Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive108

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:69.122.155.216 2 User:Cardsplayer4life 3 Edit request for Jenin (and others) 4 Article tagging dispute 5 Wikipedia:List of public terminal or wireless access point IP addresses 6 My watchlist (Laleena) 7 New problems at Transnistria 8 :: Can't log in ... I know why, but cannot fix it ::: 9 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone Dismissed 10 Lewis 11 Problem with Administrator DragonflySixtyseven 12 Proposed 0RR on Northern Cyprus 13 Vandalism in Ezhava(protected) Article? 13.1 A sample 13.1.1 Ref 14 Format.bot 15 Delays in undeleting pages 16 Changes to WP:BAN 17 Removal of content from Wikimedia database 18 Use of license compatible with wikipedia ? 19 Qst (talk · contribs) 19.1 Input: Terms of unblocking (probation) 19.2 Unbanned 20 Removing backlinks to deleted articles 21 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot opened 22 User requests account deletion 23 User:Knoxskorner 24 WP:TURNIP 25 Beware the Vandalbot 26 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles Closed 27 Serious vandalism over Shane Ruttle Martinez 28 Merge consensus 29 Sri Lanka/LTTE resolution 29.1 Moving on 30 Template talk:UKFlags 31 More User:Grawp fun 32 User:Jimmy Wales 33 A moment of amusement 34 Block review 35 David J. Tholen 36 Vandalism to FA Halloween II 37 Revert war at Featured picture removal candidates 37.1 revert to the debate closure of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Wikipe-tan full length? 38 For your amusement 39 *Cough* 40 Menudo (band) and Menudo la banda 41 AWB request list needs processing 42 Green Kirby harassing Sukecchi 43 revert war on nazism page. 44 Christopher Martin-Jenkins 45 Appeals of Keep at WP:AFD 46 Dozens of bad-quality edits as a result of a coursework assignment 47 User:Kmweber 47.1 Response from Kurt 47.2 Topic ban 47.3 Can we be calm next time?

[edit] User:69.122.155.216

69.122.155.216 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) has shown time and time again that his/her only purpose here is to vandalise Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie, A Goofy Movie, as well as other related articles. He/she has been blocked twice now (once for 24 hours, once for a week), but has recently returned again, up to his/her old tricks here. JPG-GR 18:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Final warning has been given. He will be blocked if he persists. — Edokter • Talk • 19:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cardsplayer4life

Hello, I have been making some really positive edits, mainly dealing with tagging trivia sections and such. However, the said user has reverted all my hard work into finding some of these trivia/miscellaneous sections and keeps taking the tags off. I feel that these tags are valid, yet they keep getting removed because the section isn't explicitly titled trivia, although the sections I am tagging are long laundry lists full of unimportant facts/info. I have spent a lot of time reverting the tags back, so that other users will notice the sections and try to integrate/weed out the info and make better articles. I am a good editor, and I feel I am helping the site out a lot, I just wish I didn't have to keep reverting the tags back. I am doing nothing wrong, just trying to help the project. Thank you. 75.5.225.151 19:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see that he has removed a ton of the trivia tags you put, without any explanation on your talk page, which isn't right. He did give you a warning about the removal of text at The More You Know (which I actually agree with and have cut down a bit). I do wish you would have responded on his talk page first though, saying that you were removing trivia sections, instead of immediately coming here. I've notified him but I'm doubtful anything major will come out of it as this looks purely like a content dispute that doesn't require admin help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, at first I just thought it was like a lot of anonymous IPs and messing around with stuff (which I was trying to fix). I put a warning message on his talk page over the removal of content. I actually don't have as much of a problem with the tags (although some of them are really ridiculous, and are on lists that are very straightforward and not trivia at all) as much as I do with the removal of content that is taking place. If he wants to willy-nilly tag stuff as trivia whether it is or not, then I won't interfere any more with it, but if he continues to remove content, then I have a big problem with it. I won't continue to monitor him though, so he can do whatever he wants, but he is not "helping the site out a lot" (sic) with his actions. And, yes, Mr. Anonymous IP, please talk to me on my talk page (or on your talk page, either one), and I am sure we can come to some kind of understanding. The admins have more important things to do with their time than deal with this silliness. (Cardsplayer4life 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

Didn't we just go through something like this over popular culture section deletions? I don't think it's particularly helpful to mass-tag a bunch of popular culture sections as trivia, but the tag is harmless. It can be removed by anyone who disagrees, but it probably shouldn't be removed if there's a valid concern of unsourced trivia. In that regard, I think you (Cards4life) went a little too far by reverting them all and then the anonymous editor went too far again by reverting. We shouldn't have a revert war over maintenance tags. I spot checked and about half or a little more of the applications were good; the others were simply not trivia. Popular culture is not the same thing as trivia, and when an article is about a popular culture subject, then its effect on popular culture is utterly relevant - though not all of the facts are always worth mentioning. Deleting popular culture material simply because it's popular culture is misguided. I would only delete things that clearly don't add to the understanding of the subject. If something is unsourced but clearly verifiable, then source it. Likewise, if it's in the wrong section or article, move it. Simple, really. Wikidemo 00:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I agree. Like I said, I think this whole thing is silly and I am on to more fruitful edits that actually improve the place. If you guys want to go on with this silly back and forth, go ahead. Just keep the mass removal of content down is all I ask. Cardsplayer4life 01:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request for Jenin (and others)

Hi, I'm wondering if an uninvolved admin would be willing to implement the small editing agreement at Talk:Battle of Jenin as listed among the protected edit requests. Incidentally, the backlog includes another dozen requested edits, though I can only vouch for the acceptability of the Jenin request. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 05:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article tagging dispute

This is probably a content dispute, but there are intimations of requests for admin action being made, and I'm going to be away for the next few days, so I thought I'd drop a note off here in the hope that some fresh pairs of eyes and inputs can help de-escalate things if needed. I'm going to state how I see things, and hopefully others will add their side of things if needed. Forgive me if I get anything wrong in what follows. User:BrownHairedGirl recently came across some articles about locations in Middle-earth, and tagged them for notability and some other problems. After the tags were removed she nominated the articles for AfD (I think that discussing with the editor in question would have been more productive). Most of the discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gondor, though some took place at the other AfD debates and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth. Some of the discussions were productive and useful, and it was made clear that work was being done (albeit slowly) on these and related articles. What I didn't expect was what happened next, which was a mass tagging of around 150 articles. Some relevant links are User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Mass_tagging and User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#A_start, as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Update. A similar case of mass tagging was discussed back in August, see here. Obviously WikiProject Middle-earth needs to work harder on these articles (establishing notability, merging, and referencing to reliable sources), but I'd like to ask again - what is acceptable tagging behaviour? Is it acceptable to tag dozens of articles (around 150) in one go? How slowly and how fast is it expected that work will be done? Another question I have is whether it is acceptable to say that an article will be nominated for deletion if a tag is removed? There must be better, less confrontational ways to get people to take notice of tags placed on articles, like discussing on a talk page, for example. What followed was a mass reversal of the tagging, with a mass reversal of the reversals. I added some sources to some of the articles and removed the tags, thinking I'd satisfied the request, but slightly different tags were re-added, which was fair enough, but still a bit disappointing. I intend to add more sources, and have been trying to discuss the whole issue with BrownHairedGirl. We are (I think) making progress, but it has been frustrating at times (for both of us, I think). I think my concerns can be summed up as how to get the balance right between pushing people to improve articles, while not pressuring them with implicit threats of deletion debates and dozens of tags. Carcharoth 02:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As per my comments on BHG's talk page, I think the appropriate forum for this conversation is Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), as that's where the people best qualified to comment will be. Having the conversation here runs the risk of reinforcing the "Admins are a decision-making elite" myth/attitude. — iridescent 02:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth is right that it has been frustrating! There have been several difficulties in all this, including what appears to be a widespread lack of awareness amongst participants in WikiProject Middle-earth of the notability guidelines. This has unfortunately included several instances of misleading guidance being given to project members, such as claiming that references to the work of Tolkien's son Christopher are sufficient, when as his father's literary executor, posthumous editor and finisher-of-uncompleted works, he is clearly not independent of the subject as required by WP:NOTE and WP:FICTION. However, after further discussion on my talk page, it became clear that Carcharoth had simply misunderstood the guidelines. That happens sometimes — we all learn as we go — and I think that having cleared up that misunderstanding we should be much closer to finding a way forward.

However, I am disappointed that Carcharoth's statement here omitted to mention that immediately after my initial tagging of a dozen or so articles (and before any AfD nominations), I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Notability_of_articles (I posted there rather than to the articles' talkpages, because it is better to centralise discussion). I should also point out that the editor IronGargoyle used admin tools to simply mass-revert the addition of the tags (see User talk:IronGargoyle#Re:_Tags_you_removed), and declined an invitation by Carcharoth to discuss the issue, preferring to assume bad faith and dismiss the tagging as "disruptive retaliatory mass-tagging" ... and that it was IronGargoyle who removed the tags from these articles back in August, the subject of Carcharoth's above-referenced ANI complaint. Ten weeks after those tags were removed, the vast majority of the articles concerned remained wholly unreferenced, which rather highlights why the tags had been applied in the first place.

As to whether deletion is an appropriate option, it might be helpful to point out that every time an editor starts a new article, it says in bold text on the edit screen Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted. If editors reject the tagging of articles to highlight the lack of adequate references, it seems perverse for them to complain if deletion is contemplated instead.

However, Iridescent is right: this would be better discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction). If the members of WikiProject Middle-earth want Tolkien's work to be treated as an exception to wikipedia' policies and guidelines, let's discuss removing those guidelines or amending to make middle earth an exception. I think that the progress made last night probably makes such a discussion redundant, but if other editors feel that it's worth having, then Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) is indeed the place for it.

Just one thing, though: if an IronGargoyle again uses admin tools to mass revert the addition of {{unreferenced}} or similar tags to unreferenced or under-referenced articles, I will raise the matter again here. Admin tools should not be used to disrupt efforts to improve the quality of articles by inviting editors to ensure that they meet wikipedia's core content policies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Just before we continue this discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), I wanted to add that the concern that Carcharoth is raising is not so much of what issues you had over notability - because we do see that there is a need in Tolkien-related articles for a balance between primary sources and reliable sources independent of them in order to establish "independent notability." In fact, we are currently discussing on what system to set up for notability and references in the WikiProject. What he was questioning was the mass tagging and the AfD nominations that quickly followed. It was good that you had stepped up and raised ths issue onto the WikiProject talkpage, but there was so little time given between the the time you brought the issue on the talkpage and nominating some of the articles for AfD. It seemed to the members of the WikiProject as if we were being forced to fix dozens and dozens of tagged articles within a span of one day! While I do think Irongargoyle should have followed Uthanc's advice - it was Uthanc, not Carcharoth (so you do have one more member of the WikiProject who agrees that a discussion should've followed) - to discuss it with you in regards to mass tagging, I'm not sure if following Irongargoyle's mass removal with quickly putting those articles for AfD while we were having a discussion over at the WikiProject about the very same topic of notability with so little time given to the members for improvement was the right course of action. Your justification for putting those articles up for AfD was that "if the tags are removed, then I have to conclude that editors find the article satisfactory as they are, in which case the AfD process is needed." With all due respect, I am puzzled over how you reached the conclusion that the mass removal of tags by ONE member of a WikiProject constitutes for the opinion of all members of the WikiProject - especially since Carcharoth, CBD, Uthanc, and I have all acknowledged that we needed work in referencing and merging article before those tags were removed, to which you have followed it up with, "Good to know that a cleanup is underway." I thought we were having a productive discussion that cleared things up, but I admit I am a little disappointed in the light of what has followed afterwards. :-(

My question is - to echo Carcharoth's, how much time are we given in order to reference and merge OVER 150 tagged articles? It is no easy feat to work on and polish one article, let alone 150-193 articles! While BrownHairedGirl brings up good points about the need for more independent sources, I feel that more time should be given to the WikiProject and more productive discussions between editors should take place and be allowed to finish before any sort of tagging war between two editors or AfD nominations begin.

NOTE: If I sound hostile, BrownHairedGirl, forgive me - for it was not my intention to act so. I do respect the points you bring up, I would just like for several things to be cleared up in the face on confusion and miscommunication. While I do not believe that you tagged those articles in bad faith, I believe there could've been a better way that would've been less confrontational and more communicative to deal with this issue. —Mirlen 15:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Mirlen: I don't agree with everything you said, but they didn't feel at all hostile. I am surprised, though, that you wish I had been more communicative; AFAICS, I have responded to everything, and initiated the discussion at the wikiproject (where it would have been ice to have more input from project members). OTOH, IronGargoyle, who zapped all the tags, has chosen not to engage in the discussions, which is a pity.

I take your point about the tagging appearing confrontational, and I know that you are not the only member of the project to feel that … but I hope you'll forgive me for suggesting that there may be a little bit of WP:OWNership here. The objections raised to tagging included claims that the tags are intrusive (true, they are supposed to be!), that independent refs aren't needed, and that a few voices arguing that Tolkien is so important that nothing about anything Tolkien should ever be questioned (for clarity I'm definitely not including you or Carcharoth in that last category). I hope you'll understand that I don't intend to be conflictual when I say that WPME seemed to be paying v little attention to notability, and that was perhaps why the tagging came as a shock. In other areas of wikipedia, such tagging is routine, and is regarded as a helpful reminder of an oversight, rather than as an attack; I think that the aversion to it here may be an indication that WPME needed a bit of a wakeup call, having responded to the tagging in August with mass removal, an ANI complaint, and (so far as I can see) little change of emphasis or attempt to address why those tags could be added to so many articles (the solution doesn't just lie in the ongoing merge process, since many of the merge targets failed WP:NOTE).

As to who supported the removal of tags, I saw no objection to IronGargoyle's mass removal of them in August, nor to his/her removal of them this time. Maybe "support" is too strong a word, and acquiescence would have been better, but as you'll see at project talk, there was considerable objection to the existence of any such tags (and no objection at all to IronGargoyle's removal on friday morning of of some of the first batch I had added).

I too was disappointed about the way the situation developed, but it seems to me that things are now going rather well. I don't watchlist all the articles I tagged, but I still saw more than five which had been well-referenced today alone, at least two of which I was pleased to remove the tags from. It seems to me that's exactly how these tags should work: identify a problem, and remove the label when it's fixed.

As to timelines, my understanding is that there is no formal limit to how long articles can remain tagged that way, and today I encountered several (in a difft field) tagged for attention for over a year. However, I think that as time goes by, the likelihood of an unreferenced article being PRODed or AFDed increases. I think that an AfD debate would probably look askance at a nomination if the tags had only been there a few weeks, unless the article was clearly trivial; after 6 months, I imagine there might be a greater inclination to raise the threshold for inclusion.

I certainly wouldn't expect his to be sorted out overnight, or even within weeks. The ME WikiProject has inherited a huge collection of stub articles on trivia, and sorting them all out is no small job ... and I for one would be a strong advocate of more time being given if there are AfD noms for something which arguably might be notable if the project really is trying to tackle the notability problem by independent referencing rather than by assertion (and I really do now think some members of the wikiproject are serious about that). To my mind, it's all a matter of good faith; if the project encourages the tagging of unref and nn articles, and does try to establish notability as it progresses through articles, then it would seem to me to be perverse to set arbitrary deadlines.

I'm particularly encouraged to see the thread you linked to at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards#References, which followed rapidly after the AfD nominations. I guess that you and few others might say that would have happened anyway, but I have my doubts (there was a rather lukewarm response when I raised the issue 36 hours previously). That seems to me to be crucial development, and I wish you all luck in pursuing it. While we might differ on who we got here, can we perhaps all agree that it's good news all round have reached a point where the problems appear to be en route to being resolved to the satisfaction everyone? (except, sadly, one or two few stray voices who appear to reject even WP:V). Please keep up the good work you have started :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been quite busy in real life and haven't had the chance to reply to the teapot-tempest that seems to have resulted from the tagging, untagging, different-tagging, and different-untagging. I would like to reply to a few key points that seem to be framed as an indictment of my behavior:

Firstly, I discussed the initial untagging in the edit summary. I see your points about Christopher Tolkien, but I don't agree with them. Christopher Tolkien's work can serve as a secondary source and I never accused this misunderstanding of yours to be in bad faith (even when you have somewhat belligerently maintained your view against consensus).

Perhaps my use of the word "retaliatory mass-tagging" on my talk page was a bit harsh, and for that I apologize. You must admit, however, that going through and tagging every instance of an entire category without regard for the quality of the articles within that category looks a mite suspicious, particularly given the sequence of events. Other editors (Guest9999) did this several months ago, and I feel as though the general consensus of the resulting discussion did not suggest anything improper about my removal of the tags (nor was Guest999's behavior in tagging wholly condemned either). I maintain that mass-tagging should be avoiding whenever possible. It is not good editing practice. I felt (at the time) that it was being done to make a point, both yesterday and several months ago. You frequently cite WP:FICTION in this dispute, but you ignore the fact that sub-articles are a legitimate aspect of this guideline. I don't oppose the merger of stub-length articles that are unlikely to be expanded further, but when you nominate for deletion the targets of such mergers I am baffled.

For all your purported moral superiority about communicating more than someone who has clearly not been editing much recently (me), you failed to even notify me of the mass AfD nomination that apparently was triggered by my civil, explained and justified removal of a few notability tags. I would like to add that there is a significant amount of AfD precedent for these articles being notable.

I have not misused administrative tools in this dispute. Any editor may revert changes, and many non-administrative editing tools include a rollback function. I would like to add that I have, throughout this process maintained my 1RR principles (threatening to nominate any further untagged articles for deletion certainly violates the spirit of 1RR if not the letter).

I would like to say that I am particularly disturbed by your legalistic attitude and behavior, particularly the re-tagging in response to Carcharoth's improvement of a number of articles.

