Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and Fleet tracking: Difference between pages

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
WeblogBiz (talk | contribs)
40 edits
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Fleet tracking can be defined as tracking a fleet of vehicles in real-time using GPS technology, which helps assign the right job to the right vehicle in the right location at the right time.
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 162
|algo = old(48h)
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}
<!--


Knowing where your fleet of vehicles are, where they have been, and where they should be allows a business to reap the maximum benefits of the resources available at a given time, ultimately improving the response to growing customer demands, saving energy and time; the correct mix for a greener business.
----------------------------------------------------------
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
----------------------------------------------------------


-->
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude>


=== Fleet Management ===
== Wilhelmina Will's DYK topic ban ==


Management of a company's [[vehicle fleet]] is undoubtedly a major part of mobile resource management. In March of 2008, the [[Aberdeen Group]] published a study on how [[fleet management]] impacts both small and large businesses. In this report, entitled ''Improving Productivity and Profitability through Service Fleet Management''<ref name="ref1">[http://www.aberdeen.com/summary/report/sector_insights/5006-SI-service-fleets-gps.asp http://www.aberdeen.com/summary/report/sector_insights/5006-SI-service-fleets-gps.asp]</ref> businesses were grouped together based on the size of their fleet:
{{resolved|The community's concerns have been allayed and the topic ban is lifted. Further discussion of the ban itself is not necessary here. Since Wilhelmina has thousands of articles to create before requesting anything such as tools, etc. enough time will pass that this topic ban will be irrelevant. Nonetheless, discussion of these issues is underway in another forum in Abd's userspace. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 07:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)}}
It seems only a short time ago that we were discussing it, but the issue of {{user|Wilhelmina Will}} has to be raised again. The background to this is that {{user|Blechnic}} called for this ban based on discovered copyright violations, the worsening of articles to make them meet the requirements of DYK, etc. Accordingly a discussion was held [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive457#Editor_Wilhelmina_Will.27s_no_holds_barred_DYK_race_--_I_propose_a_temporary_ban_for_her here].<br/>
When Wilhelmina appeared to ignore the ban, it came up again [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive458#User:Wilhelmina_Will_and_request_for_enforcement_of_community_ban], where I realised that, since WW refused to engage the community at the noticeboard, to assume good faith would be to assume that she hadn't noticed. I thus notified her, and closed the request, despite some protestations by Blechnic on my talk.<br/>
This led Abd to regard me as the "responsible party" for the ban - I accepted that I had effectively closed the discussion, and thus could be regarded as "responsible", which I did principally to give Abd a point of contact since he seems to have styled himself as WW's advocate in these matters (see her talk page and archives, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive459#User:Wilhelmina_Will_and_User:Abd.27s_advice_on_how_she_can_skirt_her_DYK_topic_ban here] for examples). Subsequently, Abd has decided that the community consensus was illegitimate because the evidence the community used did not exist. He consequently believes that ''I'' should overturn the topic ban. Now despite my naturally high opinion of myself [/sarcasm] I felt that I can't undo what I believe was the will of the community. I therefore invite another admin to check whether my judgement of community consensus at the first discussion was correct, although some editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive459#User:Wilhelmina_Will_and_User:Abd.27s_advice_on_how_she_can_skirt_her_DYK_topic_ban here] seemed to agree.<br />
Furthermore, there is the question of when the topic ban may be overturned. I believe the consensus was along the lines of ''There exists a DYK ban for Wilhelmina at least until she tells us she understands and is willing to abide by copyvio rules and stop treating DYK medals as an end in themselves''. I have invited, on her talkpage and through Abd for her to give me such an assurance that I could bring to the community and say "there it is", but no such assurance has yet to be received.
I defer re-assessment of my closing arguments to other admins, and the latter question (once again) to the community at large, since my judgement has been repeatedly called into question on my talkpage, and for all I know, I may very well be wrong. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 08:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
:From a review of the above, I would suggest that a topic ban consensus was very apparent and that the subsequent discussion was properly closed once Wilhelmina Will had been advised of the ban and invited to participate in the discussion of its implementation. I feel the argument that the ban is invalid because there is no determined time period is hollow; the editor is topic banned until such time the editor engages with the community with regard to the concerns raised - at that point the appropriate period (if any) before the editor can be allowed to contribute to DYK nominations can be determined. It appears that Abd's conclusions and requests are driven by considerations other than policy interpretation and application of the communities consensus, and are not shared by the majority. I see no reason to vary the sanctions on Wilhelmina Will's account until such time as Wilhemina Will starts a dialogue with those who have expressed concerns regarding her editing. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 09:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
::Agree with LHvU - until and unless Wilhelmina Will makes an assurance the poor behaviour will cease (even accepting the behaviour WAS poor would be a start), the topic ban must remain. [[User:Neil|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B></u>]] [[User_talk:Neil|<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936"><big><big><span class="Unicode">☄</span></big></big></u>]] 10:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
:::In fairness to Abd, he appears to now be contending that the consensus was flawed, and thus my close showed a "lack of wisdom" (or words to that effect) because there '''was''' no problem to begin with. He says that there is no evidence of copyvios and so the topic ban is an error that I should not have made. I'd paste the discussion over here, but it's pretty lengthy - it's at the bottom of my talk page. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 10:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
::::His is, and was then, a singular viewpoint. A lot of people apparently reviewed the evidence and concluded there was a problem. You did not make a decision, you enacted one made by the community. Perhaps Abd might consider that when they are the singular voice against the majority, then it may be them who is wrong. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 10:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::That would be true if I were a singular voice. I'm not. I've written an extensive response, but it is sitting on another computer. This topic ban would not be sustained through an RfC or ArbComm review, I'm certain of that. What has happened is that a lot of editors did not review the evidence and came to a conclusion based on an assumption that the charges were true, and they !voted in that line, some actually stated, "if the charges are true, then a topic ban is appropriate," and I will, in a full comment, provide diffs. Fritzpoll, however, has not fairly presented my argument, though I believe it was his intention to do so. To date, no significant evidence, enough to justify a ban, has been presented for a topic ban. Therefore Fritzpoll has made a closure decision without reviewing the evidence, but, apparently, based on his own opinion outside of what was presented in the discussion, but not only without expressing that evidence, but also not expressing it later, when questioned about it (specifically, about the copyvio charges which he stated were central). He was therefore not a neutral administrator, one more flaw in this affair. At this point there is enough evidence -- but not presented here yet -- for a neutral administrator to reverse the decision, perhaps also sending it back to that community (AN/I) for review; though I would contend that this was the wrong forum in the first place for dispute resolution. AN and AN/I are not part of [[W:DR]], which corresponds to a legal system, whereas AN/I is like calling 911. 911 makes immediate decisions for the protection of the project, but not binding or lasting ones, in the presence of significant disagreement. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::As I indicated on my talkpage to you, I based the closing decision both on the consensus of the community ''and'' the AN/I discussion (that I have not linked here) which dealt with her copyvios and introduction of inaccurate material. You are being disingenuous in saying that I acted in a non-neutral fashion when I have already described to you how my decision was reached, and in saying that I have not responded to your request for information, which I did on my talkpage. I also invited you to ask another administrator to "close" the discussion, on the presumption that, if they disagreed, the topic ban could be overturned. I asked you to supply the proof to back up your statement that she had clearly learned her lesson, so that I could propose overturning the topic ban. I asked you to get WW to talk to me so that I could propose overturning the topic ban. Instead you decide to attack my position by disputing my neutrality or helpfulness in this matter - I have not vested interest in WW being banned from DYK (hardly an overbearing restriction in itself), and certainly not indefinitely. Perhaps you need to choose your words with greater care? [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 10:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Once again, Fritzpoll has failed, apparently, to understand the basis of the problem. Yes, Fritzpoll has "described" the basis of his ban. He based in on two charges. I have a detailed response at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAbd&diff=231236342&oldid=231193691]. What you call, below, "the facts of his argument," have not been presented by you, or anyone at AN or AN/I, ''ever.'' My argument is that there was no evidence presented showing that the charges were anything more than Blechnic's warped and exaggerated allegations. (Which opinion, by the way, has been expressed by multiple editors at various times, before I was ever involved.) In short, there were two "facts" underlying your ban: (1) copyvio, and (2) padding an article to meet DYK 1500 words. The latter is so trivial that it's hardly worth mentioning, but you did mention it. Unless it were shown that this editor continued to do this, and more than rarely, it's not worthy of a topic ban, and the padding would disappear if it actually damaged the article, rather quickly. As it did. The first charge, though, copyvio, would be serious. How do we deal with editors who plagiarize text? Do we topic ban them? No! I don't know of any other example, though possibly there might be an odd one. We ''warn'' them, and we ''block'' them if the action is repeated after warning. Often we will warn them more than once. However, ''no'' evidence showing any pattern of copyvio, nor even a single example, as I recall, was asserted in either AN/I report filed by Blechnic -- and this is what you referred me to when claiming that you had acted based on evidence. No evidence was asserted here, either, nor did you, in bringing this here, note the very clear basis for my effort to persuade you to lift the ban, which I am ''required'' to do before proceeding with further process. The basis wasn't what you claimed. There was a consensus at AN/I. It was, however, a consensus of editors who aren't responsible for confirming the evidence, and a number, indeed, noted that they had simply assumed the charges to be true, and therefore their approval of a topic ban was conditional, and you failed to confirm the condition. And many others, I'm sure, did not look for the evidence, or were confused by the red herrings presented, the few allegedly outrageous mistakes of WW, which, however, were really only outrageous if they were repeated, particularly if repeated after warning, plus some sort of dark assumptions based on WW's "failure to respond." Which should have been irrelevant. (A positive response would be a basis for not topic banning, based on AGF, but a lack of response is ''never'' an offense, only the repetition of problem behavior after warning.)
::::::::I did not bring this report to AN, nor would I have done so, until I'd exhausted [[WP:DR]], though there is a basis for an attempt at AN/I (I consider that the ban has seriously damaged the project and should be lifted promptly). But it's here, so I've responded. And I will go to the next step in DR, unless some admin takes a look at this and lifts the ban, which, having been discussed, could now be done without wheel-warring. Had anyone confirmed the evidence, sufficient evidence to block, it would be another matter. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I will note, now, that I'm accused, via a warning on my Talk page, by [[User:Jehochman]], of failing to AGF for Fritzpoll. I might have made a mistake somewhere, but I am not aware of ever questioning Fritzpoll's good faith, and I have assumed it all along. I have concluded that he erred, and I requested that he review his decision, and then questioned its correctness, but I do not believe and have never believed that he intended anything other than the welfare of the project, and I assume this, as well, of the editors who have been, the last few minutes, piling onto my Talk page to "second" the warning. It's not over, folks, until the diva sings. There is a reason why we don't make decisions based on the first few !votes that come in, they are often biased. We'll see. I'd say, given that I haven't filed any AN or ANI reports, started any RfCs, or even edit warred or maintained tendentious debate against an informed consensus, that blocking me based on my history would probably be disruptive, I'd not advise it. But, then again, maybe some good would come out of such, you never know. It was just suggested, yesterday, to me, that I go again for RfA. Last time the !vote was about 50-50, after the canvassed votes due to an SPA -- blocked for it -- were disregarded. And the reason given by most voters was that I only had something like 1400 edits at the time. Might be disruptive for me to self-nom, though. I won't do that. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for that - I didn't want to be accused of forcing bias in a response by not presenting the facts of his argument. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 10:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::I have now commented on your talkpage that Abd should bring his concerns regarding the basis on which consensus for a topic ban was created back to the community which expressed it, and not on the page of the admin that enacted it. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 10:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks very much for that, LHvU [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 10:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::It may be a bit late to say it, I've been indisposed, but this is the issue of general value here. There is a view of administrative responsibility here that conflicts, certainly with my understanding of it and with that of some admins whom I respect greatly. Generally, short of ArbComm, we don't make decisions by vote. Rather, a rough consensus may -- or may not -- be expressed in some discussion. And then an administrator reviews it, reviews the arguments and evidence, and makes a decision. '''''The administrator makes the decision.''''' This is very clear at AfD. It's also clear when a block decision is made after a discussion. The blocking admin becomes the go-to person for unblock or unblock permission. I have never seen it be considered necessary to go back to AN/I to get an unblock if the actual blocking admin consents to it. So I assumed that a topic ban would be the same. The closing admin is the actual judge, and would ''never'' make a decision contrary to their own opinion after review of the evidence, on the idea that "the community decided, not me." I have seen quite a solid supermajority be reversed by a closing admin because he didn't accept the basis they were asserting. And because this "judge" can decide any way, the exact way that the admin decides at close is not binding on that judge, the admin can reverse it later upon consideration of new evidence or argument. Further, all that I've seen about dispute resolution guidelines indicates that, when we disagree with an admin close, the admin is where we go, first. It's disruptive to go beyond that when it might not be necessary. The closing admin can say "bug off!" That is totally within his or her discretion. And then there would be further process, each step involving slightly more fuss. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 22:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
:Fritz, I also agree your reading of the consensus was entirely correct. I was considering closing that topic ban discussion myself and I would have closed it exactly the same way. As others have said, if Wilhelmina Will wants the ban overturned, she needs to engage with the community. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 02:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks, Sarah. I figured my first AN/I close was probably worth checking [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 08:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
:This was an obvious one. Fritzpoll divined consensus (and an overwhelming one) rightly, and until and unless WW engages with either Fritz personally, or the wider community with regards to the topic ban, it should stay. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|<small><sup>''S.''</sup></small>]][[User:S. Dean Jameson|<small><sub>''D.''</sub></small>]][[User_talk:S. Dean Jameson|'''Jameson''']] 14:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
::Yes although some of the way the conclusion was arrived at might be arguable, this was definitely the consensus. What I will say though is that WW herself hasn't edited in five days, and she hasn't done anything to violate or even question that ban herself in the meantime, so the 'blame' for this being made an issue again shouldn't fall on her and I hope this won't effect the outcome. I wish she would talk to the community though to discuss mentoring etc or ask for help, and hope she isn't gone for good. :( [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Sticky</font></b>]] [[User talk:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Parkin</font></b>]] 13:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
:::It is correct, there was a "rough consensus," but this affair shows why AN/I is the wrong venue for complex user conduct investigations and response, it is only good for ad-hoc, easily reversible decisions, made necessary by some immediate hazard. Had there been no rough consensus (and from vote count alone, it was a strong one), I'd have been advising WW to ignore it, and Fritzpoll's later comment to her I would characterize as a warning from an involved administrator. But that's not the case. Hence I've advised WW to respect the topic ban, even though I believe it to be seriously defective. It's also true that WW has not challenged the ban, not once, nor did she repeat, after warning, any of the allegedly improper behavior, not before the ban, nor after it. Mentoring would be a good idea, if it were not an utter waste of time. We propose mentoring for good editors who don't learn from their mistakes without it. Quite simply, that isn't Wilhelmina Will. She is far above average for editors. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
:::When he took responsibility for the ban, Fritzpoll gave this reason for the it: ''The general argument was that WW was introducing copyright-violating material (despite repeated requests not to do so), and reducing the quality of articles in order to achieve a DYK nomination. As such, I interpreted the situation as a threat to the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. In this context the community consensus for a DYK topic ban was justified.''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFritzpoll&diff=230163998&oldid=230062630]
:::Now, the "reduction of quality" argument was based on a single incident, and, as was noted by an editor at one point, her problem was that "she didn't know how to bloviate well enough." Clearly, she made a mistake, but it was not even close to being a reason for a topic ban. Copyvio, though, would be much more serious. Indeed, it would be a shortcut to her goal, DYK nominations, to simply copy existing articles that she finds somewhere. Was she doing this?
:::Repeatedly, in the AN/I reports in question, requests were made for evidence, and I continued this with Fritzpoll, and evidence wasn't provided. The copyvio charges were trumped-up, I must conclude. I suspect that there was some incident, somewhere, but, since there was active request for the evidence at AN/I, and a participating editor -- tendentiously participating -- who would presumably have had access to the evidence, and who did not provide it, there must not have been much! Definitely not enough to justify a topic ban. And there was, in addition, no evidence that she had been warned and persisted beyond the warning. Topic ban, quite simply, was not justified by the evidence presented in the AN/I report, and Fritzpoll has not responded to this particular issue. Instead, he brought this matter here as if the question were the consensus at AN/I, which then produced the simple answer: there was a consensus at AN/I, something we already knew. And, since, Fritzpoll is unwilling, as closing admin, to reverse the ban without going back to AN/I, the simplest recourse is to go back to AN/I with a request to unban, which I intend to do. He shouldn't have brought this here, nor should he bring it there. Going to AN/I simply because someone criticizes something you've done is not appropriate. The reason I would go to AN/I: the project has been damaged, damage continues, and thus the matter justifies an AN/I report requesting immediate action. An unjust topic ban can be expected to drive away some productive editors, and it seems it is doing just that.--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
::::No, AN/I is probably not the venue for that discussion - I would suggest proposing the unban elsewhere, since AN/I is for incidents requiring immediate administrative assistance. The reason I brought it here, Abd, is that you questioned the validity of what I had done - not being so arrogant as to believe that all my words and deeds are without fault, I brought ''my actions'' here for scrutiny. Wilhelmina was on a Wikibreak, so it is hardly surprising that she hasn't been editing (look at her edit summaries for today) and she is creating new pages again. I have consistently responded to your request for information, including the original AN/I report where the copyvios were discussed. I have offered opportunities to resolve this repeatedly - that you refuse to counsel WW to engage with the community, refuse to accept my offers of compromise in the form of discussion (where I even offered, under certain conditions, to request the unban myself) and instead embark on this crusade on her behalf is bewildering to me.
::::You also persist in this idea that I can overturn a topic ban on my own. This is not true - administrators in these instances, as I understand it, enact the will of the community. They do not decide that will - admins are no more special in that regard than any other editor. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 09:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


* 1 to 10 were characterized as small
:::::Just to recap this thread into a clear discussion, there are three elements together which brought about the DYK topic ban against Wilhelmina Will. These are discussed in detail in the threads linked to in Fritzpoll's opening paragraph, and can be summarised as follows:
:::::*Wilhelmina Will was found to be introducing copyrighted material into DYK candidates that were being prepared.
:::::*Wilhelmina Will has been found to edit war with others working on DYK candidates in the interest of meeting DYK minimum requirements.
:::::*Wilhelmina Will has been found to be uncivil to others when the subject is discussed, working against the collaborative ethos.
:::::While one of these issues on it's own would cause concern, it is the three together that have generated this situation and all three that need to be improved upon before the ban is likely to be rescinded. It is also worth bearing in mind that blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive. In this case, they are designed to prevent DYK submissions from being created that are potentially damaging, either by worsening the experience of other editors wishing to collaborate on the article or through potentially copyright infringing material being introduced. It is also why, in this instance, Wilhelmina Will has been encouraged to demonstrate an admission that these problems exist and a resolve to avoid repeating them in the future so that the topic ban can be lifted.
:::::In addition, consensus does not equate approval without dissent. Although there are some editors who disagreed with the topic ban and felt that other measures were appropriate, the broad consensus was for a topic ban to be applied. Such a measure does not require the approval of ArbCom or an RfC to be implemented, and is a common remedy introduced by the community in response to editor concerns in a particular area while allowing them the freedom to contribute to other unrelated areas.
:::::To conclude, I would encourage Abd and Wilhelmina Will to work constructively through this topic ban, demonstrate a willingness to contribute to lifting this through positive means and in the fullness of time rejoin the DYK contribution process with the consent of the community at large. I am concerned that any protracted argument or dispute will only cause further contributors to leave the project, which is somehting I think we can all agree is an undesirable outcome. Consensus has shown a clear way to resolve this issue, and I would humbly request in the interests of all concerned that it is followed. Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]</font>''''' 14:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


* 11 to 50 as medium small
*Well, now [[User:Fritzpoll]] has been chased from the project for at least awhile. Good grief. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|<small><sup>''S.''</sup></small>]][[User:S. Dean Jameson|<small><sub>''D.''</sub></small>]][[User_talk:S. Dean Jameson|'''Jameson''']] 13:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
::That's unfortunate. All that happened was that I questioned his close decision (made something like a week after the apparent AN/I consensus which had, however, never been closed, with no administrator taking responsibilty for a topic ban allegedly decided there). I did not call into question his editing, ever. I claimed no administrative misconduct rising to a level of bad faith, for I believed, and continue to believe, that he simply erred by not confirming the crucial copyvio claim, not that he intended to harm anyone. He was the one who brought this report here, when a simpler and more direct response, following [[WP:DR]] would have been more appropriate. He did not need to insert himself into this, he could have simply done nothing when I pointed out to him that he had warned Wilhelmina Will of a topic ban that was never properly decided. And then he could have made his decision, and continued to do nothing more. I didn't make this into a drama, he did. But, still, he had options, and continues to have options. He has taken one of them, which is, essentially, to do nothing, unless he changes his mind. It's a legitimate option: let the community sort it out. It's the option that Wilhelmina Will took; however, the paradox here is that he held it against her. I won't. No process was begun that he had any obligation to respond to, at all, with no immediate risk from silence, so I find his withdrawal puzzling. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Part of the reason for people's reactions and the withdrawal, I think, is that it is difficult sometimes to understand exactly what it is you are saying, Abd. I say this as someone who thinks you often say some very perceptive things, and as someone who disagrees with the views that others are developing about your contributions (see your talk page section and warning). I think the problem is that to engage in a full and frank discussion with you on a topic can be rather difficult due to the length and abstractness of your responses, and the end result can be uncertain. I don't think what you do is harassment, but I can understand some people getting frustrated with the approach you take. I did ask before whether you had considered putting some of your views into an essay? Sometimes the points you are trying to make are best made in the abstract, before alighting on people as examples, if you get what I mean? For the record, I have supported Blechnic (someone you are criticising at the moment) over their flagging of copyvios in the past, so I think you both make good points, while I'm not 100% sure exactly what started this latest incident (I've been away for a few weeks). [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 16:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Thanks, Carcharoth. It should be noted that when I have an agenda, a decision I've made and I'm trying to persuade the community to act, eventually will I take the time to boil it down to brief, effective speech. It takes a lot of time, so when I write at greater length, it is in discussion mode, it is not intended as persuasion, but rather exploration. It should also be recognized that this rewriting takes a ''lot'' of time, discussion is far easier, and that this problem is typical for writers like me. I did not file this AN/I report and am simply responding here, with information and analysis. While it could save a lot of fuss if someone looked at what I've written in the past about Blechnic, I'm not expecting that, though I've been succinct, actually, in some comments on AN/I that were simply ignored. But I've seen long-term, highly experienced administrators filing cogent reports ignored on AN/I. That's part of the problem that I really want to address. I do intend to write about "what started this incident," unless it becomes moot, in which case I may get distracted from that. Yes, I understand why some people "get frustrated." I've been seeing this for better than twenty years of on-line conferencing and communication experience. I don't hold it against them. ''However,'' that doesn't necessarily mean that I shut up when I have something I think important to say.
::::I develop the ideas that I might put into an essay by communicating with that part of the community that cares to read what I write, not for the tl;dr crowd. Some people read what I write, some don't. Unless I'm in ''action'' mode, which will be obvious, nobody has any obligation to read what I write, and there is no serious hazard from skipping it. Again, thanks. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


* 51 to 250 as medium
:: goes beyond that doesn't it? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fritzpoll&diff=231262067&oldid=231258069 more firmly implied by your dire threat on your talkpage that my "administrative future" might depend on reading your 11KB post]. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.149.224|87.114.149.224]] ([[User talk:87.114.149.224|talk]]) 17:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Holy Shit! 87.114 is a [[User:Fredrick day]] IP. Two possibilities: Fritzpoll is Fredrick day, a banned editor, which I absolutely did not suspect, though it now does make some kind of sense, or this is Fredrick day is trying to stir up shit by pretending to be [[User:Fritzpoll]]. It's checkuser time, to clear Fritzpoll, if nothing else. (I would not argue that Fritzpoll should automatically be blocked if checkuser confirms that he is Fredrick day, but I think it is essential that we know, given what has come down here. (FYI, folks, Fredrick day was himself exposed most clearly because he apparently forgot he was logged in and edited signing his post with the sig of an identified vandal; if Fp is Fd, this, then, could be him forgetting that he was ''not'' logged in, thus revealing his IP. But it would take checkuser of Fp to verify this.--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


* 251 to 1000 as medium large
:::: Em.. I'm quoting the guy - doesn't the link to his statement give that away? I know you like to go on fishing trips and accusing people of being me - but your harrassement of fitzpoll should stop at this stage, you drove him away, what more do you want?--[[Special:Contributions/87.114.149.224|87.114.149.224]] ([[User talk:87.114.149.224|talk]]) 17:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


* More than 1000 as large
:::In the same edit, though, we have: ''"...until I'm sure that I can edit without feeling the dread, without waiting for you to tell me..."'' - I read that as Fritzpoll saying 'it's you or me and I'm not coming back until you avoid me or are gone'. I can understand that is being written under stress, but it is equally unhelpful. I have very little sympathy with people who say things are too stressful due to someone's edits, and then argue against that someone from halfway through the door while saying they are leaving. Wikipedia is a stressful place, and the balance has to be struck between reducing that stress and not skewing discussions. Take a break or reassess how you do things here (one of the lessons to learn is how to handle people like Abd, as well as how to handle departures, and, to be fair, for Abd to reassess how he does things as well), but don't use leaving as a parting shot at someone. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC) <small>For example, if Fritzpoll now says he is leaving again because of what I said, the cycle starts again. See [[User:NoSeptember/Leaving]] for more on this.</small>
::::I find your characterization of Fritz's message incredibly unfair. I didn't see it as a "parting shot" at Abd, I saw it as a final response to an editor who had hounded him over the course of several days over a properly made administrative call, threatening all sorts of process-related recourses, until finally Fritz just had enough of it, and decided to take a long break (at least). If you look at Fritz's initial responses to Abd, he was accomodating in the extreme, unfailingly polite, and in no way contributed to the mess that this has currently become. Fritz is not the problem here ''in any way'', Carch. To suggest otherwise does him and the work he's done here a great disservice. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|<small><sup>''S.''</sup></small>]][[User:S. Dean Jameson|<small><sub>''D.''</sub></small>]][[User_talk:S. Dean Jameson|'''Jameson''']] 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::FWIW, Fritzpoll [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fritzpoll&diff=231271250&oldid=231269313 withdrew] that comment. I was trying to make clear that I didn't think Fritzpoll intended it as a parting shot, but was trying to make the point that it could still have that effect. Until you've had it happen to you, it is difficult to communicate how powerless an editor can be when trying to refute an argument made by someone the other side of a still-swinging exit door. I will just repeat again that I appreciate the work done by Fritzpoll. The problem seems to be more social here - many editors getting heavily sidetracked and losing sight of the initial dispute and examining the evidence for that, rather than whether Abd or Fritzpoll dor other editors did the right thing along the way. See my comments below where I say that the best thing would have been to re-examine the whole thing afresh. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
:: But it's a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&diff=225435891&oldid=225136997 pattern of behaviour] - if you look at Abd's user page - he's been warned off before of making those "you need to listen to me or it's trouble for you" warnings to administrators. Everyone has a right to speak but you don't get to try and force people to listen with vague threats of trouble. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.149.224|87.114.149.224]] ([[User talk:87.114.149.224|talk]]) 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


The report also measured the pressures that businesses cited as reasons they desired to increase their efficiency with fleet tracking technology. Of the reasons mentioned by small fleets, a desire to improve the customer experience through improved response times was listed by 73% of the participants and was by far the leading response.
:::This changes the complexion of this entirely. I had no general complaint about Fritzpoll, which is why the departure made no sense to me. ''However'' Fredrick day has bailed from attempts to persuade him to negotiate a return because he knows that I'd maintain some kind of notice of his activities, which he seems to be totally allergic to. Given what he's done in the past, some level of awareness is necessary. He has stated, elsewhere, that he had other accounts, so it would not be surprising if he is Fritzpoll, but quite surprising that he'd make the mistake of editing as him without logging in, he's usually much more careful. There remains the possibility that he is merely pretending to be Fritzpoll, but there is now strong reason to ''suspect'' Fritzpoll is a sleeper account for Fredrick day. There was very, very little hazard to Fritzpoll here, unless he persisted through much more process, starting with RfC (which would, of course, require another editor's certification, I could not do that on my own), so the strong reaction does make sense. That's how Fredrick day would react if he imagined I was harassing him. We'll see. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


Other reasons businesses cited for wishing to implement some form of [[GPS]] [[vehicle tracking]] technology were:
:: That's a pretty low trick - you are now trying to knobble the guy by saying out of the side of your mouth "psst.. he might be one of THEM.. he cannot be trusted" - have you no shame? --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.149.224|87.114.149.224]] ([[User talk:87.114.149.224|talk]]) 18:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


* Reduce service response times (57%)
:::No such charges were made, Fredrick. I couldn't continue this not only because of the block, but because ''before the block'' I had promised to stay under voluntary house arrest, so to speak, to confine myself to my Talk on all these issues until the smoke cleared. In other words, the block actually did nothing except make it impossible for me to edit stuff irrelevant to this. And to handle archiving my own Talk page, among other nuisances. On th eother hand, I got to find out who my friends are, and who is helpful weven then they aren't my friends, so to speak. You didn't have to face this inconvenience, when your IP, the vandal "Section 31" was discovered to be Fredrick day, you just packed it in, immediately. (You'd slipped up, in a manner somewhat similar to how you made the edit that triggered this whole sock mess (but reversed: that was conclusive, this merely created a weird suspicion). When I filed a checkuser for Allemandtando, you, again, bailed immediately, before the checkuser result came in. Now, here, Fritzpoll had already -- it appeared -- bailed. I think you saw that, and saw an opportunity to stir up trouble by planting that edit. While it's ''possible'' that it was inadvertent, that you didn't intend the post to create the appearance that you obviously recognized it did, it was awfully fortuitous for your goals. I think you crafted it, practically a stroke of genius, I'd say, so that I'd see it and comment on it, and then someone else would look deeper at it and notice the exact quote and then have a reason to dispel it -- and make me look foolish. However, I never had any intention of pursuing anything against Fritzpoll. I doubt I would have filed an SSP report, or requested checkuser, because, while the suspicion was strong, I had previously had stronger suspicion about Allemandtando, said so at AN/I, and didn't file. I'd have ''supported'' checkuser but not to "get" Fritzpoll or "knobble" him, but to clear him of the suspicion you created. In the very first edit, the Holy Shit edit, I noted that this could easily be, not Fritzpoll, so to speak, thinking he was logged in and signing, thus revealing his IP, but you creating this false impression to cause disruption. That part worked. It did cause disruption. The coincidence of your edit, plus his mysterious departure with cries that he'd been harassed -- something you were known to do -- certainly raised suspicion, but it was far short of proof, which I said again and again. And Fritzpoll wasn't a disruptive editor, and I had only one reason to suspect the quality of his adminship, a single decision. Far, far from any kind of actual opinion that something should be done about him. No, I was focused on the case which he had closed. I approached him for clarity on it, asked him questions about it, and none of that could have been considered harassment. Or any editor seeking clarity on a decision would be considered to be harassing. At any time, he could have said to me, as to his Talk page discussions, stop, and I would have come to a dead stop, full brakes. Had I filed an AN report on him, likewise, before exhausting reasonable simpler remedies, it could have been considered harassment, but that wouldn't have been my next step and, in fact, as the smoke cleared, we discovered that we agreed on the next step. Big surprise: it's dispute resolution policy, involve a neutral editor to mediate or make an independent decision. But it was he who filed the AN report, and it's still beyond me why he did it. It wasn't necessary. I had acknowledged that there had been a consensus, my question was about the close and who the closing admin was, and therefore who could make decisions regarding the ban. When I discovered, after my return from a trip, that he had filed the AN report, and commented there. he resigned, and people were blaming me for it -- which remains quite mysterious to me, since I'd done nothing drastic (this was before the sock puppet flap, which was itself a mountain made from a molehill). So then you showed up with your little poison dart. Anyway, I'm back, Fredrick day. I'm pretty sure you've never been gone, and I might just get motivated enough to finish that sock discovery research. Active socks can be identified (i.e., simultaneous accounts), it should be pretty difficult to conceal them once one knows where and how to look. But, I do, in fact, have other stuff to do. Such as, even, occasionally, working on articles, but more often, children (7 ranging in ages from 5 to 40), grandchildren (5), business, and, of course, trying to change the world. Of which Wikipedia is only a small slice. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 22:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


* Reduce fleet related operating costs (46%)
===Back on topic===


* Increase service related productivity (41%)
Just a couple of quick words on this topic if I may. Firstly, like Abd and a number of other users, I feel the initial ban was hasty, ill-considered, and made on some pretty flimsy evidence. I also found it pretty distasteful, quite frankly, to see a 16-year-old girl pilloried the way she was at AN/I, and it therefore doesn't in the least suprise me that she might be reluctant to participate there. It also bothered me that no-one thought to notify any of the DYK regulars to see if they might have want to express an opinion, and I didn't even know about the ban until the topic had been closed.


* Extend life of service vehicles (16%)
Subsequently a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive459#New_proposal second thread] was started by Blechnic, in which I tried to clarify just what the nature of the ban was. It transpired that most people merely felt that she needed to acknowledge some mistakes and accept a mentor, but since no-one put up their hand to act as mentor and the discussion petered out without much response, I decided it would have to be handled ad hoc. Since then two articles by WW have been nominated on behalf of her by other users, one has been promoted and one IIRC was not.


Applications of commercial vehicle tracking solutions in the fields of transport, logistics, haulage and multi-drop delivery environments can include optimised fleet utilisation, real-time operational enhancements and dynamically remote-managed fleets. Fleet tracking is scalable by design and interfaces with the logistics industry’s leading back-office systems<ref name="ref2">[http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_main_page http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_main_page]</ref>.
So just for the record, I would like to say, firstly, that I personally have no problem dealing with submissions to DYK from WW provided they are on general rather than technical subjects. Secondly, I think I should add that I frequently see much worse copyvio offenders on DYK than WW (in fact I haven't actually seen a copyvio from her in spite of all the accusations), but my response has just been to disqualify the article and warn the user. So why WW has been singled out for a DYK ban I can only suppose has been due to Blechnic's persistence in frequently bringing her case before AN/I. At this point then, I think we need to make our minds up whether WW's trangressions were really so exceptional as to deserve a ban in the first place, and if so, what exactly needs to be done in order for her to have the ban overturned. Some clarification at this point would be very useful. Thanks, [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


With rising fuel costs, retailers are smart-routing to avoid traffic jams, either by combining deliveries, improving fleets or reconfiguring routes. This is to maximise the number of deliveries while minimising time and distance. It has been found that even restricting the number of left hand turns can improve on time, efficiency and energy savings<ref name="ref3">[Phil Smith, vice-president, Cisco Systems Phil Smith, vice-president, Cisco Systems]</ref>.
::I agree with you entirely, and I say that as someone who initially supported the ban. While [[User:Gazimoff]] is correct below when he states that copyvios were not the only or even the primary reason for the ban, the copyvio issue was by far the most serious issue. The rest of the issues were one inappropriate revert, one uncivil remark in an edit summary, and some statements indicating a lack of comprehension on certain topics she has been editing on, leading to some inaccurate statements in articles she creates. None of those would - or even all together - would seem to warrant any sort of ban, maybe a short term block at most, if it wasn't for the copyvio issues. And so far the only copyvio that has been uncovered is an item that is 7 months old, and apparently was a result of some misunderstanding with another user (possibly an admin). And by the way, BOTH of the articles that WW created and were nominated for DYK by other users were ultimately accepted. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 23:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


