18:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Dale, we call things by their most commonly-known name, when we can. Friday (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Note that Virginia Tech's own web page uses "Virginia Tech" nine times (including the title of the page) and "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" only once (at the bottom in small text). Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I never knew Virginia Tech as anything but Virginia Tech. Perhaps I'm missing something here. It doesn't seem like slang. "Tech" is just an abbreviation. how do you turn this on 19:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me, I was just passing through on my way to read Laugh-out-loud cats. Wait a minute... where is my article? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Colon, close parenthesis. --barneca (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Our spam filter is now blocking spam in edit summaries[edit]

FYI: our spam filter now appears to block spam addresses in edit summaries even if the domain is not in the page text. I just learned this the hard way. It's probably a response to all the shock site spam recently left in edit summaries by vandals; some will crash browsers. I'm glad we have this now. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm... this news is a bit old. And Grawp now just drops off the http:// piece of the URL, bypassing the filter. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This is apparently new; try saving an edit with avril. on. nimp. org (remove spaces) in the edit summary. --NE2 23:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Aparachik question[edit]

How do I find out, easily and quickly, whether or not an article has been through an AfD? I know the recreated articles are speedies, but how can you tell? Utgard Loki (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The simplest option is to do a search for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/name of article, which should hypothetically bring up any AfD discussion if the title is the same. One could also look at the (deleted) history of the page and see if an AfD tag was applied, which should give a link to the discussion but that's a little tricky for a non-administrator. Risker (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
There is still the problem of knowing whether the new article is substantially the same; you might have to ask an admin to look at the previously deleted one and advise. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Risker's suggestion will be fastest. You can also try alternative capitalizations and/or with/out the middle name/initial. (Seen too much of that at DRV when someone really wants the article to exist and won't take no for an answer.) You can google search for mirror articles for recent AFDs. A major fraction of blatant recreations come very soon after the initial article is deleted. Having found the prior AFD, you can at least read it to determine what the concerns were. If you think the same concerns apply, it is worth getting an admin's attention. GRBerry 18:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
you can also of look at contribution lists--this gets the most persistent of the POV ones. But as John says, the problem of seeing if they are the same is real--usually they are essentially the same, sometimes they are new ones done in perfect innocence, and occasionally the problem is actually fixed. I hope all admins actually deleting the G4s are especially careful to always check the previously deleted article there. For the related problem of articles under slightly different titles, only a high level of suspicion and a good memory help.
  • Holy cow! That thing hasn't been AfD'd, and it has grown tentacles, gone cancerous, and metastasized, and there is nothing anyone can do about it? See, I used to argue that the creation of carefully stated articles like that was an invitation to a launching pad for hate, stupidity, and offensive stupidity, and people used to say, "Oh, you deletionist, you! Why do you hate users? I'm sure it won't get bad." It's like creating Miscegenation and saying, "Oh, don't worry, I'm sure that racists won't show up and make it a hate platform. Wikipedians will keep tabs on it." Yeah, sure. By inches, it gets absurd, and then, from absurd, it becomes an atrocity, and all in the name of a concept that is intellectually bankrupt and, as much as it is culturally current it is culturally nebulous. It can mean anything and everything, so the article starts to serve the most motivated, and the most motivated aren't always the most... neutral. Geogre (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the easy solution to roll it back to an acceptable state and then protect it? Looie496 (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Without consensus, both of those are pretty naked power moves, and protection should be used very rarely. If we have an ongoing storm of vandalism, then protecting won't raise an eyebrow, but what these articles generally get is a "consensus" on their talk pages (e.g. "I can give X ghits to the term! It's obviously used to mean X and Y" -> "It also means" -> "We need a list of notable people who 'have been called' this" -> "And here's my least favorite Jew"), and the people who disagree get either exhausted by the many accounts arguing or just run off. After there is a "consensus" on the talk pages, it becomes impossible to retrieve the sane version without AN/I complaints, and then, if you're an admin with any history at all, those who do not like you will reflexively show up to make the complaints into a case.
The point is that RFC's fail. AfD's are possible, but they're likely to fail. Hard power is a bad idea and a self-destructive one, and all this because an unwise "meme" got an article. At least that's my opinion. Geogre (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You have no idea how much, how strongly, I agree with you here. There have been dozens of politically-loaded phrases that have gone through "no consensus" AfDs over the past few months. I could link some of the AfDs, with their bloc voting and lazy closes, but reliving all that would cause the salty river of my tears to join Bishonen's, so I won't. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
[/me hands tissue box round. ] Bishonen | talk 11:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC).

xxxxx made in ENGLAND!!!!![edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/207.248.44.241

This anon IP has been going around to various talk pages of music genres and rather forcefully asserting that they are from England and England only, going as far as to repeatedly remove mention of other areas without discussion. If not a troll, far too agressive. Zazaban (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Blocked. Mr.Z-man 05:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of comments from article talkpage...[edit]

Hopefully, quick question but, is there a reason why someone's comments would be removed from an article's talkpage but, not show up in the history of said page? This is specifically in relation to the conversation here. I'm trying to WP:AGF and all that but, I can't find any evidence of a contribution by this user to the page in question. If consensus of the admins is that the person is just "trolling" than I'll start a vigorous compaign of ignoring. Otherwise, whatever help or advice can be given is greatly appreciated. I bring it here because to my knowledge admins are the only ones that would be capable of removing the material and the contributions plus you guys are normally much more familiar with things like WP:BLP and such than I'm probably ever going to be. Either way thanks in advance. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

They don't have any deleted contributions either. I'd suggest asking what IP or account they made the comment under, otherwise, they appear to be confused and/or trolling. Shell babelfish 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Since it involves Brandon Link/Lang, it might be tempting to see trolling. On the other hand, this could be something as simple as a newbie not understanding an edit conflict, and your text replacing theirs - and the lack of visible contribs may not mean much when it's an IP. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Captain picard's bald head"[edit]

Resolved: blocked MBisanz talk 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A new user, Captain picard's bald head, has been removing wikilinks to "cactus", using the edit summary "(Removing backlinks to Cactus because "Z A I N E B R A H I M = R A P I S T w w w . a v r i l . o n . n i m p . o r g"; using TW)". I would like to inform the user that this is inappropriate. However the user's talk page has been deleted and protected. Axl (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Block by Luna-Santin as a VOA. Thanks for the heads up. MBisanz talk 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Very similar vandalism about 6 hours ago from

Gnomeliberation front (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Examtester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

