Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive181

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

Noticeboard archives


Arbitration Committee Coordinator announcement[edit]

Note: Cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee.

As part of a comprehensive updating of its systems and processes, the Arbitration Committee has decided to appoint one of its sitting arbitrators to act as coordinator. This role is to carry no additional substantive authority but will primarily involve scheduling work flow and setting target dates for completion of tasks.

Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) has been offered and has accepted this assignment, effective immediately, with the title of Coordinating Arbitrator. Arbitrator Roger Davies (talk · contribs) will serve as his Deputy.

Additionally, as previously announced, former arbitrator Deskana (talk · contribs) will continue to coordinate the ArbCom mailing list.

For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • That's good news: if anyone can organise and coordinate, it's Kirill. This is good news for all of us. ➨ ЯEDVERS a reasonably good buy 18:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yep. ;-) He is already off to a great start by setting up an agenda for our discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this section title should have been "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy" --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yo dawg! I heard u like arbitrating so we put a bureaucracy in your bureaucracy so you can arbitrate while you arbitrate. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm in ur bureaucracy, updatin' ur arbitrators... GlassCobra 22:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hate to see two of our msot active WP:MILHIST coordinators taking responsibilities that require so much time.--Pattont/c 22:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry too much. Kirill has already been the most active arbitrator for almost two years and it hasn't seemed to stop him from doing anything else he's wanted to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for review and unblock of User:[edit]


The IP User: has been blocked for 5 years as an open proxy.[1] It was used only once in April of last year. I have email permission from Tomascastelazo, a talented Wikimedia Commons photographer, to disclose that it is his underlying IP address. He already has one FP on this site and several on the sister site, and I have been trying to set up a featured picture nomination here for him (English is not his native language). IPs can change and we rarely block any for such a long time. Please review. DurovaCharge! 07:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we can change the settings to a softblock. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 07:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I told User:Spellcast since it was his block so he can review. If something has changed, he would know if others may be blocked for similar reasons. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much. :) DurovaCharge! 08:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
If the IP is no longer an open proxy, there's no need to keep it blocked at all :) (I can't nmap from here) -- lucasbfr talk 13:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It looks like it's still open, but I'm no expert with nmap, so I'll leave that decision to someone else. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The above IP is within this range: owned by FDCservers. Currently the range is blocked by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). --Kanonkas (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if that IP is still an open proxy because even if it was unblocked, that rangeblock would still be in effect. So, I've given Tomascastelazo WP:IPBE. Spellcast (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


There is a backlog at C:CSD currently. If there are any free administrators available, assistance would be nice :) Please remove this message when C:CSD has been pared down. seicer | talk | contribs 04:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on why File:BSicon ÜWo+r.svg is appearing there? I don't think I'm missing the obvious (I hope), but I can't figure it out. - auburnpilot talk 05:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
We're also building up a backlog in the Category:Disputed non-free images area. JPG-GR (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)



Someone can replace Image:Bandera de España(1701-1748).gif with Image:Bandera de España 1701-1748.svg in Template:Country data Spain? Thanks. --Durero (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Horologium (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please indefinitely block user 'Terry Hatchett16'[edit]


Please could you indefinitely block user 'Terry Hatchett16'? The account is erroneous.

With kind regards,

Terry Hatchett16 (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a spelling difference I'm not seeing, or is the user wanting us to block his/her own account? Tan | 39 16:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes please, I created this account thinking my original had been deleted but it was my silly mistake! rather than having two similar accounts floating around Wiki I would like this one to be blocked to make it clear I am not sockpuppetting. --Terry Hatchett16 (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 Done Kingturtle (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK Image Probelms (Urgent!)[edit]


-Fixed what seems like the eighth image today, but it should be now NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've found three problems today, which is up from my usual rate of two per day. So far, I've been forced to go to the commons IRC channel and ping an administrator there. We need a better permanent solution; is a new Main Page Upload Protection bot in the works? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 18:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me when and how long the will stay on your main page. With that information I can protect them for you :) Abigor (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not actually sure; DYK operates on a timer that I am unsure of. The best option would be to protect them all for 30 hours or so. Thanks for responding so quickly :) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 19:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I will protect them all for 2 days. Thanks for notifying me. Abigor (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The images are all protected at Commons, but File:Woodesrogers.jpg is still a copyright violation as pictured now. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  • There is no source info for it, but assuming a reasonable timeline for its creation after Woodes Rogers's death, I could be convinced that it meets common's PD requirements. Protonk (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

GoRight community ban[edit]

GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

GoRight, is a single-purpose account who last August was the subject of an RFC, which led to community sanction here on AN. Since that time, he has persisted in disrupting Wikipedia - revert warring, making false/inflammatory edits that are likely to cause edit wars, making personal attacks, using talk pages as soap boxes, making false claims about policy says and then using those false claims for wikilawyering, etc.

He recently returned from several weeks on hiatus and resumed his disruptive ways, leading me to warn him that any further disruption would not be tolerated. He continued revert warring (in violation of the 1rr he promised to adhere to the last time his behavior was discussed on AN), so I blocked him. GoRight posted an unblock request template on his talk page, and unfortunately he found an admin who fell for the trick. Aitias unblocked him, claiming falsely that I was involved in the matter (I was not; I issued my warning to GoRight before ever reverting him) and that no valid reasons for the block had been provided (when in fact they had been provided in abundance. [2] [3]). To wit, since his return, GoRight has - literally - not made one single productive edit. Instead, he has been using talk pages as soap boxes for personal attacks, revert warring, removing relevant sourced information from articles - all in all, disruptive editing.

I think it's time to re-consider the GoRight community ban. Raul654 (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in his January contributions to justify a community ban, but don't really care enough to have a strong opinion either way. The one thing I do care about and think is important to say here is that Aitias acted correctly in unblocking this user. You were obviously a heavily involved admin. In addition to your reverting with him in that article, you were in a discussion with him on Talk:Global warming [4] and were obviously involved in August. Aitias acted correctly - if you want to propose a community ban, fine, but you don't have to do it by criticizing the actions of an admin who was pretty unquestionably in the right. --B (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It's interesting that you bring up no particular edits here. You say that all of them are terrible, but I'm not seeing it.
  • One of his edits (edit-warring) was on adding a closing statement to a RfC on his behavior. Perhaps technically not permissible, but certainly not a terrible banworthy action. One can understand why he would want to clarify something in that sort of page.
  • In another case he wanted to trim a long quote to the basic gist: the guy said he was not a global warming denier. This is perfectly reasonable given summary style.
  • Edits like this and this are more troubling. It's disruptive to make inflammatory, unsourced statements on the talk page. And he apparently did edit-war to keep it in [5].
I'm not ready to say he should be banned, but if he keeps up with those kinds of comments, I could see a ban in his future. II | (t - c) 04:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, in my above summary, I certainly discussed individual edits. Specifically, I linked to this edit of mine, where I broke down all of GoRight's edits for the last week into three categories - the inflammatory edits to talk:global warming you mentioned (and subsequent revert warring and wikilawyering on his talk page about it), the attempts to rewrite his history on the RFC, and the disruptive editing on The Deniers.
GoRight's edits to The Deniers were certainly disruptive. The quote in question was not overly long, and GoRight's edit substantially whitewashed meaning of the cited sentence (GoRight's "I am not a denier" version is substantially weaker than the previous version, which, to paraphrase, said "Solomon's newspaper columns were misleading. I am not a denier. There is overwhelming evidence for global warming. Solomon misquoted other people too") The latter is an accurate representation of what was said; the former is a watered down and less informative, which was GoRight's goal from the beginning. GoRight's other edit there, was to insert original researchy commentary from Solomon, as WMC explained on the talk page. In short - GoRight's edits to the article made it worse, and predictably, caused an edit war.
As to the third set of edits - the soapboxy personal attacks on the talk page, I'm glad you agree that are "troubling". But what do you mean, "if he keeps up with these"? He has a 2 year history of disruption here, including a prior block for personal attacks last summer. Even prior to the last August's RFC and community sanction, he had already been sanctioned for violating BLP with regard to William M. Connelly's biography, and making personal attack against WMC. It's not as if these behaviors are new or unexpected - they are par for the course with him. Raul654 (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
My apologies about missing your diffs, but you could telegraph them better. After looking around a bit again, I'd probably agree to his banning if I had to make a decision. But the process for banning long-term editors on Wikipedia is flawed. It would be best if we could do a query of the database of users for 15 or so with >500 articlespace edits who have edited within a week. Then trim out involved users (and those who don't want to comment) from that list and ask them to look at the evidence and vote. That would be the best. Here, the most likely people to weigh in are those with some sort of agenda for/against GoRight. But I think a topic-ban from global warming articles is fair - the fact that his response below doesn't even apologize for his talkpage comments is telling. II | (t - c) 09:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm seeing evidence of disruptive bahaviour, has anyone any diffs of positive contributions since GoRight's return, or indeed at any time? . . dave souza, talk 14:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I asked that question on my talk page, and the answer I got was a resounding silence. I think we can safely say the answer is "No" - by any reasonable standard, he has not made a single positive contribution since his return. Raul654 (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, he has at least one, here. Has there an RFC on this user? rootology (C)(T) 17:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that was revered by consensus it appears, so it probably wasn't that good, and the general language is good enough probably for NPOV. rootology (C)(T) 17:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a substantial difference between "criticism from climate scientists" and "criticism from some climate scientists". The latter leads one of think that the criticism comes from a relatively small number of scientists, or that there is dissent, when in fact none exists. GoRight's edit distorts the reality of the situation, which is something common to much of his article editing. And, as you said, it was reverted. So that's still 0 good edits from GoRight.
For your other question, here's a short history of GoRight: GoRight caused much disruption in 2007, then left for several months, returning in mid-2008 and picking up where he left off - he started 9 simultaneous edit wars. He was brought to AN last June for BLP violations and making personal attacks. Then in July there was an RFC where a plurality of folks endorsed the idea that he contributes nothing to the encyclopedia, followed by an ANI discussion in August which resulted in community sanctions. During that ANI discussion, GoRight promised to turn over a new leaf - to be less disruptive, adhere to BLP, adhere to 1rr. I knew this was a lie (As R. Baley said, "GoRight can be exceptionally polite when at a noticeboard"), so I began keeping track of his edits here. GoRight caused more disruption from September-November, then left for two months. He returned last week, and again resumed his disruption. Raul654 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Based on all this he falls into that cheeful polite POV pusher side of things. Or mostly polite. Either way, he's playing games with the articles and we can do without him, I agree on that. rootology (C)(T) 18:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I also support a community ban on GoRight. After reviewing the evidence, that is the only option left for dealing with this editor.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment from GoRight[edit]