=== Fuel Economy ===
:I think that some important clarifications are required, in a restatement of my original response to Abd:
Fleet managers and drivers in companies, both large and small, have realized an average savings of nearly 25 percent in reduced ‘downtime costs’ due to maintenance management programmes using a [[GPS]] [[fleet management]] solution<ref name="ref4">[http://gpsfleetmanagement.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/reducing-fleet-soft-costs-with-gps-tracking-can-save-you-big-money/ http://gpsfleetmanagement.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/reducing-fleet-soft-costs-with-gps-tracking-can-save-you-big-money/]</ref>.
:*As part of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive457#Editor_Wilhelmina_Will.27s_no_holds_barred_DYK_race_--_I_propose_a_temporary_ban_for_her this thread], a temporary ban was put in place. Copvio concerns were not the only (or even the primary) reason, but civility and edit warring were heavily discussed. It was the combination of these three areas that brought about the topic ban. Stating that it is purely regarding copyvio is, regrettably, only part of the problem.
:*Copyvio evidence, as has been repeatedly requested, is documented in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive459#User:Wilhelmina_Will_and_User:Abd.27s_advice_on_how_she_can_skirt_her_DYK_topic_ban this thread] under the section 'Her existing copy vios and vandalisms that need edited'. Please note that this is not the only concern, as stated in my previous point.
:*Fritzpoll intervened in this matter due to the convoluted nature of mutiple AN and ANI threads on the topic, in order to act as a single point of contact and simplify matters. Since taking up this role, the majority of discussion has been around the legitemacy or otherwise of a topic ban, and not (as was intended) progressing onwards from this point.
:*[[User:87.114.149.224]] has no contributions to wikipedia outside of this topic. The IP is used by PlusNet, an ADSL broadband provider in the United Kingdom. As such, it is '''exceedingly difficult to level accusations of sockpuppetry without strong, (usually checkuser based) evidence'''. If you have such material available I would strongly urge you to come forward with it or drop what ammounts to a fundamental accusation of bad faith.
:It wouyld seem that WW is prepared to work within the guidelines set to improve the quality of DYK submissions and regain the trust of the community. I reiterate my request to Abd and WW to progress in this avenue. Constant resortion to debate and argument tends to stall progression on the isse and only perpetuates a needlessly tense situation. Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]</font>''''' 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
::I thank Gazimoff for taking the time to investigate to the degree to which he has. However, it's not adequate, there are aspects to this situation which can rather easily be overlooked until one researches it depth -- or reads an RfC or other discussion that thoroughly explores it, and such doesn't exist yet, and I've been hoping the whole thing could be resolved more simply. So some corrections and points in response:
#Yes, other matters were discussed, but Fritzpoll based his eventual closure on only two points and the rest not only wasn't considered important enough to mention, in our discussions, but I'd agree they were moot, minor faults; however, minor faults pointed out in the context of other allegations that are much more serious can add to an impression of wrongdoing, which clearly happened.
#Fritzpoll intervened, first, without realizing what he was doing, if I AGF, which I do. There was an AN/I discussion where a clear majority supported a topic ban, but no administrator investigated it and drew a conclusion for closure. As a result, WW was not informed of the ban and made another DYK nomination. Blechnic complained, and Fritzpoll then took it upon himself to warn WW that she had (allegedly) been topic-banned. It took me a day or so to sort this out and realize the implications, so I can easily understand that others might still not get it.
#We don't make decisions by vote. Ever. Votes represent a rough consensus, we make decisions through servants, closing administrators, trusted by the community to review not only some apparent consensus, but also the ''evidence'' and the analysis, and a closing administrator is obligated, in fact, to make his or her ''own'' decision, being informed by the community as to evidence and opinion. Part of this is a responsibility to investigate the evidence, to understand the basis for the decision. However, when Fritzpoll went to the WW Talk page to warn her, he denied that it was his decision, he essentially said, "Don't shoot the messenger," I'm just reporting the community's decision. He most explicitly did ''not'' take responsibility for the decision.
#I raised at one point the possibility that Fritzpoll was not neutral in this affair, but that's not a point that I pursued. Rather, I acted as if he were, in fact, neutral, and thus able to properly close if he agreed with the evidence and conclusion.
#When the community makes a decision through a polling process, there is always a close by an administrator, or sometimes another editor; when a topic ban is involved, custom is that this is an administrator, because the administrator then becomes responsible for enforcing the ban with blocks if necessary. Since there had been no close, the ban was not in effect, it was not merely that it hadn't been communicated to WW. However, when I discovered this and wrote about it (on my Talk page?) I cautioned WW to continue to assume that there was a ban, until it could be sorted out. But I also wanted to give her some hope, so that we might avoid losing her entirely. As well as, possibly, to assuage her probable hurt feelings. At least she could know that ''somebody'' was trying to sort it out!
#So I went to Fritzpoll and pointed out that there was no close, and invited him to review the situation. I mentioned several options: He could simply not act, in which case there would be no ban, and I'd return to AN/I with that, probably, or at least to DYK (which is where most of this should have happened in the first place.) He could close the discussion, either with a ban or not. He elected to close it, to take responsibility. I considered this as progress, even though I considered the decision incorrect. Now there was a responsible administrator, and I could attempt to negotiate with him, or could ask others to do so. It never came to that, because Fritzpoll continued to insist that the decision had been the community's, not his. I asked him for the evidence of copyvio, and he provided only a diff to a former AN/I report by Blechnic, which didn't show copy vio. I'll note that copyvio evidence recently posted here, taken from Blechnic's Talk page, posted ''after'' the ban, was a single example, from many months ago, with extenuating circumstances. I understand there is another example, it's been mentioned, but I haven't seen it myself, though I've looked. It's not important. If there were a pattern of violation, worthy of a topic ban or even a ''warning'' of a topic ban, we'd have seen it by now. This has been a very productive editor, with many, many articles, and it's quite possible that going over it all with a fine-tooth comb would turn up something else. But we don't ban for this level of problem. ''''''Wilhelmina Will was a productive editor, with 29 DYKs to her credit and many short articles created and standing.''''' I look now, and I see, to my relief, that she has resumed editing. She was gone for a week.
#While I was negotiating with Fritzpoll, and then while I was traveling for three days, he took the matter to AN for review -- without necessity, it was his choice --, but he didn't present the crucial argument: the lack of copyvio evidence. Instead, he was looking for what he thought important: confirmation of the consensus at AN/I on the ban. He thought that if there was an apparent consensus, that meant that he was justified in his close. It's an error, but it is an error which, I assume, could be corrected; the appearance of a consensus was never challenged. What was challenged was the underlying arguments and evidence, or lack of same. Some !voters at the AN/I report specifically prefaced their comment with a disclaimer: "If the charges by Blechnic are true, and I see no reason why they would not be, ...."
#Yet Blechnic was an editor, fairly new, previously blocked for harassment, who, I'd already concluded, was, indeed, harassing WW, beyond all reason, tendentiously arguing against every positive thing said about her or questioning his report. While it is proper for editors to AGF and make a prefatory remark like that, it was ''not'' proper for an administrator to consider those !votes as being effective unless the administrator personally verified the evidence. And, absent evidence to the contrary, we can assume that most !votes are, in fact, dependent upon the evidence visible when they !voted, so such verification is crucial, or, at least, when a close without personal examination of evidence is made, and challenged, it should be immediately investigated and fixed. Which Fritzpoll apparently never did. (I don't think he needed to consider the !votes at all, the matter is simpler. He should have looked at the charges de novo, and verified the evidence. If the evidence was verified, then he'd have presumably made ''his own decision'' based on it, which might or might not match the community's apparent consensus.
#It seems that Fritzpoll had some impression in his mind that there had been copyvio problems, I've mentioned this "other" incident. But one incident can create such an impression, yet a ban should be based on a ''pattern'' of incidents, likely to be repeated. Now, lots of admins make close decisions, and then change them when aspects of the decision are questioned. There is no difference, in principle, between an AfD or an AN/I poll decision, and it is fairly common to reverse an AfD and, in fact, the standard first action, before challenging an AfD at [[WP:DRV]] is to discuss it with the administrator, who can change the result, and going back to the community (i.e., re-opening the AfD), isn't necessary, because there is simple recourse available for any member of the community who disagrees with the new admin decision.
#Eventually, I came to question Fritzpoll's competence as an administrator, based on a series of factors that I won't review here, since it is moot now, but ''never'' his good faith, and there was no risk to Fritzpoll's admin bit unless he tendentiously opposed ''the community'' in possible ensuing process. My reference to hazard had to do with the possibility that he would do this, and I made that clear in my full comment (on my Talk page, by the way, not pushed in his face). I did not threaten that further process, I move very slowly, normally, unless pushed by circumstances. He didn't need to do anything. The fuss that ensued was caused by his report here, and then my answers to it. Further process only becomes burdensome at the RfC level, which would require quite a bit of preparation, including independent efforts to resolve the dispute. And I continued to make it clear that Fritzpoll wasn't the problem. The problem was unclear process and practice at AN/I, for which the ''community'' is responsible.
#Yes, this is long. But quite a bit shorter than a full RfC would be. Nobody's obligated to read this. I'm not pushing for anyone to be blocked, and this is not where I'd ask for a reversal of the WW ban -- though it's once again questionable due to the departure of the closing admin, for whatever reason.
#And I haven't provided diffs. Don't trust me? Don't worry! You won't personally be held responsible. I've been threatened with being blocked, twice today, most seriously for the sock puppet issue, so I should address that.
#87.114 is Fredrick day IP, the possibility that this was other than Fd would be minute, and I've read that 87.114 has acknowledged being Fd, not that this was ever in doubt. See [[Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day]] for a list of IPs, known or reasonably suspected to have been used by Fd, together with some other sock puppets. I do know what I'm talking about. As to Fritzpoll being Fd, I do not consider it proven yet, there is merely reason for suspicion, most notably since Fd did use the first person singular possessive pronoun, referring to Fritzpolls' administrative status. I'll decide later if there is reason to file checkuser, which would simply be routine at this point, it's possible that a checkuser coming across this would do it on their own. Or not. Fritzpoll was not a disruptive editor, as far as anything I've seen. It would be the community's decision as to what to do if it turns out that Fritzpoll is Fredrick day. Continuing the sysop status would be out of the question, I'd say. (If you know what Fredrick day has done, I think you would agree.) But blocking would be another matter. Wikipedia does not punish, we protect, and that is exactly what I'm doing all this work for, to ensure that the policy and guidelines are a reality. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 21:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
:::The only thing I'll respond to here, Abd is your last point (#13). You '''''are not getting it''''' and need to read your user talk, which I presume you're doing. You have completely misunderstood the "possessive pronoun" bit, and I can't find another way of explaining it to you. The IP (who admitted to being F-day), copy/pasted from ''Fritzpoll's talkpage'', not from ''your talkpage''. The "MY" in the post is a direct copy paste from the person who said ''MY'', Fritzpoll. Your "suspicions" are laughably unfounded and are serving you no purpose other than to deflect from the core issues. Type less, think more. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 21:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Two more points of note that I see in this latest missive:
:::*Carcharoth has just made the point (elsewhere) that it's unfair to see Fritzpoll leaving (hopefully not for long) as an exacerbating factor in re Abd, yet Abd in #6 above is directly using the tactic for their own benefit "I see, to my relief, that she has resumed editing. She was gone for a week."
:::*And in point #8, "Blechnic...previously blocked for harassment" which seems to elide the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive434#Unresolved_incident|discussion]] where Blechnic's block log was subsequently modified to indicate that the blocks were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ABlechnic unjustified].
:::And of course, to continue with a sockpuppet discussion of any kind, especially based on the premise of the leading two octets of an IP address (that leaves 65,000 possibilities doncha-know) somewhat strains credulity. [[User:Franamax|Franamax]] ([[User talk:Franamax|talk]]) 22:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Good Lord. What a mess. I'm going to ignore the sockpuppet accusations, while noting that Abd has been blocked indefintely for the accusations (see his talk page). Somewhere in those points 1-12, though, there is an important point, which is 'individual admin responsibility for their actions', versus 'actions that "enact community consensus"'. It is incredibly easy to hide behind consensus and the conclusions of previous discussions, instead of standing up for your own admin actions and examining the evidence ''de novo''. In that sense, Abd is right: when asked to look into something, admins should examine the evidence afresh (no matter how tedious it might seem), and not just rubber-stamp previous decisions. This is similar to the way "unblock" requests are supposed to work. An admin answering an unblock request might end up agreeing with the previous decision, but they need to make clear that they have done an ''independent'' examination of the situation, and not just briefly read the previous discussion and nodded a few times. It is difficult, but that is the only way to avoid [[confirmation bias]]. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 22:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


A company with a fleet of 20 vehicles (medium small business) can typically have one vehicle out of service for unscheduled repairs at least twice every month at an average cost of £ 419 a day (the cost may vary according to industry)<ref name="ref4" />. A simple 25% reduction in this unscheduled soft cost can result in an annual savings of nearly £ 2, 514 based on the following formula:
My what a wikidrama this whole thing has turned into. I have not read every single word in this tomb but I have read enough to get a sense of what has happened and who has done what. As a totally uninvolved editor here, I would say that people just need to chill out for a bit and stop being so sensitive to perceive slights and defending entrenched positions. While there are many bit payers in all of this, here are the most significant points as I see them:
# WW appears to be a 16 year old who is enthusiastic and motivated to help create content for the project. This should be viewed as a good thing and she should be encouraged not tarred and feathered.
# As such expecting a professional level of maturity from her is unrealistic and totally unnecessary. So being motivated to win some DYK award may seem trivial to some here, it is quite conceivably important to a 16 year old. If she has made mistakes, the can be corrected. Finding a support structure to help her improve should be the goal here, not deriding her because she is intimidated to come here to the "Hall of Authority" to defend herself and her actions before a group of much older and oft times much more uncivil authority figures.
# As far as I am concerned Abd has done a good thing by taking up an advocate position for this user who may simply lack the assertiveness to deal with the BS that goes on here that only comes with experience and maturity beyond her years. While he may be verbose, and while some of his ways of putting things may appear as threats, his underlying premise in this case appears to be sound: an early consensus was formed simply by uninformed editors piling on (with all good intent) because they were hearing accusations of copyvio violations which is the only substantive charge I see in this whole mess, but for which I have seen essentially zero evidence given the amount of discussion space already dedicated to discussing things ... well there was that single 6 or 7 month old one liner ... which has apparently already been dealt with. This warrants a more thorough investigation whose goal should be simply to find and repair and past damage and to compile a list of example to present to WW so that she might learn to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
# I will agree that it is important for WW to engage the community but there is no need for this to be a threatening experience for her as I am sure it must be. Simply allow Abd to continue as her advocate and adviser so that she has the structure to help her to properly engage in the experience. This would be a valuable life experience for her in the long run and as long as she embraces the changes that need to be made she promises to be a prolific contributor to the project. This is, after all, what the goal should be here, right?
# As for Abd leveling accusations of sock puppetry, I think that things are being over blown here. His statements were hardly clear cut accusations. They were mere stream of consciousness suspicions as is Abd's way. In the end after Thatcher's post and some reflection Abd clearly acknowledged that Fritzpoll is NOT Fredrick Day and apologized for any distress that his suspicions may have caused. This is, I believe, the trigger that people were expecting to lift his ban? If so the threshold would appear to have been reached.
# For what it's worth, I find Carcharoth and Gatoclass to be the most level headed voices of reason in all this. i found their positions and assessments to be the most compelling. Most of the pointy sticks in this discussion were based on entrenched positions and a lack of willingness to admit a rush to judgment.
# I clearly believe that Fritzpoll was acting in good faith when he closed the original ANI imposing the DYK ban. There was a clearly stated consensus there so his actions were justified but it is also important to note that many of those voting had admitted that they had not actually looked into the matter personally and were taking the word of other editors on the charges. I have no reason to doubt the good faith intentions of those whose findings these others listened to, but I also note a distinct lack of verifiable diffs to back up all the bluster. As such, I think Abd was correct in his assertion that this ban was premature and potentially a rush to judgment that should be corrected.
# I also believe the Blechnic was acting in good faith in his actions here and his desire to protect the project from what he saw as harm. While this is admirable I think that he is being overzealous in his pursuit of WW, especially in consideration of her age. To the extent that his actions have prevented further damage he has been vindicated, but now that the threat has been halted I would hope that he would switch his focus towards finding a positive solution to this situation which allows WW to continue to be an enthusiastic contributor to the project regardless of what motivates her to do so. There is no reason that the desire to achieve a DYK award should be considered a negative as long as his primary concerns regarding copyvios, the padding of articles just for padding's sake, and a couple of thinly veiled insults are addressed. With the exception of the copyvios, neither of these issues is worthy of a ban, IMHO. On the issue of extensive copyvio allegations I am seeing very little here in terms of actual diffs. That does not mean that they don't exist, but without them a ban is clearly premature given the number of conditional votes in the existing consensus which is all Abd is claiming, also IMHO. Even if they do exist a ban should not be the goal. Correcting them should be and WW will probably be more than willing to help in that effort as long as the process is not pursued in such an intimidating manner.
--[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 07:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
::The main problem here is that Abd, whilst claiming to have tried to follow [[WP:DR]], seemed to lose that in a quest to be "right". As I felt was appropriate, I offered, as one means of resolving the dispute, having another administrator review the close (since I can't unilaterally overturn what I perceived as a community ban). Following Abd's block last night, I asked Carcharoth to perform this task, which will hopefully be to the satisfaction of all concerned. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 08:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
::: I think an independent review is a fine step, but I don't see that as a resolution moving forward. As I said above I believe that you were acting in good faith and given what you had before you that you were justified in your actions at the time. The question now becomes what is the best positive outcome that can be achieved here and what is the best means of effecting that? What the community has done only the community can undo, which is the core of your point, correct? So let us formulate as best we can the conditions which have to be met so that the ban can be lifted by community action. Whether the ban was right or whether it was a rush to judgment is rather moot a this point, IMHO. It is done so let's focus on moving forward and let the independent review serve as a retrospective to help everyone avoid similar problems in the future (if it is deemed a problem at all). If the independent review reveals an injustice was done in the form of a good faith rush to judgment then it should be easy enough to garner community support for the lifting of the ban. If the judgment was justified, well, then the issues identified need to be addressed by WW in a construction way for the obvious reasons.


'''Cost:'''
::: Clearly actual participation by WW here would facilitate this process. While [[WP:AGF]] coupled with her age can explain (but not excuse) her alleged actions she will eventually have to step up and become accountable if she is to be taken seriously. More than anything I think the main complaint or uncomfort I am hearing in this whole discussion is a lack of active participation in this process by WW, which I think is fair, and this then becomes her first challenge in getting this matter resolved. I simply think that this will be most effective if Abd continues to be an advocate and an adviser but ultimately with her direct participation here. In that context I would urge Abd to encourage WW to take some responsibility and engage the process. 16 years old or not if she refuses to address the community it should be no surprise that the community will view her with suspicion and in a negative light (regardless of whether that is justified or not). It is simply the reality of the situation.
: £419 x 2 days = £ 838 per month
: £838 x 12 months = £ 10,056 per year
'''Savings:'''
: 25% savings x £10, 056 (year) = £ 2,514 per year


Dearer oil is increasing costs for many businesses, particularly those with large fleets of vehicles and is adding a powerful financial impetus to the search for fuel efficiencies. Implementing real-time vehicle tracking as part of a commercial company’s mobile resource management policy is essential for comprehensive operational control, remote driver security and fuel savings<ref name="ref5">[The Financial Times Limited 2008 The Financial Times Limited 2008]</ref>.
::: Personally I prefer to wait for the results of the independent review before formulating any next steps. This will not prevent WW from working on additional contributions as part of her DYK goal, as far as I can tell, as long as the ban on her self-nominating is respected until this is resolved. Personally I have no particular problem if others within the DYK community want to nominate her work within that process so long as the nominator takes responsibility for insuring quality concerns are properly covered before making such a nomination. Do others have any serious objections with such an arrangement? It seems she has some support from within that community so perhaps that could be a workable arrangement? --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree with all of the sentiments above, and, to be explicit, I don't think it should be considered "ban evasion" (as it was once termed by an editor) if another editor nominates on her behalf, provided that editor takes the same responsibility for the nomination as if it were their own [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 16:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
::There is a secondary problem here, which is that WW has apparently not been communicative with ''anyone'' in recent days and has successfully avoided addressing ''any'' concerns. It's nice to see people standing up to protect this poor frightened sixteen-year-old - except that she professes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wilhelmina_Will&diff=229640886&oldid=229639502 leadership] such that she's unable to join in a project, she doesn't [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wilhelmina_Will&diff=231139704&oldid=231086975 have time] to read about what's happened, she's still creating technical [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=70&target=Wilhelmina+Will&offset=20080811213700 articles] and she's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miocaretta&diff=prev&oldid=231179709 guessing] at them. I suppose these issues are subsidiary to the big show and I won't pursue them. I'll just make my prediction that this topic will recur here, some new players, some the same old same old. I'll try to watch more quietly next time. [[User:Franamax|Franamax]] ([[User talk:Franamax|talk]]) 10:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


=== Reduction in Carbon Emissions ===
::: I think that you raise valid points, some of which I have addressed above. On the issue of leadership and not having time to read what's happened I think the [[WP:AGF]] view of that is simply her rationalizing things so she can avoid the trip to the principal's office, as it were. This seems to make perfect sense in a 16 year old frame of mind, IMHO.
An example of how the technology of fleet tracking has a significant role to play in both a measurable reduction in fuel consumption and clear environmental benefits by the reduction in [[carbon emissions]] is [[Interserve]], a engineering and support services company, who have both saved 15 per cent of its fuel costs and seen a drop in CO² by tracking its vehicles with satellites<ref name="ref6">[http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto062320081336386388&page=2 http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto062320081336386388&page=2]</ref>.


Interserve is using an advanced vehicle tracking system<ref name="ref6" />. It works over a web browser and reports vehicle locations every 20 seconds. It also displays mileage information, live traffic information and exception reporting. According to Mark Stimpson, the commercial director for Interserve, fuel bills were estimated to be cut between 10 and 20 per cent.
::: On the issue of her creating technical articles on material which she does not understand, I would suggest that Abd convey to her that this is no longer an advisable set of material for her to work on unless and until a suitable reviewer or reviewers can be identified to volunteer to vet her work. Still, if the material is sufficiently above her level of comprehension that she is writing incomprehensible gibberish then obviously this would be of no value to anyone, including herself in her quest for the DYK award. Clearly it would be best for her to confine her activities to topics that she can reasonably understand, but even on technical articles ''IF she is able'' to get things into even a 90% usable state this can be a way to make those interested in such topics much more efficient at creating new content since they would only need to help her get the last 10% completed. This is obviously only a viable option so long as suitable arrangements are made with other appropriate contributors who are capable of and willing to invest that extra 10%. Thoughts? Concerns?


Using GPS vehicle tracking technology and viewing interactive maps online enabled the company to see where it was losing money, time and wasting fuel (such as on duplicated journeys).
::: I would also suggest to Abd that he convey to her that quality is just as important a goal here as quantity. In other words, 5,000 really well written articles is probably a more laudable achievement than would be 10,000 sloppy and inaccurate ones. Agreed? --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


=== Case study ===
::::Not necessarily. It depends on ''how'' sloppy. Creating 5000 "really well written articles" could be an extraordinarily difficult task. Wikipedia creates really good articles through a cooperative process, and every article must begin with some seed, a stub, at least. "Inaccurate" is quite a relative term, in fact. But even an inaccurate article can quickly evolve into an accurate one, and much more quickly than a non-existent article. So I really don't know which is better. I'd say that if it was the same amount of work, i.e., she simply spread out the same labor over 10,000 articles than 5000, there is a very good possibility that the 10,000 articles, though likely to be less well done, would be more beneficial to the project in the long run. Many times I've looked up some topic, and it was almost always more useful to me to have some article than to have none. Very many articles have no sources at all, and they can sit that way for a long time. WW creates articles with sources, and so improvments become easier, there is some place to start. If she was actually creating lots of "sloppy, inaccurate articles," she'd probably be frustrated in her DYK efforts. No, nobody seems to have really sat down and thought this thing through. I don't see any more reason to suggest to her that she keep away from (non-existent) technical articles than from anything else, or than any other non-expert editor. What actually happened in an article where she made a technical error was that it was quickly fixed. Her work was useful and was, in fact, the bulk of the work that went into the article. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 03:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In the Autumn of 2008, a winter maintenance tracking solution will be supplied on the [[Highways Agency]]'s new winter service fleet which is responsible for keeping all England's motorway and major A roads free from snow and ice in winter.


The Highways Agency will be able to monitor route treatment progress in real-time and provide customers with more reliable information on road conditions. The [[telematics]] system gives the contractors the ability to monitor location-based information, monitor planned versus actual activity, to react to problems and to be confident that roads have been adequately treated. The system also records whether the vehicles are spreading, the rate of and pattern of spreading, width and lane position, and ploughing<ref name="ref7">[http://www.cybit.co.uk/default.asp?contentID=683 http://www.cybit.co.uk/default.asp?contentID=683]</ref>.
===[[User:Abd|Abd]] blocked===
Just a quick note as the blocker; Abd was blocked solely for the de facto campaign of harassment against Fritzpoll (even after the blocking, the closest he can come to an apology is that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&diff=prev&oldid=231323975 Fritzpoll "could" be innocent]. This has nothing to do with the wider issue re WW (FWIW, somewhere in the thread you'll see me actually arguing in support of WW; I'm not trying to "suppress the opposition" here).
As I've said, I specifically mean "indefinite" as "undefined", not "forever". If someone genuinely thinks this was an abusive block (but note the ''seven'' warnings ''after'' the final warning), or Abd comes up with a legitimate reason to unblock, I won't oppose anyone unblocking – although having done some research through his contribs, he seems to have some very serious COI issues; as the self-declared inventor of a voting system, more than 50% of his mainspace edits are to related articles; there also seem to be some off-wiki issues, for what they're worth.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]</font> 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
: I think you've made the right call here. Much as I often agree with Abd on more general topics, his behaviour here was beyond the pale regarding Fritzpoll, who is an excellent contributor to mainspace. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 00:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
::For the benefit of anyone trying to resolve this mess, and to save reposting a huge chunk of diffs, the "personal attacks following final warning" on which the block was based (incidentally, despite what Abd is saying, the warning was ''not'' given by me), are listed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAbd&diff=231333439&oldid=231332573#Iridescent.2C_please_provide_diffs_for_the_.22repeated_posting_of_untrue_attacks_on_another_editor.2C.22_after_warnings.2C_on_which_you_apparently_based_your_block._Thanks. here]. Even after all that, the closest he's coming to a retraction is that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAbd&diff=231336671&oldid=231335727 "the whole thing could be a trick"], a claim that I somehow cooked this up because I wanted to block him but couldn't find a reason, and a threat to take me to Arbcom for "putting him in talk page prison".<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]</font> 00:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
:::For what its worth, there is no technical evidence of a connection between Fredrick day and Fritzpoll, and substantial circumstantial evidence to actively refute a connection. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 00:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't think the reference to a "trick" was that Iridescent was tricking Abd. The reference seems to be that F.D. was trying to trick Abd into thinking Fritzpoll was a sock of F.D. Which apparently succeeded, although rather than being an attempted trick it was apparently a case of missing quotation marks. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 12:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
::::No – [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAbd&diff=231336671&oldid=231335727 read it in context]. "''I've seen these kind of arguments before. They come up when admins want to block someone, but need to figure out a reason. This affair has, so far, to me, all the signs of that. It's fine with me. I don't need to be able to edit Wikipedia to prepare an ArbComm case''" is explicitly referring to this block being an admin conspiracy and/or a deliberate abuse by myself, and an implicit (albeit laughable) threat of an RFAR.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]</font> 13:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


=== Tracking and the Law ===
I made one of the last warnings, asking for input from others at the same time. I thoroughly support this block, more so now that Abd is claiming in the aftermath he was "tricked." His hints about Fritzpoll were utter smears and whether in good or bad faith, were disruption. He is clearly here to drum for his own interests, in his own meta-talk ways, far above and beyond anything else. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 00:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
In some countries, there are legal concerns over using tracking technology. In the UK, for example, the law stipulates that companies must tell drivers if they use telematics to monitor vehicles for anything other than asset tracking<ref name="ref8">[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032426.htm http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032426.htm]</ref>.


=== Future Growth ===
:I see on his talk page just now what i take as a rather full apology, so the block has served its purpose. I support an unblock. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 04:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The current worldwide market for fleet tracking powered by Global Positioning Systems (GPS) receiver technology is estimated at more than £1 billion and is expected to grow to more than £15 billion during the next 10 years<ref name="ref8" />.
::I also support an unblock as Abd has thrice made my [[User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles#While_not_articles.2C_the_following_posts_from_the_below_list_of_wise_Wikipedians_also_provide_some_of_the_finest_arguments_I_have_read_on_Wikipedia:|list of wise wikipedians]]. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, [[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 04:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
:::What? How silly. Iridescent, the blocking admin, also appears on your "list of wise wikipedians". So I guess really you should be neutral? [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 14:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
::::I do not think either Abd or Iridescent should be blocked indefinitely. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, [[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
: On his talk page Abd has clearly acknowledged that Fritzpoll is not Fredrick Day and has apologized directly to Fritzpoll for any distress this misunderstanding may have caused and they seem to have parted on friendly terms. This seems to be a significant constraint that those who supported the ban wanted from Abd. He has now provided it. I support unblocking him. --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 07:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


==References==
This is [[User:Abd|Abd]]'s "apology" to [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&diff=prev&oldid=231369172]: "I can also, now, apologize for my thoughts, expressed above, calling into question Fritzpolls' competence as an administrator. I still think he made some mistakes, but.... what matters is what happens next, and it looks like he's properly handling it now." Although [[User:Abd|Abd]] uses the term "apologize", he still claims that the mistakes were on [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]]'s side. [[User:Abd|Abd]] apologizes only because [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] "is properly handling it now". Yellowbeard 11:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Yellowbeard|Yellowbeard]] ([[User talk:Yellowbeard|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard|contribs]]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


<references/>
: Abd has clearly apologized for the sock puppetry related suspicions and any distress those may have caused. Unless I am reading things incorrectly this was the primary motivation for his block. That now seems to be settled. That he still believes there was a rush to judgment in this case and therefore an injustice had been done is a separate matter. Both Fritzpoll and Abd seem to be in agreement that an independent review is appropriate and I suspect most people would accept that this is a good course of action at this point. The outcome of that review will set the tone for any next steps in resolving this matter. If an injustice was done then it can be easily undone. If the judgment was proper then corrective action can be put in place. The bottom line is that simple, IMHO. Either way I agree, even if Abd does not, that Fritzpoll was justified in his actions based on the consensus expressed there and the information Fritzpoll had available to him at the time.
{{Reflist}}


== External sites ==
: I also believe that people may be misinterpreting Abd's position and intent. When he says that Fritzpoll made mistakes, knowing what I do about Abd, I don't believe that this is intended as an attack on Fritzpoll, per se. It is merely an observation (without prejudice or judgment) about the process that was followed, where it might have gone wrong, and therefore what should be done to fix it. I interpret Abd's comment as being a statement about the process as opposed to about Fritzpoll personally, but I can certainly see how others might interpret it differently. Abd is focused on improving the process to avoid similar issues arising in the future as far as I can tell. So in that light I think that YB's issue above takes on a whole different tone. Perhaps this is just my interpretation, though, and your mileage may vary. --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
[http://www.cybit.co.uk/real-time-vehicle-tracking.html Vehicle tracking solutions]
::As far as I can tell (I find it hard to follow 15,000 byte polemics) he hasn't provided a retraction and unconditional apology for his baseless sockpuppetry accusation. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 17:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
:::I think it's as close as I'm going to get, and I have accordingly assumed good faith and accepted it on his talkpage. The block, from my vantage point was triggered by the accusation, but not the sole issue for iridescent, which is something you should probably check with him. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 17:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
::::As I say on his talkpage, I'm neither going to endorse a block or an unblock here. I am getting very irritated at being the butt of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAbd&diff=231336671&oldid=231335727 sub-WR level conspiracy theory] that (despite never having interacted with this user or Fritzpoll in any way prior to this incident, AFAIK) I somehow engineered this situation to give myself a pretext to block him. Since, given what appears to be a totally warped view of what Wikipedia is for (this is not another Giano or Vintagekits who has had disputes with some editors but has a basically sound pattern of editing; this is a user with less than 20% of their contributions being to mainspace, more than 50% of which are on the voting system he claims on his userpage to have invented) I believe that any endorsement I make of either blocking or unblocking, he'll either see as "proof of the vendetta against him", or as a "defeat for the cabal", as appropriate. That is ''not'' to argue against an unblock – he'd hardly be the first disruptive editor given another chance – but it's a decision I want no part in taking.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]</font> 17:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::That's fair enough, but I think you should go further and say that you won't stand in the way of an unblock. Simply blocking and then sitting on the fence doesn't really help. Fritzpoll has taken an admirable and pragmatic stance and has decided to accept the apology, as far as it goes, and move on. I can understand your frustration, but really, the sockpuppet accusations and the block of Abd, and even his comments about you, are a sideshow. If we could get that cleared up and move on to how to handle (and not handle) editors producing (sometimes) problematic content with DYK as a motivation, then that would be good. We could even try and persuade Abd to take a different approach (I haven't read all he has written recently), but that is a separate issue to what you blocked him for. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 17:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::''"If someone genuinely thinks this was an abusive block (but note the seven warnings after the final warning), or Abd comes up with a legitimate reason to unblock, I won't oppose anyone unblocking" (...) iridescent 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)''. I suppose we are just waiting for Abd to throw up an unblock template. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 17:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry, I thought I was clear but these threads are starting to get rather tangled; for the record, I will ''explicitly '''not''' stand in the way of, or argue against, anyone unblocking''. As Xeno quotes above, if you genuinely think this was abusive – or if you think he's "served his time" – feel free to unblock. I specifically said both on the block log and the block notice that this was not "indefinite" in the sense of "forever". The point I was trying to make above is that I don't think ''I'' should be the one to make the decision on this one since after the string of attacks on me I'm not going to be unbiased.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]</font> 18:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
==== I must protest the continuation of Abd's block at this point. ====
While I accept Iridescent's good faith in her making of the block, the use of an indefinite block was perhaps not the best choice. When she made the block she stated "If someone genuinely thinks this was an abusive block (but note the seven warnings after the final warning), or Abd comes up with a legitimate reason to unblock, I won't oppose anyone unblocking ..." While I agree that it was not Iridescent's original intent, I am here to claim that this block has become abusive and punitive, and as such I would ask that someone please unblock him at this point.


[http://www.amatics.com/default.asp?contentID=668 Fleet tracking solutions]
In looking over [[WP:BLOCK]] can someone please justify the continued blocking of [[User:Abd]] under any of the sections listed in [[WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_be_used]] because I am having a hard time understanding how the continuation of this block serves any of the purposes listed therein. Can someone offer a rationale here, please?


[http://www.highways.gov.uk Highways Agency]
I will also note that this particular block, IMHO, has now reached a point where the first two sections of [[WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_not_be_used]] seem quite applicable. It is being used, for all practical purposes, to settle a dispute [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&diff=231589834&oldid=231587422], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&diff=231591359&oldid=231590899], and the edit summary of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&diff=231595412&oldid=231592754], and for others here with the power to unblock I suspect that they see this more as [[WP:CDB]]. If this is not the case please state your rationale for allowing this to continue.

--[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 15:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:Abd has not asked to be unblocked yet. I'm sure if they were to request to be unblocked and retract their comments regarding iridescent, someone would unblock them. I think even Keeper76 has offered to under these circumstances. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 15:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::Has yet to* and he's a she. '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 15:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::::User page says his name is "Dennis". [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Tan <nowiki>{{trout}}</nowiki>. I meant iridescent. '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 16:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::{{Fixed}} --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 16:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:::{{Fixed}} –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 15:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::But I never referenced irid with a gender-specific pronoun. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::My fault. GoRight started off by saying him, and its now corrected. /end confusions. '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 16:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:I don't think there is a requirement for Abd to make such a request before an unblock can be performed. I am arguing that, as Iridescent said at the beginning of this, enough is enough. If the block is no longer justified under [[WP:BLOCK]] it should be lifted. --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 16:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::Well, to try and answer some of your questions: If he has not requested an unblock, there is no reason to unblock, since it was done in good faith and appropriate. Its indef only because there is currently no fixed duration (this is of course up to how Abd proceeds from here on out). When and if he chooses to request it, conversation can flow in that specific direction on his talk page (so long as its not misused and subsequently protected). I hope this helps you understand this situation a little better. '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::He was blocked for making baseless accusations towards Fritzpoll (which have since been resolved) but exacerbated the situation by making baseless accusations towards Iridescent. I see no reason for him to be unblocked without a retraction of the latter. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Seems the cabal is out to get him and prevent him from saving wikipedia - "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&diff=231792256&oldid=231786529 So, there's a task for me, write about it on the policy pages. Which is, of course, exactly what some admins, explicitly, are trying to prevent.] --[[Special:Contributions/87.115.24.199|87.115.24.199]] ([[User talk:87.115.24.199|talk]]) 09:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Well, there is a kind of cabal, the real kind, which is mostly virtual and informal, which is clearly out to get me, but, apparently, they aren't in firm control. Yup. I find out about cracks in policy and try to patch them, usually after someone tripped over them. There are some doozies. Anyway, folks, that's a Fredrick day IP, in case you haven't noticed. Up to his usual. You might notice I'm unblocked, now, courtesy of Xenocidic. Thanks to all who supported me through this block. It took longer than it might otherwise, I didn't put up an unblock template till today. When I put it up, unblock was denied, no big surprise, but the alleged consensus that I should continued to be blocked unravelled quickly with no further action by me. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 03:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Welcome back. Looking at the length of my last two posts I think you may be starting to rub off on me. :) [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 04:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::One of the big problems is that we have a process whereby editors are encouraged to make comments that become decisions based on knee-jerk responses to incomplete analysis of situations, and often highly biased presentations of arguments that exaggerate what evidence does exist. Garbage in, garbage out. We can see, now, that the charges against WW were not based on evidence of copyvio, that evidence still hasn't shown up, so whatever exists must be minor. The other charges looked bad, except that her lack of repetition of each offense (and she had made mistakes, no doubt about it) wasn't brought out, because nobody went over the charges in a systematic way: had she done the thing (often yes but sometimes no), was she warned, did she continue after warning? If not, ''there was no need for any sanction, the basis warning/behavioral change process worked.'' I've claimed that AN/I is a terrible place to decide long-term remedies, it's great for deciding on escalating blocks, which are harmless ''if'' there is review process that will exonerate an editor who is wrongly blocked. But we actually don't have a good process on that. We have a process that ''usually'' works, but which can seriously break down, it's far too unreliable. In any case, we aren't going to fix these problems through shallow, knee-jerk responses, which can easily be very brief. If someone works a half-day to develop an opinion, sure, they can summarize the opinion, sometimes, in a few words. And then people who haven't done that research simply dismiss it as without evidence. If they put in the evidence needed, it is quite likely to be a long post. There are solutions to the problem, but Wikipedia doesn't even agree that there is a problem yet, so implementing a solution is way premature. I'm attempting to experiment with solutions in narrow environments, and even that is quite difficult. But I think we will get there. If I didn't think that, I'd abandon the project. It's far too abusive as it is. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 14:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

:: I came across your account as the result of a comment I made on someone else's userpage that was copied to yours. I saw you were blocked and had a look at your history. When you get past the massive massive comments that you make everywhere, you seem to be a SPA - you have some sort of voting system that you want to push and everything you do seems to be geared to getting us to adopt it ''and nobody is interested''. Part of the reason that nobody seems to be interested is that you seem to have no interest in getting engaged in the core function of this project - to produce a quality encyclopedia. Your mainspace edits account are @ 18% but once you remove the edits to the article on your pet voting structure (which I think you claim to invented), it's actually near '''9%'''. Would you consider becoming involved in our core function? writing and producing quality articles? --[[User:Hank Pym|Hank Pym]] ([[User talk:Hank Pym|talk]]) 14:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
:::'''Comment''': Please note that [[User:Hank Pym]] has been confirmed as a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fredrick_day&diff=228690687&oldid=204274758 ban] evading sock per [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day|checkuser]]. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, [[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 20:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Pym (Fredrick day) knows that if you throw enough mud, some of it sticks. But he's quite confused about this "voting structure" thing. Sure, I'm one of six independent inventors that I know of -- there are probably more -- of what I call [[Delegable proxy]], but the article on that, which I created as [[Liquid democracy]] in 2005, I think, for that was the name from another inventor, that was, at the time, better known than my own term, I only edited at the very beginning. Later, I didn't touch it because of COI, so that isn't what Fred is talking about. Must be [[Instant runoff voting]], which isn't exactly my "pet voting structure." For sure. But I happen to be a bit of an expert on it and on the politics of it. Delegable proxy is not a "voting structure," it's a communications structure that can be used to form and estimate consensus on a large scale, efficiently, see [[WP:Delegable proxy]] a proposal that was, of course, rejected, because, in spite of all that the creator of that page and I explained, editors considered it a voting method. And, of course, "we don't vote." Of course, when the attempt was made to actually delete the project page, and the majority of editors !voted Delete, and the closer closed with Keep as Rejected, they screamed. How dare the closer disregard the "consensus"! Such is this place. Little by little, we are either waking up or going totally mad. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 03:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Abd's unblock came too early. Abd succeeded in getting unblocked without having to show any insight. It is clear that Abd will interpret his unblock as a community approval of his behaviour. And it is clear that he won't change his behaviour after these events. [[User:Yellowbeard|Yellowbeard]] 11:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
:Yellowbeard is an SPA that became entirely devoted to me and my associates or work, since December, 2007. He's correct. Hopefully, this discussion here will cease. Pending resolution satisfactory to me, I have taken voluntary action which largely restricts me to my own user space: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abd#Voluntary_User_space_restriction.3B_process_to_detemine_the_facts_of_my_block._Blaze_trail.] --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 17:50, 16 August 2008

While the issue has already been resolved, I just want to say that I disagree that Abd's behavior at any point has warranted a block. The sockpuppet "accusation" -- if that's what it was, as I read it, he went out of his way to avoid an ''explicit'' accusation -- turned out to be unfounded, but it was not totally unreasonable. A simple "Hey, I'm not a sockpuppet," would've been sufficient. Chasing him onto his talk page and continuing to press the issue was unconstructive at best. Additionally, the comments of a number of editors on Abd's talk page were just barely within the bounds of civility. I'm glad Abd's been unblocked. But he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place, and regardless of whether or not Abd needs to be more concise or whatever, the whole thing could've been handled with way less drama. Just my two cents. [[User:J. Langton|J. Langton]] ([[User talk:J. Langton|talk]]) 05:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

===So the state of play is?===

I note that no-one has yet replied to my question, which was, what exactly is the state of play regarding WW and the supposed DYK ban? Hopefully I can get an answer this time. If I don't, I think I am just going to have to assume that there is no consensus and that it will be up to the DYK regulars to formulate a response for themselves. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 07:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
:That a topic ban is currently in place, but that I have asked for it to be reviewed by a neutral administrator, who will get around to it this evening. Hope that helps [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 11:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
::Ho hum, the drama goes on. Thanks for letting me know. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 11:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
:One minor correction to your summary above, Gatoclass. You stated "It transpired that most people merely felt that she needed to acknowledge some mistakes and accept a mentor, but since no-one put up their hand to act as mentor..." however at least two people offered to mentor her. WW simply "archived" those offers along with anything else put on her talk page with in minutes of seeing it and did not respond to them. I, myself, am one of the ones who agreed with the bans because her reactions to them showed she didn't care at all about the guidelines and made it clear that she was her because she felt she "had" to make 10,000 articles and get a lot of DYK's to make a name for herself. I am mildly concerned that she has such an obsession at a young age, one that would daunt many older, more experienced editors.
:I felt a topic ban was necessary to stop her from violating [[WP:COPYRIGHT]] (which I know she has done frequently in other topic areas, such as films and television because I was the one who went behind and corrected her and thought, mistakenly, that she had learned rather than just moved to a new area) and from violating [[WP:V]] with her inaccurate additions where she admits to not knowing what she's reading or writing about, her actually sourcing herself in some articles, etc. These are two very core policies that editors can not just be allowed to ignore because they are "young" or "inexperienced." I know another editor who is about 10 who has learned about those and come to understand both reasonably well enough that he even checks to make sure a source is [[WP:RS]] if he isn't sure himself. If a 10 year old can learn that without having to come to this extremely, sure WW should have gotten it by now? Her talk page history shows that rather than learn, she is ignoring, and that is not good. I would like to see her get turned around, as I think she does have the potential to be a good editor if she'd stop ignoring the community, policies, and guidelines, to do so. I worked with her on a few articles and it took some time but I thought she'd learned something, but it seems she hasn't learned to apply those teachings across the board, and has allowed herself to become obsessed with amassing DYKs. -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
::When did the copyvios that you refer to occur? The most recent copyvio that I have seen evidence of to date occurred more than 6 months ago. If you know of recent copyvios I would like to see evidence of that, because that would likely impact my current position that the ban (that I originally supported) was probably inappropriate. But if the copyvios are from a few months ago or more I do not think we should be sanctioning her for that now, as that issue would have already been addressed. The quality issue is still outstanding, but I have looked at some of her creations, and while there have been errors it has hardly been the situation that was represented at the original AN/I - that she either just copies straight from her sources (no evidence in the past 6 months that I've seen) or changes some words to avoid copyvio but doesn't care about whether the result is correct or not. Sometimes the result has been incorrect (which is a legitimate issue, but not the overwhelming one presented at AN/I), but more often than not she gets things right, and the inaccuracies are typically minor. For example, I nominated her [[Jillian Clare]] article for DYK. I had to expand the article and add references to get it to be eligible for DYK. But the only error I found in the original article as WW created it was that she referred to ''[[Star Trek IV]]'' as an "episode", rather than as a "movie". And given that it is one of now 10 movies, describing it as an episode is arguably accurate. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 16:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed the various threads myself for the first time I can now comment. There was a clear community consensus to topic ban her from DYK. The most important underlying problems were concern about plagiarism and writing articles that just weren't right. The intent of topic banning her from DYK was to get her to slow down and do a better job herself, instead of depending on the rest of the community to repair her articles to an acceptable standard after the page has already been on the main page. Thus someone who quickly forwards her suggestions for DYK noms is undercutting the intent of the ban, and in the long run is likely to lead to further restrictions being placed. The community was open to mentoring - which would require the mentor to actually review her work closely - but WW did not indicate any such openness (and some evidence from her talk archives seems to indicate that she is not willing to work with or learn from anybody).

