Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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. - jc37 23:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am no admin, but it sounds like a long-overdue move to me. 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. 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. - 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 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. 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 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... 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 Wikipedia:Noticeboard is a redirect to something I've never heard of. I suppose Category:Wikipedia noticeboards is the closest we have. 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. KrakatoaKatie 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). Neıl ☄ 09:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, size 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? Synergy 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. 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 AfD logs.
  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.
  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.
  The sub topics could then be classified however one likes, by having one or more AN pages that list or transclude all open issues.
  --Amalthea^Talk 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. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 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. - jc37 20:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is no where near enough support to make such a major change. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 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? 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). - jc37 07:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support and for a similar measure at Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. seicer | talk | contribs 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. --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 {{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. - auburnpilot talk 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. Corvus cornix_talk 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. - 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. - 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. 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?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) --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. 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. GlassCobra 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? Corvus cornix_talk 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? 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. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 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? 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". So... you're arguing and slow-edit-warring in favour of something you don't have a source for. um. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:26, 20 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.Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

From the perspective of the typical Wikipedia reader, and even the author of this paper, "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are the same phrase and mean the same thing. This really isn't an issue for the admins' noticeboard any longer though. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:24, 21 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)

Calton (again)

Resolved. Blanked & protected, please observe WP:DFTT ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for bringing this here again, but I've got serious concerns about the behaviour of calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 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[1] - 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 [2] (forgot to log in), [3], [4], [5]. Now, I consider the next bit the serious aspect - He was clearly baiting Folksong with this edit; "Poor baby. Would you like a tissue?". After I and Tiptoety had warn him about this, his flippant attitude continued in threads here and 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Before anyone automatically leaps to the defense of a fellow admin -- the 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 this -- and also conveniently leaves off Folksong's vandalism and Folksong's threat of violence. His response to this unacceptable behavior? 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. --Calton | Talk 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Christ, someone should block you for that post alone. Tan ǀ 39 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. --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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 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. --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. Guy (Help!) 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. --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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 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. --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^anetode╦╩ 21:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, it's not, since the actual page in question -- User:Folksong, not User talk:Folksong -- remains. --Calton | Talk 21:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• So does User:J.A.McCoy. WP:MFD is always open. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan: I think clicking here would make most of your troubles and concerns presented here fade away. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Since Calton basically went on a short wikibreak during 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. –xeno (talk) 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^TM, and apparently that makes Calton untouchable by that admin. I believe that Ryan's warning to Calton was perfectly acceptable. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 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, Gazimoff 06:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, shall we fully protect User:Folksong for the time being, until an MfD is called? Cheers, Casliber (talk · 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 {{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 strong action from this forum to require him to behave by basic standards of civility...--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 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.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 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"? _Gb^T/c 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. –xeno (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Ha, you're right. Underlined text added to complete the sentence.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 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 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. _Gb^T/c 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. 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.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 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. _Gb^T/c 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). –xeno (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess he should be allowed to place one appropriate CSD tag, if one applies, but he needs to strictly follow the criteria or he's being disruptive (in other words, U2 applies only if Special:Listusers does not indicate a user for the page). If he starts tagging long strings of pages, with U2 and one of them shows up on Listusers and Calton's blocked. He can't PROD userpages anymore (that rule just changed), so we don't need to worry about that. I'm not sure how much rope we should give him on user talk, there's a lot of damage he can do there. Obviously he needs to be able to communicate with other users but he shouldn't use that as an excuse to send lots of spam warnings regarding the corresponding userpage. I think we need to make it clear that we'll block him if he's uncivil. The problem we're going to face though is that Calton is going to tag a lot of pages with G11 and they're going to be borderline cases - I suggest that if a reviewing admin believes the page might likely survive an MfD, he should be warned and if necessary blocked.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Points system for admin recall

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

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 here. Why would those be NOINDEX? rootology (T) 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. MBisanz ^talk 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. rootology (T) 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to use {{NOINDEX}} for ease of tracking. Jehochman ^Talk 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. rootology (T) 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. --Conti|✉ 02:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That does seem improper. I've taken NOINDEX out of the template. Jehochman ^Talk 02:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If somebody wanted to NOINDEX checkuser subpages, a template like {{rfcu box}} or even {{rfcu top}} might be a better choice. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

All the templates including are here for the curious. rootology (T) 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. –xeno (talk) 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. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

ResearchEditor still pushing

Resolved

Please see this discussion at McMartin preschool trial. ResearchEditor is continuing to push a POV, after a topic ban on satanic ritual abuse (above for anyone who missed the original discussion). Specifically RE is attempting to put undue weight on a non-peer reviewed news publication that reports on child abuse accusations (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:SRA archive and reliable sources noticeboard.

Also note 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 this to the current version. Seriously, it's not like I'm engaging in original research on these pages, all of my edits have been based on and sourced to 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. 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. —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. Mangojuice^talk 15:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Reviewing the histories, the posts occurred before East718's posting to RE's page(McMartin, Michelle Remembrs and East718) and the decision has been amended [6] and RE made aware. I think this is resolved and have tagged the section. 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 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. 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.) —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? WLU (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Biao has stated people left the page because they were "shit on." He basically refuses to edit the page because of his treatment there. The both of your edits created an environment at the page that made sure no contradictory positions were allowed to edit. Anyone whose edits disagreed was brought to AN. The page is now a one-sided joke. With only one position allowed on it. This type of page makes wikipedia look like a joke. The extremist view of panic being the only allowable theory has allowed for the ignoring of 30 - 40 peer reviewed journals as sources and 10 or more books. If anyone had look at either of your edits and done a full investigation, it would have been very clear that your edits pushed an extremely skeptical POV, not allowing any other point of view to exist. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:47, 21 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? --mboverload@ 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. MBisanz ^talk 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. Bencherlite^Talk 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. עוד מישהו 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!"). 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. Protonk (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I usually leave a {{sdd}} or {{sdd2}} template for people when I decline a speedy. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting templates. A shame they don't mention PROD though. 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. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 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. – iridescent 19:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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" (!) Bencherlite^Talk 09:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just testing... – iridescent 00:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what Iridescent said. You'll also see if the page creator comes along and removes your tag, or adds a hangon. Watchlists are a wonderful thing.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:54, 21 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. [7], [8]. 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." [9] 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! 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 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 current one for the latest category incarnation. GRBerry 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  OMG the redirects. I said "help me", not "depress me"! :-( 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 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. Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  WAAAAH! 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. 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? 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. 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. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[/me hands tissue box round. ] Bishonen | talk 11:24, 20 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:

1. Extensive weasel insertion
2. Claims to remove weasel words then adds some of his own
3. More weaseling
4. Here he even admits to posting non neutral views
5. See diff then read his edit summary, NPOV? In who's eyes?
6. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmedinacorona (talk • contribs) 05:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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?--«Javier»|Talk 21:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You should take it as consensus that this is a "simple" content dispute and you should follow dispute resolution instead of here. — Coren ^(talk) 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. --«Javier»|Talk 23:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's baaaaaaaaaack

Remember WP:AMA? Just was tipped off about this. Enjoy. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Same person as last time? Daniel (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they will be just as effective as before. Thatcher 13:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm sure. And Daniel: Not sure. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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. --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. Minkythecat (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Intregity"? 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. --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. Minkythecat (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

hey but he does offer free banking, I guess that's why he's keen to solicit people's email addresses.... --87.113.67.19 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fredrick day, IP blocked. – iridescent 23:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

But...but... it has passive voice, so that makes everything better! You see, "it" "has been found" that "many" difficulties were <insult> <insult> <insult>, and so the project. Any form of the to-be verb plus a past tense verb = passive construction. Watch for it. Nearly every time you see it, someone's up to no good. Geogre (talk) 11:12, 21 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! --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]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::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. пﮟოьεԻ 57 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. --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. 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 diff's, the last one is not encouraging.

