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 Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on 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. If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}} 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 seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Chiropractic probation?

There's been some discussion here about putting Chiropractic-related articles on a probation similar to that for Homeopathy. (Well, to be fair, I'm the one recommending a new/expanded probation. Others just want to slap the Homeopathy probation onto these as well.) After a quick perusal of the behavior that goes on at these articles, I'd say it's warranted. I just don't think we should blindly apply the Homeopathy probation to these; it sets a bad precedent. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Then propose a separate probation. Jehochman ^Talk 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that's what I was doing... --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that motion. The chiropractic related articles aren't generally covered by the homeopathy probation, nor should they. They need a probation of their own. Barring that, a general probation for all alternative medicine/fringe ideas probation might be a possibility. -- Fyslee / talk 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree probation areas in their nature need to well separated for an honest "rule of law", I think genrally expanded probation is wrongheaded, too indefinite and subject to abuses, as this is showing us. Things in most alternative areas I see seem to be cooling down. Editing in areas I am familiar with seem to be 1-2 disruptive editors short of a decent collaboration. One of the problems I see repeatedly is bad science being used to deprecate commercial & philosophical competitors and to push POVs that are not scientifically founded despite popular & highly advertised unreliable claims of "mainstream" something (its not science whatever mainstream it is).--I'clast (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I too would rather limit it to the chiropractic related articles. -- Fyslee / talk 20:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My thinking is that dealing with 1-2 blatant disruptives in WP's evolving policy enforcement atmosphere will solve the worst of this problem soon enough. Also I think temporarily protecting the articles to force discussion during problem periods, or other limited actions for limited times, is much preferable to indefinite "martial law".--I'clast (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea that could help calm down the problem areas while kicking the worst editors out of the boat, see below. east.718 at 21:10, March 6, 2008

New proposal for discretionary sanctions

The article probation now in place is obviously not working, and I've identified a few reasons why. First is that it's obviously restricted to homeopathy, and with that area under tight scrutiny, the most problematic POV-pushers, incivil editors, and edit warriors have either just moved on to other articles or edit by proxy on the homeopathy ones. It's particularly frustrating for new editors because they get steamrolled by the disruption carried over by the regulars; it's frustrating for the pro-fringe editors because they have to put up with relentless incivility and taunting; and it's frustrating for the pro-science editors because they have to deal with constant pushing and rules-lawyering. Mediation has been largely unsuccessful, and we can't keep on locking down various corners of the encyclopedia forever - it hurts good-faith new editors (a dying breed, I know :-P) and results in a cat-and-mouse game with the problematic ones: put homeopathy onto probation, they move onto chiropractic; do the same to chiropractic, and what's next? Administrators need a way to easily sanction disruptive editors on both sides of the fence, and this may be a solution:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of pseudoscience or fringe science, to be broadly interpreted, if despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of any length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid hostility toward genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

And I even cooked up a fancy template!

This article and its editors are subject to general sanctions by decree of the Wikipedia Community (see relevant discussion). Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor working on this article if that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The previous article probation imposed by the community would be superseded by this measure. Thoughts? east.718 at 21:10, March 6, 2008

Is that a BEAR TRAP? Because...daaaamn. If it's not, it looks like one...what is it? Gladys J Cortez 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bear trap. east.718 at 22:30, March 6, 2008

Thanks for the effort, but I have to say it is too arbitrary in general nature and presumes that normal admins really can distinguish "good science" from popular myths & delusions misrepresented about science and its practice in the sometimes blurred areas of current or frequently misunderstood science (not even fringe or proto-). Sadly my experience here is a very mixed bag. I have pretty good editing experience with actually active science and medical researchers through WP:V, but a fair amount of misery from students, POV warriors, and less technically informed, experimentally trained or experienced editors, including *some* POVish admins.

Otherwise, I think that the admins do need to deal with serial harrassers. For instance, here's one now. I haven't ever edited "Homeopathy" and I am one of the *least* homeopathetic personalities - the average doctor looks two dilutions (XX) closer to Homeopathy than me and I am being warned (harrassed again by this editor) on Homeopathy?!? I properly objected to a POV/edit warring editor's clear misuse of a warning tag.--I'clast (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the nature of the sanctions proposed - this would not empower admins to enforce particular views on content (which is a Bad Thing and is never done), but rather to deal with disruptive editors easier. Involved admins are already excluded from enforcing sanctions under my proposal; we don't want another Matthew Hoffman on our hands. I think my proposal is more in line with what you want: shifting the focus from articles that are disrupted to the people disrupting it themselves. east.718 at 22:30, March 6, 2008