I don't really have any desire to revert or discuss this further. It seems as though the issue has been satisfactorily resolved for now, and I'm far too busy in real life to get into policy discussions. I may go through and add references when I get the chance however. I just felt like I needed to defend myself against the allegations and insinuations that have been leveled against me. Best regards, IronGargoyle 23:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A few quick points:

• the question is not simply whether CT is a secondary source, which he may be in some case, but whether he is an "independent source", which (as I explained above) seems like a very strange claim.
• your suggestion that I tagged articles "without regard to quality" is an unfounded and uncivil personal attack, and I hope that you will withdraw it. I examined every article carefully before tagging, and did not tag all of them; the reason that so many were tagged is simply because very few of the hundreds of articles in those categories were properly referenced (I think that on that run I found 5 which were properly refed, and about 150 which weren't). The speed with which you untagged them, apparently by using links in the change logs to revert the changes, makes it highly unlikely that you could have done any similar assessment.
• You may well be baffled by my nomination of the merged articles, but if so that can only be because you didn't read either my comment on the project page or at AfD: the merged articles had not established notability per guidelines.
• It's up to you if don't want to discuss this further. But if you don't want to participate in discussions, kindly refrain from using your admin tools to mass-delete selectively-applied tags on on articles with outstanding deficiencies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... A personal attack? Uncivil? I was focusing on the quality of the edits not the quality of the contributor. I suggest that you re-read our policy on what a personal attack is, and particularly the section about making unfounded accusations of personal attacks... IronGargoyle 16:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)I think this thread is nearly resolved now (and it turns out no admin action was needed, so apologies for bringing it up here - once it is archived I will try and remember to add links from Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth). Just a few stray points to respond to on editing behaviour: I did say "Forgive me if I get anything wrong in what follows", and I apologise for failing to mention that BHG initiated a discussion on the WikiProject talk page. The guideline misunderstanding that BHG talks about was me adding a single source, and her pointing out that multiple sources are required. That was more a misunderstanding of the tag than the guidelines - one of the disadvantages of leaving tags, as opposed to discussing with active editors or editors who might respond to tags, is that you can't be sure that the editors are going to follow every link and carefully read every guideline - you can't even be sure what quality of editor you will attract with the tag - which reinforces my opinion that discussing article problems with editors is always preferable - attract attention with tags, sure, but once discussion has started, don't legalistically step through a series of tags as the article slowly improves, or disrupt ongoing work by starting AfDs or engaging in mass tagging in a series of closely-related articles. Tagging is only helpful up to a certain point - after that it becomes unhelpful and should be replaced by discussion and a tag saying see the talk page for the discussion. But this is getting into personal philosophy now. As Mirlen pointed out, it is the behaviour that most concerned me, particularly the attitude of (paraphrasing) "if you remove the tags I'll nominate the articles at AfD" attitude. Given that BHG has now said (direct quote) "I think that an AfD debate would probably look askance at a nomination if the tags had only been there a few weeks, unless the article was clearly trivial; after 6 months, I imagine there might be a greater inclination to raise the threshold for inclusion.", I can only assume that you thought Gondor was a trivial subtopic, or that the AfDs and subsequent mass tagging (previously limited to four articles) was trying to gain attention or make some sort of point. BHG did get attention, and as a result more work is being done and will be done, but the WikiProject talk page discussion alone could have achieved that.

The issue of communication has also been raised, and it is not so much lack of communication from BHG (who as she says has responded to all the discussions), but more a feeling that BHG hasn't understood parts of what we have been saying (or not accepting it until we produce the goods - which works up to a certain point), see the comments from CBD on her talk page. That leads to an overall feeling of frustration, and just makes things that little bit more difficult and stressful. When I engage in such discussions, I try to bring some references to the table and help out - I find it helps the discussions go a lot more smoothly. IronGargoyle also makes some good points, and I agree with them. To end on a positive note, I'll quote BHG's conclusion, which I agree with: "can we perhaps all agree that it's good news all round have reached a point where the problems appear to be en route to being resolved to the satisfaction everyone?".

I apologise again for bringing this here - it was clearly the wrong venue. Hopefully we can end the thread, or continue somewhere else. Carcharoth 07:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I too am glad we have got there. But there are two point that I will reiterate:

• tagging an unreferenced article with start-unreferenced-end

</body></html> is both a warning to readers that an article which does not meet wikipedia's one of most fundamental criteria (WP:V), and an invitation to improve that improve that article. The removal of those tags from a wholly unreferenced could be considered vandalism, and is at best an attempt to undermine the improvement of such articles. If that happens, I still think that it entirely legitimate to ask the community to decide whether the article should stay. If IronGargoyle, or any other editor, objects in future to the tagging of unreferenced articles as {{unreferenced}}, then I regard it as being appropriate for them to discuss why they believe that it is satisfactory for the articles to remain unreferenced, and not to make hostile allegations of disruptiveness when the problems are identified.

• AS I explained at the time at project talk, the reason I nominated Gondor and 3 other articles was simply that as merge targets, they were clearly being treated by the project's editors as notable articles, but did not demonstrate notability 'and the tags to request request that they do were promptly deleted (an action which has not been rejected by any of the project members). I think that's the issue for the future: this sort of situation arises only when a wikiproject has not been paying sufficient attention to notability, and perceives the querying of the notability of articles as a hostile or confrontational act rather that as an invitation to improve. The project's ability to avoid this situation in future depends on how effectively it engages with the notability issue, and whether it can continue its welcome progress away from regarding notability and referencing as hostile impositions. As I have suggested before, I hope that we will get to a point where there is no scope for outsiders to mass-tag unreferenced middle-earth articles, because such tags are routinely applied by the project itself pending the improvement and/or merger of the articles, and reinstated by project members if deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think this might be what lies at the heart of the dispute. I don't claim to speak for others, but I know that I approach all articles with a degree of scepticism, regardless of whether they have a tag or not. When judging an article and its citations, I look for key things that suggest how notable the topic is, how reliable the sources are, and how consistent and comprehensive the verification is, and so on. In some ways, I subconsciously presume the readers think this way ("let the reader beware" or some such thing). In some sense, tags should be on all Wikipedia articles until there are clear reasons to remove them. But then, as you read more and more articles, you find that many, if not most, articles lack such tags, but (and this is a key point), the articles are still slowly improving over time. Tagging doesn't seem to noticeably impact this. The "edit this page" tab is, in my opinion, a better and more efficient way to suggest to people that they might be able to improve the article. Or to put it another way, from what I've seen, articles develop and improve quite nicely without any need for tagging (or only some minor tagging).

  It is possible this may be a bias to do with the articles I read and the editors I work with - possibly articles in other areas and editors in other areas find that tagging helps improve articles quicker than would normally be the case. The processes by which an article starts and develops can also be very different, and (surprising though it may be) this may also affect how efficient tagging is at achieving the desired improvement of the article. To point out just a few: you can have incremental improvements by passing editors (the default option for most articles), dedicated improvements by an expert editor (the ideal situation), systematic improvements by groups of collaborating editors (possibly as part of a WikiProject), and so on.

  In this case (the Tolkien articles), as CBD has pointed out elsewhere, the articles are mostly very old (created by an initial phase of article creation by early editors - some of whom are still around). Part of what the WikiProject has been doing is trying to bring more order to this group of articles, and rather than establish notability for 100 separate articles, merging followed by establishing notability for the merge destination (once merging has been completed), seems more efficient. In other words, the merging is not saying "the merge destination is notable", but more "let's tidy this up and when we've done that stage, let's step back and see where we've got to".

  Ultimately, I think the articles will end up with the same references and establishment of notability that they would have done before BrownHairedGirl brought up these issues. It just might happen slightly faster and with more urgency. Whether that added pressure means we (Wikipedia) will end up with better articles than if the same process had taken place without those pressures, is debatable. Carcharoth 00:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:List of public terminal or wireless access point IP addresses

Just letting you know about the above page. It's not redundant to a category as it can help with Wikipedia:Abuse reports as well, and is a useful guide for any admin.

Feel free to leave feedback on the talk page: I'd appreciate that. --Solumeiras ^talk 17:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My watchlist (Laleena)

I have been getting titles on my my watchlist that I know for a fact I did not put there, such as HAGGER????????????????????, which I did not know of before this. Could someone please help? I am frightened that someone might be doing this to me, though I do a lot of vandal patrol. Thanks for the good work, Laleena 18:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A vandal was moving pages around. When you have a page on your watchlist that get moved elsewhere, the moved names start showing up there. It has nothing to do with an attack on you personally. —David Eppstein 18:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New problems at Transnistria

User:ClockworkOrange made huge POV edit to the article and refuses to discuss them first at the talk. Since he's essencially a one-purpose account (his contribs) certain suspicions arise. Could this be checked and dealt with? Alæxis_¿question? 20:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  :: Can't log in ... I know why, but cannot fix it :::

This is KoshVorlon (a check of the IP address will confirm this, as I have used only two IP's to log in!). I am unable to log in because I have called a script (common.js) from monobook.js. Apparently, the coding doesn't work well with the other working scripts in my monobook directory. Can I have an admin delete the importScript('xxx:Common.js') line out of my monobook.js. Thansk ! (BTW - if this is the wrong place - please let me know as I'll check this section and will move it to the correct department upon request! ) 66.151.41.1 22:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC) The un-logged in KoshVorlon We are all Kosh

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone Dismissed

The above named Arbitration case was dismissed due to the inactivity of one of the participants.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 22:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis

Please review Lewis's block. All his contributions on June were to his talk page and perfectly acceptable in my opinion, and there was no reason for him to be blocked in the first place, and no reason why he should be still blocked. A.Z. 02:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Loomis51's block log shows that he was blocked for disruptive editing, and that block was moved to indefinite due to his expressed desire to continue being disruptive. He apologized and was given a 2nd change under specific terms. He used his time while unblocked to stalk and harass another user, and his indefinite block was restored for his failure to follow the terms of the unblock. Seems cut and dry to me. His talk page was even protected due to continued soapboxing. He is welcome to contact the blocking admin by e-mail, e-mail the list, or contact the arbcom if he wants an appeal. What I don't understand why this user couldn't do these steps on their own. What is your interest in this case? Have you been in contact with the user and you know that they desire to be unblocked?-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I like Lewis and I like fairness, and those are my interests. I don't think he was stalking nor harassing anyone. Yes, I don't really get why he continued posting on Clio's talk page, but it wasn't harassment. A.Z. 02:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

He has been editing disruptively at least as recently as September 21: [1].  --Lambiam 23:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Even as recently as October 28: [2]  --Lambiam 01:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, those are the other banned Ref Desk troll, Light current. But we shouldn't forget Lewis' self-identified, abusive, namecalling sock, Serinmort (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, yes. I am quite puzzled by the fact that our friend A.Z. does not consider Lewis' posting on Clio's talk page harassment, but then, sound judgement does not seem to be his forte. Now he has been indef-blocked himself.  --Lambiam 11:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Administrator DragonflySixtyseven

I've recently been contributing to a Wikipedia article on the British astronomer Herbert Dingle, and I've put a lot of effort into adhering strictly to the Wikipedia policies and principles for editing potentially controversial articles. This is especially important for this article, because a number of "physics cranks" (in the words of Jimbo Wales) have devoted themselves to filling that article with unverifiable "original research" and "novel narratives", basically trying to portray Dingle as the noble but persecuted victim of the evil world-wide conspiracy of Einstein-worshiping scientists to foist the obvious nonsense of relativity theory down the throats of decent people. In this context, the only reasonable way forward is to adhere very closely to Wikipedia policies, and insist that the article contain only verifiable material from reputable sources.

As anyone who has ever dealt with physics cranks knows, there is no point in trying to argue what is "true" with them. Wiki policies recognize the futility of this, and they were designed to provide a practical means of preventing dedicated physics cranks from overwhelming Wikipedia. For the most part they work fairly well. I can cite many articles (such as the one on Le Sage's Theory of Gravity) that have been turned from crackpot nonsense into very decent articles, due to the hard work and patience of people who are genuinely interested in producing good science articles in accord with Wikipedia policies.

However, I recently logged on to find the following message from administrator Dragonflysixtyseven:

You will no doubt notice that (just like Swanzsteve) you are blocked for a day. This is because edit wars are annoying. I have moved your draft version of the article to User:Denveron/Herbert Dingle (draft). Once your blocks have expired, you and Swanzsteve will STILL not be allowed to edit the article, until such time as you have reached an agreement by arguing on your use talk pages. Keep the drama out of the article. If either of you tries to edit the article without having the other's agreement, I'll block you both. Got it?

It's my belief that the above message (and the blocking action) of this administrator was both unjustified and unreasonable. The cited cause of the action was "because edit wars are annoying". This is simply a generic statement, not a justification for why anyone in particular should be blocked. No Wikipedia rules were violated. For example, there was no 3rr violation. Furthermore, every one of my edits on the article in question has been accompanied with careful Discussion, and has been justified by Wikipedia policies.

It is true that a number of edits and counter-edits have taken place, but this is unavoidable when dealing with physics cranks who are determined to insert their crackpot POV into Wikipedia articles. Surely the rules of Wikipedia editing have been developed for a reason, and the ability to revert edits has been provided for a reason. These are capabilities that were designed to be used. As long as all the rules and policies are followed, I think it's unwarranted to block editors. And it's especially counter-productive to block editors who have consistently shown that they are adhering to Wikipedia policies and are striving to produce a good article in accord with those policies. Also, to tell someone that he will be blocked until he has reached agreed with a hard-core physics crackpot is simply insane. If crackpots could be reasoned with, they wouldn't be crackpots. The very definition of a physics crank is that they don't respond to reason. And Wikipedia policies have been designed to avoid the need to "reason" with physics cranks. Perhaps Dragonfly is just unfamilar with these facts.

I'd also like to point out that Dragonfly's message said

If either of you tries to edit the article without having the other's agreement, I'll block you both.

I actually had to read that sentence several times to be sure it said what it seems to say. Apparently if some OTHER editor behaves in a way that defies Dragonflies edict, Dragonfly proposes to block ME. Excuse me for saying so, but I wonder if perhaps Dragonfly would like to take a minute and reconsider that message. And if he still thinks it was appropriate, I'd like to suggest that whoever appointed him as an Administrator reconsider that appointment.

In summary, without citing a single violation of any Wikipedia rule, Dragonfly has blocked a very hard-working and conscientious editor, who has only been trying to prevent physics cranks from turning an article into their own conspiratorial "novel narrative", and then has threatened further action against this editor if some OTHER editor mis-behaves. I invite anyone who's interested to review the article history and the Discussion page, and decide for yourself whether Dragonfly's action was appropriate.

One last comment. Throughout the editing of this particular article (which has been plagued by numerous sockpuppetting and other nonsense), several Wikipedia Admins have made comments to the effect that it is ridiculous how much attention is being paid to such an obscure topic like Herbert Dingle. The admins have said "this is so lame", etc. I think it should hardly need to be said that the whole basis of Wikipedia is that, for each topic, even the little-known obscure topics, there are people in the world who are knowledgeable on that topic and CARE that it be presented accurately. This is the life's blood of Wikipedia. I think it's appalling that Admins take it upon themselves to express contempt and disdain for individuals who come here to contribute to Wikipedia articles in accord with the policies and principles. In general, I think the Admins who have had anything to do with the Herbert Dingle article have not well represented the interests of Wikipedia.Denveron 16:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Specific diffs would go a long way toward substantiating this, but as a general response I'd point to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, which was designed to deal with people who park themselves at some article and insist something like The moon is made of green cheese. There's no sense in trying to compromise with someone like that. Rather, try something like an article content request for comment to bring in broader opinions and document the disruptive behavior. That can restore a normal status quo, and in case it doesn't it can provide grounds for other remedies such as a community ban. Durova^Charge! 17:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've let DragonflySixtyseven know about this thread. Newyorkbrad 17:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As an involved editor on the Herbert Dingle article, I concur with much of what Denveron wrote above. However, I disagree that admins have mishandled the situation. The article and talk page have been totally berserk for months. Give some time for DragonflySixtyseven to do what he said (try to make sense of what's been going on), and then we'll see how things shake out. If other editors wish to do the same, that would be great. Don't forget to check for holes in your gear beforehand. Tim Shuba 18:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Durova indicated above that "specific diffs would go a long way toward substantiating this", so I'll just mention that I was blocked from editing the Herbert Dingle article for being so bold as to remove the following sentence from the article (which followed a sentence stating that Einstein's special theory of relativity has not been experimentally falsified):

"Although Louis Essen, the inventor of the Atomic Clock has questioned the validity of the experimental evidence in an article in Nature, saying: "Einstein stressed the tentative nature of his theory and the need for experimental models. Contrary to popular belief, there is no evidence concerning the special theory as propounded, because no experiment has been made in a force-free space".

I deleted this sentence, because (1) Essen was a well-known crackpot, (2) the "article in Nature" was actually a letter to the editor, and (3) there is an abundance of highly reputable sources (e.g., textbooks from academic publishers with good reputations for scholarly work) all supporting the original statement in the article that Einstein's theory of special relativity is supported by (i.e., not falsified by) a vast amount of experimental evidence. I honestly think the above sentence was simply inserted to promote a crackpot POV and to obfuscate the very well documented and solidly sourced claim that Einstein's theory is consistent with all the relevant experimental evidence. The article is not about Essen, so Essen's (shall we say) eccentric views (which no reputable publications would accept for refereed publication) are not appropriate for the Wikipedia article about Herbert Dingle. Since Essen's views were rejected by the reputable physics community, Wikipedia policy is to exclude those views from Wikipedia articles as well (except perhaps for an article specifically about Essen, in which case it would obviously be appropriate to state his views).

Now, it's conceivable that some reasonable people might disagree with my edit. Maybe for some reason they think Wikipedia should cite Essen as a reputable source on the experimental verification of special relativity. Regardless of that, I still say my removal of that sentence was in no way an egregious violation of Wikipedia editorial policy. "Be bold", remember? I honestly believe, in good faith, that the sentence was bogus and didn't belong in the article. I edited it out. Then I was blocked from editing the article... for no stated reason other than "edit wars are unpleasant". Removing a statement that I believe is not verifiable under Wiki policy is not conducting an edit war, so that "reason" is a non sequitur. Durova mentioned various ways of excluding statements like "the moon is made of green cheese", but ultimately someone has to actually edit it out of the article. In fact, it will almost certainly be necessary to remove it more than once, given the existence of moon cheese crackpots. I do not think it's appropriate for Wiki Admins to block someone for removing a crackpot statement like that. Wikipedia NEEDS people to recognize crackpot POV and remove it from articles when they find it.

Tim Shuba has commented that the article in question has been totally berserk for months, but whether that is the case or not, I think a review of the page history will show that MY edits have been consistently constructive, informative, providing actual content, and well-supported both by references and by Discussion on the talk page. I have not been "berserk". Reading back through some of the earlier history of the page, I can see examples of where certain other individuals might appear to have gone berserk... but I shall refrain from naming them. The only relevant point here is that I was not berserk... and yet I have been blocked. So, again, it's a non sequitur, and there is no justification for ME being blocked from editing.

Finally, I want to emphasize again that, not only was no rational reason cited for blocking me (because stating a generic fact like "edit wars are annoying" does not constititue a reason for blocking someone who has done nothing other than edit in good faith and in full accord with Wikipedia policies), but I was told that if a DIFFERENT editor refuses to behave reasonably, then *I* will be blocked permanently. Needless to say, I have no control over that other editor, so the Admin's edict is utterly unreasonable and indefensible (in my opinion). No one here has commented on this, but I think it's a legitimate complaint. Clearly the Administrator either mis-spoke himself or... well, I honestly can't think of any other rational explanation.Denveron 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It quite clear that by "edit wars are annoying" the blocking admin intended to imply that you had been edit warring, which, after a quick glance at the article history, seems to be an accurate assessment. The 3 revert rule is a limit, not a right. You don't have to violate it for it to count as an edit war. It was a pretty short block, so if I were you I would learn my lesson and move on. If you have a problem with an editor, there are various means of dispute resolution you can try. Edit warring is not one of them. As for the "I'll block you both" comment, blocking one person for another's actions is clearly unacceptable. I would imagine adding "both" to the end of that sentence was a mistake, however if you are blocked purely for someone else's actions, feel free to email me using the "E-mail this user" link and I will unblock you. --Tango 21:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You say a quick glance at the article history leads you to believe I was "edit warring", but can you tell me what constituted the edit warring? I'd be happy to "learn my lesson" (as you put it), but it would be easier if I knew what lesson I'm supposed to be learning. You agree that I didn't violate any specific rule or policy (such as 3rr), but surely there must be some objective criteria for what constitutes edit warring. If it's purely subjective, then the only apparent lesson to be learned here is that someone who edits an article in good faith, working entirely within both the letter and the spirit of all Wikipedia policies and principles, striving within those policies to remove unverifiable original research and novel narratives, can be rudely blocked and threatened with future blocking contingent on the actions of third parties. Is it conceivable (just conceivable) that someone in addition to me has an opportunity of learning a lesson here today?