both of whom have now been blocked. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton (again)[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved. Blanked & protected, please observe WP:DFTT ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for bringing this here again, but I've got serious concerns about the behaviour of calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Incivility concerns (amongst other things) were brought up not so long ago here, and he was given a 0RR restriction for edit warring. Now, his incivility has continued, and I think we need to consider putting Calton under a civility parole. Recently, Calton removed an editors leaving Ramble[8] - not really sure why to be honest, many users who are upset on leaving leave a message similar to this on their userpage. He then proceeded to slow edit war on the page to keep his empty version live [9] (forgot to log in), [10], [11], [12]. Now, I consider the next bit the serious aspect - He was clearly baiting Folksong with this edit; "Poor baby. Would you like a tissue?". After I and Tiptoety had warn him about this, his flippant attitude continued in threads here and here. Now please note - I did also warn Folksong here for making threats after Calton had left his nasty talk page comment, but the fact of the matter is that we would never had users making threats if Calton hadn't continued his uncivil attitude. I really believe it's time for a civility restriction at the very least, or some other community based sanction that will help Calton be a lot more collaborative. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Before anyone automatically leaps to the defense of a fellow admin -- the default position around here -- some actual facts. "Flippant" apparently means "not regarding admin buttons as some sort of tin Sheriff's badge" -- or, more specifically, not automatically standing up and saluting when Ryan Postlethwaite barks orders -- as Ryan Postlethwaite once again is under the delusion that unquestioning obedience to his authorityis required. As for his false claims of baiting, he conveniently leaves off that my message was a response to this -- and also conveniently leaves off Folksong's vandalism and Folksong's threat of violence. His response to this unacceptable behavior? Soothing words to the ones making the threats. I'd say the latter shows he's less interested improving the encyclopedia and more interested in exercising petty authority and enacting petty vengeance, and is the LAST person whose judgment should be trusted in this matter. --Calton | Talk 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Christ, someone should block you for that post alone. Tan ǀ 39 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Really? And that would be because of what, exactly? Questioning Ryan's self-proclaimed authority? Responding to false or overstated charges? Noting Ryan's double standard regarding users who level threats of violence? Help me out here. --Calton | Talk 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
They weren't soothing words - I told him that he'd usually be blocked in that situation, it was a final warning for him to cut out the attacks. But the point stands that this wouldn't have been an issue if you hadn't have gone around blanking his userpage. Note, I didn't see the diff that Folksong posted to your talk page, so I apologise, but there was still no need for any of the previous actions, or the baiting after. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Responding to vandalism and threats of violence with rationalizations and "just chill out dude" doesn't strike mena as much of a warning -- certainly not on the same scale as left on MY page. --Calton | Talk 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is resolved. I believe that Ryan and Calton might justly now be characterised as being in dispute, and I feel it would be best for Ryan to distance himself from Calton and vice-versa. It is clear to me that both are committed to the encyclopaedia and not here to advance an agenda or pursue personal aggrandisement, so I would advocate disengagement at least for a while, please. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Fine by me. Easy enough, since I never cross his path, he always crosses mine, in search of some new way to exercise his self-proclaimed authority. --Calton | Talk 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think concern about Calton's actions makes me in dispute with him - the only reason why I spotted this was because I was reverting vandalism from Calton's userpage, and went to investigate the guy who did it further only to come across this situation. Maybe Calton doesn't like me, fair enough, I don't think he's so bad personally and appreciate the work he does here, especially relating to anti-spam efforts. Calton slating me when I bring up concerns doesn't mean I'm holding a grudge against the guy - the only time I've ever looked at his contributions has been when I've been doing work at UAA (I think there were a couple of concerns I've had there)), and in this instance when I reverted vandalism from his userpage. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Based on your interactions with me -- from your complete unwillingness to do more than issue orders without the slightest justification or actual explanation, your quick resort to threats, your automatic assumptions of bad faith, and your latest attempts to force me to kowtow to your personal authority -- I'd say that I have very good reason to doubt your claims of not holding a grudge here. --Calton | Talk 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, meant resolved w/r/t the Calton/Folksong debacle. As for the Calton/Ryan P. clash, yes, some distance would be useful. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan: I think clicking here would make most of your troubles and concerns presented here fade away. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Since Calton basically went on a short wikibreak during the last thread about him, things pretty much just tapered off. Is he under 0RR or not? Someone needs to inform him if this is the case. –xeno (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Every admin who pays attention to what Calton does ends up saying "this is not okay". Calton responds along the lines of "of course it's okay, you're not okay". They are then In A DisputeTM, and apparently that makes Calton untouchable by that admin. I believe that Ryan's warning to Calton was perfectly acceptable. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Forgive me for asking a stupid question of Carlton, but why were you reverting a change on a user's own userpage? To follow this up, why did you respond in the manner that you did on that user's talkpage? I would be keen on understanding your justification for such edits. Many thanks, Gazimoff 06:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, shall we fully protect User:Folksong for the time being, until an MfD is called? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • This matter is not resolved and I don't believe User:Folksong is the issue. The issue is Calton's rabid incivility. He is a "spam warrior" par excellence, but he takes it way too far. Once he found he couldn't use the old {{temporary userpage}} tag to get rid of userpages, he started prodding, now he simply blanks pages. Frequently (though far less than half the time), the users come back and unblank their pages. How many users don't come back because of Calton. When a user questions Calton he or she undoubtedly gets a most vile treatment. If an admin says "stop" or "warning" or "You're cruising for a block Calton", the response is always to the effect of "Oh yeah, the big admin telling me what to do, yes Sir" or worse. If he is actually sanctioned, as he has been here at least twice, he simply leaves for awhile. I am convinced that Calton's many contributions to the project are completely offset by his incivility and he needs strong action from this forum to require him to behave by basic standards of civility...--Doug.(talk contribs) 16:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Note, I mixed two concepts I fear. Calton is guilty of incivility in his spam warrioring, yes; but the blanking of pages he does on the claim that the user is "nonexistent", part of his personal war against allowing non-editors to have userpages regardless of content.--Doug.(talk contribs) 16:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You mixed two concepts, and you tailed off towards the end of your first post, I believe. Or did you mean to say that "he needs...Doug"? GbT/c 16:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the case, wherever the venue, the edit warring has to stop. As I stated above, if consensus was reached for 0RR in the previous thread, than he needs to be informed and it needs to be enforced. –xeno (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Ha, you're right. Underlined text added to complete the sentence.--Doug.(talk contribs) 17:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting)

  • Consensus was reach, and as he was informed of that thread, and this, there's no way that he doesn't know that. The activities that brought this thread into being, however, weren't a breach of that sanction, but were as a result of his edit warring over the blanking of material he thought inappropriate, rather than bothering to take it to MfD - that, and his "blank non-user's page" behaviour (and it's clear from his contributions that a number of those non-users subsequently return), aren't covered by the earlier restriction, but should be, as he's just gaming the system by not XfD'ing the pages in the first place.
I'd support any sort of civility restriction, and any sanction which viewed his blanking of pages he doesn't like as vandalism (as there are mechanisms open to dealing with them that everyone else avails themselves of with little difficult). Unless it's enforced, though, it's pointless - as with the last discussion, whenever too bright a light is shone on his activities, he simply keeps a low profile for a couple of weeks, then gets straight back to what he was doing without any modification of his behaviour. If a conclusive message can come out of this discussion then at least he can consider himself on a final warning, and will adjust his behaviour accordingly. GbT/c 07:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly support a civility restriction, as I did the last time Calton's behavior came up. Calton's incivility is extraordinary, and he's been behaving this way for years. Block him for at least 24 hours for each uncivil comment and maybe he will start to change his behavior. I doubt that anything weaker than that would have an effect. Everyking (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • We must be clear too that "getting into it" previously with Calton does not bar an admin from taking action. Some of the comments above suggest people think Ryan is in a "dispute" with Calton and needs to take a step back. My God, you can't talk to Calton as an admin without him escalating it; and everyone involved, Ryan, myself, Tiptoety, etc, have generally held off on blocking Calton and each time bring it here. None of us should have to do this each time though as Calton's bad actions are habitual. If Calton takes issue with an admin's actions he can of course bring it here himself, but Calton does not need us to lay out a carpet for him and create a gauntlet for the admins to run each time. The fact is that certain admins have seen what Calton does, so we watch him. All of the admins, and I think I can safely include myself, are generally easy to get along with. But Calton's actions are detrimental to the project and he must be stopped. I suggest we need to consider a community imposed ban prohibiting Calton from editing any userpage, except to nominate it MfD and further restricting what he can post on usertalk.--Doug.(talk contribs) 11:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
By MfD, you are including CSD, I take it? He should be allowed to nominate any page, including userpages, for CSD if it fits the criteria, but if the tag is removed (either by another editor (other than the creator / user themselves) or speedy is declined by an admin) then his next step should only be to either (i) nominate it for XfD, or (ii) leave it alone. Blanking userpages on the grounds that he thinks it's a "non-user's page" should be treated for what it is - i.e. vandalism - and dealt with accordingly.
As for user talk, as long as he is civil he shouldn't be unduly restricted, but the restriction should be there to stop him harranguing other users for "insulting his intelligence", as he sees it, or "disagreeing with him", as others see it. GbT/c 12:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • He edit warred on User:Folksong. imo, the 0RR restriction should apply to everything, whether be it userpages, UAA reports, CSD tags, adding block tags, etc. And he does need to be formally informed that this restriction is in place, while it's pretty clear consensus was reached no one made the a call and set it out for him (presumably because he had gone on break). –xeno (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess he should be allowed to place one appropriate CSD tag, if one applies, but he needs to strictly follow the criteria or he's being disruptive (in other words, U2 applies only if Special:Listusers does not indicate a user for the page). If he starts tagging long strings of pages, with U2 and one of them shows up on Listusers and Calton's blocked. He can't PROD userpages anymore (that rule just changed), so we don't need to worry about that. I'm not sure how much rope we should give him on user talk, there's a lot of damage he can do there. Obviously he needs to be able to communicate with other users but he shouldn't use that as an excuse to send lots of spam warnings regarding the corresponding userpage. I think we need to make it clear that we'll block him if he's uncivil. The problem we're going to face though is that Calton is going to tag a lot of pages with G11 and they're going to be borderline cases - I suggest that if a reviewing admin believes the page might likely survive an MfD, he should be warned and if necessary blocked.--Doug.(talk contribs) 21:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Malik shabazz is deleting my RS on Post-Zionism and New Historians despite my addtional ref on talk page[edit]

