Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

warning template for Hurricane Gustav

During Hurricane Katrina, Wikipedia had this warning template on the top of the page

ATTENTION: Residents of areas affected by Hurricane Katrina are advised to seek advice and information from local authorities through television and radio. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your area. Do not decide whether to leave your house, shelter, or vehicle based on Wikipedia information.

I placed one on the page for Hurricane Gustav but someone removed it. I think it should be there and want an admin's opinion on the issue. It may be against the rules but I think the rules should be allowed to be bent in an emergency situation. The page on Katrina had the warning up for days with no objections. One can see so in the edit history--Ted-m (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for medical advice, and I think in the same vein we shouldn't serve as a PSA system. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree. But that's the whole point of the template. So what's the objection?Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Then how come it was allowed during Katrina?--Ted-m (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cause we made a mistake in allowing it. We have this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer NonvocalScream (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer NonvocalScream (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be up there. Privatemusings (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(copied from User_talk:CrazyC83, who just reverted my re-addition of the box....)

On principle? How about the one that your opinion isn't the only one that matters Lar? I especially like your comment on my talk page. - auburnpilot talk 05:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't revert you, Crazy.. but I do think that it's worth having that box up there for a while. I certainly wouldn't worry about the Manual of Style in this context, because I think it's appropriate to bend the rules a little once in a while for strong reasons.... and our article is the second result in Google, so could well get quite a lot of traffic. Follow your conscience... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)this has been mentioned on WP:AN too, so I'll copy this note across there as well....

:o) I think it should not be up there.  :) :) Speaking of which, we have an applicable content guideline... over here! :) NonvocalScream (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. I see it now:

ATTENTION: "Those contemplating Liposuction are advised to seek advice and information from true medical professionals through their websites and in-person visists. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your procedure. Do not decide whether or not to get liposuction or other cosmetic surgeries based on Wikipedia Information".

Yeah, let's not. - auburnpilot talk 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

um.. Auburn... you're comparing a liposuction disclaimer with a note about a very dangerous Hurricane. I see a difference. Privatemusings (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

PrivateMusens, you are ignoring the content guideline I cited above. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lipo is a very dangerous elective surgery (1 death per 5000?). [1][2] In all seriousness, it was just an example of what some may see as equally valid, but most will see as showing how equally unnecessary such warnings are. - auburnpilot talk 03:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; part of the point of removing these things is that even at the most narrow scope there's a lot of articles that can be argued to be life or death.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Or worse:

ATTENTION: "Those considering a conversion to Catholicism are advised to seek advice and information from a trusted spiritual adviser. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your personal circumstances. Do not decide whether or not to change your religion based on Wikipedia Information".

-- Mr.Z-man 03:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) How about a reminder of/reference to the disclaimers added to {{HurricaneWarning}}? WODUP 03:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That still seems pretty ridiculous, I am sure that those affected are very aware of the storms in this date and age. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll be... the risk disclaimer is already linked from {{HurricaneWarning}}. WODUP 04:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And another...

ATTENTION: "Those considering a smoking cessation are advised to seek advice and information from a licensed practioner. Statistics on Wikipedia may not be current. Do not decide whether or not to change your smoking habits based on Wikipedia Information".

NonvocalScream (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not weighing in on the opinion at hand, but I think the main concern is that a Goggle search string for "Hurricane Gustav" shows it's Wikipedia page as the 3rd result. It seems that users are just concerned that someone may stumble upon the article and may take the information as fact, which could be true or false. I have a feeling that the concerned users are just wanting to make sure that the poor souls who are having to leave their homes, their jobs, their lives, and who could possibly get injured or killed understand that we are not a reporting service and that our content should not be mistaken for advice. This is an extraordinary case that is not easily comparable to other issues, beliefs, or surgeries. I respectfully ask that editors stop making parody templates of the above template and please be respectful so as to not mock the original poster of the template. Obviously s/he had the best of intentions and the joking and comedy over a very serious matter is of very poor taste. Can we please get to the issue at hand and seriously discuss whether the template should be placed or not? Thank you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is making light of "the poor souls who are having to leave their homes...". The template should not exist, and we've shown why through the use of examples. - auburnpilot talk 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not parody. It is contrast and comparison. Additionally, I don't think anyone will decide evacuation on this article, the PSA/EAS is the responsibility of local city/state and federal authority. We are building an encyclopedia, let us not lose sight of that. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, why add it it now? Gustav already hit Cuba quite hard and no one seemed to care. Because its entering the United States? What about WP:UNDUE? Its clear that all the commotion its because of the actual state that its going to hit, because I don't see such a haste when they go over Florida. Some users are being influenced by memories of Hurricane Katrina's destructive pass. Sorry it that seems harsh, but I call a spade a spade. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ecX3) Guys! All I am asking is that you just talk about it without being dicks and take the request made by the original poster as a serious request. Just be respectful of the situation. All I am asking is for comments like Caribbean's, which address the issue at hand without mocking the template. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a fucking douchebag. - auburnpilot talk 04:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thiz iz seriouz buzinnezz. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? Mr.Z-man 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Off topic: Am I the only one irritated by edit conflicts? The software really should resolve this automagically. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In any case, I personally do not believe the template should belong. I understand the reasons for adding it, but making this a special case just doesn't make sense to me. I have a feeling that the template would just be an eye-sore, and it could be argued that this is just systematic bias. Why don't we add templates like this to every big event? I think that the encyclopedia is fine with just reporting the information in an encyclopedic manner, and we should just let our disclaimers do the disclaiming. And yes I am hating the conflicts (especially the one I just had with your comment ;) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not use one of our other "current" templates, that already warn of such things? -- Ned Scott 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Because we have content guidelines that should generally be used. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. The current templates are article issue templates, not disclaimer templates. -- Ned Scott 04:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I am very clear. I am very clear that the pink boxes in this section of AN are in fact... disclaimers. Even if in the loosest form, they intend to warn and caveat. Don't call me confused please. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear, I think Ned is referring to the {{current}} templates. - auburnpilot talk 04:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Editors of articles such as Hurricane Gustav are advised to seek advice and information from ArbCom before placing a template such as this. Information in Wikipedia: space may not be current or applicable to your ArbCom's current mood. Do not decide whether to place a template on the article based on Wikipedia policies.

--NE2 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: There are hundreds of stupid arguments on AIV, and this is one of them.

Word. --mboverload@ 04:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Particularly when this was the shape of {{HurricaneWarning}}, a template that survived TFD several times, until September 2007. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we're churning out silly disclaimer templates, how about one for Wikipedia:

ATTENTION: Those considering using Wikipedia are advised to seek advice and information from a trusted reliable source. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your personal circumstances. Do not decide whether or not to use Wikipedia based on Wikipedia information.

It just had to be said. MER-C 10:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be easier for Wikipedia to consider a help page about its own articles and making decisions based on one's trust in their accuracy. That's a question for the offices, most likely.Miquonranger03 (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

prelude to edit war

You lot are debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and thus miss the actual point. The style guide matters not, the general principle against disclaimers matters not. They're good ideas, but blanket prohibitions are bad. This is a situation where we may well be getting a large influx of readers who have no idea what WP really is about, and haven't the time or energy to go to the bottom of a page, and then realise they should read a general disclaimer to see if maybe there is something there they ought to read. IAR and add the damn warning template, and stop standing on formality about whether it's in accordance with general principles about not having disclaimers. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. ++Lar: t/c 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What he said. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IAR only works when it improves the pedia. I would posit that it does not, so IAR is not applicable. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." So, how does this help improve or maintain Wikipedia? It doesn't. We don't add such templates to articles, and this doesn't deserve an exception. - auburnpilot talk 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Don't stand on rules. And don't revert me for the sake of some principle. ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

echo Lar. Privatemusings (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the idea of it being there, either, but I think this is one of the cases where we can and should ignore the rules. People have the capacity for incredible stupidity. While I'm generally against the idea of keeping this like this around, not everyone is intelligent enough to realize that at any given point in time, Wikipedia could be hosting information that could result in some bad things if people were dumb enough to use it as a guide for emergency procedures, and that's really not something I want to think about. Remember that Wikipedia does exist in the real world. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would posit that it does improve the pedia, by sending away the users who really need the info to the proper place, hence making us be a more reliable source of info. That said, please don't edit war over this. This is an extremely unstable article, and hence protections are inappropriate here; I'll be handing out blocks instead of simply elevating the protection level of the page. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

echo Lar. WP:IAR. Do what you feel is right. --Duk 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Lar makes an excellent point above. Putting that up there, is simply the right thing to do. SQL^{Query me!} 07:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're worried about people who run around the Internet randomly trusting sites, and you think they should be warned away from Wikipedia so they find some blog to trust? You can't honestly say that you're helping people who can't be trusted to use the Internet wisely by warning them away from an updated fairly reliable source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so we note, this box violates some of our principles, UNDUE and NPOV. Also, the guideline is a good guideline, this is not what we do (PSA/EAS). NonvocalScream (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A guiding principle is "do no harm" and people relying on this article for decisions on evacuation can clearly lead to real harm. The disclaimer should be on the page. Apparently it is presently unprotected so that IP editors and newbies can have their way with it. An Ip editor changed the windspeed in the info box from the correct 115 mph to 390 mph, and it stayed that way for 26 minutes until I restored the correct information. The disclaimer should remain on the article. It is about a pending natural disaster affecting millions of people and tens of billions of dollars property damage, and if a vandal can introduce incorrect information, or if stale or incorrect information is in the article, it could lead people to take actions affecting their safety adversely. And the article should once again be semiprotected, because sufficient established and registered users are working on it that newbies and IP editors are not needed to keep it up to date while the storm is a few hours from landfall. Let the IPs back in when it is a historical matter in a day or so. Edison2 (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated on that talk page that protection would be extremely inappropriate in this case, but like I said above, I agree with the inclusion of the box. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I semi'ed it but feel free to undo that, I won't consider that any sort of wheeling. ++Lar: t/c 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We have principles, we strive to be an accurate academic institution. This type of thing should no go into our articles, for neutrality, and other reasons as echoed by me above. Incidentally, why are anons not permitted to edit that article? Please undo the prot. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Question, how does this violate undue or npov? I don't see it but I might be missing something ;) RxS (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As above. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the only reason that all this argument is going on its because Gustav will hit New Orleans, which received a lot of destruction with Katrina. The decision to add it is directly influenced by the psychological effect of the horrible events seen three years ago. If that wasn't the case a template would have been added when it passed over Cuba, which by the way has also been heavily affected by tropical cyclones in the last years. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. And perhaps it should have been added earlier. Better late than never. (and I'll say that I don't necessarily have a lot of confidence in the governments of the area and their ability to have learned from Katrina, but I digress). ++Lar: t/c 06:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So we if we didn't do something in the past (rightly or wrongly), we can't do it going forward? I know that's not what you're saying but that's the practical effect. Shouldn't we decide if something's a good idea and then work out the application afterwards? Anyway, it seems like a good application of IAR, and it's been worked out so it's all good. RxS (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a good principle. But sometimes exceptions are needed. This is one of those times. The harm to the encyclopedia from having this disclaimer for a day or 3 is slight. The harm if someone got hurt and it got into the media is immense. No brainer. All principles have exceptions. That's the real world. Deal. ++Lar: t/c 05:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll compromise here. Lets make sure the template goes away after the disaster subsides. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Back when it used to be a proper template, that was always the case. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NVS, 4 days from now (or whatever the right time is, it should be short, I agree) I'll baleet it out of there myself... This is a temporary thing only. ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The other option would be not to pretend to be posting "Current storm information" as if Wiki was providing the latest and greatest. Maybe Wiki shouldn't be a newspaper or public notice system? --Pat (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is not going to happen unless you intend to kill WP:WPTC and break my third law. Wikipedia has been lauded previously over our hurricane coverage, and even cited in government tropical cyclone coverage, so I don't think we're interested in changing that any time soon. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I myself find it interesting that there has only been interest in putting up this template as the storm hits the United States. I guess the human beings in Cuba, Haiti, Dominican, etc. just aren't as important? Perhaps the current hurricane template should have a link to the risk disclaimer, but putting up this red template only when a disaster happens to the USA looks very unpretty. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is the perhaps relevant fact that Cuba, the Dominican Republic etc. are Spanish -speaking countries, Haiti is French-speaking, and we are the English Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But Jamaica and the Caymans are English-speaking. Eleven deaths have been reported so far in Jamaica. -- Avenue (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite true. Perhaps the notice should be affixed to the article on Hanna now, as it seems to be aimed at the Bahamas. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no ulterior motives here. We used to have it last year; only this year it got edited/redirected to the bland current version (which was being used, by the way), {{current tropical cyclone}} due to the ambox change. As people remembered Katrina, they remembered how the red box, and asked for it back. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps {{current tropical cyclone}} should itself have a link to the risk disclaimer- maybe even highlighted in red. That way anybody in the path of a storm would be warned not to use Wikipedia for life-safety decisions and we wouldn't be in the position of having to judge when the people affected are "important" enough to warrant a red warning banner.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That box does include such a link, but we Americans are now in danger so it much be enormous and clearly visible. - auburnpilot talk 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So... by that interpretation you're saying that we Americans are too dumb to heed the regular disclaimer used for the rest of the world? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to be making light of things, but speaking as an American myself, I'd say better safe than sorry to your question. That can be read many ways, I know. rootology (C)(T) 06:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I do feel it's important for people to be reminded not to base life-safety decisions on our data, however things should be the same if the disaster hits Mexico or New Zealand as if it hits the United States. This red banner is a bad idea, the proper course is to make the standard current disaster template a bit clearer about our standard disclaimers. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not opposing this because of any guidelines, I'm opposing it because of the precedent it sets. Nobody bothered to respond to my question above, so I'll ask it again down here. And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? Do we put one up after an earthquake warning people there might be a tsunami? Why wait until there's a tornado warning, by then it may be too late, do we put up a warning for every severe thunderstorm watch? What strength of hurricane warrants a template? Do we put one up for a Category 1? A tropical depression? I normally agree with Lar, but I'm disappointed to see him simply dismissing all the opposition as based on formalities. Mr.Z-man 14:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)... I'm sorry if it seems like I was simply dismissing opposition, if I acted brusquely and more forcefully than I normally would. But I came to this discussion and what I saw was a lot of tomfoolery. Sorry, but that's what it looked like to me, despite those pointing out that the stuff being shown was shown to bring forth counterexamples... sure, maybe they were, but they were also funny. That to me suggests this matter wasn't being taken seriously. So I acted. That's what we are supposed to do, after all. Know when deliberation is needed, and know when quick action is needed, and know how to tell the difference. The subsequent discussion seems to show that the consensus, or at least a majority of voices, was in the end, OK with this temporary measure. (and it should be temporary!)

Now, I think our general rule against specific disclaimers is good. But I think maybe for anything that is worthy of a "current event" tagging, we need a more bold pointer to that disclaimer, right at the top of the article, where it is seen by everyone visiting, rather than buried in fine print towards the bottom (It is on the very bottom line of the page, in small print, after other stirring reads like the Privacy Policy and the About Wikipedia prose... how many people coming to a site when they're in a hurry are going to read that??? NOT MANY.) So I think after this tempest in a teacup about this specific box blows over (sorry!), we need to revisit the design of the current events box. Even if it just points to our general disclaimer, it's good to have that pointer at the top for current events. Tornadoes, fires, bridge collapses, earthquakes, hurricanes, wars, you name it. Anyone using Wikipedia for their first source for advice about hangnail cures is a fool. And the buried disclaimer is fine for them, they have time to regret their foolishness. But people in emergency situations, with not much time? They need a more clear reminder NOT TO TRUST this source for life and death info. What if the vandal who set the speed to 300+ mph for 20 min last night had set it to 15 mph and people made decisions based on that? Do you all standing on policy actually want that on your conscience? I don't. So let's work together to get that box changed while still hewing to our spirit.

I apologise to anyone I gave offense to last night. It was not my intent, and I'm sorry. But I felt this was important enough to override some of the norms I usually go by. Heck I even reverted something... once. That's pretty shocking behaviour for me! ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"...sure, maybe they were, but they were also funny. That to me suggests this matter wasn't being taken seriously." - skip on a bit - "So I think after this tempest in a teacup about this specific box blows over (sorry!)...". I hope that my point is clear enough. _TalkIslander 09:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actual disaster warning box

<-- Whats the actual "live disaster" template? I didn't know we had one? rootology (C)(T) 06:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Current disaster}}—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Heck, this is all silly then. Just to mock it up quick I flipped that to be the speedy type graphically instead of the notice type, and changed the image, to make this:

visible on this diff

Isn't that better? rootology (C)(T) 07:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. Anyone object to its use on the article now? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Editors considering sticking beans up their nose are advised to seek advice and information from medical professionals and/or horticulturalists prior to attempting to do so. Information on Wikipedia may not be applicable to your nostrils or the type of beans you may have in your pantry. Do not decide whether or not to shove foodstuffs in your bodily orifices based on Wikipedia information.

Had to be said... caknuck _° is geared up for football season 08:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you tell me... Kevin (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Um... you may wish to link pantry, unless you enjoy resolving pulse (legume)/lingerie issues (I know I do!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Current_tropical_cyclone&oldid=236230043

--Random832 (contribs) 13:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Looks pretty similar to what WP:SEVERE puts on severe weather outbreak articles (and I'm blanking on the template name there). Rdfox 76 (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Editors seeking medical advice on Wikipedia are advised to remember the old saying,
"He who doctors himself has a fool for a patient."

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: All the above warnings are in Wikipedia, and therefore unreliable. Waltham, The Duke of 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Color as an issue (convenience section break)

• This issue has been brought up at village pum p before (by me), and the overwhelming consensus is that disclaimer templates are not to be used. Medical advice, emergency evacuation advice, legal advice, etc. should be quickly removed from any article, and all article content should be clearly attributed to a third-party source. So we just do not need a template that says our advice may be wrong,,, we just don;t give advice. We say "The Governor said on Thursday: Get out now", and we do not need to say "Warning today might not be thursday, and that governor may not be your governor..." The general disclaimer covers us legally, and responsible editing (refraining from giving advice, attribution to third parties) covers us morally. Just say no to tags and templates. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jerry here. We do not need to include disclaimers in our articles, and it is beyond the purpose of this encyclopaedia to do it anyway. I do not mind the inclusion of the second sentence in {{Current disaster}}, as suggested above by Rootology, but anything more than that is excessive. And it is with a certain shock that I have just realised that there is an option to turn the template red (as in the second suggestion). I strongly oppose the by-nature highly selective and subjective treatment of the template and of the disasters in the articles thereof it is transcluded. Furthermore, I oppose the misuse of the template, which is called to serve a function entirely different from the one it is meant to. I seriously believe that the option to change the colour of the template should be removed. Waltham, The Duke of 02:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The only disclaimer function I see this template serving is by creating a more prominent link to our site-wide hazard disclaimer, otherwise it is substantially similar to our other current event templates. As for it's misuse, it's only transcluded into one article at present and will be removed once the event is past. As for the red option, I don't understand the rationale of your objection to it- the reason it was added was because in cases where life-safety is an issue, people may be reading the article in haste and not even see the template unless it is different from our usual clutter of maintenance templates. The red color is pretty subtle and well done in my perception- not over the top like the banners editors were putting on the articles before this option was added. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, I have no problem with the link and am only taking issue with the colouring here. "Subtle"? The template might not be as ugly and overwhelming as the page-wide banner that started this thread, but with the red sidebar it is still glaring. This is a maintenance template, and the specific colouring downright violates the colour-code on which the entire ambox system is founded, in this case imitating a template which means "this page is up for deletion". Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedent as far as disclaimers are concerned, because there is no reassurance that the usage of a template feature which is, after all, available to everyone, will remain restricted. In any case, arguments have already been made that it is impossible to draw a clear line between events which would "deserve" extra care of this kind and events that would not, relying on the type and intensity of a disaster; the measure can even spill into other areas implicating danger. We are an encyclopaedia; if people prefer to trust us and the Internet in general instead of their own authorities for information, or at least their local television station, that is their problem, and the many-times-more people around the world reading the article should not be forced to endure such distractions, which only seem to be afforded to Americans anyway. We should have priorities, and our mission is to be an encyclopaedia. We record, we do not advise—especially with geographic bias. Waltham, The Duke of 05:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I see your points, let me know if I get these wrong. First that the red color is contrary to the rules explained at the {{ambox}} template documentation. Secondly, that when to change the template color is necessarily a matter of judgement.

