Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive169

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Passing the buck[edit]

Hey, can someone help this guy out? I speedy-deleted his article, Venue Management Association, as blatant advertising, and he clearly doesn't understand why. Usually I try to explain things, but I'm going through a move right now, so I don't really have time to give him the helpful and thorough response I think he deserves. Probably serves me right for doing a speedying-run right before I knew I'd be busy. But anyway, if someone has some extra time, could you explain things to him? I don't mind at all if the end result is undeleting or userfying his article. Sheepish thanks. --Masamage 05:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll get this one. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting review of User:Moulton's block[edit]

Moulton (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Having just had a detailed discussion with folk on the unblock channel in IRC, it was suggested that I come here for a(nother) out in the open, full 'n frank discussion of Moulton's situation. It's been explained to me that our policies dictate that consensus is required in order to maintain the block. My reading of existing discussions (linked to from here) is that there is no consensus for a block, and my understanding is that therefore the block should be lifted. As a wise chap said though, consensus is a fickle animal - hence this discussion is likely a better course of action than a simple unblock, or the maintenance of the status quo. Lets keep this concise if poss :-) - maybe a straw poll is the easiest thing, given the volume of previous discussion? Privatemusings (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Moulton expressed any interest in being unblocked? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
there are several requests for review on the talk page, and I believe a firm desire to be permitted to participate on wiki, specifically (though not necessarily limited to) discussions about him and his behaviour. In short, I'd say yup! Privatemusings (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is not needed to retain a block. A block is retained until there is consensus to unblock, until someone who understands the situation being prepared to unblock, preferably after discussing the situation with the blocker, or unless arbcom unblocks. Until then, the block sticks. So, if you feel motivated to fix this, you're going to have to convince us of the need to unblock, and invite the blocking admin to the discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
okey dokey... the 'consensus to unblock required' bit does seem to contradict advice I received elsewhere, so it'll be good to clear that up, at least, and very good point on the need to discuss with the blocking admin - apologies... Privatemusings (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)I'm happy to discuss the merits or otherwise of the block in more detail too, in due course....
  1. Support unblock. Privatemusings (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support unblock. Moulton tried to fix some biased Wikipedia articles. His actions were correct and explicitly protected by Wikipedia policy, "In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved." Of course, a team of editors known as the ID Cabal owned those biased Wikipedia articles and had been working very hard to make sure that they were biased. Rather than welcome Moulton, as required by Wikiversity policy, the ID Cabal harassed Moulton and drove him out of Wikipedia. It has taken a year for other Wikipedians to begin to pry Rosalind Picard and other articles out of the grip of the ID Cabal. The damage done by the ID Cabal to Wikipedia's reputation among working scientist will take many years to repair. We should start that repair now, when ArbCom is ready to sanction one of the ID Cabal ring-leaders. --JWSurf (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be sadly misinformed – perhaps you've been reading Moulton's attack page at Wikiversity? You also seem to have missed the discussion above, now transferred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kelly, memes, and cabals. Labelling editors as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views is a personal attack, and you should take care to respect the consensus achieved by the diverse group of editors who edited the Picard article. Your piped links to Freedom of speech are odd in that you seem to be supporting Moulton's campaign to censor information properly verified from a reliable source. May I suggest that WP:TIAC or WP:OWB (item 17) are more appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 10:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have been "sadly misinformed" by reading the disgraceful edit history of Rosalind Picard, its talk page and other Wikipedia pages that have been owned and given biased contents by <censored, I am not allowed to use the name that has been applied to this team of editors> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests. It is interesting to watch what happens when the bad behavior of Wikipedian editors is discussed. Such discussions are labeled as "attacks". Yawn. Please find a new way to game the system. An open and scholarly analysis of editing patterns by <censored name> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests is not an attack. It is holding up a mirror. It is helping people become aware of what has happened....I'm talking about all the people who do put Wikipedia's mission first but do not have time to slog through edit histories. Using the term that you censor from Wikipedia is just a convenience, like using any other name. It is fully correct to use a label with negative connotations to discuss violations of Wikipedia policy. I suppose the thought police would like me to call <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests the "ID glee club" or something with a similar warm and fuzzy feeling. No thanks. I will not participate in thought control and censorship via new speak and double-talk. "dismissing or discrediting their views" <-- I did not mentioned the views of <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests. I stated my view of their editing and on-wiki behavior. I am prepared to describe in detail how my view arose from reading the edit history. I encourage all Wikipedians to look at the edit history of Rosalind Picard. Look at the version of the article that was created and defended relentlessly by <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests. Read the talk page and see how <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests "justified" their relentless POV-pushing. Look at the current version of the page that has been built by the hard work of Wikiedians who continue to remove the bias that was created by <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests. Then think about how Moulton was treated for trying to help Wikipedia fix that article. Then hold your head high as a proud Wikipedian. Yes, let's be proud to ban editors who try to correct biased BLPs. "you seem to be supporting Moulton's campaign to censor information properly verified from a reliable source" <-- Let's examine this claim in detail. Which source? How was that source used on Wikipedia? Describe the original research which generated the "information" you are talking about. --JWSurf (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thought control? Censorship? Please take your rantings elsewhere. This section is for discussing whether Moulton's block should be overturned, and your screed has no bearing on that. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua: thanks for showing everyone that you are so open to having a discussion. When you do not want to have people discuss your actions do you always label their discussion as a "rant"? Which Wikipedia policy advises you to take that course of action? Which policy says that you can label my comments as a "rant", but I cannot use the term <censored>? "Administrators should also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page" <-- can you provide a dif to the comment you left on Moulton's talk page when you blocked him? --JWSurf (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
You are still off-topic. Raise issues you have about my actions elsewhere, but please do not hijack this thread for that purpose. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
"still off-topic"..."do not hijack this thread" <-- Hypothesis: there was a bad block imposed on Moulton. This bad block inflamed a tender situation, leading ultimately to attempts to ban Moulton. I think it is entirely on-topic to explore this hypothesis. If there was a bad block, then that has important implications for deciding if Moulton should remained blocked. As far as I can tell, neither you or anyone else left a message on Moulton's user talk page giving the reason for the indefinite block that you imposed. Help me out here...is there an edit to Moulton's user page that I cannot see? --JWSurf (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
this one, 10 minutes after the block. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua blocked with the reason given as "Disruptive POV OR warrior with no interest in writing an encyclopedia. See Rfc." Then, 10 minutes later, MastCell made this edit which says "indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges." The text "abuse of editing privileges" linked to Wikipedia:Vandalism. So, the reason given for the block on Moulton's user talk page was "vandalism" and there was no notification given on Moulton's user page of the reason for the indefinite block that was given in the actual block-tool statement. Why did MastCell get involved? Why did MastCell post the wrong reason for the block? Why did MastCell fail to sign the post to Moulton's page that gave the false reason for a block? Why did KillerChihuahua never make sure that the reason for the block was posted to Moulton's user talk page? Moulton was left with an absurd reason for the block and nobody to contact about the block. Why did User:Yamla certify such an obviously bad block? --JWSurf (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
You're an admin??? I shouldn't be still shocked when discovering those who attack others are admins, but I am. Of course that's why I vote in RFAs; I doubt I'm alone in that regard. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I wish I was still shocked by Wikipedians who call it an "attack" when violations of BLP policy are described and discussed. No wonder it is so hard to get things fixed. "referring to other editors is not always a personal attack" --JWSurf (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
"Crusading", "cabalism" "relentless POV pushing" "damaging Wikipedia" are attacks, not simply "referring to other editors." Seriously, as an admin, you should know better. Your complaint about harrassment would go over better if if wasn't littered with such attacks. And I didn't even mention your failure of AGF. I would suggest you refactor, but I don't expect it, because such attacks without even a shred of evidence are somehow acceptable here, at least when it comes to those nonpersons in the "cabal". Your fellow admins will look away. And that is a shame. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been very careful to only use mild language to describe the nature of the editing that has taken place at Rosalind Picard and related articles. Describing a sickening part of the editing history of Wikipedia is not an attack, its an attempt to cure the sickness. "your failure of AGF" <-- describe in detail how I have failed to assume good faith. If you want to discuss the evidence then we can start with the evidence to support this claim: "Moulton's campaign to censor information properly verified from a reliable source," that was raised above by User:Dave souza. I asked for that reliable source. Let's start there as I requested above. I'm prepared to discuss in detail the edit history of Rosalind Picard and Talk:Rosalind Picard and explain why I characterize it as sickening. I tried to get you started on the page histories here. If you question the nature and reliability of my descriptions of the editing at Rosalind Picard then we should examine the history of that editing in detail. --JWSurf (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no excuse for attacking editors. Not because you think you were being "mild" because your targets deserve worse, or because it's what you consider to be true. Show me the exceptions to NPA in wikipolicy or I won't even bother with your complaints. You can't start a conversation with attacks and expect anything fruitful out of it. That's how attacks work; they mean I don't have to listen to you at all. Show me the link to NPA that allows your attitude. If you aren't, don't bother to respond, because I'm not interested.Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
"referring to other editors is not always a personal attack" <-- I've stated my view of what led to Moulton being blocked. I've described the editing history a group of editors who came into conflict with Moulton. I'm prepared to have you fully examine the validity of my characterization. "address the issues of content" <-- I've asked you to join me in looking in detail at the content dispute that led to the block of Moulton. You refuse to examine and discuss the evidence. Does this mean you believe that Moulton should remain blocked without an examination of the editing conflict that led to his block? "NPA in wikipolicy" <-- If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that I made personal attacks. I agree that in an ordinary content dispute it is wise to "comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all". However, this thread is a discussion about an attempt to ban a participant from Wikipedia. We have to examine the actions of the person who was blocked (Moulton) and the team of editors that has worked together in an effort to ban him from participation at Wikipedia. I have given my description and account of Moulton and those who have worked so hard to ban him. I stand ready to defend my description and account in terms of the Wikipedia editing history. You refuse to examine the evidence and you keep talking about attacks, so please list the editors that you think I have attacked. --JWSurf (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. No thanks. You lost me at "in IRC". No thanks. Keeper ǀ 76 01:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    don't blame you, Keeper :-) - though your post is a bit ambiguous to me - it could be taken as a 'no comment'? (as in 'no thanks' to the very idea of this discussion, without prejudice etc.) but maybe you mean more 'no way!' to the unblock idea? Privatemusings (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    I'm quite sure Keeper is against the unblock based on that comment. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    Hersfold summarized my opinion correctly. Just one man's opinion though, tainted, perhsps, by the level of drama on-wiki recently. I'm going offline. Keeper ǀ 76 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Despite being the "wise chap", I still support the block remaining. MBisanz talk 02:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    I also looked into Moulton's work at Wikiversity, to see if perhaps my initial perceptions were wrong, and I find I cannot support an unblock of someone who actively uses one Wikimedia project as a launchpad to investigate another Wikimedia project, as Moulton appears to have done at v:Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia/Case_Studies1#Case_5_.E2.80.94_IDCab_systematically_publishes_false_and_defamatory_content_in_BLPs. I do love Wikiversity in general, last week I helped move a class of 200 engineering students from FLorida to it from our userspaceMBisanz talk 12:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Do not support the unblock. Furthermore, discussions of this nature should be held in the open, not in IRC. seicer | talk | contribs 02:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  4. While I think that some of what Moulton did here has been mischaracterized by his more vehement opponents, I do not believe that he is currently capable (or indeed interested) in functioning here within the confines of current community norms. Whether this is a flaw in Moulton, in our community norms, or (most likely) some mixture of the two is a moot point. Oppose unblock. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose unblock. Moulton has started working on en.wv, and I think that is great. I usually support unblocks when someone really gets into another WMF project (with one recent spectacular failure), but I dont think Moulton has yet spent enough time on en.wv to have demonstrate he is good for the wiki community. If we look at his contribs there, the are primarily to user talk pages, and otherwise they are focused on a single learning project. He needs to diversify on en.wv, or start helping out on other projects. enwiki is not the only project. If someone only wants to work on enwiki, they are probably bad for enwiki. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute—that's a pretty striking claim. I have no interest in working on any of the other projects, but surely you're not suggesting I'm bad for this one? In fact, I'd assume most of our contributors are only interested in working on this project. Everyking (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Most users here, including renowned ones, have only significantly worked on Wikipedia, and have no desire to get involved, and invest their time, in what may be called lesser projects. Personally, I appreciate wiktionary, and meta-projects like meta-wiki and commons are useful, but I've never been convinced by wikinews, wikisource, wikiversity, etc. Cenarium Talk 18:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I have serious concerns about the handling of the incident which led to his block in the first place. I will go into detail if desired, but it seems sufficient to say that the worst that will happen if he is unblocked is that he will be unable to color within the lines and will be re-blocked. Thatcher 02:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I should perhaps be explicit that I do not oppose an unblock. The handling of the situation that led to his block was unacceptable. If he is going to earn an indefinite ban, let him earn it on his own, and not with the assistance of, let's say, unfortunate circumstances. Thatcher 02:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Is "unfortunate circumstances" the new euphemism for the "ID cabal"? 718smiley.svg --NE2 02:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Thatcher. I don't believe he's ready or suited to be back editing here, and I think he will simply get reblocked very soon if unblocked. I don't see the point of it really. how do you turn this on 02:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Must comment I've seen that meme repeated here quite often...simply get reblocked...and every time I wonder if I've accidently left Wikipedia. Are we in the same place? Because I lurk these admin boards to follow the Big Picture, and from what I've seen there is nothing simple about a block. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • He was unable to color within the lines last time. What purpose would be served in repeating the experiment? Oppose unblock until and unless there is some reason to believe that there would be benefit to the project. Let him edit his talk page if he wishes, that's fine. Let him participate in other projects such as Wikiversity, which have different participation mores and norms, that's fine. But not here. Entirely unsuited to edit here. 12.161.217.2 (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC) ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Very difficult for me to evaluate anonymous comments without knowing your history and biases. Thatcher 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
