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

Current issues

A brief note to let you know I'm signing off WP

Not that you should be sorry to lose me. The administrator Tyrenius (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC) welcomed me here only about a month ago. If you look at the new notice on my user page, you'll probably feel I'm too angry, too unfair, and didn't give WP enough chance. Perhaps so. Very briefly, my reasons are:

• I feel that Wikipedians are too involved with process (guidelines, policies) items that are good in themselves -- but easily become restrictive and a goal in themselves. People game the system, and use legalism for their own agenda. Meanwhile, I know what you think a "good article" is, but I find it hard to visualize writing what I'd think is "good." Simply put, there's too much tunnel vision - in the name of ideas that were originally good.
• I'm deeply offended and hurt by WP's continued refusal to allow LGBT users a category, such as "gay wikipedians," so those who wish to can identify ourselves. Our oppression in the larger society is caused by the fact that we're pressured to hide -- and then people can pretend we're just a fringe group that makes no contribution to society. WP expects to continue the same policy, to rip off what we can give but not let us identify our otherwise maligned group, even only to other editors.

I would point out that the user Avruchtalk happened to be the immediate cause of my anger spilling over in both of these areas. Last evening, he unilaterally, illogically moved my discussion contributions to an area where they wouldn't be seem. And then he topped that off by informing me that he'd been the one who nominated Category:Gayass Wikipedians for deletion -- and, with the discussion still open, it was a done deal that I'd better learn to accept. His actions are not by any means the only ones leading to my decision to leave -- but they are beautifully symbolic of the issues.

Good bye.William P. Coleman (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I object to the implicit insult in Coleman's many 'sign-off' posts (each one is the last one). I am not anti-homosexual, homophobic, bigoted, biased against gay people, whatever else you'd like to throw at me to see what sticks. I merely cleaned up an AfD, where the consensus after the fact is that it was unproblematic to do so. (This is the Adult-chid sex AfD). Coincidentally, Coleman also is apparently a recent member of the "Gayass Wikipedian" category, which I nominated at UCfD and which is headed for deletion. I attempted to leave explanatory notes on Coleman's user talk, but apparently to no effect. Its unfortunate that a new editor was unable to find a role for himself in this community; it seems as if he is unable to embrace the essence of NPOV. Some people find it impossible to check their personal opinions at the door. If Coleman finds at some point in the future that perhaps he can accomplish this task, then I hope he returns. ^Avruchtalk 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'd also like to express some disappointment that it appears no one has refuted his implication of bias in my actions on this page or any of the others (so far as I know, I haven't checked them all). ^Avruchtalk 23:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a hell of a lot of homophobia on Wikipedia, and a profound unwillingness from admins-in-general (there are of course some honourable exceptions) to root it out. I can readily understand why an editor should become so disillusioned as to need to leave. DuncanHill (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sexual orientation is irrelevant here. This is an encyclopedia, not a singles bar. HalfShadow (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "singles bars". Building an encyclopædia of this nature requires that all editors are able to edit honestly and openly - something which is prevented by the attitudes and actions of certain users. DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I do hope that you're referring to something more than a few categories being deleted. – Steel 19:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope that comment wasn't meant to sound as snidey as it did.DuncanHill (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that User:HalfShadow assumed that a category identifying gay Wikipedians would purely be used as a dating service, probably sums up the original poster's point more succinctly that anything else could. BLACKKITE 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the topic creator seems to think the fact that he's gay matters in any way, shape, or form says quite a lot as well. He is what he is: does he need a badge for it? HalfShadow (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)With all due respect to William P. Coleman and DuncanHill, the fact that these categories cause so much upset and dispute is the reason we delete them. There is nothing stopping people expressing their sexuality on Wikipedia (I'm heterosexual, if anyone cares) but there is no need for a category. Deleting these categories is not intended to be homophobia- we would also delete a category for heterosexual Wikipedians. We delete them because they do not aid us in building the encyclopedia, and, if anything, they slow us down through the disputes they cause. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed about the categories; I was merely commenting on the assumption made by HalfShadow. BLACKKITE 20:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, it was you I edit conflicted with, I intended my reply to come after DuncanHill's comment at 19:47. J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been here since 2004. I've been repeatedly attacked by vandals because I've openly declared that I'm gay. But never once has anyone who cared about the encyclopedia - even people I've got into huge editing disputes with, even people I've picked fights with, even people with strong conservative or religious views - ever even mentioned sexuality. We don't here. In fact, people lose arguments, badly and permanently, if they try to play any form of sex, sexuality, race, religion, etc, card. We don't do it. This place is amazing for that. And it works both ways: I've defended people under attack from vandals or for their editing style even when they've got userboxen calling for my basic rights to be curtailed; I've had barnstars from people who declare that homosexuality is wrong, and have given barnstars to such people. They are, of course, entitled to their worthless views ;o) There is a community here, and people who act outside that community sooner rather than later end up exiting it. And the community has decided, a long time ago, that everyone has a right to challenge any element of community structure - templates, user pages, categories - and each case is taken on its merits. The community decides if we need specific groups to be identified and in what way. So, William P. Coleman, please stay. HalfShadow, please don't make sweeping judgements. Avruch, if you're about, feel free to deny Mr Coleman's point and we'll believe you. But battling over the subject of what editors do when they're not editing is something we try not to do. We are here only to build an encyclopaedia, after all. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A category is not just "identifying yourself", it's maintaining a list, and the decision was made that there's no good reason to have such a list. —Random832 20:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen editors personally attacked and accused of being pædophiles because they opposed deletion of a category for homophobes - and admins took no action against the attacker for this. This does not inspire confidence in the ability or willingness of admins to act against homophobia. I would add that the community can be wrong - and I say it is wrong when it says that Wikipedians by ethnicity or by religion are acceptable user categories, yet Wikipedians by sexuality aren't, and I believe that it is displaying homophobia whenever it restates this position. DuncanHill (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict): I am looking at this from the periphery ... part of the problem is that there have been perennial disputes about whether Article space and User space or Wikpedia space should intersect in meaningful ways. The Userbox wars were in part about the intersection between Template and User spaces. Likewise there has been a lowerkey (as far as I've seen) UserCat war that is similarly about the intersection between Category and User spaces. One thing I've seen over and over again is people putting forth one mechanistic solution - like using a category - and not seeking alternative mechanisms; oftentimes mechanism changes can, in fact, defuse conflicts of this sort. So here is my suggestion - use a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT as a point of recognition for sexual orientation with the legitimate argument that persons belonging to a community have a valuable perspective on that community which has a positive impact on the encyclopedia. Placing this under the rubrick of the LGBT WP provides 'ownership' for the resource, which might allay some of the concerns of persons who are against (for whatever reason) sharing this type of information. As far as the argument that such a list should not exist at all, a great deal of latitude is provided to WikiProjects with regard to the creation of resources that are felt to advance the encyclopedia-building activities of the group of similarly inclined editors around which a WikiProject forms. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I take my usual position here - that categories that appear to be irrelevant to the purpose of writing the encyclopedia are valuable for community-building and building support circles, which provide incentive and motivation for many encyclopedia-related activities. People who interact are bound to collaborate, and any structure promoting this is a good thing. Dcoetzee 22:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That is rather the point of a wikiproject, is it not? Putting me in a category that says I am a fan of the Calgary Flames does not serve to enhance collaboration. My membership in WP:HOCKEY, however, does. More to the point, my being a nominally Christian Canadian does not automatically mean I am particularly interested in editing topics related to Christianity or Canada. So no, putting me in such categories does not enhance collaboration at all. Same is true of virtually every user category. There are better mechanisms in place to enhance collaboration. Resolute 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Need for user pages?

Does user pages help Wikipedia at all? Is it just a concession to myspace? My user page is only 5 characters more than the minimum. It says hello. No user boxes. No fancy graphics. I can see the value of talk pages, but user pages? We'd save bandwidth and controversy. If there is an explanation why user pages are useful, I am open minded. Spevw (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My userpage here is not as sparse as yours, but for an example of highly useful userpages, see mine at enwikibooks. My toolbox provides insane convinence, and the number of "why did you delete that?" and "what does {{nld}} mean?" threads on my talk page have dropped to almost nothing due to the header, which also appears collapsed at the top of my talk page. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A user page is a desktop from which to work on the encyclopedia. Sometimes there are bobble head dolls or a stand-up "I love (insert state here)!" cardboard cutout vying for space alongside an in-box and a pile of partially written reports, and that is what you will see when walking down the corridor past open cubicles on the way to your next meeting in most office settings. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Perfect metaphor. I completely agree. нмŵוτнτ 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well my Wikipedia user page predates MySpace, so they've been around for a long time. Their intent is to help build community, to provide a clue about the personality of its owner. (Mine is utalitarian but somewhat raggedy-looking because I'd rather spend my time getting content into Wikipedia than making it look nice. Or else because I'm lazy. Take your pick.) I wish more people would take a moment & put someting on their user pages -- not userboxen, or fancy graphics or images. Just something about oneself, one's interests, one's background as far as it's relevant to Wikipedia. Then if I need to talk to them, I have a sense of how to present myself to them. -- llywrch (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Visibility

A Gay Wikipedians category establishes visibility. It's easy to allow the inertia of systemic bias to remain when the issue is relatively low on the radar. However, such a category helps support WP's goals of harmonious collaboration by giving those who identify as "Gayass Wikipedians" (and I'm one of them) the same kind of respect as say, oh I don't know, "Christian Wikipedians". Seriously, can you imagine the furor if WP editors tried to WP:Censor Christians from self-identifying? Please. No really, let's go back and reread this whole thread replacing "gay" with "Christian", or "Jewish", or "Muslim". If a gay usercat is verboten, then all usercats should be. I'll be blunt, this seems an awful lot like bigotry.

Visibility of self-identified gay or queer editors makes for a more welcoming editing environment. Categories also allow new editors to find a community - and yes, technically, a list on a project talk page is good, but again, not that visible or accessible. It can take new users a while to get into the backdrop of WP, and sometimes a while is all it takes for new users to feel like they lack a voice, become disenchanted, and leave. Besides, I find all sorts of neat stuff (relevant and useful to WP) on other users' talk pages, pages I find in user categories. As to Resolute's point about being a Christian/Canadian, it doesn't hold water, as usercats are chosen by the user. If usercats are not relevant to an editor's interests, s/he is under no obligation to use them. Phyesalis (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Either we allow all such good faith categories, or we delete them all. I would favor deleting them all, including Category:Christian Wikipedians, Category:Jewish Wikipedians and Category:Muslim Wikipedians because they are divisive, and Wikipedia is not a social networking site. It's not about us the editors. If editors want to group together, they can form a WikiProject. Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I find this discussion interesting in light of: [+] Wikipedians by education, [+] Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality, [+] Wikipedians by hardware, [+] Wikipedians by interest, [+] Wikipedians by language, [+] Wikipedians by location, [+] Wikipedians by philosophy, [+] Wikipedians by profession, [+] Wikipedians by religion, [+] Wikipedians by skill, [+] Wikipedians by software

I would like the above editors supportive of deleting sexuality as a cat, come out boldly in favor of, and actually submit dels on all these user cats. Is location relevant, is religion relevant, is skill or software or hardware relevant? Thanks I look forward to seeing massive amounts of cat deletions. Whoo Hooo. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion nomination withdrawn

• I had the mistaken belief that deleting these categories was sort of routine, and nominated based on the recent deletion of very similar categories. Apparently, the act of nominating the category for deletion is far more disruptive and divisive than the category itself. I would have no issue if it were renamed to something that had previously been deleted, because it seems like there is no firm consensus on the topic of user categories. I didn't cherry pick the Gayass Wikipedians category intentionally... Since I had the LGBT project talk page watchlisted, I just happen to notice when it was created as sort of a joke. Clearly this has generated significant ill-will in the community, which was not at all my intent. I have withdrawn the nomination of the category for deletion. ^Avruchtalk 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Avruch for withdrawing the nomination, I think this shews a real commitment to listening to the community and acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Complaint withdrawn

Since I left Wikipedia, Avruch has made obviously sincere attempts to explain that he did not intend prejudice, and he's made several gestures of reconciliation, of which withdrawing the deletion nomination was only one. There may have been mutual misunderstanding, but it's more important that there clearly was no malice, as there was none on my part either. I accept his explanations, I thank him for his gestures, I bear him no ill will, and I apologize for whatever degree I was the cause of our misunderstanding.

My frustration with Wikipedia has therefore cooled down to just below the boiling point and I am returning.

I would like to very sincerely thank several kind people who spoke decently about gays during the discussion. William P. Coleman (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're back to stay. Hope to collaborate with you on future projects, нмŵוτнτ 18:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Would either William or Avruch please expand a little on the "several gestures of reconciliation" mentioned above? I have been looking around at this issue, and am willing to accept that Avruch did not anticipate his action would be controversial, but I am still concerned about much of what I have read. That there is homophobia on WP is hard to deny - one only needs to glance up at User:HalfShadow's comment above for an illustration. And yet, Avruch's response has been a defence of himself coupled with comments like "Its [sic] unfortunate that a new editor was unable to find a role for himself in this community; it seems as if he is unable to embrace the essence of NPOV. Some people find it impossible to check their personal opinions at the door." Rather than recognising that homophobia is objectionable (whatever the intent of his actions), Avruch appears to suggest that double standards and bias are something that anyone identifying as Queer simply needs to accept - which is rougly why William left in the first place. I agree that the withdrawal of the nomination was a positive step, but am concerned that the motivation was to remove controversy over a "disruptive and divisive" category (as Avruch put it), rather than in recognition that there is a genuine issue of bias here. I am also puzzled that Avruch has made few edits in the LGBT area (as he notes on the project talk page), but had it watchlisted. Now, of course, he has the right to watch (or edit) any WP page, and it is not my intention to attack here. I just don't want to go away from this discussion without trying to understand what gestures William has seen, and I would much prefer to be able to move on feeling as comfortable about Avruch as William apparently is now. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sometimes its better to let an issue settle on its own, but apparently that is not to be in this case. My comments regarding Coleman were made when I was pretty upset at the imputation of homophobic or anti-gay motives to my nomination and other actions. My comments were intemperate, but I submit that I was pretty upset at the time. I would echo what I said on his talkpage and here: that it would be unfortunate if Coleman were to be unable to find a role for himself here that he finds acceptable. I'm not sure that active advocacy is an easy role to fill, as it finds somewhat less sympathy than perhaps it deserves in a community focused on public content. At no point did I argue that "Double standards and bias" are something that anyone should accept. I have the LGBT project talk page watchlisted because I asked a question on it about whether Matt Sanchez (Matt Sanchez) should be considered as within the LGBT-scope. I don't think he identifies as LGBT, so I wasn't sure if former gay pornographic performers would be considered LGBT.

• Avruch, I agree that sometimes leaving well alone is the best approach, and I did consider not saying anything - but then decided that that would be unfair to you, as it would mean my (and possibly others) leaving with an impression that may not be warranted. I wanted to understand, and to give you the chance to respond.
• I understand why you were upset, and recognise that we all act on emotion at times. Indeed, my actions here may well be equally criticised on such a basis. I recall an incident years ago where I was accused of making a homophobic remark, and I still regret that I have never had the chance to apologise for the offence that I caused - even though it arose from a misinterpretation of my comment. My anger at the accusation prevented my seeing how my comment could be seen from his perspective until later, and I've never had the chance to address his (likely still) negative impression. I am impressed with your actions in seeking your roommate's opinion, which has left you able to do something to address the situation. William has accepted your explanation (which is great for both of you), but I guess this serves to illustrate that he was not the only one aggrieved. I would encourage you to look at this as an opportunity for reflection on the potential for misinterpretation in written communication when emotions are raised. For example, I saw your comment that he should "check his opinions at the door" as a reference to opinions like homophobia is never acceptable, especially in light of the homophobic comments made elsewhere in this discussion and your description of the category in question as "diisruptive and divisive" - hence my "double standards and bias" comment. Hopefully, this is not what you meant, and on reflection I see that you may have been in fact referring back to the importance of NPOV.
• As regards inclusion of the page Matt Sanchez in the LGBT project, I now recall that question being raised, and that makes your watchlisting completely understandable. On that point, I think it should be so included, although I agree that he does not identify as LGBT. The content of the page clearly does have relevance to the LGBT project. FYI, whatever Matt Sanchez's self-identification may be, there are a lot of people in the LGBT community who would view him as a gay or bi based on his actions no matter what he states publicly - and many would also suggest he has internalised homophobia issues. Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the various positions on Matt, I can't see any reason to not include his page as part of the LGBT project. Jay*Jay (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• As far as withdrawing the nomination - the disruptive and divisive nature of the debate, coupled with the clear fact that consensus on the larger issue has not been achieved, was wholly my reason for withdrawing the nom. At first I was surprised that it was viewed as an attack on WP LGBT editors, but after it blew up a bit I discussed it with my roommate (who is quite emphatically lesbian) and found that from her perspective it was quite a reasonable response. I didn't withdraw it as an attempt to counteract systemic bias, per se, and I counted it unnecessary to argue from my decidedly inexpert opinion over the presence and effect of such bias. It is clear that the issue of categories and userboxes (and etc. other usage of userspace) is something that has to be decided as a single question of purpose. It is exceedingly difficult to resolve the problem case by case, because each separate nomination is seen as an attack on a particular person or group of people - whether it was intended to be or not. I regret that it happened in this case, and you can be sure that I will exercise far more care in any future user category or userbox deletion nominations. ^Avruchtalk 02:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the issue is best dealt with at a meta-level with a discussion of all user categories. In retrospect, it might have been much better to use the need for a global discussion and conclusion, rather than a case-by-case approach, as the rationale for the closure here [1]. I certainly was concerned that your use of "controversial and divisive" to describe the category reflected an underlying anti-queer perspective, which is partly why I am now here. FWIW, Avruch, I now think that the context surrounding all of this had led me to an inaccurate perception of you, and so engaging in this dialog has been worthwhile (at least from my perspective). Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Update

When I posted the above, I was under a misimpression. The last time I'd seen the Gayass Wikipedians category, Avruchtalk had withdrawn his deletion nomination and closed the discussion. I was about to go back to the LGBT group and suggest that we rename the category to "LGBT" or "Queer" or something less inflammatory and much more inclusive to the whole LGBT community. Now I find that someone else reopened it and reclosed it and the category has now been deleted. Furthermore, Wikipedia is so legalistic that I just spend an hour trying to figure out what happened so I could complain in a rational way. So far, I haven't been able to do that.

For Wikipedia at this stage in the discussion to turn around and make a point of denying the LGBT a category (to be suitably renamed) is an unbelievably blatant insult and an outrage.

My question now is how -- without becoming a Wikilawyer and spending my whole life on the legalities -- could I and the rest or the GLBT community secure a category with a reasonable name of our own choosing, and then know that it would stay that way for at least a while?

I still appreciate Avruchtalk's efforts at reconciliation, and I still appreciate those others who've tried to help, but my astonishment with Wikipedia in general is boundless. William P. Coleman (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There is a DRV for "Queer Wikipedians" that has a good chance of succeeding. ^Avruchtalk 20:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The DRV can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_21#Category:Queer_Wikipedians. DuncanHill (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Better Arena?

I haven't "formally" announced the project on Wikipedia yet, but v:Wikimedian Demographics might be a better place to create these categories (sexual preference, eating habits, political party, whatever). Sorting users into demographic doesn't really do much for an encyclopedia, but is quite appropriate for Wikiversity. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Very nice use of the demographics project to help reduce tensions elsewhere. I think this is an excellent idea...anyone who feels that WP doesn't by itself provide sufficient context and support for issues of LGBT users probably can find what they're looking for in the WV setting. Feel free to jump into #wikiversity-en on freenode.irc.net and talk about it. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Prolific POV-pusher moving from Wikipedia to WikiNews

Hi. I really need some good advice here from experienced users. A prolific POV-pusher has made a move from Wikipedia to WikiNews and there do not appear to be mechanisms in place there to check him. I am referring to Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Cirt runs an incredible 5000+ edits per month with the main effect of his efforts being to bring articles critical of (primarily) Scientology to featured and front page status. And you know what, I have no objection to that. Wikipedia is a community and featured articles are the most scrutinized of all and I am comfortable with the community holding him in check so if he can make a Scientology-critical piece into a featured article then more power to him. Of course in areas that are not scrutinized he has more "freedom of expression" as in the article on Bowfinger where the only "Theme", according to Cirt was that Scientology is a cult, see this. He expanded it a bit after I pulled his little piece though it is still unduly weighted. Or perhaps Curt's recent spat of AfDing and prodding Scientology-series articles that are, IDK, not sufficiently critical? I am not going to play around with words here, I respect this community too much. I, for one, am 100% certain that Cirt is a reincarnation of Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who disappeared just before Cirt appeared. Their interests, article for article, are identical, as is their editing style and MO, with Smee famous for bringing material critical of Scientology to the front page under WP:DYK.