Look, any time one or more physics cranks sets his sights on a Wikipedia article, there will inevitably be a long series of edits and counter edits before arriving at a stable article. Each time someone inserts the phrase "The moon is made of green cheese" into the article, someone else has to delete it. That's just the way it is. There is no symmetry between the insertion and the deletion. Inserting unverifiable "original research" and "novel narratives" (not to mention copywrite violations, which is another set of things that I've deleted... you're welcome) is itself a violation of Wikipedia policies. Removing those things is not a violation of Wikipedia policies. It's a fine idea for Wiki Admins to block people who are willfully and repeatedly violating policy, but it is not such a fine idea for Admins to block people who are adhering to Wiki policy. That's all I'm trying to say, and I'm surprised that Wiki Admins have such a hard time bringing themselves to agree with that statement. Denveron 23:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems counterproductive to block a user, without warning and who has not broken 3RR, for reverting additions of crackpot theories to mainstream science articles. Also, telling an editor that they may not edit an article on threat of being blocked seems to exceed the range of authority for an administrator. The correct administrative action, if any, would be to first warn the users to stop, and consider a page protection to allow the dispute to calm down. Also, treating this as a content dispute that two editors have to work out through consensus seems misguided, perhaps a lack of understanding about physics. Are we really running a wikipedia where it's okay to say that special relativity is unproven? It's pretty obvious when reading the article that the quotation by one fringe theoriest, Essen, disputing the validity of special relativity has no place in an article about another fringe theorist, Dingle. The quotation has nothing to do with Dingle, no importance at all in the context of Dingle's life, and in fact it's out of place gramatically in the article. It's just heaping on a claim that special relativity is unproven. Yes, the long term correct approach would be to use the dispute resolution options in an attempt to make User:Swanzsteve stop adding fringe material. But that takes a lot of work. It's understandable that someone would engage in 2RR to try to get rid of the nonsense and use mediation, AN/I, etc., as a last result. One problem with a block like this: how are we supposed to edit the article? In my reading I feel pretty confident that the sentence in question has to go. I've proposed to delete the sentence about Essen from the Dingle article. Is anyone going to block me for edit warring if I do that? Blocks have a chilling effect. They shut down the editing and consensus process, you know. Wikidemo 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The above verbal diarrhoea from Denveron, may give you some idea of the problems he has caused on the Herbert Dingle page. Has he followed the Wiki procedure of contacting the editor who blocked him? No he has gone over his head and complained about the editor, without contacting the editor concerned. A couple of months ago, after a great deal of discussion, the Dingle page became relatively stable, everyone had agreed that Dingle's page was not the appropriate place to discuss SR (which has its own page) or to debate on the page whether or not Dingle was wrong and/or why he was wrong, there was a simple statement at the end of the article "The consensus in the physics community is that Dingle's objections to the logical consistency of special relativity were unfounded", which was a simple statement of fact, to which everyone could agree. There were links to places where people could find further material if they were interested. After 17 days of stability, where we discussing what should be added to the article to improve it, Denveron appeared. His first contribution included these lines "Dingle himself had written about the reciprocity of relativistic effects decades earlier, but when he was reminded of it during his retirement years, he suddenly found himself unable to understand his own earlier explanations.", the clear implication of this is that Dingle was mentally unsound when he started to question Special Relativity. The sole purpose of almost every contribution since has been to denigrate Dingle in any way possible. Perhaps I could illustrate this by giving some examples of his reversions:

The title held by Dingle after 1955 was, "Professor Emeritus of History and Philosophy of Science, University College London", all his publications after 1955 referred to him by this title, including his book "Science at the Crossroads". The statement that Dingle held this title after 1955, was repeatedly reverted by Denveron for no good reason whatsoever.

There was a statement at the end which said "Despite his criticisms of special relativity, Dingle never lost his respect for Einstein's genius.", this quote is from Whitrow's obituary of Dingle, and is supported by several statements from Dingle's book. This was an attempt to show that scientists involved in debates over controversial subjects don't necessarily despise each other. Denveron once again objected to this (properly sourced) statement, and reverted it.

The seemingly harmless factual statement: "He was one of the founders of the British Society for the History of Science, and served as President from 1955 to 1957" was repeatedly reverted.

There is a statement in the article that Dingle was proved wrong by experimental evidence, this is simply not true, I included a quote from Nature by Louis Essen to this effect, this quote was again properly sourced and once again this was summarily reverted as a "crackpot POV". This last reversion is in fact what lead to the recent blocks.

Most of the present article is litle more than a list of people who thought Dingle was wrong and why. Naturally this lead to mayhem in the article with many users (some of whom have been banned as sockpuppets) objecting to the strong ant-Dingle POV within the article. Denveron hasnt done it all on his own, unfortunately some of the other anti-Dingle crowd have joined in and there is now a section on the Lorentz Transformation as well, which is completely unnecessary since there is a already a Wiki page on this. However, Denveron has been the catalyst for the anti-Dingle crowd to crawl out of the woodwork, and stamp their POV on the article.

I hope the admins who are looking at this article will agree that it should return to the previous consensus policy that Dingle's page is not the one to discuss SR, the Lorentz transformation, Dingle's supposed slide into dementia after his retirement. These details can be found elsewhere. - Swanzsteve 03:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What is verbal diarrhoea? Tim Shuba 04:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just one little remark about Swanzsteve's last sentence. SR and the Lorentz transformation are not discussed in the article. Dingle's views about SR and the Lorentz transformation, together with the reasons why these views were and still are not accepted by the physics community, are listed and properly documented, as they should, since that is what Dingle is all about. If he would not have had these views, he would most probably not have had an article here to begin with.

It is of course to be expected that for a person who fails to understand SR and the Lorentz transformation, it superficially looks as if the subjects themselves are being discussed. After all, how could such a person possibly tell the difference? DVdm 09:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This begs the question, as to why you want to include, what you (or another of the anti-Dingle mob) have referred to a "trivial 4th grade algebra", in the article.

BTW the ability to copy from textbooks would not normally be classed as "understanding":-) - Swanzsteve 02:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify - the statement that I would block both Denveron and Swanzsteve again should either misbehave was an error on my part. That was not my intention, and I apologize for the discomfort that this clearly caused. DS 13:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think some additional clarification is needed. Here's what happened: An editor inserted a blatent crank POV passage into the article, stating that special relativity is not supported by experimental evidence. Needless to say, there is an abundance of highly reputable sources that say otherwise. I took the following actions: (1) I removed the inappropriate POV passage, and (2) I patiently presented in the Discussion page a clear and detailed explanation of why that quotation from Essen's letter to the editor was not suitable for the article, and why it was not a reputable source. The other editor then immediately re-inserted the passage, with a remark like "Stop vandalizing the article by removing sourced quotations!". None of the reasons that I carefully presented for why the passage should be removed were addressed by the other editor. I thereupon removed the passage for a SECOND time from the article. That's it.

I then received, totally without warning, a rudely expressed notification that I was blocked, along with threats of future action to be taken against me (as quoted previously). The message basically said three things: (1) I am blocked for a day, (2) I will remain blocked until I reach agreement with a physics crackpot on how the article should look, and (3) if the physics crackpot doesn't behave himself, I will be blocked forever.

I'm happy to see that point (3) has now been disavowed. However, my contention is that points (1) and (2) were equally erroneous. I suggest that the Wiki Admins review the Wikipedia policy on "original research" and how to deal with physics cranks. The futility of trying to "reason" with physics cranks is fully recognized. (If they could be reasoned with, they wouldn't be cranks.) Therefore, the policy of Wikipedia is not to argue with cranks about whether something is true or false, but simply to insist that only material from reputable sources be included in the articles. Of course, the cranks will not accept this, but then the other Wiki rules (such as 3rr, etc) come into play. Now, it's clear that point (2) in Dragonfly's message is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. It makes no more sense than point (3). No editor can be held responsible for the mis-behavior of any other editor. Both points (2) and (3) of Dragonfly's message imply that as long as the other editor continues being a physics crank, attempting to insert crackpot POV material into the article (and assuming I continue to want to uphold Wikipedia policies by not including that crackpot material), I will be banned forever from editing the article. This is simply unreasonable and indefensible, and totally contrary to Wikipedia policies.

As for point (1), I've already recounted my actions, which I believe were consistent with both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policies. All my edits have been fully documented and justified in the Discussion page, and no rules (such as 3rr) have even come CLOSE to be violated (at least by me). So I contend that point (1) was also erroneous, i.e., I should never have been blocked in the first place. (I have asked specifically here on this Incident page for someone to tell me which of my actions or edits constituted "edit warring", but have gotten no answer... which isn't surprising, since none of my actions constituted "edit warring".)

As it stands, I'm in limbo. I really can't edit any more, because any edits I would wish to make would be in accord with Wikipedia policy, which is precisely what I was doing when I was blocked the first time. Is there some way of "taking this up the line", to see if we can get a definitive ruling, one way or the other? The main question is, should I be (in effect) banned forever, as point (2) of Dragonfly's message implies? The secondary question is whether I should have ever been blocked in the first place (point 1).Denveron 21:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Denveron - you use these phrases:-

"original research"

"only material from reputable sources be included in the articles"

"insert crackpot POV material"

in relation to a quote from Nature, its pretty clear who is the crackpot here!

BTW - just because you are anti-Dingle doesnt make you any less of a crackpot. - Swanzsteve 01:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't be such a problem. But it seems from what I can read that the POV pushers are the ones that aren't getting blocked. The POV in question is that Dingle was wrong. Those that are trying to push this POV are being assisted by some of the administrators, while those that are trying to keep the article neutral are getting blocked.

There was a suggestion in the talk pages that the article might borrow some ideas on wording from the Eric Laithwaite article. The proposer of this idea has since been blocked.

It is sufficient to state that Dingle failed to persuade the physics community that he was right. But when writing about a dissident it is totally unreasonable to use establishment viewpoints published in peer reviewed journals as definitive proof that the dissident in question was wrong. This is what the anti-Dingle POV pushers have been doing. Those that have been opposing them have been subjected to endless allegations of being crackpots and vandals.

For example the Keating-Hafele experiment has been used as proof that Dingle was wrong. When others tried to use Louis Essen as evidence that the Keating-Hafele experiment was unreliable, they were immediately dismissed as pushing a crackpot viewpoint and their legitimate sources were deleted.

This kind of edit warring would not occur if anti-Dingle editors would leave the article alone in a comparable state to that of the Eric Laithwaite article. I could go to the Eric Laithwaite article and firmly state that Laithwaite was wrong because Goldstein's classical mechanics textbook explains gyroscopes perfectly. But that would hardly be cricket. It would be like saying that the establishment are right because the establishmenet say they are right. Cyril Reid 20:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Keating and Hafele weren't crackpots, whereas Louis Essen... well... "No one has attempted to refute my arguments, but I was warned that if persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects." Please keep things in perspective and note that the number of relativity crackpots is much larger than the number of gyroscope crackpots. I'm sure that you, and most electric engineers, don't really belong to the latter. DVdm 22:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no Wiki list of confirmed crackpots, who under no circumstances should be quoted on any wiki page. The fact that you characterise them as a crackpot is neither here nor there. The only criterion as far as I can see is that if their quote has appeared in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, then you are entitled to include it in the article, as long as it is relevant, which in this case it is. Under these circumstances you are not entitled to revert it, unless you want to be accused of starting an edit war. ---Swanzsteve 02:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted 4 examples above of statements that Denveron reverted without discussion, I could include more. The reversion of sourced facts is actually AGAINST Wiki guidelines.

I would like the admins to consider the above 4 statements and ask Denveron to justify their reversion, removing them without discussion is clearly vandalism, and constitutes STARTING an edit war.

The views of DVdm and Tim Shuba should taken with a huge pinch of salt, since they were complicit in Denveron's vandalism of the page, when Denveron was in danger of exceeding his reversion limit they would jump in and revert for him, they actually discuss this tactic, at one point, on the talk pages. Their views are similar to his own, they are in favour of linking Dingle's article to pages which describe him as suffering from dementia, and insult him.

Nature can hardly described as containing "fringe" material as alleged above, and the quote from Essen can hardly be described as "crackpot POV", especially as his statement is correct, perhaps the anti-Dingle crowd could read it carefully before they dismiss it.

A paragraph about the Lorentz Transformation is clearly superfluous, since it has its own Wiki page, and need only be linked.

My own "crackpot POV" is that Dingle's page should not misrepresent him, should not insult him (see the repeat reference to his retirement, which is intended to show he was past it, I tried to remove this but again was reverted) and should not be bogged down with in-depth discussions of Dingle's arguments, refutations, SR, LT since all these are covered in detail on other Wiki pages and in the external links. Unfortunately, the ant-Dingle crackpots are determined to drag his name through the mud. As long as this page is used to discredit Dingle, I'm pretty sure it is going to be the scene of repeated edit wars.

If you have any doubts that Denveron is the cause of the edit wars, trace the history of the simple statement in the article "after 1955 Dingle became 'Professor Emeritus' of History and Philosophy at University of London". Even Wwoods who wants to include statements alleging dementia, asked Denveron to stop reverting this sentence. ---Swanzsteve 01:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In case someone might have missed it, just a repetition of a remark made earlier, with some emphasis added. SR and the Lorentz transformation are not discussed in the article. Dingle's views about SR and the Lorentz transformation, together with the reasons why these views were and still are not accepted by the physics community, are listed and properly documented, as they should, since that is what Dingle is all about. If he would not have had these views, he would most probably not have had an article here to begin with. It is of course to be expected that for a person who fails to understand SR and the Lorentz transformation, it superficially looks as if the subjects themselves are being discussed. After all, how could such a person possibly tell the difference?

But I think this should be discussed on the article's talk page. DVdm 08:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be too much of a liberty on the part of the ones pushing the anti-Dingle POV to refer to anti-relativists as crackpots or to assume that anti-relativists don't fully understand relativity. It all points to young undergraduate insecurity. Why are they trying so hard to persuade us all that Dingle was wrong? Or are they just trying to persuade themselves?

Denveron and DVdm are clearly not yet mature enough to be editing encyclopaedia articles. DVdm exposes his obsession by using his own user page to present what he believes to be a proof that Dingle was wrong. Cyril Reid 12:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Denveron has removed the Essen quotes and claimed that he did so in line with a consensus reached on the discussion page. I didn't notice any consensus. How can there be a consensus when the discussion page is locked for editing. How come Denveron is able to edit when nobody else appears to be? The correct solution would indeed be to remove the Essen quotes but also to remove all the quotes explicitly stating that Dingle was wrong. Cyril Reid 12:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked Denveron (talk · contribs) and Swanzsteve (talk · contribs) for 1 week due to their continued revert warring on this article. I'd say the next step if they continue is to consider a topic ban. Neither of these editors is in any way helping this article and at this point I'd say it is best left in other hands. I've also blocked Cyril Reid (talk · contribs) as a Dr. Seaweed (talk · contribs) sock. Note that this is not an endorsement of any particular article version, but a block based solely on the behavior of the editors in question.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed 0RR on Northern Cyprus

An (apparently Greek Cypriot) editor, 3meandEr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), has recently been edit-warring heavily on Northern Cyprus to attempt to impose an extremely partisan text which is - as he himself has put it - a "condemnation" of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The article is, at the best of times, a minefield and a mecca for edit warriors. I locked the article a few days ago to stop the edit war and attempted to work out the issues on Talk:Northern Cyprus. However, it's become clear that 3meandEr is a classic single-purpose POV-pusher - he's a new editor, has never edited anything other than Northern Cyprus and the article talk page, and has either no understanding of or intention to apply NPOV. Consequently I propose to unprotect the article and adopt a Dmcdevit solution. In essence, this means 0RR and blocks for unproductive edit warriors - given his conduct so far, I think there's a high likelihood of needing to block 3meandEr as a result. Does anyone have any views on this approach? Comments to Talk:Northern Cyprus#Please dont change the subject please. :-) -- ChrisO 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I find Dmcdevit thoughts very practical and much more adapted to realities. It is a big step forward to enhance and defend the project. There are more edit wars than discussions at talk pages. Users who "condemn" are naturally violating WP:NPOV. If those violations happen so often then the 0RR is just better than protecting. Why protect an article where there are only 2 or 3 people "fighting" each other? Why tell readers that we are sorry because some people are shouting inside the house. We must let our visitors come in while keeping order inside. No hijacking. So I support your plan. I am not sure though how long it would last and that's why keeping it indefinite would be appropriate. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea. A "0RR" hurts productive editors far more than it hurts a POV-pushing SPA. If this editor is a POV-pushing SPA you can come up with a community-based article ban. The reason the 3RR applies to editors and not articles is that it protects against POV-pushers. A 0RR creates motivation is exactly the opposite direction...all you need to do is go to an internet cafe, or email a friend, anything like that. Sure, an IP is blocked (or a throw-away account), but then your version is in place and no one can change it. Any novel solution needs to keep article integrity in place.

If the article has been locked and discussion has come to consensus, then unblock it. If there's a POV-pushing SPA who refuses to abide, then limit that person's ability to edit. Don't create a situation which rewards SPAs and POV-pushers. Guettarda 03:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Guettarda. We have enough tools to deal disruptive editors when is needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that 3meandEr block log to be sparkling clean. If he is such a disruptive editor, no actions have been taken yet to entice him/her to behave. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As Dmcedvit well says it: Remember that a short block is a psychological blow, not a final solution (Premise #5). Protection is not a solution to a behavior problem either. Applying repeated short blocks for unrelenting misconduct is nothing more than toleration. If it doesn't work, don't do it again. The only solution to an incorrigible behavior problem is a long-term block. Blocks escalate not primarily because that is the best way to change behavior, but because in the case that behavior does not change, it results in the most productive outcome: the unproductive editor being blocked from editing. Wikipedia is very accommodating to good faith editors: but it does not have the resources to provide anger management therapy; Wikipedia is more productive concentrating its efforts on editors that show a willingness to develop cluefulness.

Unprotect, get the user blocked if deserving it and escalate the blocks if needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Guettarda and Jossi. Block the user if he deserves it. 3RR is a standard but not the only one. I have no problem blocking someone who is here doing nothing other than wasting other's time and energy. Has 3meanadEr shown any inclination to explain himself, back down, negotiate or otherwise actually have a discussion? If not, block him, ignore him and go on; punishing everyone and changing the rules for one POV warrior is not the answer. Make it clear that he and his kind are not tolerated. It is possible have a POV that is against consensus; just when you refuse to compromise in any manner, then you aren't tolerated here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say 1RR can still be effective. Why would someone need to revert more than once a day? In any way, they would only do the same thing twice or more. They can just do it once in case of major edit warring like this one. It is well known to everybody that is just a waste of time. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the advice. In reply to Jossi's implicit question about whether "actions have been taken yet to entice him/her to behave", I've been trying to mediate on the article talk page and explain the requirements of NPOV etc, but there's no sign that 3meandEr either understands or accepts the concept of neutrality. I'm conscious of Dmcdevit's comments that "consistently responding to an editor's edit warring ... with protections does nothing to prevent the behavior", hence the search for an alternative way forward. I'll try unprotecting the page and leaving a warning/suggestion on 3meandEr's talk page with regard to his conduct. -- ChrisO 09:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My take on this kind of problem: if it's just a single POV-pusher, block. If it's two parties on a reasonably narrowly circumscribed issue of dispute and they seem rational enough to work out an understanding if given time, protect. If it's multiple users and a long-term dispute with little prospect of cooperation, adopt not exactly 0RR but some variant of the set of restrictions Moreschi and I have tried in such cases: not "no reverts at all", but "no reverts without prior discussion", rv moratorium (reverts only after so many hours), and a few other restrictions taylored to the case as need may be. (see here and here). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If the parties are reasonable enough to work it out, why can't we expect them to be reasonable enough to avoid edit warring? I have not investigated the edits here, but the line between "POV pushing" and a good-faith content dispute is often quite thin, and claims of "vandalism" or "POV pushing" are often used to justify edit warring in content disputes.

