Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive189

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

Noticeboard archives


Full clerkships[edit]

Arbitration clerk trainees User:Mailer diablo, User:MBisanz, and User:Tiptoety have been granted full clerkships by the arbiration committee. RlevseTalk 23:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol trainees. This is opposed to being half a clerk? Majorly talk 23:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
No, trainees are 9/13th of a clerk. — Coren (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I can haz fez? Tiptoety talk 02:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
9/13... is that like the Three-fifths compromise?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Clerk trainees". Next thing we'll see are "apprentice interns". -- llywrch (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)



User:Juliancolton has protected WP:NOT for three days over edit warring. I've asked Julian to unprotect, but he declined. He offered me the opportunity to unprotect, but I declined because I am involved. We then agreed I could bring the issue here. I don't think we really are edit warring. There's fruitful discussion on the talk page, and most participants are tweaking and revising rather than reverting. It's all very well saying discuss it on the talk page, but unless you can edit the page, you aren't going to get further input. I think we're all working with WP:CONSENSUS, especially "Consensus as a result of the editing process" and File:Consensus Flowchart.svg. We're mostly trying to improve the text communally. We are not repeatedly reverting each others contributions, we're amending them. Anyway, have a look at the history of the page and the discussion on the talk page. I don;t think it is as heated as you would expect to see if an edit war were being waged, but I may be wrong. Appreciate any input. Thanks. Hiding T 14:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I just want to get across, I'm not calling into question Julian's use of the tools, I think he's acted admirably throughout our little disagreement and within an admin's remit. Hiding T 14:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Three days of full protection doesn't seem excessive given the amount of reverting that was going on. (Half of the 14 edits in the 48 hours prior to the protection were reverts). People are disputing the 'Plot summaries' section, which consists of 40 words. Can't they draft up alternate versions of that paragraph and try to get a consensus for one of them on the Talk page? If so I imagine Juliancolton would undo the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess it's a philosophical issue. I can remember the days when we treated the policy itself as a draft and edited and discussed until we found the right balance. I guess we're not encouraged to do that anymore. My bad. Apologies to Julian. Hiding T 20:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Unlike some previous disputes about this provision, the two versions were very close, and even those reverting could probably support either. I thank Julian for preventing a collapse just before the finishing line. DGG (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sensitive IP's - Adding DoD addresses[edit]

Just curious: Do you think we should try to contact DISA about getting DoD IP's on the list? Aeon1006's situation with autoblocks came to mind. Glacier Wolf 02:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think DOD will give us a list of their IP addresses to publicize. If I were their CIO, I'd fire anybody who did that. Jehochman Talk 06:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Are the addresses actually sensitive? The House and Senate addresses are on there because some of the users of those addresses might raise a stink if they find themselves blocked. --Carnildo (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I have often wondered about that; Ooooh, let's make sure that the staff employed by the people voted by the public to serve them are not inconvenienced because they are spending tax dollars on vandalising a website... I should have thought that giving the Washington Post and others a newsfeed of every edit from House of Representatives or Senate ip addresses would ensure that only good edits ever came from those sources. Same thing in the UK - put all edits from the Houses of Parliament ip addresses on a live feed to Fleet Street. I suggest that would end any likelihood of vandalism, POV editing, or misrepresentation from such institutions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is not that you can't block these ranges, it's just that you have to inform the Foundation if you do block them. Happymelon 20:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What is sensitive about Quatar? By that logic, we'd have to notify the Foundation every time we blocked any IP, as they're all in a country. Dendodge T\C 19:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It's because blocking those two IPs means you block the entire nation of Qatar from editing here. —kurykh 19:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, there's only 2 IPs there? My mind put in an imaginary ndash and I saw it as a range. Makes sense now. Dendodge T\C 19:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original topic: if they'll actually give you the IP's, go ahead... Calvin 1998 (t·c) 19:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Just a note. You don't have to contact DISA about getting the addresses. They show up in WHOIS when you lookup an IP that is DOD registered. Note that DOD policy does permit some personal use of the network. This is a contribution history for a DOD ip. Note that not all the edits are bad. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked the DOD multiple times before for vandalism, including pretty much every branch of the armed services. Long story short, there are a lot of low-level personnel on a lot of military bases that get bored and vandalize; so, there's currently no reason to add them to the sensitive ips list unless you want to overtask the communications committee. :P --slakrtalk / 04:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please Someone[edit]

Lock Lawrence Kutner.

Thanks. -CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 00:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 00:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The article on the show and episode list have matching padlocks now as well... and my gods that was a fast swarm... - J Greb (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Protection was only for one hour, for some reason, that hour has passed, the edit warring and slurs against admins returned. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this definitely needs at least 24 hours; the episode still will air on the West Coast. Please fix and revert as appropriate. Thanks--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 01:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I've protected it for a day, after which the fleeting memories of eager TV watchers are likely to dwindle. I'll check the episode list. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Argh. And I hadn't watched the episode on my DVR yet. That's what I get for reading AN at work. :P — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(auto)confirmed usergroup[edit]

We'd need more input on a poll to grant administrators the ability to remove the (auto)confirmed status, and also to grant it prematurely (before the 10 edits / 4 days threshold) the poll is located here. Cenarium (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Axelrod (actor) image[edit]

It has recently come to my attention that Robert Axelrod (actor) is not all too happy with Tsubasacon releasing an image of him under Creative Commons to Wikipedia. The image has already been removed once before from the article by an SPA,[1] and the attribution was removed from the image at around the same time by a different SPA.[2] Since I was the one who originally uploaded the image as a representative of Tsubasacon and would prefer the image to stay, I'm not exactly sure what should be done under Wikipedia's policies. --Farix (Talk) 21:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two possibilities. One Axelrod is not happy about the quality of the image - in which case if he can provide a superior quality image we can use under GFDL that should take care of that. The second is this is a Personality rights issue - this is something that may need to go to WP:OFFICE. Exxolon (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
If Robert Axelrod does not want the image to be used on Wikipedia, then it should be deleted. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not surprised - this looks nothing like the Robert Axelrod I remember... JPG-GR (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It's been nominated for deletion, but it looks like it will be kept. If Mr. Axelrod wants us to use a different picture, he should release one under a free license and send it in. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Sitate[edit]


I wanted to create a redirect to the page so that users could type in "joseph sitate" or "joseph w sitate". In either case, the search comes up empty. However, it says the page has been blocked to prevent vandalism. Can you set this up for me? Reds0xfan (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK redirects from Joseph Sitate and Joseph W Sitate created. Other capitalisations should work. I didn't find any blocks. --Salix (talk): 17:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


A user FireNoChimmny (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has just created this article and has also founded a facebook group of the same name for the sole purpose to vandalise wikipedia. Might be worth watching. --DFS454 (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've clicked the "Report group" button at the bottom. Xclamation point 17:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, and thanks for reporting the group to Facebook, X! Unfortunately, we have no control over what Facebook does, and the group gives no heads up to the types of vandalism users enjoy (wouldn't it make it easier if they did?). Therefore, recent changes patrolling will just continue as normal. hmwithτ 20:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to inform you, there's also the Wikikiller Club - with 22 members... The West's Fatal Overdose (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Meh, it's just tip of the iceberg. There are tonnes of groups on Facebook that is dedicated to vandalizing Wikipedia. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Facebook seems to have responded, as the group is gone. Man, I wish I had saved the reason for submitting. Now we need to make one here... Xclamation point 19:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWN and Chevrolet Vega[edit]

I haven't had to deal with this before, and would like to get someone a bit more experienced on dealing with these situations. It appear that Vegavairbob has taken ownership of the Chevrolet Vega article. He has made over 600 edits to this article in the last month & it looks like most, if not all, of his other edits are related to content that he has placed (i.e. images, talk on images) on the page. It's difficult to tell, but it appears that he's reverted or changed most of the other editor's contributions in the last few months. He's been warned on this several times. Suggestions - or if anyone would like to to move on this it would be appreciated. P.s. He has been blocked for uploading (c) images - (01:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)). Skier Dude (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the editors practice of saving almost every change made it is difficult to get an overview at a glance, so I shall ask some questions of you regarding the edits; has Vegavairbob edit warred with any editor, or edited otherwise to dissuade another editor from contributing? Have they removed referenced material, and if so have they replaced it with uncited content? Have they removed NPOV/encyclopedic content, and if so have they replaced it with POV or other policy violating material? Please provide diffs to evidence any claim you may have. In short, Wikipedia policy allows editors to replace other contributors material - even if it is of poorer standard - if it is done in good faith. Problems only occur if an editor fails to allow other contributors to further improve an article, and reverts back to their preferred version, and it would be useful if examples of such behaviour were provided. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Gouryella bad images[edit]

Resolved: User indefinitely blocked by Ricky81682. hmwithτ 12:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This user User talk:Gouryella keeps on uploading bad images with fake license information. He has had many of his images deleted many times, but keeps uploading them. Why doesn't he stop? He takes images from other sites and says they are public domain or creative commons like this File:68-gouryella3.jpg or this File:Kamaya+Painters.jpg or this File:R34-GTR-RB26-.jpg. He has been warned almost 70 times, shouldn't he be blocked for clearly having no interest in following Wikipedia licenses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Notified him. Going to bed right now, but it looks like he was last warned to stop uploading images in September 2008 and has since then pulled up a dozen or more new problems. It's clear he's just screwing around (there's no reason to believe that is now Creative Commons at File:Kamaya+Painters.jpg). I'd suggest a final warning and a check of his work, or even just a block until he realizes we are serious about this stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked[edit]