Sigh. I was hoping to stay out of this discussion so that others could decide for themselves the truth of the situation, but Raul's ongoing litany of lies and distortions demands some sort of response.

This WP:HARASSment by Raul654 is beginning to get old. The simple fact of the matter is that he disagrees with my POV on AGW and things have escalated to the point where he is now using his administrative privileges to attempt to institute his own personal community ban against me. The edit he blocked me for speaks for itself on this point. Read it for yourself. There is nothing overtly disruptive about it. Check the edit summaries and commentary on the talk page as well and decide for yourself.

Here are a few points to consider if you believe that I am simply being hyperbolic here:

  1. He began his campaign for a topic ban against me on 24 June 2008.
  2. When this didn't yield the desired result, he decided to WP:FORUMSHOP by creating a User RFC against me.
  3. The RFC itself yielded no consensus for any action as evidenced by the fact that on 3 August 2008 one of the co-certifiers proposed closing it since everything had pretty much already been said. The only reason it remained open is that a few people wanted to make some final edits.
  4. On 7 August 2008 a WP:AN thread was started that was completely unrelated to the RFC was started, and while that thread ultimately resulted in a very narrow topic ban against me, the topic (pages related to William M. Connolley) was never even mentioned or discussed in the RFC. In fact, when some of the participants in the RFC learned of the WP:AN thread after the fact they expressed dismay that they had not been informed nor had the matter been mentioned in the RFC (see this, this, and this).
  5. Raul now wants you to believe that the sanction against me was a direct result of his RFC (e.g. "GoRight, is a single-purpose account who last August was the subject of an RFC, which led to community sanction here on AN.") when it had absolutely nothing to do with the RFC.
  6. Apparently since the sanction was imposed, Raul has been WP:STALKing me and maintaining a WP:Attack page against me here.
  7. I guess he now wants to simply WP:FORUMSHOP the same topics again in the hopes of getting a different result.
  8. My edit history will show that I have respected the topic ban against me and there have been no additional incidents in that regard. The topic ban specifically does NOT restrict me from continuing to edit global warming pages.
  9. I have never made any secret of the fact that I am a single issue editor (this does not disqualify me from participation on wikipedia) nor that I am a skeptic. As I said in the previous WP:AN thread my purpose here is to combat the blatant AGW bias that is pervasive on these pages. This too is completely within intent, purpose, and spirit of being inclusive in wikipedia and trying to represent all points of view. Does that make me a POV pusher? From Raul's perspective I have no doubt that it does which is why he wants me to simply go away, apparently by force, coercion, and subterfuge if necessary. But from wikipedia's perspective? I don't think so.
  10. This edit which evoked this response and description: "GoRight's edits to The Deniers were certainly disruptive. The quote in question was not overly long, and GoRight's edit substantially whitewashed meaning of the cited sentence (GoRight's "I am not a denier" version is substantially weaker than the previous version, which, to paraphrase, said "Solomon's newspaper columns were misleading. I am not a denier. There is overwhelming evidence for global warming. Solomon misquoted other people too") The latter is an accurate representation of what was said; the former is a watered down and less informative, which was GoRight's goal from the beginning." is a fine case in point. It is completely illustrative of Raul's modus operandi here. He is completely exaggerating and misrepresenting the truth of the situation in an attempt to bias you against me. He does this when he says that my sanction was a result of the RFC when it was not. He does this in the example above. If you want more examples simply look at the descriptions he has in his WP:Attack page then follow the links and read the context. In the overwhelming majority of cases there the outcome will be just like this example.
  11. Raul wants you to believe that this edit is inflammatory and POV pushing on my part. But take note of the content that HE is arguing to keep in the article, not me. Did I simply trash the entire comment? No. Did I leave the operative portion of the point being made? Yes. Did I improve the article by removing biased material that was being given WP:UNDUE weight given its context and location? I claim yes. He claims no. But if you go read the section that comment is in you will find that the whole thing is highly summarized. The entire series of articles has been collapsed into a single paragraph. The original rebuttal paragraph was similar until this comment had been added. This single comment almost doubles the size of that section on its own. Is that, therefore, WP:UNDUE? I say yes. He says no. This is a simple content dispute and nothing more. So, who is POV pushing here and who is not?
  12. Raul claims that I don't follow wikipedia policies. But WP:DISPUTE clearly states that disagreements should be taken to the talk page. When KDP reverted my edits I did so. Raul on the other hand simple committed 2 drive-by reverts without so much as an edit summary as to why. This is a very common modus operandi of his as well and this is but one example. So who's following policy and who is not?
  13. Raul claims that he was not in a content dispute with me prior to warning me and blocking me. He then impugns the character of Aitias by calling him, in effect, a liar and saying that he falsely claims Raul was involved in the content dispute. Check the timestamps here and here to see if Raul is being truthful in his description of the chronology of the events.
  14. Given our past history together I think it is fair to say that Raul and I are perpetually in a content dispute regardless of this most recent edit he is objecting to. He knows this well and he could have easily gotten an uninvolved administrator to make the block if it was justified. He chose not to because he knew he wouldn't be able to find anyone who agreed. That only left him to use his administrative privileges to try and silence me. Apparently this is a recurring theme, see here and here and even comments already expressed by others in this very WP:AN thread. So, who is adhering to policy here and who is not?
  15. Raul also knows that maintaining WP:Attack pages over such a long time is considered unacceptable. He himself has made that very argument in the past when it suited him. Now he chooses to ignore that reality. Note in his attack page that he claims I am maintaining hit lists. Those pages contained evidence I was collecting as part of the WP:AN discussion. Note also that those pages no longer exist and were deleted within days of the sanction being imposed against me. Who is following policy here, and who is not?

I would very much appreciate some action be taken to prevent Raul from continuing to WP:STALK and WP:HARASS me (as evidenced by his WP:Attack page and his repeated and failed calls to ban me), and most especially to prevent him from continuing to abuse his administrative privileges as a means of silencing me in all manner of content disputes because he simply disagrees with my POV. Since others have also commented that this is a recurring theme with him against other users on GW pages, perhaps a general ban on his using administrative privileges on GW pages would also be in order. Either way something should be done to rein him in as this current incident illustrates.

The questions you have to ask yourself here are, does this edit that he blocked me for represent the devious and nefarious attempt on my part to destroy the whole of wikipedia that Raul would have you believe, or does it not? Did he block me to prevent imminent damage to wikipedia or did he simply do it to punish me and teach me a lesson? In other words, was he following proper wikipedia policy or was he not?