"No reverts at all" is only a reasonable solution to stop an already-started edit war. Once the edit war is stopped, switching to something like 1RR is a good idea. I would support both. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism in Ezhava(protected) Article?

User:Ricky81682 is removing refered content from ezhava article. i have added a sample a sample of that below with reference. Ref2 can be varified online and this book content is available throuigh google books. please look into this.Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 05:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A sample

The Ezhavas form a major progressive community, and also one of the largest in Kerala, a south Indian state. They have made a mark in the economic and political panorama of the state and have contributed enormously to the literature and culture of the state. They are also found amongst the Malayalee diaspora around the world. They are a social group sharing a common history from the pre-social reform era, when caste was an integral part of the political, economic, legal, and social order across the Kerala State.

Folklore and written records show that Ezhavas were a martial class.^[1][2][3][4] The folk songs, Vadakkan Pattukal, composed about 400 hundred years ago, are full of descriptions of the military exploits of Ezhava heroes. Ezhavas served in the armed forces of all important kings of the region, such as Zamorins of Calicut, and the Kings of Travancore and Cochin. Many from community became Kottaram Vaidyan(Palace Physician) of important kings in the region.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} They enjoyed better status before the arrival of the brahmins from north. Historically, they never found a place in the four-tier caste system of hinduism. They were engaged in many professions, and many were warriors, ayurvedic physicians, astrologers, arrack brewers, traders, roddy Tappers, spiritualists, traditional toxicologists, devil worshipers and dancers, sorcerers, farmers, and weavers. The Ezhavas are also known as Thiyyas or Billavas in some of part of Kerala especially Malabar areas.

[edit] Ref

1. ^ ^{a b} Bardwell L. Smith, Religion and Social Conflict in South Asia. (BRILL publications, 1976,ISBN 9004045104), Page 27
2. ^ ^{a b} Religion and Social Conflict in South Asia. Page 27. Bardwell L. Smith. (BRILL publications ,1976. Retrieved on Aug 17, 2007.
3. ^ ^{a b} Bardwell L. Smith, Vadakkan and Thekkan Pattukal. (Sri Rama Vilasom Press, 1967), Page 128 - 148
4. ^ ^{a b} Nagam Aiya, Travancore State Manual by Nagam Aiya
5. ^ Alummuttil. Radhakrishnan. (Alummuttil. Retrieved on Aug 17, 2007.

All the above content is varifiable form online book available googlebook.(see the link) The book also list other references. But the editor User:Ricky81682 has removed most of the refered content. Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 05:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate this. The vast majority of that content has been moved two paragraphs down [3]. The article has been fully protected since the 19th (due to massive edit warring). I've been trying on the talk page and even going to the specific user talk pages of people who were edit warring to get them to talk. After nobody complains for days, I removed some unsourced text. Part of the reason was the way people were completely misrepresenting entire citations (wanting to add an entire paragraph by quoting an entire book because a singular footnote has a slight mention of one partial point) which drove me nuts. This is purely a content dispute. The article was protected by User:Nishkid64 who I asked for advice from [4]. I am just trying to control this article. If any other admins want to help out, please join in. If people think there's some crazy bias I've got, then I'll leave it alone. I'd consider semi-protecting the article but it looks like the edit warring is nowhere near over. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Note, my first edit to the talk page [5] was two days after the protection: I removed a editprotected article request because there was nowhere near a consensus on what people wanted. I didn't even touch the article for another three days to do this non-controversial edit. Next was the movement of text above. Notice that when I started, there were five different citations to the exact same page of text. If you actually read the Smith page, you will see that the only thing the article is good for is the statement "The folk songs, Vadakkan Pattukal, composed about 400 hundred years ago, are full of descriptions of the military exploits of Ezhava heroes" (particularly ironic that's the only thing not using that cite) which I have defended on the talk page. No good deed indeed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ricky showing my mistake. i have actually thought you have removed the content. I am sorry for that. and Taking back my allegation.Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 06:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I just want to add to what Ricky has said. I was working on this article before it was protected. I faced numerous accusations of "vandalism" (because I dared to clean up the article) and even sockpuppetry. An admin had to tell this editor that it was "content dispute" and not "vandalism". The article was in bad shape. It was full of OR, POV, peacock terms, grammatical errors, and spelling mistakes. It was far from objective and had very little by way of references. Ricky came into this article to try and improve it, and he has. We've all been having a rather good discussion in the talk page regarding this article and we've been giving our feedback regarding his changes. Like he said, he has informed other involved users of his changes and has invited them to participate in the discussion. I did the exact same thing when I edited the article. I discussed my changes in the talk page and I invited this editor to discuss the changes. Instead, all I got was a revert war. Now he goes and makes accusation of vandalism and claims that Ricky is abusing his privileges. This is absolutely ridiculous. I think this adequately demonstrates the fact that the editors who are accusing Ricky don't actually care about improving the article. It's simply called "pushing POV". I initially tried to show a lot of good faith to this editor because I saw that he had a lot of information and that he was very active on Wikipedia. This editor seems to run afoul of numerous policies regarding his article, especially WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:V, and more importantly (as it seems to be in this case) WP:OWN. Like Ricky said, large paragraphs are justified using just one citation that marginally describes something related to the issue. For example, this editor created a few articles that were sorely lacking references. I added the appropriate tags on them and even asked him to add more information and expand the articles with references. Instead, the tags were reverted and I was asked to "refer to the Ezhava article". There is a clear pattern of behaviour here. In conclusion, I just want to say that Ricky has been doing a great job. He hasn't been abusing his privileges. He hasn't taken sides, and what he is doing is certainly not vandalism. --vi5in^[talk] 06:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Vivin thanks for the comment. I have accepted my mistakes which i have committed unintentionally. and been always like that. please dont allege that i have refused to comment/rejected comments of my edits or your edits. If i have removed any tags(WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:V) i might also removed the content that forced you to put the tags. cheers Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 06:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format.bot

I came upon Format.bot (talk · contribs) tonight, and there is no mention of any authorization or owner, so it is indefinitely blocked (the first two pages it hit were Jimbo's archives doing spellchecking).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird. The other day I had a similar case with AwardBot (talk · contribs). Again, seemingly innocuous work but no disclosure of who was behind it. Some kind of serial troll? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delays in undeleting pages

I have become too familiar with undeleting a page and the edits involved spending a long time in limbo between disappearing from the deleted edits list and appearing in the non-deleted edits list. So far that has been with undeletes which contain many edits.

But this appeared in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen:

Agonia was c&p'd to Agonia (film) by a brand new Wikipedian and replaced with a disamb page. Also, since I don't have the Move tab yet, Agonia (film 1969) would be better titled as Agonia (1969 film). Ravenna1961 05:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So I did this:

• 06:41, 29 October 2007 I deleted Agonia
• 06:42, 29 October 2007 I deleted Agonia (film) "temp for histmerge"
• 06:42, 29 October 2007 I restored all but the last edit of Agonia "7 revision(s) restored: get back re movie, leave the disambig"
• 06:43, 29 October 2007 I moved Agonia to Agonia (film) to histmerge
  • OK so far
• 06:43, 29 October 2007 I restored the disambig edit of Agonia: (1 revision(s) restored)
  • Here that one edit stayed in limbo around half an hour between disappearing from the deleted edits list and appearing in the non-deleted edits list.
• 07:24, 29 October 2007 I restored Agonia (film) to histmerge
• 07:28, 29 October 2007 I moved Agonia (film) to Agonia (2006 film)

Why such a long delay in undeleting, although it was early morning here by British time, when (by my experience) the internet is fastest because most Americans are asleep? Anthony Appleyard 09:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I interpreted you well: if you're referring to the fact that "deleted edits" don't reappear in the history after restoration, I experience it all the time, so I'm used to it. If I really need to be sure that what I'm seeing is accurate, a minor or null edit usually helps. Duja► 10:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The page history has caching problems immediately after an undelete, and shows incorrect data until the page's next edit (in my experience). I normally get round the problem by using rollback on the null edit that was created during the page rename (which has the advantage of often also causing the correct version to become the current version). --ais523 10:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to WP:BAN

(moved from ANI)

Reporting a potentially controversial action here for review and, if necessary, undoing. Jehochman (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), a party to the Sadi Carnot case above, has been modifying WP:BAN, a policy which will doubtless be cited in the ArbCom case should it be accepted. He cites for consensus an RFC which he opened at WT:BAN last Thursday. I do not agree that there is consensus after only four days discussion, nor do I feel that it should be Jehochman who makes any changes that might be agreed in the future, at least while he is the subject of an RfAr relating to this policy. As such, I have reverted his changes here. Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the underlying reason for the conflict over Sadi Carnot is the same as the Miltopia conflict. Our community banning process is poorly documented, and there are large differences of opinion over how it should work. Here is a recent comment by Jimbo Wales that seems to contradict the banning policy:

"These trolls drive away good users, interact with stalking websites which cause real damage in the real world, and it is time that we renew with strength our usual insistence that editing Wikipedia is not a right, that we are a community of encyclopedists, and that "community" is not synonymous with "random mob". Second, I am insisting that admins absolutely must respect each other and respect our traditions and values of kind and thoughtful discussion. You don't unblock a problem user without discussion with the blocking user." --Jimbo [6]

I've added emphasis to "You don't unblock a problem user without discussion with the blocking user." I think that phrase needs to go into WP:BAN to avoid disputes like the one Physchim62 and I have been experiencing. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:BLOCK would be the more appropriate place for such language. But it would need to be discussed somewhere first, to get the wording straight. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe WP:BAN should have wording that says: nothing here modifies the blocking policy. Please read and follow that before you block or unblock anybody. Also, I have no problem with Physchim62 editing or reverting my edits in situations like this one. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just protected the policy page for some 8 hours. Hope that helps stop an edit war between admins. I just believe that you still can discuss the policy at its talk page or the village pump. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This thread was started by another account, PC62test (talk · contribs), not Physchim62. This could be impersonation. Coren has asked P62 to confirm the account. Jehochman ^Talk 16:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It does seem odd, but the original ANI thread was started by Physchim62 and he also posted saying it had been moved here. Looks like it's just an an extra account. --Onorem♠Dil 16:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless, Jehochman's changes do not look that major to me: diff. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that the account User:PC62test was indeed controlled by me. It shouldn't have posted here: I inadvertently recreated a bug in the wrong place. I take all responsability for edits which this account (now blocked) has made, and apologise to all concerned for the confusion (which could have been averted had I checked my edits better). Physchim62 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To answer the substantive point, I will not edit war over this, but I still feel that Jehochman's were hasty and, in the circumstances, inappropriate. Could he agree to not edit policy pages while he is before ArbCom on policy issues? Is that too much to ask? Physchim62 (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That would effectively be a topic ban, and I don't think that's necessary. I am the one who brought the case to Arbcom. I've never seen anybody banned from editing policy just because they started an Arbcom case, certainly not an administrator. Rest assured that everybody's actions will be judged according to policy that existed at the time. We don't do ex post facto here. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of content from Wikimedia database

I can't find the project page that discusses this, so I'll just bring it up here...An editor vandalised <redacted> recently, and his/her edits were reverted. S/he then replied by adding the following (censored by me) text: "[name here] - Whatever you want just ask her and you got it! Her number is [phone number]." I know that there's some way to remove personal information from the Wikimedia databases: if administrators are able to do this, would such be appropriate for this case? Nyttend 14:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Redacted article name for the time being. See WP:OVERSIGHT (email them with the details). x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I must mention, even if revisions are oversighted, they can still be seen by administrators, however cannot be seen by regular editors. Qst 15:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not quite true. Oversighted revisions can be retrieved by users with permission to use the oversight function, but not by all administrators. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Although deleted versions can be seen by Administrators but not non-Administrators. Oversight goes one step above. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of license compatible with wikipedia ?

Hello I was wondering if the following license is compatible with wikipedia ?

Land Information New Zealand owns the Crown copyright in the material available for viewing or downloading from this website as provided in the Copyright Act 1994.

The material may be used, copied and re-distributed free of charge in any format or media. Where the material is redistributed to others the source and copyright status must be acknowledged.

from here. Do I need an OTRS ticket ? Jackaranga 16:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

See {{NZCrownCopyright}}, its talk page, and disclaimers therein. Dragons flight 16:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a free license compatible with the GFDL. Fair use may apply for images in some circumstances (if a non free image cannot be produced), but I fear it is not ok for text at all. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dragons flight, that site is in the list of sites that can be used. Jackaranga 16:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy left copyrighted material like Wikipedia and Linux is free to alter and then sell for a profit as well as the freedom to simply copy and distribute. (You must however retain the copy-left copyright and not add conditions; and must provide a copy of the copyright license and contributors to what you altered.) WAS 4.250 17:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused as to why there are 2 lists there though ? I'm thinking that for the sites that are in the "allowed" list no rationale must be required because otherwise what is the point of having 2 lists ? My main concern is not the copyright attribution, but the irreplaceable criterion. If the site says we can use their work, why do I need to show it is irreplaceable ? Jackaranga 17:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this license tag in violation of wikipedia policy ? Maybe I should nominate it for deletion and see Jackaranga 17:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qst (talk · contribs)

I'd like to request community input into Qst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). It's been three months now since he was banned, and after talking to him on IRC, I strongly believe he now understands his mistakes, and believe he could come back as a constructive user like he once was. He actually sounds very sincere about how he acted previously. There have also been no further instances of sockpuppetry since the ban started. I'd like to have the community ban removed under two strict conditions;

1. He is placed under community civility parole - any administrator may block him for upto one week if any of his edits are deemed to be incivil.
2. He is placed under mediation - he has already agreed on IRC that I could be his mediator.

I really hope that as a community we can forgive a user that although has made mistakes, did give a lot to the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we also ban him from interacting with "certain" editors? -- John Reaves 21:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that's workable in a collaberative environment - the civility parole should cover that anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems a little idealistic, but I say we give him a last chance. -- John Reaves 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious to hear what others say, but I think it's a good idea to unban him if he is truly sorry about his actions. He actually did make a lot of good edits in his time here. I support the unblock and unban, but at the same time, also support a re-instatement of them if he strays back into the behavior that got him banned in the first place. I assume he'd be editing under the Qst account as well? Acalamari 22:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

He wanted to start a fresh account and let a couple of trusted users know the name of the account - I made it clear that this was not going to happen, so yes, he would be editing under the Qst account. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine then; I didn't think he would get to edit under a new account or one of the others. Acalamari 23:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I supported his ban, but I'd also support letting him resume editing. One further suggested condition would be a prohibition on running for adminship for several (at least 6, preferably 9-12) months. Much of his problematic behaviour emerged in conjunction with his RFAs. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I too would be willing to allow Qst a chance to come back and edit, and to reintegrate himself into the community, because, following my discussion with him on IRC, I believe that he is truly sorry and has realised his mistakes. I also agree with FlyGuy's idea in relation to RFA; that seemed to be the source of the problem last time. However, if he can prove his stability, if he can successfully prove his ability to administrate, he may yet make a good sysop sometime in the future. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear that his RfA's normally cause him to be disruptive, so I would certainly endorse no RfA's for 6 months. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, an unban sounds ok, with the civility parole for a period of time, I see no need for RfA prohibition since any RfAs the community dislikes will be unsuccessful anyway. GDonato (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

1.) We need to know what his username is. 2.) He needs to completely stay away from the editors who he has been in conflict with (me, Riana, Moreschi, etc.) 3.) Put on RFA probation 1 year. After this, I can not see giving this person any more chances, because he has exhausted my and others patiences. Another sock made after he disrupts if he is unbanned and placed on parole, indef. ban. Miranda 23:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We can't make him stay away from users in a collaborative environment. The civility parole would mean that if he approached those editors in a an incivil manor, he would get blocked. Let's be honest though, some of those users who he went mad at did inflame the situation and weren't the most civil themselves. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Also note, Miranda, that he will be editing under the name Qst. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent/edid conflict) To others, let us remind ourselves why he is banned. He has also sent harassing e-mails to people after he was banned, which to me was very disrespectful, but I apologize I cannot forgive what he did. I know that you may be friends with him, Ryan, but I cannot interact with Qst anymore due to running out of patience with him. How many apologies/chances are we going to give him until we are going to be firm and say, "we are through with this, sorry but due to your behavior, you are not welcome to edit"? I have seen users who make lesser offenses and given fewer chances than Qst and are banned indef. Miranda 23:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

He got banned after a tiny discussion. I'm not friends with him, I think he's been a dick at some points, but as I said previously, other users didn't help the situation and often made it worse - it takes two to tango. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It may take two to tango, but let's not forget how many chances Qst has already had: Qst, The Sunshine Man, Rlest, Ds.mt, and maybe I'm missing one or two. I'd say Qst represented more than just one person in this tango. - auburnpilot talk 00:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Tellyaddict...that's the one I missed. - auburnpilot talk 00:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Aquasplash was the other one, which he used very briefly. Acalamari 01:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with an unban provided he uses a declared account and any administrator (even those who "dealt" with him last time) can apply one week blocks for any incivility, personal attacks, etc., and the ban becomes one year after five blocks (following traditional RfAr enforcement). This 'parole' extends to reverting to readd comments on other people's tak pages in addition to any incivility towards anyone. Sarcastic "Ha ha, I'm back" comments included.

