Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive76

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Essay Sweep?[edit]

I've seen it suggested by several people now that we have way too many essays, and that several of these should be removed, deleted or userfied. That probably does not include the dozen ex-proposals I mentioned earlier; it's more about the pointless rants or incomplete opinion pieces. However, WP:MFD tends to be of the opinion that essays are harmless and should be kept. Apparently opinions vary. So, perhaps we should get some volunteers to userfy parts of CAT:E to the principal author? Or is it not worth or trouble? >Radiant< 12:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd oppose this in general. In Cat:E is some light hearted pieces and some useful stuff that commands some support and certainly illuminates. Perhaps what we should have is a move to userfy stuff which is solo-authored AND quixotic (= opinion that hardly anyone agrees with). Perhaps a first step is do split CAT:E into
  1. Cat:General Essays a 'category for essays that are (or may become) multi-author works and either balance differing views or represent views that held by a majority or very substantial minority of the community' all these must be in project space.
  2. Cat:User Essays = 'a category for most mono-authored pieces, or essays representing clearly small minority opinions' - this category should generally exist in userspace, although there can be honourable exceptions for pieces that are often used, clearly collaborative, amusing, or deemed to be of wider interest. --Docg 12:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I foresee that splitting into "general" and "user" essays will lead to more tag warring over people who disagree that their essay is a minority opinion. >Radiant< 12:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that essays that don't enjoy general support should be userfied, the move for an extra Category that Doc suggests would be a useful way for users with their own essays to advertise them. But generally any contributions shouldn't be deleted totally (just moved to user space) --Monotonehell 12:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There are almost no essays that "enjoy general support", since the whole point of essays tends to be to given an opinion. Note that I wasn't suggesting "deleting totally" either. >Radiant< 12:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I predict that without some sort of a general consensus about this it is liable to cause a serious disruption. There should be a general consensus based upon some sort of criteria. One of the criteria could consist of a threshhold of a number of "What links here" link backs a given essay has with the thinking that the more links a given essay has the more liable it is to have community recognition/acceptance. (Netscott) 12:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Instruction creep, and and so open to abuse --Docg read this
Not clear on your response here Doc. Your thinking is the "What links here" idea is instruction creep? (Netscott) 12:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Counting inbound links is, yes. --Docg read this
Another possible criteria would be how many other language Wikis have their own versions of a given essay? Obviously the more there are the more likely an essay has recognition. (Netscott) 13:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I would strongly support a move to userfy most essays. There is room for a fair amount of stuff in project space that's neither a policy or a guideline but the essay tag is over used and abused by people who simpy want to advertise their (non-consensual) opinion. People are free to express themselves (and even collaborate if they wish) in userspace there's no need to clog up Wikipedia space with conflicting opinions. However, I do support keeping userfied essays in a category to facilitate finding them, which can help avoid redundancy. Why express myself in an essay if someone else has already written a better one that I can refer to? I don't like Doc's idea of a two tiered category since I fear it would encourage WP:OWNing of essays. Eluchil404 12:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem with userfying is that they make what could be corporate works the 'property' of one user. There's another problem, even essays that are contravertial or minority can still be useful. Take WP:SNOW - yes a lot of people hate it, but snowballing happens - new users want to know what the hell that's about. WP:SNOW explains it - and can flag up the problems and objections. If we userfied it, we'd lose that resource and certainly the cross-space redirect WP, since that can't go to userspace. I suspect that there may be many essays like that. Even recording the arguments for a highly unpopular position can be useful. Perhaps the solution is to require essays in project space to be roughly NPOV - i.e. record the arguments for AND against the position and indicate levels of support or objection - no WP:OWNing. If you want to write an op-ed, then that goes in userspace.--Docg 13:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
<edit conflict>I think it's a good move. I can't see an issue with the WP:OWNing of essays if you are already suggesting they be userfied. By userfying them you are indicating ownership. I support the split. I also think a few of our essays can be merged. Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles could be merged to WP:TRIV, and couldn't all the Wikipedia:Don't... be merged into one?. God help me for suggesting it, but maybe we need a proposal method for Wikipedia namespace essays. Things like WP:BEANS are obviously immensely useful, in fact to my mind they'd be guidance, but we use a different definition of guidance on Wikipedia. I can't work out where our little area is of useful pages that do have a high level of support but which aren't guidelines should go, because essay imparts a polemical nature. Maybe a {{refpage}} tag for stuff like beans and independent sources and those listed above, stuff that gets referenced a lot and helps explain something on Wikipedia. "This page is widely used as a reference point across Wikipedia. If you have been directed here, it is because the points made on this page were thought relevant to a debate you are involved in or edits you have contributed. It is not a guideline or policy, but has wide community support as an outline of community opinion on the point in question." Something like that. I mean, WP:SNOW is certainly an expression of community opinion, I think we'd all agree with that even if there isn't wide agreement that it is a policy. Still, food for thought. Hiding Talk 13:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem with a lot of opinion pieces being in WP: space is that (even though they have a tag on them) they can be confused as "official" wikipedia policy. Userfying essays that are pretty much owned anyway isn't a bad idea. --Monotonehell 13:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't realy have a issue with "Userfying" as a general way to solve a problem (see The German Solution), but I don't see any problem here. What problem is trying to be solved here? Are all the "good" names taken up? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's an issue of quantity and quality. There's a LOT of essays, several probably should be merged, others that serve no real purpose should be userfied. It would be an exercise that at the very least would help us examine their content and make people think a bit. It may even lead to some revision of policy --Monotonehell 13:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


I continue to hold the (minority?) opinion that the policy/guideline/essay system is rather useless.

Tagging and categorization in general seem to be somewhat at random, and this is equally true in the project namespace.

This means that userfication would also be at random, and in the end, would likely be useless, destructive, or otherwise problematic :-P.

Much of the process bloat is due to people inadvertantly playing nomic in the project namespace ;-) something which I think is probably impossible to stamp out by now.

Perhaps we could move key sections of our guidelines to meta or elsewhere? --Kim Bruning 13:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should also look at it from the perspective of new users; There's a HUGE amount of (sometimes conflicting) policy, guidelines and essays. generally reviewing what we have now and trying to make sense of them would be a step to clarifying where consensus has got us. --Monotonehell 13:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't overly disagree Kim, but I think lamenting the tagging and categorisation as being somewhat random is a poor reason to not unrandomise it. It may well be that the policy/guideline/essay system is rather useless, but so far it appears to be the best of the alternatives. I am not sure we can dump these off on meta either, I seem to remember them clearing out their space. Wasn't their a dispute over who should host WP:DICK, I seem to remember meta trying to foist that off on us? Hiding Talk 14:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've been working on simplifying guidelines from a different angle at the same time. ( See the ~historic Simplified Ruleset and the final outcome at: 5 pillars ). Since radiant and I have just about the same objective but competing stratagems, perhaps we should meet IRL and discuss! :-) --Kim Bruning 15:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong suggestion to let sleeping dogs lie. Essays are a way in which people articulate their opinions and let off steam. Wherever they are located, at best they provoke thinking, at worst when misused we can say "don't misuse them" and deal with it on an as-needed basis. The level of irritation and friction between users on WP is already needlessly high; starting discussions---which I am sure will at some point be quite passionate---about "we will now rename/move/userfy/reclassify your essay" will generate friction far in excess of the benefit it will bring". (Posted by an established user who does not have time to log in right now)

An equal standard[edit]

How about this? Propose Wikipedia space essays for at MFD under the following circumstances:

  1. Essay is over 4 months old.
  2. Essay has fewer than 10 incoming wikilinks.
  3. Essay's talk page is blank.

Under those circumstances the essay has had enough chance to sell itself in the marketplace of ideas. The deletion proposal wouldn't be tainted by potential POV issues because it's based upon objective criteria. DurovaCharge! 21:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Incoming wikilink is not a good criteria. They are easy to arrange.--Docg 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand and in most cases I'd agree. This standard would weed out only the essays that not even the creator bothered to spam, which (I hope) should render the deletions uncontroversial. If the original editor pipes up we could always userfy. The goal with this proposal is to remove some cruft without starting any more controversy. DurovaCharge! 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Madrid Train Bombings[edit]

This article has been subject to a prolonged dispute for several months. Recently this dispute got worse when one user, Randroide, made a series of contested changes to the main article and ignored all objections by other editors involved in the dispute. Despite this I have continued to make efforts to resolve the dispute following the procedures laid down in WP:DR. To date I have attempted to launch one RfC and two RfM’s. None of these initiatives have been able to get off the ground either because they were directly blocked, or because of other actions taken by Randroide. Last weekend we had a RfM ready to go with agreed bullet points and nobody apparently against. At the last minute Randroide halted that initiative claiming he now wanted an RFC. This morning, having agreed to the RFC, Randroide has coupled this with a massive undiscussed edit on the Aftermath article concerning the train bombings – in my view nothing more than an open provocation to the other users involved.