--GoRight (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I'm putting these sections into an archive. Raul654 is not the pressing issue here, and this is unlikely to be helpful, per Thatcher. The immediate question is whether GoRight should be community banned. If another user's behavior is a concern, I suggest an RFC rather than diverting a timely community ban discussion. Cool Hand Luke 08:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Community review of User:Raul654's block of User:GoRight[edit]

As long as we're going to discuss GoRight here, I think the community should assess whether Raul's block of GoRight was appropriate given their history. The two have an excessively nasty history to the point where Raul keeps a list of GoRight's so-called "disruption" and has attempted on multiple occasions to have GoRight community banned. To me, it seems rather obvious that Raul should not personally exercise a block on GoRight (except in a clear-cut case of policy violation or a violation of his topic ban, neither of which seem to be the case here as two uninvolved admins disagreed with the block here and he was subsequently unblocked). In my opinion, there is no way that Raul could have considered himself an uninvolved admin here and therefore he clearly should have asked someone else to perform the block or presented the behavior to the community. I'm far from being an uninvolved party in this whole mess as well so I'd ask the community to review this block and decide whether it was appropriate. Oren0 (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user--and without any comment on the value of either GoRight or Raul's contributions--blocking a user you're in a nasty, long-term dispute with is blatantly not okay. It takes 10 seconds to find an uninvolved admin, and if the user warrants a block as much as you say they do, they get it. There is no ambiguity in the policy, and as a longtime admin Raul should know better. I suggest we review this further. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 12:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Could we use a little common sense here? There is a difference between "a nasty, long-term dispute" and "a nasty, long-term disruptive editor whom one admin has been trying to get to Straighten up and Fly right". Don't conflate I've blocked you, warned you, and tried to get you to follow policy with I'm involved. This trend is not helping the encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I think maintaining a userspace list of perceived problems for many months (I have just sent it to MfD) does make an admin involved. DuncanHill (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
To save others the trouble, the Mfd and the page. That is "involved" in watching a formerly banned user, yes? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Adding: DuncanHill must not have read Raul's talk page, where immediately above the section for this Mfd, Raul states the page is in case GoRight goes to another Rfc or to Arbitration.[6] KillerChihuahua?!? 13:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed I had not seen that, but I must say coming up with a "it's just in case there is another case" justification 5 months after starting such a page rings a little hollow to me. Other editors are not allowed to maintain such pages over such a long time "just in case", so I do not see why Raul should be. I assume he has access to a computer, so it should not be too hard for him to maintain such a list if he wishes off-wiki. If KC is going to copy his responses to the MfD here, so shall I.DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
During the ANI discussion in August, I had no doubt in my mind whatsoever that GoRight was lying when he said he intended to improve his behavior, and that it would inevitably wind up back at ANI/RFC/Arbcom. I started that page so I would be prepared when it happened. (That's why "evidence" has been the first word on that page since day 1) Raul654 (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
KC, I realize you tend to support Raul almost universally, but the rule's real simple: don't block people you've had personal conflicts with. Get an uninvolved admin to do it. It's real, real, real simple, costs nothing, and eliminates drama. Wikilawyering about intent is not helping the encyclopedia, and I'm a little disappointed (but unsurprised) that you're unwilling to even admit that Raul MIGHT have done wrong here. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 13:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Who the hell are you? I don't support anyone universally. I support or disagree as my intelligence and conscience dictates. I suggest you back off, I am tired of slander and insult this particular day, and you are the last straw. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Having looked into this a little, there's certainly been a resumption of disruptive editing by GoRight and in light of past disruption a block seems reasonable. Whether it will lead to an improvement in behaviour is something to watch. The suggestion that any admin with past experience of a disruptive editor should therefore leave them to continue disruption to "eliminate drama" is a recipe for more disruption, and probably more drama. Vague allegations and what appears to be a personal attack on KC's motivations are not the way to improve the encyclopedia. . . dave souza, talk 13:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This is more than just "past experience". If it's a topic area that you have strong opinions about, don't block a good faith user, particularly if you are actively arguing with them on a talk page. WP:BLOCK#Disputes says, "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved." The proper course of action would be for Raul654 to recuse himself from blocking people for global warming-related issues except for obvious spam/vandalism and the like. This isn't the first time there has been a concern here with Raul's use of the tools in global warming articles. Usually criticism is just shouted down, and I'm not under any delusion that anything different will happen this time. One of the biggest failings of Wikipedia is its inability to deal with abuse of the administrative tools. --B (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It is shouted down because there's nothing to it, just like this complaint here. You are saying, in essence, that only an admin who has never interacted with another user can block him, which is a recipe for problems if that user is disruptive in a non-obvious way. Hell, even the policy you cited doesn't support your interpretation (Policy says "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute"; you say "If it's a topic area that you have strong opinions about, don't block a good faith user". These are substantially different statements) Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Indeed, I'm in perfect agreement with B on this issue. The block constituted a blatant conflict of interest. — Aitias // discussion 18:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Raul654, you were involved in a particular (and current) content dispute with this user and have not just “interacted with” them at a random point of time. — Aitias // discussion 18:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with Aitias here. To paint this as if you've just "interacted" with GoRight is disingenuous. If I had to pick a particularly heated conflict I'm aware of, the one between yourself, GoRight, and WMC would probably rate near or at the top of the list. There is a lot of history here and you are about as involved with GoRight as any user can be involved with any other user. Oren0 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no issue with us debating whether there was a COI - but B, are you sure you want to say "abuse of the administrative tools"? Surely even if your view is that Raul was involved, this was a misjudgment? IOW, was the block itself bad, or merely who did it? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
If he was really under 1RR, then a block by an uninvolved admin could have been appropriate. I looked at the previous ban discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive466#Continued_baiting_and_harassment_by_User:GoRight and it looks like, among other things, GoRight agreed to "3. I have taken the RfC process to heart and have been voluntarily adopting a WP:1RR policy (although there may be rare exceptions) and I have been consistently WP:CIV in my edit summaries and talk page comments." Unless there is a community imposition of an absolute 1RR, all this says is "I will hold to 1RR unless I don't want to", which is not anything I would think enforceable by a block. In any event, Raul in part provoked the incident by using the admin rollback tool to revert GoRight's edits. Everyone knows that is considered to be an insult. If he were not an admin, it wouldn't even be controversial that his rollback privileges would be taken away. Blocking is to be used to prevent disruption, not to win a content dispute. Was there any real threat of imminent disruption here? I'm not seeing it and so no, the block was not a good block. --B (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
He was not blocked for violating the 1rr he claims to adhere to. He was blocked for a continuing pattern of disruption, which is blockable, and for which there is a great deal of evidence, and not a single productive edit to balance it out. Raul654 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Nor was I the one who provoked the incident. GoRight provoked it by making this series of inflammatory edits [7][8][9] which were rightfully reverted by Kim [10] as being disruptive. Goright reverted Kim [11]. I warned GoRight against any further disruption on GW articles, and afterwards I reverted the article back to the version that has been there for weeks prior to GoRight's editing. Raul654 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing inflammatory about those edits - all three were in good faith and there is no way that an unbiased, uninvolved admin would consider them to be disruptive. --B (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Wrong on all counts. [12][13][14] Raul654 (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you posted the wrong diff? Are you really providing comments by yourself and WMC as evidence that an uninvolved admin would find GoRight's edits disruptive? Also, of those 3 diffs, only yours makes any hint of the edits being disruptive. Because other editors disagree with something or revert it does not mean that the original edit was disruptive, and it certainly doesn't make the edit blockable. Oren0 (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, is this another one of your "they should have used these these magic words" arguments? Kim, WMC, and I were the ones who responded to GoRight's edits, and no one else did. And all of us argued against them. Neither Kim or WMC called them disruptive in so many words, but if we were to ask them, I'm pretty sure they would call his edits disruptive.
And you're right, that reverting an edit is not, by itself, evidence of disruption. On the other hand, 94% (34 out of 36, according to the RFC) of GoRight's edits are revert warring. That's a pretty conclusive sign of disruption. Raul654 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

From a past interaction with Raul654 over a similar issue, I feel safe in saying that anyone who feels as User:B does would be wasting their time posting further here in the hope of persuading Raul654 to do anything differently in the future. Whether other avenues are likely to lead to other results is dubious, of course, but the method of behavioral modification by noticeboard harangue is even less likely to work here than for other admins. Thatcher 21:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What could Thatcher be referring to? Mike R (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
And herein lies the problem. Nobody questions that Raul does very good work for Wikipedia and that his work over the years with featured articles is some of the finest service given to Wikipedia by anyone. But the blind eye that is turned to his use of the content tools in content disputes is more than troubling. Also troubling is the link Mike posted. Are you saying that one of the people in those examples is Raul or am I reading too much into this? Is there a checkuser who would be willing to answer the question for me of whether or not I have ever been checkusered? --B (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
He is almost certainly Smith on the page linked. Giggy (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Raul654 per our standards "involved" on global warming articles?[edit]