So what does this have to do with WikiNews? Well, we were discussing a recent DDOS attack on the CofS on the talk page and whether it was notable (consensus seeming to be no, not notable) and I saw a reference to a WikiNews article so I went over there. I found that someone had been very busy indeed! Not only an article on Jan 20, Hackers attack Church of Scientology website but another today, "Anonymous" releases statements outlining "War on Scientology" and the first raised to FEATURED STORY status. So today, a release by some bunch of anonymous haters is front page news along with Gaza and Iraq. Who would think that? Who would benefit from that thought? Of course, I find that both were essentially written by the same person, Wilhelm. And I happen to know that Cirt's original name here was User:Curt Wilhelm Von Savage, an alias once used by Werner Erhard, the founder of EST, another of Cirt's targets, see the little treatment at Semi-Tough, similar to the treatment at Bowfinger (you may need to go back a bit as recent GA review may have toned it down). I also recognize Cirt's style in the WikiNews articles but then I am very familiar with it.

So you see my dilemma? So long as Cirt was not repeating Smee's more offensive errors and working within the community, I had no huge problem with his efforts to push his agenda. I knew that the community was large enough and the structure strong enough to hold him in check and meanwhile the project gets a prolific editor. But this WikiNews thing is a dealbreaker for me. He is using the power of Wikpedia to push the ill intentions of a small group of ne'er-do-wells (and read their page if you do not know what they are about) and he is doing it with no regard for the project or for anything other than his agenda. And there do not appear to be mechanisms in place at WikiNews to hold him in check. I really do not know where to go with this. This is a big thing and, if Cirt/Wilhelm is left unchecked, it will only get worse. Help. Please. Thanks in advance. --JustaHulk (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please speak more! Just kidding. Wikipedia has no power over Wikinews. What users do in out-space is not under our control. You can certainly cut Wikinews links from here if you find they are not reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjhonson (talk • contribs) 20:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, this is not a simple issue that could be summarized in a few words. --JustaHulk (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikinews also has policy pages don't they? They must. It might be very helpful to that sister-project to take your concerns there as well. Remember that our policies were fine-tuned over many quite um.... enthusiastic discussions.Wjhonson (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, Wikinews isn't a reliable source at all - WP:V specifically excludes open wikis such as Wikinews from consideration as sources. (Added) I note, though, that Wired has reported on the story that you mention (see [2]) so if you really want to document it I suppose Wired would suffice as a reliable source. I don't think it's a particularly notable episode though - don't fall into the trap of recentism! -- ChrisO (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I would note however some rumblings from certain "persons to listen to" that Wikinews *might* be coming up the world. (cf somewhere Jimbo has some thoughts on this) So some editors here should probably begin paying more attention to Wikinews Policy pages before the situation gets out-of-hand. Wjhonson (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
          • There was a fairly recent discussion about this on the Foundation-l mailing list if anyone wants to go through the archive. I believe it has to do with WikiNews's policy on "archiving" (protecting) articles once there is no more news relating to the subject. Mr.Z-man 22:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Wikinews has the Neutral point of view policy that all Foundation projects have. It has been reasonably well exercised over the years. Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to argue on source reliability of WN. If there is no wrong doing or proof then nothing to worry about. So stop trolling the trolls. DragonFire1024 (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Alerting this project to misuse of a sister project to basically promote cyberterrorism is hardly trolling. Let's see a front page story (or two or Featured) on WikiNews about some "announcement" by Encyclopedia Dramatica. Let's see how far that gets --JustaHulk (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • WikiNews has the problem that their "front page stories" are really just a list of recent changes. They're probably going to have to come up with a better approach. What they have doesn't scale. --John Nagle (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, they aren't. What is listed on the main page is determined by a story's status. And we came up with a scalable system ages ago. We have a wide range of specific topic and area portals. Indeed, the level of new stories has nowhere near reached what the system is capable of, yet. See how low the story rate is at n:Portal:Brazil, for example. Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia has nothing to say about WikiNews? Yet when I look at the Scientology article, what do I see at the bottom but Cirt/Wilhelm's WikiNews over-promotion of the ill intentions of a loose collection of cyberterrorists. Interesting because at least one of the *chan's is showing more discretion than Wikipedia in that 7chan has apparently blocked promotion of this group's activity. That is a truly sad reflection on Wikipedia. --JustaHulk (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles here are based on policy and consensus. There are many avenues to address your concerns but AN/I wouldn't be the appropriate one. We have policies that cover for example verifiability and neutral point of view and it sounds a lot to me like you're having a content issue, that should be taken to one of those talk pages, instead of here to get more input. Wjhonson (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was asking for input about WikiNews and I learned that there is little that can be done here. I brought the subject up over there at their equivalent to this board but the little bit of response I got indicates that basically what is being run over there is more an open blog than a responsible news organization and Cirt/Wilhelm is free to turn the WikiNews site into "The Anti-Scientology News". Good news for him, no doubt. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Obsession

Your obsession, Justanother, with Smee and editors you presume to be Smee must end. You dislike the attentions that Anynobody directs at you, do you not? Then please stop chasing Smee. This whole situation reminds me of the crocodile and Captain Hook in Walt Disney's Peter Pan. Tick, tock, tick, tock... Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ain't no "presume" about it but your point is taken. Obviously, my concerns fall on deafish ears. So be it. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Smee may or may not have editing problems. Given the history of bad blood, why don't you let somebody else deal with that? Likewise, I would give the same advice to Anynobody concerning your editing. If everybody follows this advice, we will have much more peace and happiness at Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I already said that I trust the community to hold Cirt in check as regards featured articles. I was addressing another point entirely and will not bore the reader by repeating myself on that. BTW, more eyes are especially helpful now at Scientology and related articles due to a spate of red users trying to forward the little 1337 campaign. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Response from user who is subject of the "Obsession"

• I have reserved commenting, and not fed into this vitriol, until now. But at this point, this continued posting by JustaHulk/Justanother has gone on long enough, and I feel I must respond. (7) other editors/Admins what have you ( Wjhonson (talk · contribs), ChrisO (talk · contribs), Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs), Uncle G (talk · contribs), DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs), Nagle (talk · contribs), and Jehochman (talk · contribs)) have all given insightful insight above, and yet none of them have said that any of my recent actions on either project have been inappropriate. JustaHulk/Justanother went cross-projects to voice a complaint about a user he thought was me at Wikinews:Admin action alerts, that is fine. I will confirm that yes, I am Wilhelm on Wikinews. That discussion over there has since been moved to Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous. In that thread, yet again, (5) editors/Admins whichever responded with comments, none of which said I have done anything inappropriate. JustaHulk/Justanother has continued anyway to post comments in both locations. One can assume good faith with the initial complaints lodged in both locations, sure. But at this point, the actions of JustaHulk/Justanother are bordering on not just outright disruption of these complaint boards cross-projects, but also personal harassment to me on both projects, after all of these other users have already commented on the situation. DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) has here characterized his behavior as "trolling", and Jehochman (talk · contribs) has said that this is an undue "obsession" with me that "must end". (See above for their comments.) I would tend to agree with both of these highly respected editors - the former an Admin on Wikinews, and the latter an Admin on Wikipedia. If JustaHulk/Justanother feels he must be ever more disruptive/harassing, and post to here, and to the thread at Wikinews yet again, and have "The Last Word", as it were, I hope that an Admin (on both projects) will call this out for what it is - and take whatever action that Admin feels is necessary to curtail this situation. I won't be posting here again, and any Admin can feel free to drop me a note on my talk page to discuss this further with me (NOT JustaHulk/Justanother) Cirt (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC).

• Cirt, thank you for your comments. However, I hardly think that my words here rise to the level of "vitriol" (abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will). While I might not appreciate your efforts here, I have not used vitriol. I had/have a legitimate concern and I expressed it. I never said that there was anything wrong with you being Wilhelm or that you had tried to deceive anyone about that. You are certainly free to have different accounts on different projects and not disclose the relationship. My sole concern is about the mechanisms that exist to hold POV-pushers (references available upon request) in check and what can or should be done when those mechanism seem ineffective. Needless to say, I did not learn much in this exercise. I did not go "cross-projects to to voice a complaint about a user he thought was me", I followed the advice of an editor here, "It might be very helpful to that sister-project to take your concerns there as well" and brought up my concern there about an editor that is you. Your style, when considered with your interests and methods, is totally distinct and recognizable. And as far as "JustaHulk/Justanother has continued anyway to post comments", that is just odd as I have not contributed to this thread in two days and I certainly acknowledged Jehochman's concern re "obsession". I can only assume that you performed your calculus and concluded that you had nothing left to gain by remaining silent and came over here to take your shot before this thread archived out. Fair enough. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• JustaHulk, because the user feels uncomfortable under your attention, could you simply avoid them, whether or not the feelings are valid? A little courtesy costs you nothing. If you have problems with this user, go to an uninvolved administrator and email a request for help. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Cirt, don't jab JustaHulk with a sharp stick if you want to be left alone. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Works for me. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocking unblocked Tor (anonymity network) nodes

Hey, everyone. For a bit now, I've been creating and monitoring User:SQL/Unblocked TOR, using my bot, User:SQLBot. I believe, that I've got a stable list, of valid Tor (anonymity network) nodes, that allow exit to en.wikipedia.org. No other exits, not the secure server, nothing else. It's been suggested, that my list is inaccurate, as someone else list shows a few more TOR nodes. I seriously believe, that this is because I double-check nodes, and, try to err on the side of not listing it, if there is any doubt at all.

WP:BLOCK presently states Open or anonymous proxies are prohibited from editing by the Wikimedia Foundation, and may be blocked on sight., so, it seems that policy supports this. However, Tor (anonymity network) has it's good uses, such as for chineese users.

I'm presently, contemplating on a one-time run, blocking all valid TOR exits, that allow access to en.wikipedia.org, leaning towards setting the following flags: Anon only, Account Creation Blocked. The block would be for a period of 48 hours, as a test, and, tagging those exits with {{tor}}. This would leave open the secure server, for the duration of this test, and allow for logged-in editing. This would be in order to enforce our policy on open and anonymizing proxies, which is in place, to prevent vandalism, and disruption, particularly by banned users.

Now, I want to make it crystal clear, that I absolutely do not intend on doing this, without a clear consensus here, to do so. Also, if I do, I have absolutely no intention on continuing it in the future, without an equally clear consensus to do so. I run a TOR node, myself, however, I disallow wikipedia exits.

I'd like to see what other admins, and editors think, about doing this. Especially, hardblock v softblock. SQL^{Query me!} 05:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Open or anonymous proxies are prohibited from editing by the Wikimedia Foundation, and may be blocked on sight. Open or anonymous proxies may be blocked for any length of time to deal with abuse. This has bugger all to do with the Foundation – Gurch 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One objection I have is after this is done will there any way to anonymously create an account and edit and if so has this process been detailed anywhere? This may be a stupid idea but I don't have any trust in the checkuser process nor the foundation's ability to protect user information against large organizations or corrupt governments. BJ^Talk 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There's always unblock-en-l, I see a lot of account creation traffic there, already. SQL^{Query me!} 06:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that there is neither a prohibition on Tor nodes editing, nor a policy against it, nor any overwhelming reason to block them all. There is also no censensus on the soft-or-hard-block question. The recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Tor nodes is probably relevant. If someone is writing a bot, how about one to unblock all the indef-blocked proxies which are no longer open. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to :) If you get me a list of every IP presently blocked for being a TOR / proxy (I've got a list of the 222 present blocked TOR nodes), I should be able to have it done by the end of the day... As far as policy regarding disabling editing from TOR, there's a couple, WP:OP, and WP:BLOCK quoted above. Not talking about blocking them all, either... Just the ones that allow WP exit (and even then, just to the regular server -- not the secure server). SQL^{Query me!} 13:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There are currently over 7,000 dynamic IPs listed at WT:OP waiting to be checked, and there's a whole category full (I count over 2,000) listed at Category:Tor proxies blocked on Wikipedia. I rephrase my point - there is no overwhelming reason to block all the Tor nodes capable of editing Wikipedia, nor any consensus on the other issues. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a category! Unfortunately, real life has intervened once again :( I'll look at them in a moment, thanks! SQL^{Query me!} 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the more fundamental principles of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit. Blocking tor nodes would unnecessarily hinder this principle. Soft-block them all. BETA 13:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

SQL, give me 24 hours and Ill get you a list of all IP's that are blocked after 2010. that will be all indef's and very long IP blocks that are caused by proxy blocks. β^_command 16:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Betacommand, could you possibly filter it by those with {{tor}} in/as the block message? SQL^{Query me!} 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

SQL http://tools.wikimedia.de/~betacommand/tor%20IP.txt that is a list of all IP's with "tor" in the block summary sorted by unblock date. β^_command 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking Blocked IP's blocked as TOR, that are probably no longer nodes

Alright, preliminary work done (see: User:SQL/Funky_TOR), and, it seems like there are a whole lot of blocked TOR nodes, that possibly should not be. Questions...

1. Do we just overturn the previous block, if it's soley for being a TOR node (e.g. no disruption / socking / etc)?
2. Should the initial blocking admin be consulted on each block? (Some seem to have been blocking at high-speed, and may not want hundreds of messages)
3. Would anyone like to help review the nearly 2,000 blocks in question? :)

There are a number of factors, that would keep me from automating the unblock process, partially, the amount of circumstances that the bot simply cannot judge (Block summaries mostly, evaluating the talk page, etc). So, now that we have a good place to start, what would be the best way to go about this? SQL^{Query me!} 07:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would Like to get Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonaldBot 2 operational on en.wiki just like its doing on nl.wiki. β^_command 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Review of indef block of Piperdown

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per Wizardman this discussion has done all that it can. Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Piperdown has asked that his block be reviewed [3] in which he was accused of being a sock and/or meatpuppet of User:Wordbomb. I agree that it should be reviewed in light of recent events. Piperdown explains in a WR thread that it appears that someone monkeyed with his account to make it difficult for him to post to his talk page [4]. Also, David Gerard's actions with respect to anything he thinks is associated with Overstock.com and WordBomb is suspect, the evidence being his block of a town in Utah, stating that WordBomb lived there and falsely stating that the local ISP was an open proxy [5]. Only after a second, independent source confirmed that his statement was false did he unblock the town [6]. I don't personally believe that Piperdown's block was justified or fair and am asking that he get a neutral review from an uninvolved admin. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I read what Piperdown had to say both on his talk page here and on WR, and I have to say that I'm confused as to why he was blocked. He'd certainly seemed to be making perfectly good and valid edits up to the point of his being blocked, and his talk page looks pretty much like any other established editor's. He appears to have been indefinitely blocked without warning, from what I can see from his talkpage history. However, without David Gerard's input, I've very little to go on here so what I'd like to maybe see happen would be for David to post a statement here giving his rationale for indefinitely blocking Piperdown as a sock of Wordbomb, and allowing the admin community to review accordingly. I'm guessing David is unaware of this thread as of now, so I'll see he's made aware of it - Alison ^❤ 07:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it and I admit that I was remiss in not notifying Gerard of this thread myself. Cla68 (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Confused why he was ever blocked in the first place. He needs to be unblocked immediately Bstone (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This page User:Piperdown/1 makes it appear that the user is either Wordbomb or a meatpuppet of him. I suggest we wait to hear from the blocking admin. Since the block was placed several months ago this isn't urgent. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this user subpage seems to have played a large part in Piperdown's block, I've temporarily restored it so people can check out the evidence while this block is being reviewed. krimpet✽ 05:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Piperdown is probably WordBomb's most vociferous supporter on Wikipedia Review, and his comments on WR leave little doubt that he is highly unlikely to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. It is also not credible that he is only just aware of being blocked; I am sure his ban was mentioned on WR ages ago. This looks like gaming the system, or at least playing us for a bunch of naive fools. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My reading of Piperdown's request [7] is that he was aware of the block at the time it was placed and he is not claiming otherwise. Thincat (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

His unblock request from September is all about how what he did was ok, not about how he would drop the subject so he could edit other areas of interest. Considering that, and his deleted contributions, I agree with Guy that he is unlikely to be (or resume being, if he was before) a productive editor. Thatcher 15:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone contributions on WR have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to effectively write and edit articles on this project. I am shocked anyone would make such a claim. Bstone (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If there was no overlap between the two, fine. However, Piperdown's deleted contributions (especially User:Piperdown/1) shows that he wants to pursue the same agenda as Wordbomb of attacking certain editors for alleged conflicts of interest on certain articles, and his unblock request from September did not say, "I want to write and edit articles" but "there is nothing wrong with pursuing conflict of interest charges in this case." Thatcher 16:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, he admits that he created User:Piperdown/1 as a result of User:Mantanmoreland/1, at least that's what the deleted page states. Regarding his September unblock request, how about we ask him what the situation is now? I'm not seeing a lot of evidence here other than hearsay and the after-the-fact comments that "he is unlikely to be [...] a productive editor". I suspect he's active and vociferous on WR because he's been indefinitely blocked on here and that he sees his block as being in error. He appears to have always stated that he's not WordBomb and, frankly, if he was a throwaway sock of WB, he's kept up this pretense for an awfully long time now - Alison ^❤ 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Alison, you might want to take a close look at some of the conspiracy-mongering this user engaged in before the block. Some diffs have been collected here, although these only scratch the surface. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that I've no idea of this editor's background or past history, but I'll take a look. From his talk page history, it looks just like any other, really. I'd like to see David Gerard comment here as he's obviously the most familiar - Alison ^❤ 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If "pursuing conflict of interest charges" is something to be discouraged, we should delete WP:COI/N. Even if the conflicts he believes exist in fact do not - I'm sure there are some percentage of WP:COI/N reports that turn out to be incorrect. He has the right to be wrong. —Random832 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But he does not have the right to harass other users as a proxy for a banned editor. If he wants to pursue COI charges "for the good of the Wiki" he can contact Arbcom privately. I suppose he could be unblocked if he said something like "I disagree on principle but I will avoid that subject and edit other topics" (subject to monitoring by whatever admin took responsibility for him by unblocking) but honestly his defenders here are doing more harm than good. Thatcher 19:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of avoiding one subject, though. He used to follow me around trying to tie every admin action of mine into his grand conspiracy theory, and I'm probably not the only one he did it to. Can any of his defenders point to any good content he added to the encyclopedia? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The last time you made such a statement, it led to a flood of meatpuppets blanking pages that Jon Awbrey had contributed to in order to prove a point; right or wrong, I would suggest you ought to do more research before categorically stating (as you did there) or implying (as you did here) that someone has made no worthwhile contributions, since even ignoring the disruptive effect, it is a personal attack. —Random832 17:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Does WP:AGF apply here? This is pretty much what the question boils down to at the root. If he may help wikipedia, then an unblock is right. If it's clear that he won't, then the indef block is fine. Since I haven't followed the case, I don't have an opinion personally. Wizardman 19:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am shocked this has gone on as far as it has. This fellow is blocked because he's posting at WR and because of what he might do. Seemingly, he has an opinion held by another blocked editor. Shocking. Unblock this person and be done with this. Bstone (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there's an extensive history of meatpuppet behavior here, which has reached the "quacking louder than we can ignore anymore" stage. Wordbomb and other overstock.com related abusers are not welcome here, in any form. You cannot reasonably ignore the long history of misbehavior that this user has exhibited. What they're saying now here and presumably on Wikipedia Review (I haven't gone to look yet) doesn't excuse or explain their contributions for the last year. 65.200.208.230 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a really, really tough time with a random, anon IP telling me that overstock.com abusers are not welcome at wikipedia. Moreover without any arbcom or other policies to backup your claim I am at the verge of giggles. This whole thing is silly. Unblock the fellow who was a good contributor to this project and enough of these silly games. Bstone (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I will agree with the IP editor that Piperdown's block is about more than OMG he posts to WR. And do you really mean "overstock.com abusers" should be welcome? I assume there is typo in there somewhere, because editors who are associated with overstock.com and its crusade to explain its crappy share price as the result of naked short selling, and who then go on to smear anyone who says otherwise, including Wall Street Journal reporters, stock analysts and Wikipedia editors and administrators, is absolutely not welcome to edit Wikipedia, unless they are willing to leave that behind them when they put on their Wikipedia hat. Tell you what, as soon as Piperdown agrees to stay off the topic, you can personally unblock him, as long as you are willing to be responsible for his edits. Oh wait... Thatcher 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

