Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive167

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

Noticeboard archives

Giano's rampant incivility[edit]

Okay people, this talk is escalating into argument for argument's sake. Please, let's take a step back and realize something: Wikipedia is not a battleground - we are not here to make war with each other, we are here to work together to the betterment of the Encyclopedia. This "IRC vrs non-IRC" argument is divisive and unfair. People will communicate however they want, and that cannot, nor should be stopped. We should be working together, and communicating, after all. Everyone that edits on Wikipedia, from the newest editor all the way back to Jimmy Wales, are valued and respected editors, and we should be helping them to contribute to the Encyclopedia and helping keep the environment positive. All of us together can improve this encyclopedia, and arguing over communication media isn't going to help that.

As Piotr and Ghirla are in Arbitration, and Jimbo has endorsed and overturned the block of Giano, I don't think this conversation, saving the last section, serve any further purpose. I respect all of you greatly, so I beseech you, please, let us work together to better the encyclopedia instead of taking time here in such a divisive argument. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 20:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


When did posts like this become acceptable? It seems to take years of established history of WP:CIVIL and throw it out the window. I'll reproduce it here, so you can see what I'm talking about:

Kindly refrain from littering my talk page [1] with your infantile and hostile warnings in the future, or you will find yourself de-sysoped and banned. Irpen and Bishon were quite correct to revert your antics and your revert warring with them did you little credit. Giano 13:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This all stems from a simple boilerplate civility warning I left him (which is apparently "infantile and hostile") after he was getting too out of control on Mackensen's talk page. Now he turns his glare on me. Threatening to have me desysopped and banned? C'mon. And yeah, the usuals (Bishonen, Geogre, Ghirlandajo, and Irpen) are going to step in now and defend Giano ... but they defend him no matter what he does because they're all in this little back-scratching clique together. I'm posting this here to solicit some response from other administrators: is this kind of behavior really acceptable? Do you want to work in an environment where users routinely have blow-ups like this and are only encouraged by admin inaction? --Cyde Weys 14:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Unlike some people, I am going to spell out exactly what it is in your above post that is a personal attack. "he usuals (Bishonen, Geogre, Ghirlandajo, and Irpen) are going to step in now and defend Giano ... but they defend him no matter what he does because they're all in this little back-scratching clique together." is a personal attack. Consider this a warning. If you persist in this type of mischaracterization and denigration, you may be blocked. HTH HAND. Geogre 18:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no incivility in Giano's posting, just a mild warning. "This little back-scratching clique together", however, is blatantly incivil and I demand apologies. Such comments may indeed lead to desysopping. If your posting is expected to trigger an uproar from all sorts of IRC fairies who habitually indulge in incivilty on IRC and then pontificate about civility during their occasional appearances on-wiki, I suppose it would be nice to see them here. Foundation employees have no wild card for incivility, for what I know. The community is aware that your dispute with Giano goes back to the time when your energetically defended Kelly Martin's postings demanding "an enema and a major fight that flushes 20-30% of the en-wiki community". This page is not part of dispute resolution procedures, so I advise you both to move your dispute to Requests for comment. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I rather feel Cyde may have a gone a step too far this time "they defend him no matter what he does because they're all in this little back-scratching clique together." I think that is rather a serious charge to make. Perhaps Cyde would like to withdraw it and apologise while it can still be contained to this page alone. It is Christmas and I am in a forgiving mood. Giano 14:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If I ever make a manual in civility or diplomacy, the first rule on that list will be: Never, ever, ever tell another person to be civil, and never, ever, ever, accuse another person of being incivil. We can work backwards from there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, from other administrators? I'm page banned from your posts on ANI, perhaps? That's all right, Cyde. The way you speak of me, you must be a civility expert, so I'll just listen. Bishonen | talk 14:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
The problem is that incivility does happen, and incivility is harmful to the community especially when it results in ever-increasing tension between two groups. It would be nice if there was a way to address incivility before it gets to the point that arbcom gets involved, and before it gets to the point where people leave. --Interiot 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the persons here (not least because I'm guessing I've already been pre-emptively dismissed as an 'IRC fairy', which Ghirlanajo won't consider to be uncivil). But, please, if we are going to have a conversation about civility, can we perhaps compete to outdo one another in civility, rather than the reverse? We all know where this is heading unless we cool it.--Docg 14:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This time I concur with Doc. There is no need in pressing the issue, although the real grounds for Irpen's irrational block above should be eventually investigated, to prevent further outbursts in the future. We need to put an end to gaming WP:NPA and WP:CIV policies for pursuing one's personal vendettas. Everyone may read incivility in the postings of his opponent, however courteous they may be. We should understand that endless appellations to WP:CIV is a bad ground for solving long-standing differences. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort to de-escalate the situation. Thank you. Luna Santin 14:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"...or you will find yourself de-sysoped and banned" is hardly a "mild warning," and "they're all in this little back-scratching clique together," is hardly going to calm anything down. This continued squabble is disrupting the community, and has been for too long -- everybody, please take a step back and breathe. -- Luna Santin 14:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Both sides telling the other to stop being incivil? This appears to be a case of WP:KETTLE. >Radiant< 14:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed... I'm not an admin and I'm not familiar with the history of this dispute, but neither side is helping themselves much here. It's sort of hard to argue that the other guy is wrong when you are engaging in behavior that is no better. You both need to chill.--Isotope23 14:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above, If he would just stay off my page I would gladly ignore him; unfortunately though this time he has allowed his obsessive hatred of me to overflow and has now insulted others. Is this the behaviour of an admin? Giano 14:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Just walk away. All of you.Geni 14:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Particularly in the light of Cyde's edit summaries on User talk:Giano II about letting Giano defend himself, I'm not clear why Cyde got involved in the first place, he was not a direct party to the discussions at User talk:Mackensen and given what I've seen of their history his intervention was hardly like to calm matters. David Underdown 14:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I find Cyde's reverting of the removal of the talk page warning particularly ironic when he asked whoever posted it to leave it and let Giano deal with it himself. By that logic, shouldn't he have left Giano to undo the removal of the warning, and limited himself (Cyde) to posting a new message pointing out to Giano that the warning had been removed? Carcharoth 22:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this needs some type of dispute resolution such as RFC or MedCab. This is not going anywhere if this is going on and on. Both sides should stop fighting and this is getting the community tired of all this. Just cool down guys, we can settle this. Nothing both of you say makes any difference, just be civil to each other and don't tell each other to be civil or vice versa, like what Sjakkalle said. Both sides are telling each other not to be incivil, this doesn't sound too right. I suggest both parties stay away from each other for a while to cool down. Edit conflict again... Terence Ong 14:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised to find out that the discussions on my talk page have prompted this affair; if there's any mediation to be had, it's between Lar and Giano. I've never seen a civility warning have it's desired effect--no one likes being told their being uncivil. At the same time, I don't see the need for allegations of de-sysoping. The Arbitration Committee has set ample precedent that you have to abuse your admin tools for that. Finally, I agree with Cyde on one point: Giano is more than capable of taking care of his own talk page; we all are. If I think someone's cluttering my talk page I can do it myself without anyone else's help. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be discussed at WP:PAIN? On another note, we seem to need a policy on civility notes. Who can issue them, and who can rever them. It seems that recently there is a trend to remove such notes (ex. [2], [3], etc.), which in turns causes other users to complain that they were removed... I'd suggest that only certified editors of WP:PAIN, who should be elected like admins, should have the right to issue such notes, and that in those cases the notes issued by them should not be removable by non-PAIN certified users. This will put an end to the problem.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is who may be considered a "certified editor of WP:PAIN". Who is supposed to "certify" these guys? The problematic warning you cite was added by a non-admin who is active on WP:PAIN. When I attempted to discuss the issue with him, he simply removed my messages from his talk page on several occasions. Do you consider yourself a "certified editor of WP:PAIN"? I see you have been commenting on each message posted there during the last day or two. Do you want to run the board and "issue" warnings to your opponents? If so, I would rather oppose your proposal. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is so broken that we need to introduce a new class of user. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Whew, is there something bigger going on here or is this really just a tempest in a teapot? From my experience at WP:RFI and WP:PAIN I suggest petitioning a neutral third party to review contested user warnings that arise from a dispute. This isn't policy or even guideline, rather practical experience: deletion of a user warning by an involved party often fuels more quarreling. If parties in this dispute accept me as suitably neutral (I've collaborated with Ghirla a few times and handed him a barnstar) I'll volunteer to be the template referee here. And please stay away from hot button words such as infantile - no good comes of them. DurovaCharge! 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No No No Not another bunch of wiki legislation to enforce civility. You can't do it. Civility needs to be caught and taught not enforced like that. Speak nicely to people and perhaps it might catch on, ignore people when it doesn't. Personal attack blocks should only be used in open and shut cases....and even then (as I found out) it seldom works. Has anyone known any of these processes do anything bar escalate the problem? I've put the template in question up for deletion [4] --Docg 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • No to turning this section colors and saying it's over and settled. Cyde has announced that "it's time to stop" another user whose primary crime is making Cyde unhappy, apparently, or saying things Cyde seems to dislike. There is no divine right of admins. If there is, then my divinity is as great as his. Geogre 18:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No one is trying to do so; it appears to be the result of a formatting mistake about halfway up the page. Mackensen (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Mackensen, for that clarification. To the issue at hand: What I see, so far, is personal. Cyde is taking things very personally and becoming personally involved in trying to "stop" persons, etc. This is counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. The fact that, above, he would even try to reach back to the Giano RFAR to mischaracterize Fred Bauder's rejected finding on the meaning of a policy is simply more evidence that Cyde is extremely angry rather than anything else. He had not been involved in interactions with Giano II on Mackensen's talk page, had not been involved in any interactions with me, and yet his vote on my ArbCom run, his desire to "stop" "people like" Giano, etc. is showing a very deleterious mindset at present. I hope that I am wrong (I often am), but I honestly cannot see any justification whatever for Cyde's words. I would love to "assume" good faith, but my imagination is not sufficient for finding a way to do that when someone comes along and announces a campaign to "stop" another user. It's rather like those people who want to "stop filth on television": they should not watch the show. Similarly, Cyde can not scanning everyone's talk page for "evidence." A good administrator waits for a complaint. He doesn't go looking to create one. Geogre 19:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
At some point there needs to be a conversation about persistent incivility and its effect on the environment we work in. It is not clear to me why we tolerate so much of something we don't really want. Tom Harrison Talk 19:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In other contexts, other issues, with other disputants, I've objected to "double standards" where one or more parties held others to stricter standards than themselves, and I've argued for keeping a single standard. Now I begin to think that may not be sufficient to the needs. Better still would be to hold oneself to the stricter standard, and extend leeway (and some forgiveness) to others. That way the waves of mutual recrimination would be dampened out at the start, rather than growing, heterodyning in a feedback loop, as seems to be happening at present. Just a thought. SAJordan talkcontribs 19:49, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).

  • I can't understand a word the person above is saying, but he probably agrees with me. I have been reading and re-reading various posts of Cyde's mostly admittedly those concerning me, and have come to the conclusion we are dealing with someone fairly young here, at most a late teens. We all get out of our depth at that age, so lets all say Happy Christmas and forget it. Perhaps though at some stage during 2007 we need to have a big think about junior editors and ages and responsibilities. IRC seems always to be a problem eternally with us, I know James Forrester has decreed IRC conversations off limits but that was in the days when wikipedia was much smaller - and he was more powerful. I think the time has now come to re-think that policy too so 2007 promises to be an interesting period in Wikipedia's history. Wikipedia is going places in internet history, it must not become a victim of it's own history. So lets wish each other a happy Christmas and productive new year. Giano 19:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
"I can't understand a word the person above is saying, but he probably agrees with me." That is probably the funniest thing I've read all day... thanks for making me laugh (and I mean that with all sincerity!) --Isotope23 20:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, from your username and the physics metaphors you were using, I can understand Giano (who I think writes on Italian architecture, among other things) not understanding what you were on about. Maybe wikilink your metaphors next time? heterodyne and feedback loop were probably the most obscure terms. Carcharoth 22:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Point taken, Carcharoth, though Isotope23 is not the person who used those metaphors. I'm sorry for assuming a more general familiarity with those concepts than actually exists. SAJordan talkcontribs 23:15, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Oh, and regarding Giano's speculation's about Cyde's age, it doesn't really matter what age he is. Judge him by his words, not his age. FWIW, I have seen pictures from various Wikimanias and similar meet-ups that identify someone they claim is Cyde, but again, that is neither here nor there. When we edit and interact on Wikipedia, we are just words. So look at the words, not the person. Carcharoth 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's sort of pointless to bring it up now, but I was asked (via the much-maligned IRC, no less) to note that I think the community should strongly prefer using tailored warnings to communicate with experienced users, rather than templates, since templates are definitely written with new users in mind. Given the heated conversation above, I don't know if it would have changed anything, but anything that can be done to keep a conversation cool is good. --Interiot 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

convenient break[edit]