I told him this was RS, I replaced my initial RS by Nudve's and have provided addtional RS on talk page.

I told him he can not delte an RS because he doewsn't like it, but if he has any complaints go to talk page. Since he has any, he keeps deleting it eveytime for newlly invented reason.


help! --Shevashalosh (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see #Shabazz is deletig my ref of "self hating jew" from New Historians and Post-Zionism above. Is anybody going to intervene and stop this trainwreck? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I would say a block (of Shevashalosh) is definitely in order. I count 5 reverts in 2 days on New Historians and Post-Zionism. However, last time I blocked an editor for revert warring on similar articles (one who actually broke 3RR in a single day), the block was overturned and accusations of POV were thrown around, so I won't bother here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for 48 hours. If it resumes, a very steep escalation would be in order IMHO; this person does not seem to grasp the idea of collaborative editing. --barneca (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
So sad. I must say it was time for this block and yes, if this carries on the next block should be much longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It is not finished yet.
Nobody explained her it was forbidden to take a suckpuppet when you are blocked. So, she took one : User:Shmonaesre. Note she didn't hide but if you read the diff's, the last one is not encouraging.
Ceedjee (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked the new account (including prevent account creation) and warned Shevashalosh that if she tries it again, a long-term block will be in order. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Jpgordon has now blocked Shevashalosh indefinitely for legal threats and sockpuppetry. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

NOINDEX on various noticeboards and archives proposal[edit]

Resolved: Discussion has been moved to a policy proposal page. Protonk (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have added {{NOINDEX}} to Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all. --Random832 (contribs) 03:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it until we get consensus. At minimum if we are going to add anything like that we need to add a big fat pointer on the template that there is a search tool on the toolserver. And we need a hell of a lot of assurance that that tool won't go down as tools so often do. I suggest putting a discussion about this on AN rather than here which isn't as likely to be noticed. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
My intent was not to open a discussion. It's unacceptable for these to remain visible to google. And there IS a "big fat pointer on the template that there is a search tool on the toolserver", there are in fact four links to that tool; perhaps you noticed them when you made the edit? --Random832 (contribs) 16:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(above was moved from WT:AN --Random832 (contribs) 16:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC))


I was thinking it may be a good idea to do this. There is a LOT of negative information on living people by name liberally over the years scattered across these--sometimes just plain bad, sometimes in good faith discussions, but all the same findable by search engine. Yes, I know that our internal search somewhat sucks still, but the benefit of our own searching isn't as valuable as not screwing people by their names being found in negative connotations on this site buried in some archive. If the search function is too busted for some, we have lots of very skilled people that can fix it if they wanted to spend the time on it. So, simple proposal. {{NOINDEX}} on every notice page plus archives/talk on the header today:

Administrators'IncidentsArbCom enforcementBiographiesConflict of interest • Ethnic and cultural conflicts • Fiction • Fringe theories • Neutral point of view • Original research • Reliable sources

