Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:02, 13 February 2007

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header

Community enforced mediation

A proposed dispute resolution experiment would allow established editors to impose arbitration-like remedies on themselves with community approval. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Durova^Charge! 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems widely supported; is it time to move it to Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation? Picaroon 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean endorsed, not enforced. But fortune favours the bold. The page has been created, I think we should give it a chance as is, and see what happens. Maybe move it in a few days, or weeks, once we see how people decide to use it. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually enforced, because of the enforceable remedies. Durova^Charge! 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But does just anyone enforce the decisions; isn't that something that only admins will be able to do? For me, the community role is in approving or rejecting proposed bans and sanctions. Sort of a public hearing for cases that are uncontroversial enough to not need an arbcom hearing. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the proposal explains this clearly: the entire community decides whether to approve a proposed solution. Actual enforcement would go through WP:ANI. So to make an example, all editors in good standing would have an equal voice in deciding whether to approve a civility parole. If the community approved that solution a complaint for civility parole violation would go through ANI and an administrator would act. Durova^Charge! 23:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - it is likely time to start a trial Cheers Lethaniol 01:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. It already had a proposed tag, so it's time to start serious discussion. Chick Bowen 01:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Three people have stepped forward as trainees, so to keep things centralized I'll create a subordinate page for mediation requests (pending approval). Durova^Charge! 03:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banning?

Unfortunately, the notorious Freemasonry vandal was just blocked indefinitely, so I can't put him up for banning here and all the other long term ones don't seem to be as ignored... 68.39.174.238 19:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Lightbringer was crazy, not a vandal. By the way you should make an account. SakotGrimshine 22:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy or not, he ticked everyone off, but that's old hat. 68.39.174.238 21:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informal Arbitration

See here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geo.plrd (talk • contribs).

Not a good idea for more bureaucracy imo. Our current system is fine; to introduce one whole new layer with no power and to call it "arbitration" is, pardon me, downright dumb. You seem to be obsessed with creating new levels of bureaucracy in Wikipedia, but we don't need this. WP:3O isn't supposed to be binding, there's no real reason for this. – Chacor 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does, at first glance, appear like a new level of bureaucracy to me... perhaps I am missing something. I have also notified Geo.plrd (talk · contribs) of this discussion. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he initiated this, I'm fairly sure he knows of it. – Chacor 02:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I ~~am confused~~ stand corrected, I see hagermanbot did not sign the unsigned. :P Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Side comment: Has this page been signed up for Hagermanbot yet?) Newyorkbrad 02:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Side reply: I understood, all I had to do was add the catagory, something else I missed?) Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this is a proposal. I am trying to create a step that will take care of cases that fall between the cracks. I mean, what good is a 3O, if one user decides not to follow it. If you have any suggestions to make it better, I would love to hear them. G e o. Talk to me 02:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O is supposed to be non-binding. If someone doesn't follow the measures, it can be considered a prior step in dispute resolution when going to ArbCom. I'm sorry, but I really think this isn't needed - at least not for this purpose. – Chacor 02:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you go to Arbcom, you tend to end up with somebody being sanctioned. This will clean up minor disputes without sanctions. G e o. Talk to me 02:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of levels of dispute resolution that don't give sanctions already. Just look at WP:MEDCAB, WP:MEDCOM, and WP:AMA. PT O 02:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medcab is non binding, a user can agree to something and blow it off. Medcom sends rejected cases to Arbcom, blowing no sanctions out of the water. The AMA provides advice to users, and generally doesn't resolve disputes. None of these do what Arbcab will do. G e o. Talk to me 03:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - have cross-posted this to WP:AN for more input. – Chacor 02:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The basic idea of a small claims court is interesting. I don't think this idea is well enough developed. A few thoughts: what's small to one person is huge to another at Wikipedia. The scope of these binding decisions isn't defined and the bar for becoming a judge is set very low. Suppose, for example, that someone with 1000 edits handles a revert war and says You can revert five times a day just because they don't know the three revert rule. I'd set this on the back burner and let it percolate. Maybe it'll brew something good in time. Durova^Charge! 03:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is it would not be binding, unless ArbCom, or some new policy, made it so. It could be voluntary arbitration, which can can not institute remedies (blocks/bans), but can make an arbitrary decision on article disputes and such. That is probably a better way to do this. Prodego ^talk 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without a binding quality it looks like very much like mediation or 3O. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the arbitration committee is hesitant to resolve article disputes, and almost never does, there is no way a lower body should be doing that. Binding determinations on content are bad because they contradict Foundation issue #3, as well as our belief in the value of consensus. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is supposed to be voluntary, yet binding. The bar to become a judge is open to discussion. To prevent the scenario that Durova brought up, there would be a Community Advocate who would ensure that, say in that scenario, 3RR is brought up. G e o. Talk to me 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that people will flock to the idea of voluntary sanctioning. I imagine that people, when given the choice, will choose voluntary and non-binding mediation over voluntary and binding. PT O 03:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually in (as a 3rd party) dispute right now in which the parties probably would have agreed to some type of non blocking/banning arbitration (as in article content only in decision). WP:RFArb#Free Republic. It would be rare though. Prodego ^talk 03:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be like a gentleman's agreement, not voluntary sanctioning. This will not be mediation. G e o. Talk to me 04:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think one needs to look up the definition of arbitration. The difference between mediation and arbitration is that mediation is non-binding, and arbitration is. If it wouldn't be binding, then it's not arbitration. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it willi be binding G e o. Talk to me 02:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who will enforce? Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. As noted above by Chris Parham, the Foundation does not make binding decisions on content. And that seems to be exactly what you want this to do. – Chacor 02:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to this proposal for many of the reasons mentioned. Do we really need another dispute resolution layer? Honestly, dispute resolution is confusing as it is. Users often don't use it because they don't know where to start. And yes, since the arbcom doesn't make binding content decisions, this couldn't either. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 03:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is supposed to be like a binding third opinion. The sysops would enforce it. G e o. Talk to me 03:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It holds no authority. None. If a user breaks the "remedies", sysops cannot enforce anything. Unless the remedy comes from ArbCom, which sources its' power from Jimbo and is considered by Jimbo to be governing over all Wikipedia, people cannot be bound by the decisions. I oppose this, and it seems like yet another attempt to "grab power" by Geo: 1 2 3 4. Daniel.Bryant 21:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to open your wallets...