Furthermore, any sockpuppetry, vandalism etc. incurs an immediate indefinite ban, with no avenue of community appeal. I would also agree to a twelve-month RfA parole, but looking at it Qst will never be granted administrator rights within the next couple of years, so it's no worries. Daniel 00:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with Qst on a number of occasions, and I found that he had good intentions (most of the time), but he always screwed up along the way. I think an unblock is appropriate, permitted he is placed on civility parole. Any future violations of Wikipedia policy (namely sockpuppetry, vandalism, civility) will result in a unquestionable indefinite ban. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Further comment on the proposed RFA ban. The reason I am suggesting this is not because I think he would pass (it would take a very long time for him to recover from several blocks and a community ban). It is to protect User:QST from himself. I hope, if the ban is overturned, he comes back and contributes positively. But I don't want him to confuse "things going well" with the possibility for a successful RFA. If he starts an RFA I am concerned that the problems would resurface. So the RFA ban is merely to ensure that he understands that adminship is not an attainable goal for some time. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 01:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree to an unblock on the conditions noted at User:Daniel/Qst Provisions, and these only. Daniel 01:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that civility parole and mentorship are enough - civility was his only cause of disruption, not revert warring really. I've studied Qst quite a bit and I think the other paroles are a little too much. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel's provisions to unblock this user. And, Ryan, yes, he did revert war. Miranda 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The revert-warring was for other user's talk pages, so I have qualified it. Daniel 01:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Input: Terms of unblocking (probation)

Actually, simply this provision:-

Qst (talk · contribs) is placed on civility parole for two years. If he makes any edits which are judged by any administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, provocative in nature, readding removed comments, or dickish in nature, then he may be blocked for a period up to one week at the blocking administrator's discretion. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Much simpler. Daniel 01:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair, but I would decrease it to one year. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

<mediation>18 months? Daniel 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I guess if he's been an angel after a year he can always request it to be shortened. 18 months it is then if everyone else agrees. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this user's "final chance" should consist of five chances at which point he's blocked for a year. Personally, I support him being allowed to edit again iff he knows that if he is disruptive again, that he will be indefinitely blocked. --Deskana (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have talked to Qst off-Wikipedia and have observed his increasing maturity over the month, and agree with very little hesitation that he could now be allowed back into our community, albeit placed under very close supervision for the initial period. He seems to have seen his errors and is willing to correct them. I agree to the terms of the parole laid out above (and believe, from my previous conversations with him, that he believes these to be fair also), but I think 6 months of parole is more than enough - it's a long time on Wikipedia. (A few months and he's almost a different person, now. It's a long time when you're a teenager too, you do a lot of growing up). ~ Riana ⁂ 09:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC) edited 10:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Further Further Comment - Its good to see that this prolific editor will be back editing on Wikipedia. He had issues which was mentioned above and while chatting with him on IRC and through e-mail, he has shown that he is remorseful for what he has done and and as Ryan noted he will return as a constructive editor and as far as his adminship dream, hehe, it will remain unfulfilled for I believe 1 year (that will be good enough) and Ryan is a really a good Mediator and his interaction with Qst has been excellent and he might just as well steer him to a better path..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 12:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment – Like Riana, I have also talked to Qst off-wiki, and feel he is genuinely sorry for the actions he made under his accounts. He is growing in maturity, and is very meticulous about what he says. The provisions were prudently made and should help him become a functional member of Wikipedia again, as is his wont. Yes, he revert-warred; yes, he was a dick at some times; yes, he was uncivil at some times. But we've all been or done those things at one point or another in our wiki-lives. I have one more condition that may not be liked by some, though I will lay it out to be discussed: Qst is barred from violating any of the provisions off-wiki as well. Multiple infractions may result in a block not more than 48 hours in duration (note that this will not count toward the possibility of the one-year block). (This is purely precautionary, as some people will inevitably try to bait him on and off-wiki about various matters.) Other than that, I have no further things to say, and wish to welcome Qst back into the community. Regards, —Animum (etc.) 13:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from PrestonH - I talk to Qst via IRC chat, and I believe Qst has cooled down and has learned his lesson. Based on the fact that he is prone to trolling after RfA, I can support his unblock under two conditions...

1. Put on civility parole for at least 6 months. He has cooled down but who knows what will happen next.
2. Put on RfA parole for a year based on what I said above.

He is a great user and I wish Qst would be back in the community soon. PrestonH 16:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that Qst be allowed to edit his talk page, so that people who are not IRC regulars can have a chance to talk to him? --Iamunknown 00:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Qst was unprotected about 12 hours ago, so I don't see why he can't use it now. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for point that out, I did not notice it. --Iamunknown 01:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to this party, I know, but for the record, I support unbanning and I agree with the terms outlined by Ryan in the link in the next section. Personally, I think two years is way too long; I don't know if we've had two year paroles (I haven't noticed one before) is but it seems most paroles are up to a year and for the sake of fairness and consistency, I think the decision to stick with one year is fair. Sarah 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unbanned

I've unbanned Qst per these conditions, I've shortened the parole to 1 year, per consensus and my own belief that anything grater isn't required. I hope everyone can work constructively with Qst now and refraid provoking him. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope Qst can work constructively with everyone and refrain from feeling provoked by little things. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that. I'll hold off on my "what did you expect?" comments, but expect them to appear soon. Corvus cornix 22:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

He's got several people willing to give him another chance. Please at least extend him the courtesy of not appearing to "wait" for for a reason to reblock him. It causes undue stress to all involved. Picaroon (t) 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing backlinks to deleted articles

Maxim (talk · contribs) spent some time today removing backlinks to articles that had been deleted because of expired PRODs. However, some of the removals were from User space, WikiProject space, and AfD space. Is this considered acceptable? It seems to me that this sort of thing should be confined to mainspace. Thanks.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 01:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you raised it with him first? Generally, you only come here if discussion on user pages fails. Daniel 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I figured I should find out whether it's a problem or not before I start arguing the point.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 02:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest not. Looking at this example, that is a clean-up list where it would be useful to have a redlink to click on to find out what happened to the article. The alternative is to copy the delinked name to the search bar or browser URL window, which is inconvencing the person who made that list. Also, if ever there is a problem with a deletion, it helps to be able to check "what links here" for deleted articles to find out where it was discussed. Short answer, only remove from mainspace. Carcharoth 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal should not be automatic,it should be a judgment call based on whether or not we should ever have an article on the topic and if we should, on whether we should now have a redlink in whatever place. Nor should removal be restricted to mainspace; the Template and Portal spaces are also reader facing content that would often need to be reviewed. Other namespaces generally wouldn't merit review. GRBerry 15:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would prefer that these concerns were first addressed on my talkpage. However, while we're still kinda at it, Twinkle was buggy yesterday, there was an error in the script I used to delete the pages. Sorry for the mess, Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 00:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot opened

An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User requests account deletion

User Popperian requests account deletion. --Mperry 19:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't delete accounts, but the page can be courtesy blanked.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, unless I'm missing something, there is nothing more to be done. Article is gone, AFD courtesy blanked, and all indentifiable information has been blanked from userpage/IP.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:ANI#Should this edit be reversed? (permanent link). Popperian's IP is also deleting the relevant WP:SSP and WP:COIN records and I'd like some advice. Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted his talk page per the right to vanish. -- John Reaves 00:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Knoxskorner

I'm not entirely sure, but something in the back of my mind is telling me that this page - User:Knoxskorner - is breaching something. This guideline, perhaps? Any advice gratefully received. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've listed it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Knoxskorner. Corvus cornix 22:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:TURNIP

A new essay. Durova^Charge! 01:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that picture a radish? — iridescent 01:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I got it straight from the turnip article. Durova^Charge! 02:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Might go well with some MUSTARD. Will ^(talk) 02:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And BEANS... Caknuck 06:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"WP:TURNIP" is fine as a shortcut, but the essay itself needs a more meaningful title than "Wikipedia:Turnip". Hesperian 02:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Durova^Charge! 02:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Now the whole crew is here. El_C 04:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems Wikipedia has to have an essay on every old saying. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm..Durova, have anyone in mind I wonder when you wrote this? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of the workshop at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar in particular, but really it's a culmination of a lot of experience and mistakes (in some cases my own mistakes). We may hope a difficult editor will reform, but creative initiatives intended to foster reform really have a very low batting average unless that editor expresses an intention to reform. More often, the effort extended on that person's behalf is a waste of everybody's time. Durova^Charge! 16:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess WP:GONZO is not far behind -- "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -- llywrch 20:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beware the Vandalbot

Just a heads up, there's a vandalbot using open proxies which has been very active recently. Examples: 81.201.58.55 (talk · contribs), 80.190.245.164 (talk · contribs), 208.48.253.137 (talk · contribs), 140.128.20.205 (talk · contribs), 213.85.226.110 (talk · contribs), 69.227.233.133 (talk · contribs). Please keep an eye out for this very distinctive type of edit and block (or report to AIV) on sight. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• 66.210.246.144 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
• 217.66.212.2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
• 59.14.174.100 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)

A few more. MER-C 09:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Those three now blocked and one that I blocked earlier as a simple vandal now has an extended block. WODUP ^(?) 09:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked the following:

• 192.18.100.7 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
• 85.97.7.231 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)

Hut 8.5 10:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

THe same one (or one very like it) has been targetting the Literate programming wiki too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it should be too hard to program our anti-vandal bots to detect this. Has anyone contacted their maintainers yet? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've now got an IRC bot grepping the recentchanges feed for suspicious edits. Just caught 218.110.80.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) that way. Working on a HTTP front end to do automatic reporting and reverting. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also 204.90.101.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), which curiously has some valid recent edits. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I now have a very quickly written antivandalbot running as Apostrobot (talk · contribs) (an old account I'd previously registered for a different bot project). I don't think it's going to run amok, but do keep an eye on it... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cross wiki phenomena for what it's worth, been very active on en wb, en wq & Commons in exactly the same way, probably elsewhere --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspected so, from the sporadic editing. I'll try to extend the code to handle multiple wikis, but that'll take a bit more work yet, both technically and to figure out how to handle stuff like reporting the IPs on different wikis. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a bot or other automation that doesn't require a recent changes feed to IRC, and doesn't require using the API? Two small non WMF wikis I help out at are being hit by this (as are many others we are not aware of I am sure) and setting up an IRC feed or changing the installation to enable the API may be beyond their maintainers skill levels. I wrote some crude perl code (with some considerable help from Eagle_101, thanks!!!) that helps me revert and block more quickly but it still requires a human to look at things. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent versions of MediaWiki have the API on by default, I think. --ais523 13:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

At least one of these wikis I know for sure is too old to even HAVE the API and the other doesn't have it either, I don't think. Even so, I'm not sure how one would set up the IRC feed needed for the other part of using a modern bot like Ilmari wrote. The code I have uses the perl MediaWiki package to fetch the recent changes page (via HTTP) and parse it out to figure out what is going on, it's not very reliable at this point. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got code for accessing a wiki without the use of the API. If someone could give me the vandal-detection code, I'll see about integrating the two. --Carnildo 01:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: Brion came up with an improvement on a fix I'd suggested to him: as of about two hours ago, we've been serving CAPTCHAs to confirm any edits that look like the vandalbot. So the problem seems to have been solved for now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your anti-vandalbot-bot did a great job. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles Closed

The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 08:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serious vandalism over Shane Ruttle Martinez

I posted an advisory about the article Shane Ruttle Martinez on the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard. User:UnionPride who, along with User:Frank Pais and User:SuperVideoGameKid "own" the article vandalized my entry int he following manner [7] by rewriting my post so that it was about a completely different article! These three users have been working in tandem to revert any changes to the article Shane Ruttle Martinez even though the article is filled with vanity phrases and unsourced or poorly sourced claims. UnionPride has also attacked me by accusing me of being a "fascist" because I've edited his article. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Shane_Ruttle_Martinez. Cheap Laffs 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Cheap Laffs is causing problems, and has already been ignored on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. User:AnnieHall, User:Mista-X, and User:UnionPride are all contributors to the Shane Ruttle Martinez article, and have identified it as a target of vindictive vandalism by User: Cheap Laffs. As User:UnionPride stated on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard:

Cheap Laffs has already been confirmed as being someone with an agenda to cause more Wiki-drama on here. His "complaints" come at a time when investigations are ongoing into the vandalism of the Shane Ruttle Martinez and Richard Warman pages. The Shane Ruttle Martinez article has long been settled, as can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shane_Ruttle_Martinez#Protection

http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_23#Shane_Ruttle_Martinez

Entertaining the outdated whines of a fascist determined to upset our Wiki-community serve no purpose. UnionPride 19:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Frank Pais 15:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Confirmed as being someone with an agenda" by who? Where? The fact that the article may be the target of "vindictive vandalism" by others doesn't justify having vanity statements and poor sources. UnionPride and Frank Pais look like they're the same person. They may have other identities too. Cheap Laffs 15:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Drop that accusation, bud, it's counter to the Wiki rules of conduct and cordial behaviour. User:UnionPride made one recent edit to the SRM article. You're angering lots of folks on here, don't take it as a shock that folks are combating your obvious agenda. Frank Pais 17:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge consensus

Could a neutral admin possibly close the merge discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Proposed merger with WikiProject Superman? If the decision is to merge, I can pull all the legwork, but as an invested party I can't close it. Thanks. Hiding Talk 15:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take my word for it (as I'm not too good with consensus), I'd say it seems unlikely it will be merged, there are several valid oppose comments, thats just my thoughts, it's up to an administrator to handle this. Qst 15:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lanka/LTTE resolution

This is to inform you that this long standing issue (a dispute of almost 2 weeks based on long other disputes) has come to a resolution in which all parties (editors of both sides of the conflict) are subject to 1RR restriction for a period of 3 month and are advised to use the already existant WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation to discuss their differences and try to reach some sort of understandings and collaboration. Indef blocked accounts of User:Netmonger and User:Lahiru k will be unblocked ASA this report is reviewed by other admins in this board. There are already four admins who are dealing this case, User:Chaser, User:Haemo, User:FayssalF and User:Rlevse. All four admins are ready to move forward and let this issue be sorted.

The admins' work consisted on a mix of mediation and administration roles. Both parties have been trying to resolve their issues through mediating for so long but in vain. We tried to avoid the ArbCom for now as it is so backlogged plus the fact that the results would be the same as this resolution or most probably worse as in the case of the Eastern Europe case.

For all details, please refer to the resolution. Please, note that not all editors showed up or signed even being formally notified. Some participated but didn't get back to support or reject the proposed resolution. Most of those who couldn't make it are editors who rarely edit those sets of articles but there are other usual 2 or 3 other editors who couldn't finish the discussion since a few days now. So all the 4 admins w/ the support of 6 users (3 users each side) are ready for resolving this issue. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please verify when lahiru_k and netmonger will be unblocked from the proposal ? Because whats written in the proposal contradicts what you are saying here. Sinhala freedom 02:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The initial proposal is different from this and I can support the wording of FayssalF here; there has been discussion on this in various places. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It disturbs still the Admins consider Netmonger and Lahiru_k are separate individuals. The findings and statements of this, thisand this can’t be compromised for the Netmonger/Lahiru_k’s testimonies via e-mail communication for the disruptions the accounts have caused for a long time.Migales 02:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This means that you haven't accepted the resolution while having followed the mess since a long time w/o understanding what's going on (assuming good faith). The thing everybody is sure about is that you are a sock puppet of someone editing those articles and for that you have been blocked by an admin. Any "disruptions the accounts may cause" will be dealt accordingly and of course this applies to all parties w/ no exception whatsoever. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• In case it's unclear, we're looking for some external admin support here for this resolution. We've managed to form a majority of active users on record supporting the proposal, with no opposition so far, and we'd like to move forward. --Haemo 18:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• I've perused the case. I'm totally uninvolved, and support this resolution. It seem much better than edit warring or having the articles locked. I am willing to use sysop tools to enforce the terms if users come to me politely with diffs that support their claims. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• I have not reviewed this matter, and have no opinion regarding the participants. I do have experience of some of the admins who were mentioned above, and wish to place on record that I am willing to support this initiative by independently reviewing any matter bought to my attention by any of the above named admins (and only the admins, please) should this service be required. I hope it isn't, and best wishes to all concerned. LessHeard vanU 21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving on

Ok. Fair enough and see that everything is in order to start applying this. I've just unblocked Netmonger (talk · contribs) and Lahiru k (talk · contribs) for the record. Thanks everyone. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My only problem with this are templates being added to the relevant articles themselves, as here - should these not be on the talkpages? WjBscribe 23:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue of the template has been marginal but i still agree with you. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't saying it was a big thing - I meant to convey overall support for the arrangement. Just thought I'd raise the matter having noticed it. One thing I'd hope everyone can work on is merging June 1990 massacre of police officers in Eastern Sri Lanka and Kalmunai massacre - articles about closely interlinked events, which occurred in the same place over the same period. Both refer to the other but each told from one side's perspective: one into describes an LTTE massacre (of the police officers) and the other a massacre by the Sri Lankan Army (of civilians) that followed. Seems like rather problematic content forking. WjBscribe 00:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I see Elonka starting a merge discussion at both tak pages. In parallel, there would be still some other options (AfD or an RfC) to see what can be done. The work of admins is limited to the resolution itself and has no authority over content. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The consensus on the proposal page was to do the templates as I did them, one on talk, one on article page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:UKFlags

If Administrators are going to block the editing of a template, the very least they can deign to do is to respond to queries on the relevant Talk page. Or has somebody blocked this article from editing and then removed it from their Watchlist? Not a very satisfactory situation either way. --Mais oui! 09:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The irony of the previous comment section above this was not lost on me :) The UKFlags template was fully protected by an admin (not this one) due to its being subject to revert-warring by the abovementioned parties. If you need a change made, maybe put up an {{editprotected}} request? The problem with article protections is that someone can do many dozens of these per day as part of WP:RPP patrol work. An admin may not be familiar enough to make comments on content other than to judge when edit-warring or vandalism is occurring and protect accordingly - Alison ^❤ 10:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ta. Duly applied said template. --Mais oui! 10:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Now could be a good time to unprotect the article, IMO. The article is protected since August, and beside the small revert war there was at the time, I don't see any other instance of a revert war there. Am I missing something? -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's probably worth a shot now that the arb case above has ended and some of the previous warriors now risk probation as this template comes under the category of Troubles articles. Note, however, that there was a similar edit war on another UK template over the exact same flags issue only last week - Alison ^❤ 10:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't aware of the arb case. I'll drop a note to WjBscribe then. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a mediation in progress (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage) that should conclude before this template is unprotected, in my opinion. Andrwsc 05:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More User:Grawp fun

Moved here from WP:ANI#More User:Grawp fun as this is a more appropriate board for this. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I just found the talk pages of a bunch of Grawp socks I blocked the other day created with the Goatse image. I've deleted them and placed them into WP:PT to prevent their recreation. I've also protected the user pages of these accounts. Admins may wish to do this pre-emptively with other socks of this highly disruptive user. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Who added the image to the pages? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The accounts added the image to their own talk pages, at least for five of the socks (e.g. User talk:Givesnake was done by user:Givesnake). I also went through the Grawp sock categories and found a couple of more socks with that fine art on the talk page. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jimmy Wales

Apparently in the pages history Jimbo Wales confirmed that it was not him. Now, in the Block Log he was not blocked. He should be because Jimbo confirmed that it was not him and the user is still open to vandalism. This user should be indef blocked. --Coastergeekperson04 04:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That block log shows that User:Jimmy Wales has not blocked any other user. The log of where User:Jimmy Wales was blocked is here. WODUP 04:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for filing this report. Happy editing. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, it should be observed that, when checking a block in the block log, one should enter, as does WODUP, "User:Whomever" in the "Title" field; entering the user's name in the "User" field returns only blocks that have been placed by that user—hence the confusion here. Joe 05:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A moment of amusement

...with a slight admin-consideration side to it. Thought I'd share, as it's at least a bit of a chuckle.