It might be possible for another editor to review her new page creations, take responsibility themselves to make sure it is a decent article, explain to her the changes that were made and why they had to be made, and then nominate the resulting article for DYK under their own name. When they stop having to make changes to her articles to get them into decent shape, then it would be time to nominate on behalf of WW. It would be most effective if each type of change was made in a single edit with appropriate edit summaries - say one edit to clean up any copyvio/plagiarism, one edit to correct the article's wording and facts, one edit to bring the referencing up to snuff, and (it appears likely to be needed) one edit to use multiple sources. This would have the effect of mentoring her, though it would work better if she were actively participating in two way communication. Given the pace at which she has been operating, this may be more than any one editor can do on their own - and given her prior attitude we may have trouble finding volunteers. It takes me a couple hours to produce a decent non-stub article - and it will probably take about as long for any reviewer to make sure that a new article from this editor is in fact not just a stub (regardless of the presence of absence of a stub template). [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 14:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
:I think you're right. I also think we should not be spending lots of editor time, just to facilitate some editor who seems more interested in racking up a new high score than in collaborating usefully with others. Anyone who actively subverts the topic ban probably needs to also be topic banned. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 14:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
::Excuse me? What in the original topic ban or consensus thereof indicated that the ban applied to other editors nominating articles created by WW? Some supporters of the ban explicitly stated that their conditions for lifting the ban were that other editors succesfully nominate at least 5 (or maybe it was some other number) of her articles to DYK. Surely they weren't supporting a ban on other editors nominating her articles. And while that wasn't my position, the ban as I supported it was applicable only to her self-nominations.[[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 16:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
:GRBerry, I was going to ask/echo "is it worth it?" when I saw Friday had said rather much the same thing. As you hint, if there are volunteers willing to help out with this, wonderful but otherwise it seems to me she isn't ready to do this on her own yet. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 15:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
:One of the problems is that, if you look closely at new articles (not just the ones being looked at here), lots of them have problems. That is part of the point of a wiki, after all, that people come along and improve what you have written. Where to draw the line with problems with articles and explaining this to those who start articles in a stubby state (we've all done that, I would venture to say), is tricky. I've spent time trying to find out more about [http://original.britannica.com/eb/author?id=724 Paul E. Pieris Deraniyagala], to see if WW's choice of one source over another for one date (1967, instead of 1937) was correct, but it is difficult. I agree with those that have said that an obsession with DYK is not good. The aim should be to improve as an editor overall, not rack up DYKs. Oh, and in case anyone thinks I write good stubs, [[List of Arctic expeditions]] needs attention... [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 15:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

::So you have a verdict yet? Because I'm still not clear on what's happening. Is she barred from participating in DYK unless she accepts a mentor, and if so, who is putting their hand up for the job? [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 11:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:::She is barred from DYK. Mentoring is a possible path to removing the bar. There are others, but they all require WW to do things she hasn't yet done - or even shown any understanding of. To put it bluntly, she is going to have to change her ways significantly for the DYK bar to be lifted, and thus far the only acknowledgment of problems I've seen is that she has admitted the need to check WP:AFC submissions for copyright issues. DGG, Tim Vickers, Fritzpoll, and S. Dean Jameson had previously offered to mentor and work with her to various degrees at various times. In late July, she did work a little with DGG. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&diff=prev&oldid=227722455][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&diff=prev&oldid=228254761][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&diff=prev&oldid=228307109]. For Tim and S. Dean Jameson, she thought it was "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wilhelmina_Will&diff=prev&oldid=229634610 wierd]" that people were trying to help her, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wilhelmina_Will&diff=prev&oldid=229635313 said] that she didn't want anybody talking to her, basically said that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wilhelmina_Will&diff=prev&oldid=229636613 she won't listen] to anyone who thinks there is a problem with her work, and said that she'll only work with others if she is in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wilhelmina_Will&diff=prev&oldid=229640886 charge]. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 14:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:::: Regarding her "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wilhelmina_Will&diff=prev&oldid=229634610 wierd]" comment, I am certainly not alleging ANYTHING here on the part of those who approached her and who I recognize as being sincere in their efforts, but if you had a 16 year old daughter working on the internet today would you want her to be befriending everyone who approaches her out of the blue? From her perspective people she knows nothing about are approaching her, uninvited, and offering to be her friend. If I were her parent I would encourage her to be suspicious of such people, wouldn't you? --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:::One thing I have discovered is that this "topic ban" for WW didn't get added to [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions]]. So Abd's point that the paperwork wasn't filled out is valid, let alone the points that people are making that the original case may have been overstated. My verdict, if it helps at all, is that everyone should try and move on from the mess that resulted, and try and start again with assessing what needs to be done. ie. Restart disussion from the point of the topic ban proposal. Sorry if that isn't very helpful, but that's about as much as I can make out at the moment. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:::: Since the most significant factor in the original discussion which made a ban even a consideration was the accusation of wide spread copyvio on her part, and since is it impossible for us to prove that these haven't occurred, perhaps those making the charge should now be required to provide diff's in sufficient quantity and recency to justify the continuation of the ban? --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 16:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::The discussion seems to have become focused on copyvio. I think many people joined this case during or after the argument at AN/I [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive457#Editor Wilhelmina Will's no holds barred DYK race -- I propose a temporary ban for her|here, that started on 28 July]], where the DYK topic ban was proposed. In deciding the way forward it would be helpful to forget the mess of accusation and counter-accusation that followed and re-read the discussion of Blechnic's original expression of concern about WW's activities [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive453#Another copyvio editor: wrong information, copyvios, broken links, spam links, bad geography, bad interpretions|on 21 July here]] which was not limited to copyvios, but included poor sourcing, taking articles from AfC without adequate checking, and inaccuracies caused by haste and by writing on subjects she did not understand. Mentors/nominators need to be alert to all these. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 21:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Even the July 21 thread is heavily focused on copyvios and plagarism. Although even there [[User:Blechnic]] concedes that she copies "cleverly" - as far as I can tell he is saying that she copies but changes the wording from her sources. Which she does. But that is no longer a copyvio. Admittedly, that could lead to different problems - i.e., her inaccuracies when revising the wording - but I'll come back to that. Another problem discussed in the July 21 thread is poor sourcing. But that is not a problem unique to WW or to DYK. That is the case with many newly created Start class articles. That is the nature of most newly created start class articles - they have a limited amount of information and are often poorly sourced. At least with a DYK we know that one item from the article was traced back to at least a plausibly reliable source. And then there are the issues from the July 28 thread - the reverting an edit to keep an article over 1500 characters, using uncivil language in the edit summary while doing so, and trying to lie about the latter. But all that at worst was worth a short block, and most likely at most a warning. Which gets us back to the inaccuracies that sometimes emerge when she tries to reword articles or journals she doesn't fully understand. That is the one issue she has that is serious and recent (unless someone can show evidence of a recent copyvio; so far no one has come up with anything more recent than 7 months ago). But even that seems to be overblown. The only topics where any evidence of significant inaccuracies have been shown are in paleontology articles, which do seem to be a particular interest of WW's. Although as [[User:GoRight]] has indicated, there don't seem to be any such issues with her paleontology articles (alneit stubs) created since this whole drama erupted. But if the genuine issue is inaccuracies in paleontology articles (far less than the accusations in the July 21 or July 28 threads that led to the topic ban) then a DYK ban is hardly an appropriate remedy. At worst that ban should be limited to paleontology articles, or better yet, allow her to nominate paleontology articles to DYK but require a 2nd opinion from another knowledgeable editor before they can be used. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 04:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::One last point. Much was made in the July 28 thread (and to a lesser extent the July 21 thread) of her just creating articles to hunt for DYK "medals" and reach a goal she set for herself of 5000 DYKs. People felt that was inapprorpriate (I too at first). But even here there is more than initially meets the eye. First of all, a desire for DYK trophies is in itself hadly a bad thing. The purpose of the awards must be to encourage creation of DYK articles or else they wouldn't be there. Of course, if editors get sloppy just for the purpose of collecting DYK awards then it becomes counterproductive. But what was not mentioned in those threads was that WW's other goal is 10,000 newly created articles. That means 5000 non-DYK articles. That is hardly the goal of a mere trophy collector. It means her goal is to put in the effort to create 5000 articles that she would not expect to get DYK credit for. Also, having 30 DYK articles to her credit, she is entitled to the award for 25 DYKs. As far as I can tell from her user page or from the list of DYK contributors, it does not appear that she ever collected or tried to collect this award. Strange conduct if her sole goal was (as stated in the AN/I threads) just to collect DYK medals. And even after her ban (which apparently upset her very much) she went back to creating new articles with no expectation whatsoever of them achieving DYK status -and she seems genuinely surprised on her user page that 2 of her articles were successfully nominated during her Wikibreak. I think her ambitions are a lot more complex than was represented in the AN/I threads. She seems to genuinely want to improve the encycolpedia by creating new articles, and DYKs are just one element of that goal. And she seems to respond to criticism, even if she doesn't necessarily acknowledge it immediately, as she apparently stopped generating copyvios months ago when the issue was brought to her attention. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 04:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

==== Having others nominate WW's pages for DYK ====
Since Abd's block has removed the voice of WW's advocate from this forum, I shall attempt to fill that role during his absence. I have argued above, and Fritzpoll has concurred, that it will be acceptable for others to nominate WW's material so long as the nominator accepts responsibility for any quality concerns therein, and any such nominations shall not be considered an evasion of WW's ban. Is there any serious objection to this approach? --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 15:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, in the interests of time and effort, let us begin with a straw poll to gauge the level of consensus on this point.

Those in favor of allowing others to nominate WW's material for DYK per the conditions stated above:
# --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 16:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
# --[[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] This is what the original topic ban was, at least as I supported it. Some other people supporting the ban explicitly stated that their conditions for lifting the ban would be that other editors successfully nominate at least 5 (or some other number) of her new articles to DYK. So I don't see how anyone can conclude that there was a consensus for the topic ban to be any more restrictive than this. And I will say that in the time since the ban I have become concerned that my support of even this version of the ban was probably hasty. I have yet to see ANY eveidence of a copyvio (the most serious infraction) from the past 6 months, so I am concerned that the discussion of copyvios in the original discussuion was a red herring. Maybe a serious issue in the past, but apparently long since addressed. The issue of accuracy remains, but even there, having looked at some of her other creations, the issue seems less prevalent than it was presented at the original AN/I. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 16:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
# --Agree. [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Sticky</font></b>]] [[User talk:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Parkin</font></b>]] 22:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
# ---Agree. This is really standard. Nominating an article is often by other than the creator. She's not banned from creating articles. Wikipedia articles aren't expected to be perfect; DYK nomination actually results in rapid cleanup, much more often than not. If you look at what's being nominated, you'll see that a lot of pretty bad stuff is nominated. Her articles are way above the norm, so I wouldn't even think that an editor should be obsessive about checking the articles. I did one nomination for her, and I checked all the references and fixed some missing citations. I probably did a worse job of it than she would have, but others then helped some more. I don't see the reasoning behind the ban. It protects nothing. But it exists, so, in the meantime, we can avert part of the damage by simply recognizing what shouldn't have been controversial in the first place: anyone can nominate any article, and the community hasn't been banned from nominating WW's articles. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
# --Agree. This is similar to something I suggested on [[WT:DYK]] to remedy the situation, so of course I endorese this.--[[User:Bedford|<font color="black">'''King Bedford I'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Bedford|<font color="green">Seek his grace</font>]]</sup> 04:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Those with different conditions:
# Nominators need to actually review the article themselves for accuracy, copyright/plagiarism, and reliable sourcing. They should make any necessary changes before nominating the article, not merely "accept responsibility for any quality concerns". [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 16:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
#: FWIW, I had expected as much but thanks for the clarification. --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 16:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
#::Having just noticed it myself for the first time in a long time, I'd also be happier if they were processing [[User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult]] or Special:Newpages rather than specifically looking to get WW's contribs nominated. Not that this must be a necessary condition, but given the proxying policy, it would be a good idea. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 16:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
#:::Agree with GoRight. I would assume that anyone nominating an article (by WW or anyone else) would check the article for quality before nominating as a matter of course. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
#Agree (including GRBerry's condition). I agree with some reluctance, because I think the focus on DYK numbers is harmful, to her and to WP, and I am concerned about her continued refusal to engage in dialogue or accept a mentor or admit that there might (have been) a problem. But perhaps article discussions with other nominators will improve things. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 21:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Those opposed:

==== Review of the Specific Allegations of copyvio ====

I wish to review in detail any examples of copyvio alleged against WW. Thus far I am only aware of one specific example and here is what I turned up. Are there other examples which have already been identified?

===== Item 1 =====
:'''Original report:'''

:: From [[User:Blechnic]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive459&oldid=230092877#Her_existing_copy_vios_and_vandalisms_that_need_edited] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blechnic&oldid=230163812#Wilhelmina_Will.27s_vandalisms_and_copyvios]

:'''Chronology:'''

:: WW identifies a page that was started in the sandbox by another user but was never created, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=182826852&oldid=182825910], she then asks a more experienced user if she should create it, [[User talk:Antandrus/Archive26#Should these be created?|Antandrus Archive No. 26.]], who then indicates that it is an "unusually good for first [try] by newbies". She then creates the stub from the sandbox version, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wildlife_Experience&diff=prev&oldid=182911326], and begins to wikify the stub (see her edits in the history [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wildlife_Experience&action=history]). As part of the improvement process [[User:Jllm06]] adds references back to the original source, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wildlife_Experience&diff=185411769&oldid=182912018], approximately 11 days later.

:: [[User:Blechnic]] creates a user page section to record notes, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blechnic&diff=229719623&oldid=229689001], and WW replies there with an explanation, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blechnic&diff=229810609&oldid=229731460] some hours later.

:'''Conclusions:'''

:# The actual copying of copyrighted material was done by someone other than WW. While she should have been more careful about using such a stub, this is something that could have slipped by anyone, especially a newbie. In fact, it even slipped by a more experienced editor who subsequently added the references back to the original source.
:# Given the amount of text involved here it is not clear that this is even a copyright violation under [[Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#What_about_fair_use.3F|fair use standards]] once it was subsequently referenced back to the original source.

:'''Comments on this review:'''

==== Review of [[User:Wilhelmina Will]]'s articles ====
WW maintains a list of the articles she has created here, [[User:Wilhelmina_Will/Creations#Articles_I_have_mothered_.28created.29|Articles I have mothered (created)]].

'''Review results:'''
* Today I reviewed numbers 357-374 (her latest submissions) with the following observations:
** She has a number of scientific stubs created for various extinct animals. There is very little information on these pages but they are valuable as stubs, IMHO, as a couple of them have attracted additional user inputs. I reviewed the content and compared it to the sources she had used. I observed no copyvios and the information that is there is accurate per the sources. I can't speak to the [[WP:RS]] nature of these sources, however, but they don't appear to be alarming in any way. The images she used are from the wikimedia commons. My conclusion: no problems.
** She has a couple of pages on wrestlers. These pages have a lot of content which are mostly referenced to a wide range of fan sites. I expect that this is the norm for this type of article, but I could be wrong. They seem well written and provide a nice overview of the subjects, IMHO. I followed a number of the references provided on each page, but not every reference, and her use of the content from these sources seems appropriate. I did not observe any direct copyvio problems in my random checks. Other users have already begun to enhance these articles. My conclusion: good articles, no problems.
** She has a couple of BLPs on people from the entertainment industry. The content appears reasonable to me and the text is well written. I checked a reasonable subset of the information against the sources she had used and I observed no copyvios and an accurate use of the information from those sources. My conclusion: good articles, no problems.
** On all of the pages with significant content I would randomly select significant phrases and googled for an exact match. I found no hits based on these random checks.
** I won't claim to have vetted every word of every article but I believe I gave them a reasonably thorough look in each case, but your mileage may vary.
{{Collapse top}}
: --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 03:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
::I asked again and again for copyvio evidence, and nothing was provided, except the single old example. That doesn't mean there is none, this editor has written a lot of articles, and people can make mistakes. But I'd think that with Blechnic hot on her trail, he'd have come up with more if it was as common as would justify some kind of reprimand. What I saw was a quite respectable editor, with 30 DYKs. That is not a small accomplishment in itself. She made a few mistakes, but there is no sign that she repeated them after warning. And if there was a problem, it would be in article space. The alleged problem of her DYK nomination "greed" was a total red herring. If she's creating bad articles, the quickest way for them to be exposed and corrected is to DYK nominate them. As has been pointed out, if there is a problem, it would be with DYK policy. If we don't want to motivate people to create and nominate articles, why do we give awards? So she's motivated, and then we blame her for being motivated? There was ''one'' instance where she was a few characters short of 1500, the supposed requirement. And so she reverted an otherwise-proper edit on that basis, and very naively said that was her reason. Now, if she'd been faced with a sympathetic editor -- and we really should be sympathetic with each other, the other editor might have helped find some factoid to insert. Instead, he went ballistic. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
::: I invite you, and others who care to, to go through her articles in a manner similar to what I have done (I plan to continue going through them a little each day) and do a reasonable level of checking and report what you find here as I have done above. Interested parties can select a small range of articles and reserve them here with a first level bulleted one liner saying which ones you plan to go through. That way we won't duplicate efforts. And then when you are done replace the one liner with the summary of the results as I have done above. Soon we will have a good record to judge whether there is actually a problem here, or not. --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 07:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}
* I plan to next go through 340-356. --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 07:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
** I finally completed the review of these articles. The results were basically similar to the above.
** The only substantive change I made was to update one of the stubs for an extinct animal to "promote" one of her external links to a full fledged reference and expanded her text a bit to clarify the current view of the epoch from which this animal comes, even though what she had was arguably fine. Here's the change: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glarichelys&diff=232749742&oldid=231162742]
** There were no problems with any of these articles, IMHO.
** I'll discontinue my efforts here pending the outcome of the on-going straw poll to lift her ban. --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 20:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
{{Collapse top}}
:::Well, I'm not planning to do it. I don't think it is necessary. A number of editors have looked for copyvio in her edits, and little has been found. Whatever has been asserted was old, and, as you pointed out, not necessarily even copyvio when sourced. In the absence of evidence, we can assume that there is insufficient copyvio to be a basis for any remedy. If there is to be a ban of some kind, it would require other evidence. Further, the ban against DYK self-nomination, in place, is not preventative, it's apparently punitive. She can still create bad articles if she wants to or is unable to do otherwise. But that's self-punishing, she won't reach her DYK goals, which are indeed ambitious, if she creates bad articles, and if she's creating bad articles, that's a separate issue; should the net value of her contributions be less than the effort needed to fix whatever errors she makes, a remedy would be warning and block for ignoring or being unable to respond to the warnings, to protect the ''article space,'' which is, after all, what all this is about. If someone thinks her articles to be a problem, the answer is simple: watch her DYK nominations if you think DYK is the problem -- it isn't, it's actually part of the solution -- and check the articles. Might be one article per day. And fix the problems. In every case I've seen, that has involved a few edits, resulting in better articles that wouldn't have existed otherwise. Work ''with'' her, not against her. Help her, don't attempt to drag her to AN/I. Is this a difficult concept? I wouldn't think so, but apparently .... --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 14:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Both [[User:GoRight]] and [[User:Abd]] are not helpful in this thread. I recommend that they both back off and let other editors handle this matter. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 14:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
: Please explain how reviewing her articles for the alleged violations is not helpful. Do you suggest that we instead let the unsubstantiated accusations stand, and thereby allow her DYK ban to stand based on no evidence? --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 20:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
::The length of this thread shows signs of ''[[argumentum ad nauseum]]''. Rather than continuing here, perhaps you could [[WP:RFAR|request a review]] by the body appointed to handle such matters. It does not seem you have had much luck convincing the community to overturn the ban. I take no position on the underlying dispute as I have not reviewed it yet. The length of this conversation indicates a problem, for sure. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
::: "I take no position on the underlying dispute as ''I have not reviewed it yet''." - Perhaps you should before commenting further. --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 22:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Is Jehochman actually suggesting that we go to ArbComm when there is a neutral administrator, designated by the closing admin, reviewing the case, and that this may resolve it without further ado? Has he noticed that I suggested, many times, this wasn't the place to try to resolve this, but so many editors seem to have insisted on going right ahead? That I suggested we didn't need to compile evidence on WW's edits here, that's not what AN is for? I did not come here, in fact, to overturn the ban. At all. I came to respond to the issues raised by Fritzpoll. The ban stood, even though I considered it defective in certain ways, I advised WW to respect it, then developed a way to minimize the damage pending further resolution. This was a minimally disruptive plan. And, in fact, it is still going on. I'd suggest to GoRight that if he wants to continue to search for copyvios in WW's work, something I consider unnecessary at this point -- we don't have to prove that she never made any, and, in fact, she could have created *many* articles with copyvio as long as it wasn't recent -- he should do it on a user page. It could then be used in ensuing process ''if it is necessary,'' which it may not be. We already know that, in spite of multiple requests, the copyvio charge was essentially false. I.e., there may have been an isolated incident, perhaps, but there was no ongoing pattern, hence copy vio as a basis for the ban -- and this is the main reason the closing admin gave -- was defective. What happens here is that no clear decision is made, arguments go back and forth about this or that. There is no open case for AN to decide, this whole discussion was a mistake, that's what I've been saying from the beginning. It's like someone taking an AfD decision they don't like to AN. Or, more accurately, a closing admin who is asked about his decision and who comes here to find out if he "judged the consensus right," when that wasn't the issue at all. If he wasn't clear about his decision and willing to take personal responsbility for it, he should not have closed, period. He didn't close at the time, nobody closed, so I wonder at the comment of an admin above that she was about to close "with the same decision." The discussion simply petered out and went into archive, with nobody taking responsibility for a decision. I really wish people would take the time to either (1) investigate this or (2) assume a little good faith on my part when I present the results of my investigations. In an environment like this, too many seem to want a brief conclusion, not a detailed examination, and then they will agree with it or not, not based on reviewing the evidence, but on ... what? The name of the editor? The phase of the moon? The faction they perceive the editors as belonging to? But, really, my opinion is that nobody should vote in any of our processes without investigating the evidence, which would, yes, reduce greatly the number of people voting. But we'd get better decisions. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 22:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}

===Proposal by Fritzpoll: rapid straw poll needed to lift ban===
Per my discussion with [[User:Carcharoth]] (which due to time differences, he has yet to respond to - but this is of sufficient urgency to jump process), I would like to make the proposal to '''lift the topic ban of Wilhelmina Will''', for the following reasons:
*Concerns about her editing, so prevalent early on appear to have dissipated
*Recent articles since coming back from her Wikibreak (as she described it) have shown to be good
*Most importantly, she has engaged with other editors to check facts before creating articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARlendog&diff=232454709&oldid=232404620]
In these regards, ignoring whether or not the topic ban should have been placed to begin with, the community's concerns there expressed have been satisfied per my original reading of consensus. A quick straw poll here over the next few hours to confirm the validity of this, and I'll let WW know that it's gone. This will be much faster than arguing over a discussion that is weeks old, which is ultimately better for WW anyway. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 07:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::''Addendum'' - I plan to review this around 24 hours after the above posting, and if there are no substantive objections, I'll overturn the ban and notify WW [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 13:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' (and with thanks to Fritzpoll for having the energy to see this through, and GoRight for doing the work above) [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 07:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' WW's recent contributions show that she has taken on board the comments made here and elsewhere and is also showing more of a desire to collaborate and ask for assistance where necessary. [[User:Nancy|<font face="Segoe Script" color="#FF6600"> nancy</font>]] <sup> [[User talk:Nancy|talk]]</sup> 07:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''', thought it was over-harsh anyway. [[User:Msgj|MSGJ]] ([[User talk:Msgj|talk]]) 07:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - an editor who takes on board suggestions and shows improvement deserves our encouragement. '''''<font color="green">[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]</font>''''' 09:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''', seconding the thanks to Fritzpoll who acted just as an admin should - took responsibility, acted with fairness and moderation while being attacked, as a peacemaker so often is, by those he was trying to help, and saw it through to a satisfactory conclusion. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 16:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 16:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
*I '''strongly support lifting the ban''', based upon the fact that WW seems to be improving in the areas that were previously an issue. It's good to see that she's taking to heart some of the concerns that were raised. I have felt from the beginning of this whole incident that she has some real ability, and I think that she's definitely on track to be a wonderful contributor to the project. Nice work throughout, Fritz. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|<small><sup>''S.''</sup></small>]][[User:S. Dean Jameson|<small><sub>''D.''</sub></small>]][[User_talk:S. Dean Jameson|'''Jameson''']] 17:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Even if the ban was proper -- which it was not -- it is clearly improper now, and totally unnecessary. My own behavior, with regard to my own, should be examined in a voluntary user RfC I've started in my user space, at [[User:Abd/RfC]]. The participation of those who have been critical of my actions is especially invited; however, the purpose of this is to advise me, so that I don't repeat any problem behavior, so this RfC is under my process control, it's not going to be quite like a standard RfC, which, of course, anyone could open. But since I'm mostly confining myself to my user space pending review, that shouldn't be necessary, at least not yet. (As an ongoing issue, this is an exception I made in my voluntary topic "ban." I only mention this here because the "attack" of Fritzpoll is mentioned above, and I have a different view of what happened. Fritzpoll was not my focus, but rather an abusive process that could result in an unnecessary topic ban which nearly drove a very productive and valuable editor from the project, based on trumped-up and unsubstantiated allegations. That's my opinion, of course, and no necessity to discuss it here. I won't be, any further, unless my presence is demanded.) Please note, nothing in this edit criticizes Fritzpoll or claims that he acted improperly, or denies the view that he was harassed. Indeed, my RfC could conclude that I did unjustly attack him and ignored warnings, i.e, that my block was properly applied. I have my opinions, but would greatly value a considered consensus on the manner, developed in a rigorously non-disruptive manner. That's why it's in my user space, where nobody has any obligation to read any of it. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 17:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' As discussed above, most of the issues that led to the ban were not as recent or prevalent as appeared when the ban was imposed. Since WW seems to be working to address the remaining issues (i.e., accuracy when summarizing information from technical sources, engaging the community), the ban no longer serves any productive purpose. Seconding S. Dean Jameson's comments, I think her energy, motivation and resiliance will make her a wonderful contributor to the project. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - Thanks to both [[User:Fritzpoll]] and [[User:Carcharoth]] for taking the lead in resolving this matter. --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 18:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Wisest way of addressing issues with the original ban. [[User:Geoff Plourde|Geoff Plourde]] ([[User talk:Geoff Plourde|talk]]) 18:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Agreed with User:Fritzpoll. &ndash;[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] [[User talk:Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''T'''ropical</sup></font>]] [[Special:contributions/Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''C'''yclone</sup></font>]] 18:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Whilst it looks like support is there based upon the issues, it bears noting Abd is "coaching" WW - notably [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilhelmina_Will&diff=232735008&oldid=232693964]. My concern is that this then places WW in a lousy position. Should she then contribute here in a way Abd has advocated, it raises the question of sincerity. The support, which I totally agree with, seems present; it doesn't need influencing. [[User:Minkythecat|Minkythecat]] ([[User talk:Minkythecat|talk]]) 19:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
**Hence my subsequent comment on that page that it is WW, not Abd or anyone else who is earning the lifting of the restriction. I'm concerned that this might otherwise be viewed as a triumph of advocacy over good editing [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 19:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
*** Agreed. As I've said, I'd support what has been proposed. It is and should always be WW's actions, words et al that determine the end result, those actions, words, have to be honest actions whether good or bad - not coached. [[User:Minkythecat|Minkythecat]] ([[User talk:Minkythecat|talk]]) 19:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
****Of course. And I'd never suggest that an editor say something insincere. But many editors have advised her to tell us that she made a mistake and she won't do it again. Isn't that "coaching?" In any case, I only advocated for her because, when I checked, she appeared to be quite a good editor, with the claims made in her ban discussion being greatly exaggerated. I'm not only concerned about this one case, here, I'm concerned about a process that resulted in what amounted to a massive insult regarding her work here, unjustly critical to the extreme, and that I have seen befall other editors. There is no support for a ban being shown here, now that (1) GoRight took the time to document that a sample of her recent work was free of copyvio, (2) Many editors have reviewed her work and have considered it worthy, (3) It has become known that problem behaviors had ceased, quickly, when she was warned, and that these had been no more than isolated incidents. (4) And then, the new reason given for lifting the ban, an incident of obvious cooperative behavior. Previously, when she had been attacked, and then some of those who attacked her approached her to "help," she simply ignored it. And then they used this against her. I think she would have been "cooperative" all along, approached with sensitivity and compassion. But we don't block or ban editors for not being "communicative." We block or ban them for behavior contrary to guidelines that continues after warning. Quite simply, this condition did not exist, ever. I make this point for a reason. If the ban is lifted because "she has now opened up," but the ban is still considered to have been justified, we are maintaining the insult. I.e, "your year of work, your hundreds of articles created, your 30 successful DYK nominations, were 'crap' or 'vandalism,'[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=229687413], but now that you've shown you'll talk to us about it, we'll forgive you, maybe you can learn to do good work, so we will give you another chance." It's abusive. We don't have to decide, now, that the ban was improper, but neither should we emphasize her supposed conversion as a reason for unblock. And WW is not responsible for unsolicited advice I give her. She never asked for my advice, though she did ask for a clarification once, and, I think, it was that clarification, pointing out that the ban did not prevent other editors from DYK nominating her articles, and the proof of this that I and another editor provided by DYK nominating two articles she had created, successfully, that may have given her sufficient cheer to continue here.--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Though I strongly support the lifting of this topic ban, there was nothing improper about the initial community topic ban. There were several issues raised, and she has dealt with them. Both Tim Vickers and myself (neither of whom had "attacked" her in any way) initially extended offfers of help and support. She simply blanked them without comment. She has since improved greatly, and that--and '''only''' that (not any perceived "advocacy" done on her behalf)--has led to the topic ban being lifted. It really ''is'' as simple as that. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|<small><sup>''S.''</sup></small><small><sub>''D.''</sub></small>]][[User:S. Dean Jameson|'''D.J.''']][[User_talk:S. Dean Jameson|''Jameson'']] 03:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::Briefly, there were errors of substance and errors of procedure, of a kind that are common on the noticeboards, they are not good places to come up with well-crafted solutions. There was no specified term, though many of the !voters stated "short." There were requests for evidence that were ignored, and such evidence as existed was exaggerated, such that single incidents, of a kind that would ordinarily attract little attention, were presented as patterns of behavior (and the !votes showed concern for the patterns.) Irrelevancies were tossed in the mix, that the editor lied about a minor incivility was taken as a blockworthy offense, when it is not. There was no evidence of behavior continuing after warning, which is crucial before a ban or block. Her DYK motivation was widely condemned, when we encourage editors to seek DYK nominations, because it results in better quality articles. If her article work were bad, if the incivility or edit warring had been true problems, the remedy would have been warning and block, not a DYK ban. Then there was the procedural problem. No administrator took full responsibility for a close, and the discussion was simply archived. And the admin who did seem to eventually step in and act as a closing admin, held the opinion that it was the community's decision, not his; but a closing admin would, for example, fix the term, if any, and take certain other actions which weren't taken. And then this admin, being the one who actually made the decision, could also modify it. No other admin could modify it, it would be wheel-warring, without going through some new discussion. There has been only one change that took place after the ban: she requested the help of another editor on some fish articles. Once, a single edit. I have seen an editor's noncommunication cited as a reason for a block, but only when the user was engaged in reverting without explanation. It was improper to cite her lack of response as a reason for the ban, when she had not repeated any of the offenses for which there was evidence after warning. In other words, her lack of continued offense should have been considered sufficient response. Basically, there was no close so there was no topic ban. Fritzpoll's response to the issue was ambiguous. He told WW that it had not been his decision, it was the community's decision. That would be like an AfD closer who decides "Consensus is Delete" saying, it wasn't my decision, it was the community's decision, and I can't change it. But AfD closers can change the decision, and fairly often do, when presented with convincing arguments or new evidence. We could have been spared all this drama, in fact, if Fritzpoll had simply said, "Oh. It wasn't closed, there isn't any ban. But be careful, because that was a very strong vote, you should be sure that you don't repeat your mistakes." In fact, though, it ''was'' his decision, he took it by stepping in to declare a ban. And he appears to continue to think it was merited. This process here is not going to decide that question, and I'd not even be mentioning it if it were not being insisted, here and on WW's talk, that the ban was proper and needed and that what has caused this dramatic about-face is that she started being communicative. Remember the context: charges of massive copyvios. Her work is "crap," redacted to "vandalism." She is uncivil and edit warring. So she makes one edit asking another editor about fishes and she is "reformed?" No, it's the original charges that were "crap." And it's important that this be said, otherwise the massive insult that the ban represented -- by ratifying and believing and not verifying the charges of an editor who was harassing her -- stands, and that is dangerous. It is not necessary to resolve this disagreement, as long as I and others have the freedom to say that the ''community'' made a mistake. Fritzpoll made procedural errors, but he'd never done something like this before. He isn't the focus of my comments. It's the process. However, I do not like that he has insisted to Wilhelmina that the ban was proper and that what has made it be lifted is her communication. That is the reason he gave for bringing this here, but it's likely that the ban would have been lifted anyway, there was process underway that looked like it would come up with that. And he's also insisted, preposterously, that the efforts of myself and GoRight to clear this up had no effect. I don't think so. I don't think that she'd have returned, if I had not begun to advocate for the lifting of the ban, and especially if I hadn't nominated an article of hers for DYK, followed by another editor doing it, showing that the community would actually help her instead of simply blaming her. Fritzpoll would, I suspect, have taken no further responsibility at all. Nothing would have happened. And she would be banned, without, really, understanding why. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::*You should know, this really isn't about you in any way. That you ''believe'' the initial topic ban was "crap" is well-established. That you ''think'' that you had something to do with the unban is also well established. What you think and believe, though, has little bearing on what is actually true in this case: WW has improved as an editor (she was already a good writer) and thus the lifting of the topic ban has wide support, just as the initial topic ban had wide support. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|<small><sup>''S.''</sup></small><small><sub>''D.''</sub></small>]][[User:S. Dean Jameson|'''D.J.''']][[User_talk:S. Dean Jameson|''Jameson'']] 04:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::* Can we all please stop bickering about what happened? This straw poll is not the place to hash this out. --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 05:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. While I'm not convinced that there are no problems, (in reviewing recent edits I noticed that WW still has a bit more to learn about reliable sources and interpreting sources accurately), I agree that an ongoing DYK ban is unlikely to help, possibly wasn't necessary anyway, and that dropping it is likely to be far more effective. And the problems I see in her edits are not ones that particularly relate to the initial ban anyway. While I agree with Abd in the above that asking another editor for help once shouldn't be seen as sufficient for arguing that she's fully "reformed", it certainly shows a willingness to seek advice, which is always the sign of someone with the potential to become very good. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 04:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}

== [[User:Kanabekobaton]] ==

It's beyond time for a Japanese-speaking editor or admin to step in here. This editor has been making dozens upon dozens of edits a day for the last couple of years, and ''maybe'' has been bothered to use the edit summary twice. The edit history on the user's talk page shows that the typical response to warnings is to delete the message without comment and continue on just as before. Kanabekobaton has been asked on countless occasions to stop this behavior or at least give account for the actions. No change or explanation has been forthcoming. The userbox on the userpage suggests that English is not this user's first language. That's not important. What is important is that the total lack of response to the inquires of other users is not acceptable. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
:User has been [http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8%E8%80%85:Kanabekobaton banned] on ja Wikipedia since 18 April and has had similar bad faith edits on [http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?rights=1&user=Kanabekobaton other wikis], endorse indef ban here and community block. <font color="#94887C">[[User talk:Treelo|treelo]]</font> <font color="#D2CDC6"><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Treelo|radda]]</sub></font> 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
::Editor has now switched to television-related articles after being run out of beauty pageant articles. Over 150 edits today alone. Every one tagged "minor", even the moves and redirects. And not a single explanation for why the edit was made. Something smells here. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Has he been banned? His talk page at ja.wikipedia suggests that he got a UsernameBlock. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 00:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:::: From the [http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%82%AC%EC%9A%A9%EC%9E%90%ED%86%A0%EB%A1%A0:Kanabekobaton talk on the Korean Wiki] comes implications of misconduct. he's been warned on the Simple English wiki, and it looks like there are a fair number of other warnings where he has edited. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:*'''Support''' a block if he doesn't engage with something other than a template. He's using [[:WP:HUGGLE|Huggle]] to template anyone, experienced or not, who reverts him. Then, after editors remove the warnings from their own user talk pages, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Kanabekobaton&namespace=3&year=&month=-1 adds them back]. He's definitely disruptive and my [[WP:AGF|good faith]] is seriously stretched for this user. [[User:KrakatoaKatie|<font color="navy">'''Krakatoa'''</font>]][[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|<font color="maroon">Katie</font>]] 23:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
:: I informed user of this discussion within minutes of posting here, urging a response. None was forthcoming, yet hundreds of similar edits poured forth afterwards. I have subsequently informed them that with the evidence of a preexisting ban on another Wikipedia, continued silence could only result in further sanctions if the behavior persisted. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

::: I've warned him too, when I reverted a page move he made. He's been editing since 2045 UTC without a break, with only two or three minutes between edits, and this is his typical pattern. He does this three or four times a day, like this is all he's doing with his life. If he doesn't respond or stop these edits in a few moments, I'll block him myself for disruption until he explains himself. Review of my actions is welcome. [[User:KrakatoaKatie|<font color="navy">'''Krakatoa'''</font>]][[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|<font color="maroon">Katie</font>]] 00:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So he's not actually doing anything wrong? I've spot checked at least 20 different contribs at this point, and haven't seen any actual disruption. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:He's been doing moves and reverts without bothering to give any reason why, and refusing to respond when challenged on the action on talk pages, even when others have had to go back and revert. He has been given final warnings on his talk page, but merely undid the edit and continued right along. Each individual edit or block of edits may not be disruptive, but the sheer quantity of them ''combined'' with the utter refusal to engage in any sort of communication with fellow editors, ''is'' disruptive. It asks the rest of us to be mindreaders, Wikipedia is not a collection of mindreaders. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:: Exactly. I've had to fix two or three things he's done in just the last few hours. He's moving pages and creating new pages and fixing dabs but he's not always doing it correctly, and nobody seems to be able to engage him in a dialogue to ask him what's going on. Some of these moves and new pages are because of punctuation, like tildes and accent marks. He's going so fast that he must be working off some type of list, first beauty pageants, then television, then athletics, then geography, and so forth. I'm bothered both by speed and variety of subjects. I won't block for now, but somebody has to watch him and I can't stay up 24/7. [[User:KrakatoaKatie|<font color="navy">'''Krakatoa'''</font>]][[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|<font color="maroon">Katie</font>]] 00:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

::(ec) It depends. Right now his edits are all compliant. At times they won't be. I've pointed the issue out before, when he was on a streak where 3 out of 4 edits did require reversion. He may be well-intentioned, but his reluctance to use edit summaries creates problems—almost to the point of it being disruptive in and of itself. Certainly, any evidence of a change-revert-revert again without discussion would warrant a block, IMO. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 00:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:Like Stifle I've looked through a quite a few edits here ( and some on other Wikis). The only significant issues I see are the marking of edits as minor, the lack of edit summaries and possibly the lack of community involvement. I am yet to see a pattern of poor editing and cannot see a reason for a block. I've dropped a note on his talk page about this. He seems to make lots of good edits and in this case steering the user to better community engagement and better editing practice will achieve good ends, I can't see that blocking him will - [[User:Peripitus |Peripitus]] [[User talk:Peripitus|(Talk)]] 00:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

:::looking over his contribs, I get a strong sense of, um, ''mechanicalness''. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 00:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Except it looks to be manual, based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silence!On_Bouffe...&diff=prev&oldid=231575361 this edit]. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


Never an edit summary, almost all edits marked as minor, clearly doesn't understand swaths of English idiom hence makes mistakes now and then, which means lots of mistakes since he makes lots of edits and unwilling to discuss. I think it's disruptive. Some editors may believe the helpful edits outweigh the worries and it's worthwhile to quietly clean up after this editor but I don't. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_modern_weapons_by_country&diff=prev&oldid=231576022 Here] he did delete content without explanation. I was generous and gave uw-delete3 (if only because I don't want to say "will" be blocked with this discussion ongoing), but a repeat would be enough for me to block him. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 01:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It may take someone posting a message to his talk page in Japanese to get his attention. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:And when I tried with 妨げることができる。 答えなければならない。 (You may be blocked. You must respond. Reverse translated to It is possible to obstruct. You must answer.), he merely undid my edit. I reverted his undo. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 01:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::And once again with a heading of "You must answer" and a link here. Undid the post. It's clear that this user refuses to discuss this or any other matter he finds himself involved in. That is *highly* disruptive to the process. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

::Just to note, it is not vandalism for him to remove a message from his talk page, nor is it appropriate to keep putting it back per [[WP:TALK]]. His removal is considered a sign he has read it. -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:::A reply of some sort would be a sign that he read it. Deleting the message is not a reply. This user has been asked on numerous occasions to account for his actions. He has not bothered to say a word in *any* language. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 01:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

True, the user is not vandalizing anything. However, his unwillingness to talk about his many edits has become disruptive and I have blocked him pending discussion. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

:Just a note, I did notice him using a summary once, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AEurovision_years&diff=216720875&oldid=216716582], where he incorrectly identified an edit as vandalism, not to mention called it minor. He edits, imo, the most random selection of pages and at a pretty quick rate. It seems like there is always something for him to change. I know that I couldn't just open up a page and be able to edit it. I'm not even sure if he is Japanese like we suspected. This is the most bizarre user I have ever seen, and in addition, he has definitely made some disruptive edits on Eurovision articles. (does he have auto minor edits checked in preferences?) [[User:Grk1011|Grk1011]] ([[User talk:Grk1011|talk]]) 03:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

::Grk1011: Exactly. When I read that he marks almost all his edits as minor I too thought that he must have "Mark all edits minor by default" turned on in his preferences. I have now left a [[User talk:Kanabekobaton#Please - some help|message on his talk page]] asking him to turn that setting off.
::Why do we even have that setting? I can't imagine a case when we would need that setting.
::--[[User:Davidgothberg|David Göthberg]] ([[User talk:Davidgothberg|talk]]) 04:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:::We have it because it is very helpful for editors who contribute minor edits mainly (there are too many). -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue" face="Verdana">fayssal</font></font>]] / <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|''Wiki me up''®]]</small> 09:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, please unblock now. You've blocked him for not discussing his non-controversial edits? What the hell? Like David mentions above, the minor thing is probably just a setting that needs to be changed. See also [[User talk:Kanabekobaton/Archive 1#April 2008]]. Leave the poor guy alone. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

:::He was not blocked for not discussing his non-controversial edits. Have you read this thread? [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 04:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::::''"True, the user is not vandalizing anything. However, his unwillingness to talk about his many edits has become disruptive and I have blocked him pending discussion."'' I guess you don't remember saying that.