Apparently Wikipedia might "disappear three or four months from now absent a major infusion of cash donations", according to Slashdot. The post quotes an article which quotes a blog which quotes Anthere as saying:

“

At this point, Wikipedia has the financial ressources [sic] to run its servers for about 3 to 4 months. If we do not find additional funding, it is not impossible that Wikipedia might disappear.

”

This has also made it to fark.com. Some more comments are made here, here and here. MER-C 11:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this belongs here. This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#It's true?. --Ideogram 11:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Jimbo calls BS: [1]. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And even of Jimbo didn't dispute the claim, it goes without saying that the Foundation is not even coming close to its fund raising potential. There is one little unobtrusive thing that can solve WMFs fund raising and societal goals to the tune of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of USDollars per year, and that is advertising. I am serious. The Wikimedia Foundation should utilize advertising on its websites. Period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact is that this isn't an unusual situation for a non-profit. From what I understand wikipedia has been 4 months from bankruptcy since it's inception. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this belongs in the village pump. This is more of a place to make decisions about the community as I understand it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rocinante9x changing "that" <-> "which" in gramatically inappropriate situations

Sorry if I'm in the wrong place; please move as appropriate. After following an edit of Falkirk Wheel I noticed in some of User:Rocinante9x's edits that he/she is changing words here in there in many articles to make them gramatically improper and/or inconsistent. For example, this edit to Hentai creates the gramatically inconsistent "works (noun) that feature... and those which feature...". I'm reporting it here because I don't have time to look through his/her edits and fix them (in fact, just posting here is taking too much of my time!), but thought that it should be brought to the community's attention. --RealGrouchy 03:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: (from Talk:Falkirk Wheel) How the hell does this make sense: "...the amount of water leaving the caisson has exactly the same as the boat." The same what? (weight).

This uncommented edit introduced this error (although it wasn't clear in the previous version, either), and also replaced "that" with "which" in two places that went against the definitions/preferred uses in Wiktionary's entries for that and which.

I reversed the that/which error (which User:Rocinante9x changed in a number of articles), and clarified the "exactly the same" sentence, only for User:Calton to "revert" my "misguided" edits back to the improper and unclear version by User:Rocinante9x! If my understanding of the English language is incorrect, I would encourage someone to reference a source that says so! --RealGrouchy 19:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing is called "which hunting". Here's a blog full of linguists, Language Log, decrying it; they explain in several ways why real English makes no grammatical distinction between "which" and "that" in restrictive clauses. Your edits don't introduce anything incorrect, but I agree that your reason for making them is misguided. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FLC

...seems like something of a graveyard at the moment, could do with some more eyes and reviewers. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for community ban

Starwars1955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) first showed up as an anonymous user on 9 December 2006 (here) on the Brett Favre article talk page, requesting unprotection so he could edit the statistics. His changes resulted in removing references (here) and overall just seems to be very confused about WP rules. Long story short, a bunch of violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA ended up getting him indefinitely blocked. This has not stopped him.