We hear a lot of talk about 'at some point' or 'they can't get away with this'. But I've begun to ask myself: what is the end game here? What solution are we realistically wanting? Cyde banned? Giano blocked? Perhaps others too? The problem is that loose cannons go off, and the various groupings raise the defcon in defence or attack. Where does this end? Actually, when all cools down, I find I actually agree with folk like Geogre on far more issues than I disagree. And some civil conversations with others (yes, in IRC!) convinces me it doesn't have to be this way. I don't want to be sanctimonious, but perhaps all of us could work on cooling it. Are certain people uncivil at times. Yes, and we all know who they are? Are certain people sometimes hostile to the point of trolling? Yes, and we all know who they are. Can these people be otherwise? Yes, I think so. We all know it would be better if it were. Please let's all use whatever influence we have (particularly on those we think might listen to us - and not on those who are likely to react negatively to us) to cool things. It really doesn't take Time magazine's 'man of the year' to work it out--Docg 19:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yep, we need a level open playing fields for all. No IRC, we are either all there - or all out, editors, admins, crats and the rest. Let the Arbcom have their mailings (confined to reigning members) in camera everything else open to scrutiny. I'm sick of reading "I discussed this on IRC" IRC counts for nothing here, and when all realise that, then we can progress, until then we are in for permanent fighting. Giano 20:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And you'd agree not to use e-mail either? Actually my point is that the most productive civilised conversations I've had today have been on IRC, and have been with folk I've previously fought with on-wiki. So, I'd actually draw the opposite conclusion. But that's a side issue. Frankly, human nature is human nature: the medium be damned. We either want to fight, squabble, factionalize and and point score, or we want to move on and co-operate. I'm rather hoping we can go for the second option. Hoot if you're with me.--Docg 20:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree 110%, especially on your main point. (and on the side point, I agree that IRC has been the one place where I've had very pleasant and civil conversations with those I probably wouldn't have had otherwise). --Interiot 20:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm glad you are all having such a good time there, and good luck to you, but why do so many Wikipedia admin decisions on blocking etc have to be made there? Please do not insult our intelligence by saying they are not. Giano 20:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sure bad blocking decisions have been made via phone or email as well. As Doc said, address the person, not the medium. --Interiot 20:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You have to be joking! I've been there and have the T-shirt to prove it. They conspire together and come out with WP attack, WP civility and WP anything else the next one can think of. I'd rather fight a nest of vipers than take on the IRC gang, but I frequently do. No lets have the source "eliminate the nest and kill the pest". Giano 20:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Doc, I agree with you, and I meant what I said above sincerely and at face value. I know folks assume that I'm always up to some rhetorical trick or something, but I'm not. People take things personally, and that's no way to operate. I don't know what "incivility" is in cases like these. Words? Words are just symbols. Intentions? None of us can judge those. Actions? Ok. Worse still, we have taunt and counter, badger and follow, charge and countercharge, and all that can occur then is that the people behind the names get angrier and angrier, and then someone says "booger," and the other person blocks, and then we're at ArbCom. Seriously: when you find yourself scanning other people's talk pages for evidence, you're probably trying to make a complaint rather than addressing one. Geogre 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, and the IRC side issue: IRC is a great place to be pleasant, to banter inanely, and to burn some time. It's a fun place to blow off steam, too. How could it not be? That's the function of all chat. It's a horrible place to argue, in both senses of the word. I've never been against bantering with my fellow Wikipedians. I'm generally an amusing and mellow fellow (I got top 2 percentile in chatter and banter on the GRE), but IRC is a terrible place for formulating on-wiki actions unless it is followed by on-wiki deliberation and transparency. It's not that fine a distinction, either. Wikipedia actions have to be established and accountable on Wikipedia. People on IRC should have the sense to know that, whatever IRC says, they have to find their evidences and provide their rationales on the project. Geogre 20:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Why is IRC rather than the person to blame if someone decides the conversation is over and that there's nothing to discuss on-wiki? --Interiot 20:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The person is to blame, but our vagueness is more to blame. Having an ArbCom that lived on IRC didn't help, either, as we had tremendous reluctance to spell out coherently and clearly best practice. Additionally, the much touted "gang" and "herd" mentality at IRC is very much to blame, too. While Cyde maligned the "back scratching" of a few of the academic writers, if such a thing existed (and it doesn't), it wouldn't have a patch on the self-defense instinct of people on IRC who rush to defend their pastime and/or IRC "friends" (quotes around friend because of my views on the illusoriness of all this mess). So, if a person is found out acting plainly on the basis of non-accountable process, we will see some very shrill defenses. It is disappointing that so few people think independently and weigh the issues dispassionately. Geogre 12:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Hoot Hoot Hoot to All. Paul August 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I beg your pardon? Are you going to share with us your views on IRC with us, or just make owl noises? Giano 21:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I see what you did there, Paul. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
          • I'm with you too Bish. Hoot Hoot. Paul August 22:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. to Giano: You don't have to beg you can have my pardon for free. As for IRC, I don't use it. I think it is best if Wiki related business is done on-Wiki, and hoot hoot to you too.
            • What is this? An example of a conversation held in a secret medium? —Centrxtalk • 23:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
              • See Doc's Hoot if you are with me above. Paul August 03:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh look everyone [5] another little IRC kid has turned up! Now lets see if I get banned for kicking him off my page. It does become very tiresome Giano 22:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, a RFAR concerning the behavior of Cyde, Ghirlandajo, and Giano is certaintly appearing to be a good possibility/remedy, as I can safely say that there has been a depressing lack of assuming good faith here, and this incivility on the part of all parties involved is simply disruptive. Thank you Ghirlandajo for trying to cool down the situation up above at your second post, but I think the fact that we are even here in the first place shows that there are some blatantly obvious problems between editors that needs to be addressed. How would a RFAR sound, then? Cowman109Talk 22:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I for one would love to see a productive discussion about the policy and accountability implications of IRC's lack of transparency -- in particular the "on-wiki actions should be justified on-wiki" school of thought appeals to me quite a bit, as a rule of thumb if nothing else, and I try to stick to that. IRC is a medium, it's a tool, and like any tool, it can be used effectively to better the encyclopedia, or it can be abused. I think it is a damned shame that the discussion has become so heated -- all of this incessant name calling accomplishes nothing and only makes the problem worse; it encourages "factions," scares people away, and hurts any chance of reaching a consensus of any real sort. As I said, I'd love to see a productive discussion, but I can say for sure that when I see a phrase like "IRC fairy," my blood starts to boil, and the chance of a good talking-over is inherently diminished -- I'm not trying to defend anything, or single anybody out, here, and I'm sure that any number of other examples could be brought up, on all sides. I guess what I'm asking for is this: those of you who really care about Wikipedia, please try to put your petty squabbles behind you, and strive to reach a legitimate agreement. I implore you, all of you, act your age and let the anger go. We have more important things to accomplish, all of us. Luna Santin 23:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As a reminder to myself, I have just added the following to the top of my talk page:

"A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." Proverbs 15:1 King James Version

I recommend this sentiment to everyone. -- Donald Albury 23:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • An RFAR? <cough> For what, exactly? I've been aggrieved, too, but I don't see anything but bad interpretation of the blocking policy and Cyde being very, very angry. He's entitled. I am reminded of what Mark Twain said: "When angry, count to ten. When very angry, swear." The problem is, we're now getting to the point where no one can be very angry. I'm not suggesting "drunken sailor -pedia," but let's get over this false Polyannaism. We are on the Internet, after all, and the very people offended by someone seeming to be angry are jokingly referring to goatse. You can't be jaded and prim. I don't use the pottymouth words, myself, but I think we ought to wait for people to violate Wikipedia policies, get warned, get negotiated with, have some mediateion, and repeat their mistakes before we block folks. Geogre 03:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A less painful alternative?[edit]

Piotrus left me a friendly response to my proposal about playing template referee and invited me to the PAIN and RFC. Since this has escalated to a proposed ArbCom case I've proposed a less painful alternative: namely that I step into this hornet's nest and try to mediate. DurovaCharge! 23:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Chairboy's block[edit]