SV and others claim he was blocked due to harassment, so I don't see how a topic ban would help...unless he was actually blocked due to an unpopular POV. I'm also a little puzzled by this block. Cool Hand Luke 22:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, Piperdown has not been blocked because he posts to WR, he's been blocked because he's been accused of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of WordBomb. That's the issue here, not WR participation - Alison ^❤ 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he was blocked because he was harassing people, in a way that suggested WordBomb sock or meatpuppetry. But it's the harassment (trolling, wikistalking, conspiracy-mongering) that was the main issue, as I recall. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the "evidence" compiled on Mantanmoreland's sub-page, I don't see any harrassment or incivility severe enough to warrant an indefinite block. In fact, I've seen some of the editors who have commented above, including myself, give opinions on issues that are just as strong. The fact that he spends some of his editing time addressing a few of the issues that Wordbomb took an interest in should also not be an offense worthy of an infefinite block. Looking at his contribution history shows a lot of value-added edits to a great variety of topics. Any association with what may or may not be Wordbomb's past agenda, no matter how tenuous, should not be some kind of "third rail" that results in indefinite blocks for good faith editors. Again, I don't believe Piperdown was treated fairly here or in a manner consistent with how other editors are treated. Cla68 (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, the issue was the harassment, which was similar to the harassment WordBomb engaged in (similar subject matter, similar voice, the same targets), but the issue was the harassment, and it was pretty extensive. Can you supply some diffs showing positive content he added to the encyclopedia? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One has only to look at his contributions list. In addition to editing a wide variety of topics, he also started at least one article (diff later). Do you have any evidence of what most would consider to be harrassment? Cla68 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[8] Well, there's one, still looking through contribs. Wizardman 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's a response to SlimVirgin's request and not Cla68, since the diff appears to be a productive edit, and I can see nothing harassing about it. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that was a response to SlimVirgin. She asked for diffs, so I provided one. To be fair she asked for diffs, plural. So, here's a few more: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Wizardman 22:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? "He was blocked because he posts at WR". Better pull out the banhammer then, more than a few administrators post at that site. How about "for what they do/don't do", not "who they associate with, and what 'we' think of their association". I realize it is de rigeur to play the "WR=Troll" card, but it really looks nothing more than petty when stated so clearly. Achromatic (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Struck as a result of misreading Bstone. My sheepish apologies. Achromatic (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant some hyperbole, but they are using his activities in WR to justify the continued block. Bstone (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I think at this stage it would be more useful if diffs of clear cut harassment were supplied to back up the block. Arguments have been stated expressing that the block should be removed, so evidence refuting these arguments should be supplied. If none can be produced, then an unblock is clearly in order. Remember - anyone unblocked can be reblocked, and its unlikely anyone will die in the meantime. ^Avruchtalk 22:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This block was already challenged and upheld.[14]:

Decline reason: "I don't know about the overstock.com issue, but your stalking page User:Piperdown/1 was unacceptable, and is not less so because another user may have created a similar page. Your personal attacks on the blocking admin do not help to persuade me that you have understood what you did wrong and that you will stop doing it when unblocked. — Sandstein 06:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit fuzzy as to what has changed since then. In fact, his personal attacks on me and other editors off-site certainly don't indicate that he has any kind of deeper understanding that what he did was wrong.--Samiharris (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus can change"... right? If there is new information, anyway? ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And that decision is sovereign and not subject to community review? I think not. Notice that there are many voices chiming in here all saying that there is not enough evidence to show that an indef block is appropriate. Unblock this fellow and let's be done with this drama. Bstone (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this situation to say whether anyone should be unblocked or not, but the "similar page" to which the reviewing admin refers, has been up since June of last year, even though such pages are "unacceptable". R. Baley (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That page was a collection of diffs, Piperdown's own words. Piperdown responded with an attack page. It was deleted so I can't quote from it. Bstone, you don't have any inkling of the "evidence" so how can you say it was "insufficient"? Why the rush to unblock this character?--Samiharris (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

With a total lack of incriminating evidence, a request from the editor to be allowed to edit and a viewable and demonstratable history of good editing and you want me to side with you on keeping the indef block? Sorry, but judisprudence requires the liberation of the person. Bstone (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sami, the only allowable circumstance (AFAIK) in which one editor may keep a collection of diffs (or otherwise collect "evidence") on another editor is in a short term situation where there is a forthcoming process to be initiated (such as preparing for an ANI report, filing an RfAR, or starting an RfC on an editor) otherwise it isn't allowed. That page should have been deleted as well a long time ago. R. Baley (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the evidence page was overtaken by events. Bstone, sorry but nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it talk about "life, liberty and the pursuit of editing Wikipedia." Piperdown seems plenty liberated right where he is, which is in the pages of off-site websites where he can give full vent to his conspiracy theories as relates to the stock market and Wikipedia. and where he can now openly advocate WordBomb's cause.--Samiharris (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So without any evidence and with a history of good editing this fellow should remain blocked on your say so? That's a travesty. Bstone (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

He was not blocked on my sayso. I had nothing to do with it, or in his remaining blocked, or in his becoming an active and vibrant representative of the WordBomb Chowder and Marching Society off-wiki. He was blocked by Mr. Gerard, and I think it behooves us all to await his return. It is not a travesty of anything to do so, and the Bill of Rights will survive if Mr. Piperdown remains blocked in the interim.--Samiharris (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You mis understand, Samiharris. I never said he was blocked because of you but you are the one pressing for his continued block, but without a shred of evidence. Sans evidence or Mr Gerard, it behooves us to immediately unblock him and allow him to return to editing wikipedia. What he does off-site is not any of our business and I urge you to stop worrying what people do with their time outside this project. Bstone (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of an unblock, this editor has been blocked for nearly 4 months. There's no sudden urgency to unblock him "immediately". Surely we can wait for a bit more community input, or even for the blocking admin to comment? MastCell ^Talk 00:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It can go both ways, tho. 4 months of injustice, as I see it, and now any lack of incriminating evidence would mean an immediate unblock would be prudent. But I think taking a step back at this point would be wise. Say 48 hours to wait for Mr Gerard? Bstone (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, sorry. This is not up for general review. Meatpuppets of known extremely banned users don't get the benefit of the doubt. And non admins don't get to come to AN and insist that admins comply with their idea of justice.

If someone has good evidence that this was a mistake, then they should have posted it here. Nobody has. Lacking that good evidence, this is functionally (if not labeled properly) a community ban. The appeal process for community bans is Arbcom, or Jimmy. Neither of those venues are particularly happy with Bagley and companies ongoing hijinks, but they will listen to an appeal request. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Except Admins (such as Alison and myself) may have problems with it (Alison has said she's reviewing the situation, and personally I haven't looked at it). I find your dismissiveness a bit disturbing, GWH. If there is good reason for the block, present it, and if it's agreed that it fits, fine, we'll get out of your way. But don't try steamrolling folks who have honest concerns. Also. Don't try calling it a community ban, and then say the community shouldn't come in and have their say about it (added On) SirFozzie (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The good reason for the block is why he was blocked - editing related to naked short selling, in patterns and with content that clearly passes the duck test on association with Wordbomb / Bagley / Overstock. Yes, they edited other stuff, too. But there is quite clearly a major focus of editing on those topics, and even a brief review of their edits (to the naked short selling article, to biography articles of people accused of naked short selling, etc) will show that the patterns there are identical to the ones that are Wordbomb signature, and have resulted in quite a large number of sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts to be banned from the site.

This is not new, and not news. That Wordbomb related accounts are banned from Wikipedia due to innumerable abuses from Overstock people is not new, and not news. Any cursory review of the last 500 edits by Piperdown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) shows a clear pattern of that type and content of edit. The duck quacks, and it does not quack alone in a field where nobody notices. It quacks in the usual place, with the usual suspects.

The duck is not welcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Also - on the community ban / input point - a community ban ends when an administrator (any administrator) unblocks. Per definition. It does not end when a random user account, who I AGF about but is not an administrator, insists that it must. Bstone does not have standing to insist on an unblock, though he can of course comment and request etc. Any administrator on this thread can simply unblock. However, I hope that they review the contributions history and consider what's there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

{outdent) WP:MEAT applies to new editors, not editors who are with the project for 7 months. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to back up SirFozzie's reasoning here, and while I have not looked into the block or the edits, I did take a look at both /1 pages and have to echo Alsisons question - why are they so different that one got someone indef blocked and the other hung around on WP for ages? As a WR member I have had contact with piperdown, and have to say, that if he is a sock of wordbomb, that pretense has gone on waaaaaaaaaaaay longer than it had to - making it unlikley that he was ever a sock. The word meatpuppet has also been bandied about, but I find it hard to work out how an established editor can be a meatpuppet. It seems to me that some people might actually just come to the same conclusion, either independantly or through communication, thereby holding their own views that happen to overlap? Independant thought, now there is a novel concept. Viridae^Talk 01:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There's an extensive history of sockpuppetry / meatpuppetry associated with Wordbomb / overstock accounts. Figuring out who a person is and what the connection is are interesting intellectual exercises, but not necessary - WP:DUCK is behavioral based, and the behavior pattern here matched. Contrary to you and Kendrick's assertions, Sockpuppetry and Meatpuppetry are what they are, established user or not. We ban established accounts for acting as an agent for / reposting stuff for indef blocked accounts. Meatpuppetry is a more subtle version of that. Anyone can start doing that on behalf of a banned user. And an alternate identity sockpuppet is clearly not beyond these people - they've done it a lot before, and are probably, nay almost certainly doing it now with other accounts we have not yet tagged. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, I just need to say that your dismissive, condescending attitude to non-admins only furthers to widen the gap between admins and regular editors. You were given tools to help the project but not a platform of power. Your attitude is profoundly disturbing. Bstone (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, please keep the discussion civil and focused on the case at hand, and either ignore attitudes that rub you the wrong way or take your concerns up on the person's talk page. We don't need this to generate unwarranted heat. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, civility is of paramount importance. Which is why I stand to is at all times. Bstone (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Without speaking to the merits of this particular case, it seems to me that if several trusted and informed editors are dubious about the conclusions drawn, then the WP:DUCK test is by definition not met, no matter how convincing others may find it. The duck-spotter should always be willing to show that they have not mistakenly identified a loon or other fowl creature, if a colleague asks in good faith for such assurance. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Non admins are as welcome as anyone to point out questionable actions, provide evidence, etc.

To date, you have posted no evidence that Piperdown isn't who David Gerard thought he was. Nobody has yet refuted the point that hundreds of the last 500 edits made by Piperdown fit the Wordbomb edit profile to a T.

Perhaps, despite that, they are in fact someone else and unrelated. However, WP:DUCK establishes a reasonableness test and then shifts burden of proof. We have a historical pattern used repeatedly by ... I don't know exactly how many by now, but I've seen dozens of Wordbomb sockpuppets over time. A large quantity of Piperdown edits match that pattern. Duck test's criteria are met.

This is a rebutable conclusion. But it's a reasonable conclusion, based on the evidence. Any administrator who seeks to overturn the indef block should generate reasonable evidence to rebut that conclusion first.

The observation that you don't have the authority to declare what jurisprudence demands we do ("Sorry, but judisprudence requires the liberation of the person." as you said earlier) is perhaps rude but it's also very importantly correct. Wikipedia doesn't allow just anyone, even just anyone who's a longstanding editor, to make user block decisions (in either direction). That power is reserved for administrators, with appeal to the body of administrators as a whole, the Arbitration Committee, and Jimbo ultimately.

It would be foolish for me or anyone to declare that abusive user blocking never makes mistakes. I have myself made mistakes doing so. Being open to the possibility that a given action (mine, or someone elses) is wrong is an important part of being a responsible administrator.

All of that said, nothing that's been posted here so far has positive information content that changes my mind that the earlier conclusion was correct, that Piperdown is either Wordbomb or acting in concert with them. A couple of people who frequent Wikipedia Review have indicated that they think that Piperdown is not, based on discussions with them over there. However, those opinions don't have any specific WR discussion posts or thread links provided, and haven't addressed the edit patterns here which were the Duck test evidence.

Perhaps we'll have such evidence tomorrow. If Alison or Viridae or you or others post it, I will read it and consider it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

On the face of it, he has a lot of productive edits. What kind of evidence should we have? Are we trying to prove a negative? Can you prove I'm not related to Wordbomb? If I was blocked for this reason, could anyone prove I'm not? Cool Hand Luke 04:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUCK does not require anyone who opposes a block to take the (impossible) step of proving a negative. It's one thing if only a few people are disagreeing. But as Alanyst says, you can't just declare "WP:DUCK, prove me wrong or go away".

You have very few edits that appear to match the Wordbomb pattern: Naked short selling, Pump and dump, Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation‎, Overstock.com and related topics are the predominant targets, though you have cleaned up Patrick M. Byrne a bit in the last few days, which is also involved. I don't think anyone could reasonably claim based on your edit patterns that you might be WB. The same cannot be said of Piperdown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who though they have also edited diverse topics, on first impression appear to be about 50% contributing to Wordbomb target articles (those articles listed, articles about people associated with short selling, etc). People who only contribute tangentally if at all to the target topics associated with Wordbomb, and don't otherwise go on overstock.com related rampages in article or user talk or emails, are rather unlikely to be an active Wordbomb sock, though there are probably some sleepers out there which wouldn't be detectable by the Duck test at the moment.

As I said upwards - Piperdown could be a false positive on the Duck test for Wordbomb. But, hundreds of edits by them fall into the pattern, and it's really really suspicious. Just look at the last 500 edits in history, much less going back further.

We could run a whole stack of sample users through "prove or disprove that they're X", but there aren't many that have the problematic contribution histories which are very short selling centric as to match Wordbomb's pattern. Piperdown does. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be very big on "you don't get to say what has to happen, that's for us administrators". The community has a voice. The community decides. The community does (be it as a whole, or subsections thereof). You take this approach, and then you start to state that if people have evidence, you will "read and consider it". Consider rewording, as your tone and phrasing implies that the decision is yours to make. You name administrators, and state that they may supply evidence for your consideration. The duck test is inconclusive, especially when there seems to be something very far from consensus here. It is not a crime of meatpuppetry to hold similar opinions to that of a banned user. Out of curiosity, what is an "extremely banned" user? Is that like, with apologies to A Few Good Men a "strenuous objection"? Achromatic (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Similar opinions didn't get Piperdown in trouble. Plenty of people don't like short selling. Piperdown edited on first glance about a dozen articles in the topic in the same manner, and with the same intensity, that Wordbomb and other confirmed WB socks did. Walks like a duck.

Extremely banned would cover things like creating a website dedicated to, among other things, stalking and harrassing Wikipedia editors and administrators, including trying to harrass them at home and at work. Wordbomb and related overstock.com staff are not welcome here. You are welcome to talk to Arbcom or Jimmy about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

George care to provide actual examples where Piperdown edited "In the same manner as wordbomb"? That would certainly give weight to your accusations. Viridae^Talk 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) They are contributing 50% to "WordBomb target articles" (which, as you say, means "articles related to naked short selling"). Are we really banning people for having similar interests to banned users? Or is there only one person in the world who cares about naked short selling? -Amarkov moo! 04:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To the same set of articles, if their edits appear to be of the same nature? And also being an active Wikipedia Review participant? That's what the Duck test definition is, pretty much. It's established policy... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

When Piperdown started editing naked short selling, which was within a few days of arriving at Wikipedia, he immediately started edit warring and was belligerent in the extreme. It is not as if a light bulb went on over his head after he had been pacifically editing for some months. He immediately commenced edits that misconstrued sources to twist to his POV. He also was paranoid in the extreme. I remember praising some edits that he did and getting my head bit off on the grounds that I was being "patronizing" or somesuch. In hindsight he is about as obvious a WordBomb meatpuppet as can be imagined. He then attacked me in his attack page, and alleged that I had some connection with a journalist he hates because of clues of a relationship with Chicago, which is where the journalist went to school. It was paranoid, loony stuff and it is a wonder that Piperdown remained unscathed for as long as he did. He was not just quacking like the duck WordBomb but leaving droppings all over the place.--Samiharris (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not like all new users are nice. There are many new users who edit war and are belligerent. In fact, that's probably evidence that he was actually new, since someone familiar with Wikipedia would know how to avoid being viewed as bad. As for Wikipedia Review... that's really not relevant. Unless someone has evidence that I'm a sockpuppet? -Amarkov moo! 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That he complains on WR seems to be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, unfortunately. He was blocked on September 7, 2007; his WR account was created three days later on September 10. Frustrated people often feel the need to vent, and it looks like Piperdown, like many other Wikipedians who feel sleighted, found WR in the wake of his block and decided to vent there. It's a bit of a shame, since there's really nowhere else for them to appeal and take legitimate complaints to, and they get lost in the muck of frivolous accusations and poisonous speculation that is WR. krimpet✽ 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(Another outdent.) The problem with WP:DUCK (which is an essay, neither guideline nor policy) is that it is highly susceptible to confirmation bias: we tend to see what we expect to see and unconsciously ignore or discount evidence to the contrary. If there were a person who shared WordBomb's views on naked short selling, etc. but was trying to constructively contribute to WP, how would we distinguish them from a WordBomb meatpuppet? Aside from the common interest, what criteria would separate the block-worthy from the barnstar-worthy? Can anyone show, with diffs, that a significant number of Piperdown's edits would have been found disruptive if they had been about 18th-century poetry instead of Overstock-related matters? If so, I'm all for maintaining the block, but if not, it seems reasonable to offer another chance at contributing constructively. I'll be honest, what I've seen of Piperdown's comments on WR worry me about inviting a mud-slinger here where too much mud is already slung - but perhaps Piperdown will resolve to interact differently here given the different environment and purpose. I'm sure plenty of people will keep a close eye on him in case he proves to be here to disrupt. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just how is one supposed to wind up with a NPOV article on naked short selling if one side of the debate on it is declared to be "acting for a banned user" and forbidden? *Dan T.* (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Every Wikipedia editor should be capable of writing articles with the neutral point of view. We don't need active Neo-nazi editors in order to write an NPOV article on Adolf Hitler. There are plenty of press reports on naked short selling to summarize, personal knowledge or viewpoints aren't required. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The pattern is not "just editing naked short selling". Piperdown's edits on Overstock related topics in a wider sense are the rest of the pattern. By no means has every editor involved in the Naked short selling article done anything like other Overstock related edits which raise suspicions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Piperdown questionable edits

Section break, and new section to list out Wordbomb pattern edits ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So... going back through Piperdown's history. I decided to start at the beginning and work forwards.

A week after signing up, this first edit to Naked short selling, the first in the Wordbomb pattern as far as I spot: [15] restores a Christopher Cox quote that had been added by Errudite (sic) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) earlier that day, which has been specifically added by a bunch of Wordbomb sockpuppets. On closer examination, Errudiate (sic) proves to be an shiningly clear example of Wordbomb sockpuppets, and not previously identified as such and blocked - however, I have just rectified that.

Three edits later, to Patrick M. Byrne - [16], again a link Wordbomb's used before.