I think that it needs clear criteria and a more subtle power change where I think the powers are largely adequate but either unused, unsymmetrical in application or misdirected. I certainly support decisive action with clearly disruptive editors. But "ganging up & setting up" being the partisan sport that it is, my whole I'clast talk has ample such examples including involved admins, needing to have criteria. Many who think they have an idea of who is pro-science or what is science have been demonstrated not to have a very solid understanding.--I'clast (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But, lets be serious about this new proposal idea. We have seen, time and time again, that it really doesn't matter who is right or wrong on these calls, which basically amount to poor understanding of policy. What matters is who can create the biggest drama out of the tiniest bit of evidence. I think we have seen this over and over again on the Enforcement board (SA, ring a bell?) and on the probation/incidents board. The new proposal basically opens up even more leeway for more people to start screaming about how they were harmed by the tiniest of rebuffs in their editing. But this is a step in the right direction. Baegis (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm open, but structure and criteria are extremely important.--I'clast (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters, if someone would listen to what Filll and many others have been talking about for several months, we could move forward. The only surefire block that most admins will make is for a violation of CIVIL, because frankly, it's an easy call and appears to be reversed rarely. Civility is a problem, but not the only problem, in these articles. Blatant violations of the other policies are much more important to correct. After all, isn't the great goal of this whole collaboration to build an encyclopedia that encompasses the whole of human knowledge? I think I've read that somewhere, I don't know. The point is, if we are serious about building an encyclopedia, the content is what is most important. It appears that some people here are under the presumption that the world is all ice cream and puppy dogs. It's not. People will always argue over what they want to include; it's a fact that has been reinforced in every controversial article here. I have seen very few examples of civility based blocks on these articles that did not have another, much more important, policy violation at it's core. Until we address that and find admin's willing to put in the leg work to make the difficult calls, things will continue as they always have. However, the admin's most qualified to make these calls and who have already done the leg work are forbidden to take action, because they already edit these articles. Excluding your most qualified people from controversial areas is never going to result in a net positive result. The status quo will forever remain. Baegis (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So perhaps for part of structure, the involved admins would be responsible for generating the complaint, requesting informal input, summarizing the logic and evidence for several other generally knowledgeable & experienced but uninvolved admins to review, query and maybe sign off - a special, more admin controlled and centric RfC?--I'clast (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Lawrence § t/e 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Support, although why admins need this to help them do what they are already empowered to do is beyond me, except to help them avoid those other admins who seem to enjoy taking down admins (Vanished User, et.al). --Shot info (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. -- Fyslee / talk 03:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Support in principle, though it's probably unworkable in practice. Admins get worn out with this stuff. For example the Homeopathy probation remains in place but is no longer being enforced. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Support -- broadening the coverage will help. I also think we need to be more vigilant to uncover the sock farms that are active here. If we can remove these highly disruptive editors, the situation may improve. Jehochman ^Talk 19:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Support per Jehochman. Rudget (?) 19:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Support is this a small step in the right direction? *fingers crossed* Baegis (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Sure, but there need to be a larger number of uninvolved admins who are willing to police these areas, otherwise sanctions are useless. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Support: Sanctions are useless without uninvolved administrators who are willing to essentially babysit the page and review every incoming edit. And as we have seen before, administrators grow tired quickly of having to do just that at Homeopathy. But it's a strong start. seicer | talk | contribs 19:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Support - Like said above we need admins to enforce it though, and uncover the sock farms that are active there. Tiptoety ^talk 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Support This is a problem that has found a solution (hopefully). MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No support Bad idea because it singles out alt med articles. . . this would be a sanction that is POV driven in nature.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Completely untrue, this would also cover non-altmed articles such as Time Cube and cold fusion. But then again, looking at your talk page makes me believe that you'd be one of the editors on the wrong end of any sanction, so I suppose your comment must be viewed in that context. east.718 at 03:48, March 7, 2008