::::The user has made a handful of mistakes, but nothing that would ever warrant a blocking like this. There is no urgency here, and your actions will only inflame the situation. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::He wasn't blocked for vandalism either. He was blocked for disruption, as I said. Meanwhile, you seem to be the one who's inflaming things. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 04:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent)What disruption? You have blatantly blocked him for not discussing his edits, which he is not required to do. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:You're mistaken about why I blocked this editor. Altogether, this ''mix'' of refusing to talk at all about marking hundreds of edits a day as minor when many ''are not'' minor, making mistaken edits and page moves which other editors must clean up (and sometimes templating these editors for vandalism when they do), along with an utter lack of edit summaries has stirred up so much worry that many editors have posted in this thread, wondering what to do about it. That is an urgent disruption of the project. Let's wait and see what he has to say. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 04:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::<s>You're already backtracking on why you've blocked him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKanabekobaton&diff=231607617&oldid=231604592]. You can't weasel your way out of a bad block. I'm not going to allow you to sweep this under the rug and hope everyone just forgets about him. We've got ''three'' diffs cited in this entire discussion, none of which call for this kind of action. I'm tired of checking his contribs and not finding anything, so unless anyone has some actual diffs of disruption, this guy needs to be unblocked. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)</s>

:::You had misread my blocking statement so I made the syntax more clear. See the block log. He was blocked for disruption. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 05:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::::<s>There is no disruption. You've failed to show evidence of disruption. Where's the diffs? Where's the fire? KrakatoaKatie gave him a vandalism warning today for a ''good'' pave move that another editor (C.Fred) agreed with. You're all going around in circles, no one being able to actually show this user doing anything wrong except a hand full of ''minor'' mistakes. I'd rather not do something as drastic as an arbcom request, but if you're going to blatantly bullshit me like this, then I'll do just that. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)</s>
:::::Look at his talk page and the archive. He has been asked ''over and over again'' to explain why he edited the way he did, to the point that he was blocked for 3RR in June, and warned to keep out of other articles. And those are just since April. Before that he just deleted all talk page messages. He edits without regard for his fellow editors, at the rate of hundreds an hour, leaving the rest of us to somehow decipher his reasoning and motives, and to clean up any damage he leaves behind. That is as disruptive as it gets. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 05:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::How am I meant to respond to talk like that? [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 05:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

* Are you forgetting the arena dispute from April? Where he insisted that arenas were actually stadia? Look at the logs of his talk page at all the different users asking him to say something, ''anything'' about why he was editing the way he was. There are probably three times as many requests that he summarily deleted. It doesn't take vandalism to be disruptive. Charging through Wikipedia at a hundred edits an hour, other users be damned, who cares if mistakes are made, is '''just''' as disruptive, if not worse. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 05:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
**Considering I stepped though those edits one by one, I don't think I'm forgetting them. I was the ''only'' one to point out that more than one admin was ignorantly reverting him and then breaking an infobox. Everyone else just assumed he was being disruptive. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
***But how the hell were we supposed to ''know''? I kept trying to ask him about his [[Stansbury Hall]] edit, but got no reply. I see that building every single day. I should know what an old basketball *arena* looks like. The infobox was fine when I created the page. It wasn't broken when I reverted him. Continuing to revert when an unexplained edit is challenged *is* disruptive, it *is* rude, and it *is* unacceptable. Take a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080812055746&target=Kanabekobaton this] block of edits from just yesterday regarding the Miss World pages. Warring templates without any further discussion. Communication should be at the heart of the project. This user flatly refuses to communicate with his fellow editors. If he doesn't want to give account for his actions when needed, then the block should stay. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 05:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Three comments. We read above:

:''when I tried with 妨げることができる。 答えなければならない。 (You may be blocked. You must respond. Reverse translated to It is possible to obstruct. You must answer.), he merely undid my edit. I reverted his undo.''

First, and as somebody else has pointed out, that reversion wasn't called for.

Secondly, the Japanese-language message strikes me as a curious mixture of ambiguous (the first half) and brusque (particularly the second). I don't recommend that you repost it anywhere. There could be a place for a Japanese-language message, but not this particular Japanese-language message.

And the block: The user is experienced, and can read English. If they can't fully understand the message in English, they'll be able to ask about it in English. An indefinite block is not an eternal block, and this user is free to challenge it at any time. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 05:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::I had to try ''something'' to get a reply. He wasn't responding to anything in English, so what else could I do short of going to his home and giving him a good shake? Yeah it was brusque. It had to be. We were talking about blocking the guy and he wasn't bothering to do anything to defend his position. He ''had'' to respond if he didn't want to be sanctioned. He ignored it and continued to plow ahead like nothing could touch him. That is not acceptable. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 05:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:::There is no reason either to be ambiguous or to be brusque. If you want him to respond, you might take your cue from the ja:WP template designed for just this purpose. It's right [[:ja:Template:Talk_reject|here]]. Note its content: 対話拒否はやめてください。これ以上続ければ、ウィキペディアの編集ができなくなる投稿ブロックの対象となります。ご注意ください。An entirely different register from your prose, and complete with formulaic honorifics. (I shan't bother to make a literal translation, which would sound stilted and laughable.) -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 05:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::::It's better than what I used... babelfish. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 05:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Sorry I stepped away for a few hours. Ned, don't pick on Gwen for a revert I made. In the article you mention, [[Sardis Road ground]], I interpreted from the context of the article that the word 'ground' meant an athletic ground or field. So, when I saw [[Sardis Road ground]] being moved to [[Sardis Road]], it looked to me like a poor move, ''especially given the lack of communication from this editor''. I reverted and left a short note. [[WP:BRD|B to the R to the... nothing]]. That's the whole point - he won't communicate about his intent or his reaction or the price of milk in Sardinia. Not "hello", not "go to hell", nothing.
:::I don't see us as 'going in circles' or trying to punish him, either. I looked at every one of his last 500 edits (roughly the last 48 hours) before I made my second post here. Further, I looked at every edit he's made to both the talk space (no dialogue, just moves of talk pages with article pages that create an edit on the talk page) and user talk space (100% templates, plus reverting other users removal of his templates and other material on their own talk pages), regardless of the date. Most of his changes and moves look okay, but the ones that are not need explanation and/or discussion, especially the moves. He was making 25 to 40 edits an hour for literally hours and days on end, and the mistakes and bad decisions should have had some discussion. He was warned in April, by [[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]], to improve his communication, so this isn't a sudden, spur-of-the-moment, 'gotcha' block.
:::We can't do [[WP:BRD]], as I tried to do with [[Sardis Road]], if someone insists on the bold without the discuss. He has not responded at all, even to this block. His talk page and archive are full of pleas, begging, even, to communicate with other editors, going back several months. He may have the potential to be a good editor/[[WP:GNOME|WikiGnome]] if he would just engage with other humans. Since he has been making hundreds of edits very quickly, I do not think it is unreasonable to block pending a short explanation from him. [[User:KrakatoaKatie|<font color="navy">'''Krakatoa'''</font>]][[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|<font color="maroon">Katie</font>]] 06:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Ned Scott: That I have left a message on Kanabekobaton's talk page asking him to turn of the "Mark all edits minor by default" setting in his Wikipedia preferences only potentially solves one of the problems. I just wanted to report here that I thought that was the case and that I had asked him to fix it. It doesn't solve all the other problems.
::::I haven't personally checked up on Kanabekobaton so I should probably not say anything, but if what I read here is true then I think he should remain blocked. It is very frustrating when a user refuses to answer any messages. It makes it more or less impossible to work with that user. I think he should remain blocked until he agrees to communicate properly.
::::By the way, can a blocked user still edit his talk page and thus answer? Or does he have to edit as an anon user to respond?
::::--[[User:Davidgothberg|David Göthberg]] ([[User talk:Davidgothberg|talk]]) 07:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::He's able to edit his talk page while blocked and logged in. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 13:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
* By this time of the day, he's usually already made several hundred edits. He did not see a need to respond at all to this discussion. He has not seen fit to respond to the block, as one of his edit cycles has come and gone with nothing. Assume good faith can only go so far. To continue to assume good faith in this case, if no change in behavior is forthcoming, is to ask other Wikipedia editors to develop mental skills and abilities that only exist in comic books. Mindreader is not part of the average Wikipedia editor's skill set. It may not be a ''requirement'' to use edit summaries, but when you combine a refusal to do so on such a scale (18K edits, *maybe* two summaries) with unwillingness to discuss ''anything'' with other editors, even when told that continued failure to do so jeopardizes their place in the project, you reach the state we find ourselves in now. Even after the block was in place, there was no response. No positive or negative. A big patch of nothing. That shows that this user just doesn't give a damn either way. Even after my apparently misguided attempts to engage him in Japanese (I was bold. No one else bothered.), there was no response beyond deletion of the comments. Without communication amongst editors, the whole project falls down. We cannot have editors like this who so blatantly refuse to engage his fellow editors. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 15:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't try to understand what's going on in his mind, other than to say that for him, it may all be in what he sees as good faith. I don't know and I don't need to know. The outcome of his behaviour is enough to go by. Meanwhile, the only talk page posts I've been able to find from this editor are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Missmundo2006&diff=prev&oldid=231354973 vandalism templates like this], where there was no vandalism, after someone mistakenly warned Kanabekobaton to stop vandalizing. That Kanabekobaton has disrupted the project can be clearly seen through all the posts in this thread from worried editors. If Kanabekobaton doesn't respond (which he may not) is that the end of it? How do we handle this? Should we welcome an editor who misleadingly marks all of his hundreds of edits a day as minor, with no edit summaries, who won't talk about anything at all but to throw off a mistaken vandalism template on a talk page now and then? If there is a community consensus that we should indeed welcome Kanabekobaton as he is, disruption and all, given his many helpful edits, maybe he should be unblocked straight off. Or, if the consensus is that the disruption and worry he causes makes it all not worth it, then perhaps he should stay blocked until he speaks up. I can only say that making a few (mostly) harmless edits a day, marking them all as minor with no edit summary and zero talk page participation would not be taken as disruptive by most editors. If that's what was happening, this thread never would have come up. Rather, it's the hundreds of daily edits with towering stacks of bolded '''m'''s, blank edit summaries and utter silence in response to many pleas for discussion, other than a few templated and mistaken vandalism warnings from Kanabekobaton, which have all come together to make this a tale of disruption. What shall we do? [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 16:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:Were this to go to RFC, I doubt that anything would change. Unless he could respond to RFC while still blocked, all I see would be a resumption of previous behavior and continued silence. He had edited via IP a few times during the arena dispute in April, so it may be safe to assume that rather than bother to reply, he's either doing it via IP or has a new name. Given that he registered the current name across all Wikis, the latter seems unlikely. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 16:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is beginning to be an epidemic: it seems that in the last 12-18 months there has been a growing volume of reports about editors who decline to discuss their edits. While there is nothing wrong with an editor deleting messages on her/his Talk page, or declining to respond to some (or even most) of the messages left with her/him, the whole Wiki process will cease to work. Is it time to formulate a new policy, explaining that Wikipedians need to be willing to explain their edits -- & may be blocked if they fail to do so? -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 20:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

::Most folks are talkative, it's how we are so I have no fear Wikipedia will ever break down owing to lack of discussion. Meanwhile, there will always be a few editors who don't want to talk, no need to ask why. In itself, this is ok, so I do think one should go lightly on any editor who doesn't want to talk about their edits, so long as the edits are helpful (which is to say, not stirring up much fuss), all the more so if they're not quick to revert back when they've been reverted. With this user, it was a mix of many behaviours: No discussion, no edit summaries at all on hundreds of daily edits, reverting back when reverted (then sometimes replying with unfit vandalism templates), tipped by marking all the many edits as minor, making for a misleading and very long contrib log, with worried editors posting about it here. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 14:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
::: Any movement starts with a few isolated individuals & grows from them, although I doubt that one day all or most Wikipedians will make their edits without ever exchanging a word with each other. But to my point, from personal experience with one of these individuals I can attest that it is very frustrating to deal with another editor -- even if it is clear she/he is acting in good faith -- who will not respond to messages. But what I find strange is that, although I read WP:AN & AN/I regularly, I don't remember ever seeing this problem before I encountered it -- yet since then these autistic editors (to give them a name) have been reported once or twice every month or two. I don't know if this is simply because I started looking for this problem -- or that new editors have decided that the best way to deal with other Wikipedians (who have a reputation for bizarre behavior) is to simply ignore us. If the latter is the reason for this development, it is not a good development. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 05:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Since the block, there's been absolutely nothing. No activity at all. After two days one would expect a request for an unblock, but no. Did I stumble upon a Wikipedia otaku? [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 15:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

:Why would you expect any response when there has been little in the past. Good work and this block should remain imho. --[[Special:Contributions/70.181.45.138|70.181.45.138]] ([[User talk:70.181.45.138|talk]]) 00:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this the same user? {{User|Euroleague}}. All minor edits, even edited kana...'s page. [[User:Grk1011|Grk1011]] ([[User talk:Grk1011|talk]]) 22:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:It may be. See [http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?rights=1&user=Euroleague here]. Euroleague is blocked as a sockpuppet on the Japanese Wikipedia. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::I went ahead and submitted an [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kanabekobaton|RFCU]] based on the SUL's and the diff to Kanobekobaton's page. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 22:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::: Blocked pending checkuser result. [[User:KrakatoaKatie|<font color="navy">'''Krakatoa'''</font>]][[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|<font color="maroon">Katie</font>]] 00:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::: ... and {{confirmed}} - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 01:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::: Yeah, He's [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|banned]] from Wikipedia to abused sockpuppetry. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/121.96.127.91|121.96.127.91]] ([[User talk:121.96.127.91|talk]]) 11:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::: Blocked, maybe. In any case, it's not for an IP to say who is blocked or banned. Ban template removed from user page. [[User:DarkAudit|DarkAudit]] ([[User talk:DarkAudit|talk]]) 15:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== AN page proposal ==

:''(Well we've been here before with nothing beyond discussion, but let's try again : )''

What would you (plural) think about us turning [[WP:AN]] (the main page) into a (protected?) nav page, which would list all the subpages (as sort of a directory, or index, or table of contents)? It would make things easier for everyone, and I think that we'd be more likely to see the subpages more correctly ustilised.

I think that this would help with every page/subpage of AN. Better to have the main page as a directory to point everyone in the right direction, than for this page to be (as it often is) the one-stop shop.

'''''To clarify'': This page (and its history) would be moved to a sub-page. (Consensual discussion can come up with a name.) And then this page would become the navpage/directory for all the subpages.'''

Thoughts/concerns welcome. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 23:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
: I am no admin, but it sounds like a long-overdue move to me. [[User:Brilliantine|Brilliantine]] ([[User talk:Brilliantine|talk]]) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
::I actually have another similar proposal for how we could work things better. We could have a number of different AN subpages, each dealing with different editorial problems. We could have [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Editors]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Content]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Admin problems]] (to be used when people have concerns about admin behaviour), [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Meta requests]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Miscellaneous requests]]. This would have a few advantages, with admins able to concentrate on the areas that they have expertise in. It would also significantly reduce the size that each pages gets to. [[WP:AN]] could be an index of each of these subpages, and AN/I would no longer need to be used, or replaced with [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Urgent admin intervention]]. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 23:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Sounds like an excellent idea. [[User:Cirt|Cirt]] ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 23:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

:::(I also have a proposal for AN/I on the talk page.)
:::But regardless of how we (re-)purpose the subpages, I still think we need a directory as the most likely "first stop" (here). (As you seem to agree: ''"[[WP:AN]] could be an index of each of these subpages..."'') So, at least for now, to keep this discussion sane, let's just focus on discussing this page being repuposed as a directory. A ReOrg to the subpages is a different discussion altogether. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 23:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, we couldn't do away with AN altogether without additional boards - there would be too much pressure on the current boards if we did that, so I think it would be good to discuss options for complete reform. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::I've always thought ANI should be known as 'User Conduct' and this one, as a subpage, could be simply 'General'. I would strenuously oppose there being an AN/Content board - for me, that would be an example of exactly what wikipedia shouldn't be about. [[User:Brilliantine|Brilliantine]] ([[User talk:Brilliantine|talk]]) 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Well, we get content issues brought up here all the time such as BLP concerns, off wiki legal concerns, image copyright concerns - a central place to discuss these would be good. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 00:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::There is already a BLP board. The thought of yet another place begging for content disputes to be inappropriately shopped around to gives me the heebie-jeebies: keep them in talk space or as an RFC if they cover a wide range of topics, says I. Copyright etc fair enough... [[User:Brilliantine|Brilliantine]] ([[User talk:Brilliantine|talk]]) 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had a masterlist of noticeboards somewhere (not just admin ones), but I see that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Noticeboard&redirect=no Wikipedia:Noticeboard] is a redirect to something I've never heard of. I suppose [[:Category:Wikipedia noticeboards]] is the closest we have. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 00:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

:(outdent) I think it's a great concept! This board is difficult to navigate at times due to long issues. Warning, though, that if we make a [[Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Misc]], that's the board that will get all the traffic. Nobody wants to read instructions, it seems, and if they're angry, they're even less likely to bother. [[User:KrakatoaKatie|<font color="navy">'''Krakatoa'''</font>]][[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|<font color="maroon">Katie</font>]] 00:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I say this every time someone suggests drastically changing how AN works - Why does it need changing? Is it broken at the moment? Not convinced ... I think the current set up works fine, particularly as it's less busy now then it was a year ago (as with Wikipedia in general). [[User:Neil|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B></u>]] [[User_talk:Neil|<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936"><big><big><span class="Unicode">☄</span></big></big></u>]] 09:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:Well, size [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_6#Size_is_a_major_issue_-_this_needs_to_be_fixed was] one of the issues we were discussing some months ago, but there are plenty of other issues for change. I'd support almost any proposal, so long as it cleans all of the noticeboards up (and there is reason to do so). Would anyone like to provide a comprehensive list of discrepancies that might be fixed with x amount of change? '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 11:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::I support turning AN into a navboard, but I think there would need to be somewhere to post the kind of miscellaneous notices that AN is needed for. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 12:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

* I'd find it much more useful to extract all threads into subpages, one per topic, similar to the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 13|AfD logs]].<br>I have only been active here a couple of times, but found it very hard to follow ''my'' topic due to the noise, i.e. high number of other edits to this page. If every topic is in its own subpage I can watchlist it, and look at every diff if the discussion gets too confusing to just see at a glance which comments are new.<br>There's a possibility of name clashes when creating a new topic page, but if they are prefixed with the date (e.g. WP:AN/2008 August 13/AN page proposal) that should be acceptable.<br>The sub topics could then be classified however one likes, by having one or more AN pages that list or transclude all open issues.<br>--<span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Amalthea|<span style='color:#823824'>Amalthea</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Amalthea|Talk]]</sup></span> 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

*God, yes. AN and ANI need to be reorganized like AfD or DRV's main list pages are. It would not only make it easier to track individual topics, but people could be referred directly to the old discussion when it drops off the main page, instead of having to sort through a bunch of archived pages full of stuff. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the above, this would seem to have consensus. But I'd like to give it at least another day before making the move, just to give everyone who would like to comment (for or against) that opportunity. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 20:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
:This is no where near enough support to make such a major change. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 20:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
::Why don't you start by creating pages for some of the suggested redlinks above, and see what people think at that point? [[User:Cirt|Cirt]] ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 20:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
::(To Ryan) - actually the only naysayers at that point were Neil, and you had a conditional support/oppose. Everyone else appeared to support. But even so, I still would like more comment (as I noted). - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 07:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

*'''Support''' and for a similar measure at [[WP:ANI|Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents]]. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

===first things first===
Not at all to interrupt what is above, but I'd think it would be good, before we dive into solutions, that we explicitly find consensus on what the problems are, if any. How about a project page? We could examine on that page what the strengths and weaknesses of the noticeboards are. We could easily make drastic changes, without understanding this clearly, first, and simply make things worse, if we don't stop and first agree on what the problems are. I can think of numerous solutions to problems that I perceive, and I perceive plenty, but ... it's like trying to decide what medicine to take when you haven't figured out what disease you've got. Sure, in desperation, we might do that. But I don't think it's a great idea. If there is a solution to some of the problems that is described above that is easy to implement, that is reversible, that does no damage, sure, we can do this simultaneously. But some of the truly major problems, I suspect, won't be solved merely by splitting up the noticeboards into subpages, unless other aspects of the process are also examined and reformed. The very purpose and function of the noticeboards should be examined. And I don't even want to go into that here, I think we should do what we should be good at: describing consensus, neutrally, on a page, that would have its own Talk page where open discussion takes place and the project page where consensus is summarized, revised, etc. Not signed, the project page is a report of the community participating on the topic. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

*I very much oppose doing away with this noticeboard and splintering discussion onto a half dozen other boards; the last thing we need is yet another noticeboard (I don't have time as it is to read the 38 pages linked on {{tl|Editabuselinks}}). I must a agree with Neil's comment above, in that this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. The Editabuselinks templates already serves as a list of noticeboards. Doing away with WP:AN will only increase the traffic on AN/I and reduce the number of eyes on topics sent to other, less trafficked noticeboards. I also don't see any benefit to an AfD style noticeboard, with each issue created as a subpage that is then transcluded here. That's overly complicated compared the current system and creates more problems than it solves. - [[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="#000080">auburn</font><font color="#CC5500">pilot</font>]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 23:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

:I'm also concerned that the vandals which plague this page will find it easier to vandalize several individual pages, requiring protection across a wide range of pages. <font face="Comic sans">[[User:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:green">Corvus cornix</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:Green">talk</span>]]''</sub></font> 01:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Starting over ===
* The thread directly above is exactly why my initial proposal was (and is) merely for moving this page to a sub-page and using this location as a navpage. Nothing lost, and everything gained. Instead we have people hung up on ReOrg plans for sub-pages and the like. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 07:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

:If there are no further comments, I'm going to archive this and start over. Perhaps with a straw poll. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 01:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::That's a good idea, might be best to make it simple, and post a notice at central locations to get wider community input. [[User:Cirt|Cirt]] ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 23:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Problem with someone who just won't stop. ==

The content issue : There are two college societies with the same name, "Mystical Seven". They both have articles, that's not a problem. One society uses Mystical 7 as its name, and that is actually the proper form of the name for that society. Not so for the other. There is a disambiguation page for both Mystical Seven articles, and the redirect page for "Mystical 7" should go to the society that uses that as it's name, not to both societies. As one poster said, "a redirect from 'Coke' as a name should go to 'Coca-cola', not a cola disambiguation page for Coca-Cola and Pepsi."

The editor issue : There is a user who can't apparently understand this. He wants to have the redirect for Mystical 7 go to the disambiguation page for both societies. (He's given no reason why.) It went back and forth a bit. HE then asked for comment. The comments he got supported the 'it should go to the one society that uses the name, not the other' side of the argument. He still reverted to his view. I changed it back and he STILL reverts it back to his view. I have a hard time accepting that this is good faith anymore, since it has all the appearance of a profound and sullen stolidity.

So the question is this : what do you do with an editor who can't accept his own request for comment?[[User:Thaïs Alexandrina|Thaïs Alexandrina]] ([[User talk:Thaïs Alexandrina|talk]]) 00:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
:Where is this RFC? If you mean the question he asked on the secret societies talk page, that's not exactly something official and binding that can be enforced. Not only that, but there was no consensus either way in it, in the four comments I saw. (Personally, I agree with him) --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

:Hang on. Ok, these are ''secret'' societies? I've never understood how we can have Wikipedia pages on secret societies. If they're secret, then we don't know about them. If they're not secret, then they're something like "private membership" or "confidential membership." However, that violation of fundamental logic aside, we do redirects for misspellings. It's routine. Therefore, it's safe to assume that a person who has only heard the name (after all, it's ''secret'') will type "7" sometimes and "seven" sometimes, so it would be logical to have the redirect serve as the landing point for any query. The "7" people lose nothing. After all, they're ''secret'', so presumably they don't ''want'' people to find them quickly. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] ([[User talk:Geogre|talk]]) 14:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
::I agree as well. This is hardly a Coke and Pepsi issue, and it's extremely misleading for you to use that analogy, Thaïs. These societies have the exact same name, and people who are unfamiliar with the particular form of the word seven should not be penalized by having to dig around, looking for whichever of the two they're trying to find. [[Mystical Seven]] and [[Mystical 7]] should both stay as they are currently. [[User:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Glass</font>]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Cobra</font>]]''' 14:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

::Exactly. These so-called secret societies can't have articles without reliable sources, so it hardly makes them secret, does it? <font face="Comic sans">[[User:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:green">Corvus cornix</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:Green">talk</span>]]''</sub></font> 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"I've never understood how we can have Wikipedia pages on secret societies." Then don't comment on the articles...

"we do redirects for misspellings." That's the point, it's not a ''mispelling''. The phrases are distinctly different.

"These societies have the exact same name" it's not the exact same name. The connotation of "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are quite distinct. Did you read the two names before making your comment?

"These so-called secret societies can't have articles without reliable sources" These societes have very reliable sources, and several of the articles are better referenced than 90% of the articles in wikipedia. Why would you make an arbitrarily dismissive comment about these articles if you understood the subject matter?
[[User:Thaïs Alexandrina|Thaïs Alexandrina]] ([[User talk:Thaïs Alexandrina|talk]]) 02:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:Just to concur that I think the current setup is correct: "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are both plausible search terms, so it's good that both should lead to a dismbiguation page. Each article has a hatnote directing any mis-led reader to the other page, which is also good. This all seems to be straightforward, and I don't think any specialist knowledge of the subject is needed to form an opinion on the matter. <font color="006622">[[User:SheffieldSteel|S<small>HEFFIELD</small>S<small>TEEL</small>]]</font><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]]</b></small></sup> 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" may both be plausible search terms, but they are different phrases, and mean different things; --you have not addressed that at all. BUT, that isn't even the point. This already went to a discussion, and user geniac refused to accept that comments went against him, and is still pursuing this. He is not following wikipedia policy, and for that matter, is not constructively contributing to the process. Why should articles be sacrificed to the endless quibbling of someone who does not understand what he is doing? [[User:Thaïs Alexandrina|Thaïs Alexandrina]] ([[User talk:Thaïs Alexandrina|talk]]) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:The only other dscussion I've seen is at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Secret_Societies#Mystical_7]] and I certainly wouldn't say that there was a consensus to change [[Mystical 7]] to point away from the dab page. There's been a discussion here too, for what it's worth. The two terms are essentially interchangeable, from the perspective of someone who does not know that much about the societies and is searching for information - which is the person we want to help.
:As an aside, you might want to dial down the rhetoric a little. No article is going to get "sacrificed", and this really isn't that big a deal. '''edited to add''' I just read the intro to [[Mystical_Seven_(Wesleyan)]] again, and noticed this: ''Properly written as "Mystical 7"''.{{fact}} So... you're arguing and slow-edit-warring in favour of something you don't have a source for. um. <font color="006622">[[User:SheffieldSteel|S<small>HEFFIELD</small>S<small>TEEL</small>]]</font><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]]</b></small></sup> 00:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

== Supercharge (band) ==

{{la|Supercharge (band)}}
I bring this here for a second opinion, being an involved editor. I saw this article was appallingly badly written and began to rewrite it to conform to [[WP:MOS|manual of style]]. Two editors (possibly the same person) have changed it back to the "shit" version (for want of a better word). I have pointed both to the MOS on their talk pages, but neither has responded, and both have continued to turn the article back into a shed. Accordingly, I have fully protected the article and opened up a discussion on the talk page. Strictly I should maybe not have done this, but it is unhelpful when you have editors (neither of whom is particularly new) changing back to a worse version, and not communicating. I will notify them of this conversation now. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 22:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

::Yep to all that. I've unprotected and will try to help tidy it up. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 22:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
::No meaningful sources, only MySpacey and bloggy stuff. Hence the assertions about live shows could easily be empty marketing jargon. Speedy deleted CSD A7. If someone asks I'll put a copy in their userspace pending a rewrite and some sources. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 22:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Don't worry, I'll do it myself. Jesus, I have better things to do... --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 22:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Hey let me know if need be, I don't mind trying to help bands meet [[WP:MUSIC]] if there's a shred of meaningful independent coverage to cite. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 23:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Was the article deleted? --[[Special:Contributions/70.181.45.138|70.181.45.138]] ([[User talk:70.181.45.138|talk]]) 00:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, although it met [[WP:BAND]]#6 & #7. There is a copy [[User:Rodhullandemu/Supercharge|here]] --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 01:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Note that #6 is most often helpfully dealt with by a redirect and #7 must be [[WP:V|verifiable]]. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 01:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::It would have been if I'd had half a chance to tackle it. But, foolishly, I brought it here to cover my back. Well, I won't be doing that again. [[WP:IAR]] and [[WP:BOLD]] from now on. Twelve months here, fifty articles started, 3GAs, 5DYKS, multiple Wikignoming AND vandal-fighting is all too much AND that for free. Enough insults; I quit. Best of luck to you. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 01:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::How have you not had a chance to tackle it? [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 01:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Another productive good faith editor quits in frustration. '''I am shocked!''' not. --[[Special:Contributions/70.181.45.138|70.181.45.138]] ([[User talk:70.181.45.138|talk]]) 12:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

:I've looked into this further and [[User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Supercharge_.28band.29|commented on my talk page]]. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 18:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
If the main Supercharge page was deleted, surely [[The Best Of Supercharge (album)]] should be deleted as well? [[User:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Glass</font>]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Cobra</font>]]''' 22:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

== The admin recall process is dead ==

:''This section has been moved to: [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall#The admin recall process is dead (WP:AN)]]''

== "These get reverted so fast, it's pathetic." ==

4chan /b/ tried to do some coordinated vandalism in weapon articles but it is already ebbing and under control by normal RC control[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marlin_Model_1894&diff=232492448&oldid=232491937] and bots[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autocannon&diff=232493313&oldid=232493304]. Anonymous commented "These get reverted so fast, it's pathetic." Fine. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] ([[User talk:Pjacobi|talk]]) 14:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

: It's get a little bit more complicated, as the smarter ones stopped announcing their successes and are targetting more obscure article. Perhaps we can just ignore, what is not detected by RC patrol and bots and do a search for the typical pattern in 24h. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] ([[User talk:Pjacobi|talk]]) 14:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

: Winrar for the RC patrol and bot squadron. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 15:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:: I'm rather out of touch with current toolserver's capabilities. Would it be possible to search for links to [[Tony Stark]] and [[Stark Industries]] outside of [[:Category:Marvel Comics]]. This would give a check whether something was missed when it was inserted. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] ([[User talk:Pjacobi|talk]]) 10:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:::[{{fullurl:Special:RecentChangesLinked|target=Tony+Stark&showlinkedto=1&days=1&limit=500&namespace=0}} This] and [{{fullurl:Special:RecentChangesLinked|target=Stark+Industries&showlinkedto=1&days=1&limit=500&namespace=0}} this] list may help, though obviously only for cases where those pages are wikilinked. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] <small>([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]])</small> 11:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Userpage usurpation ==

Is it allowed without due process? [[User:Avineshjose]] just redirected [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Avinesh&namespace=&year=&month=-1 User:Avinesh]'s user page to his own. I reverted it and an admin reverted me. I asked him why, he didn't bother to reply. [[User:Uzhuthiran|Uzhuthiran]] ([[User talk:Uzhuthiran|talk]]) 14:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

:I don't see any problem with that. He could probably usurp the account anyway, per [[Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations]]. The account is old, has one trivial, non-copyrighted edit from more than three years ago and does not appear to be active. If he wants the redirect (is it his global account?), I'd agree that that would be perfectly reasonable. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] <sup>[[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]]</sup> 14:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
::I don't think you read the page right. The page you linked about talks about User account usurpation. You request it and it is done by 'cats. Logically, usurping a user page without usurping the account through due process is improper. In any case a user doesn't seem to have the right to hold somebody else's user page. [[User:Uzhuthiran|Uzhuthiran]] ([[User talk:Uzhuthiran|talk]]) 16:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree with Uzhuthiran - it's probably an obvious usurpation-allowed decision, but...assuming the identity of the account without assuming the actual account isn't right. If he wants it as a [[WP:DG|doppelganger account]], he should apply for usurpation at [[WP:USURP]]. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 20:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
::::[[User:Uzhuthiran]] is on a personal edit war with me and my articles. The issue I posted as a new incident in this page. I don't find any issue with redirecting [[User:avinesh]] to my account as I noticed avinesh has only one old edit and not using the account anymore. Additionally, I did it because thats my name. Thanks. --<small><span style="color:#333399;font-size:12px;font-family:Lucida Handwriting;">[[User:Avineshjose|Avinesh Jose]] [[User_talk:Avineshjose|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;font-family:Verdana;">&nbsp;T&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 04:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::I'm afraid that is not the correct procedure. You cannot redirect another user's page to your own even if that is your real name. Bureaucrats have come to a consensus ([[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 11#Effect of SUL on certain rename requests]]) to prevent such doppelgänger accounts from being created. [[user:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp</font>]] [[User Talk:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=</font>]] 07:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::No probs, it is going though the [[WP:USURP|proper channel]]. My concern was about User:Uzhuthiran’s ‘complaint’ was made by bad faith. --<small><span style="color:#333399;font-size:12px;font-family:Lucida Handwriting;">[[User:Avineshjose|Avinesh Jose]] [[User_talk:Avineshjose|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;font-family:Verdana;">&nbsp;T&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 07:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Nichalp is correct, you can't just take over someone's user page, even if the account is dormant. You need to request formal usurp, which I see you've done. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 09:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::You can't redirect a userpage even if that user edited once, three years ago, to vandalise? If that really is the consensus, I think it's a pretty silly one... [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] <sup>[[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]]</sup> 10:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::My impulse would be to let it rest until the user whose page is so usurped objects - sort of how actual usurpation works. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 12:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Whether you think it silly or not, that '''is''' the proper way of doing things; user''page'' usurping is too closely tied to user''name'' usurping, so there's no reason for the process to be any different. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">&#9775;</span>]] //</span> 19:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::No reason than common sense, of course. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] <sup>[[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]]</sup> 22:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::I redirected that userpage as I thought it was my account. (When I started editing WP in 2005, I signed up with different user names). I guess including that one also. But I am not sure and forgotten the password also. --<small><span style="color:#333399;font-size:12px;font-family:Lucida Handwriting;">[[User:Avineshjose|Avinesh Jose]] [[User_talk:Avineshjose|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;font-family:Verdana;">&nbsp;T&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 04:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

===section break===
Isn't there a way to deal with this coi editor who hurls accusation around wildly and engages in PA at the drop of a hat? The guy has repeatedly accuse me of vandalism (one of which was for reverting his false usurpation) for adding maintenance tags to his COI articles. He filed a checkuser case [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Vivin] in extreme bad faith against a user who has been around for many years. Never, never did he apologise. I reported his disruptive and ignorant edits earlier on wp:ani [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=231676118],but it was ignored. I made no bones to admit that I am an avatar of a banned user. But anybody who know me knows that I have been instrumental in sending a very large amount of crap down the drain. My problem with this user is that he is a COI editor hellbent on promoting some business men and houses. He is merely adding crap and resisting any effort to improve it. Just see his latest contributions which are mere reverts that reinstate nonsensical crap in those articles. [[User:Uzhuthiran|Uzhuthiran]] ([[User talk:Uzhuthiran|talk]]) 13:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:*[[User:Uzhuthiran]] looks like a bad faith editor targeting [[Labour India]] and its associates. His vandalism were reverted by many admins. Recent evidences are: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurukulam_public_school&action=history 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Labour_India&diff=232311466&oldid=231932070 2]. It looks like he is a paid editor by Labour India's rivals. Evidence: The second last paragraph of Hindu article says that [http://www.hindu.com/2004/03/20/stories/2004032006500300.htm 1]'' Labour India One of the first institutions of its kind in the private sector, the Research Centre plans to formulate an educational curriculum of international standard and publish textbooks, educational journals''. But User:Uzhuthiran wants to delete it that without any reason along with other attacks towards this firm and its associates. (I have no idea about this banned user). --<small><span style="color:#333399;font-size:12px;font-family:Lucida Handwriting;">[[User:Avineshjose|Avinesh Jose]] [[User_talk:Avineshjose|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;font-family:Verdana;">&nbsp;T&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 04:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:*This is what an admin commented about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANancy&diff=232734190&oldid=232731028 his behavior]. --<small><span style="color:#333399;font-size:12px;font-family:Lucida Handwriting;">[[User:Avineshjose|Avinesh Jose]] [[User_talk:Avineshjose|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;font-family:Verdana;">&nbsp;T&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 06:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest ==

{{resolved}}
I hope this is the right place for this.
So, per [[Talk:Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest#Yugoslavia 1992: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?|this discussion]] which has been dead for a few days, we (3 of 6 active members of wikiproject eurovision who responded) decided that "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest" should be merged with "Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest". The Federal Republic, its legal name at the time only participated once, in 1992. We wanted to merge it with the main article because having 2 pages for Yugoslavia would be confusing, and the EBU which runs the contest, considers the 1992 entry to be the same as all past Yugoslavian entries. Sims2 merged the info and I followed suit with redirecting the page when I noticed that he took action. [[User:Imbris]] is completely against the merge and keeps claiming that the [[European Broadcasting Union]] (EBU) is not the "Holy Bible" and has no right to decide the name [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest&curid=16669929&diff=232517026&oldid=232438565]. In my opinion, they have every right since it is ''their'' contest ([[User_talk:Grk1011#Yugoslavia_in_ESC_1992|his responses to me]]). Its sort of like how all Macedonia related article about Eurovision are "FYR Macedonia" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.Y.R._Macedonia_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest] since that is how the EBU acknowledges them. I know that my way of redirecting was a little [[Wikipedia:Be bold|bold]], but was it right? I didn't want to revert him without on outside opinion. There seemed to be plenty of factors backing me up. [[User:Grk1011|Grk1011]] ([[User talk:Grk1011|talk]]) 17:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
:After looking at his talk page and reviewing some of his edits, he seems to be doing the same thing to other pages like the Olympics. [[User:Grk1011|Grk1011]] ([[User talk:Grk1011|talk]]) 20:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
::Can I please get some help, now he's editing the pages to reflect his views. Where is everybody? [[User:Grk1011|Grk1011]] ([[User talk:Grk1011|talk]]) 21:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia generally uses the common and practical names for articles. Wikipedia usually does not take sides of a political dispute. Another example in the world is the question of who is China, the People's Republic of China or the Republic of China (Taiwan). Wikipedia tends to be neutral. Therefore, trying to please one side or other should be avoided. I have given some advice for guidance but have not declared that one or the other use is preferred. [[User:Spevw|Spevw]] ([[User talk:Spevw|talk]]) 22:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
:::The only thing I hoped to acomplish was neutrality. It would be biased to add the appearance of Yugoslavia in ESC 1992 to both Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and to Serbia and Montenegro. This is mainly of the fact that Bosnian and Herzegovinian participants competed in the contest. That local contest elected the representant of three nations of the former SFRY as the representative for the ESC 1992. Despite that fact and due to lots of reasons the representative of SFRY became the representative of FRY (MNE+SRB) but it couldn't have represented the FRY only because it represented Bosnia and Herzegovina also. This is why this article exists and it would be biased to merge it to both the articles [[Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest]] and the [[Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest]]. The Olympic editors agreed to simmilar position and in other cases there is no attempts to continue the heritage of SFRY by any of the successor nations. Even if FIFA and UEFA have on their respective web-sites the notion of succession of SFRY by the FRY and beyond. -- [[User:Imbris|Imbris]] ([[User talk:Imbris|talk]]) 23:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
::::My problem is that he is going against the source, the EBU which runs the contest, because he does not believe it is right. Since when do we put aside sources that we don't agree with, especially when the source is the official site. [[User:Grk1011|Grk1011]] ([[User talk:Grk1011|talk]]) 00:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Your problem is not the source but the interpretation of that source, since the EBU website shows that appearance under the flag with the red star when we both know (and the crowd in the Eurosong project definately know) that it appeared under the flag without the red star. -- [[User:Imbris|Imbris]] ([[User talk:Imbris|talk]]) 02:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::The flag is not the problem, its the name that they were represented as which is the same as the '91 entry and those before. [[User:Grk1011|Grk1011]] ([[User talk:Grk1011|talk]]) 09:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
<s>There is now an official merger proposal if anyone is interested: [[Talk:Yugoslavia_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest#Merger_proposal]]. [[User:Grk1011|Grk1011]] ([[User talk:Grk1011|talk]]) 20:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)</s>

We reached a compromise. [[User:Grk1011|Grk1011]] ([[User talk:Grk1011|talk]]) 23:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

== Shabazz is deletig my ref of "self hating jew" from [[New Historians]] and [[Post-Zionism]] ==

Please help!