More to come, later. Others welcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait wait. So, when looking at this evidence you've seen before, you run into another sockpuppet? Does it occur to you that it's far more likely that your sockpuppet detection method is faulty? It's reasonable that most people interested in naked short selling read the same stuff... -Amarkov moo! 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually review Errudite (sic)'s edits? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have. I fail to see how they can be reliably differentiated from edits by someone else who doesn't like Gary Weiss. -Amarkov moo! 05:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The only people with a serious beef against Gary Weiss who've showed up on Wikipedia are Wordbomb and his gang. It's not normal for people in the world to have large beefs with financial reporters. Your comment doesn't make the case that they're not in the pattern... it reinforces it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Except the only reason you have to believe this is that everyone who dislikes Gary Weiss has been discredited as being in WordBomb's gang. That's circular logic, which does not help. -Amarkov moo! 05:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So because he restores a section of text he believes to be valid he is immediatley a meatpuppet. Its not possible of course that he actually agreed with the addition of that text, not necessarily knowing that it was a (possible) sockpuppet? And I am still waiting for evidence of him editing "In the same manner as wordbomb", not just having an overlap in idealogies... Viridae^Talk 05:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to sign off for the night, but jeez. They have over 1500 edits. I presented two examples in the pattern (not necessarily by themselves conclusive, but in the pattern) in the first fifty edits they ever made. Properly documenting everything that Piperdown did that matches the Wordbomb pattern will undoubtedly take dozens to hundreds of specific edits listed, and probably a day or two of people digging and listing them. If your point is that I have not yet established the case with what I posted here then that's fine. That will take time. If you don't think it's there because it wasn't evident and clear looking only at the first 3% of their contributions so far ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice the huge chorus of community members who are challenging and questioning the validity of this. I add my voice to this growing number. Bstone (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we got that Bstone.

I think Georgewilliamherbert's point is that editing on these topics is inherently unlike, say, editing from a stridently pro-Palestinian position. Many people in the world have the same POV as stridently pro-Palestine banned users, but WordBombesque opinions on Byrne and naked short selling are relatively much more likely to be coming from Overstock.com or its agents. As an empirical matter, I suspect this is true. I'm not sure if that's a good enough reason for a ban though. Cool Hand Luke 05:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

His edits on Wikipedia Review confirm that. I'm not suggesting they be used to justify the continued ban, as I don't think it is necessary. But it is worth observing that Piperdown is one of the most off the wall, paranoid contributors to Wiki Review, and it's always "Weiss this" and "Weiss that," and how "Weiss" is the source of all that ails Wikipedia. If there was any doubt that he was a WordBomb meatpuppet he allayed those doubts after he left here.--Samiharris (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're still only giving evidence that he really hates Weiss. That's certainly true, but that doesn't make him WordBomb. -Amarkov

OK, granted. Maybe he hates Weiss because he was involved in an auto accident with him, and just by coincidence also happens to be obsessed with naked short selling. Let's get real about this.--Samiharris (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

moo! 05:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

His account on WR postdates his ban from WP. WP:CIVIL or not (and without implying that WP policies carry any weight elsewhere), it would seem to be an entirely human failing to have some anger towards someone you might see (be it correctly or incorrectly) as having played a role in your being banned (and I qualify that by saying that my statement in no way implies Piperdown's blocking/edits at the time were or were not controversial). Also, I'd like to point out that, with exceptionally few exceptions, Piperdown's comments off-wiki have very little relevance here, as a matter of policy, and it is inappropriate to refer to his off-wiki behavior (because, if for no other reason, you have no idea that they are one in the same, though I'm happy to acknowledge that they are, the principle does not change) as justifications for an on-wiki block to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talk • contribs) 06:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There is zero controversy that meat puppetry on behalf of banned editors has been something that invariably earns the meat puppet a ban. This has remained true for the 3 + years I've been contributing to Wikipedia. The only question is whether it is reasonable to view Piperdown as a meat puppet of Wordbomb. Most of those commenting here weren't even around when WordBomb participated here and was blocked, but I was and remember him well. And viewing the editing patterns of Piperdown, it appears likely to me that Piperdown is indeed a meat puppet of Wordbomb. That being so, I feel that the block was not only reasonable but necessary given our policy and convention on bans and meat puppetry and support the block of Piperdown. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This "meat puppet" claim is really bothering me. What does it even mean to be a meat puppet of someone gone for 10 months? It seems to mean merely that the user shares a POV and that we can't prove they're a sock puppet. There may be good reason to infer that such a user has a COI with regards to the subjects (see my comment above), but we're not banning them for meat puppetry per se. Cool Hand Luke 05:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite what happened in this instance. He was blocked for being a meatpuppet of a banned user who continually re-appeared for many months on Wikipedia via several dozen socks. I believe there were about 40 checkuser-confirmed socks [17]and an larger number of suspected ones[18], all blocked. There are quite a few others blocked for being WordBomb socks who are not on the list. This was not a situation in which one errant fellow was banned and then some poor slob was accused of being like him ten months later. This was a protracted situation over a period of many months.--Samiharris (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So, because WordBomb had many sockpuppets, it logically follows that anyone who shares his views must also be a sockpuppet? What? I mean, that shows that the accusation is not unreasonable, but it is by no means proof. -Amarkov moo! 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that his block was reasonable. For further details on the block, you will have to await Mr. Gerard. All you can get from me is my worm's eye view.--Samiharris (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, that's not what I said. It is reasonable to accuse him of being WordBomb, in the sense that it would be unreasonable to accuse him of being the Roswell space aliens. I have seen no reason to believe that the actual block was justified, because nobody has any reasons other than "but look, they share the same opinions!" If you think David will have better reasons, by all means wait for him. -Amarkov moo! 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone's considered this, but if he's editing productively, does it even matter if the person behind the account was Wordbomb? Yes, I know what WordBomb did. But that would assume the two are one and the same, and I am unconvinced - the "evidence" provided for Piperdown being a sock of WB is really shitty evidence, and Piperdown should be unblocked. By all means keep an eye on his editng and if he acts up, take action then. Neıl ☎ 10:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that, and repeat what I said above: Felonious et al. are misunderstanding WP:MEAT and need to reread the policy. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Simply making the acquaintance of a banned user isn't a reasonable excuse for an indef block, nor simply being an editor with a POV on naked short selling different from the WP:OWNers of that article, for that matter, who seem to find being able to declare any such editor a sock or meatpuppet of Wordbomb a little too convenient. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion either way on naked short selling. Wordbomb and overstock.com related accounts are not welcome here due to an obscene amount of corporate sponsored attacks on Wikipedia editors and other related abuse. There's nothing wrong with being against naked short selling and editing Wikipedia in a policy compliant manner to address that, which other editors have in fact done. When the pattern jumps out at you, of overstock.com plus naked short selling plus Byrne article edits, that's not a random opponent of naked short selling, that's someone associated with Wordbomb. And we block them. Making up false red herrings like "everyone who is against naked short selling is accused of being a Wordbomb sock" is just confusing the issue - I don't believe that statement, I have never heard anyone else who's blocked Wordbomb accounts make that statement, and I don't believe they believe it either.

Let's stick with the facts - there's a pattern which ties edit patterns across a wide set of topics together, which is distinctive and unique to Overstock.com and Wordbomb. Dozens, perhaps a hundred or more, accounts matched this pattern. Many of them were using IP addresses inside Overstock.com or in netblocks of homes in the area of its headquarters. Some of them are further afield, but display the exact same edit patterns. This account displays those edit patterns. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Those three articles are intricately linked; this isn't some divine coincidence indicating a "pattern" which should "jump out" at anyone. Patrick M. Byrne is the CEO of Overstock.com, whose article is 2/3s about a controversy over naked short selling, which article also mentions and links back to Byrne and Overstock. Dozens if not hundreds have edited all three articles which relate to a current event an {{ongoing lawsuit}}, you say? I'm completely and totally unshocked. Running around blocking any editor no matter how long they've been with the project because you think they're all the same person, or friends of some person, who got indef blocked within their first 24 hours for violating WP:NPA a long long time ago? If that's not due to POV pushing, then it's extreme paranoia. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wordbomb is indef blocked for a whole host of reasons including real-world stalking and harrassment, creating a Wikipedia editor stalking website, and dozens of checkuser confirmed sockpuppet accounts. Defending him is bizarre and inexplicable. Any account which is associated with him is most certainly not welcome.

Yes, there's a topical linkage. However, contrary to your assertion that it's natural for people to edit the different articles innocently, the vast majority of those who have edited across the set of articles corresponding to Wordbomb's fingerprint have been proven, by Checkuser or self-admission later on, to have been sockpuppets or in a few cases meatpuppets. We did not leap to this conclusion. We have years of evidence that the pattern is used by WB and essentially nobody else. People who are interested in financial matters and aren't WB have made similar edits across smaller sets of articles, but haven't matched the whole identifying pattern.

Piperdown does.

I reinterate - I have no interest in or position on naked short selling or the financial industry/articles in general. I have a strong interest in keeping Wikipedia free of highly abusive accounts and people. I have never been engaged in an edit war or user argument with Wordbomb. But I've seen what he does here and on WR, and elsewhere. And if he pops up, like any responsible administrator aware of what all he's been doing, I block him.

He and Overstock may turn out to have been entirely right about the financial industry ills associated with naked short selling. Even if they are, however, nothing in the world could excuse their grossly abusive behavior towards Wikipedia and Wikipedians. They are not banned because of any conclusion as to the merits of their position on the issue. They're banned because they behave sociopathically and abusively towards editors here, tracking down real names, calling their homes, their employers, their friends, trying to get them fired, urging others to stalk them in real life, threatening violence, etc.

This behavior is categorically not ok. It is not "indef blocked for violating NPA". This case is the single worst case, ongoing and sustained and widespread, of abuse of Wikipedia editors by a particular outside group. Defending Wordbomb is not OK.

Piperdown could be an innocent mistaken identity case in this. But his behavior on Wikipedia Review didn't convince me of that.

The magnitude of the situation absolutely calls for us to apply special attention and care, but also a firm hand to exclude Wordbomb. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Wordbomb mess is an object lesson in WP:BITE. Because he didn't know any better than to just take his concerns to WP:COI/N, he was instead indef blocked and his talk page protected so he could never appeal, and thus we created a rather stalwart enemy of the project, and yeah, all kinds of badness has occurred since. I don't think it had to be that way, though. But, so because of all that, now here, in this apparently unrelated matter, we've taken a perfectly fine editor, indef blocked him on the most tenuous of rationales, and driven him into the arms of our critics at Wikipedia Review, thus making him guilty of association after the fact. Trying to make Wordbomb out to be the Emmanuel Goldstein of Wikipedia, and thus tar User:Piperdown with the same wide brush is more of the same, because trying to make this all about some other editor misses the point that Piperdown doesn't seem to have actually done any of those dreadful things. Thus you're argument -- and in particular the lack of diffs -- have failed to convince me. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a bizarre and historically inaccurate interpretation of how Wordbomb got blocked. People who are ignorant of history might want to not assert stuff about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, you're dismissing some of the worst stalking that Wikipedia has seen as though it were some irritating misunderstanding. People need to spend the time informing themselves before commenting. I know it's dull having to pour through so much material, but there are no short cuts, unfortunately. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Worst stalking"? We're talking about Piperdown here, not WordBomb. And anyway, are you sure that's an accurate description for what took place with WordBomb? If you'd like, we can open another thread on it, because I definitely have some questions I'd like to ask you about your involvement in that whole affair. Anyway, this thread is about Piperdown and the unfair way he has been labled and treated by a few who apparently don't approve of some of his edits. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick is apparently challenging the block of Wordbomb, incidental to the case of whether Piperdown is a WB sock or not. These are logically unrelated issues. But we cannot not address Kendrick's claims that the Wordbomb incidents weren't that serious. The history there is far too bad to let that sort of claim be made and stand unanswered. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You see, this is exactly the point of this entire thread. If Piperdown simply wants to edit Wikipedia, all he has to do is power down his modem to get a new IP, and create a new account. If he edits well, no one will know it is him.

But instead what is really wants is a giant fuss. The people who know the background can do one of two things: either we keep quiet, in which case he and his supporters get to rewrite history. Or we speak up, and we end up being targets of more abuse.

Cla, I have no "involvement" in this, other than to have blocked WordBomb for trying to out another editor; admin-deleted some of his edits from Gary Weiss; and semi-protected the article to stop him posting more attacks there. That is the beginning and end of my "involvement." All the rest is fantasy. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you support sockpuppetry? Wouldn't it be easier to keep tabs on his behavior with an established account? 67.167.0.156 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his WR posts, it seems he might have conflicts with Samiharris, Mantanmoreland, other editors he accuses of sockpuppetry, and David Gerard. After a careful look at his many productive contributions, I support an unblock, but he should have a civility parole in place. He should understand that we won't tolerate personal attacks or idle accusations of non-abusive sockpuppetry. Cool Hand Luke 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair and reasonable. I assume Alison is still waiting for a response from Gerard. I hope she will post a follow-up here on what action was taken or not taken. Thanks everyone. Cla68 (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's about as likely to work as bringing Willy on Wheels back on Wikipedia on page move parole. — Save_Us † 23:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, geez, you can't discount his expertise! -- Kendrick7^talk ON WHEELS! 23:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't work, there's nothing stopping us from re-blocking. And since there are people with significant concerns about the initial block, it's worth a try. -Amarkov moo! 23:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just declare a general amnesty for all banned and blocked users? I'm perfectly serious. The same "logic" that is being employed here can be applied to every single person ever vomited off this site.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Compromise?

I've absolutely no interest in WordBomb nor his antics, to be honest. However, looking at this case, I see very little reason to maintain an indefinite block. Requests to prove innocence are largely pointless here, as it's nearly impossible to prove. We could equally apply WP:DUCK criteria to just about anyone on the project and have them indefinitely blocked as a meatpuppet of some undesireable. The fact that Piperdown ran over to WR to rant after the fact is hardly surprising given that he was told on unequivocal terms that he was unwanted here. Guilt by association doesn't wash with me either, regardless of whether it's the tenuous WordBomb connection or the WR postings. I find it hard to believe that WordBomb, given that George has suggested that he most likely already is socking here, would be so interested in having one account unblocked.

Yesterday, having read the suggestion from George above, that Piperdown was WordBomb and that he was likely already socking here, I ran a checkuser per policy as I had reasonable suspicion that Piperdown's IP would likely turn up a number of WordBomb socks. That would very quickly put an end to this matter and we could all move on to better things, having dealt with the socks. I was wrong. Not only has Piperdown not been active here on that range, far as I could tell; geographically, he doesn't fit with previous WordBomb socks either. Unless WordBomb has moved far away from Utah, they're quite unlikely to be the same. Then I discovered Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WordBomb (the latest one) and that only seems to confirm this.

I fully agree that this whole issue is divisive and that either unblocking or maintaining the block on Piperdown will upset a large number of people; it's a lose/lose scenario for whichever fool takes it on. Far easier to maintain the status quo here, right? Well, no. While what WordBomb did was pretty terrible in terms of the stalking, etc, I don't think it's fair to brand another editor with this then pointing to the egregious behaviour of another to ensure they never get unblocked. There have been plenty of real-life cases where a person was so identified and this was used to take them out of circulation without parole for a very long time indeed. These, in time, were also overturned.

Since User:Piperdown/1 has now been restored as evidence for all to see, it's remarkable in its similarity to User:Mantanmoreland/1 which, Piperdown tells us, was set up "In response to" the latter. This certainly lends perspective to the matter and to be honest, its contents, in terms of offensiveness, aren't all that dissimilar really.

Here's some background to my own rationale here. I indefinitely blocked an extremely disruptive and abusive editor last year. He had been caught red-handed harassing another editor by outting his home address on-wiki, sneakily inserting it into comments. This was the final straw in a long litany of abuse and blocks. Given that they were on the opposite sides of a disagreement involving certain paramilitary groups, and given the editor had previously made threats of bodily harm against an administrator here, I considered this a serious matter indeed. "We know where you live". So this guy deserved to be banned, and banned for good. Instead, what happened was the whole matter was sent to Arbitration in what would become known as "The Troubles" arbcom case. And, to everyone's amazement, ArbCom ruled that this guy, rather than be banned, would actually be put on parole on terms agreed by ArbCom. This was done and said editor was unblocked where he went on to be a reasonable productive editor, and is largely reformed. Okay, so he had a few glitches just today, but nevermind :)

Point is this; previously banned "incorrigible" editors have turned around and changed their ways. Not to say that Piperdown is incorrigible or that his ways were "extremely disruptive and abusive" - not that I can discern, to be honest. Just that people change, things change and folks should be given a chance to prove their worth, especially where doubt has been cast, as in this case. In the case of Vintagekits, I was largely proven wrong, and I'd stood my ground and refused to unblock him for quite a long time, too.

Given that David Gerard is back on-line today yet hasn't commented here, I'm willing to try to compromise here, though it won't be easy. There appears to be quite a body of opinion here that Piperdown be unblocked forthwith, dusted down and sent on his way with a gruff apology. There are also a number of respected editors here who are saying that he should stay indef'd and the key be thrown away. May I suggest the following? I'm willing to unblock Piperdown myself here - sticking my neck out somewhat, and putting my (murky!) reputation on the line - but under certain conditions. I'm certainly amenable to discussing these conditions with the community here and, of course, the editor in question would need to agree too. Per what's happened before in Vintagekits' case, I suggest Piperdown be unblocked but be placed on parole for a number of months. An admin would be assigned to liaise with him - a neutral admin - and if he persist in stalkery, etc and behaviour that the community finds offensive, he may be re-blocked for progressively longer times until blocked indefinitely, as any other editor would. I will personally re-block him myself if he re-offends, much as I am loathe to get involved in all that Overstock.com nonsense. While I understand that there's something in this rough plan to annoy both sides of this, it may make a useful compromise. Thoughts? - Alison ^❤ 01:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you again to take a very close look at his posts about me and others, here and on WR, and ask yourself how comfortable you think any of us would feel if you were to unblock him. Forget the WordBomb link and just look at his own posts. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is one example of his comments about me on WR, which I kept. It's from a list of insults about me: "post menopausal socializing. editing in sexy icons to go with your sexy name is really useful in trying to get laid on the nets, and getting your way with the boy editors. Double Useful !!!" (Wed 12th December 2007, 2:01pm)

Is this someone you would feel comfortable editing with, Alison, if he were making that kind of comment about you? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't link to the Wikipedia Review posts which, if they exist, is allowed because the BADSITES nonsense was rejected by the community and the ArbCom. Anyway, under Alison's proposal, if he were to violate any polices after his block is lifted, he would lose his editing access. Cla68 (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was asking Alison whether she would feel comfortable if she had recently been discussed in those terms by someone I was planning to unblock. In addition to wondering whether I'm post-menopausal, how about his speculation on my "Cunning Linguistic Skills in 69 Days or Less!" (Tue 4th December 2007, 11:05pm) or (about me and another woman admin):

“ There is power in projecting yourself as a sexy gal, or as a poor damsel in distress, whether either is true or not. And the people who try to play that power card are probably not up to anything good ... If I went on WP and called myself SexyHardBodyFemaleCoed and put up animated pictures of SilverNakedLadies on my talk pages, I'm not trying to be neutral on a political game. I'm trying to be an Italian Porn Starlet using the Old Cosa Nostra Hard On Network to get my way into the House of Retards." (Tue 11th December 2007, 2:15pm) ”

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Slim, google shows exactly 18 pages the two of you ever edited at the same time, or were both mentioned on wikipedia.[19] Indeed, you two had a bit of a dust-up after you accused him of being a sock back in May, with ensuing drama which definitely went on waaay too long, but nothing really out of bounds that I see. As for WR, well, you are an honorary piñata over there. Like it or not, razzing you is such a part of the culture on that site, I could even imagine it's part of the sign up process -- heck, it might even be in the form of a captcha. I'm not going to waste my time crawling around there for relevant threads though. I don't think we can blame Piper for trying to fit in, when you yourself could long ago have just taken your own advice.[20] "But instead what is really wants is a giant fuss." -- Kendrick7^talk 03:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, could you show me some diffs of me interacting with him? My memory is that he wikistalked me. I have no memory of otherwise having had much, if anything, to do with him. I'd appreciate some diffs in case I'm misremembering. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You claimed about four posts up he said somehow unworthy things about you here. He didn't AFAICT. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if User:Alison would accept taking a degree of responsibility if Piperdown were to continue being disrupting after an unblock. Her terms sound reasonable, but perhaps adding in this corollary would make the other side not as opposed to it. Wizardman 03:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying "other side" makes this sound like a content dispute. Alison has found evidence that an indef block wasn't justified and Gerard's silence on the matter is deafening. The right and fair thing to do is to give Piperdown another chance. If he violates the community's trust with that chance, as with any other editor including me, then procedures are in place to deal with that. Cla68 (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think letting Piperdown edit Wikipedia, pending more abuse and harassment of more editors is simply ludicrous. If a psychopath who violated your mother and your sister, say, wanted to live with you, would you let him, until he violated your wife too? Crum375 (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Crum, that's a personal attack. Cla68 (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Crum, I STRONGLY suggest you either self-revert, or strike through your comments. We don't want it said that folks are trying to use cheap emotional ploys to try to change what reasonable discussion has brought forward, do we? SirFozzie (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's over the top, but reading what Piperdown writes on Wikipedia Review doesn't give one much hope that he's going to be civil and policy-compliant if he edits here again.