I've indefinitely blocked User:Gouryella both for continuing to remove his permissions problems and for this response. Asking for outside review. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And it would be nice if someone could respond to his recent comments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
They have, as suggested by you, appealed the block and have had it declined. Unless they change their position I think the editor can be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: User blocked for one week by LessHeard vanU. hmwithτ 12:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This user seems to be unsatisfied with my views, so he simply corrects or rather edits what I've written, either on my or his userpage [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]. Without my permission, of course. He ignored my message regarding this behavior. As he obviously doesn't have too much respect for me, would someone else please explain to him that altering other users' comments is not desirable. Thanks in advance, --Catgut (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Abusively blocked by me for 1 week - let us see if they are happy to take what they deal out... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The block is fine, but I have some concerns that a user this new might not realize that your explanation was sarcastic. Looie496 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with an problem move I just did[edit]

Resolved: Move reversed. hmwithτ 12:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble - was used to seeing only (film) after film titles so sigh without checking I moved Warrior (2010 film) to Warrior (film). However when I was adding the page to the disambiguation page I saw that there were many others already there, so I think (2010 film title is appropriate. However I don't see an easy way to "undo" the move. Sorry for the trouble. JCutter (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to go to the history of the original article location, click on "view logs for this page" and then you'll see a revert link next to the move. Took me two years to figure that one out, so don't sweat it ;-) (By the way, I fixed this one just before posting.) Someguy1221 (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - glad it was an easy fix. I'll have to write this one down in my WP cheatsheet. JCutter (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD getting out of hand[edit]

I think this AFD is getting out of hand. Stevenspiegel (talk · contribs) The creator is clearly socking and launching personal attacks. I have tried helping the user on my talk page but I don't know if I have done so correctly and I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes. --DFS454 (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The apparent socking is concerning, but the AfD isn't out of hand at all. Apparent socks marked with {{subst:spa}}. Someone might want to go to WP:SPI with them (though honestly the edit summaries pretty clearly indicate the relationship). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Reported to SPI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stevenspiegel. MuZemike 13:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed[edit]

Resolved: User directed to correct venue. hmwithτ 12:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is on the issue of consensus. I was under the impression that when there was an editing dispute, to prevent warring an article is retained in its most recent stable state i.e. a consensus is effectively need to make further changes to, either to add material or remove material? Can someone confirm this?

The problem is on a range of beer articles in regards to whether a certain external link should be included. The opinion is split as to whether it is relevant or not, and despite debating the topic for months no consensus as yet has been attained. To stop the edit warring, a stalemate was effectively declared where the link wouldn't be added to any of the pre-existing articles, and neither would they be removed from articles where the link was present before the dispute started. Is this the correct course of action?

There is of course a small minority who are going against this ceasefire, including an administrator. On one article he has removed the external link to the talk page for 'discussion' and said it will be re-added once consensus is reached (because that is 'normal for disputes'). The problem here is that I think he's using his position as an admin to enforce his viewpoint. One article inparticular (Beer styles) included the link for a whole 9 months before the dispute started, and was stable up to that point. In my interpretation of Wikipedia policy consensus is required to remove the link from the article, just in the same way it is required to add a link to further articles. If all the links are removed until a consensus is reached for including them, then effectively that is just a unilateral decision to remove all the links because the other side of the debate don't have to agree to anything since they get exactly what they want - the removal of the links!

So I would appreciate clarification:

  1. Does Wikipedia consensus apply to changes to an article or to including material?
  2. In a conflict, is the proper course of action to retain the article in its most recent stable state, or to just remove the disputed material?
  3. If an article included the link for 9 months without being contested, is that regarded as the most recent stable state of the article?

Any views and opinions much appreciated, Regards, Betty Logan (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion might best be conducted at Wikipedia talk:Consensus or at one of the Village Pumps. Regards, Skomorokh 10:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah thanks I have posted it to the consensus page. Betty Logan (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, if it is about a specific link, the WT:EL External Link talk page might be suitable. the Consensus talk page is really for discussing the genera rule, not specific complaints about jhow it is being applied, or every dispute in Wikipedia will end up there. . DGG (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

User:HellinaBucket +IPs[edit]

IPs User: and User: It started out as a revert of unsourced information on the A Memory of Light article, despite a request for sources only a single unreliable one was provided (fansite comments). On top of this there have been personal attacks, curious comments on political stances, edits to prove a point, accusations of bad faith, and a general disruptive and negative attitude. Rehevkor 17:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The alleged fansite come from the same site that Hosts/Hosted Robert Jordan's official Blog. i've attempted to add that the decision by Tor books and Sanderson is from from uncontroversial. I've made several attempts to rewrite this several times. most Recently I put in the assertation that the fan reaction has widely varied from supportive to his widow to calls to boycott the series. I've made 2 references to unpopular politicians to point out that not everyone is a saint and decisions aren't always popular or agreed with. The above editor kept saying anything to do with Dragonmount was unreliable. Editor is not allowing article to come even close to s neutral viewpoint, if he was there would be a whole palatte of colors that the world is shaded with. He refuses any attempt to compromise or nogotiate.I originally made a comment about speculation of the pubnkishing house financial stability but this was removed justifiably as there is no confirmation to this atr all only comments from the announcment. I have signed all edits taking out blog references because if above users bifurcated view of reporting news on a forthcoming book as unreliable. If the site is an inappropriate or unreliable source shouldn't it be taken out? He showed me several policies indicting that is why he removed min. in the end i believe that if this is indeed the rule and i was wrong it should be enforced so I was rectifying that breach in policiees. Also the comment he has that has the cursing in it wasn't me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by HellinaBucket (talkcontribs) 17:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The unreliable source in question was being used for statements of opinion. Rehevkor 17:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Rebuttle The statements weren't personal opinion they were reporting the FACTS of the reaction of the fans. The FACTS are that there are 222 pages of comments by fans of the series with repsonses from positive and negative. How is reporting written reactions unreliable? Also there were attempts to rephrase so both sides of the spectrum was reported

Your analysis of the fan reaction constitutes Original Research. Also, there is a difference between citing the Author's official blog, and a bunch of comments from random fans. Just because they are on the same website doesn't mean they carry the same weight. If you want to report that there was a wide range of fan reaction, find an acceptable, reliable source that says there was a wide range of fan reaction. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagreee because it still hosts his official blog which is sometimes used by Harriet to address Mr. Jordans fans and this is directrly with her interview on the site regarding the book splits. Also in the news article itse;f they acknowledge this has upset many people." —Preceding unsigned comment added by HellinaBucket (talkcontribs) 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Mitchazenia[edit]

Per a motion at WP:RFAR, Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) may regain his adminship via RFA, request to the arbitration committee, or request to a bureaucrat.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 18:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Users Emptymountains and Truthbody[edit]