At a dead minimum, the ones in "red" to start as they're most likely to touch on BLPs. rootology (T) 13:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree to do this, but I think this proposal would be better at the Village Pump. At least make a note there, if you haven't already. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
WT:AN pointed people here, but a reference at VP wouldn't be bad either. MBisanz talk 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we need to get the gorram search function fixed before we start noindexing the whole place. –xeno (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree strongly with Xeno. I have no objections to no-indexing if a) we have a working search function b) can guarantee that tool will stay functioning and c) add a prominent note at the top of the relevant pages about how to search for people who aren't aware of it. b is the easy step. a and b need to happen first. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • NOINDEX them all, and add the Community Sanction Noticeboard to the list. I had added the NOINDEX tags to them last night, but have since been reverted because it "makes it harder to search the archives along and reduces general levels of transparency."[13] This response indicates a need for improving the internal search function, and has nothing to do with transparency.
  • We are depending on Google and other external search engines to do work that needs to be internal. Can you imagine any other responsible organisation using a publicly available search function to document concerns about clientele (in our case, subjects of articles) or personnel (in our case, editors)?
  • On a daily basis, editors complain about "incivility" on any number of noticeboards and talk pages. People get blocked, sometimes even banned, for saying unkind things about other editors (or in some cases, about subjects of articles); we are told that the validity of their words does not excuse the lack of "civility"...and yet we as a community do not apply the same standards to the encyclopedia.
  • There is an attitude amongst many individuals that people who get banned or blocked "deserve" to be named and shamed publicly, and it is the blocked/banned individual's "fault" that Google searches turn up pages suggesting they behaved unacceptably on a top-10 website. The veracity or validity of the complaint is irrelevant to whether or not these posts are searchable outside of Wikipedia.
  • The real life identity of a very significant segment of our editing population is easily linked to their Wikipedia activities, either directly (real-life name as username) or indirectly (by making real-life name available on userpage, etc.) Few of these individuals made that information available expecting to be publicly castigated for failing to follow the rather arcane behavioural rules of Wikipedia. We keep these complaints about editors on pages that often rank highly in search engines despite the fact that many of them relate to editors who are easily identifiable in real life.
  • This information is available to current and future employers, colleagues, clients, police and other security forces, and so on. Is this the kind of thing we want to have following our teenage editors who go on to mature behaviour? Is this what should happen to academics who have spent years in the parry-and-thrust of more direct debate than is permitted by our "civility" policy? Do we want people to be branded "troublemakers" in the outside world because they just don't fit in here?
  • Discussions assessing the "verifiability" of negative information about the subjects of our articles are spread all over the place, and again are searchable outside of Wikipedia.
  • For whom are we trying to make things transparent? Our editors? The information is searchable within Wikipedia already; if people can't find it, improve the search function or help them learn how to use the current one. (I have never had to resort to Google to find information on Wikipedia, and I am hardly a genius when it comes to searching.) Why does the world at large need to know that User So-and-so was blocked for being rude to User Such-and-such, after a 20kb discussion on some noticeboard? It has nothing to do with the quality of the product - the encyclopedia.
  • Our current system highlights the negative editor information (messages on user and user talk pages, noticeboards, etc) over and above any positive editor information (contribution histories, key articles, etc.). It's time that we as a community model the behaviour we expect from our editors. With indexing of noticeboards, our behaviour management process includes promotion of pejorative information about individual editors; we know these pages are highly ranked but we allow them to be widely available, despite the fact that individual editors are frequently blocked/banned for identical behaviour.
  • Summary - Fix the problem - our internal search function - instead of publicly smearing the subjects of our articles and the editors who produce them. --Risker (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Risker (and with several others further up); NOINDEX now, and work on fixing the internal search next. Personally, I am of the belief that the only pages in Wikipedia that should be indexed are article pages and category pages. Everything else is internal workings that does not need to be catalogued by Google/Yahoo/whatever search engine. Horologium (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It will be incredibly damaging to internal functioning if we don't have a search function. I agree completely with the sentiment but it isn't acceptable unless we have a search function. I also strongly object to Risker's claims that anyone here thinks that blocked editors "deserve" to be "shamed" This sis a straw-man argument which no one has ever claimed but is repeatedly brought up. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
We have a search function, JoshuaZ, it can definitely use improvement, but it does work and it does pull up everything I have ever looked for, including information on noticeboards. I was able to do a very indepth summary of evidence using information from noticeboards, for the Tango RFAR without once resorting to an external search engine. Having this information widely available is not necessary, even with today's search engine. Removing the ability to search externally will promote the improvement of our internal search function because it becomes a high priority. Risker (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Addendum to reply to the other part of JoshuaZ's comment: Please look on this very page to the thread entitled "Greg Kohs aka MyWikiBiz" for some examples (and no, I have no opinion on whether or not he should be unblocked). There are others right here too, including the discussion of removal of a permission from a reformed but formerly blocked editor. This is the kind of stuff I am talking about. Should the discussions happen? Yes, I think so. Should anyone google searching for the name "Greg Kohs" get to this page or its archive (or the archives of those other pages listed in the thread)? No, they should not. Risker (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Also note that we have another search specifically for the noticeboards, which is linked in the navigation box. --Random832 (contribs) 16:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah. I did not know about that. That seems to be functional for AN. That at least takes away the AN, ANI 3RR and CN archives but not the other noticeboards. I'd also strongly prefer that that link was much larger. In any event, I have no objection to putting the Noindex into the Template for the noticeboards. But we need a better search function to use it on the noticeboards other than those 4. (I also think we should wait to get a bit more input in general before taking this large a step) JoshuaZ (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • NOINDEX must come first to end the harm being done, and perhaps by preventing external search engines from indexing non-article spaces, Necessity will enter the scene trailed by her child Invention, and we will see in short order a leap in internal search functionality. What short-term difficulty some administrators may have with searching non-article space is far outweighed by the ethical obligation to reduce people's exposure to the distorting effects of search engine publicity. alanyst /talk/ 16:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • NOINDEX is far more important than improving the internal search function and should come first. Anything we really need to find can be found via search and what links here. There is today no need to use external searches to find relevant internal data, it is merely a habit that many have acquired along the way. If a specific location becomes challenging to search, have someone build or modify a toolserver tool. GRBerry 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We shouldn't be broadly disabling useful functionality for the sake of a few identified people who might prefer Google had a little less to say about them. I understand blocking AFDs and certain focused discussions, but blocking entire noticeboards goes too far for me. Even if we have an internal search as good as Google (and let's be honest, we aren't there yet), I'd still want to maintain Google functionality for people who prefer that interface and the broader comparisons it allows. Most of what is discussed at AN is not harmful to identifiable people, and of that portion which is, a significant fraction is no more harmful than they deserve (if someone is a consummate trouble maker all across the web, there is no reason for us to conceal that fact). The discussions of identifiable people under circumstance that might well warrant redaction are sufficiently few and far between that I can't see how that justifies mangling the searchability of all the other noticeboard content. This simply doesn't pass a balancing test of justification versus negative impact. Dragons flight (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
"[A] significant fraction is no more harmful than they deserve ..." Thank you for proving my point, Dragons flight. We aren't here to punish people, even if they are complete jerks, or totally incompetent. We might block them or ban them because they cannot work within our system. Overtly and consciously publishing their misdeeds is the internet equivalent of The Scarlet Letter. Risker (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
And your point? You seem to want to protect everyone, even complete trolls, from the justifiable and predictable consequences of their actions, but you have no concern for protecting the rest of the internet from them. We don't go out of our way to publicly chastise people, but neither should we go out of our way to protect them. Dragons flight (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment So I'm not asking for links to BLP/copyvio/oversight material but where is the demonstrated harm that would cause us to want to eliminate a helpful means to search wikipedia? Protonk (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be posting at length to this discussion tonight. At least, I would like to, if I can locate a particular location where the central discussion is located. Is it here or there or where? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be the central discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want a centralised discussion Brad, you'll have to make one. What to NOINDEX isn't just an admin issue. Why not use Wikipedia:What to noindex? WilyD 17:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • How about a challenge? Maybe I'm wrong about this issue, but before I might conceed that, I'd like a demonstration that a real problem exists. Give me four or five examples of people who if you put their real name (and only their name) into Google then you get a negative noticeboard discussion within the first 20 or 30 hits. If having these archives are really profoundly distructive then such examples ought to be easy to find right? I've already tried several well known trolls and none had a noticeboard hit in their first 30 google hits. Dragons flight (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I've created a proposal here. Discussion may continue on the talk page there, so as to not fill up WP:AN. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


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

Image talk:Recycle001.svg[edit]

Resolved

I tried to put a db-talk tag on Image talk:Recycle001.svg and the template said it wasn't an appropriate tag for the Talk page of a commons image. How do we get this page deleted? Corvus cornixtalk 21:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I likely would have deleted even if you'd left the G8 tag on the page. ~ BigrTex 21:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

ResearchEditor still pushing[edit]

Resolved

Please see this discussion at McMartin preschool trial. ResearchEditor is continuing to push a POV, after a topic ban on satanic ritual abuse (above for anyone who missed the original discussion). Specifically RE is attempting to put undue weight on a non-peer reviewed news publication that reports on child abuse accusations (Treating Abuse Today, second from the bottom). This is at the expense of and in opposition to a 400-page report and analysis of the trial from Prometheus Books. The quote RE wishes to insert would give credence to the idea that Ray Buckey was guilty of molesting nearly 400 children in a variety of public locations and beating a horse to death with a baseball bat, but somehow after 7 years of investigations managed to get away with it. Reliable sources and a recantation by a witness illustrate that the McMartin preschool trial was a moral panic and should be portrayed as such. Even had Buckey access to his friend's special effects studio and a horse farm, this does not mean that he faked supernatural powers or killed a horse. This is why I would support a blanket ban on a variety of pages related to SRA and the memory wars, including dissociative identity disorder, false memory syndrome, multiple personality controversy, Michelle Remembers and the McMartin preschool trial.

Also note that ResearchEditor is attempting to insert a reference to a publication that s/he knows is not on par with Prometheus books - see Talk:SRA archive and reliable sources noticeboard.