   Rude. . . This reveals the poor motives behind east's proposal. . . obviously it is POV in nature. I want to see exacting guidlines of who can apply this tag and to which articles it can be applied. . . Is this only for pseudoscience articles? What is a pseudoscience article?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Typically, the ones where people fight over inclusion of material like "pseuodoscience" and over WEIGHT and UNDUE and FRINGE matters. Pseudoscience being "science" not accepted by the mainstream accepted scientific community. Lawrence § t/e 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Bad science, pseudoskepticism, personal & commercial COI, and fundamental WP:RS problems with supposedly reliable technical sources (e.g. "highly respected journals" with 98+% funds from advertising of narrow corporate interests, "technical" articles support certain products, disparage cheap competitors with longest scientific base) parading as mainstream Science are frequent problems in some areas of WP.--I'clast (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   This is the type of nonsense that makes me believe even more now that all of you involved in (insert long term conflict name) should have no say in whether we probation the lot. "Science"? Your bias fly is open. Lawrence § t/e 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Civility and AGF issues aside, since I have not seen you before this AN, you may be frustrated from working in other areas of WP. Let me assure you there are controversy areas where WP:V science conflicts severely with popularly held or cherished views of many less currently informed technicians and professionals, who *think* that "they are being scientific" by spouting a position, who often are (over)relying on unreliable sources (often inadvertently or indirectly from youth onwards). Nor are many "preferred" technical sources as pristine as many seem to zealously assert - reconciliation and fact-checking of these various sources is where WP:V and SPOV meet at WP. Science is how I refer to science practiced with integrity and respect to general principles rather just than dogma, formulaic positions of economic rent (and power) seekers of all stripes & guilds, and spurious officialdom that often are little more than empty suits for hire. I also suggest that you dispense with the "command & control or be extinguished (little bug)" format - it is getting tiresome and conflicts with a number of WP policy positions.--I'clast (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Nonsupport The article probation structure does need an overhaul, it is ineffective & counterproductive as today's unreversed trolling shows my pgagainLCat East'sHP pg(e.g: 1. at my "notification" posting should have been *erased* since I have no involvement in Homeopathy, 2. the originator should have had that repeatedly abused privilege, removed, IMHO). I am very leery of more "superpowers", potentially to an inexperienced cocksure, hotshot admin that might blow someone's legs off before any real process occurred. I think that this is an element in the M Hoffman case and I have felt such danger potential myself because of the "gang up and set up" game on my Talk page and other contrived "offenses" for either partisan or uninformed admins (a big downside of an uninvolved admin is often an uninformed admin in complex or long running situations).--I'clast (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Could support if modified. The pseudoscience articles are a warzone (hell, a trivial article like What the Bleep Do We Know has been a minefield for nearly a year). Handing over this kind of power to single admins would be suicide for both sides of the disputes. Set up a shortcut process of some kind, but some kind of process ... some way that single admins can't hand out blocks arbitrarily or based on mistakes.Kww (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Admin actions can still be contested via the normal channels and are subject to the same norms applied to all other areas of the encyclopedia. The main aim of this proposal is to shift the focus from a moving target (whatever articles happen to be under attack today) to the editors that are responsible. east.718 at 20:03, March 7, 2008

4. Oppose Most Strongly Far too arbitrary, totally uncalled for and stultifying. If the article probation isn't working, why would anyone think that expanding the same type of probation would be effective? Nope: far too Draconian and ridiculous. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Non-support. The article probation on homeopathy may need to be improved, but certainly should not be expanded to other areas of the Wikipedia unless and until it is established to be working well in the relatively small area where it is being tried. Starting a brand new and larger experiment would be a bad idea in my opinion at this time. —Whig (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose for now I need to be convinced that probation is working on homeopathy before I suggest it should be used in other areas. I think that just extending admin powers to apply WP:CIVIL more aggressively (which is what probation is, nothing more) does not correct our underlying problems, which I have detailed repeatedly. We do have other principles like WP:NPOV that should be applied here, and just frantically applying WP:CIVIL more and more often and for the smallest slights is not really helping; do you think it is? So why apply this failed strategy even more broadly?--Filll (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Enforcing civility isn't the goal here - it's to sanction activity that is against the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to create a neutral encyclopedia. Abusing Wikipedia for advocacy, propaganda, ideological struggle, furtherance of outside conflicts - and yes, even rules-lawyering CIVIL - will be dealt with much swifter if this were to pass. east.718 at 20:03, March 7, 2008

   I know that it is not the intention to just enforce WP:CIVIL, but that is the practical effect, because that is all that admins really can enforce easily and all they really want to enforce for a variety of reasons. I think we need to rethink this entire problem from a deeper more radical perspective. See the discussion here.--Filll (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose. I think we should treat all our articles equally. If anyone repeatedly violates behavior or content rules, they should be warned and eventually blocked. This seems to single out certain articles at the expense of others. Crum375 (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose Admins with little or no knowledge of science (or in the case of one admin above, an anti-science POV) will stick their noses into this situation and cause these articles to become anti-science in nature. There really isn't a discussion when WP:VERIFY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE are utilized. We don't need anti-science or non-science admins ruining these articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} —Preceding comment was added at 22:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose I think this moves the infighting from many editors to administrators who can essentially impose their will on an article legally. I am not sure this is the kind of power that should be held by any one administrator, even one with the best of intentions. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose I've been editing Chiropractic on and off recently and found the interactions quite civilized. I see no reason why the usual remedies aren't sufficient even if there is disruption on some pages. Inevitably, whether an admin judges some behaviour to be "disruptive" will be coloured by the admin's perception of the value of the content being promoted by the user. Content should be determined by all editors, not primarily by admins; this shifts more power to the admins. The above proposal is not clearly worded at all: what is it? A proposal to apply probation to certain articles? A proposal to change the rules of the probation on homeopathy? A proposal to change the rules of all article probations? The rules in the template given above are very vague and simply allow administrators to arbitrarily define as disruptive whomever they wish to (e.g. people they disagree with). Let's stick with our more objective criteria such as 3RR (or 1RR if considered necessary on some articles) in order to have the best chance of getting a NPOV encyclopedia. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Other

1. It is way too broad as presented. Some checks and balances would be needed in the event of long term blocks and bans. A minimum of number of administrators to support a long term block or ban, for example, may be needed. I would support if such minimum consensus standards would be added to the proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think anybody is suggesting that a single admin would be permitted to hold out against a consensus. :-) east.718 at 20:04, March 7, 2008