Widescale creation of sockpuppets (list of socks used by him) used to edit the Favre article and try to trick administrators who aren't completely aware of the situation into "helping" him (here)

Continues with personal attacks here, here, here, and my personal favorite, where he brings my age into the picture for some reason

Disrupts Wikipedia to make a point here by adding a sixth link on Peyton Manning, so that he can cite that page as "evidence" here

Simply will not stop reverting to the same edit he made months ago here, here, here, and here (with misleading edit summaries too)

He has been nothing but a nuisance; I am suggesting that he be banned from the wiki community. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin who tried to reason with Starwars1955, eventually blocked him indefinitely, and have blocked at least two of his socks, I support a community ban. He's shown absolutely no variance in his behavior despite both counseling and warnings from multiple users, including at least two admins. I see no evidence that the user intends to reform. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support as well. He has leveled accusations of policy violations at multiple editors but has refused to follow through, leading me to believe he doesn't actually understand the policies he's citing but rather issuing empty threats. At the same time he violates those same policies and, when called out for it, accuses editors of being biased against him. The behavior King Bee evidenced above clearly demonstrates a persistent user who has no desire to change his ways despite being given several clear suggestions as to how to do so. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, at this point I've had a couple of conversations with the editor in question under various accounts he has created and he just doesn't seem to get it. I've laid out explicitly why the editor was blocked and what the editor should not do if they want to avoid being blocked in the future. The editor's latest incarnation was extended a wide lattitude of WP:AGF and when I advocated letting him edit Talk:Brett Favre to discuss these changes, his response was basically that he was right so there is nothing more to discuss. I think at this point it is clear the individual in question has no intention of changing their behavior so a ban is the appropriate next step. I pretty clearly warned this individual that this was the next step if they did not stop being disruptive. Beyond that it should also be mentioned that the editor has edited extensively from 4.245.XXX.XXX IPs to make these exact same changes.--Isotope23 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if everyone is discussing a ban, why does it say on Starwars1955's userpage that he is already banned? That template on his userpage is the incorrect template, unless Starwars1955 was banned by decision of Jimbo Wales, the Arbitration Committee, or community consensus. Acalamari 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect, as far as I know. Jaranda added the template a while ago, but the user is indefinitely blocked, not banned. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to bring this up, as an administrator and I got in trouble about three weeks ago for the banning of a user when we should have discussed a ban with other users and administrators. I just wanted to make sure you didn't fall into the same problem. Acalamari 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the tag. WP:AGF, Jaranda just made a mistake. I've seen a lot of people confuse indefs with bans.--Isotope23 18:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true, all these people are trying to do is ganned up on him and revert ebery edit he made, all that is trying to be proved is that the edits by BeverlyHills85 are verifiable, and PSUMark2006 did that, and they belong, I'm a friend of starwars1955 and all he wants is for the info to be added, but he can't get a fair shake people admit that the info is verifiably, but won't add it, MRDarcy banned malibu55 for sock with no proof and I'm diffenatly not a sock, just a friend at a firrerent location, starwars1955 also requested to be unblocked and user Yamla reverted the unblock request which he had no right to do and fully protected the starwars1955 talk page, he's not getting a fair shake and all the people her are the ones that have ganned up from day one, and it's wrong, the only issue its whether or not the info belongs and is verifiable, it is and as far as the sixth link on Peyton Manning, there were 5 to begin with, so what's wrong with adding the sixth ans final, Thanks, GrowingPains1 18:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)GrowingPains1[reply]

The issue here has nothing to do with the verifiability of edits anymore. That may have been the catalyst, but King Bee provided evidence of the similarity between Malibu55's edits and previously-identified sockpuppets. The information, when confirmed by the sources I've contacted, will be added to the article. If that's your only concern, there's no need to worry yourself about this any further. Thanks, PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a sockpuppet? You registered very recently, and seem to know a lot about the situation with Starwars1955. Acalamari 18:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is exhibiting behavior similar to that of previously-identified and blocked socks, in particular removing comments that challenge his position: [2]. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starwars1955, has been editing Brett Favre since October under his IP address, and he created the Playoff stats section and the box above it and most of the records and milestones, the only reason it's come to this is because these people have ganned up on him because they want the Favre page there way or no way, and that's not the wikipedia way, the edits by BeverlyHils85 are correct and verifiable, even PSUMark2006 agrees to that and aviper2k7 and King Bee have personally attacked starwars1955 many times, they tried to provoke him and he handled it maturely, GrowingPains1 18:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)GrowingPains1[reply]