Could somebody please review the edits of these two users? For many months now they are consistently doing nothing else then spamming articles with books from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (Tharpa publications) and manipulating all articles related to the Shugden-controversy, in order to advertise the their teacher who founded the "New Kadampa Tradition". They remove any critical notes on this teacher in a continuous stream of small edits, so that in the end, virtually all critical notes vanish. Especially the article on Shugden is their main battleground, and many other editors have simply given up on this article because everything is 'manipulated away' by mainly these two users. Kind regards rudy (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Diffs of the disruptive editing would be very helpful.  iMatthew :  Chat  01:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Matthew, basically, ALL their edits in Wikipedia are related to their 'mission'. Problem is that the issue is somewhat obscure and hard to explain to someone not involved in Tibetan Buddhism. In a nutshell, they are part of a cult within Tibetan Buddhism under the guidance of their teacher Kelsang Gyatso who founded the 'New Kadampa Tradition' (NKT). There is a dispute with the general Tibetan Buddhist community regarding the practice of a ghost/deity called Shugden. Following this controversy, Kelsang Gyatso was expelled from his monastery etc., and you can find refenrences to this for example in the website of the Tibetan Goverment in Exile at The Tibetan Administration on Controversy Surrounding Dorjee Shugden Practice
In the mean time, the NKT has been expanding in the west quite quickly, often with less then proper means so to speak. Anyway, many of their followers believe that one of the monst important things in life is the worship of the Shugden deity/ghost, and they use all means to convince others that their practice is very mportant. For years, this has led to endless edit-wars in pages like the page on shugden itself, but also because members try to manipulate information on the Wikipedia to introduce their 'plight' on every page that is even slightly related to a subject on (Tibetan) Buddhism. They do this systematically by more or less 'legal' means of spamming book references of their teacher (Tharpa publications), promoting the pages of people who are involved in the practice (like the previous Trijang Rinpoche, trying to manipulate pages of opponents (like the Dalai Lama), or even the pages where they are quoted (a recent example, the page on bodhisattva. They consistently cover up their edits by following up with one or more minor edits, so it looks as if they just added a comma or so, but instead they replaced a book reference of the Dalai Lama with one of their teacher three edits before that. Many different editors in the (Tibetan) Buddhism pages have come across them and were 'defeated' in longer or shorter edit-wars. If it helps, I could ask some of these editors to contact you or to add there comments here??
In short, these users do everyting in their power to 'Game' Wikipedia in their obsession. To be honest, even when they would be banned, it is very likely that 'new' users will pop up to continue their systematic manipulation.rudy (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
One more addition. This may sound paranoia, but I suppose that they may have read this notice, and just a few hours ago three brand-new users have popped up: Draesynrei, George415 and Totallydoit who 'by coincidence' continue with exactly the same job. Isn't that strange? These people have become really professional, and I have no idea with how many they are. rudy (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Kelsang Gyatso is not a reliable source, that much seems to be clear. Mitsube (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it's really adequate to make a blanket statement that Gyatso or any source affiliated with the NKT is not reliable. I don't know enough about the NKT teachings to identify where they diverge from orthodox Buddhism, but are they really that much more idiosyncratic than, say, the FotWBO or some of the other 'Westerner oriented' hybrid traditions? Obviously divergences from more common positions should not be allowed to be depicted as the majority view, but where the NKT view is in accord with what most sources say, there's no reason to discard those sources. I agree with User:iMatthew that we need specific pages, issues, and diffs to make any useful discussion possible; it's not enough to just issue a blanket condemnation of two editors and then expect people to wade through their entire history looking for problems. I looked at User:Truthbody's edits for a bit and found a few that I find to be idiosyncratic with mainstream Buddhism, or otherwise biased ([7] [8] [9] [10]), but also many edits on the topics that the editor is being accused of maligning where the edits that I looked at (obviously just a sample) all appeared fine, if they do lean a bit heavily on Tharpa books. It's much better to discuss edits, not editors. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Spacemunki, however, I have not accused Kelsang Gyatso for providing only wrong information on mainstream Buddhism. The problem is that with all these edits they are simply turning the Wikipedia into an advertising option for their books and their organisation. For example, when I search for 'tharpa publications' in the Wikipedia, I find about 40 links to their books, and virtually all added in the last month: is it acceptable to use Wikipedia as a free advertising platform?rudy (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Generally speaking, the writings of any religious teacher should not be regarded as reliable encyclopedic sources for anything more than his or her own opinion. This is especially true in the case of teachers who are controversial within their own circles. Worse yet, Clay gives examples where Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is cited for information about Buddhism or Mahayana thought as a whole, although his thought is apparently based specifically in one school of Tibetan Buddhism. I don't really see any reason why his books are acceptable sources for any Buddhism articles.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point, actually- now that I think of it, generally books by someone like the Dalai Lama or Thich Nhat Hanh should probably not be used as sources for general Buddhist views, either- there are too many works by academics that have already done the work of synthesizing traditional views for there to be a need to lean on those, and it runs the risk of substituting personal interpretations for general beliefs. Also, it should always be the case that when a teacher is sourced for a statement, that view is attributed to them, rather than to 'Buddhism' or 'Buddhists'- I object to something like this where an edit removed the link to Gyatso, giving the impression that it is general to all of Buddhism. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is a reliable and well respected source for Mahayana Buddhism. His books have been read by over half a million people and are studied by tens of thousands. They are also used on university courses. They are mainstream Buddhism. I personally am only trying to help with various Buddhist related articles. I am genuinely trying to help because I love Buddhism. I also just really enjoy editing Wikipedia articles. I have hardly even added a great deal -- just a useful sentence or two, or a definition here and there, to articles on Buddhism, with relevant source material (in accordance with Wiki requirements). I was just getting started, I feel I have a lot to offer in terms of helping to clarify some of these articles and have started dialog with other editors e.g. on the article Tantra. I have studied Mahayana Buddhism for 27 years. I find this bias and prejudice against myself, whenever I make edits, inexplicable and uncalled for. It is as if Rudy and Mitsube are trying to run me off Wikipedia and it is, frankly, quite hurtful. If you can find examples of Buddhist information that I have added that is wrong or misleading, fair enough, but I think I have added useful and accurate information about Mahayana Buddhism, especially as presented in the Gelugpa and Kadampa traditions of Je Tsongkhapa, and I have been very clear about the sources, which are all WP:RS. I have in no way tried to use Wikipedia for advertising, that is an unwarranted accusation. I am only trying to help improve these articles. Please moderators can you encourage these other users to assume good faith when it comes to my edits? And request them to stop making personal attacks on me, my Buddhist tradition, and my Buddhist teachers? And let me know if you have any more questions and I will answer them to the best of my ability. Thank you for your help. (Truthbody (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

If you object to my edits, please let me know exactly which ones and I'm happy to discuss these. And I would really appreciate it if you please did some research before making such offensive claims about spirits and goblins and the like -- this slander does not seem suitable on an encyclopedia and I have not bad mouthed any of you so, please, drop the hostility!! Please check this website for more reliable information: (Truthbody (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC))
The only referent I am aware of for "mainstream Buddhism" would be the Nikayan schools that were considered orthodox during Aśoka's time. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's writings can hardly claim to be representative of Theravada Buddhism, or even of East Asian Mahayana. I'm sure he is quite learned in the Tibetan tradition, although I'm not sure if most Tibetan Buddhists would feel comfortable with him being cited as an expert. Anyway, as I argued above, even non-controversial and widely respected teachers should not normally be cited as encyclopedic sources.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Please will a moderator also ask Mitsube to stop following me around from article to article and reverting all my edits, giving no good reason. (Truthbody (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC))
Thank you for soliciting my view with the invitation on my chittychat page. I tender that the editors should be censured if they do not collaborate for a brilliantly faceted indivisible truth and shanghai with malintent[sic]. One practitioner's demon is another's deva: Banes are invariably boons, as what wanes will wax. The murky lurkiness of politikkking...
Aum Svaha Ah
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 09:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Please ignore B9 hummingbird hovering; he's always like this.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rudyh01,

You ask, "When will you ever stop advertising Kelsang Gyatso in Wikipedia and trying to hide your edits?" Please note that I never disguise contestable edits as "minor" ones. Instead, I go through the entire article, making major and minor edits along the way. Why is going through an article in one fell swoop considered hiding my edits?

For the quote by the Dalai Lama, my edit summary said, "the DL quote made it seem like no Bodhisattva ever cultivates boatman-like or shepherd-like bodhichitta, which is incorrect." The Bodhisattva article itself says, "Shepherd-like Bodhisattva - one who aspires to delay buddhahood until all other sentient beings achieve buddhahood. Bodhisattvas like Avalokiteshvara, Shantideva among others are believed to fall in this category." Did you know that Manjushri also became a Bodhisattva by first cultivating shepherd-like bodhichitta? Yet, the DL quote says, "there is no way that a Bodhisattva either would want to or could delay achieving full enlightenment." That is why I think it is incorrect, no matter who said it. Emptymountains (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My general advice on this issue is to nominate a very strict administrator who would follow the attempted of these (pro-shugden) fellows. The best would be to have a specific page where to report the problems, so as to be able to stop it. We have had the same problem on the french page. By carefully using the rules of wikipedia, we could at least control these peoples. By the way, it was "funny" to witness a "defender of RPC" was helping these fellows. He probably didn't know he was taking on a him a very dark karmic energy ... --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I think these users are experiencing the same kind of blantant sectarianism which is now rife in the Buddhist world since the Dalai Lama banned the practice of Dorje Shugden. The articles are not related to the Shugden issue so why do you and other insist on making this a Shugden issue? it is not. Is it not permissible for those Buddhists who practise the New Kadampa Tradition to make edits to articles on Buddhism without having to suffer blatant discrimination from other Buddhists? I would appeal to the admins to protect the right of anyone to contribute to these articles if they can improve them.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I second the comments of Matthew - specifics are probably necessary--seeding references to NKD thoughout wikipedia, if that is in fact what is happening, it is troubling but I'm not sure what it would run afoul of, if anything. Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not what is happening. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is a respected Buddhist author and the content of his books are traditional Gelugpa teachings that no one would have any problems with. Information from these books can be used to improve Buddhist articles, therefore Sacca and Mitsube's objections can only be sectarian ones because the accuracy and authenticity of the material is not in question. If it is in question, they should give valid reasons why. Either we should allow input from all valid Buddhist authors such as Geshe Kelsang, the Dalai Lama, Tezin Palmo, Alex Berzin, Glenn Mullin and so forth, or we should allow none in favour of academic references only, but it would be a shame to include only academic references because a full understanding of Buddhism comes only as a result of practising it, not simply learning and writing about it. The 'practice' references are therefore very important, but we should not discriminate against Buddhist authors. Geshe Kelsang's credentials are clear and authentic.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


user truthbody just committed another violation of the 3 revert rule on the Vajrayana article. Concerning NKD material again. where to report that? I am in favor of removing him for a while now, this is the second violation already, shows no signs of stopping his POV edits too. Greetings, Sacca 23:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What is POV about his edits? Please give specific reasons why you do not agree with these edits. Are they not technically correct? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck to anyone trying to maintain a NPOV in articles related to the NKT, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso or their pet protector Dolgyal Shugden! The NKT, an organization of Geshe Kelsang's (overwhelmingly western) followers, are a heterodox cult which has branched of from the mainstream Gelukpa tradition - though naturally they believe fervently that they represent the authentic tradition and those that disagree with them are misguided and perverting the true tradition. Since they believe their root guru is infallible, anyone who they think disagrees with his views is automatically wrong [of course whatever the good Geshe has written or said is naturally always true, fair and impartial]. Anyway you simply can't argue logically or reasonably with people who have that kind of belief and you will end up exhausting yourself if you try. The NKT has thousands of members many of whom (and their sock puppets) seem to have nothing better to do than to "correct" anything written about them, their guru or their "protector". This has been going on for years ~ first on Usenet and other forums and now on Wikipedia.