2. I don't see how this would change anything. Another template saying "follow the rules or else" is meaningless if there is no "or else" in practice. If anything this would seem to tend to make enforcement more arbitrary and capricious - which seems to be the essence of the problem now. Dlabtot (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
3. I still have never seen a reliable off-wiki definition of "pseudoscience" that an uninvolved admin could refer to to decide what is or is not "pseudoscience". The existing use of the term here on wikipedia is exactly and perfectly equivalent to calling something heresy, and heresy is in the "religious eye of the beholder". Now, as "scientific materialism" is indeed a religion unto itself, we have [Pseudoscience] = [Heresy]. Same thing for "fringe science". Who get's to "decide" what is or is not on the "fringes" of mainstream science? For every editor who throws the charge of "pseudoscience POV pusher", another editor can counter by citing Brian D. Josephson and claiming "Pathological disbelief". The nonsense going on over at "Cold Fusion" is a perfect case in point here, see Nobel laureat Josephson's presentation. Slide 21 is perfect. Furthermore, how is an uninvolved administrator supposed to decide if an editor "seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia..." -- what the heck is THAT? Until there is an objective, reliable and usable off-wiki definition of "pseudoscience" that an uninvolved and non-partisan admin can use to objectively assess claimants charges of "pseudoscience"...this is all nonsense. I have looked through RfCs, mediations, and just about every administrative case that has been brought...I've seen others ask and I've asked for an objective, usable and practical definition of "pseudoscience", I have never gotten one, and I conclude that there is no such thing. WNDL42 (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Violation of own sign

One of the problems is that admins don't enforce existing powers adequately. QuackGuru is running around abusing that warning tag,[1][2][3][4][5][] (and me too). Why not ban QuackGuru from the Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation notifications page and placing the Warning tag? He certainly is not uninvolved. He can always ask other editors or use WP:AN for any as yet undetected homeopathy here. He's earned a vacation (for the rest of the editors) and now overdue in my view.--I'clast (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. He's continually poking, and then has the temerity to cry about incivility. How much poking from him are other editors expected to take without any response? -- Fyslee / talk 05:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. . . this is a poor editor who is always looking for trouble. Send him packing.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Note on !vote above

The community should place less weight on the opinions of any involved editors/warriors when sorting out whether a topic should be under probation. Probation is to protect the articles and the rest of us from the fighting--it's not for the benefit, or detriment, of any parties. Please keep this in mind when weighing consensus, to deprecate the views of those involved warriors. Lawrence § t/e 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We should focus on analysis, facts and workability.--I'clast (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But when push comes to shove in a problem area, the known editors and players in that problem area should have less (or no!) voice in whether externally mandated group sanctions come into effect. Period, full stop. Lawrence § t/e 00:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Looking at it, it seems that there's at least a split in whether they think this will be a good idea. To me, that's a sign that they're thinking for themselves on this. Beyond that, perhaps the generals should listen to a few voices from the battlefield to see how the battle's going and if their battleplan is working out. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Instruction creep

This proposal seems to me to be ultimately futile. It, frankly, won't work because the people who are committed to their beliefs in (non)reality will simply bring their cabals to the (in)appropriate fora and find six to twelve sycophant administrators/arbitrators who will support their whining and chastise the administrator who is brave enough to act in the best interest of the encyclopedia. This will continue to be the case no matter what fancy boilerplate is placed on any article. The groups involved in these disputes are simply smarter at gaming Wikipedia than your average administrator is capable of handling.

What administrators really should do is get more courageous and start giving swift kicks in the rears to people that disrupt the encyclopedia regardless of whether they can live up to some arbitrary evidence standard. Such action is risky because admins doing this will end up removed from their coveted high-status administrative positions and chased off Wikipedia for making mistakes or, even worse, actually doing the right thing. That's the nature of the beast: people want to stay administrators because they like the title and the power and they won't risk their necks in actually using the mops and buckets to do any good because the only people who would be willing to act in such a way either never become administrators or are eventually desysopped. Making admins braver is the only way things will change. This proposal, on the other hand, is toothless as all but the most naive will simply not act with appropriate violence against the name-callers/abject lunatics.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi ScienceApologist, there is a lot of truth in what you're saying. I think some form of proposal similar to this could work, but it needs a mechanism to remove long term disruptive editors, who, as you correctly note, are skilled in gaming Wikipedia. Perhaps something along the lines of any individual admin could ban a disruptive editor for up to a week, and 3 admins can jointly decide to ban an editor for up to a year. Addhoc (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about even 3 admins replacing the usual RFAR ban or block period of 1 yr, because that appears to be too long to me w/o more input & process. Also "sides" in a POV can be that big (3 admins). Again a hard criterion or two would be expected (need an essential defining feature or two). With good criteria and say appeal process that requires 2-3 admins' signatures for shortening/overturning, I could easily say 1, 2, maybe 3 months blocks, 3 - 6 month topic bans with subsequent blocks/bans presumably being easier if the system is working correctly and the recividist editor isn't.--I'clast (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed one structural element above. Building a brick at a time.--I'clast (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Decisions like that will and should be handled by uninvolved users, taking the feedback from known partisans into consideration. Ultimately, though, known players in problem warzones on Wikipedia should have no decision in whether external probations come into play. Lawrence § t/e 00:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone begins as an uninvolved editor. Antelan ^talk 01:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved, experienced *admins* with a track record for knowledge, policy, fair play, maturity (former User:Gleng, now at CZ, would be a great model).--I'clast (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that some experimentation might be valuable. After all, we performed a miracle on the evolution, intelligent design and creationism articles, for the most part and quelled some tremendous fighting there by a sequence of measures, some of which I describe here, and we developed those techniques through experimentation.