That said, Crum, that sort of language debases the whole discussion and feeds the trolls. Please don't do things like that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is about unblocking a vile individual from WR, who has repeatedly attacked our editors here. Letting such people edit until they offend again is offensive to their victims. Crum375 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Even so, we can make that point here without using language which is offensive to those participating in the debate. I'm (I guess) on your side in this, and I'm offended... Please, tone it down. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The language has to reflect the feelings of the victims and the severity of the offense, which it does. We will not tolerate attacks or harassment of our editors. Crum375 (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It may reflect the feelings of the "victims", but as for the severity of the "offense", you aren't just making a mountain out of a molehill by comparing verbal jousts, no matter how hateful, to someone raping "your mother and sister" and then moving in with you, you are making Mount Vesuvius out of an anthill. I REALLY suggest you consider what you've just done, and apologize to all and sundry. SirFozzie (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

On what authority to you speak for the "victims" of his offenses, Crum? Are you telling us you are qualified to do so? Oh, and along with SirFozzie, et al, I really suggest you strike under NPA re Piperdown, and by implication, anyone who supports the unblocking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Offensive? Such as is your constant shrill, over-the top attempts to inject OMG MOAR DRAMAHZ into a reasoned and reasonable discussion, Crum. Once again, as Georgewilliamherbert suggests, why don't you have a nice cup of tea and a sit down? You do your argument no good by coming in, and doing the Wiki-equivalent of stamping your feet and threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue, or everyone reverses course. SirFozzie (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow Crum, that was way over the line. Either apologize or remove that personal attack. Wizardman 04:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is the object of my "personal attack"? Crum375 (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Piperdown is, and incidental subjects are everyone else here who finds it objectionable. NPA applies to everyone, including personal attacks on banned users. Please knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're billing us as allowing psychopaths to ravage our homes, plus you're comparing Piperdown to a psychopath. It's twofold in a way, but mainly against Piperdown. As GWH said, WP:NPA applies to all. Wizardman 04:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a post by Piperdown this evening on Wikipedia Review. The title is "Alison & SlimVirgin: A Comparison, ...vive le diff-erence":

"Alison - Edits with a name that isn't sexually provocative in a venue full of young hormonal youths with banhammers of the opposite sex

"- Doesn't edit the BLP of the person that fired her, with some very nasty BLP violations that are WP:OR to boot, then get it oversighted by a rogue oversighter

"- Doesn't cover her talk page edit button with the cartoon of "silver naked lady" mudflapper. Points for that.

"- Doesn't forward evidence during a sensitive off-wiki request for BLP/COI evidence from the submitter to the accused under false pretenses

"- Appears to write what she thinks, does what she says, and calls it like it is.

"- Doesn't exaggerate to dramatic effect things that have only very tenuous attachment to a related point, and then disallow any debunking evidence of said exaggerations.

"- Doesn't sock puppet.

"- Doesn't double vote

"-Doesn't edit in 20+ hour continuous sessions that often lead to increasingly unreliable judgement toward the ends of those sessions, and bans on sight without prejudice.

"- Doesn't administer BLP's of former schoolmates who made her cry (that's an assumption on my part)

"SlimVirgin "- Does

"Alison, perhaps you should listen to admins types who aren't SlimVirgin, Crum375, Thatcher, Gerard, FloNight, and Bauder. There are a thousand more out there to listen to. Or consider the diffs for yourself, which you appear to be doing a fine job.

"I am also amazed at how many assumptions about who I agree with and what I believe are being posted on the AN review. I edited in material from reliable sources in all of the articles I edited, and never my opinion, which is not suitable for article content. I saw articles with amazingly one-sided inclusion of sources, articles that were shockingly poor, and people who were up to no good in having their way with WP's power structure.

"I still haven't seen anyone be able to point out any editing on WP I did that was bannable, uncivil (I just can't bring myself to wish people 'fuck off' on WP, although I do like to drop effbombs on WR in the afterglow, makes me feel better! You'll note I was banned on 9/9 and became a Slim WR Virgin on 9/10. Perhaps if I had used the fuckword on WP like Gerard and JzG more often I'd be on the super sekret mailing list too!

"Context, folks, context. Mantan's subpage is a list of soundbites that one needs to read the conversation around them. My most strident back-arching was usually done while the Mantanmoreland-Samiharris sockteam was blanking reliable sources they didn't like, then just telling me I'm crazy (sound familiar, Patrick?), then just telling me to stop or be banned.

"My subpage /1 is straight-forward, linked, and shows more bannable offenses than any "I object!" talk page edit I ever made."

He's on his best behavior, as you can see, trying to impress everybody here that he won't resume his old ways.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the accusations and constant crap thrown at him from this thread, I suggest this phrase from the King James bible, "Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" SirFozzie (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're far less poetic when you post on Wiki Review, SirFozzie. Bravo!--Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What can I say, this "discussion" has brought the best out in me. SirFozzie (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the worst in me, because I of all people have been quoting from an attack site! Well, others have as well to demonstrate the behavior of this particular editor, and I thought that a post from Piperdown this evening is of some significance, as it was particularly vile and sexist. Yes, I realize he was provoked by all the indecent behavior of us curs on Wikipedia, and is blameless etc. etc. If anyone wants to see what this wounded soul posted this evening (in addition to what I posted already, which was deleted and then restored and then deleted......), I have a copy and can email it.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I say he was blameless? No, I'd be one of the first to admit it was a damnfool move. I'm just saying that before accusing the otherside of throwing mud, make sure one hasn't reached down and grabbed a double handful yourselves. SirFozzie (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I forgot this is "Take a Stalker to Lunch Week." --Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but I hear there's a buy 1, get 3 free special on Ad hominem attacks. You and Crum must shop at the same place. SirFozzie (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And a violation of the GFDL. Users have been blocked by the Foundation and the content oversighted for importing others' words verbatim like that. krimpet✽ 05:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to proposed "compromise" unblocking Piperdown; walking in the footsteps of indef banned troublemakers is sufficient reason to block, and this editor as failed make any substantive contributions to Wikipedia in his time here, but seemed more interested in creating and feeding disruption which continues in his absence by those seeking to enable him. No substantive contributions + fanning the flames and disruption = Piperdown is a very, very low return on the community's investment. Enough is enough people, time to move along and return to building an encyclopdia, instead of fighting factional battles. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, I'm seeing personal attack, after personal attack, after posting of attack site messages, with a side of mudslinging here. If I see another comment resembling a personal attack, whether to another editor on here, piperdown, or otherwise, I will issue a block without further warning. We're editors of wikipedia, most of us being administrators, some of us for an awfully long time. We know better, enough! This applies to everyone making any posts in this topicspace. Wizardman 05:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm extending a final warning to the users who continuously add in/remove the verbatim WR chunk of text above. It adds little to the discussion, so stop edit warring over it. I will block the next person to touch it, right or wrong. I think some of you are close to violating 3RR on it anyway. Wizardman 06:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop issuing warnings, making threats and enabling troublemakers. No, really. You're not helping. You can expect any block you make related to this issue that is not solidly supported by policy to be undone. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Two cents from Jimmy

On Talk:Gary Weiss from October 2007, regarding cleanup from immediately after Piperdown was indef'ed - [21] . Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I particularly like the last comment from that section. Not saying I fully agree with it, mind you, just noting that. SirFozzie (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What I mean by that is, yes, it's useful to have the God-King on your side in any argument. However, don't just point to Jimbo's supporting someone and use that as a substitute for discussion. That's the same wolf, just with a different sheep skin on top (if you will excuse the horribly mangled simile) SirFozzie (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to suggest that discussion should end here and now on that point, of course not. My point is that the Piperdown incident was previously tied in to the Wordbomb harrassment and sockpuppetry, that tie in was run up the WP user discipline process review channel all the way to the to the top.

There's been a lingering suggestion that rouge admins were responsible for an ill-considered block. It and other actions at the time were reviewed in context, and given a green light. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Time does not legitimize misbehavior. As Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar demonstrates, meatpuppets do not merit the standing of legitimate editors simply by dodging scrutiny and continuing to proxy for banned editors for some unspecified length of time. Small quantities of useful edits were overshadowed by a campaign of harassment and disruption. Piperdown was blocked for legitimate reasons, and since then has behaved offsite in ways that affirm the legitimacy of the original block by continuing to profess the same things that led to the ban in the first place. The particular venue this person selected is beside the point. This is someone who has shown an unwillingness to abide by site standards; nothing has changed. Durova^Charge! 05:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is Durova (and no disrespect intended), is there a meatpuppet relationship between the two accounts. There are a lot of mentions up above that just does NOT see that relationship. That's all. SirFozzie (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has yet answered the obvious question. If he only wants to contribute to the encyclopedia, why does he not simply power down his modem, get a new IP, and create a new account? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically SV (I'm not him, thankfully, so I can't answer for him).. what happens if this new account steps just a bit over the line, or worse yet, gets caught up in a CU request looking for REAL WordBomb socks, and gets tied to the Piperdown account? Are you telling me that folks would not consider that proof of guilt and imemdiately usher him off the Wiki yet again? SirFozzie (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not answering the question, Sir Fozzie. Anyone who really wanted to edit the encyclopedia would simply abandon that account and edit. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Slim, it's late here (past 1:00 am), I'm tired of arguing (I'm sure you are too), I've been cautioned privately by someone who's judgement I trust to try to avoid crossing that line, and it's a minor point (you may be right, and I may be imagining things), so I'll just say, I was trying to answer the question, and I will leave the argument there. SirFozzie (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, SV. Abandoning the account and starting anew makes sense. Here's the rub though. If he were to make a new account, what would he edit? Similar areas to where he's edited in the past, most likely. Would this be an issue if he were to return to these articles? Since I don't follow this particular articlespace we're discussing, I can't say. But it would be disappointing if we were to end up here again. I actually think he should take your advice, though there's some big potholes that may cause problems. Wizardman 06:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman, Piperdown wants to make the point that he didn't only make WordBomb-type edits, didn't only stalk and attack people, but also made good contributions to other areas of the encyclopedia (or rather, he is not saying that, but his supporters are saying it on his behalf). If that's true, all he needs to do is create a new account and do those things. No one would notice it was him. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. If he's reading this then hopefully he'll listen and slide back in under a new account. Wizardman 06:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not if his Piperdown account remains blocked; that would be sock puppetry to evade a ban. I hope you are not encouraging Piperdown to use sock puppetry to evade his ban, or saying that you support anyone doing so. If so, you need to read WP:SOCK and WP:BAN before participating in such discussions. If he is unblocked a returns, returning to his old ways is not advisble and will only cement his intent in the minds of those supported the ban and give them the ammo they need for another one. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You could utilize that same logic to issue a pardon to Mr. WordBomb and his five dozen sockpuppets.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea. Why don't we do a checkuser on everyone in this thread and see who is using sockpuppets and who isn't? What do you say, Mantanmoreland? —Viriditas | Talk 05:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. While you're doing checkusers, can you do one on this?[22]--Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Right Fozzie. As my departed Irish grandmother used to say: Come into my parlor said the spider to the fly. One admin will say it's ok, another will come in and block as a sock. The old Mutt and Jeff as it were. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, in tune with Wizardman's request, I'm not saying that's what's going to happen, or might even happen. I'm just trying to find a way around any possible problems, so we don't have to go through this insanity again in the future. SirFozzie (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean that's it's an actual on purpose ruse, it's only that this would be the outcome. Slim's not the spider, the community is. Honestly, I've made the same suggestion Slim is making to users in similar straights myself, but I don't think it's practical when a matter as high-profile as this. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To put my point more systematically, here's a numbered list. Apologies in advance to people who object to the terminology:

1. Is Piperdown a meatpuppet?
2. If so, does proxying for a banned user for a while make it okay?
3. If not, was the account's conduct okay in other ways?

I'm not sure about no. 1, although I have a hunch there's merit to it. No. 2 is demonstrated by the arbcom decision I cited. As for 3 - I think the ban was merited. As a standard rule I'll support an unblock after six months if an editor doesn't evade a ban on socks and refrains from bashing Wikipedia at offsite fora. Sometimes I've reduced that on good faith when I see evidence that the person has turned over a new leaf. The leaf hasn't turned. And I ask both sides to turn down the heat on this discussion. Durova^Charge! 05:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of us, Durova, are still just patiently waiting for diffs to support all these allegations flying around. What "campaign of harassment and disruption" are you even talking about? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll defer to the blocking administrator there. And I ask you to please tone down the discussion (above). It's easier to get a resolution if we don't personalize things. Durova^Charge! 05:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I clarified my remarks. We've been waiting for the blocking admin, but he or she isn't eager to show up, it seems. Allison knows more about the status there than me. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I do wish he'd show up too. Would you like me to add my signature to the request at his user talk? Durova^Charge! 06:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I really think that one of the contributing factors to all this is that David was aware of the discussion and has been editing (I guess at least lightly), but hasn't stepped in and said anything. That's allowed things to fester. It could have nipped this in the bud. SirFozzie (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting point. Granted, the conflict didn't hit full speed until about 24 hours ago, and David appears to have no edits the past 24 hours. I really would like to hear his say on the matter, perhaps it will help resolve the conflict quicker. In either case, I'm glad that things are starting to calm down now. No need for anybody to get overexerted on the matter. Wizardman 06:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock and retire? Thoughts about P's own proposal

I have mixed feelings at this point. I'm inclined to think that Piperdown was inaccurately labeled a meatpuppet and thus the indefinite block on those grounds was unjustified at the time, though I do not impute bad faith on the part of those who advocated it. However, his comments at WR demonstrate that he's picked up the Sword of Great Justice against those he believes wronged him and is brandishing it in a terribly offensive way, and my chief concern is that he may not be willing (or able, at this point, given his WR history of attacks on editors) to beat it into a Plowshare of Civil Cooperation if allowed to return here. As I understand it, at WR he is offering a solution involving an unblock to clear him of the meatpuppet accusation, whereupon he will retire his account. This might actually be a relatively drama-free way to resolve the issue. He's also asking for some sort of action or inquiry against the editors involved in his banning, as I understand it, but I think that would be a counterproductive thing at this point and would not be in favor of his solution if he insisted on that part of it. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

He says "I never asked to be allowed to edit WP any more, folks. I'd like my account unbanned, all mentions of Wordbomb, Overstock, meat puppeting, sock puppeting, etc. removed from my user and talk pages, and the people who violated WP rules in that banning, and in the article skirmishes that led to it, be treated the same way as anyone else that violates WP rules as shown in diffs and checkuser evidence." I agree with him. He should never be "allowed to edit WP any more." This whole thing is moot, and any further time spent on this person would be wasted. And no, he deserves no ritual unblocking so that he can clean his "record." --Mantanmoreland (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning to how this thread originally began, I requested a neutral admin review the block. One has. Alison's well-considered opinion is explained above in great detail. She definitely took serious pains to back-up her opinion by examining the evidence and even ran a checkuser. I believe her proposal is reasonable and fair and look forward to its implementation which will end the unnecessary drama in this thread which followed. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Two cents from Jonathan

Virtually every comment Piperdown makes to other editors is snarky. They are unhappy right from the start:

• [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

The appearance is that this person was never intending to do anything besides stir up trouble. They have a rather obvious hatred of the project. Why do we want them here?

Piperdown is into naked short selling.

• [34] [35] [36]

Wordbomb is obsessed with naked short selling.