Chairboy has blocked Giano for 48 hours. Giano is saying on his talk page that this was all decided on IRC. I've asked Chairboy to unblock, particularly if he was involved in an IRC discussion. I'm requesting two things: first, and most important, that Cyde stay away from Giano from now on, and in particular that he stay away from any warnings or admin actions; and second, that people stop discussing admin action against Giano on IRC. It starts to look like harassment, and whether it's intended that way or not (and I'm sure it isn't by at least some of the parties), that's what it looks like to some bystanders and probably to Giano too. Admin actions like this, especially controversial ones, shouldn't be decided on IRC because it leads to nothing but trouble. That's surely a lesson that must have been learned by now. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To be blunt, it looks to me that every time he get or the users that have associated with him get in trouble, they complain about secret IRC discussions they cannot prove happened until the decision is repealed. This is, at best, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. How long are we going to let them bully sysops out of their decisions? Who are the ones making the decisions here? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 23:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
My understanding of the IRC rules is that public logging is not allowed, but that shouldn't prevent people telling us what was said and who said it, so long as the actual log isn't posted. I hope someone will therefore elaborate, and say who was involved in the discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
If they can actually back up these claims, then we can weigh them on their own merits. If they're just complaining "OMG IRC CABAL" it's silly - we are not in kindergarten anymore, there is a certain code of conduct expected. That these editors are getting away with it on technicalities and unsubstantiated claims is damaging the wiki, in my biased opinion. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 00:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
"Who are the ones making the decisions here"? Certainly not the IRC clique of several non-editing sysops and lots of wannabe admins, of which you are one. The decisions are made by the community, by the ArbCom elected by the community, and by Jimbo Wales. If the janitors with mops are to make some vital "decisions" in this temple of knowledge, I will be the first to walk away. Admins are not priests but janitors. When janitors prevent priests from performing their duties (i.e., editors from writing the articles), priests should evacuate the temple. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Being an occasional resident of the IRC channels, I can tell you that IRC is just like real-life and on-wiki- there's no close-knit clique (or if there is, it's two or three close friends, and others dissent). Most of the time in controversial situations, there's a significant amount of discussion on more than one side of the issue. And frankly, I've dissented more than a few times on blocks that I thought were unjust, etc., leading to continued discussion on the blocks both on and off-wiki. The thought of an IRC clique controlling Wikipedia is just absurd. Ral315 (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
If you read my message carefully, you will see that what I spoke about was contrary to what you've been able to read into my message. I was responding to these inflammatory questions: "How long are we going to let them bully sysops out of their decisions? Who are the ones making the decisions here?" --Ghirla -трёп- 16:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no conspiracy. There was no plotting against him. The claim is inaccurate, and if the logs are reviewed, they will show that to be the case. I hope he will excercise good judgement in whom he shares his illicit copies with, and I hope he provides complete transcripts without any editing, but that's that. - CHAIRBOY () 00:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The copies wouldn't be illicit; it is only public logging, by which I assume is meant public posting, that's prohibited by IRC rules, at least that's my understanding. I stand to be corrected, of course. Chairboy, can you say whether you were involved in the IRC discussion, and who first suggested the block? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Since, after an IRC discussion, Jimbo has both endorsed and lifted the block, I think it is all a little moot now.--Docg 00:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad Jimbo has lifted the block. I don't think the discussion about IRC will be moot until people stop organizing blocks there, particularly if it's anything likely to be controversial. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak but I do have a question: has it been verified that this block was organized via IRC? All I've seen is questions asked of Chairboy and Giano's accusation. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not verified. I've asked Chairboy here and on his talk page, but he hasn't responded. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I responded to your questions both here and on my talk page, please clarify "he hasn't responded". - CHAIRBOY () 00:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I meant that you hadn't answered the question. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I just saw this on Recent Changes, and i'd suggest that you just have public logging of these secret IRC rooms, that would prevent the conspiracy theory stuff.Just H 00:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It would certainly save a lot of trouble. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The block was not organized in any way on IRC. The only involvement IRC had before everything exploded was that an admin gave me a diff of Giano being incivil to someone. After that, the decision to block based on his subsequent actions was mine and mine alone. There was a discussion on IRC where I counseled someone _not_ to block him because the block rationale they provided was improper, and another user in the room appears to have misinterpreted that as planning/coordination, but that is absolutely not the case. In response to the assertion that sharing the logs with Giano was proper and licit, I'll have to disagree. It's a violation of the channel rules and undermines the privacy expectations each participant has agreed to. While I know that I have at all points operated on the channel in a manner completely consistent with the ideals and ethics of the project, the fact that someone would make such a gross violation of trust is very disapointing and personally troubling. - CHAIRBOY () 00:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Chairboy, can you say who gave you the diff of Giano allegedly being uncivil? Also, can you say exactly what the channel rules are? We can't have a situation where a channel that operates in absolutely secrecy has any effect on Wikipedia administrators. I can see the rationale for no public posting of logs, but for no one to be allowed to say anything whatsoever is absurd. This isn't an in-camera hearing of the UN Security Council. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who gave the diff to Chairboy. But I subsequently gave the same diff to Jimbo Wales on IRC. The 'channel that operates in absolute secrecy' (which, incidentally, any admin can join) had an effect on that particular administrator. Indeed based on conversations there, he endorsed the block and, after discussion, agreed to lift it for the wider good of the project. A course of action (that I believe I) initially suggested to him, again on IRC. Any problems?--Docg 01:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know what your post means. I asked Chairboy who gave him the diff, because it'd be useful to know whether it was any of the people who've previously tried to get Giano blocked. And I asked what the privacy rules were on the channel. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my laptop timed out while I was asleep, so I don't have the relevant logs. When I asked, earlier, if the block was planned on IRC, Chairyboy said "absolutely not" and Bishonen said "you'd better believe it." Don't know who to believe, and I don't have the logs. =\ Luna Santin 01:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, then bishonen has called me a liar. I find the claim offensive, incorrect, and a gross miscarriage of WP:AGF. I have attempted to reconcile with the user off-wiki, and she has rejected my attempts. I hope it doesn't spill into the project, we've got enough work already as is. - CHAIRBOY () 01:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I fail to understand the logic here. A block is either a good call or a bad one. The blocking admin is alone responsible for his/her call. This call was a reasonable one (although I think ultimately unhelpful). I'm not sure what is meant by 'people who previously tried to get Giano blocked'. I've previously blocked Giano, does that count? Since everyone in the channel is an admin, anyone who believes someone should be blocked can just do it. However, it isn't the first time I've asked people to take a look at a diff I've caught (wanting a second opinion), and found someone blocked the offender before I did.
All that aside, Jimbo's action was designed to de-escalate this conflict and ask us all to play nice. I'm not sure going through Giano's edits, or IRC logs to see who said what to whom and when, is quite in that spirit. Lets move on.--Docg 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Just a point of information: not everyone in the channel is an admin, and most admins aren't involved in it, so it's a little misleading to call it an admins' channel. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth (which may or may not be much depending on Ghirla's decision regarding my offer), I'm not on IRC and don't have any plans to join that channel. DurovaCharge! 01:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, the fact that Giano got blocked yet again tells me we learned absolutely nothing from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You mean this? Funny, it seems to suggest just the opposite. Or perhaps you meant this? I'm not seeing a "Get Out of Jail Free" card anywhere in there. --Calton | Talk 02:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is disgusting. How long do we get to bandy about a diff? Can I now block Giano on the same comment and then claim, "Hey, it was just me by myself?" The "any admin" channel is similarly ridiculous, as there are at least two people who are not administrators who are on there, and there are people who are who won't go near it. The very existence of the thing was an attempt to gain greater secrecy, and that means opacity. Playing legal games now to say, "Well, someone showed it to me on IRC but I made the decision" is disengenious. Anyone ever heard of the bias of the first move? Basically, if I go to your talk page and say, "Oh, my goodness! Look at this horrible personal attack" and link, then you go to read specifically a single comment looking for the attack. If you are not skeptical (say, the person telling you is someone you've bantered pleasantly with for days), you may indeed see that vicious personal attack. Now, if all this happens on a talk page, there is some chance that the "attacker" will show up to explain the context, the intent, and the standing. If it happens on IRC, though, you're just getting that biased view. When a person makes a point of attacking IRC coteries, that person's going to be hunted and hounded extra especially. Doing anything "by the attention of someone on IRC" is a horrible, disgusting move. Confer! Confer some more before you block and confer openly. What is AN/I? What is its purpose? IRC blocks are, if ever, justifiable only in emergencies. Hours old diffs of Giano being mean are hardly emergencies. (Oh, and then the "Help, Bishonen's not assuming good faith" is really terrific.) I'm very disappointed. Geogre 04:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I want to make clear that I don't doubt Chairboy acted in good faith. However, in general, I wonder why people discuss blocks on IRC rather than on AN/I or by e-mail? AN/I has the benefit of being public, transparent, and can be quoted. E-mail is private for anything sensitive. IRC is neither fish nor fowl. It's public enough to invoke a gang mentality in those who use it, yet not so public that we're allowed to quote from it, which just strengthens the gang mentality. There's no point in denying this, because I've seen it time and again, and I've been stunned every time I've witnessed it (and the two facedness takes your breath away!). There's no gang mentality by e-mail, or at least it's harder to create it given the limited numbers. Anyone who can't see IRC has a potential for creating that atmosphere doesn't understand human nature. Even if we think we're not succumbing to it, we might be. Doesn't it therefore make sense to use AN/I for most blocks, e-mails for anything sensitive, and IRC for general discussions not involving individuals? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no aspersions to cast on Chairboy's intentions, but the process was awful. It's common sense to deliberate, to use AN/I, to make deliberations especially for blocks as transparent as possible. Not doing that is absolutely wretched, whatever the intentions of the person doing it. Instead of accepting this point, which would certainly make me feel better, we're getting another battle, which doesn't help my peace of mind at all. Insisting that one's actions are above reproach is rarely helpful. If people are reproaching you, there's probably something you could have done better. (Unless you assume bad faith in every single person questioning you, but, if you do that, you're really off the path.) Geogre 15:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "There's no gang mentality by e-mail" ... Are you sure about that? If there actually are conspiracies afoot, the conspirators will conspire by whatever means necessary. And it's a lot harder to hide the evidence on IRC, in a channel that 1000 people can join if they want to, than it is by private email. With private email, all you see is the circumstantial evidence. If that. I don't really think you need IRC to get two faced behaviour. Human nature being what it is and all... IRC is a tool like any other and can be used or misused, like any other. ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The nature of IRC lends itself to the herd mentality in a way e-mail doesn't, or at least much less so, because the latter's private and the numbers involved much smaller. With IRC, there may be dozens or even hundreds of people watching, and there's a certain amount of grandstanding. I've seen more experienced editors basically issue instructions to very young or inexperienced ones, and minutes later, they're off doing the thing that the experienced editor didn't want to do himself. It's all very well for people to claim that everyone on IRC acts of their own freewill, but how realistic is that when the age and experience differences are very significant? The important point is that IRC-related blocks frequently cause trouble, so why not just avoid them? If someone raises the possibility of a block on IRC, directly or otherwise, the sensible thing to do is for one of the admins present to initiate a discussion on AN/I to see whether the off-IRC voices concur. That's particularly important in the case of a controversial block. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, the truth does not require your approval. You can assert that I've misbehaved and conspired and cabalized all you want, but it's simply wrong. If you feel I have acted improperly, if you feel that I'm lying or otherwise doing wrong, then put your money where your mouth is. Open an ArbCom case so that the logs can be reviewed by disinterested parties. JWales reviewed the situation and endorsed the block. I corresponded with SlimVirgin in email regarding some of the specifics of the discussion. Either make a formal complaint and follow it through or apologize for your inappropriate insinuations. - CHAIRBOY () 07:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How often has the point been made about articles, that Wikipedia needs not merely truth but verifiability? The same should apply to accusations and disciplinary actions. It may be true that umpteen dozen admins on IRC endorsed my blocking you indefinitely for death threats (and protecting your talk page so you can't even post an "unblock" appeal); and it may even be true that "all the lurkers support me in email"; but you have no way to verify either of those claims, so you'll just have to take my word for it. However, since you know first-hand that you never uttered any death threats, my word on the matter is unlikely to satisfy you. So isn't it convenient for me that I've just prevented you from publicly defending yourself or denying the charges? And that if you try to do so from different accounts, I can just keep blocking you as a sockpuppet? Under those circumstances, you might want to have open process, with all assertions proven by citations of an open and verifiable record. As an abusive admin, I have just as strong a motive to keep everything secret and unverifiable, off the record, and avoid having to prove anything, or even specify (let alone cite) what threats you supposedly made. (With that in mind, see this and this.) This scenario is why the whole IRC issue is raising people's hackles. It brings up memories of the Vehmgericht and other "secret tribunals" of the past, and of stories by Kafka and Orwell. Secrecy destroys trust, because people will always wonder (and worry) about what you're hiding and why. SAJordan talkcontribs 02:00, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).
  • Indeed, the truth does not require approval, and it is similarly not your possession. You have been asked, several times, to answer germane questions. You still want opacity. In what way does this help? As for "apologize for inappropriate insinuations," you'll have to tell me what they are, just as you really should tell Giano what you are blocking him for. Oh, and giving him a chance to explain would have been nice. Giving him a chance to reduce the heat would have been nice, too. You have, indeed, behaved inappropriately by following along the well worn path to unilateralism. You will note that my comments were directed at this affair, and not so much a single person. This affair illustrates, again, the use of stale diffs and, most distressingly, the refusal to confer. You indicate, one place, that you did confer, but it was on IRC (where no one may see or say), but then you say that you made your decision solus. I repeat: before blocking consult and confer and do so on Wikipedia. This is good practice, and it does require approval. All administrators should (must, except in emergencies) confer and deliberate in any shadowy area. This was a very shadowy area, and yet you felt that, on the basis of a first move call for action, you could act without warning and mediation and resolution and conferring. That can only be done if you believe you have a pipeline to the divine truth or divine rights (or if you are acting unthinkingly, of course). Geogre 12:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, you're calling me a liar. This is grossly incivil and an injust mischaracterization. What are your motivations here? I didn't block Giano because of a conversation on IRC. I got a diff from a novice admin who wanted to know if the text in it was a blockable offense. I told the admin that it was not, but volunteered to ask Giano to be nice. I then went to Giano's user talk and left him this request to be civil. Giano blanked the civility request with an edit summary that told me to "Go away tiresome shild(sic)", then left a message on my talk page telling me to go and 'learn some manners'. As a response, I restored the warning and told him I was blocking him for repeated incivility and personal attacks against me when I asked him to knock it off. At no part of this was there any IRC collaboration to plot his blocking. As far as I can tell, another admin in the group misinterpreted my counseling to the novice admin as some sort of plot, but anyone who actually reads the log will see that it's ridiculous. At one point I mistook Giano for someone else and characterized him as a wikilawyer and said something to the effect of "If you block someone, you need to make absolutely certain that it's a proper block. You can't just block based on a feeling, there needs to be a specific policy violation", and mentioned that Giano would properly assert against an improper block. Blocks are bad juju, and I don't like doing them, that's why I counseled the new admin about how to avoid getting into a crapstorm and blocking innocent users. Between you and bishonen, my actions have been mischaracterized and you have whole cloth fabricated motivations and conspiracies that simply do not exist. Create an ArbCom request, Geogre, please. I beg you. If it's the only thing that will get you to stop libeling me and the only thing that will help us begin healing this weird rift in the project that you and bishonen seem determined to create, then let's get it over with. The logs can be privately reviewed by the Arbitration Committee without violating the trust of the admin IRC channel (which exists not to plot and make Wikipedia policy, but as a place where people can bounce ideas off each other and either get a positive sanity check or a thwack on the back of the head to correct a mistake) and breaking its effectiveness as one of Wikipedia's heroic inanimate carbon rods. Apologize for your gross mischaracterization of my motivations and actions, open an ArbCom case (which I will gladly assist with in any way possible), or you stand ready to clearly communicate to everyone here that your goal is not to create a better project, but is instead to disrupt and impugn innocent folks with whom you personally disagree for one reason or another. - CHAIRBOY () 16:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, what "characterization of motives?" I don't see any, unless you count way up there, where he says that he doesn't have any aspersions to cast at your intentions. You mean he should apologize for that or else you'll link "civil" and "personal attack" some more? Sheesh. Crowbait 18:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there was no characterization of motives. There was a characterization of behavior. When Betacommand was called out for his improper block (blocking without warning, blocking without conferring), he conferred with Chairboy, whose measure of conferring was to think it over and just block without using AN/I or consulting with another administrator. That is bad practice. There have been no personal attacks here, just tremendously bad actions. When blocking, confer and do so openly. How hard is that to take to heart? Chairboy, you can keep begging for an RFAR, but I am not "accusing" you of anything. I am flatly stating that your actions were bad practice, improper, and invalid. They were. Take that as a "personal attack" only if you consider community input to be always harmful. Geogre 00:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, Chaiboy's block was entirely justified by Giano's disruptive incivility. If he hadn't beaten me to it, I would have blocked Giano myself. Tom Harrison Talk 00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • For the benefit of anyone who still cares about this project, the truth of this affair is being outed here [6] Giano 17:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone tell us exactly what the rules are regarding privacy of logs on the so-called admins' channel? Giano's source appears to have one understanding and some of the people posting here have another. It would help if we could be told for certain what's allowed and what not, in terms of disclosure. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Most major Wikipedia channels, including #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en-admins, allow logging for personal use only. Thus, keeping copies for one's own use would be fine, and, presumably, reading logs to generalize a situation and responses would be fine. Quoting logs, making logs public, or sharing logs without the permission of all participants in the discussion is prohibited. (It may be worth noting that even private logging is illegal in some jurisdictions, but that's another story.) Ral315 (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Ral. I'm still not sure what it means in practise. Would someone be allowed to say "It was User:X who suggested the block"? Would they be allowed to say it on AN/I? By e-mail? And I mean without X's permission. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
And when you say "illegal" and "jurisdictions," what do you mean? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good news: both Piotrus and Ghirla have agreed to let me mediate. DurovaCharge! 14:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC) --- I want to go on record here I also stated this on my userpage. I NEVER ASKED FOR A BLOCK all I asked was that a npa warning be given. at the Time I did not see a reason to block, I did not know about the block until I logged BACK online over an hour later. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 02:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

May I quote your bit of the log re:Giano to show how to the block was discussed?[edit]

The background to Chairboy's block of Giano last night was Betacommand's recent block of Irpen. Looking at the admin channel logs from last night, I see people asking me how the issue of blocking Giano started this time, and me saying I couldn't remember. Now that it's no longer the middle of the night, I do remember: the background was Betacommand's extremely dodgy block of Irpen, which has been criticized here on ANI for being done without warning, for giving only the vague reason "personal attacks", for coming without a block message, and for being imposed at the last minute before Betacommand went off line. (On Betacommand's talkpage are many more queries and comments, including this trenchant summary by Geogre: [7].) Betacommand's block of Irpen was pretty soon undone, but Irpen remains crushed by the way his block log now looks. I saw clearly last night on en-admins the usual old callousness about such things, exhibited by some admins (those most active in the matter): the too-frequent incapacity for understanding the amount of harm done to good-faith editors by blocks. :-( Blocks were actually discussed in terms of editors wanting to be blocked, "wikilawyering" to be blocked, "dancing" to be blocked; rather than in terms of the shock and pain of getting an enduring black mark (so very easily inflicted!) in the block log. Whatever. Giano was one of the people criticizing Betacommand over the Irpen block, and Betacommand's reaction was apparently (not that he needed to take stock, being a new admin, and reconsider doing such blocks) but that he needed help from more experienced admins in putting a stop to such Personal Attacks against himself. He joined #Wikipedia-en-admins to ask, and Chairboy advised him. Considering the rate at which Chairboy's accusations against me personally seem to be escalating above, I'd really like to go into more detail at this point, and to preferably use exact quotes from the discussion of the blocking of Giano, but I confess myself unnerved by the different things different users are saying about whether, or how much, the logs can actually be quoted in public. Let me go out on a limb, though, and ask the following editors if they will permit me to quote their words here on ANI. If that question itself is improperly revealing, you'll just have to hang me. Betacommand, Doc glasgow, Royalguard11, Chairboy, Naconkantari, Interiot, Luna-San, Jwales, could you please indicate here whether you're OK with having your words from the log quoted by me here? Bishonen | talk 17:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