This dispute is dragging on and getting worse, Randroide is openly contemptuous of anyone who suggests he is not entitled to do what he likes with disputed articles and seems determined to impose his will on the other editors involved. It is now time this dispute was forced into arbitration so that we are not obliged to endlessly battle with a user who seeks any opportunity to evade having to deal with those who not agree with his point of view. I believe someone urgently needs to tell him to desist from unilateral and controversial edits while the disputed status of the article is sorted out. I hope someone can act to stabilise this situation and to make it clear that all parties to the dispute must be respected. Southofwatford 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am "the other guy", Randroide.
WP:OWN: articles don't go on Wikibreak because particular editors go inactive [1]
  • About Southofwatford claims (openly contemptuous, massive undiscussed edit...) please ask him for diffs supporting his allegations against me.
Randroide 19:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As someone who's touched base on this dispute periodically over several months, I endorse arbitration. Looks like nothing else will resolve the matter. DurovaCharge! 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


User:JAnDbot[edit]

Please:

  1. Unblock my bot, JAnDbot
  2. write me the reason, why was blocked
  3. If it is necessary, you can reblock it, but only user, not IP, because I am not able to edit from my login.

Thanks, JAn Dudík 21:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The block log does not have any entry about your bot; however, that is because of a recent software problem (some entries on the log are missing). The list of active blocks shows the reason:

  • 08:47, 23 February 2007, Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs | block) blocked JAnDbot (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (per Wikipedia:Bots/Status "discontinued")

--cesarb 21:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No bug here - you queried about blocks that JAnDbot imposed, not those that were imposed on the account. This is the correct log. —Cryptic 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, looks like I clicked on the wrong link (Logs instead of Block log). --cesarb 21:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Please note I set up Wikipedia:Bots/Status and that page is not complete yet any blocks should not be based on that page until it is complete see my note on the talk page about the planned merger at a later date once all bot operators have a chance to fill in the data. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
So can anybody unblock poor JAnDbot? I didn't knew about somethig like that page and I am not sure, If I understand what does it means. I have filled purpose and date of the bot, it's enough?
If Bot wasnť blocked - should I have any chance? or unexcepted blocking is the way to annonce some new rule to operators? JAn Dudík 81.0.194.126 22:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Unblocked (I also removed the autoblock). --cesarb 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to express my annoyance about the fact that an old list [4] that was dated, but often accurate, was changed to (Wikipedia:Bots/Status) with all bots set to "discontinued" and then every bot operator was spammed to update their status. And now one apparently risks having bots blocked for not following through with bureaucracy that was largely unnecessary to begin with. The way to update an old list is not to simply go through and declare every entry is discontinued until proven otherwise. A much smarter way would be to start by going through and checking which bots are still making contributions. Dragons flight 23:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't get why anyone would block an inactive bot...the likelihood of such an account being compromised is negligible. Ral315 » 10:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Desysopings[edit]

Jimbo hasn't posted anything here, so I'll just place the link.[5]. Yanksox 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god. This is like an annual event now. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
He has just a moment ago, actually: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. --Conti| 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Holy shit. Kyle Barbour 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I really wish people would think their actions through a bit more before reversing another administrator's actions. We've had an article on Daniel Brandt for years now; nothing is so urgent as to toggle that article's deleted state over a dozen times within a single day. This is disgraceful to all admins. --Cyde Weys 23:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed. The whole sorry saga, especially the way the initial deletion happened, reflects very badly on us all. -- ChrisO 00:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What, is this annual now? A massive wheel war in February? The userbox war just happened a year ago (February 6, 2006). I think the UBX could be a bit predicted, especially after the controversey surrounding admin deletions (Kelly Martin, MarkSweep, creation of WP:DRV/UBX), and the existence of Daniel Brandt's bio has been controversial also. I'd wager GNAA, but that was deleted a few months ago. Hbdragon88 00:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has directed that an arbitration case be opened on this matter. There is discussion (and a formal clerk's notice on behalf of the Arbitration Committee) on ANI. Newyorkbrad 00:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh dear. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has long regarded wheel-warring as considerably worse than other forms of admin misconduct--it is indeed the only reason he has ever personally de-sysopped anyone. Whether or not we agree that it's worse, we are certainly aware of his feelings on the matter and his disposition to act on them and should keep it in mind for the future. Chick Bowen 01:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive in the extreme. I can see why he would get pissed enough to take personal action. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Lman1987[edit]

This user is being highly disruptive in making changes to tennis articles against longstanding and well-established consensus[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12], editing the comments of other users[13] (including entries on this page [14] [15] [16]), and blanking his talk page (which includes several warnings) [17] [18] [19]. It appears that this same user was making the exact same changes over the last few weeks using various IP accounts, e.g., [20] [21] [22] [23], until the Roger Federer article was semi-protected to prevent those changes. We need administrator intervention. Thank you! Tennis expert 17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have blovked Lman1987 for 24 hours for disruption. The editor was trying to mangle this post, remove evidence and generally unconstructive behavior. If anybody has issues with this block, feel free to unblock! Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Good block, no need to wait for a warning when it was exceedingly obvious the user was intending to be disruptive. If the rest of their editing is similar, I'd be for giving one chance to see if they've learned from the current block, then applying rapidly increasing blocks for repeating the behavior. Say a week next time and indefinite the next. - Taxman Talk 17:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize in advance if moving this notice to the bottom was a violation of the rules. It appears that User:Lman1987 has resumed his disruptive activities after his 24-hour block expired. For example, it appears that he created User:Tennis Xspert to confuse users and harrass me (for example, he copied and pasted my entire talk page into his own talk page). It also appears that he is again using anonymous IP address accounts to make the same kinds of disruptive edits that he was making before his block, e.g.,[24] [25]. We are again in need of administrator intervention. Perhaps limited protection of the Marcos Baghdatis, Marat Safin, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Rafael Nadal, Lleyton Hewitt, and Andy Roddick articles should be considered. Thanks for your help! Tennis expert 23:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the admins appear to be in short number right now (see how many backlog requests are on here), I suggest putting up something at WP:RFCU. That might help your case. I can't see why no one is blocking this user though. 64.178.98.57 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Kgb23[edit]

Kgb23 (talk · contribs)'s first action was to slap a vandalism warning on another User's page. They have since gone on and added bogus warnings onto several other Users' pages, made a vandalist attack on Nudity, then reverted it. Corvus cornix 00:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on their contributions, it's probably the blocked User User:Bbb00723. Corvus cornix 00:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Redundant media[edit]

Are any administrators going through Category:Redundant media and its subcategories on deletion rounds? If not, I'll begin nominating images at WP:IFD. --Iamunknown 01:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be better if you would orphan the images and then tag them {{Db-redundantimage}}. Once they're orphans they can be speedy deleted. Thanks. Chick Bowen 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I just took a look, and the first two images were redundant to those already on the Commons. Strike a blow at the pitiful {{db-redundantimage}} template, which still doesn't handle duplicates on Commons. I guess I'll settle for {{NowCommons}}. Hbdragon88 03:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User Self Promotion[edit]

On the article for "interweb", in the "see also" section, one user added a link to his website which is totally irrelevant to anything. I would remove it myself, but the person who did this is my friend and I don't want to come off as an ass. --Jake34567 02:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Uh I removed a link from that article. But it seems to have been there for at least a few days. --W.marsh 02:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by anonymous user 130.126.15.145 /130.126.15.57/HarmonyThree[edit]

User 130.126.15.145 has started a pattern of harassment and cyberstalking. He/she is also using the alias: 130.126.15.57. Clearly a stalker. I have no idea what (s)he's talking about, either way, (s)he seems to be short of a few synapses. Could you please block him, (s)he's not contributting anything to wiki. Moroder 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To any admins, if you read Moroder's talk page (User_talk:Moroder#Sockpuppetry_case) you will see that his complaints are regarding my request that he stop using this account as a sock puppet to get around a permanent ban on his main account User:Ati3414. This is my first interaction with User:Moroder so I find it interesting that he would suddenly try to claim this is "stalking" as that implies previous encounters which is only even possible if he is indeed User:Ati3414.
He quietly ignored my first warning to stop using the sock puppet. His response to my second warning was this -- to make a false accusation of harassment in an attempt to shift focus onto something else.
If an admin could make a decision on the suspected sock puppet report (Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Ati3414) I believe this situation will resolve itself. Thank you. -- HarmonyThree 12:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Not really , on 2/14 there was a first harassment by anonymous 130.126.15.57 which I ignored until it was followed by a second harassment coming from 130.126.15.145. If this is not stalking, what is? You have two sockpuppets right in front of you (130.126.15.145 /130.126.15.57) why take "their" word over mine? Why give any credibility to a report made by two anonymous sockpuppets that contributed absolutely nothing to wiki over the report of an established contributor? Moroder 16:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

These three : 130.126.15.145 /130.126.15.57/HarmonyThree are all sockpuppets of Gregory9 Moroder 05:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

False report filed by newly signed up sockpuppet HarmonyThree[edit]

This is a new type of violation, never seen before, HarmonyThree is a new sockpuppet of the previously reported sockpuppets 130.126.15.57 and 130.126.15.142 Talk about sockpuppets :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=HarmonyThree

Could you please suspend all three of "them", their "contribution" to wiki is absolutely zero, "they" are here only to harrass by filing false reports. They are nothing but empty shells of some deeply deranged person. Moroder 18:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV 1hr backlog[edit]

Any admins in the house? There are reports at WP:AIV which have been listed for over 1 hour. I know it's Friday night in the US and the weekend elsewhere, but somebody must be around.... auburnpilot talk 05:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's not unusual. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Must I remind you, Auburn, that we don't get paid for this? :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There's always Wikimoney (though I never really understood it). ;-) auburnpilot talk 08:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ohioan1 on Condoleezza_Rice[edit]