Maybe some of these measures could help in the pseudoscience area, and maybe different measures would be needed. One thing that is different, at least in the alternative medicine arena, is that many alternative medicine practioners are here on Wikipedia, and they view presentation of critical mainstream material as financially and professionally detrimental. And we have a cadre of administrators who are unable or unwilling to sanction anyone who is lobbying to remove mainstream content from these articles.

Things have become much worse of course with the signals lately sent from Arbcomm that WP:CIVIL is not just the main thing, but the only thing that is of any import on Wikipedia. And these sorts of signals are absorbed by the community. However, I think that this sort of attitude is detrimental to the actual production of an encyclopedia.

The most important thing is not civility per se, but productivity. And an overemphasis on civility at all costs can have terrible negative consequences for productivity. See this discussion for example. So let's try to develop new techniques that go to the root of the problem, rather than just attacking WP:CIVIL more vigorously.

For example, some of the most productive people on both the pro-science and the pro-pseudoscience sides are not so civil, necessarily. But they produce. And many of the more civil, and more expert at gaming the system, produce nothing. And so we push away the productive people, and keep the unproductive. And where does that get us?

You know, if all constructive edits completely ceased, and we just had pleasant conversations on the talk page, things would be perfectly WP:CIVIL. But we would not be writing an encyclopedia.--Filll (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I missed the signals lately sent from Arbcomm that WP:CIVIL is not just the main thing, but the only thing ... could you provide diffs of these 'signals' so that we can know that they were really sent? After all, we wouldn't want to base our decisions on a rhetorical device that is basically a falsehood. Dlabtot (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well this might not have been the intention of Arbcomm (although information I have through unofficial channels is that this was their intention). However, clearly from the associated talk pages I am not the only one who has taken away that impression, intended or not. You are free to disagree that they gave this impression or intended to give this impression, but it is a little hard to argue that many people have been given this impression. --Filll (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the premise of your argument has no basis in reality that you are able to cite. Dlabtot (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to try to convince you that this perception is correct. Others have it, and I am one of them. If you do not perceive things this way, well good for you. Others might not agree with you. So what? That is what makes the world go around. Of course, as I stated, there is no explicit pronouncement of this; it is just an inference that some have drawn from their observations. --Filll (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of convincing me that you are correct as it is of making some small effort to connect what you describe as your 'impressions' with some sort of objective reality. You claim you are basing your impressions on observations: what observations? Dlabtot (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm pretty sure you are not going to answer the simple question I've posed to you above, let me try another tack: the Arbitration Committee does explicitly say that it does not rule on content issues - is that what your are complaining about? Are you advocating for ArbCom to rule on content? If not, what exactly are you advocating for? Dlabtot (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot, Filll is referring to cases such as the recent MH case where certina ArbCom members and the Committee's collective action makes their views on civility being more important than anything else abundantly clear. To be fair, it is not all committee members who hold such views, but Filll's perception is well grounded in reality. I can't speak for Filll, but I would say that ArbCom ruling on content would be a disaster - content rulings need to involve people who understand that content, making a single body for all of WP problematic because of the amount of technical / specialised content. Further, there is also a perception at present that ArbCom's understanding of science issues is, to be charitable, less than stellar. For ArbCom, what I would advocate is a focus on actions that improving the content, making it easier to deal with tendentious but civil editors. The present situation, where admins will jump in, guns blazing, to enforce WP:CIVIL, but take no action about the underlying violations of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:DE, and WP:TE that led to the incivil outburst, is unhelpful - and ArbCom is contributing to the problem at the moment, rather than to its solution. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's simply not true that ArbCom has ever said, or implied, that civility being more important than anything else. Which is why it is impossible to quote any ArbCom decision that says or implies that. Dlabtot (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You just keep flogging that dead horse Dlabtot. You want a medal for doing it?--Filll (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot, you have every right to maintain your incorrect opinion, and even to attempt to persuade others to your view. You asked for some indication of the observations upon which such views are founded, and I provided an example. The MH case is a lot more than just the final decision - look at the evidence, the associated RfC, and the talk page pleadings for the proposed decision to be modified, and then try to declare (with a straight face) that ArbCom's actions didn't send signals loudly and clearly. Jay*Jay (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jay*Jay is completely correct. One need only look at the talk pages associated with the MH case and the associated 3 RfCs to observe many others who have reached the same impression I have. And as for what I suggest we do about it, I would humbly suggest you read my posts above where I repeatedly made suggestions and included links to pages with much more extensive discussions of what I suggest we do about the situation. Actually reading people's posts can help you absorb information about their positions and suggestions, in certain instances, don't you agree?--Filll (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically we are looking to even slightly expand criteria beyond the uncivil outburst & meltdown stage at length in a way that is fair to editors from several sides (proto-, fringe-, pseudo- science, science area1, science area2, "skeptic") based on other behavior or concrete actions or content improvement, to restore Good Faith and NPOV editing.--I'clast (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be heretical and point out that the real problem is the very concept that being "fair" to fringe science and pseudoscience proponents includes allowing them to edit Wikipedia. If they were simply blocked from editing, the battle level would be reduced significantly. I know there's an argument that people that believe that their television is controlled by spirits or that they can cure cancer by wishing it would go away can still write a good article on Hannah Montana. That's probably true, but is self-sorting. As long as they limit themselves to pop culture articles, no one would have a clue that there was a problem. Once they venture into the science articles, ban them after the first couple of problematic edits.Kww (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The worst "science" or most "skeptic" editors are pushing their pet personality, technical illiteracy, COI or POV, not science - neither current research results nor methods. Some appear to be simply cousins of the 4000 BC flood geologists at heart (WP:V denialists), just they got stuck in the 1950s, perhaps interning over at the McCarthy trials.