Does it mean that I've got WP:AGF right when self-admitted vandals compliment me on it? (I had reverted this blanking and left this note on the talk page in response to the vandal.) And (here's the admin bit) should the IP get a preventative block considering it's self-admitted? If so, can an admin take care of that please? Tony Fox (arf!) 05:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Anetode blocked the IP for 24h using the {{Schoolblock}}. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block review

I've indef-blocked Jfwg22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for repeated link spamming. He didn't get a level-4 warning yet, but his contribution shows a hisory of periodical spamming TV show articles with links to an AOL user page stuffed with copyrighted epidode videos. As those are his only contributions, I think he would simply try again next month and not be bothered with policy. Review welome. — Edokter • Talk • 02:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No problems there. There are plenty of times when issuance of a test4 won't be preventative and an on-sight block will. No tolerance for advertising. Keegan^talk 05:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly even an automated account. I've left them a talk page message as to their block and directions for using {{unblock}} should the return. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, righteous block. Copyright status of the content is not relevant, spamming is spamming. This may just be a case of over-enthusiasm, though, since the links were to AOL not some private site. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • While the links (video.aol.com) appeared to be 'legit', I've tried some of them and got a 'page not found', suggesting one can sign up for a page to post videos, and that the pages were summarily deleted for copyright infringement. — Edokter • Talk • 13:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David J. Tholen

For several months there has been a lengthy content dispute in this article about his Usenet reputation. Several IPs were adding information about it with some sources but coming from Groups.Google although several others were removed but reverted sometimes by admins mentioning that it was removal of sourced information example - but other admins had reverted for WP:BLP issues and removing the content. The article was once protected due to the issue in May 2007. Now recently, User:Nightingale0 and several IPs have been continuing the edit-warring with adding the same content mentionning with Nightingale01 reverting it mentionning in the talk page that the sources are not reliables thus not meeting WP:V and WP:RS.

I was looking for some better sources but it seems virtually inexistent outside of Groups.Google, so it would be debatable whether the info should be kept (would hope that there were non-internet articles such as magazines and newspaper ones). I would agree to kept in part the content but with more solid sources and third-party sources as well as been neutral and meeting WP:BLP.

I'm hoping that they will discuss the issue on the talk page, but soon I will have to be forced to protect the page and block the involved parties for WP:3rr violation. So we will have to keep an eye on this issue. The recent two parties have been warned on it--JForget 15:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism to FA Halloween II

I have reverted vandalism at today's appropriate featured article (and also added a bit of content). I may have violated WP:3R inadvertantly, but I think it's an exception under WP:3R#Exceptions as fighting vandalism. This article may need to be watched all day. Bearian 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry... it is. And don't worry about reverting more than 3 times... if it's reverting vandalism, it's okay. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just another day at the office, Bearian. Keegan^talk 17:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war at Featured picture removal candidates

see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Wikipe-tan full length. Any thought? The Placebo Effect 04:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss this with MER-C, but he refuses to respond to me. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See also:

• Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Sorry ... but wikipetan closed as delist?
• Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan#Wikipe-tan image considered for delisting from Featured Picture
• User talk:MER-C#Wikipe-tan (FL)

-- Ned Scott 04:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've asked both parties to stop cold turkey and come here to discuss. I haven't protected the pages because of my high esteem for both of you. I'm fairly confident you can leave the files as they are. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Another opposer in the discussion has closed the delist discussion. A hand full of Wikipe-tan haters are forcing this issue closed, brushing off the community discussion, guidelines, and policies we have regarding the issue. And given the multiple requests for discussion on this, we have nothing. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll let this comment stand for itself. MER-C 06:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I was doing other things earlier today and so I couldn't really respond in a detailed manner. The nom had run it's course (7 days) and was due for closing. The main problem with the image is the obvious aliasing (see anti-aliasing for those not familiar with image processing), which was not addressed at all by the keep side of the debate. This is a problem that can really only be fixed by redrawing the image from scratch. All the beating about the bush re: enc value missed the main reason for delisting. Also, I believe there has been partisan canvassing by Ned (see [8] and [9]). Before the canvassing occurred, the outcome of the debate was a very clear delist as recommended by the FPC regulars. I also find it rather suspicious that almost all of the votes after that point were to keep the image. I also made it very clear that disputed closures were to be discussed at WT:FPC.

The original nom, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan, also showed the same symptoms.

As for the vector version, we can easily wait for that and nominate it when it comes. This wasn't bought up in the debate, so I didn't even know it existed (it still doesn't). The question is not whether a different version of the picture will meet the criteria some point in the future, it is whether the nominated picture meets the criteria now. And it doesn't. (Given that there's petabytes of anime churned out annually, such an image is highly replaceable). MER-C 06:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It might have been OK to let the Anime WikiProject and Wikipe-tan talk page know about this, though it is kind of shopping for certain users. But you can't tell people: "everyone should definitely go over there and comment to keep this bullshit delisting from happening". At least keep the text neutral. Wickethewok 06:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to notification concerns that arose during the debate I came up with {{FPdelist}} so that users watching the page would know about the nom without the nominator having to decide on the users/projects that need notification. If someone can help me fix the template so the links work properly, this might be a viable fix for the future. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

MER-C, could it be that the reason supporters turned to keep after my message was because I was the first one to clear up the self-reference issue, which even resulted in people who had previously voted in changing their position? The reason I urged people to go to the delist discussion was because it was being hammered by people who were attacking it for it's encyclopedic value and for a policy that did not apply, and the tone of "get your pitch forks" was obviously poking fun at those who thought there was canvassing during the first FPC. It's easy to assume that "anime fans" are some kind of hivemind, despite the WP:ANIME opposers and the anti-anime supporters. Most, if not all, of the users who left comments on the FPC and the delist discussion had rationales that spoke for themselves, that had good, independent reasons for their views.

The fact that this image had passed FPC before, and the image was still of high quality, most of us did not believe the aliasing issue was even a serious concern. The image has been featured in at least two print magazines and one print newspaper, as well as on large posters for Wikimedia events. But because you see some pixels at 100%, you took the criteria out of context. At first glance the debate seems to be nothing more than the self-reference issue. It had been said in both the original FPC and the delist discussion that a fix was possible, but since that did not seem to be the real issue, it's not surprising that people didn't spend time on it.

When I came across a past vectoring of Wikipe-tan's artwork, Commons:Image:Wikipe-tan Birthday.svg, by Commons:User:Editor at Large, it became evident that a fix was not an empty promise. I figured your close was based on your judgement of "irreparable" and wasn't about bureaucratic nitpicking at deadlines. I then listed the delist discussion under a section specifically made for these situations, nominations on hold for technical reasons, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Suspended nominations. Given the support for the image, it's proven value, and evidence of a real fix, that you would have granted us this courtesy instead of making people jump through hoops. I believe you have done this because you feel the image is supported by "screaming fans" rather than the merits of the image itself. -- Ned Scott 18:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The aliasing is a problem, yet fixable, when viewing Wikipe-tan at full resolution. At a smaller scale such as a thumb you see no distortions. However, given that it was passed the first time around regardless of personal opinions on both sides, shows that the image succesfully fulfilled the criteria for Featured and was such that way since August of 2006 meaning more than full year had passed without incident, and given the image was used in publication, that adds to further credit. Still though, a vectored version was called for and this just gives more reason to speed the making of one to ensure a better quality image for all.

Throughout the debate, aliasing was brought up rarely and took a backseat as both sides were focused on clearing up the "self" issue among the rest. Only at the end when the majority of voters were steamed out and didn't want anything else more to do with the debate, that it was really focused on. Unfortunately the debate is heavily laced with personal opinions and taste regarding anime, not just the image itself, which sadly can't be avoided. Personally speaking, she's a great piece of imagery. Time, thought, work...I do image editing, drawing, etc.. and being able to pull out something like Wikipe-tan takes skill which is why I can appreciate it above the fact that it's anime. Even though it's not some elegant picture of a blossoming flower or an astounding shock and awe photo of a war-time scenario, Wikipe-tan has proven worth even if one feels insulted or ashamed because there's "some cartoon" on the featured list. Unlike with a photograph, aliasing is by no means as big of an issue as it's seemingly caught up to be and as such a higher quality vector of her can be uploaded soon.

Hopefully there's no hard feelings and it can all be resolved, keeping an open mind when going through the proceedings. Fox816 22:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture candidacies should always be reviewed at full resolution with an image editing program, as they may be used outside the context of the encyclopedia. It becomes fairly obvious when reviewers haven't done so. Plus it's unprofessional of us to call an image that looks good in a thumbnail but horrific at full res (perhaps due to compression artifacts or obvious stitching errors) our best work. MER-C 08:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

On a good note, Ned has recently apologized to me and taken responsibility for his actions. That takes courage and responsibility (which distinguishes him from some of our tendentious editors) and I commend him for that.

However, as I stated on my talk page, I believe his conduct should go onto the public record. As a regular closer of FPCs for eight months, I reckon it is pointy for someone with relatively little experience with featured pictures to revert it and then question my ability to close nominations. To put this into a more familiar context, this would be similar to a non-admin reposting a deleted article on afd, reverting the closure and then questioning the trust the community has put in the admin. There was also personal attacks and incivility.

I think this is resolved, and we should be getting on with reaching 1000 FPs (currently 938). MER-C 08:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the situation is resolved for the most part, though some of the flames are still flickering. Anyone responding to my comments, again I state please be more open-minded and leave personal attacks out. I'd rather not want such on my pages. Fox816 02:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] revert to the debate closure of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Wikipe-tan full length?

On a side note, any reason why I shouldn't revert to the 01:44, 29 October 2007 revision and protect this page from editing? That's when the debate was closed. I am feeling like spanking the people who continued arguing there afterwards. Seriously, discussion pages are here for something... (I know this is not AfD, but...) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

go ahead, i would have done it, but i voted. The Placebo Effect 14:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I support reverting to the debate closure by MER-C and protecting (if needed). The discussion had grown stale with no new points being raised or addressed, which is why I had suggested restarting the nom. With a new version on the way, there is no point in restarting, and none of the edits since has been constructive. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody is yelling, I reverted to version by MER-C at 04:30, 29 October 2007. I did not protect because I trust you guys to behave -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Leave it alone. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you insist, please move the additional comments to the talk page. -- Ned Scott 18:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For your amusement

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimbo Wales. Oh dearie me. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So who is going to step up and close this? This is outside the realm of dispute resolution since the engaged and aggrieved parties are not involved. We went through this with Essjay, need not repeat ourselves. Keegan^talk 20:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried to close it. I think the talk page could be a useful centralized discussion location but as Jimbo has made it clear that he made the block as Jimbo (and not as just any other admin) then there is no real point to continuing. Thatcher131 20:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There's deeper symptoms here, but not from Jimbo's side, there's issues from the other one. Jimbo has a grant of trust from the community. That grant is made even stronger by the fact that he doesn't need it as god-king, but we freely give it regardless. The trust in the core philosophies of the community, as articulated by Jimbo originally and believed in by all who contribute productivly is what makes us us. There are failures of enculturation that have occurred in the last couple years, with new users who either fail to get or outright reject our core values. The all-prevelent wikilawyering used by, in this case trolls, and in other cases by users wishing to ignore the desire for free content or fanboyish rush to save unneeded articles is nothing more then a symptom of that. We are not a democracy nor are we anarchy. We are wikipedia. There are portions of the project, users whose goals place them at odds with the values we stand for, that are not in any way compatible with wikipedia. It's time to cleanse. 3 cheers for Jimbo. -M^ask? 20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for always backing up Jimbo because he is the founder of the project, some of his actions as a admin/bureucrat (god-king sysop?) have been quite bold and I do agree that the desysoping of Zscout370 may have been overkill. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't defend him soley as founder, he took a needed step. Zscout isn't permanently gone, he get's his bit back in a few days, and honestly, he isn't dumb. I've talked to him before. He should've known better. A bad judgement, but we all make them, and that's how Jimbo appears to feel, too. He specifically said that Zscout remains in good standing, will get the bit back, and they just need to have a brief talk. Everything seems fine and we got rid of a troll. Where's the problem? -M^ask? 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Zscout already has his adminship back. Jimbo restored his rights within 24 hours. [10]. - auburnpilot talk 21:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Its not that Zscout is gone, it is the fact that the reason for desysoping seems invalid and looks like overkill. Zscout was desysoped for "wheel warring" but when one checks Miltopia's blocklog he only unblocked that account once [11], now I'm not complaining about the block but the desysoping was out of order, Jimbo should have tried to "have abrief talk" with Zscout before removing his sysop status for wheel warring that is clearly non existent. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Just once in a while, just once, we need to block a bloody troll and be rid of them, without everybody else screaming loudly about abuse of process, WP:BITE, giving extra extra extra extra long rope, rules, guidelines, precedent and all the other bollocks that we always hand to the nasty little bastards, scattering good editors to the four winds in the path of being "reasonable" to unreasonable, irritating little gits who will run to WR or WT to bemoan Wikipedia policy and how we all persecute them by tolerating them for far, far too long. This is the 9th most popular website in the world. It's time we started vaporising trolls with prejudice and stopped wikilawyering and extending pointless, pointless "I really mean it next time" extra chances just because, if we don't, all hell lands upon the admin/crat/godking who does. I'm sorry that Zscout got the shitty end of the stick, but, really, what did he expect? We should have no time for martyrs and no time for trolls. Badmouthing Jimmy and queuing to fuck him over isn't exactly building an encyclopedia. Or have people missed that particular minor aim of this place amongst the artificial drama? ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly does this justifies the desysoping? I don't have anything against the block but what I'm stating hasn't received any kind of reasonable explanation. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The people shrieking loudest about this (I don't mean you, Caribbean H.Q., I don't know you) are also the ones who shriek loudest about there being no process to desysop or that the process is too convoluted etc. These people want it both ways - immediate desysoping and death to those who would dare to desysop someone. This, I would say (and again I don't mean you), is part of the definition of trolling.

ZScout's desysopping was explained at the time: wheelwarring over the block of an obnoxious troll isn't on; and a quick desysopping (not unprecedented here) is something done to protect Wikipedia. Zscout got his bit back (others were not so lucky in the past) and remains in good standing with much respect from all valued editors. So that problem is over, unless people want Jimbo to be branded with the Mark of Cain or 6 years of consensus building to be swept away in order to replace it with 3 days of kneejerk reaction. These are possible, but I question how desirable they are.

Whatever, less whingy more writey is in order for us all (myself included - I'm typing this whilst uploading to Flickr photos I will later move to Wikipedia and write articles around. And updating my new iPod, but that's not important right now). ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wot Redvers said. Zscout is cool, if my email conversations with him are any indicator, Jimbo is comfortable that Zscout is a good guy, a serial drama creator / enabler is gone, and I find myself wondering why we are still kvetching about it. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] *Cough*

WP:UAA needs some admin's attention. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 01:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked and/or cleared all but one, which I'm not certain is a violation. As this is my first night on the job, I'd love an extra set of eyes on it. Dppowell 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine, I removed remaining User:Erictheocartman as it is not a BLP concern. Keegan^talk 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Menudo (band) and Menudo la banda

Apparently someone moved Menudo (band) to Menudo la banda, and someone else reversed this but the edit history is still at Menudo la banda. I would appreciate it if someone can help fix this; the correct article title should be Menudo (band). --Metropolitan90 04:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I will fix it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AWB request list needs processing

Please, process the AWB list because it is 4 days old. I am impatient to use this nice software. Lantonov 07:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not an administrative issue. Please post to the application discussion page. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 11:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Jody, but it is an administrative issue - only admins can approve users, I think by adding the username to a protected page. The instructions tell the users that if their request is over 24 hours old, to mention this (nicely) at WP:AN. This is exactly what Lantonov has done. I would clear the backlog if I had anything to do with AWB, or just knew what the procedure was to approve users, and the criteria for approval. Neil ☎ 12:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It says any admin can do it, so I went ahead and approved three (including Lantonov). Cheers.--chaser - t 12:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I didn't realize that - thought it had to be approved by the folks at AWB. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 17:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green Kirby harassing Sukecchi

Green Kirby, as part of some ongoing feud with Sukecchi, today posted this (anonymously) to Wikipedia:Help desk: A Wikipedia user identified as Sukecchi has used an extension of your site to pronounce his sexuality and express his wish for a boyfried. This is info that is better suited for My-Space or other sites. His abuse of your site weakons your its redibility. [all sic] and signed it "Concerned Parent". This, to me, is past the point of mere Wikiquette violation. chaser had been trying to work with him, but.... --Orange Mike 15:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for a myriad of reasons. See talk page. Given that they were already given a second chance on an indef block this week and given their history, this could be longer. Feel free, anyone, to change duration - Alison ^❤ 16:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

One week sounds fine to me. I hadn't seen the help desk post. I'm trying to balance the low article content to drama ratio against the fact that he's 13 and his dad is helping him, but if it continues next week, then I'll know it's become intractable and I will re-block indef. Based on notes on my talk page, I'm sure this really is his father, but I've asked that he get his own account if he wants to continue posting his feedback (being charitable).--chaser - t 17:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] revert war on nazism page.

"neon white" not only repeatedly reverts stuff on the nazism page, he also repeatedly removes discussion of his reversions on the talk:nazism page, making it impossible to discuss the issues.

The edit war on "Nazism" has escalated to an edit war on "talk nazism". He not only edits "Nazism" to accord with his view of his nazis, he edits "talk nazism" to delete disagreements with his view of good editing practice - there are now more neon white reverts on "talk nazism" than there are on "nazism"

James A. Donald 01:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I will not get into the specifics of who is right and who is wrong, I will merely direct you to our dispute resolution process. There is no three revert rule violation and the "war" is not worthy of protection over. Keegan^talk 04:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of other people's comments on Talk pages is vandalism. Whether it's 3 reverts or one, it needs to be stopped. Corvus cornix 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not always. Removal of article talk page comments is acceptable if the page is being used as a chat forum on subjects unrelated to Wikipedia, and in all namespaces in the case of trolling, severe personal attacks/legal threats, libel, and copyright violations. In many cases it's vandalism, but certainly not all. It should, however, not be done by users involved in the situation, as that creates the impression of partiality. Picaroon (t) 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Martin-Jenkins

Can something be done about the constant vandalism to this page. The same vandal keeps reverting my edits although each time with a differant IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a few days of semi-protection. The material being added looks like a violation of WP:BLP, and there's already a sourced mention of his friction with other colleagues. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appeals of Keep at WP:AFD

I can't find any information about what to do when someone wants to appeal a keep decision by an admin, or brings forth new evidence. Nobody so far has questioned any of my deletes, but three times I've been questioned about my keeps, in one case of alleged abusive sockpuppetry. Any thoughts? Bearian 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In general those still can go to deletion review. It's probably better to resolve the abusive sockpuppetry claim by presenting evidence or via checkuser before making a claim that the AFD was tainted. That said, if the arguments are more important than numbers (depends on the AFD) it shouldn't make much difference. If you're persuaded, there's no harm in changing your closure as long as you don't go back and forth about it.--chaser - t 20:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bearian, the points I make about the duplicate "keep" votes in the discussion aren't sock allegations: they were actually posted by the same user repeatedly, probably unaware of protocol, and can be verified by checking the AfD history. He didn't use socks to influence the voting, it's just that he changed his signature in the preferences so that it read "Bill" instead of his username. The same username is still visible in the page history. Thomjakobsen 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the said closure. Thanks. Bearian 20:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that AfDs are explicitly not votes, and decisions should be made on the basis of arguments rather than how many people show up and say keep or delete. Assuming that's still true, then I would say it shouldn't matter how many sockpuppets show up and say keep or delete - the decision should not have been a head count no matter what, so it shouldn't matter if the head count changes. However, if someone brings new information to you that would drastically change the situation, perhaps DRV or a new AfD is in order. Natalie 20:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)AfD not being a vote, the number of keeps and deletes is, of course, only the start of deciding the result. As was said above, the arguments are what must count. I have closed AfDs as keeps with a majority of delete votes and deleted where there's a majority of keeps. Explain the reasoning in the close and complaints are limited to those who want it to be just a vote (and can be dismissed) and those who would have complained even if the majority agreed (and can be dismissed, but more carefully). The deciding factor is a mix of consensus and cogent arguments. Also, never be afraid to relist if neither is clear, even though that frequently means someone else will close it minutes later based on personal opinion or headcount, alas. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify this specific case: the only "keep" was from a single user who then changed his signature, made another comment marked "keep" (probably in good faith, but it looks superficially like a second keep), and then finally changed to a "delete" without striking through the previous "keeps". So it's not a case of the "headcount" shifting, it's a case of all "deletes", but the page at the time of closing still looked like there were two "keeps" in the mix. The question is: if the closing admin takes another look at the discussion in light of this and agrees that the consensus was to delete, can they revert the initial closing decision without taking it to DRV? Thomjakobsen 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course. We don't do process for the sake of process. Pardon me, I mean, we shouldn't do process for the sake of process. Human beings editing a human encyclopedia == changes of mind and being open to persuasion. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to first ask the original closing admin to reconsider before going ahead "behind his back" so to speak. Thatcher131 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise: in fact, this is what the person I was originally agreeing with said her/himself: "if the closing admin takes another look at the discussion..." [emphasis added] ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, this has been resolved. I changed my closure and deleted the article. Bearian 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems perfectly fine. I also think, though, that if you weren't sure or wanted a broader discussion, a DRV discussion would not be out of line. Natalie 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)DRV has a reputation as a bit of a bear pit and often in my experience descends into a pillory on which to put the closing admin to allow the DRV community to throw things at them. If it can be avoided (closing admin revising a decision, reopening and relisting the AfD, starting a new AfD) then that is better than stepping into a corrosive environment often inhabited by people who are only there because of their particular slant on 'pedia policy. IMHO. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with that characterization of DRV. There have been some memorable battles there, of course. But 90% of discussions are very civil and direct, particularly when there is a tangible circumstance to consider, like sockpuppetry. Chick Bowen 22:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the possibility exists that all I've seen are the memorable battles... after I'd been untied from the pillory and cleared the rotten tomate sur le visage I'd been served with. And your mileage may vary, of course. And does, clearly. I'm stuck in gear on this one: DRV is more poison than it isn't. Mixed metaphors a-go-go from me tonight :o) ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

One obvious answer: The DRV instructions say to discuss a change with the closing admin first - this is because the DRV/community preference is for (if a change is appropriate) the change to be made by the closing admin without DRV involvement. So yes, the closing admin can, and should, revise their change if they think it appropriate. GRBerry 02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dozens of bad-quality edits as a result of a coursework assignment

It seems that a lecturer/tutor at Macquarie University has set his students an assignment which involves adding contributions to Wikipedia (see page 25 of this).