For your first point, I'm not attached to the color red- just so long as the template looks different enough to attract attention so a hurried person may be more likely to follow the link to our hazard disclaimer.

There is merit to your second point. For tropical storms the red option is being used when warnings are posted, when there's a current threat to human life- but not every disaster is so neatly organized. Floods and earthquakes come to mind as events where I can't see when the "right" time would be to change the template's color.

As for geographical bias- well I was the person who brought up that point in the first place. The template was being used on 2008 Bihar flood until this morning, though.

I suppose that if we changed the font size/style in the box, that might make it noticeable without changing the color. Would that be a reasonable compromise? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The template should not be red, since that means the page is about to be deleted. What we can do and still be within the guideline for the use of article message boxes is to change the icons or even use yellow minor warning colour or even orange major warning colour. See my examples over at Template talk:Current disaster#Icon and color. But just as a teaser, here is one of the examples:

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There were complaints before about use of an exclamation point image- too much like a disclaimer. I think yellow or orange would be fine if the ambox wikiproject doesn't find it objectionable. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I find yellow an acceptable compromise. How is it to be used, however? Will the blue be retained as the proper colour, keeping for the yellow the same arrangements that now exist for the red (special option), or will it be the standard colour for the template? Neither prospect thrills me; I prefer blue for the template, but I also want consistency and no subjective choices. What can I say, though... We live in a dangerous world. Waltham, The Duke of 03:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice, but a little wordy for my taste. How about:

Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre block evasion

Per a private request, I ran a CheckUser enquiry into the edits of Z388 (talk · contribs) and a possible relationship to Sceptre. This relationship is  Confirmed. I do not have any doubt at all about the link between the two. The check also revealed that the following accounts are also sockpuppets of Sceptre:

• TUATW (talk · contribs)
• Gridlocked Caravans (talk · contribs)

I have blocked all of these as abusive sockpuppets -- although there does not appear to be anything wrong with their edits in themselves, this is block evasion.

Moreschi recently changed Sceptre's indefinite block to one of two months' duration (block log) as a "final chance". Given the above findings, this probably needs reconsideration.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So in effect, Sceptre is basically banned, not just blocked? how do you turn this on 16:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't considered a community ban, it probably should be. The block should go back to indefinite IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving it back to an indefinite ban. Evading blocks and bans is a no-no.--Tznkai (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

May I ask: what is the difference between a block and a ban? how do you turn this on 16:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A block is directed against an account, a ban against the person. A block is a purely technical matter, a ban is a somewhat esoteric social construct (which is enforced e.g. through blocks). See Wikipedia:Banning policy. user:Everyme 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ermm No, a block is against the person also, it would be pretty pointless otherwise. You've been disruptive so we'll block this account, feel free to continue with another account... See WP:EVADE your definition of being against the account would make this pointless as it would be impossible to evade a block just directed against an account. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So basically there's no difference? how do you turn this on 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The ban is the social construct, blocks one mechanism for enforcement of a ban (though blocks will be used other than for ban enforcement), see WP:BAN. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So if you evade a block, you get punished for the same reason as evading a ban? They sound basically the same to me, except a block is the technical part of it and the ban is the part that says that person can't edit. how do you turn this on 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the accounts be tagged accordingly? user:Everyme 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd be inclined to simply reset the clock. Scepte is an annoying immature individual but they do make good edits when they have a mind. Indef and permaban seems a little kneejerk right now but given our history I'm not going to fight in the trenches for him. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre was on an indefinite ban for harrasment, so resetting the clock brings us back there, but I am unfamiliar with the details. Also, an administrator who understands the autoblocker will want to review the block.--Tznkai (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

At least one of those "harassed" (I would have called it childish name-calling, myself) put it down to childish behaviour and asked for an unblock. Something those who were here for the original discussions might remember. The block log entries rarely tell the whole story. Carcharoth (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I endorse the stated relationships (among Sceptre, Z388, TUATW, and Gridlocked Caravans) as  Confirmed, I ran checks myself. At the very least I think a reset to restart the 2 month clock is justified. I leave the rest to the community's discretion, for now. Oh, and thanks again to Risker for some spadework in this matter, and to the WR poster who first spotted the possible connection. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clarify what "stated relationships" means, and what the checkuser confirms, for those of us who have never filed a RFCU and have no idea what that entails? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sam said the other accounts were "sockpuppets of Sceptre". That's the stated relationship. I ran similar checks to what Sam ran, and my interpretation of the results is that they indeed confirm the relationship Sam stated. (i.e. that Sceptre was the controlling account). I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I'm talking more about the technical details- how the stated relationship was established, what the evidence was. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that you already knew that a checkuser isn't going to tell you that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I'm surprised that a user who has been around as long as David has would even ask, actually. ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just haven't been in many drama-fests in my time. So how are these socks proven then? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, that's the same question. There are a number of ways of telling, but a CU isn't going to tell you which one was used in this case. Black Kite 17:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Augh! (head hurts) I must not be making myself clear... what exactly does the checkuser action spit out and how do we determine the likelihood of socks based on it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically? Checkuser can reveal IP range similarities and suspicious timing. That combined with shared interest, tone, and other suspicious activity can reveal a series of logins to be the same person.--Tznkai (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is other technical information that CU can pick up as well. Black Kite 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I support resetting the block to 2 months. Sometimes long-time contributors who end up with a block like this don't have the patience to sit it out. A few resets should be used to get the message home before moving to indefinite. And with respect to User:Tznkai (who I am not familiar with), they have recently returned from a two-and-a-half year hiatus. An edit on 8 February 2006 was followed by an edit on 4 September 2008. I can see from User talk:Tznkai that Tznkai has recently been reaccepted as an ArbCom Clerk, but I would reiterate what has been said elsewhere: it is best to ease back in gently. At the very least, reading the threads around the Sceptre block should be done, and not just going by what is stated in the block logs. For the record, Tznkai has said "I am unfamiliar with the details". Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also support a reset. Sceptre is a valuable content contributor, and I think this block may just have been a clear note to him to shape up. The socks' contribs were not abusive, as has been pointed out. GlassCobra 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I definitely support an indef block now. It's pretty clear cut that his final chance is gone, no need to AGF anymore. Wizardman 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: it turns out the relationship between two of them is obvious. I've also blocked sleeper sock Paracetamoxyfrusebendroneomycin (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And you'll notice that these socks are not new. Sceptre has been dropping sleeper socks for quite some time now... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In his favour, there is no evidence that he was editing abusively and I see nothing from Moreschi to Sceptre saying this was a final chance. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi's entry in the block log says "final chance". I'm hoping Moreschi also left a note on Sceptre's talk page, as not everyone reads block logs for messages like that. Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He didn't. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That's not good, is it? Setting up sleeper socks, while still in good standing, for later use? That is troubling. But I'd still give him a few resets. At the very least, this thread might shock him into realising that if he continues this way, he is very close to a ban. Carcharoth (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I oppose a reset. Sceptre knew what he was doing, I'm tired of giving people chance after chance when they blatantly take advantage of it. Wizardman 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to anyone changing my block action, but I will note that block evasion to me justifies not only reset, but escalation to the next interval.--Tznkai (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We should give him a second chance now so that we can give him a second chance later (not really). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What if, in three months, Sceptre turned up all apologetic, saying he has stopped using sockpuppets, promising not to use sockpuppets again, and asking for an unblock? That is probably what the two-month block was meant to do. People who use sockpuppets to make constructive edits are more likely unable to disengage, rather than abusive. Setting up multiple sockpuppets is more worrying, but it was done so naively I'm almost tempted to say people should look further and see whether this is a smokescreen for something else? Carcharoth (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Like what? naerii 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to speculate. I would hope that the checkusers have picked everything up. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what should be made of this? An at least one of these points to this redlinked cat.

I did a quick look at the live links where they exist, and they, by and large, look unrelated to this, but... - J Greb (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Sceptre has been working at WP:ACC. The accounts created in May and earlier are likely his, though. – Sadalmelik ☎ 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I am actually quite opposed to a reset as well, but as a compromise - reset now, and make it clear that any more block-evasion will result in an indef. Fair? Black Kite 17:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

how about resetting to three months with further evasion leading to indefnite? Carcharoth (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that as well. Black Kite 17:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this. naerii 17:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, 3 months is ok. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See also this post and replies to it. WR is not a substitute for WP dispute resolution (nor should we negotiate or whatever there) but the information may be useful. I think someone should undo the redirect of his talk -> user so any conversation that Sceptre chooses to initiate there could flow unimpededly. ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done [3] NonvocalScream (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions: where is the best place to leave the message that this really is the final chance? It should be put in the block log for future admins to see. It should also be placed at User talk:Sceptre (which as Lar says should be un-redirected). Is his e-mail address still enabled? To what lengths should people go to ensure that the message has got across? Carcharoth (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been chatting with him, I can relay the "ultimatum" if necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He says he already knows. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WR shouldn't be used instead of talk pages, either. Some on-wiki statement from him (on his talk page) would be nice, but unlikely I suppose. Anyway, let's leave this to develop a bit more and see what consensus emerges. Carcharoth (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think spectre should be brought into this conversation, on wiki. I personally refuse to take care of administrative business on an off site forum--Tznkai (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm willing to dialog with people but will make no official representations of how I will or won't act, nor will I claim any sort of agreement has any standing. Here is where we do our own business. Not on WR, not on IRC, not on sekrit mailing lists. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably going to pulled into real life at any moment, so I'm going to go on record with something so there is no confusion. I am endorsing a reversal of my block of Sceptre by any administrator (upon some decision being reached).--Tznkai (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that going to a block of three months, with the explicit warning that this will be his last chance, is the best idea. He has made positive contributions, which I think could continue to do if he were so inclined. Hopefully three months distance from the project will help him regain the perspective necessary to edit in a more constantly productive way.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He has stated in email correspondence that he is amenable to three months as the upper limit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could relay to him that he doesn't get to "be amenable" to anything. That sounds very much like "anything more than three months and I'll start socking again". Black Kite 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Amenable may have been David's choice of words, who knows. user:Everyme 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, I still believe that the initial ban for those "harassing" edits was totally overblown in the first place. user:Everyme 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've a problem with Sceptre's user page being deleted. Is he invoking WP:RTV or something? Since when do blocked puppeteers get to request that their user pages be deleted? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that, either. I've long held that userpage and user talk deletions, as opposed to courtesy blankings, should be reserved for RTV situations. David, would you consider reversing your deletion and restoring the history? — Satori Son 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have more of a problem with Sceptre calling User:Kmweber a stalker. See his talk page (transcluded below). But I'm going to be charitable and put that down to residual anger. I would hope that, three months down the line, Sceptre might not do that sort of thing, or, if he has genuine concerns, to learn the right way to state them. Carcharoth (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I support the extension to 3 months. I would also strongly encourage offering Sceptre a one-time-only no-penalty opportunity to provide the names of any other alternate accounts to one of the checkusers involved in this case, either Sam Korn or Lar, with the understanding that any further use of alternate accounts at any time in the future will result in immediate indefinite blocking. Risker (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you're waiting for an apology from Sceptre, don't hold your breath. He's too busy calling me an idiot. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore it.--Tznkai (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre's talk page

Transcluding Sceptre's talk page here. Please copy in text when discussion finished. Carcharoth (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done so now. It was serving no purpose. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am reading AN, and yes, Black Kite's original proposal (two months and final chance) is okay, and I'd be willing to settle for three months. Anything longer is frankly insulting, and would result in me never editing again (although the chance is very low right now). Once this matter is finished, I would like an admin to move this page to User talk:Sceptre/Archive53, revert to this version, and delete the redirect made. Don't feed the real trolls and stalkers any more than you have to. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorsing both the two month and three month blocks (either or), but I recommend in the strongest terms that sceptre keeps this talk page available.--Tznkai (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

After this is done, I'm not going to edit for at least two months - that includes replying on my talk. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Carcharoth: ArbCom have evidence of Kurt's off-wiki harassment which they've chosen to ignore. Hence my post to my userpage about Wikipedia having no standards: I get blocked for harassment for something that isn't, but a proven harasser has done so, and continues to do so, but people won't act on it because blocking him would be "censorship". Sceptre ^(talk) 18:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Risker: The accounts I've set up are in my creation log and those checkusered. I can't recall any others. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why I'm even bothering - I'm getting totally demonised in the AN discussion. You have my word I will not edit until at least November 7, probably until December 7 (dependent on whether the block is two or three months long). And Wknight, if you can get that from my naivety, imagine what ED could do. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but cut people a bit of slack as well. By evading your block by using socks, you have abused people's trust. For them to accept your word now is difficult. The best way to re-earn that trust is to accept a three month block and stick to it. It is easily possible to spend the time reading and gathering sources and writing content offline. You might feel you shouldn't have to do that, but that is one option. You could also take a complete break - it really does help sometimes. Carcharoth (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's true. Still, I can't "double-promise" something. That's all you can have; my word. If you want to enforce it, hardblock my IP for three months. That way, you know I won't edit. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, blocking an IP address doesn't block someone from editing Wikipedia. There's no need for anyone to rely on trust here. It'd be more straightforward for you to ask in December for your block to be lifted based on proof that you hadn't evaded it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is an implication that he is being asked to rely on the community to allow him to edit again if he requests it in three months. Why not just reset him for that period? Then he knows where he is and everybody moves on. There is no concensus for an indefifinite irrevocable block. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No block is irrevocable. Sceptre may ask for his to be lifted at any time. I suggest December but he could ask sooner or later. However he is asking us to trust him to not sock puppet in the interval, while I'm saying that trust isn't necessary if he simply exhibits good behavior. Do you think think he can't go until December without using socks? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No idea. But AGF is more likely to result in good behaviour IMHO. It is an aspect of courtesy and respect to which everyone is entitled. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have inferred (note: this means he did not say this, but that I picked it up) from talking to Sceptre that he has only used sockpuppets while blocked; this could be read to mean that he does not use them while not blocked, or we could just use the default reaction of "if he's used them once, he'll always use them and won't ever stop". —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:17 9 September, 2008 (UTC)

(comment from the sidelines...)

I don't think that looks at the issue that generated the ire. The nub is that, by what has been presented, the socks were used to avoid the block. If (big if here) the inference is sound, all it does is reinforce the thought that the socks were explicitly for use when he "got caught and sanctioned" to avoid the sanction. That smacks of "The rules don't apply to me". It also does not engender faith and undermines what faith was there to begin with. - J Greb (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to see that double standards are alive and well

If this was an ordinary user that no one knew, they'd be blocked indef, no questions asked. Jtrainor (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I do have sympathy for that view. However, we also have numerous previous examples of blocks being lengthened for sock-puppeting block evasion, both with "high profile" editors and others that "no one knew" as well. Black Kite 19:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre is not an ordinary editor that no one knows. Plain and simple. GlassCobra 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sceptre has made numerous positive contributions in multiple areas over a long period of time. That's worth making the investment in trying to turn things around, up to a point. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are people arguing that we don't have different standards for established users who have been with the project for a long time? I thought this was a well-known fact. Mr.Z-man 19:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jtrainor, if it was a user that no one knew, and had gotten indef blocked, I would go to bat for them if I became aware of their unblock request. Many users here know that I make such unblock requests on behalf of the lesser known. So, no, I don't see it as a double standard. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(Not) resetting block to 3 months

Unless anyone else has any major objections, and Sceptre is aware that any more socking will lead to an indefinite block, I am going to reset Sceptre's block to 3 months shortly. Black Kite 19:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. I see no consensus for anything, except possibly for a ban at this point. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm endorsing the 3 month--Tznkai (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I object too, and would rather support an indefinite block at this point. As much as I want to AGF, Sceptre has been given so many chances to reform yet has continued to be erratic and a net drain on the project. Jimmy Wales himself said in 2006, in an incident where Sceptre was harassing an underage female admin, "If he does ONE MORE LITTLE THING, he is gone from wikipedia *poof* just then, no arbcom, no nothing, just me banning him myself." He has done many more "things" since - I think the project has had enough. :/ krimpet✽ 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still iffy on this as well. IF consensus shows that a 3 month block is accepted by most then I'll be fine with it, but right now I'm not sure yet. Wizardman 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Indef is totally appropriate at this point. Per Krimpet, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK. Clearly no consensus at this time, so I will leave as indef, something I'm not unconvinced by myself anyway. Black Kite 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I object also. How many chances do we give him? He was indef blocked and then his block was reduced as a last chance. He has now used that last chance and still is unrepentant about why he was originally blocked. Why keep wasting our time? KnightLago (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not positive, but I believe his last chance was given AFTER the sock edits but BEFORE they were discovered.--Tznkai (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The one sleeper sock was created and edited within the last few days. The sock that created that sock also edited on September 1. Sceptre's block log clearly says Moreschi's "Final chance" was in August. Which last chance were you referring to? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending his drama-mongering or his mistakes, but some points. First off, what Jimbo says should not be any reason to conduct our affairs in dealing with users in any different way. We're the community; we decide. Secondly, I disagree with the assertion Sceptre is a "net drain"; he's nominated five successful AfDs and has been an extremely positive asset to Doctor Who. What I've urged everyone to do (and no one has listened) is to try and come to common ground on editors clearly intent on improving Wikipedia but who have caused drama in doing so (Sceptre, Giano, et al). This isn't just one editor, it's an offshoot of a continuing issue. I'm just hoping that we can address this so we don't waste our times in threads like these over each individual user. Also note per above Sceptre has good reason to want his talk and user page salted, as the trolls at Encyclopedia Dramatica already have a sizeable article on him and its unethical to provide them more ammunition. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