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. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Jpgordon has now blocked Shevashalosh indefinitely for legal threats and sockpuppetry. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

To big to delete

Resolved

 – deleted MBisanz ^talk 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? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 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. GRBerry 16:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If this were taken to DRV, would we also need a developer to undelete? :) --NE2 16:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(two e/c!)It doesn't need a developer; it needs a steward. they have "bigdelete" privilege. Paragon¹²³²¹ 16:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hrm the db lag wasnt as bad as I thought it would be. –xeno (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  Somehow, Maxim (talk · contribs) managed to delete it despite not having dev rights. Oh, well done. MBisanz ^talk

Currently, the deleted article has less than 5000 revisions. So what happened here? 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). –xeno (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

When I (stupidly) deleted 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....Keeper ǀ 76 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. Rmhermen (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't split the revisions, but I managed to overcome the initial bigdelete problem. ([[WP:BEANS|but I'm not in the mood to share how to do it publicly, please email me if you wanna know how, perhaps, I managed to delete that page]]) Maxim (☎) 20:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Page move done wrong - possibly controversial

Resolved

 – Page moved back, discussion open on article talk page if needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 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 no discussion on the talkpage about this move, which may be seen as a controversial move. D.M.N. (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see ElKevbo (talk · contribs) moved it back. Thanks, 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. Dalejenkins | 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. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dale, we call things by their most commonly-known name, when we can. Friday (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that 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). 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. how do you turn this on 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? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Colon, close parenthesis. --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? 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? how do you turn this on 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. MBisanz ^talk 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 officially up to 38 and may be as high as 63. HalfShadow 19:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And doesn't he have a legal threat outstanding? From what I understand, that was the reason behind the end of his last legitimate attempt to return here. Blueboy96 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. - 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? Guy (Help!) 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  He didn't plagiarize. Kelly ^hi! 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. Tiptoety ^talk 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. Keeper ǀ 76 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 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 what Wikipedia is should be enough to keep him blocked. Blueboy96 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. how do you turn this on 20:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Eh what's wrong with Wikipedia Review? Peter Damian (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Nothing. It's the posts from Greg there that are troubling. how do you turn this on 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. 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. how do you turn this on 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Per Guy and MBisanz, lifting the ban is a bad idea. --David Shankbone 20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Can some brave soul unblock User:MyWikiBiz? 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. --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. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 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. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 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. Guy (Help!) 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. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 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. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Seth, Kohs is a drama whore. He outs his own socks. Guy (Help!) 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. 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. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wars end when one side has the courage to propose peace. Jehochman ^Talk 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. RMHED (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Then we need a WP:BADDOGS policy to go after those darned Attack Dogs! *Dan T.* (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. --Relata refero (disp.) 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... Guy (Help!) 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. --Rodhullandemu 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. Jehochman ^Talk 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. --Rodhullandemu 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Qui bono? What good does it do Wikipedia to have him back? Corvus cornix_talk 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. Jehochman ^Talk 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 "MyWikiBiz" article draft Neil is doing. rootology (T) 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. Jehochman ^Talk 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? *Dan T.* (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.--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. Jehochman ^Talk 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.--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. Jehochman ^Talk 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. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  Wow. Seeing "per Seth Finkelstein, Jehocman, and Swatjester" actually is a bit disturbing to me ;) ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 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 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' - Alison ^❤ 23:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Switched to oppose unblock at this time. See below - Alison ^❤ 01:34, 21 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. Kelly ^hi! 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. – iridescent 23:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• 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 C68, FM, SV arbitration case:

"(JzG) Admin deleted an article then said the recreation was written by him, although the two were almost identical [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Adamantly asserted that the recreated version was written ab initio [16], 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."[17]

The article that JzG claimed he wrote was actually written by Kohs. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that a blatant GFDL violation? Kelly ^hi! 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the point. —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! Kelly ^hi! 23:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot more to this than is misrepresented by Cla68.--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. Kelly ^hi! 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. --David Shankbone 23:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he can use "thekohser" which he has for SUL I believe. —Giggy 23:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock, and get over our paranoia of people who disagree with us. Per iridescent and Swatjester. —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 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 Durova. Kohs is as far as I can tell interested in three things: trolling, disruption, and self-promotion. 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 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. --Rodhullandemu 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. 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 core policies to further his god-given right to make a buck, why should he remain blocked? Yuri "The Fool" Karlov (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• I think what we do is pretty simple - we 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 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. Kelly ^hi! 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. 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? Kelly ^hi! 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. 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. Kelly ^hi! 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. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
            • No, I found this YouTube Interview, which predates the link you provided by many months. Kelly ^hi! 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. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
                • If she publicly discloses her identity, how can she be "outed"? Kelly ^hi! 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? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • Joshua, your statement that Kohs created a picture of Durova wearing underwear is a lie. 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. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • Josh, can we see some evidence that Kohs "Outed" Durova against her will? Kelly ^hi! 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. 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". Kelly ^hi! 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. -- 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? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • On what basis are you making that prognostication? Kelly ^hi! 01:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Logic. Isn't it amazing? 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? Kelly ^hi! 01:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Let me assure you I do understand the viewpoint, and my position is a realpolitik 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 illusion of having some influence. Not pretty, but the world is often ugly. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Can someone point me to the original discussion of his ban? Anthony (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See this and the next section below it, "Let's make this official". --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. RxS (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No, according to Cla68, it's a bullshit claim. Kelly ^hi! 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? RxS (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Agreed, evidence seems rather thin on the ground, once you disregard the hyberbole and personal attacks. Kelly ^hi! 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. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Anyone dispute this? Because I actually think (I think) remember this. RxS (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
          • He put a picture of her face on a picture of underwear. 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? 72.255.13.241 (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

<= 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. RxS (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 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), [18] (yesterday), and User_talk:Feline_Who_Watches_You_Masturbate_From_Above (this month). Wet Floor evidence: [19] and onwiki, Feline evidence: [20] — Rlevse • Talk • 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. Kelly ^hi! 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. how do you turn this on 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). — Coren ^(talk) 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. Kelly ^hi! 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. how do you turn this on 02:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, Greg's behaved quite unreasonably here in the past. Things like impersonation, 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? east718 // talk // email // 02:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• 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. krimpet✽ 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?Steven Walling (talk) 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. 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. Steven Walling (talk) 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. bibliomaniac15 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. Wizardman 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. 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^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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 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. Viridae^Talk 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 {{unblock}} template like everyone else? MBisanz ^talk 13:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Well remember that this unblock request wasn't initiated by him and to my knowledge noone had actually to that point asked him if he wanted to be unblocked. Viridae^Talk 09:38, 21 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC) ps. Unblock Why not? There will be too many eyes for any unseemly editing to slip by.

  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. 72.255.19.253 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  I believe you just did, - but you are wrong in inferring that WP editors who openly contribute to WR (and who are you 72.255.19.253 to be aware who does and who doesn't?) are asking that Kohs past be ignored; most are saying that he should be allowed to prove he can contribute usefully, and can be easily reblocked if it proves otherwise, since blocks (and even bans) are supposed to be preventative and not punitive. Also, those who contribute to WR have the advantage of seeing how Kohs reacts in an environment that is generally supportive; personally I don't think it is fantastic, but it is no worse than many WP editors who are recognised for the work they do rather than their style of interation with other contributors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 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. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 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). howcheng {chat} 16:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Unblock No way. Seems that there are some here who wish to tear WP down by spreading discord and stir drama wherever and whenever possible. I can think of no reason for an unblock other than to do just that. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break; Durova's proposal - compromise to unblock with conditions

Does anyone have access to John Bauer artwork that isn't halftoned? Durova^Charge! 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, Durova^Charge! 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.--David Shankbone 03:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Question - how can you "insult Wikipedia"? Kelly ^hi! 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. how do you turn this on 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? Kelly ^hi! 03:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You asked a question, I gave you an answer. Is there anything else? how do you turn this on 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. --David Shankbone 04:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a love/hate relationship with Wikipedia is natural and no big deal. I certainly have one. I appreciate and enjoy the opportunity that the project gives to write articles on subjects that interest me for a large, general audience. But, I also have serious misgivings on how the project is administered and I'm not afraid to say so both on-wiki and off. So, to ask Kohs not to disparage Wikipedia itself is, I think, unnecessary. Also, if Wikimedia's house is in order as a charitable entity, then it doesn't have anything to worry about from anyone's efforts to challenge it's tax status. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Cla, it is one thing to say one has a love-hate relationship. I doubt almost anyone who edits here frequently has a simple relationship to the project. But think about what it says about Kohs' attitude towards the project. The level of hatred to try to try to remove the Foundation's charitable status? It either demonstrates deep, vitriolic hatred or it is yet another piece of evidence that Kohs will lash out at people for even small slights. Either way, we have no need for him here. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just ass-kissers who toe the party line. If Kohs wants to edit productively and says he'll try follow the rules, he should be unblocked. By the way, Durova, didn't you claim that Kohs lied to a reporter about wikipedia and then failed to back up your claim with any evidence when Greg challenged you in self-defense? You might want to think about resolving this. And you might want to consider that you had a hand in creating this whole mess. --Duk 01:04, 21 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.--Kubigula (talk) 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? Jehochman ^Talk 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 {{unblock}} reqs or other relevant statements. MBisanz ^talk 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. --David Shankbone 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. 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. Jehochman ^Talk 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. 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. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock proposal per Alison and other commments. Peter Damian (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose to unblock proposal. --David Shankbone 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 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:

1. He becomes a productive editor
2. He acts so atrociously he gets himself blocked with broad community support and we go back to where we were.
3. 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. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 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 Thekohser (talk · contribs)), 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. Neıl ☄ 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Minkythecat (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz: partial bibliography

80+ pages link to User:MyWikiBiz. Given the confusion with some of the history, here's a partial biblography; others can add additional links

Start with:

• 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:

• [Arch Coal] as it reportedly appeared at http://mywikibiz.com/wikifiedarticles/corp-artcls/Arch_Coal.html
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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^[21][22]
• 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.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 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? MBisanz ^talk 08:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

100 edits

Kohs has 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.) --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. 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. --David Shankbone 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? RxS (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for this strange claim? I haven't noticed this in any of the articles I look at. Mostly pure vandalism. Peter Damian (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at recent changes. Lot's and lot's of good edits pouring in. RxS (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with setting a positive example than with what Kohs would potentially contribute (although I expect it would be good work and I don't dismiss anybody's work as a drop in the ocean). It would be very positive, in my view, to show that we can let go of the past and give him another chance; it would be even more positive as an example if someone as critical as Kohs could function as a productive editor, without causing significant problems or being baited by his opponents. Everyking (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing anyone's good work. But we're not talking about "anyone", we're talking about someone who put an editor in good standings face on underwear and tried to sell it. And someone even as we speak who is calling editors here spineless little twits, Wikipediots and dim-witted. I'm perfectly fine with letting go of the past, but I don't see any change in attitude or in behavior that would lead me to believe anything would change. So why waste time with this until there is some indication of a change of attitude? RxS (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous suggestion. If Kohs want's to edit productively and say's he'll try to follow the rules, he should be unblocked. Let's cut out the gimmicks, Greg. --Duk 01:26, 21 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. naerii 12:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• After reading thekohser's posts about this thread on Wikipedia Review, oppose (immediate) unblock. He cannot be possibly be serious about the things he writes and demands. --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. Avruch ^T 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My argument is slightly more complex than that, which I think moves it out of the realm of the ridiculous and to idea of harm reduction - Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:19, 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. Friday (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Giving Kohs' general behavior he would almost certainly be more disruptive if officially unblocked. Moreover, this is aside from the message it sends to our other users. (People seem to forget that counting across multiple Wikipedia projects Durova has more featured media then any other individual(I'm pretty sure this is true. If one restricts oneself to the English Wikipedia and to Commons this is certainly true). At a certain point we need to think about which users are most helpful and keep those. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Unblock. I’m often flabbergasted by the manner in which our community drives away and alienates many gifted, articulate, creative people who could be of immense benefit to our project. Greg is among the many talented editors we’ve alienated and I say bring him back and let him demonstrate he can edit productively. The risk in allowing him another opportunity is low. --MPerel 19:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment. Yes. So much so. Peter Damian (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Is this the same Greg that we're talking about? Greg spends most of his time either whining or engaging in self-promotion. generally both. I see no evidence that Greg is a "talented editor". JoshuaZ (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, his writing was good enough that an admin was willing to plagerize an article Kohs wrote and claim it as his own writing. Seth has a point and it should be taken seriously. Cla68 (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Unblock I'd rather have my face stapled shut. To be precise, I'd rather have his face stapled shut, but... HalfShadow 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• There's no way I'm going to support an unblock whilst Greg still feels it's OK to attack other users based on appearance - We don't need the hassle, and we don't need to alienate good faith contributors who have to put up with that. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock This is not a constructive user. He is someone who has done all he can to undermine this project. MPerel says "bring him back and let him demonstrate he can edit productively". But he hasn't gone away; he's been sockpuppeting in a very disruptive manner continually. Why does anyone imagine that an unblock will magically redeem him?--Bedivere (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note Despite Greg's most recent characterizations, he's emailed me indicating he's having trouble figuring out how to apply the {{unblock}} template to User talk:Thekohser, I've responded with more detailed instructions, so some admins might want to watchlist that page in case he needs a review. MBisanz ^talk 21:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Why do we want him back while even today on another site he's doing the equivalent of making jackoff signs while pointing at us? HalfShadow 21:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock. While I greatly respect the opinions of several editors above who support giving this user another chance, I'm going to agree with Ryan and others on this one: it's not worth the hassle. We certainly cannot be so desperate for editors that we are willing to take back someone who has so blatantly disregarded our policies and social mores on many, many occasions. Let's take the effort it would require to monitor this person and instead invest it in welcoming and mentoring new users. — Satori Son 21:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock at this time, could support later. Mr Kohs can't seem to resist trying to "prove" his points off-wiki or via various socks. In addition, some members of our community seem to see red anytime his name is mentioned, regardless of merits. As long as this pattern stays recent or near-recent, I think the chance of his productive and collaborative involvement in the community is unlikely. Even though it's against policy, I've suggested in the past that Mr Kohs set up a new username (yes, a sock, to call a spade a spade) and spend significant time participating anonymously in a noncontroversial manner. This is not 100 good edits - he's had good socks that made that number of good edits before he presumably couldn't resist jumping into old haunts - it's several months of sustained contributions and engagement with the community, not trying to reshape it or prove his points, but collaborate with it and learn how it really works and thinks. If Mr Kohs is serious about wanting to support Wikipedia's development in the long term, he should be able to resist fighting the same old battles for a few months. I'd like to hope that peace and quiet on the Kohs front for e.g. 3-6 months followed by a tip-off from him to a trusted user that a specific single sock of his that has helped write decent articles, participated fruitfully and noncombatively in community discussions, all over a span of several thousand edits (and other socks have not been combative or pointy in the meanwhile), could much more easily generate consensus to "unban". I put that in quotes since all it would then mean is linking his name back to his new identity. By the way, I hope either NOINDEX is active on this page or that someone will courtesy blank it once it is concluded, given the RL impacts, which cannot be avoided at this juncture. Martinp (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Unless he created his sock account with permission from the ArbCom or Jimbo, the account would probably be banned immediately when his identity was revealed. In the past, constructive editing has not been seen as a mitigating factor in sockpuppeting by banned users (not that I agree with that attitude), and I don't think anyone would be willing to invest months of work into an account without a guarantee that it wouldn't be banned as soon as the identity was disclosed. Everyking (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Meaningless question. If Kohs' only goal were to contribute productively to the encyclopedia, he could just start another new sock and avoid all the behavior that has gotten him banned in the past. He doesn't need an unblock to behave in a way that is welcomed by the community. This "unblock me" initiative is a battle about trying to force us to accept him on his own terms. No camel's nose in the tent, thank you. If you really want to contribute to Wikipedia, just stop acting like a camel. If you want us to accept a camel in the tent, the answer is no.--Father Goose (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking/unbanning. (I have posted once above, but since someone asked for !votes, I'll be more unambiguous.) This is a person who has (legally) threatened Wikipedia/Wikimedia, has conducted a public-opinion campaign against Wikipedia, has evaded blocks/bans via sockpuppetry, has used Wikipedia for promotion of his business, has engaged in personal attacks and ridicule of other editors, and is now (apparently) demanding apologies from admins here for his treatment. I'm a person with a lot of patience, and I always begin with assuming good faith, but at this point I think I have to add my name to the "over my dead body" chorus. (Plus the very good point noted by Father Goose above, which is that if he really wanted to just contribute, he'd pick an account, edit quietly, and shut up about it. He doesn't want to do that; he wants to win an argument with us.) --MCB (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock Perhaps to put much of the above into other words, I don't think Mr Kohs is ready. If his outlook ever does become a fit for Wikipedia, few will know and fewer will even care if he's come back. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Switching to Oppose unblock - I'd originally suggested a conditional unblock, but this and this are deal-breakers for me. This whole Durova thing needs to end & I don't think MWB can return here as long as that is still festering, sorry - Alison ^❤ 01:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Concur, assuming that was indeed Kohs. As long as he can't resist the urge to jump in with "corrections" via a sockpuppet to this very discussion within hours, rather than waiting for a while and then making a calm statement if really needed, then he is clearly not ready to be unbanned. That does not excuse that there is a lot of unnecessary heat in this discussion by Mr Kohs' critics, but for better or worse if we did allow him to come back in any way linked to his former username he would be in for a lot more of the same. Unfortunately, as perusal of any number of RFC's and Arb cases shows, the "sport" of bear baiting on EN:WP is altogether too irresistible for some. Martinp (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose unblock. — Athaenara ✉ 02:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock absent any demonstration of good faith. Theoretically, we could unblock Kohs on the grounds that, in the long run, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The best case scenario gains us a valuable and knowledgeable contributor and in the worst case he gets indef blocked and banned again. However, the potential for drama and disruption in the meanwhile is considerable. There is also the question - which, as a relative newbie to all this, I must ask - of what the "upside" is, i.e. whether Kohs was ever a good faith contributor to Wikipedia. My understanding of the MyWikiBiz story is that his edits were motivated purely by money, and as such he had no interest in improving Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Bedivere and Sheffield Steel have put their fingers on the key issues; this is not a productive user and he has shown no willingness to become such in future. Kohs has no "right" to edit Wikipedia and shouldn't fool himself into thinking that he does; he's had his chances but squandered them. So be it - we can do without him. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with paid-for editing, as it is always the unpaid editors who are the worst and most fanatical, and Kohs is a smart chap - but I really do not think his personality is well adjusted for collaborative editing. An unblock is probably a bad idea. Moreschi (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tallied the consensus vote so far