--[[User:Shevashalosh|Shevashalosh]] ([[User talk:Shevashalosh|talk]]) 18:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

:In my opinion, adding a "See also" reference to [[Self-hating Jew]] to those articles — especially [[New Historians]], which names living people — raises serious [[WP:BLP]] issues. The fact that Shevashalosh needs to include a footnote next to the "See also" entry indicates the spurious and politically-motivated nature of this issue.

:I would ask that administrators please look at Shevashalosh's edit history. She is a persistent POV-pushing edit warrior who has turned every article she touches into a [[WP:BATTLE|battleground]]. She has referred to editors with whom she disagrees as self-hating Jews. She has made no constructive contribution to the project. Within the past 24 hours she has made complaints here, at AN/I, and at OTRS. She is a problem editor, and the sooner somebody intervenes the better.

:Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

::PS — You may notice that Shevashalosh reported a conflict with me on this page a few days ago. Rather than seek consensus on an article's Talk page, where consensus always goes against her, she runs to other forums such as those mentioned above, the Village Pump, and the Israel and Judaism WikiProjects. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
'''Comment''': After Shevashalosh's previous dispute with Ceedjee spilled over into my talk page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nudve&diff=232485748&oldid=232485556], I tried to talk to her and explain how disputes should be resolved[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shevashalosh&diff=232488332&oldid=232481411]. Her reply seemed positive[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shevashalosh&diff=232489080&oldid=232488332], but now it looks like she's back at it. I believe she's operating in good faith, but an administrator should have a talk with her and perhaps mentor her. -- [[User:Nudve|Nudve]] ([[User talk:Nudve|talk]]) 20:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
* I agree that Shevashlosh appears to be having some difficulty understanding the concept of [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]]. A mentor would no doubt be of benefit to all, but need not I think be an admin. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

::NO. He complained about previous ref of mine, so I used Nudves ref. This is part of the political dialouge in Israel, and since those are article that are talking about the political dialouge in Israel, this is a very important part of it (undue is irrelvant in this case),

::Deleting an RS ref, is unaacepble!

:: more so, deleting RS, in articles that talk about Israel political dialouge, is even more unaccpteble. just because you don't like the critism on those who crticize Zionism (so undue is irrelevant in this case).

::please help, he keeps deletin RS ref for this WP or that wp or for for spelling, or whatever have you, inventing eveytiem something new. --[[User:Shevashalosh|Shevashalosh]] ([[User talk:Shevashalosh|talk]]) 04:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::: First, it's a content dispute, second, you appear to be giving undue weight to a minority POV. Deleting of a reference which violates [[WP:UNDUE]] is no only acceptable, it's required. The onus is on you to achieve consensus for the content you wish to include, that's what the talk page is for. If there isn't consensus then your edit stays out. [[Special:Contributions/Shevashalosh]] shows forum shopping and [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]], these are not good behaviours. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Despite being told to achieve consensus, Shevashalosh went right back to each article and restored the material in question. She is now engaged in a revert war at [[Post-Zionism]], where she just violated 3RR. Her two previous 3RR violations were overlooked by admins who simply locked the articles. (See [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive78#user:Shevashalosh reported by user:ceedjee (Result: Pages move-protected)|here]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive78#User:Shevashalosh reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: page protected)|here]])
::::Please, will somebody step up to the plate and intervene? Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 15:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Calton (again) ==

<s><div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #f9fcf9; margin-right: .5em; padding: 6px;">[[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Resolved. </span>{{#if: Blanked & protected, please observe [[WP:DFTT]] ˉˉ<sup>[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']]</sup>[[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)|<span style="font-size: 85%;">Blanked & protected, please observe [[WP:DFTT]] ˉˉ<sup>[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']]</sup>[[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)</span>}}</div></s>
I'm sorry for bringing this here again, but I've got serious concerns about the behaviour of {{userlinks|calton}}. Incivility concerns (amongst other things) were brought up not so long ago here, and he was given a 0RR restriction for edit warring. Now, his incivility has continued, and I think we need to consider putting Calton under a civility parole. Recently, Calton removed an editors leaving Ramble[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Folksong&diff=228026392&oldid=227970178] - not really sure why to be honest, many users who are upset on leaving leave a message similar to this on their userpage. He then proceeded to slow edit war on the page to keep his empty version live [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Folksong&action=history] (forgot to log in), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Folksong&diff=232295017&oldid=232263487], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Folksong&diff=232390173&oldid=232351187], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Folksong&diff=232429672&oldid=232404759]. Now, I consider the next bit the serious aspect - He was clearly baiting Folksong with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFolksong&diff=232236136&oldid=232236056 this edit]; "''Poor baby. Would you like a tissue?''". After I and Tiptoety had warn him about this, his flippant attitude continued in threads [[User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite#User:Folksong|here]] and [[User_talk:Tiptoety#User:Folksong|here]]. Now please note - I did also warn Folksong here for making threats after Calton had left his nasty talk page comment, but the fact of the matter is that we would never had users making threats if Calton hadn't continued his uncivil attitude. I really believe it's time for a civility restriction at the very least, or some other community based sanction that will help Calton be a lot more collaborative. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 20:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
:*Before anyone automatically leaps to the defense of a fellow admin -- the [[WP:ABF|default position]] around here -- some actual facts. "Flippant" apparently means "not regarding admin buttons as some sort of tin Sheriff's badge" -- or, more specifically, not automatically standing up and saluting when Ryan Postlethwaite barks orders -- as Ryan Postlethwaite once again is under the delusion that unquestioning obedience to his authorityis required. As for his false claims of baiting, he conveniently leaves off that my message was a response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calton&diff=prev&oldid=232229365 this] -- and also conveniently leaves off [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Calton&diff=prev&oldid=232532286 Folksong's vandalism] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Folksong&diff=prev&oldid=232532193 Folksong's threat of violence]. His response to this unacceptable behavior? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Folksong&diff=232533707&oldid=232532193 Soothing words] to the ones making the threats. I'd say the latter shows he's less interested improving the encyclopedia and more interested in exercising petty authority and enacting petty vengeance, and is the LAST person whose judgment should be trusted in this matter. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Christ, someone should block you for that post alone. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Really? And that would be because of what, exactly? Questioning Ryan's self-proclaimed authority? Responding to false or overstated charges? Noting Ryan's double standard regarding users who level threats of violence? Help me out here. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
::They weren't soothing words - I told him that he'd usually be blocked in that situation, it was a final warning for him to cut out the attacks. But the point stands that this wouldn't have been an issue if you hadn't have gone around blanking his userpage. Note, I didn't see the diff that Folksong posted to your talk page, so I apologise, but there was still no need for any of the previous actions, or the baiting after. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Responding to vandalism and threats of violence with rationalizations and "just chill out dude" doesn't strike mena as much of a warning -- certainly not on the same scale as left on MY page. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
* I don't think this is resolved. I believe that Ryan and Calton might justly now be characterised as being in dispute, and I feel it would be best for Ryan to distance himself from Calton and vice-versa. It is clear to me that both are committed to the encyclopaedia and not here to advance an agenda or pursue personal aggrandisement, so I would advocate disengagement at least for a while, please. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
:*Fine by me. Easy enough, since I never cross his path, he always crosses mine, in search of some new way to exercise his self-proclaimed authority. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
::*I don't think concern about Calton's actions makes me in dispute with him - the only reason why I spotted this was because I was reverting vandalism from Calton's userpage, and went to investigate the guy who did it further only to come across this situation. Maybe Calton doesn't like me, fair enough, I don't think he's so bad personally and appreciate the work he does here, especially relating to anti-spam efforts. Calton slating me when I bring up concerns doesn't mean I'm holding a grudge against the guy - the only time I've ever looked at his contributions has been when I've been doing work at UAA (I think there were a couple of concerns I've had there)), and in this instance when I reverted vandalism from his userpage. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 21:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
:::*Based on your interactions with me -- from your complete unwillingness to do more than issue orders without the slightest justification or actual explanation, your quick resort to threats, your automatic assumptions of bad faith, and your latest attempts to force me to kowtow to your personal authority -- I'd say that I have very good reason to doubt your claims of not holding a grudge here. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
:*Sorry, meant resolved w/r/t the Calton/Folksong debacle. As for the Calton/Ryan P. clash, yes, some distance would be useful. ˉˉ<sup>[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']]</sup>[[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 21:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
::*Actually, it's not, since the actual page in question -- [[User:Folksong]], not [[User talk:Folksong]] -- remains. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 21:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
:::*So does [[User:J.A.McCoy]]. [[WP:MFD]] is always open. ˉˉ<sup>[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']]</sup>[[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Ryan: I think clicking [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calton&action=unwatch here] would make most of your troubles and concerns presented here fade away. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
*Since Calton basically went on a short wikibreak during [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive462#User:Calton|the last thread about him]], things pretty much just tapered off. Is he under 0RR or not? Someone needs to inform him if this is the case. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 22:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
*Every admin who pays attention to what Calton does ends up saying "this is not okay". Calton responds along the lines of "of course it's okay, ''you're'' not okay". They are then In A Dispute<sup>TM</sup>, and apparently that makes Calton untouchable by that admin. I believe that Ryan's warning to Calton was perfectly acceptable. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 04:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:*Forgive me for asking a stupid question of Carlton, but why were you reverting a change on a user's own userpage? To follow this up, why did you respond in the manner that you did on that user's talkpage? I would be keen on understanding your justification for such edits. Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]</font>''''' 06:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, shall we fully protect [[User:Folksong]] for the time being, until an MfD is called? Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 12:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

*This matter is not resolved and I don't believe [[User:Folksong]] is the issue. The issue is Calton's rabid incivility. He is a "spam warrior" par excellence, but he takes it way too far. Once he found he couldn't use the old {{tl|temporary userpage}} tag to get rid of userpages, he started prodding, now he simply blanks pages. Frequently (though far less than half the time), the users come back and unblank their pages. How many users don't come back ''because of Calton''. When a user questions Calton he or she undoubtedly gets a most vile treatment. If an admin says "stop" or "warning" or "You're cruising for a block Calton", the response is always to the effect of "Oh yeah, the big admin telling me what to do, yes Sir" or worse. If he is actually sanctioned, as he has been here at least twice, he simply leaves for awhile. I am convinced that Calton's many contributions to the project are completely offset by his incivility and he needs<u> strong action from this forum to require him to behave by basic standards of civility.</u>..--[[User:Doug|Doug.]]<sup>([[User talk:Doug|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Doug|contribs]])</sup> 16:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::Note, I mixed two concepts I fear. Calton is guilty of incivility in his spam warrioring, yes; but the blanking of pages he does on the claim that the user is "nonexistent", part of his personal war against allowing non-editors to have userpages regardless of content.--[[User:Doug|Doug.]]<sup>([[User talk:Doug|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Doug|contribs]])</sup> 16:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::You mixed two concepts, and you tailed off towards the end of your first post, I believe. Or did you mean to say that "he needs...Doug"? <sub>[[User:Gb|Gb]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Gb|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gb|c]]</sup> 16:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Whatever the case, wherever the venue, the edit warring has to stop. As I stated above, if consensus was reached for 0RR in the previous thread, than he needs to be informed and it needs to be enforced. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 17:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::(ec)Ha, you're right. Underlined text added to complete the sentence.--[[User:Doug|Doug.]]<sup>([[User talk:Doug|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Doug|contribs]])</sup> 17:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdenting)
:*Consensus was reach, and as he was informed of that thread, and this, there's no way that he doesn't know that. The activities that brought this thread into being, however, weren't a breach of that sanction, but were as a result of his edit warring over the blanking of material he thought inappropriate, rather than bothering to take it to MfD - that, and his "blank non-user's page" behaviour (and it's clear from his contributions that a number of those non-users subsequently return), aren't covered by the earlier restriction, but should be, as he's just gaming the system by not XfD'ing the pages in the first place.
:I'd support any sort of civility restriction, and any sanction which viewed his blanking of pages he doesn't like as vandalism (as there are mechanisms open to dealing with them that everyone else avails themselves of with little difficult). Unless it's enforced, though, it's pointless - as with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=229948601 last discussion], whenever too bright a light is shone on his activities, he simply keeps a low profile for a couple of weeks, then gets straight back to what he was doing without any modification of his behaviour. If a conclusive message can come out of this discussion then at least he can consider himself on a final warning, and will adjust his behaviour accordingly. <sub>[[User:Gb|Gb]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Gb|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gb|c]]</sup> 07:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*I strongly support a civility restriction, as I did the last time Calton's behavior came up. Calton's incivility is extraordinary, and he's been behaving this way for ''years''. Block him for at least 24 hours for each uncivil comment and maybe he will start to change his behavior. I doubt that anything weaker than that would have an effect. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] ([[User talk:Everyking|talk]]) 08:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
**We must be clear too that "getting into it" previously with Calton does not bar an admin from taking action. Some of the comments above suggest people think Ryan is in a "dispute" with Calton and needs to take a step back. My God, you can't talk to Calton as an admin without him escalating it; and everyone involved, Ryan, myself, Tiptoety, etc, have generally held off on blocking Calton and each time bring it here. None of us should have to do this each time though as Calton's bad actions are habitual. If Calton takes issue with an admin's actions he can of course bring it here himself, but Calton does not need us to lay out a carpet for him and create a gauntlet for the admins to run each time. The fact is that certain admins have seen what Calton does, so we watch him. All of the admins, and I think I can safely include myself, are generally easy to get along with. But Calton's actions are detrimental to the project and he must be stopped. I suggest we need to consider a community imposed ban prohibiting Calton from editing any userpage, except to nominate it MfD and further restricting what he can post on usertalk.--[[User:Doug|Doug.]]<sup>([[User talk:Doug|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Doug|contribs]])</sup> 11:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::By MfD, you are including CSD, I take it? He should be allowed to nominate any page, including userpages, for CSD if it fits the criteria, but if the tag is removed (either by another editor (other than the creator / user themselves) or speedy is declined by an admin) then his next step should only be to either (i) nominate it for XfD, or (ii) leave it alone. Blanking userpages on the grounds that he thinks it's a "non-user's page" should be treated for what it is - i.e. vandalism - and dealt with accordingly.
:::As for user talk, as long as he is civil he shouldn't be unduly restricted, but the restriction should be there to stop him harranguing other users for "insulting his intelligence", as he sees it, or "disagreeing with him", as others see it. <sub>[[User:Gb|Gb]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Gb|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gb|c]]</sup> 12:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*He edit warred on [[User:Folksong]]. imo, the 0RR restriction should apply to everything, whether be it userpages, UAA reports, CSD tags, adding block tags, etc. And he does need to be formally informed that this restriction is in place, while it's pretty clear consensus was reached no one made the a call and set it out for him (presumably because he had gone on break). –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 12:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

== Points system for admin recall{{anchor|If a non-admin did what Jehochman did, that could be called vandalism....New proposal.}} ==

:''This discussion moved to [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall#Points system for admin recall (WP:AN)]]''

== [[User:National Library of Wales]] ==

It would be good to have some more eyes on what's going on with image uploads from [[User:Telor Roberts]] and [[User:Paul Bevan]]. They're working for the National Library of Wales and are uploading images from their archives. They believe they have the rights to those images but they're not uploading them under free licenses, instead relying on fair-use rationales. That seems a bit peculiar to me. There's already a threadlet at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#National_Library_of_Wales]]. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] ([[User talk:Haukurth|talk]]) 01:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:Hm, I'll go talk to him. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 08:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks! [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] ([[User talk:Haukurth|talk]]) 09:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:There's also a brief discussion at [[:Commons:Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Request_for_clarification]]. Given that a consensus to disregard UK claims of copyright on {{tl|PD-art}} works is almost certain, I'd say warning them of an eventual transwiki under the presumption of public domain would be the best course of action. ˉˉ<sup>[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']]</sup>[[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 08:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, that's one of the things I have in mind. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 08:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::Well, PD-Art is usually taken to apply only to photographs of paintings, taken from a distance. We already assume that scans of photographs are ineligible for copyright worldwide. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] ([[User talk:Haukurth|talk]]) 09:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Bear in mind that the people we're interacting with basically want to be cooperative and have a lot of encyclopedic material to offer, but also come to the table with a set of expectations and constraints that are somewhat different from the way we like to operate. I'm not suggesting we make special exceptions for them; I do think there's more to be gained in the long run on both sides by locating the most fruitful path that's compliant with both organizations' policies. It's already apparent that they're approaching this from a customary museum approch to copyright--claiming full control over everything and attempting to release permission on a limited basis. Our first organizational impulse to reject the fair use rationales and delete, and our second is to recognize the flaws in the copyright claim and grab what they've already uploaded. That's likely to push them away, especially because the individuals we're interacting with are probably not the organization's decision makers in terms of asserting those copyright claims: even if the organization is wrong they have orders to carry out, and could have professional consequences if they fail. If we find a way to cooperate with their structures without compromising our own, then we could get a lot more useful images in the long run. It might even open doors with other museums. I have a few ideas for where that could go, and those depend on input and dialog with their people. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 10:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Right. I was hoping someone would have the patience to take this line and act as something of a liaison so cheers for you, Durova. It does look like in many cases they are claiming 'rights' for public domain material on the basis of holding the physical copy or producing the digital reproduction. Take a look at [[:Image:Gwilym Marles.jpg]] for an example. That image looks like it's in the public domain but the licensing template is a completely inappropriate "non-free standard test image" and then there is some cookie-cutter fair-use rationale. This is clearly something of a mess. Maybe we could apply a public domain tag and perhaps humor them by creating a specific template with information on the NLW project? In any case I hope they can be persuaded to add as much information on the images they upload as possible. If they have information on the photographer or a publication date that's great. If all they know is that the photograph was donated to them at some point then that would be useful information as well. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] ([[User talk:Haukurth|talk]]) 11:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::There's no use in humoring them, the situation on our side is abundantly clear. I wish the best of luck to Durova in tactfully negotiating a continued partnership with NLW representatives, but there's no use in sugarcoating the truth. As far as formalities go, it would be easier to design a custom copyright tag/disclaimer for such images over at Commons. Throwing fair use templates in the mix makes hosting these images at en.wiki against policy. ˉˉ<sup>[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']]</sup>[[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 11:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Actually over on Commons where I'm an administrator we deal with claims like this routinely. A lot of museums, libraries, etc. assert copyright over derivative works of items that have lapsed into the public domain. Mike Godwin has stated the Foundation's opinion on that type of situation. Very few of these organizations would actually pursue the claim in court. But what they ''can'' do is make it hard or easy to obtain high quality digitized images of their collections. And if they see that it's to their advantage to make high quality files available to the public, they may change their approach and do so. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 04:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== NOINDEX template question ==

What is the allowed usage of the [[Template:NOINDEX]] functionality, that I just noticed is live? No article pages are included, but I see some article talk pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Template%3ANOINDEX&namespace=1 here]. Why would those be NOINDEX? <font color="#156917">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 02:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:It works in any non-content namespace, which is defined as anything other than the article space. Anyone can add it, and for some controversial discussions, like at BLP talk pages, etc, it may be desirable to use it. No policy as of yet, but that might be something to work on. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 02:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::I found out that the functionality itself was live, but is it supposed to be on by default today for say [[Talk:Bible]]? Thats all I was wondering--the template is linked there, apparently transcluded through one of the many templates already on that talk page, and it seemed odd that only those certain random talk pages had it. <font color="#156917">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Be sure to use {{tl|NOINDEX}} for ease of tracking. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 02:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Yeah, I figured for that. It looks like what we're seeing on those talk pages is the inclusion of [[:Template:Checkuser]] which is causing it. <font color="#156917">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 02:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::(ec) That didn't make the tracking much easier for me, tho, I don't think I would've found where in [[Talk:Bible]] the template is used without [[Special:ExpandTemplates]]. Anyhow, seems the NOINDEX template is used at [[Template:Checkuser]], which doesn't seem like the best idea to me. Whenever someone uses that template on a talk or discussion page, the entire page will be blocked from Google searches. That seems.. kinda random to me. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 02:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::That does seem improper. I've taken NOINDEX out of the template. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 02:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::If somebody wanted to NOINDEX checkuser subpages, a template like {{tl|rfcu box}} or even {{tl|rfcu top}} might be a better choice. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#1E90FF">'''Luna Santin'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</span> 10:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

All the templates including {{NOINDEX}} are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Template%3ANOINDEX&namespace=10 here] for the curious. <font color="#156917">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 02:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:Perhaps just wrap the usages with noinclude so they don't get put onto the pages they're transcluded onto. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 02:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with implementing this in often-used templates without discussion. Either a broad policy on where it is used is framed and receives community approval, or each time it is used, a note is left on the appropriate talkpage. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|disp.]])</span> 21:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Uzhuthiran]] is on a personal edit war with me ==

[[User:Uzhuthiran]] is on a personal edit war with me & my articles. Though he has a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Uzhuthiran below 50 contribs], his main areas of interests are [[Labour India]], [[Santhosh George Kulangara]] and run after my contribs and blindly reverting. His edits were reverted by many editors. (see [[Labour India]]'s history). He is not at all listening to others and adding false edit summaries without a constructive discussion. --<small><span style="color:#333399;font-size:12px;font-family:Lucida Handwriting;">[[User:Avineshjose|Avinesh Jose]] [[User_talk:Avineshjose|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;font-family:Verdana;">&nbsp;T&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 04:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:He vandalised here also, [[Labour India Gurukulam Public School]]I cleaned up and removed advert tone of wordings. But uzhithan reverted it blindly. --<small><span style="color:#333399;font-size:12px;font-family:Lucida Handwriting;">[[User:Avineshjose|Avinesh Jose]] [[User_talk:Avineshjose|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;font-family:Verdana;">&nbsp;T&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 04:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

His intention is well clear in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANancy&diff=232734190&oldid=232731028 here] (comment by an admin). --<small><span style="color:#333399;font-size:12px;font-family:Lucida Handwriting;">[[User:Avineshjose|Avinesh Jose]] [[User_talk:Avineshjose|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;font-family:Verdana;">&nbsp;T&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 06:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Possible occulted spam in interwiki starting from en.wiki ==

Hi, I am an user and sysop in it.wiki. Rarely I write in en.wiki, mainly to update links to interwiki. I hope the adminship of en.wiki will check about a possible spam in progress starting from en.wiki and moving in other wikipedias.

Late June [[User:Korazim|Korazim]] registered in en.wiki. In his user page I read that he's an Israelian contributor and in his [[Special:Contributions/Korazim|contributions]] I see he's working on pharmacology and medicine articles related.

Some important references:
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Femarelle_(DT56a)&action=history history of Femarelle (DT56a)](*)
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selective_estrogen_receptor_modulator&action=history history of Selective estrogen receptor modulator]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hot_flash&action=history history of Hot flash]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phytoserm&action=history history of Phytoserm] (*)
(*) articles created by Korazim

In these articles he wrote about Femarelle, a new drug and posted many references derived from same authors which work in medical/scientific institutes in Israel. About the drug I read only positive effects and not bad effects. I read also the dosage of drug (''1 capsule, twice daily; can be taken with or without food'') and the commercial names. Note that the title is "Femarelle (DT56a)" (commercial name + scientific name) and not "DT56a" (only the scientific name). What's the difference with the instructions of commercial kits? (in Italy we tell ''bugiardino'' or ''foglietto illustrativo'', sorry for my bad English). If the contest stop here well, I could be too souspicious, but I found that after some events in other Wikipedias.

From July to August the new articles and edits of Korazim was propagated in the same mode to pt.wiki, fr.wiki (some articles removed here) and it.wiki by an user recently registered as [[:it:Utente:Marbahur|Marbahur]] in those wikipedias. Other contributes, in the same time, are in he.wiki but I don't know if they derived from the same source. Marbahur is not able to speak in Italian but is able to translate from English to Portuguese, Italian, and French and from Portuguese to Italian. I think all that's very strange... So, in it.wiki we've put the main article (about the drug Femarelle) in simple deletion procedure in 15th of August. 18 hours later a new user was registered as [[:it:Utente:Neutral6|Neutral6]]: he speak correctly Italian and supports the edits of Marbahub and done new articles or edits translated from pt.wiki about same topics. We are started a check user because I think they are the same person.

Also: please note that Femarelle was launched early 2008 in Italy and Israel, I don't know about other countries.

I think all that is very dangerous for the neutrality of Wikipedia, so I suggest to check the neutrality of those recent edits in en.wiki.

Thanks for your attention. Greetings --[[User:Giancarlodessi|gian_d]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 12:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I'm note sure what the problem is with this editor. At .en, there's not problem with articles on pharmaceuticals. None of the articles you mentioned have any obvious spam problems from what I can see. Unless there's an obvious COI problem -- I don't see any allegations of this editor either working for the pharm company who created this drug or writing any of the scientific papers that were cited -- then no admin action is needed here. Cheers, <b><font color="FF6600">[[User:Caknuck|caknuck]]</font> <sub><font color="black">[[User talk:Caknuck|°]]</font></sub> <font color="FF6600">is not used to being the voice of reason</font></b> 19:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

::OK. We have a more restrictive policy about pharmaceutical articles, thanks :-) --[[User:Giancarlodessi|gian_d]] ([[User talk:Giancarlodessi|talk]]) 19:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

== [[User talk:Osm agha]] ==

can you protect my own page and talk page from editing by anonymous users, this ip address 41.234.227.103 insulted me using some vulgar words in arabic like خول - اهبل - حيوان --[[User:Osm agha|Osm agha]] ([[User talk:Osm agha|talk]]) 12:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:Could you translate that for us non-Arabic speakers? [http://translate.google.com Google Translate] is giving me “Authorized - Hubble - Zoo” and I don’t recognize anything vulgar in those words. —[[User:TravisTX|<font face="Verdana" color="#2F335F">Travis</font>]][[User_talk:TravisTX|<font color="#888888" size="-1"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 15:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:Userpage semi-protected indefinitely as we do this normally on request. The talk page hasn't had significant recent vandalism (or indeed many edits at all) so I'm leaving that alone for the time being. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

أهبل means stupid or asshole حيوان means animal خول means immoral. use babylon search engine [http://search.babylon.com/web/%d8%ae%d9%88%d9%84&babsrc=toolbar&cid=tbr&tl=en&uil=en&pid=36040740&lic=4&tdate=18&ver=2&sid=dca57e43] --[[User:Osm agha|Osm agha]] ([[User talk:Osm agha|talk]]) 16:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

my page is still unprotected, and i hope that you ban this ip because of his repetitive offensive behavior --[[User:Osm agha|Osm agha]] ([[User talk:Osm agha|talk]]) 20:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

oh, you have protected only my own page. i hope someone protect my talk page either --[[User:Osm agha|Osm agha]] ([[User talk:Osm agha|talk]]) 20:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:Since the vandal came back, on yet another IP address, to vandalize your talk page again after your first post here, I've semi-protected your talk page for 2 weeks. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 20:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

thank you and i hope this will stop the vandalism --[[User:Osm agha|Osm agha]] ([[User talk:Osm agha|talk]]) 21:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

== Help needed at [[CAT:CSD]] ==

There are around 100 pages at [[CAT:CSD]], and I haven't been able to catch up. Please come help there. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od Mishehu]] 12:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
: CSD is, for a few moments at least, totally empty. :) - [[User:TexasAndroid|TexasAndroid]] ([[User talk:TexasAndroid|talk]]) 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

== ResearchEditor still pushing ==

{{resolved}}
Please see [[Talk:McMartin preschool trial#Tamarkin section discussion|this]] discussion at [[McMartin preschool trial]]. ResearchEditor is continuing to push a POV, after a topic ban on [[satanic ritual abuse]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=232675563#Proposed_topic-ban above] for anyone who missed the original discussion). Specifically RE is attempting to put [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] on a non-peer reviewed news publication that reports on child abuse accusations ([http://www.mental-health-matters.com/selfhelp/m_journals.php Treating Abuse Today], second from the bottom). This is at the expense of and in opposition to a 400-page report and analysis of the trial from [[Prometheus Books]]. The quote RE wishes to insert would give credence to the idea that Ray Buckey was guilty of molesting nearly 400 children in a variety of public locations and beating a horse to death with a baseball bat, but somehow after 7 years of investigations managed to get away with it. Reliable sources and a recantation by a witness illustrate that the [[McMartin preschool trial]] was a moral panic and should be portrayed as such. Even had Buckey access to his friend's special effects studio and a horse farm, this does not mean that he faked supernatural powers or killed a horse. This is why I would support a blanket ban on a variety of pages related to SRA and the memory wars, including [[dissociative identity disorder]], [[false memory syndrome]], [[multiple personality controversy]], [[Michelle Remembers]] and the [[McMartin preschool trial]].

Also note that ResearchEditor is attempting to insert a reference to a publication that s/he ''knows'' is not on par with Prometheus books - see [[Talk:Satanic ritual abuse/Archive 6#Treating abuse today|Talk:SRA archive]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Prometheus Books|reliable sources noticeboard]].

Also note [[Talk:Michelle Remembers#Response to reply|this section of Michelle Remembers]], I'm really sick of being blamed for this because I happen to be the only editor willing to read many university-press books and scientific journal articles in order to raise the standard of the page from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Satanic_ritual_abuse&oldid=151373658 this] to [[satanic ritual abuse|the current version]]. Seriously, it's not like I'm engaging in [[WP:OR|original research]] on these pages, '''all''' of my edits have been based on and sourced to [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. I edit according to what I read, I don't edit according to what I think. Yet still I get pegged as "a POV-pushing editor" as if I were the one trying to impose undue weight. This isn't me being a big meanie, this is me relying on appropriate sources and conventional interpretations of policy, being able to demonstrate that ResearchEditor's interpretations and attributions are incorrect. [[User:WLU|WLU]] ([[User talk:WLU|talk]]) 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:I fail to understand why ResearchEditor has '''not''' been banned in all SRA-related articles. I cannot speak for the articles unrelated to SRA that I don't edit: (1) Dissociative identity disorder, (2) False memory syndrome and (3) Multiple personality controversy. However, I do know RE's bahavior in (4) ''[[Michelle Remembers]]'', a book which claims that Satan himself appeared to a woman; a book that started the SRA panic, as well as his behavior in (5) [[McMartin preschool trial]]: an iconic case of SRA claims. I would support an extension of the ban in these two articles. —[[User:Cesar Tort|Cesar Tort]] 14:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

::I've asked [[User:east718]] to reconsider whether there was support for a ban from related articles; I think there was, but I was involved in the discussion. Hopefully he will correct himself. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 15:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks. Reviewing the histories, the posts occurred before East718's posting to RE's page([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McMartin_preschool_trial&diff=prev&oldid=232607202 McMartin], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Remembers&diff=prev&oldid=232589715 Michelle Remembrs] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ResearchEditor&diff=232672902&oldid=232599244 East718]) and the decision has been amended [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=232706231] and RE [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ResearchEditor&diff=next&oldid=232672902 made aware]. I think this is resolved and have tagged the section. [[User:WLU|WLU]] ([[User talk:WLU|talk]]) 17:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I believe that the addition of other pages to the ban is inappropriate. I have not even had a chance to defend myself about the actions at Michelle Remembers or McMartin. Treating Abuse Today is a serious journal and a reliable source. I posted this at the page recently -TAT is a reliable publisher. Many respected researchers have published there. See [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Treating+Abuse+Today&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=0&sa=N here].

::::The quote I wanted to install simply was a balancing quote "What surprised me as an investigative journalist was that nobody looked beyond the seemingly fanciful nature of the disclosures. Nobody tried to interpret what the disclosures might mean through a child's frame of reference and perception. Nobody searched for plausible explanation....children talked about...improbable events like jumping out of airplanes and seeing a horse killed. Yet, investigators did not track reports that Raymond Buckey had a friend who ran a special effects studio or that Virginia McMartin's sister owned a horse ranch." This is not unreasonable and adds to the article. There are several quotes in the article from biased sources from the other perspective. Both CesarTort and WLU have an interest in seeing my edits banned from these pages since they have an opposite perspective. [[User:ResearchEditor|ResearchEditor]] ([[User talk:ResearchEditor|talk]]) 02:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::This thread is closed, RE. Just follow MangoJuice advice: present your complaint to ArbCom. (BTW, we don't want you banned because you think different. Biao has exactly the same pov of you and we don't want him banned. It's your ''pov pushing'' what left the community with no more patience.) —[[User:Cesar Tort|Cesar Tort]] 04:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
{undent}[[WP:SHUN]]. No need for drama, no need for replies. With no response from the community there is no reason to consider this an issue. It's obvious that no argument can change things, so why bother? [[User:WLU|WLU]] ([[User talk:WLU|talk]]) 12:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

== Denying speedies ==

Hi there guys!

Although the vast majority of the articles I nom for speedy are in turn deleted, sometimes they are denied. In the spirit of learning from your mistakes, I would like suggestions on how I might be notified of this. I don't want to put too much load on admins already spending their time at CSD but I also don't want my talk page to look like I nominate everything I see for CSD.