First, let's not compare Sceptre to Giano. Giano has pointed out what he - and quite a few others - feel are injustices. If he wasn't so dramatic and biting in his choice of language, he'd get a lot more official support. Sceptre is turning out to be a vandal, a harasser, and an abusive block evading sockpuppeteer. No comparison. It's only now that he's been unmasked. Next, what good is there in deleting his user page? It's just a sockpuppeteer tag that helps the community here understand what happened. What information is contained there for ED? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's interesting timing. I believe the "last chance" comment was placed at the end of a block log. I haven't seen any evidence that Sceptre was given the courtesy of being informed on his talk page that this was his last chance. I also don't think dredging up things from 2006 is completely fair, nor is appealing to Jimbo's authority. As can be seen above, Jimbo is quite capable of stepping in when he wants to. What I really want to see here is an acknowledgment from Sceptre that he really is going to step away from Wikipedia for a few months (it can be done, and I believe Sceptre has stated this), and then Sceptre make a statement after those three months in the form of a block appeal. This gives people here a chance to calm down as well. In principle, I think all indefinite or long-term blocks should be reviewed a few months later, merely because people may change opinions they expressed in the heat of the moment. Maybe what I'm arguing for is to leave indefinitely blocked, and to revisit it in three months time? People may feel differently then. Carcharoth (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The first thing I'm looking for is a slight hint of repentance. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You may not get that now, but you might in a few months. Would you be prepared to wait a few months to get a hint of repentence? Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse a reset. Frankly, anything that has been stated here is not even near bannable. The socks weren't abused. Normally, only the socks are blocked due to block evasion. — Edokter • Talk • 20:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• If the socks are productive, the master account is not blocked, and there's no abusive sockpuppetry, then you'd usually be right. When the master account is already blocked though, that's block evasion as well. Black Kite 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• And evading a two-month block before even a few days are gone is a very bad sign. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Two notes: 1 I believe I understand why sceptre wants his user page space to be deleted, and he has legitimate concerns for trolling, harassment, and other distress. 2. I propose that if Sceptre posts an apology for evading via sockpuppet, we move to a three month ban, courtesy blank his talk page with a block notice and sock notice hidden a layer deep, delete his user page, and move on with life.--Tznkai (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree on both counts. His user page has a single edit in it. There is no information there. I didn't undelete the entire history of it. It's just a pointer with information that trolls already have anyway. Next, the blocks and past threats from Jimbo were all based on a common thread of immaturity and sneakiness. Those don't go away in three months. Three years maybe, but definitely not three months. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then ban him again in three months. It takes twenty seconds.--Tznkai (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The one problem with that is the possible damage an unrepentent sockpupeteer might do. I'm not convinced though that Sceptre would do such damage. Carcharoth (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Wasn't the comment from Jimbo two years ago? But the real point here is that consensus is slowly moving towards a ban, and I think Sceptre is beginning to realise that. Why push for a ban immediately? If Sceptre reforms, that's a good result. If he doesn't, more people will support an indefinite block. If that's what you want, you'll get that eventually, but you don't have to get that immediately. A later indefinite block with firmer consensus is better than one now with opinion divided. Carcharoth (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse 3 month block but firmly opposed to making him grovel to get it. Shorten the block and indef him next time. He is annoying and immature but produces featured content is is a long term contributor. We really need to look for rehabilitation rather then restitution here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I endorse restarting the 2 month clock. Firmly opposed to seeking to get him to grovel. The original indef blok was way over the top. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd endorse resetting the two month clock, but tacking on a third month seems punitive. For somebody like Sceptre, who lives and breathes Wikipedia, two months is long enough (if he can actually bring himself not to continue socking). I think a reset of the two month clock is a good warning shot, and if he's caught socking again, he should be met with an indefinite block and a discussion regarding a community ban. - auburnpilot talk 00:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone doubted the elusiveness, a WR user noticed Sceptre welcoming and talking to himself - and not recently but four months ago. I'm actually embarrassed for him at this point. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus seem to have moved towards a 3 months block and away from an indef at this time. I'll change it round in a couple of hours unless there are further sustained objections. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It has? I only see a couple people who do so. You, Neil, Auburnpilot, Kittybrewster, and Edokter, since Krimpet's post. I don't see any consensus to change anything in any direction, be it towards a ban, or towards a 3 month block. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I have as well, as well as other endorsement on sceptre's talk page, and on the suggestions subsection of this topic.--Tznkai (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse a three month block. There's no reason to expect a "full, frank apology" or anything like that. If Sceptre chooses to provide one, great, but it should not be a condition. Neıl ☄ 09:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that ritual abasement is not required here. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am in agreement with Edokter's statement "Frankly, anything that has been stated here is not even near bannable." This is a spat, not a long term behaviour problem, and we're dealing with a 17 year old who is impulsive but not particularly mean spirited - I've dealt with way worse and can't even get them a 24 hour block, so I think an indefinite ban is absolutely ridiculous. Certainly the stuff he has done merits some attention in the form of a block, but it should be finite, and clear, and given his solid contribution to the project overall, unconditional (I see I'm agreeing with Neil on the latter point). Orderinchaos 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd argue with you on the mean-spiritedness of this - towards Kmweber as well as homosexuals and the mentally handicapped. I'm supporting a finite block as well but let's not water down the transgression too much. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    • That is a demonstrable lapse of maturity rather than any effort to offend aforesaid groups, I would have to look through diffs but he has strongly stood up for both groups in the past. Having taught 15- and 16-year-olds in a classroom environment, I'm well aware of the complete lack of thought that goes through their heads sometimes in the chase to score a point. This sort of thing is what I hope mentorship from a respected Wikipedian could assist with. Orderinchaos 12:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Estimate

This is my attempt at seeing of the people who have commented here, who thinks what. Feel free to correct. --Tznkai (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• This like consensus to chortern the block but I have not enacted this to allow for further comment and discussion. there is no deadline. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more definitively, it looks like a lack of consensus to maintain the indefinite ban. To avoid a wheel war, I can enact whatever remedy is required.--Tznkai (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good. Throw in a trout slap for talking to his own sleeper sock and I'm good with either two- or three-month. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In my judgement, we have something resembling a consensus for the following:

• rescind the indefinite ban on Sceptre
• block for 3 months (starting two days ago, so 89 days or so), pending further discussion on the 2/3 month issue.

We don't have as clear of a consensus, but I would like to do the following

• put a note detailing Sceptre's block for sock abuse, and its length
• courtesy blank that same page (there will be a note about this in the blocking log as well.)
• Speedy delete User:Sceptre per user request

Concerns?--Tznkai (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I intend to recind the ban in the morning. First sleep.--Tznkai (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Rescind indefinite ban

• tznkai - Open to Two month or three month ban(Note: Blocking admin for most recent block)
• Carcharoth - Supports two month block, open to three month block, further evasion causes indefinite
• Naerii - Supports three month block, further evasion causes indefinite
• Philknight - supports three month block, further envasion causes indefinite
• User J - supports three month block, further envasion causes indefinite
• Kitty brewster - supports three month block, supports two month block
• Edoker
• Spartaz - supports 3 month block, "opposed to seeking to get him to grovel"
• auburn pilot - supports 2 month block, does not support 3 month block, further evasion causes indefinite, consider community ban
• Niel - supports 3 month block
• Risker - supports 3 month block
• Wknight - Supports 3 month block
• GRBerry - Either a reset 2 month or preferrably a 3 month. Low tolerance for further evasion. GRBerry 16:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• GlassCobra - 3 month block, low tolerance for further evasion. Indef block inappropriate, socks were not abusively used. GlassCobra 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Black Kite - 3 month block, NO tolerance for further evasion. Ensure static IP hardblocked. Black Kite 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Orderinchaos - Not opposed to unblocking entirely per some comments below mine. I personally think a 2 month block would be appropriate, and would support 3 month as second option, indef block inappropriate. Agree with most or all of the comments in "other" section below. Orderinchaos 17:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• 2 months reset Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Everyking - I'm uncomfortable with a block for an extended period given Sceptre's history of contributions and productive work even while socking. Certainly I oppose an indefinite ban, and I think even two months is too long. Everyking (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• InkSplotch - Support a fixed length (2-3 months), but I'm often uncomfortable with "indefinite until they indicate <whatever>", especially since I'm not sure I see consensus on how severe the initial block should have been. --InkSplotch (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Seraphim Whipp - Reset two month block. I do feel there needs to be a clear message that abusive behaviour or disruptive/POINTy behaviour that wastes the community's time is not tolerated though. Seraphim♥Whipp 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• hmwith - Support 3 month block & discuss the reaction to future evasion at a later date. Hopefully, we will not need to do so. hmwithτ 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• I support no block as a first choice, and two month as a second choice. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Me. Just unblock and be done with, this is all silly. He knows what'll happen if he plays up again. 2 months/whatever is a second choice, obviously. Giggy (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• IMHO review in a month, time off for good behavior...Modernist (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Maintain indefinite ban

• Krimpet
• Wknight - Waiting for an apology/ some sign of repentance
• KnightLago

Other

• "For the record, I still believe that the initial ban for those "harassing" edits was totally overblown in the first place. user:Everyme 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"
• "Agreed. Sceptre has made numerous positive contributions in multiple areas over a long period of time. That's worth making the investment in trying to turn things around, up to a point. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"
• "I'm still iffy on this as well. IF consensus shows that a 3 month block is accepted by most then I'll be fine with it, but right now I'm not sure yet. Wizardman 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"

*"OK. Clearly no consensus at this time, so I will leave as indef, something I'm not unconvinced by myself anyway. Black Kite "

• "I agree that ritual abasement is not required here. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)"

What happened to the mentorship issue?

• Given the behaviour since this dust-up began (RfC etc.), I feel the need for a mature, sober mentor is more appropriate than length of block. Essentially block is indef until he gets an appropriate mentor. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that mentorship from someone the community holds in respect is very important in this user's case. Orderinchaos 06:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

The usual result of serial block evasion is an indefinite block. I suggest that if Sceptre has not evaded this block after three months he be encouraged to request an unblock, but that no expiry date be set on the block of his account - that is, it will not automatically expire, it would require an active review after a reasonable period. I think this is fair, given his past contributions to the project combined with his present disruptive activity. I would also suggest that those who consider him friends on Wikipedia, contact him privately and counsel him to abide by the block and come back refreshed after a nice Wikibreak. If voting were not evil I would set up a notavote on it right now, but anyway, that's what I think. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, but I would submit that sceptre is more likely to be receptive to a 3 month block, especially since there is a small but growing consensus among some of the people commenting here that the original indef and final warnings may have been over the top. In the mean time, do you object to a 3Month pending further discussion?--Tznkai (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus seems pretty clear for a stated block length of two to three months, and Sceptre himself has signed on to that. Accordingly, the proper action is quite clear. To those who support a ban, a ban, even more than an indef block, invites evasion. And thus we have more time wasted detecting it, enforcing the block or ban, etc. I was indef blocked for a few days, it was a fascinating experience. Dark thoughts; fortunately, I had sense enough not to act on them, but I know the tricks, from watching a master at it, I could have. We should be careful about turning bright editors into vandals and enemies of the project; rather, we need to find ways to guide them -- and to accept or work with what is legitimate about whatever it was they were pushing that led to the problem in the first place, usually there is some good faith motive there, even if badly misapplied.

Meanwhile, it would be my hope that users who have good communication with Sceptre keep in touch with him, and support him, and whatever is useful and helpful of his agenda. It's not meat puppetry if it's careful, and if the editor takes personal responsibility for it. --Abd (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is meatpuppetry and would only make matters worse. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter what Sceptre is receptive to? Being blocked is not something that he is required to agree about. Jtrainor (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Because he is a good faith, albeit impulsive, user and the preference would be to have him back and editing productively, albeit with better standards of personal negotiation and possibly avoiding loci of intense drama which he sometimes gets drawn into. Creating a situation where he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, rather than creating a situation where if he behaves appropriately he gets some (maybe eventually all) of his privileges back, does not create an incentive to behave, but rather an incentive to disrupt as he can't face any harsher consequence than he already has for doing such. (I'm not assuming bad faith here, you could insert *any* person's name there and it would apply.) The fact that he was indef-blocked over such a petty matter to begin with also in my view mitigates the situation. Orderinchaos 06:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ban vs Block

Since most people editing here are admins, I figure they all know the difference between ban and block. But the votes tallied use the term "ban". So that means he'll end up community banned? As for his block evasion, I believe he's addicted to wikipedia and can't just leave it for several months. So there should be compassion. But if he ever is allowed back he should never get rollback because he really really likes to abuse it. 4.152.252.153 (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Even as someone with quite a positive view of him, I'd have to agree that giving him rollback wouldn't be the brightest of ideas. Orderinchaos 06:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the belief that Sceptre is simply going to disappear for three months is naive. We're talking about somebody who over the last three months (June, July, and August), made 6600 edits and didn't go a single day during that time without making at least one edit (he made 14676 edits during the three months prior to that). Yet we're somehow shocked that he evaded the initial block within a day or two? That's not to say I don't support the block, but if we're going to tack on an extra month every time we catch a Sceptre sock, we might as well go ahead and make it indefinite. - auburnpilot talk 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather inclined to agree with your first sentence, but do not have a clue what to do about it. Mentorship is always a bonus, but the pre-emptive creation of sleeper socks worries me rather. Brilliantine (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. We should let him back in because he's 'addicted'? Yeah, no. Jtrainor (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

some notes. 1. These aren't votes, this is not a democracy, we are gauging opinion. 2. I probably used the terminology wrong because I don't really care. To me the message is clear "stop editing wikipedia, come back in X months. 3. I take Auburn pilot's post simply to mean "There is reason to believe that this sort of remedy will not work. Maybe we should think of something else. 4. Who has suggestions for how to deal with Sceptre in a fashion that isn't a series of blocks, bans, etc? More importantly, are any of you willing to step up to the plate and deal with it?--Tznkai (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I definitely don't advocate letting him back in simply because he's addicted, but I don't think the "bag and tag" approach will work with somebody like Sceptre. Tznkai's reading of my comment is dead on; I think this is a situation where the standard remedies will not work. - auburnpilot talk 14:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Here is an idea, and please feel free to shoot it down in flames, I prefer examining "out of the box" ideas harshly so as to identify problems with them: We could ask Sceptre for his opinion. He has experience; he knows himself. We can ask him if he thinks he's mature enough to acknowledge his sleeper socks, and what remedies he suggests would be most likely to result in the best overall outcome for Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. He is last I checked, ignoring his talk page, so I'll keep an eye out for him on IRC. That doesn't solve one problem though, is anyone here willing to step up and take charge of watching over Sceptre if a more mentor-ship like program goes through? I'd volunteer myself, but I don't think I have the unimpeachable reputation required for it.--Tznkai (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Same, although with me it's the time factor - I'm a uni student and soon to be full time worker. I'm happy to assist anyone who does though. Orderinchaos 18:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re mentorship, I proposed a few names of those who are known for civility and maturity, namely User:Dweller, User:Mastcell, and User:TheRamblingMan. AFAIK he made efforts to contact someone, don't know who. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

changes to the templates for Birth/Date age - Still unreseolved

I previously wrote up this issue and it was archived without resolution so I am writing it up again. The linking for birth date and age templates has been removed which is causing the dates to not link within templates., Infobox military person for example. Although I see under the WP:Dates where someone changed the wording I cannot see where the change was determined through discussion or consensus and therefore should be corrected. If the decision is to not link dates in general fine but it should still be linked in templates such as infoboxes. Additionally,if this is the desire is to not link dates then the bots and AWB that correct dates need to be reviewed (because they are still changing date formatting) and the millions of date links on pages that currently exists needs to be removed. Until somone can show me where this has been changed based on a majority decision and not just a user thinking that its wrong then I am going to continue linking dates.--Kumioko (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask User:Tony1. He has a page explaining where consensus was reached. See User:Tony1/Information on the removal of DA. Earlier thread was here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Does he plan to delete all the month/day/year pages once they are completely orphaned? Seriously, what is the point of all this? — CharlotteWebb 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That point did strike me as well. There must be some cases where we link to years. I suppose from calendars and timelines rather than articles? And from timelines within articles. I think the point is that linking a year is OK, but linking the date and month is pretty pointless. Though knowing all the instances when a date is mentioned in Wikipedia could be useful in some circumstances. But that more linking dates for the sake of using the "what links here" function. We also have "x in year" articles. Tony's argument that there is vast amounts of overlinking is valid as well, and particularly the point that unregistered readers see a mess (though I thought everyone knew that already - I think half the people that create accounts do so in order to improve their reading experience and to access the reading preferences such as 'skins'). Carcharoth (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I see Tony's point I do not agree that not linking dates at all is the answer and it seems as though he has become the defacto owner of the date formatting for wikipedia. I have reviewed his comments as well as the comments of the supporters and opposers and here are some things that I notice/concerns that I have:

1. The Opposers and the supporters all have a good point but the supporters opinions seem to be favored heavily.
2. Tony's page states that the majority support it but when you look at the vote it didn't clearly define support and the number of users who voted was relatively small.
3. There are bots and apps tat edit dates on pages that need to be modified.
4. There are millions of date links that need to be unlinked if this is kept.
5. There are hundreds of date pages that will need to be deleted if this is kept.
6. I believe that a change like this that affects so many pages and edits should have had more publicity before it was implemented.

--Kumioko (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that this debate has been going on for years and has taken place in an enormous number of different places, too many to be easily linked to. In 2006 the whole thing blew up into a wheel war, see relevant block logs. Tony has been consistent and persuasive, and I think he's (probably) right that the significant opposing viewpoints have been answered to the satisfaction of a majority of those who have followed the debates all along. Of course, since this debate affects basically every article and (as you note) a great many templates as well, lots of people are going to notice the actual changes who were not aware of the debate, no matter how well it's publicized. But in this case, consensus of everyone whose watchlisted pages would be affected would be simply impossible (since that's all editors), and there has to be some kind of move forward at some point. Like you I see both sides here, but I also see the downside of continuing the debate for, oh I don't know, another three years. . . Chick Bowen 05:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In those earlier debates, was the issue of "what is the purpose of year, month and date articles", addressed, and whether such articles should ever be linked and if so from where? Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The links to such pages are only to be removed where they serve no purpose. Where they serve a purpose they will remain. Therefore, the pages will remain, since consensus is that there is a purpose to having on this day in history pages and chronology pages. Hiding T 09:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Response to CharlotteWebb et al.: If all or even a tiny proportion of year-pages were like 1345, we'd be putting them up as FACs, highlighting them in The Signpost and generally being rather proud of them. But they're not like that: I recently surveyed a sample right back to pre-christian days and found them to be most unsatisfactory stubby, fragmentary lists. But even if year-pages were worthy of proper articles/lists, there's an insuperable problem: they provide information about a whole year for the whole planet, and by definition are hard to justify as links that add significantly to the understanding of a topic at hand. If there's one relevant fish in the ocean of a year-page (that is, one that is not just a stubby little collection of one-line statements, it would always be better in the article itself. Year-pages are actually a great idea for something quite different: diversionary browsing. While many editors work to discourage enticements to divert from our focused article through year-links, if more year-pages could be worked up into good articles, I'd be the first to promote them in their own right as worthy for a certain class of reader. There's the challenge.

I think for the most part I agree with the concept of what this is doing but I think that a change of this magnitude is creating a LOT of work. I also agree that many pages with linked dates have that date linked too many times unnecessarily. For me 1 link in the article and maybe one for the infobox if applicable and thats enough. But to not link dates at all to me is an extreme measure. I also agree that many of the date pages are nasty and need work but that could also be said of the articles themselves. I think one way to fix this might be to setup a project to start reviewing these date pages and if there aren't many items on the dates page then we roll them up to the next level (if 19 January 1988 only has 2 items then we roll it up as a sub section under 1988). Many also need to be assessed.--Kumioko (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Response to the issue of autoformatting dates in templates: This is quite a different issue from the linking of years and other chronological items. It's simple: templates that generate dates need to (1) avoid linking them and (2) allow editors to choose between the two standard formats, US and international (some citation templates seem to like ISO, which is permitted in ref lists). This arises from major changes to long-standing practice, in MoS (main), MOSNUM, MOSLINK and CONTEXT last month.Tony (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For me the biggest problem here is that there is no standardization for the page names (some are 19 January and some are January 19) and some dates even have 2 or more pages, 1 for each format and seems to be based on who created it. I understand that dates are displayed differently in different places but if the article name is 19 January then the link should reflect that rather than an unnecessary redirect for the sake of symantics. If someone in Great Britain created the article as January 19 then those of us like me in the US should be content with that format and display it as such unless we can come to some sort of understanding that dates and articles about a date will be displayed a certain way (perhaps based on the most commonly used format). Again I am not trying to be a pain here but it appeared to me that there was no follow throw of dealing with the 2nd and 3rd level effects of abolishing the date links.--Kumioko (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought about doing a request for comment but I have decided to let it go, although I don't completely agree with it, it has met concensus and after trying twice knowone else seems to think its a problem so I'll get behind it and proceed editing.--Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please watch me

Resolved

 – Sock blocked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hrafn#Please_read_my_recent_edits_...