We must have edited at the same time, I didn't delete anything, I wouldn't do that, why do you accuse people, that's a personal attack, King Bee removed 3 of Peyton Mannings infobox stats saying three is enough, see it's his way or no way, malibu55 only added 1, there were five to begin with, three is not enough, there are links to all six and people just have to fill in the code, 3 is not enough, wikipedia designed them to be there for people to link too, it has nothing to do with WP:POINT, no point is trying to be made, just links are being added for the community, why is King Bee doing this?, GrowingPains1 18:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)GrowingPains1[reply]

This just sort of brings the point home. GrowingPains1 = Starwars1955. The user's first edit after creating the userpage was to hit King Bee's talkpage. He reverted to another SW55 sock edit at Peyton Manning. He commented on Aviper2k7's talkpage. He signs pages the same way. He mis-spells the same words. Yet he still inisinuates he is not SW55, BeverlyHils85, or Malibu55, etc. I think the fact that he is creating socks to continue these edits and mischaracterize other editors opinions really demonstrates that there is no reason to believe this editor is ever going to change their ways.--Isotope23 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want the edits to be added, hey are factual, BeverlyHills85 edits are right, PSUMark2006 sats they are all verifiable and will be added, that's a lie, King Bee won't have it, starwars1955 idn't do nothing bad, Yamla fully protected the starwars1955 talk page so he can't have his unblock request, if you can't get a fair treatmant, what do you do, there were 5 infobox stats on Peyton's page before malibu55 added the 6th, I hope your happy with contributing to vandalism on the Peyton Manning page Isotope23, Thanks

Particularly disturbing is the way the individual is aging his socks to circumvent semi-protection and continue to engage in WP:POINT edits (the Peyton Manning edits were done apparently to use as an example in the Favre discussion; i.e. Favre should have this info because it already exists at Manning).--Isotope23 19:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope23, king bee vandalised the peyton page by removeing those 3 infobox stats, Isotope23, check the history in Peyton Manning's page, malibu55 only added one, there were 5 to begin with, check it, do it, King Bee removed three cause he wanted to, so it would be like the Favre page, his way or no way, that is vandalism, there were 5 to begin with, but King Bee wouldn't have it, now you keep reverting to what he's done, you should discuss it on Peyton's talk page whether they wanted to go from 5 to 3, no you do waht you want, now go and really check Isotope23, there were 5 to start, only one was added and King Bee struck again, it's really sad, all I want is BeverlyHills85 edits to stay and even though PSUMark2006 says all that infom is verifiable, King Bee will not allow you to all BeverlyHills85 edits, he has to much of a vandetta and he won't allow it, and you all know this, Thanks

Also, I've noticed that Starwars1955 didn't always sign messages. The message above Isotope23's last message message is unsigned, but I checked the history, and it was posted by FamilyTies82. I think that user is yet another sockpuppet of Starwars1955. It seems too convenient that all these new users know of all the discussions about Starwars1955. Acalamari 19:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP that didn't sign the message above my last message also seems to know about Starwars1955. Acalamari 19:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, IP 4.245.XXX.XXX is used by this individual to do the same sorts of edits... and they've been removing comments here as well.--Isotope23 19:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. They seem to be removing my messages, as my messages help to prove why some of the messages here are by Starwars1955's sockpuppets. Acalamari 19:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope23, revert starwars1955 talk page to where he requested unblock, give hima a fair shake and this will stop, he requested a unblock and left all this be, but Yamla reverted it and protected the page for a month, and one thing is clear, this site is being run by a bunch of kinds with too much time on there hands, mature people wouldn't act in this manner, and you still didn't look into the Peyton Manning thing I mentioned above, please do it, you have no right to lower it from 5 to 3, delete the one I added cause of the vendetta, but don't delete the other two that were on there to begin with, Thanks

I've not been removing comments kid, I've been editing the same time as others, Thanks

Sorry, but we don't make "deals" here. Your continued disruption from IP adresses while you are indefinitely blocked makes an unblock request moot. At this point there is no way you would be unblocked. I don't know if you noticed, but there is a discussion going on here about whether or not you should be banned from editing altogether.--Isotope23 19:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse ban. There's really no question here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I did in reverting the unblock request was not "illegal". The unblock request was not made by the account requesting the unblock. 4.245.120.12 (talk · contribs) was violating WP:SOCK. Additionally, unblock abuse is considered to have occurred after at least two administrators review the block and judge it valid; the user is not entitled to any further unblock reviews, at least according to the {{unblockabuse}} template. It seemed to me (though I suppose I could have been mistaken) that this user was already well past that. --Yamla 20:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse also, because it's been proven that the BeverlyHills85 edit is Verifiable and correct and many Brett Favre fans will revert to it and you better check there IP address before you block all of them for being sock puppets, because if there IP address isn't close to mine, then you'll be getting yourself in trouble, the info has been verified at PSUMark2006 talk page, so be more careful before blocking people in the future, remember this info is verified now and blocking them for accusations won't cut it now, Thanks