Any suggestions? Are there any bots that monitor when CSD tags are removed? --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 14:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:Best bet is to use a common edit sum when making CSDs, like "Nominated for CSD". If it is declined, then the edit sum will still be in your [[Special:Contributions]], if it is deleted, then there will be no entry. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 14:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:(ec) If you add the page you've tagged to your watchlist, then you'll be able to see which are deleted and which are denied. If I refuse a speedy delete request, I (like others) try to remember to leave an edit summary with reasons (e.g. "decline speedy, clear assertion of notability" or "decline speedy, reason given for deleting a redirect isn't one of the criteria, try [[WP:RFD]]"); if not, try asking the declining admin on their talk page. I think the onus is on you to ask why, rather than on the declining admin to tell you, otherwise the workload gets too high. That said, if I found someone who clearly didn't ''understand'' the criteria I'd probably let them know... There are bots notifying page creators of speedy requests, but none that I know of that notify nominators of declined requests. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 14:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

::I frequently inform users about declining speedy deletions. In addition, I never decline a speedy without a useful edit summary explaining why it was declined. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od Mishehu]] 14:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

::A lot of speedies are declined when an AfD would be logical, but let's also remember that some of the "declining" is vandalism and hyped authors trying to "OMG don't delete hes a real guy in my class n hes awsum," so following is a good idea. I've also seen some admins who have denied for less than strong reasons (like, "but we need more one line cricket stubs on guys who played one match in 1804!"). [[User:Utgard Loki|Utgard Loki]] ([[User talk:Utgard Loki|talk]]) 14:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Eh. Speedies should usually be declined if there is any question about their applicability. I know what you are saying but we do have to accept the fact that everyone starts out at some point and that proper speedy deletion procedure helps us keep new editors while keeping bad articles off. As frustrating as it may be to do in practice, that procedure suggests strong deference to the page when weighing a speedy deletion request. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 15:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::I usually leave a {{tl|sdd}} or {{tl|sdd2}} template for people when I decline a speedy. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Interesting templates. A shame they don't mention PROD though. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] ([[User talk:Rmhermen|talk]]) 17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::I usually decline speedies that are under A7 when the article has at least some assertion of notability (whether it is completley valid or not I am not sure). I usually leave an edit summary stating that and mention that it could be prodded or taken to AFD if desired. [[User:Chrislk02|<font color="1E90FF">'''Chris'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Chrislk02|<font color="4169E1">'''lk02'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Chrislk02|<font color="2A52BE">Chris Kreider</font>]]</sup> 17:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Nobody seems to have mentioned this, but the easiest thing to do is just watchlist everything you tag. If it's deleted, you'll never see it again so it won't disturb you; if it's declined, you'll see the tag being removed in your watchlist. This also means you can see right away if a deleted page is reposted.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]<small>&nbsp;''19:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)''</small></font>
::::::Nobody?! "If you add the page you've tagged to your watchlist, then you'll be able to see which are deleted and which are denied" (!) [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 09:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Disco house ==

{{Resolved|Sock blocked}}
Can somebody delete the [[Disco house]] article? It explains nothing and it has no sources. [[User:Auto Racing Fan|Auto Racing Fan]] ([[User talk:Auto Racing Fan|talk]]) 15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:You should [[WP:DPR|nominate it for deletion]], then. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::Hmmmm. That article was previously blanked by {{user|Fclass}}, who shares your interests in electronic music, auto racing, and, I'm guessing here, sockpuppets. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 16:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::It's very likely. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 17:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::It's [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Auto Racing Fan|confirmed]]. Thanks for the block, Gwen. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 02:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== [[Idiopathic inflammatory diseases]] ==

{{resolved|userfied [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 16:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)}}
Can someone help me figure out the status of this article and what to do with it? It's linked to an AFD for a separate but similar article, which closed as delete. At the moment I'm inclined to create a new AFD for it and go from there. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:Looks like someone got there already. I had a convo with [[User:DRosenbach]] during the AFD (on my talkpage, now archived [[User talk:Keeper76/Archive 12#Hey|here]]), and offered to userfy the article if it ended up deleted, and he wanted to attempt to salvage a viable article out of it. Would anyone be opposed to a temporary userfication? [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 15:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::Looks like no one objects, and I patiently waited, like 25 minutes! :-) Userfied at [[User:DRosenbach/Idiopathic inflammatory diseases]]. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 16:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Unuserfied. Don't ask :-) I should've waited 26 minutes. But hey, I got a barnstar outta all this :-) [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 16:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

== Aparachik question ==

How do I find out, easily and quickly, whether or not an article has been through an AfD? I know the recreated articles are speedies, but ''how can you tell?'' [[User:Utgard Loki|Utgard Loki]] ([[User talk:Utgard Loki|talk]]) 17:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:The simplest option is to do a search for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/''name of article'']], which should hypothetically bring up any AfD discussion if the title is the same. One could also look at the (deleted) history of the page and see if an AfD tag was applied, which should give a link to the discussion but that's a little tricky for a non-administrator. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 17:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::There is still the problem of knowing whether the new article is substantially the same; you might have to ask an admin to look at the previously deleted one and advise. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 17:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:Risker's suggestion will be fastest. You can also try alternative capitalizations and/or with/out the middle name/initial. (Seen too much of that at DRV when someone really wants the article to exist and won't take no for an answer.) You can google search for mirror articles for recent AFDs. A major fraction of blatant recreations come very soon after the initial article is deleted. Having found the prior AFD, you can at least read it to determine what the concerns were. If you think the same concerns apply, it is worth getting an admin's attention. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 18:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::you can also of look at contribution lists--this gets the most persistent of the POV ones. But as John says, the problem of seeing if they are the same is real--usually they are essentially the same, sometimes they are new ones done in perfect innocence, and occasionally the problem is actually fixed. I hope all admins actually deleting the G4s are especially careful to always check the previously deleted article there. For the related problem of articles under slightly different titles, only a high level of suspicion and a good memory help.
*'''Off topic comment, slightly.''' I just tried Risker's suggestion with the article [[Self-hating Jew]], which is mentioned in two threads above. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=232759762#Self-hating_Jew_-_cited_history_is_being_deleted], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=232759762#Cedjje_deleting_Nudve_citations_from_article_Self-hating_Jew]. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-hating Jew]] didn't bring up anything. It's an AfD page that doesn't exist. So... just let me get this straight. Not only do we ''have'' an article called, for god's sake, of all things, [[Self-hating Jew]], which has incidentally existed since August 2005, but that article has also ''never'' been AfD'd? Really...? Actually, in 2005 it was a decent enough stub, like this: "'Self-hating Jew' is a derogatory polemical label typically used by politically conservative Jews in the United States to describe left-wing Jews who publicly criticize the government or policies of Israel, such as George Soros and Noam Chomsky." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-hating_Jew&oldid=22229477] But people have been, cough, helping Wikipedia by expanding it ever since, and now it's looong, and not decent at all. It starts like this: "'Self-hating Jew', or 'self-loathing Jew' [sic!], is a term used to describe Jews who feel hatred toward their Jewish identity." That's the entire lead there. And the article has a section called "Proposed psychological basis". And... and... [/me breaks down. Cries. ] OK... so, did I misunderstand Risker's instructions? Alternatively, while I don't really know my way around AfD (don't like it much), could I use "antisemitism honeypot" as a deletion reason? Or, third idea, am I supposed to spend the rest of my life arguing about [[consensus]] for re-stubbing it on that talkpage? Or, fourthly, '''help'''! [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 21:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
*:Yep, never AFD'ed under that title. I won't guarantee anything about prior titles on the same concept before this 2005 creation - or any of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Self-hating_Jew&hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1 15] redirect pages. (Which incidentally don't include the alternative phrasing bolded in the article.) There have been related CFD discussions for affiliated categories, and is a [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 14# Category:Auto-Anti-Semitism|current]] one for the latest category incarnation. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
*::OMG the redirects. I said "help me", not "depress me"! :-( [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 23:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
*A "what links here" search in the Wikipedia namespace can help to find discussion where it was linked. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Self-hating+Jew&namespace=4 here]. And GRBerry's suggestion of looking under the redirects is good (click on the "links" bit next to each of the 15 redirects). I'm guessing there was a reason to mention the article's redirects in [[Talk:Racism/Archive 12]], [[Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 25]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive281]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive406]]. Going back to the 'Wikipedia' namespace links for the current article, it is linked from [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive17]] (that must be old!), [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 3]], [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 18]], [[Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics/Archive 2]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of synagogues]] (the only AfD to mention this, it seems), [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 21]], [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 24]], [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 23]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive467]]. Possibly there is something relevant in all that. More likely the same arguments are getting recycled. Hope it's not all too depressing. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 23:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
*:WAAAAH! [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 23:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

*Holy cow! That thing hasn't been AfD'd, and it has grown tentacles, gone cancerous, and metastasized, and there is nothing anyone can do about it? See, I used to argue that the creation of carefully stated articles like that was an invitation to a launching pad for hate, stupidity, and offensive stupidity, and people used to say, "Oh, you deletionist, you! Why do you hate users? I'm sure it won't get bad." It's like creating [[Miscegenation]] and saying, "Oh, don't worry, I'm sure that racists won't show up and make it a hate platform. Wikipedians will keep tabs on it." Yeah, sure. By inches, it gets absurd, and then, from absurd, it becomes an atrocity, and all in the name of a concept that is intellectually bankrupt and, as much as it is culturally ''current'' it is culturally nebulous. It can mean anything and everything, so the article starts to serve the most motivated, and the most motivated aren't always the most... neutral. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] ([[User talk:Geogre|talk]]) 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:Isn't the easy solution to roll it back to an acceptable state and then protect it? [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 04:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::Not really. Without consensus, both of those are pretty naked power moves, and protection should be used very rarely. If we have an ongoing storm of vandalism, then protecting won't raise an eyebrow, but what these articles generally get is a "consensus" on their talk pages (e.g. "I can give X ghits to the term! It's obviously used to mean X and Y" -> "It also means" -> "We need a list of notable people who 'have been called' this" -> "And here's my least favorite Jew"), and the people who disagree get either exhausted by the many accounts arguing or just run off. After there is a "consensus" on the talk pages, it becomes impossible to retrieve the sane version without AN/I complaints, and then, if you're an admin with any history at all, those who do not like you will reflexively show up to make the complaints into a case.
::The point is that RFC's fail. AfD's are possible, but they're likely to fail. Hard power is a bad idea and a self-destructive one, and all this because an unwise "meme" got an article. At least that's my opinion. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] ([[User talk:Geogre|talk]]) 10:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::You have no idea how much, how strongly, I agree with you here. There have been dozens of politically-loaded phrases that have gone through "no consensus" AfDs over the past few months. I could link some of the AfDs, with their bloc voting and lazy closes, but reliving all that would cause the salty river of my tears to join Bishonen's, so I won't. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|disp.]])</span> 18:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::[''/me hands tissue box round.'' ] [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 11:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC).

== FC Barcelona article showing a red lock icon instead of grey even though it is semi-p ==

{{resolved|1=Teamwork for the win. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)}}
I just noticed that [[FC Barcelona]] is showing a red lock icon instead of a grey one, even though it is semi'd and shown with: ''<nowiki>{{pp-semi|small=yes|expiry=August 24, 2008}}</nowiki>''. The template has the proper icon, so no clue why I see it in red here. Anyone know, or is it my browser cache? -- [[User:Alexf|Alexf]]<sup>[[User talk:Alexf|42]]</sup> 19:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:Same here. What's more, when I edit and preview the article, the grey lock appears for a second, and then it turns into a red lock. Very odd. - [[User:Face|Face]] 20:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::One of the fully protected transcluded templates has not properly noincluded the lock icon. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Oddly, this only seems to affect [[FC Barcelona]]. [[:Category:Semi-protected|Other semi-protected pages]] display the correct icon. So what does FC Barcelona has which others do not have? Cheers, [[User:Face|Face]] 20:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::As I said above, [[FC Barcelona]] is transcluding a fully protected template that has not properly supressing the {{tl|pp-template}} from being transcluded. There's so many of them transcluded that it's tough to find which one it is. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 20:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Got it! It was [[:Template:Famous players]] which had a pp-template for some reason. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Famous_players&diff=232758476 Fixed]. Cheers, [[User:Face|Face]] 20:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::{{tick}} Nice work, I was too <s>lazy</s> busy to find it myself =) –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

== Editor has set out to correct historic errors in Wikipedia's concept of [[Money]] and [[History of money]] ==

{{userlinks|Protomoney}} is an enthusiast for a term, which he calls 'protomoney,' which seems to have been overlooked by all previous works on economic history. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AProtomoney blocked] him for a week on 11 August for edit warring to insert his novel concept into our articles about money. He's made about 250 edits since he began work here on July 15, nearly all devoted to promotion of his concept. A [[User talk:Protomoney#Warning about pushing your point of view on Wikipedia|dialog on his User talk]] this afternoon did not lead to an agreement to follow Wikipedia policy. The tone of his typical interaction with other editors is captured at [[Talk:Money#Redone history of money section]], where Skipsievert said:<blockquote>As near as I can tell Protomoney you have pretty much destroyed all the good work that has been done on this article. You have a strange sense of history . It is not neutral. It is like you are not even in the right topic here. Nothing you are doing makes particular sense. The information about One of the first Greek coins were the"Swastika"[8] ,,,,, look sorta of crazy or gibberish or nonsense like. skip sievert (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)</blockquote>
I am willing to issue a longer block if editors believe it is appropriate. The first block seems to have had no effect on his thinking at all. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Money&diff=prev&oldid=232735225 first article edit] after the original block expired was to restore [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Money&oldid=231116296 one of his own pre-block versions] of the [[Money]] article). The only advance is that his original neologism 'protomoney' is replaced by a fresh neologism, 'pre-money.' (In his view, this is the stuff that was used for trade before money existed). He can't produce any economics text that uses the term 'protomoney,' so it appears to be [[WP:OR|original research]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

::User appears to be a crank, but this should be a long enough block. Just add a warning on his talk page that further promotion of fringe/OR material will result in an indefinite block. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 20:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::For clarity, he is not currently blocked. He just came off the original block today, but he is continuing the same style of edits as before. A discussion on his Talk page involving two administrators did not lead to any promise of reform. My suggestion for a new block would be either a month or indefinite, since he won't agree to change his behavior in the slightest. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::I'd agree with an extended block. [[Money]] is one the pages on my watchlist and I frequently see this editor trying to push his OR into the article and arguing on the talk page. [[User:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Glass</font>]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Cobra</font>]]''' 21:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
User is now blocked for a week. I have tried to explain the situation on his talk page. This may well not work, but we need to AGF and give them a chance to be reasoned with and cooperate going forwards. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 21:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

== [[Template:USPL]] ==

Zodiac appears to of messed up the template, scroll down the page a little bit and you get a big black box with white writing. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 21:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
: Gone now. [[User talk:WBOSITG|<font color=#33cc33>'''weburiedoursecretsinthegarden'''</font>]] 21:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

== Template:Wikipedia ==

I've done an [[WP:IAR|IAR]] semiprotection of [[Template:Wikipedia]] preemptively in anticipation of a horde of editwarring SPA led here from [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19955&hl= this WR thread]. I have no strong opinion as to whether there should or should not be a "critics/watchdogs" section on the template (and until the WR thread, it doesn't appear anyone else did either). If anyone thinks it's out of process etc etc etc feel free to unprotect it.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]<small>&nbsp;22:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)</small></font>
:Support semi-protection (and wondering why it isn't full protected like many ''many'' other highly trafficked templates...) [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 22:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

== User:Blamecity ==

I first encountered [[User:Blamecity]] yesterday. I had some discussion with him regarding inappropriate articles he was creating ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Blamecity too many to list individually]) and ended up giving him a short block after he left a couple of pretty rude messages on my talk page ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Exploding_Boy&diff=prev&oldid=232603882] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Exploding_Boy&diff=next&oldid=232603882]).

Today he returned and left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Exploding_Boy&diff=next&oldid=232607298 this message] on my user page, so I gave him a longer block. On reflection, however, I think he deserves an indef block right away, especially having had a second look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blamecity his user page], where he seems to be impersonating an admin. He seems to be very familiar with the workings of Wikipedia, and admits to being a vandal with numerous accounts. I'd appreciate it if someone else would do it -- I don't mind being a target for him, but I don't wish to seem like I'm retaliating. Thanks. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:I extended the block to indef as it is clear that the user is not here to be a productive contributor. His userpage was copied pretty much verbatim from [[User:Versageek]], so I blanked it as well. —[[User:TravisTX|<font face="Verdana" color="#2F335F">Travis</font>]][[User_talk:TravisTX|<font color="#888888" size="-1"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 01:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

::I figured it was copied. Thanks. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 01:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== hate speech ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AGay_flag.svg&diff=232825265&oldid=231385606 hate speech removed in this edit][[User talk:Myheartinchile|<sup>MY</sup>♥<sub>IN</sub><small>''chile''</small>]] 03:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

::Not sure it's hate speech, but the user has been warned. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 03:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Looks like boring vandalism to me. The user last edited a week ago, so the IP address has probably been reassigned and there's nothing we can do about it. '''''<font color="#FF0000">[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]</font>''''' 12:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Harassment, uncivility and POV editing by [[User:Cityvalyu]] ==

Something should be done about this editor and fast. His continual POV pushing edits and harassment of other editors, that do not favor his POV and are trying to maintain NPOV, is rampant. You can not try to come to a consuses, because he feels that anything that does not blatantly support his POV is simply the POV of the other editor even when sourced. His harassment then spills over to the editors talk page (see [[User_talk:Jmedinacorona]]) where he then tries to further push his point of view without end, using words stating he's using WP guidelines in editing and that everything said to him is lies. The talk page of [[2008 South Ossetia war]] also contains discussion other editors have had with his edits, reverts and NPOV. Below are just a few examples of his edit style:

#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction&diff=prev&oldid=232769293 Extensive weasel insertion]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=prev&oldid=232763756 Claims to remove weasel words then adds some of his own]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=prev&oldid=232511987 More weaseling]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=prev&oldid=232505240 Here he even admits to posting non neutral views]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=prev&oldid=232399295 See diff then read his edit summary, NPOV? In who's eyes?]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=prev&oldid=232485703 Here he makes a controversial revert and says in his summary to talk about such reverts in the talk page, where it was already being discussed for consensus, yet he makes the revert despite it.]

I'm through with dealing with him now. I have spent way too much time having confrontations with him and it has destroyed any pleasure I found in trying to contribute to this wiki. Do editor's on WP really have to put up with someone like this constantly pushing their view and then following it up with harassment? I think this kind of incessant behavior discourages the participation of all and as a new editor myself, it has nearly discouraged me from participating further. I did not come to WP to have verbal confrontations of this caliber, I came to try and contribute as I can within WP guidelines. Thank you for your consideration and hopeful intervention. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jmedinacorona|Jmedinacorona]] ([[User talk:Jmedinacorona|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jmedinacorona|contribs]]) 05:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

'''16 hours and counting''' and not a single comment on my request, yet those immediately preceding and those following appear active. Should I take this as consensus that my complaint has no basis?--<span style="background-color: darkblue; color: white">[[User:Jmedinacorona|<font color="white">'''«Javier»'''</font>]]</span>|<small>[[User talk:Jmedinacorona|<span style="color: black;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</small> 21:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:You should take it as consensus that this is a "simple" content dispute and you should follow [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] instead of here. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 23:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:: I see. It's a "simple" content dispute. Then this is normal behavior if it is so "simple" and I decline to be involved in this kind of "simple" dispute when my reason for contributing was to improve articles, not get involved in verbal warfare and abuse. Thank you for confirming my understanding of WP after having gone through this episode. Peace. --<span style="background-color: darkblue; color: white">[[User:Jmedinacorona|<font color="white">'''«Javier»'''</font>]]</span>|<small>[[User talk:Jmedinacorona|<span style="color: black;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</small> 23:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Title of [[Christian Bautista]]'s live album ==

{{resolved}}
Hello! I want to create an article regarding the album of [[Filipino]] singer [[Christian Bautista]] titled "Just A Love Song...Live!" but I can't because I think the title is in the local title blacklist. Can it be removed from the title blacklist? I think the article is important because it is one of [[Christian Bautista|his]] successful albums here in the [[Philippines]].[[User:Kleomarlo|Kleomarlo]] ([[User talk:Kleomarlo|talk]]) 10:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:I haven't had any problems creating an article at that title. The title blacklist disallows too much consecutive punctuation, but three dots should be OK. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 13:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::You didn't because you are an admin. The elipse does cause a problems with the blacklist for non-admins. I have created a stub article at [[Just A Love Song...Live!]]. ~ [[User:BigrTex|<font color="blue">Bigr</font>]][[User Talk:BigrTex|<font color="red">Tex</font>]] 14:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Request to reduce a block for a user ==

{{resolved}}
[[User:Top Gun]] was indefinitely blocked by [[User:Moreschi]].

I request a reduce of his block, due to the following reasons:
1. This user created many article and is highly contributive.

2. As you could see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Top_Gun#Notes_to_assist_the_next_block_reviewer here] his eternal blocking is controversial.

3. The same blocking admin reduced the blocking of user [[User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog]] from a week to a few hours, when this user has much stronger behaviour problems. I'm afraid this administrator is to much politicaly motivated. In another case when I edit warred with this user I was blocked for a week without a warning, while this user was not. The not nutrality of this administrator is seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moreschi#Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog here] very well. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=prev&oldid=232093798 Here] is a typical saying by the user that administrator reduced his blocked to a few hours, I guess such users have right to be even if they insult, edit war, and whatever. As long as you have the right political ideology.

I have first saw this user when editing in the 2008 Ossetian War article and belive me, he's much less worst then that Captain whatever Moreschi so protected.

No doubt this user deserved a block, but: 1. Constancy with similar cases on different sides will be nice. 2. An indefinite block? To much. [[User:Kostan1|Kostan1]] ([[User talk:Kostan1|talk]]) 11:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

*Politically motivated? Balls. Top Gun was caught flagrantly lying about sources and then edit-warring to protect his lies. Simple as. This block has already been reviewed. Game over. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 11:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::And the insults captain whatever gave to other people, he's rudness, edit warrness and whatever that's realy good deeds that you as a nutral administrator had to take to account when reducing his block!
::You yourself on your talk page said that you never inform a blocking admin about you changing a block of someone he block to save troubles. That's why not surprising that you haven't seen that on Top Gun's user page people said that he deserves a block of a week, I would say 4 month, but not a eternal one. It's funny that you now say you are not politicaly motivated because you when informed on your talk page about rudness of Captain Whatever you said your to buisy with "Russian nationalists". I wont get into the talk of your weird definitions of "Russian nationalist", but if you were nutral you would block Captain just like you blocked Top Gun, or the opossite, give Top Gun a block at least close to Captain Obvious. [[User:Kostan1|Kostan1]] ([[User talk:Kostan1|talk]]) 11:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Game over? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Top_Gun#Notes_to_assist_the_next_block_reviewer Realy]? Interesting. [[User:Kostan1|Kostan1]] ([[User talk:Kostan1|talk]]) 11:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*Yawn. I think this is a prime case of [[WP:TIGERS]] - or, alternatively, wikilawyering, pure and simple. The Russian nationalist crowd are so far divorced from objectivity it's not even funny. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 11:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::Nice, you have no answers so you shoot the traditional accusations. You fight Russian nationalists, fine, and what about fanatics like captain Obvious? It's not a case of who belives in what. As far as a care? Belive in Space Monkeys. Realy. The case is simple, and don't try to push this case a side:
::You, for the same things, gave completely different punishments. Thats the case. While forgave all to one user, eternal block to another. Don't turn it into a drama, that's just funny. Answer what you were asked. You for now already blamed me for nationalism (P.S. Top Gun is not Russian), whatever. You did everything except answering to the case. [[User:Kostan1|Kostan1]] ([[User talk:Kostan1|talk]]) 11:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Um, because there isn't a case? And "fanatics like Captain obvious"? Granted, he's not perfect, but "fanatic" is hardly the term I would use. Unlike others I could mention. My job is to maintain [[WP:ENC]] - Captain O does a much better job of that than you and your mates. Wake up. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 11:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Dude, your a paranoid! What mates?? Did you at least see my contribution list?? I haven't edited anything political for a long time. And at the Human Rights in the Soviet Union? I took the side of Biophys even thought it was against my political view, why? Becuase he had the nutral version, while someone with my political orientation edit warred with him over it. What mates?? I fight for NPOV, I proved it there 100%. And lately?? I haven't even touched politics. I created an articles needing creation list for the Russian WikiProject and create articles from there, alone, quite. I wish I'd have "mates" there. Stop shooting accusations, that really works against you. [[User:Kostan1|Kostan1]] ([[User talk:Kostan1|talk]]) 12:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*:''(ec)''Um... not exactly presenting the appearance of an unbiased reviewer there Moreschi. As I understand it, the 'lying about sources' was quoting a figure of 180 casualties during one battle based on one source that said 200 total for the conflict and another which said about 20 outside that one battle... i.e. 200 - 20 = 180. I'd question whether that was even blockworthy. It certainly wasn't grounds for an indef. The copyvio seems to have been a copy and paste which the user forgot to reword (poor practice to begin with), but then corrected himself. Correct? He was blocked '''after''' he fixed the problem himself? User seems to be making various mistakes... and then agreeing to fix and avoid them in the future. I get the impression English isn't a first language and he's not familiar with alot of Wikipedia policies/practices... such as how to sign his posts. Are you alleging that this user is willfully out to undermine Wikipedia with false sources / copyvios or that he just isn't willing to fix his mistakes? Based on the evidence presented I don't really see a case for either. Is there more to it? --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 11:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
**Yes, his previous blocks. He got blocked indef for copyvio and then unblocked on parole with the condition that any further violations would get the indef put straight back on. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 11:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
***And eventualy he stoped with it haven't he? And read what a smurt man CBD wrote. He wasn't even telling lies. P.S. You didn't exacly take to account the previous blocks of captain whatever. Infact, you reduced a block of someone who did take it to account. [[User:Kostan1|Kostan1]] ([[User talk:Kostan1|talk]]) 12:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

*'''Do not endorse''': We must be fair and even-handed in the blocking or sanctions of editors who have violated core policies and have disrupted the project, whether or not their viewpoint is valid or not. In this respect, COAHCFD was blocked for one week because he was edit warring, this a cumulation of two prior blocks. Top Gun has '''six''' blocks for a variety of serious infractions, including numerous copyright infringements, block evasions and sockpuppetry, inserting in false materials, and edit warring. Administrators may hold the "mop" so to speak, but we aren't pooper scoopers, and cleaning up the copyright violations and having to double check every source and statement that Top Gun wrote was not only time consuming, but disruptive to the process. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 13:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::If you would read what CBD wrote above, you would see that he wasn't fighting for flase information. That was a misunderstanding.
::If you'll enter Top Gun's talk page you would see that the accusations of sock-pupets were false, and the one that complained on him with that even said sorry.
::If you will enter the South Ossetian War 2008 talk page, Morechi's talk page, or whatever you would see that Captain whatever was complained on many times, and warned many times, it was simply ignored. And he was previously already blocked for a few times. [[User:Kostan1|Kostan1]] ([[User talk:Kostan1|talk]]) 13:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Top Gun didn't deserve an indefinite. Moreschi's admin status should be reviewed immediately. --[[User:TheFEARgod|<font color="#003399">The'''FE'''</font><font color="red">'''AR'''god</font>]] ([[User talk:TheFEARgod|'''Ч''']]) 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::OMG. LOL. Instead of actually bringing this up to the administrator in a civil manner, people are calling for his head. Big surprise there. I've seen this occur with much more frequency, and it seems that [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] has been exceptionally ignored. Again. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 15:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Indefinite is not infinite blah blah blah zzzzzzzzzz. TheFEARgod's (I loathe to type that) comment was predictable and bromidic. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 15:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::LOL. Predictable (and ignorant too) was a personal attack as an answer to my point --[[User:TheFEARgod|<font color="#003399">The'''FE'''</font><font color="red">'''AR'''god</font>]] ([[User talk:TheFEARgod|'''Ч''']]) 16:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::explaining my first statement: this is bullying strong vs. weak --[[User:TheFEARgod|<font color="#003399">The'''FE'''</font><font color="red">'''AR'''god</font>]] ([[User talk:TheFEARgod|'''Ч''']]) 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::No, just POV-propagandists versus uninvolved administrators. Take that as you will, or will that be constituted as a personal attack that will require desysoping? <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 17:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::If indefinite is not permanent, then what does the editor have to do or say for someone to agree to unblock him? If there is nothing that he can say or do, then it is effectively a permanent block, not an indefinite one. There are times when indefinite means "until such a time as someone feels they can unblock", but most of the time it means "permanent block and throw the key away and forget about this". I sometimes wish the terminology developed had been "open-ended block" and "permanent block", not "indefinite" and "infinite". [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 17:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*Looking at Top Gun's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ATop_Gun block log], I see: ''21:38, 23 February 2007 Sandstein (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Top Gun (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (Your indefinite block is lifted, on parole, after you have promised not to add any more copyrighted text to Wikipedia. You may be immediately and indefinitely reblocked in the event of any further copyvio edits, vandalism or other infractions.)''. Well, he has been caught making copyvios since then. IMHO he has got what he deserves. [[User:Colchicum|Colchicum]] ([[User talk:Colchicum|talk]]) 17:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am tagging this as resolved. This user has had his block reviewed ''three'' times now. This has long ceased to be an unilateral decision of Moreschi's. Any request for ''another'' review would do well to present new evidence. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Top_Gun#Notes_to_assist_the_next_block_reviewer arguing about sockpuppetry] is irrelevant since this user wasn't blocked as a sockpuppeteer but for parole violation. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 17:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== It's baaaaaaaaaack ==

Remember [[WP:AMA]]? Just was tipped off about [http://assoc-ed-advocates.vndv.com/ this]. Enjoy. <b style="color:#c22">^</b>[[User:^demon|<b style="color:#000">demon</b>]][[User_talk:^demon|<sup style="color:#c22">[omg plz]</sup>]]&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">12:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)</em>
:Same person as last time? [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::I'm sure they will be just as effective as before. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 13:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::: Hehe, I'm sure. And Daniel: Not sure. <b style="color:#c22">^</b>[[User:^demon|<b style="color:#000">demon</b>]][[User_talk:^demon|<sup style="color:#c22">[omg plz]</sup>]]&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">14:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)</em>
Interesting. AMA ran into the normal doldrums that happen with projects like that, and thus became vulnerable to being crushed. My comment has been that the crucial mistake that was made was organizing on-wiki. I have no idea if the people in this new initiative have sufficient knowledge and resources to pull it off, but, ultimately, something like this is going to be necessary, because existing process can be murder on users who are either innocent, or whose offenses were far short of deserving the response that arose. I think the problems can be resolved, though, without external organization; but the jury is out on that, as far as I'm concerned.

There are two kinds of wikilawyers: the process demanders and the political advocates. We recognize, easily, those who attempt to manipulate decisions through making purely legal arguments. What is harder is dealing with wikilawyers who are skilled at appealing to the knee-jerk responses of editors, in nondeliberative environments, and the latter are actually more dangerous. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
: [[WP:AMA]] was vulnerable to being crushed due to it's own activities and organisation, something everybody who proposes amazing fixes to possible problems finds. Advocacy is all very well and good, but absolute power corrupts; where ostensibly well meaning advocates forget that being well-intentioned doesn't put themselves above process nor on a moral high ground, then they lose perspective. The second category of wikilawyering you identify is pretty easy to spot, easier than the first category which at least have some form of validity they can refer to. [[User:Minkythecat|Minkythecat]] ([[User talk:Minkythecat|talk]]) 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::"Intregity"? [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 22:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::AMA was, from my perspective, defectively organized, not only the matter of being vulnerable by being on-wiki. Wikipedia process works spectacularly well in certain ways ("amazing") but, actually, it's pretty understandable -- nevertheless it also sometimes fails. The second category of wikilawyer (really a political skill) might be easy to spot, for those who are looking, but seeing it does not necessarily fix it, in fact, describe it and you could get blocked. The only editor I've actually accused of this was Fredrick day, and he made it pretty easy for me to get away with it, sort of. I'll note that I was blocked as a result of looking at, and describing, the possible implications of some recent posts of his to AN. (It's part of what he does: toss shit and some of it sticks.) Did I make mistakes? I'm sure. Everybody makes mistakes, and since I try new things and express new ideas, I probably make more mistakes than more cautious editors.
:::However, there is this strange thing. Some voluntary process is set up. If it is not efficiently organized, it will waste some editor time. But it's voluntary. The editors decide if they want to waste their time. What was the hurry to shut down AMA? Similarly, Esperanza? These both created a kind of bureaucracy, but the bureacracy wasn't essential to what they were doing, it's merely the first way they tried to go about it. With time, those who supported the activity would have learned to do it better. No, these were [[User:Abd/Rule 0]] violations. When there are Rule 0 violations, they ''must'' be punished, societies have been doing this for millenia. But, of course, giving Rule 0 as a reason for the punishment violates Rule 0. So there will be some other reason.
:::When there was a dissident candidate for the board of the [[IEEE]], the board realized that defects in their standard voting system could cause a [[spoiler effect]], and the candidate might win. So they implemented [[Approval voting]]. When the danger was past, they went back to their old system. Why? Well, there was what they gave as the reason and then what was probably the real reason. The official reason was that most voters were not using the ability to add extra votes. True. That's normal for Approval. However, it costs nothing to allow the extra votes, the same ballot is used, and it is easy to count the extra votes if they are cast, and they are only cast, unsually, when a voter sees them as needed. The real reason? S.O.P. The board was acting to preserve its power to control the next board elections through its preferential nominating power. It's so common that it's hard to even condemn it. Those who have excess power almost always believe that the power is merited, and they might even be right.
:::But the lesson of history, still being developed, is that broader distribution of power benefits a community, if mechanisms are in place that allow the best in people to come out, instead of the worst.
:::Injustice on Wikipedia (''or the appearance of injustice'') is gradually destroying the project. Many long-time editors have left, citing the poisonous atmosphere. We can sail on, believing that everything is fine, or we can start to identify the problems and seek solutions. If we destroy every attempt to correct wrongs, because the attempt is itself defective, as it will almost certainly be, we will never be able to move beyond our limitations, and I can predict what will happen, probably in no more than a few years.
:::So I was blocked. Big deal, eh? However, there is this strange disconnect. If I actually did what I was charged with doing, it would be very important to get me out of here, quickly, or, alternatively, to educate me. Without education, without my understanding what I did wrong, I ''will'' repeat it. And so will most editors in the same position. We desysopped Physchim62 and Tango, not because they made mistakes, but because they were unable to recognize them as mistakes, after it should have become obvious through extensive discussion. Therefore holding access to the tools was dangerous. If we had some way of moving past the obstacles that prevented them from seeing it (it wasn't really very complicated, but the ''political'' situation was complicated), we would still have the advantage of their substantial experience and hopes for the project. How could we do this efficiently? I think I have an idea, and I'm trying it out. It's not started yet, but the page is there, and if you are interested, watch it, it's [[User:Abd/RfC]]. It will ''not'' be obvious to most people why this would be any different than what we already have, but it will, if anyone participates. And I'm seeking for as many of those who criticized my work to participate. I'll moderate it, since ''it is designed for my benefit.'' If I screw it up, I'll get some bad advice, as will anyone who controls advice in a dysfunctional way. If this fails, I will have wasted my time, and a ''little'' time of those who choose to participate. If it succeeds, though, it is possible that it will have demonstrated something very important: a way to find true consensus efficiently, without having massive debates. That is, in fact, the real problem here: inefficient process. Standard WP process is ''highly'' efficient in certain ways. But when it comes to negotating consensus in certain areas, it can break down very badly and becomes extraordinarily ''inefficient.'' And, in fact, our article process, seen from the point of view of overall effort expended, is really broken in situations where there is serious controversy, so an article goes back and forth. And that is mostly wasted effort by those involved, and those who are trying to defend the encyclopedia against POV-pushing can get pretty cynical and burned out. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 23:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::: I think the "I'm a revolutionary martyr, here to make Wiki amazing by getting my amazing system implemented, oh by the way I was unjustly blocked by the way" message has been well received by now. [[User:Minkythecat|Minkythecat]] ([[User talk:Minkythecat|talk]]) 07:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

== Tim bage ==

{{resolved|1=Good times had by all. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">&#9775;</span>]] //</span> 15:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)}}

{{user|Tim bage}} has made 4 edits in total, 2 of which are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sunsplash&diff=prev&oldid=229008716 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sunsplash&diff=prev&oldid=232892275 this]. It's obviously a sockpuppet account, and not one that is used productively. Also, this is a bit of a hot potato issue, so I decided to refer this to admins' attention. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:[[User talk:Everyme|Everyme]]'''''</span> 14:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:Indef'd. <b style="color:#c22">^</b>[[User:^demon|<b style="color:#000">demon</b>]][[User_talk:^demon|<sup style="color:#c22">[omg plz]</sup>]]&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">14:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)</em>
::Indeed. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 14:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::Ok, thanks. Should that user page be fully protected for good measure? It may well attract future similar edits, so why bother to wait for them? <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:[[User talk:Everyme|Everyme]]'''''</span> 14:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::No need. Block on sight. <b style="color:#c22">^</b>[[User:^demon|<b style="color:#000">demon</b>]][[User_talk:^demon|<sup style="color:#c22">[omg plz]</sup>]]&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">14:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)</em>
::::Ok, user page watchlisted and issue resolved then, I guess. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:[[User talk:Everyme|Everyme]]'''''</span> 15:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Request to restore Sustainability article and page history ==

{{Resolved|1=Prior history merged. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 17:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)}}
We have a situation with regard to the [[Sustainability]] article. It seems to me that it could easily be resolved by an admin who knows policy regarding major changes to articles.

A note had been placed on the article talk page under the heading “REWRITE SUGGESTION” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainability#REWRITE_SUGGESTION] on June 17. Granitethighs referred to a sandboxed version on June 19. Unfortunately I (and evidently others) missed the sandboxed version. I can find no discussion on the rewrite.

The article was completely rewritten and a new version substituted for the former version on July 12, 2008 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&oldid=225301050]

The means chosen for this was a page move. Unfortunately that made earlier versions and page history no longer accessible to editors. Some concerns have been expressed about the rewrite, but, more fundamentally, I have requested that the earlier versions and page history be restored. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainability#Sustainability_versus_Sustainable_Development] Effectively the former page was deleted without an AfD. My request has not yet been carried out. Administrator assistance is needed to restore the article. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] ([[User talk:Sunray|talk]]) 15:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:Is there a particular reason the old history was not merged in? Seems necessary for GFDL attribution, especially if the re-write uses content from the original. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 15:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Xeno, what steps do I need to do to restore the page history? I tried various ways but I couldn't insert them back in. Maybe you can help? As for Sunray's concerns, I have compromised my position and provided the full wiki-markup to his email so he can insert back whatever he thinks is needed in the article. Yet, he said "'''The former article needs to be undeleted before we can begin to discuss the changes'''".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASustainability&diff=232858906&oldid=232856045] I wonder why he insist the new version has to be deleted before we can move towards the negotiation process. He wants to sacrifice the article's quality for his own gains (which we have no clue and perplexed why he wants to retain the old version). I have recreated and placed the old version at [[Sustainability/Old]]. Perhaps other editors can comment on which version is more comprehension, better in citation, broad in scope, and relevant to the subject. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="#0000FF">OhanaUnited</font></b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="green"><sup>Talk page</sup></font></b>]] 16:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::It's quite simple/ view history, click view or restore xxx deleted edits, enter a comment (i.e. "history merge") and click restore. Whether or not Sunray has some other plans for the revisions, I think they need to be there for GFDL significance. I'll go ahead and let you restore them so you can see how it's done. The new version won't be deleted, it'll still be there, but the past revisions will be available in the history. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 16:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::: Does that mean the new version is lost then? [[User:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="#0000FF">OhanaUnited</font></b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="green"><sup>Talk page</sup></font></b>]] 16:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Nope, the histories will be merged. The latest revision (the new version) will still be showing. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 16:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::: {{done}}. I think I did it now. It shows edit history back when it was 2002. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="#0000FF">OhanaUnited</font></b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="green"><sup>Talk page</sup></font></b>]] 17:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Yep... all's good. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 17:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Need local admin eyes, cross-wiki issue ==

{{Resolved}} Original authorship/licensing has been addressed, thanks guys. <font color="#156917">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 17:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Can a couple admins please review the deleted image of [[:Image:Sexuality pearl necklace.png]] here locally, and then confirm here or at [[:Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png 3rd nomination]] whether the original image uploaded here by [[User:Cp79]] is the same image as [[:Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png]] on Commons by the same author, but just cropped? Warning: kinda graphic if the title wasn't a give-away. <font color="#156917">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 15:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:IMO just cropped to remove the identifiable face (the "fluid" is in the same place!) & I'll comment at "home" too :). Cheers --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 15:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:Yup, looks like the new one is just a cropped version (understandable). It was indeed uploaded by Cp79, though. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">&#9775;</span>]] //</span> 15:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks, guys. I added this original deleted-here version as the source on the cropped version based on this confirmation. :) <font color="#156917">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 15:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Malik shabazz is deleting my RS on [[Post-Zionism]] and [[New Historians]] despite my addtional ref on talk page ==

I told him this was RS, I replaced my initial RS by Nudve's and have provided addtional RS on talk page.