That was me. I WAS signed in earlier today... sigh. The EC I had meant i was rushing to hit save. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • IRC discussions should only be informative, not decision-making. I don't see a reason or benefit to unblock. Cenarium Talk 02:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock I don't think he will be readily amenable with our editing norms. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock for reasons stated by others above, particularly concerns about the editor's ability to edit here on EN in a constructive and non-disruptive way. Sarah 04:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • No. And anyone who disagrees should be sure to look at the attack project at Wikiversity. Why Wikimedia feels the need to allow a "sister" project to contain such a thing is beyond me. --B (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Attack project? o.O NonvocalScream (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, attack project. It is a forum for airing personal squabbles like this. Real reform doesn't happen when criticism takes the form of Moulton's hysteria and, I believe, one of the big reasons that the C68-SV-FM case is being dismissed with a yawn is that personal squabbles drowned out the legitimate complaints about abuse of the admin tools. --B (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Lets not label Wikiversity a BADSITE :-) It wont take you to long to understand why that project has been retained if you took the time to understand what Wikiversity is. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I think Wikiversity have epic failed this time but. Their equivalent of our "conflict of interest" policy should be a "professional detachment" policy. Hesperian 05:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
{{sofixit}} ? Ideas this way. ? John Vandenberg (chat) 06:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
You mean, as has already begun at v:Wikiversity:Colloquium#Disturbed? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock I do not think he is capable of consistently editing in a collaobrative manner amenable to WP, from what I have seen. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Unceremoniously no. user:Everyme 05:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose. On principle, I reject the notion that any banned user may demand a review of their status without warning or schedule, as many times as they wish, and that the community must muster afresh ad infinitum to maintain the ban. Even if the proposal is made with the best of intentions (and I am willing to assume it is), it must be obvious that this is a highly gameable proposition: a small number of coordinated trolls could hamstring necessary business--simply by rotating their requests to return--until by exhausting the patience of the community in an entirely new manner they return by attrition. No, I won't do business that way. Request speedy closure of the discussion. DurovaCharge! 06:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Durova's comment that community blocks shouldn't be endlessly reviewed. However I note that this is the one year anniversary of the original block, so as a final review this is an appropriate time. I agree with B that the Wikiversity page is worrisome, and the fact that this appears to have been one of the Moulton's major Wikimedia contributions in the past year indicates to me that there's more interest in stirring the pot than in writing the encyclopedia. I have not followed Moulton's case and don't know most of the details. However I have seen the name appear again and again here and on other administrative pages. In the interest of getting on with the work and lessening time spent on discussing problem editors, I oppose unblock and oppose further reviews until the next anniversary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • My view on this is uncertain. As detailed before (at quite some length) on this page, I do not believe the original block was handled fairly. Moulton keeps seeming to "get in trouble" despite only being allowed to edit his talk page -- I think a lot of that is because editors assume bad faith when it comes to banned users. My experience from lengthy email discussions is that everything Moulton does is in complete good faith. He is sometimes spectacularly misguided, but never, I think, malicious. That said, I do not support an unblock unconditionally. If Moulton was forcibly kept away from the subject of intelligent design, I think he could edit productively. Unblocking is very unlikely to cause harm. Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock – Lar and B present a fair and well-informed assessment, Moulton essentially wants a soapbox for ideas at odds with Wikipedia's principles. He can talk persuasively, but is a nightmare to try to edit with, and if unblocked would need a huge amount of attention in mentoring. . . dave souza, talk 09:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support unblock, enough time has passed. If he screws up the opportunity, we can just block him again. Everyking (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment seems to me that what disrupts wikipedia's work is not so much the damage problematic users do (which can be reverted in a few clicks) so much as the divisive and time-absorbing discussions their treatment generates. Durova is correct that "reviewing on demand" is not good. However, as this long discussion shows it is almost inevitable. And we will have the same debate next year, if not before. Pragmatically, it might be better to unblock any banned user after a year, providing we receive their parole (=promise of good behaviour) and with the strict policy that ANY breach is an immediate block/ban without discussion. That way, we either get the user back behaving (win) or we continue the ban with much less discussion (win). An automatic policy here, which allows both for redemption and no tolerance of future nonsense, might decrease the dispute and disruption all round. Let's face it, some of us are more lenient, some more intent on protecting the project, a policy like I outline would perhaps go some way to meeting both concerns.--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock, for now. I've always had zero tolerance for outing other editors, which is why I threw the indef on him a few months back. However, I'd be willing to reconsider--albeit with very onerous restrictions--if he can prove himself on Wikiversity or another project. Blueboy96 12:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock. Last indef was placed in June for "Personal attacks, outing other editors. Sorry, you're done here". This looks like another request originating at WR for the unblocking of one of their own, but the blocking issue is not addressed. Neither is the "POV OR warrior" issue. Any appeal belongs with the arbitration committee at this stage, as far as I'm concerned. The fact that one of the unblock supporters explicitly invokes the "ID cabal" puts the lid on it for me. I have had enough of that particular meme, and to suggest that bringing Moulton back to assist in the work of resisting NPOV-pushing is almost enough on its own to persuade me that it would be a really bad idea. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Guy, I just need to interject on two points of order here. A) You were the one who mentioned how labeling people and auto-assuming bad faith from a group of users isn't productive, over a recent discussion, and even the post above you mention it. And B) Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but there's quite a few people who post at WR (and you can count me in that group) who do not think an unblock would be a good thing right now, so close to the last time where he got given "one last chance" and went outside the lines. Rather more then those WR posters who do support it, if I don't miss my guess. I know with all the history behind it, it may be hard to avoid the knee-jerk reaction here, but I think that you're a bit mistaken here with regards to motives. SirFozzie (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with SirFozzie, Guy - so far a majority of those of us who are active on WR (Lar, SirFozzie, Viridae, LessHeard, DanT, me - MBisanz, Seicer, and B too, if you want to adopt a broad definition of "active") are opposing an unblock. Actually, the only WR users who appear to support at this point are Privatemusings and Everyking. Request that you strike or clarify that portion of your comment. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Third this request - Guy, please strike the WR assumption. Otherwise, I agree with Guy. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
My problem here is with they hypocrisy of a group of people who collude on WR and then come here accusing Wikipedians of cabalism in resisting their blatant attempts to push a fringe POV. It's not about WR per se, it's about a web community whose aims are not our aims putting DefendEachOther above the values they should adopt when they come here. Colluding there and then accusing Wikipedians of cabalism for enforcing one of our fundamental policies is rank hypocrisy. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Except that here, people are pointing out there's not a group of people on WR colluding for this (this time). Just liking many were jumping on Kelly that there's not an IDCabal colluding on the Sarah Palin pages (this time). Whether groups at WR are colluding to push POVs on wiki is debatable on a situational basis, just like whether current or former members of the ID wikiproject do similar. And you're right that it's a bad mindset to be in to automatically go looking for this sort of conspiracy, not just for individuals but the project as a whole. But several folks are trying to point out to you, that you're doing the same thing right here, right now. And to someone like me, who's not involved with WR, ID, Sarah Palin, or any "cabals", it looks a bit hypocritical. And it pains me, because I feel you're on the right side here (I agree with the general assessment of Moulton's unsuitability to return at this time), just with all the wrong arguments. --InkSplotch (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I personally don't think Moulton has the temperament to deal with enwp. Yes his original block was undoubtedly handled badly, and he has/had every right to feel wronged there, but his pursuit of justice has, I feel, gone far beyond a reasonable reaction from someone wronged on a website that is fairly minor in the scheme of things. It strikes me that Moulton's quest for that which is "right and just" is an admirable quality in the real world, but an unhelpful one when taken to extremes when there is the pursuit of a single common goal (ie writing a half decent reference work). In other words wikipedia should strive to treat everyone fairly, but wikipedia is not for everyone and some people get left by the wayside, forcibly or not. If however he demonstrates a willingness to adapt to the wiki culture in his work on other wiki's I would then consider supporting an unban, taking into acount enwp's more heated nature. ViridaeTalk 12:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • It saddens me to see someone say that Wikipedia is not for everyone. Moulton is an unusual guy, but I've seen little to indicate that he is temperamentally incapable of contributing productively, as some people are suggesting. I've seen him talking a lot on WR, but I wouldn't try to predict how he would behave in this editing environment based on that. In any case, I feel that, unless a person has behaved in a totally abhorrent manner, they should necessarily be given another chance after some reasonable amount of time has passed. Furthermore, after a year of concentrating so heavily on WP during his ban, Moulton has surely learned a thing or two about how Wikipedia operates and how he might be able to avoid what happened to him last time. We ought to at least give him the opportunity to demonstrate that. Everyking (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
      • That opportunity has been given. " Moulton has surely learned a thing or two about how Wikipedia operates and how he might be able to avoid what happened to him last time." I see no evidence of that. I've had more discussions with him than some, and I just don't see any fundamental change in behaviour or approach, any acknowledgement that sometimes consensus is right or at least operative, and he is wrong, or at least out-consensed. I'm sorry to say this, but it is indeed true that Wikipedia is not for everyone. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support unblock As I am aware, Moulton has been "suspended" at Wikipedia Review in respect of his difficulties in operating within the parameters of a website and, although I acknowledge and admire his intellect, I feel he does need to consistently demonstrate the ability to work within the guidelines before being given another chance... However, since Guy has determined this is a case of WR participants supporting their own I guess I have to default support. Twit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • No you don't. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Echo the above... I can't go against my WR cabal buddies... that just wouldn't be right! No, seriously, JzG is being highly hypocritical to condemn the "memes" that label people as part of a sinister clique, when he does the same himself, sometimes in the same breath. As for unblocking Moulton, I think the original block/ban was unjust, but also agree with some of the comments to the effect that he's probably temperamentally unsuited for Wikipedia participation... I tried to give him some friendly advice while on a Not The Wikipedia Weekly show with him, to the effect that rather than him simply making demands that everybody else on Wikipedia change to suit him, he needs to do a little "give-and-take" himself and admit his own approach hasn't always been productive, and that he needs to make some attempt to follow policies and fit in the culture even if he disagrees with some of it. He wasn't interested in any of this, unfortunately. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, JzG is right about memes in general. No he's not right in applying the WR meme here. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock, oppose further reviews for a year, recommend closing this thread before it becomes yet another clash of factions. Tom Harrison Talk 13:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • oppose unblock. Really, the fact that Lar, Dtobias, Guy and B, and Less Heard all agree that someone should stay blocked should make things clear. Lar and B in particular give very good rationales for keeping him blocked and I couldn't say it better myself. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock, oppose further reviews for a year per Tom H. Strongly suggest that those who are (rather childishly, IMO) repeating the "support my WR Cabal buddies" might wish to review their position as a bit POINT-y. If you have a view on unblocking Moulton, well and good, we welcome your input - but if you wish to start a playground fight I suggest you go elsewhere and not waste others' time here. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support unblock if he promises to behave and is adopted. Bstone (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    I predict mentoring won't work. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe that Moulton cannot handle himself appropriate with certain people. He is more easily baited than I am, which says a lot. This does not say that he is a bad person. It just says that a situation with him can easily become very bad very fast. Old dogs do not learn new tricks, and some people are set in their ways. If there was a way that he could provide information and be isolated from the politics, or kept from being able to deal with them and instead let leveler heads deal with them, then maybe. I don't know. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Opppose unblock for at least 3 months. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose unblock - His time on Wikiversity appears to have been spent writing a pseudo-scholarly attack on everyone he disliked here [1] - And this is the evidence provided for his reform? If he wants back on Wikipedia, he shouldn't be endlessly trying to rerun the disputes that got him banned on another Wikimedia project, and particularly shouldn't then use his activity on that project to justify being unbanned here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock. You have got to be kidding me. Does his situation need a review every two or three months? Every month? This is getting ridiculous. What has changed? Here is a short list of over 50 Wikipedians who have looked at the "Moulton unblock situation" in the last year in some detail and at least at some juncture, decided that unblocking Moulton was a bad idea (some of course might have subsequently changed their minds, but I would be highly doubtful that a substantial fraction of those on my list have changed their minds). My own position on the Moulton situation is described here for anyone interested. If you want to have a more in-depth discussion, please feel free to come visit the NTWW crew at Skype, or otherwise contact me through Skype and I will be glad to discuss my position on Moulton at length with any interested party. I am unique in having much more of the relevant background necessary for evaluating this situation than almost anyone else here, and having dealt with Moulton in greater depth and for longer than most others commenting here.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • oppose unblock Slrubenstein | Talk 01:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock --David Shankbone 01:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support unblock - the original block was bad, carried out by a disruptive group of editors. Kelly hi! 03:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    Please clarify. I am now "a disruptive group of editors" according to you? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support unblock I don't believe Moulton has done anything worthy of an indef block. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock. Really, I think this has come up quite enough. At this point, it should go to Arbitration if the interested parties wish to continue this. There's nothing to indicate that he won't continue his disruptive practice of outing editors and personal attacks; until there is something of that nature, then there's no reason to keep doing this ad infinitum. Some people just can't work in a heterogenous environment with people who hold views contrary to their own, and I think his edit history demonstrates that he is one of those people; blocks are preventive, and this particular block prevents a number of problems. I don't think undoing it is going to be a net benefit to the project. Celarnor Talk to me 06:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock. There's a lot of merit in the argument that a low-effort, low-drama block/unblock/reblock cycle would be a good approach to long-term problematic editors, but in this case I don't think it fits. Moulton positively leapt at the chance to play the martyr during his RfC, and there is no sign of a break in the roleplaying, if his "all about ethics" Wikiversity collaboration with JWSchmidt/JWSurf is anything to go by. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Afraid not. From what I've seen of Moulton I'm actually surprised WR allows him to contribute. — CharlotteWebb 18:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Motion to close[edit]