Hrafn and his buddies are about to kick me off. "His" hierarchy of consortial editors (using the same username, passwd, and /or email communications) might now kick in. I would like you to restore my good name as Doug youvan, Nukeh, and MsTopeka, as one in the same. I do not have the editorial skills or ability to do anything other than what I have already done, because I focus on content and edit in good faith. I am sorry for breaking rules, but this consortium is just to fast and well skilled in WP rules for me to do otherwise. MsTopeka (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Please explain precisely what it is you're asking an admin to do. --Tango (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? Where has hrafn harassed you? And do you have any proof of your accusations of sharing usernames and passwords? That's a serious charge. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that User:MsTopeka has kindly admitted to being a further sock of banned User:Doug youvan/User:Nukeh, could somebody please ban 'her'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There he is, hrafn, and I believe that to be a consortium of editors, and a proxy of www.kcfs.org with many editors on the same username. It's possible all edits are piped through Krebs at kcfs, but I don't know anyone who could figure out how to detect such technology. I'm now in their home state, but I will not make any legal threats here. They defame my real name, Doug youvan. One has made a threat of violence. One of their goals is to control WP articles that are supportive of certain public policy positions, such as NO Intelligent Design being taught in school. ID is now a mess on WP and elsewhere, but it tracks back to the ideas of Arrhenius, one of the fathers of thermodynamics.

My cv includes 8 years of teaching in 2 departments at MIT in chemistry and biology, 20 years ago. Since then, I was the CEO of a biotech company, worked in aerodynamics, cosmology, mathematics, etc. I am Hrafn's worse nightmare in a public debate because of my background in research level science in many fields. On the other hand, his goal appears to be only to influence public policy, e.g., the Kansas State School Board elections. They pervert scientific articles on WP simply to make Darwin stand and ID fall, because they believe ALL of ID is a trick to get Creation back in the schools.

I broke some WP rules to catch these guys, so what do I do now? I have accumulated evidence here: http://www.childpainter.org, a master website that has links to other websites. I ask you to look at http://www.wikipediaversusthegodofabraham.org. You will also see that MsTopeka has recently tried to alert fellow WP editors to a potential IPO of WP, and has also looked into MACIDs for security reasons. These are not the efforts of the typical bad troll or socketpuppet. They are more akin to an ACLU activity with the goal of continued Freedom of Speech in a society that has lost much to the war on terror, which appears to be the delusions of a dry drunk, Prez Bush, and his money grubbing pals. Please do not lump all Christians in his bag. To do so will recreate 1935 Germany with Chrstians taking the place of Jews in the present day. Hrafn (and Godwin, a pun) would love to see that happen.MsTopeka (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Above, I read "that this may be a jimbo / arbcom decision in some way (hopefully we'll get clarification in due course)" on PD. If that is a method unknown to hard working, common, everyday editors, it appears we have still another problem. MsTopeka (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ROFLMAO -- I think this pretty much sums 'Ms Doug' up. I've added a report on WP:SSP. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what WP:SSP is. So, I ask a senior admin to defend my position. I appear to be pro per (court analogy) in Hfran v Youvan, where Hfran is highly skilled. I am a scientist, mathematician, and proponent of fair play - not a WP "attorney" like Hrafn who wins arguments in article content based on skills in admin stunts. MsTopeka (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Try clicking on the link, then you'll know what it means. --Tango (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, do review MsTopeka's edits. Certain words involving living under bridges come to mind. Corvus cornix_talk 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Subbridgulation? Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Are the words defined in Webster's Underthebridge Dictionary? Edison (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, at least we have new words to describe a certain Red Hot Chili Peppers song and sound all smart and everything. Orderinchaos 06:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Recurrent IP vandalism on Hippopotamus

Resolved

Done. — Werdna • talk 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See [4]. Suggest temporary semi-protection. Jayen466 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add this to the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please redact the last sentence of your response. Wikipedia does strive for civility, and that sentence borders on the incivil. Corvus cornix_talk 20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's uncivil about it. It was justification for me doing it here in stead of WP:RFPP. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Corvus, your tersely-worded demand for redaction is itself rather incivil (not to mention slightly bureaucratic). Hope this proves to be enlightening - Badger Drink (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when is "please" a demand? Corvus cornix_talk 19:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Temporary unprotection of Template:ArticleHistory

I would like to request that Template:ArticleHistory is unprotected for a few days, so I can implement the changes needed for Wikipedia:Good topics. In theory an admin could do the changes, but the whole process is pretty complex, and I'd rather get on with it myself. Arctic gnome, an admin who is also in charge of WP:FT, has already said that he would see me do it[5] - rst20xx (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to deflate the balloon, but Arctic.gnome asked you to create the modified version in a sandbox, and then implementing the entire modified version in one edit, not that we unlock the template for a few days so you can whittle away at it (not because you are untrustworthy, but because of other stuff that I won't say per WP:BEANS). That's my interpretation of his remarks. —kurykh 17:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that's true, but I think that was more because he suggested the sandbox because he didn't think of me asking here (I was more using the citation to demonstrate that he trusted me with it, sorry, I should have made that clearer). Franamax asked for exactly the same unprotection a couple of days ago, and had his request granted[6]. To do the changes in a sandbox would be an absolute nightmare, as I'd have no way of testing whether they were working as I want them to, as it all involves templates adding a large number of categories. And obviously whatever I create in a sandbox wouldn't be transcluded onto lots of pages - rst20xx (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You can transclude your sandbox onto test pages to test the sandbox version. Just play around a bit with several different sandboxes and transclude them onto themselves if you want to do transclusion tests. You might end up with the sandboxes in live categories for a few minutes, but as long as you disable the transclusion quickly, that should be OK. Goodness knows there are enough user subpages in "article" categories. Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The proper place to request edits to a template is using the {{editprotected}} on the template's talk page. Most admins want specific edits, though, which is why sandbox use is encouraged. Also, playing around on the live versions of high-use templates is generally a Bad Thing™ because it fills up the work queue a lot (basically 'cuz it makes other edits take longer to show up). It also helps reduce the impact of bugs in the code. And there's WP:BEANS stuff, of course. I highly recommend doing some work in a sandbox first, and making sure the edits are all kosher (bug wise). Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmm, fine, not entirely happy but I'll give it a go - rst20xx (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time in a week a request to unprotect ah has been raised here; why aren't changes raised on proposed on the ah template talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I was following the lead of the first request. Sorry - rst20xx (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

ah, I see :-) A request on the template talk page might be more efficient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

For reference on the "first request", see the archived AN request which links to several threads discussing the specific problem, the reprotection, the followups with interested/involved parties and the resulting change to the MediaWiki software at r40499. Franamax (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise it was later questioned. Anyway, I'm now in the process of sandboxing - rst20xx (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have made the changes required, I shall now bring the request to Template talk:ArticleHistory - rst20xx (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see the plan before, looks like an interesting idea. Brilliantine (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please review this block

I've been blocked for preposterous reasons and accused of vile actions that I did not do. I placed the unblock template on my talk page but nobody seems to have seen it yet. Can someone uninvolved please review my block at User talk:Nobody of Consequence? If necessary, e-mail me to discuss further. I'll be online sporadically the rest of the day. 75.3.120.150 (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have notified FayssalF, the blocking admin, of this discussion. — Satori Son 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On the face of it, the block appears to be poorly justified, and based on a single IP edit which is claimed to be you, which you are claiming isn't. I would expect FayssalF, as an experienced user and arbitrator, to give *significantly more* justification for a 2 week block than what has been given, it took me over 10 minutes just to find out what on earth you had allegedly been blocked for. I would consider unblocking if evidence is not forthcoming, but am willing to defer to FayssalF if a much better explanation and substantiation are provided. Orderinchaos 17:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In view of the justifications provided since my comment, I'm happy to support the block. Thank you to those involved for providing more detailed reasoning. Orderinchaos 06:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:Well, I can't help but notice the IP address is the same ISP and location. This could of course be a coincidence - it might be worthwhile asking a Checkuser to determine whether it is the same person. Brilliantine (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Strike, that possibly may not be the case, sorry. Brilliantine (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

While we are waiting, this IP is admitting to block evasion, so I've blocked it for the same length of the original block. Even an unjust block does not justify sockpuppetry to get around it. Of course, if the block on the registered account is overturned or reduced, the IP block should be reduced/removed. MBisanz ^talk 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've always thought of sockpuppetry as something done with accounts. IP editing is not socking, IMO, as there is no attempt to hide the IP address. It is natural, if an account is blocked but the IP isn't, for people to edit as an IP to ask questions about what happened (they should read the block notice, but that doesn't always happen). People who turn up as IPs asking why they were blocked should be politely told to file an unblock request on their talk page, and not be accused of block evasion and have the IP blocked. It's common courtesy, no matter if is it current practice to call this type of IP editing "block evasion". At the very least, the block template should have a message warning against editing with an IP on other pages (does it?). Carcharoth (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm calling that  Confirmed on both IPs, per FayssalF. IP information has already been revealed above, so yes to that. Both User talk:Nobody of Consequence and the vandalizing IP used that IP within a very short time. Other technical evidence supports this too - Alison ^❤ 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're absolutely clear, 75.3.120.150, and User:Nobody of Consequence are both vandal socks?--Tznkai (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really a vandal. NoC used the IP to leave nasty anti-semitic edits at user:Einsteindonut's userpage. He denied that althought he didn't give us any explanation why that could happen especially that he edited the same articles Einsteindonut edited. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. I don't understand that sometimes people asks us to be utterly stupid for the sake of being politically correct. This has been a clear-cut case from the beginning unless he got his connection compromised. What is odd is that his opponent, user:Einsteindonut, is claiming innocence in a similar fashion. Some other CheckUser may help review that case as well.

For people unfamiliar with the whole background of this mess, please have time to have a look at this lenghty boring thread. People have spent 2 days out there. Socks are horrible. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly he's lucky to get away with two weeks - in my opinion antisemitic remarks qualify for the "don't let the door bang you on the arse on the way out" treatment. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I've already addressed this point and I'd have no problem with extending the block. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Once again, anti-Semitic remarks (which I abhor) get treated more strongly than calls for the celebrations of the murders of 9/11. Just pointing out the consistency there. Corvus cornix_talk 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Corvus cornix, this is the first time I'd explain my modus operandi to someone. I am glad this point is being raised and hope the community would correct me if I am wrong. So thanks for bringing it.

Well, when you block someone in a controversial situation you have to be very prudent. So it is better to start the easy way while undergoing more investigation in parallel (the thing we are doing now). In this particular situation, the user in question has been aproached by 2 other admins a couple of days ago. If you get back to the AN/I thread in question, you'd see that today I got back to him including his story on the thread. Until here, there was no evidence other than his IP being used for the anti-semite edits. So had I blocked him people would complain about not AGF (an established editor away from the I-P conflict making those nasty edits? unbelievable and you can still read a similar comment at his talkpage from another editor). However, I didn't hesitate to block him on the spot after user:Einsteindonut brought diffs showing his direct involvment in the JIDF article. What would you do in such a situation? I know most people would have thought about an indefinite block or a long-term block at least. Same here obviously. The difference is that thinking and acting are two different things as acting 70% (even more than that) sure in a controversial situation usually prompt drama (ohhhh, indef is abusive, ohhhhh, indef is baseless, ohhhhh, he shared computers with his X, ohhhhh, you were so quick to jump, ohhhh, ahhhhh, ehhhhhhh, uhhhhhh). 2 admins hesitated to block, I didn't but that was because of the new supporting evidences brought by user:Einsteindonut. It wasn't a simple case and the proof is the very existence of this thread.

Anyway, do you believe that I'd object an indef after a review? Go ahead, you'll have my biggest support if admins review it. Please note that I really appreciate bringing this issue and I am certainly sure of you assuming good faith though not completely sure of my neutrality. You judge it now Corvus. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to the actions that were taken here. My continued objection is to the leniency shown User:Tree Cannon. Corvus cornix_talk 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Corvus for the confusion because I didn't get it at first. There was no leniency. At the opposite, it was me who found out who that guy might be without even using the CU tool. I could even bring a year-old memory back to life. Everybody then was waiting for his reaction to my comment. He then apologized for the comments but said nothing about his possible connection to other disrupters. And of course I blocked indef his obvious sock 0oors (talk · contribs). -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, Nobody of Consequence has "retired." seicer | talk | contribs 19:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Alison, can you clarify whether NoC had edited logged-in from 75.3.147.166 both before and after the vandalism? --Random832 (contribs) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Something about this doesn't strike me as right. I was looking into NoC's contrib history and among the first edits he made was complaint about the anti-Jewish content of a user box. Is it possible that the explanation on his/her talk page may in fact be true? Tiamut^talk 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Before and after, yes, Random832. There was as little as ~20 minutes between login times, at one point - Alison ^❤ 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that nails it I would say, that is not compatible with his explanation. The coincidence would be altogether too unlikely. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As little as 20 minutes? Isn't 20 minutes rather a long time, or am I missing something about what length of time means here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Not for DHCP leases, etc. To explain that, per your question below; IP addresses are farmed out from a range of IPs to our computers via a cable modem or DSL set or whatever. These generally have a fixed lease, so that if you power off your set or if you are idle for some time, the IP address you are given stays with you, sometimes for days, weeks. This is the 'lease time' for an IP. DHCP is just a protocol for farming out these IP addresses to many people across one network (like an ISP, for example). You can sometimes force an IP address change by telling the DHCP server to drop your lease to the current IP address and go get another one. Some fast-moving vandals do this. However, in the case of DHCP, it always dishes out new ones from its 'pool' of unassigned ones, and puts your old one to the back of the list for recycling later. Thus, renewing your IP over such a protocol rarely if ever results in getting "your own back", especially if it's been farmed out to some anon and back again in the meantime? See what I mean about the likelihood here? - Alison ^❤ 00:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the 'resolved' tag. After reading User talk:Nobody of Consequence, I think a clearer explanation of exactly what happened here is needed, even if only for those who are missing the pieces in the jigsaw puzzle. A timeline and diffs would be helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've skimmed through this thread that Fayssal mentioned above. What is the connection again? Presumably that someone reading the thread made the edit to Einsteindonut's page? How definite is the CU evidence again? IP edits either side link to intervening edits made by the account? Is the message at User talk:Nobody of Consequence credible? Is there any way the CU evidence could be interpreted wrongly? Carcharoth (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be an idea to get a third checkuser report, if you like. However, having DHCP drop the IP address, then an IP editor comes along and vandalizes some particularly relevant pages (even User:Einsteindonut), then modem reboots and you get the same one back?? And that's from a reasonably wide IP range;

PPPoX Pool se4.chcgil 041007 1222 SBC-75-3-112-0-20-0712043420 (NET-75-3-112-0-1)
                                  75.3.112.0 - 75.3.127.255

.. from the above IP address. It's a little beyond the realms, sorry. And now that I'm asked, I began to dig further. These edits[7][8] came from the same IP as NoC and it was login-logout-login again. Then there's these contribs, once again from NoC's IP address. Then there's this one and this one (with less than a minute after the IP finishes and NoC logs in. And this one, etc, etc. You get the idea. This guy logs in and out all the time to do stuff - Alison ^❤ 22:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. When you say "from NoC's IP address", you mean checkuser showed that the account was editing from those different IP addresses (but in the same range - how big is that range is absolute terms?) at the same time (or around the same time) as the edits you flag up? When most people read something like "from NoC's IP address" they will think you mean one single IP address, but I think what you are saying here is that he is on a dynamic IP (hence the talk of modem rebooting) but still within a range, and you've linked edits from the (normally masked) IP addresses he edits from to both masked (ie. logged-in as NoC) edits, and unmasked (logged-out as IP) edits? Is that right? Oh, and what does "DHCP drop the IP address" mean? Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've also tracked down the featured article. Madman Muntz. I also found out the block was two weeks. For some reason (not sure why) I thought the block was indefinite. Given that it's not indefinite, I think Guy has the right approach here (see NoC's talk page). After things have calmed down, NoC can post an unblock request (or wait out the block) and let's see what happens then. But in some ways, this should be resolved one way or the other. I'm still surprised that a productive contributor would switch between behaviours like this, which is why I was asking if there was any chance that the data could be explained another way. I realise that answering that is a bit beans-like, but was wondering if anything more could be said. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The same IP each time, over different IPs. login-logout-login. Same IP, and it happened again and again. I'm having trouble connecting this to someone taking his IP address, vandalizing or whatever, then he grabs the same one back - hours or even minutes later?? - Alison ^❤ 00:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, hang on. I am working on this. It seems very but very odd. I'll contact fellow arbitrators because of the nature of the findings. We'll keep you updated. I'll contact you within a few minutes Alison. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fayssal. Emailed reply - Alison ^❤ 04:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal asked for confirmation of these findings on the CU list so I took a look... I concur with them. There's a patter here of user->IP->user... the user does some stuff, logs out, does some stuff as the IP, logs back in. Repeated across several different IPs in the same range. Seems pretty clear to me. ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole detailed case and seeking community opinion

Note: I'll be using alphabetical letters to refer to the accounts, pending opinion of the community.

Back to you guys. The case was left at the point where NoC is blocked for 2 weeks for being connected to the IP who left the Nazi and Islamist Jihadist flag on user:Einsteindonut's userpage. As everybody knows, NoC claims to have retired. To the dismay of many, I must say "not really, he's still among us."

Yesterday, while digging further, I discovered another account used by user:Nobody of Consequence (NoC). While reviewing and double checking this case another account X belonging to this user was found. The account X returned editing a couple of days ago after a long wiki-break. This suggests that NoC was expecting my block because he knew what he did. X started editing almost 2 years ago (end of 2006) but stopped earlier this year. X and NoC have many shared interests of course.

Well, as you know, I had notified the ArbCom yesterday of the case of NoC and in parallel I asked the CheckUser team to verify the findings and the connection with the newly discovered X. Again, positive from Alison and Lar today. I thought that the tracing would stop just there. And because of the insistence of the community above I found myself digging further which led to the discovery of X.

Today, while preparing this report, I went copying diff and checking history files of X. To my surprise, I found out that X used an old account Y. More digging led to the fact that Y started editing on mid-2006 but stopped before the redirection. The first edit ever of Y was a query posted at a former user W (unrelated) asking him why he left him a vandalism warning early 2006 (supposedely a warning by W to Y). This obviously means that Y had another prior account. This also means that W had left that supposed warning on early 2006. But to whom? I couldn't find out as, in fact - as W responded to Y, there was no such edit. I verified and it was true. There was no such warning at all!

This whole case suggests that NoC is in fact an established user who at least started editing on spring 2006. As it is clear now, NoC had at least 2 other accounts. However, none of these accounts were/have been disruptive apart from the IPs used by NoC (like redirecting BetaCommand's userpage and the recent anti-semitic edit on Einsteindonut's userpage). We are dealing here with an established user and not merely with NoC who claims falsly to have retired.