That is the standard of whether or not he's allowed to act as anything but a regular editor on these, same as for any other admin, arb, checkuser, or whatever else. Same rules apply to every admin, of course. So, is Raul an "involved editor" on global warming, or has he just been acting as an admin? If the former, he shouldn't even block any GW-related things beyond blatant vandals. If the latter, he can block, Checkuser, etc. Which is it? rootology (C)(T) 21:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Using the edit counter, here are his most-edited articles:
Edits Article
528 Yom Kippur War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
290 Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
287 Battle of Dien Bien Phu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
207 Global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
188 Free speech zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
133 Akutan Zero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
128 Parallel computing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
115 Jim Inhofe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
96 Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
81 The Swimming Hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
77 The Great Global Warming Swindle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
77 Operation Downfall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
76 AIDS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
70 Yahya Ayyash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
69 Cat gap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I certainly would not consider him uninvolved in the topic area. In THIS PARTICULAR CASE, he was in a discussion with GoRight at Talk:Global_warming#More_recognition_of_dismissive_reports_and_data, so even if you don't accept that Raul should never use his admin tools controversially in the global warming topic area, in this particular case it's pretty unquestionable that there was an active dispute with this particular user. --B (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
For discussion purposes, I looked up all the Global Warming related blocks he's done (excluding the hundreds of User:Scibaby and Scibaby Checkuser blocks:
Raul also has 199 edits to Talk:Global warming out of 19040 total edits there, and has been active on the talk page since 2006-05-17 according to this tool. For context. rootology (C)(T) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You've effectively answered your own question: I don't edit the global warming article all that much. My edit count relative to the total is low, most of my edits were made years ago when it was on the FAC, and my last edit there was 3 months ago. At the same time, as an admin, I deal with the many troublemakers that article attracts. (By the way, in your list above, Obedium is a scibaby sockpuppet; Britannia is an unmarked sockpuppet of Rameses; and the anons were part of an organized off-site attack on the TGGWS article). I participate in the talk pages occasionally, but much of that too is related to Scibaby. Since GoRight's return and prior to my warning to him, my only interaction with GoRight was initiated by him. (I made a comment to Jaimaster about the GW FAQ, and GoRight responded with a snarky comment, baiting people to reply) Raul654 (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • ...No. A content dispute is a content dispute. If raul said "this paragraph stays" and GoRight says "this paragraph goes" and Raul says "I'll block you and keep the paragraph", that is a content dispute impacting his ability to judge a behavior problem. If I blocked someone editing a warhammer online article because I've edited Warhammer 40,000, that's not a content dispute. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Based on all this, despite being thought of probably by some people as associated with the GW articles, I don't think Raul can be today considered involved. I don't see a problem with him acting as an admin here for these articles. rootology (C)(T) 03:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Even if it were granted that Raul is not de facto involved in all global warming disputes, I'm not sure how anyone could argue that he is uninvolved with GoRight. Users who have longstanding disputes with one another should not use admin tools against one another. Oren0 (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
No, that is wrong. That way we disqualify admins that first try to solve problems by warning and discussion, and those previously involved in admin actions against a user. These are exactly those that are most qualified to handle the case. Admins that are involved in substantial independent disputes with the user, or in a content dispute, should refrain from administrative action, yes. But all of Raul's interaction with GoRight was trying to get him to conform to our content and behavior policies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Stephan Schulz. There is no conflict here b/c Raul was trying to get GoRight to follow community guidelines and norms. Raul is also acting appropriately as admin in the Global Warming articles. GoRight should have a community ban and this witchhunt on Raul should stop.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I urge anyone interested to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight. "Majority opinion" in that RfC is a bit tricky. The consensus of uninvolved editors was that there had been plenty of misbehavior to go around, including that of editors who have once again complained, here, about GoRight, and that GoRight's behavior was no worse than that of others. Raul654 is definitely involved. Raul654, if he was attempting to get [GoRight] to conform to our content and behavior policies, should probably be warned not to do so uncivilly, see the RfC. GoRight was abused. I was hoping to let sleeping dogs lie, but, entirely independently, came across this discussion. Witch hunt? Raul654 brought this here. Nobody was pursuing him. Anyway, I've seen COI issues pop up frequently with Raul654. Maybe it's about time this was confronted. --Abd (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Abd is obfuscating the issue. The RFC opinion with the most supports was the one written by Stephan Schultz, and supported by essentially all of the people who have to deal with GoRight on a regular basis. And it said that more-or-less everything in the initial description was correct, and that GoRight contributes little if anything of value to Wikipedia. The other opinions stated, essentially, that GoRight was not alone in his misbehavor. Nobody (except possibly Coolhandluke, whose judgment in these matters is questionable) argued his behavior was acceptable. Raul654 (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The block was procedurally incorrect because an involved admin made it (involved with GoRight, if not Global Warming). It should be lifted. Then a community ban discussion should proceed. Cool Hand Luke 07:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Coolhandluke is incorrect in all counts - first, Aitias has already lifted the block; I was not involved either with GoRight as the evidence supplied by Rootology above shows, or the GW articles in general except as an admin; and that no such requirement (that community sanction discussions take place while the user being discussed is unblocked) exists in policy. I'll also note that Coolhandluke himself has intervened in these articles in the past to support GoRight's misbehavior (claiming on GoRight's RFC that apart from his misguided push to edit an OpEd source on a BLP (William Connolley), his actions have been well-taken, and conscientious. - this was during a time where 34 out of GoRight's 36 edits were edit warring). I echo Thuran's comment below that GoRight has essentially mastered the trolling tactic if picking a fight with actives administrators to prevent action on disruptive editing. Raul654 (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Then don't fall for it. Get someone else to issue the block.
Anyhow, I agree with ThuranX insofar that this is an unhelpful diversion. Should close these sections and open a discussion for community ban because there's clearly a case. Cool Hand Luke 08:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that few Admins do the long term legwork needed to substantiate the value of the actions they take in such situations, especially in predictable cases, like GoRight's. Raul took the time to build a solid case against GoRight, while continuing to edit all over. It's inevitable that disruptive users who manipulate past community tolerances but not to the level of binding community intolerance can, and will (often deliberately) cross paths with their biggest opponents; it's a great defensive tactic. If your opponents are made vulnerable, then they're impotent, under our system. The trolls are learning this; many have mastered it. We can sit around and say 'sure, Raul should've brought it to another admin', but then we'd be here anyways, because admins like Aitais fall for the troll's line, unblock, and it winds up here. This entire section has rapidly become about Raul and procedure, not about a disruptive troll and whether his block should become a ban. Quite the opposite. Cool Hand Luck insists we unblock, punish Raul, then consider whether to reblock/ban, by which time the 'punishment not prevention' mantra will be invoked, and we'll be here in 6 months again, when whoever picks up where raul left off in watching this troll cut across WP will be brought up for blocking GoRight. This is a systemic problem: Admins cannot monitor perpetual problem users without becoming "involved', which is a vague enough word anyways on here. If an admin monitors, they can't block, they are accused of failing AGF, and more. This is absurd. In the real world, GoRight would've been fired/benched/ asked to leave the restaurant long ago, and we'd all be glad we could do our work/eat our meal in more peace. ban goRight now, save everyone the song and dance of some procedurally questionable 'right way', and be done. ThuranX (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, you've misunderstood my view. I don't think anyone should be "punished," but this community ban discussion should proceed with GoRight's participation. Cool Hand Luke 08:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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

GoRight community discussion (cont'd)[edit]

Getting away from the red herring above, a number of editors have now supported a community ban for GoRight. His behavior has continued unabated for 2 years, despite multiple administrative steps to correct it (multiple ANI threads, an RFC, community sanctions). More-or-less all of the people who edit the articles he does have weighed in support of banning him. Virtually all of his edits are revert warring, and he does not contribute to any non-GW articles. I think it's time to put a community ban into effect. Raul654 (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to give one representative example of the kind of stuff GoRight does: during his last stint of edits, he started nine (yes, nine) simultaneous edit wars. One of them was him adding a claim to the global warming article that global warming can cause earthquakes. He modified our global warming article to say that global warming might cause earthquakes, and cited it to a Fox News article which essentially said "Fringe scientist claims global warming causes earthquakes (But everyone else disagrees)." On further investigation, we found out that Fox News had already retracted the article, and that GoRight was aware of this retraction from the first time he cited it in our global warming article. This is the nonsense we have to deal with from him.