What I see here is no consensus to unblock. I'll also note the marked absence of the thread started once the thread kicked off. Request permission to close this thread? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

if you meant 'thread starter' above, nonvoc, then /me waves :-) - this process has helped clarify a few things for me, and I think you've been rather conservative in describing 'no consensus to unblock' ! I would think that regular archive processes will deal with this thread in the usual way, and I think that's for the best. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Leave it open, discussion is ongoing. Kelly hi! 03:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Leave it open. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose closure of section as I'm yet to oppose unblock. Voting is fun. Giggy (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There are approximately 30 oppositions, 2 supports, and 0 on topic conversation. Issue is essentially resolved.--Tznkai (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is - but valuable insights might yet be had. Leave it to die on its own, don't force it (I'm looking at you NVS) ViridaeTalk 11:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok... that is why I asked permission to add the tags. I won't force a closure. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I count at least five editors who support an unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So? Not a vote, remember? There is clearly a lack of consensus to unblock.--Tznkai (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh I agree, you'd said there were but 2 supports, is all. I lean towards keeping the block for now btw. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support motion to close - I mean, it was only in July that he was inspiring this kind of anger by a long, long-time contributor to Wikinews. I do not see how mentoring is going to fix the fundamental flaws Moulton has shown in communicating to work well in the creation of WP:ENC. --David Shankbone 04:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh wow, fresh life has been given to this thread. Since it is still open, it is worth pointing out that Moulton has been recently been issued a short block over on English Wikiversity. Now the ethics project there will have some local ethics to discuss rather than trying to fathom the complexity of English Wikipedia. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • And why am I not surprised? Is there any website on the internet where Moulton has not bee in trouble in the last 20 years, except his own? Not entirely unexpected, since this seems to happen over and over and over. Oh well.--Filll (talk | wpc) 06:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Extension of mentoring of Privatemusings[edit]

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Mentoring_notices. DurovaCharge! 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Is that necessary? This seems like a good faith attempt by Privatemusings to bring up an issue for discussion. The consensus was clear when it was brought up. But I at least wasn't aware of how strong this consensus would be until this discussion occurred. It isn't clear to me what PM did in this case that is problematic. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom: Solely for the matter of editing biographies of living persons, Privatemusings ... is placed under the mentorship of User:Lar, User:Jayvdb, and User:Durova.

How is this related to the editing of BLP? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I echo ed on this one. ViridaeTalk 22:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Uh, what? That seems very odd. The remedy states "Solely for the matter of editing biographies of living persons...", so I'm more than a little confused on how the above discussion is even remotely related, or how it could result in an extension of the mentorship. - auburnpilot talk 23:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Bad call I think. You can't extend the mentorship for this and cite the remedy - does not apply. This type of action also has a chilling effect. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
[Request for clarification - amendment Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Without commenting on the extension of the mentorship, perhaps one of the three mentors might be good enough to leave a message on Privatemusings's talk page, at minimum notifying him of the decision, and preferably explaining it as well. And perhaps the person opening the request for clarification might want to notify the individuals named in the request. Risker (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I did the notifications. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I forgot one. Fixed now, however, you could have fixed as well :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a post that consists only of fyi plus a link does not deserve a subheading of its own. It tends to generate the appearance of controversy by assigning it a subheading after the fact when the original poster did not, and it borders on disruption to reassign the subheading a second time after the original poster removes it. Our goal in mentoring is to reduce drama rather than increase it; our action was agreed by unanimous consent of all parties, including Privatemusings. It was a reasonable interpretation of our terms of mentorship and--much more to the point--a reasonable step toward the ultimate goal of equipping an editor who already has considerable intelligence and goodwill with specific skills to volunteer productively without undue consumption of administrative time. As a result of the confusion at this thread we now have a formal RFAR motion (which I hope will soon be withdrawn), and it is taking some of my time away from an expansion DYK I hoped to complete tonight. Let's all return to article building rather than making sprang out of molehills. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 02:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to harp on it, but if you had said that: "FYI, by consent of all parties, including Privatemusings, etc etc..." there would have been no questions, no drama, no need for a subsection heading, etc. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you in this case, Durova. You changed the subject of the subsection, from moving to close the discussion about the Moulton unblock to reporting an extension of the mentorship of Privatemusings. As such, the break is useful to the readers. Your wish to keep the drama down is irrelevant in this case; if you wanted to do that, you could simply have posted to the log of blocks and bans on the relevant Arbitration Committee case and not said a word here; it happens all the time for similar Arbcom remedies. I am shocked, however, that this extension appears to have been discussed completely off-wiki, including the notification of Privatemusings.[2] This is not okay; such notification should always be on-wiki, to the user's talk page. Risker (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Ed and Risker, Wikipedia's assume good faith policy may reasonably be applied to cover a situation where all mentors have signed an extension of mentorship. There is nothing shocking about omission of a minor formality, nor is there a policy or guideline anywhere that requires all mentorship to occur onsite (indeed, where drama reduction is the goal, discretion is often the better part of mentorship). Unless one is inclined to construe mischief this is a nonissue. Now I'll be returning to mainspace where I'm citing archaeological textile finds. Wikipedia has plenty of matters that require intervention. This isn't one of them. DurovaCharge! 04:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
There was no failure to assume good faith here, Durova. It was the second time in 24 hours that I encountered discussions of editor sanctions that were being carried out off-wiki, the other not involving anyone in this thread, neither of which needed to be carried out away from the eyes of the community. It would have been reasonable to expect that you would be well aware of the drama potential for posting a non sequitur announcement that an additional sanction had been placed on the editor who started this thread. Let us not forget the potential chilling effect on other editors who might have otherwise been motivated to bring forth a potentially unpopular idea for discussion within the community. I do not construe mischief, simply a lack of foresight into the consequences of your actions. This is an extension of an Arbcom sanction. The place for this to have been documented was the Arbcom case log, and the user's page. It was not this thread. Risker (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
And let us not forget the potential chilling effect of this response to a simple unanimous agreement. Mentors are not responsible for anticipating and deflecting potential objections to one link by people who had shown no prior interest in the mentorship and who do not provide fair opportunity for clarification before reacting. Risker, I doubt it is your intention to discourage people from volunteering to be mentors, so please consider the unintended consequences of this aggressive stance. I am returning to article space (this is the third time posting to that effect here) and I will not be returning to this thread again this evening. The encyclopedia would be better off if we all did the same. DurovaCharge! 08:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I simply did not understand how the notice you placed jibed with the information that was publicly available at the ArbCom page your note directed people to. It looked, on its face, as if something was wrong, which is why I asked the question I did, and didn't make any kind of accusation. You placed the notice, and provided the link, and your accidental oversight in not mentioning that the extension was justified under another (private) agreement, or that the subject of it had concurred, pretty much set the ball rolling on this. But, since it seems to be resolved, I heartily agree that we can all get back to more constructive pursuits. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
In that case I apologize for any overreaction. It was quite a surprise to post a simple link, then return a few hours later to discover that a whole subthread and a formal arbitration motion had resulted. DurovaCharge! 05:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I for one think this deserves a full thread of its own, because it raises several important questions: Who decided this? How valid is that decision? What exactly does "broadly construed" entail if the above leads to a reset of the mentoring timeline? How can it be challenged? Where is my pitchfork? user:Everyme 06:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
G'day all...I'll post something over here soon.. I'm just catching up with stuff... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Suddenly standing up for what you think is right is something to be sanctioned for, simply because it dare require us to question the logic behind this block?