Frankly it is difficult to see how anything the founder, leaders, or "true believers" of any controversial religious cult write about themselves, their organization or their beliefs can be a reliable encyclopedic source for anything other than as an example of what they believe. Similarly the views of their most vociferous opponents may not be a very good source either. Chris Fynn (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris Fynn, what you say here is of course intended to be insulting and it shows remarkable prejudice. But in your own words you are not a good source, as you are acting as a "vociferous opponent" here yourself, with no attempt at being polite, balanced or empathetic. Why would I or others amongst the "thousands" of students in the Kadampa tradition not want to "correct" horrible accusations like this when they are shouted out on Wikipedia? (Truthbody (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC))
Chris, Rudy, etc. - you use this word "cult" and make some pretty strong claims about these Buddhists: that they're unthinking 'sock puppets', for example. Rather than doing this, if you really think that there's a problem with any edit, would you please have the common decency and intellectual honesty to reference these edits and explain clearly why you feel that they are inaccurate or redundant to their respective articles. So far, you've just been rude, and this isn't helpful. If a person with whose views you strongly disagree contributes a factually accurate and relevant edit to any article, what are your grounds for disapproving of that edit?Atisha's cook (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

User:PONDHEEPANKAR is back???[edit]

I strongly feel that User:PONDHEEPANKAR who was banned for using 18 sockpuppets is now back. Please have a look at this where User:Onlynms is indulging in POV-pushing in Kongu Vellalar article. The article is full of blatant WP:OR and apart from a few external links to Kongu Vellalar organisations, there are no references at all. -The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 07:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the similarities, but PONDHEEPANKAR was blocked in 2007, and the latest socks (confirmed or suspected) in the block log are well over a year old (February 2008). If this is the first incident of this type on Kongu Vellalar organizations since then, I would assume good faith and warn the user. That being said, if the pattern continues, a report at WP:ANI would probabally be the route to go (I'm not sure if sockpuppet investigations would be able to do much at this point, since checkuser evidence would be stale, and this isn't a long-term, serious pattern of vandalism anymore.) Keep in mind I'm not actually an admin though (disclaimer!) I just saw your comment and put my two cents in, if any sysops feel strongly another way, please feel free to say so and disregard my comments. -Senseless!... says you, says me 19:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly, the additions made by User:Onlynms are almost exactly same as the unreferenced propaganda content in Vellala Gounder article which was removed earlier. The list of prominent Kongu Vellalar too might probably be identical to List of Kongu Vellalars which was deleted earlier.
And as far as the reason for User:PONDHEEPANKAR's delayed reappearance is concerened, in case you are not aware, India is going to elections a couple of weeks from now. And I could clearly decipher in the acts of User:Onlynms or User:PONDHEEPANKAR or whoever it might be, an intention to indulge in political campaigning on behalf of a Kongu Vellalar political party.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 23:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The addition of large chunks of unreferenced propaganda content, too, is vandalism. -The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 23:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's in the same city, although the city is quite large. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 23:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that User:Onlynms is a sockpuppet or atleast a meatpuppet of User:PONDHEEPANKAR. Both have been introducing the same pro-Kongu Vellalar POV. By the way, apart from external links to some Kongu Vellalar Welfare Association sites, it has almost no references at all.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 07:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I can report a simular sockmaster that is related to him PickYourLeader14 (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page[edit]

A certified apology for my recent behavior to the community[edit]

Dear Wikipedians and our high-ranks,

I am deeply and regretfully sorry for my behavior on April 4, 2009. At the moment of the incident, I was in a deep fit of rage from an action on my most active WikiProject. If you ask people on IRC who saw my reaction, I was in a deep set of rage. I did threaten suicide on IRC, and well, it got the better of me on Wikipedia. I regret this much.

When I originally posted that thread on WP:ANI, I made the header and some of the language to be a little too serious than what was really going on. I deeply apologize for scaring the community, and I meant the discussion to be a "should I retain my rights" thing, not a crisis. At the time I was doing this, my demeanor had become more and more depressive and well, so did control of myself. I thank the community, as drastic as it may be, for taking the right actions. I knew that a lot of stress was starting to build from a lot of on-Wikipedia discussions, and well, I finally blew.

Before this, I had threatened suicide on IRC and Wiki combined, around 1 1/2 dozen times. The first one really occurred in 2006, after a fight with another user. Well, combined with the personal issues that caused this, I really started bundling all my problems in. About the time 2009 started, I began to seriously feel worse and worse mentally. I had and still have been going through stress as a high school student. I've been diagnosed by doctors with Aspberger's Syndrome, and that really doesn't help things too much. Well, with these problems, along with the stress, my behavior really fell downhill. I was threatening suicide over stupid things, and being incivil to others. I aplogize to User:NE2 for telling him to "go to hell" on Wiki. I really was ticked, and it just shows. I apologize for the behavior and am wanting to make it up with you.

By the end of March, my biggest birthday of my life had passed, and I've wanted to help my behavior from a teenager to adulthood. Right now, especially with the bullying at school, nothing changed, and to tell you the truth, I felt worse. With the actions I pulled on April 4, I tried my best to calm down, although crying and beating myself up physically didn't help much. I want to thank User:Gwen Gale & User:Tiptoety for the drastic action, and I apologize for my behavior.

After this situation, I've felt less stressed without my adminstrator powers, which I clearly didn't deserve in the first place (being I passed 55/6/3). I also want to say that I am looking into more outside help for this serious problem and have run into a few people off-Wiki that have had the same problems I do, and I really am trying to solve this. I thank people for their support in my sort of called "recovery", including much of the Arbitration Committee. Again, I am feeling better and looking for more to do in my life than stress over Wikipedia as a whole.

My ceritified apologies,

Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

External linking issue[edit]

Resolved: WP:EL included signatures rolled back. –xeno (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this, I've forgotten where abouts I should ask other than the help desk...

Willisis2 (talk · contribs) had some banners linking to an external site called MXtabs, which was aimed at getting him views on that site. I assume this isn't permitted per WP:EL#ADV, and so asked him to remove the banners, which he has done. He has, however, still got a link to the site on each page saying "Me on MXtabs" or something similar, leading to the same page as before. I really don't think this is allowed per the same policy, but I wasn't sure, so I wanted to ask here before informing him. Cheers, again sorry if this should have gone to VP or the help desk! —Cyclonenim | Chat  20:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in that external links are not permitted in signatures. I've rolled back all the guestbook signings and will leave the user a note about this. FYI this seems to be related to some kind of referral contest. –xeno (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
(sheepish grin) I am now just realizing your report had nothing to do with the signature issue. The links on his userpage are probably alright. –xeno (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Haha, no worries, thanks for your help. At least this post wasn't completely useless :) —Cyclonenim | Chat  20:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

  • MZMcBride (talk · contribs) resigned his status as an administrator on April 6, 2009, while the above arbitration case was pending. Should MZMcBride request restoration of adminship privileges, he will be required to submit a request for adminship or request approval of the Committee.
  • MZMcBride is directed to consult with and obtain approval from the Bot Approvals Group before using any bot to edit Wikipedia and particularly before using any bot to undertake administrator actions.
  • MZMcBride and those working with him are commended for developing an innovative method to identify articles with potential BLP issues, but are strongly urged to consult and carefully consider whether the current location and nature of the listing of the output of the script represents the most appropriate means of addressing the issues raised.
  • MZMcBride is directed to create user accounts distinct from his own, clearly identified as bots and clearly associated to his primary account, from which to execute any automated or semi automated task that can make edits or administrative actions.
  • MZMcBride is restricted from making edits or actions from his primary account that are either (a) automated, or (b) at a rate higher than twelve actions per minute. Edits or actions made from authorized bot accounts are not so restricted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 23:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Editing Template:Country_data_India[edit]

This is a protected template. I have corrected the color of a flag used in this template. I will appreciate if an admin can change Flag of the Indian Army.svg to Flag of Indian Army.pngSumanch (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Done but next time, use the template talk page and {{editprotected}}. Easier to keep things there for historical reasons (as the complexity of my edit summary indicates). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Image help requested[edit]

Resolved: Editor advised that commercial use must be allowed

An editor who does not understand image policies has had their images deleted. They say they own the images, but they were tagged as fair use. I can't see the deleted images, would an image-minded sysop mind helping this user out? See this diff, and the user's talk page. Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On a quick skim, it looks like they were incorrectly licensed ("Prior written permission required for commercial use or use on any website", which is incompatiable with GFDL). – iridescent 01:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, but by my reading of their message, they want a noncommercial restriction on their images; however, we can't do that. They also seem to want them to stay deleted if they can't add such a restriction. Since they've already been deleted once while tagged as fair use, it's probably best to just let them stay deleted. Gavia immer (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Have advised the user accordingly, just seems to be a case of not appreciating that non-commercial licenses aren't ok. Looks likely that the images will stay deleted. dave souza, talk 09:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Draft arbitration policy[edit]

The Committee has prepared a provisional draft of an updated arbitration policy for initial community review. All editors are invited to examine the text and to provide any comments or suggestions they may have via one of the two methods specified on the draft page.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 05:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamish Ross anyone?[edit]

Jthuggett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) DuncanHill (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely--Jac16888Talk 08:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration between other Buddhist editors against NKT editors[edit]

What have user:Jmlee369, user:Dakinijones, user:Moonsell, user:Peter jackson, user:Andi 3ö, user:CFynn, user:Spasemunki, user:Rédacteur Tibet, user:Nat Krause, user:Mitsube and user:Sylvain1972 all got in common? They were exhorted by rudy to come to this board and gang up against user:Truthbody and user:Emptymountains and the Buddhist tradition they practice with the following message on their user Talk pages:

The never-ending story about Shugden[edit]

Hi, I'm just starting another attempt to stop the NKT people from 'taking over' the Wikipedia with their continuous edit-war to promote the Shugden practice. If you agree, please leave a note at Administrators noticeboard. rudy (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely that is against Wikipedia policy?