I told him he can not delte an RS because he doewsn't like it, but if he has any complaints go to talk page. Since he has any, he keeps deleting it eveytime for newlly invented reason.


help!
--[[User:Shevashalosh|Shevashalosh]] ([[User talk:Shevashalosh|talk]]) 15:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:Please see [[#Shabazz is deletig my ref of "self hating jew" from New Historians and Post-Zionism]] above. Is anybody going to intervene and stop this trainwreck? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::I would say a block (of Shevashalosh) is definitely in order. I count 5 reverts in 2 days on [[New Historians]] and [[Post-Zionism]]. However, last time I blocked an editor for revert warring on similar articles (one who actually broke 3RR in a single day), the block was overturned and accusations of POV were thrown around, so I won't bother here. [[User:Number 57|<font color="orange">пﮟოьεԻ</font>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<font color="green">5</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<font color="blue">7</font>]] 16:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Blocked for 48 hours. If it resumes, a very steep escalation would be in order IMHO; this person does not seem to grasp the idea of collaborative editing. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 16:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:::So sad. I must say it was time for this block and yes, if this carries on the next block should be much longer. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 23:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

::::It is not finished yet.
::::Nobody explained her it was forbidden to take a suckpuppet when you are blocked. So, she took one : [[User:Shmonaesre]]. Note she didn't hide but if you read the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Shmonaesre diff's], the last one is not encouraging.
::::[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 11:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::I have blocked the new account (including prevent account creation) and warned Shevashalosh that if she tries it again, a long-term block will be in order. [[User:Number 57|<font color="orange">пﮟოьεԻ</font>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<font color="green">5</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<font color="blue">7</font>]] 12:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

== To big to delete ==

{{Resolved|deleted '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 16:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)}}
[[Silkroad Online]] had the AFD closed as delete but is greater than 5000 revisions. How do we make this go away? [[User:Chrislk02|<font color="1E90FF">'''Chris'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Chrislk02|<font color="4169E1">'''lk02'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Chrislk02|<font color="2A52BE">Chris Kreider</font>]]</sup> 16:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silkroad Online]] the AFD is here. I have no clue about how to implement the deletion; it may require a developer. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 16:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If this were taken to DRV, would we also need a developer to undelete? :) --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 16:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:(two e/c!)It doesn't need a developer; it needs a steward. they have "bigdelete" privilege. [[User:Paragon12321|<span style="color:blue">Paragon</span>]][[User talk:Paragon12321|<span style="color:red"><sup>12321</sup></span>]] 16:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*Hrm the db lag wasnt as bad as I thought it would be. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 16:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*:[[WP:BEANS|Somehow]], {{user|Maxim}} managed to delete it despite not having dev rights. Oh, well done. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup>

Currently, the deleted article has less than 5000 revisions. So what happened here? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 17:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:As far as I can tell he somehow split the article into a holding cell in his userspace (see his logs). –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

::When I (stupidly) deleted [[WT:LGBT|the talkpage of one of our most active wikiprojects]], it allowed me to do it, and when I frantically went to restore it, it said "restore all 6251 edits?". Last I checked, I'm not a dev or a steward....[[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 17:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::It was mentioned elsewhere recently that the software is rather sloppy about counting the total number of edits. Perhaps these weren't truly over 5000 or were too close for it to notice. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] ([[User talk:Rmhermen|talk]]) 19:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:I didn't split the revisions, but I managed to overcome the initial bigdelete problem. <small>([[WP:BEANS|but I'm not in the mood to share how to do it publicly, please [[Special:Emailuser/Maxim|email me]] if you wanna know how, perhaps, I managed to delete that page]])</small> '''<font face="Rockwell">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="43AA54">Maxim</font>]] ([[User talk:Maxim|<font color="aa0000">☎</font>]])</font>''' 20:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Page move done wrong - possibly controversial ==

{{resolved|1=Page moved back, discussion open on article talk page if needed. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#1E90FF">'''Luna Santin'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</span> 23:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)}}

A user has moved [[Virginia Tech massacre]] to [[Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University massacre]], but the associated talkpage has not been moved. Also, there appears to be [[Talk:Virginia Tech massacre|no discussion on the talkpage]] about this move, which may be seen as a controversial move. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 18:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:Ah, I see {{user|ElKevbo}} moved it back. Thanks, [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 18:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::Not at all "controversial". Just moving the article to a title that doesn't contain local slang, but the official title of the school. Wouldn't you move an article called [[List of tallest ppl]] to [[List of tallest people]] as the original title contains a colloquialism? I am apologise for mistakingly not moving the talk page, this shall not occur again. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,Arial,Tahoma;">[[User:Dalejenkins|Dalejenkins]] | <small></small></span> 18:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::"Virginia Tech" is not local slang. I doubt that many people know the actual name of the university. The move is pedantic. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 18:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Dale, we call things by their most commonly-known name, when we can. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 19:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Note that [http://www.vt.edu/ Virginia Tech's own web page] uses "Virginia Tech" nine times (including the title of the page) and "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" only once (at the bottom in small text). [[User:Andrew Jameson|Andrew Jameson]] ([[User talk:Andrew Jameson|talk]]) 19:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Hmm. I never knew Virginia Tech as anything ''but'' Virginia Tech. Perhaps I'm missing something here. It doesn't seem like slang. "Tech" is just an abbreviation. <big>[[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:black;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]]</big> 19:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Pardon me, I was just passing through on my way to read [[Laugh-out-loud cats]]. Wait a minute... where is my article? <font color="006622">[[User:SheffieldSteel|S<small>HEFFIELD</small>S<small>TEEL</small>]]</font><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]]</b></small></sup> 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::Colon, close parenthesis. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Greg Kohs aka MyWikiBiz ==

At [[User talk:Jimbo Wales#Trouble looming with MyWikiBiz?]] Jimbo says "''Indeed, although I have not kept up recently with whatever Mr. Kohs has been doing, I suspect he should be allowed a fresh start in Wikipedia. I would hope that eventually he can make his peace with the community and all will be well''". Let's give Greg another chance. His past means that any significant misbehavior will be subject to an indef block. Can some brave soul unblock [[User:MyWikiBiz]]? [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 19:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:Something like that would need at least some sort of discussion before doing anything rash, right? <big>[[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:black;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]]</big> 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::Seeing as he was socking as recently as yesterday, I'm not convinced of the wisdom of unbanning him. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 19:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Whenever someone creates a sock after being blocked, they're essentially saying 'Screw you and your rules'. Kohs' 'Screw you' count is [[:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MyWikiBiz|officially up to 38]] and [[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of MyWikiBiz| may be as high as 63]]. [[User:HalfShadow|<font color="gray">'''Half'''</font>]][[User talk:HalfShadow|<font color="black">'''Shadow'''</font>]] 19:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::And doesn't he have a legal threat outstanding?{{fact}} From what I understand, that was the reason behind the end of his last legitimate attempt to return here. [[User:Blueboy96|Blueboy]][[User talk:Blueboy96|96]] 20:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::You would be wrong. He was banned shortly after his last legitimate attempt to return here when User:Durova leveled unsubstantiated defamatory charges against him, and when he objected to that, ''he'' was blocked for making "legal threats", which was really rather backwards. - [[User:No Indexer|No Indexer]] ([[User talk:No Indexer|talk]]) 02:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
* Yeah, why not give the guy a second chance? All he did was use Wikipedia to make money, spam his website, sockpuppet, evade blocks and bans (ongoign, I believe, with recent incidents), try to get the Wikimedia Foundation's charitable status rescinded, attack numerous people offsite and mount a years-long campaign of hate. What's not to forgive? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*: He didn't plagiarize. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
* Unblocking and lifting Greg Kohs's ban is a terrible idea. Let's waste more of the communities good faith and time? I think not. [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 19:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
* Some editors need to stay gone. This is one of them. And honestly, he isn't gone. He's reading this right now, and contributing to Wikipedia with socks that haven't been caught yet, but will. Oppose unblocking, per guy. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 19:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
* (e/c)I wouldn't support this; too much damage has been done. Current sockpuppetry doesn't strike me as remorseful behaviour. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] [[User talk:PeterSymonds|<small>(talk)</small>]] 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
* Frankly, I don't understand why he was even allowed back as many times as he was. From what I understand, this guy was one of the very reasons promotional usernames aren't allowed on Wikipedia. Even without his massive socking, the fact that his very approach to Wikipedia is a quantum leap from [[WP:FIVE|what Wikipedia is]] should be enough to keep him blocked. [[User:Blueboy96|Blueboy]][[User talk:Blueboy96|96]] 20:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
* One side of me says unban: his sockpuppets make good article edits, but he normally screws up by revealing the sock is him. I don't see why we should ban people who contribute well to articles. However, the other side of me looks at the reason for his banning, his antics on Wikipedia Review, his rather unusual candidacy for the board election, and that shows me that, perhaps, this person really isn't suited to this site. His negative attitude of Wikipedia makes me wonder why he'd even want to edit here. He should stick to criticizing it. I would maybe reconsider if he just stuck out the ban a bit. <big>[[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:black;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]]</big> 20:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
** Eh what's wrong with Wikipedia Review? [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 20:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
***Nothing. It's the posts from Greg there that are troubling. <big>[[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:black;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]]</big> 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
**** Which ones? Most of them are quite perceptive. Frankly I'm not sure why he should be allowed back (and I'm sure he would be the first to agree). But he tells some home truths. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*****Of course, however I dislike the negative attitude. I'm not here to argue about this though, I'm sorry. <big>[[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:black;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]]</big> 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
* Per Guy and MBisanz, lifting the ban is a bad idea. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> '''[[User:David Shankbone|<font color="#0000C0">Shankbone</font>]]''' 20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
* <i>Can some brave soul unblock User:MyWikiBiz?</i> That brave soul will not be me, nor, I hope, any other admin. "Another chance" is almost always in order; a third or fourth or tenth definitely is not in this case. And in the unlikely event that the ban of the person is lifted, that user name should be blocked as promotional in any case. --[[User:MCB|MCB]] ([[User talk:MCB|talk]]) 20:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*I oppose unblocking MyWikiBiz, but not because I have issues with his business plan. Indeed, I wholly support it -- I don't really care why someone contributes to Wikipedia just so long as they comply with our policies. Remuneration is not incompatible with NPOV. On the other hand, the fact of his multiple sockpuppets is incompatible with our continuing assuming his good faith. Absent a signal of good faith -- and I would consider nothing less than three months without sockpuppets appropriate -- I think it unwise to unblock here. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] <sup>[[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]]</sup> 21:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
* Im pretty sure that this won't be popular, but I would support the unblock. What's the worst that could happen? He screws up, block him again. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">&rArr;</font>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[WP:DC|<small><sup>Son of the Defender</sup></small>]] 21:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:* Hmmmm. This thread came about because a transparently obvious Kohs sock posted on Jimbo's talk page. I think that speaks volumes. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::*And since there is a concerted effort to never allow him to edit again on this project, what other recourse would he have? At least he's being transparent about the sock. Has anyone considered asking on Wikipedia Review if he wants to be unblocked, and if he'd follow the rules? By getting him to make a public statement on his "home turf" as to whether he'll follow the rules or not, it makes it potentially more meaningful for him to actually do so. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">&rArr;</font>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[WP:DC|<small><sup>Son of the Defender</sup></small>]] 22:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
* 1) This is quasi-moot, as it's obvious that enough admins have it in for him that even if he were unblocked, he'd quickly be reblocked for offenses real or imagined. 2) However, that being said, if he has umpteen sock-puppets, well, practically, what's the point? That's rhetorical - I know, it's about community norms and a declaration of being outside them. But I suggest that be leavened with some pragmatism, recognizing when the standard operating procedure is becoming counter-productive. My advice would be to find some sort of face-saving climb-down from the current silliness (he's banned with multiple socks). Say something like "In the name of Jimbo The Merciful, Blessed be his (co)Foundership, let your evil past be washed away by the beneficence of his absolution. We shall grant you an Assumption Of Good Faith. Go edit and sin no more" (in case it isn't clear, this is saving face by conveying "it's *his* idea, we're just going along with it"). After the inevitable drama, hey, you can say you tried. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] ([[User talk:Seth Finkelstein|talk]]) 21:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:* Seth, Kohs is a drama whore. He outs his own socks. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*Support unblocking, what real damage has Mr. Kohs done to Wikipedia? Has his socking been anything but rather obvious? Yes he criticizes and barks and barks but has he ever really bitten? His socking is defying Wikipedia's block/ban on him, my my how terrible this fellow must be to defy the collective might of Wikipedia. He must learn to be humble and admit the error of his ways, then and only then can we be magnanimous and forgive this poor transgressor. Petty petty minded people how you do justify your prejudices so. [[User:RMHED|RMHED]] ([[User talk:RMHED|talk]]) 21:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:* What, apart fomr the offsite attacks, the attempt to have our charitable status rescinded, and the serial violation of [[WP:SOCK]] you mean? Hardly anything other than some [[WP:SPAM]] problems, a bit of [[WP:COI]] and some tendentious editing. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::*Wars end when one side has the courage to propose peace. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 22:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::*Guy those aren't bites, at most they're just playful nips. How could he damage Wikipedia by challenging its charity status? Either the status is correct or it isn't. His so called offsite attacks are about as effective as a chihuahua attack dog. [[User:RMHED|RMHED]] ([[User talk:RMHED|talk]]) 22:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::*Then we need a [[WP:BADDOGS]] policy to go after those darned Attack Dogs! [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 22:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*Dear heavens, is this necessary? However useful MWB might have been able to be as a contributor, I would think he's too embittered now about this project to participate fully. Whatever. Of course, the community ban should end if he agrees that he will not attempt to link his personal website, that he will not institute editing-for-money schemes without community approval, that he will not operate bad hand accounts, and that he steers clear of inappropriate on-site personal remarks. If he violates any of those, I'd suppose that he could be reblocked with a note at AN pretty easily. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|disp.]])</span> 21:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:* Truthfully, I am not sure he ever would have been ''good'', but you are certainly right about how he would probably be now. The thing is, there seem to em to be two sorts of people who come to Wikipedia: those who think "this is good, what can I give?" and those who think "how can I use this to my advantage?" The latter sort we have the devil's own job getting rid of, be they Truthers, LaRouchites, True Believers in homeopathy or Intelligent Design or whatever - the more we ban them, the more determined they become to get back in and ''the more of the good people they drive off in the process''. Protecting the people who are single-mindedly determined to use Wikipedia for their own ends is exhausting and leaves many casualties by the wayside, good faith being one of them. Kohs is the archetype of the "what's in it for me?" kind. You, me, these others here, we came to Wikipedia and decided to help out with no thought of personal gain. Kohs, he decided he could make a buck off the back of the efforts of the millions of volunteer hours whch have gone into making Wikipedia the high profile place it is. He can be charming, but he has also shown that he is ruthless when thwarted, and the combination of seeking personal gain and tenacious and highly aggressive retaliation against anyone who stands in his way is simply not what any of us have in mind when we picture an ideal Wikipedian. I must say that I'm tempted by Rodhullandemu's idea, though... <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support unblock''' with an editing restriction to [[Pokemon]]-related articles only, as long as there's breath in my body. That should give him about a week or two. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support unblock''' restricted to one account that we can keep eyes on. I personally will reblock if he steps out of line. Greg can edit through socks whenever he likes. As Seth Finkelstein said, face saving measures will be good. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 22:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:(mec)Er, my support wasn't intended to be serious. I'm not sure, with the best will in the world, how yours can be. Everything about this guy suggests that no sanction is effective in moving him towards meeting '''all''' of the standards of the project. It's not a "pick 'n' mix" scenario, and he's chosen which bits he accepts and seems to have rejected otherwise. But, given his record, functionally, regardless of the merits of the content of his edits, I would expect at least a personally-binding (FWIW) commitment (FWIW) to play the game by the rules. Per [[WP:BEANS]], I have doubts, but won't express them. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
**''Qui bono''? What good does it do Wikipedia to have him back? <font face="Comic sans">[[User:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:green">Corvus cornix</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:Green">talk</span>]]''</sub></font> 22:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
***It helps to end a useless war. It allows us to watch Kohs, instead of him editing on the sly. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 22:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Question''' Has anyone even asked him anywhere if he even wants to be unblocked? Might be moot, otherwise... that whole thread on Jimmy's page is about the [[User:Neil/mwb|"MyWikiBiz"]] article draft Neil is doing. <font color="#156917">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 22:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
** Yes, I have asked, and he does, but he is dejected that Guy and Durova will never let it happen. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 22:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support unblock'''. His original "offense" was pursuing a cash-for-articles scheme that he's long since abandoned; his next "offense" was wanting Durova to own up to what he felt was a misstatement about his talking to a reporter. These are all ancient history now. Since then, he's been a gadfly for Wikipedia, but is that necessarily a bad thing? [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 22:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*No thanks. Though IF he is unblocked, I think something along User:Rodhullandemu's editing restriction idea mentioned above is fine.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - I am willing to mentor/monitor him. I was given second chances after my initial editing was below par. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 22:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
**Jehochman...below par would be a compliment for Kohs...if you were previously trying to be a nuisance, you failed to come anywhere close to the infamous antics of Kohs. We do give second (even third) chances to those that deserve it...Kohs doesn't.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 22:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - I am willing to mentor/monitor him. I was given second chances after my initial editing was below par. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 22:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support unblock''': I'd support unblocking him per Seth Finkelstein, Jehochman and Swatjester. (I also like the idea of confining him to editing [[Pokemon]] articles if he gets out of line.) I'll go further and say that I would even consider revisiting the MyWikiBiz PR-editing model if proper safeguards were put in place: someone writes a wikified, GFDL (or similar license) article for hire off-Wikipedia and then established, trusted editors evaluate it for possible inclusion here. --<font face="Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]])</sup> </font> 23:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*::Wow. Seeing "per Seth Finkelstein, Jehocman, and Swatjester" actually is a bit disturbing to me ;) [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">&rArr;</font>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[WP:DC|<small><sup>Son of the Defender</sup></small>]] 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
* Ufff - we've had banned editors (and even WR regulars - ''*gasp*'') who not only did okay when unblocked, but [[User:Rootology|excelled]] here on WP. I've also blocked enough MWB socks myself to know what he's like & mostly, his target seemed to be Jimmy. Now that Jimmy has given a sort of tacit endorsement to his unblocking, I don't see why not, however I'd like a very firm undertaking from MWB that he keep well away from Durova. I'm not 100% ''au fait'' with what happened there, but I know that there were issues and we as a community need to respect that and consider our contributors already here. As for monitoring the guy, somehow I suspect he'll be watched rather closely indeed by various folks. He knows this already, and I'm sure he's taken that into account. As Sam Korn points out, remuneration and NPOV can co-exist, ergo I suggest a tentative '''Conditional unblock''' - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 23:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support unblock''' per Seth, Jehochman, and (especially) A. B. I looked into the history of the situation, and it seems to me that he was treated unfairly to begin with, and then that many of the subsequent actions were provoked by unwarranted hostility from certain people. It was dumb to prohibit him from writing articles for pay, anyway - who cares why people write articles so long as they are in compliance with policy? Jeez. After all, we do have the Reward Board, and that's allowed. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 23:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support unblock''' per Alison above. As I've said elsewhere, Kohs ''is'' a very good writer, and since he'd undoubtedly be one of the most-watched accounts on WP would hopefully behave himself. I can think of at least two indefblocked editors who've returned and made fantastic contributions.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]<small>&nbsp;23:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)</small></font>
*'''Support unblock''' per Jehochman's reasoned rationale and offer to mentor. By the way, JzG appears to be persuing a personal vendetta against Kohs. From the evidence section in the ongoing [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence|C68, FM, SV]] arbitration case:

:"(JzG) Admin deleted an article then said the recreation was written by him, although the two were almost identical [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=JzG&page=Arch+Coal] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&limit=500&action=history] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&oldid=79689733] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2006_October_5&diff=80432256&oldid=80379872] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_5&diff=prev&oldid=79685134] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_5&diff=prev&oldid=79685515]. Adamantly asserted that the recreated version was written ''ab initio'' [http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=386#Post386], but then back-pedalled on that assertion when faced with abundant evidence that it was an act of plagiarism. Note - this became a controversy due to JzG taking a deletion action 15 months after the article had been peaceably resolved."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#General_abuse]

The article that JzG claimed he wrote was actually written by Kohs. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 23:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::Isn't that a blatant GFDL violation? [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::That's the point. —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 23:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::How the **** does something like that happen? So we can declare someone ''persona non grata'', and then another person can then plagiarize their work, and this is OK? That's against everything this project stands for! [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 23:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::There is a lot more to this than is misrepresented by Cla68.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 23:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Such as? (Feel free to drop on my talk page if you like.) But since when did it become OK to claim credit for others' work? If someone did that to me, I'd sock like crazy and disrupt Wikipedia, too. That's total B.S. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 23:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
'''Comment''' - I assume the discussion is for un-banning Greg Kohs, and not [[User:MyWikiBiz]] since if there ever was a problematic company name under [[Wikipedia:User_name#Company.2Fgroup_names]] it is this one. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> '''[[User:David Shankbone|<font color="#0000C0">Shankbone</font>]]''' 23:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, he can use "thekohser" which he has for SUL I believe. —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 23:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*Unblock, and get over our paranoia of people who disagree with us. Per iridescent and Swatjester. —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 23:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Unblock''' I'll declare an interest in that I post on WR, as is on my talk page, but Greg is clearly a very intelligent chap who, if he was allowed, could enhance the project [[User:George The Dragon|George The Dragon]] ([[User talk:George The Dragon|talk]]) 23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''keep blocked''' Greg has engaged in completely unacceptable behavior. He has by his own admission engaged in vandalism on the English Wikipedia and he has expressed zero remorse for that. Indeed, quite the opposite. In his recent attempt to run for a position on the Wikimedia board he tried to claim that his actions were a good thing. He has repeatedly sockpuppeted. And he has engaged in large-scale harassment of editors such as [[User:Durova|Durova]]. Kohs is as far as I can tell interested in three things: trolling, disruption, and self-promotion. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 00:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
===Arbitrary section break for some discussion of movement forwards===
* As I see it, there is a groundswell of opinion that Greg Kohs personally is a good editor and a net benefit to this project; contra that, there are behavioural issues that negate [[WP:AGF|the assumption]] that he edits here within commonly-accepted rules. His history is undeniably against him on that point; whereas commercial interests may be in the past, sockpuppetry, however well-intentioned, I have a problem with. That is a breach of trust, and an evasion. I've seen various proposals for limiting accounts, topics, etc, but again, the history could be said to speak for itself. If there is to be a rehabilitation- for that is where we are at- it must be both committed, watertight, and enforceable. Given the history, it is the latter issue that concerns me the most. We all know the difficulty of traceability here. If anything is to be achieved for the benefit of the project here, it must be scoped beyond doubt. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 00:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:Disclosure: I had removed this section break earlier because I thought it was unnecessary. However, if a separate section is needed for discussion outside of straight up and down votes for whether to unblock or not, then I guess this is the place to do it. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
* '''Unblock''' Just because he put the image of one of our established editors on thong underwear, and has instigated drama whenever possible, and has created dozens of sockpuppets, and has done his best to subvert our [[WP:FIVE|core policies]] to further his god-given right to make a buck, why should he remain blocked? [[User:Yuri &quot;The Fool&quot; Karlov|Yuri &quot;The Fool&quot; Karlov]] ([[User talk:Yuri &quot;The Fool&quot; Karlov|talk]]) 00:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC){{spa|Yuri "The Fool" Karlov}}
*I think what we do is pretty simple - we [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], which is what many here failed to do in this person's early involvement with Wikipedia. On the contrary, notable people here, including Jimbo and Guy, apparently [[WP:ABF|assumed bad faith]] despite evidence to the contrary and caused all kinds of bad feelings and disruption as a result. It's time for a '''Greg Kohs/Wikipedia reboot''' - let him start fresh, and let the people who have been hunting him and harming his reputation stay away. If they think any action needs to be taken, they can ask for it here or at [[WP:ANI]]. I'm frankly appalled at how this has been handled from the beginning. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 00:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
** Reboots don't exactly work when a) there's no indication that Greg has any intention to stop any of his behavior and b) you engaged in behavior beyond a certain point. Photoshopping pictures of another Wikipedia user to make them look like she is wearing only underwear after the user tried to engage in good-faith dialogue with you is beyond the reboot point. It is about in the category where you can't reboot because someone hit the hard-drive with a sledgehammer. Just for starters he could take down his blog entries outing other users and smearing them. Just a tiny step. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 00:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
***Sorry, Joshua, I hadn't seen any evidence of any of those things presented. (Not disputing, just saying I've seen no evidence.) I have run across evidence, however, of this person being provoked, attacked, and demonized. I'm curious to see which happened first. Should any Wikipedia admins/editors be doing any introspection about initiation and escalation of the situation? [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 00:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
**** Kelly, this demonstrates more than anything that you haven't been paying much attention to this matter and are nevertheless commenting in detail. In any event, I've sent you an email with further details. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 01:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
***** Got your e-mail - unless you're referring to someone besides Durova, your "outing" claims are silly. Durova outed herself. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 01:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
****** Wrong, and once again showing that you haven't been paying attention. Durova wrote under her pseudonym. An offsite troll then added a comment to that piece which outed her there.. Greg Kohs then splashed her name all over the net and ensured that when you googled for her actual name one of the first things you found was his photoshopped monstrosities. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 01:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*******No, I found [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stq6MindK94 this YouTube Interview], which predates the link you provided by many months. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 01:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
******** Kelly, not following the timeline. That youtube video was made well-after Durova had been very outed and had been asked to speak at a conference. The blog entry by Kohs was one example of his attempting to smear Durova. It was not by any means the only. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 01:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*********If she publicly discloses her identity, how can she be "outed"? [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 01:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
********** Kelly. Please don't be dense. Read what I wrote about above. This time I'll add in bold to help out. "That youtube video was made well-after Durova '''had been ''' very outed". Notice the tense? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
**********Joshua, your statement that Kohs created a picture of Durova wearing underwear is a lie. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 01:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*********** Oh your right. I'm sorry. He put her face onto underwear. It's not always easier to remember these details. And of course that's so much better. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 01:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
**********Josh, can we see some evidence that Kohs "Outed" Durova against her will? [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*********** Kelly, this is going to be my last comment about the outing matter. If you really think that someone can be voluntarily outed and have their name smeared across the internet including having a blog entry that has their name as a keyword along with various derogatory terms then I can't help you. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 01:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
************I understand where you're coming from, but we don't control off-wiki conduct. If Durova was engaging in an off-wiki battle with this person, then we shouldn't be judging just one side of the fight. And I still have seen zero evidence that he outed her against her will, when she was apparently making public interviews, giving her status as a Wikipedia admin as one of her "credentials". [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 01:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' Folks, you're missing the reality. It's just an issue of whether he has an account which is both persistent and admitted to be his, or not. That's it. That's the only decision you (collectively) can control. You can say "no", for the symbolic value of it, a kind of social fiction censure that if you do not grant him a [[Religious Name]], he does not officially exist. You can say "yes", under the theory that's the path of least drama (note I didn't say "no drama"). I believe the latter is the wisest option. But the choice is that minor. And it doesn't seem worth much drama in itself. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] ([[User talk:Seth Finkelstein|talk]]) 01:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
** Seth you seem to be missing a few points. First of all, if Greg is unblocked he'll pick a new admin to harass and make the life miserable of. At least one. That's what he does when he's unblocked. Furthermore, the message this sends is to all banned users. If your persistent enough and disruptive enough we won't do anything to you. Do you really think the project will function well when that sort of message is sent? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 01:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*** On what basis are you making that prognostication? [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 01:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
**** Logic. Isn't it amazing? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 01:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*****Apologies, but a little evidence besides your logic would be welcome. Who else has he harassed when he was unblocked? [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 01:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*** Let me assure you I do understand the viewpoint, and my position is a <em>realpolitik</em> assessment. Note what I said earlier "1) This is quasi-moot, as it's obvious that enough admins have it in for him that even if he were unblocked, he'd quickly be reblocked for offenses real or imagined. ...". Sometimes, the choice is only between two bad options. Right now, he thumbs his nose at your message, and it's not necessarily the most authority-reinforcing position to be in to have someone constantly mocking your ability to impose sanctions. A dirty secret of Wikipedia administration is that only people who care about Wikipedia rules and norms (to at least some extent) will care about what message you're sending. Everyone else will consider this sort of stuff navel-gazing narcissism. Hence my advice, try to convey at least the <em>illusion</em> of having some influence. Not pretty, but the world is often ugly. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] ([[User talk:Seth Finkelstein|talk]]) 01:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*Can someone point me to the original discussion of his ban? [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] ([[User talk:Anthony|talk]]) 01:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive72#User:JossBuckle_Swami this] and the next section below it, "Let's make this official". --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] ([[User talk:JWSchmidt|talk]]) 01:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
* Photoshopping editors in their underwear? I'm no fan of Durova but if that's true, not now, not ever. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|RxS]] ([[User talk:Rx StrangeLove|talk]]) 01:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
** No, according to Cla68, it's a bullshit claim. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 01:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
***Is there someone less involved that can comment on this claim? Or point to some proof, or email some support for the claim? [[User:Rx StrangeLove|RxS]] ([[User talk:Rx StrangeLove|talk]]) 01:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
****Agreed, evidence seems rather thin on the ground, once you disregard the hyberbole and personal attacks. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 01:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
**** I misremembered. He actually put her face on a pair of underwear that could be bought (through Cafe Press?). Because that's sooo much better. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 01:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
***** Anyone dispute this? Because I actually think (''I think'') remember this. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|RxS]] ([[User talk:Rx StrangeLove|talk]]) 01:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
******He put a picture of her face on a picture of underwear. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 01:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*******No, he had a CafePress store where he sold thong underwear with Durova's picture on it. Given that this was discussed in detail on Wikipedia Review, where you are a regular participant, your -- ah, let's call it "misunderstanding" -- of the situation is curious indeed. If I were a cynical person I'd say you were misrepresenting the situation to protect a fellow WR editor in his harassment of a Wikipedian with whom you have had spirited disputes. Good thing I'm not a cynical person, huh? [[Special:Contributions/72.255.13.241|72.255.13.241]] ([[User talk:72.255.13.241|talk]]) 02:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC){{spa|72.255.13.241}}
<= Then absolutely not. I don't have a dog in this fight but that's beyond any conceivable acceptable behavior. No one has a right to edit here, I don't and you don't, and someone who can take a disagreement this far out of bounds needs to be gone. I've been here a while now and there's one thing I know, we're fighting a running (and losing) battle to keep the disruption to a minimum and the focus on writing an encyclopedia to a maximum. It's already hard enough to get rid of disruptive/diverting editors, there's no reason to let someone back in that's capable of this sort of crap. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|RxS]] ([[User talk:Rx StrangeLove|talk]]) 02:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*I will support unblocking '''if''' he makes statement promising to obey Wikipedia rules including [[WP:SOCK]], [[WP:NLT]], [[WP:COI]], etc. He also must be a subject of restrictions including one account only and no harassment of wikipedia users on external sites. I think it is better to have him with the team rather than with the enemies and it only needed one click to block him again if he misbehaves, so the risk is low [[User:Alex Bakharev|Alex Bakharev]] ([[User talk:Alex Bakharev|talk]]) 01:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:'''Not support unblock''' As he's still socking as of today, no telling what other problems he'll cause. For evidence: [[User:Wet_Floor_Sign]] (today), [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.87.42.110] (yesterday), and [[User_talk:Feline_Who_Watches_You_Masturbate_From_Above]] (this month). Wet Floor evidence: [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19838&mode=linear] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wet_floor_sign&diff=prev&oldid=231810061 onwiki], Feline evidence: [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=19699&view=findpost&p=119586]<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::When a user is unjustly banned, and then continually smeared after they've been nominally chased off, what other remedy, or way to call attention to their situation, do they have other than socking? Creating socks is the last refuge, kind of like the right to bear arms in the U.S. Constitution. If all else fails you can resist an unjust government. A blatant criminal (i.e. a Wikipedia vandal or POV-pusher) gathers no support and is quickly quashed. Someone who rebels after unjust treatment gathers supporters, which seems to be what has happened here. I sure feel sympathy for the guy, he got the shaft. The right thing to do in this situation is to offer amnesty in the hope of reconciliation and peace. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 02:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Unjust ban? He wasn't banned unjustly. He deserved it - and I believe he knows he did. Whether he should still be banned is another question.
:::Where has Mr Kohs been smeared? I can think of many other ways to deal with being banned than creating sockpuppets with obviously disruptive usernames. Sure he may be frustrated, but that's a real bad way to go about things. I'm all for unbanning ''if'' I can honestly believe he'll not do anything like this again. Plus, his disputes with Durova and Jimbo haven't done him any favors. <big>[[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:black;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]]</big> 02:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::::For different values of ''unjustly'' and ''smeared''. Wraping the socking in a grand ol' US flag doesn't change what it is; there are other avenues of appeal (email being the obvious one). &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 02:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::To who, ArbCom? Like they've been inspiring a lot of confidence lately. What was the result on that SlimVirgin/JzG/FM case opened like, four months ago? I rest my case. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 02:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Yes, arbcom first off. If that's not useful, there are several admins (as can clearly be seen here) who he could have contacted for help, to propose one of them initiated a discussion such as this one. Did he do that? Well obviously I don't know about arbcom, but as far as I know he hasn't requested to be unbanned, although I'm not that familiar with this, so may be wrong here. <big>[[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:black;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]]</big> 02:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*Yeah, Greg's behaved quite unreasonably here in the past. Things like [[User talk:John Russ Finley|impersonation]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZDNet&diff=prev&oldid=176566793 penis vandalism], and selling thongs with Durova photoshopped on them are quite beyond the pale of common human decency, much less our communal standards. Oops, was I supposed to put a big bold '''leave blocked''' somewhere in there? <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">[[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|<font color="#090">talk</font>]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|<font color="#4682b4">email</font>]] // 02:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)</small>
*'''Hell no''', for the reasons east718 pointed out just above. Penis vandalism, impersonation of good faith users to participate in contentious AfDs, and general insults and harassment aren't the hallmarks of a constructive editor, let alone a purported businessman. The reasoning for his original ban did seem rather unfair, but he's long since earned it with his appalling behavior. '''<font color="#ff9900">[[User:Krimpet|krimpet]]</font><font color="#ff6699">[[User talk:Krimpet|✽]]</font>''' 02:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Over my dead body''' This guy is the antithesis of everything we stand for as a project and a community. He has not only violated the standards of behavior which this community holds, but he has worked tirelessly to undermine our mission. Why would we welcome someone back who not only is completely unapologetic about his past misdeeds, but actively seeks to destroy us from without? If we unban Kohs, why don't we sysop GRAWP while we're at it?<font style="font-family: Georgia">[[User:Steven Walling|Steven Walling]] [[User talk:Steven Walling|(talk)]]</font> 03:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:Spoken like a true zealot, good to see you keeping the faith brother Walling. Stay true to the mission, let not doubt enter thy mind. [[User:RMHED|RMHED]] ([[User talk:RMHED|talk]]) 03:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::Your rude sarcasm is not appreciated. If you can't be constructive in discussion, then don't participate. <font style="font-family: Georgia">[[User:Steven Walling|Steven Walling]] [[User talk:Steven Walling|(talk)]]</font> 03:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock'''. I have huge opposition to unblocking someone with his history of abuse on Wikipedia, particularly when he has done little to remedy that since his banning. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">5</font>]]''''' 03:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock'''. You can be the best editor ever, but if you keep socking over and over whist you're banned, whether justified or not, I cannot in good conscience support reinstatement. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 03:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support unblock'''; I don't think he was ever treated fairly in the first place, and even if he was, he'd still be due for another chance after all this time. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] ([[User talk:Everyking|talk]]) 04:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose unblock''' Self-important opportunist, has no real interest in using the project to educate others. Let him run his own yellow pages wiki. ˉˉ<sup>[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']]</sup>[[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 04:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*Given that Kohs has shown an utter contempt for people who disagree with him, I '''strongly oppose any unblock'''. He called me on WR for a "witless boob", along with calling other very good people who I highly respect for "mindless nincompoop", "an incoherent twit" and "without any measure of intellect". A person who cannot control himself from flying off the handle with these wild attacks, whether on-wiki or off-wiki, and who has done little to actually build the encyclopedia as a volunteer, is not helpful at all to the project. I will also echo the opinion given by Sam Korn, the commercial editing ''might'' be OK, barely, despite my concerns over the impact this might have on NPOV, but the sockpuppeteering which Kohs has engaged in on a grand scale is clearly not. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 06:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support the unblock''' provided that Greg would like to be unblocked and participate (productively) - I have no idea if he does wish to - so I have emailed him and asked him that exact question. He is a decent enough writer - better than I am - and an intelligent guy who was treated piss poorly despite following the rules at the time to the letter. The socking whiles not exactly condemnable, could be completely ignored if he wished to come back and approach wikipedia from a new direction. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 12:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*:Viridae, he has a perfectly good talk page at [[User talk:Thekohser]], why must he use email to express the details of his intent to edit constructively, why can't he use the {{tl|unblock}} template like everyone else? '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 13:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' It is amusing, in an ironic sense, that the most virulent (although not unexpected) opposition to an unblock of Kohs comes largely from a section of the community that applauds and supports Jimbo for every action that he takes that is even slightly out of process - yet this is a situation where the unblock of Kohs per the proper processes appears to have Jimbo's consent. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 12:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC) <small>ps. '''Unblock''' Why not? There will be too many eyes for any unseemly editing to slip by.</small>
*:One might just as easily comment on the fact that the most spirited support of an unblock is coming from Wikipedia Review editors who shriek incessantly at the slightest perceived unfairness toward others, yet are willing to overlook any level of harassment by one of their own toward established Wikipedia editors. [[Special:Contributions/72.255.19.253|72.255.19.253]] ([[User talk:72.255.19.253|talk]]) 13:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
* '''Oppose unblock''' - No way. He continually socks and attacks Wikipedia users. Why should we let him back in? Anetode is completely right in saying that he's nothing but a "self-important opportunist". We wouldn't let GRAWP in if he apologised and said he'd never sock again either. You don't deserve a million more second chances, Gregory. [[User:Scarian|<font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian</font>]][[User_talk:Scarian|<font color="red"><sup>Call me Pat!</sup></font>]] 13:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
* Those of you who know me here know that I am pretty levelheaded and not inclined to enter drama, so I hope that adds emphasis when I say '''no fucking way''' to unblocking Kohs. He has shown absolutely no interest in helping Wikipedia achieve its goals and no indication that he can behave within our community norms. The man has wasted enough of our time over the past year-plus and it's a virtual guarantee that if unblocked, he will simply create more drama of the type we do not need. This is a clear case of [[The Scorpion and the Frog]] (with Kohs being the scorpion, to be blunt). <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C;">howcheng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 16:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Arbitrary break; Durova's proposal - compromise to unblock with conditions ===
[[Image:DoNotFeedTroll.svg|right|thumb|200px|Does anyone have access to [[John Bauer]] artwork that isn't halftoned? <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 04:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)]]
*'''Comment''' If Mr. Kohs ever goes six months without socking or insulting Wikipedia offsite and pledges to abide by our policies, I will open an unban proposal for him myself. I extended this same offer to him on New Year's Day 2008 (and previously), and if he had accepted it he would be editing legitimately by this time. Now I'm heading back offsite to finish restoring a portrait of Sarah Bernhardt as Hamlet; it's the only kind of drama I want to be involved in tonight. Respectfully, <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 03:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:I '''weak support''' Durova's proposal as a condition for return. I would '''strong support''' if it was shortened to three months.--<font color="#0000C0">David</font> '''[[User:David Shankbone|<font color="#0000C0">Shankbone</font>]]''' 03:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:'''Question''' - how can you "insult Wikipedia"? [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::Making negative comments about a project some people dedicate a lot of time to can be hurtful, and insulting. <big>[[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:black;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]]</big> 03:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, please. We have a whole article called [[Criticism of Wikipedia]]. Things don't improve if people don't call attention to the deficiencies. Or should people who protest against the policies of [[George W. Bush]] just be quiet because they might be hurtful to Bush supporters? [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 03:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::::You asked a question, I gave you an answer. Is there anything else? <big>[[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:black;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]]</big> 04:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Going after its charity status I find insulting, in that many of us who do work on here consider it for the public good. That's at the heart of the jokes Greg Kohs has made on the Wikipedia Review about all of this being just some big attack machine multi-player game, isn't it? It's a lame joke, but it's still aimed at our core of what we believe. We don't do it with profit or fame in mind, but to gain knowledge and spread it. Many of us feel passionately about furthering the aims of the project, and spend a good deal of time, consideration, money, effort and research for this, uh, ''hobby''. I personally find his choosing of the charity status particularly odious, in that light. This is just a comment. I still support Durova's proposal, more so shortened to three months. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> '''[[User:David Shankbone|<font color="#0000C0">Shankbone</font>]]''' 04:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''. Sounds like a fair proposal to me. I'm all for giving someone another chance, but this situation calls for some demonstration of good faith. Kelly's point is well taken though, and I suggest the condition be that Mr. Kohs avoid socking and engage in no outing or harrassing of editors (as opposed to legitimate criticism) offsite.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 04:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I suggest we fix a date right now: "On December 25, 2008, [[User:thekohser]] will be unblocked if and only if 1/ there is no further socking between now and then, 2/ there is no further on or off site harassment of any of our editors (including faces on underwear, etc), 3/ a pledge is made the honor our site standards in a formal unblock request." Does anybody object to making this offer, which is designed to ''stop the problem'' and give the user a chance to return? [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 04:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:*Jehochman, there is no reason such a pledge cannot be made on site, [[User talk:Thekohser]] is the unprotected talk page of the individual and would be the best place for Greg to post {{tl|unblock}} reqs or other relevant statements. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 09:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:*I think that is very reasonable Jehochman, and I strong support the Christmas amendment to Durova's proposal, which is the modification I preferred to Durova's proposal. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> '''[[User:David Shankbone|<font color="#0000C0">Shankbone</font>]]''' 16:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

==== Counterproposal: Flat out unblock no conditions ====
To me, such conditions confuse the essential issue, even making it political in a sense. What I want to know is: if Kohs is allowed to edit, would he do so productively and according to community standards? I'm not entirely sure what the answer is, but I know an easy way to find out: unblock him and watch to see what he does. It doesn't make sense to make someone wait months to edit if they're willing to do so right now. If we don't like his edits, he can simply be blocked again. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] ([[User talk:Everyking|talk]]) 05:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*We're going to need a compromise that most of us can accept, including Greg (who is not happy with the above proposal). This will probably leave nobody happy. Greg would like to be unblock now, as vindication. Various people here would like to see him further humiliated. At some point this war has to stop. It will be a good thing if it stops. Are we willing to be brave and just unblock him? It will only take a moment to reblock if he abuses the privilege. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 05:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
**Perhaps he could have "community reviews" at intervals where his editing conduct would be evaluated and it would be decided whether to allow him to continue editing. He could have one review at the end of one week (provided he did nothing obviously unacceptable to get himself blocked before that point), then another at the end of one month, and so on. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] ([[User talk:Everyking|talk]]) 05:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*I would support unblocking to see if he is able to live within the rules given a fresh start. If not then wash our hands of it. I don't think this affair was handled well by either side at the onset, and both sides escalated it from there to varying degrees. I believe that it is very difficult to recover from that point without one side making a magnanimous gesture. There is rather little to lose by doing so. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 05:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
* '''Support unblock proposal''' per Alison and other commments. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 06:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' to unblock proposal. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> '''[[User:David Shankbone|<font color="#0000C0">Shankbone</font>]]''' 06:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*As I wrote above, I strongly oppose any unblock of Kohs. I wrote down an opinion, with my rationale, on the proposal to allow BLP subjects to automatically remove their Wikipedia biography. Kohs called me a "witless boob" for doing so, along with a string of other attacks against people who I consider good editors and contributors, and who clearly didn't deserve that kind of vitriole. That kind of behavior, from a grown-up man who cannot blame immaturity, is not something we want on Wikipedia. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 07:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

::MyWikiBiz is a middle-aged professional with a reasonably strong sense of pride and a successful day job. I don't think it would sit well to encumber him with a lot of tests and restrictions. He's probably too grown up for a "mentor" and he knows more about Wikipedia's inner workings than many admins. Not everything that happened was his fault and some of us here have said some pretty shabby things about him also. Either accept him back into our community, subject to the same rules that should apply to everybody (no conflicts of interest, be civil, etc.) or leave him blocked. Treat him like a grown-up professional and expect him to act like one. If he gets out of line block him.