If you feel you need to make a point, then go ahead. I release my contributions, my only requirement is that you include the entire log, from beginning (when Betacommand asked for someone to block someone for NPA) to Jwale's leaving the room after endorsing the block, not just a cherry picked segment with "helpful editing". - CHAIRBOY () 18:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't fully understand this what's going on here. Giano's recent edits seem to indicate he already has logs (though I can't confirm if it's genuine, but I'll assume so). Have you already shared them with him? Dmcdevit·t 19:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I haven't. I don't know where Giano got his logs. (I asked and he wouldn't say.) I logged the channel when I was in it, and I'm asking if I may share suitable bits of the log here. On ANI. Nothing to do with Giano. Right now I'm taking some deep breaths and trying to decide whether anything will be achieved or improved by my replying to Chairboy in the same spirit in which he speaks to me. I think not. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
With respect, you've been accusing me of lying, and I've had the temerity to object. Look, we're all volunteers here, that's part of why this whole thing is so silly, and the personal nature of the attacks are unwarranted. - CHAIRBOY () 19:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Does not compute: "entire log" makes no sense. How do you know when someone began logging and quit? Weird. Everything is "cherry picked." Crowbait 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that would be most helpful for those who wonder where Wikipedia is going. I have been told so many times how civil and helpful that abode of "wikilove" they call #Wikipedia-en-admins, that I would really like to see a sample from logs of that "wikilove" (or is it "wikievil"?) to assess the situation. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well you can obtain a flavour of the log here [8], where you will see some of those concerned are grabbing at straws and seem reluctant to discuss the situation further. Oh and for the benefit of those who seem to suspect Bishonen passed me the log - she did not. It came from someone altogether closer to my home, and that is the only hint. Those concerned know what was in it, and they seem to be anxious to rephrase their meanings, I do hope so because "kill me cleanly" is a very unpleasant term indeed. Obviously nothing uncivil intended there. Giano 19:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
"Kill you cleanly?" Is that what this is all about? It appears you do not actually have a copy of the logs, if you did you wouldn't be making these claims. I was counseling an admin about administering blocks. I told him that any block administered must meet specific criteria and be completely legit to ensure a "clean kill", in the sense that the alternative is that people get blocked who shouldn't have been. Bishonen interpreted this in just about the worst possible way, and if my language was unclear, I apologize, but saying that I was plotting to kill you or otherwise conspiring as part of a big mean IRC cabal is just flat out wrong. - CHAIRBOY () 20:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Good Lord, in what way can "clean kill" be interpreted? Honestly, you're great at reading menace into my words, but your own...even when you use violent language...that's just no biggie? Yikes! Geogre 00:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Aside from obvious vandalism, blocks of established editors should be discussed here or on AN. Using IRC to determine if a block is appropriate or if an unblock is a good idea simply needs to stop. Consensus is decided on wiki, not IRC.--MONGO 20:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. If an established contributor is to be blocked, at the very least they should be given a chance to defend their actions. I feel the "anti-IRC" argument is misplaced however. Plenty of blocks have probably occurred by AIM/MSN/YIM group chats too. I would even conjecture more happen there as more Wikipedians I know use these messenger services as communication media than IRC. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 20:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

..........and the reason I dismissed Chairboy with such a curt message [9] was because I already (very reliably) knew he had been made the stooge of an IRC plot. He was referring to the incident Cyde had already posted here (on this page) hours before. All very odd isn't it? Giano 20:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Perhaps, but I see irony in the fact that you were unblocked per an IRC discussion in the admins channel as well. If anything, I would suggest you be happy it was IRC - there are plenty of people who have logs (of which you seem to be one). If it was AIM/YIM/MSN it would be "he said/she said." Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 20:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Was I? I didn't know that. Not often someone can tell me something I didn't know. So what else was said in that IRC discussion? I'm sure we would all love to know Giano 20:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Jimbo interceded on your behalf. As I understand it, he endorsed the block for the reasons given, but repealed it because of the issues related to IRC (with a strong warning in the unblock for you to act in a civil matter - you can read the block log if you wish.) I am not sure of the contents of the discussion, as I was not a party to it, but I know for a fact that it was conducted over IRC. For my part, I also discussed the matter with him. While don't want to say anything Jimbo said without his permission to say it, I commented to him that the whole matter seems to have gotten vastly exaggerated, that you were a good contributor, and that you simply seem to have misplaced your suspicion of IRC. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
A quick correction. JWales did not unblock Giano because of issues related to IRC. He unblocked Giano because he feels Giano is a valued member and he wants everyone to be happy. Whether or not it is the right thing to do is a concern that must take a back seat to diplomacy. - CHAIRBOY () 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Any admin who thinks diplomacy is not the right thing to do or is unimportant, should be summarily stripped of their mop, which should then be broken in twain and the pieces lovingly shoved where the sun don't shine:).--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
And that's your idea of being 'diplomatic'? Perhaps you should follow your own advice.--Docg 00:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is what I was getting at about people being a bit hypocritical. People who go on search and destroy missions for "incivility" and "personal attacks" should at least be consistent in seeking to exemplify civility (and not talk about getting quick kills or escalate situations with volatile editors and not admit no fault) and avoid itching for fights. RDH doesn't go hunting civility breaches, and neither does Giano. Of course we should all be civil, but when we make ourselves wardens of everyone else's behavior and not our own, when we go hunting for what we are sure must be personal attacks, then we get distorted into the monsters we claim to want to destroy. It's far better to be laid back. Geogre 01:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. No one should go hunting for incivility breaches. I certainly don't.--Docg 01:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was a non-starter. A question about sharing the en-admin logs.[edit]

Well, that was apparently a non-starter. Only Chairboy has replied so far, and, Kerberos-like, in a way that would make it necessary to ask several more people for permission to quote their words (pointless quoting, but required by Chairboy to avoid my putative evil and dishonest cherry-picking). I've suggested to Chairboy on IRC that he might like to do the editing himself, to shorten the very long section from Betacommand's question to jwales's exit, and especially to remove the irrelevant people, but he doesn't wish to. OK, I would have liked to explain how I see what happened on en-admins yesterday, but meh, forget it. I'm only sorry Slim's questions are destined to have no replies. Hey, could somebody who's sure they understand the rules tell me, though: is there any objection to my e-mailing the logs to SlimVirgin? She's an admin, she might as well have been there and doing her own logging, though in fact she was not. Right? Bishonen | talk 21:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

For my part I pointed out to Jimmy that there was a request for his permission to have the logs reviewed pertaining to him, but he has been busy today. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 22:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm sure "Jimmy" is very grateful to you. Regarding your point above, it rather seems my suspicions of IRC are far from "misplaced" Giano 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Jimmy is jwales on IRC and User:Jimbo Wales here. You can read about him on wikipedia. He happens to be it's founder :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 22:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • don't worry, I know who he is, I have been here a short while. Giano 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
For my part, I have no objection if you release the logs of that conversation, Bishonen. I thought it was a helpful talk. I can only speak for myself, though. If you get the permission of all involved, I don't see why it would be any problem at all (even getting past our general paranoia about it). Luna Santin 22:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
And If people won't answer, I don't see the harm in emailing the logs to anyone who requests a copy Giano 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think I would see a problem with it, either, but the person releasing the logs would be making themselves vulnerable, under the prohibition on public logging; if at all possible, I'd prefer to avoid forcing that on anyone. Luna Santin 22:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Giano, I would suggest you didn't do that without permission. The reason is alluded to above. If you give out information given in confidence without the permission of all involved, then there could be legal implications, and I certainly wouldn't want that happening with anyone here. We have Bishonen's implicit permission and Chairboy and Luna-Santin's explicit permission, let's wait until doc-glasgow, Jimmy, and Betacommand reply and do this the "right" way. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 22:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You'll have to read Chairboy's "permission" more carefully, Peter. It contains conditions that make it unusable. There were several people there whom a publication would be likely to embarrass. I simply wouldn't do it, even aparat from the fact that they'd be highly unlikely to give permission for it. They're not relevant to this, but as long as Chairboy insists on every dot or nothing, they'd be part of it nevertheless. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
I've just seen your edit here [10] are you daring to make a legal threat to me? Please consider your answer very carefull before you answer. Giano 22:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious how you could interpret that diff as a legal threat in any way, shape, or form. Unless you're referring to this edit, where he specifically says he's not hoping for that. Luna Santin 22:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I was refering to his edit directly above, where he and I know full well what he is implying. The reason IRC Logs are not used on Wikipedia is because James Forrester decreed it so. I have an IRC log of him boasting about it, I must dig that one out, it makes amusing reading. Giano 23:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Giano, I've commented there to keep things short here. SAJordan talkcontribs 02:41, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).
I know I'm going to be shouted at for this but if you really want IRC logs published, propose a change to the policy in the normal way and let the community decide what happens rather than keep banging on about IRC logs here where it's just annoying and upsetting other users and where your making new enemies for no reason. I'd really like to see a proper discussion about IRC logs after all the complaints from the past week. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Giano, with all due respect, I still don't see how you can possibly interpret that as a legal threat, when he explicitly said he didn't want anyone to get into legal trouble. Perhaps you're reading a subtext into it that I'm not, but at this point focusing on details like that is only going to kill everyone's chances at quickly resolving this with as little drama as possible. Please, just let it go so that we can move on to working this out. If you want the "last word," fine by me. Luna Santin 23:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Non-involved non-admin here, and FWIW I interpreted it as a legal threat. Anchoress 02:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Anchoress, please also see here. SAJordan talkcontribs 06:48, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Giano, I wish to take this opportunity to apologise for using sarcasm in your presence, as it is obvious unhelpful. I will attempt not so to do in future (though I imagine I will fail, sadly).
Yes, it is theoretically my call as to all of the rules in all of the IRC channels (that's my job). Yes, it is my job to oversee the enforcement of said rules. No, I did not actually make this rule up. Yes, I support it personally, but it would be utterly inappropriate to use my position to further a personal objective of mine. No, I do not enjoy "power", and would not boast about it. Yes, I sometimes make a joke of it. Further questions are welcome, of course; transparency in this role is not necessarily a bad idea.
The rule and its rationale are as follows: IRC is not Wikipedia. IRC is not under the control of Wikipedia, or any part thereof (the me-who-is-on-IRC is not the me-who-is-on-here; such is the nature of having various hats). Things that happen on IRC are equivalent to things that happen on MySpace, or in a telephone conversation, or in a pub. They are meant to be analogous to e-mail - all participants get a copy, but it is utterly morally vile (and generally illegal) to forward private correspondance to another party without permission of all those involved. Were we to publically log the "private" IRC channels, they would, err, cease to be private, and all these "cabal"-like discussions that so many people seem to think occur there (wrongly, as far I am aware) would move to somewhere that they cannot have as many people take part in the discussions (by the very nature of having a private channel), and, as they wouldn't be part of the official Wikipedia IRC network, I would have no ex officio ability nor authority to be in said channel, and so wouldn't be able to monitor such things.
I think that it is very sad that those people who choose not to use IRC (it takes very little effort in most circumstances) consider those who do do so to be part of some microscopic group that plot against the rest. It is not really very in-keeping with wikilove, AGF, and other core parts of what our community is about (for those that have forgotten :-().
Finally, please note that #wikipedia-en-admins is not an "official" channel (as said above), but is for informed discussion, so various particular people who are no longer, or have never been, sysops are still welcome there - and, by extension, people who are sysops but are disbenefits to the discussion could be asked, or forced, to leave (though I do not believe this has happened yet).
James F. (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, James. You've explained the rule — that it's analogous to e-mail, with all participants receiving a copy. Two questions: first, whose rule is this? Second, can the rule be modified so that anyone who would be entitled to be on the list (basically, any admin) may ask to receive a copy after the fact, assuming a copy exists? In that way, situations like the above would be avoided. The secrecy is breeding suspicion. A number of us here have tried to deal with this situation, and are having to feel our way along in the dark. I have not seen the logs. I don't know who said what. I would like to know, not so I can blab about it, but so I can inform the way I approach the situation. If admins could request the logs in future for any situation that turns controversial, the people on the channel will be more careful not to do controversial things on it, and if they do, it'll be easy to see how it evolved so it can be more easily avoided in future. Do you have any thoughts about that? SlimVirgin (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The rule is that of the IRC community. It has been the rule for longer than I've used IRC for the Wikimedia projects (that is, it's been a rule since at least 2003). I'm sure it can be modified, but in the same way that any policy in Wikimedia can - consensus has to be convinced of the need for and appropriacy of change. As to the particulars of your proposal, I would observe that it violates the primary point of the logging ban (that what is said in private, stays in private), and so I doubt the community would be terribly in favour of it. You can ask, of course, but I don't fancy the proposal's chances.
I'm also somewhat unsure of your implict premise - that each and every single sysop can be trusted with such information. By "trusted", we mean trusted not to react adversly to it, not to leak it to other people or organisations such as "Wikitruth" - in essence, not to bring the project into disrepute (that is what we're all here to do, isn't it? ;-)). This is in general an exceedingly difficult thing to ask of people - for example, I would not necessarily feel comfortable seeing logs about myself, or about something "politically sensitive". I would say that the ability to trust all sysops with such information is not something that can easily be handed down - it is up to each conversations' participants to judge for themselves whether or not they trust the people in-channel at the time to. Given the rampant lack of trust and factionalism present in the sysop cadre, a rot that has been festering for quite some time now, I can see no way of getting to the point where such a thing would be possible. :-(
I don't think that it would be appropriate for me to comment about the individual cases that come up here, of course, so I'm afraid that I might not be of as much help as you might expect in solving this right now; I have had a quick look, and it seems that I was not in-channel at the time of this conversation (there were a few problems with IRC servers), so I'm just as much in the dark as everyone else. Sorry. :-(
I'm sad that you have seen people become suspicious just because they do not know everything; it seems somewhat petty to my mind, really - but then, I'm used to the concept of circles within circles and all that from my extra-wiki life. :-)
James F. (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you James so your statement on IRC: that if you were to make personal attacks you would do them on IRC because you control it, and had personally ruled it was not under the Arbcom's jurisdiction" was not true then? Giano 11:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was a sarcastic observation. Anyone who knows me even vaguely would be able to tell that. :-) I would not make personal attacks about others - ever - so the question is moot. I was, yes, part of the Committee when we observed ("ruled", if you prefer, though I don't) that IRC is outwith Wikipedia, but the observation was not novel.
In this particular case, I'm not terribly fussed about you revealling the contents of my privileged discussions, but please do not do so again without prior consent of the parties involved.
James F. (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
James, if making the logs privately available to any admin who asks isn't tenable (and I take your point about trust and Wikitruth, and other venues), would it be easier to request, or to introduce a rule (I don't know how the channel works and what rules exist, or how they are introduced) that no-one is allowed to discuss on the IRC admins' channel the proposed block of an established editor, and that anyone doing so will be asked to leave the channel, or some such? Not including proposed blocks of vandals, or drive-by editors, of course, but the blocking of anyone established in the community should not be discussed at all on IRC. Would that work? I think it would go a long way to re-establishing some trust. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I actually liked this idea so much that I went ahead and made it. Hopefully this will make people happier, but, far more importantly, work to improve the project.
James F. (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not involved in the discussion prior to the block (as Bishonen can attest), my only involvement after it was to counsel against the block. However, I explicitly deny permission for the publication of any of my contributions. That is not a precedent I wish to set. --Docg 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion for the future[edit]