Also note this section of Michelle Remembers, I'm really sick of being blamed for this because I happen to be the only editor willing to read many university-press books and scientific journal articles in order to raise the standard of the page from this to the current version. Seriously, it's not like I'm engaging in original research on these pages, all of my edits have been based on and sourced to reliable sources. I edit according to what I read, I don't edit according to what I think. Yet still I get pegged as "a POV-pushing editor" as if I were the one trying to impose undue weight. This isn't me being a big meanie, this is me relying on appropriate sources and conventional interpretations of policy, being able to demonstrate that ResearchEditor's interpretations and attributions are incorrect. WLU (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand why ResearchEditor has not been banned in all SRA-related articles. I cannot speak for the articles unrelated to SRA that I don't edit: (1) Dissociative identity disorder, (2) False memory syndrome and (3) Multiple personality controversy. However, I do know RE's bahavior in (4) Michelle Remembers, a book which claims that Satan himself appeared to a woman; a book that started the SRA panic, as well as his behavior in (5) McMartin preschool trial: an iconic case of SRA claims. I would support an extension of the ban in these two articles. —Cesar Tort 14:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I've asked User:east718 to reconsider whether there was support for a ban from related articles; I think there was, but I was involved in the discussion. Hopefully he will correct himself. Mangojuicetalk 15:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Reviewing the histories, the posts occurred before East718's posting to RE's page(McMartin, Michelle Remembrs and East718) and the decision has been amended [14] and RE made aware. I think this is resolved and have tagged the section. WLU (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the addition of other pages to the ban is inappropriate. I have not even had a chance to defend myself about the actions at Michelle Remembers or McMartin. Treating Abuse Today is a serious journal and a reliable source. I posted this at the page recently -TAT is a reliable publisher. Many respected researchers have published there. See here.
The quote I wanted to install simply was a balancing quote "What surprised me as an investigative journalist was that nobody looked beyond the seemingly fanciful nature of the disclosures. Nobody tried to interpret what the disclosures might mean through a child's frame of reference and perception. Nobody searched for plausible explanation....children talked about...improbable events like jumping out of airplanes and seeing a horse killed. Yet, investigators did not track reports that Raymond Buckey had a friend who ran a special effects studio or that Virginia McMartin's sister owned a horse ranch." This is not unreasonable and adds to the article. There are several quotes in the article from biased sources from the other perspective. Both CesarTort and WLU have an interest in seeing my edits banned from these pages since they have an opposite perspective. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
This thread is closed, RE. Just follow MangoJuice advice: present your complaint to ArbCom. (BTW, we don't want you banned because you think different. Biao has exactly the same pov of you and we don't want him banned. It's your pov pushing what left the community with no more patience.) —Cesar Tort 04:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

{undent}WP:SHUN. No need for drama, no need for replies. With no response from the community there is no reason to consider this an issue. It's obvious that no argument can change things, so why bother? WLU (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Biao has stated people left the page because they were "shit on." He basically refuses to edit the page because of his treatment there. The both of your edits created an environment at the page that made sure no contradictory positions were allowed to edit. Anyone whose edits disagreed was brought to AN. The page is now a one-sided joke. With only one position allowed on it. This type of page makes wikipedia look like a joke. The extremist view of panic being the only allowable theory has allowed for the ignoring of 30 - 40 peer reviewed journals as sources and 10 or more books. If anyone had look at either of your edits and done a full investigation, it would have been very clear that your edits pushed an extremely skeptical POV, not allowing any other point of view to exist. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is me trying to get your attention, Mr./Mrs./Miss or whatever admin (Time off all the "block User:XXX" drama)[edit]

Resolved: Page restored without personal information — E 08:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please restore the article Hip hop music? Apparently, User:Kevin deleted the page almost an hour ago per "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: rm email address in edit summary". Does it really take that long to get some cleanup done? Do U(knome)? yes...or no 08:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Restored (link) — E TCB 08:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem may have been the large number of edits in the article (over 3,000) that needed to be restored - from what I understand, some people's systems (and sometimes even Wikipedia) tends to choke. I believe I have restored the article minus the problematic edit. Or actually it looks like two of us tried to restore it at once - hopefully that worked out ok. Shell babelfish 08:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, both you guys did a nice job. Thanks for the swiftness. 08:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
This is actually a bit of a potential trap - I deleted but never got the usual confirmation screen, just an internal error message. At that point the page still seemed to be there, probably because of my browser cache. Now that I know it can happen, I can do a refresh to see what mediawiki actually did. Kevin (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

English nationalist[edit]

Okay, so this is getting pretty ridiculous... All he does is slant articles favorable towards England and complain about everywhere else. I can't tell if whoever it is is being serious or if they're just trolling for the sake of trolling, but they need to stop. There's already been attempts at warning him, but he just deletes them and then tells people not to post on his talk page or he'll "report" them. I hate nationalists with an undying, vehement passion, so it would probably not be good for me to try to intervene because chances are good that I wouldn't be able to restrain myself (just looking at the contribs is like fingernails on a chalkboard), not to mention the fact that I've been pretty much inactive for the better part of two years and have no idea how to go about handling it... Would someone mind taking a look and finally shutting him up? --(Flying Ninja Monkey) (Banana!) 20:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that it is difficult to see whether this account is driven by some nationalist ideal or is simply trolling. It is made more difficult by the fact that they appear pro-British when arguing against the claims of other sovereign nations, but prefers to refer to the constituent countries when editing within UK based articles. I suggest placing the relevant warnings on their talkpage, and bringing back here if they continue to be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 Done I have issued a clearly-worded civility reminder to the user. (Ironically, one of this editor's first contributions was to chastise someone for expressing a political opinion on a talk page.) caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 04:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion[edit]

Robert Kaufman and Robert Kaufman seem to share a disturbingly large amount of content. I grant that I didn't compare word for word, but I think this may qualify as a copyvio. Before I do anything though I would like a second opinion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a clear violation. The source for the web page includes "meta name="copyright" content="© 2005 Robert Kaufman Co., Inc.", but no licensing terms. It doesn't even matter whether it matches word for word -- it matches too closely. Looie496 (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted this article. east718 // talk // email // 06:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

An audio conversation with User:Newyorkbrad[edit]

Hopefully this may be of sufficient interest to warrant a small 'heads up' here... I'd like to encourage folks to have a listen to the latest 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' which is an interview with newyorkbrad covering all sorts of stuff.... We're planning a sort of panel discussion in a fortnight or so (which means anything up to a couple of months!) - which any and all are invited to attend, submit questions, topics for discussion etc. - swing by this page if you'd like to get involved.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I've seen some pages get vandalized with the exact same vandalism serveral times from widely different IP addresses. Some of them mentioned /b/ so I went on there (my god...) to try to find the vandalism threads. I found a few, and I dealt with two of them by removing the revision that the poster was asking people to save. However, this took a long time/placed a huge strain on the servers and I am likely the reason why Wikipedia was running so slow a few minutes ago. (*cringes*) Should I just semi-protect the pages on sight, or should I wait for the vandalism to get out of hand? J.delanoygabsadds 04:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotecting is definitely a better idea than voluntarily viewing /b/. It also would have been much simpler than bothering with history cleaning that wasn't otherwise necessary, imo - those things can be a pain in the ass (as well as a bit hard on the servers), and of course breaking the links to the vandalized revisions won't have prevented new vandalism. Use your judgment, of course, but I don't think vandalism needs to actually be 'out of hand' to justify protection. -- Vary | Talk 05:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is, I saw someone requesting vandalism on a page that had not been vandalized yet, so I removed the revision. (not before like a million people vandalized, though). Should I preemptively semi-protect it? J.delanoygabsadds 05:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Ohhhh, gotcha. I'd say yes, in this case. I take it there are admins who watch The Colbert Report with laptops in front of them to be ready to protect any articles that get a mention. I'd stay under 24 hours, though, and increase it if they don't lose interest. -- Vary | Talk 05:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Colbert Report :D Keegantalk 06:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