If I'm wrong with where I put anyone, please feel free to let me know. I tried to create a dichotomy as nebulously pro- and anti- as I could. Here's the tally. --David Shankbone 01:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you place the tally here so we don't have to go to your blog. --Duk 01:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And to put the overall numbers here for convenience, David has 24 for immediate lifting. 37 against lifting and 5 on the fence or of unclear opinion. Obviously the actual breakdown is more complicated since we have a variety of different circumstances under which some people will let Kohs back. Moreover, the 24 includes people who want immediate lifting but disagree with how much restriction Greg should be under. So both the 24 and the 37 can be broken down further. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly. I just wanted to try to garner a clear sense of what decisions, if any, had come out of all the dialogue and voting. Once the consensus is gleaned as to those two questions in the post, then the next two issues appear:

1. Yes, lift the ban with restrictions. What restrictions?

2. No, do not immediately lift the ban. Then in 3 months? 6 months? Indefinite?

That's how I saw it going through it all (whew!). --David Shankbone 01:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also note that Alison just switched to opposing which brings the tally to 23 for and 38 against. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"consensus vote" is a contradiction in terms. There quite clearly is no consensus on this issue. We don't make ban decisions based on votes, so this issue should probably be taken to ArbCom. --Tango (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I understand where you are coming from, but what is the point of all the dialogue if we can't come to at least some basic, general conclusions as to how people think? ArbCom is premature, but I agree regardless of whether he wants to edit or not, it should have an ArbCom decision just so that we can end this unending saga with some formality. I think the community as a whole would benefit from a decision to help everyone move on. --David Shankbone 01:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems like there is a consensus at least not to unban him at this time. Why don't we pick a fixed amount of time and wait to rediscuss it then? Say 60 days? Presumably if he is on good behavior during that time he'll have a much better chance getting unblocked then. Frankly, the ArbCom is operating so slowly at this point that Greg could likely get unblocked due to the Durova proposal before they made up their mind. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to unban him, that's not the same as a consensus not to unban him. There are a significant number of people supporting an unban. ArbCom isn't a great option, but it's the only alternative we have when a consensus cannot be reached. Durova's proposal doesn't require a consensus to be reached at this time - if Kohs accepts the proposal he can approach the community in 6 months and request unblocking and we can discuss it then (I suspect a consensus could be reached if he's abided by her conditions). If my understanding of policy is correct, any admin could unblock him immeadiately and it would be up to someone else to take the matter to ArbCom and request a ban - if any admin is willing to unblock, then there is no community ban. Do any of the admins supporting an unban feel strongly enough about it to unilaterally unblock him? If not, then he remains banned until such an admin exists, or ArbCom overrules the community. --Tango (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Eh. Note that since David's tally Alison has switched over to opposing and three more opposes showed up. That makes it 41 against and 23 for. If this were an article we'd be likely be calling this a consensus to delete (on the other hand, if we did, I' likely be rushing over to DRV to change it no-consensus. And then I'd get slapped down. So I don't know if that's a good analogy). JoshuaZ (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A consensus exists only when there is no significant opposition (or no opposition at all, by some definitions). There is no way this can be considered a consensus. If this were an AFD, the closing admin would probably use their understanding of policy to judge the validity of the comments on each side in order to make a decision, that doesn't really apply here. --Tango (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, exactly the point of the tally, to demonstrate that it would be an unwise admin who flew in the face of so many concerned members in good standing. Clarity helps everyone, and help forge decisions. --David Shankbone 02:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like you're looking less to clarity and more to influencing the vote. Nobody likes to back the wrong horse, as you point out here. However, I urge people to comment dispassionately here and not necessarily go with the majority just because they're the majority, y'know? It's often a sign of a strong admin who'll go against consensus to make their voice heard. Just sayin' ... - Alison ^❤ 03:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever decision is made here, I'd like to see a better consensus. Perhaps Greg himself can help by using his talk page to explain what he plans to do here if unblocked. On the other side, I'd really like to see Greg's perceived opponents not to anything to raise the temperature. It will be best for Wikipedia to let go of old disputes. That may not be possible right now, but in time hopefully people will see the benefit of not holding grudges. Jehochman ^Talk 03:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have no grudge to hold against Mr. Kohs. In fact, I do not believe I have ever had any dealings with him whatsoever. I simply believe it would be unwise to allow such a problematic editor back into our community. Wikipedia is not for everyone. I do certainly wish him well in his other endeavors. — Satori Son 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with both Alison and Jehochman. I would like to see better consensus than only 2/3rds as well, and I think old disputes need to be hung up. I think Greg was shafted back in 2006, and I think his behavior since then has exacerbated the problem. The problem was Greg's rants on WR yesterday to this discussion, calling us "Wikipediots" and making fun of people's physical appearances. Greg styles himself as the Ken Kesey of Wikimedia, with nothing but harmless practical jokes and WP:POINT demonstrations. He should be more understanding that many people have not appreciated the jokes, but feel they were the butt of them. As everyone here knows, this is a collaborative environment. This is not "I will come on and hand down my 100 edits on stone tablets and let ye judge and apologize", this is "I will attempt to make 100 changes and will work with other editors on any issues with incorporating them." The only point of the tally was exactly to show where we stand, not that we have definitive consensus. The issue becomes problematic when Tango starts advocating some admin be bold against 2/3rds of the participants and unblock. That's more problematic, I think everyone agrees, than trying to figure out where everyone stands in the discussion. --David Shankbone 12:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's indeed more than ok to keep talking and keep his talk page open for this. So far I see no consensus to unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The reality is that "unbanned" is an editor's natural state. There's no need for a "Concensus to unban", there is need for a "concensus to keep banned". Now, looking at it, I don't see that it's obvious Mr. Kohs is willing to meet the kind of conditions people would want to enough that there's no longer a concensus to ban.

That said, it seems easy enough to me that the easiest way to resolve it is to unblock him, watch him like a hawk, and reblock him once he makes a misstep (and having read a bit of what he's been saying, this seems inevitable). If someone is willing to watch him for an extended period (Probably measured in time rather than edits), why not just unblock him and see if a ban if justified? His history is not so problematic that a short unblock would be the end of the world. If he resorts to personal attacks or mudslinging, its easy enough to reblock with a strong ban concensus. If not, nothing is lost. People can complain that he's exhausted the community's patience, but if someone has the patience to keep him under their gaze, then nobody else has to do anything, and if he's a problem, he's his babysitter's responsibility. Easy-peasy (as me mother wou'd say, eh?) WilyD 13:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ehm. I made a comment above, but am not in any particular "side" here. I was put under the "do not unban" side, when really, I would agree to an unban if he was willing to work positively with the community. Right now, all I see from him are sour grapes and shots being thrown in this direction from Wikipedia Review. He just doesn't seem to be interested in working positively.