Raul654 (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide link to Fox retraction and a diff showing GoRight knew of it. Three diffs at least for the nine edit wars would be useful. Mccready (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The same story was reported in MSNBC, CBS, and the AP (not Fox, my mistake), then withdrawn by the AP and CBS. Here, GoRight admits he is aware of its withdrawal by the AP and CBS, but that we should go ahead and cite the MSNBC article: Don't let the fact that CBS News and the AP have backtracked (withdrawn the story) stop you. MSNBC is considered a credible news source, is it not? Raul654 (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are GoRight's edit warring diffs that you asked for:
Notice that I haven't collected these from separate edit wars that happened over a period of months -- most of the above edits are from one week at the end of June 2008 (and a few from July). This is what happens when GoRight edits regularly - lots of disruption and revert warring. Raul654 (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
If Cool Hand Luke thinks I should participate more in this discussion, I'll try to oblige.
I'll save Raul the trouble on the whole earthquake episode and provide the requested links myself. Here is the original edit and here is my one and only revert per WP:1RR. The discussion on the talk page can be found here. Does this incident make me look bad? Yea, probably. In retrospect I probably shouldn't have done it. But I still maintain that I was within allowable wikipedia policies and guidelines in doing it as I argued at the time. Your mileage may vary.
Note that this is what Raul is calling an "edit war". One revert. Raul would also have you believe that this is a "representative example". It is not. It is a cherry picked example and he would be hard pressed to come up with anything similar (excepting, of course, the incidents that lead up to my current sanction which I have respected since it was imposed).
I rarely add wholely new material like this. As I said above my purpose here is to combat the blatant bias that is pervasive in the GW articles. So mostly I either attempt to reword things to make them more neutral (as in the case of the edit Raul blocked me for) and/or I follow the same sources used by the AGW proponents to make sure they have not been cherry picking. If they have I try to balance out what the sources have actually said by including the other side of the story from the same sources if possible, or comparable sources if needed. Probably 80% of my work falls into this mode of operation.
If you want to get a feel for what I am really up to check out my updates to any of the following pages: The Deniers, Lawrence Solomon, Fred Singer, Robert M. Carter, William M. Gray, An Inconvenient Truth, The Great Global Warming Swindle, and my participation in this wikidrama.
Come to think of it, I don't think that I have actually even edited Global Warming directly much at all. How do you do the edit counting thing that I saw above? --GoRight (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I've looked through GoRight's self-justifications above, and in particular at the example GoRight links. That was clearly edit warring against consensus, inserting information on the basis of unreliable sources and deleting properly sourced content to present a misleading impression. A community ban is evidently in order. . dave souza, talk 09:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is almost certainly going to end just as all the others have: with no consensus. The issue here is that any sort of edit that "rocks the boat" on the GW articles it bitch-slapped by the WP:OWNers so quickly and users are labeled as trolls, sockpuppets, or edit warriors so immediately that WP:BRD is impossible. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are several well-respected editors around the GW pages who are less civil than GoRight is and I don't believe his behavior in particular should be singled out for a ban. Oren0 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
With partisan topics, there never really is a consensus. I think that ImperfectlyInformed (II) is right when he says we should have some sort of jury system for these sorts of disputes. Almost everyone commenting here has been involved before, including me. For the record, I think GoRight's editing since returning has been somewhat more provocative, which is disappointing because I hoped that the RFC would improve his behavior. If there's no improvement, blocks should be issued—but not by partisans in these articles. Cool Hand Luke 22:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Even though ThoranX is referring to me as a troll (which is not very WP:CIV), I kind of agree with his sentiment. There really is no reason to drag this whole thing out. The simple fact of the matter is that I am a dissenting voice up against a small group (and it is well known who they are) of editors who believe that they WP:OWN anything even remotely related to GW and they tag team revert anyone with a dissenting opinion. Once the discussion is on the talk pages they simply refuse to agree to anything and so nothing but their views are represented.

This ultimately leads to some low-level of reverting back and forth. But in all of the "revert wars" that Raul is complaining about how many WP:3RR blocks occurred? How many went on for days and weeks as so many of the real "revert wars" do? None. If that level of activity is disruptive then I guess I am guilty, but don't forget that there are always two sides in every revert war.

As a dissenting voice anything I change is going to be viewed as disruptive to the status quo. That is inevitable. Raul labels me a "Polite POV pusher." This is a silly term. It describes anyone who wants to operate properly within the rules and policies to bring change to an entrenched status quo. If I am not WP:CIV I am violating policy and I get bannd. If I say something the status quo disagrees with they label me disruptive simply because they disagree with my POV. They don't want to have to bother to keep defending their position. It is easier to simply dispatch with the naysayer as Raul is attempting to do now.

So ultimately, the real question on the table here is not whether I am disruptive or not, but whether wikipedia and its community is strong enough to allow dissenting voices to participate. As a dissenting voice the entrenched status quo will always view me as disruptive. That is why it is important for independent observers to be the ones to weigh the issues, not the regular participants of which Raul most certainly is one. It is no surprise that he was able to make this statement above: "Kim, WMC, and I were the ones who responded to GoRight's edits, and no one else did. And all of us argued against them." This just illustrates my point here.