Fine if you want to endorse your ban from Wikipedia, be my guest.--Isotope23 20:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's his attention to detail that has made him so charming. Adam Weeden 20:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse ban. I am/was a frequent editor of Brett Favre, and considered it to be a pet project of sorts. I have frequently worked with others on that page in the spirit of collaboration, and have even seen some ideas that I though would be good shot down. With that said, Starwars1955 is one of the few editors I have not been able to come to a mature understanding with over editing and adding to the content on Brett Favre. One particular instance comes to mind in which I was making additions to the page that he didn't like. At no time did he (other than throwing around WPisms, like NOR, at random points) did he attempt to persuade me as to why he thought my changes were invalid other than he thought that with them, the page "looks awful". When, after some discussion with some other parties, it was pointed out that WP may not be the proper place for such information, Starwars1955 began acting in an immature, uncivil manner simply because I had agreed to remove the content. He has been the subject of at least one (initiated by me), and maybe more, three revert rule violations and has demonstrated a consistent pattern of incivility, personal attacks, and downright manipulation by deleting comments contrary to his own. In summary, as someone who has tried to work closely with him, demonstrating civility and good faith as much as possible, I can't recall one positive contribution he has made to Brett Favre or any other pages that I have seen him edit. This leads me to extrapolate that he will likely not make any useful contribution in the future, and on the contrary will likely cause significant grief and headache. Not only do I endorse a ban, I can only wonder if ban is strong enough for use who has demonstrated such a deep desire to make HIS changes that he has created at least a dozen sock puppets (that we know of) to do so.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Adam Weeden 20:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AdamWeeden is one of the people that started this lynch mob, because he was breaking WP:NOR by putting on current pace crap, wikipedia is not a crystal ball and he was furious that it had to be deleted, in the words of aviper2k7 haha, and everyone knows that all the edits by BeverlyHills85 is correct, factual and verifiable, that's not the point, they all have a personal vendetta and I suggest you see them through and ban me, but other Favre fans will restore the info that BeverlyHills added, it's been verified in PSUMark2006's talk page and it will be added and you can't block them, they aren't socks, don't you see I want banned, so other Favre fans can add the info that's been verified in the PSUMark2006 talk page and that beverlyhills85 added, wikipedia is public and the info has been verified and as PSUMark2006 said, there should be no problem adding it, so please ban me quick so this info can go on the page, I have tons of Favre fans in a fan club and now that it's verified through PSUMark2006, it can be added and the fan club has over 100 wikipedia accounts ready to go, all we want is the correct additions BeverlyHills85 added, and Al Michaels and John Madden talked about on Sunday night football Dec. 31st as part of Favre's NFL Marks stand, and now that it's verified through PSUMark2006 talk page, it can be added, as PSUMark2006 said it should be no problem, so ban me quick, so they can proceed, Thanks

Community enforced mediation

A proposed dispute resolution experiment would allow established editors to impose arbitration-like remedies on themselves with community approval. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Durova^Charge! 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems widely supported; is it time to move it to Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation? Picaroon 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean endorsed, not enforced. But fortune favours the bold. The page has been created, I think we should give it a chance as is, and see what happens. Maybe move it in a few days, or weeks, once we see how people decide to use it. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually enforced, because of the enforceable remedies. Durova^Charge! 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But does just anyone enforce the decisions; isn't that something that only admins will be able to do? For me, the community role is in approving or rejecting proposed bans and sanctions. Sort of a public hearing for cases that are uncontroversial enough to not need an arbcom hearing. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the proposal explains this clearly: the entire community decides whether to approve a proposed solution. Actual enforcement would go through WP:ANI. So to make an example, all editors in good standing would have an equal voice in deciding whether to approve a civility parole. If the community approved that solution a complaint for civility parole violation would go through ANI and an administrator would act. Durova^Charge! 23:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - it is likely time to start a trial Cheers Lethaniol 01:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. It already had a proposed tag, so it's time to start serious discussion. Chick Bowen 01:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Three people have stepped forward as trainees, so to keep things centralized I'll create a subordinate page for mediation requests (pending approval). Durova^Charge! 03:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banning?