Ohioan1 is ignoring concensus, edit-warring, and violating at least the spirit of the 3R rule in order to POV push and spin negative material into the lead. This is a new account that has done nothing but edit the Condoleezza Rice article and I suspect sock-puppetry. -- Mgunn 06:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

CSD at 570 items[edit]

Anyone in a mood to get out a flamethrower and burninate some crap is more than welcome. MER-C 07:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection requests[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is backlogged. Catchpole 10:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not any more. Cbrown1023 talk 15:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV[edit]

WP:AIV is inaccessible to me,is it down?If so can we report vandals here? I'm sorry if I am the oddball here but I am curious.121.7.56.203 14:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not logged-in, that page is semi-protected to prevent vandalism. You can bypass that by creating an account. Cbrown1023 talk 15:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
No it's not. It hasn't been protected in months. 64.178.98.57 21:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

For the third time, User:RobJ1981[edit]

The above user has been discriminating against Bowsy and I and may be using the RC patrol to predict our every move. There is no point in trying dispute resolution on or reasoning with this user as it clearly won't work. Can I please have results this time, and not excuses? Henchman 2000 14:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Results? Sure. Have a 24-hour cool-off for this [26]. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Too many broken redirects for me to fix or mark for speedy deletion at Special:BrokenRedirects[edit]

There are too many broken redirects at Special:BrokenRedirects for me to tag for speedy deletion or fix. I could use some help in clearing this backlog. Jesse Viviano 02:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I did a few dozen starting at the back and ran into Irishguy going the other way; it looks to be cleared now. Chick Bowen 03:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

possibly lamest edit war ever, but...[edit]

There's apparently some sort of problem over at Habbo Hotel involving revert warring over the thumbnail in the article. Someone with blocking abilities may want to start an enforced cool down, protection, or something else. Natalie 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:ANI#Habbo vandalism. This user seems rather zealous. —Centrxtalk • 04:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You got there first. I suggest removing the image altogether to force both sides to discuss (even though protection does not endorse the current page, it is better to get sure they will discuss by removing it, and stating that, if no agreement is reached, the article should stay image-less). -- ReyBrujo 04:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Oy vey. Natalie 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's really that important. That's the image that has been there at least since December, and he's the only person who hasn't discussed the matter; he's just been reverting it repeatedly the last 5 days. —Centrxtalk • 04:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else see a duck?[edit]

MrMorpheus (talk · contribs) blocked as sockpuppet of DJ BatWave (talk · contribs)

Just looking for a second opinion on this block. First we have the vote and the contributions. This is quickly followed by the whoops and clean-up because of this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.png Quack. Essjay (Talk) 13:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please delete[edit]

Someone please delete Image:daniella.gif. Its a clip from a fetish video which was stolen from an off-Wikipedia website. It has no place on this site nor does it contribute in any way to the tickle torture article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.84 (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Nobody at AIV[edit]

Is anyone going to be over at AIV anytime soon? I've had a user on the list for a solid half-hour and the list hasn't gotten any shorter.

Thanks,

ThePurpleMonkey(talkportalcontribs) 14:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If by solid half hour you meant 10 minutes...there were 2 users on the list at the time, hardly a backlog by AIV standards. Metros232 14:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for help[edit]

This user [[27]] (I'clast) is attempting to bring me into dispute and influence a ArbCom discussion [[28]], [[29]], [[30]], along with somebody who he is trying to defend [[31]], [[32]] as well as holding a WP:COI threat over me to somehow make me confess to his line of thinking. I really have no idea how to resolve this issue and would appriciate some admin input into the matter. Many Thanks

edit: Further to the above, the subject of the ArbCom mentioned above has clarified her position by accussing me of being an article's (Stephen Barrett) son [[33]]. I have referred the editors of that ArbCom to here for further discussion of this matter.

edit: I'clast's harassment continues [[34]]. Some third party advice and/or intervention would be appriciated. Thanks Shot info 06:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

edit by I'clast: I re-affirm my position below. I will not be *too rushed* into assembly of the most complex evidence and presentation that I have prepared for Wikipedia. I have manifested far more patience over the last month based on my view of the situation, so I will ask Shot_info's comparatively brief indulgence, especially since he says that I am going to have some (negative) surprises. I plan to email my package to two admins later this week and then listen for their comments.--I'clast 07:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment from ArbCom plaintiff

I find this whole matter deeply distressing, as it is brought by a supporter of my opposer in the ArbCom, has been introduced into the ArbCom situation, and is against an uninvolved person, and this all rubs off on me. This is very improper and ill-timed, though very strategically timed if one wishes to poison the well against me by using guilt by association involving a likely innocent (and thus falsely accused) person. I have no idea of the truth or falsity of this matter, only that it is improper to make it a part of an on-going ArbCom, especially when it has nothing to do with me, and even if the charge is true against Shot info, only has relevance if it can be proven that it involves improper editing. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 11:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Plaintiff" How interesting that Fyslee calls himself that. It's the only thing I agree with.It's a very interesting and complex comment. I'm very pleased he so phrased it.
This Arb was indeed, appropriately called Barrett Vs Rosenthal.
If in fact, user:shot_info is who all evidence points to, he will indeed be another Barrett Vs Rosenthal.
Fyslee, as here on Wiki, publicized the same Barrett websites [35]. I believe his denials are perfect examples of doublespeak.
In fact, this quote from him shows undeniably that his behavior is as Barrett's publicist.
If you have any other matters that need answering, just ask. The answers usually exist, and I know the people who can provide them. Keep in mind that Barrett, the NCAHF, etc. are open about their activities. They have nothing to hide. The information is there if you know where to look. Even participation on the Healthfraud Discussion List requires using ones real name. Regards, Paul -- Fyslee 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC) [36][37]
He posts links to his own homepages, blogs and webrings, and openly and repeatedly discusses his years of responsibilities as assistant listmaster for the plaintiffs' Healthfraud List:
As the Assistant Listmaster for the [http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/discuss.html Healthfraud Discussion List,]. Advertising Barrett Operations on Wiki
As Barrett's Assistant Listmaster for several years (until December, 2006 when he said he resigned but continues posting there) he has solicited members to come to Wikipedia to help him collaborate. This is but one example. Re: healthfraud Wikipedia Please note the list of his affiliations advertised on this link, which he also advertises on Wikipedia. Here is a list (if it disappears too, I have the evidence in my files) Hundreds of posts on Healthfaud List
Perusing this list you will see, in addition to his Wiki conversations, and in November, 2006, many posts relating to the lawsuit members of the Healthfraud list lost to me. Any who investigate will easily and clearly see that he continues the Quackwatch / NCAHF agenda here on Wikipedia. Further, recent evidence shows that he, the Webring Owner for Randi's lists, has had this email on their forum and circulated for over a year now. He claims he was a newbie, but I believe it speaks for itself that he knew exactly and precisely what he was doing. Skeptics needed for Wikipedia: Any coordination of efforts should be done by private email, since Wikipedia keeps a very public history of *every* little edit, and you can't get them removed. We don't need any accusations of a conspiracy! If anyone wants to respond to me, please do it on my talk page or by email as I have an important project and won't have the ultimate Wiki time to find conversations on this. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: This COI issue is secondarily focused on the very relevant RfArb question of whether Ilena "jumped or was pushed", and to a degree exculpates any negative interactions assigned to you, on a percentage basis. (The later primary issue is the COI's impact on QW-land articles and altmed editors in general.) The real timing issue is that it is still somewhat premature for me, that I have less data, analysis and preparation than I prefer (click, full auto nail gun) for such a possible confrontation. I would prefer to not bring it up until I was closer to ready (gather redundant data, nerve, better analysis, writing, and working through WP policy, etc problems - who/how to approach this).
There is no implication that you are pre-involved, it does not even make logical sense and I didn't notice it. If a "super secret agent" is going in under deep cover, one doesn't tell an evangelist or extrovert about it. It is not that you will deliberately mention it, rather just that at some point, your conversation will likely assume or otherwise radiate it to watchful eyes. Think if I had informed Ilena what I thought 6 weeks ago... You actually are somewhat of a beneficiary because I have substantially refrained from commenting more at this RfArb based on my broad historical knowledge for a variety of reasons often related to this.--I'clast 14:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Main charge brought by I'clast[edit]

Shot_info is an editor with an apparent, severe, trojan horse-like WP:COI that has subtly but critically affected the edit environment of the extremely contentious articles at Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett, NCAHF, and Barrett v. Rosenthal. He is a highly educated editor usually capable of going many edit rounds[38] on very tighly focused issues that affect the image of the respective organizations and individuals. While I am not trying to make him a party to the RfArb, he does need to timely disclose his substantial COI both for the RfArb and for the health of the community and these articles. He repeatedly challenges[39][40] [41]me as bluffing about my purposes, putatively a "smokescreen", and about my having observations and correlations that connect him to these organiztions that are the subject of the articles. The truth is that I am giving him (too) many chances to simply end it without administratively initiated action with a full statement of his choosing rather than mine.
Unfortunately for Shot_info, he is in a difficult position between loyalty to organizations & family and my insistence that he now come clean about this COI, after participating in provocative edits earlier this week that affects an editor subject to a RfArb. His challenges to me as bluffing could not be more mistaken, I am loaded, my personality not a natural attacker. I often wait too long and have given him extra, progressive hints about my concerns over the last 5 weeks, primarily readable by him, and extra chances to avoid confrontation as I think his voluntary handling would be most efficient and least compromising to him and those whom he feels strong loyalty to. Even one of my usual edit opposites and an ally of shot_info seems to think that I am okay here[42].
I guess at this point I have little choice but to begin discussion with the adminstrator, User:Lethaniol, that volunteered last night as well as another administrator that I queried yesterday about some related matters, and to prepare for the extra time of an AN:COI whereas shot_info may be exposing himself less favorably to administrative attention and my lamentable writing.--I'clast 13:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't place too much weight on my comment mentioned by I'clast. I am only saying that I'm in the dark on this one and that I may be quite surprised at any revealings. That's all. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

IRC and WP:SNOW[edit]

I found the blitzkrieg DRV on Daniel Brandt curious enough to go to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel to find out if people there know what's going on. I found it even more curious that the editors who voted endorse on the DRV where largely the same editors who were present in the channel. It turns out that the link to the DRV was posted, but there was no soliciting for meat puppets. Anyway, after a mass of editors from that channel voted endorse, the DRV was quickly closed per WP:SNOW.