Oh noes, we don't want to think about this, it hurts our brains! It might cause large amounts of discussion! Then people will call it drama! Wait, don't worry gies, this Privatemusings fellow got in trouble for something else under the broad definition of "drama", maybe we can use that to shut people up about this?

>:|

-- Ned Scott 03:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Can somebody merge Terrorcore and Gabber? They're really the same. Fclass (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No reason why you can't, merge into one and make the other redirect to it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Just make sure to stay GFDL-compliant if you do so, but linking to the merged article in your edit summary. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AWOL (rap group)[edit]

Resolved

The AfD on the above article closed as delete approximately 6 hours ago but, the article has not yet been deleted. Could an admin please do the honours. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Article is now absent (with leave). Guy (Help!) 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • heh. Absent with leave. Heh. Get it? Keeper ǀ 76 14:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I know it hung on delete and I noted that to the script's creator but then forgot to manually delete before going to bed. Whoops! TravellingCari 18:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BRIT shortcut nonsense[edit]

RfD is being used for the third time in two months to decide whether the redirect Wikipedia:BRIT should appear as a shortcut on Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force. RfD isn't the best place for such a discussion. The issue has received heated debate in other locations. To end this nonsense, would some kind, uninvolved, experienced admin close the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force#WP:BRIT with a consensus determination and the templates Template:Discussion top and Template:Discussion bottom. Thanks. -- Suntag 20:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How many different noticeboards are you planning on submitting your "report", Suntag? I've read this in at least 2 places now. I recommend you stick to one noticeboard to get a comprehensive, unfragmented, result. Keeper ǀ 76 21:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandalism[edit]

It's flatly nauseating, and it's beyond time to correct this.

Especially since we encourage youths to edit here.

There are kids as young as ten that have watchlists and we are subjecting those kids to this every day.

I propose that page moves are fully protected, or there needs to be a level in between four-day old wikipedian and admin and make that a protection level point. This has gone on far enough. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone agrees with you about the problem, it's the solution that gets complicated. See Wikipedia:Abuse filter (and its talk page) for possible progress. Chick Bowen 22:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Script deletion[edit]

Someone has just deleted a widely user script. They have even "ranted" on the talk page as if proud of their actions. User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js & User talk:Outriggr/metadatatest.js. Is anyone here able to reinstate is. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to out-and-out restore it for you at this point without discussing with the original deleting administrator, but have you considered listing it at WP:DRV? Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC).
I suggest we keep it deleted for the reasons outlined on the talk page. Giggy (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, that too. It was a valid deletion as far as I'm concerned, albeit one that seemingly came without warning and which will affect a large group of editors. Community review and input wouldn't be a bad thing, but at the same time, it was Outriggr's script and I morally support his right to do with it as he pleases. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC).
Far fewer teeth will be gnashed. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The deleting administrator deleted the script on request from the person whose userspace it resided in, and it was the person who created the tool that posted the "rant" on the talkpage. The deleting admin was just following a G7/U1 CSD request. ~ Ameliorate! U T C @ 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I like the script and willing to grab it back if the community thinks it's useful and it should be retained (to someone else's userspace so that a user doesn't need to have something in his userspace that he doesn't like). The part that puzzled me is me stating the "Article assessments SUCKS" part. Since all classes, including FA and GA are indeed article assessments, does that mean he's opposing to these classes too? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The text of the script is covered by the GFDL so any other user could expect a request for an undeleted copy in his/her own userspace to be granted, without need to consult the deleting admin. As for the rant, article assessment has always been a dubious business - at the wikiproject level it tends to be insultingly cursory - a problem that, seemingly to the chagrin of Outriggr, is exacerbated by his script. CIreland (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
If the admin refuses to undelete, you can still ask him to send you a copy by email so you can use the script on a different wiki. Notice that GFDL does not force distributors to keep distributing the content after they stop finding it useful, if just forces to distribute it for free and with attribution. Removing GFDL content from your website is totally OK by the license. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The way to decide on how to assess articles is in a general group discussion, not by the unilateral actions of one editor. I am unclear whether if it were placed in user space it would still function, without everyone who wished to use it changing the name. So the question really is undeleting it. I consider the use of the script by multiple parties the same as if it had been edited multiple times, and disqualifies it for a G7 userrequest. I'd have no hesitation in turning down user requests for deletion of something that appears to be useful to at least some people in the community. Nobody owns a contribution to wikipedia, and the GFDL is irrevocable. I note that I do not work in any of the article review processes, so I have no particular feeling on the underlying issue. DGG (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Good call by Ouriggr, talk page rationale is absolutely sound. These boxes are, as it says, very often added in drive-by manner on creation and never updated afterwards, bear no relation to the objective quality of the article, and are in sundry other ways actively counterproductive. Like Esperanza or AMA, an idea that was good in theory but turned out to be hopelessly flawed in execution. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Nice rant. :-) I tend to agree with it. Drive-by assessments are OK for quick-and-dirty overviews of what needs doing in a large field, but they are useless for determining the actual quality of an article. Just a word of caution: considered assessments, with comments added on the talk page, and work done to improve the article, is helpful. I'm wondering if the way to go is to let all the wikiproject assessments be "unofficial" (ie. meaningful only to the wikiprojects trying to organise their articles) and for the real assessment (call it the "Wikipedia assessment" or the "WP 1.0 assessment") to be one that needs a discussion, and that should only be added after a discussion. ie. the wikiproject assessments are just placemarkers, and the "official" assessment should link to a subpage where the assessment was discussed and consensus reached (as you see in the GA and FA and some wikiproject A-class processes)? Any changes to that official assessment would have to be discussed on that subpage (or on the talk page and a link added from the subpage). Carcharoth (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The last thing we need is more bureaucracy - if I improve a stub, there's no reason I should need to start a discussion and get consensus (more likely is that I'll wait and no one will reply) just to change the "official" assessment. The ratings may have their problems, but I have used them in the past to find and improve high-importance articles needing improvement. --NE2 09:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
      • There should, though, be a way to distinguish between assessments that are the opinion of a single editor (the vast majority) and those where there is agreement. Underlying a lot of this is the assumption that silence is agreement. People might assess the article and agree with the rating, but if they don't leave some record of this, no-one else knows they have done this. You only see what happens when people disagree. You also don't know whether the assessment is unchallenged merely because no-one else has bothered to read the article or look at the assessment. That is why assessments should be signed by everyone who agrees with it, not depersonalised and made into a passive voice conclusion. The passive voice bit I got from Geogre's views on this. I may have misrepresented what he said, so hopefully he will weigh in here (I've left a note on his talk page). Carcharoth (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think it would be a good use of my time to go around signing a subpage if I agree with the assessment. Maybe I'm just spoiled by the fact that USRD does a decent job of assessing. --NE2 09:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Starting a discussion for each article? Please... we don't want 5,911,492 pages of discussion. One, as NE2 pointed out, time wasted on discussing the class of the article could be instead used on improving. Two, a lot of stub and start class articles aren't watchlisted by a large group of members so rarely someone noticed that something is up for discussion. What if no one responded the discussion for 1 month? Leave it unassessed (and hurt WP 1.0)? Or assess it (and risk being called POV-pushing and ignoring consensus)? Three, sometimes different projects may rate the identical article with different class because one may think it's comprehensive enough but other thinks it's still short on something. Under the current system, it's not necessary to have debates on this but if it's mandatory to have a discussion, it may add fuel to the fire. Discussion is good, giving POV-pushy people another opportunity and venue to argue over minor things is bad. Anyways, in a couple of days I will copy the deleted contents to my userspace, then let those users of the script know of the current situation and they can choose if they wish to continue using the script. While we're on this issue, we can ask someone to try merge Outriggr's script with Pyrospirit's script so that all article quality ratings are displayed AND people can continued to tag projects. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
            • "Starting a discussion for each article?" - that is called a talk page, yes? Theoretically, each article can have a talk page. There should be no problem with that. "time wasted on discussing the class of the article could be instead used on improving" - is it better to have an inaccurate, undiscussed rating, or an accurate, discussed rating? The answer is to carefully consider each case and get the balance right between discussion, assessment and article work, in each case. Some people clearly feel that too much work is being done on assessments that have little value without discussion and work to improve the article. How do you suggest that problem is tackled? Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
              • I do agree with you that one-size-fit-all assessment approach is not good. So I suggest that each project should develop its own guideline on what constitutes a B, C, etc. (like MILHIST's assessment is somewhat different from 1.0's criteria) to target articles within their scope. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "The ratings may have their problems?" The ratings may not have a purpose. Axiomatically, no one has yet offered a rationale for why any of them should exist (like the passive?), much less that they should exist in this way, and far, far, far, far from that they should be performed (see the passive?) in such a reckless and insulting manner. "This script has been rated as deletion-worthy." How's that? Until assessment is not only performed by human beings, but signed by the humans who do the assessing and offer up an action rationale, then they are -- get this -- not edits. They are mechanical functions, when done by script, and they are vandalism, when done by a person who does not sign and does not rationalize and does not read. We have some bot around here that comes along to sign posts that people make without attribution, and yet it doesn't extend to these top-of-page banners? I support the deletion of the script, and I would even support deleting all assessments that are not performed by a person who not only can but actually does stand behind the judgment. Geogre (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • It does have a purpose, see WP:1.0. It has been the goal of Wikipedia since 2004. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree that assessments are useful, but I also agree that people should openly sign their assessments. An assessment with no visible indication who has made the assessment is suspect. Before I accept any assessment, I want to know who has made the assessment. At the moment, people have to dig through the talk page history to find out. If all assessments were signed by those who agreed with it, then that would be fine. At the moment, there is no indication of the amount of care and effort that has gone into an assessment, and that is a problem. Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Charming how people are complaining about my deletion of User:Outriggr's userpage at his request, and yet nobody has notified either of us of this discussion. This was a straightforward user request deletion, and there's no expectation that the user "explain" himself when making such a request; I certainly didn't try to decipher the code before deleting. I am not inclined to undelete outside of the request of the user. Since I am not able to decipher the code (and thus cannot be certain of its appropriateness for use onwiki), I don't feel I can provide a copy to anyone else without (at minimum) the agreement of the author. Having said all that, and having now read the talk page and this thread, I agree with Outriggr's decision to have the code deleted; it's pretty clear he feels its use is not helpful for the encyclopedia, and I tend to share his concerns about drive-by article assessments. Risker (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • To be fair, as a user-deletion request, the deleting admin is really only enabling the user's request. The admin judgement as regards deletion and undeletion is minimal. It is fairly normal in such cases to not blame the deleting admin or to notify them. The issue people have, presumably, is with Outriggr requesting deletion of the script. Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, Carcharoth, although the thread does start off somewhat accusatorially, including a comment about ranting on the talk page; I am correcting this misperception, as I certainly didn't do any ranting and never posted on the talk page. As the usual practice is to ask the deleting admin to reinstate or to provide a copy of a deleted page, I am making it clear in advance how I will deal with any such requests. Risker (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless of User:Outriggr's feelings, the code was released under the GFDL and anybody could rightfully obtain it legally if he or she so desires. --seav (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The script was being used for purposes (mass tagging and bagging) that Ourigger was uncomforable with, to the extent that he left the project. I think fuck the GFDL, pay respect to our users, and let it die. Ceoil sláinte 19:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hear hear! Seraphim♥Whipp 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Which users? Outriggr or the many other users who feel that assessment does help Wikipedia become better? I respect Outriggr's decision and I see his point of view and that I would not join any move to have the script undeleted but if other people manage to get a hold of the script or build another one from scratch, then it is within their right to do so. Outriggr's view's about assessment may have quite a lot of merit since he has seen both sides of the issue, but I don't think he has the right to dictate that others also agree. Wikipedia is based on consensus and right now, the consensus is that assessment helps Wikipedia (though indirectly). --seav (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Which users? The users that write articles rather than thoes who run around placing value judjements on articles whiched they have not read or barely even glanced at, ably using an automated script (the workings of which they likely know little) hosted on one of Outriggr's subpages, and which script bears his name. Ceoil sláinte 00:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a reply on Geogre's talk page [3], and since I'd say essentially the same thing here, this is my statement. The action I took was quite rash by the nature of the problem. Anyone accusing me of abandonment or inappopriate behavior might stop to consider how much I want to delete my own work, something that I developed over months and answered many users' questions about, because I thought it might help Wikipedia. It didn't. You might wish to consider how, having worked both sides of this "assessment" business, I am in a particularly informed position to pass judgment on its merit -- this is far from a drive-by rant or a spur-of-the-moment sentiment. –Outriggr § 22:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I found it a really useful script and am sad to see it go, but it is Outriggrs decision stop promoting it in his user space. It would, however, have been helpful to have some warning/discussion as to if the script should be moved to another location. --Nate1481 08:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Geogre regarding the overall dubiousness of this rating system. Hell, I thought the ratings were pretty silly even before I learned that most of them were determined mechanically. I'm also worried about the nomination process. Apparently articles can "fail on importance only, if the article is of acceptable quality, but on a topic outside the scope of the latest release" which sounds like thinly disguised "notability"-wonking bullshit. Rating articles according to quality might not be an entirely bad idea, but I don't see how the current system of assigning half a dozen grade-letters to 2.5 million articles can produce usable data. Maybe an aggregate numerical score based on multiple independent human reviews would be meaningful, I really don't know, but in any case it would be better handled by a software extension rather than by adapting the talk-page banner cruft which most of the community has trained itself to ignore. — CharlotteWebb 19:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't and won't speak to how the rating/assessment process works throughout WP, but I will say that it works fairly well in the little corner of WP that mostly interests me - the Virginia WikiProject. Rating and assessment is not a perfect system, but it's a decent way of getting a handle on what articles are out there and what needs work. I have seen the assessment process many times lead directly to article improvement and useful discussion, and I have yet to see anyone claiming to have been insulted (though I can see how this might happen). This script helped with the tedious part of the process, so I'm sorry to see it go - though I respect Outriggr's position.--Kubigula (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd user behaviour[edit]