Unfortunately, the notorious Freemasonry vandal was just blocked indefinitely, so I can't put him up for banning here and all the other long term ones don't seem to be as ignored... 68.39.174.238 19:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Lightbringer was crazy, not a vandal. By the way you should make an account. SakotGrimshine 22:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy or not, he ticked everyone off, but that's old hat. 68.39.174.238 21:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informal Arbitration

See here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geo.plrd (talk • contribs).

Not a good idea for more bureaucracy imo. Our current system is fine; to introduce one whole new layer with no power and to call it "arbitration" is, pardon me, downright dumb. You seem to be obsessed with creating new levels of bureaucracy in Wikipedia, but we don't need this. WP:3O isn't supposed to be binding, there's no real reason for this. – Chacor 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does, at first glance, appear like a new level of bureaucracy to me... perhaps I am missing something. I have also notified Geo.plrd (talk · contribs) of this discussion. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he initiated this, I'm fairly sure he knows of it. – Chacor 02:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I ~~am confused~~ stand corrected, I see hagermanbot did not sign the unsigned. :P Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Side comment: Has this page been signed up for Hagermanbot yet?) Newyorkbrad 02:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Side reply: I understood, all I had to do was add the catagory, something else I missed?) Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this is a proposal. I am trying to create a step that will take care of cases that fall between the cracks. I mean, what good is a 3O, if one user decides not to follow it. If you have any suggestions to make it better, I would love to hear them. G e o. Talk to me 02:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O is supposed to be non-binding. If someone doesn't follow the measures, it can be considered a prior step in dispute resolution when going to ArbCom. I'm sorry, but I really think this isn't needed - at least not for this purpose. – Chacor 02:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you go to Arbcom, you tend to end up with somebody being sanctioned. This will clean up minor disputes without sanctions. G e o. Talk to me 02:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of levels of dispute resolution that don't give sanctions already. Just look at WP:MEDCAB, WP:MEDCOM, and WP:AMA. PT O 02:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medcab is non binding, a user can agree to something and blow it off. Medcom sends rejected cases to Arbcom, blowing no sanctions out of the water. The AMA provides advice to users, and generally doesn't resolve disputes. None of these do what Arbcab will do. G e o. Talk to me 03:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - have cross-posted this to WP:AN for more input. – Chacor 02:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The basic idea of a small claims court is interesting. I don't think this idea is well enough developed. A few thoughts: what's small to one person is huge to another at Wikipedia. The scope of these binding decisions isn't defined and the bar for becoming a judge is set very low. Suppose, for example, that someone with 1000 edits handles a revert war and says You can revert five times a day just because they don't know the three revert rule. I'd set this on the back burner and let it percolate. Maybe it'll brew something good in time. Durova^Charge! 03:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is it would not be binding, unless ArbCom, or some new policy, made it so. It could be voluntary arbitration, which can can not institute remedies (blocks/bans), but can make an arbitrary decision on article disputes and such. That is probably a better way to do this. Prodego ^talk 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without a binding quality it looks like very much like mediation or 3O. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the arbitration committee is hesitant to resolve article disputes, and almost never does, there is no way a lower body should be doing that. Binding determinations on content are bad because they contradict Foundation issue #3, as well as our belief in the value of consensus. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is supposed to be voluntary, yet binding. The bar to become a judge is open to discussion. To prevent the scenario that Durova brought up, there would be a Community Advocate who would ensure that, say in that scenario, 3RR is brought up. G e o. Talk to me 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that people will flock to the idea of voluntary sanctioning. I imagine that people, when given the choice, will choose voluntary and non-binding mediation over voluntary and binding. PT O 03:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually in (as a 3rd party) dispute right now in which the parties probably would have agreed to some type of non blocking/banning arbitration (as in article content only in decision). WP:RFArb#Free Republic. It would be rare though. Prodego ^talk 03:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be like a gentleman's agreement, not voluntary sanctioning. This will not be mediation. G e o. Talk to me 04:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think one needs to look up the definition of arbitration. The difference between mediation and arbitration is that mediation is non-binding, and arbitration is. If it wouldn't be binding, then it's not arbitration. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it willi be binding G e o. Talk to me 02:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who will enforce? Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. As noted above by Chris Parham, the Foundation does not make binding decisions on content. And that seems to be exactly what you want this to do. – Chacor 02:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to this proposal for many of the reasons mentioned. Do we really need another dispute resolution layer? Honestly, dispute resolution is confusing as it is. Users often don't use it because they don't know where to start. And yes, since the arbcom doesn't make binding content decisions, this couldn't either. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 03:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is supposed to be like a binding third opinion. The sysops would enforce it. G e o. Talk to me 03:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It holds no authority. None. If a user breaks the "remedies", sysops cannot enforce anything. Unless the remedy comes from ArbCom, which sources its' power from Jimbo and is considered by Jimbo to be governing over all Wikipedia, people cannot be bound by the decisions. I oppose this, and it seems like yet another attempt to "grab power" by Geo: 1 2 3 4. Daniel.Bryant 21:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to open your wallets...