I find the name of this section odd. I agree with Tango a "consensus" is not a vote. Consensus is more like a general agreement amongst everyone. There'll never be agreement here. how do you turn this on 13:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He's also apparently sending nasty emails as well. I got an insulting email from Greg. I replied briefly to the one substantive remark in the email and then recieved follow-up email had further insults and a borderline threat. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if this may sound a bit harsh but it is my humble opinion. In fact, I have no current particular interest in this case apart from hoping to see it resolved one way or another. I tried to mediate between Kohs and Durova months ago but failed. But you seem to insist more than enough on responding to almost every comment in this thread. Most of your comments are redundant indeed. It is not helpful. Probably that is a bad idea and time consuming since it appears you had to open your mailbox too many times expecting to get e-mails full of smileys. Please, let's hear about other people's input; there are a couple of good ideas being presented. By the way, is this a popularity contest voting or seeking a resolution? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• He has a bunch of confirmed and suspected socks: he will probably keep editing Wikipedia under socks if he remains "blocked". If he is unblocked and edits constructively, great. If he is unblocked and edits disruptively, he'll be blocked again, will have lost much of the basis for his complaints against Wikipedia, and presumably we won't discuss this again for a long time. Gimmetrow 17:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Given his socking during this discussion, I have to say it looks pretty bad. Hostile emails? Pretty bad. If Mr. Kohs really wants to demonstrate good faith, another project where none of his usual antagonists are active would probably be best, I think it's time we move on and revisit the issue if he has a change of heart down the road. Further discussion now seems pointless. WilyD 18:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am fairly new tot his situation, but there seems to be something very flawed in our process. It seems to me that the fundamental question is whether or not Greg Kohs acknowledges that some of his behavior has been disruptive, and is committed to making a positive contribution. I see a number of references above to emails and off-site behavior that, supposedly, demonstrates that Greg is not ready; but those references are not accompanied by diffs or any other kind of substantiation. Even more problematic, is that we have not enabled Greg to participate in this discussion. The fundamental question is one that only he can answer, and yet we have denied him the opportunity to do so. If Greg demonstrates the right attitude, I think the obvious answer would be an unconditional lifting of the ban. If not, there's nothing to discuss. Either way, it should be handled in a way that respects his dignity (i.e. do not exclude him from a discussion about him), and minimizes the demand on volunteer resources. We all have better things to do. -Pete (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I just unblocked MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs) for the reasons above -- so that he may participate in this discussion. Obviously, my action has no bearing on the ban that's in place, which is a social mechanism, not a technical one. If MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs) uses the unblocking to do anything beyond present his views in this discussion, I think a quick reblocking and closure of this discussion would be appropriate; but assuming that he proceeds in good faith, this discussion may be allowed to progress instead of spinning its wheels. -Pete (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Engage Kohs directly

So often these things become people talking at each other, or making accusations about each other, instead of talking with each other. I encourage people to talk to Greg on his talk page, where he can respond, if you have any questions or concerns. I think that's more helpful than the communication divide now. --David Shankbone 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Greg's attitude is to blackmail the community that if we do not unblock him and give him a fresh start, he will continue to engage in a campaign of "relentless sockpuppetry and antagonism." I do not understand how this reflects his desire to join a collaborative community in the least. --David Shankbone 20:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey harassment

I have asked user:Scjessey to not post to my talk page several times [23], [24], [25], 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 [26]. 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 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? 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 I've even blocked one who didn't listen, but don't tell anyone, as I'm pretty sure that broke a rule. 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. --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 nutshell

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.

. I will be more than happy to leave him to his thing if he would leave me to mine for the time being. CENSEI (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to thank Friday for informing me of this discussion. Secondly, I would like to say that this concerns a content dispute that involved CENSEI deleting text from the Dana Milbank BLP and then edit warring over it. My first message on CENSEI's talk page pointed out the problem with the first edit, and the response was edit warring and name calling. I dismissed the edit summary-based "threat" and 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. -- 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. CENSEI (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Leave each other alone" means "Leave each other alone". Starting..... now. --barneca (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I will throw in a special door prize for whichever editor allows the other to have The Last Word. Go back to making edits that are "grossly NPOV". MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree; we want "grossly NPOV" edits. --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. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm... this news is a bit old. And Grawp now just drops off the http:// piece of the URL, bypassing the filter. --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. --NE2 23:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SwirlBoy39 ACC flag

Resolved

 – Flag returned, access restored SQL^{Query me!} 18:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I recently found that SwirlBoy39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had access to the ACC flag. Now, this wouldn't normally be a problem, but he has previous been community banned as Bugman94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 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 here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 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 - Alison ^❤ 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 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 - Alison ^❤ 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 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 - Alison ^❤ 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. how do you turn this on 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. –xeno (talk) 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. Mr.Z-man 04:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree, return the flag to Swirlboy, there is absolutely no indication he has misused it. Prodego ^talk 07:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh Ryan, you've already gone ahead and 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 - Alison ^❤ 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. Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 07:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(Apparently Ryan P can't reply for a bit, his internet is down.) - FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 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 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. —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. Synergy 10:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored Swirlboy's account creator flag per consensus here. PeterSymonds (talk) 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". 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. Anthøny 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would also support a restoration of SwirlBoy39's ACC tool. Revoking the ACC tool just because he was banned for sock puppetry when SwirlBoy has reformed does certainly sounds like he is being punished. Actions like these should only be done as a prevention from multiple misuses, not punishment. Though, if SwirlBoy was recently unbanned, then I would highly oppose a restoration. But in this case, he has shown he has reformed and I would assume he will not misuse the tool. -- RyRy (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• absolutely support Swirlboy's tool access. No indication of poor behavior. RyanP's actions both in creating this report, and removing the tool with no indication of problems is the kind of abusive admin action that we DO NOT NEED. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• The tool removal was dealt with in the appropriate forum for an off-wiki tool, and is back as it was. Also, Swirlboy got his flag back (Agree on both cases, personally, as I said on the mail list). I'm going to mark this as resolved now. SQL^{Query me!} 18:49, 21 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. Zazaban (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Mr.Z-man 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 — E 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 "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: rm email address in edit summary". Does it really take that long to get some cleanup done? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Restored (link) — E ↗^TCB 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. Shell ^babelfish 08:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, both you guys did a nice job. Thanks for the swiftness. 08:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a bit of a potential trap - I deleted but never got the usual confirmation screen, just an internal error message. At that point the page still seemed to be there, probably because of my browser cache. Now that I know it can happen, I can do a refresh to see what mediawiki actually did. Kevin (talk) 22:59, 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 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. 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. Shell ^babelfish 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. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

NOINDEX on various noticeboards and archives proposal

Resolved

 – Discussion has been moved to a policy proposal page. Protonk (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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

I have added {{NOINDEX}} to Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all. --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. 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? --Random832 (contribs) 16:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(above was moved from WT:AN --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. {{NOINDEX}} on every notice page plus archives/talk on the header today:

Administrators' • Incidents • ArbCom enforcement • Biographies • Conflict of interest • Ethnic and cultural conflicts • Fiction • Fringe theories • Neutral point of view • Original research • Reliable sources

At a dead minimum, the ones in "red" to start as they're most likely to touch on BLPs. rootology (T) 13:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree to do this, but I think this proposal would be better at the Village Pump. At least make a note there, if you haven't already. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WT:AN pointed people here, but a reference at VP wouldn't be bad either. MBisanz ^talk 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think we need to get the gorram search function fixed before we start noindexing the whole place. –xeno (talk) 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. 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."[27] 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. --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. Horologium (talk) 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. 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. 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. 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. --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) 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. alanyst ^/talk/ 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. 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. Dragons flight (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"[A] significant fraction is no more harmful than they deserve ..." Thank you for proving my point, Dragons flight. We aren't here to punish people, even if they are complete jerks, or totally incompetent. We might block them or ban them because they cannot work within our system. Overtly and consciously publishing their misdeeds is the internet equivalent of The Scarlet Letter. Risker (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And your point? You seem to want to protect everyone, even complete trolls, from the justifiable and predictable consequences of their actions, but you have no concern for protecting the rest of the internet from them. We don't go out of our way to publicly chastise people, but neither should we go out of our way to protect them. Dragons flight (talk) 17:46, 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? Protonk (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be posting at length to this discussion tonight. At least, I would like to, if I can locate a particular location where the central discussion is located. Is it here or there or where? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be the central discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want a centralised discussion Brad, you'll have to make one. What to NOINDEX isn't just an admin issue. Why not use Wikipedia:What to noindex? WilyD 17:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• How about a challenge? Maybe I'm wrong about this issue, but before I might conceed that, I'd like a demonstration that a real problem exists. Give me four or five examples of people who if you put their real name (and only their name) into Google then you get a negative noticeboard discussion within the first 20 or 30 hits. If having these archives are really profoundly distructive then such examples ought to be easy to find right? I've already tried several well known trolls and none had a noticeboard hit in their first 30 google hits. Dragons flight (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Update

I've created a proposal here. Discussion may continue on the talk page there, so as to not fill up WP:AN. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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

"Captain picard's bald head"

Resolved

 – blocked MBisanz ^talk 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A new user, 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. Axl (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Block by Luna-Santin as a VOA. Thanks for the heads up. MBisanz ^talk 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Very similar vandalism about 6 hours ago from

Gnomeliberation front (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Examtester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

both of whom have now been blocked. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Lordvader2009