This brings up a problem with WP:SNOW and IRC. Many editors hang out in various IRC channels, and links to deletion and other discussion inevitably get posted. If those channels contain likeminded people, we get a big influx of votes for the same position at once, before the general readership even gets the chance to review the case. If such a discussion is closed early, we can't really tell what the final result would have been, so WP:SNOW should not apply.

The other thing is the #wikipedia-en-admins channel itself, or rather its name. I was told that it's no longer an admin-only channel, but rather "an informal gathering of interested, trustworthy and influential people". Without going into the actual trustworthyness and influence, I question whether the channel should keep its current name, which implies that it's something it isn't. Zocky | picture popups 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The only response I can manage here is to wonder where you were a month ago when all of this was publicly discussed by prominent members of the community, including non-arbitrators. I will say that these blanket assumptions of bad faith do nothing to improve the functioning of the community and the encyclopedia but instead cause great anger to no good cause. Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This has nothing to do with that debate, and it would probably have been better if I brought it up in two separate comments. There's no implication that the deletion was planned or anything in #wikipedia-en-admins, it could have been any other channel and we would have the same problem with WP:SNOW.
    • The other issue, the naming of #wikipedia-en-admins, is a completely separate question. Zocky | picture popups 17:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm happy to see evidence of leadership and management skills by our non-existing cabal. WAS 4.250 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not this again. TINC. --Docg 21:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

(A semi-moot point, given the events that have transpired in the last 12 hours) For the record, I found out about the DRV via the IRC channel, and voted to overturn. There is indeed no IRC cabal (or, if there is, I'm not of a high enough cabal level to gain entrance to it...) Ral315 » 10:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I do wonder sometimes if an issue is ever actually dead on Wikipedia. I think that Brandt and Peppers prove that. And so does this. It's not a cabal or anything close to it. And frankly, I get offended when lumped into said cabal. It just doesn't work that way. And btw, I frequent said IRC channel quite a bit and yet I didn't learn about this whole Brandt thing until I saw it on the noticeboards. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The IRC channel didn't really have anything to do whatsoever with the Daniel Brandt wheel war mess. That all started from on-wiki. Actually, if anything, the IRC channel helped alleviate the issue. I saw several people being dissuaded from continuing the wheel war by strong admonitions such as "Don't do it, you'll get de-sysopped" ... which ended up being eerily accurate. --Cyde Weys 21:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Indeed, the same thing came up on #wikipedia-spam-t and I remember saying "Don't go an inch near that whole mess if you value your sysop bit, because it's just going to get messy" which seems to have been a similar realisation to Cyde's. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Errr... I was talking about a problematic interaction of IRC and WP:SNOW. As I say above, it could've been any other channel. I obviously screwed up by including the other issue in the same comment. So please, forget cabal talk, and think about how a single announcement of a poll in IRC, followed by earnest application of WP:SNOW can cause problems. Zocky | picture popups 00:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm following you, at least. For the record, I tend to think that any debate (but especially DRV) less bogus than this one ought to stay open a minimum of 24 hours even if it's heavily edited. Otherwise, you are locking people out without cause. Gavia immer 18:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat curious RFC[edit]

Could someone please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robotam, please? It's been created and "certified" by three editors - one of whom has under 50 edits, one that has three, and an anon. Considering it involves an editor who's been bagging sockpuppets, it might want some looking into. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It's indeed fishy. All three certifications wasn't done in three tidles. Consider running it through WP:RFCU? - Mailer Diablo 04:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The person who is bringing up the RfC is none other than Mykungfu. Real96 06:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Real96 is right (and she's quickly getting the nose for sniffing these socks out). The funny part is that one of the "certifying" editors (FreakinFool) has been indef-blocked for several days and couldn't have signed it. I've blocked the other two as obvious socks and will close the RfC. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom rockney[edit]

This article has been locked, so I can't edit it. The subject's clearly notable, so I had to recreate it at Tom Rockney (male model).

And, please, DON'T delete the article on him - he's notable enough in his own right, unless you disagree.

Please let this article stay... --Wilker Howerd 16:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It's locked because it had been previously deleted eight times as a nonsense or attack page. The current version you've created is neither, but it still might be deleted if you can't provide some reliable sources to attest to Mr. Rockney's notability. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

New Arbitration Clerks[edit]

The Arbitration Committee would like to announce the appointment of two new Arbitration Clerks; please join us in congratulating Cowman109 (talk · contribs) and Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) on their appointment. For the Arbitration Committee, Essjay (Talk) 17:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to two worthy candidates--but I could have sworn both of them were already clerks. Chick Bowen 19:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Sí, Sí. Please share the wealth. :-) Real96 19:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, they have been "in training" for some time, we're just making everything official and handing out the usher's uniforms. Essjay (Talk) 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there a rule where clerks can only serve on one committee? I am sure that there are many interested people for the projects. For example, I am gladly interested in being a clerk for a project, but alas, I only have 1,500 edits. Real96 20:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't be much of a worry there, many users multitask. How many hats does Essjay wear now? :D Teke (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm only a clerk for this committee, so I'm not filling up too many slots. My thanks to the arbitrators for their confidence and to Thatcher131 for nominating us. Newyorkbrad 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
To quote David Gerard: "The reward for a job well done is three more jobs." With that said, jobs like clerking are fairly commonly needed; stick around for a while, and someone will notice you're helpful and sane, at which point you'll have more work than you ever imagined. ;) Essjay (Talk) 20:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oscars[edit]

The 79th Academy Awards will be shown tonight. Please be extra-cautious for vandalism on this page as well as associated articles. But, that doesn't mean that you can't enjoy the popcorn! :-) Real96 20:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible harrassment, incivility or personal attacks, webcomic related[edit]

An anon 68.100.211.222 (talk · contribs) placed a comment I found distasteful on Dragonfiend (talk · contribs)'s talk page. I attempted dialogue but it seems to have degenerated somewhat and I believe communication has broken down between us. Someone neutral of webcomics might want to get into this one, whilst I disagree with Dragonfiend over some of the instances which the anon may be disputing, I may have too close a relationship to Dragonfiend to have objectivity. Relevant comments are in these edits [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54] and [55] on User talk:Dragonfiend and these, [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62] and [63] at User talk:68.100.211.222. I don't know enough about internet addresses to know if this edit, [64] by 68.211.88.215 (talk · contribs) is related. Hiding Talk 21:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hesitation[edit]

I've left a notice at User talk:Pastorwayne, due to multiple situations, requests and comments, both in the past and present.

It would seem obvious he's well-meaning, but he's also apparently forcing his POV.

And even though he's been warned several times, he's continuing his disruptive creations.

To make it clear this is a history of many categories, over a period of months.

However, I hesitate to block. for a couple reasons:

1.) "How much is too much" could be considered subjective. (The cry of: "That's what WP:CfD is for...", rings in my ears.)

2.) I think this could set a precedent that could be abused, related to the above. ("You created x number of categories which went up for CfD, so now you're blocked.") - Though I honestly can't imagine an admin doing such a thing, I've been surprised in the past : )

3.) If blocking is appropriate, then we should probably discuss a community ban, since it's been an ongoing issue. (At least from methodist, or even christian-related categories.)

4.) I want to give some time after the warning.

Interested in others' thoughts.

PS - I don't think I would oppose a short block by another disinterested party.

- jc37 23:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, that is a very good post you made on Pastorwayne's talk page.
To the issue at hand, I think you made a fair and valid warning. A block would only be appropriate if continued disruption occurs after the message, so that the user is prevented from misbehaving more while the discussion of appropriate action is undertaken. I don't see a block at the moment for preventative reasons- no dialogue+disruption= a day or two. Teke (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I am one of the people who has seeked administrative assistance regarding Pastorwayne. I read through jc37's comments, and I think he missed one key point. Some of the categories that Pastorwayne has recently created are effectively the recreation of deleted content, which is clearly disruptive. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 15#Category:Methodism in Ohio. This issue needs to be addressed. Dr. Submillimeter 08:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, rather than address my concerns, he created another category. He could have explained his reasoning behind the primate categories, but instead, seems to have ignored the warning and created another one. I think that he qualifies for a block based on at least the two following criteria on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: "Is tendentious" and "Rejects community input". I think that this also brings us to step 5 at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors.