ResearchEditor still pushing[edit]

Resolved

Please see this discussion at McMartin preschool trial. ResearchEditor is continuing to push a POV, after a topic ban on satanic ritual abuse (above for anyone who missed the original discussion). Specifically RE is attempting to put undue weight on a non-peer reviewed news publication that reports on child abuse accusations (Treating Abuse Today, second from the bottom). This is at the expense of and in opposition to a 400-page report and analysis of the trial from Prometheus Books. The quote RE wishes to insert would give credence to the idea that Ray Buckey was guilty of molesting nearly 400 children in a variety of public locations and beating a horse to death with a baseball bat, but somehow after 7 years of investigations managed to get away with it. Reliable sources and a recantation by a witness illustrate that the McMartin preschool trial was a moral panic and should be portrayed as such. Even had Buckey access to his friend's special effects studio and a horse farm, this does not mean that he faked supernatural powers or killed a horse. This is why I would support a blanket ban on a variety of pages related to SRA and the memory wars, including dissociative identity disorder, false memory syndrome, multiple personality controversy, Michelle Remembers and the McMartin preschool trial.

Also note that ResearchEditor is attempting to insert a reference to a publication that s/he knows is not on par with Prometheus books - see Talk:SRA archive and reliable sources noticeboard.

Also note this section of Michelle Remembers, I'm really sick of being blamed for this because I happen to be the only editor willing to read many university-press books and scientific journal articles in order to raise the standard of the page from this to the current version. Seriously, it's not like I'm engaging in original research on these pages, all of my edits have been based on and sourced to reliable sources. I edit according to what I read, I don't edit according to what I think. Yet still I get pegged as "a POV-pushing editor" as if I were the one trying to impose undue weight. This isn't me being a big meanie, this is me relying on appropriate sources and conventional interpretations of policy, being able to demonstrate that ResearchEditor's interpretations and attributions are incorrect. WLU (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand why ResearchEditor has not been banned in all SRA-related articles. I cannot speak for the articles unrelated to SRA that I don't edit: (1) Dissociative identity disorder, (2) False memory syndrome and (3) Multiple personality controversy. However, I do know RE's bahavior in (4) Michelle Remembers, a book which claims that Satan himself appeared to a woman; a book that started the SRA panic, as well as his behavior in (5) McMartin preschool trial: an iconic case of SRA claims. I would support an extension of the ban in these two articles. —Cesar Tort 14:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I've asked User:east718 to reconsider whether there was support for a ban from related articles; I think there was, but I was involved in the discussion. Hopefully he will correct himself. Mangojuicetalk 15:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Reviewing the histories, the posts occurred before East718's posting to RE's page(McMartin, Michelle Remembrs and East718) and the decision has been amended [15] and RE made aware. I think this is resolved and have tagged the section. WLU (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the addition of other pages to the ban is inappropriate. I have not even had a chance to defend myself about the actions at Michelle Remembers or McMartin. Treating Abuse Today is a serious journal and a reliable source. I posted this at the page recently -TAT is a reliable publisher. Many respected researchers have published there. See here.
The quote I wanted to install simply was a balancing quote "What surprised me as an investigative journalist was that nobody looked beyond the seemingly fanciful nature of the disclosures. Nobody tried to interpret what the disclosures might mean through a child's frame of reference and perception. Nobody searched for plausible explanation....children talked about...improbable events like jumping out of airplanes and seeing a horse killed. Yet, investigators did not track reports that Raymond Buckey had a friend who ran a special effects studio or that Virginia McMartin's sister owned a horse ranch." This is not unreasonable and adds to the article. There are several quotes in the article from biased sources from the other perspective. Both CesarTort and WLU have an interest in seeing my edits banned from these pages since they have an opposite perspective. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
This thread is closed, RE. Just follow MangoJuice advice: present your complaint to ArbCom. (BTW, we don't want you banned because you think different. Biao has exactly the same pov of you and we don't want him banned. It's your pov pushing what left the community with no more patience.) —Cesar Tort 04:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

{undent}WP:SHUN. No need for drama, no need for replies. With no response from the community there is no reason to consider this an issue. It's obvious that no argument can change things, so why bother? WLU (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Biao has stated people left the page because they were "shit on." He basically refuses to edit the page because of his treatment there. The both of your edits created an environment at the page that made sure no contradictory positions were allowed to edit. Anyone whose edits disagreed was brought to AN. The page is now a one-sided joke. With only one position allowed on it. This type of page makes wikipedia look like a joke. The extremist view of panic being the only allowable theory has allowed for the ignoring of 30 - 40 peer reviewed journals as sources and 10 or more books. If anyone had look at either of your edits and done a full investigation, it would have been very clear that your edits pushed an extremely skeptical POV, not allowing any other point of view to exist. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is me trying to get your attention, Mr./Mrs./Miss or whatever admin (Time off all the "block User:XXX" drama)[edit]

Resolved: Page restored without personal information — E 08:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please restore the article Hip hop music? Apparently, User:Kevin deleted the page almost an hour ago per "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: rm email address in edit summary". Does it really take that long to get some cleanup done? Do U(knome)? yes...or no 08:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Restored (link) — E TCB 08:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem may have been the large number of edits in the article (over 3,000) that needed to be restored - from what I understand, some people's systems (and sometimes even Wikipedia) tends to choke. I believe I have restored the article minus the problematic edit. Or actually it looks like two of us tried to restore it at once - hopefully that worked out ok. Shell babelfish 08:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, both you guys did a nice job. Thanks for the swiftness. 08:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
This is actually a bit of a potential trap - I deleted but never got the usual confirmation screen, just an internal error message. At that point the page still seemed to be there, probably because of my browser cache. Now that I know it can happen, I can do a refresh to see what mediawiki actually did. Kevin (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

English nationalist[edit]

Okay, so this is getting pretty ridiculous... All he does is slant articles favorable towards England and complain about everywhere else. I can't tell if whoever it is is being serious or if they're just trolling for the sake of trolling, but they need to stop. There's already been attempts at warning him, but he just deletes them and then tells people not to post on his talk page or he'll "report" them. I hate nationalists with an undying, vehement passion, so it would probably not be good for me to try to intervene because chances are good that I wouldn't be able to restrain myself (just looking at the contribs is like fingernails on a chalkboard), not to mention the fact that I've been pretty much inactive for the better part of two years and have no idea how to go about handling it... Would someone mind taking a look and finally shutting him up? --(Flying Ninja Monkey) (Banana!) 20:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that it is difficult to see whether this account is driven by some nationalist ideal or is simply trolling. It is made more difficult by the fact that they appear pro-British when arguing against the claims of other sovereign nations, but prefers to refer to the constituent countries when editing within UK based articles. I suggest placing the relevant warnings on their talkpage, and bringing back here if they continue to be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 Done I have issued a clearly-worded civility reminder to the user. (Ironically, one of this editor's first contributions was to chastise someone for expressing a political opinion on a talk page.) caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 04:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion[edit]