My understanding is that any admin is entitled to use the so-called admins' channel. Therefore, any admin could be present at any time and be watching or logging for themselves. My recollection is that Danny set it up for the benefit of admins. Therefore, it makes sense that any logs may be passed to other admins by e-mail with or without the permission of the participants. This would get round the absurdity of Wikipedia admins trying to discuss an admininstrative issue on the Wikipedia admins' noticeboard, but not being allowed to know what was said. In future, I suggest that any admin may request a copy of the logs from any other admin who happens to have them. Who are the channel operators so I can check this with them? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's my understanding that the channel is not restricted to enwiki admins, but is rather open and devs and commons admins get access too. Does that mean they get the logs if they ask for it? – Chacor 02:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand why it's not allowed to just publish these logs in any case (with the exception of confidential stuff, of course), soo.. what if we allow logs to be published whenever an admin action was involved (same exception)? Whenever someone says "I discussed this on IRC and then blocked him/protected the article/whatever", it should be possible to find out what was said by whom, IMHO. --Conti| 03:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my suggestion is that anyone who would be entitled to access to the channel may request a copy of the logs from anyone who has a copy. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
One of the long-standing rules on #wikipeida channels on IRC is that publishing a log = ban on IRC. Another issue that hasn't been brung up is that the conversations on IRC aren't released under GFDL. (not a big issue, but it could turn into something someday). ---J.S (T/C) 03:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say "publish." I meant that anyone entitled to access may request that they be privately forwarded a copy. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"Brought". ;)Chacor 03:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I know it's a rule, I just don't understand why it's one. I think publishing the log in this case would've prevented a lot of bad blood between all participants. --Conti| 03:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
So, out of curiousity, who holds the copyright to them? Picaroon 03:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing that IRC chats have the same status as telephone calls, and in North America you may record your own telephone conversations and allow others access. You may not do it unless you're part of the conversation. However, I find this resorting to legal questions pointless. We're not children and we're not enemies. We should be able to reach an agreement that ensures these IRC block controversies don't pan out in the same way in future. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You may record your telephone calls and allow others access if you inform the other party or parties prior to the conversation that the conversation is recorded and may be used for whatever purpose, at which point they can disconnect or communicate elsewhere. —Centrxtalk • 09:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If you're a participant in the conversation, the only consent you need is your own. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I have not participated in this discussion, and have never yet been on a Wikipedia-related IRC discussion, but for the record, the law about recording phone conversations varies greatly from one place to another. In the USA, for example, in some states ("two-party states") both sides to a conversation must consent to any recording, exactly as Centrx says, but in others ("one-party states") either party to the conversation may record unilaterally (at least as far as the purely legal aspect is concerned). When the two parties to a call are located in different states with different rules, of course, things get complicated. If one then tries to extrapolate to an IRC channel with hundreds of participants, it becomes clear that this is not going to be a useful analogy one way or the other, for better or worse. Newyorkbrad 12:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
A useful analogy is chatting around a table. You know who is present, and that they are trustworthy enough not to record your real-time conversation and advertise it elsewhere. If they were to record it, you would not speak freely or comfortably, and you may just go sit at another table altogether. If there is official business to be conducted, it can be done at the WP:AN table, but if a certain table is logged, people will simply choose to go to an unlogged private table, a private table that may be unsupervised and to which you have no guarantee of entrance. It is one thing to take notes at a board meeting, and another thing entirely to record every business (or totally non-business) lunch and post the transcripts in the company lobby. Surveillance will not solve the alleged problem, it will just send it underground, and has other effects besides. —Centrxtalk • 22:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that my contributions in IRC are not released. They remain my copyright. If anyone were to log them and offer copies to over 1,000 admins that would surely be a breach of copyright, freenode policy, and the law in certain countries. I would strongly resist that, for a whole host of reasons. With 1,000 potential logs (even if for private use) it would impossible to enforce a 'no publications' rule. If logs are published, then they are searchable. If someone can search through my informal chatting on IRC, then they can almost certainly compromise my pseudonymity. Slim this is dead in the water. I would seek to enforce my copyrights.--Docg 09:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why I propose to only publish logs (or hand them out to everyone who was involved) when an admin action was involved. I understand your point, and I also don't see a point in publishing day-to-day chit-chat, but discussions that lead to a block should be available to those involved, IMHO. --Conti| 15:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe you have any copyright over that material, but as I said above, that really ought to be beside the point. If secrets are being discussed, they should be discussed privately by e-mail. If they're not secrets, but ordinary admin business, then any admin should be able to see the logs. The current situation, where they're sort of secret and sort of public, is untenable, at least for admin business, because it leads to absurd situations like the above. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Am I wrong to thank that the best place for further discussion would be the talk page of m:IRC guidelines? As a note on confidentiality - right now the channels are considered a private place, and anything said in there is between the parties therein. Releasing it without the express permission of everyone therein is a breach of trust, which is punishable to various degrees in various countries. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 17:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I love the smell of IRC secrecy in the morning. It smells like ... victory. El_C 02:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems what we need is a little Wikilove, I think you are forgetting we are in this to make an encyclopedia, and everytime we try to punish people for their wrongdoing we allways seem to lose our sense of community, we need to stop worrying about little things and move on. Wizardry_Dragon said at the top, that wikipedia is not a battleground, though scrolling down it would seem that this is often blatantly ignored. If a user is bothering you, ignore them. ArbCom is too much like a court, 90% of the time we end up separated over small arguments which end up affecting more and more users as they go through arbcom. If you can't stand somebody, have a nice cup of tea and sit down and then ignore them for a while and try and realise that they want to make an encyclopedia as much as you. You don't have to be paranoid of everyone out to get you, if we let the little things get to us then our encyclopedia will suffer. TehKewl1 11:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Today... is Christmas! There will be a magic show at zero-nine-thirty! Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God, and a few Marines! El_C 21:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me offer my two cents, with the disclaimers that I am an admin but I almost never frequent IRC. I strongly support the notion that IRC logs should be logged and public unless the channel is restricted to a given group, like admins. In that case at the very least the logs should be available to all admins. That said, I do not think that the admin IRC channel should be password protected in the first place; I don't believe that anything we admins discuss needs to be 'secret'. Wikipedia is an open community, and this should apply to all levels of our decision making.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Utterly and absolutely not. When I use IRC, I am chatting informally. I may inadvertently give away personal information. I choose to do that knowing that there are 10-50 people in the room, and I run certain risks with my privacy. My choice. However, if any of 1,000 admins could have the logs, that changes the dynamic: it would then be impossible to prevent logs being published on the web. Personally, I would cease to use the wikipedia IRC channels immediately. Now, no doubt some will say that if people stopped using the admins channel that would be a good thing. Well, think again. The advantage of these channels is that there is a cross-section of Wikipedians in them. They are not a select cabal. If an admin says something inappropriate about user:x, there is a fair chance that someone else will question it. (Indeed, in the recent Giano blocking, bishonen, I and others were in the room and able to question the block, and ultimately have it removed.) If these relatively open IRC channels become totally public, what will happen is that private channels will be used. Admins who are seen as 'hostile' to whatever group controls them will be excluded. There channels exist already. I have occasionally been in them. And the potential for abuse (or at least 'group think' developing) is FAR higher. I'd have to see them become the norm.
IRC can be abused, and disastrously. But I've more often seen it used in excellent ways. It can be used to bring together users who only only scream at one another on wiki. It can allow someone considering a course of action to get a sanity check, good advice, or a quick explanation. People are people; media are neutral. The wikipedia IRC channels have the excellence of being more discrete than the open wiki, but more representative than back channels. Let's not wreck that. I respect those who would like all interaction between wikipedian admins to be public, but sorry, it isn't going to happen. Opening the logs of the wikipedia IRC channels will have quite the opposite effect to the one you desire.--Docg 01:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
If you want privacy, use email — otherwise, you should expect minimal onwiki accountability. El_C 15:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Or instant messages, or have a private channel on IRC. As a wiki admin, I think I should have the right to view the logs of past IRC admin chat whenever I want to, just as I can view the records of ANI discussions here. Perhaps, seems this seem to be an issue that comes back often enough, we should have a separate discussion on it and a policy about it drafted? Shall we start at Wikipedia:IRC channels?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
You've missed the point of what I've said. Basically, if you proceed down this route, then I may, or may not, invite you to carry on this discussion in #Doc-cabal-wp, where I an my friends will be able to discuss blocking whoever we like, safe in the knowledge that only like-minded people will be there. But, personally, I think that's a much more dangerous route. --Docg 21:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
We may never be able to stop certain people being so childish, but it would at least stop the practice of certain admins using #wikipedia-en-admins as their own cabal playhouse; a place for their "friends" to coordinate actions against their "enemies". I have seen the log where Chairboy's block of Giano was organised, and the behaviour was simply vile - they decided to block him, and then tried to work out how they could nail it on him (I have the logs to prove it, and I'll be damned if I won't post it if I need to - this should not go overlooked because of bureaucracy). It was also striking how suddenly their tone changed to one of politeness and civility when Jimbo entered the channel and brought playtime to an end. Frankly, I think it's about time we dumped the pretension that what goes on in IRC is somehow seperate from that of the project; that conversation makes a damned good case, in my mind, why Chairboy at least, and quite possibly Betacommand, should be desysopped. Rebecca 21:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Your conclusion ill-fits the facts. I'm not disputing that Chairboy et all may have acted totally inappropriately (actually, I can't comment on that, as I missed that bit of the conversation). However, think what happened next. 1) Bishonen was in the channel and objected to what had happened. 2) I called jwales into the channel to get the situation resolved and the block lifter without a wheel-war. Had the admin's channel not existed, or been so public that people felt uncomfortable using it, the IRC conspiracy would almost certainly still have happened, the block would have occurred, but the conversation would not have been heard by independent persons and the block would not have been lifted. Even at its worst (and plenty good goes on in IRC) the admins channel is far better than the alternatives.--Docg
Perhaps so, but #wikipedia-en-admins is being used repeatedly by one clique in this dispute to further their disputes with the other; I saw the same again in action last night. This behaviour should not be tolerated at the best of times, and it should certainly not be tolerated in a major Wikipedia channel. It reflects badly on the project, and leads to good people having good reason to feel threatened in using a channel that is supposed to be for Danny and similar folk to contact other editors in the event of some kind of emergency issue. The fear that people might take bad behaviour underground is not an excuse for letting it go on in public. Rebecca 22:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
But your point is it isn't public enough....or is it that it is public and would be better underground...sorry you're loosing me. Personally, on IRC I see disagreements, discussions, debates and sometimes quite heated ones. I see no clique. But if you remove the broad IRC forum then you will get more cliques elsewhere. I'd hate that.--Docg 23:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
While I disagree with your assertion, Rebecca, I think this is a fine opportunity to help fix this problem. As I did not coordinate or conspire to block Giano, I would like to formally request that if you feel my actions were improper that you initiate an ArbCom case to that affect. That way, the complete logs could be provided to the ArbCom and the matter could be resolved. I have asked Geogre, Giano, and Bishonen to do this, but they have not for their own reasons. I respect the strength of your convictions, Rebecca, and ask you to step up to the plate so we can fix this. The community is being fractured by this and this drama weakens the goal of producing a world class encyclopedia. If a formal review by uninvolved people is required to resolve the situation, I gladly volunteer for the scrutiny with which it comes. - CHAIRBOY () 22:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
With this in mind, I will proceed to do so sometime in the next few days. (This may be after New Years, as I'll be pretty busy.) Rebecca 22:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. If I thought it would help, I would create the case myself, but I think that would look theatrical. If there is anything I can do to assist, please let me know. I know that I did not collude or conspire to block Giano and that my decision to block him was based completely upon his behavior when I asked him not to attack other users. If the ArbCom feels that I have acted maliciously or with disregard for the project, then I will take whatever lumps they proscribe. The integrity of the project is the most important and anything that distracts from the goal of writing an encyclopedia is a Bad Thing. Best regards, - CHAIRBOY () 22:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, this is being discussed argued about turned into a major dispute here as well. Can't this all be kept in one place? Is there enough of an agreement that something needs to be done to create a proposed policy page, and shunt all the discussion onto that page's discussion page? (I don't for a moment think the answer is 'yes', but I thought I at least ought to ask.) Does the nature of the dispute make that impossible? – Gurch 23:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am pleasently surprised to learn about Rebecca's position. Sometimes, it is good and humbling to be wrong. Keep up the good work! El_C 03:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Privacy[edit]

One minor point:

If you want privacy, use email [...] El_C 15:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Electronic mail, at least that that is transported via SMTP, is not necessarily private. Uncle G 05:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Though the IRC protocol is no more secure than SMTP, private channel or not – Gurch 13:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone curious, for just a small flavour of what I have been up against for the last few months I advise to get there fast [11] it won't be allowed to stay there long Giano 22:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano II blocked[edit]

Just for the record, as a follow-up to Giano's note above, he has been blocked by Centrx for three hours for spamming IRC logs. See here. Can't find this recorded anywhere else. Carcharoth 01:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations dealt with en masse (redux)[edit]

original thread → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive165#Copyright violations dealt with en masse

The user (User:Hoffa fett) was blocked indefinitely for perceived vandalism and I'm requesting that the block be lifted. I'm wondering if I should undelete the articles in question, blank 'em, and tag 'em with {{copyvio}} so that when (I'm assuming good faith) copyright permission is secured they can be re-instated appropriately. Would this seem a reasonable course of action ... assuming that there is agreement that the user should be unblocked, that is (the first step - a request on the blocking admin's talk page - is in place). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming there is no information to indicate that this statement is dishonest, I'd unblock. Blocks are not meant to be punishment... they are meant to protect the pedia. If the user understands what they did wrong and vows to not do it again, I see no issue with an unblock. ---J.S (T/C) 16:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I endorse unblock. Bucketsofg 17:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The user has been unblocked; I'll go about re-creating the articles in a bit. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Hoffa fett went right back to creating articles in violation of copyright not long after being unblocked. I've asked him to stop right away and indicated that I would block him myself if he did not cease. Maybe a bit too strong, but I don't like being played the sucker (easy though, ain't it). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Hondasaregood[edit]

User keeps removing a well sourced criticism section from the Honda S2000 article and is right on the edge of WP:3RR (or past it if you count his first removal). WP:AGF he thinks he's doing the right thing, removing bias and restoring WP:NPOV, but the section isn't overly POV and I'm not so sure someone with the username "Hondasaregood" is exactly a neutral party in regards to Honda articles. Regardless, if someone could have a word with him about removing WP:V and WP:RS information from article it would be appreciated because I'm hoping he will understand why he shouldn't be removing sourced information rather than just getting a block for doing so. Hopefully he/she will take it more seriously from an admin than just from me.--Isotope23 21:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User claims here that s/he is leaving Wikipedia, so I'm thinking a warning would be a bit of piling on. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Right you are.--Isotope23 00:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Block on 70.112.110.101[edit]

(moved from WT:RFA(?))