Based on that, I'm instituting a 24-hour block. I do welcome further comments on this. - jc37 15:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also good block. Will give the user time to respond and re-think. Probably could have done with even shorter, or an unblock if they're willing to discuss. If no discussion and the same repeated problem editing repeats, then escalate the blocks. I've seen escalating blocks be very effective. Start with the minimum to mitigate the behavior and then increase as they continually repeat without improving. - Taxman Talk 17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne appears to have circumvented the block. See the recent edit history of User:70.104.101.220. The user left a vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Heistand that sounds very much like Pastorwayne. Moreover, the anonymous user started editing Mary Ann Swenson where Pastorwayne left off. Could someone investigate this further and take an appropriate course of action? Dr. Submillimeter 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:70.104.101.220[edit]

User:70.104.101.220 has a familiar tone of voice and seems to have become active just as PW was blocked. Could you see whether he is somewhere in Ohio? -- roundhouse 18:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe User:Pastorwayne has voted in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Heistand as 70.104.101.220 while blocked. They both have an interest in Methodist bishops and sign “thanks”. I think he is an honest man who will not deny it if it is true. Over to you. - Kittybrewster 19:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I was going to ask about this myself. User:70.104.101.220 sounds very much like Pastorwayne in his vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Heistand. Moreover, the anonymous user started editing Mary Ann Swenson where Pastorwayne left off. Could you please investigate further? Dr. Submillimeter 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it would seem rather obvious that this is User:Pastorwayne. If necessary I suppose that we could submit a checkuser request.
Taxman suggested escalating blocks. This is where I plead lack of experience. My understanding is that IP blocks are a bit more complex. Also, at this point, he seems to have stopped, so he may just be waiting out the 24 hour block. This probably justifies a notice, and perhaps an extension of the block? While I've read the various pages, I think I would rather err on the side of caution and ask someone more experienced in IP blocks, for suggestions. - jc37 07:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser requested Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Pastorwayne - Kittybrewster 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
User:70.104.101.220 is busy editing at the moment. (No categories created yet, but there is an addition to a primate category ...). -- roundhouse 14:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
And now Pastorwayne is back as himself, and has already created the 'useful and appropriate' category Category:Burials at sea, with 1 occupant, a deceased bishop. -- roundhouse 21:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Just as well it wasnt a living bishop. I have added a few souls. I still think it merits a seven day block for him and user 70. - Kittybrewster 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting process certainly. He + his alter egos are edging towards the top of the checkuser list ... -- roundhouse 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

QUOTE:

Possible block evasion by 70.104.101.220 (talk · contribs) as set out at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:70.104.101.220 - Kittybrewster 13:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check User44130 at the same time - cf this deletion of a clone of a clone of a deleted page. -- roundhouse 14:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 Confirmed, but User44130 has nothing to check -- no contributions other than to that of the deleted article, and that leaves no tracks checkuser can follow. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Request 7 day block[edit]

User:Pastorwayne and User:70.104.101.220 and User:User44130 - Kittybrewster 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

At least 7 days. -- roundhouse 04:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's wait the result of the checkuser, since it was requested. - jc37 10:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Might I suggest blocking PW pending the result of checkuser, and keeping an eye on User:70.104.101.220 and User:User44130 in the meantime? (The evidence is surely 99.9%. I am supposing that contributing anonymously while blocked is discouraged.) And then PW created a cfd-able category at once on his return anyway ... how much rope is he going to get? -- roundhouse 14:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It is now confirmed. So how long is he going to be blocked for? Tendentious disruptive editing + block evasion + sock-puppetry. - Kittybrewster 19:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Pastorwayne - Guilty as charged. - Kittybrewster 19:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So at this point, he sidesteeped his block by editing anonomously, and is still creating categories without discussion, regardless of the concerns of other Wikipedians. Again, I would like to clarify: From what I can see, this isn't simply a single dispute between User:Pastorwayne and a handful of users. These involve a fair number of categories (and articles, apparently) over several months time.
Since the previous block has expired, we can't extend it, but I think we can start over.
My intention is to block him for 24 hours (effectively restart the block which he evaded), and explain why on his talk page.
In addition, I'd like to suggest that he be placed on at least a one month probation, during which he cannot create any categories. Doing so should extend the probation, such categories should be speedily deleted, and any further blocks or whatever else, determined at that point.
I'd like some input from other admins about probation and how to handle it. I've seen it used here before, but any additional insight would be welcome. - jc37 16:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest (1) that he be invited not to creat fresh categories without first mooting them on his talk page. From the responses he gets he may learn what is deemed reasonable and what is not and why. (2) that this happen for two months - Kittybrewster 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

After doing some reading, and giving this some more thought, I think that the best next course of action would be for one of you to start an RfC concerning pastorwayne's category creations/inclusions. I would prefer that it not be posted until after he in unblocked, however, out of fairness, giving him full opportunity to respond. While the block may have been justified, I think that for further action, dispute resolution should be followed if possible. Though if he continues to be disruptive, or attempt to evade the current block, other measures may also be necessary. - jc37 21:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Introducing the deletion "bots"[edit]

Some Wikipedians seem to have a profoundly negative reaction to the idea of adminbots. Curps operated the only "approved" adminbot in our history, and that approval is somewhat questionable since in addition to the widely known pagemove preventing functions, Curps also quietly added functions to block vandals and bad usernames. The response of the community to automating admin functions has been so poor in fact that, like Curps, many bots and bot-like tools get built and deployed in secret with little or no community oversight.

Personally, I like the idea of admin bots. There are a variety of places where they could be useful, such as deleting orphaned fair use images older than 7 days (CSD I5). Done well, they could perform repetitive tasks with greater care than real admins often do. To use the orphaned fair use example, they could a) verify that the image is an orphan, b) check the history to ensure the tag is at least 7 days old, c) check the histories to make sure no comments (that might be challenging the deletion) have been posted to either the image description or the talk page, and d) post a note to the uploader's talk page to explain the deletion.

However, we don't do these things well. Rather we do them in near total secrecy, and both deleting and blocking bots are run on Wikipedia with no transparency or openness.

What follows is meant to address the deletion part of that. I ran an analysis of a database dump of our log files looking for unusual deletion patterns, and will report my results here. I am not doing so because I want to get anyone in trouble, but rather because I believe the secret use of highly automated deletion tools is bad for Wikipedia, and it is time these things came into the light.

After experimenting with some different approaches, I found one particular diagnostic to be especially useful. This I have defined as a "run", which for the purposes of the analysis below means at least 100 consecutive deletions each separated by no more than 1 minute. Of the 1097 admins who had made at least 1 deletion in the log, 95.4% have 0 runs. 2.9% have 1-2 runs, 0.3% have 3-4 runs, and the remaining 15 individuals (1.4%) have 5 or more runs. Now, deleting 100 items at a rate of 1 per minute is not an impossible feat to do by hand, and I certainly suspect that some people have done it by hand. However, some of those highest 15, shown below, have done it dozens of times and at very high speeds (typically only several seconds per item). It is this pattern of repeated, long sets of deletions occurring at high rates that I am using as a qualitative indicator of bot-like activity.

Total Deletions (rank) # of runs Fastest 100 deletions Longest run Longest semi-run
Gurch log 36410 (2) 43 runs 259s 3.46 hrs for 3343 dels (3.7s each) 20.05 hrs for 10740 dels (6.7s each)
Mailer diablo log 35501 (3) 5 runs 478s 0.19 hrs for 126 dels (5.4s each) 8.05 hrs for 1510 dels (19.2s each)
Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh log 29029 (5) 14 runs 164s 0.1 hrs for 135 dels (2.7s each) 10.82 hrs for 1862 dels (20.9s each)
JesseW log 26809 (8) 96 runs 96s 0.59 hrs for 1136 dels (1.9s each) 8.92 hrs for 1468 dels (21.9s each)
Fang Aili log 21193 (11) 7 runs 1048s 0.44 hrs for 141 dels (11.2s each) 10.51 hrs for 964 dels (39.2s each)
Mushroom log 18235 (13) 10 runs 510s 0.74 hrs for 393 dels (6.8s each) 15.66 hrs for 2368 dels (23.8s each)
Kungfuadam log 14998 (16) 9 runs 179s 0.14 hrs for 203 dels (2.4s each) 5.76 hrs for 2206 dels (9.4s each)
Naconkantari log 14963 (17) 37 runs 62s 0.36 hrs for 650 dels (2.0s each) 1.73 hrs for 2386 dels (2.6s each)
Misza13 log 11605 (26) 24 runs 147s 3.28 hrs for 2302 dels (5.1s each) 8.06 hrs for 4449 dels (6.5s each)
Bluemoose log 10605 (30) 13 runs 281s 1.69 hrs for 986 dels (6.2s each) 3.42 hrs for 2388 dels (5.2s each)
Blnguyen log 8123 (42) 9 runs 515s 0.3 hrs for 191 dels (5.7s each) 1.09 hrs for 589 dels (6.7s each)
Marudubshinki log 4756 (75) 5 runs 207s 0.28 hrs for 319 dels (3.2s each) 0.3 hrs for 320 dels (3.4s each)
Betacommand log 3511 (112) 7 runs 136s 0.22 hrs for 429 dels (1.9s each) 2.22 hrs for 1595 dels (5.0s each)
AmiDaniel log 2575 (155) 5 runs 894s 0.61 hrs for 216 dels (10.1s each) 3.06 hrs for 520 dels (21.2s each)
RexNL log 2009 (189) 5 runs 613s 0.28 hrs for 151 dels (6.7s each) 1.11 hrs for 360 dels (11.1s each)
Footnotes
  • Total deletions is the number of logged deletions an account has performed through February 6th, 2007. The rank is where the account sits in the list of all-time most deletions. It is worth noting that 9 of the top 20 deleters in fact have 0 runs.
  • "# of runs" is the total number of runs detected. As above, a "run" is defined by the consecutive deletion of 100 or more items with no breaks longer than 1 minute.
  • "Fastest 100 deletions" is the shortest length of time in which the person was able to delete 100 items. This can happen at any point within a run.
  • "Longest run" is the run with the highest number of total deletions.
  • "Longest semi-run" is the most deletions detected at an average rate of greater than 1 deletion per minute, but pauses of up to 2 hours were allowed within a "semi-run" (provided the average rate including the pause was still greater than 1 per minute).
  • For all of these, deletions of old revisions of images where excluded from statistics. This is because "deleting all revisions" of an image produces multiple log entries for a single action, and if these had been included it would have skewed results.
  • User:Marudubshinki was desysopped by ArbCom for bot and other abuses.
  • User:Gurch, User:Naconkantari, and User:Bluemoose are no longer active on Wikipedia.