I'm bringing this over from AIV because it kind of baffles me, and I'm not entirely sure how to deal with it. We have an editor, JaneGrey (talk · contribs), who has been here since November of last year; their first appearance was a request for page unprotection. Since then, the editor has seemed to do reasonable work around various spots, made some engaging arguments at AFD, stuff like that. But, they've also made edits such as this NSFW one (marked as minor) to Hillary Rodham Clinton, this and this to John McCain, and uses some rather rude edit summaries as well. In the process, the editor is regularly blanking hsi'her talk page (which is fine, I know), and telling people off for their warnings. The note on his/her talk page currently says "Nothing here will be read." I'll drop a note there about this report, anyhow, for whatever good it'll do. This all strikes me as odd (feels like a returning user, perhaps, I'm not sure), but I'm stuck as to how to best deal with it, especially the vandalism. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest starting with 24 hr blocks when the user is vandalizing. Put the warnings on the talke page also, if only for the history factor. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Simply based on the diff that replaces the article of "John McCain" with "what an asshole" is worthy of at least a 24 hour block. If he/she is not receptive on his/her talkapge, that's his/her problem, not ours. Keeper ǀ 76 22:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
As an editor of the articles this user attacks, which are among the most high-profile articles in all of Wikipedia, I'd request a block now, and not waiting for the next incident. If I had to guess, this is a sock account that's part of some botched good hand/bad hand scheme, and that nothing good will ever come from letting this account continue. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Blocks are not punitive, which would be the case with a block issued 3 days adter the last case of overt vandalism. That being said, the editor has been made aware of this thread, and it should be clear to them that further vandalism will result in blocking. caknuck ° is geared up for football season 00:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"I suck at searching so let us delete this."[edit]

Resolved: See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 16. Chick Bowen 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While the title is a bit provacative, so is the rampant deletionism based on spending two minutes looking for notability and not finding it. I am so dis-heartened that while I found an article that can be rescued, I lack the enthusiasm to create it. Perhaps someone who has been here not so long and retains their enthusiasms will do something. I'm struggling to help, but posting the below to try to stem the tide is the best I can do.

Here can be found a link to deleted Wikipedia articles that were "deleted after more than 1000 days on Wikipedia". At that link I found this deleted article which still exists at here at the spanish Wikipedia. This search yeilded this and this and other confirmations it is real and notable. I'm sure I could find more. But why try? Some people are only here to get off on making others jump thru hoops and I am tired of it. I apologize for not saying all this in a nicer way. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the article itself, but the AfD is interesting, with a consensus somehow coming to delete from the nominator's statement and one delete !vote (and one comment that essentially advocates a move). Seems like quite a questionable closure, to me. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC).
Not sure what you are after. Deletion Review is over there somewhere. People make mistakes it doesn't mean they are lazy, power hungry, or anything else. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, amazing how it's so simple finding sources to demonstrate notability in less than two minutes yet the original editor couldn't be bothered spending them. — Coren (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The AfD is not that unusual, and on the basis of the arguments (which, like WAS has done, you can spin to look bad) made there, unsourced, unsourcable, WP:V applies and off it goes, I too may have deleted it. WAS, you're entitled to go to DRV or to recreate it with sources as you see fit. Probably better to do that than throwing around alarming accusations of motive. ➨ ЯEDVERS has nothing to declare except his jeans 12:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Or put another way, why should we care? Guy (Help!) 12:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
WAS.250, I did propose a while ago that editors who spend all their time kicking over other people's sandcastles at the beach could be construed as tendentious, but was opposed. Most of the contributors are...erm..out there contributing, so this was a pretty predictable response. I do concede I am frustrated by lack of source-hunting on both sides, anyway send it to DRV, or userfy and if impressive show the original deleter to save time.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should care because we've become awfully prodigal with other people's time and effort. The example at the top of this thread looks like an article on a notable subject, and editors certainly put a significant amount of work into it, but it was deleted on the say-so of two editors, neither of whom apparently made any effort to fix it or did any real research into the subject. It's a small thing in and of itself, but it's emblematic of a worrying trend. Way back in the olden days, there seemed to be a lot less "Ready-Fire-Aim!" around here... I think that this wastefulness and duplication of effort is part of the reason that so many productive editors become burned out. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Goody, more of the nonsense that is "Deletionists versus Inclusionists." Every day a new thread pops up that further weakens their defenses. You know why? Because we have mechanisms set in place in case an article may be erroneously deleted. It's called Deletion Review. Furthermore, after reviewing the article, I would have wiped it myself after finding that the article was not backed with any reliable sources and fails ORG. seicer | talk | contribs 13:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
...Wow. Deletionpedia is awesome. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hm, every deleted article here ends there? What about personal attacks or copyvios? Or privacy breaches and so on? --Tone 14:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Like this? (hell, knock yourself out.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, remember that the burden of evidence lies with those wishing to keep things, not those wishing to delete it--Jac16888 (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