We can see from Chris Fynn comments above what kind of sectarianism NKT practitioners have put up with, mainly from Tibetan Buddhists who seem to have an issue with the fact that everyone is entitled to religious freedom and the Dalai Lama has no right to politically control religious views. They want to invalidate my Teacher, my tradition and my beliefs because they don't agree with their own. This should not affect Wikipedia. NKT practitioners have as much right to edit articles on Buddhism as everyone else, without interference from politically motivated Buddhists who subscribe to the Dalai Lama's views. This is nothing to do with Dorje Shugden - all I'm trying to do is to improve these articles and I and other NKT editors are being discriminated against. What is the Admins' view about this? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on "Truthsayer62", this has nothing to do with "religious freedom" or suppressing it or with "sectarianism". Of course knowledgeable NKT practitioners have as much right to edit articles on Buddhism as any other knowledgeable person, provided they follow the norms - however it appears to be difficult for at least some NKT contributers to maintain a NPOV when they perceive something contradicts the story of the entity Shugden as it has been related to them by their Geshe-la.
In editing more general Buddhist articles, it helps to be familiar with the whole range of books and commentaries on the subject written by both "insiders" and "outsiders" ~ not just to rely on the works of Geshe Kelsang. Learned as he may be, his views represent those of one individual belonging to one segment of a single sect of Tibetan Buddhism. IMO they should only be given as much weight as they deserve in that wider context - no more. As for the Dalai Lama, he is indisputably a far more significant figure in the broad context of Tibetan Buddhism than is Geshe Kelsang Gyatso - who apparently has no more than a handful of Tibetan followers. In the contentious cases I think we are talking about, the views of the Dalai Lama generally represent the mainstream of Tibetan Buddhist opinion whereas the views of Geshe Kelsang are representative, at best of those of a small minority. I don't mind Rudy01 pointing out to me when he thinks articles have become imbalanced - you can do the same. When I receive such a message all it means is that I may go to the article try to decide for myself if what he - or you - is claiming is in fact the case. Beyond that, I'm unlikely to do anything since I have neither the time nor the energy to participate in edit-wars. IMO it is a total waste of time to attempt to correct any misinformation I may find in NKT / Shugden related articles as inn my experience such corrections will be undone within a matter of hours. If someone believes their spiritual teacher is infallible, "fully enlightened" or suchlike ~ how can they accept anything that contradicts their teachers views? Chris Fynn (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC).
Look Chris, This isn't about Shugden/Anti-Shugden and it's not about Geshe Kelsang vs the Dalai Lama. Both Geshe Kelsang and the Dalai Lama had the same root Guru so their views with respect to Gelugpa teachings are bound to be similar, disregarding their completely different views about Dorje Shugden which is not the issue here. Geshe Kelsang's teachings are as much representative of the mainstream of Gelugpa teachings as the Dalai Lama's are and therefore his books are as valid a source of reference as the Dalai Lama's are and it's of no avail to claim otherwise --Truthsayer62 (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Rudy's original concern was about "spamming articles with books from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (Tharpa publications)" - so let's get back to that claim. Articles including Universal_Compassion, Heart of Wisdom, The New Meditation Handbook, do look to me very much like publicity blurbs for books by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso with the same titles that have been published by Tharpa Publications - a publishing house which is pretty well entirely dedicated to "publishing the works of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso" and which is "part of the New Kadampa Tradition - International Kadampa Buddhist Union". Checking the histories of these articles, it appears they were almost entirely written by User:Truthbody who on his user page says he is "in the New Kadampa Tradition and a student of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso" and that he has "worked in Public Relations and in journalism". It does make me wonder whether the above mentioned articles, all of which have appeared within the last month, were written with the intention of publicizing or advertising the said books by someone who clearly has connections with the author and the publisher - or at least the organization of which the publisher forms a part. (IOW not exactly a neutral or disinterested party) This seems like a method of advertising. Can someone please clarify, what is the Wikipedia policy on such "promotional" articles? If a contemporary book truly warrants a Wikipedia article, it strikes me that it would be better coming from someone unconnected with the author or publishers. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A quick look at 2 of the articles shows heavy reliance on Amazon blurbs and unverifiable 'reviews'. They do, as you say, read like publicity blurbs. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
If you check the article on the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, it includes a bibliography and some links to individual books of his such as the Art of Happiness. Geshe Kelsang's article contains a bibliography and has links to individual books such as Universal Compassion, Heart of Wisdom and so forth. No one is being accused of 'spamming' Wikipedia with promotional information about the Dalai Lama's books, so where is the problem? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
That's probably explained by the fact that the Art of Happiness is just 1750 bites, while Heart of Wisdom was 8464 bytes until I removed some unreferenced/improperly referenced stuff. If you are happy to trim the book articles you've written to the same length as The Art of Happiness, that would probably settle the matter. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Personally i like Dougweller's unbiased edits on these book pages to improve them. Is there any reason why the Art of Happiness could not be longer? Is there a specified wiki article page length? (I'm still learning!)(Truthbody (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC))
For the record, Chris Fynn, I have no connection with the author or publisher other than that stated on my user page and am working on my own behalf on Buddhist articles (and sometimes other articles of interest) throughout Wiki not for promotional purposes but to contribute to the body of knowledge (and because I enjoy it! for me it is better than wasting my spare time watching re-runs on TV). I know you only have my word for it, but as far as I am concerned this is the truth. (Truthbody (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Since the heading above implicitly accuses me of "collaboration" (is that actually an offence?), perhaps I should make my position clear. It's certainly true that I probably wouldn't have been aware of this discussion if Rudy hadn't alerted me. However, I haven't looked at any of the edits being discussed here. I've commented only on some of the remarks in the discussions on this page. I'm not taking sides between the Gelugpa factions. Here's a quotation from a reliable source:

"The Dalai Lama represents a Buddhism that is more representative of Tibetans in exile and their Western followers than of Tibetans in Tibet." Faure, Unmasking Buddhism, Wiley-Blacwell, 2009, page 73

No doubt it would be easy enough to find others saying similar things about NKT. Neither faction should be trusted for an accurate account of traditional Gelugpa teachings. As Nat & Clay say above, we need scholarly sources for that. Peter jackson (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:DougsTech[edit]

Resolved: No consensus on this matter was reached. Have boldly marked resolved and archived. Continuing episodes of the DuncanHill/Sceptre show are best kept to their own talkpages. //roux   14:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unresolved: converted to tag from section header --slakrtalk /


Wikipedia is not an experimental model of open democracy and certainly is not an experiment in online libertarianism. I'm interpreting this huge discussion and the previous epic situations with Kurt to indicate a presumptive consensus here and favoring of a topic ban from RfX, which I've notified DougsTech of here. Now can we please get on with writing an encyclopedia? rootology (C)(T) 15:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • No way Rootology you cant possibly impose a topic ban with this lack of support after less then 24 hours. This is insane. There is no consensus and we should never act this urgently without a clear and present danger to the project. Whatt happened to allowing editors in all timezones to comment? Has DougsTech even commented on this yet?. I'm unarchiving and unresolving this. Please let discussion and consensus find its own way in its own time. Sheesh Spartaz Humbug! 16:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It has recently come to my attention that this user has been opposing every single RFA on the assumption there are "too many administrators currently". Engaging in discussion with this editor is useless as everything said is a personal attack. The point of RFA is to give an opinion on whether the candidate is suitable for adminship or not. Or even just about the candidate. DougsTech is abusing the process by doing neither of these, but posting a blanket statement on his misguided view of the situation (i.e. the false idea we have too many admins). Unlike with Kurt Weber, it is impossible to be supported by this user. Kurt, with all his faults, at least supported occasionally, and had a reason that I could, at a long stretch, agree with. But DougsTech's votes have nothing to do with the candidate. We need this to be nipped in the bud while it's still fresh. We need to stamp out nonsense when we see it. All the bureaucrats I have spoken to have said they ignore his vote, so there is no point in his continuing to edit RFA pages. All his votes do is draw attention to himself when an unsuspecting person unfamiliar questions it. Yes, people are allowed to give their opinions, but the opinions need to be relevant and about the discussion at hand, not about something else entirely. He is doing nothing positive on RFA, is being totally ignored in the result, so I think a topic ban to ensure that we don't feed him would be the best solution here.