So, are you as a community going to allow a dissenting voice to remain or are you going to cast it out? It is your decision. --GoRight (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If your purpose in being here is to be a "dissenting voice" and you are not here to write an encyclopedia, then you are here for the wrong reason. --B (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
We're arguing semantics. I believe that I said "As I said above my purpose here is to combat the blatant bias that is pervasive in the GW articles." The fact that I am a dissenting (relative to the status quo) voice merely refers to which side of the debate I am on. Like most editors I focus on the things that interest me, so the fact that I am a single issue editor should not bias anyone against me. This is perfectly allowable.
The fact that I am here to write an encyclopedia (or at least a specific part thereof) goes without saying. If all I wanted to do was be a vandal my life would be far simpler if I just used a bunch of socks. I don't. Instead I take the time to come and defend myself.
The question at hand is are you going to strive to have a balanced encyclopedia by including voices that challenge and are critical of the IPCC view, or are you not. If you want wikipedia to merely be a rubber stamp for the IPCC then blank all of the articles and leave a pointer to the IPCC reports as this would save a great deal of time and trouble. If, on the other hand, you want to provide a balanced perspective as wikipedia policies state we should be doing, then you have to allow the dissenting voices to act as a check against the rubber stamp. --GoRight (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is chatter above about discussing a community ban - has this discussion commenced elsewhere or is this the only place it is being discussed? I have some comments on the matter and I was going to make them here, but if there is a community ban discussion elsewhere I'll go there. ATren (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is right here in this very section. If you'd like to weigh in on the issue, this would be the place. Oren0 (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In User:Raul654/GoRight, why are the edits listed under "Politcal back-scratching" being used as some sort of evidence of GoRight's misbehavior? They have nothing to do with Global Warming or edit warring. They all seem to relate to an issue I was involved in as well - trying to get User:Wilhelmina Will's brief DYK topic ban overturned. Whatever one thinks of the merits of the topic ban, as far as I can tell, WW has been editing productively and has earned several more DYKs since the ban was lifted. So how were GoRight's attempts to get that ban lifted some sort of misconduct? The fact that these edits are being used as evidence of misconduct makes me wonder about the validity of the rest of the accusations. Rlendog (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Wilhelmina at all; it pertains to GoRight's interactions with Abd. Specifically, GoRight's support of Adb's advocacy, and later lobbying in order to get Abd unbanned, while Abd was simultaneously involved in lobbying on GoRight's behalf, in order to prevent GoRight from being community sanctioned or banned (by obfuscating the issues, both on GoRight's RFC and further up this thread). I've edited the page to make this more clear. Raul654 (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't banned, I was indef blocked, first and only. Complicated little incident, triggered by a warning from one admin who has since apologized, and with whom I have since enjoyed a good sense of community and cooperation, the block being implemented by another whom I haven't approached, she essentially washed her hands of it (from the start, saying that she wouldn't object to an unblock), and it seems more wikidrama than it's worth to address it with her, and I wouldn't dream of causing massive fuss without first going the simple route. The admin whom I allegedly "attacked" shortly thereafter suggested and granted me rollback. Now, while I was blocked, yes, GoRight felt obligated, because I'd done so much work researching his case and documenting the abuse of him, by Raul654 among others, to take up the cause of Wilhelmina Will, which he did civilly and excellently, no thanks to Raul654. Obfuscating the issues? I made them clear by NPOV description, in my comments and linked files for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight of what had happened, with detailed diffs and analysis, whereas Raul654 simply blusters about with accusations, or pushes the block button when he's irritated. And when other editors or admins question it, he just blows them off. The last person to accuse GoRight of misconduct would be Raul654. GoRight can't hold a candle to him. However, Raul654 is losing it. Read the above, it's incoherent. He wrote the RfC on GoRight and it was quite a mess. I'd urge anyone who'd like a deeper understanding of what's going on here to read the whole thing. Banning GoRight would be a gross injustice, when his accuser, whose behavior is worse and more dangerous, walks free. I'd say they should both be free, though I have some doubt about those admin tools. If GoRight is abusive, let an uninvolved admin block him, just as any of us who become abusive should be blocked. Any of us. There is, indeed, massive incivility in this discussion on the part of Raul654. Has anyone warned him? Or blocked him? If GoRight wrote as Raul654 has written, he'd be blocked in a flash. Does anyone here doubt this? So, admins, this is your noticeboard, are you noticing this? Friends of Raul654, warn your friend! He's not likely to listen to the rest of us. And, Raul654, your block of GoRight was a clear COI block, and you will lose your tools if this goes before ArbComm. There are at least a few other improper blocks I'm aware of, I've protested at least one to you, and I've seen others protest. You have a chance to turn away from this, it's clear that your support is falling apart, editors are no longer believing that it's true just because you say so. Whom do you trust? Who could mediate this? --Abd (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I am still not sure I would consider that particular item misconduct, but I understand where you are coming from. Rlendog (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
"GoRight's support of Adb's advocacy" - Yep, I helped defend a little girl when she was wrongly accused and improperly sanctioned. It's all part of my nefarious scheme to destroy wikipedia. --GoRight (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sarcasm is not helpful. ATren (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sigh, you are of course correct. I shall strike the comment and hereby apologize for having made it. --GoRight (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The "nefarious scheme" part was sarcastic; but the defending the little girl (actually a teenager) part was accurate. It was a shocking example of how badly things can go on AN/I. --Abd (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Raul, I have browsed through your evidence on this page and after looking at the first dozen or so links, half way down the page, I found no evidence whatsoever that would justify banning. For a community ban, I would hope you could provide something more than a few very minor reverts and some civil talk page debate, which is all I've found so far. I don't even see individual instances of abuse, let alone a pattern. Can you please highlight what you perceive to be the worst example of recent abuse, with links? ATren (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you can look at diffs documented on that page (like this (personal attacks) and this (ludicrously false BLP claims)) and claim that he's not disruptive says more about your own judgment than it does about GoRight's behavior. As to his most disruptive recent edits, it's clearly the his edits to talk global warming, and his behavior/comments on his talk page in response to it. Raul654 (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Is that really the best you have? To call that first one a personal attack or to call removing a potentially questionable source a "ludicrously false BLP claim" really seems like grasping for straws. Oren0 (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
(A) If not a personal attack, the first one is a clear example of being a a dick. Kim Peterson's description of GoRight comes to mind - His entire method of operation, seems to be driving at pissing off people, so much that they will be seen as the "wrong-doers" instead of engaging in a reasonable consensus building. (B) It was not a potentially questionable source. It was a perfectly reliable source (The Sydney Morning Herald, a print newspaper in Australia), making a perfectly ordinary claim (that an marine geologist doesn't have much standing in the climatology field). Claiming that this is "extraordinary" in order to remove it is a misuse of the BLP policy, and an obvious one at that. Moreover, I notice you didn't mention his edits on the GW talk page - perhaps because they are obviously indefensible? Raul654 (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Raul, with respect to the diff where GoRight calls AGW scientists lobbyists, I don't particularly agree with it, but I've seen you call people lobbyists in a derisive manner, and you weren't blocked for it, nor were your edits struck. GoRight's comments were on a talk page, in the context of a debate about the reliability of sources - while I don't agree with GoRight, and even if I did I would have phrased it differently, this is not block/ban-worthy. Not at all. And if it is, then should you yourself not be subject to the same sanction for calling others lobbyists in the past? ATren (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
"(A) If not a personal attack, the first one is a clear example of being a a dick." - And you are accusing me of being uncivil? Does anyone else see the irony here?
"(B) ... making a perfectly ordinary claim ..." - Well if this is so common place perhaps you can provide a handful of other examples of similar claims being made against other scientists in the MSM? --GoRight (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Based on the information here I do not think a ban on GoRight is appropriate. Personal attacks should not be tolerated by either side of the argument and the editors should voluntarily strike the comments. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec @ Raul) "I notice you didn't mention his edits on the GW talk page - perhaps because they are obviously indefensible?" - I can defend them. The first is a statement of fact. James Hansen does, in fact, lobby congress all the time. As for the second statement, referring to climate scientists as "AGW Scientologists" is clearly no more offensive than comparing skeptics to "Holocaust Deniers". Something else that James Hansen has done. Just read his BLP. --GoRight (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
GoRight, I respectfully suggest: shut up! Stop defending yourself. Somebody wants to attack you, ignore it. Let others defend you, or not, as they choose. Your life does not depend on Wikipedia. I'm going to comment above on some of what's been said, but if I commented on every error I see, I'd be doing nothing else, and I have kids to take care of, totally insane at my age. Cool Hand Luke has said that he's disappointed that you've been provocative. My advice: ask him what you should do. And follow his advice, he won't lead you astray. As to irony, yes, what, do you think we are blind? It may seem crazy, but ... trust the community. --Abd (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sigh, again. Fine. I need to go to bed anyway. You go take care of the kids as that should be your priority. --GoRight (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice you didn't mention his edits on the GW talk page - perhaps because they are obviously indefensible? - Quite the contrary. These points weren't addressed because their inclusion here is hilarious. Various admins and respected editors make worse comments about AGW skeptics on an at least weekly basis and nobody calls them out because, like GoRight's edits, the only possible complaint about them is WP:FORUM. Oren0 (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, GoRight, you go right.

Somewhere above Raul654 notes that the comment by Stephen Schulz in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight attracted the most support comments. That's true. At the evidence page I compiled while the RfC was active, User:Abd/GoRight#Users commenting in RfC. I analyzed the edit history of those who commented, with relation to the research I had done on the involved articles (which is above that on that page). This was to determine who had been involved in edit warring with GoRight, whether in opposition to him or supporting him. Stephen Schulz himself had been involved, and so had most commenters. They were not neutral. The comment that attracted the most support from neutral editors was that of User:JeremyMcCracken. Two of those supporters were recently elected to ArbComm. I was, by the way, entirely uninvolved with GoRight before this RfC. I became involved when I saw the RfC about to be closed due to a technical defect, and I intervened to keep it open, I may even have completed the opening, I forget. Then I actually read the thing, and I was horrified, so I did the research to make a comment. So I was, at that point, a neutral editor. I would no longer treat myself that way, though I don't agree with GoRight's POV in his special interest area, Global warming. My position, though, is that we need editors with all varieties of POV to participate in forming the genuine consensus that marks NPOV, there really is no other clear sign of it. So blocking "civil POV-pushers" is entirely the wrong idea, we should engage them, and only block for gross and persistent incivility, edit warring, and the like. --Abd (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

People should look at the weight of support and the supposed "neutrality" of supporters in the RfC. Abd has what I consider "surprising" criteria for classification of users as neutral/non-neutral. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So, Raul, you accuse him of a personal attack, then when someone rightly calls you on the fact that it wasn't really a personal attack, you call him a dick? Do you not see the irony in that? Clearly you believe that GoRight should be held to a more strict standard than yourself.

Further, you have presented probably two dozen diffs as evidence above - and they are all from last summer. Weren't those issues already dealt with in the RfC and community ban discussions? Wasn't it agreed at that time that GoRight should stay away from WMC but would not otherwise be sanctioned? What has he done recently to evade that ban? What recent diffs do you have showing abuse?