that's challenged article content, and, even so mass challenges to material that could be easily sourced is usually considered unconstructive. . The default for lack of consensus to delete an article is that the article is kept.--consensus to delete has to be shown, not just lack of consensus to keep.. This isn't the place to formally propose it, but I think every nomination for deletion at afd, prod or speedy based on lack of sources for notability should be accompanied by a link to a preliminary search that is reasonable for the topic, or at least a statement that such a search was done. I would even suggest that before voting one might wish to carries out a search if it hasnt been already done; I generally do. I do not think the instance mentioned was a single isolated case. Yes, people should write good articles in the first place. But if they don't, and there's any chance that an acceptable article is possible, people should try to improve them. Deleting articles that could be improved is helping the encyclopedia in a very minimal way. DGG (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, well said. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 14:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As an SGpedian, I find that deletionism significantly contributes to the problem of systemic bias. Singapore-related articles are often AFDed (or speedied) by narrow-minded deletionists (usually Americans), even when notability is easily established. This creates a hostile environment on Wikipedia and discourages SGpedians from writing articles. Instead of destroying the work of others, deletionists should spend their time writing GAs. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's not the most blatant mischaracterization that is a borderline personal slander against administrators who do the grunt work of deleting articles. seicer | talk | contribs 14:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
My post is not about all "administrators who do the grunt work of deleting articles", only those who AFD (or speedy) Singapore-related articles without checking for notability. Of course, administrators who do lots of deletion-related work should occasionally write GAs instead (to avoid becoming like the group of deletionists my post refers to). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I doubt very much that a generalization such as that can be a "personal" slander. I also sympathize with the poster, but sincerely doubt that there is a systemic bias against Singapore-related articles. Most probably, as a "SGpedian" you simply see more of those articles deleted, so the bias is in the sample. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 14:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
There is definitely a bias against nonAmerican (and less so, nonBritish) subjects at AfD - Singapore probably doesn't get it the worst or the least worst. But to deny such a bias exists is completely at odds with reality. WilyD 14:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Listed at DRV. WAS, I'm disappointed in you, really. If an article has been deleted wrongly, we take the steps to undelete it. There's no reason at all to make a giant kerfluffle out of it. Chick Bowen 15:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Can we just close this as a rant? If this user wants to talk about how I'm basically vandalising wikipedia at AfD, I'd rather that just occur on his userspace. Protonk (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have sometimes done random article patrol. If I see an article with no references, I may tag it as unreferenced. I do not feel that I am required to spend hours finding and adding references (assuming there are any) to an article about a subject I have no interest in. It should be up to the creator and regular editors of an article to comply with the need for an encyclopedia article to be verifiable and referenced to reliable sources. Before anyone nominates an article for deletion, he should do a basic searhc to see if reliable sources are likely to exist. This could include a Google search, a Google News search, a Google Books search, or a Google Scholar search, depending on what type of subject it is. Article creators are not entitled to just write a bunch of text and expect someone else to find sources for the supposed information they have added to an encyclopedia, then complain if someone tags the article as unreferenced or nominates it for one of the forms of deletion (Speedy, Prod, AFD). Out of 2.5 million articles, there are a great many which are unencyclopedic. Only 120 or so even get nominated for AFD each day, and many of these get kept. I have spent countless hours researching and adding references for AFD articles which are salvagable, resulting in many which stayed in the encyclopedia afterwards far better referenced than they were before AFD. But article improvement is not the purpose of AFD. Meeting the basic demand of verifiability and reliable sources is an obligation of article creators and those who like the article and edit it, or who are fans of the subject area of the article. Edison (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My experience is similar to the experience of J.L.W.S.. I live in Sweden, Northern Europe and I see that articles about things that are well known in Northern Europe but not in the US more often gets tagged for deletion than articles on similar US subjects. It is often a hard struggle to defend such articles against the scores of users who "never heard of that!". And I am talking of articles who do have proper references. Sometimes I almost feel tempted to go out on a rampage and start deleting articles on local US subjects that we Northern Europeans "never heard of!".
But I guess we have to live with it, there's probably no way around it.
Another thing I see every now and then is that one user removes the references or moves them to the "External links" section, stating "those were not references, they were only barely related". It seems this happens when that user doesn't understand the reference since it is too technical. Then another user comes along and tags the article for deletion because it lacks references...
Again, I don't think we can prevent that either, since there will always be sloppy and/or stupid editors around that does such things. Of course, a good habit is to take a look at some older versions of the article to see how they looked, before deleting it.
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Good example here - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashanthi - I was doing some AfD closes, noticed this and thought "Hang on, even I've heard of her, and I live in the UK!". The first line of the article at the time it was AfD'd even read "Ashanthi is Sri Lankan's first and only female R&B / Hip Hop artist to be signed to an International record label" - which you would've thought would prompt people to at least search for sources. I think the fact it was such a badly written spammy article that was pushing people to go for Delete, rather than any problems with notability, because it took me two minutes to find loads of refs in Sri Lankan newspapers. I'm always very careful with possible WP:CSB issues in AfDs, and tend to try and trawl for sources myself unless they're obviously NN. Black Kite 23:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Why was the article ignored for 1000 days? That's close to three years! You'd think anti-abortionists should take some responsibility and be willing to look after those unwanted babies... Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm may perhaps not be popular for saying this, but there's reverse bias also. For a dubious article with questionable sources in english from sources I ought to have access to, if I have some doubts i will check. For borderline sources in another language from print publications no one in the US holds, I am much more likely to let them pass if there's a chance they might be valid. If someone claims a degree from a nonexistent US college, I can determine that pretty easily and definitively; if someone claims it from a college not in the Western academic tradition, I have a very much harder job. I can tell a US tutoring center from a US college; a real US newspaper from a US local advertising newsletter. I cannot do this as well for those in Asian countries. I have some idea of what US banks are likely to be important even if the articles are poor; not so elsewhere; I know what a notable US law firm should have as an internet presences; not so elsewhere. And so on. The more prominent the topic to the largest number of wikipedians, the sooner will nonsense be detected. Yes, some people use their limitation sas a reason for trying to delete everything unfamiliar, but many of use it as a reason for tolerance, or hoping that someone more competent will do the check. But this bias is not just language/national: WP works poorly in general for topics with only a small number of interested or competent workers, and best for those with the most attention. DGG (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How do we get a recalcitrant editor to talk?[edit]

CarloscomB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a prolific, obviously good-faith editor of astronomy articles, who has done a large number of edits that, while well-meant, have technical errors in them (mainly linking to disambig pages). He's also uploaded many images with poor source information. All of these things have been pointed out on his talk page, which he's never edited. I blocked him for 48 hours with an instruction in the block log to answer questions on his talk page, and instead he edited anonymously (189.68.164.110, 189.68.200.29). The IPs resolve to Brazil and his English may not be great, but it's obviously good enough to create these articles. Obviously we could ban him and block his IP range but that seems excessive--the problems here create work for other editors, but they're not disruptive (and anyway I think blocking his IP range would include most of São Paulo). I'd appreciate any thoughts on a way forward. Chick Bowen 15:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have had good luck in the past through indefinitely blocking such users and leaving a note on their talk page indicating that I was willing to lift the block as soon as they contacted me to discuss the situation. Typically once they do that, I simply explain the copyright issue and ask them to agree to abide by our policies on copyright and fair use. Nandesuka (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Another technique that can be helpful (in cooperation with other editors, and carefully keeping 3RR in mind) is to revert problematic edits, and never fix them yourself. Revert his edits, and leave a description on his talk page of what his error was, and how it could be corrected. It's more time-consuming than fixing it yourself, but ultimately the editor gets the message. No one likes to see their edits erased.Kww (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I think also perhaps finding someone that can talk to him on his talkpage in Portugeuse may prove helpful. I don't know of anyone that speaks/types well, but maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil or Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal may be helpful? Keeper ǀ 76 16:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
We actually have the local embassy service to help if that's the problem. Wikipedia:Local_Embassy#Portugu.C3.AAs is for Portuguese.Kww (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
3RR does not and should not apply to removing violations of copyright policy. Babelfish is your friend, but we also have over 800 native speakers of Portuguese. Specifically the Brazilian dialect for at least 2/3 of them, I'd guess, so shop around. — CharlotteWebb 17:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
True, but it applies to technical errors ... mainly linking to disambig pages, which is where the revert while explaining technique is most useful.Kww (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Leave him be. If he's providing good content with flaws, it's much more sensible to fix the flaws than to block the provision of content. Heaven knows there are a ton of people and bots who are incapable of providing content but perfectly good at fixing these sorts of simple error. Providers of actual new material are comparatively rare and should not be discouraged, let alone blocked. And there's no rule saying that anyone has to respond to messages left on their talk page. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd be delighted to come to that conclusion if an astronomy editor will vouch that by and large this is all good material. A good place to start is his list of created pages, of which there are quite a few. HD 40873 is a good example--broken image link, one short sentence of content, and a long infobox. Is this helpful to the star editors? I honestly don't know. Chick Bowen 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That would depends on the benefit/cost ratio, so we'd need to know how good the edits are compared to how big the flaws are; a judgement I'm willing to leave to the other editors of the astronomy pages. I have certainly blocked people in the past who appeared to be trying to contribute in good faith, but with significant flaws, and who steadfastly refused any effort at communication. It's better to have no content than flawed content, and it shouldn't be anyone's job to follow someone else around and clean up their messes because they could not, or would not, communicate. This is a collaborative effort, and we all have an obligation to take into account the opinions of other editors. --barneca (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
If it really was better to have no content than flawed content, Wikipedia would have been about as successful as Nupedia. However because we have always been willing to accept flawed content and fix it we have gone far beyond that. Cost benefit does come into it and perhaps the benefit isn't big enough in this case but bear this in mind. We do not harass editors who merely fix spelling or enforce wikipolicy but are incapable of writing a decent paragraph or a coherent train of thought to save themselves. Why then should we block people who write well but whose spelling or wikipolicy knowledge aren't good. The two groups are complementary and one group remedies the other's faults. We need both groups and, as you say, this is a collaborative effort... -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly you think I'm suggesting we block someone if their spelling is poor? Or was that just a rhetorical device? I guarantee that's not what I meant, and I'm really confident that's not what I said. I am suggesting we block someone if they completely ignore efforts to communicate with them, and do not alter their behavior. --barneca (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
...especially in regards with gross violations of various image policies. seicer | talk | contribs 22:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that you're suggesting that. Neither was it a rhetorical device. I was just trying to suggest that we should treat both groups in the same courteous way because we need them both. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocking someone as a method of inducing them to talk could quite possibly backfire. We should not block someone whose contributions exceed in value the cost of fixing their mistakes. We have no right to demand that anyone talk. If someone does more damage than good, and efforts to fix the problem, with communication or otherwise, don't remedy that, we ask them to stop editing, politely at first, then as a warning, then we block if necessary.

As has been pointed out, finding good writers is difficult, finding editors who can fix errors in otherwise-good writing is easier. It's a general rule in publishing that one doesn't expect or even allow a writer to be their own editor. We do not change the laws of good sense and publishing process by demanding that writers be good editors. Some are, some aren't.

However, the question here was how we could get "a recalcitrant editor to talk." Seeking someone who can write in Portuguese was one idea, a good one as far as intention is concerned, though possibly not necessary. Asking the editor for advice would be another. If one doesn't know if an edit is proper that he made, i.e., one had tried to verify it and has failed, asking him, politely, even deferentially, for advice about it might draw him out. I.e., "I'm concerned about this edit, but because you clearly are knowledgeable in this field, could you help me find and put in sources so that anyone could verify it? Otherwise we might have to remove it." Blocking him to get him to Talk? How would you respond to that? People vary, but quite a few would simply go away. Mad. And spend their time doing something else. --Abd (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. Blocking to get people's attention? Has everyone forgotten other cases where people went silent and said nothing or refused to say something here an AN or ANI? We didn't block them for that. To be fair, the case I'm thinking of there were no edits whatsoever after a certain point. I will note one thing. The images have all been deleted, so asking him to clean that up is not really fair. Lots of editors now, for better or worse, ignore those notices and either let image specialists clean up, or just let the images be deleted. If you remove the image notices from his page (leaving a summary), there is not much left. Carcharoth (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"I suck at searching so let us delete this."[edit]

Resolved: See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 16. Chick Bowen 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While the title is a bit provacative, so is the rampant deletionism based on spending two minutes looking for notability and not finding it. I am so dis-heartened that while I found an article that can be rescued, I lack the enthusiasm to create it. Perhaps someone who has been here not so long and retains their enthusiasms will do something. I'm struggling to help, but posting the below to try to stem the tide is the best I can do.