Apparently Wikipedia might "disappear three or four months from now absent a major infusion of cash donations", according to Slashdot. The post quotes an article which quotes a blog which quotes Anthere as saying:

“

At this point, Wikipedia has the financial ressources [sic] to run its servers for about 3 to 4 months. If we do not find additional funding, it is not impossible that Wikipedia might disappear.

”

This has also made it to fark.com. Some more comments are made here, here and here. MER-C 11:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this belongs here. This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#It's true?. --Ideogram 11:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Jimbo calls BS: [3]. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And even of Jimbo didn't dispute the claim, it goes without saying that the Foundation is not even coming close to its fund raising potential. There is one little unobtrusive thing that can solve WMFs fund raising and societal goals to the tune of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of USDollars per year, and that is advertising. I am serious. The Wikimedia Foundation should utilize advertising on its websites. Period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact is that this isn't an unusual situation for a non-profit. From what I understand wikipedia has been 4 months from bankruptcy since it's inception. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this belongs in the village pump. This is more of a place to make decisions about the community as I understand it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rocinante9x changing "that" <-> "which" in gramatically inappropriate situations

Sorry if I'm in the wrong place; please move as appropriate. After following an edit of Falkirk Wheel I noticed in some of User:Rocinante9x's edits that he/she is changing words here in there in many articles to make them gramatically improper and/or inconsistent. For example, this edit to Hentai creates the gramatically inconsistent "works (noun) that feature... and those which feature...". I'm reporting it here because I don't have time to look through his/her edits and fix them (in fact, just posting here is taking too much of my time!), but thought that it should be brought to the community's attention. --RealGrouchy 03:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: (from Talk:Falkirk Wheel) How the hell does this make sense: "...the amount of water leaving the caisson has exactly the same as the boat." The same what? (weight).

This uncommented edit introduced this error (although it wasn't clear in the previous version, either), and also replaced "that" with "which" in two places that went against the definitions/preferred uses in Wiktionary's entries for that and which.

I reversed the that/which error (which User:Rocinante9x changed in a number of articles), and clarified the "exactly the same" sentence, only for User:Calton to "revert" my "misguided" edits back to the improper and unclear version by User:Rocinante9x! If my understanding of the English language is incorrect, I would encourage someone to reference a source that says so! --RealGrouchy 19:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing is called "which hunting". Here's a blog full of linguists, Language Log, decrying it; they explain in several ways why real English makes no grammatical distinction between "which" and "that" in restrictive clauses. Your edits don't introduce anything incorrect, but I agree that your reason for making them is misguided. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FLC

...seems like something of a graveyard at the moment, could do with some more eyes and reviewers. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for community ban

Starwars1955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) first showed up as an anonymous user on 9 December 2006 (here) on the Brett Favre article talk page, requesting unprotection so he could edit the statistics. His changes resulted in removing references (here) and overall just seems to be very confused about WP rules. Long story short, a bunch of violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA ended up getting him indefinitely blocked. This has not stopped him.

Widescale creation of sockpuppets (list of socks used by him) used to edit the Favre article and try to trick administrators who aren't completely aware of the situation into "helping" him (here)

Continues with personal attacks here, here, here, and my personal favorite, where he brings my age into the picture for some reason

Disrupts Wikipedia to make a point here by adding a sixth link on Peyton Manning, so that he can cite that page as "evidence" here

Simply will not stop reverting to the same edit he made months ago here, here, here, and here (with misleading edit summaries too)