I have placed a one month block on 70.112.110.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and am asking for a review of it, as this is the third block in a row I have placed on this IP address. -- Donald Albury 00:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks okay to me (not admin). Yuser31415 01:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
If short blocks don't work longer one's are needed. Just be sure it effects anon's only. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

24.232.114.240[edit]

Request blocking of 24.232.114.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has been vandalism Hikari Hino and it talk page for same time now. Has been warned multiple times already. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 01:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you were looking for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism? Most vandalism reports / block requests go there. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

72.69.213.21[edit]

Unsure if this is in correct reporting article, if not i apologize.

User 72.69.213.21 has made changes to the Logan International Airport article without citation of sources. Time index is from 01:29, 30 December 2006 to 02:15, 30 December 2006 according to the page's history file. After my reverting, he first noted "don't revert my edits", and the second time he reposted he noted "(shut up, if you really want to edit, get an account jackass...)". Request warning of said individual, and possibly block for personal attack. Thanks for the help. Neo16287 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I gave the user a {{npa}} warning on the edit summary. Prodego talk 02:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Much obliged. Happy new year! Neo16287 02:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Hinduism small[edit]

Template:Hinduism small contains the image Image:Aum.svg. However, rather than appearing as Aum, it appears as something in perhaps Japanese. However, one clicks on the thumbnail, one gets Aum. I don't know if this is vandalism, and can't quite determine what is going on. --BostonMA talk 02:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks OK to me, BostonMA. Maybe you need to refresh your cache. (Shift+Reload). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. If you mean refresh my browser cache, I've done that. But if you aren't seeing it, it is probably not vandalism but a technical glitch. Thanks for taking a look. --BostonMA talk 02:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
HinduSwastika.svg
Is the template supposed to have this box? It does look strange. Mattisse 03:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It's one of the 2 symbols we use on the Religion page to symbolize Hinduism, so I'd assume its appropriate for inclusion there are as well. --tjstrf talk 03:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It just doesn't look right, but maybe I've just not noticed before. Thanks for answering. Mattisse 03:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot incorrectly undid an edit[edit]

Hello. I edited a spelling error in an article on Hemorrhoids. You can find the article at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemorrhoid.

In the section on Squatting, the word "casual" is misspelled, and should actually be "causal." The sentence should correctly read: "Hemorrhoids are very rare in nations where people squat to defecate [3], but this epidemiological argument doesn't necessarily prove a causal relationship." I made the change and marked this as a minor edit since this was simply the correction of a spelling error. A bot immediately changed the correction back to the original content. I'd like to have the bot's edit reversed, and the bot dismantled (okay, just kidding about the dismantling; the bot was just doing its job). Thanks.

By the way I wasn't sure where to report this issue.

"Qjules 04:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)"

You did the right thing coming here. I reverted the revert, put a note on your talk page explaining that your edit was fine (and formally welcomed you!), and notified the bot's owner as well. Thanks for your help! | Mr. Darcy talk 04:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Zeq disruption in violation of probation[edit]

User:Zeq is on probation with regards to the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article per:

Specifically, he is banned from contributing to the article, per Tony Sidaway's tag on that article's talk page, until March 5, 2007 (tag visible here Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid) also reproduced below:

  • {{User article ban|Zeq|March 5, 2007|[[User:Tony_Sidaway]]}}

Today, Zeq created Criticism_of_Israel, which is a copy/fork of Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The forked article should be speedied and likely will be without intervention, but does this action on the part of Zeq constitute a violation of his probation or is it skirting a violation because while he is being disruptive (creating unnecessary articles) and he is playing around with the contents of the article (copying it into the fork), he is not actually editing the original article proper (i.e. Allegations of Israeli apartheid.) --70.48.71.15 22:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Israel has been speedy deleted by User:Mel Etitis per [12]. --70.48.71.15 23:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Not that anybody necessarily cares what I think, but I don't believe that Zeq's creation of an article is a violation of his probation. In any event, I think a more interesting question is, who is User:70.48.71.15, really? I have just a bit of difficulty believing that this is some random anon that started editing today and just happens to know about article-probations that were enacted more than six months ago... especially in light of past sockpuppeting activities in and around the articles in question. 6SJ7 00:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm an editor in good standing just trying to avoid any retaliation/intimidation just for filing such a report. Also, you can read at the top of the talk page, Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid, that there is a ban in place and it ends and how long it is. I won't be responding to any more attempts to distract from this report by turning it on me -- the violation of probation concern is valid. --70.48.71.15 02:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back Homey !!! Long time no seen. In any case no probation violation occured (excpet yours since you are a banned editor) I have not touched the "allegations" article and used talk which I am allowed to do.
Now the real issue is again to ask:
      • we can not treat critcism of Israel diffrenet from critcism of Islam. Zeq 08:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't Destroy[edit]

Debate now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't Destroy--Docg 10:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't know what to say... Circeus 00:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Say thanks to the author? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The entire tone is dismissive of a number of admin actions (invoking WP:BITE seems especially unwarranted). While deletionism and inclusionism are opposite Wiki philosophy, wilfully characterizing either side as being ("knowingly" is implied) harmful to the encyclopedia is at best inappropriate. Besides, this should really be at meta.Circeus 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Now, would taking it to WP:AFD be WP:POINT, WP:BITE, or funny? (kidding, of course) Bucketsofg 01:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Taking it to WP:AFD, or, more specifically, WP:MFD, would be funny :D. However I do think we should discuss things with the user who created it first. Maybe userfying it into his userspace would be appropriate, because then it represents his opinion instead of everyone's? Yuser31415 01:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Funny, and helpful, polarizing doesn't help. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Neither funny nor helpful, and written by a user who has been forbidden to take part in policy discussions. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
He has not. The Arbcom may decide to place him on probation, which I already requested over his interventions at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization.Circeus 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: I have just nominated the page on WP:MFD. See its relevant subpage on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't Destroy. Cheers, Yuser31415 01:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to write an alternative essay, Wikipedia:Destroy (or Wikipedia:Destroy!), to sort of balance things out while (nicely) satirizing this one. I'm fine with deletion, but if folks would prefer to see such an essay, I'll try to bang one out quickly. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

(Humorously) Wouldn't that be a WP:POINT violation? ;) Yuser31415 02:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Not until there is a massive fit over at WP:DRV;). If you're willing to share, I'm always intrigued by good satire (I would mark it as humorous from the start, though).Circeus 02:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure it would be a rather small essay. "Delete everything that fails WP:NOT as a violation of policy!" Well, I've always liked good satire too ... so if Mr. Darcy is willing ... Face-smile.svg Yuser31415 02:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for mocking me everyone. I'd like to keep the essay up for more than a couple hours before its deleted, please. This would be to gain some non-administrators'-noticeboard comments, and edits. I'd like to note that Circeus hates me for some unknown reason, and has failed to respond to my question on his talk page as to how I offended him. I have absolutely no history with Circeus, and am surprised hes following my edits so closely. Fresheneesz 02:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody was mocking you. And no, the page will be deleted whenever appropriate, although I think it likely it will stay up for at least another couple of hours. Wikipedia will not host attack pages or pages that favor one group of editors. Also, where Circeus is concerned, please assume good faith. That is much appreciated. Thanks. Yuser31415 02:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Its difficult to assume good faith when the guy threatens me after my third comment on that page - trying to mediate between him and badlydrawnjeff.
But I really think its in poor judgement to censor my views before they are polished. As you know, many people take time and multiple edits to flesh out an idea - I'm one of those people. And I was hoping for help from the community to emebelish the page. Fresheneesz 02:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Your argument appears to allow the following example:
  • A vandal creates a page with "Jimbo sucks" as the content.
  • Someone marks the page for speedy deletion.
  • The vandal claims, "Please keep it for a couple of hours while I improve it. It takes out time to flesh out my idea."
So as you may see, the argument you propose is invalid. Yuser31415 03:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
We will probably at least wait to see MrDarcy's own production. He needs it for reference, after all.Circeus 03:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Um ... Fresheneesz has had issues with how he's addressed policy matters in the past. As indicated on the MfD page, while I think parts of his essay could be more tactfully worded, I think putting his thoughts in the form of a self-contained essay rather than using the tactics he's used in the past represents an improvement in user conduct that should be encouraged. I understand that there is strong opposition to the philosophy contained in the essay, which takes an extreme position on the continuum, but comparing the page to a scrawled "Jimbo sucks" is not going to elevant the tone of the discussion here or on the MfD. (Yes, I fully understand that Yuser31415 was pointing out a flaw in the form of the argument rather than making a direct comparison, but my point remains.) Newyorkbrad 03:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to let Yuser's comments slide, he's adament, but not bugging me enough to warrent an explosion : ) . However, creating a page called "jimbo sucks" is obvious slander... which is against policy somewhere. Since my essay is not based on slander - but on serious discussion of the way inclusionism and deletionism works - its not the same thing. I've fixed some of the wording, and I don't think its derisive any more. Fresheneesz 05:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you misenterpreted the MfD. I am nominating the page for deletion since it consists of an effort to belittle deletionists and praise inclusionists. With what intent you created the page for is largely unrelevant; instead it is the considerable bias toward inclusionists and your attempt to unify the views of the many thousands of Wikipedians that would disagree with you I dislike. And with all due respect, I would appreciate it if you and I could continue to let the MfD take its course naturally. Best wishes, Yuser31415 06:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anonymous User on Salvador Allende article and its talk page[edit]

An anon with various IP's User:88.110.220.22, User:88.110.239.95 has been seriously disrupting the article and its talk page by repeated reverts, direct personal attacks, formatting changes etc.. User refuses to discuss the validity of contributions, resorting instead to attacks on integrity of other editors and charges of a leftist/marxist cabal. --CSTAR 22:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked both IPs for lack of civility and constant edit-warring disruption for 24h. This is not to be seen as a punitive action nor an endorsement of any given version. I suggest some kind of dialogue is jump-started to discuss the arguments. As I suspect that both IPs belong to the same person, it would be advisable if an account is created for accountability reasons. Regards, Asteriontalk 00:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. SInce I have been trying recently to get some of the claims sorted out in that article, I wanted to avoid administrative actions myself.
Re This is not to be seen as a punitive action nor an endorsement of any given version. Obviously administrative actions do not imply any endorsement. However, disruption in talk pages (such as deletion or reformatting of talk pages) and personal attacks may require some kind of punitive action.--CSTAR 01:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
A note, I'm not sure blocks will have any effect in this case as said user changes IP daily, actually yesterday he seemed to be using two distinct IPs. Worse, only the first four digits of his IP are ever constant (88.109.xxx.xxx-88.111.xxx.xxx). I'm not sure what resources are available to moderators, but obviously blocking that entire range is out of the question. Since Asterion's temporary block the annon has been using the 88.110.52.179 IP. I believe his service provider must be Tiscali-UK which I assume is operating nationwide...--Caranorn 12:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The best thing might be to have the article semi-protected. It has been reported at WP:RFPP. Vints 13:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree. I will semi-protect the page and we will take it from there. Regards, Asteriontalk 13:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Nationalistic bot[edit]

User:Ganeshk has again unleashed his WikiProjectIndia template-adding bot. The bot is tagging hundreds of articles re Bollywood actors and actresses with the India template. Here's an example: [13]. The bot was stopped on November 6 and he restarted it on December 23 ([14]). This is just plain pointless! It fills up the top of the talk page with huge templates (you have to scroll and scroll to get past them into actual discussion) and it's unnecessary. What possible good does it serve, other than the egos of the Indian editors (we own XXX,XXX articles nyah nyah!). This sort of thing spreads. A Pakistani editor tried to claim Salwar kameez for Pakistan (even though the items of clothing in question are worn in many countries) and one editor insists that Dhoti belongs to India and Hinduism. This is bad enough when you have one editor adding project templates one at a time -- fending off an attack by a bot is hopeless. Can we please BAN template-adding bots? And revert the dang bot edits? If it isn't important enough for someone to spend the time to add it by hand, after discussion with the regular editors, then it isn't important to the project. Zora 00:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll second this. I'm fed up with this high-level project nonsense, where people in some special-interest clique make decisions and then enforce them on dozens of articles they've never worked on, regardless of the sentiment of those who are. A bot to do this? Terrible, terrible, terrible. This is how we loose good editors who just work away at one or two articles. Can we block the bot, and ban this type of nonsense? --Docg 00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:1.0/I depends on these templates. It helps editors identify at a glance which articles need more work on, and as a result, are not suitable for inclusion into any of the stable releases. Zora, if any editor is saying, "ooh, we have 100 articles, and you don't, nyah nyah", go have a chat with that editor. Doc, I haven't heard of one case of an editor leaving Wikipedia because a tag is added to a talk page. That neither one of you finds adding more organization to pages useful does not mean that others share your opinion. Titoxd(?!?) 01:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked the bot for now. I wouldn't be against rolling back the edits. Grandmasterka 01:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel the bot block is really unfair without a discussion here. The bot tagging helps out with WP:1 and also help identify articles that need improvement. There are about 250 projects participating in this. Ganeshbot works under automation project of the India project tagging India-related categories with India project banner. This discussion here is not about this particular bot, but about whether assessments are needed for Wikipedia. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I would be. Titoxd(?!?) 01:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, what exactly is the problem here? If it's just a concern about template bloat, it would be trivial to have the bots/people/whatever use the small-form templates, avoiding the whole "scrolling past the templates" issue. Is there some fundamental problem beyond that? What's wrong with letting interested WikiProjects enter relevant articles into their assessment process? Kirill Lokshin 01:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the "assessment process" is producing any results. We had a list of "to-do" items at WP:INCINE and the response (even from me, and I should be be more dedicated) has been tepid. WP:INCINE is the project devoted to Indian cinema ... if we can't get editors to work on actor/actress articles, then what good is an India template going to do?