Here can be found a link to deleted Wikipedia articles that were "deleted after more than 1000 days on Wikipedia". At that link I found this deleted article which still exists at here at the spanish Wikipedia. This search yeilded this and this and other confirmations it is real and notable. I'm sure I could find more. But why try? Some people are only here to get off on making others jump thru hoops and I am tired of it. I apologize for not saying all this in a nicer way. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the article itself, but the AfD is interesting, with a consensus somehow coming to delete from the nominator's statement and one delete !vote (and one comment that essentially advocates a move). Seems like quite a questionable closure, to me. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC).
Not sure what you are after. Deletion Review is over there somewhere. People make mistakes it doesn't mean they are lazy, power hungry, or anything else. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, amazing how it's so simple finding sources to demonstrate notability in less than two minutes yet the original editor couldn't be bothered spending them. — Coren (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The AfD is not that unusual, and on the basis of the arguments (which, like WAS has done, you can spin to look bad) made there, unsourced, unsourcable, WP:V applies and off it goes, I too may have deleted it. WAS, you're entitled to go to DRV or to recreate it with sources as you see fit. Probably better to do that than throwing around alarming accusations of motive. ➨ ЯEDVERS has nothing to declare except his jeans 12:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Or put another way, why should we care? Guy (Help!) 12:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
WAS.250, I did propose a while ago that editors who spend all their time kicking over other people's sandcastles at the beach could be construed as tendentious, but was opposed. Most of the contributors are...erm..out there contributing, so this was a pretty predictable response. I do concede I am frustrated by lack of source-hunting on both sides, anyway send it to DRV, or userfy and if impressive show the original deleter to save time.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should care because we've become awfully prodigal with other people's time and effort. The example at the top of this thread looks like an article on a notable subject, and editors certainly put a significant amount of work into it, but it was deleted on the say-so of two editors, neither of whom apparently made any effort to fix it or did any real research into the subject. It's a small thing in and of itself, but it's emblematic of a worrying trend. Way back in the olden days, there seemed to be a lot less "Ready-Fire-Aim!" around here... I think that this wastefulness and duplication of effort is part of the reason that so many productive editors become burned out. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Goody, more of the nonsense that is "Deletionists versus Inclusionists." Every day a new thread pops up that further weakens their defenses. You know why? Because we have mechanisms set in place in case an article may be erroneously deleted. It's called Deletion Review. Furthermore, after reviewing the article, I would have wiped it myself after finding that the article was not backed with any reliable sources and fails ORG. seicer | talk | contribs 13:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
...Wow. Deletionpedia is awesome. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hm, every deleted article here ends there? What about personal attacks or copyvios? Or privacy breaches and so on? --Tone 14:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Like this? (hell, knock yourself out.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, remember that the burden of evidence lies with those wishing to keep things, not those wishing to delete it--Jac16888 (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

that's challenged article content, and, even so mass challenges to material that could be easily sourced is usually considered unconstructive. . The default for lack of consensus to delete an article is that the article is kept.--consensus to delete has to be shown, not just lack of consensus to keep.. This isn't the place to formally propose it, but I think every nomination for deletion at afd, prod or speedy based on lack of sources for notability should be accompanied by a link to a preliminary search that is reasonable for the topic, or at least a statement that such a search was done. I would even suggest that before voting one might wish to carries out a search if it hasnt been already done; I generally do. I do not think the instance mentioned was a single isolated case. Yes, people should write good articles in the first place. But if they don't, and there's any chance that an acceptable article is possible, people should try to improve them. Deleting articles that could be improved is helping the encyclopedia in a very minimal way. DGG (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, well said. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 14:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As an SGpedian, I find that deletionism significantly contributes to the problem of systemic bias. Singapore-related articles are often AFDed (or speedied) by narrow-minded deletionists (usually Americans), even when notability is easily established. This creates a hostile environment on Wikipedia and discourages SGpedians from writing articles. Instead of destroying the work of others, deletionists should spend their time writing GAs. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's not the most blatant mischaracterization that is a borderline personal slander against administrators who do the grunt work of deleting articles. seicer | talk | contribs 14:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
My post is not about all "administrators who do the grunt work of deleting articles", only those who AFD (or speedy) Singapore-related articles without checking for notability. Of course, administrators who do lots of deletion-related work should occasionally write GAs instead (to avoid becoming like the group of deletionists my post refers to). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I doubt very much that a generalization such as that can be a "personal" slander. I also sympathize with the poster, but sincerely doubt that there is a systemic bias against Singapore-related articles. Most probably, as a "SGpedian" you simply see more of those articles deleted, so the bias is in the sample. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 14:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
There is definitely a bias against nonAmerican (and less so, nonBritish) subjects at AfD - Singapore probably doesn't get it the worst or the least worst. But to deny such a bias exists is completely at odds with reality. WilyD 14:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Listed at DRV. WAS, I'm disappointed in you, really. If an article has been deleted wrongly, we take the steps to undelete it. There's no reason at all to make a giant kerfluffle out of it. Chick Bowen 15:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Can we just close this as a rant? If this user wants to talk about how I'm basically vandalising wikipedia at AfD, I'd rather that just occur on his userspace. Protonk (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have sometimes done random article patrol. If I see an article with no references, I may tag it as unreferenced. I do not feel that I am required to spend hours finding and adding references (assuming there are any) to an article about a subject I have no interest in. It should be up to the creator and regular editors of an article to comply with the need for an encyclopedia article to be verifiable and referenced to reliable sources. Before anyone nominates an article for deletion, he should do a basic searhc to see if reliable sources are likely to exist. This could include a Google search, a Google News search, a Google Books search, or a Google Scholar search, depending on what type of subject it is. Article creators are not entitled to just write a bunch of text and expect someone else to find sources for the supposed information they have added to an encyclopedia, then complain if someone tags the article as unreferenced or nominates it for one of the forms of deletion (Speedy, Prod, AFD). Out of 2.5 million articles, there are a great many which are unencyclopedic. Only 120 or so even get nominated for AFD each day, and many of these get kept. I have spent countless hours researching and adding references for AFD articles which are salvagable, resulting in many which stayed in the encyclopedia afterwards far better referenced than they were before AFD. But article improvement is not the purpose of AFD. Meeting the basic demand of verifiability and reliable sources is an obligation of article creators and those who like the article and edit it, or who are fans of the subject area of the article. Edison (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My experience is similar to the experience of J.L.W.S.. I live in Sweden, Northern Europe and I see that articles about things that are well known in Northern Europe but not in the US more often gets tagged for deletion than articles on similar US subjects. It is often a hard struggle to defend such articles against the scores of users who "never heard of that!". And I am talking of articles who do have proper references. Sometimes I almost feel tempted to go out on a rampage and start deleting articles on local US subjects that we Northern Europeans "never heard of!".
But I guess we have to live with it, there's probably no way around it.
Another thing I see every now and then is that one user removes the references or moves them to the "External links" section, stating "those were not references, they were only barely related". It seems this happens when that user doesn't understand the reference since it is too technical. Then another user comes along and tags the article for deletion because it lacks references...
Again, I don't think we can prevent that either, since there will always be sloppy and/or stupid editors around that does such things. Of course, a good habit is to take a look at some older versions of the article to see how they looked, before deleting it.
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Good example here - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashanthi - I was doing some AfD closes, noticed this and thought "Hang on, even I've heard of her, and I live in the UK!". The first line of the article at the time it was AfD'd even read "Ashanthi is Sri Lankan's first and only female R&B / Hip Hop artist to be signed to an International record label" - which you would've thought would prompt people to at least search for sources. I think the fact it was such a badly written spammy article that was pushing people to go for Delete, rather than any problems with notability, because it took me two minutes to find loads of refs in Sri Lankan newspapers. I'm always very careful with possible WP:CSB issues in AfDs, and tend to try and trawl for sources myself unless they're obviously NN. Black Kite 23:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Why was the article ignored for 1000 days? That's close to three years! You'd think anti-abortionists should take some responsibility and be willing to look after those unwanted babies... Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm may perhaps not be popular for saying this, but there's reverse bias also. For a dubious article with questionable sources in english from sources I ought to have access to, if I have some doubts i will check. For borderline sources in another language from print publications no one in the US holds, I am much more likely to let them pass if there's a chance they might be valid. If someone claims a degree from a nonexistent US college, I can determine that pretty easily and definitively; if someone claims it from a college not in the Western academic tradition, I have a very much harder job. I can tell a US tutoring center from a US college; a real US newspaper from a US local advertising newsletter. I cannot do this as well for those in Asian countries. I have some idea of what US banks are likely to be important even if the articles are poor; not so elsewhere; I know what a notable US law firm should have as an internet presences; not so elsewhere. And so on. The more prominent the topic to the largest number of wikipedians, the sooner will nonsense be detected. Yes, some people use their limitation sas a reason for trying to delete everything unfamiliar, but many of use it as a reason for tolerance, or hoping that someone more competent will do the check. But this bias is not just language/national: WP works poorly in general for topics with only a small number of interested or competent workers, and best for those with the most attention. DGG (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How do we get a recalcitrant editor to talk?[edit]