It seems clear that NoC used to start and abandon accounts (no big reasons at all since none of them were ever blocked). What I am seeking here? Your opinion. Do the community think that blocking NoC indef (the account has retired anyway) and leaving X (who returned editing though there's a block evasion) but blocking Y (account inactive) would be a wise decision here or does the community have another say on this? I ask this because apart from harassing Betacommand (three times I believe) and the recent case of Einsteindonut, the person behind the accounts has never been disruptive or sockpuppeting per se or abusively. True, he said he retired after staring to use X again but I prefer your opinion. If the community decides to take action as described above, I'll do it. If not, I'll be blocking NoC indefinitely instead and move on. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Starting and abandoning accounts is one thing - I've done it four or five times (to avoid building a reputation) - block evasion is another. I'm not an admin, I just made an observation earlier on, and this sort of blocking isn't anything I have enough experience of to be able to justify having a strong opinion either way. On the one hand, it would be difficult to make an argument that a block of X would be anything other than punitive - on the other, the IP edits were pretty disgraceful. Brilliantine (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's no problem with starting and abandoning accounts. Cases in which I have supported such in the past involve either quite young users who deserve a second chance and have demonstrably improved since the sins of their original incarnation were a problem, or users who leave their original identity in good faith (be it due to real life threats, poorly considered initial nick, whatever). WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny or WP:EVADE are the main occasions when doing such is problematic. Orderinchaos 06:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My view is that a block for the harassment would be appropriate, and then allow him to edit restricted to one account, and if he breaks that, he's looking at a longer or indefinite block. Reason being only that I'm not absolutely sure this behaviour has been addressed before with this user, and it is not at a high order of disruption (although would be if continued). Orderinchaos 06:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing more work on this Fayssal. In my view, restriction to one account might be needed, though maybe this is not needed if the accounts are not being abused, because I think you said that abuse has only been through IP editing. In other words, as long as people remain aware of the connection between the alternate accounts, then possible future abuse can be detected. At the moment, only a few Checkusers know the names of the linked accounts, right? Possibly the options are: (1) restriction to one account; or (2) any alternate accounts must be openly declared on the user pages because of concerns over this behaviour of logging out and editing as an IP (ie. the IP editing indicates that alternate accounts might be abused in the future). If the editor doesn't want to reveal the alternate accounts, then restriction to one account might be the only option. More generally, though, I believe that logging out and editing as an IP to avoid scrutiny is actually fairly common (I think it should be banned - but people sometimes claim the software logged them out, and that can happen, and also, IPs can turn up perfectly innocently and genuinely be an anonymous or new user, not a logged-out account). Given that abusive logged-out IP editing is fairly common (in my view), I'm wondering what is the normal course of action when someone is caught logging out to edit as an IP? I wouldn't want this case to be handled differently to previous ones. Does the action depend on (a) the nature of the IP edits; and (b) whether the named account admits to the edits? I ask this because at least some of the IP edits here were particularly unacceptable, and because the account named by the checkusers has denied making these edits. In the past, I've seen the IPs temporarily blocked (softblocked or hardblocked I can't remember), but no follow-up checkuser done (would that be fishing?). Could someone point me to a page, if it exists, where the phenomenon of "logged-out IP editing" and the responses to it, are documented? Carcharoth (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is more complicated than it appears Carcharoth. It is not only about logging on/off or abandoning accounts only. If the accounts usernames were known to you, you'd have another thought about it I believe. You'd be able to verify any edit you'd like. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean here. Verify? You mean check that the accounts weren't abusive socks? If I knew, then yes, but as only Checkusers know, they have to do that work. Presumably that sort of thing gets discussed on the CU mailing list? Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Updates: More oddities - this seems like a never-ending investigation

Again, I am still discovering. Up to this moment, I am thinking of a very weird case of a good/bad account(s) scenario dealing with anti-semitism. Reason? Nothing is clear yet. May it be someone compromising his IPs? Very hard to verify this. I am having a look at an old sockpuppet which stopped editing a while ago. I suppose we'll call this one Z. Both Z and X fought anti-semitism. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that the more complex the investigation, the more likely it is that the wrong connections start to be made? What I mean is that if you depend on making 8 correct deductions based on the checkuser evidence, is there more likelihood that one of them is wrong than if the case only involves 2 connections and deductions? Carcharoth (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This was very easy to spot. No CheckUser was used for this. This finding comes from here (admins only). Now admins know about the username of Z. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. You mean the "creating doppelganger account to quell unrest :-p" and "Created doppelganger account" bits? As I said a few minutes ago, I'll be away for the rest of the day, but as long as the connections are all firm, that's fine. Any case is only as strong as its weakest link, after all. Carcharoth (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line...The final score

After all the digging, this is the story in brief (with all updates). If we had just stopped somewhere and everybody agreed with my 2 weeks block it would have been great. But well!

It appears that all the accounts of this guy have always fought anti-semitism. He even sockpuppeted once to fight it (one of the oddities now clarified)! The IP did just the opposite a couple of days ago (please let's not argue about this anymore since NoC apologized in private - see below). It is like liking someone all the time but throwing a stone at that person once from behind a curtain anonymously for unclear reasons (now clarified below). I am therefore going to block NoC and Z. I'll be keeping X. I cannot block Y because of privacy reasons (it is his real name). I am sure it won't be used anymore anyway.

Words of NoC... Yes, I've edited as an IP. Yes, I messed with Beta's userpage and yes, I messed with Einsteindonut's page. No, I'm not an antisemite. I did it because Beta is insufferable and Einsteindonut is a blatant POV pusher/dramamonger. Was it a good idea to do this? No, and I'm sorry I did it. And the other petty vandalism I did as an IP, I'm also sorry about. For the most part, I did it to see what it was like being on the other side. As you probably noticed, I've actually fought antisemitism and regularly revert, warn and report vandals.

I have zero intention of vandalizing or causing anyone any more distress and like I said I'm shocked it's gone this far. I'm sorry you wasted so much time on it. I figured you would have just blocked the account and moved on by now. I'm not going to use the NoC account anymore since everyone now thinks it's operated by a Nazi/Jihadist.

Important note: Both user:Einsteindonut and NoC have asked me to protect their privacy. I've responded to both of them positively. So please, let's stop this mess right here and thanks to everyone for their time here. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the best way out. I assume you've told said user to stick to one account and keep you informed of it (or something similar)? I notice the mention of previous socking.

It's a shame, cause I was all curious after that last section :) Brilliantine (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Fayssal for your thorough work here. It struck me as strange that the IP associated with the NoC account would make anti-semitic edits, gien the user's history in standing up against anti-semitism. The explanation/apology by NoC goes a way toward explaining how this happened and I find the tone sincere. I'm not against allowing NoC to keep one of his other accounts since he has acknowledged the disruption and pledged not to do it again. Tiamut^talk 09:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins cannot do this job fairly and accurately if concerned users refuse co-opearting and keep denying. We could have blocked this user indefinitely (as some people suggested reasonably) and close this file but his late co-operation made it succeed. This is an opportunity to advice all users who may find themselves in similar situations: if you do something wrong, don't deny it. Be open, apologize (including to the victim) and promise not to do it again. That would have saved everyone's time as well.

NoC will keep one account only. He was the one who suggested that to me indeed. But, as in any other case, you cannot know if someone is using sockpuppets if there's no reason for suspicion. How would we know if they would be non disruptive and not for double-voting and edit-warring? We won't care indeed. He can still have alternative accounts but he should at least communicate them to me or to the ArbCom for transparency.

Note that his words above constitute only like 20% of his complete e-mail. I only posted the necessary. Most of the rest consisted of private information that I cannot post here or communicate to anyone of course. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 10:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason, now as before, to question your judgements, but many reasons to thank you for all that meticulous work, in a spirit of scrupulous fairness. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like I'm late to the party, but I agree that 1 account and further monitoring is a good course of action. MBisanz ^talk 12:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest: It makes me somewhat uncomfortable having a long-term member of our community who has admittedly vandalized, lied, harassed editors and abused multiple accounts. My primary concern is that they attempted to maintain the charade right up until the time they were caught red-handed. Were is not for Fayssal’s excellent investigative skills, it seems likely this behavior would have continued.

That being said, I, too, trust Fayssal’s judgment on this matter. Though the ends do not justify the means, it seems clear this user has the best interests of the Project at heart and simply made some very poor decisions. Going forward, I will further trust Fayssal (and others above my pay grade) to monitor this user “X”, via checkuser when necessary, and take firm action should it ever by required. Everyone deserves a second chance, but for decisions as flawed as these, only one second chance. Thanks to all for the hard work clearing this mess up. — Satori Son 12:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about one thing, the precedent set. There are other editors with similar behavior, i.e., good hand account, bad hand account, or IP bad hands, but the connection may be better concealed. One of these editors looking at this can think, "Okay, I can continue to do this, no problem. If I'm identified, I'll apologize, and I won't be blocked as long as my main account isn't disruptive. And it takes a lot of effort to find me, so probably I'll never be caught." My opinion is that full disclosure would be more appropriate. I am not in favor of automatically blocking a non-disruptive account, no matter what the IP and socks have done. The separation shows that the user has the capacity to know what is disruptive and what is not; but the question would remain if the user could abstain from being disruptive if the option of anonymous vandalism isn't there to blow off steam. I think this is a question which should not be decided by a single admin or even arbitrator. The basic, essential "penalty" for abusive socking should be exposure, and, to summarize, avoiding exposure is enabling the behavior. It's not punitive, it is a natural consequence. --Abd (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My only concern with this outcome is that it's going to be up to the checkusers to keep an eye on this user, particularly the un-named real-name account. If they're okay with that, I am. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that over 6000 checkusers are run each month, and RFCU certainly isn't that long, and given what I hear on the grape vine, a lot of CUing is monitoring and keeping up on old/longterm issues. I'm inclined to agree with Fayssal that we should let him try again, if only because further screw ups will certainly lead to an uncontestable ban. MBisanz ^talk 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Extra, EXTRA late to the party here--didn't know of this thread til I saw it referenced in the block log. I am absolutely flabbergasted that NoC would do this, and I will no longer be so quick to speak up for supposedly "good" editors in future cases. I am really disheartened by this incident. Excellent job, Fayssal, on the evidence-gathering; wish it hadn't been necessary, though. My apologies for doubting. Gladys J Cortez 18:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to apologize for, especially for defending someone you have a strong working rapport with. It turned out ugly, and turned out to be what you couldn't believe it could be, but nothing to apologize for. One man's opinion here. I've defended many a user that I have/had solid rapport's with (does that make me cabalish? egads...), and until the muddy waters settle, it's hard to see clearly. You did nothing wrong Gladys. Keeper ǀ 76 18:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Addressing concerns

I've just responded to user:Peter cohen's concerns on my talk page. I think it would be helpful if I just post some of my response here. The following also addresses some of the concerns raised above. Please feel free to comment.

I fully understand your concerns very well. At the absence of complete evidence people use to have legitimate questions. I'd have done the same... ask and present my concerns. I hope my following points would help clarify the whole issue and give you some answers:

• I'll start with this... True, what I posted on AN is my decision. However, as you may understand from above, the decisions can be challenged, tweaked, changed depending on people's opinions. We could have just decided it in private (ArbCom). At the opposite, I have tried to involve as much people as possible. I've sent requests to a dozen of people who had commented on the issue before. The discussions are still open over here. For instance - and regardless of the lack of complete evidence, people can still judge the case based on what we have as public knowledge. All what I have done is to try to balance between transparency, decision sharing and privacy. This is not an easy task. One must be very careful. Any small mistake and you'd be - and put concerned people - in big troubles. In brief, the final decision is still up to the community. I took action and have no single problem if people decide otherwise. I've never argued about people opposing my decisions (I argued sometimes but with tiny minority views judging my decisions). But telling people that it is a decision set on a stone would be nonsense, especially when it is not an ArbCom decision.

• CheckUsers have confirmed the findings.

• The ArbCom is fully aware of all particular details of this whole case. The ArbCom is fully aware of Einsteindonut (talk · contribs)'s case as well. The latter will be reviewed per user's request with whom I am in contact in private. It doesn't make sense for an admin to review his own blocks but he wants me to do it. I hope some other admins help me here even though a couple of admins have already declined his unblock request. Can anyone help me with this?

• Most of relevant details are public knowledge. IP attacks are public knowledge. NoC's contributions are public knowledge. You can see NoC here here reporting an anti-semite incident. The other account I blocked (referred to as Z) is also public knowledge (since it was used to redirect NoC's userpage once) and it can be found on my blocking log. He did the same (check contribs for reporting an anti-semitic incident). So, everyone (including unregistered users) can verify the edits starting from the first one. The account I left unblocked (referred to as X) did the same as well and it is private knowledge (only ArbCom and CheckUsers know about it and its contributions). I, therefore, believe that there's no need for the community to worry about the absence of complete evidence.

• For the rest (very important)... These are very sensitive cases. The sensitivity is related to the privacy of both users. I, of course, understand and totally agree with privacy concerns. Both users have requested their privacy to be protected. They both have legitimate concerns (I won't enter in details but possible RL threats and harassment is a major concern for both of them - i.e. Nazi and Jihadist issues). I have given them positive responses. This may sound moot since Wikipedia, by default, has the obligation to protect all its users with all possible manners.

• Abd, there was no abusive socking. My opinion is that full disclosure would be more appropriate... I totally disagree. Please read my point regarding privacy just above this one. And no, this is not a decision of a single admin or a single arbitrator. It is open for anyone to review it as you are doing now. And no, I disagree again when you say that such a decision would send a wrong signal to some users who may think that they can get away with it. Why? Simply because they'd know they would get caught sooner or later and I don't believe someone would like being investigated this way just for the sake of doing bad. It may be a precedent, yes. But think about it the other way around... "I would not like to be caught and being investigated". Also, this is precedent for a particular situation. In this case, the bad hand account was an exception and not a rule unless there are grounds for disbelieving the evidence and/or his confession. And please, if you have good reasons to suspect that there are users who operate good hand/bad hand accounts, please let us know about it.

• Sheffield steel, it could be the other way around. He'd do it again before getting caught again. However, that doesn't mean that sanity checks are not and would not be processed. As for the real name un-named account, I must say that no single admin would divulge a real-name account is a similar situation (i.e. real-life threats - Nazis and Jihadists). Indeed, the account has stopped editing more than a year ago (this can be confirmed by both the ArbCom and the CheckUsers). I'd be able to recognize the name of this account if it would pop-up here or anywhere on Wikipedia even after 10 years - unless I'd retire before that. In other words, please be assured that it is under control.

• Gladyz J Cortez, Keeper is totally right. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me understand this. This NoC guy who has 2 or more other accounts admits that he vandalized another users page with hateful stuff and he gets only a 2 week block?! And, this is after lying about doing it in the first place?! That is pathetic. NoC should be banned for life. Is Wikipedia about information or about harrassment? Shachna1979 (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For god's sake!!!!!!!!!!!! If you haven't understood anything from above then at leat try to understand something from below. I am not going to answer all new SPA accounts. It seems that you are new here to "fight bias" as you say... Administrators are already sick of people coming here for wp:BATTLE. Good luck, but listen to this very well:

A few days ago, an IP (we now know it was NoC) left an anti-semite edit on another user page after a long bickering between the two and others as it appeared later on. He first denied that and lied after being questioned by administrators but when the offended user brought some links showing that NoC has edited the JIDF articles I blocked him for 2 weeks on the spot while pending investigation as nobody was sure of him being the one or not.

While investigating, and after much digging (hard voluntary work which seems unvaluable especially when people like you come here relaxed protesting while sitting on a luxury chair), we could find out that NoC used to edit under his real-name account "A." No disruption with that account. He stopped editing with that account more than a year ago (go ask him why). He redirected it to the account "B". B stopped editing 6 months ago (go ask him why). No disruption. "C" was created as a sockpuppet and it was used to report anti-semitic attacks. It stopped editing after a while (go ask him why). He then started a new account "D" which is NoC. No disruption. As you see both A, B and C and D reported anti-semite incidents a couple of times. This guy says he is a Jew and he is not anti-semite (evidence shows that it is true) and he says he's done that because of the bickering of the offended (ask him why and how). That is not an excuse at all!!!!!!!! Now, you'd tell me "so what? He's still got to be banned if that is not an excuse at all." I say the following:

C and D are indefinitely blocked. What about B and A? If people would see me banning B they would then be able to know WHO is "A" (a name for a real-person 0_0). What if 'Nazis' or 'Jihadists' decide to attack him? Would you come here trying to rub my back and tell me "ohhhh, sorry Fay... If I knew this story would end up this way, i'd have not insisted on crying loud to ban this offender"?????????????!!!! Does all this make sense to you? If not then I am sorry, I can't help answering your protests.

P.S. In a nutshell!!!!! Other people have been banned for the same or even less. This case involve real-life identities. I can't listen to you. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your lengthy and thoughtful answers, FayssalF. I, for one, am happy to trust you to take care of this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded SheffieldSteel. I apologise by the way if my initial comment to the matter caused any drama. Orderinchaos 08:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WITCHHUNT → Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

Would someone please reopen Wikipedia:WITCHHUNT → Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. It appears to have been improperly closed and I think the RfD needs a conclusion to prevent the page from migrating back to a redirect in the future. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a speedy close. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is more that the creator of the redirect closed the discussion, stating he'd turned it into an essay, when it's actually just a blank page with three tags: {{Underconstruction}} {{essay}} and {{humor}} (and it's been that way for nearly 2 days). MfD could always do the trick (add WP:JIMBODOESNTCARE while you're at it). - auburnpilot talk 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If it was MfD'd, couldn't someone just turn it into a redirect, and speedy close the MfD saying the MfD no longer applies because redirects should be listed at RfD? -- Suntag (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Burn the witch! Guy (Help!) 12:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the moment I've userfied the two incomplete ones to User:Prom3th3an/WITCHHUNT and User:Prom3th3an/HEADSMUSTROLL .--Tikiwont (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiVersity is an important resource that admins can use to help with conflict resolution

"Wikiversity strives to provide useful services to WikiMedia sister projects. A continual problem facing Wikipedia is finding good sources to cite. Many Wikipedia editors have a specific agenda and are perfectly willing to cite poor and unverifiable sources to support claims that are made in Wikipedia articles. Wikiversity is a center for scholarship in finding and critically evaluating sources. Wikiversity participants are encouraged to create Wikiversity pages corresponding to any Wikipedia article." - http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_and_Wikipedia_services - - WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you spamming a page that hasn't been edited in a year? There are not even Wikiversity pages for many basic topics, let alone "any Wikipedia article". Why would we go looking for help there? Fram (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I quoted from that page because I think it is a good idea for some conflicts to be sent to WikiVersity where ORIGINAL RESEARCH and multiple points of view are allowed without regard for notability. People can flesh out their arguments and sources there and then be referred to at wikipedia in a discussion here about whether some of it might be appropriate to add to a wikipedia article. People who work poorly with others can go to WikiVersity and not be stepped on by all the rules we have here. It is useful as one more alternative when trying to sort out a dispute, especially when original research or poor interpersonal skills are involved. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see many conflicts here being solved by removing them to Wikiversity. Apart from the fact that most editors want their stuff to be on Wikipedia and not some side project, I doubt that Wikiversity would be happy to get all the fringe science (not to mention the completely trivial things we routinely remove here) from here. And I don't see how "poor interpresonal skills" would be better suited for Wikiversity than for Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see many conflicts here being solved by removing them to Wikiversity, either. I only am suggesting that you guys keep the possibility in mind for those few cases where it might be helpful. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What, so the POV-pushers go there, hone their arguments and then come back to cite their peerless research on Wikipedia? Sorry, I don't see how that helps at all. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right that it would not help in cases like that, Guy. I only suggest that it be kept in mind as another tool available in admin work. A tool need not be useful every day for it to a useful tool to have available. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how OR is allowed at Wikiversity. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(<---)I mean that there is no rule there against it just as there is no rule there against three reverts. In practice that means that the rules lawyering that goes on at Wikipedia and the efforts here to concentrate on rule enforcement rather than on what best helps the project is missing from WikiVersity so that at WikiVersity people can revert four times and not be blocked and can source claim A and source claim B and conclude using logic that claim C is true. We prohibit that at WikiPedia for the good reason the it introduces POV pushing, undue weight, false claims and non-notable claims. At WikiVersity, people are allowed to research things. For example there is a project to create information that does not exist elsewhere on when specific species of plants flower, That is original research. It is a good thing for a 'Versity to do. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We now have a test case. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doctorlloydmiller&diff=237481056&oldid=237231373 WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So at Wikiversity he can post his own research and so on. How is letting him edit over there helping Wikipedia? Your message linked above seems more about getting experts to join Wikiversity, than about helping conflict resolution on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It helps only in the way that transwiki of fancruft to fan wikis helps. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Abuse Filter: Last call for objections

I'm intending on filing a bug requesting the activation of the Abuse filter extension on Wikipedia in the next few days. I'd like to ask that anybody who has an objection to the activation of this extension make that objection known on the talk page.