I've templated him, some of the image bots have templated him, other's have left him a personalized message, I've left him a personalized message, and even threw in a last {{uw-copyright4}} warning. His reply to all these have been to blank his talk page. But as can been seen from the log he's went ahead and uploaded two more copyvio's that have already been speedied. I'm guessing asking him kindly to stop isn't going to work. Q ^{T C} 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's too much of a problem here. Sure, he's blanking his talk page which is pretty unreasonable behavior in and of itself, but his "evils" aren't that great either - just two copyvio uploads. I edit in the same circle of articles as them and am willing to clean up their messes. east718 // talk // email // 06:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

English nationalist

Okay, so this is getting pretty ridiculous... All he does is slant articles favorable towards England and complain about everywhere else. I can't tell if whoever it is is being serious or if they're just trolling for the sake of trolling, but they need to stop. There's already been attempts at warning him, but he just deletes them and then tells people not to post on his talk page or he'll "report" them. I hate nationalists with an undying, vehement passion, so it would probably not be good for me to try to intervene because chances are good that I wouldn't be able to restrain myself (just looking at the contribs is like fingernails on a chalkboard), not to mention the fact that I've been pretty much inactive for the better part of two years and have no idea how to go about handling it... Would someone mind taking a look and finally shutting him up? --(Flying Ninja Monkey) ^(Banana!) 20:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that it is difficult to see whether this account is driven by some nationalist ideal or is simply trolling. It is made more difficult by the fact that they appear pro-British when arguing against the claims of other sovereign nations, but prefers to refer to the constituent countries when editing within UK based articles. I suggest placing the relevant warnings on their talkpage, and bringing back here if they continue to be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have issued a clearly-worded civility reminder to the user. (Ironically, one of this editor's first contributions was to chastise someone for expressing a political opinion on a talk page.) caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 04:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image talk:Recycle001.svg

Resolved

I tried to put a db-talk tag on Image talk:Recycle001.svg and the template said it wasn't an appropriate tag for the Talk page of a commons image. How do we get this page deleted? Corvus cornix_talk 21:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I likely would have deleted even if you'd left the G8 tag on the page. ~ BigrTex 21:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of IP address from history page

I accidentally made a comment on the discussion page of Paramore without remembering to log in first. Could someone please, please, please delete my IP address from the history page? I would very much appreciate that. Please. Thank you. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrators can't "remove" just one edit from the page's history. Only oversighters can "remove" edits from page histories, but there has to be a good reason. Oversight is usually done for privacy reasons. I would assume this is you? Anyway, I see no reason why it should be "removed" in the first place. You can easily just sign in and replace the signature with your signature. What's so important that you want that one edit "removed" anyway? I see no harm in just replacing the IP's signature with your signature, saying that you weren't logged in in the edit summary. Either that or you can just leave it alone and continue the discussion. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He wants it removed because some WP "watchdog" sites use slipups like that to personally identify editors and admins (as best as an IP address can do) Protonk (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made the edit admin-only for now. Please email oversight-llists.wikimedia.org to make the removal permanent. east718 // talk // email // 07:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's been oversighted - Alison ^❤ 09:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gdewilde

Resolved.

Before being full protected, indef blocked User:Gdewilde used his talkpage as platform to launch personal attacks against me and another user, Guyonthesubway, quoting me out of context and/or misrepresenting the context, and refactoring my remarks. Since the page is full protected, I cannot respond or otherwise defend myself, so I'm wondering if someone would be willing to blank the section in question. Thanks for your consideration. Yilloslime (t) 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. Yilloslime (t) 03:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, for what it's worth, he's using his blog at yahoo. (Do a google search for "Arthur Rubin", and the blog appears toward the top.) Nothing we can do about that, but it seems interesting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Robert Kaufman and Robert Kaufman seem to share a disturbingly large amount of content. I grant that I didn't compare word for word, but I think this may qualify as a copyvio. Before I do anything though I would like a second opinion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a clear violation. The source for the web page includes "meta name="copyright" content="© 2005 Robert Kaufman Co., Inc.", but no licensing terms. It doesn't even matter whether it matches word for word -- it matches too closely. Looie496 (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted this article. east718 // talk // email // 06:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Sec 1971

I'm a little concerned about ths user's comments. Apparently they're upset over having to source everything: "Could I put the phrase "George W. Bush is half lizard, and eats babies for lunch while fingering his own ass" on my website and call this a reliable source? Probably not, but that's basically the way most of the editors here are siting their sources. Make up your minds, are require deletions to be DISCUSSED FIRST before finalized. We're not Nazis here, common knowledge is common knowledge. Would I need a reference to say that Bill Clinton was threatened with impeachment due his liaisons with Monica? I think not, because everyone knows this....." Comments like this are concerning, but unfortunately I don't know what to do. Is this just a rant or something more serious? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

An audio conversation with User:Newyorkbrad

Hopefully this may be of sufficient interest to warrant a small 'heads up' here... I'd like to encourage folks to have a listen to the latest 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' which is an interview with newyorkbrad covering all sorts of stuff.... We're planning a sort of panel discussion in a fortnight or so (which means anything up to a couple of months!) - which any and all are invited to attend, submit questions, topics for discussion etc. - swing by this page if you'd like to get involved.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

I've seen some pages get vandalized with the exact same vandalism serveral times from widely different IP addresses. Some of them mentioned /b/ so I went on there (my god...) to try to find the vandalism threads. I found a few, and I dealt with two of them by removing the revision that the poster was asking people to save. However, this took a long time/placed a huge strain on the servers and I am likely the reason why Wikipedia was running so slow a few minutes ago. (*cringes*) Should I just semi-protect the pages on sight, or should I wait for the vandalism to get out of hand? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotecting is definitely a better idea than voluntarily viewing /b/. It also would have been much simpler than bothering with history cleaning that wasn't otherwise necessary, imo - those things can be a pain in the ass (as well as a bit hard on the servers), and of course breaking the links to the vandalized revisions won't have prevented new vandalism. Use your judgment, of course, but I don't think vandalism needs to actually be 'out of hand' to justify protection. -- Vary | Talk 05:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is, I saw someone requesting vandalism on a page that had not been vandalized yet, so I removed the revision. (not before like a million people vandalized, though). Should I preemptively semi-protect it? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhh, gotcha. I'd say yes, in this case. I take it there are admins who watch The Colbert Report with laptops in front of them to be ready to protect any articles that get a mention. I'd stay under 24 hours, though, and increase it if they don't lose interest. -- Vary | Talk 05:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Colbert Report :D Keegan^talk 06:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Dreadstar, a serial copyright offender

We have an adminstrator among us who is a serial image copyright offender. I'm talking not about occasional errors in judgment or the usual dodgy fair use claims, but about a sustained, fraudulent series of uploads claimed as self-made when they were clearly collages of copyrighted elements. What makes it worse, he has been deliberately and systematically lying about these images to defend them, and he is still doing so. If this was not an admin but a normal editor, he'd be blocked for a couple months for this.

I'm talking about Dreadstar (talk · contribs), and his images:

• Image:2001question.jpg (March 2008, with earlier versions at Image:2001questionwd1.JPG, Image:2001question.JPG, Image:2001questionColorHAL.JPG)
• Image:DSSword.jpg (March 2008 version on en-wiki, equally dubious replacement created on commons in August 2008)

Evidence in form of graphical comparison is here: Image:Dreadstar comparison.jpg (my upload, deleted to make it admin-only, since it's not formally NFCC-compliant)

Dreadstar's repeated lying can be seen here: [28], [29], PUI, [30], [31], with further talk at User talk:Dreadstar#Image closure.

What makes this even more serious is that this abusive editor has also been taking admin action in image-related matters. Oddly, all his (quite infrequent) image actions seem to consist of unexpectedly popping up at IfD to close some of the most hotly contested borderline NFCC cases, always as "keep" ([32], [33], [34], [35]). In at least two of these cases, he was keep-closing controversial IfDs where the uploaders/defenders were his wiki friends.