::One of three outcomes will occur if he's unblocked:
::#He becomes a productive editor
::#He acts so atrociously he gets himself blocked with broad community support and we go back to where we were.
::#My fear: he sort of behaves half-heartedly within our rules but not poorly enough to get blocked for a while. Then maybe he baits someone else or they bait him. What ensues has enough wikidrama and blame on both sides to lead to an Arbcom case. Those things are so drawn-out, tedious and fraught as to sometimes bend [[space-time]]. The best way to avoid this is for those people that really dislike MyWikiBiz to just ignore him and for him to ignore them. (I think you all know who you are.) There are 2 million+ articles and a zillion other editors so it should be possible to avoid each other if you really want to.

::If MyWikiViz does rejoin the community, from here on out, anything he says about other editors on Wikipedia Review should meet the same rules (civility, no personal attacks, etc.) as if he said it here.

::Finally, MyWikiBiz should consider if he really wants to come back. He might not like it; much about the community's ways of doing business might really grate on him given all the history. --<font face="Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]])</sup> </font> 07:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*Greg Kohs knows Wikipedia better than most admins, he knows how to edit productively, and if he wanted to, he would hugely benefit the project. But he suffers from the same fundamental problem as Moulton, to some extent - his view of how things should be done is diametrically different from how things are currently done. I want to see "MyWikiBiz" Kohs unblocked (probably as {{user|Thekohser}}), and would support unblocking him, but I honestly don't know whether he would actually become a productive editor - not only do I not know if he would want to, but I'm pretty sure even if Greg did, a number of users (everyone can guess who) would never allow him to do so, and would be continually baiting him until he said something slightly out of line. [[User:Neil|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B></u>]] [[User_talk:Neil|<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936"><big><big><span class="Unicode">☄</span></big></big></u>]] 10:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:: The simple answer to that dilemna is for all people who bait Greg in any way, shape or form, regardless of their status, to be subject to community penalty, as should happen regardless of the target for said baiting. Those who want to endulge in gaming the system to reblock someone like Greg clearly aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Equally, if Greg misbehaves, then he can be shown the door again, this time for good. [[User:Minkythecat|Minkythecat]] ([[User talk:Minkythecat|talk]]) 10:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Nah, it wouldn't be for good no matter what he did. His WR pals would fight to the death against any permanent block, much as they have here, regardless of the level of misbehavior. If we consider putting someone's image on underwear -- strike that, ''selling'' underwear with a Wikipedian's image on it -- as just good clean fun, then Wikipedia may be as bad a place as some people think. [[Special:Contributions/72.255.19.253|72.255.19.253]] ([[User talk:72.255.19.253|talk]]) 15:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::: Ah, yes the old "WR pals" argument. SAdly, not all WR readers/members are one big blob of congealed humanity; after all, your primary account hasn't been outed. [[User:Minkythecat|Minkythecat]] ([[User talk:Minkythecat|talk]]) 15:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::::: Minky, it doesn't require every WR member to create that sort of problem (and I suspect that many of the problem people wouldn't be WR members anyways). It would be nice if everyone concerned wouldn't look at everyone else as monoliths. Now, more directly to the issue at hand:Your notion that we should unblock Greg and that other editors should be punished if they get into fights with Greg sounds almost like preemptively blaming the victim. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 16:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::: No, it's preemptively calling for action against those who deliberately bait ANYBODY on Wikipedia. As has been seen numerous times in numerous examples in Wikiland, people do bait and troll for a reaction. If Greg attacks somebody, with or without provocation, action should be taken. If somebody deliberately baits Greg specifically to gain a reaction, action also needs to be taken - labelling them a "victim" is actually quite telling in itself. [[User:Minkythecat|Minkythecat]] ([[User talk:Minkythecat|talk]]) 16:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

====MyWikiBiz: partial bibliography====
80+ pages [[Special:WhatLinksHere/User:MyWikiBiz|link]] to [[User:MyWikiBiz]]. Given the confusion with some of the history, here's a ''partial'' biblography; others can add additional links

Start with:
*[http://www.sbwire.com/news/view.php?sid=7452 MyWikiBiz.com Assisting Companies with Placement of Articles on Wikipedia] (press release)
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-09/MyWikiBiz]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive54#Paid-to-edit articles]]

Here's a list of MyWikiBiz articles compiled several months later:
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Feb#MyWikiBiz... Again]]

The [[Arch Coal]] article was a sort of flagship article for the MyWikiBiz controversy:
*[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&oldid=76592206 Arch Coal]] as it reportedly appeared at http://mywikibiz.com/wikifiedarticles/corp-artcls/Arch_Coal.html
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arch Coal]]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_5&direction=prev&oldid=80432256#Arch_Coal Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 5]
*[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 5#Arch Coal (history only)]]

Various admin discussions, mostly about MyWikiBiz' subsequent behaviour, not conflicts of interest or spam
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive55#MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs) using AfD to shop for clients]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive72#For your entertainment]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive72#Let's make this official]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive72#User:JossBuckle Swami]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive80#Request for impartial review regarding Zibiki Wym]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive96#Limited unblock of thekohser, better known as MyWikiBiz]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive145#MyWikiBiz active]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive192#New MyWikiBiz sock]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236#Wikignosis block for legal threat]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive261#Andman8 (talk · contribs)]]
*[[Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive3#Unblock of Thekohser?]]

WikiProject Spam and [[WT:EL]] discussions, some of them initiated by MyWikiBiz (or one of his many manifestations):
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#Wikia.com links]]
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#Angela spamming list hosted by Wikimedia Foundation]]
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#User Talk pages]]
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Feb#Centiare/MyWikiBiz update]]
*[[Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 12#External Links mentioned in the course of User Talk pages]]

MyWikiBiz's many personnas:
*[[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of MyWikiBiz]]
*[[:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MyWikiBiz]]
*[[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MyWikiBiz]]

Wikipedia Review:
*Ongoing Wikipedia Review discussions of this debate<sup>[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19970][http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19951]</sup>
*[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=911 thekohser's] Wikipedia Review profile

As I wrote previously, I'd support unblocking. I do not believe MyWikiBiz or anyone else should be editing for pay on our site, however I am also open to Greg's original idea (as I understand it) -- create neutral, referenced, wikified articles with GFDL licenses on another site for review and possible incorporation into Wikipedia by experienced, trusted editors.--<font face="Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]])</sup> </font> 05:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:Regardless of either Greg's intentions or the wisdom of his idea, he has continued to violate our policies while banned, I mean socking one's own unblock discussion!, do we consider that even remotely acceptable? from anyone? '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 08:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

====100 edits====
Kohs has [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=19970&view=findpost&p=122670 suggested offsite] that he be unblocked and allowed to make precisely 100 mainspace edits, after which time he is reblocked pending a review of those edits. (furthermore he does not intend to continue editing afterward even if those edits are judged satisfactory and he is unblocked, unless he receives an apology from either Durova, Jimbo, JzG, or Raul654 - which is good for another 100 edits, etc.) --[[User talk:Random832|Random832]] ([[special:contributions/Random832|contribs]]) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

: Absolutely not. We're not bargaining with him. Jehochman's proposal above makes sense. The above simply gives Kohs more reason to harass these people until they apologize to him. If he cannot abide by reasonable terms like not selling underwear that have users pictures on them then there's no reason to let him back in. As far as I can tell the above makes no promises at all about not harassing users. This is unacceptable. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:*I don't understand the dramatic undertone of this "precisely 100 edits", but it makes no difference. Christmas 2008 he can make 100 edits, or 1000, per the Durova-Jehochman proposal. Leave him unblocked. If he creates any problems, then re-block. I don't care how and what he does within those parameters as long as they conform to behavioral and editorial guidelines and policies. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> '''[[User:David Shankbone|<font color="#0000C0">Shankbone</font>]]''' 16:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:We get 100 quality edits (or more) a minute from random editors. Why are we wasting time on this? [[User:Rx StrangeLove|RxS]] ([[User talk:Rx StrangeLove|talk]]) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

===Back to the Kohs unblock question===

*Not sure which section I'm meant to be voting at, but I oppose any kind of unblock also. I'm not fussed about his editing Wikipedia for money or the fact that he criticises it a lot, but if we unblock him all I can see him doing is following people around trying to call them out on whatever crap they've been doing and just generally causing hassle. Greg never lets things drop and he doesn't appear to actually be interested in editing so much as having the subjects of his grudges apologise for all the things that they've done, which is a reasonable thing to want, but not a reason to unblock. He seems to be keen on this just for the drama aspect and the fact that he's getting lots of attention. Whatever. Plz let's waste our time discussing something that will result in something productive, not discussing whether to make symbolic unblocks of users who don't give much of a shit anyway. '''[[User:Naerii|<span style="font-size:15px;font-family:helvetica;color:#1693A5;">naerii</span>]]''' 12:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*After reading thekohser's posts about this thread on Wikipedia Review, '''oppose''' <small>(immediate)</small> '''unblock'''. He cannot be possibly be serious about the things he writes and demands. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

* Why should he be unblocked? His chief interest in Wikipedia seems to be "reforming" its community and its articles by imposing his view of what they should look like. It seems extremely unlikely that he will offer useful edits enough to offset the inevitable circus he will cause. He's the antithesis of a collaborative editor - he knows how it should be done, he believes he should be in charge of doing it, and until everyone conforms to his views he will see himself as not beholden to the rules of the community. Seth's supposedly "realpolitik" argument that we should unblock him because he'll just sneak in anyway is ridiculous. This is an online community, not the international political arena, and there is no reason to admit someone to the community whose purpose is to force it into his mold of the Truth and the Way. Lots of sockpuppeting vandals are blocked and reblocked many times daily, it can be done and will be done long after Kohs finds a better use for his free time. [[User:Avruch|<strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch</strong>]][[User talk:Avruch|<sup><strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T </strong></sup>]] 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*We can't keep him out- this is true. But we ''can'' make it clear he's not welcome here, and we ''can'' eject him when we see him. If he's willing to behave himself like a reasonable adult, he could perhaps be welcome here, but we already know he's not. The answer looks pretty clear to me. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 16:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

== Scjessey harassment ==

I have asked [[user:Scjessey]] to not post to my talk page several times [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CENSEI&diff=232963960&oldid=232963541], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CENSEI&diff=232968306&oldid=232968140], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CENSEI&diff=232973301&oldid=232972667], and to keep relevant discussions on the article's talk pages. The last time I warned him that I would report him for harrasment if he did it again. Evidently he did not care, as he posted again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CENSEI&diff=232975110&oldid=232973301]. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:Probably wouldn't be a bad idea for you and Scjessey to leave each other alone, I'd say. That's my first read, but I'll have a look. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 20:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:Wikipedia requires collaboration. Telling people to stay off your talk page is almost never a reasonable thing to do. Also, blanking a section with an edit summary of "removing trolling" is hardly a polite way to ask someone to not leave messages. How about just ignoring it and you two leave each other alone? Or is there something else you're hoping gets done here? [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::While I understand Friday's point in principle, I have to say that (a) Scjesey's last 3 posts to CENSEI's talk page could be reasonably considered "baiting"; (b) saying someone is "trolling" your talk page is pretty much guaranteed not to improve a situation, and (c) I've asked people who were obviously only interested in pestering me to stay off my talk page before <small>I've even blocked one who didn't listen, but don't tell anyone, as I'm pretty sure that broke a rule</small>. Disengaging is a reasonable step in a heated dispute. I'll echo the "ignore it and leave each other alone" sentiment, with the added note that if someone is obviously posting to another's talk page to goad them, some here might consider that disruptive and act accordingly. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 21:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:: Scjessey should have left me alone when I asked him to, not continue to harass and poke me. In a [[Wikipedia:Harassment|nutshell]] <blockquote>Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, '''repeated annoying and unwanted contacts''', repeated personal attacks or posting personal information.</blockquote>. I will be more than happy to leave him to his thing if he would leave me to mine for the time being. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 21:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:::First of all, I would like to thank [[User:Friday|Friday]] for informing me of this discussion. Secondly, I would like to say that this concerns a [[WP:NPOV|content dispute]] that involved [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] deleting text from the [[Dana Milbank|Dana Milbank BLP]] and then edit warring over it. My first message on CENSEI's talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CENSEI&diff=prev&oldid=232932380 pointed out the problem with the first edit], and the response was edit warring and name calling. I dismissed the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACENSEI&diff=232973301&oldid=232972667 edit summary-based "threat"] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CENSEI&diff=prev&oldid=232975110 posted again] because of CENSEI's incivility. I won't waste any more of my time with this individual, but I recommend that he/she be "educated" about how to behave in a civil fashion. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 21:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: Scjessey, this is not the place to talk about the edits to Dana Milbank, this is where we discuss why you continued to harass me on my talk page after I asked you 3 seperate times not to. The edits you made on Dana Milbank were grossly NPOV, and I was not the only user who agreed with that assessment. I would suggest you read up on civility, harassment and NPOV. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 21:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::"Leave each other alone" means '''"Leave each other alone"'''. Starting..... now. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::I will throw in a special door prize for whichever editor allows the other to have [[WP:TLW|The Last Word]]. Go back to making edits that are "grossly NPOV". '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 22:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I agree; we want "grossly NPOV" edits. --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 22:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Our spam filter is now blocking spam in edit summaries ==

FYI: our spam filter now appears to block spam addresses in edit summaries even if the domain is not in the page text. I just learned this the hard way. It's probably a response to all the shock site spam recently left in edit summaries by vandals; some will crash browsers. I'm glad we have this now. --<font face="Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]])</sup> </font> 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:Erm... this news is a bit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=220610552 old]. And Grawp now just drops off the http:// piece of the URL, bypassing the filter. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 23:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::This is apparently new; try saving an edit with avril. on. nimp. org (remove spaces) in the edit summary. --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 23:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:SwirlBoy39]] ACC flag ==

I recently found that {{Userlinks|SwirlBoy39}} had access to the ACC flag. Now, this wouldn't normally be a problem, but he has previous been community banned as {{Userlinks|Bugman94}}. He's created numerous socks, which can be found in [[:Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bugman94]]. I'm all for offering users a second chance (I think I supported his unban request a few months ago), but I don't think it's a good idea to give a tool which allows the ability to create far more accounts than is possible to normal users to a user who has been known to disrupt the project with serious socking previously. A review would be appreciated. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 01:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

*In principal I agree with everything Ryan says above. However, SwirlBoy39 ''has'' reformed, and has done some tremendous work at ACC. Yes, he was banned, but that is genuinely ancient history. I wouldn't support the removal of ACC status. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] [[User talk:PeterSymonds|<small>(talk)</small>]] 01:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
**Users can reform, and I agree in many ways SB has - but with the history of socking he has, I don't think he can be trusted with the tool in the long term. There's plenty of other things he can do without having access to this flag. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 01:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
**I should note that the ACC tool is in no way backlogged. Users that haven't had previous sock issues can easily handle the requests. There's no urgent need to lower the standards to give users with a socking history to have access to this flag. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 01:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::Perhaps. It just seems strange to me that all this is being dug up now, nearly a year after the sockpuppet accounts were tagged. Has there been any evidence of abuse in the time he had the flag? It just doesn't sit right with me. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] [[User talk:PeterSymonds|<small>(talk)</small>]] 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::The problem is that with his socks, he's been known to abuse the ability for users to create new accounts. One example is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=SuperBall53 here]. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 01:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
: Ryan, having the account creation bit is really only of use to a massively abusive sockpuppeteer. Basically, ''any'' editor can create six accounts at a time and over a number of weeks, that can accumulate to quite a lot. If he were ever to abuse this, checkuser would be able to pretty-much detect and nail the entire sockfarm. I'm not particularly worried, and besides, Swirly is now ''well'' past all that stuff and I'd hate to see him permanently 'branded' for his past transgressions - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 01:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::Yup, of course it can, but also creating a quiet account here and there would also be silent. Checkuser doesn't show everything, espeically if the user isn't vandalising in pattern. I think he can develop trust on wiki, but when someone has a history of relatively serious sockpuppeteering, they can develop trust in other areas. There's plenty of other users who do account creation. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::: But "''creat[ing] a quiet account here and there''" has absolutely nothing to do with the ACC bit; he can do that either way. Rather, I see this as an ideal way for him to regain the trust of the community - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 02:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::::He can regain the communities trust in many other ways. There's plenty of areas he can work in, many others indeed. We can be slightly picky with who we give the ACC flag to, given that so many people have access to the tool - many, many other users can easily deal with the accounts that SB can't deal with. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 02:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::::: Sure thing. Have you checked to quantify how much ACC work he's done to-date? You see, he's had the ACC bit for quite a while, and there have been no issues. Bringing it up now, and for no clear reason makes it look like an exercise in humiliation. I know that's not your intent, Ryan, but it could easily be seen as that, esp. by Swirly and that would be seriously disheartening to him. Like there's ''never'' going to be any redemption - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 02:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Alison. Working in this area without any problems is a perfect opportunity for Swirlboy to regain trust he lost last year. Working here is no different to working in other areas. <big>[[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:black;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]]</big> 02:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:Agree with Alison as well. Removing the ACC flag does nothing to prevent him from creating socks if he so desired. Just leave it be IMO. Though, he hasn't hit the throttle since late May. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 02:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:When was he unbanned? Months ago? Last I checked, an overturned ban wasn't supposed to be like a felony conviction that followed you around for the rest of your wiki-life. If he's not doing anything wrong, why take action against him? Besides, creating abusive socks using your main account is pretty much the height of stupid when it comes to sockpuppetry. <font face="Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</font> 04:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::I strongly agree, return the flag to Swirlboy, there is absolutely no indication he has misused it. <span>[[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup></span> 07:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

: Oh Ryan, you've already gone ahead and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUserRights&user=SwirlBoy39 removed it]. With due respect, while I won't wheel-war over the matter, that was ''more'' than a little hasty here. And the message you left in the logs was somewhat of a damning black-mark against him. I feel that that was totally unwarranted here. I've been watching over Swirly since he was unbanned and working with him on issues, and there's been very little I can fault him for - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 07:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

*Ryan, with all due respect, consensus is against you here. While he was banned a while ago, he has shown that he's reformed, and removing the ACC flag from him seems punitive rather than preventative. Swirlyboy has more than "served his time", so to speak, and I think holding the fact that he was banned 6 months ago against him is unfair, and his flag should be restored. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">[[User:Steve Crossin|Steve Crossin]] <sup>[[User:Steve Crossin/Contact|<font color="green">Contact</font>]]</sup>'''/'''<sub>[[WP:24|<font color="#CCC000">24</font>]]</sub></font> 07:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(Apparently Ryan P can't reply for a bit, his internet is down.) - [[user:FT2|FT2]]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 09:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

SwirlBoy does good work on ACC, last time I checked. Someone give him his ACC flag back if he's going to use it (and he has needed it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=SwirlBoy39&page=&year=&month=-1 at times]). While you're there, take my flag; I don't need it and the current ACC system is a joke. But that's not SwirlBoy's fault. —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 10:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I knew this was going to be brought up, and I've been hesitant to posting. There are other tool admins who can keep an eye on him ''if there is evidence of potential misuse''. Since there isn't, it should be returned to him Ryan. '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 10:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored Swirlboy's account creator flag per consensus here. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] [[User talk:PeterSymonds|<small>(talk)</small>]] 11:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

: So an admin brings this here for a review and people's thoughts. Consensus is, it's not a problem - and from my outside view, it should be removed WHEN an offence occurs, not via an admin using a crystal ball to think an offence might occur. possibly. At some point. The fact said admin then unilaterally removes the access against any semblance of consensus here before "losing" net access smacks very much of "I think this, please validate my view. Oh you didn't, never mind, I'm right anyway". [[User:Minkythecat|Minkythecat]] ([[User talk:Minkythecat|talk]]) 11:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*I originally proposed that SwirlBoy be unbanned, and I can certainly say that since that proposal was passed by the community, he's improved no end. This removal is punishing him for past transgressions, when they are just that: in the past. His conduct is not a current problem. When or if he does abuse this tool, we will take action; at present, however, this is a purely penal measure, with no solid preventative element. I support restoring SwirlBoy's tools. [[User:AGK|<font style="color:#2A8B31;font-family:sans-serif;">'''Anthøny'''</font>]] 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

== xxxxx made in ENGLAND!!!!! ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/207.248.44.241
: This anon IP has been going around to various talk pages of music genres and rather forcefully asserting that they are from England and England only, going as far as to repeatedly remove mention of other areas without discussion. If not a troll, far too agressive. [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] ([[User talk:Zazaban|talk]]) 05:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

::Blocked. <font face="Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</font> 05:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

== This is me trying to get your attention, Mr./Mrs./Miss or whatever admin (Time off all the "block User:XXX" drama) ==

{{resolved|Page restored without personal information &mdash; [[User:E|<span style="color:#003366;font-weight:bold">E</span>]] 08:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)}}
Can someone please restore the article [[Hip hop music]]? Apparently, [[User:Kevin]] deleted the page almost an hour ago per "[[WP:CSD#G6|G6]]: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: rm email address in edit summary". Does it really take that long to get some cleanup done? <small>[[User:Udonknome|<font color="green">'''Do U(knome)?'''</font>]]</small> <sup>[[Special:Random|<font color="red">yes...</font>]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Udonknome|<font color="blue">or no</font>]]</sub> 08:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:{{done}} Restored ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=2&page=Hip_hop_music link]) &mdash; [[User:E|<span style="color:#003366;font-weight:bold">E</span>]] <span style="color:#ED9121">↗[[User talk:E|<sup>T</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/E|<sup>C</sup>]][[Wikipedia:BAG|<sup>B</sup>]]</span> 08:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:The problem may have been the large number of edits in the article (over 3,000) that needed to be restored - from what I understand, some people's systems (and sometimes even Wikipedia) tends to choke. I believe I have restored the article minus the problematic edit. Or actually it looks like two of us tried to restore it at once - hopefully that worked out ok. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#2B0066">[[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup></font> 08:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah, both you guys did a nice job. Thanks for the swiftness. 08:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

== Removal of comments from article talkpage... ==

Hopefully, quick question but, is there a reason why someone's comments would be removed from an article's talkpage but, not show up in the history of said page? This is specifically in relation to the conversation [[User_talk:Jasynnash2#Why the Deletion?| here]]. I'm trying to [[WP:AGF]] and all that but, I can't find any evidence of a contribution by this user to the page in question. If consensus of the admins is that the person is just "trolling" than I'll start a vigorous compaign of ignoring. Otherwise, whatever help or advice can be given is greatly appreciated. I bring it here because to my knowledge admins are the only ones that would be capable of removing the material and the contributions plus you guys are normally much more familiar with things like [[WP:BLP]] and such than I'm probably ever going to be. Either way thanks in advance. [[User:Jasynnash2|Jasynnash2]] ([[User talk:Jasynnash2|talk]]) 08:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:They don't have any deleted contributions either. I'd suggest asking what IP or account they made the comment under, otherwise, they appear to be confused and/or trolling. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#2B0066">[[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup></font> 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

::Since it involves Brandon Link/Lang, it might be tempting to see trolling. On the other hand, this could be something as simple as a newbie not understanding an edit conflict, and your text replacing theirs - and the lack of visible contribs may not mean much when it's an IP.</small> <font color="006622">[[User:SheffieldSteel|S<small>HEFFIELD</small>S<small>TEEL</small>]]</font><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]]</b></small></sup> 16:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

== NOINDEX on various noticeboards and archives proposal ==
I have added {{tl|NOINDEX}} to [[Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all]]. --[[User talk:Random832|Random832]] ([[special:contributions/Random832|contribs]]) 03:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

: I've removed it until we get consensus. At minimum if we are going to add anything like that we need to add a big fat pointer on the template that there is a search tool on the toolserver. And we need a hell of a lot of assurance that that tool won't go down as tools so often do. I suggest putting a discussion about this on AN rather than here which isn't as likely to be noticed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

::My intent was not to open a discussion. It's unacceptable for these to remain visible to google. And there IS a "big fat pointer on the template that there is a search tool on the toolserver", there are in fact '''four''' links to that tool; perhaps you noticed them when you made the edit? --[[User talk:Random832|Random832]] ([[special:contributions/Random832|contribs]]) 16:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

(above was moved from [[WT:AN]] --[[User talk:Random832|Random832]] ([[special:contributions/Random832|contribs]]) 16:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC))
----

I was thinking it may be a good idea to do this. There is a LOT of negative information on living people by name liberally over the years scattered across these--sometimes just plain bad, sometimes in good faith discussions, but all the same findable by search engine. Yes, I know that our internal search somewhat sucks still, but the benefit of our own searching isn't as valuable as not screwing people by their names being found in negative connotations on this site buried in some archive. If the search function is too busted for some, we have lots of very skilled people that can fix it if they wanted to spend the time on it. So, simple proposal. <nowiki>{{NOINDEX}}</nowiki> on every notice page plus archives/talk on the header today:

<center><font color="red">Administrators'</font> • <font color="red">Incidents</font> • <font color="red">ArbCom enforcement</font> • <font color="red">Biographies</font> • <font color="red">Conflict of interest</font> • Ethnic and cultural conflicts • Fiction • <font color="red">Fringe theories</font> • Neutral point of view • Original research • <font color="red">Reliable sources</font></center>

At a dead minimum, the ones in "red" to start as they're most likely to touch on BLPs. <font color="#156917">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 13:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:I'd agree to do this, but I think this proposal would be better at the [[WP:VPR|Village Pump]]. At least make a note there, if you haven't already. - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] ([[User talk:Rjd0060|talk]]) 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:[[WT:AN]] pointed people here, but a reference at VP wouldn't be bad either. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*I think we need to get the gorram search function fixed before we start noindexing the whole place. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 14:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
** Agree strongly with Xeno. I have no objections to no-indexing if a) we have a working search function b) can guarantee that tool will stay functioning and c) add a prominent note at the top of the relevant pages about how to search for people who aren't aware of it. b is the easy step. a and b need to happen first. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 15:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

*NOINDEX them all, and add the Community Sanction Noticeboard to the list. I had added the NOINDEX tags to them last night, but have since been reverted because it "makes it harder to search the archives along and reduces general levels of transparency."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Risker&curid=17996190&diff=233118330&oldid=233113568] This response indicates a need for '''improving the internal search function''', and has nothing to do with transparency.
:*We are depending on Google and other external search engines to do work that needs to be internal. Can you imagine any other responsible organisation using a publicly available search function to document concerns about clientele (in our case, subjects of articles) or personnel (in our case, editors)?
:*On a daily basis, editors complain about "incivility" on any number of noticeboards and talk pages. People get blocked, sometimes even banned, for saying unkind things about other editors (or in some cases, about subjects of articles); we are told that the validity of their words does not excuse the lack of "civility"...and yet we as a community do not apply the same standards to the encyclopedia.
::*There is an attitude amongst many individuals that people who get banned or blocked "deserve" to be named and shamed publicly, and it is the blocked/banned individual's "fault" that Google searches turn up pages suggesting they behaved unacceptably on a top-10 website. The veracity or validity of the complaint is irrelevant to whether or not these posts are searchable outside of Wikipedia.
:*The real life identity of a very significant segment of our editing population is easily linked to their Wikipedia activities, either directly (real-life name as username) or indirectly (by making real-life name available on userpage, etc.) Few of these individuals made that information available expecting to be publicly castigated for failing to follow the rather arcane behavioural rules of Wikipedia. We keep these complaints about editors on pages that often rank highly in search engines despite the fact that many of them relate to editors who are easily identifiable in real life.
::*This information is available to current and future employers, colleagues, clients, police and other security forces, and so on. Is this the kind of thing we want to have following our teenage editors who go on to mature behaviour? Is this what should happen to academics who have spent years in the parry-and-thrust of more direct debate than is permitted by our "civility" policy? Do we want people to be branded "troublemakers" in the outside world because they just don't fit in here?
:*Discussions assessing the "verifiability" of negative information about the subjects of our articles are spread all over the place, and again are searchable outside of Wikipedia.
:*For whom are we trying to make things transparent? Our editors? The information is searchable within Wikipedia already; if people can't find it, improve the search function or help them learn how to use the current one. (I have never had to resort to Google to find information on Wikipedia, and I am hardly a genius when it comes to searching.) Why does the world at large need to know that User So-and-so was blocked for being rude to User Such-and-such, after a 20kb discussion on some noticeboard? It has nothing to do with the quality of the product - the encyclopedia.
:*Our current system highlights the negative editor information (messages on user and user talk pages, noticeboards, etc) over and above any positive editor information (contribution histories, key articles, etc.). It's time that we as a community model the behaviour we expect from our editors. With indexing of noticeboards, our behaviour management process includes promotion of pejorative information about individual editors; we know these pages are highly ranked but we allow them to be widely available, despite the fact that individual editors are frequently blocked/banned for identical behaviour.
:*'''Summary''' - Fix the problem - our internal search function - instead of publicly smearing the subjects of our articles and the editors who produce them. --[[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Agree with Risker (and with several others further up); NOINDEX now, and work on fixing the internal search next. Personally, I am of the belief that the only pages in Wikipedia that should be indexed are article pages and category pages. Everything else is internal workings that does not need to be catalogued by Google/Yahoo/whatever search engine. '''[[User:Horologium|<font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium</font>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Horologium|(talk)]]</small> 16:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::: It will be incredibly damaging to internal functioning if we don't have a search function. I agree completely with the sentiment but it isn't acceptable unless we have a search function. I also strongly object to Risker's claims that anyone here thinks that blocked editors "deserve" to be "shamed" This sis a straw-man argument which no one has ever claimed but is repeatedly brought up. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 16:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::We have a search function, JoshuaZ, it can definitely use improvement, but it ''does'' work and it ''does'' pull up everything I have ever looked for, including information on noticeboards. I was able to do a very indepth summary of evidence using information from noticeboards, for the ''Tango'' RFAR without once resorting to an external search engine. Having this information widely available is not necessary, even with today's search engine. Removing the ability to search externally will promote the improvement of our internal search function because it becomes a high priority. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 16:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Addendum to reply to the other part of JoshuaZ's comment: Please look on this very page to the thread entitled "Greg Kohs aka MyWikiBiz" for some examples (and no, I have no opinion on whether or not he should be unblocked). There are others right here too, including the discussion of removal of a permission from a reformed but formerly blocked editor. This is the kind of stuff I am talking about. Should the discussions happen? Yes, I think so. Should anyone google searching for the name "Greg Kohs" get to this page or its archive (or the archives of those other pages listed in the thread)? No, they should not. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 17:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Also note that we have ''another'' search specifically for the noticeboards, which is linked in the navigation box. --[[User talk:Random832|Random832]] ([[special:contributions/Random832|contribs]]) 16:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::: Ah. I did not know about that. That seems to be functional for AN. That at least takes away the AN, ANI 3RR and CN archives but not the other noticeboards. I'd also strongly prefer that that link was much larger. In any event, I have no objection to putting the Noindex into the Template for the noticeboards. But we need a better search function to use it on the noticeboards other than those 4. (I also think we should wait to get a bit more input in general before taking this large a step) [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 16:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:* NOINDEX must come first to end the harm being done, and perhaps by preventing external search engines from indexing non-article spaces, Necessity will enter the scene trailed by her child Invention, and we will see in short order a leap in internal search functionality. What short-term difficulty some administrators may have with searching non-article space is far outweighed by the ethical obligation to reduce people's exposure to the distorting effects of search engine publicity. [[User:Alanyst|alanyst]] <sup>/[[User talk:Alanyst|talk]]/</sup> 16:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:* NOINDEX is far more important than improving the internal search function and should come first. Anything we really need to find can be found via search and what links here. There is today no need to use external searches to find relevant internal data, it is merely a habit that many have acquired along the way. If a specific location becomes challenging to search, have someone build or modify a toolserver tool. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. We shouldn't be broadly disabling useful functionality for the sake of a few identified people who might prefer Google had a little less to say about them. I understand blocking AFDs and certain focused discussions, but blocking entire noticeboards goes too far for me. Even if we have an internal search as good as Google (and let's be honest, we aren't there yet), I'd still want to maintain Google functionality for people who prefer that interface and the broader comparisons it allows. Most of what is discussed at AN is not harmful to identifiable people, and of that portion which is, a significant fraction is no more harmful than they deserve (if someone is a consummate trouble maker all across the web, there is no reason for us to conceal that fact). The discussions of identifiable people under circumstance that might well warrant redaction are sufficiently few and far between that I can't see how that justifies mangling the searchability of all the other noticeboard content. This simply doesn't pass a balancing test of justification versus negative impact for me. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' So I'm not asking for links to BLP/copyvio/oversight material but where is the demonstrated harm that would cause us to want to eliminate a helpful means to search wikipedia? [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

== "Captain picard's bald head" ==

{{resolved|blocked '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)}}
A new user, [[User:Captain picard's bald head|Captain picard's bald head]], has been removing wikilinks to "[[cactus]]", using the edit summary "(Removing backlinks to Cactus because "Z A I N E B R A H I M = R A P I S T w w w . a v r i l . o n . n i m p . o r g"; using TW)". I would like to inform the user that this is inappropriate. However the user's talk page has been deleted and protected. [[User:Axl|Axl]] ([[User talk:Axl|talk]]) 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:Block by Luna-Santin as a VOA. Thanks for the heads up. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

::Very similar vandalism about 6 hours ago from<p>{{userlinks|Gnomeliberation front}}<br>{{userlinks|Examtester}}<p>both of whom have now been blocked. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:29, 10 October 2008

Fleet tracking can be defined as tracking a fleet of vehicles in real-time using GPS technology, which helps assign the right job to the right vehicle in the right location at the right time.

Knowing where your fleet of vehicles are, where they have been, and where they should be allows a business to reap the maximum benefits of the resources available at a given time, ultimately improving the response to growing customer demands, saving energy and time; the correct mix for a greener business.


Fleet Management

Management of a company's vehicle fleet is undoubtedly a major part of mobile resource management. In March of 2008, the Aberdeen Group published a study on how fleet management impacts both small and large businesses. In this report, entitled Improving Productivity and Profitability through Service Fleet Management[1] businesses were grouped together based on the size of their fleet:

  • 1 to 10 were characterized as small
  • 11 to 50 as medium small
  • 51 to 250 as medium
  • 251 to 1000 as medium large
  • More than 1000 as large

The report also measured the pressures that businesses cited as reasons they desired to increase their efficiency with fleet tracking technology. Of the reasons mentioned by small fleets, a desire to improve the customer experience through improved response times was listed by 73% of the participants and was by far the leading response.

Other reasons businesses cited for wishing to implement some form of GPS vehicle tracking technology were:

  • Reduce service response times (57%)
  • Reduce fleet related operating costs (46%)
  • Increase service related productivity (41%)
  • Extend life of service vehicles (16%)

Applications of commercial vehicle tracking solutions in the fields of transport, logistics, haulage and multi-drop delivery environments can include optimised fleet utilisation, real-time operational enhancements and dynamically remote-managed fleets. Fleet tracking is scalable by design and interfaces with the logistics industry’s leading back-office systems[2].

With rising fuel costs, retailers are smart-routing to avoid traffic jams, either by combining deliveries, improving fleets or reconfiguring routes. This is to maximise the number of deliveries while minimising time and distance. It has been found that even restricting the number of left hand turns can improve on time, efficiency and energy savings[3].

Fuel Economy

Fleet managers and drivers in companies, both large and small, have realized an average savings of nearly 25 percent in reduced ‘downtime costs’ due to maintenance management programmes using a GPS fleet management solution[4].

A company with a fleet of 20 vehicles (medium small business) can typically have one vehicle out of service for unscheduled repairs at least twice every month at an average cost of £ 419 a day (the cost may vary according to industry)[4]. A simple 25% reduction in this unscheduled soft cost can result in an annual savings of nearly £ 2, 514 based on the following formula:

Cost:

£419 x 2 days = £ 838 per month
£838 x 12 months = £ 10,056 per year

Savings:

25% savings x £10, 056 (year) = £ 2,514 per year

Dearer oil is increasing costs for many businesses, particularly those with large fleets of vehicles and is adding a powerful financial impetus to the search for fuel efficiencies. Implementing real-time vehicle tracking as part of a commercial company’s mobile resource management policy is essential for comprehensive operational control, remote driver security and fuel savings[5].

Reduction in Carbon Emissions

An example of how the technology of fleet tracking has a significant role to play in both a measurable reduction in fuel consumption and clear environmental benefits by the reduction in carbon emissions is Interserve, a engineering and support services company, who have both saved 15 per cent of its fuel costs and seen a drop in CO² by tracking its vehicles with satellites[6].

Interserve is using an advanced vehicle tracking system[6]. It works over a web browser and reports vehicle locations every 20 seconds. It also displays mileage information, live traffic information and exception reporting. According to Mark Stimpson, the commercial director for Interserve, fuel bills were estimated to be cut between 10 and 20 per cent.

Using GPS vehicle tracking technology and viewing interactive maps online enabled the company to see where it was losing money, time and wasting fuel (such as on duplicated journeys).

Case study

In the Autumn of 2008, a winter maintenance tracking solution will be supplied on the Highways Agency's new winter service fleet which is responsible for keeping all England's motorway and major A roads free from snow and ice in winter.

The Highways Agency will be able to monitor route treatment progress in real-time and provide customers with more reliable information on road conditions. The telematics system gives the contractors the ability to monitor location-based information, monitor planned versus actual activity, to react to problems and to be confident that roads have been adequately treated. The system also records whether the vehicles are spreading, the rate of and pattern of spreading, width and lane position, and ploughing[7].

Tracking and the Law

In some countries, there are legal concerns over using tracking technology. In the UK, for example, the law stipulates that companies must tell drivers if they use telematics to monitor vehicles for anything other than asset tracking[8].

Future Growth

The current worldwide market for fleet tracking powered by Global Positioning Systems (GPS) receiver technology is estimated at more than £1 billion and is expected to grow to more than £15 billion during the next 10 years[8].

References

  1. ^ http://www.aberdeen.com/summary/report/sector_insights/5006-SI-service-fleets-gps.asp
  2. ^ http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_main_page
  3. ^ [Phil Smith, vice-president, Cisco Systems Phil Smith, vice-president, Cisco Systems]
  4. ^ a b http://gpsfleetmanagement.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/reducing-fleet-soft-costs-with-gps-tracking-can-save-you-big-money/
  5. ^ [The Financial Times Limited 2008 The Financial Times Limited 2008]
  6. ^ a b http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto062320081336386388&page=2
  7. ^ http://www.cybit.co.uk/default.asp?contentID=683
  8. ^ a b http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032426.htm

External sites

Vehicle tracking solutions

Fleet tracking solutions

Highways Agency

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=244338066"