With all respect to Alison, I think this is possibly Wordbomb, or somebody doing his bidding. A determined puppetmaster can defeat checkuser. This account should not be unblocked, except by appeal to ArbCom, or upon approval of the blocking administrator. Jehochman ^Talk 06:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? If we decide that Piperdown is not in fact a sockpuppet, why do we need Arbcom approval (or David Gerard approval)? -Amarkov moo! 06:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Because you're not supposed to unblock without consensus or approval of the blocking administrator or ArbCom. There's no consensus to unblock here. However, the other two options that I mentioned are available. Jehochman ^Talk 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Where in the blocking policy does it say that? It doesn't, and for good reason. Relata refero (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I was once accused of being a sock or meatpuppet of Wordbomb by a once-respected contributor [37]. Like someone said above, anyone with an agenda can argue all day that someone is a meatpuppet if that editor, no matter how tenuously, appears to support the supposed agenda of an editor who is no longer allowed to edit in Wikipedia. It's unfair to Piperdown, especially since the admin who originally applied the block is purposefully keeping silent on why the block was applied. Piperdown's edits weren't perfect, but an idefinite block was way over the line. It's time for it to be lifted. If he doesn't follow the rules, well, we can deal with that. Somehow I think he's going to be watched rather closely based on some of the emotional comments I've seen by some of my esteemed colleagues above. Cla68 (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You asked for a neutral administrator to review the block. Jehochman is a neutral administrator. If, despite this, you feel you must continue to press your case, is it absolutely necessary to refer to SlimVirgin as a "once-respected contributor"? --Mantanmoreland (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cla makes a valid point. If he wants to come back and edit under this account, he's going to be watched like a hawk. I'm sure all of you who oppose the unblock would be paying attention to all his edits, and rightfully so. It's something to take into account, I think. Wizardman 06:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Noo. As soon as they step one inch out of line, I predict they will be blocked, and major drama will follow. Let's get the facts right first, then act. Jehochman ^Talk 06:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Major drama will follow? I dunno, it seems like there's consensus here that a re-block is certainly fine if he steps out of line again. I'd be surprised if it caused drama. Then again, I'm not often involved in controversial matters, I may be completely wrong. Wizardman 06:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The length of this thread suggests major drama. I've been at ground zero a few times. Please, let's try to avoid that. Jehochman ^Talk 06:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there was an unblock/reblock and drama started to boil, we could simply refer to this very thread. However, it may backfire and cause another similar topic. So you're actually probably right on this matter. I'm off for the night though, hopefully things will remain relatively calm around here while I'm away. Wizardman 06:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cla68, administrators should not engage in controversial use of tools, including both blocks and unblocks. If an admin blocked you without good evidence, I am sorry for that. With Piperdown, we should get everybody, or almost everybody, to agree before anybody starts using sysop tools. If this user is unblocked now, that will be a recipe for huge drama. Want an example? See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph. Jehochman ^Talk 06:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If anybody doesn't like the result here (no consensus, block remains in place), please lodge an appeal with ArbCom. The user can email arbcom-l directly to request a review. Jehochman ^Talk 06:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a misinterpretation, and way over the line. See above. Relata refero (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I skipped over a bit of the discussion above, and it turns out I shouldn't have done that. I have to agree with you now. If someone really wants Piperdown unblocked, then convince Arbcom to do it. -Amarkov moo! 07:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Until Alison weighs back in on her proposal, this isn't closed. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the answer is somewhere along the lines of "no". -Amarkov moo! 07:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And my own two cents (unfortunately American cents, which with the rapidly declining dollar don't buy much these days): Well, Piperdown has now done a very good job of undermining any prospects he may have had for getting un-banned, by going out of his way to cheese off the person who was trying to help him. This "validates" the decision to ban him, in the minds of opponents, though one ought to look also at the words and actions of "the other side" and inquire into whether incivility and bias are really found only among Wordbomb and "friends", and not in the clique that is up against them. But there's a lot of "cheesing off one's allies" all around, as seen by Crum's ill-conceived rape analogy managing to offend some of those on his own side. And, to risk being accused of once again beating my favorite dead horse, I find it amusing that some of the more fervent supporters of the concept that "one must never link to, quote from, or reference attack sites under any circumstances!" are the ones who are edit-warring in favor of adding such material this time. I guess "under any circumstances" has an exception for when you find it desirable. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And if I could add one more final thought to those well-said words...it wasn't just the support for the BADSITES censorship initiative that greatly damaged the credibility of the members of a small clique of editors, but also their support for helping protect a certain POV in the naked short selling article and protecting the bio of an obscure financial journalist who has a vocal opinion in the naked short selling debate. This support has included the defaming (like in the diff I provided above) and sometimes banning (Piperdown) of editors who have taken a contrary view or who have tried to introduce neutrality or tried to ensure that the rules were applied equally to everyone and every topic. Unfortunately, this thread shows that the issue still hasn't been laid to rest. Although many of the secrets and lies of this issue have been brought to light, there appears to be more to come until the entire, sordid episode is fully exposed. I think it would be to the project's benefit if it was sooner rather than later. Cla68 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's clarify something here, because the conspiracymongering and innuendo is a bit much. The "diff that you provided above," which is here did not "defame" you or anyone. It accurately and neutrally describes your active partisanship for banned user WordBomb, which was the reason why your RfA was unsuccessful. In that diff, it was discussed how you restored edits that had to be oversighted in the article of the "obscure financial journalist" who is WordBomb's, Piperdown's and your obsession. Working out your bad feelings concerning that RfA by calling SlimVirgin, who raised that point, a "once-respected contributor," as you did earlier, is just not acceptable. The "issue" as you put it, is not some deep dark conspiracy but constant efforts to stir up trouble by WordBomb and his partisans.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That diff has the infamous "based in the same state as WordBomb" accusation, which takes the concept of guilt by association to a Looney-Tune high that's never been equaled since. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It says that, and it also says, "I don't know what Cla's intentions were, but there's no question that he was repeating libelous and toxic claims made on Wordbomb's attack site and on Wikipedia Review." I think that is more representative of the statements made in that RfA. So I guess there is a defamation issue here, but not the one stated by Cla.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm based in the same state as the Wikimedia Foundation (at least until they complete their move to California), and some of the things I believe in and espouse sometimes coincide with ideas held by them; therefore, I'm a meatpuppet of theirs. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good! It is a fine organization and does a lot of good work. You should stop hanging out with the fruitcakes on Wiki Review and spend more time at the Foundation while you can.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My two cents are unblock per Alison. Blocks shouldn't be implemented without warnings, and especially not for expressing controversial opinions. Granted, some of Piperdown's comments on WR since then may have been particularly heinous, but Wikipedia has given people second chances before and if P resorts to such behavior on-site it would be easy enough to block again. Amerique^dialectics 16:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I might support a second chance if the editor provided an indication that they wanted one, and that they would work cooperatively. They have not done so yet, so an unblock would be premature, in my opinion. Second chances do sometime work, but we need to use them carefully. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether this counts as a second chance, or the fellow even got a first one. Relata refero (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, feel free to lodge an appeal with the Arbitration Committee, or better yet, Piperdown can email them directly. Several administrators are on record opposing the unblock, myself included. It does not seem like this thread has any chance whatsoever of resulting in an unblock. Jehochman ^Talk 17:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that if someone is blocked that a community ban now means not just that no admin will unblock them, but that the unblocking admin also has to find consensus? My understanding was that if an admin is willing to unblock, then that ends the community ban. I suspect this isn't fully resolved, but don't believe stopping the discussion on that basis is really correct. If he wants another chance to edit productively, or wants a different label on his talk page, I think we should do either. Mackan79 (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, please review the definition of an indefblock: a block that not one admin is willing to undo. I see several admins willing to undo the block here. You would have to take it to arbcom to desysop them, or undo them yourself and have arbcom investigate the wheel warring. Neither sensible approaches. (Please note that I really don't have an opinion on whether this chap will be a positive effect here afterwards.) Relata refero (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has become uncomfortable editing due largely to Wikipedia’s inability to address this situation, a thought: if NPA is going to be restored here, what we need is a return to neutral principles for what is acceptable on the encyclopedia. These should be straight-forward, like no personal attacks, no hinting at conflicts or personal identities, etc. Indeed, these basic rules seem to be what legitimately got Piperdown into trouble. Trying to say that this is somehow about meatpuppetry, on the other hand, or intemperate comments in another forum (I don’t know about others, but based on the various attacks he has endured here I cut him a fair bit of slack -- to the extent these comments can be relevant here whatsoever) only ends up violating the much more sensible principle that editors should stay away from this kind personalization. This would in my view be a much better way of dealing with this kind of thing. Mackan79 (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In discussing whether to unblock a user who engages in vile conduct off-site directly related to Wikipedia, when he is engaged in that conduct at the time his unblock is being considered, it's unrealistic to not take his vile conduct into consideration. In the case of Piperdown we're not talking about isolated events, but pretty much every word he has written off-site. His off-site comments are simply less restrained versions of the open contempt and "snarkiness" recorded by Jehochman. His Piperdown/1 attack page is filled with innuendo, personal attacks, and hinting at real identities and supposed conflicts of interest. It's unfortunate that his advocates here have, on one or two occasions, engaged in the same conduct. This kind of thing has gone on for a long time and I think that it really needs to be halted.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think our problem is that once you ban someone, it's not reasonable to expect them to respect Wikipedia customs and mores. Like them or not, snarkiness and innuendo are part of the real world. As such, I disagree; to raise the whole issue of whether someone's conduct offsite is "vile" is necessarily to invite a discussion that Wikipedia is much better off without. You're right that Piperdown/1 shows inappropriate comments, but if a person is willing to not make such comments, Wikipedia simply isn't in a position to block them based on discussions they are having somewhere else. All I have seen says it does a lot more harm than good. Mackan79 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only has Piperdown shown not the slight inclination to be "willing to not make such comments," but he feels such comments are jim-dandy and that the rest of the world is wrong and he is right. It was pointed out that he makes vicious sexist remarks. He reads that and responds by making even more vicious, more sexist remarks about an administrator who wanted to unblock him! It is impossible to ignore that kind of atrocious conduct in an unblock discussion.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be much better than making these kinds of characterizations about a person who is not allowed here to defend himself. Really, Wikipedia should aspire to more level headed discussions of what is allowed and what isn't. In that regard, if you'd like to present something he said offsite as a reason for banning him, I'll likely disagree for the reasons above. If it gets to the point where you have to characterize it as "vicious" and "vile," then I think we've lost something further -- including the basic principles behind NPA and BLP. I don't think it's necessary at all. Mackan79 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but he hasn't shown any interest in moderating his ways. That's the issue here. Please present evidence that he has. When you make a comment that is not factually accurate, don't berate people for pointing out that your comment was not only inaccurate, but conspicuously so. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't spoken to what he is willing to do. It looks at this point like he simply wants his name cleared, which I think is appropriate. My opinion is that when there never was an initial discussion of what he should have done differently, it's not reasonable to keep him blocked without finding out if he's willing to adjust (which would then include not editing). Mackan79 (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Walking in the footsteps of banned editors is never wise and almost inevitably leads to suspicions about meat puppetry and blocking. So the block appears completely warranted to many. Equally troubling has been the response of many of Piperdown's supporters here and their association with WR and its history of being a launching pad for organized disruption of Wikipedia. I'm seeing the same names here again and again that I've seen in other disruptions and unneccesary dramas. There's a level of disruptive factionalism going on around a certain set of editors who use Wikipedid to fan the flames of certain offsite campaigns against particular admins far, far more than they edit articles or contribute meaningfully to the project. That is what needs to stop. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are some names that come up again and again in the context of disruptive factionalism.... yours is one of them. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Or you could stop throwing all this backroom drama around and boring the uninitiated (such as myself) and focus on the block being discussed. Relata refero (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dan, ever hear of WP:CIVIL? Care to explain how your comment is not a trollish personal attack? FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Saying I'm bored by irrelevant discussions of other commenters' affiliations is a trollish personal attack now? A suggestion that we stay on-topic is hardly a personal attack, any more than Wizardman's warning below is. Neither is this. Discuss the block, please, or wait for David to come back and discuss it, which is what I would prefer. Relata refero (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was addressing Dan. But to your point, if a long running campaign is being conducted offsite to attack the administration of this site, and one is, then dicussing it on the administration pages of this site is not only useful, but necessary; hardly irrelevant. You're welcome to skip the comments that don't interest you, but don't expect others to act as if this is some isolated incident; it isn't. David Gerard was right when he said some years ago that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and letting a coordinated group game the system by hiding behind AGF is never going to fly. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Of course, as far as the uninvolved can see, there appear to be two coordinated groups demanding AGF, which is why the finger pointing is useless. AGF is not a suicide pact, but a circular firing squad is equally deadly. If we stick to the facts of an individual case, we are more likely to get things right than through guesswork and innuendo. This goes both ways. Relata refero (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

But one of the groups is well-connected with the ruling clique here, while the other isn't, which makes all the difference. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Aw, Dan, stop with the "ruling clique" stuff will you please? It's a tired and trite expression. Can't you substitute "Wikipedia Administrator Secret Conclave and Bowling Alley Wax Brigade" or something else more colorful?--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If my statement was a "trollish personal attack" then how come none of yours are? One ought to be reminded of adages about pots calling kettles black, or of sauce for the goose and the gander. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And we're nearing the realm in incivility and attacks again. Since it's kinda hidden above, I'll reiterate my warning, I'll block the next user to issue personal attacks in this section here on sight, they're doing more harm than good. Things are starting to get off-topic again though. I would like to see who still supports an unblock after some of the recent drama though, with Alison changing her mind and the like. A lot of smoke and mirrors too, no need for that either. Wizardman 18:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sidestepping all the accusations of incivility and heated comments: the basic rule is that administrative actions should not be undone without consensus. The user is not banned at this point. However, they are indefinitely blocked, and will remain so until one of the following is true:

1. The blocking administrator unblocks
2. There is a consensus here to unblock, which there isn't
3. ArbCom decides to unblock

Rather than arguing further, please lodge an appeal with the arbitration committee. Please, show respect for each other and for Wikipedia. Run your disputes through the proper processes. Endless debating on this noticeboard is not helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 19:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Blank and protect, or delete, userpage and talkpage?

From the thread above, my impression is that one of Piperdown's main goals at this point is to have his userpage and talkpage blanked, rather than to resume editing. Is there any reason not to go ahead and blank and protect, or delete, these pages? I certainly don't see that they are serving a substantive purpose at this point and perhaps through this simple step we could resolve the request avoid a need for further discussion, one way or the other, of this former editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Might as well, would be hard to make a case against that. Wizardman 18:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Other that sock and meat puppets benefit from having their tracks covered for them. I've seen far too many Charley McCarthyists over the years get away with a lot of disruption only because their tags removed from their account pages, both main and sock and months later admins not aware of the mindfield wade right and unblock etc. For this reason I don't support blanking at this time. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Blanking to remove mentions of being a sockpuppet is something I wouldn't mind seeing someone do. Piperdown's objective in a nutshell is to be removed from being associated from WordBomb and overstock, which I wouldn't mind seeing if the drama was discontinued. By no means do I want him on Wikipedia as an editor, but if he is going to leave, let him leave in peace so he doesn't back on and cause disruption because of the tags. — Save_Us † 18:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason on earth to delete his user page. As for blanking, it was blanked for some months and he unblanked it.[38]. In fact, he complained about it off-wiki. I agree with Felonious Monk that a blanking is not warranted. Let's stop being manipulated by this guy.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"removed from being associated from WordBomb and overstock" Reading his recent comments on WR, that is certainly not his intent. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What he's saying now is that he just wants to put a retired template on his page now. Might be reasonable. Would it make sense to have both an indefblock and retired template on one page though? Wizardman 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping him from putting a retired template on his page, as long as he doesn't take off any templates put there by administrators.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, I guess you missed the part where I'm the one who blanked his talk page in the first place. I guess you also missed the part where he also makes silly personal attacks about me on Wikipedia Review as well. I'm not letting him manipulating me in the least, but if he is going to leave, why not have him just leave and it be done with? Why drag on the drama? Why make this thread more unnessecarily longer than has to be? Continuing to keep the page tagged when the basis of the block is highly disputed to the point of legitimate editors wanting the block to be removed, then it's time to blank the page all together or tag it with a standard blocked template and let him leave already.

FeloniousMonk, consider what Mantanmoreland stated today as something Piperdown stated:

"...I'd like my account unbanned, all mentions of Wordbomb, Overstock, meat puppeting, sock puppeting, etc. removed from my user and talk page..."

Unblocking is one thing, which I highly don't recommend, but keeping it tagged is fanning flames. — Save_Us † 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It hadn't fanned the flames one bit in the many months that the indef block notice appeared on his page. I suggest that whether it remains or does not, his and his allies' efforts to start trouble will continue whenever they wish to do so. I think it is unrealistic to suggest that removing an indef block notice will somehow make everything right for this former user.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that would make everything alright. It would take a whole lot more than template removal to actually satisfy him. But the point is the tag isn't doing anything real valuable and keeping has no benefit but complaining from Piperdown. I'd remove a template if it stopped someone from complaining that much. — Save_Us † 19:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

He was complaining long before he was banned from Wikipedia. He was unhappy before he was banned. He was griping from day one. Nor do I think that it is our job to make a blocked editor "happy" or "uncomplaining," particularly when doing so is an impossibility, and he appears to thrive on complaining and being unhappy.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To hell if I want to make him happy, but uncomplaining (i.e. not causing disprution on Wikipedia), yes I want that. Why purposely upset someone who is leaving? Just let him leave. — Save_Us † 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) That is my point, actually. I would suggest that if he feels encouraged by anything done here, it will result in still more disruption. Therefore no, I would not extend to him any courtesies (per the comment below).--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, the comment below is Jehochman's. You say: I would not extend to him any courtesies (per the comment below), yet Jehochman says I support deleting the user's pages. We should try to extend courtesies like this to banned users. Emphasis mine. There appears there is a contradiction there. — Save_Us † 19:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I support deleting the user's pages. We should try to extend courtesies like this to banned users. We should not turn them into a public spectacle. There is an indefinite block in place. Any administrator who undoes that without going through proper channels would be risking their bit, so I do not think it is particularly important to keep the sock puppet templates in place. Perhaps en entry can be made on their talk page before deletion referencing this discussion so that future administrators will be able to look backwards and see what happened. Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he has a retired message on his main page now. Is at least this section resolved now? Wizardman 19:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that. User claims thats all they want. If that's so, I see no need to unblock, and there's no consensus anyway. I think we can be done here. Cool Hand Luke 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, and we should delete the subpage when we're done with it. Cool Hand Luke 19:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I don't think you should have, until a consensus was reached here on whether to use a "retired" template on the user page of a blocked editor who did not, in fact, retire. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

They're dropping an appeal, so to speak. We accord users a right to vanish anyhow, so why prolong the drama with obscenely petty arguments about whether it's wrong to write "retired"?

Let's get back to working on an encyclopedia, eh? Cool Hand Luke 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, what do you hope to accomplish by having a template reinstated to his userpage? The block is still in place, what more do you want? BTW, even Jimbo has granted a banned editor their last wish before they left (see User:MARMOT). I understand your involved in the dispute you had with this editor, but the tagging isn't nessecary at all to confirm his status here. — Save_Us † 20:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wow. Let's see.. every party got at least something they wanted out of this mess. He remains blocked, a retired template was added, we listened to both sides, etc. As far as I'm concerned this whole situation is closed. We weren't getting consensus on anything, what's now transpired is the best we're going to do. We'll all feel better if we drop this right now. Wizardman 20:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Looks like I missed the conclusion of this. Oh well. Piperdown kinda blew it, far as I'm concerned after he posted those comments about me. However, I'm certain he's not WordBomb and I'm pretty sure his block isn't valid. How and ever, that's all largely moot now, from what I can see here - Alison ^❤ 07:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Denial of speedy's by User:Jayron32

Can someone please review some of the speedy's denied by Jayron. There seems to be a large number of clear cut case's which as denied , I've listed 2 below

• Bear beer bowl doughnut listed as nonsense , would tend to agree
• Féile na nGael clear cut case of copyvio.

From article The competition hosts approximately 25,000 boys and girls each year with all 32 GAA counties represented along with teams from London GAA and Warwickshire GAA.

When the preliminary competition is completed in each county, the winning club then travels to the host county or Provincial councils where they are hosted by families and engage the host club in hurling, camogie and handball games. Since 1971 over 1 million boys and girls have participated in this great festival.

From website Each year some 25,000 boys and girls take part in this festival in all 32 counties. London and Warwickshire also participate in this festival. When the preliminary competition is completed in each county, the winning club then travels to the host county or province where they are hosted by families and engage the host club in hurling, camogie and handball games. Since 1971 over 1 million boys and girls have participated in this great festival.Gnevin (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'd agree on Féile na nGael, a copyvio doesn't need to be exactly literal in order to be a copyvio. But somebody is now taking care of it by rewriting, which is of course better than deletion. I've prod'ed the other, won't object to somebody else speedying. Jayron is formally right on that one; the "blatant nonsense" clause is rather narrow. Although a bit of IAR wouldn't have hurt here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Doesn't Copyvio have to be deleted from the history also, not just removed from the article? Gnevin (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Nah, not necessarily. We'd have a lot of work if we wanted to do that to all plagiarized revisions that get added here or there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok would just tidied up and removed the copyvio myself if I had of known that,Thanks you've been most helpful Gnevin (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If an article is a copyright violation from the very first revision, it should be deleted. (It's possible to rewrite in place, but one must rewrite from scratch. Using the prior content in any way creates a derivative work, which is still a copyright violation. The {{copyvio}} template directs rewrites to a new page where new articles can be started from scratch. This is the safest and the recommended way to do a rewrite.) If there is an earlier non-infringing version, it should be reverted. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Uncle G (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • While I agree with Jayron32 that speedy deletion of Féile na nGael was a close call, I have deleted the history revisions prior to the rewrite, just in case. I believe this solution meets the requirements Uncle G has set forth as well. Review welcome, as always. — Satori Son 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• I tend to be conservative at times in my speedy deletion assessments. I have speedy deleted plenty of articles, but the speedy deletion criteria are fairly narrowly defined. For example, I deny many A7 claims because A7 is specifically written for articles where no assertion of importance is claimed. Where an article asserts that "Megadynocorp is the industry leader in widget production in the East-Midlands region", well, that is a clear assertion of importance. It claims a place as an industry leader. Whether such statements amount to Wikipedia's definition of notability is debatable, which is why there is a forum in which to have that debate. A7 specificly exempts "notability" concerns as a reason for deletion, claims of importance are not the same as proof of notability. Likewise, the other criteria are specifically written as narrow as possible. G1, Patent Nonsense, the criteria that the Beer Pong Whatever game was tagged under, is specifically for gibberish or otherwise incoherant articles. The article was perfectly coherant. It was entirely in violation of WP:NFT, however, NFT is not a speedy deletion criteria. There are other venues to get articles deleted, and a denial of a speedy deletion IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A KEEP VOTE BY THE ADMIN. I am not saying that these articles are worth keeping at Wikipedia, however the speedy deletion process is not equiped to deal with them. Even apparent NFT articles could turn up sources at some point. As far as the copyvio criteria, I have always taken the idea of "blatant copyright" (and that is the word in G12, "blatant") to mean a straight cut-and-paste text job. If an article is paraphrased from another source, and such a paraphrase represents a questionable use of copyright, well, its the kind of thing that requires interpretation of the reader to say how close the text is or isn't to the source text. That doesn't sound blatant. Its open for interpretation, which again, is why we have places for said debates to go on. For me, that there are 2 other deletion processes in place, means that there is less harm in keeping a borderline case than deleting it. If its borderline, then having a discussion as to which side of the border it lies is appropriate... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Very well stated, Jayron. I've been doing a bit of CSD myself, and it's a lot tougher than it looks on the surface. Either the article's creator is going to blast your talkpage, or the article's nominator. It's better to err on the side of keeping with an explicit edit summary that says exactly why it's not speedy and exactly where the nominator should bring it. Keeper | 76 17:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bear beer bowl doughnut was tricky--I too almost deleted it as nonsense, but I decided to see if anyone else would do it. Borderline, and deleting or declining equally reasonable. An AfD would have given a quick snow delete, as an alternative. The question is more that if one admin explicitly declines, should another admin speedy it? I do not think so. DGG (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Strictly construed, I don't believe bear beer etc. was speedy-able except as an "IAR speedy" - it wasn't nonsense, it was just a clear violation of WP:NFT, which is currently not a speedy deletion criterion. I certainly wouldn't object to adding NFT (in some form) as a speedy criterion, as it's among the most common "wish I could speedy-tag this, but I'll prod it instead" circumstances I encounter when new-page patrolling. I assume it's been brought up before on WT:CSD, though. JavaTenor (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I should note that getting a new CSD is about as hard as teaching a fish to ride a bicycle some times; for example I proposed that non-notable products be added to the A7 criteria, and it was completely shot down. Thus we are left with the strange situation that a company's article can be deleted as A7, but products and services provided BY that company can't, and stick around for 5 days under PROD or AFD. Is it ideal, no, but for CSD to be legitimate it must be enforced as currently written. When the criteria change to include articles like the beer bear whatever article, you will find me speedy deleting faster than you can type "db", but until then, I am constrained by the criteria. And, per its own instruction, sometimes I ignore WP:IAR, where appropriate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've observed that many of the regular speedy nominators, and a number of the admins who handle CSD, take a somewhat expansive interpretation of the speedy criteria. Is this a good thing? Gimmetrow 00:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone who looks at my deleted contributions will see that I regularly deny speedies that other admins speedily delete anyway, on the very dubious criteira of A3, A7, and A1 for articles that do not meet that criteria. I'm insistent that anything that doesn't meet the strict critiera should go through PROD instead. The latest one is E-Lottery, and I asked A4T about it but he just archived it without comment. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know the policy on this?