There once was a time when prolonged, rapid-fire editing was the definition of a bot (regardless of how it was accomplished). Now WP:BOT is more circumspect so that if every action is "approved" by a human then perhaps it isn't really a "bot". In discussion with several of the people above, it seems this line is pretty blurry. Some are using "bots" in the sense that they instruct their computer to delete everything in category:X and the computer does so without further intervention. Some are using semi-automatic tools (such as [65]) that allow an admin to reduce the bothersome process of emptying out a category to one click per item (without needing to ever open the item to look at it). At least one of the people above even claims to be able to do the activities shown all by hand. Rather the detailing what I know (or have inferred) about each case, I am rather going to invite these people to explain their own methods.

Highly automated deletion tools can be problematic for a variety of reasons. For example, a semi-automatic tool created problems a while ago when it was used to empty out images marked as Fair Use Replaceable without checking if {{replaceable fair use disputed}} had been added, and hence the disputes went ignored. Similarly, I would note that some people using such tools appear to have been deleting old WP:PRODs, which certainly goes against the spirit that at least two people will look at the item and agree that it should be deleted. Regardless of how it is accomplished, any process that reduces deletion to a few seconds per item is not engaged in any meaningful sort of review. That may be okay in some cases, but we ought to discuss which cases those are.

I don't have anything against adminbots and highly automated tools, in general, and in fact would like to see their use increased. However, having such tools operate in secret is begging for problems as it means that there is no oversight in their design or their application. That is why I am posting this here. I don't want to get any of the above users in trouble, but I do think that we as a community need to confront the fact that automation is useful for dealing with the ever growing deletion backlogs, and talk about the best way to do that, rather than having individuals simply apply automation in secret. Dragons flight 20:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of deletion "bots"[edit]

There is problem if there is a rule against bot use and it is detected that that rule is being broken. There is a problem if someone does something that hurts wikipeia and they are allowed to get away with it with the excuse that it wasn't them but that it was a bot. I see no problem with an editor using an detected bot if that editor takes full responsibility for anything that goes wrong, including being discovered using an unpermitted bot. If we can't tell its a bot and its doing no harm, what's the problem? Some people are very bot like. Bot like editing is no cause for alarm. WAS 4.250 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Bots? Sure? If I chose to simply ignore those which are not immediately self-evident, I could easily rack up a hundred deletions in no time at all when the CSD backlog gets up to 300 or more. Deletion summaries? Guy (Help!) 22:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You, JzG, have never strung together more than 40 deletions without a 1 minute pause, and your personal best for 100 deletions is over 13 minutes (compare with under 3 minutes for some of those above). Yep. All by hand, no doubt. Feel free to look through the logs yourself, but you will find long runs of very uniform summaries. Dragons flight 23:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Maybe this seems obvious, but I'm not sure I understand. How are "runs" of less than a half an hour evidence of bot deletions? Can't just about anyone maintain a fast deletion pace for a half an hour? That seems plausible to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Says someone else with 0 runs ;-). And when you do 1100 deletions in that half an hour? Yes, with the right aids, just about anyone could do deletions at the rate of twenty per minute and string hundreds together. That doesn't mean that having admins acting like bots is a good thing. Dragons flight 23:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Yeah, well, I freely admit I'm slow at deleting, even at CSD. I'm automatically assuming people are faster than me because I know I'm slow, and I get bored easily. My mind starts wandering... Anyway, thanks for the reply. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      • [EC] That is because when I get to a tricky one I stop and work it out, or AfD it or whatever. If I simply closed it and moved on to the next unambiguous one... Guy (Help!) 23:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Javascript will do the trick nicely. I have used that for WikiProject tagging which speedied things up from an already fast cut&paste action in Firefox tabbed browser windows. Agathoclea 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Yup. And if I was apply to just accept that images in the "unsourced for over 7 days" category were unambiguously deletable, I'd be able to match that, because the deletion summaries would all be the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JzG (talkcontribs) 23:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
          • And then you would be a "bot", in the sense I intended, because you were deleting things without thought simply because a category told you to. Dragons flight 23:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Absolutely not. I would be a human admin rapidly knocking off the easy ones and going back to the hard cases later. Which is not how I work, I go through alphabetical blocks. But others do it differently, assuming good faith of the taggers. I think we wait until we get input from the admins concerned. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
              • To clarify, I know some people are deleting things from those categories without ever even opening the image description page to see if there even is a source claim, etc (because they have admitted as much to me). Doing that kind of thing turns an admin into a bot. Dragons flight 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
                • You know? Really? Which ones? Guy (Help!) 00:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • Indeed, DF, that raises a completely separate question. It would be possible to peruse the image pages thoroughly and still delete at, theoretically, any rate of speed at all, if you did the analysis first (this is how I do it, though since I rely solely on Firefox tabs I still can't get very fast). But if admins are skipping that stage, that's not so great (depending on which category we're talking about), but it won't be reflected in the rate of deletion. Chick Bowen 00:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
                    • Everyone I know has already been invited to the party, though none have commented so far. I suspect the urge to cut corners is strongly correlated with an urge to delete really, really fast. Whether or not that is really true, most of the people I know of who have admitted cutting corners in the past, said so during off-wiki discussions prompted by this analysis (over the previous several weeks), so they are certainly correlated in my sample. (Which is not to say that high speed deletion, necessarily requires cutting corners, or that everyone above necessarily did so. But let's wait for their direct input.) Dragons flight 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do note that it is simple to inspect each in a list of pages and then "automatically" delete them all using the Jude tool. The deletions would appear to be "automated"—they would not be by hand, they would have uniform edit summaries and be done in uniform time period—but the pages themselves would have been checked. It would be useful to have an AWB-like tool that shows a page alongside its page history and allows quick deletion with a pre-selected summary. —Centrxtalk • 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note: Marudubshinski was not desysopped for running a bot through his admin account; he was desysopped for a pattern of behavior that included various levels of bot abuse but also unblocking himself and sockpuppetry. There has never been anything close to consensus that running a deletion bot, if done conscientiously, should lead to desysopping. Chick Bowen 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Betacommand did not use a bot. He used a script developed by GeorgeMoney, the same script used by a handful of other administrators. The process they take, when doing it responsibly at least, is to go through the backlog, remove the ones that should stay skipping over bad ones, then use the script to remove all the pages that DO need deleted all at once. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Diablo is trying to beat Gurch's record. :-) Anyway, could we use the deletion bot in order to delete the WoW and the Brian Peppers' Day redirects, once they are created? I remember one time, there was a vandal who struck 50 or so pages. It took a really long time to move those pages back and delete the redirects. Real96 00:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting stats. What about NawlinWiki? He puts up staggering deletion numbers, but is pretty evidently not doing a bot, since most of his tasks require human judgment. He'd be an interesting look at what an ultra-active human looks like in these kinds of statistics. --W.marsh 01:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