In recent days, this has resulted in large numbers of bad-quality, unsourced, POV essay-like edits from multiple new accounts (all containing "mas214" in the username); see e.g. the following edit histories: [12], [13], [14]. (There are too many affected articles to list them all here...)

This was originally suspected as sockpuppetry, hence User:Icairns reported it here: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/TUMAS214; this report contains a list of the accounts involved (20 so far).

Any ideas on how to deal with this? Using Wikipedia as a testbench as part of a coursework assignment is just bad form; should we contact the tutor involved?

Regards, Oli Filth^(talk) 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just treat them as normal editors, explaining how they can improve the quality of their contributions. A.Z. 16:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be that these particular students will never use these accounts again, hence, will never read their talk pages, etc. But this problem will recur every time this course is run, which is why I suggest that the tutor be contacted. Oli Filth^(talk) 16:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Tried that. The problem is they disappear as soon as they're done with their work, and none have them have tried to talk to any of us. The main problem, I think, is the root of this -- they're writing essays to put into wiki articles, which just isn't kosher because essays are POV'd almost by definition. I think the professor needs to understand and explain to the students that they should be adding cited facts, not essays. If they do that then this would be a great way to have the encyclopedia improved once a semseter. Gscshoyru 16:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict — The response depends in part on what the assignment was, I think. This could be used as a learning experience in the area of collaborative working or the value of business rules (only using the term as it's generic = specifications for action and contribution) as part of an information product. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to give into the temptation of blocking the users and forgetting about it, but that's not really in the spirit of Wikipedia. I believe we should contact the course tutor and tell them that Wikipedia is free- they can make their own copy of relevant articles and host them on their own server for people to add to. Or if the tutor insists their students should add to Wikipedia, we should inform them they'll keep getting blocked and reverted if they don't follow our policies. --Deskana (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how they are any different than other new users who don't understand what we are about. 1 != 2 16:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the individual users are transient. It's the fact that they're being "forced" by a tutor to edit en masse. In effect, it's organised vandalism (albeit non-malicious). Oli Filth^(talk) 17:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the "forced" comment - this would appear to not be a voluntary editing activity. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Deskana, and the forced comment -- and additionally, Until, the other major difference is that they post what they need to and then disappear, and never see the comments we leave them. Gscshoyru 17:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Posting and leaving is common amongst new users. It is a good idea to contact the university, but I don't think these users pose any sort of unique challenge to us. 1 != 2 17:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is true. However, it theoretically has the possibility of becoming a constructive source of content. Which is why... we should contact the instructor. I think we're all agreed on the "contact the instructor part." Gscshoyru 17:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, like all new users they have a tremendous potential to add to Wikipedia. We also have the opportunity to influence their behavior and expectations before they edit and never come back which is a good thing. 1 != 2 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I see the problem as he essentialy lets his students loose after telling them "here's how you create an account, here's how you edit, now go wild". If the assigment did at least mention ever so briefly, say, if I can only choose two, at least wp:npov and wp:v... I think that properly handled, these assignments could potentially be a positive contribution to wikipedia. Does anybody know if he himself is a wikipedia editor?--victor falk 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As a professor, this whole thing intrigues me. I was thinking of having my students next semester do an assignment where they had to add one cited sentence to a relevant wikipedia article. Is this not welcome? I think an assignment like this could benefit both wikipedia and the students. Or is it just an issue with the specific assignment? Rangek 18:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Whilst it has the potential to be useful, I think that in all probability, forcing a bunch of newbie editors to go round making edits may result in more harm than good. The above is an example of this! From the professor's point of view, I don't understand how this could make a good assignment; why does it have to involve editing a public website? What's wrong with normal essays? If the students get an essay wrong, no-one else has to sort out the mess. Oli Filth^(talk) 18:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is much easier to grade 200 sentences added to wikipedia than it is to grade 200 2-3 page essays. Plus, I would hope that if the student added nonsense to wikipedia the professor would revert it as they graded it. (Eliminating or at least minimizing the "someone else sorting out the mess" aspect.) Also, I would think it a public service to add a hundred or so cited, relevant, sentences to wikipedia. Scholarship (even in this most modest form) should be shared, not just relegated to the classroom. I also think that it would make the students work harder, since their work will be "in the public eye". Rangek 18:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

With no disrepect intended, if 200 essays is too much work, then why not get the students to each hand a sentence in on a piece of paper? Regarding the "professor reverting", as we've just seen, inevitably that's not what would happen. In this case it took 3 or 4 editors to figure out what was going on and try to undo 2 weeks' worth of damage. And unless the prof happens to be an experienced Wiki editor, they're probably not in the best position to judge what is/isn't appropriate for Wiki. I agree that scholarship shouldn't be consigned to the classroom, but at the same time, Wikipedia isn't a testbed for experimentation and foul-ups that professors should be falling back on to save themselves some effort. If the students' work is good enough, then add it once it's been graded! Oli Filth^(talk) 19:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you've hit on something here. It could be some kind of wikiproject maybe? If mentored properly it could be a great way of fostering good editors. Here's some interesting info Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-12-26/Wikipedia and academia Just a caveat: I'm afraid it could increase the risk of articles becoming academic instead of encyclopedic.--victor falk 20:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects#Suggested_exercises there seems to be a project just like I was thinking of doing, i.e., having students add cited sentences to wikipedia articles. I don't think we have to worry about "articles becoming 'academic' instead of 'encyclopedic'" with contriubutions from an introductory level class. Rangek 23:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be worth making some kind of an effort to track all these university-lead edits? I know that a friend of mine has a similar assignment task at his university, involving editing wikipedia. Although this has some potential to really improve wikipedia, i do wonder if we should compile a list of known assignment tasks and which topics they cover, to help us keep an eye out for a flood of bad edits. As a side note, does this in a way fall under the category of meatpuppets? Hugzz 00:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As you folks have eventually found, the question of how to deal with students, professors and assignments in Wikipedia is not new. I was one of the folks who kicked this off in 2003, and as you can see from the above page it can be pulled off successfully. I hope you will not go with your earlier sentiment and try to prevent this type of dynamic from happening. Professors need to give good guidelines and learn about the Wikipedia community culture, rather than just telling students, "Go wild," but you should know it can be done well. As to the earlier comment by Oli Filth, despite what you'd think, grading stuff on Wikipedia is about 5x harder than grading individual handed-in assignments. Think of tracking what account is what student, doing all the diffs, figuring out the quality of an edit versus others, et al. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have been using Wikipedia now with my students this semester and it is really a great experience for English as a foreign language students. We have had to adapt to Wikipedia culture as well as improving writing skills. My class fits in well with the notion of taking time to adapt the students (and the teacher) to Wikipedia norms but I can understand why some classes may not want to "waste" time in that way.Thelmadatter 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted the instructor yet? There is still a lot of this stuff coming in. - Ehheh 14:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh. If no one has then I think I shall do so. And the assignment is due today, so it'll stop after today. But it'll make us better off next semester if we explain this. Gscshoyru 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the useful things about school assignments is that we have the potential to explain to the teacher how to do it, who then will show the students. Our present tutorial material are actually quite useful for this, especially WP:FIRST. But if anyone wants to a specialized page, let me know and I'll help. One of the problems they have is finding appropriate topics that are course related. for some course it might be tricky, but I think anyone experienced here could help make suggestion--mine would tend to be bios.--it's adaptable to almost any course subject. (It occurs to me that we might have a button for "missing articles possibly related to this one") DGG (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So, he finally responded. Here's his response, intermixed with my letter. His response looks pretty good, I think.

Hi Gscshoyru
> Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#Dozens_of_bad-quality_edits_as_a_result_of_a_coursework_assignment
Thanks for passing on the link to this discussion.
> Though your assignment has the potential to be a useful source of
> content for Wikipedia, currently, most, if not all of your students'
> contributions have been reverted for violating policy, most
> specifically, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITE. (Please keep in mind when
> grading this assignment that any user's contributions can always be
> viewed in the history of a page, which can be gotten to by clicking
> the "history" tab at the top of the page.) Specifically, your
> students' contributions are essays, which inherently argue a point of
> view by design, and though they do cite verifiable, reliable sources,
> their citing style doesn't follow Wikipedia's specified citing style,
> or sometimes their essays are not cited at all. The citing issues are
> relatively minor (though they need to be addressed as well),
> but the point-of-view issues are the real problem.
For context, the assignment was designed so that students would properly engage with new media technologies and get a better understanding of the way wikipedia functions. (They were also required to create online presentations using publicly available tools.) As far as the wikipedia assignment was concerned, it was hoped that they might actually make some useful contributions in areas relevant to their study. We did discuss creating our own wiki, but there are pedagogical advantages in contributing to a public forum - not the least of which is the fact that "something is at stake". Giving the evolving nature of the new media and the ways users are being encouraged to actively participate in content generation, the wikipedia exercise was designed to allow students to engage with a significant part of the "web 2.0 machine".
> Content in Wikipedia should
> be in the form of facts, backed up by sources -- not the form of an
> argument, even if backed up by sources. It would be best if this
> caveat would be explained to your students carefully -- though in your
> assignment sheet you tell them to "keep it neutral," you may not have
> fully explained what that means, and since this is a college
> assignment, any written papers will be written in the form of an essay
> because that's what they've been trained to write. (I know -- I'm a
> college student myself). If you explain the citing and writing style
> to the students beforehand, and grade them on their adherence to them,
> then your assignment could be an excellent source of new content in
> semester to come, which would be welcomed.
You've made some fair points. Whilst we did encourage neutrality, it could have been better emphasised and contextualised. And yes, our students may have adopted an argumentative stance out of habit. (My experience though is that no matter how often you explain matters of style and substance, students will do what students do!!) However, we should have included your NPOV (and other) tutorials in our course guide, and overtly focussed on its contents elsewhere in the course material. And we could definitely have considered an assessment criteria which takes such guidelines into account.
> Please take a look at the links I gave you -- the first one especially
> may do a better job explaining than I can, and please respond either
> here or in the discussion I linked you to. Or both. We await your
> response.
>
> Gscshoyru
Again, thank you for the comments. We hope to run similar assignments in the future (and I suspect others will too) - although it will be much modified based on feedback from tutors, students and of course, yourselves. I think such assignments have the potential to be useful for both students and wikipedia.

Best Regards
Sherman

And that's that, I guess... if anyone has anything else to add or respond, say so here. Gscshoyru 12:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it's funny that this issue was raised on October 28 and in the course guide (linked above) it says it's due on the 31st? Some people left it a little late I think. :) James086^{Talk | Email} 12:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who successfully made it through college, I'd say the dates are within normal expectations. The majority of papers and assignments are usually completed in the hours before they are due -- for many reasons. -- llywrch 19:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kmweber

I've blocked this user because of their continued disruption to the Requests for Adminship process. I think [[15]] sums up quite nicely the reasoning behind this block. If any administrator wishes to remove this block, please do feel free, but I strongly believe we need to remove this disruptive user from the project and I would prefer discussion rather than outright reversal. Nick 23:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Kmweber - edits to the WP:RFA namespace are the disruptive edits in this case, btw. Nick 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Giving an opinion on an admin candidate (even a misguided one) at RFA is not disruption. That's exactly what RFA is for. Friday (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Friday, it is disruptive. Nick was less giving than I was, and I support this. We simply do not have time for this trolling for attention. Mercury 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The disruptive part I see is people getting bent out of shape over it. He's entitled to his misguided opinion; he's giving it in the place designated for such opinions. Friday (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The designated place to try to disallow self-noms is the WP:RFA talk page, not on the RFAs for self-nominated candidates. Mr.Z-man 23:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Friday, my below comment. This needs to stop from this editor. Mercury 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on this particular block, can we please not turn Jimbo's words on the RfC into some kind of excuse to go on an all out witch hunt? If you can't justify a block without referring to a comment from Jimbo, the block isn't justifiable. - auburnpilot talk 23:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I can, with respect... the disruption comes after folks telling him time and time again the comments are not welcome, and not needed. Kmweber continuing to comment after that, is disruption to the project. If an unblock occurs, I may open an RFC, or request arbitration on the matter. The petty disruption has to stop, somewhere. Mercury 23:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I wasn't commenting on this block. My point was that if you can't find a reason to block somebody within project policy, a Jimbo comment is not your salvation. I have no problem with this specific block. - auburnpilot talk 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block. His opinion was that all self-noms are power hungry which assumes bad faith, especially as self-nomming is explicitly allowed in the process. The opposes had nothing to do with the users' contributions or possible value as an admin. The way he was doing it was a very WP:POINT-y way to get the process changed. Mr.Z-man 23:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who self-nominated and has spoken negatively regarding kmweber's opinions in the past, I cannot endorse this block unless he's done something more than just express his opinion. While we can certainly argue against such an opinion and do our utmost to ensure that it does not become prominent, we should not act as thought police, banning those who merely think differently than we do. Expressing an opinion in a forum specifically created to solicit opinions is not disruption. -Chunky Rice 23:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

People who post opinions with the perceived intent to make a point disrupting a process is trolling. This is blockable to prevent the disruption. We are not the thought police, but editing is not a right. Mercury 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing disruptive going on here. Making a point is fine. It's only when you create a disruption to make that point that there is an issue. What exactly is the disruption here? He voted like everybody else? -Chunky Rice 23:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The disruption is the knee jerk voting, and the provocative way the vote is worded. Power hunger is a bad faith assumption. A string of nine oppose votes pasted, is disruption if the argument carries no weight and comes with a bad faith assumption. There is no need or time for this here. Mercury 23:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good block, I was going to suggest something similar earlier today when I saw he was back. What he is doing is a very pointy attempt at disrupting RfA and quite frankly, it's more trouble than it's worth. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If an editor held the position that all schools are inherently notable (a position held by some, but not supported by policy or guideline), and subsequently voted to keep any school article that came up for deletion, should we ban such an editor for disruption? -Chunky Rice 23:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If the opinion is made in such a way as to disrupt the project. Yes. Mercury 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how this voting in an open vote is disruptive? -Chunky Rice 23:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Its supposed to be more than just a vote, you are supposed to have a good reason. To use your example, if someone goes on every open school AFD and pastes in the same response on all of them, implying that the nom was made in bad faith, that is disruption and an abuse of process. Mr.Z-man 00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but your hypothetical only works because it's disruptive to accuse people of bad faith without evidence. If he copied and pasted the same argument about how the nomination was wrong, then that is not disruptive or abuse of process - it isprocess. --TheOtherBob 05:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This block only makes sense to me if he's a kook. I'm generally in favor of blocking kooks; they do more harm than good. But one idiosyncratic opinion is not a good indicator of kookery. Is he continually unreasonable? Friday (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on my observation of the archives and prior discussion on this behaviors, yes, I would say so. Unreasonable. Mercury 23:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse the block. He makes no edits at all, except to RFAs. That I find a problem. Users who are part of the community should be giving their opinions, not drive by opposers. I'll put it bluntly - he is not qualified to be making such decisions on RFAs. This is obvious because nobody shares his view on it. The general consensus is such votes are harmful and so, the block is good - he is "harming" the editors of the encyclopedia. Majorly (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I consider that a very dangerous precedent to set. I don't want anyone blocked for only caring about one thing, nor do I want the community to be defined in such a way as to only allow qualified individuals to participate in community issues. --TheOtherBob 05:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support block, virtually no mainspace edits to redeem weeks of what can only be described as trolling. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• So this guy has a negative opinion on self-nominated RFAs. How does this at all affect the encyclopedia? He does not seem at all disruptive, unless someone can show me some more substantial diffs.—AL ^FOCUS! 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the contribs. The opposes are very recent. See my above comment regarding bad faith assumptions and trolling. It is not the opinion. It is the trolling and the ABF. Mercury 23:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Since there is already an RFC on this exact issue at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber, how about making a case there that he's doing more harm than good, and let people think about it for a few days. Maybe he should be unblocked temporarily to participate. I can't deny there's some support here for the block, but indef may be a bit hasty while it's still being discusses. Friday (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse block — I view RFA trolling as prima facie evidence of deserving a block. --Cyde Weys 00:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• If he's trolling, it's a clear case. In the RFC on this exact issue, nobody made a case that it was trolling. Nobody has presented diffs of trolling here. Friday (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

An indefinite block? For expressing an unpopular opinion at RFA, really? Obviously he's out to make a point, but has he actually made a difference anywhere? Even doing this to apparently a couple dozen RFAs I can't imagine that even one of them would have passed had Kmweber not said: "No self-noms". The disruption (to the degree there is any) is mostly by annoying the community. That said, we are talking about someone with almost 5000 edits scattered sporadically over 3+ years, and just before being blocked he was productively copyediting. I don't see any credible way in this case to jump from "Hey, we'd like you to stop" to an indefinite block with no intermediate sanction. Dragons flight 00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Don't fall into the trap of thinking indefinite means infinite. It's only indefinite until he announces his intentions to stop disrupting RFA. It takes a real knucklehead to keep doing something long after everyone has told you to knock it off. He can't honestly say he was surprised at this outcome. --Cyde Weys 00:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Everyone told him to knock it off"? Read the RFC, two dozen people told him that casting unpopular, ideologically motivated votes was acceptable the last time around. Given the feedback he recieved there, I think the outcome here can legitimately be considered surprising. Dragons flight 00:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Kurt

Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber, I was perfectly justified in believing that the Wikipedia community did not view my actions as disruptive and blockworthy. Since that RfC, nothing had happened to indicate to me that the community consensus had changed. At the very least, then, it was absurd to block me indefinitely without warning. If the consensus has changed and what I am doing is no longer acceptable, I will stop--but neither at the time I did my most recent opposes nor when Nick blocked me was there absolutely anything to suggest that.