This is why I have asked about criteria (and symmetry), so far I see no serious effort by others to help solve the cypher after East's proposal.--I'clast (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am stating that the current approach of WP:CIVIL enforcement only is not helpful, and might even be detrimental to productivity. Other approaches should be considered and tried. And one of those could include broader enforcement as you suggest, although to implement broader enforcement by just making some declaration, or fatwah is probably not realistic or practical.--Filll (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Filll (and others) on what the import of the MH arbitration case is, but I agree with his point that people should read his essay and the discussion at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal. There are real issues here, ones that are difficult to solve, and complex, nuanced solutions are needed. Such solutions still need to be relatively easy to implement, but not too simplified. That is not instruction creep, but rather it is improving the current situation through discussion and guidance. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty good essay Fill, glad it worked out, might be useful in other cases. Several parts might seem too heavyhanded for other situations though, so there is no substitute for NPOV, V, GF when others claim to try to apply it.--I'clast (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A good essay - I'd like to note that it seems evolution was able to achieve FA status without throwing WP:CIVIL out the window. Dlabtot (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet accusations on Homeopathy article probation page

User:Jehochman is repeating unproven sock puppet accusations [6] and anon users have been seeking to out a real name on the same page [7]. Oversight may be needed. —Whig (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also see this thread on H/AP/I and RfCU. —Whig (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I don't see the problem here. User:Jehochman appears to be faithfully reporting the checkuser results, while the attempted "outing" of User:The Tutor appears to be an (unnecessary) attempt to connect two accounts in the notification section, not an attempt to out anybody. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, but the checkuser was brought for the purpose of outing someone, and attempted to tie a new user to a known sockpuppeteer of opposing POV along with the real named user that the accuser was trying to verify as the same as the new user. The real named user is attempting to exercise his right to vanish, the new user denies being the same person, and no evidence has proven this connection. Hence the tying of these accounts defeats the real named user's desire to vanish, and tarnishes the new user as an alleged sock puppet. Please note that neither the named user nor the new user have ever been accused of misconduct, so this whole exercise is really nothing but a disruption and likely to chase away a valuable new contributor if not addressed promptly. —Whig (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are really only two possibilities here:

1. The named user and the new user are different people. In this case, the sock puppet accusation should be removed.
2. The named user and the new user are the same person. In this case, the named user wants to vanish and edit pseudonymously. As an editor in good standing without any accusations of misconduct, the sock puppet accusation should be removed. —Whig (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

He has apparently exercised his rtv. That means no further editing in any form. Continuing under another user name is acceptable, but that means his previous user talk page should be preserved, or at least move the contents to The Tutor's talk page and clean up all uses of his real name. -- Fyslee / talk 03:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I must keep reminding you, there is no proof that these are the same person. —Whig (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be naive. The Tutor can provide evidence that he is not MC, if he wishes to defend himself. You're just muddying the waters and if he is tempted to adopt your defense, you may end up an accessory and get him in more trouble. Better to stay out of it. -- Fyslee / talk 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What? Even if they are the same, there is no prohibition on users abandoning one account and using another one. MC was not under any kind of restriction, he was an editor in good standing. Why should you disrespect someone's desire to have pseudonymity if that is what happened? And why should The Tutor have to respond to these accusations when there was no abuse of sock puppets alleged. —Whig (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Drop the sock puppet thing. That's not an issue here. It's the avoidance of scrutiny (nothing to do with real name or ID) that's the main problem:

"Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts" "Avoiding scrutiny" "Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. [...] It is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions."