NawlinWiki log 36602 (1) 0 runs 1076s 0.5 hrs for 98 dels (18.4s each) 9.42 hrs for 931 dels (36.4s each)
Per request, though Nawlin is certainly not quite "normal" either. Dragons flight 01:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
How is NawlinWiki's deletion log so different from Fang Aili's, shown above? Both had long runs (in FA's case, 10.51 hrs for 964 dels (39.2s each), in NW's case 9.42 hrs for 931 dels (36.4s each)). For the record, I cannot imagine spending nine or ten hours a day deleting, but that's a personal preference... Firsfron of Ronchester 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It makes a lot of sense that you'd see a similarity... they are (as far as I know) the two most active people at doing CAT:CSD, which clearly does require a human, not a bot. --W.marsh 02:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Fang Aili is perhaps the most marginal on the list. I'd be a little surprised, but not shocked, if he is in fact doing everything by hand. Dragons flight 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
On a good day I can clear 100 or so articles from CSD using the TWINKLE script in a little over half an hour. In the light of that it's quite reasonable to assume Fang Aili can do 141 in 44 minutes and NawlinWiki can do 98 in 50 minutes (incidentally, Nawlin leaves the various 'inappropriate article' templates on user talk pages, which would slow things down a bit). W.marsh is right, these two are examples of super-active humans. – Steel 02:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I think it shows he's very much not a bot. A slower time to 100 deletions than any of the people listed above. And while "9.42 hrs for 931 deletions" seems extreme... it's still well within what a human could do just sitting at his or her computer all day. The main thing is that he didn't have any "runs" which I do think is an indication of bot activity (though correlation is not causation). Maybe he's not a "normal" human but still human numbers. Thanks for the numbers though. --W.marsh 02:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I do all my deletes by hand. I am pretty quick with shortcut keys (control-V and whatnot), but I don't have any scripts that help with deletes. --Fang Aili talk 16:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but note that the CSD image backlog is nuts at the moment and has been kind of crazy all day. If someone, anyone, has been doing something to keep it from being this way, and is not doing it at the moment, then whatever they were doing before bears some serious consideration. Not wholesale approval, but consideration. If I'm drawing a false conclusion here so be it. But it's a bit suggestive to me personally. And these image backlogs drive me a little nuts because I'm a total newbie at images and don't feel up to handling them at all efficiently. Cheers. Dina 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My deletion runs were also using the Jude tool. I have backed off of that lately, however. I loaded up tabs, inspected them and used the Jude auto delete tool. I don't think that this a bot.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This is all find and dandy, but don't you people realize how dangerous not checking what your deleting is? There are some major beans here, but I could imagine a situation where hundreds of pages accidentally get deleted by an admin who means well. Assume Good Faith is all fine and dandy, but it's not an excuse to slack on your job and allow a security hole half a mile wide. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
"I loaded up tabs" means he looked at them before hand, and then deleted them en masse. There is the possibility that someone could, in the time between inspecting the page and deleting, happen to replace the page with a good article or licensing, but that is unlikely and is a problem to a lesser degree in any non-automated deletion. —Centrxtalk • 03:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Such a situation did happen recently, not surprisingly all the images were deleted by a "run" by one of the people in the above list. Dozens (maybe hundreds) of images had to be restored by hand. So mistakes can happen, obviously. --W.marsh 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
If you are referring to the situation I think you are, as a result of a template change a number of images were orphaned, these were tagged for x days and then marked for speedy deletion. I'm not sure how you think that could be mitigated against or what it has to do with looking at the images. --pgk 16:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I seldom do image deletions anymore (which surely account for the bulk of the 29k deletes), but the majority of the fast deletes were done using Opera. I check 100 tabs of images in each shot and if the deletion reason was correct for all the images, delete using keyboard. Awyong J. M. Salleh 08:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • As a little test, and mainly for my own edification and curiosity, I'm going to see how much I can validly delete in an hour (and by validly, I mean checking every page's history and whatlinkshere). I've got a fast connection, and shall be using tabbed browsing but no java assistance (because I don't know how to use it). I'll start on CSD then move onto images as soon as I post this message. Ready, steady, go! Proto  12:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    Right. In one hour I deleted 251 images / articles, clearing out 3 days of backlog from replacable fair use images and emptying CSD. I could have maybe done more but kept getting sidetracked (protecting pages from recreation, saving images / pages from invalid speedies, and castigating one very rude image tagger who kept mistagging pages for replacable fair use deletion and labelling any reversions of this as vandalism). I was going as fast as I could, but I would be very surprised if more than around 500 deletions (assuming no distraction) in an hour is possible and still retaining a human component, and I know I'm going bugeyed after an hour. Proto  13:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just sticking a note in here, and apologies if it was mentioned above and I missed it. Last summer, we had a serious problem on Commons with tens of thousands of unsourced and unlicensed images, all of which needed to be deleted because they had been in the "to be deleted" categories for a number of months. As Commons admins, we were concerned about deleting these images, as they woudl be unrecoverable; at that point, a push was made, and image deletions were made reversable by the developers. (If anyone has ever wondered why that came about when it did, there is the answer.) With such a daunting task before us, having to mass-delete tens of thousands of images outright, I had a toolserver tool written that produces "autodelete" links; basically, it creates a link that when clicked, automatically goes to the deletion confirmation page and fills in the summary. (As a side note, I let the Commons community know about this before it was used.) If you enable a javascript snippet in your monobook.js, the links will automatically submit as well. Additionally, there is an extension for Firefox which lets you open multiple links at once. If you use these tools in concert, you can open 100, 250, or 500 autodeletion links at once and have them all submit, in the course of a minute or less. Using this method, I deleted more than 10,000 unsourced and unlicensed images from Commons in a matter of about 24 hours. I point this out because there were no bots involved; only a lot of links, a couple lines of Javascript, and a Firefox extension. Even without the javascript and the firefox extension, this is possible; you can create the links in a text editor, load them into a wiki page, open them all, then go through clicking "ctrl + tab" and hitting "enter", the way Willy on Wheels vandals used to do page moves. When I was still active there, I used this method to delete all the old Quote of the Day archives at the end of each month. Essjay (Talk) 13:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • If you're not really looking at the image/page you're deleting, I don't see the difference between that and an actual bot other than the technicality... the bot actually saves some guy 10,000 clicks really. --W.marsh 14:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Essjay, I think that was an acceptable use of those tools under those circumstances... but if people are doing the same thing to CSD on a regular basis then we have a major problem. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm curious, have I ever met the criteria for a deletion 'run'? I don't use a bot, but I've had days where I've zapped appropriately tagged things in C:CSD in pretty short order with a little tool I wrote (not a bot) helping out. - CHAIRBOY () 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You've never gotten to more than 36 without taking at least a 1 minute pause, sorry. Dragons flight 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Sigh, well, I guess I'll just have to work harder. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY () 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If anybody wants to know, prior to July 2006 I did everything manually. I think maybe July2 or July 3 I did 500 manual image deletions in about 3.5-4 hours. I did use Jude's tool a lot after I was notified of it. The way I did it was to used Special:Recentchangeslinked on the category, to see if the tagging issues had been rectified in the week since, and then manually fix up the tags which were manually tweaked as a result. Then I would go through a sample of maybe 20 articles in the cat to see if the pictures were still being used in articles, and if the 20 I checked were all clear - ie, they had been machine processed by OrphanBot properly or by a human, cleanly, then that would give a statistically good indication that the rest of the pictures in that batch had been de-linked properly and I would use the script to mechanically remove them. It increases the speed by about a factor of two (I'm not using tabs) on my computer anyway. Having said that, I've not done much deletion duty this year since I read too many arbcom cases, but I will refrain from using the script if it is a concern. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Post-archiving, sorry I didn't see the invite to the discussion till now -- I use a semi-automatic tool that loads up the image description page for each image in the unsourced category, asks me if it should be deleted, and then, after I have confirmed, for each and every image, that they should be deleted, it goes though and executes my actions (at bot speed). No deletion is done without a confirmation, after viewing the wiki-text of the image description page (and the last-edit time, and a few other things). The script is written in Python, using the pywikipediabot framework; I have not released the source for it because of concerns over vandal use, and mainly because of the lack of a clear sense of community consenus on the subject. I will send the code to anyone who asks, under a Free Software license (meaing they can post it if they wish). I haven't been using it much lately (as my log shows, mainly because I haven't been logging in to my account lately, mainly because the backlogs (VoA's tool makes them loom over my watchlist) are too depressing. But I've been doing various actual article work as an anon, much of which is linked from my User:JesseW/not logged in page. Much thanks to DF for his analysis, and prompting me to explain the tool I use. In closing, don't be dispirited, there is still a vast magnitude of good material in the Wikipedia corpus, and good things will come of it in time... 75.215.120.251 (really User:JesseW/not logged in) 08:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What this all adds up to[edit]

Admins are currently using a variety of tools to aid deletion, with a wide range of automation. There is nothing wrong with using any tool to speed up the process as long as the admin makes sure to view each page (and relevant logs or whatlinkshere, depending on the process in question) before deleting. There is no consensus in support of total automation; there is also no concrete proof that anyone is using total automation, though it doesn't really matter, since none of us are pointing fingers here—the questions is what there is consensus for. However, any admins using completely automated processes should stop for now. It would be useful, however, to identify processes, as Dragons flight says above, that would work well with total automation. I think we all agree that RFA is not the place to get consensus for such a process, and ultimately it would probably mean running a script in a pre-existing admin account, Curps-style. Chick Bowen 23:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, some have essentially admitted to using bots to do these deletions. Not here though. If it were anything but images being deleted, people would probably care... but in the current culture you can easily justify deleting images (even with a bot) as something that benefits the project and should not be questioned. --W.marsh 00:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ooh, scary "bot" word. What they are actually doing is reviewing everythign and then using an automated tool to do the final donkey work. As long as the checking is done my a human, surely that is sufficient? Guy (Help!) 22:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What it all adds up to is some people are scared of things they don't understand. Wikipedia editors should use whatever tools they find useful in improving Wikipedia so long as they take full responsibility for their actions. If a tool is complex enough that you are not sure what it will do then you should not use it; but that does not mean you should stand in the way of someone else using it. I hit a key and know what will happen; John hits a key that executes 100 key strokes; Jane hits a key that conditionally executes keystrokes based on a simple if-then script; Bob hits a key that turns on his artificial intelligence device that guides him step by step in creating a great article. Let us not be afraid of tools. WAS 4.250 06:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless some very carefully work is done, it would be very easy to abuse any system that relies heavily on bots (or highly automated users) and categories. Anyway... everyone just needs to be careful. If I delete something I shouldn't have, it's entirely my responsibility weather or not it was "assisted". ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I should point out that the recent RFA for an adminbot would have passed if it had not been withdrawn at the last minute. So this is not nearly as controversial a subject as some people think. >Radiant< 12:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack in edit summary[edit]