I'll repeat: I've seen no evidence of recent behavior that would warrant even a warning, let alone a ban. Please enlighten me with recent evidence in case I missed something. ATren (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The only possible explanation why Raul can't post any serious disruptive edits here since the last RfC is because there aren't any. This entire proceeding appears to be little more than an attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP by retrying the previous RfC again. For Raul, I'd ask this: what has changed since the last RfC that leads you to believe the results of this will be any different? Why can't you support this attempt at a ban without using old diffs, tame comments jazzed up with extreme descriptions (this is "indefensible"?), accusations of "political backscratching" (yes, let's ban someone because he supported someone else at a noticeboard), or inconclusive sockpuppetry accusations? Oren0 (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrator reposting deleted content?[edit]


According to the Wall Street Journal:

John Soong, 18, says that after he had failed to get jobs at several chains that use the test, he began to poke around for an answer key, driven by "altruistic, and maybe vengeful," motives. In a discussion section of a Wikipedia entry, he saw a mention of a set of Unicru statements and answers that had been posted there but removed. Using privileges as a volunteer Wikipedia administrator, which gave him access to deleted page histories, Mr. Soong, a University of Virginia student, was able to recover the answer key and re-post it on Facebook.

Is this appropriate behaviour from an admin? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Already been discussed here, will see if I can find the link. SoWhy 11:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Here you go: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin misusing viewdeleted. Regards SoWhy 11:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Cheers... good to hear! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

January 13th is miscellaneous Good Deed day...for WP:PR[edit]

OK, everbody's Good Deed for the Day someone else write an article!, --> Go to WP:PR, take 5 mins (or more, but even a quick peek may be helpful) to look and drop a few notes on a PR candidate, anything, doesn't matter, pretty quick and easy to find some content or prose issues. Go for it and make WP a better place! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Here you go again....recklessly attempting to improve the encyclopedia - Peripitus (Talk) 04:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK? ... not sure I understand how that automated script actually works, what I posted appeared to show up on a different page than what I thought I was posting to though. I hope it went to the right place. (Bride of Frankenstein) Ched (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC) it ended up posting here: ... is that right? Ched (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You did fine. The article author has responded to your post with a question, which you can answer just below his question (preferably typing ** just before your comment in order to properly indent), if you like. Chick Bowen 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schneider inserting spam links again[edit]


There was a problem a few months ago with a critic called Dan Schneider adding spam links to his own reviews at the bottom of countless film pages. This was resolved after considerable debate and countless accusations and counter accusations to aliases and vendettas etc and eventually his aliases were removed and the problem solved- there was also a problem with him stretching his own wikipedia article to ridiculous lengths but this was eventually, again after considerable debate, resolved after about 8/10 of the article was removed and the remainder placed under protection. The pages I have removed the new links from include:,_the_Wrath_of_God

But there's bound to be countless more, including many that already had the links taken from by myself and others a few months ago. Some details of what happened last time are on my talk page He's very prolific and due to upcoming exams and other commitments I cannot do much myself and would like the Admin to get involved again if possible.

Many of the links appear to be to a site called and

Thanks, and sorry if this is in the wrong section. (StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

You may want to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Also, you can search for linked webpages with Special:Linksearch. Doesn't seem like you are seeking admin action, correct? You just want more eyes on this subject.-Andrew c [talk] 18:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I think Admin involvement might be useful seeing as it was only after they got involved last time that the situation was resolved. Last time it just built up into an edit war. But ultimately any help possible would be very useful.(StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC))
From what I see, this will take some time to figure out, so WT:WPSPAM would be the best venue for discussion. Looks like a sockpuppet report and a checkuser will be necessary too. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion continuing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Dan_Schneider_inserting_spam_links_again --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I remember it well and had another purge of Schneider vanispamcruftisement before Christmas. I'm sure he's evading at least one block by now. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just made aware of this discussion. The spam issue with Schneider involved people and sock puppets on both sides of the issue--i.e., both pro and con Schneider. After all this came up the last time, I personally contacted Schneider and he told me that he is not spamming Wikipedia. He said there are a number of people online who harass him online and he suspects this might be another case of this (i.e., to get his site blacklisted by Wikipedia). This view is backed up by comments some sock puppets made around this issue last time. People should feel free to remove any spam links. However, in my opinion this is not a clear cut issue of Schneider being the one to spam Wikipedia.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be resolved per discussion at WikiProject Spam. --SouthernNights (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Current adminbot BRFAs[edit]

There's currently several open WP:BRFAs for bots with admin rights that could use some comments:

-- Mr.Z-man 00:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


I just wanted to bring more eyeballs to this situation. It seems to have been handled hastily. I should add that I haven't talked to anyone at the Foundation about it. The user was indef blocked, and userpage deleted, on an accusation of "spamming". But in fact, this is a partnership with the Foundation, and he was only giving instructions of how to get a printed book of articles using the PediaPress system. The main thing that concerns me is that the javascript which is clearly opt-in was deleted. The javascript was not, itself, spam, and it seems premature to speedy it based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I also doubt if the user should have been blocked so hastily without some discussion, but on the other hand, perhaps I have overlooked something so I am not unblocking. I did undelete the javascript because I wanted to try it out, but it doesn't work for me so maybe there is something else going on here?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A relevant few links (please add more if it's helpful):

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive502#Pediapress appears to be the only discussion relating to this subject. Mind you, if someone who is affiliated with Wikia opens up a account then it might be worth mentioning it on said userpage!. This place is generally staffed by volunteers, not WikiaMedia savvy types and/or mindreaders... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC) (but then we knew that, already, didn't we?)
Is it a partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation or a partnership with Wikia? rootology (C)(T) 22:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It has nothing do with with Wikia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This appeared in the now deleted userpage, "This page is related to the Mediawiki Collection Extension." Now, I am a complete duffer when it comes to technical aspects of the Wiki(a) world, but it seems to suggest a link - but at no point is there any mention of an affiliation or endorsement or something, so I do not think that it was deleted per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It simply appears to be an article, created in userspace, that denotes a function that can run with Wikipedia (which, being a wiki, means anyone can write some script and use the 'pedia and sell it). Again, I ask how humble sysops were supposed to be able to tell that this came with an "official" stamp of approval simply by looking at the content..? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, that makes it sound like some "technical" think within MediaWiki was involved, but I was just curious if this was some official thing the actual WMF signed off on from San Francisco, if this was some 3rd party Wikia or independent project thing? If it's WMF, it probably doesn't need our approval. If it's Wikia or some 3rd party thing it would need local support. I'm lost on what it actually is, as is apparently everyone else. I.e, did the WMF say, "You can do stuff on en.wp for this," or did they say, "You can use the content like the recent 3rd party DVD project"? rootology (C)(T) 23:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't answer you, since I don't understand the question (and I read it real slow, too...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. Said useful link is not included in the two or three versions of the deleted page I reviewed - might have been even more useful if it had. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It would indeed. Maybe they made the mistake of assuming that Wikipedians would have heard about it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you. My concern is that blocking the user and deleting the javascript (thus breaking this for anyone who may have been using it) seemed a very extreme response to someone who is clearly working in good faith with the Foundation. I should add for repeat emphasis: this has nothing to do with Wikia. No one from PediaPress has asked me about this (I was randomly asked on my user talk page and someone not related to the company asked me about this in email). Why was the user blocked without (as far as I can see) a chance to respond to a warning? That seems extreme. I am not hollering at anyone. If someone didn't know, no big deal. I'm a big fan of blocking... and of unblocking. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      Some admins are quicker to block than others over perceived COIs. Anyway, looks like an interesting idea, and I think an unblock would be nice, maybe with a suggestion that they link to the press release from their userpage. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      It looked like a simple case of self-aggrandizement on a userpage, using a role account/spamusername. As LessHeard vanU points out, there was nothing on the userpage at that time to indicate anything to the contrary. (I will note in passing that I did not delete their monobook, and don't know whether anybody else did either.) Thanks for the "no big deal", Jimbo; I'm more accustomed to being accused of being an agent of eviallllll deletionism for blocking spammers, deleting spam, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Unblocked, per this discussion. They could have used the {{unblock|''reason''}} function - but it appears that they are about as savvy regarding WP practice and custom as I am with whatever it is that they do. I will drop a notice on the deleting/blocking admins talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, I don't think we can fault them for not using the unblock template, I have no idea if they even knew they were blocked! They didn't contact me, I just came across this when others called it to my attention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Their website at [55] has a link to User:Pediapress as having instructions on how to make collections. DuncanHill (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps their user page could also be restored they can go about amending it to establish their credentials (such as referencing the Foundations support of their activities) and demonstrating this role account is one of the six explicitly allowed role accounts listed on meta:Role account (which it is not presently). —Sladen (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have undeleted the page and removed the speedy template, with a hidden request not to place any more. If anyone who understands what it is that the page is being used for can edit it, or place a notice, so this doesn't occur again then hopefully the matter will be resolved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I have added a link to the Foundation's press release on both the userpage and the talk page. The userpage just gives instructions on how to create a selection of articles from Wikipedia, and then have them output as a pdf or OpenDocument file, or have them printed and bound as a book. I will add that it seems like a useful service, and I do know that other users have asked about such a service before. One more thing - maybe the Foundation could look at ways of communicating more effectively with Wikipedia editors, so that misunderstandings like this are less likely in the future! DuncanHill (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It is a bit disturbing for me to see someone involing Speedy Deletion criteria G11 on a opt-in MediaWiki user skin extension far far outside the articles. Even if there was no cooperation between WMF and Pediapress, why should we forbid users to customize their user interface with neat features on the web? For about 2 years now, I have a customized search box at en.wp in my user skin that allows me to search the web with google along with wikipedia. Its a small tool for convenience, a search function provided by a company (google) that probably doesn't even know this extension exists. Roughly speaking: It should be of no-ones business what I do with my user skin at Wikipedia as long as I don't interfere with anyone else. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Ugh, I wish someone would have responded to my ANI thread in the first place so this all could have been avoided. UAA blew me off (which was reasonable) and directed me to ANI, which blew me off (except for User:Neurolysis), so I took it to Jimbo's talk page. What's even more frustrating is that I gave all of the necessary links in the ANI thread, only to have above users say it would have been nice to know them. ARRGGGHHH! Their monobook was deleted after I posted on UAA, but no one ever notified the user nor made any statement anywhere. Their userpage was tagged after I posted on Jimbo's talk page, but no one ever notified the user nor made any statement anywhere. And to top it off, none of this was even what I was asking about. But I digress. I did what I should have done in the first place, and left a note on their friggin' talk page. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to say, that the lack of response was likely because the situation was not understood at the time (I don't understand it now, FWIW) rather than being "blown off". I did look at the links, but it meant - and means - nothing to me. I don't know if there is a more technical board where you could have posted this, but generally if you don't get a response here it is because folks don't know and are content to let someone who does respond. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Tombstone, didn't see the original ANI post. Anyway, as User:Pediapress hasn't edited since October, it is quite likely that they are unaware of all the shenanigans, so I have emailed their support to let them know about it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the fact they hadn't edited since October was why I went to ANI instead of their talk page in the first place. Anyway, Pediapress should be loving all of the free press I've generated for them and should send me a free gift — and take my templates off of their blacklist. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Folks, I tagged the user page for speedy and reported the user name to WP:UAA. Maybe I was too hasty, but as the user page existed at the time, there was no indication (apart from the somewhat obscure reference to the Mediawiki Collection Extension) that this was in any way sanctioned by the Foundation. The user page is a lot clearer now. Sorry for creating this issue, but my motivation was sincere. Thanks.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Please be more careful with speedy deletion, which I think is one of the admin tools that can more harm if not handled properly. Speedy deletion is meant for blatant advertising or other obvious, clear-cut cases. Something like that user page and the script are better taken to WP:MFD, allowing others to weigh in. --Aude (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thought for the future[edit]