A user wants his coaching discussion page deleted because he believes his IP could be discovered through it. What's the policy on this?

... please see and reply to this discussion.

The Transhumanist 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(posting here because it's not on your talk page) - The editor may still indeed be editing from a similar range, etc, and there may be enough information to geolocate them as a result. Personally, as it's a relatively trivial page, is in userspace, has only been edited my yourself and himself and if you're both in agreement, I then don'see a problem, especially as the editor has privacy concerns. It should fall under WP:CSD#U1 - Alison ^❤ 23:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(The above link redirects to my talk page). There are no IPs in the page's history, but one of the links on the page supposedly leads to an article that has an old IP of his in its history. Also, the coaching page may be relevant at the student's or the coach's next RfA. The Transhumanist 15:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Silly rabbit

User:Silly rabbit is presently behaving as a disruptive editor at Human rights and the United States. After lengthy dialogue, Silly rabbit has decided that my pov is not "normal" and that we may be approaching a permenent lack of consensus. What is meant is that Silly rabbit is no longer willing to discuss the article or work for consensus. Silly rabbit agreed to mediation, but has since been unwilling to participate. I percieve the reluctance to be pov-based. Silly rabbit (on my discussion page) today suggested that I outline my concerns here

Today Silly rabbit reverted a Capital Punishment block of text that had been challenged as violating WP:OR WP:SYN and WP:NPOV. The central contentious issue is if there are reliable sources that support allegations of human rights denial within the US. Editors insist that human rights are universal (which is true philosophically if not legally) and for this reason no sources are necessary. There likely is consensus as claimed (except for me) that reliable sources are not required because human rights are universal. They incorrectly state that I insist on limiting sources to US court decisions. While these would be excellent sources that I have encouraged, I would accept any reliable source. One that stated that universal human rights apply to the US would work. Anyway, enough about the content issues.

I have tried to make diffs, but cannot find any "radio buttons". The revert page history and the talk on Capital Punishment, and Silly rabbit's discussion page (including material deleted today) are relevant.

I claim that Silly rabbit has repeatedly violated policy, is engaged in disruptive behavior, and should be banned from that article for one day. Silly rabbit is an excellent editor that apparently does not believe that material challenged as OR can only be restored if a reliable source is provided. Hopefully some minimal administrative signal will persuade Silly rabbit to resume productive editing for this article. Raggz (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is at least the third time this month that Raggz has made a spurious complaint here. He falsely claimed that Luke0101 was editing without communicating,[39] then he told a bunch of outright lies about me.[40]

Raggz is a shameless liar and I'm astounded that he's still allowed to edit here. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DR is that-a-way. Please lleave the rethoric behind when you leave. Viridae^Talk 03:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, User:Silly rabbit is not disruptive and User:Sideshow Bob Roberts is correct in labeling Raggz's complaints as spurious. —Viriditas | Talk 10:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Silly rabbit and I have engaged in a productive dialogue (on my discussion page) that leads me to believe that we will soon commit to the WP:DR dispute process. I have a lot of respect for Silly rabbit and would not have been here if we were engaged in the WP:DR. Although Silly rabbit has yet to agree to use this process, I now believe that any further time and energy on the part of Administrators might be best conserved for other issues. There is a lot of frustration involved, I am likely responsible for some of this. We seem to be past the point where these frustrations are impeding progress for dispute resolution. Thank you for what has already been invested for reviewing our issues. Raggz (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre award giving pattern

Ok I just received a barnstar form user Brokenchicken who is new to the project, I usually don't accept awards from single-purpouse accounts based on past experience with sock-trolls, I tried to explain this to the user but he keeps readding it, he said that he is a student from Africa who is new to English and that this is somehow a request from a teacher, can somebody familiar with the various African dialects try to have a talk with him? I have tried to ask him nicelly not to add it but its 3:00 a.m. and I'm getting grouchy, I wouldn't call it harrassment (although it may be trolling coming from a sock of another user) but this is seriously getting ridiculous, has there ever been a presedent? - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I left what I hope is a clear and stern, yet gentle warning about continuing to give you the barnstar. If this does not stop him, he may be blocked for repeated disruption. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh: [41]. He doesn't appear to get it. I left another warning... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! sorry for that, I just couldn't do it, moral dilema, I didn't want to bite him, but he seriously makes it a bit hard with the persistence and all (maybe Jimbo can receive the award, he receives like ten of these per day so maybe he won't notice it ;-) 08:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caribbean H.Q. (talk • contribs)

No problem man. I have just directed him to leave it on his own talk page. For the record, I have NO IDEA what his motivation is. What teacher gives assignments like "Give a random user at Wikipedia a barnstar?" This dude is just WEIRD if you ask me. If he adds the award to his own talk page, then lets just let him be... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this will satisfy him: [42] --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Assigned to do a random act of kindness, maybe? Gimmetrow 08:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

He explained that it had something to do with my contribution in articles of countries outside the US [43], so the assigment may have something to do with Wiki's international scope? - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My hypothesis is that he's some kid who was caught vandalising Wikipedia by his teacher, and she, as a punishment, demanded that he do something positive instead of negative to make up for it. How does that sound? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Probable, he says that his teacher wants to see it on Monday, that gives me an idea... - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, "somebody familiar with the various African dialects"?!? Johnbod (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The guy said he was African, he couldn't understand English and was asking for help, what is so strange about that? do you have an idea of how many languages there are in Africa? - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Much too many for anyone to be familiar with even a fraction; but I'm glad to see we're now accepting them as languages, not "dialects", presumably of "African". Johnbod (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A dialect is a manner of speech charasteristic to a region or a group of people, every country has a wide variety of dialects, thus my sentence was correct, anyways you are making a storm in a glass of water. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he is, but I nevertheless suggest you abandon your ill-starred search for someone familiar with "the various African dialects". ;-) If he returns and insists on placing a barnstar on someone else's talk page (though he seems fine with leaving it on his own), tell him he can leave me one. Picaroon (t) 23:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept any and all awards from anyone. Like most members of my household I have an incurable weakness for shiny things. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have found that becoming an admin is an almost certain way of prompting a terminal decline in being awarded barnstars... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"fake move attack" comes back again

• (See Archive118 Please) This guy comes back again, he uses ip 63.215.28.110 to add fake information into Spike (MGM), thanks for giving a hand for this.123.193.12.44 (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User hasn't vandalized in 3 hours. I have issued a final warning. If you notice the user has come back and continues to vandalize, please report to WP:AIV. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So I hope you see archive118 again, I reported this attack at WP:AIV 8 times (from 2 December 2007 to 21 December 2007) , At the 8th time , some administrator told me to report here.

This guy comes back again today , he uses ip 64.24.84.3 to add information of a fake movie Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning into Barney Bear.123.193.12.44 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion is for deletion

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur (2nd nomination)

I've explained our dispute resolution processes at length to Trialsanderrors (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) three times, now, once in the discussion closure, and twice on my talk page. They were also outlined at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 25, by an editor that grasped them correctly and that not only wasn't even an administrator but that wasn't even an editor with an account. Full marks go to 81.104.39.63 (talk · contribs). Somone else please explain Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the differences between protection and deletion, The Wrong Version, and taking editing disputes to article talk pages, and how protection is involved in that, to Trialsanderrors, and re-close the wholly inappropriate AFD discussion once more. I'm obviously not getting through on my own. Uncle G (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Could you provide more background. I'd like to help out, but the AFD noted above, while his editorializing on said page seems a bit annoying, I don't see anything further. Could you provide additional difs, since this seems like a problem with some history. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • See the discussion at User talk:Uncle G#Bulbasaur closure. I'd appreciate the input of other administrators. I'm now up to five explanations of what our editing dispute resolution processes are. Ironically, I'm actually exemplifying the dispute resolution step of requesting outside editors to review and give input to a talk page discussion, the very processes for which I'm trying to point out, right here. Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Seems like there was wheel warring on multiple sides on this. IMO, Trialsanderrors should not have edited any closure for a discussion which they started. It would have been better to contact the closing admin. The problem stems from a DRV closure that Trialsanderrors closed as "Content discussion moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur (2nd nomination)". So this issue is a bit complicated, in that Uncle G's speedy closure of the AFD is going against Trialsanderrors' admin action of DRV closure (and Trialsanderrors' revert of the closure went against Uncle G's admin action of closing the AFD). There is no reason for either party to have reverted as many times as they did. However, it seems like the matter is settled for now. The discussion is closed, and it seems like Trialsanderrors is content with the state of things. On the originating issue put before DRV, I would comment that DRV does not seem to be the forum to handle something that wasn't ever party to a deletion discussion or accompanying admin action (and therefore, an AFD should not have been started to solve a content dispute for an article that wasn't being considered for deletion). Just my take on the matter. It looks like things are settled so I'm not sure there needs to be any further action on anyone's part.-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I reverted exactly once, and then came here to ask for third opinions. The other reversions were not mine. Uncle G (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• There was no wheel warring, although that term is ambiguous and annoying, but I'd agree with Uncle G that the nomination should have been closed (claims of procedural nominations notwithstanding) and that reverting his closure multiple times was absolutely the wrong step to take. ^Avruchtalk 19:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You might find that I did not ask Uncle G to reopen the discussion, solely to correct the closing statement. As I pointed out elsewhere, I routinely move discussions popping up on WP:DRV to the related deletion forums if no accusation of admin wrongdoing is involved, even if the possibility of deletion is remote. The point of the exercise is to establish a clear outcome that can be referred to in the future. The accusations in Uncle G's closing statement were therefore completely off the mark. I have no editorial interest in the article and therefore can't be "Forum Shopping", which requires that I look for a forum that creates an outcome that is favorable to me. I would have been perfectly happy with a snowball keep under the current situation, but Uncle G decided to fly off the handle instead. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think you were forum shopping. I think you nominated an article for deletion as part of your closing of the DRV, which was an error if an actual deletion was not being contemplated (aside from delete and redirect, which is license issues). The next error was reverting the closure in an attempt to either (a) reopen the discussion or (b) change the closing rationale to something that didn't criticize you. This is for two clear reasons: (1) You were the nominator, and not an uninvolved admin and (2) reversion of a non-NPA criticism of you in a closing rationale is ill-considered. Only your last edit left Uncle G's closing rationale, struck it out and replaced it with yours. The other reversions were reversions - i.e. reopening the AfD. ^Avruchtalk 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to continue to revert spurious closures when I nominate articles at AfD as a closer of DRV discussion, because I act as an admin, on behalf of the community, and not as an editor, because of an editorial opinion I hold, after I asked to closer to do it him/herself. Again, if there are question whether I'm qualified to close DRV discussions WP:RFC is the right forum, but as long as my overall competence is not in dispute, I will continue to enforce relisting decisions made at DRV, including my own. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

blpdispute tag being added to Amy L. Lansky

The anon editor User:200.104.203.106 has been repeatedly adding the {{blpdispute}} tag to this article. This is not a 3RR issue as the reverts did not all occur in a 24-hour period. However, the anon editor has added the tag repeatedly despite being warned by User:Dicklyon that this is not appropriate unless the editor states on the talk page what the dispute is about. The anon editor has not clearly stated what they think the unsourced biographical claims in the article are, but rather, has made personal attacks on the Amy L. Lansky talk page, and has acknowledged their own lack of NPOV in the same discussion. The last revision occurred after the anon user received a clear warning on their talk page. SparsityProblem (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I warned them one last time. They appear to at least be using the talk page. However, the continued use of the tag, given the disagreement with it, would be disruptive. If ANY tags get added to this article again, someone will block them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I did state the reasons on the talk page, and I apologize if my last comment was taken as a personal attack, but you'll have to agree that this article has issues. You may say it's just my opinion, but this article reads like blatant spam to me. We all know that homeopathy is controversial; and as with many other disciplines considered to be pseudoscientific, almost anyone can claim to be an expert on the field and get a reputation as such, so this is not just my opinion. Again, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but considering the lack of scientific evidence supporting homeopathy, how do we know this person is not a quack, or self-deluded? I really don't think this article meets the notability criteria. If you say the tag is inappropriate then, what is the procedure to follow in this situation? 200.104.203.106 (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote, and I quote, "Homeopathy sucks!!!". Now you wish to be taken seriously? Bstone (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) First recognize that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter if she's a quack or self-deluded, so long as we only republish what has been written in reliable sources, and add none of our own analysis. As for the tagging, firstly you shouldn't add tags that don't apply (the tag you've been adding is for articles that contain unsourced defamations of living persons). Secondly, you shouldn't be repeating an edit when multiple users have disagreed with you. The process to follow when someone reverts you is to list your grievances on the article's talk page, and file a request for comment if you fail to achieve a consensus. If you feel the article should be deleted, you create an account and open an articles for deletion discussion (or kindly ask a registered user to do this for you). If that's the case, you should provide a reasonable explanation as to how she fails the biographical notability guideline. Appearing to be promotional, or appearing to be written in a non-neutral point of view is not in and of itself a reason to delete an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Create Account

Hi, I'm not sure to be on the correct site? But I'm de:Benutzer:Widescreen on german Wikipedia. I tryed to create an account at en:wiki with the same name. User:Widescreen seems to be not reserved on any other user. But I can't create an account with that user name. On one try an advice appeared to contact an admin. Can you help me to crate an account with my uncreative username? Thx LOBSTERbrain ^® 22:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The username you want has been registered, it merely hasn't made any edits. The official way to make this request is through Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll try. LOBSTERbrain ^® 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy Proposal regarding admins

Before I create a subpage regarding this propsal, I would like to get a consensus from admins before proposing this to the wider Wikipedia community. Also posted at Village Pump

I was just thinking this morning, and I think we need to have an actual systems for admins, should they make several mistakes while they are admins (some admins I know inthe past in have made mistakes). I am therefore proposing a proposal, named Three Strikes and You're Out (Subpage will be created if admins support the proposal. Should an admin do a wrong action once, they would be given a first strike. Should they commit an offence again, they will receive a second strike. Should they yet again do a wrong action (or it even could be simply edit warring - to something such as using the tools to harrass others); they will recieve a third and final warning. Because of this they will be notified via their third warning that an RFA will open on them. Should they fail the RFA, their admin tools will be taken off them. However only strikes should be given by un-involved administrators or good-faith editors. If any strikes are found to be in bad-faith the strike should be discussed and removed in due course if found to be in bad-faith.

Opinions on the above? D.M.N. (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Go to WP:FIRED and see the talk page. Your best option is to revive WP:AMR. A large number of editors support it. —Viriditas | Talk 13:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We-e-e-e-e-ell, I think that the situation is that if there is sufficient support for the premise then you could form a policy proposal on that basis. You cannot simply gain sufficient support and say, "This is policy". There are other parties to consider, such as the Bureaucrats, and whether the current RfA process is robust enough to handle someone who is already a sysop, etc. If you gain traction for the suggestion then you can create a proposed policy page and throw that open to comment.

Kudo's for suggesting it at the Admins Noticeboard, though. I take it you have also suggested it at WP:Village pump (policy)? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, have done. I brought it here as many admins visit this page, and I would like input from many admins from this before creating a page. D.M.N. (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you expect administrators, who are currently appointed for life, to come forth in droves supporting your idea? Term limits are forced upon those who do not want them for the benefit of the community. There is no other way. People with power do not voluntarily give up that power. At least not on this planet. —Viriditas | Talk 13:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this idea anyway. We seem perfectly capable of removing administrators that are abusive. --Deskana (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I will assume you speak of the force used by arbcom. Term limits would place that force in the hands of the community at large; Some would argue that's where it belongs. Others will counter with, "Wikipedia is not a democracy." —Viriditas | Talk 14:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Admins are really the right people to take part in the discussion; you are likely only going to get those who are wishing to protect their interests. It would be extraordinarily difficult for a sysop to discuss the matter under the aegis of an "just an" editor. Since Admins are nominally an instrument of community wishes I would presume that most would simply await the result of the decision.

Contrarily, many of those non-admins taking part may fall under the shadow of having problems with one or more admins and will support any proposal which gives an opportunity to remove those that they consider are restricting them, rather than not benefiting the community. Not all of these, however, will necessarily be trolls or vandals, but simply self interested individuals. Resolving who is arguing with regard to improving the encyclopedia and those toward self interest will be extremely difficult (and even harder to weigh the argument - self interest may not be default reason to disregard an argument).

Obviously, the only way to test this is to run the experiment. However, first of all you need to set it up. Best of luck. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Proposals like this always flounder on the problem of who issues the warning/strike? Other admins? Anyone? Disaffected trolls who don't like the admin enforcing policy? As a community we can't decide on anything collectively without major drama and recrimination. This also falls on the premis that admins are perfect and can't be expected to make any mistakes. This doesn't work in real life and what admins need to be judged on is whether they learb from mistakes or keep repeating them. If the latter then RFC and RFAR follow. To give a clear example of why this doesn't wash think about my unbvlock of Davnel03 just after I got the tools. I ended up at the wrong end of an RFC over the action and under this system would undiubtedly have recieved a strike. Would this be fair I ask? Especially given what a solid and valuable contributor the reformed Davnel03 has turned out to be. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This idea is too black and white - why should an admin that does something just bad enough to get a strike 3 times be desysopped while one that does something not quite bad enough to get a strike 100 times doesn't? These things need to be decided on a case by case basis, as they are now, trying to set everything in stone won't work. --Tango (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This adds more drama than it solves in my opinion. Spartaz said it perfectly - who decides if a strike is issued? Seeing as some most won't just accept a strike from anybody, are we going to now have a category called Administrators open to receiving strikes as long as you have at least 150 mainspace edits, rollback, and no blocks, and....? Are we going to have a new type of RFC called an RFS (request for strike)?. And after three strikes and desysopping, then we'll have an RFRAARTSASTHP? (Request for Re-Adminship After Receiving Three Strikes^TM And Some Time Has Passed). This seems to be adding layers of democratic bureaucracy to an already overly-bureaucratic system. With Three Strikes^TM, it just smacks me as being a bit overcooked. (and not because I'm an admin, but because I'm a human who was never very good at baseball). Keeper | 76 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What does it take to even consider removing an admin? Multilpe AN/I reports followed by an RfC, then formal mediation, and finally, an arbitration case lasting a month involving only a select group of people discussing a very specific set of circumstances. Now compare that with a term limit that comes due once a year for a period of seven days giving the entire community a chance to comment. The result? Accountability and efficiency that isn't possible in the present system. And this is somehow more bureaucratic? How? —Viriditas | Talk 17:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your talking about term limits. I'm talking about Three Strikes^TM. We're not even talking about the same thing. I reread the proposal that is being discussed and I don't see that to include anything about term limits, but I see you introducing term limits in your first comment, which is not in the proposal. So, to sum up, we're talking about two different things. Cheers, Keeper | 76 17:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely you can address two ideas at once? —Viriditas | Talk 17:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely I can. In my post I was addressing the Three Strikes and made no mention of Term Limits. You responded to my comment with a comment about Term Limits and not Three Strikes. Can you address two ideas at once? Keeper | 76 17:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I often address four or more. —Viriditas | Talk 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! You've made me laugh out loud. Right now, I'm chewing gum, typing, reading, listening to the radio and juggling flaming knives. Beat that. Keeper | 76 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Term limits have been suggested before and have been rejected as completely unworkable. Just take a look at Special:Statistics, take the number of admins, divide by 52 and you'll see the problem (even if you only look at active admins, it's still a very big number). --Tango (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

How many of the 1,478 admins are active? If "term limits" consist of yearly evaluations, you're talking about four reviews a day. AfD is workable, and I note 130 nominations today alone. —Viriditas | Talk 23:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I've added a bit to the proposal that I hope addresses some of the concerns. D.M.N. (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My other concern is that - even under the best of circumstances - mistakes happen. Doctors make mistakes, lawyers make mistakes, construction workers make mistakes, and admins make mistakes. Many admins deal with - literally - THOUSANDS of administrative actions a month. Mistakes are going to happen, particularly with that high volume. Under your proposed system, how would you deal with legitimate mistakes versus actions taken with malice? How do you prove malice? Who judges them? I'm open to admin accountability, but I am not open to a system that runs off some of our very best contributors because they happen to make more edits than others and thus have a higher propensity for a RAW number of mistakes (which may actually be a much lower ratio of mistakes to administrative actions). - Philippe | Talk 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We aren't talking about simple mistakes. We are talking about the Jayant Patels and the Jerome Kerviels. —Viriditas | Talk 17:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat part of my concern: who acts as judge and jury? Don't we already have ARBCOM in place to take action when the mistakes rise to the level that they become significantly damaging to the encyclopedia? Also, how do we define when something is "bad enough" to count as a strike? I'm sorry, I know I'll be painted as obstructionist and ... evidently ... unwilling to give up "power" (clearly, anyone who think of admining as power has never spent two hours at CSD), but this process will do more damage than good. We have RfC and ARBCOM. I believe them sufficient. - Philippe | Talk 17:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I don't mean like penalising people for accidents (for instance a recent example with deleting the main page), but other admins who are unwilling to accept their actions, and will in turn face the consequences. If an admin is willing to apologise no need for a strike. Things that I'm on about is for instance:

1. Protecting a page, then using the protection to edit it themselves.
2. Edit-warring on controversial subjects
3. Threatening behaviour towards others (personal attacks)
4. Blocking others without a viable reason
5. Deleting pages without a consensus.