User:Corticopia made a personal attack in this edit summary. Please take action. Dagnabit 06:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply, warn with {{uw-npa1}}. Real96 06:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Said editor removes information to suit his point of view about Norway (consolidating entries into one), despite clear provisos both in Europe and Demographics of Europe to the contrary about the country listings/contents and edit summaries to that effect (and, of course, ignoring like situations with Finland, et al.); this is arguably vandalism (which this editor also accused of). I can instead refer you to the article about not being a dick or notions about crying wolf -- but you get the point. Too bad. Next ...Corticopia 11:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Dagnabit, in the future please consider telling other editors how such comments make you feel before bringing it all the way up to WP:AN. Corticopia, I strongly recommend against the use of the word "twit". If you want to refer to another editor, I strongly suggest you do so by name (e.g. "Dagnabit"). — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 17:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Noted. Corticopia 23:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do I have to, this already follows from WP:Civil. Corticopia is completely hopless and insists on adding patent nonsense to articles. I'm not sure what the refernce to Finland is supposed to be, I do not edit articles about Finland. (I believe, maybe I've stubled upon something at some point.) Dagnabit 23:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Deal with it: I am restoring the table entry you persistently remove (based on the UN listing of territories) without any modicum of consensus and despite the notes therein (which you either won't or can't read) -- that's arguably vandalism. Why don't you do the same for the entries for Finland (Aland), the UK (Isle of Man, Guernsey), et al. Because you are pushing a point of view which other editors don't share. And if you think your sweet talking will get you brownie points, you are sadly mistaken. Corticopia 23:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I see reverting on both sides and no talkpage or other discussion, so even apart from the fact that this is not really an administrator issue, I can't even readily tell what your disagreement is. If you post your respective views on the talkpage I'm sure someone will be glad to give you a third opinion. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Per edit summaries: essentially, D., believes the table entries for Norway and Svalbard (an archipelago with is under Norwegian admin but with unique status)/Jan Mayen should be combined and persistently does so without any chat; however, the table (which has seen its share of manipulation/POV-pushing about contents) is based on a consensual listing of territories (per UN) where both are discrete, as are similar domains (e.g., Finland/Aland). D. then accuses me of adding gibberish to the article in restoring prior content, resulting in collateral damage. What the fcuk is that? RE civility, that's more like hypocrisy. Anyhow... Corticopia 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It was hard to tell that's the only change; there seems to be reverting on other issues as well. In any event, if the two of you can discuss on the talkpage you can get other views (including mine if you like). Nothing further required here at ANI. Newyorkbrad 23:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User Corticopia continues to use profanity in edit summary [66] and [67]. Please take action. AlexCovarrubias Flag of Mexico.svg ( Let's talk! ) 00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all: you remove content indiscriminately, regardless of other edits made (hence first comment); the second is neither here nor there. And you continue to push a point-of-view regarding the status of Mexico and related terms despite citations (which you wilfully remove and have been called on (see Talk:North_America#Usage_of_.27North_America.27)), precipitating an edit war at Mexico over a single word that resulted in that article being blocked for 10 days. I still maintain your edits are of generally low quality and generally to make a point. Wikipedia is not your mother, and neither am I. Corticopia 00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for advice \ help[edit]

Hi guys - this is a strange one, but I am hoping you can help me out.

When I first started using Wikipedia, I created an article about the place I work (NMUK) - which in hindsight was a stupid thing to do. Over-time the article has grown, and has started to get noticed by management. It has become used as a politcal sounding-board, etc. Now people are trying to find out who made it, etc. Almost like a witchunt. This has started to get me really worried, and I'm beginning to get stressed about it. If the dots are joined and my real world anonymity is breached (which is possible, because I haven't exactly tried to hide it up until this point) it could really cause problems for me at work.

So - I am asking for your help. What can be done? My personal preference is that the article (and therefore it's log) is deleted. If it's genuinely missed, then someone else will recreate it. It's not that good an article anyway. Failing that, can my username be stripped / changed in the log?

I realise what I am asking for breaks the rules of Wikipedia - but I am really worried. At the end of the day this is an online encylopedia - it's not life or death. And in situations where an article can cause problems for people in the real-world, can exceptions not be made?

Thanks for your time. John the mackem 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately due to the nature of the copyright license we have we can't remove contributers from the logs when there contributions were used to build the article.
Wikipedia:Changing_username would be the place to get your name changed. It will change int he logs, but not where you have signed your name. To get someone to go though and change all your old signatures you would need to make a request at WP:BOT.
However, I wouldn't be all that worried. Unless you were engaged in more serious activity (sock puppetry, POV-Pushing, etc) then I doubt much "trouble" will happen. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't count on it. Gator1 wasn't doing anything wrong and he got in a lot of trouble... Hbdragon88 23:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you realize that you comment boarders on trolling and is a violation of his meta:Right to Vanish? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with that comment at all. Nowhere has it been requested that we never mention Gator1; in fact, he's still listed at WP:LA (Inactive, #42). His story is a cautionary tale; that's how Hbdragon88 meant it; perfectly valid. Chick Bowen 11:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the Gator1 story has put me into Defcon1 paranoia mode - when I think of how lax I have been with anonymity in the past. I realise I am not an admin and there is no reason for anyone to stalk me... but I am not taking any chances. I am attempting to rectify the situation. I have started by changing my username.

*** Can an admin please delete my old user talk page (User:John the mackem) and logs? *** It means I lose a Barnstar... but i'm sure I will live.

The remaining problem I have is to do with pictures in the Commons. I have taken lots of photos for the project, and rightly wanted attribution for them. Unfortunately, on a lot of the photos, in the Author section of the template, I put my real name. As this is just metadata, can this be deleted from the logs? What are my options? Cheers for the help fellas. Elysium 73 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (The editor formerly known as John the mackem).

Responded at User talk:Elysium 73. Chick Bowen 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You have an article on X and Y, which are much less important than Z...[edit]

...so you need to keep Z."

Heard that one before?

I've drafted a new essay called Wikipedia:Do you ever go fishing? (shortcut WP:FISHING). In a nutshell it specifies,

Don't argue that an article shouldn't be deleted just because other, 'less important' articles still exist in Wikipedia. Don't argue that a block is invalid because another editor happened to do the same thing without drawing a block; don't argue that your antisocial behaviour is acceptable just because another editor hasn't been sanctioned.

Comment and editing welcome. Have at it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very familiar. I think we already have something along those lines with regards to "Do Not Delete because X and Y exist" in an essay about bad keep reasons - does anyone recall the essay I'm talking about? The antisocial might be funny to some, but I fear that links to the essay could be construed as personal attacks because of that line. Picaroon 20:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You're thinking of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Sam Blacketer 20:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Specifically, this seems a bit redundant to the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS part. Picaroon 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The essay also has a hint of Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. AecisBrievenbus 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops. My face is red now. Ah well. Does anyone like the story? :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
...On the other hand, there's still the second part—the "He got away with being a dick, so why can't I?" bit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a "Pokemon test" essay somewhere. Goes along the lines of "If it's more important then (insert non-notable pokemon who has surived an AFD) then it must have an article!" ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Pokémon test. AecisBrievenbus 22:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
To which the common reply is "Only if you can cite as many sources for your subject as can be found cited at Bulbasaur#Notes and references will you have an argument that actually holds water.". Uncle G 02:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It may be a bit redundant with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I'd keep it around. It at least is a bit more civil of a way of making the point.--Isotope23 15:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Somethingoranother[edit]

Not sure why this user wasn't permanently banned for sockpuppeteering (their sockpuppet accounts were), but they are now clearing out their talk page which contains many warnings and blocks. [68] Their comment as they blanked it sums up their general attitude on WP. Isn't this vandalism? Gsd2000 21:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Sockpuppeteers aren't always indefinately blocked along with thier sockpuppets, it's up to the blocking administrator to decide what to do with them (and there is a difference between blocks and bans: bans come from Jimbo Wales, the Arbitration Committee, or the Wikipedia Community acting as a whole; blocks can be placed by any administrator for cause). 2) Removing warnings was once considered vandalism; the last time I remember it being discussed, I believe it was decided that users could remove warnings if they chose to do so. 3) If the edit summary was a continuation of previous conduct, then it may be cause for further blocking. Essjay (Talk) 21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
OK - but now I'm getting personal abuse from this contributor: [69] Gsd2000 21:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
And based on that nasty little message, and given the busy block log already and the sockpuppeteering, I have blocked the account indefinitely. Please feel free to review this block. Proto  21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for that. However, they are now evading their block by editing (engaging in 3RR violations, actually) from their IP address: [70]. Gsd2000 22:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Which appears to be static. Doh. Softblocked that for six months. Proto  22:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, he's back again, reverting the same article [71], using a different sock puppet account (to get round the semi protect status). Please please please - can we get an IP range block on this guy? Gsd2000 01:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Lee Nysted[edit]

Lee Nysted (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked for a campaign of vanity spamming including Lee Nysted (edit |