He has been nothing but a nuisance; I am suggesting that he be banned from the wiki community. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin who tried to reason with Starwars1955, eventually blocked him indefinitely, and have blocked at least two of his socks, I support a community ban. He's shown absolutely no variance in his behavior despite both counseling and warnings from multiple users, including at least two admins. I see no evidence that the user intends to reform. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support as well. He has leveled accusations of policy violations at multiple editors but has refused to follow through, leading me to believe he doesn't actually understand the policies he's citing but rather issuing empty threats. At the same time he violates those same policies and, when called out for it, accuses editors of being biased against him. The behavior King Bee evidenced above clearly demonstrates a persistent user who has no desire to change his ways despite being given several clear suggestions as to how to do so. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, at this point I've had a couple of conversations with the editor in question under various accounts he has created and he just doesn't seem to get it. I've laid out explicitly why the editor was blocked and what the editor should not do if they want to avoid being blocked in the future. The editor's latest incarnation was extended a wide lattitude of WP:AGF and when I advocated letting him edit Talk:Brett Favre to discuss these changes, his response was basically that he was right so there is nothing more to discuss. I think at this point it is clear the individual in question has no intention of changing their behavior so a ban is the appropriate next step. I pretty clearly warned this individual that this was the next step if they did not stop being disruptive. Beyond that it should also be mentioned that the editor has edited extensively from 4.245.XXX.XXX IPs to make these exact same changes.--Isotope23 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if everyone is discussing a ban, why does it say on Starwars1955's userpage that he is already banned? That template on his userpage is the incorrect template, unless Starwars1955 was banned by decision of Jimbo Wales, the Arbitration Committee, or community consensus. Acalamari 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect, as far as I know. Jaranda added the template a while ago, but the user is indefinitely blocked, not banned. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to bring this up, as an administrator and I got in trouble about three weeks ago for the banning of a user when we should have discussed a ban with other users and administrators. I just wanted to make sure you didn't fall into the same problem. Acalamari 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the tag. WP:AGF, Jaranda just made a mistake. I've seen a lot of people confuse indefs with bans.--Isotope23 18:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true, all these people are trying to do is ganned up on him and revert ebery edit he made, all that is trying to be proved is that the edits by BeverlyHills85 are verifiable, and PSUMark2006 did that, and they belong, I'm a friend of starwars1955 and all he wants is for the info to be added, but he can't get a fair shake people admit that the info is verifiably, but won't add it, MRDarcy banned malibu55 for sock with no proof and I'm diffenatly not a sock, just a friend at a firrerent location, starwars1955 also requested to be unblocked and user Yamla reverted the unblock request which he had no right to do and fully protected the starwars1955 talk page, he's not getting a fair shake and all the people her are the ones that have ganned up from day one, and it's wrong, the only issue its whether or not the info belongs and is verifiable, it is and as far as the sixth link on Peyton Manning, there were 5 to begin with, so what's wrong with adding the sixth ans final, Thanks, GrowingPains1 18:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)GrowingPains1[reply]

The issue here has nothing to do with the verifiability of edits anymore. That may have been the catalyst, but King Bee provided evidence of the similarity between Malibu55's edits and previously-identified sockpuppets. The information, when confirmed by the sources I've contacted, will be added to the article. If that's your only concern, there's no need to worry yourself about this any further. Thanks, PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a sockpuppet? You registered very recently, and seem to know a lot about the situation with Starwars1955. Acalamari 18:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is exhibiting behavior similar to that of previously-identified and blocked socks, in particular removing comments that challenge his position: [4]. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starwars1955, has been editing Brett Favre since October under his IP address, and he created the Playoff stats section and the box above it and most of the records and milestones, the only reason it's come to this is because these people have ganned up on him because they want the Favre page there way or no way, and that's not the wikipedia way, the edits by BeverlyHils85 are correct and verifiable, even PSUMark2006 agrees to that and aviper2k7 and King Bee have personally attacked starwars1955 many times, they tried to provoke him and he handled it maturely, GrowingPains1 18:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)GrowingPains1[reply]

We must have edited at the same time, I didn't delete anything, I wouldn't do that, why do you accuse people, that's a personal attack, King Bee removed 3 of Peyton Mannings infobox stats saying three is enough, see it's his way or no way, malibu55 only added 1, there were five to begin with, three is not enough, there are links to all six and people just have to fill in the code, 3 is not enough, wikipedia designed them to be there for people to link too, it has nothing to do with WP:POINT, no point is trying to be made, just links are being added for the community, why is King Bee doing this?, GrowingPains1 18:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)GrowingPains1[reply]

This just sort of brings the point home. GrowingPains1 = Starwars1955. The user's first edit after creating the userpage was to hit King Bee's talkpage. He reverted to another SW55 sock edit at Peyton Manning. He commented on Aviper2k7's talkpage. He signs pages the same way. He mis-spells the same words. Yet he still inisinuates he is not SW55, BeverlyHils85, or Malibu55, etc. I think the fact that he is creating socks to continue these edits and mischaracterize other editors opinions really demonstrates that there is no reason to believe this editor is ever going to change their ways.--Isotope23 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]