Robert Kaufman and Robert Kaufman seem to share a disturbingly large amount of content. I grant that I didn't compare word for word, but I think this may qualify as a copyvio. Before I do anything though I would like a second opinion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a clear violation. The source for the web page includes "meta name="copyright" content="© 2005 Robert Kaufman Co., Inc.", but no licensing terms. It doesn't even matter whether it matches word for word -- it matches too closely. Looie496 (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted this article. east718 // talk // email // 06:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

An audio conversation with User:Newyorkbrad[edit]

Hopefully this may be of sufficient interest to warrant a small 'heads up' here... I'd like to encourage folks to have a listen to the latest 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' which is an interview with newyorkbrad covering all sorts of stuff.... We're planning a sort of panel discussion in a fortnight or so (which means anything up to a couple of months!) - which any and all are invited to attend, submit questions, topics for discussion etc. - swing by this page if you'd like to get involved.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I've seen some pages get vandalized with the exact same vandalism serveral times from widely different IP addresses. Some of them mentioned /b/ so I went on there (my god...) to try to find the vandalism threads. I found a few, and I dealt with two of them by removing the revision that the poster was asking people to save. However, this took a long time/placed a huge strain on the servers and I am likely the reason why Wikipedia was running so slow a few minutes ago. (*cringes*) Should I just semi-protect the pages on sight, or should I wait for the vandalism to get out of hand? J.delanoygabsadds 04:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotecting is definitely a better idea than voluntarily viewing /b/. It also would have been much simpler than bothering with history cleaning that wasn't otherwise necessary, imo - those things can be a pain in the ass (as well as a bit hard on the servers), and of course breaking the links to the vandalized revisions won't have prevented new vandalism. Use your judgment, of course, but I don't think vandalism needs to actually be 'out of hand' to justify protection. -- Vary | Talk 05:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is, I saw someone requesting vandalism on a page that had not been vandalized yet, so I removed the revision. (not before like a million people vandalized, though). Should I preemptively semi-protect it? J.delanoygabsadds 05:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Ohhhh, gotcha. I'd say yes, in this case. I take it there are admins who watch The Colbert Report with laptops in front of them to be ready to protect any articles that get a mention. I'd stay under 24 hours, though, and increase it if they don't lose interest. -- Vary | Talk 05:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Colbert Report :D Keegantalk 06:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Denying speedies[edit]

Hi there guys!

Although the vast majority of the articles I nom for speedy are in turn deleted, sometimes they are denied. In the spirit of learning from your mistakes, I would like suggestions on how I might be notified of this. I don't want to put too much load on admins already spending their time at CSD but I also don't want my talk page to look like I nominate everything I see for CSD.

Any suggestions? Are there any bots that monitor when CSD tags are removed? --mboverload@ 14:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Best bet is to use a common edit sum when making CSDs, like "Nominated for CSD". If it is declined, then the edit sum will still be in your Special:Contributions, if it is deleted, then there will be no entry. MBisanz talk 14:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec) If you add the page you've tagged to your watchlist, then you'll be able to see which are deleted and which are denied. If I refuse a speedy delete request, I (like others) try to remember to leave an edit summary with reasons (e.g. "decline speedy, clear assertion of notability" or "decline speedy, reason given for deleting a redirect isn't one of the criteria, try WP:RFD"); if not, try asking the declining admin on their talk page. I think the onus is on you to ask why, rather than on the declining admin to tell you, otherwise the workload gets too high. That said, if I found someone who clearly didn't understand the criteria I'd probably let them know... There are bots notifying page creators of speedy requests, but none that I know of that notify nominators of declined requests. BencherliteTalk 14:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I frequently inform users about declining speedy deletions. In addition, I never decline a speedy without a useful edit summary explaining why it was declined. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
A lot of speedies are declined when an AfD would be logical, but let's also remember that some of the "declining" is vandalism and hyped authors trying to "OMG don't delete hes a real guy in my class n hes awsum," so following is a good idea. I've also seen some admins who have denied for less than strong reasons (like, "but we need more one line cricket stubs on guys who played one match in 1804!"). Utgard Loki (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Eh. Speedies should usually be declined if there is any question about their applicability. I know what you are saying but we do have to accept the fact that everyone starts out at some point and that proper speedy deletion procedure helps us keep new editors while keeping bad articles off. As frustrating as it may be to do in practice, that procedure suggests strong deference to the page when weighing a speedy deletion request. Protonk (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I usually leave a {{sdd}} or {{sdd2}} template for people when I decline a speedy. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting templates. A shame they don't mention PROD though. Rmhermen (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I usually decline speedies that are under A7 when the article has at least some assertion of notability (whether it is completley valid or not I am not sure). I usually leave an edit summary stating that and mention that it could be prodded or taken to AFD if desired. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Nobody seems to have mentioned this, but the easiest thing to do is just watchlist everything you tag. If it's deleted, you'll never see it again so it won't disturb you; if it's declined, you'll see the tag being removed in your watchlist. This also means you can see right away if a deleted page is reposted. – iridescent 19:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Nobody?! "If you add the page you've tagged to your watchlist, then you'll be able to see which are deleted and which are denied" (!) BencherliteTalk 09:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Just testing... – iridescent 00:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, what Iridescent said. You'll also see if the page creator comes along and removes your tag, or adds a hangon. Watchlists are a wonderful thing.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's baaaaaaaaaack[edit]

Remember WP:AMA? Just was tipped off about this. Enjoy. ^demon[omg plz] 12:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Same person as last time? Daniel (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure they will be just as effective as before. Thatcher 13:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, I'm sure. And Daniel: Not sure. ^demon[omg plz] 14:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. AMA ran into the normal doldrums that happen with projects like that, and thus became vulnerable to being crushed. My comment has been that the crucial mistake that was made was organizing on-wiki. I have no idea if the people in this new initiative have sufficient knowledge and resources to pull it off, but, ultimately, something like this is going to be necessary, because existing process can be murder on users who are either innocent, or whose offenses were far short of deserving the response that arose. I think the problems can be resolved, though, without external organization; but the jury is out on that, as far as I'm concerned.