In brief, the extension allows automatic filters/heuristics to be applied to all edits. Specific rules can be developed, such as "users with less than 500 edits are blocked from moving pages to titles which match this regular expression: /hagger/". Of course, the rules can get quite a bit more complicated – I've developed, for example, a rule that blocks all grawp vandalism with a 70% success rate (and blocks the IP address of the user doing it), with about 2-3 false positives per year (I checked it on the last year's worth of moves).

We're planning on treading carefully – most abuse filters will be tested for a few days (in "log only" mode) before being brought to full force ("block", "disallow" or "throttle" modes), and to start with, we'll allow only members of a specific group to modify the filters, although this group will be assignable by administrators.

For those interested, full discussion has occurred at Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter, and there is a documentation page on MediaWiki.org. For the more adventurous among us, you may test out the abuse filter itself on my test wiki; you're free to ask me for admin rights to have a better look at it.

Thanks, — Werdna • talk 06:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose implementation until such crude and drama-inducing features as "removing all userrights" and "adding a block log entry for established accounts" are removed. Daniel (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the private info shouldn't be there. If such information is necessary, it can be checked by any checkuser; otherwise, it should remain unknown. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is intended that the 'degroup' option is to be left out. I've discussed this with you on IRC, and still think that leaving a block log entry is essential for all blocks done. — Werdna • talk 09:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How can an extension block an account? Rather, who would the block log say did the blocking? John Reaves 09:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A special pseudo-user called 'Abuse filter'. — Werdna • talk 10:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting moved to Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter#Vote (moved from WP:AN). — Werdna • talk 09:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? Since it is a community-wide discussion, it is certainly better to have it in a community-read location. Risker (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Why are you moving the discussion to a low traffic place? NonvocalScream (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've boldly bolded the move notice. user:Everyme 10:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm boldy considerding moving it back. I may however, instead place notes on T:CENT and VPT. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little bemused at the response. It's been on central discussion twice, on VPT twice, and I was just getting a sanity check by posting on AN right before posting to bugzilla. This was supposed to be a quick check to make sure there were no outstanding objections, not a massive straw poll. In any case, straw polls don't belong here. The notification should be here, with a link to the poll. That's how I see it, anyway. — Werdna • talk 12:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy Development

Where has the policy (who gets what rights, what rules get set, et cetera) been developed? Can someone point me to the page? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See [9] NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A sudden wave of Image talk: test pages

It seems to me that in the past few days, a variety of IP addresses have been creating test pages in the Image talk: namespace, where the corresponding image exists. Any idea what's going on? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Could be a coordinated attack from somewhere, or just one of the Many Mysteries of Wikipedia (such as "why do people ask the most random things at Wikipedia talk:Signatures???"). John Reaves 11:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do we even have an Image talk namespace? Looking at recent changes [10], it seems their only purpose is wikiproject tracking and random people asking random questions that no one will ever see to answer. Great namespace, ranks up there with Help talk. :) MBisanz ^talk 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And Category talk... Stifle (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we put up, in the Image Talk: section of Mediawiki:newarticletext, some sort of banner directing users to the sandboxes? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It could be done better using a namespace edit-notice. Maybe something pointing them at the WP:MCQ or some sort of image discussion page. I'll try to code something later and bring it here to show. MBisanz ^talk 13:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

IPs can't create new articles, but they can create new Talk pages. Probably found out they could mess around that way. Corvus cornix_talk 19:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As promised, here is the proposed edit notice {{Visibility-IT}} MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Added to MediaWiki:Editnotice-7. I might code up version for the Help talk: and Category talk: namespaces at another point in time. MBisanz ^talk 16:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I coded up {{Visibility-CT}} and {{Visibility-HT}} for the Category and Help talk spaces, is it worth coding one for Portal talk, or is that namespace actually watched. MBisanz ^talk 20:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked, portal talk gets like 15 edits a day, so I coded {{Visibility-PT}} and put it in the edit notice. MBisanz ^talk 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User Kelly (and others) attack campaign (IDCab meme)

Unresolved

Subpaged to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kelly, memes, and cabals by MBisanz ^talk

Nuking the above timestamp so it doesnt archive right away. Kwsn (Ni!)

Duplicate

Please delete Archbishop Jovan (John) VI of Ohrid which is a copy of Jovan Vraniskovski. Thanks.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking care of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(laughing) This solution didn't occur to me :)--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done a "history merge", combining the two articles. I've also taken the freedom of doing a bit of a re-write, for neutrality. The text was rather biased in favour of his church; we shouldn't be making a judgment on whether his group or the official church are canonically legitimate or not. We'll just be saying who regards who as what, but not who is right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw the new version, but there is one more thing and I'm sorry I discuss it here but here the talk began. The non-clerical name of Jovan Vraniskovski is actually Zoran Vraniskovski so may be it will be better to be moved under that name. I don't feel sure to move articles yet and that's why I'm asking :)--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this actually a blockable offense?

I made a comment recently, found here, and was threatened with a block.
Since I was trying to be nothing more than honest, direct, and complete, I certainly didn't intend to harrass, berate, or, uh, vandalize? And yet, I was threatened with a block.
If I actually did violate some policy, then I'd love to be updated on wikipedia's new ruleset. (This isn't an issue of wikilawyering here. Even if I violated a general rule of thumb, I'd even want to know that)
And yet, if I break down everything I said, each component still seems to be both accurate and reasonable. No, a sockpuppet isn't the same as a forged signature. No, it's not good form to protect someone's talk page in response to an attack they made against you personally (there's never a shortage of other admins who will do that for you, to avoid conflicts of interest). No, removing people's comments from talk pages aren't 'minor' (and, yes, the difference is just a minor clerical issue). Yes, a non-admin can see if a page has been deleted.
So, what, precisely, have I done wrong? And, more importantly, were my crimes actually blockable offenses?
(btw, please reply here, not on my talk page, as this is a dynamic address and I may not see it there)
(btbtw, it's up to you if gwen should be notified about this here. I'm asking about my conduct, so I really don't know if it's necessary) 209.90.134.118 (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not in itself (but Gwen may or may not have information we do not at this point?). If it were a blockable offense, you have been blocked by now. Synergy 21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could simply look at my contributions to see if there is, indeed, any other information that would warrant threatening me with a block. However, since it was a reply to that specific comment of mine, I have to assume that my crime was there. 209.90.134.118 (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving Gwen the benefit of the doubt. I have no opinion other than to say that its not a blockable offense. Synergy 21:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, apparently it's personal. I tried asking what I did that warranted the threat. Her response was absurd personal attacks. (you can see part of our dialog here)

This is getting absurd. Is she always like this, or just having a bad day? 209.90.134.118 (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it appropriate to leave GG a notice, and did so. DGG (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what I see: Hayabusa2938's only edits were vandalism, including a disruptive, deceitful comment on the talkpage of a BLP. Hayabusa was also quacking like User:Mythstory (an already blocked user) and was thus blocked. Then this IP shows up, jumps head-long into this dispute and defends Hayabusa, using comments such as "wikipedia is indeed censored". Now I can't speak for User:Gwen_Gale, but it looks like they don't like ducks. ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 00:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

IP, for some reason you came to my talk page and lengthily defended both this bit of vandalism/disruption along with another meaningless shred. Do I smell footwear in the laundry bin? Waterfowl in the pond out back? I'll still be more than happy to block you, if you like. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, don't play with your food and don't feed the trolls. Playing with the trolls, on the other hand, is okay... as long as it's on your own talk page... I think. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. I take great exception to what both of you are saying.

Addressing things in the order that's easiest to address, this was actually a mistake. At the time, there was a minor factual error in the article, which that editor was correcting on the talk page. (Apparently, Letterman made some stupid joke about a fictitious brother "ment-ally ill", and the article confused it with another nickname of Jong-il himself. That editor was just pointing out the mistake in the talk page) Gwen made an (honest) goof, and deleted the person's comment, confusing it with nonsense. I left a note on her talk page that, even though it was obviously just a mistake, she should still be a bit more careful. I then worked with another editor who saw the notice on her talk page to improve the article (namely, we decided to remove the whole stupid section from the article, since neither of us felt it belonged).

Gwen knows full well that this was the context of that note, and yet she's chosen to call it a "meaningless shred". I don't know what she even means by that, but the irrefutable fact of the matter is that she misread something, and mistakenly deleted a good faith comment on the talk page.

Secondly, I never defended any vandalism/disruption/anything-else. I corrected some minor notes about what she'd said.

• She said someone had forged their signature. That was false. It probably was a sock, but that isn't the same as a forged signature. For someone who seems fond of talking about ducks, it seems strange that she'd take exception to using the right words to describe people. (a sock is a sock, not a forger)
• Since I was talking about the subject anyways, I did point out that it really wasn't appropriate to lock a person's talk page just for insulting you personally. note: I didn't say that his page shouldn't have been locked. That would've been defending him. I just said that someone else should've done it. Tell me, who here does feel that an admin should be the one to punish people who insult them personally? Nobody? I thought not.
• After then commenting on how particularly offensive it was or wasn't, I then pointed out (to Cdogsimmons) that the comment didn't belong on that article talk page anyways, since it wasn't constructive (thus defending Gwen's position). I assume Gwen didn't take offense to that. She's yet to be particularly specific about what, if anything, I've done wrong, so I still don't know.
• I then told Cdogsimmons that he could see the deletion logs for articles himself (thus dispelling the myth that admins were entirely 'disappear'ing articles). This was to defend admins in general. Again, I assume that nobody here has a problem with that, but I'm really starting to wonder here.
• Finally, I very briefly defended the deletion of the article being referred to (against the point of mythstory/hayabusa). Perhaps this is where Gwen thought I was defending hayabusa? By suggesting that he was wrong? I have no clue; she never explained herself very well.

Simply put, I find it both disconcerting and tiring that IP editors are treated with such disdain.

I've been threatened with a block, and not a single person has yet to explain how that would have been remotely warranted.

I've been insulted, and called a troll, with no explanation of how that could possibly apply to me.

Gwen has lied (and I do not use that word lightly!) in saying that I defended hayabusa. (If you think I'm wrong, find a diff. Until you provide one, do not accuse me of doing things I never did!)

I've then been threatened with another block, by someone who's still yet to identify a single thing I've actually done wrong. Not a violation of any WP policy, not a violation of any rule of thumb, or general preferred behaviour. Nothing. You want to ignore me? Fine. But do not threaten me with a block unless you plan to have a bloody reason for it (and how insane is it that I even need to say that?). Do not call me a troll, or a defender of vandals, unless you have something to back it up.

For any logged-in editor, you need to provide diffs before you start throwing around accusations and insults (and even then insults aren't preferred). Why should that be different for IP editors? 209.90.134.118 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, 98% of the time I'm a GG fan, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch of AGF to accept 209.90's description of events. I don't know anything about Hayabusa or Mythstory; perhaps Gwen knows he has a history of impersonating uninvolved IP editors. But based only on what I see here and on her talk page, there's a decent chance that 209.90 is getting unfairly characterized.

I suspect part of the problem is that Gwen saw the Hayabusa thread first, even if 209.90 posted there after the Kim Jung Il section. To be fair, I would be pretty suspicious too, if someone with no previous contact with me showed up on my talk page to bring up minutia (sp?) about the treatment of an obvious troll like Hayabusa. I'm not sure I understand why 209.90 felt the need to comment on that. But still, based on what I see, it's not suspicious enough to invoke WP:DUCK. And the problem is, if 209.90 is actually not trolling, he's being treated really poorly.

That said, 209.90, I'm not sure what you want now. Forced apologies aren't real, and not worth demanding. If you're concerned about the threat of a block, I'm confident Gwen won't block you for anything, especially if you avoid her talk page. If you don't want GG to think you're a troll or vandal, well we can't control what other people think; there are lots of people in real life who don't think I'm wonderful (idiots, mostly), and I've managed to survive that. If you're trying to raise awareness that IP editors often don't get as much AGF as other people, that's unfortunately true, and you may have demonstrated that here. If it helps, there's at least one person who doesn't think you're a sock. That might be the best outcome you can get here. --barneca (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin take a look at a multiple article AfD please

Resolved

 – Issue gone away as it looks like there is enough keep votes for the whole series that the decision is going to be keep. Dpmuk (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

At the moment this AfD is dealing with several articles at once, however both myself and another editor are unhappy with the articles being grouped together for the reasons stated in the AfD. I think it would be best if this one was nipped in the bud before too much discussion had taken place (it's generating a fair bit of interest) and the AfDs listed seperately (which is obviously best dest by an admin as it would be a possibly controversial early close). Obviously this is only my personal opinion and a reviewing admin may disagree but I thought it best to raise it here as if splitting is to occur it's obviously better to do it before there's too much discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a question in the AfD asking if it should be split up into 11 separate AfDs. If you think there is a consensus for splitting or rearranging, you could ask here for it to be rearranged. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspected hoax

Resolved

 – Speedied under G1O. Caulde (speak) 18:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Joshua tolbert appears to be a hoax, I have prodded it, but should it be an AfD (which could be closed more quickly, I understand)? DuncanHill (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have AFDd it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua tolbert. On a side note, twinkle is doing extremely odd things when sending things for AFD at the moment, anyone know why? Brilliantine (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the article as an unsourced negative bio. It was not supported by a single source, as was likely an attack on some unknown individual. I know he was supposed to be dead, so I ignored some of the rules. I have assumed that there is likely some unknown target this was aimed at. Kevin (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Scandalpedia

Presenting the latest Wikipedia rip-off: Scandalpedia. It's actually a campaign site of the Liberal Party of Canada for the forthcoming election. --RFBailey (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. A backburn. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Larf. I can't think of any greater hypocricy than for the Liberal Party of Canada to be attacking others for their "scandals". Resolute 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to support them (scandals and all) since I am an anybody but Harper/Conservatives person and have to go for the lesser evil. -Djsasso (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there the NDP to support? (Then again I seem to recall they had a scandal a while ago...) Orderinchaos 15:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

note, as an Australian editor, the above post should be taken as entirely and deliberately random rather than an attempt to engage in serious political debate :) Orderinchaos 15:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

lol. I'm glad for the note.  ;) The NDP is completely unelectible in Alberta, which is where Djsasso and I are. Neorhino.ca would be a better choice. And I'm not joking, at least in my case. I won't speak for Djsasso. Resolute 15:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

An NDP candidate isn't even running in my riding thats how unelectable they are here federally. It's Conservative, Liberal, Green or Canadian Action Party (which appears to just be some guy doing it for giggles based on his bio) -Djsasso (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I live in Canada but am not a citizen, so don't get a vote. This is just as well, as they all seem as bad as each other and I don't think I could choose any of them...... --RFBailey (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL re doing it for giggles... that's what we have the LaRouchites for :)) I was just making the point that every party has scandals. Making jokes about other elections makes me feel better about my own (noting that the Liberal Party of Australia is like your Conservatives.) Orderinchaos 07:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit section links on this page broken?

Is it just me, or do the edit section links lead to the wrong sections? Brilliantine (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This happens when, as you click on a section edit link, a previous section is removed, or an additional section is added somewhere above the section you are trying to edit. Usually it's because a section or sections have been archived. DuncanHill (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Just never come across that before. Must have been just after archiving then, it was many, many sections out. Sorry to bother. Brilliantine (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's OK - I only know because I had a similar problem at the Ref Desks, and someone explained it to me! DuncanHill (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Al Gore article locked down? Not only that...

it reads like it is written by Al Gore and his cronies. It lacks a Criticism section. Other celebrities, such as Joe Arpaio have one. I have provided eleven (so far) sources that justify it having a criticism section. Currently, it is POV as it favors him and his "good side". 205.240.146.248 (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to place what I've found myself, but the article is locked down, preventing that. All evidence is in the Talk Page of that article. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clean that up to make it NPOV as well? 205.240.146.248 (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's only protected against anonymous and new users. Any established user can edit it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying but words like "cronies" and "good side" do not inspire much conviction in me that you are much more neutral. If you truly believe this cannot be changed by discussing it at Talk:Al Gore, you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Whatever the outcome, this is the wrong place for it. SoWhy 10:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you should read Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. The vast majority of what you have linked does not fall into the 'reliable' category. Blogs and forum postings are unreliable, and opinion pieces are only reliable for the writer's view of a subject.

Secondly, there is a substantial amount of criticism in the "Post-Vice Presidency environmental activism and Nobel Peace Prize" section, and in the article Al Gore and the environment.

Thanks, Brilliantine (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How many of those sources are "unreliable", etc.? 205.240.146.248 (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The USA today one is an editorial, so the only thing it is reliable for is Peter Schweizer's views on Al Gore. The second one is a blog, and the author is not notable or relevant enough for their opinion to be notable in this context. The third and fourth links are broken. The mediamatters one is a reliable source for the statement 'Hannity is critical of Gore' but not for anything else. Fox News links are both broken. Williamtheimpeached is of course an unreliable attack site. Freerepublic forum postings, as with forum postings anywhere, are unreliable. AOL video link does not work for me. The realchange page is a load of unsupported allegations.

Something about your contributions here hints to me that your editing might not be entirely serious, however. Brilliantine (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Try the two FOX News links. Fixed them. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it locked down? To prevent it from being hijacked by NPOV-agendists like yourself. It is protected against new users and those editing from an IP address, and after looking at your intent here -- calling others "cronies" and then adding in unreliable sources such as blogs and right-wing web-sites (that of course are critical of Gore), you don't seem to be here to factually and neutrally add content regarding Al Gore. You can always request unprotection but I doubt it'd pass. seicer | talk | contribs 13:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And edits like this only further my case. seicer | talk | contribs 13:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As this is our regular visit from Fox News Guy, I've removed his rantings from Talk:Al Gore as not furthering the development of the article. Revert-Ignore, if not full-on RBI, seems to be the best approach here. — Lomn 13:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Rantings aside, if I'm reading it right it's been semi'd for a year. That's much longer than it ever should be. It should be unlocked on general principles. RxS (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Usual practice is to indef semi highprofile targets for persistant vandalism &c. WilyD 13:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Where is that written down? What I see is semi protection to be used as a temporary measure and not used pre-emptively RxS (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. But the semi-protection on George W Bush, Muhammad, whatever have all been there forever - the moment they come off, they have to go back because the IP vandalism goes up, up, up. It's not pre-emptive, it's responsive and "for a long time", because it's needed "for a long time". WilyD 16:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. However, policy does say they should be unprotected from time to time, just to verify that anon disruption is still an issue. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV or not, Al Gore is a "good guy" - and has a Nobel Peace Prize to verify it. This IP address user may be trolling folks. The article (as its history shows) has been subject periodically to IP attacks. I support continued protection, or semi-protection, with periodic release from any level of protection, just to see if still needs protection. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

He arguably brought this on himself by inventing the internet. — CharlotteWebb 20:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

TERMINALFOUR Page - Request for Reinstatement

Resolved

 – Draft moved to mainspace. — Coren ^(talk) 12:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I've recently been hired by TERMINALFOUR to develop TERMINALFOUR's online web presence. I've noticed that the TERMINALFOUR page has been blocked because it didn't meet the standards of Wikipedia.