I'm willing to stop at least until this matter is sorted out, and if community consensus indicates that it is not acceptable then I will stop altogether. I'm aware that consensuses (consensi?) can change; the point is, though, that there was no reason for me to think that it had. At the very least, a warning, giving me a chance to stop, would have been appropriate before blocking me for engaging in behavior I had every reason to think the community agreed was perfectly legitimate. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest an unblock based on the above. We can sort this issue with less drastic measures. Friday (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• I will not support an unblock unless the editor makes a promise to cease the trolling altogether forever. Anything less then that will cause me to produce evidence and request arbitration in the event of unblocking. Mercury 00:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Going to arbcom to look for a topic ban might be an appropriate step. People are throwing around the word "trolling" without good evidence for this. We're all against trolling, that is not the issue here. The issue is that people disagree on what's trolling. Continuing to calmly express an unpopular opinion isn't automatically wrong. Friday (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• We don't need ArbCom to ban him from RFA. We can do it through consensus here, but I would only agree to an unblock if it is a self-imposed RFA ban, not a forced one. Mr.Z-man 00:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd only support an unblock if he agrees not to comment on RfA's anymore, full stop. His comments at RfA are incivil and give no constructive critisism to the candidate. I could understand at a push if he was making some supports as well, but he doesn't, every single comment is an oppose and for the same reason - it's purely disruptive. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Ryan, if he agrees to stop trolling, then unblock should go away. Jbeach ^sup 00:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with a ban with all wikipedia namespace, as he trolled AFDs in the past as well. Jbeach ^sup 00:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• I concur with Friday and read the existing RFC as basically saying that expressing unpopular opinion in good faith, even very stubbornly, is not a blockable offense at all. Discussion of whether that has changed (and a new RFC or RFAr) may be warranted. Unless there is something significantly more substantial and obviously troll-like than imitating Boothy (a historical user who opposed nearly everyone) then he should be unblocked. Dragons flight 00:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Kurt has already agreed to stop "trolling". ("There was an RfC on this earlier. On my own accord, I stopped engaging in the contested behavior until a very clear consensus emerged on the RfC that what I was doing was perfectly legitimate. I'll do the same again. I'll stop until this matter is re-resolved, and if it turns out that consensus is against me, I'll stop altogether. But if consensus is that I'm still in the right, why should I stop doing something the community as a whole believes is OK just because a few people don't like it?") I disagree strongly with an indef block for what I believe is good-faith concerns, however poorly worded or patently absurd they may seem on face value. Since when do we block people for expressing an unpopular opinion? east.718 at 01:26, 11/1/2007

Fucking awful block. Opposing self-noms isn't even remotely disruptive, and in my view is a very valid opinion. If you can't find a trustworthy user who is willing to go through your contribs from top to bottom and vouch for you, then maybe you shouldn't be at RFA just yet. How is expressing that idea an indefinitely blockable offense? I won't even go into comparing this with Mikka's recent pointy oppose spree in response to being blocked for edit warring, after which he was defended by everyone and their mother. I hate to assume bad faith, but is there an underlying disagreement here? Because I can't find basis for this at all, especially since the community consensus was already completely clear that it's fine. Curious in Cleveland, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to note that (as a current RfA candidate), I considered self-nomming simply because I wanted to present myself as 'I am ready, and choose to do this.' I had already had Llyrwch look over my history because I wanted to get a feel if an admin agreed with my self-assessment. When I mentioned self-nomming to Llyrwch, he said specifically that I'd get votes against me simply for self-nomming, so why do it, when he was ready to nominate me? I decided to go with that, simply to avoid having votes against me that were not based on my actual contributions, but instead made as a a WP:POINT. So do not assume that self-noms *haven't* had that look at them, that they haven't been mentored or worked with/under admins who have told them they're ready, etc. That said, though I disagree with the people voting against me for edit number count issues (a look at my edits often shows I do 20 edits in one spree; a recent one had 30 changes and 6 cites being added in one technical 'edit'), they're completely in their right to do so, and I don't think they should be stopped, though I likewise believe that the body of work, both size and breadth, is more important than things you can tell about a candidate in 20s (self-nom, edit counts, etc). --Thespian 01:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a terrible block, user had an RFC that produced no consensus toward this action. And then without a warning, a indef block? No too mention that the block has caused way more disruption then any number of his (misguided) opposes at RFA. An unblock is called for here. This is going way too far in punishing unpopular opinions. RxS 03:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't any less disruptive than previous RFA trolling by Boothy, Masssiveego, and Anglius, for example, and I'm pretty sure Kmweber has contributed far more good to the encyclopedia than that trio. Why can't we just ignore it like we used to? (Or just add a note saying "Kurt adds this to every RFA. No one agrees. It's easier to ignore it.")--chaser - t 03:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Dragons flight. Given the outcome of the RFC, it's impossible for me to endorse this block.--Kubigula (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• For a point of comparison, User:Politics rule was far more trollish at RfA (he showed up one day opposing people based on made-up edit count stats, and got just a bit subtler after that, but he got people to actually listen to him), and we didn't block him until he turned out to be a sockpuppet. I dislike Kmweber's votes, but at least he is very clear about why he is making them so that you can disagree with him. This block seems like a case of "WP:IDONTLIKEHIM". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a minor correction: Politics rule was not a sockpuppet; he was actually abusing multiple accounts to vote stack RfAs. east.718 at 05:47, 11/1/2007
• While the repeated comments were certainly getting tiresome, the fact is that everyone has their own opinions on things; this editor should be free as anyone else to offer that opinion if he feels it's necessary. I'm fairly certain the bureaucrats can weigh his comment on its merit when they come across it. This block was, I would suggest, unnecessary. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note. The question is of course whether disruption goes beyond RfA. On that subject, please see [16], [17], [18], [19]. at AfD. There is a general pattern here, and it's quite odd. Whether it justifies a block I don't know. Chick Bowen 05:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That isn't disruption, that's just extreme inclusionism. I'm sure the closing admin would not put much stock in his vote. east.718 at 05:47, 11/1/2007
• I commented in the RFC as well, so I'm just repeating myself, but I'm really disappointed to see this block. This is an opinion, from an established editor, that disrupts no one. It was put up for community comment, and the overwhelming consensus was that it was an opinion very few agreed with, but a valid one nonetheless. Even those who asked that he stop nonetheless overwhelmingly opposed a block -- so to come along and impose one is against community consensus. The only valid reason that anyone has put forth for blocking is that his opinion "assumes bad faith." But that's...well, I'm sorry, but it's baloney. Every oppose vote assumes some level of "bad faith," under that definition. His oppose vote is based on the belief that, given this piece of what he considers important evidence (a self-nomination), he cannot assume that the candidate has the character traits necessary to perform as required as an admin. That's exactly what every oppose vote says - that some evidence indicates that the candidate isn't ready for the mop. The only quibble is over whether Kurt's over-valuing this particular piece of evidence. If he is...so what. This is not disruptive behavior, it's behavior clearly within the bounds of normal Wikipedia discussion, and I think this block was extraordinarily ill-advised and contrary to community consensus. --TheOtherBob 05:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I too think the block is unjustified, especially since he's expressed willingness to go along with community consensus. delldot talk 05:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am stunned that he was blocked for this. What the heck is going on here? No one factor contributes to a position in an RfA. An editor is not required to detail all their reasons for a given position, and a self-nom might be a contributing factor, but the only one mentioned. I also have a problem with self-noms, but that is not enough to get me to oppose someone. I might mention that as the main or only reason, but I look at their past contributions. Someone with a strong past record will be enough for me to overlook their self-nom, and I suspect this is true of User:Kmweber as well, or others. We have too many weak candidates for admin, and we worry about silly issues rather than core important issues.--Filll 13:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topic ban

OK, I'm quite happy to unblock if Kurt agrees to a self-imposed topic ban, anybody have any objections to this or wish more/less restrictions before I unblock ? Does anybody wish to write up a formal topic ban or will I just unblock on the understanding that if he goes near anything other than the WT:RFA page, he can be reblocked ? Nick 08:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC) un

I think he should agree before being unblocked. If he resumes editing in a non-disruptive way, then later on he can request to properly participate in the RFA process, and we can consider lifting the topic ban. The block was completely justified. The time has come to stop enabling trollish behavior. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Blocks being preventive in intent, this is fine by me as well. But as Jehochman says, we need an undertaking not to disrupt (and by that I don't mean a Wikilawyering commitment not to oppose just because of self-noms, while carrying on with the opposes anyway). A six month embargo on all participation in RFAs or associated debates would be fine. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Confused. Nick, you propose Kurt will be unblocked provided he doesn't touch anything but the RFA talk page? So if he reverts a bit of vandalism to an article (admitedly unlikely) we block again? How does this help anything ? Pedro :  Chat  11:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that you understand what is meant by a topic ban, he would be banned from editing any Request for Adminship, but would be permitted to discuss on the central talk page any proposals he might wish to make. Edits outwith the WP:RFA area would be unaffected and he can edit wherever he wishes. It might also be worthwhile asking that he make no RfA related edits outwith the RfA namespace either, such as canvassing for people to Oppose on his behalf, for example (though that's quite unlikely, I believe). Nick 11:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Un-confused If the proposal is that Kurt can edit anywhere he chooses but within the RFA space only on the general talk page then I srtongly agree with overturning this block. Pedro :  Chat  11:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• I'd oppose the topic ban. I think community consensus was that this activity, while not the warmest, cuddliest thing a person could do, is acceptable -- and that blocking a person for engaging in it reflects disagreement with the viewpoint rather than any violation of policy. Given that the community thought that a block was inappropriate, a topic ban seems to be inappropriate as well. Instead can't we just drop it? --TheOtherBob 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• The consensus at the RFC was not that this contributions to RFA were unacceptable. Has his participation there gotten worse? I see no reason to ban him from making comments you disagree with. That's not how we do things. All this talk of enabling trolls is off the mark- he's not a troll. Friday (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• He should be unblocked regardless of any conditions. There's no consensus for this block (as shown above) and a commonly held principal is that an editor is indef blocked only as long as no other admin is willing to unblock. I also agree with Friday, calling someone a troll does not make them one. That word should not be generalized to include anyone whose opinions you disagree with. Jimbo's comment about clearing out trolls does not apply here. I'd consider any unblock here justified. RxS 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• He's trying to be reasonable on his talk page. I've unblocked for now. Yes, I see that some people supported, but several opposed too, and even some of the block supporters seems willing to soften their position. I invite those who think there is an ongoing behavior problem to continue discussing it at RFC or some other suitable venue. If there's consensus that his RFA contributions are unacceptable, he'll stop. Last it was discussed in a calm manner, there was no such consensus. Friday (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Unblock without any restrictions. No ban. We've previously discussed this as a community, at the RfC. The RFC consensus very clearly said did not merit a block! That RfC evidences no support for the notion that his edits were a problem meriting a block; I can't find a single view on the page that indicated it was behaviour that could ever merit a block. The strongest views against his behavior are those by the certifiers, NewYorkBrad, and TwoOars (the last two of which explicitly disagree with blocking), which got between the three views a total of 6 supporting comments. With between 30 and 40 participants, the RfC is very clear that it is acceptable to express unpopular minority opinions at RfA. The block is completely unwarranted, no topic ban is needed, and the admin that acted needs to change their behaviour far more than KurtWeber does. No evidence here that there is any reason to think that the community consensus is different than at the time of the RfC. GRBerry 13:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Immediate unblock pending clarification of community consensus, for which this page is not the proper forum. Friday beat me to the unblock, but I would have unblocked at this point as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we be calm next time?

I have to express my strong disappointment in the way Kmweber was railroaded here. For an indef block to come out of the blue, with no intermediate sanction, for behavior that's already been discussed at RFC? That is simply not reasonable. Yes, we should show trolls the door- no reasonable person disagrees on that issue. But a troll is not just someone who gets called a troll. There has to be actual trolling. I don't know where this idea came from- has he irritated the wrong person lately? All I know for sure is, the last time this issue was discussed calmly on the wiki, it was the RFC and there was nothing resembling a conclusion that his behavior is actually disruptive. Annoying, perhaps. So, be less easily annoyed. Giving an unpopular opinion at RFC is no big deal. Friday (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the block is an almost perfect example of when to apply WP:IAR. This user was engaging in behavior which was unhelpful, continuous, borderline disruptive, and just plain really flippin' annoying. The fact remains that his behavior was such was mentioned to him on many, many occasions, and he refused to change it. Even though there is no policy to back up this block, there was a wide consensus that his behavior was, after all, unhelpful, continuous, borderline disruptive, and just plain really flippin' annoying. So he was blocked. We're willing to unblock if he agrees to finally halt his widely-agreed-to-be-annoying behaviors. When he does, he will be unblocked. A disruptive behavior will have been removed, peace will come, the contributor will remain as well. That is WP:IAR. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This still ignores the fact that two dozen people told him, in an RFC on his actions, that making such votes was acceptable. Given that, I can't see how one gets to "wide consensus" that this activity warranted a block. Dragons flight 15:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, but Ignore All Rules isn't Ignore All Consensus, and consensus was that a block was inappropriate. Being annoyed by an opinion...well, it's not a good reason to block. I guess it goes back to the similarity between opinions and the bottom-rear portion of the human torso -- in particular the universality and fragrance of both. We depend on opinions to operate; sometimes that means that we get ones that annoy the living bejesus out of us. So we take it in stride, disagree, and move on -- we don't block to silence valid (if unpopular) viewpoints. --TheOtherBob 15:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Friday. From the outside, it looks like this block was done in a spirit of "Jimbo's told us we can block anyone who is being disruptive", with no thought as to whether it is agreed that this set of actions are disruptive, and how disruptive it is. Despite the point being made that positive contributions shouldn't be used to cancel out negative contributions, I can't help but feel that contributions like this do outweigh the "oppose, self-nom" point being made by Kmweber. Frivolous !votes in RfAs are nothing new, and nothing to get too worked up about. Just as the person making the frivolous !vote or point should be making the point somewhere else, so those wanting to scratch an annoying itch should find other ways to resolve the dispute. The technical point that an indefinite block is only indefinite if nothing else changes, can be lost on some people, so the block log should probably say "until xyz". Carcharoth 15:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this action may be a reason for creating an account specifically for such opinions, so as to not risk one's main account just because people don't like the opinions being given. The fellow's been banned for giving requested opinions and for clearly stating that for one class of candidate he votes against that class. Would it have been better if he voted against the same people but gave a different reason so nobody knows the real reasons? Next will be banning due to votes against incumbents, against first-time nominees, against people not confident enough to self-nominate, against low-visibility workers? The block is an enforcement against the requirement that opinions be provided, as it establishes that true opinions are not acceptable. (SEWilco 15:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

• Part of being disruptive is actually doing something that has an effect, and that is what is missing from this situation. I expect kmweber (talk · contribs) is being largely ignored by closing admins at XFD and bureaucrats at RFA as his !votes generally carry no compelling reasoning behind them. Is it annoying to see someone tilting at windmills? Possibly. Is it actually having any appreciable effect other than possibly annoying some people? I think the answer is pretty clearly no. Personally I wish Kurt would find something more productive to do that make meaningless !votes (even if they are his opinion), but I don't see any evidence that what he is doing is having any appreciable effect. If you don't like it, ignore him or follow dispute resolution.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Do we have an essay on Tilting at windmills? We should, then it can join the stable of shortcuts and essays based on real words and sayings and parables. WP:WINDMILL. A list of such is at Wikipedia talk:Trifecta#Random sayings and analogies. Carcharoth 17:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's annoying and disruptive. Once, twice, yes, but to keep on doing it when you've been told that you've made your point and if you want a change that's not the way to achieve it, all that does is to piss people off. It's a case of don't be a dick. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I like the idea of pre-discussion for any long-term blocks. If this block had been proposed first and discussed, it would likely never have happened. Is that good or bad? Carcharoth 18:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So now it's going to arbitration arbitration? Look, the community consensus was that this activity was not disruptive and that blocking the guy was inappropriate. That's been made abundantly clear here and at an RFC -- the community simply does not agree with the view that Kurt should blocked for voicing his opinion or punished for doing so. A few people disagree, but they're by far in the minority. Yet rather than listening to all the people asking to just let this drop and, you know, letting it drop, I guess now Mercury is going to "make a federal case of it," for lack of a better term. Come on, man, let it drop. --TheOtherBob 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't worry, its not going to be accepted by arbitrators. It will be declined at first sight I would imagine. Waste of time all around - I'd say posting this was a waste of my time, but I don't have anything better to do right now... :( (realizes there are like a bizzillion articles to work on and goes back to work). Wickethewok 23:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If the arb case continues, the only thing that is likely to happen is Mercury being censured for being too eager to indef someone for daring to express their opinion. And every user above who described Kurt's oppositions as trolling should be ashamed of themselves. Neil ☎ 00:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, so Kurt expressing his opinions on a series of discussions is fine, but others expressing their opinions that his actions constitute trolling isn't? Maybe I'm advocating for the devil a bit here, but somehow that seems logically inconsistent Neil.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I don't think personally I would have indef blocked, and I don't think nick's intention was for the block to be a permanent thing. (Nick, correct me if I'm wrong). Mercury 12:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • How could anybody think that it would be a good idea to send this to arbitration? east.718 at 02:05, 11/2/2007

RFA have space for retorts. So if one say "self nom is a power grab" then often people add "but it's considered ok". Different people have different opinions. Some people say that you need a certain number of edits to win RFA but others don't. One of those opinions is not trolling or reason for ban. Another debate is an RFA is "no big deal per Jimbo" vs. "hand out tools to only a few". Again, neither side should be banned on the excuse as trolling, just discuss. Discussion is very wikipedian, banning to get rid of opinions you don't like is not very wikipedian.Miesbu 16:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Having just discovered this thread (sorry, been either working on articles or busy away from Wikipedia), I would say this: Ugh. I don't agree with Kmweber's opinion, but IMHO he was expressing it in a reasonable manner. Further, a person isn't annoying unless you honestly can't ignore what she/he is doing. So instead of looking to the simplest solutions in this case -- ignore, engage in a discussion, try to build a consensus (which simultaneously helps to build community, which in the long term helps to suppress troublemakers) -- this whole mess is turning into an exercise in wikilawyering. I hate watching this because instead of proving that we don't need clearly defined rules, it would seem people are clamoring for more of them -- if not laws with penalties & the like. -- llywrch 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)