Don't forget this is a proposal. I am happy for the proposal to be edited, changed in one way or another - hence why I set up for discussion before creating a page. D.M.N. (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Too many variables. Too much subjectivity.

1. Who decides if a protection was warranted in the first place?

Now that's what I mean. If an admin protected a page without discussion, and proceeded to edit it, would have a strike struck. D.M.N. (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Who decides what is a "controversial subject?" What if I edit war on Watermelon?

This page is what decides what a controversial topic is. D.M.N. (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Who decides what is "Threatening behavior?". We all have different skin depths.
2. What is a viable reason for blocking? Who decides "viable"?
3. Don't we have DRV for this? What about speedies where consensus isn't even a part of the equation?

Just my thoughts. Good work D.M.N. Keeper | 76 17:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Every single instance that you set up can be dealt with through RfC and ARBCOM. Why another process? I'm not opposed to process, but I am opposed to process when we already have one that's set up. And frankly, if admins are blocking others without a viable reason, I don't want a three-strike system, I want ARBCOM involved. I appreciate that you set up a discussion page for your proposal, but my input is that the proposal isn't needed. If the community wants "term limits", that's okay by me - though I caution people that term limits have the end result of driving talented and experienced people out (by definition), but I think back dooring it isn't appropriate. Keeping up a list of "strikes" for minor things is inappropriate. Keeping a list of strikes for major things doesn't do the jobs, because ARBCOM generally acts very quickly with major admin issues. No one has demonstrated a need for another process to me. - Philippe | Talk 17:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Three strikes, in my opinion, is a silly idea, but I applaud D.M.N for having the courage to discuss it. Sports metaphors just aren't going to go over well in a place like this. Know your audience, my friend. —Viriditas | Talk 17:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

3 strikes and term limits are both silly ideas IMO. 3 strikes will have all the same problems as 3RR and even more. Most policies are somewhat vague for a good reason. Really exclusive rules tends to lead to rules lawyering, loopholes, and bureaucracy. As for the suggestions of what would be a strike:

1. I always add the protection template after I protect the page. Could someone who doesn't like me give me a strike?
2. Edit warring is not an administrative action. Sanctions for this should be restricted to editing restrictions.
3. Some people consider a threat of a block to be an "attack." Can I get a strike for that? And you don't need admin tools to be able to make a personal attack.
4. "Viable" is far too subjective. What if we block, request a review here, and it is found to not be viable? Do we get a strike even though we asked for review?
5. Ever? What about situations where no one would actually contest it? Could someone who doesn't like me just contest it so I could get a strike?

If you make admin removal too easy, no admin will be willing to do anything in a controversial area and admins would be going through unnecessary process for fear of getting a strike for exercising a little bit of discretion. Term limits would have the same effect. Mr.Z-man 19:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing admins should be as easy as creating them. Term limits, as I would like to see it, would be more of an annual community review based on discussion. —Viriditas | Talk 23:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So if I piss off one person with 20 friends I should lose my adminship? That would probably be enough to fail most RFAs. Mr.Z-man 02:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact it is not, as discussion has more weight than votes. When someone brings a personal dispute to an RfA, RfC, ArbCom, or even an AfD, it's usually recognized immediately and the person is encouraged to put up or shut up. Wikipedians aren't stupid. The Gracenotes RfA could be seen as an example of this, so regardless of admin reform, the threat exists. It's a non-issue in relation to this proposal. —Viriditas | Talk 10:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Um... isn't the proposed policy page the place to be debating this, folks? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Realisticly, looking at it now, I cannot see it working because of the above comments from other users. However, should I create the proposed page, simply for historical interest? D.M.N. (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • • • Why not create such a page in your userspace, invite those that have contributed here (and copy over the comments above and below) to add their thoughts and work on it a bit? Perhaps later you could put it up at Wikipedia as a discussion document or an essay, depending on how things come out? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Done. D.M.N. (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It would duplicate WP:AMR. Go to that talk page and make your proposal. —Viriditas | Talk 23:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, the term limits idea would. But there's something else between "3 strikes" and "term limits." If I'm repeating somebody else's proposal of long ago, please forgive-- that's the nature of these things, and fixing it is actually part of what I suggest: Basically, an Administrator/Sysop Rap Sheet (WP:SRS). Basically, it's a page which every administrator is forced to keep (not just a TALK page where everything goes) which has ONLY negative comments about that admin, and his/her rebuttals. Keep the barnstars someplace else: what we want to know are the complaints, arrests, convictions, high crimes and misdemeaners. Everybody gets to add, nobody gets to (sustantively) subtract. I see no reason why the Admin can't add defenses, but there should be a rule about deleting complaints. Then, any time somebody has a problem with said Admin, it's easy for them to look them up to see if a bunch of other people have had the same problem. A LOT easier than fishing around for old ANI complaints.

        Now, we do this for citizens and that's why cops have computers in their cars. Somebody noted that doctors make mistakes. Well, that's why there's a national database for hospital complaints and malpractice suits against physicians. And so on. Cops themselves have personnel files, and you can bet that those who screw up in the same way more than a few times, end up as P.I.'s in Nevada or something. Why should administrators not have the same privileges and responsibilities as anybody else doing a responsible job which requires care? SBHarris 02:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Mistake" is highly subjective. Under the above 3-strikes-your-out proposal, would any DRV that overturned a closure be proof of a mistake on the part of the closing admin? Admins might start avoiding tricky areas out of fear of getting desysopped. Proving a mistake and handling the admin would duplicate the processes already in place: blocking policy, community ban policy, admin recall, and RfC/Arbcom. Or we could expand AfD to include "Admins".  :) The Transhumanist 07:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest, for accountability purposes, that when an Admin is mentioned as at fault in an Arbitration preceeding, e.g. LessHeard vanU at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph/Proposed_decision#Discussion_by_Arbitrators, that is be recorded somewhere besides an obscure arbitration page that the Admin is free to ignore. Mattisse 16:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please can you direct any further discussion to this page (under the Discussion tab) in my userspace. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

AfC

Resolved

Please could someone who is familiar with the wp:AFC page come and help me because it is malfunctioning. For some reason, everything displays correctly on the Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today page. However there is a problem on the main Wikipedia:Articles for creation page, in that not all the entries are being displayed.

In addition the bot that normally archives these requests daily did not work yesterday. I'm guessing it's related. If someone could sort this out it would be appreciated! MSGJ (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've made some progress, but there are still a couple of requests which won't display. Dalibor Veselinović and Vojo Ubiparip. MSGJ (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, working again. The problem seemed to be that some noinclude tags had lost their partners! MSGJ (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work, looks fixed. :-) delldot talk 14:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U is disputed.

Please see WP:VPP#WP:RFC/U - time to get rid of it?. Will ^(talk) 18:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:172.129.149.184 -- Help needed

Can someone help me speedy delete the bogus subpages this IP made? bibliomaniac15 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think IP's were allowed to create pages? D.M.N. (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not an IP, his/her username is their IP. They are all deleted now. Woody (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) They aren't allowed to create pages in the main namespace. They are in other namespaces. --Hut 8.5 21:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 31 hours for vandalism. The pages have been deleted now. bibliomaniac15 21:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BusinessWeek's Terms of Use

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – See Mike Godwin's comment below

I know this is not an admin related thing, but there is no other page where fruitful discussion can be achieved. There are some notes in the blogsphere (particularly, this one) informing that BusinessWeek not only does not allow deep linking, but that they also enforce it. Since we have around 2828 links that would breach their terms of use (businessweek.com/copyrt.htm), it appears as if we will have to remove them all. Of course, it cannot be automated, as some are being used as references and would have to be replaced. I am wondering whether there is a way of ignoring their terms of use to keep the links or, if it is not possible, to begin working on the removal. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We should not remove links. What legal precedent there is generally shows deep linking to be legal. BusinessWeek don't have a case, we should not be bullied into compromising the quality of the encyclopedia. I am of course not a lawyer. At most we should ask the Foundation's legal team to weigh in on this before acting precipitously. Gwernol 23:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"generally shows deep linking to be legal...I am of course not a lawyer." Um, not always. Anyhow, I don't think we should worry about this until they send us such notice, and then it's a question for our counsel. Cool Hand Luke 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we would be bullied, and neither think it is a boycott. But if there are no precedents on this, I think we should avoid future problems. From what I see, and without legal precedents that I know of, it is like pointing to a page that requires registration, and providing a username and password to access it, which violates their terms of use. And I don't like this "let's wait until they sue us", as it is the most common excuse fair use advocates use. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously with any legal issue it is the Foundation legal counsel that needs to get involved in determining what the legal rights and wrongs are, but I personally hope their decision is to fight back against such idiotic (and almost certainly not legally enforceable) link policies, and keep the links and dare them to sue us. A court decision against BusinessWeek would be a good precedent for all deep-linkers everywhere. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're building an encyclopedia, not fighting for deeplinkers everywhere. Deeplinking does not effect WP:V, so if our counsel chose not to divert resources to this, it would be a sound decision. Cool Hand Luke 00:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Dan. The fight for free-linking should begin with Wikipedia. Amerique^dialectics 00:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a question - has anyone talked with BusinessWeek and confirmed that this is true? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Amerique, BusinessWeek and their crusade on deep linking would be the least of Wikipedia's problems. — Save_Us † 00:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hardly expect WP to "take point" on copyright issues in any but the most regressive manner. Still, internet controversies have a habit of affecting us. remember the AACS encryption key controversy? Amerique^dialectics 01:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I expect Wikipedia to view its mission as building an encyclopedia and other user-generated free content. I didn't sign up for an advocacy group, and I'm sure a lot of contributers didn't give their money in defense of deeplinkers.

In fact, we don't think that the fight begins with us. Take a look at the history of Fortune 1000 if you don't believe me. Our job is to build an encyclopedia, not fight for some broad conception of internet rights. Wikipedia is not EFF. Cool Hand Luke 02:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Honestly, a policy against deep linking sounds like a cash grab to me. (Advertisers pay way more for "front-page" ads than for article ads.) It also sounds to me like it has little legal basis -- as far as I'm aware, hyperlinks are considered the content of the host site and not of the target site, so there's little the target site can do about it. Sure, they can whine about it, but when push comes to shove, you can't tell someone they can't reference something that's publicly available. If the links were workarounds for some sort of payment or service, that'd be a different question, but links on Wikipedia are the legal domain of Wikipedia, not of their targets. - Revolving Bugbear 01:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If they really wanted to, they could block refers. That's why it's strange they would use notice—self-help is likely much more effective. But honestly, deeplinking's interplay with copyright is not clear. Cool Hand Luke 01:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, you can continue working the way you are. However, the same way we have our own terms of use (like not hotlinking our images), they have theirs, and if they can enforce them, we should not "wait until it happens". Sites like Famitsu block forum referrals, for example. I would advice to bypass BusinessWeek articles for now, finding a second reference (eWeek usually post full computer-related articles from BusinessWeek, and I guess other outlets mirror them as well) if possible. If not, continue using it, but try to minimize whenever possible, at least until this is clear. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You can use an article on BusinessWeek as a reference without linking it! If we decide not to link to BusinessWeek, there's no reason to remove any references; all that's required is not having a hot link. - Nunh-huh 03:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is absolutely no reason to remove the link, but there are a few lawyers around you could ask if you want a better opinion. BD2412 and Eastlaw would both be good picks. But removing the links would be disruptive at this point. Prodego ^talk 02:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, asking lawyers would be the reasonable option. And I didn't say we must start removing links now, but instead try to use alternative sources until this is clarified. And if necessary, to plan on replacing the links (or as Nunh-huh says, replacing the {{cite web}} for {{cite journal}}, for example. I will ask some others (I can't remember the name of our legal counsel after User:BradPatrick, and have problems posting, must connect to job's computer to post since I cannot access Wikipedia from home for some reason). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, Mike Godwin is the one. I will mail him, and leave notes in some talk pages to get some more feedback about whether that makes sense or not. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may interject here -- I am an attorney in New Jersey (although I must admit, I am a relatively new lawyer). I am not terribly familiar with this area of the law, and I am not sure what binding precedent exists on this point in the State of Florida, where the Wikimedia Foundation is based. I think there may be a possibility that BusinessWeek's policy against deep-linking may be enforceable through contract law (i.e., you agree to their terms of use when you access their site), but even this is pure speculation on my part. As far as copyright issues are concerned, I'm not entirely sure if there is a copyright issue here, because we are doing nothing to infringe on their actual copyright (i.e. we are not copying or redistributing their materials).

As User:CoolHandLuke mentioned, BusinessWeek could configure their server to prevent such deep-linking, so they could enforce their policy without resorting to legal action. The fact that they have failed to exercise such rights could lead to an affirmative defense for the Wikimedia foundation of estoppel or acquiescence -- in other words, because BusinessWeek failed to fully protect themselves, they might be estopped from taking action against a deep-linking user because they could have solved the problem without resorting to the courts.

I would be interested to hear what other lawyers here, such as BD2412 and Postdlf have to say about this. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So far as I know, the only case that has directly addressed the issue of "deep linking" (Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6483 (C.D. Cal. 2003) came out on the side of it not being a copyright violation. However, the linking at issue in that case was to pages with information about concerts, said information not being copyrightable by itself. However, in reaching its conclusion, the court said, "A URL is simply an address, open to the public, like the street address of a building, which, if known, can enable the user to reach the building. There is nothing sufficiently original to make the URL a copyrightable item, especially the way it is used. There appear to be no cases holding the URLs to be subject to copyright. On principle, they should not be". The court also held that the deep linking involved in that case did not compromise the plaintiff's exclusive right to "show" its work, because the work was still being "shown" on plaintiff's own webpage, and (this is key for us, I think) because defendant did not endeavor to "frame" plaintiff's materials within the appearance of defendant's own page. Since all of our links are just straight links taking users out of our cite entirely, and to the other party's website, I think we are in the clear on that. bd2412 T 05:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no consideration for a contract. The Terms of Use are only enforceable through suspension of access. MilesAgain (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Moot point - even if there was, a breach of contract action would run against the person who accessed the site, not against Wikipedia. Since an editor gives up control of information once it has been posted here, and since BusinessWeek holds those decidedly non-copyrightable URLs open to the public, there is really no way BusinessWeek could force Wikipedia to remove the links. At most, BusinessWeek could change the page locations or means of access so as to make the current links inaccessible, but I think that would be as much of a pain for them as for us. bd2412 T 05:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Our disclaimer reads Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws; and cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws, should you link to this domain or use, reproduce, or republish the information contained herein. Wouldn't we be seen as "encouraging" the action? From what you say, it appears they can prevent outsiders to go to these pages directly only by technical means, not litigation, which is what I was interested in knowing. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be that difficult: they could just block or require registration for every request that has Wikipedia as a referer. The fact that they haven't done this suggests to me that its not a problem; that we should wait until they actually ask us (if they do). If it ever does become a problem, it's not a big deal to drop the hotlink. URLs are not required for WP:V.

Yeah, Wikimedia probably has CDA sec. 220 immunity for all of this, but our policy can't favor illegality. And there are several cases about deeplinking in the US and worldwide, especially in Europe where it's possibly illegal under the Database Protection Directive. There's no consensus, but contributory infringement in the US is not totally impossible. Cool Hand Luke 08:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So far as I know, there is no copyright issue associated with deeplinking to a BusinessWeek article. BusinessWeek has not complained to us, so far as I know. They'd contact us before filing a lawsuit. They can also enforce a prohibition on deeplinking through technical measures. Whether they do this is out of our hands. I wouldn't lose sleep over this issue -- it doesn't seem to be generating a problem for WP. MikeGodwin (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block log analysis proposal

A proposal to analyse the block logs can be seen here. Comments and suggestions are invited. Carcharoth (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Block review

Could someone take a look at User talk:Podcito with regards to the unblock request posted there? I tried to be nice with a short block initially, but the editor continued to make personal attacks on its talk page, and it definitely suggests that despite four decent edits six months ago it's kind of gone all /b/ tonight, so I indeffed as a vandal-only account. There are still some PAs being flung about on the page, so I figured I'd bring it up here. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not worth giving the time of day. Good block. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Hut 8.5 10:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR request

I was going to block PIO (talk · contribs) for WP:3RR but thought it might be a WP:COI. They have been adding in text to Association football (history). They have been reverted by three different editors and warned on their talkpage. Could someone review please. Woody (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Have now blocked after repeated edits. Can't see it being contentious, but request review. Woody (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

PIO has requested an unblock. D.M.N. (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed and commented on his talkpage. I will defer to the reviewing admin given that he believes I have a COI. Woody (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Woody - you should not have blocked this editor. You have a conflict of interest as you are involved in the edit war. That said. I'm seeing no evidence of discussion by the user and they did break the 3RR. I'm going to void your block and institute my own. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

At some point, it isn't a content dispute as much as it is an issue over the English language. I reviewed his edits for the last two weeks and he has been adding the same unintelligible content to soccer articles repeatedly. I'm sure it's in good faith, but the fact is that all of the good faith in the world doesn't change "Australian rules football is national and most popular sport for many source" into good English. If an editor persists in adding indisputably bad content, there's nothing wrong with an admin doing something about it. --B (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for sysops for Khmer Wikipedia!

Helo! Now Khmer wikipedia has no khmer admins(sysops). There are 2 sysops on Khmer Wikipedia but they had no any actions on it. They are not Khmer, So I am Khmer. Now Khmer wikipedia has vandalized by some people. We can't stop these action. So we ask for Khmer sysops to protect Khmer wikipedia from any destroying.

My account on Khmer wikipedia is User:តឹក ប៊ុនលី.

Best Regard! —Preceding unsigned comment added by តឹក ប៊ុនលី (talk • contribs) 13:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please go to Requests for permissions and request temporary access, we aren't able to do anything for you here. Sorry. MER-C 13:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an open vandalism report at meta found here. Woody (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)