It's the deception and deletion of MC's user talk page (a talk page is not owned by the user) with the reasoning that he would vanish, but then reappeared as The Tutor, that's the problem. This has been explained numerous times now, so I give up. -- Fyslee / talk 05:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You are making an unwarranted assumption of bad faith that there was some intention to "confuse or deceive editors". And what is your "legitimate interest" in reviewing these contributions? There was no allegation of bad behavior by either user that would require your review. —Whig (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that wasn't the best template to use since its rather general, but it contains the essentials. As to deception, regardless of intent confusion is the result, and TT's denial is the first deception, minor as it may be. He apparently didn't realize that a later check user would place MC and TT pretty close. (He's not that experienced yet.) BTW, checkuser isn't absolute, but when added to other evidence it makes a much stronger case. You can believe him if you wish, but The Tutor is obviously not a new user and he shares the rather unique interests, knowledge, and mindset of MC closer than a mother is related to their own child. Please don't be naive here. Fighting for a principle is one thing, but ignoring the obvious isn't smart. You and TT need to read these pages:

• Wikipedia:Right to vanish
• Wikipedia:Changing username

Keep in mind that I'll support his choice to continue as TT, provided he admits that MC's RTV wasn't used to vanish, and that his change of username is done properly. MC's edit history needs to follow him, and the contents of MC's user talk page needs to as well. That talk page (which is not owned by MC) was deleted under apparently false pretenses. If he wishes anonymity (I don't recall him asking for it), then I'll certainly do all I can to help him in that regard. Please do not respond before you have thoroughly digested those two pages. -- Fyslee / talk 06:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, this is absurd. I think you should not be allowed to Wikilawyer people like this. —Whig (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe you should be sanctioned for harassment, in fact. You are asserting that a new user lied, without proof, and demanding that he admit he lied in order for you to graciously allow him to abandon the identity which you assert is his. —Whig (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you haven't read those pages. Bad boy. My objections are based on wikipolicies and there's no wikilawyering going on here, only an insistance that an obviously-NOT-new user (only new username) follow policies. TT is not a new user. It's only a new username. TT is not a new user. It's only a new username. TT is not a new user. It's only a new username. (Did that sink in?) Read TT's edit history. Drop this. Your insistance on pressing this issue is beginning to feel like I caught dysentery and the diarrhea is trailing behind me. I can't get rid of you, and your pressing the issue is feeling like harassment. Keep in mind, this doesn't involve you. You aren't TT's mom. Let TT speak for himself. I see from his immediate edit history that he hasn't vanished yet, but is even resuming MC's battles where MC left off, and is keeping you informed. That's not vanishing. -- Fyslee / talk 07:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming arguendo all of your assertions, he has done nothing wrong and your rigid insistence on procedure would still be harassment and wikilawyering. You are failing to assume good faith. You have not been honest in your own statements, but have refactored yourself, I will not say more about it here, please stop treating a new user (even MC was a new user, remember) with such hostility and accusation. You should be ashamed of yourself. All of you who are hounding this person should be ashamed. Given the worst implications of everything, he'd just be a person who wanted to protect his private identity. Leave him alone or this should escalate to ArbCom ASAP. —Whig (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Even were all accusations correct the basis of the checkuser was defective, and no information should have been given in this case or would have been most likely if the named user and new user had not been identified as possible sock puppets of Unprovoked, a totally unbelievable claim for anyone to have made who paid even the slightest attention to the respective POVs of participants. Accusations of sock puppetry are accusations of bad faith, and unfounded accusations of bad faith against new users are a bad thing. —Whig (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's rather odd for Whig to start this thread by talking about me, and not provide any notice to me whatsoever. (The notice got lost in the shuffle. Jehochman ^Talk 22:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)) I just stumbled upon this. Whig has been running around acting as an advocate for User:The Tutor. This is not helpful, and hopefully will stop soon. Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for striking part of this, but I would appreciate if you would also withdraw your attempt to ban me and your claim of bad faith. —Whig (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Pay better attention, please. You are really causing problems by failing to pay attention, in my opinion, which was the original reason that I brought this matter here in the first place as dispute resolution with you. I insist that you strike or remove your personal attack or we may continue to have dispute resolution. —Whig (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Real named users if they break our policies will be hung out by their underwear the same as any other user, full stop. They are entitled to no special protections that any other user does not enjoy. I see no violation there. If you have a "beef" you will bring it up on that page or via an RFAR request. Stop pestering Jehochman with unfounded accusations. He's reporting checkuser evidence is what I see. If a troll, or the Tutor, or whomever that is wanted to leave Wikipedia, he should have left. Picking up the same destructive behaviors under a new name to avoid scrutity is his own failure, not Jehochman's for reporting him. Please go to the proper channels on this. If you do, and lack support, perhaps that would illuminate you as to the value of your stance. Lawrence § t/e 22:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep this friendly. Whig, go ask Thatcher what needs to be done here. He's the checkuser who redacted some content from that RFCU. I removed content in parallel with what he did. Okay, thanks, bye. Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Whig, please point directly to the personal attack you mentioned. I've looked and looked and can't see one. Thanks. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for evidence via diffs on my talk page and still also have yet to see this alleged evidence. It seems without that like an unfortunate effort to harm Jehochman's good name. Lawrence § t/e 22:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Right here. On this very thread. —Whig (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That is absolutely not any sort of violation as you have described it. It is a factually correct observation of your behavior, and a statement of Jehochman's personal wishes for the future of your behavior. Your behavior here is growing disruptive. Do you have any other evidence to warrant your unsourced attacks on another editor? Provide them now while you have time. Lawrence § t/e 22:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a factually correct observation of my behavior. It is factually false as a matter of fact in that I did notice him and provided the link in the immediately following comment. Please stop repeating falsehoods about me. —Whig (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