CarloscomB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a prolific, obviously good-faith editor of astronomy articles, who has done a large number of edits that, while well-meant, have technical errors in them (mainly linking to disambig pages). He's also uploaded many images with poor source information. All of these things have been pointed out on his talk page, which he's never edited. I blocked him for 48 hours with an instruction in the block log to answer questions on his talk page, and instead he edited anonymously (189.68.164.110, 189.68.200.29). The IPs resolve to Brazil and his English may not be great, but it's obviously good enough to create these articles. Obviously we could ban him and block his IP range but that seems excessive--the problems here create work for other editors, but they're not disruptive (and anyway I think blocking his IP range would include most of São Paulo). I'd appreciate any thoughts on a way forward. Chick Bowen 15:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have had good luck in the past through indefinitely blocking such users and leaving a note on their talk page indicating that I was willing to lift the block as soon as they contacted me to discuss the situation. Typically once they do that, I simply explain the copyright issue and ask them to agree to abide by our policies on copyright and fair use. Nandesuka (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Another technique that can be helpful (in cooperation with other editors, and carefully keeping 3RR in mind) is to revert problematic edits, and never fix them yourself. Revert his edits, and leave a description on his talk page of what his error was, and how it could be corrected. It's more time-consuming than fixing it yourself, but ultimately the editor gets the message. No one likes to see their edits erased.Kww (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I think also perhaps finding someone that can talk to him on his talkpage in Portugeuse may prove helpful. I don't know of anyone that speaks/types well, but maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil or Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal may be helpful? Keeper ǀ 76 16:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
We actually have the local embassy service to help if that's the problem. Wikipedia:Local_Embassy#Portugu.C3.AAs is for Portuguese.Kww (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
3RR does not and should not apply to removing violations of copyright policy. Babelfish is your friend, but we also have over 800 native speakers of Portuguese. Specifically the Brazilian dialect for at least 2/3 of them, I'd guess, so shop around. — CharlotteWebb 17:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
True, but it applies to technical errors ... mainly linking to disambig pages, which is where the revert while explaining technique is most useful.Kww (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Leave him be. If he's providing good content with flaws, it's much more sensible to fix the flaws than to block the provision of content. Heaven knows there are a ton of people and bots who are incapable of providing content but perfectly good at fixing these sorts of simple error. Providers of actual new material are comparatively rare and should not be discouraged, let alone blocked. And there's no rule saying that anyone has to respond to messages left on their talk page. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd be delighted to come to that conclusion if an astronomy editor will vouch that by and large this is all good material. A good place to start is his list of created pages, of which there are quite a few. HD 40873 is a good example--broken image link, one short sentence of content, and a long infobox. Is this helpful to the star editors? I honestly don't know. Chick Bowen 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That would depends on the benefit/cost ratio, so we'd need to know how good the edits are compared to how big the flaws are; a judgement I'm willing to leave to the other editors of the astronomy pages. I have certainly blocked people in the past who appeared to be trying to contribute in good faith, but with significant flaws, and who steadfastly refused any effort at communication. It's better to have no content than flawed content, and it shouldn't be anyone's job to follow someone else around and clean up their messes because they could not, or would not, communicate. This is a collaborative effort, and we all have an obligation to take into account the opinions of other editors. --barneca (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
If it really was better to have no content than flawed content, Wikipedia would have been about as successful as Nupedia. However because we have always been willing to accept flawed content and fix it we have gone far beyond that. Cost benefit does come into it and perhaps the benefit isn't big enough in this case but bear this in mind. We do not harass editors who merely fix spelling or enforce wikipolicy but are incapable of writing a decent paragraph or a coherent train of thought to save themselves. Why then should we block people who write well but whose spelling or wikipolicy knowledge aren't good. The two groups are complementary and one group remedies the other's faults. We need both groups and, as you say, this is a collaborative effort... -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly you think I'm suggesting we block someone if their spelling is poor? Or was that just a rhetorical device? I guarantee that's not what I meant, and I'm really confident that's not what I said. I am suggesting we block someone if they completely ignore efforts to communicate with them, and do not alter their behavior. --barneca (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
...especially in regards with gross violations of various image policies. seicer | talk | contribs 22:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that you're suggesting that. Neither was it a rhetorical device. I was just trying to suggest that we should treat both groups in the same courteous way because we need them both. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocking someone as a method of inducing them to talk could quite possibly backfire. We should not block someone whose contributions exceed in value the cost of fixing their mistakes. We have no right to demand that anyone talk. If someone does more damage than good, and efforts to fix the problem, with communication or otherwise, don't remedy that, we ask them to stop editing, politely at first, then as a warning, then we block if necessary.

As has been pointed out, finding good writers is difficult, finding editors who can fix errors in otherwise-good writing is easier. It's a general rule in publishing that one doesn't expect or even allow a writer to be their own editor. We do not change the laws of good sense and publishing process by demanding that writers be good editors. Some are, some aren't.

However, the question here was how we could get "a recalcitrant editor to talk." Seeking someone who can write in Portuguese was one idea, a good one as far as intention is concerned, though possibly not necessary. Asking the editor for advice would be another. If one doesn't know if an edit is proper that he made, i.e., one had tried to verify it and has failed, asking him, politely, even deferentially, for advice about it might draw him out. I.e., "I'm concerned about this edit, but because you clearly are knowledgeable in this field, could you help me find and put in sources so that anyone could verify it? Otherwise we might have to remove it." Blocking him to get him to Talk? How would you respond to that? People vary, but quite a few would simply go away. Mad. And spend their time doing something else. --Abd (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. Blocking to get people's attention? Has everyone forgotten other cases where people went silent and said nothing or refused to say something here an AN or ANI? We didn't block them for that. To be fair, the case I'm thinking of there were no edits whatsoever after a certain point. I will note one thing. The images have all been deleted, so asking him to clean that up is not really fair. Lots of editors now, for better or worse, ignore those notices and either let image specialists clean up, or just let the images be deleted. If you remove the image notices from his page (leaving a summary), there is not much left. Carcharoth (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Banned 'Gay Pornography vandal' is back[edit]

You should all be warned that the banned “Gay Pornography vandal” (ban date: March 6, 2008) is back on Wikipedia on a different IP range. Although he still has access to his old IP range, he has begun using multiple IP ranges. Commons has been wrestling with the issue for awhile.

Aside from death threats and his usual boogedy-boogedy, he is also back to working on the porn articles, specifically, his vendetta with Michael Lucas, which spread to me. It also spurred the creation of new meta tools to deal with cyberstalking.

This is the range he is working in currently. Can someone please softprotect that article (Michael Lucas (director)) for a month. There is a long, voluminous, and threat-laden history to this page and its talk page. I suggest the longer soft-protect, the better.

As everyone remembers, this person's boundless anger quickly transfers to other people, and disrupts the incident board endlessly with complaints from multiple editors. I will cross-post this on a few former targets to give them a heads up. --David Shankbone 16:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense here, but this post sounds more than a little paranoid. J jackson (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but what do you know? --David Shankbone 18:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I know the hallmarks of paranoia, most are present above. Denial and lashing out are common. J jackson (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Paranoid? Heh - how about this? J jackson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) hasn't't edited since September 2006, and then all of a sudden you re-appear and you remove my content off the Chihuahua page, you lied that I was canvassing about an arbcom I was never part of, and you come on here saying I'm paranoid. Sounds like a Checkuser candidate to me. --David Shankbone 19:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • David Shankbone, kindly stop reverting my legitimate edits to the Lucas bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.122.39 (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify for anyone who hasn't been following this: This is a clear and longstanding harrassment and stalking campaign against David, including real life incidents. Large sections of IP space have been blocked repeatedly, along with a number of accounts. This is serious and is being treated as such. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Could this be related to the sockfarm detailed in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive302#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Hamilton? This morning I blocked 76.167.91.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) after he edited that archive page, revealing him to be the previous user of that IP who had been blocked for 6 months for being part of the sockfarm. Last week, that IP requested unblocking claiming to be a new user unrelated to the previous abuse, so I unblocked but watched the edits and sure enough he started in on gay porn articles, and then the alleged murder of Nathan Hamilton, so I reblocked for 6 months as it is pretty clearly a static IP. I don't believe this is in any of the IP ranges mentioned but if you look at the edits from that IP in articles like Karen Dior it seems awfully similar. --MCB (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
MCB, I agree with your assessment that David's problem is real and quite serious. The archive incident you raise is superficially similar but unrelated (except for the interest in gay pornography). If anyone wants to find a new moniker that distinguishes the two more clearly, then by all means do. The sockmaster on the latter one is Robin Redford. DurovaCharge! 16:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And today I learned that the serial vandal has his own nickname: Gay Pornography Vandal. Can we start attributing awesome titles to others? seicer | talk | contribs 13:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nasty long-term IP-hopping vandals need to be given some kind of a name for convenience in referring to them. I note that David Shankbone's user talk has been kept under permanent semi-protection since March, due to this vandal, and it is unquestionable that the threat justifies a very active response by admins. In my opinion restoring an indefinite semiprotection on Michael Lucas (director) is also justified, now that this IP is evading some of the previous blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 Note: Semi-protected (indef) at 01:32, 16 September 2008 by User:NawlinWiki. -- lucasbfr talk 13:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

68.106.93.214[edit]

I blocked 68.106.93.214 (log) within the last hour, and said user then called my parents' house and left a phone message reiterating the same message that was left on my talk page on my parents' answering machine. The caller identified himself as Bill White. My father was inclined to call the police. Any thoughts on where we as Wikipedia should proceed from here? SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have had a similar experience, and find it best to take no action on-wiki, but instead peruse it (very hard) off-wiki as it is really the only way to deal with the issue. If the person knows that you mean business they are more likely to stop then if you simply block them. Tiptoety talk 00:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
My sympathies; that sucks. Off-wiki, I'd agree with Tiptoety; although it's your call, if it were me, I'd certainly consider it threatening enough to pursue it through the police (not so much the fact that there was a call, as the alleged source). On-wiki, there's not much we can actually do, except to express our support, and remind one another that this kind of thing is possible when we leave enough real-life information lying around. At the risk of looking like I'm blaming the victim, I'd be tempted to remove some of the personally identifying info from your user page. --barneca (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry man. There's always abuse@cox.net -- more info on whois. I also suggest proceeding with caution initially--this Bill White is obviously a well-known person and it's possible that it's not actually him. It's seems rather imprudent to give one's name when leaving a threatening message. On the other hand, that IP resolves to Roanoke, where he lives. justinfr (talk/contribs) 00:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Justinfr makes a good point, there's the distinct possibility of spoofing. But of course the police know how to deal with that stuff, and would be able to trace a phone call or deal with the ISP. --barneca (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I recommend calling the police. It might not be him, but it's worth calling about. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have extended the block - 68.106.93.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is now blocked for a one year duration. Reviewing the edit patterns, they clearly are a fixed IP (has been editing in the same pattern of white supremacist edits since started editing on Aug 5th). The IP geolocates to the location where Mr White lives, Roanoke VA. Regardless of whether it's him or a neighbor, the real-life call and threat to a blocking administrator is unacceptable, and the edit history is clearly unacceptable contributions as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Tiptoety talk 02:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Good plan! Checkuser shows long-term use by the same editor only, and no accounts present. Oh, and please call the police and report the incident. If things persist, they'll know exactly what to do - Alison 08:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If you are thinking of contacting the police, please also email Jimmy Wales and Mike Godwin just to let them know. The subject in this case is... not a nice man, so caution is indicated if he has even the most basic personal information about you. Mike and Jimmy may be able to give you some sound advice here. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey Stillman (2nd nomination)[edit]

Resolved: Too much civility and common sense, go make some drama instead (ie: good closure), Tiptoety talk 04:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I was trying to be helpful and try out closing some obvious keep AFDs. The noob that I am, I missed the relisting notice on this one and closed it as keep. I think the keep votes give good rationale for keeping the article, but I don't want to be seen as stepping on the re-listing editor's toes, User:Ron Ritzman. If I should undo the close, please let me know. justinfr (talk/contribs) 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking "keep" too but as an ordinary mortal I wanted a few more eyes on it first. However, your close seems ok. BTW for good advise on closing AFDs as a non admin, this essay gives some good advise. (if you haven't already read it) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This may be partially my fault. I just noticed that the script I use didn't remove this AFD's entry from the old log. I need to check for that and clean up my mess if necessary. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you two appear to be:
  1. treating each other civilly
  2. accepting the possibility that your own actions might not have been correct
  3. trying to work out the best thing to do for the project without concern for you own egos.
I don't know where you people think you are, but you definitely don't understand how WP:AN is supposed to work. Where's the disrespect? The attacking of