Disclosure: Two of these IfDs were my nominations, and before anybody now shouts I'm doing this in retaliation: yes, of course this move comes in reaction to his. If it hadn't been for these closures and I had just come across his abusive uploads by chance, I would have done what I do to all such recalcitrant copyright offenders: block them or topic-ban them from all image uploads. But seeing highly controversial and high-profile admin decisions being taken by somebody like this is just something I can't put up with. This person has been systematically subverting and sabotaging our policies, he can't be trusted to be an adminstrator. He must be desysoped, or at least make a binding commitment he'll never again take admin action about images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Without even looking at the IFD closures, I find Fut.Perf's arguments at [36] quite convincing. (FP, do you have any objections to reproducing the text here and the image offsite?) If the problematic actions at IFD are as serious as you describe, there is a real concern here: one that needs to be addressed by the community at the proper dispute resolution forum, not just here. east718 // talk // email // 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair about the IfDs, none of them was really obviously abusive in the sense that some other admin might not also have taken them. I challenged one of them at DRV and it was upheld, so, well. It's just the pattern that struck me, together with what I consider rather poor arguing in closing them, and the combingation with the very obvious copyvio offenses. – Technically, I'm not very good with hosting images off-wiki. If people want it fully accessible, could somebody else please lend a technically-challenged person a hand? Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf's post is in the box below; the relevant image is here. east718 // talk // email // 07:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

click to expand
Comparison of non-free image originals with image details allegedly "self-made" by User:Dreadstar 1a: detail from a copyrighted 2001 Space Odyssey film poster [37], magnified by 110% 1b: detail from Image:2001question.jpg, claimed as self-made by Dreadstar ("I did indeed draw that interpretative image by hand, tracing nothing, per the article's subject matter - Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Sure it has its similarities, but that's a necessary part of the interpretation" [38]) 2a: Image:Hal-9000.jpg, a non-free screenshot image from the same movie 2b: Corresponding detail from Image:2001question.jpg, claimed to be self-made. 3a: Detail from Image:Dreadstar bc2-black.jpg, a non-free scan from a 1980s comic book. (Turned upside down, original size and resolution.) 3b: First (en-wiki) version of User:Dreadstar's Image:DSSword.jpg. Claimed to be self-made ("I drew the original sword drawing about 20 years ago, but I agree that it was too derivative of the original "). Below: close-ups (300%) of detail of each. 4: Second (commons) version of Image:DDSword.jpg. "The second sword drawing is completely my own work, with an image of my own creation - it does not appear to be derivative that would violate copyright" [39]. However, this is clearly made on the basis of a photograph, not a drawing. No source was given for the photograph. After being challenged to name the source, Dreadstar instead requested speedy deletion on commons, stating "{speedydelete|At uploader request. Image was for humorous talk subpage on Wikipedia. But it's not funny any more.} [40]

Updated a link within the above to point to a now deleted Commons image. —Giggy 09:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think some question should be raised here of why FutPer finds it acceptable to call other admin liars and trawl through the history of people who disagree with him to find something to attack them with. He follows a system of engagement and browbeating (that can be seen at the recent closure of HMS Conqueror, that caused FutPer to check through Dreadstar's history, where after people disagree he then trawls through peoples image upload history to find any faults). While following a deletionist agenda is not a bad thing, the zeal and delight with wich FutPer seems to engage in it is unsettling at the very least. FutPer should, at the very least, be encouraged to seek annother admin's input immediatly after a disagreement with someone, rather than deleting things on his lonesome with an editor he is already in conflict with. I understand that FutPer may be getting the right results, and I do commend him for the work he does in keeping the copyright violations down, but I do think that process is just as important as the result, and the way he goes about things is unnerving at best. (For what it is worth I am out of the country starting this afternoon, so if I do not respond to any questions about my decision to speak here or such, I apologise in advance.)Narson (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get distracted. While I agree that FuturePerfect's language is immoderate, that should be dealt with elsewhere. What is significant here is that the core accusation seems to be correct: the elements of these images are, essentially, identical on the per-pixel level, which makes the claim of multiple independent drawings not credible. Nandesuka (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would disagree, there are multiple issues to be look at here. Not being an admin I can't see the evidence against User:Dreadstar for one thing; he doesn't get a full community hearing as he should for one. I don't think the behaviour of one party in a dispute should be swept under the carpet just because they've apparently uncovered a juicy piece of dirt on the other. There are multiple issues at hand here. Justin talk 12:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that Future Perfect trawls through the upload logs of those with whom he is in active dispute, and unilaterally deletes images he feels fail the CSD over the reasoned objections of the uploader, does belong here - even if the images meet the criteria. Even if it's not just retaliation it's always going to look like it. It only seems to me to be good practice to allow another admin to delete any image he tags, where deletion has been opposed and where he is in an active dispute with the uploader or those who object to deletion on another matter. Pfainuk talk 12:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Images failing NFCC are not the issue here. There were a few of those too, and Dreadstar didn't raise objections against their deletion. (Those weren't in bad faith, although I note in passing that their existence is in fact another piece of evidence against his competence as an admin.) The deletions in the copyvio cases were absolutely straightforward. As for not acting unilaterally any further, that is of course the exact reason I brought this here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the assertion that "Future Perfect trawls through the upload logs of those with whom he is in active dispute" unfounded and unnecessarily inflammatory. FutPerf identified a number of image copyright issues, and as any administrator should when any apparent systematic abuse is detected, he reviewed the other editor's contributions. He then (rightly) chose to bring it here rather than take action himself. The image comparison inked above is compelling, and if FutPerf's analysis is correct then this is both systematic abuse and quite deceitful behaviour. To ignore it would be wrong. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet he deleted all the images several hours before he posted here. And yet he acknowledged that the reason he went through Dreadstar's upload log was because he objected to the IFD closes.[41] He's even used the word "trawl".[42] Perhaps the tone of my comment was a little off, fair enough, I'll apologise for that, but contentwise I believe it says no more than what Future Perfect has accepted.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should point that I was involved in the IFD whose closure brought this on and in the discussion surrounding his speedy deletion of Image:FalklandsWarMontage.jpg, an image uploaded and defended by a user arguing the other side in that IFD, part way through that IFD. If nothing else, both that case and the one being discussed - particularly when put together - create the impression that these actions are retaliatory. And this creates a very bad atmosphere.

Should we be keeping copyvios? Of course not. Is it an issue if an admin uploads copyvios? Of course. But I think Future Perfect does need to be rather more careful than he has been in cases where he is already in dispute with someone - and if a case is as obvious as he says (and it may well be) then there should be no issue with allowing one of the other 1600-odd admins to handle the deletion. Pfainuk talk 17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

First my apologies to everyone for this problem, had I not just given a knee-jerk reaction to Future Perfect's first post and truly examined the images, this whole thing may have been nipped in the bud. Can't make too many excuses, but we were having the full effects of a tropical storm and I admit that my patience, attention span, and electricity were short yesterday. No pun intended. However, after taking the time to more fully review the images and consider their circumstances, FP is correct, they're not what I remembered them being.

As I've already admitted, the 2001 image version I ultimately posted wasn't my all-original one I thought it was, but it was a different one that contained copyrighted images. I did a bunch of different versions, and emailed them around for opinions, and that was the one everyone liked - they were all very similar, and I thought it was the one of my own "creation" (though it's still derivative, which I didn't fully understand at the time). My mistake. It certainly wasn't a "sustained, systematic effort at deception", just a simple misunderstanding. Basicallly, I uploaded the wrong image, thinking it was one that I created – and never re-examined it, even when it was tagged in May, until FP deleted it. Heck, I was moving at the time, packing boxes everywhere, so my attention wasn't fully on the task at hand.

As for the sword, I was pretty sure the one I originally posted for use on my user subpage was the one I drew years ago, but I was fiddling around with a bunch of different images and it may actually be one that I modified from the original. Looking at it, it looked like one of the copies I drew, but on closer examinination, it does appear to be just be a photoshopped copy of the original. Hard to tell, as I said, it was purposely made to look as much like the original as possible. I went through a phase in the early '80s, not only collecting comics (over 4k of them!), but seeing if I could actually draw the things. Didn't work out, but I do have a stack of copies that came out...well..interestingly... :)

So, no I'm not lying. If I were going to lie about it, I'd have just said I was wrong about all the images, they weren't what I initially remembered having posted.

I did not object to FP’s deletions of these images, once he brought them to my attention, I recognized the copyright problems with them, whether I created them from scratch or not. I’ve learned a lot about image policy since that time, heck I’m still learning.

I can make the following promises, not to upload any further self-created or modified images without approval from other image admins; and if my Conqueror IFD closing is found to be faulty, I will not close any contested IFD’s for one year - until I've had lots more experience at IFD. I have no objection to Conqueror being taken to DRV, I welcome it.