Can we get a foundation employee or representative to make a project space page for collaborations? Perhaps something like a protected list that includes the project or userpage name and purpose. I don't want to create CREEP, but that would make it easier for those of us on NPP and username patrol to do our jobs. Further, if there is an admin account which can create these pages it will automatically remove them from patrols. We should assume that a user like PediaPress is not lying, but we get enough fake "admin" "foundation" and "wikipedia" accounts that suspicion is rewarded. Full disclosure might obviate that need for suspicion and would have the beneficial affect of advertising those collaborations at a unified page. Thoughts? (Also, I'm aware AN isn't the place for this, but it seems natural). Protonk (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of vandals and hoaxers claiming to have special rights. There should be a protected page where any claims of any special right or special relationship with the Foundation can be verified. A claim is not a proof. Edison (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
What if there were a specific username string that indicated such users? Blacklist the string so that it can't be created by just anyone (there is a way around the name blacklist for admins/crats/devs I think?), and Bob's your uncle. //roux   19:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Disagree with this suggestion. We're all editors, admins and above just have more "editing" tools. Differentiating would create a de facto class structure on Wikipedia, as compared to the informal/cabal structure that exists now. --Chasingsol(talk) 09:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Feedback on comment left on user talk page[edit]

I would like to receive feedback for a comment I left on a user talk page at User talk:Nathanael Bar-Aur L.#Edit warring. Was this appropriate? I would think that good intentions with reliable sources vigilantism do not justify continual edit warring, failure to use edit summaries, etc. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is someone going to answer my question? Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Your post seems reasonable to me. waggers (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirection blocked[edit]

I'd like to create the redirection Лeв Давидович Трóцкий as a Russian name redirection to Leon Trotsky, but apparently this particular one is in some sort of "blacklist"... The same happens with Леонід Данилович Кýчма. Could any admin. kindly unblock these? Regards. --Againme (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would anyone be looking for a Russian name (written in Cyrillic) on English Wikipedia? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Would someone please look over this editor's contribs? He or she has created numerous redirects in the Cyrillic alphabet. Is that really proper for this project? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You don't have to speak about me in the third person, I'm here... Answer: It's not me who created the categories. We have even redirects from Japanese names in this project. I suposse if they are here they have to be used... Regards.--Againme (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Assuming those names are the correct Cyrillic (which I have no way of knowing) then it is entirely appropriate. We don't have articles in foreign languages, but there is nothing bad about making it easier for Russians to find an article about a Russian. Dragons flight (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Dragon. For Ed: here's the category: See [[56]] --Againme (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I see the category. I disagree that it's appropriate to have these redirects here, nor would I expect Wikpedias in other languages to allow redirects from English. They're also unnecessary, since using the Search box will bring up any instance of the Cyrillic words, as in the InterWiki listings or the transliterations at the top of many article about non-English subjects. I don't plan on doing anything about it, but it seems like a waste of time, space and energy to me. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
And if the redirect exists, using the search box takes you directly to the page. Redirect from alternative language is one of the encouraged uses of redirects. Obviously, you don't have to work on them if you don't want to, but some people do find them useful. Dragons flight (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The blacklist rules it's matching are those for preventing mixed-script titles, specifically mixed Latin/Cyrillic. --Carnildo (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I did not understand you, Carnildo. Thanks for your answer anyway.--Againme (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia has a set of rules that prevent people from creating articles with certain titles. One of those rules prohibits titles that use letters from both the Cyrillic and Latin alphabets: since the letters look similar but computers represent them using different numbers, mixed-alphabet titles can be confusing. The first title uses the Latin letter "e" rather than the Cyrillic Ye. I can't tell what letter in the second title is causing problems, but it's matching the same set of rules. --Carnildo (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, very clear now. --Againme (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Meh, I didn't see this section before fulfilling this request on WP:RFPP. Redirects are cheap anyway :) -- lucasbfr talk 16:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability's protection[edit]

I noticed Wikipedia:Notability has been fully protected since 13 December 2008, because of the edit warring that was going on there. I didn't follow the story at all, but I guess 1 month is probably long enough for spirits to have settled down. I'd remove the protection but I think it is best to have a brain check before putting my hand in the hornet's nest. :) -- lucasbfr talk 16:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, depends. What was it fully protected for, exactly? (Can't say I follow that sort of stuff much.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
A link for you, Mr. Fuchs. I think it's safe to unprotect now. Keegantalk 21:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Howcheng and spamming on user pages[edit]

I recently had a message added to my user page by Howcheng here: [57]. The point of the message was to invite me to a museum event near me. I certainly don't object to the event, or to the purposes it was organized for. But I do object to the manner in which it is being advertized. The idea apparently is to add, with an automated tool, messages to a large number of pages (about four hundred, I think). The message itself contains an "apology", an indication that the poster had an intimation that it was inappropriate. When I asked him about it here [58] [59], he replied [60], essentially saying that he did nothing wrong. I object because I do not want wikipedia to become another source of spam, another engine for generating unsolicited messages. The event is, in one sense, wikipedia-connected, but in another sense, it's an off-wiki event. There is already the notices that appear at the top of my watchlist, which would be the place for such broad community announcements. If it's not appropriate for that, then I submit it's not appropriate elsewhere either, and certainly not by an automated tool. But I'm uncertain: it's not crystal clear this violates policy, and I would like to find out how best to explore the question. I do think it is crucial that we not come to the conclusion that users are free to post automated messages to hundreds of user pages, to advertize off-wiki things. I don't think it matters much at all whether it's commercial or not; the annoyance factor is the same. What is the best way to explore this? Tb (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

  • An invitation to a Wikipedia event to Wikipedians who're likely to be local is an appropriate talk page message. There's no need for administrative action here. WilyD 18:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
No need for administrative action here, invitations to Wikipedia-related events are pretty commonplace on talk pages.