I would like to submit a compliant article under our trademarked name "TERMINALFOUR". I have created what I believe to be a factual and compliant article, which I'm happy to submit for your review.

Is there anything else I can do to assist in this? Thanks for your time! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traffic 1 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia isn't an advertising site. The fact that your page is factual doesn't mean that it's neutral. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As Od Mishehu says, you should read up on WP:COI first. Then you can create an article somewhere in your userspace (at User:Traffic 1/Terminalfour for example) and then ask for recreation after we all could have had a look at what you want to present. But I doubt it can satisfy WP:NPOV. SoWhy 10:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've created User:Traffic 1/Terminalfour for you guys to have a look at the content. We're open to any suggestions! :)Traffic 1 (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind if I go into the page and format it a bit? The reference list at the bottom is missing, so it's a pain to evaluate the sources at the moment. Thanks - Brilliantine (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all! Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks-Traffic 1 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the sources are good enough for an article to exist. However - you will need to rewrite the article a bit, focusing it around what the sources have to say about the company rather than about what the company has to offer. Sentences such as "Site Manager enables business users to create and manage large and complex websites, and to create and manage a suite of eForms / Self Service applications." have a very sales-type feel to them and are not very suitable for an encyclopaedia for that reason. I don't have time right now, but if you need some help reworking it I might be able to give some more concrete suggestions later. Brilliantine (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be great! I'll make the suggested changes above, and when you have a spare moment we can compare notes. Thanks again for your helpTraffic 1 (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How does this look? I'm not sure which the correct capitalisations are, so I've toned it down a bit cause it hurt my eyes. Brilliantine (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks fab! I can now see the difficulty with the initial copy, thank you so much for all your help so far. The caps in the company name are trademarked though, so they'll have to remain. I've made those changes for your review. You've been so helpful.:)Traffic 1 (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't use typographical conventions in trademarks unless they are overwhelmingly used by sources (like with iPod). In general, that means that uppercase trademarks are presented in usual title case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OK no worries! I've corrected that for review. User:Traffic 1/Terminalfour Thanks :)Traffic 1 (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's help, especially Brilliantine!Traffic 1 (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This has to be a wind up - the company trademark comes top on google even above heathrow terminal four. I hardly think that is the sign that a company that needs to hire somebody to develop a web presence. MickMacNee (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? it's practically a hallmark of it. Having a good WP page is an excellent SEO tactic. Being top Google hit for whatever doesn't guarantee notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Some context - WikiProject Spam link/user/page info follows. MER-C 13:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pages

• TERMINALFOUR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TerminalFour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sites

terminalfour.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Tracking URL

Users

• Traffic 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Ptintori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

• I'm tempted to mark this as {{resolved|No}}. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I see the temptation but the current draft looks interesting. It might meet WP:CORP (not quite sure. Right now my guess is it doesn't but there are many references used which appear to be indepedent sources). Anyways shouldn't this discussion be over at DRV?JoshuaZ (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The content is not yet very good, but the sources undoubtedly establish sufficient notability to meet WP:CORP. References 1 & 3 especially are very in-depth and independent. I will attempt to work with Traffic1 as to the content. Brilliantine (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, the draft is now mainspace-worthy, and meets WP:CORP without breaking a sweat. It's not the best, but it's certainly good enough; so I've moved it to mainspace. — Coren ^(talk) 12:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bristol_palin#Alternatives to Wikipedia

Could someone look at this? It's grown into a linkfarm cum meetup point for people of a particular political bent. I've a conflict of interest in that I've taken part in discussions on the page and cannot be regarded as neutral. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't belong there. I've deleted the section. If I were more rouge, I'd delete and salt that whole talk page; it's a talk page of a redirect from a misspelling, for God's sake. --barneca (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Horologium, however, is more bold than I, and while I was whining he went and deleted it. Good move. --barneca (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it as G10/G8/WP:NOTMYSPACE and salted it. We're not going to have a hidden page on Wikipedia as a linkfarm to attack sites. Horologium (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, thou'rt kind. Dlohcierekim 19:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused. Aren't talk pages of non-existant articles candidates for speedy deletion? What makes this on an exception? Keep in mind I haven't read the contents as I don't want todragged into politics. I'm asking strictly from a policy/guideline perspective. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • No. Talk pages of deleted pages are candidates for speedy deletion. That doesn't apply to talk pages of redirects. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin-related articles still need watching

Our Sarah Palin article still has a number of neutral editors watching it. Some other Palin-related articles could still use more editors watching them:

• Mayoralty of Sarah Palin
• Political positions of Sarah Palin
• Wolf hunting
• Alaskan Independence Party
• Wasilla Assembly of God
• Wasilla High School -- occasional attempts to involve Bristol Palin
• Wasilla Bible Church
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Bible Church
• Gravina Island Bridge
• Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal
• Lipstick on a pig
• Talk:Bristol palin -- some odd links posted
• Talk:Bristol Palin

I sense anti-Palin partisans are starting to get the upper hand, but we still have problems from pro-Palin partisans as well.

There are several related redirects under discussion for deletion.

Political related but not directly tied to Sarah Palin -- could someone look at My Dad, John McCain. I'm out of editing time today but it looks problematic.

Finally, articles newly linked to Sarah Palin appear at the bottom of Special:WhatLinksHere/Sarah Palin. It would help to have some grown-ups checking this periodically. (Ditto for some of the other candidates).

There are the upcoming Canadian elections, but I'll save them for another time …
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The list you offer above looks highly suspect. How on earth could one argue that wolf hunting needs watching because someone inserted one sentence about Alaska's latest policy towards wolves under Palin. This is a relevant point to the article, and the article, as well as others that you mentioned above, should be allowed to reflect such points.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, generally articles about general topics should not mention policies in various coutries unless they are somehow notable. We don't want to list every country/state that has wolves in it, and how they treat them. That is not the focus of the article. Anyway further disucssions about content should be redirected to the various talk pages of the specific articles. —— nixeagle 18:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has continent subsections, including one on North America, and as the only state with contiguous wolf territory, Alaska is the only state in the US in which wolves have never been endangered or threatened.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshLa, I'm not sure what you mean to imply by calling the list I posted "highly suspect". At various times, the Palin angle has received more much more weight on the wolf-hunting page for example. I'm just asking some more folks to add these pages to their watchlist. You certainly don't have to. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse my phrasing. It was not the nicest choice of words. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally, articles newly linked to Sarah Palin appear at the bottom of Special:WhatLinksHere/Sarah Palin. ← Not necessarily true.

The links are in order of page_id e.g. 19096270 for Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal, 19261104 for Lipstick on a pig. These are roughly in order of page creation (except for very old pages). It is not according to the date/time that the link was added as this info isn't stored anywhere (and can only be determined by comparing diffs).

Linking to Sarah Palin from a two-year-old page, for example, will cause that page to be listed somewhere in the middle of the list, not at the end.

— CharlotteWebb 20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've watch-listed wolf hunting out of morbid curiousity. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Charlotte, thanks for the clarification. I did not know that. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Historically Black College and University recruitment

Any suggestion on what (if anything) to do with Wikipedia:Historically Black College and University recruitment? It does not seem to be about the project's involvement in Black College and University recruitment. It might be an essay. I don't know. -- Suntag (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a November 2005 effort to recruit students and faculty from Historically Black Colleges and Universities to become Wikipedia editors. I'm not sure whether this is a legit essay topic. Suntag (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

MFD? D.M.N. (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it alone. Fclass (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This dates from a time period when there were a lot of efforts to find more editors, particularly those with expertise. See meta:Academics for a much broader discussion. The points on that HBCU page are valid; I say tag it with {{essay}} and let it stand. Chick Bowen 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback, all. The essay may "reflect the beliefs of a limited number of editors" but may not be "a poor candidate for broadening" per Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays. Gonzo fan2007 marked it as a historical effort, which seems to perfectly characterize the page. Suntag (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter McCullagh being vandalized

the page Peter McCullagh has been vandalized three times in as many days. Any way I can get a semi-protect for a week or so? Sorry if I'm in the wrong place, never requested this before. Pdbailey (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, vandalism by anon IPs in all cases. Some include adding negative claims, all include large deletion. Pdbailey (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The normal place is Requests for page protection, but they will probably tell you no unless you have a really good reason. 1 defacement a day is pretty slow for IP vandalism. With a few more people watchlisting it (I've got it listed now), the reversions should be pretty quick. Protonk (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, the first revert claimed that the subject had stolen some academic ideas from Gauss Moutinho Cordeiro and claimed them as his own. Cordeiro is Brazilian, and all those 3 vandalising IPs resolve to ... Brazil. Black Kite 00:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say something about that too. My first thought was "someone doesn't like their new stats professor", but the brazil bit kinda threw me off. Protonk (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for a week. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting a photo

I am trying to post a photo for my boss on his Wikipedia page, but I've been blocked from doing so. I am not a regular contributor or editor to Wikipedia, and have no interest whatsoever in being a regular editor or contributor. I am merely trying to update a page that features my boss -- a California State Senator.

If anyone can provide me with some help -- I sure would appreciate it. Thank you,

Bill

Responded on user's talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Rodhullandemu 00:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the copyright of that image may be dubious (did the copyright holder release it under GFDL), and needs to be confirmed through OTRS, I uploaded Image:Sam Aanestad.jpg as a potential backup. - auburnpilot talk 01:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already forwarded the permission to OTRS. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting review of User:Moulton's block

Moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Having just had a detailed discussion with folk on the unblock channel in IRC, it was suggested that I come here for a(nother) out in the open, full 'n frank discussion of Moulton's situation. It's been explained to me that our policies dictate that consensus is required in order to maintain the block. My reading of existing discussions (linked to from here) is that there is no consensus for a block, and my understanding is that therefore the block should be lifted. As a wise chap said though, consensus is a fickle animal - hence this discussion is likely a better course of action than a simple unblock, or the maintenance of the status quo. Lets keep this concise if poss :-) - maybe a straw poll is the easiest thing, given the volume of previous discussion? Privatemusings (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Moulton expressed any interest in being unblocked? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

there are several requests for review on the talk page, and I believe a firm desire to be permitted to participate on wiki, specifically (though not necessarily limited to) discussions about him and his behaviour. In short, I'd say yup! Privatemusings (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed to retain a block. A block is retained until there is consensus to unblock, until someone who understands the situation being prepared to unblock, preferably after discussing the situation with the blocker, or unless arbcom unblocks. Until then, the block sticks. So, if you feel motivated to fix this, you're going to have to convince us of the need to unblock, and invite the blocking admin to the discussion. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

okey dokey... the 'consensus to unblock required' bit does seem to contradict advice I received elsewhere, so it'll be good to clear that up, at least, and very good point on the need to discuss with the blocking admin - apologies... Privatemusings (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)I'm happy to discuss the merits or otherwise of the block in more detail too, in due course....

1. Support unblock. Privatemusings (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support unblock. Moulton tried to fix some biased Wikipedia articles. His actions were correct and explicitly protected by Wikipedia policy, "In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved." Of course, a team of editors known as the ID Cabal owned those biased Wikipedia articles and had been working very hard to make sure that they were biased. Rather than welcome Moulton, as required by Wikiversity policy, the ID Cabal harassed Moulton and drove him out of Wikipedia. It has taken a year for other Wikipedians to begin to pry Rosalind Picard and other articles out of the grip of the ID Cabal. The damage done by the ID Cabal to Wikipedia's reputation among working scientist will take many years to repair. We should start that repair now, when ArbCom is ready to sanction one of the ID Cabal ring-leaders. --JWSurf (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be sadly misinformed – perhaps you've been reading Moulton's attack page at Wikiversity? You also seem to have missed the discussion above, now transferred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kelly, memes, and cabals. Labelling editors as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views is a personal attack, and you should take care to respect the consensus achieved by the diverse group of editors who edited the Picard article. Your piped links to Freedom of speech are odd in that you seem to be supporting Moulton's campaign to censor information properly verified from a reliable source. May I suggest that WP:TIAC or WP:OWB (item 17) are more appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 10:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have been "sadly misinformed" by reading the disgraceful edit history of Rosalind Picard, its talk page and other Wikipedia pages that have been owned and given biased contents by <censored, I am not allowed to use the name that has been applied to this team of editors> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests. It is interesting to watch what happens when the bad behavior of Wikipedian editors is discussed. Such discussions are labeled as "attacks". Yawn. Please find a new way to game the system. An open and scholarly analysis of editing patterns by <censored name> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests is not an attack. It is holding up a mirror. It is helping people become aware of what has happened....I'm talking about all the people who do put Wikipedia's mission first but do not have time to slog through edit histories. Using the term that you censor from Wikipedia is just a convenience, like using any other name. It is fully correct to use a label with negative connotations to discuss violations of Wikipedia policy. I suppose the thought police would like me to call <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests the "ID glee club" or something with a similar warm and fuzzy feeling. No thanks. I will not participate in thought control and censorship via new speak and double-talk. "dismissing or discrediting their views" <-- I did not mentioned the views of <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests. I stated my view of their editing and on-wiki behavior. I am prepared to describe in detail how my view arose from reading the edit history. I encourage all Wikipedians to look at the edit history of Rosalind Picard. Look at the version of the article that was created and defended relentlessly by <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests. Read the talk page and see how <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests "justified" their relentless POV-pushing. Look at the current version of the page that has been built by the hard work of Wikiedians who continue to remove the bias that was created by <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests. Then think about how Moulton was treated for trying to help Wikipedia fix that article. Then hold your head high as a proud Wikipedian. Yes, let's be proud to ban editors who try to correct biased BLPs. "you seem to be supporting Moulton's campaign to censor information properly verified from a reliable source" <-- Let's examine this claim in detail. Which source? How was that source used on Wikipedia? Describe the original research which generated the "information" you are talking about. --JWSurf (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thought control? Censorship? Please take your rantings elsewhere. This section is for discussing whether Moulton's block should be overturned, and your screed has no bearing on that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua: thanks for showing everyone that you are so open to having a discussion. When you do not want to have people discuss your actions do you always label their discussion as a "rant"? Which Wikipedia policy advises you to take that course of action? Which policy says that you can label my comments as a "rant", but I cannot use the term <censored>? "Administrators should also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page" <-- can you provide a dif to the comment you left on Moulton's talk page when you blocked him? --JWSurf (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You are still off-topic. Raise issues you have about my actions elsewhere, but please do not hijack this thread for that purpose. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"still off-topic"..."do not hijack this thread" <-- Hypothesis: there was a bad block imposed on Moulton. This bad block inflamed a tender situation, leading ultimately to attempts to ban Moulton. I think it is entirely on-topic to explore this hypothesis. If there was a bad block, then that has important implications for deciding if Moulton should remained blocked. As far as I can tell, neither you or anyone else left a message on Moulton's user talk page giving the reason for the indefinite block that you imposed. Help me out here...is there an edit to Moulton's user page that I cannot see? --JWSurf (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