If adding templates doesn't help produce better articles, then it's nothing but ethnic/religious/nationalist tagging of the sort that has mired thousands of articles. Are we adding US templates to all the US actor and actress articles? NO .... but I did find a great example of the idiocy of template-mania: have a look at Talk:George Clooney. He hasn't lived in Kentucky since 1982, but someone has claimed him for WikiProject Kentucky.

We let anyone start a project and plaster templates all over heck and gone and there's absolutely no discussion or approval required. This is something that can't be done with links? or even categories? No, we have to have a great big graphic that says "Kilroy wuz here". That's bad enough, but automating it? The last time Ganeshk turned his robot loose, it was tagging articles related to Iranian history with WP:IN templates and the Iranian editors were extremely upset. Please, let's turn off the bot until we can have some high-level decisions about projects. Zora 02:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, did you notice the part where I pointed out a way to make this a small, out-of-the-way graphic? If it's merely a layout issue, we have technical solutions for it. ;-)
As far as producing results: it's been my experience (with WP:MILHIST) that the process is very helpful in motivating and tracking improvement (if not, perhaps, in an entirely predictable way). Your experience may, of course, be different. I don't entirely disagree with you on the subject of projects not getting discussion or approval; but I think that going after one particular project (and WP:INDIA doesn't seem like a project whose existence would be controversial, in any case) is hardly the best way of approaching the issue. Kirill Lokshin 02:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to poke into other people's affairs,but Ganesk has been doing this for along time now.The last dispute ganshk had(along with an edit war) was with user:Szhaider when he put Indian tags on Pakistani history articles.Again i don't mean to come in uninvited or anything,but Ganshk why not inform other editors of what you're about to do before randomly tagging other countries history pages with indian tags?You seemed to have upset more than just Szhaider and I by continuing this random tagging.If more than just Szhaider and I are complaining about this to you,then shouldn't it mean something?Please think about it. Nadirali 02:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that the bot-tagging is (presumably) driven by categories, I'd guess that there's something funny about the category structue involved that's bringing in unrelated articles. Kirill Lokshin 02:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Kirill, The bot always runs on India-related categories. In Zora's case, it was Category:Indian actor stubs. Nadirali is pointing to Indus Valley Civilization that is part of Category:Indus Valley Civilization which is a sub-category of Category:History of India. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ownership" of Indus Valley Civilization is hotly contested subject. Claiming it for India without even considering that this claim might be controversial is thoughtless. It's also not at all clear to me that if someone is an "Indian actor", the Indian part of the concept takes precedence over the actor part. Why pick India, instead of cinema?

Real-life is not a UNIX file structure, with everything neatly hierarchically arranged. A particular article may be relevant to many categories or projects. Grabbing it for ONE project and ignoring any other areas of interest or relevance is provocative. That was exactly what was wrong with the Pakistani editor trying to claim salwar kameez. Since it's provocative, you don't do it by bot. If you want articles assessed, put up a SMALL assessment template, that doesn't claim the article for any one project. Zora 03:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about "ownership" or "claiming"? There's nothing unusual about having multiple projects add their tags to the same article (although you seem to be complaining about this as well?); and all the tags I've seen now say merely that the article is "within the scope" of a particular project, avoiding even the mildly controversial "part of" a project wording used in the past. That Ganeshk is only applying one project's tags is not intended as a slight to other projects; they're perfectly free to add their own tags (or even get a bot to help them do so). (While there have been some bots that have tagged articles with multiple projects' tags in a single run, this usually requires more coordination than it's worth, in my experience.) Kirill Lokshin 03:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Zora, Tagging does not mean "ownership" or "grabbing" or "claiming". It means taking responsibility to substantially improve the article to FA-standard. Indian actors are tagged with cinema=yes parameter so that they fall into the Cinema workgroup of the India project. If someone is a Indian actor, both Indian part and the actor part apply. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the indie bot tagging bollywood stuff. Indian cinema project is listed under the wp india. The actors are also indian. this is perfectly acceptable. As for indus valley civilization, it has the word indus in it. islam and the islamic state of pakistan didn't even exsist. indian women also wear salwar kameez. there's nothing wrong tagging it.--D-Boy 06:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the template should be made as small as it could be. If possible, it could have a show/hide option defaulting to hide, so that those not interested see the discussions straight away. I thought adding a project template does not imply ownership, and that articles can be tagged under several different projects. As far as the bot is concerned, since the project templates/assessment, etc. are relatively new things, we do have a big backlog of articles, and so a bot is handy. Of course, merely tagging doesn't achieve much, and it's true that many bot-tagged articles run at the risk of being forgotten again. deeptrivia (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"Ownership" of Indus Valley Civilization is hotly contested subject. Claiming it for India without even considering that this claim might be controversial is thoughtless.

You might want to look closely at User:Nadirali's contribs (which include claiming Panini for Pakistan]] & running an off-wiki meatpuppetry forum)... No one is claiming IVC FOR INDIA. We already have different project tags for pre-1947 India.

Seriously, i find Zora to be mildly Indophobic ( See [15]). She assumes bad-faith with virtually every Indian editor. She seems to be on one-man crusade to rid Wikipedia of what she considers to be assertive Indian nationalism. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 11:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ganesh's and Deepak's comments that template tagging does not mean ownership. The literal meaning would be "This article is associated with this WikiProject." The size ohwever, is a contentious issue. Since some articles will have many templates, a size reduction is inevitable and necessary. As others have mentioned, the bot is extremely efficient compared to humans and only a small proportion of the articles it tags would be considered controversial "taggings." At times you can't blame the bot. Take Dhoti as an example. Zora mentioned that Dhotis are worn by people outside of India but the all but one sentence in the entire article talks about Dhotis being worn outside of India and even that sentence is unsourced and randomly inserted. Someone should be bold and write firstly about Dhotis being worn in other parts of the world in Wiki-style. Personally if I read the article, I would have doubted that they are worn outside of India. Most importantly, more than one template can be added, therefore template tagging does not suggest ownership but rather association. GizzaChat © 13:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Zora is merely indophobic. She should stop seeing Hindu fascists/Indian imperialists/etc. around. She accused a very neutral Indian editor of acting like "a tank division heading from Islamabad. Just because documented India-bashers are upset is no reason to stop a bot which is organizing things to make the pedia better. Wikipedia shouldnt fall prey to fringe, politically charged, rants.Bakaman 17:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
A) Whether or not someone is an "indophobe" has no bearing as to whether they can edit or comment constructively (we all have our biases). B)Labelling someone an "Indophobe" is a great way to create "Indophobia".NinaEliza (talk contribs logs) 18:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Bots that are disputed can always be taken to the BAG or a b'crat for deactivation. As to Nina's comment, I would merely point out that, unfortunately, some users are simply disruptive, in such a large environment as the English Wikipedia, that is inevitable. While we respect everyone that contributes here, some simply aren't able to truly contribute because of their negative attitudes. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 18:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


Whats more, it irrates me when i'm accused of claiming my own cultural icons. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 22:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Feel free to have at James McCune Smith. NinaEliza (talk contribs logs) 22:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Ahem these are Indian actors being added with a WP India tag. Its logical. Editors that disagree either have not fully understood the rationale for tagging or have issues that need to be worked out. Judging by the consensus formed (in which only one editor thinks tagging Indian people with a WP India tag is offensive) I think Ganesh's bot should be reinstated with all priviledges, and Zora reprimanded for disruptive behavior and blatant racism.Bakaman 01:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I read what some of these editors have written about me.That forum is not "meatpuppet" or what ever you want to call it.Zora is not Indophobic.Other members on Pakhub have informed me that some of these facists are part of a Hindu fanatic site.And thanks alot Dabrood for vandalizing the article we wrote on Pakhub.Please read the warning I posted on your userpage.

"But Someone from Wikipedia, who I had an argument with, went on this forum and asked his Hindu freinds to spam this site "to hell"

Here is the screenshot: http://upload.pwnage.nu/files/upload2/pakhub-threat.JPG "

I don't mean to assume bad faith or be prejiduice against indian wikipedians in any way ,but it seems if they can't have their way around,they either start ganging up on other wikipedians and launch personal attacks or they call upon Indian administrators to help them in their battles.Look at the example below:

Yes bhai, I do remeber you. I am a brahmin myself and will get an Indian admin to indef ban this user.Bakaman 14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Before I continue,I confess I have lost my temper in the past,been incivil,reponded to personal attacks against my with personal attacks of my own and did carry out a few violations unintentionally or out of anger.

But ever since that,I have either tried to ignor these Indian nationalists and tried to reach out to make a truce with them as I did to Bakaman here

Before wikipedia turns into a nasty battle-ground and eventually gets disrupted,I propose one thing: Admnistrators should NOT be allowed to help resolve disputes IF it is related to their nationality or ethnicity in anyway,because it only causes them to take sides.Please consider it carefully

Merry Christmas and Happy new year to all. Nadirali 02:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Number one use diffs. Otherwise I'm going to assume all "quotes" you provide have been tampered with. I got a user indef blocked becasue their user name was "Brahmin-gaand-maaru" (meaning "Brahmin ass fucker"). Per WP:USERNAME its offensive. Obviously an Indian admin would also know what that means. Calling me a fascist (when I myself am democratic is a horrible personal attack). I feel no need to treat nadirali (talk · contribs) & company as contributors anymore merely as trollsespecially those that call me "fascist". The last user that did that got banned for one-year. There was no battle in the first place, and your prejudice for Indians is so obvious its like finding hay in a haystack. There are no truces on wikipedia, wiki is not a battleground in the first place. So other members on a meatpuppetry forum think I'm a member of Hinduunity? Great.Bakaman 03:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Whenever I disagree with Bakasuprman, he calls me anti-Hindu, Indophobic, racist, Muslim, etc. [16], [17], [18]. (That's just the last few days. I could get more if I went back further.) If I were a racist, I wouldn't have spent the last few years editing Indian cinema related articles, working on Indian clothing articles, Desi, Partition of India, etc. If he calls me anti-Hindu and racist, it's in the same partisan spirit that some rightwing US politicians and commentators call their political opponents anti-American and suggest that they're working for Al-Qaeda.

If I'm anti-anything, it's anti-nationalism. Of any kind. I've pulled back from the Iran-related articles because of lack of time and sheer weariness at being the constant object of attack, but when I worked on those, I was regularly accused of being anti-Persian, an Arab-lover or an Arab, etc. We have a problem on WP, in that cadres of patriotic editors (often of one political tendency) stake out their turf and fight off interlopers. It's hard for many US and UK editors to see this, because they may not be familiar with non-US or UK political struggles, and it is easy to believe people who claim to represent a whole ethnicity, nationality, or religion. If it were a US editor showing up and claiming to represent all Americans, he/she would be hooted off the stage with a shower of rotten tomatoes.

It's not just me objecting to the India bot. Others have complained. Ganesh says that he has the best intentions and I just don't understand but ... if various people, who otherwise have had no other association with me, complain about having a huge India template slapped on a talk page without so much as a by-your-leave, then he is doing something that upsets people, and he should reconsider what he's doing.

If articles are to be assessed, I suggest that a simple, tiny box on the article would produce more assessments. Many encyclopedia users don't know that the talk pages exist. Just put up a button that says "Has this article been helpful? Click to assess it." Or some such wording. This would pop up a questionnaire or a rating bar. Start with a few high-traffic pages and experiment with different versions of the questionnaire or bar, until we know what works. As for the templates: if they were one-inch square and stuck off on the right side of the monitor, and said only "Interested in working on other articles related to X? Click here" (click taking you to project page) that might work. Or better yet, just one button that says, "If you'd like to work on more articles like this, click here," and then a menu of related projects would pop up. All the same size. No competition to draw more editors with a bigger template.