Beyond that, I can only humbly apologize for my error with the sword and 2001 images, I truly thought what I was saying at the time was true. I certainly hope the community hasn't lost faith in me over this mistake, I feel terrible about it. Dreadstar † 13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at Dreadstar's talk page [43]. Short version, I have strong reasons to believe this is still not the truth. The timing doesn't add up. Dreadstar uploaded the final 2001 version at a time he must have known it was a copied version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Dreadstar made multiple versions, some with copyrighted elements and some without, and he uploaded the wrong one. At some point the error was called to his attention. Did he defend his images as free even after the error was pointed out to him, and has he done this on more than just these two images? Thatcher 17:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He certainly repeated the assertion that they were his own free work several times after being pointed to the self-evident fact that these were photographs/screenshots. [44], [[[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 March 7#Image:2001question.JPG|PUI]], etc., and he also repeatedly defended his sword image on commons after being asked about its source. (On that one, I can't point to the actual source, which might actually be a free one, but I find it suspicious that he has never so much as acknowledged that there's something to be explained about it, as it very obviously contains photographic material.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here: compliance with our policy concerning images, and Dreadstar's character. I am not an expert on images (as is the person who womments in the section below) but I am satisfied by Dreadstar's comment here, on 13:37, 21 August 2008, that he respects our policies and understands he made mistakes and regrets them. What more can we want? Everyone makes mistakes, and editors in good faith can easily, and thus often do, get involved in prolonged misunderstandings. I see Dreadstar trying to clear this up and people who have a good grasp on our image policies can obviously work with him in reaching a quick resolution. But FP is taking an aggressive and hostile stance that seems unwarrented based on the evidence - I do not see a larger pattern of subversion of our policies. I have had encounters with Dreadstar a number of times and he has always struck me as a serious, well-intentioned, hard-working editor. I am certain he acted in good faith and will in the future. I see no need to impugn his character and find it unnecessary and sad. Let's just tone down the histrionics and maybe people can accept Dreadstar's acknowledgment of his own mistakes, and move forward. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Olive regarding Dreadstar

I came upon FP accusations yesterday and find this offensive and inappropriate for any editor let alone an admin. [45]. "Serial" in the title of this discussion has obvious, highly inappropriate connotations. His continued comments could be construed as harassment and lead me to question FP’s motives in dealing with this issue. I have no reason to judge FP on any other issues so want to make clear this comment is about this issue alone.

• Background: I have a terminal degree in fine art, (MFA), in painting and drawing and have taught art to university students at both the graduate and undergraduate level

• I’m not sure what FP’s issues are with the images he is comparing. A quick visual scan of the “fetus” images (Examine the lips closely. They are quite different), indicates they are not the same, although the layouts used in the overall images are very similar. There are other differences. The two swords pictured are also not the same, although quite similar. One visually scans the shapes around the objects rather than the objects themselves to create accurate representational work. Note that the white shapes below the sword are different in size. There are also other more subtle differences here in terms of shape/space relationships. The circular “Hal’s eyes” images would seem to be identical.

• Could Dreadstar have drawn some of this. Sure. Non-artists are often astounded by what can be drawn. Drawing is a fundamental technical skill that can be developed, and of course many people are genetically endowed with the ability to draw what they see, easily even if they aren’t practicing artists. I am always astounded by someone saying, oh that can’t be done, or so and so couldn’t have done that. As well drawings by even high school students can look more real than photographs. In the art world this kind of art is called Photorealism or Super realism. I have no idea what Dreadstar’s skill level is, and neither does anyone else. Further he is not required to somehow prove his drawing skill. Good grief!

• As a general comment, I can draw just about anything, but my ability to manipulate a computer and collage in an elegant way is just about zero. Those skills do not overlap, but are largely technical and require practice. So someone could easily draw very well, especially if they’ve been doing it for a long time but could be somewhat more awkward in manipulating images on a computer. And of course drawing on a computer is more difficult than drawing be hand.

• More to the point: What is this about. Dreadstar seems unclear about what happened, fair enough. He, without argument, advised deletion of the images, the appropriate response under the circumstances. and has apologized for the situation. Anyone who has watched the creation of, or themselves created computer collaged images knows that multiple images are created that can combine multiple techniques. What happened in which image is pretty hard to remember unless one is specifically trying to create a process that can be repeated and especially if one is emailing images back and forth. Art as well has been copied since the beginning of time. It’s a legitimate way of creating art and of learning certain skills. I am surprised to learn that copyright on Wikipedia seems different than in the art world itself. It’s a cloudy issue. That is, what’s a copyright violation and where are the boundaries between what is original, and what is a violation are not intuitive, but have to be learned probably through experience. Dreadstar is an admin with an excellent reputation among editors, large number of contributions, of being helpful beyond the call of duty, evenness of temper, clear thinking, a sense of humor and guess what? No instances at all of lying in any of his other admin duties. Why would that kind of person decide to lie here?

This is a place where good faith must come into play. Ultimately, we can’t prove or disprove any of the things being said. We have to take Dreadstar’s word on this issue, an act of good faith based on his past. His well-established reputation as an admin and editor deserves nothing less than that.(olive (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

• Said well (far better than I could have), and should be the last word on this issue. Fut Per should assume good faith, retract the accusations of seriality, and move on with working on the project. Dreadstar has indicated his remorse for the mistake he made, and I doubt (given his character) that he will make the same mistake again. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User edit warring, removing maintenance tags

• diff1
• diff2

User:Koavf doesn't have consensus on talk page, behaviour reminds me of WP:OWN. Insertion of categories like "conflicts in 2008" is a pushing of unsourced info (I can't put a citation needed tag near a category)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for quicker response at WP:RPP

Hello -- I hope you won't mind me asking this, and that it won't seem like nagging -- I do fully appreciate that nearly everyone here is a volunteer, and so things are done on a best-efforts basis, but when recently I was dabbling with recent changes patrolling, it was frustrating to encounter problems due to a delay in getting a page protected by admins. Yesterday, the article Folie à deux was reported at WP:RPP at 20:42 UTC. It was semi-protected 19 minutes later at 21:01 UTC. In that time, there was a veritable onslaught of vandalism from multiple IPs. Earlier page semi-protection would have helped considerably. Would it be possible please to place greater priority on page protection requests? Many thanks. — Alan^✉ 15:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

19 minutes is not a long wait at all. In fact, that's probably one of the quickest response times I've ever seen for RPP; vandals sit at AIV for longer than that. - auburnpilot talk 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What then would be an appropriate channel in a case where the vandal edits are coming really thick and fast, so where 19 minutes is a long time (see the page history)? Should I just take it straight to AIV? I eventually did, but only after a while, because I assumed that the RPP (which someone else raised) would in itself get a response. Thanks. — Alan^✉ 18:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

While other admins would probably disagree with me, I'd take something like that to WP:AN or WP:ANI. These two noticeboards receive much more attention than AIV/RPP/UAA. Before my RfA, I always checked the deletion log when I needed the quick attention of an admin. Spot one making deletions and leave a note on his/her talk page; you'll get an even quicker response. - auburnpilot talk 18:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. — Alan^✉ 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

National-Anarchism

Requesting page protection for this troubled article. The last thing we need is for people to think it's acceptable to spam the external links section with foreign-language weblogs. Ottre (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection would prevent any work on the article, and this is one editor edit-warring against several others. I've given them a 3RR warning. A block could follow, if necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange vandalism at Project Chanology

Resolved

Hello. I have no idea what noticeboard to post this at, so I decided to put it here. Project Chanology seems to have some strange sort of template vandalism. I can't find anything that looks like it would cause it in the article's source code and no edits in the history appear to have caused it. Anybody know what is going on? Captain panda 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, protected, blocked etc some time ago thanks. Refresh your cache. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

not repaired. not a cache issue for me, never went there until after seeing this report. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything. What's the problem, exactly? --Deskana (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

now it's clear. it had some strange quote about owning souls and a bunch of numbers in a block. It's the common template vadalism that's been happening the past couple of weeks. I couldn't figure out what template was causing it though. and I don't know why I saw it after zzuuzz fixed it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In the future you can use this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=[article title]&action=purge .-Wafulz (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments

The Arbitration Committee is currently looking to appoint new CheckUsers. For more information on the application process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments August 2008.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Deskana (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Help

Please can someone archive the first 25 threads on this page? I am unable to load the whole page at the moment. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot II (talk · contribs) will archive some threads later. D.M.N. (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD tidyup

Resolved

This AfD about a band was closed as Delete, but the four associated articles (about their recorded output) were not. Could someone delete them, please? Ta. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC) : Doing... --Rodhullandemu 19:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hut 8.5 19:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot alert

The bot User:JAnDbot has been incorrectly changing or deleting interwiki links in articles on my watchlist. The latest was the article Micropropagation. I have had to revert at least two other edits from this bot on other articles. I appreciate the author's good intentions in making a bot, but as can be seen by his talk page, other people have been finding similar problems with the bot's edits. The bot author states on his talk page User talk:JAn Dudík, "If you have something about my bot, please leave diff or link, in other case I'll ignore your cries."

I request that an administrator look into this, since replacing correct interwiki links for a language to ones that lead to incorrect pages in that language is an insidious form of damage.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
WriterHound (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)