There are two kinds of wikilawyers: the process demanders and the political advocates. We recognize, easily, those who attempt to manipulate decisions through making purely legal arguments. What is harder is dealing with wikilawyers who are skilled at appealing to the knee-jerk responses of editors, in nondeliberative environments, and the latter are actually more dangerous. --Abd (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AMA was vulnerable to being crushed due to it's own activities and organisation, something everybody who proposes amazing fixes to possible problems finds. Advocacy is all very well and good, but absolute power corrupts; where ostensibly well meaning advocates forget that being well-intentioned doesn't put themselves above process nor on a moral high ground, then they lose perspective. The second category of wikilawyering you identify is pretty easy to spot, easier than the first category which at least have some form of validity they can refer to. Minkythecat (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"Intregity"? Deor (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
AMA was, from my perspective, defectively organized, not only the matter of being vulnerable by being on-wiki. Wikipedia process works spectacularly well in certain ways ("amazing") but, actually, it's pretty understandable -- nevertheless it also sometimes fails. The second category of wikilawyer (really a political skill) might be easy to spot, for those who are looking, but seeing it does not necessarily fix it, in fact, describe it and you could get blocked. The only editor I've actually accused of this was Fredrick day, and he made it pretty easy for me to get away with it, sort of. I'll note that I was blocked as a result of looking at, and describing, the possible implications of some recent posts of his to AN. (It's part of what he does: toss shit and some of it sticks.) Did I make mistakes? I'm sure. Everybody makes mistakes, and since I try new things and express new ideas, I probably make more mistakes than more cautious editors.
However, there is this strange thing. Some voluntary process is set up. If it is not efficiently organized, it will waste some editor time. But it's voluntary. The editors decide if they want to waste their time. What was the hurry to shut down AMA? Similarly, Esperanza? These both created a kind of bureaucracy, but the bureacracy wasn't essential to what they were doing, it's merely the first way they tried to go about it. With time, those who supported the activity would have learned to do it better. No, these were User:Abd/Rule 0 violations. When there are Rule 0 violations, they must be punished, societies have been doing this for millenia. But, of course, giving Rule 0 as a reason for the punishment violates Rule 0. So there will be some other reason.
When there was a dissident candidate for the board of the IEEE, the board realized that defects in their standard voting system could cause a spoiler effect, and the candidate might win. So they implemented Approval voting. When the danger was past, they went back to their old system. Why? Well, there was what they gave as the reason and then what was probably the real reason. The official reason was that most voters were not using the ability to add extra votes. True. That's normal for Approval. However, it costs nothing to allow the extra votes, the same ballot is used, and it is easy to count the extra votes if they are cast, and they are only cast, unsually, when a voter sees them as needed. The real reason? S.O.P. The board was acting to preserve its power to control the next board elections through its preferential nominating power. It's so common that it's hard to even condemn it. Those who have excess power almost always believe that the power is merited, and they might even be right.
But the lesson of history, still being developed, is that broader distribution of power benefits a community, if mechanisms are in place that allow the best in people to come out, instead of the worst.
Injustice on Wikipedia (or the appearance of injustice) is gradually destroying the project. Many long-time editors have left, citing the poisonous atmosphere. We can sail on, believing that everything is fine, or we can start to identify the problems and seek solutions. If we destroy every attempt to correct wrongs, because the attempt is itself defective, as it will almost certainly be, we will never be able to move beyond our limitations, and I can predict what will happen, probably in no more than a few years.
So I was blocked. Big deal, eh? However, there is this strange disconnect. If I actually did what I was charged with doing, it would be very important to get me out of here, quickly, or, alternatively, to educate me. Without education, without my understanding what I did wrong, I will repeat it. And so will most editors in the same position. We desysopped Physchim62 and Tango, not because they made mistakes, but because they were unable to recognize them as mistakes, after it should have become obvious through extensive discussion. Therefore holding access to the tools was dangerous. If we had some way of moving past the obstacles that prevented them from seeing it (it wasn't really very complicated, but the political situation was complicated), we would still have the advantage of their substantial experience and hopes for the project. How could we do this efficiently? I think I have an idea, and I'm trying it out. It's not started yet, but the page is there, and if you are interested, watch it, it's User:Abd/RfC. It will not be obvious to most people why this would be any different than what we already have, but it will, if anyone participates. And I'm seeking for as many of those who criticized my work to participate. I'll moderate it, since it is designed for my benefit. If I screw it up, I'll get some bad advice, as will anyone who controls advice in a dysfunctional way. If this fails, I will have wasted my time, and a little time of those who choose to participate. If it succeeds, though, it is possible that it will have demonstrated something very important: a way to find true consensus efficiently, without having massive debates. That is, in fact, the real problem here: inefficient process. Standard WP process is highly efficient in certain ways. But when it comes to negotating consensus in certain areas, it can break down very badly and becomes extraordinarily inefficient. And, in fact, our article process, seen from the point of view of overall effort expended, is really broken in situations where there is serious controversy, so an article goes back and forth. And that is mostly wasted effort by those involved, and those who are trying to defend the encyclopedia against POV-pushing can get pretty cynical and burned out. --Abd (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the "I'm a revolutionary martyr, here to make Wiki amazing by getting my amazing system implemented, oh by the way I was unjustly blocked by the way" message has been well received by now. Minkythecat (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
hey but he does offer free banking, I guess that's why he's keen to solicit people's email addresses.... --87.113.67.19 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Fredrick day, IP blocked. – iridescent 23:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
But...but... it has passive voice, so that makes everything better! You see, "it" "has been found" that "many" difficulties were <insult> <insult> <insult>, and so the project. Any form of the to-be verb plus a past tense verb = passive construction. Watch for it. Nearly every time you see it, someone's up to no good. Geogre (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SwirlBoy39 ACC flag[edit]

Resolved: Flag returned, access restored SQLQuery me! 18:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I recently found that SwirlBoy39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) had access to the ACC flag. Now, this wouldn't normally be a problem, but he has previous been community banned as Bugman94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). He's created numerous socks, which can be found in Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bugman94. I'm all for offering users a second chance (I think I supported his unban request a few months ago), but I don't think it's a good idea to give a tool which allows the ability to create far more accounts than is possible to normal users to a user who has been known to disrupt the project with serious socking previously. A review would be appreciated. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • In principal I agree with everything Ryan says above. However, SwirlBoy39 has reformed, and has done some tremendous work at ACC. Yes, he was banned, but that is genuinely ancient history. I wouldn't support the removal of ACC status. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Users can reform, and I agree in many ways SB has - but with the history of socking he has, I don't think he can be trusted with the tool in the long term. There's plenty of other things he can do without having access to this flag. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I should note that the ACC tool is in no way backlogged. Users that haven't had previous sock issues can easily handle the requests. There's no urgent need to lower the standards to give users with a socking history to have access to this flag. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps. It just seems strange to me that all this is being dug up now, nearly a year after the sockpuppet accounts were tagged. Has there been any evidence of abuse in the time he had the flag? It just doesn't sit right with me. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that with his socks, he's been known to abuse the ability for users to create new accounts. One example is here. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, having the account creation bit is really only of use to a massively abusive sockpuppeteer. Basically, any editor can create six accounts at a time and over a number of weeks, that can accumulate to quite a lot. If he were ever to abuse this, checkuser would be able to pretty-much detect and nail the entire sockfarm. I'm not particularly worried, and besides, Swirly is now well past all that stuff and I'd hate to see him permanently 'branded' for his past transgressions - Alison 01:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yup, of course it can, but also creating a quiet account here and there would also be silent. Checkuser doesn't show everything, espeically if the user isn't vandalising in pattern. I think he can develop trust on wiki, but when someone has a history of relatively serious sockpuppeteering, they can develop trust in other areas. There's plenty of other users who do account creation. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
But "creat[ing] a quiet account here and there" has absolutely nothing to do with the ACC bit; he can do that either way. Rather, I see this as an ideal way for him to regain the trust of the community - Alison 02:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
He can regain the communities trust in many other ways. There's plenty of areas he can work in, many others indeed. We can be slightly picky with who we give the ACC flag to, given that so many people have access to the tool - many, many other users can easily deal with the accounts that SB can't deal with. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing. Have you checked to quantify how much ACC work he's done to-date? You see, he's had the ACC bit for quite a while, and there have been no issues. Bringing it up now, and for no clear reason makes it look like an exercise in humiliation. I know that's not your intent, Ryan, but it could easily be seen as that, esp. by Swirly and that would be seriously disheartening to him. Like there's never going to be any redemption - Alison 02:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Alison. Working in this area without any problems is a perfect opportunity for Swirlboy to regain trust he lost last year. Working here is no different to working in other areas. how do you turn this on 02:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Alison as well. Removing the ACC flag does nothing to prevent him from creating socks if he so desired. Just leave it be IMO. Though, he hasn't hit the throttle since late May. –xeno (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
When was he unbanned? Months ago? Last I checked, an overturned ban wasn't supposed to be like a felony conviction that followed you around for the rest of your wiki-life. If he's not doing anything wrong, why take action against him? Besides, creating abusive socks using your main account is pretty much the height of stupid when it comes to sockpuppetry.