this one, 10 minutes after the block. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua blocked with the reason given as "Disruptive POV OR warrior with no interest in writing an encyclopedia. See Rfc." Then, 10 minutes later, MastCell made this edit which says "indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges." The text "abuse of editing privileges" linked to Wikipedia:Vandalism. So, the reason given for the block on Moulton's user talk page was "vandalism" and there was no notification given on Moulton's user page of the reason for the indefinite block that was given in the actual block-tool statement. Why did MastCell get involved? Why did MastCell post the wrong reason for the block? Why did MastCell fail to sign the post to Moulton's page that gave the false reason for a block? Why did KillerChihuahua never make sure that the reason for the block was posted to Moulton's user talk page? Moulton was left with an absurd reason for the block and nobody to contact about the block. Why did User:Yamla certify such an obviously bad block? --JWSurf (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're an admin??? I shouldn't be still shocked when discovering those who attack others are admins, but I am. Of course that's why I vote in RFAs; I doubt I'm alone in that regard. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish I was still shocked by Wikipedians who call it an "attack" when violations of BLP policy are described and discussed. No wonder it is so hard to get things fixed. "referring to other editors is not always a personal attack" --JWSurf (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Crusading", "cabalism" "relentless POV pushing" "damaging Wikipedia" are attacks, not simply "referring to other editors." Seriously, as an admin, you should know better. Your complaint about harrassment would go over better if if wasn't littered with such attacks. And I didn't even mention your failure of AGF. I would suggest you refactor, but I don't expect it, because such attacks without even a shred of evidence are somehow acceptable here, at least when it comes to those nonpersons in the "cabal". Your fellow admins will look away. And that is a shame. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been very careful to only use mild language to describe the nature of the editing that has taken place at Rosalind Picard and related articles. Describing a sickening part of the editing history of Wikipedia is not an attack, its an attempt to cure the sickness. "your failure of AGF" <-- describe in detail how I have failed to assume good faith. If you want to discuss the evidence then we can start with the evidence to support this claim: "Moulton's campaign to censor information properly verified from a reliable source," that was raised above by User:Dave souza. I asked for that reliable source. Let's start there as I requested above. I'm prepared to discuss in detail the edit history of Rosalind Picard and Talk:Rosalind Picard and explain why I characterize it as sickening. I tried to get you started on the page histories here. If you question the nature and reliability of my descriptions of the editing at Rosalind Picard then we should examine the history of that editing in detail. --JWSurf (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no excuse for attacking editors. Not because you think you were being "mild" because your targets deserve worse, or because it's what you consider to be true. Show me the exceptions to NPA in wikipolicy or I won't even bother with your complaints. You can't start a conversation with attacks and expect anything fruitful out of it. That's how attacks work; they mean I don't have to listen to you at all. Show me the link to NPA that allows your attitude. If you aren't, don't bother to respond, because I'm not interested.Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1. No thanks. You lost me at "in IRC". No thanks. Keeper ǀ 76 01:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   don't blame you, Keeper :-) - though your post is a bit ambiguous to me - it could be taken as a 'no comment'? (as in 'no thanks' to the very idea of this discussion, without prejudice etc.) but maybe you mean more 'no way!' to the unblock idea? Privatemusings (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'm quite sure Keeper is against the unblock based on that comment. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   Hersfold summarized my opinion correctly. Just one man's opinion though, tainted, perhsps, by the level of drama on-wiki recently. I'm going offline. Keeper ǀ 76 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Despite being the "wise chap", I still support the block remaining. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   I also looked into Moulton's work at Wikiversity, to see if perhaps my initial perceptions were wrong, and I find I cannot support an unblock of someone who actively uses one Wikimedia project as a launchpad to investigate another Wikimedia project, as Moulton appears to have done at v:Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia/Case_Studies1#Case_5_.E2.80.94_IDCab_systematically_publishes_false_and_defamatory_content_in_BLPs. I do love Wikiversity in general, last week I helped move a class of 200 engineering students from FLorida to it from our userspaceMBisanz ^talk 12:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Do not support the unblock. Furthermore, discussions of this nature should be held in the open, not in IRC. seicer | talk | contribs 02:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
4. While I think that some of what Moulton did here has been mischaracterized by his more vehement opponents, I do not believe that he is currently capable (or indeed interested) in functioning here within the confines of current community norms. Whether this is a flaw in Moulton, in our community norms, or (most likely) some mixture of the two is a moot point. Oppose unblock. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose unblock. Moulton has started working on en.wv, and I think that is great. I usually support unblocks when someone really gets into another WMF project (with one recent spectacular failure), but I dont think Moulton has yet spent enough time on en.wv to have demonstrate he is good for the wiki community. If we look at his contribs there, the are primarily to user talk pages, and otherwise they are focused on a single learning project. He needs to diversify on en.wv, or start helping out on other projects. enwiki is not the only project. If someone only wants to work on enwiki, they are probably bad for enwiki. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute—that's a pretty striking claim. I have no interest in working on any of the other projects, but surely you're not suggesting I'm bad for this one? In fact, I'd assume most of our contributors are only interested in working on this project. Everyking (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have serious concerns about the handling of the incident which led to his block in the first place. I will go into detail if desired, but it seems sufficient to say that the worst that will happen if he is unblocked is that he will be unable to color within the lines and will be re-blocked. Thatcher 02:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I should perhaps be explicit that I do not oppose an unblock. The handling of the situation that led to his block was unacceptable. If he is going to earn an indefinite ban, let him earn it on his own, and not with the assistance of, let's say, unfortunate circumstances. Thatcher 02:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Is "unfortunate circumstances" the new euphemism for the "ID cabal"? --NE2 02:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Thatcher. I don't believe he's ready or suited to be back editing here, and I think he will simply get reblocked very soon if unblocked. I don't see the point of it really. how do you turn this on 02:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Must comment I've seen that meme repeated here quite often...simply get reblocked...and every time I wonder if I've accidently left Wikipedia. Are we in the same place? Because I lurk these admin boards to follow the Big Picture, and from what I've seen there is nothing simple about a block. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• He was unable to color within the lines last time. What purpose would be served in repeating the experiment? Oppose unblock until and unless there is some reason to believe that there would be benefit to the project. Let him edit his talk page if he wishes, that's fine. Let him participate in other projects such as Wikiversity, which have different participation mores and norms, that's fine. But not here. Entirely unsuited to edit here. 12.161.217.2 (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC) ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Very difficult for me to evaluate anonymous comments without knowing your history and biases. Thatcher 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That was me. I WAS signed in earlier today... sigh. The EC I had meant i was rushing to hit save. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• IRC discussions should only be informative, not decision-making. I don't see a reason or benefit to unblock. Cenarium ^Talk 02:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock I don't think he will be readily amenable with our editing norms. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock for reasons stated by others above, particularly concerns about the editor's ability to edit here on EN in a constructive and non-disruptive way. Sarah 04:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• No. And anyone who disagrees should be sure to look at the attack project at Wikiversity. Why Wikimedia feels the need to allow a "sister" project to contain such a thing is beyond me. --B (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Attack project? o.O NonvocalScream (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, attack project. It is a forum for airing personal squabbles like this. Real reform doesn't happen when criticism takes the form of Moulton's hysteria and, I believe, one of the big reasons that the C68-SV-FM case is being dismissed with a yawn is that personal squabbles drowned out the legitimate complaints about abuse of the admin tools. --B (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets not label Wikiversity a BADSITE :-) It wont take you to long to understand why that project has been retained if you took the time to understand what Wikiversity is. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikiversity have epic failed this time but. Their equivalent of our "conflict of interest" policy should be a "professional detachment" policy. Hesperian 05:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} ? Ideas this way. ? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean, as has already begun at v:Wikiversity:Colloquium#Disturbed? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock I do not think he is capable of consistently editing in a collaobrative manner amenable to WP, from what I have seen. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Unceremoniously no. user:Everyme 05:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose. On principle, I reject the notion that any banned user may demand a review of their status without warning or schedule, as many times as they wish, and that the community must muster afresh ad infinitum to maintain the ban. Even if the proposal is made with the best of intentions (and I am willing to assume it is), it must be obvious that this is a highly gameable proposition: a small number of coordinated trolls could hamstring necessary business--simply by rotating their requests to return--until by exhausting the patience of the community in an entirely new manner they return by attrition. No, I won't do business that way. Request speedy closure of the discussion. Durova^Charge! 06:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Durova's comment that community blocks shouldn't be endlessly reviewed. However I note that this is the one year anniversary of the original block, so as a final review this is an appropriate time. I agree with B that the Wikiversity page is worrisome, and the fact that this appears to have been one of the Moulton's major Wikimedia contributions in the past year indicates to me that there's more interest in stirring the pot than in writing the encyclopedia. I have not followed Moulton's case and don't know most of the details. However I have seen the name appear again and again here and on other administrative pages. In the interest of getting on with the work and lessening time spent on discussing problem editors, I oppose unblock and oppose further reviews until the next anniversary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• My view on this is uncertain. As detailed before (at quite some length) on this page, I do not believe the original block was handled fairly. Moulton keeps seeming to "get in trouble" despite only being allowed to edit his talk page -- I think a lot of that is because editors assume bad faith when it comes to banned users. My experience from lengthy email discussions is that everything Moulton does is in complete good faith. He is sometimes spectacularly misguided, but never, I think, malicious. That said, I do not support an unblock unconditionally. If Moulton was forcibly kept away from the subject of intelligent design, I think he could edit productively. Unblocking is very unlikely to cause harm. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock – Lar and B present a fair and well-informed assessment, Moulton essentially wants a soapbox for ideas at odds with Wikipedia's principles. He can talk persuasively, but is a nightmare to try to edit with, and if unblocked would need a huge amount of attention in mentoring. . . dave souza, talk 09:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock, enough time has passed. If he screws up the opportunity, we can just block him again. Everyking (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment seems to me that what disrupts wikipedia's work is not so much the damage problematic users do (which can be reverted in a few clicks) so much as the divisive and time-absorbing discussions their treatment generates. Durova is correct that "reviewing on demand" is not good. However, as this long discussion shows it is almost inevitable. And we will have the same debate next year, if not before. Pragmatically, it might be better to unblock any banned user after a year, providing we receive their parole (=promise of good behaviour) and with the strict policy that ANY breach is an immediate block/ban without discussion. That way, we either get the user back behaving (win) or we continue the ban with much less discussion (win). An automatic policy here, which allows both for redemption and no tolerance of future nonsense, might decrease the dispute and disruption all round. Let's face it, some of us are more lenient, some more intent on protecting the project, a policy like I outline would perhaps go some way to meeting both concerns.--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, for now. I've always had zero tolerance for outing other editors, which is why I threw the indef on him a few months back. However, I'd be willing to reconsider--albeit with very onerous restrictions--if he can prove himself on Wikiversity or another project. Blueboy96 12:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Last indef was placed in June for "Personal attacks, outing other editors. Sorry, you're done here". This looks like another request originating at WR for the unblocking of one of their own, but the blocking issue is not addressed. Neither is the "POV OR warrior" issue. Any appeal belongs with the arbitration committee at this stage, as far as I'm concerned. The fact that one of the unblock supporters explicitly invokes the "ID cabal" puts the lid on it for me. I have had enough of that particular meme, and to suggest that bringing Moulton back to assist in the work of resisting NPOV-pushing is almost enough on its own to persuade me that it would be a really bad idea. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Guy, I just need to interject on two points of order here. A) You were the one who mentioned how labeling people and auto-assuming bad faith from a group of users isn't productive, over a recent discussion, and even the post above you mention it. And B) Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but there's quite a few people who post at WR (and you can count me in that group) who do not think an unblock would be a good thing right now, so close to the last time where he got given "one last chance" and went outside the lines. Rather more then those WR posters who do support it, if I don't miss my guess. I know with all the history behind it, it may be hard to avoid the knee-jerk reaction here, but I think that you're a bit mistaken here with regards to motives. SirFozzie (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with SirFozzie, Guy - so far a majority of those of us who are active on WR (Lar, SirFozzie, Viridae, LessHeard, DanT, me - MBisanz, Seicer, and B too, if you want to adopt a broad definition of "active") are opposing an unblock. Actually, the only WR users who appear to support at this point are Privatemusings and Everyking. Request that you strike or clarify that portion of your comment. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Third this request - Guy, please strike the WR assumption. Otherwise, I agree with Guy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My problem here is with they hypocrisy of a group of people who collude on WR and then come here accusing Wikipedians of cabalism in resisting their blatant attempts to push a fringe POV. It's not about WR per se, it's about a web community whose aims are not our aims putting DefendEachOther above the values they should adopt when they come here. Colluding there and then accusing Wikipedians of cabalism for enforcing one of our fundamental policies is rank hypocrisy. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that here, people are pointing out there's not a group of people on WR colluding for this (this time). Just liking many were jumping on Kelly that there's not an IDCabal colluding on the Sarah Palin pages (this time). Whether groups at WR are colluding to push POVs on wiki is debatable on a situational basis, just like whether current or former members of the ID wikiproject do similar. And you're right that it's a bad mindset to be in to automatically go looking for this sort of conspiracy, not just for individuals but the project as a whole. But several folks are trying to point out to you, that you're doing the same thing right here, right now. And to someone like me, who's not involved with WR, ID, Sarah Palin, or any "cabals", it looks a bit hypocritical. And it pains me, because I feel you're on the right side here (I agree with the general assessment of Moulton's unsuitability to return at this time), just with all the wrong arguments. --InkSplotch (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I personally don't think Moulton has the temperament to deal with enwp. Yes his original block was undoubtedly handled badly, and he has/had every right to feel wronged there, but his pursuit of justice has, I feel, gone far beyond a reasonable reaction from someone wronged on a website that is fairly minor in the scheme of things. It strikes me that Moulton's quest for that which is "right and just" is an admirable quality in the real world, but an unhelpful one when taken to extremes when there is the pursuit of a single common goal (ie writing a half decent reference work). In other words wikipedia should strive to treat everyone fairly, but wikipedia is not for everyone and some people get left by the wayside, forcibly or not. If however he demonstrates a willingness to adapt to the wiki culture in his work on other wiki's I would then consider supporting an unban, taking into acount enwp's more heated nature. Viridae^Talk 12:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It saddens me to see someone say that Wikipedia is not for everyone. Moulton is an unusual guy, but I've seen little to indicate that he is temperamentally incapable of contributing productively, as some people are suggesting. I've seen him talking a lot on WR, but I wouldn't try to predict how he would behave in this editing environment based on that. In any case, I feel that, unless a person has behaved in a totally abhorrent manner, they should necessarily be given another chance after some reasonable amount of time has passed. Furthermore, after a year of concentrating so heavily on WP during his ban, Moulton has surely learned a thing or two about how Wikipedia operates and how he might be able to avoid what happened to him last time. We ought to at least give him the opportunity to demonstrate that. Everyking (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • That opportunity has been given. " Moulton has surely learned a thing or two about how Wikipedia operates and how he might be able to avoid what happened to him last time." I see no evidence of that. I've had more discussions with him than some, and I just don't see any fundamental change in behaviour or approach, any acknowledgement that sometimes consensus is right or at least operative, and he is wrong, or at least out-consensed. I'm sorry to say this, but it is indeed true that Wikipedia is not for everyone. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock As I am aware, Moulton has been "suspended" at Wikipedia Review in respect of his difficulties in operating within the parameters of a website and, although I acknowledge and admire his intellect, I feel he does need to consistently demonstrate the ability to work within the guidelines before being given another chance... However, since Guy has determined this is a case of WR participants supporting their own I guess I have to default support. Twit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • No you don't. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Echo the above... I can't go against my WR cabal buddies... that just wouldn't be right! No, seriously, JzG is being highly hypocritical to condemn the "memes" that label people as part of a sinister clique, when he does the same himself, sometimes in the same breath. As for unblocking Moulton, I think the original block/ban was unjust, but also agree with some of the comments to the effect that he's probably temperamentally unsuited for Wikipedia participation... I tried to give him some friendly advice while on a Not The Wikipedia Weekly show with him, to the effect that rather than him simply making demands that everybody else on Wikipedia change to suit him, he needs to do a little "give-and-take" himself and admit his own approach hasn't always been productive, and that he needs to make some attempt to follow policies and fit in the culture even if he disagrees with some of it. He wasn't interested in any of this, unfortunately. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, JzG is right about memes in general. No he's not right in applying the WR meme here. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, oppose further reviews for a year, recommend closing this thread before it becomes yet another clash of factions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• oppose unblock. Really, the fact that Lar, Dtobias, Guy and B, and Less Heard all agree that someone should stay blocked should make things clear. Lar and B in particular give very good rationales for keeping him blocked and I couldn't say it better myself. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, oppose further reviews for a year per Tom H. Strongly suggest that those who are (rather childishly, IMO) repeating the "support my WR Cabal buddies" might wish to review their position as a bit POINT-y. If you have a view on unblocking Moulton, well and good, we welcome your input - but if you wish to start a playground fight I suggest you go elsewhere and not waste others' time here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock if he promises to behave and is adopted. Bstone (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  I predict mentoring won't work. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that Moulton cannot handle himself appropriate with certain people. He is more easily baited than I am, which says a lot. This does not say that he is a bad person. It just says that a situation with him can easily become very bad very fast. Old dogs do not learn new tricks, and some people are set in their ways. If there was a way that he could provide information and be isolated from the politics, or kept from being able to deal with them and instead let leveler heads deal with them, then maybe. I don't know. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Opppose unblock for at least 3 months. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose unblock - His time on Wikiversity appears to have been spent writing a pseudo-scholarly attack on everyone he disliked here [11] - And this is the evidence provided for his reform? If he wants back on Wikipedia, he shouldn't be endlessly trying to rerun the disputes that got him banned on another Wikimedia project, and particularly shouldn't then use his activity on that project to justify being unbanned here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. You have got to be kidding me. Does his situation need a review every two or three months? Every month? This is getting ridiculous. What has changed? Here is a short list of over 50 Wikipedians who have looked at the "Moulton unblock situation" in the last year in some detail and at least at some juncture, decided that unblocking Moulton was a bad idea (some of course might have subsequently changed their minds, but I would be highly doubtful that a substantial fraction of those on my list have changed their minds). My own position on the Moulton situation is described here for anyone interested. If you want to have a more in-depth discussion, please feel free to come visit the NTWW crew at Skype, or otherwise contact me through Skype and I will be glad to discuss my position on Moulton at length with any interested party. I am unique in having much more of the relevant background necessary for evaluating this situation than almost anyone else here, and having dealt with Moulton in greater depth and for longer than most others commenting here.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• oppose unblock Slrubenstein | Talk 01:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock --David Shankbone 01:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock - the original block was bad, carried out by a disruptive group of editors. Kelly ^hi! 03:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock I don't believe Moulton has done anything worthy of an indef block. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Really, I think this has come up quite enough. At this point, it should go to Arbitration if the interested parties wish to continue this. There's nothing to indicate that he won't continue his disruptive practice of outing editors and personal attacks; until there is something of that nature, then there's no reason to keep doing this ad infinitum. Some people just can't work in a heterogenous environment with people who hold views contrary to their own, and I think his edit history demonstrates that he is one of those people; blocks are preventive, and this particular block prevents a number of problems. I don't think undoing it is going to be a net benefit to the project. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Motion to close

What I see here is no consensus to unblock. I'll also note the marked absence of the thread started once the thread kicked off. Request permission to close this thread? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

if you meant 'thread starter' above, nonvoc, then /me waves :-) - this process has helped clarify a few things for me, and I think you've been rather conservative in describing 'no consensus to unblock' ! I would think that regular archive processes will deal with this thread in the usual way, and I think that's for the best. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it open, discussion is ongoing. Kelly ^hi! 03:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it open. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Request to create template with protected title

I request creation of Template:⇄, which is blocked since the title has been included on the local title blacklist. The purpose of this template is to provide a short (since it will be used in every line of a table of chemical equations) way of writing the ⇄ character so it will render properly on Internet Explorer. The text for the template will be as follows:

<span class="Unicode">&#x21c4;</span>

Hgrosser (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to give it a name that people can actually type? Mr.Z-man 19:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a redirect from {{rightleft}} to there could serve that purpose. –xeno (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done {{rightleft}} Template:Equals {{⇄}} Template:Equals Template:⇄ Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

NonvocalScream (talk) ⇌ NonvocalScream (talk) I had to try it out. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Category:Media requiring renaming still used?

Hey, I recently stumbled across Category:Media requiring renaming. Is it still used? Because it has a backlog of more than 400 files. And do admins have the possibility to rename media files or do they have to reupload those files like everyone else? And if so, is there still a bot for this task, because it seems kind of tedious to do manually...anyone an idea? (Sorry, if this is the wrong place to post it, I was unsure if here or at Village Pump or at Bot requests or somewhere else, but I figured that some admins might know it best). Regards SoWhy 14:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This was a function of BetacommandBot before its de-botting. User:Nixeagle has indicated an interest in pursuing it at a later date, so maybe bug him to get coding. MBisanz ^talk 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I will post at Nixeagle's talk page and if he does not want to pursue it, I will put up a request at WP:BOTREQ. SoWhy 17:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki can rename images through the move function now, but it hasn't been enabled on Wikimedia sites because it's still being tested. MER-C 09:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Editors Alastair Haines, L'Aquatique LisaLiel, and Ilkali are subject to editing restrictions for one year: a limitation to one revert per page per week and a general parole against disruptive editing. Alastair Haines is further placed on civility parole for that period.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 21:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In the text of the decision you've linked to, User:LisaLiel is substituted for User:L'Aquatique. Which of these is correct? — Dan | talk 21:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

LisaLiel is correct. The users on whom the editing restrictions have been applied are: Alastair Haines, LisaLiel, and Ilkali. I have stricken and amended the above announcement as appropriate. Anthøny ✉ 21:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the error is entirely mine; I have accidentally substituted two usernames while preparing the announcement and failed to notice the mistake while posting. It was, well, a clerical error.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 01:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgery?

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. — Coren ^(talk) 03:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me why this edit in which one editor changed another editors vote in a pole is not forgery? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it reverted an obvious attempt to willfully insert invalid data into said poll and adversely affect the results? — Coren ^(talk) 03:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

POV-Pushing from fr.wikipedia.org

There are three persons banned from fr.wikipedia.org mainly for POV-Pushing and unsuitable behaviour that are back in en.wikipedia.org in order to continue their POV-Pushing agenda (especially José Fontaine, a well-known walloon militant in Belgium) :

• Stephane.dohet : banned for flood contributions, sending empty snail mail to other contributor, sock-puppeting (list here), … (also banned from es.wikipedia.org es:Usuario:Valonia)
• José Fontaine for mass POV-Pushing
• Adumoul : banned for being strawman of Fontaine on fr.wikipedia

All the three of them are working on Wallonia page for the moment. Speculoos (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitic edits

Take a look 70.17.112.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made some vaguely anti-Semitic edits, but he's stopped for several hours. I suggest that someone keep an eye on him. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush Doctrine

I believe this article may need some additional eyes. Due to the mention of this term in the Sarah Palin interview earlier this evening, there have been two or three separate edit wars occurring, SPAs, using the article as a forum, etc. Apologies in advance if this is the wrong forum... thanks, --guyzero | talk 08:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Help complete an incomplete move

The former content of Anus was moved to Human anus so that Anus could deal with general biological content (variety of excretory arrangements in different groups of animals; embryological development; evolution; etc.) while Human anus deals with specifically human aspects including medical and sexual.

Unfortunately Talk:Anus was not moved at the same time, although its content relates only to Human anus.

Could someone please move Talk:Anus to Talk:Human anus before the confusion becomes serious. I'm reluctant to try this myself in case I make the situation worse. -- Philcha (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)