Additionally, he is now edit warring on an RFA template trying to remove the word "only" which implies there are too few admins. This user needs some time away from RFAs. Majorly talk 01:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - enough is enough. His actions are the very definition of WP:POINT. //roux   02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as while I do not agree with the editor in question's stance, I see no reason not to allow him to express it. If it is his opinion, so be it. People can easily ignore those with whom they disagree. And even if it is a minority or dissenting opinion, there is value in having a variety of opinions expressed. We run into dangerous territory if we start censoring opinions and stifling discussions in RfAs or anywhere. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • He's allowed to express it, just not on RFAs, where he is ignored by bureaucrats, and where the opinion expressed is supposed to be about the candidate in question. Nothing is being censored here: just asking him to take it elsewhere. It does not belong on RFAs. Majorly talk 02:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I reckon bucreacrats probably ignore a good deal of comments in RfAs that are not convincing, but if we prevented people from voicing their opinions just because bureacrats ignore them, who knows how many editors' opinions we would not allow? Yes, his comment is not specific to the candidates, but hey, if that's what he feels, so be it. As with the other user you mnetion (I am not repeating his username as I believe he left under "right to vanish"), I think more hubub was caused by challenging his copy and paste opposes than by just ignoring it. I disagreed with him, too, but it just never really bothered me if that's how he feels. It really just seems like we'd be better off not making an issue of it than doing so. Let him say what he wants to say. If people disagree okay. If they want to engage with him in the Rfas, then who knows maybe they can get somewhere that convinces him to think about the candidates as individuals. And if we have a discussion, isn't that better than just a vote (i.e. a list of supports and opposes)? Now I would agree with you if he said to oppose "because all admins are (choose some insult)" that would be perceived as a personal attack or incivil, but if he just thinks we have too many admins and wants to do say as much, it's just a "whatever," move along. I am just concerned that if we start barring people from commenting when they aren't making a clear personal attack, we could establish a dangerous precendent that will invite challenges to other people's stances. And besides, what about those who say "Support, we don't have enough admins", which I have seen as well? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid "so be it" is the wrong attitude. We are clearly being trolled here, and it's sad people are too nice to see it. But we are. DougsTech adds nothing of any value to RFAs: his opinion is totally ignored by bureaucrats, who have publicly stated as such; his vote will always offend somebody; his vote has nothing to do with the candidacy, so is off topic and irrelevant; he has proven difficult to talk to, and argumentative, and has taken his "stance" further by edit warring on an RFA template trying to push his opinion. I'm all for discussing whether we have enough admins or not. Individual RFAs simply is not the right place to do that. Majorly talk 02:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
          • How are we sure we are being trolled? Shouldn't we WP:AGF? Now unless if (and I admit here I haven't looked), he has a history of other unconstructive edits, then why should we conclude that we are being trolled? I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt. It just seems that as far as potentially bad things to say or do at RfAs, his opposes are just not that serious. Now, if he was vote stacking, making personal attacks, etc. okay, but really just saying we have too many admins? And again, I disagree with that assertion, but it just doesn't seem like something to lose sleep over (and no, I am not suggesting anyone actually is losing sleep over it, but I suppose you get what I mean). Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm pretty certain we are being trolled. It's nice of you to assume good faith, but it's difficult to assume good faith when someone is very deliberately disrupting the RFA process, and finding every loophole in the book to allow himself to do so. Perhaps my bullshit toleration level is lower than yours; that's fine. We have put up with this silliness for enough time though. Majorly talk 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
              • I don't know...I just don't like the idea of not allowing someone to say what he wants to say in such instances. And hey, people know me as being a strong inclusionist and all and well, accordingly to Doug's userpage he's a deletionist, so one might think I would jump on this opportunity to silence someone of the opposite editing philosophy, but that just wouldn't be right. We need dissenting and diverse opinions to challenge each other even if we really don't like the opposing viewpoints. And as far as I can tell, he is otherwise an editor in good standing, no? Now, again, if it were clear that he was a sock of a banned editor or had a block log full of vandalism or harassment blocks or something, I could maybe see something here, but it just doesn't feel right to silence him here. Maybe if he is just ignored and his view doesn't influence others, he'll try a different track? I just really want to give people the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, I suppose. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
              • A nobody:
This editor has has presented contrary evidence to the idea that he is not trolling. Therefore to prevent disruption, we must err on the banhammer side here to prevent DougsTech from making further disruption. A better place he could have brought his point up would be WT:RFA, WP:PROPS, or WT:ADMIN.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose He has a valid (but in my opinion incorrect) argument and we shouldn't silence dissent. I don't think the closing crats take his opinion to mean much, anyway. Perhaps if we'd ignore him he'll stop that. The behaviour that's most disruptive at the RfAs is all the bad faith responses and accusations that his opinion creates. ThemFromSpace 02:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • No, the argument is about the situation, not the candidate. It doesn't belong on each RFA. It belongs on RFA talk. There is no point in an editor continuing to troll us (which he is doing) if his votes are even being totally ignored. Majorly talk 02:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't consider him a troll. As I said above, I think the response to his opinion has created more disruption than his opinion itself. If he believes that there really are too many admins than it makes sense for him to try to shut down the gates and prevent any more editors from becoming admins. Wikipedia works by consensus, and consensus isn't on his side yet. Perhaps there will be a day where we have too many admins and RfAs will need to be suspended but consensus says that day isn't yet. ThemFromSpace 02:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
        • You need to look at the start of the chain. 1. User makes controversial vote. 2. People respond to it. It's human nature. Most of us know not to respond to it, but there will always be someone who is unaware (as I clearly explained in my summary above), which means that for the best, it is suitable he is prevented from making any more "votes" (I hesitate to call them votes, because they are completely ignored, and have nothing to do with the discussion being voted on). His dissent does not belong on each and every RFA. If he thinks there are too many, he ought to make consensus on RFA talk. Until then, he should either start voting about the candidate at hand, or stop altogether, because this is blatant abuse of the process. It is very sad people are far too forgiving and easy-going, when we are clearly being trolled here. DougsTech's "opinion" adds nothing to RFAs, or consensus (as it's ignored), so has no place here. Shame you can't see that. Ah well. Majorly talk 02:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Your comment borders on being uncivil. Last time I checked we didn't ban people for stating their opinions in a discussion. It's the most unpopular opinions that need to be protected the most. If others will learn to accept his point of view maybe we can move forward with this frivolous discussion. One can vote to oppose a candidate who doesnt have, say, 6 months of experience. Or that person can write an essay on it and be ignored by the RfA consensus. The only fair way to let DougsTech participate is to let him have his say at RfA. Writing essays and postings on chat boards isn't a direct action, when participating in the actual RfA is. ThemFromSpace 02:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Your comment is bordering on being uncivil. Opinions have a time and place. RFA is already brutal enough as it is. DougsTech does not offer an opinion about the candidate. If he did, we would not be here. Until he offers an opinion about the candidate on an RFA, he has no right to be using RFA to troll us. He is disrupting the RFA process to make a point, that we have too many admins. RFA is not about opinions on just any old thing. He is offering an opinion on the general situtation, which is totally inappropriate. Once again: opinions about topics have a time and place. RFA is not the place to discuss whether there are enough admins or not. Until you, and he sees that, it will continue to be disrupted. Majorly talk 02:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
              • This topic isn't about me and since you've turned the argument at me by implying that I am somehow at fault for this, I'm now through with this conversation. I've made my point clear above. ThemFromSpace 02:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
                • I never said the topic was about you. You're merely supporting allowing a user to continue disrupting Wikipedia. So in effect you are at fault, in my opinion, though not at all directly. Thanks for dropping by, your opinion was highly appreciated. Majorly talk 02:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. The user knows that his votes are being ignored by the closing crats, and he continues to do it anyway in the hopes of drawing a reaction. This is pretty much the definition of trolling. If he believes there are too many admins, there are other, more appropriate places to discuss this, such as WT:RFA. I think a lengthy topic ban (but one that will have an effect, on the order of magnitude of 3 months) would be a good deterrent to stop the disruption. Firestorm Talk 02:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I notified DougsTech of this discussion, which should have been done by now. ThemFromSpace 02:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Any gain that may have come from this users voting has been worn away by the mindless repetition. Far too often this user has disrupted people RfAs, not because he has an opinion on the person, but because he wants to make a point. He does not base this opinion on the candidate, yet that is the location he chooses to express it. Chillum 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - He made an alright argument at WT:RFA, and I figured if the crats were discounting it anyway then it wasn't the worst thing that could happen. I have, however, just seen his actions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate, which make me believe that this is indeed an attempt at disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Specific RfAs are not the place to voice believed issues with adminship or the number of admins - that should be discussed elsewhere. — neuro(talk)(review) 02:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the Kurt battles went on long enough, and this is following the same pattern that followed. The choices to deal with this are (1). DougsTech stops his votes, (2). he is topic-banned, (3). everyone else is topic banned, or (4). everyone stops responding to him. 3 and 4 would be very, very hard to enforce: everyone can't be topic banned from RfA, and as the Kurt issue demonstrated, RfA non-regulars will keep responding to the opposes, and we'll keep going round in circles. With 1, DougsTech has been unwilling to stop his votes, so that unfortunately leaves us with 2. If his votes are ignored by all the bureaucrats, then I see no point in renewing drama. Finally, as Neurolysis points out, the edit warring on the RfA template is not acceptable, and is what convinced me to support this. Acalamari 02:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support- I believe DougsTech's "opposebot"-like behaviour is unhelpful and inapplicable to individual candidates. It is grossly unfair to a candidate to be opposed on grounds that have nothing whatsoever to do with their work, demeanour or suitability for the job and in my opinion the bureaucrats are right to ignore DougsTech's !vote. Having said that, I was going to oppose this topic ban motion- usually I would argue that even the most unpopular and unhelpful opinions should be tolerated even if they're later rejected. However, I now find myself convinced by Firestorm's argument that DougsTech's behaviour amounts to trolling- DT knows his votes are being ignored but persists with them because of the annoyance and drama they cause. That is trolling. Reyk YO! 02:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support We made the mistake of tolerating this nonsense with Kurt for way too long. Non RfA regulars who try to get the bit in good faith, but who don't know about the loony bin RfA groupies, shouldn't have to put up with this kind of absurdity. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible support - His point has been made, and it's pissed off a countless amount of users. While it's not that big of a deal, most candidates would of course like to see their RfA go un-opposed. While it's not common, it's most certainly not fair if that's ruined for a user over an oppose that doesn't even concern them directly. That aside, his behavior is just unacceptable.  iMatthew :  Chat  02:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per Reyk. He knows its being ignored by the bureaucrats and that it annoys people, yet he persists on doing it. Its not WP:POINT because its not actually proving anything, its just disruption. Mr.Z-man 02:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support It is painfully obvious that he is violating WP:POINT by making his copy/pasted oppose comment in just about every RFA. This is apparent trolling. These comments are just causing unnecessary turmoil at WP:RFA and are placed in the completely wrong area if DougsTech wants to put out and prove his assertion. Lastly, the comments have nothing to do with the abilities, temperament, edits, or experience of any of the RFA candidates or how they would handle the tools. There is every reason to ban DougsTech from RFA, not even mentioning the ongoing edit warring mentioned by Majorly. Timmeh! 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • To clarify, NuclearWarfare sums it up nicely. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I disagree with Dougstech but I can't see how his comments do any particular harm. I imagine they are ignored or barely regarded by closing bureaucrats, who are assessing the actual discussion points made rather than the number of !votes either way. I don't see them as particularly offending RfA candidates either - they're generic so its nothing personal, and the real tension of an RfA is people trawling through your contribution history in search of mild misdemeanours or limited work in some admin-related area. If the RfA is not close the final tally is meaningless and so is Dougstech's view, if it is close then the bureaucrats will give Dougstech's views the appropriate minimal weight. I agree with those who argue he is trying to make a fairly needless point, but the actual disruption is inconsequential, perhaps compared with the potential drama of a topic ban. Euryalus (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose If you think there's too many admins, then you have a valid reason to oppose nominations. What else are you supposed to do to prevent more admins coming into existence? On RfA talk you'll just get ignored; at least on the RfAs, your vote counts. I don't think its right either to topic ban him or to ignore his vote. Obviously if he were smarter he'd just find an excuse, but we can't seek to oppress honesty when it's there (if it's there). I don't think it sends a right message either, that admins (who dominate RfAs) are seeking to oppress users who think there's too many admins (that's obviously not how it is, but rather how it'll be presented). There is the argument of course that he is just abusing the process to get attention, but I don't accept the weight of this as this user isn't charismatic enough to make it effective. In fact, just the opposite is happening, as can be seen in this thread. Undoubtedly if he continues more people will swarm around him reverting his contributions, driving him to blocks, and so on. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    Just a quick response. DougsTech would not be ignored on RfA talk; apparently, you haven't seen the discussion there in which he participated. Also, a vote such as DougsTech's would always be ignored by bureaucrats, so it would not count. He is disrupting the RFA process to make a point, and he is not commenting on the actual candidate in question but repeating the same statement about his belief that there are too many admins. That's the reason his vote is not being taken into account. Every individual RfA is not the place to voice an opinion on administrators in general; RFA talk is the appropriate place, whether his comment would be ignored or not (it wouldn't and hasn't). Timmeh! 04:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    Well, I did say the crats shouldn't ignore his votes. Nothing is going to come of any RfA talk page movement by him, and community consensus is against his view. So, for all practical purposes, it'll be ignored and will count for nothing in all forums but RfA voting. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - It is painfully obvious that he is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and from prior experience with Kurt, we let this type of behavior stay around individual RfAs for way too long. -MBK004 04:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Big support. It is one of those "clear examples" of being pointy OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. This is baseless nonsense and a perfect example of WP:POINT. We got Kurt topic banned from RfA and DougTech's opposes have an even worse criteria: "I'm going to oppose everyone". Why he shouldn't be topic banned as well is beyond me. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While such opposes are not helpful, they are also harmless. So I do not see any reason for a topic ban. Ruslik (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Quite why WP:SOAP is thrown out of the window with RfA is beyond me. It's disruptive, annoying and influences nobody. Individual RfAs are supposed to be comments on individual editors, not on the process. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, enough is enough, these opposes are ridiculous and damaging to some candidates. The fact that they are ignored by crats gives me more mind to ban them entirely rather than ignore them; one thing I notice is that if you ignore something, it will only grow.  GARDEN  10:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. The burden should be on him to give better arguments, not on everyone else to ignore his canned, impersonal opposes. Since he shows no sign of improving, we should not continue to allow him to invite off-topic commentary in each individual RfA, as Majorly notes in the proposal and Timmeh restates below in his response to DGG. Since newer RfA participants may not know the pattern, repeating an invalid rationale over and over is potentially disruptive, and I think there is harm in continuing to provide the opportunity for that. — TKD::{talk} 11:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Ban His argument is not specific to each candidate, which is the point of RFA's. Until he gains consensus in talk pages, RFC's, etc. that we do, in fact, have too many admins and RFA should be suspended, his blanket voting is disruptive. The fact that he responds with incivility, personal attacks and ignoring questions when someone asks what he dislikes about particular candidates he has opposed shows he is at best disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and at worst trolling. The Seeker 4 Talk 11:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Why we tolerate trolls for so long is beyond me, lets not tolerate this one for any longer. ~ Ameliorate! 11:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - pointiness aside, it's a drama magnet. Not worth our time, but here we are. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: This user is going way too far pushing this point. Although the RFA comments are probably harmless and will be considered plain ridiculous by the closing 'crat, the edit warring shows that he's going even further than that. He can say there are enough admins as much as he wants, and he can try to convince others through discussion. But trying to force or fool others into believing his view through behaviour like this, however far fetched and ridiculous, is completely unacceptable. Chamal talk 11:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support — This has been going on for a while and needs to be dealt with; roux and Reyk nailed it: POINT, and bad faith; +WP:DISRUPT. I agree with most of the "supports" G'day, Jack Merridew 12:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my support of the alternative proposal. hmwithτ 12:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you Joking??? or oppose I guess. What's this?? Votes for banning all over again??? This must be the most stupid proposal that I have seen in ages. Fringe votes like this don't have any material outcome on RFAs and I seem to recall that we have been here before with Kurt Weber. Suppressing fringe views in internal discussions is simply the first stage in imposing group think on our deliberations. Ridiculous. Shame on everyone supporting this nonsense. Just ignore them and explain to RFA candidates that the 'crats ignore the vote anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 12:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    Discussion has been attempted, if you take a look at his talk page and archives. He seems to have a wrong image of the administrator system, and is apparently not ready to listen to anything against his beliefs. Instead of mocking the proposal and its supporters, it would be helpful if you explained your view on this better. Chamal talk 13:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    So what if you tried reasoning with them. It doesn't matter. Just ignore them and they will go away or at least its less disruptive then trying to ban them. Their contribution makes absolutely ZERO impact on promotions and banning someone from contributing simply because you don't like the opinion they are expressing represents pure groupthink. I'd agree wholeheartedly with a ban if they were the ones pushing the issue but the drama all seems to be down to people who don't like the opinion. Well, they are the ones disrupting the project not him. Spartaz Humbug! 14:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Whilst I suppose one !vote isn't really relevant, it throws out the RFA percentage stats which quite often people look at. This sounds a bit WP:SLIPPERYSLOPE, but if we let DT carry on with this, there's nothing to stop even more disruptive non-votes clogging up the system. This should've been dealt with when it was Kurt doing it - let's not pass up a second chance to sort it out. (And that goes for anyone who starts doing it on the support side as well). If this was someone spamming AfDs they would have been blocked by now - we don't need to do that, but we do need a topic ban. Black Kite 13:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: new consensuses are developed via just this sort of process.
    1. Claims that "well, the bureaucrats ignore this anyway, so it's safe to suppress" without evidence to that effect (and as far as I know, the 'crats tend not to discuss this sort of thing) are thinly-veiled statements of "I don't like this, shut him up."
    2. Claims that the discussion be redirected to talk space smack of "I don't like it, but the 'crats might be paying attention, shut him up."
    3. Claims that WP:POINT applies are unfounded. Is he making a point? Yes. Is there disruption? No. Dougs is non-confrontational in his approach.
    Ultimately, either we have an opinion being ignored by the 'crats, in which case it is no great trial to expect all RFA participants to be mature enough to tolerate its presence, or we have an opinion, properly presented, being considered. Unless someone can prove the former, this ban proposal (or others like it, as below) has no place. — Lomn 13:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    "Votes based on too many admins were immediately thrown out, of course.".  GARDEN  14:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    In that event, I withdraw the bulk of my objections. I still note that expecting all RFA participants to behave around controversial comments isn't a high hurdle. — Lomn 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per above. At some point, AGF stops becoming what we have to listen to, and common sense becomes it instead. DougsTech is free to express his opinion on WT:RFA. "RfA/X User" is meant to be a discussion, not a vote, and if DougsTech is unwilling to agree with this, there is no point in continuing to allow this. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I've been putting up with this for a while, and it's gone on for too long. Xclamation point 14:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per NW. DougsTech is by far not the only mass-opposer I've heard of, but his reasoning seems to be aimed at the wrong venue. RfA is meant to judge the user's fitness to be an admin, not the encyclopedia's need for admins. This is clearly WP:POINT-y behavior. —Admiral Norton (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is why we have crats. Let him give his opinion and let the crat weigh it.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Kind of weakishly reluctanltishly support It's a fantastically stupid opinion and since it's systematic we could almost assign a bot to adding it when an RfA goes live. But there's also a longstanding (though misguided) tradition to let anyone say whatever the heck they want on RfAs. The problem is that since RfAs are thankfully not the sole territory of RfA regulars, every occurrence of "too many administrators currently" either creates a long list of "what???" replies or forces someone to add "don't worry, there's a long thread on WT:RFA about this and crats will disregard the opinion". Since nobody really takes his opinion seriously, it's a useless distraction in a process which clearly could do without distractions. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many threads at AN. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Second Choice (stolen from ArbCom :P). I don't think it is a good option above, but... Anyway, I have seen enough stray comments from Doug to suggest that he either has or will operate another account if there were any blocks or the rest on him, so I have no confidence that such a topic ban would do anything but possibly drive him to continuing it on another name in a more subtle manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support User is clearly not evaluating individual candidates, this trolling has gone on too long. ϢereSpielChequers 15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Everyone is allowed a !vote and I see no reason to strike a !vote just because you don't like it. Striking oppose !votes is a dangerous trend because it discourages others from opposing and should be done very carefully. How about a swing by some of the articles needing attention instead? --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Just ignore him for pete's sake. It's a protest vote. We get it. The 'crats get it. If he feels like stuffing that onto every RfA, then it's his time to waste, just pass along to the next one and carry on with life. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Ignore him per Tony Fox. This whole discussion is just feeding a troll.--Aervanath (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral — Although the bureaucrats can not-vote a not-vote (?), if the same thing happened with AfD, where someone added to every AfD, "*Delete – too many articles already," people would go batty and be ready for a lynchin'. It all goes back to don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. One user is ignorable, but if it grows to levels where 10 people are always adding stuff like "too many admins" or "self-noms are prima facie evidence of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand," then it's a bit silly, and I have a strange feeling everyone else will agree if it ever got to that point. That said, one person trolling by stating something clearly incorrect—that we have too many admins, as opposed to not enough—would likely favor the candidate, so in reality, that kind of an oppose vote is really more of a support. :P --slakrtalk / 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    Support While I defended Kurt's right to !vote as he deemed fit, I have to oppose these pointy !votes of DougsTech. The big difference is that Kurt's !votes were about the candidate and some perceived imperfection with the candidate themself. Kurt was able to defend his position on why he felt that a specific candidate wasn't qualified based upon his sense of what he was looking for. Doug's !vote has nothing to do with the candidate, but a belief that we don't need more admins. If Doug wishes to rally about how there are too many admins, he can do so, just not on individual RfA/RfB's where he is being disruptive/pointy.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: he is now making his posts in the Neutral section... I don't mind that.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per the above voters, especially Black Kite. I personally believe from secondhand observations that most Wikipedia administrators are overburdened and that we could solve the problem by appointing a lot more of them, and the declining rate of new admin promotion worries me. But I would not vote for someone whom I feel would become a problematic administrator simply to increase the number of administators, and each time I vote in an RfA I give the specific reasons why I would like to see each candidate be promoted or denied so that the other voters and the bureaucrats may find value in my vote. (Note though that I am somewhat new to RfA, having made only six votes, and have not yet voted Oppose, as all of the candidates whom I really wouldn't trust have been snowed out fairly early on. But the rationale I give above is a principle I hold myself to.) Soap Talk/Contributions 16:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Your support for this topic ban has virtually no relation to DougsTech. As such, it is every bit as valid as DougsTech's opposes on RfAs. Could you please provide a reason why DougsTech should be banned from RfA? If it is because he is opposing because he thinks there are too many admins, then would you support banning anyone from RfA who thinks there are too many admins? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I thought I had explained myself better. I'm highlighting the difference between someone who believes there are too many administrators and votes Oppose based on the merits of each individual candidate, versus someone who believes there are too many administrators and votes Oppose based on that rationale alone, ignoring the respective pros and cons of each candidate. I would not support the banning of anyone in the former category, but would support banning anyone in the latter category. Soap Talk/Contributions 18:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, just as I opposed restrictions on Kurt Weber regarding his votes. My arguments are the same as of others opposing this above, which means under normal circumstances I would not take the time to comment duplicatively here, but since there has been such unseemly haste to mark this resolved and a topic ban implemented, it seems important to register disagreement. Martinp (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. This is completely different from Kurt Weber's input, which was based on the candidate. Given that the closing 'crats routinely ignore these "votes", the best case outcome is that this editor's contributions to RfA are utterly useless. The only other likely outcome is disruption and distraction from discussing the candidate at hand - recall that the purpose of an RfA is to determine whether or not the community trusts the candidate not to abuse the tools. Now, if DougsTech has a sincere belief that there are too many admins, he should pick an appropriate forum (e.g. WT:RFA or the Village Pump) and start trying to convince people of his position with arguments, logic, statistics... something. Nobody is being silenced - if anything, such a discussion is to be welcomed. Perhaps the process of gaining - or losing - the bit will be improved as a result. But individual candidates' RfA pages are not the place for that discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ban editors who disrupt this project and doesn't contribute much to the building of the encyclopedia should be banned. Secret account 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support a topic ban from individual RfAs and RfBs (but not from WT:RFA). I think the opposition makes many good points, but where they fail is that they're not reading what the supporters are actually writing. No one thinks that anyone should be muzzled for being disagreeable, but a topic ban is the traditional and acceptable way to deal with persistent, dogged FORUMSHOPping. Dougstech is welcome to argue his case for getting rid of all the admins and replacing us with something else (he hasn't said what, yet), perhaps at WP:VPP, but that's the only argument he's indicated he's interested in, so far, and that has nothing to do with individual RFAs. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Symbol support vote.svg Ban from WP:RFA, WP:RFB, and WT:RFA, as well as from making RFA/B related comments on a canidate's talk page. The ban should be indefinite until re-discussed.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Is this a joke? I didn't realize having an unpopular, or even unfounded, opinion was grounds for a banning. And the peoeple who think this is a violation of WP:POINT are missing the point that one of the criteria of WP:POINT is that the action is disruptive. Voting in a vote (let's face it, it's a vote) is not disruptive even if it's based on a factually suspect opinion that nobody agrees with. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is disruptive. It's confusing to new candidates at RfA, and it's confusing to editors who are new to RfAs. And it's disruptive to editors with experience at RfA in the same way that spam emails are disruptive - yes, it can be ignored, but that still takes a bit of time and mental exertion, just like spam emails. And it is spam - no bureaucrat should give such an opinion any weight whatsoever, since the "oppose" has nothing to do with the quality of the candidate. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Anybody so easily confused shouldn't be an admin candidate. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • IMHO, if in making a point someone has caused major disruption (as seen here), chances are that was the intent. ;-) --Ipatrol (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Those pushing for a RfX ban are seeking to silence dissent. Misguided dissent, maybe, but bureaucrats have the discretion to ignore his vote. This ban will have a chilling effect on RfA opposes at a time when potential (and current) administrators need more, and not less, scrutiny than in the past. As someone who has voiced unpopular opinions at RfA, I have to wonder whether I'll be next. Perhaps that's the intent. Skinwalker (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    Of course potential admins need scrutiny, although not too much as adminship is not a big deal. But DougsTech is not opposing based on the individual candidates, he's template opposing based on an unrelated reason and not explaining his stance. As I've said before, the oppose section of each individual RFA is not the place to be making a point about the total number of admins. That belongs on WT:RFA. There are plenty of valid reasons to topic ban this person without including the fact that the facts and an overwhelming majority of Wikipedians disagree with his view. Timmeh! 22:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    I'm going to digress for a moment and express what I expect to be a very unpopular opinion. "Not a big deal" is, IMO, a antiquated and harmful canard that needs to be put to rest. If it were not a big deal, adminship could be easily removed, not tied up in gigabytes of endless discussion and arbitration only to result in a "strongly urged" decision. If it were not a big deal, discretionary sanctions that allow individual admins to abrogate consensus would not exist. If it were not a big deal, we wouldn't have habitual sockpuppeteers spending months or years grooming accounts for RfA. If it were not a big deal, rank-and-file admins would not have access to sensitive and at times nonpublic information via deleted revisions. Since Wikipedia is one of the first terms that come up in a google search on a given topic, administrative control over this site and who has it is a very, very serious topic. One or two bad admins can (and do) hijack articles and skew them away from mainstream, encyclopedic coverage. People read these articles and consider them fact. It's not just silly buggers with high-school vandal whack-a-mole anymore. Adminship is most certainly a big deal. But I digress. I don't see anything in your comment that touches on my concern about chilling effects on oppose !voting. Skinwalker (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, perhaps a hardline needs to be drawn about people who blanket oppose candidates. Thanks for bringing your own example up. I'll be sure to propose something once this is dealt with. Chilling effect or not, it's disrupting and inappropriate for RFA. Majorly talk 23:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    Wow. Bring it. As an aside, you seem to have a large amount of emotion and anger invested in matters concerning adminship and RfA. Other editors have noted this as well. I suggest you walk away for a bit and allow the community to, one way or another, put out the fire you've started. The boorish and intimidatory comment you made above is spectacularly unhelpful. Skinwalker (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    Yeah, perhaps consider why - maybe because POINTy RFA votes, such as your own, DougsTech's etc are tolerated as much as they are, and said people claim I am the one causing the problem. Try looking at the start of the chain: perhaps if people started using RFA for what it was created for, perhaps there wouldn't be need for threads like this. It is not my fault people abuse RFA and use it as their soapbox for whatever they want to say, and nor is it my fault people tolerate it. So stop trying to shift the blame for the "fire" on me. The vast majority of people agree with me on this issue, not you. And you seriously think I'd waste my time trying to get you banned from RFA too? As much as I detest your template POINT, at least you don't oppose every single one, and at least the candidate has a chance of deciding if they want to risk being opposed by you. DougsTech offers no such thing. Majorly talk 23:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    Two points. First, I'm not sure that, in this case, I understand the distinction between silencing dissent and systematically ignoring dissent. No crat takes this seriously and every single oppose of Doug is accompanied by a clear "let him be, nobody cares". Secondly, those who have read Doug's explanation on WT:RFA know that his opposition is basically directed at the power structure created by adminship. Even if you're sympathetic to that opinion, it's clearly not something that you can change through blanket opposes of RfAs. It's a much more fundamental debate that actually has nothing to do with RfA itself. If Doug wants to discuss it, he should do so at the village pump or some mailing list (or gasp! Wikipedia Review). We'd have no second thoughts about removing an oppose reading "Oppose: every BLP should be semi-protected" and Doug's blanket opposes are of the same nature. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Considering some of the reasons that are put forth to oppose RfAs, Doug's predictable opinion is hardly a cause for concern.