There's a great book called The Inmates Are Running the Asylum, about computer interface design. It's tricky stuff, and programmers and systems engineers are notoriously bad at it. I suggest that a rethinking of our interface is in order. Zora 05:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, look at the pattern. first, we have paks complaining that the indie tag is imperialistic. Ganeshk goes out of his his way to make the thing as neutral as possible. At is still called hijacking history. NEWS TO EVERYONE! there's plenty of room for everyone's tag. pak call the tag offensive. well, you know what, I find the pak tag offensive. they would never change their tag and tag flag off it. seriously, let us be. we don't hurt anyone. India was the country where Gandhi was born. It's people are under attack from islamics, maoist, and some questionable missionaries. The president is muslim, the pm is sikh, and and italian women who never gave up here italian citizenship almost became pm. Also, india tag should be on bollywood articles, because for one thing, bollywood originated in INDIA! Indian actors are from india. it's not abouyt nationalism. it's commonsense. the bot tag helps out a lot and save manpower helping directed for other things.--D-Boy 06:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Bollywood actors are Indian actors. Putting templates on their talk pages does not imply any kind of ownership; but only categorisation of articles so that editors of a particular project may work on those articles. Terming the bot "nationlistic" does not seem very appropriate on your part. However, I would request Ganesh to stall bot operations before this issue is sorted out and discussed. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, not all Bollywood stars are Indian - there's Yana Gupta for instance, or if you want more notable examples, how about Manisha Koirala and of course, Helen Richardson. The trend of non-Indian Bollywood actors also seems to be increasing[19]. Bwithh 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I just spent a few minutes looking at WP actor/actress articles. None of the North American/English/European articles had any nationality tags (though I did find that Greer Garson, that quintessentially English actress (Mrs. Miniver), has been claimed by the state of Texas). I spot-checked a few other actor/actresses (Egyptian, Iranian, Japanese) and the only actor page with a nationality tag was Toshiro Mifune. I don't think that Ganeshk can claim that tagging actors/actresses by presumed nationality is standard procedure. It's not just "common sense." If we have Cinema of India tags, surely that's all that's necessary. (I'd be happy to see those hidden behind a button, BTW -- no special treatment.) Zora 10:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yana gupta may not be Indian but she makes her career INDIAN cinema. So do other actresses you mentioned. I'm sure ganeshk can program the bot to make the indian cinema tag appear if that's your main problem. You can even do it yourself by inputting the parameter.--D-Boy 11:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


There are a lot of hindu extremists on this board, and with them being members of forums like HinduUnity, you cant possibly call them Neutral in any way. I dont bash Indians here, however they have been on my back ever since I tried to correct the articles where they are blatantly stealing Pakistani history. Anyone willing to understand would understand my argument but people here refuse to read it, so go figure. You talk about Bollywood being Indian, because its located it India. Fair enough. I am sure the same applies for the Pakistani history. Unre4L 18:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we all are agents of Hindu Unity. I havent seen anyone "steal" Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan, Choudhury Rehmat Ali or etc for India. Therefore your charges of hijacking are baseless. I read your argument and found it impotent and unsourced to boot. Zora, merely joining with Pakistani users to attack Indian users and indian imperialist bots is not forming a consensus. I agree with dboy, that the Pakistani flag is offensive especially when claiming Hindu history for an entity not even conceived at those points in time. The only time a tag intersection should occur between Hindu and PAkistan is he article is on Rana Bhagwandas, Krishan Bheel, Ramesh Lal, etc. According to the group angry at a robot (already a weird source for anger) I am a "rightwing, Hindu Unity, Hindu extremist". Great descriptors.Bakaman 21:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

So how does a republic of India flag make it onto so called "ancient Indian" history articles. Your argument is ridiculous. Just because you havent stolen all of our history doesnt mean you havent stolen most of it. Pakistans flag is just as valid as having an ROI flag. Both countries were born in 1947. And India was never united prior to the British Invasion. Yet you still refer to Ancient India as if it has existed long enough to claim the history of the entire subcontinent. Unre4L 23:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Never united? Ahem Ashoka, Akbar, Rama. United before British invasion? Please explain how Chanakya and his Indian army beat back a Greek assault, how Aushada Pandit (a noted Buddhist scholar) and King Videh united 100 Kingdoms of India. Ancient Pakistan is cited on educational websites 55 times while Ancient India is cited 39300 times. Thats about 880 times to one that the truth is cited on educational websites.Bakaman 03:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I had thought about hiding Indian project tag when cinema parameter is set. But this does not work in cases where actors have turned into politicians (Talk:Rajesh Khanna). In these cases, both cinema and politics are set to yes. The India tag is on so that other sub-groups can be tagged to the article talk page. Too many checks make the template complicated and hard to maintain. If template size is an issue, there are ways to make it small. Ideas such as "link-only", "category-only" should be discussed at the Wikipedia-level and not be forced on one project (India in this case). Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Zora, you're completly missing the point. Wikiprojects don't take ownership or claim articles There is no reason an article cannot fall under the scope of Wikiproject India, Wikiproject Iran and Wikiproject Pakistan. The more projects involved in working on an article the better. It seems to me that you're the one imbuing nationalistic overtones into something that should be neutral. 75.105.178.150 16:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolution?[edit]

Wow, thats a long discussion! I think Zora's ire was meant to be vented towards my bot as that is the bot that has been doing most of the tagging of WP India articles. So I am sorry that I took so long to respond. I was off to a Xmas vacation. Hope you all had a great one too!

Now that the discussion has already gone on long enough, can we start moving towards the resolution? I am trying to put down the problems and their solutions point by point:

  1. Large templates eating up talk page space: We already have the small template solution for that.
  2. Irrelevant articles getting tagged: Both Ganesh and I exercise extreme caution while tagging articles. We pick them up from categories and leave out ambiguous cats. Errors are however bound to creep in and we can remove them in good faith.
  3. Nationalistic tagging: I told Zora before and I say it again. This is not the Indian government trying to own articles. Wikiprojects exist to give a structure to related articles and that is all that we hope to do apart from giving them more visibility. I am also one of the early members of Wikiproject Pakistan and planning to run my bot for Pakistan related articles as well.
  4. Assessments: There are quite a few people assessing articles even if not at the desired speed. We are trying to get more editors to do it.
  5. Blocking of the bot: I feel blocking of any good faith editor, even a bot, should not take place without discussion. Why block when you can discuss especially when the bot has been specifically approved for this purpose??

I hope we can get to an early closure of this. — Lost(talk) 08:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not tag Pakistani history articles with Indian templates.It has led to disputes and edit wars between us and the Indian editors.I don't see how you're helping the situation by continuing this random and unecessary tagging.
No one is stopping you from adding tags to your own history articles,but please refrain from tagging other countries articles with Indian tags as they serve no purpose other than creating more fights and arguements. Nadirali 08:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure which points of mine you are referring to. I wrote that I plan to tag Pakistani articles with the Wikiproject Pakistan template, not with India template. I also wrote that I do not tag ambiguous categories. The purpose has also been detailed above. What exactly is random and unnecessary? — Lost(talk) 08:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Pakistan didn't have a history until 1947...--D-Boy 11:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Technically, neither does India ;) 75.105.178.150 16:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Really, what did Ibn Battuta, Marco Polo, Zheng He visit? Ancient South Asia? The history of Akhand Bharat is India's history as the google search (see above section) shows that scholars use the truth 880 times to one. The majority of hits for "Ancient Pakistan" include blogs, geocities links, propaganda sites, and wiki mirrors.Bakaman 17:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman. That was a start. I clearly remember you saying that there was no such thing as Ancient Pakistan. At least we have made progress. Anyway. I am not talking about a few time empires. I am talking about united as a nation. Ancient Roman empire had the entire Europe united, does that mean they can claim the history of the whole of Europe. According to you, they can. Think about what you are saying. India was only united because of the Brits, and Pakistan didnt stay united with British India for too long. And I distinctly remember Pakistan being part of the Alexanders empire while the rest of India was not. That must clearly mean Greeks can claim the Pakistani history...right? Unre4L 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


India didnt exist prior to the 1800s. The whole region was SCATTERED with provinces, THERE WAS NO UNITY, so please for the love of god understand, that Ancient India is referring to the entire subcontinent, not a country. And the reason why Pakistani history is different from Indian is because the entire Subcontinents history should not be grouped together. Just like you dont group the entire of Europe's history together. And another reason why this shouldnt be done is because India is now a country, and confusion is created regarding which India ( out of the 10 or so you have in your dictionary) you are referring to. Unre4L 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

United as a nation, under Ashoka, Akbar, Videha, Rama, even (sigh!) Aurangzeb. Unless you are 3000 years old, you cannot "distinctly remember" Sikandar's invasions. There is no Pakistani ethnic group, the country is an artificial construct. The one thing that makes Pakistani people Pakistani did not come into being until the 7th century. Even then there are over 140 million Muslims in India, and over 150 million in Bangladesh. Do refer to 561k hits for "Ancient Indian" history compared to a paltry 160 for "Ancient Pakistani" history and refer to Matsya Purana, Ramayana, and Vishnu Purana.Bakaman 23:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Word.--D-Boy 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please dont throw random figures around in the air. Those numbers mean nothing to me, since people like you are in direct control of them. Empires have risen all over the region. And India wasnt necessarily the middle of them. Pakistan was a part of the Persian empire, but we dont claim to be a part of Iran. I will repeat what I have said at least 100 times before, and you fail to understand. You should know your history better. Its a fact that India did not exists as a country prior to British Raj. The greeks were never good at Geography. They preferred to name continents rather than countries as they didnt care about them. Greeks called Africa, Libya because it was the country they entered first when they went into Africa. India was the same concept to them, the entire region was grouped together. In your mind, the Sindhi's and the Baluchis are Indian? Well guess what, they have never been known as Indian except the British Raj. Yet their history is still classed as Ancient Indian. Great work.

And now I can expect you to not read my post and copy and paste the same reply above below this post. Why do I bother...? Unre4L 01:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi all, this discussion was not really meant to be about the history of Pakistan or India but about using bots to add project templates to talk pages. That is the reason I had started a new subsection. I request all to concentrate on the matter and bring it to closure — Lost(talk) 03:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Since there is no response, I have cross posted to WP1.0. I am looking forward to some sort of closure on this. Thanks — Lost(talk) 13:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Since unre4l cant bring a factual response to my google hits, notes on kings that ruled a united India, or references in historical scriptures, its safe to assume he's made up his mind about this. I find the Islamic Crescent amazingly offensive on a Hindu figure like Panini, and Hindu figures of ancient India. The Ashoka chakra is not even a Hindu figure and has a secular meaning nowadays as a symbol for peace. The only time the Pakistani flag and WP Hindu template should intersect is on figures like Krishan Bheel, Rana Bhagwandas, Deepak Perwani, and etc, Hindus living in the actual country of Pakistan.Bakaman 16:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I think a more neutral pic should be chosen on the wp pakistan tag. The indian tag was forced to have a neutral pic, why not the pak one?--D-Boy 01:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the article on Historiography and nationalism. The projection of nations back in time is now viewed with suspicion by a growing number of historians. Neither India nor Pakistan tags belong on ancient history articles. Nor, I think, do Iran tags belong on Achaemenid articles, etc. However, it is going to take time -- a lot of time -- to convince editors to stop distorting ancient history to fit it into nationalistic narratives, especially when many academic historians are still doing this. However, the bot campaign that sparked my complaint was not aimed at history articles, but actor/actress articles. I do not see why Indian actor/actresses should be annexed into the India-project empire. Actor/actresses from other countries aren't being tagged in this way. I don't think it makes any SENSE to divide up all of WP along nationalistic/ethnic/religious lines. Especially when actors and actresses travel widely and work on projects in various countries. This hasn't been the case with Indian actors/actresses, but it's starting to be. Aishwarya Rai, for one, is acting in non-Indian films.

I'm starting to see the project tags as spamming. What are they but invitations from one or more people who have declared a "project" to get others to join the project? Big splashy ads, that's what they are. Note that when I say this, I'm condemning myself too, since I started a WikiProject (WP:INCINE) and acquiesced when Ganeshk started putting up tags for it. I don't think the projects are a bad idea, if they give people working on similar articles (similar being loosely defined) a forum for discussion, but advertising for them is a blight on WP.

Instead of filling up talk pages with competing ads, how about my suggestion that we have just one button that says, "Click here if you'd like to work on other articles like this"? That would pop up a page of ads for projects. All the same size and format. Arranged alphabetically, so that there's no squabbling about getting top billing. Then another button for assessments. Don't link the assessments to projects -- that's giving projects, and the people behind the projects, "ownership" of the articles. All you need is another button that says, "Click here to assess the current state of this article." Two small buttons. Each an inch or so square. One on the right, one on the left. A big improvement on the Times Square billboards that greet editors now.

I'm going to start pushing for this in various fora. In the meantime, please keep national bots out of actor/actress articles. Zora 02:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been brought up before, but there is no technical way to accomplish this using a single template and have that template be manageable at all. First, every single project can make an assessment, both of quality and of priority. Those assessments do not have to match, as an article that covers a broad subject can be of great quality in one aspect, but deficient in another. Moreover, it is very, very common to have the importance/priority assessments be different. Then, different projects have different parameters and different methods to process articles. One single template cannot conceivably accomplish all the things the various WikiProject banners can do.
Perhaps, the best solution will come once Stable Versions are enabled, and metadata can be stored directly on the database. Until then, these can be considered "hacks" to accomplish some technical issues still left unaddressed by MediaWiki. Titoxd(?!?) 02:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's hard for me to believe that "it can't be done". How about this: we have a new tab on the bar on the top. Right now there's five. We can add a sixth, for templates. Call it "Relevant projects" or something like that. Again, all templates to be the same SMALL size and arranged alphabetically. That's a very top-level hack that shouldn't be too hard. I've noticed -- and imitated -- something similar to this, on user pages. When barnstars start taking up too much room, you put them on a separate page and add a link. Heck, add another tab, for "Assess article". Tabs instead of buttons. OK? Zora 03:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Such a change would probably be handled best as a separate metadata namespace, which would then be obsoleted quickly once Stable versions are [finally] enabled. Then, all of the metadata in pages (not just WikiProject banners, but things such as {{featured}}) would need to be moved to that namespace. Ideally, this should have a much more technical solution on the MediaWiki core level... it would be nice if getting a metadata field in the revision table were an idea that gathered enough stea