<--The checkuser case asked to check between a number of editors including [omitted as a courtesy] and The Tutor. Since they were unrelated, no specific allegations of wrongdoing were alleged against them (other than that they were socks, which they aren't) and since this seems to be a case of an editor discontinuing one account and opening another, I see no reason to press forward with the matter. If an editor realizes that he would rather not use his real name, dropping one account and assuming another is just as valid a way of protecting his identity (perhaps even more so) than doing a name change. The history of the original account (active for 3 weeks, 157 edits, no blocks) is not significant enough that we need to force The Tutor to maintain links to the account. RTV is about being kind and humane, and as long as The Tutor is not evading a long block log or something, I see no reason to force him to maintain the linkage. Thatcher 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed short topic ban for Whig

<RI> (Crossposted from Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents) Whig has an extensive history of disruption on homeopathy-related talk pages. This incident is but one of many that editors of these pages have had to endure. I will restrict the following collection of diffs to those posted in the last four days, in the interest of freshness, but please realize that this behavior has gone on for months.

• Demanding good faith of editors, while refusing to extend good faith in return:[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
• Meatpuppetry:[15][16][17][18]
• Wikilawyering:[19][20]
• Personal attacks:[21][22][23]
• Canvassing:[24]
• Arbcom threats:[25][26][27][28]
• Other disciplinary threats:[29]
• Harassing admins who are trying to mediate the situation:[30]
• Schadenfreude over the Matt Hoffman arbcom:[31][32]

This needs to stop. This behavior is poisoning good faith attempts by both pro- and anti-factions to improve coverage of homeopathic topics on Wikipedia. Whig has been the subject of two recent user conduct RFCs (here and here), which have had no effect in changing his tendentious and needlessly argumentative approach. I recommend a broadly defined topic ban (if not a full siteban) that covers all articles and talk pages related to homeopathy, as well as any user page/AN/ANI discussions related to homeopathy. Skinwalker (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support A 31 day 6 month (see below section) topic ban, broad defined, as suggested. If Whig is here for the encyclopedia, and not POV ends, this shouldn't be a problem for him. Lawrence § t/e 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support The diffs above, and linked RFCs, show that Whig continues their longstanding pattern of disruptive editing, in spite of mentorship attempts and second chances.[33] As User: Bishonen stated, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This RFC already has enough proof in it that Whig is a disruptive editor who adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia, and who wastes the time and energy of productive editors. The most important function of the arbitration committee is to protect productive editors from the timewaste and attrition caused by disruptive editors. Take Whig to arbitration."[34] Before we do that, I would move for a 30 day community ban. A topic ban will not work because the disruption will simply migrate to other places. If we are unanimous, we can end this disruption here and now. Otherwise, an arbitration case may be necessary. Jehochman ^Talk 22:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have found little sign of AGF from many of the editors involved who do not seem to be trying to get a NPOV for the articles , just pressing their own POV hard. The Tutor (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support as initiator. I would prefer a community ban - limited topic bans have been placed on Whig in the past, which has led him to increase disruption elsewhere. The main purpose of my proposal is to stop him from further inflaming the situation at Homeopathy, which a broad topic ban would accomplish, but I don't think he's really here to write an encyclopedia. Skinwalker (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Considering the incredibly thin ice he's already on, if he causes trouble elsewhere while on this (or the next after) topic ban, he won't be long for the site anyway. Lawrence § t/e 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  I've been here a whole lot longer than you, it seems. Skinwalker brought these false charges which I have refuted below. No response is needed to the regular crowd of people who have been trying to ban me for five months. —Whig (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse — I trust the judgments here and the diffs provided. --Haemo (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  Please read my response below, regarding the diffs provided. —Whig (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm more inclinded towards a full, indefinite ban. Whig is already under a community-imposed topic ban that lasts until April 15, but it seems to have no effect The terms of the ban were:
  • A 1RR restriction
  • A broadly defined civility and profanity parole
  • No editing homeopathy except for reverting simple vandalism
  • All of the above is enforceable by blocks.
• The only reason that Whig got his indefinite block overturned was because he agreed to the above restrictions, but that's failed. It's obvious that Whig contributes to a poisonous atmosphere in an already troubled area; it's time to kick him out of the boat. east.718 at 23:31, March 8, 2008

  I would encourage you to please read my response below, and I have not violated any of those terms. —Whig (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support / Moral support I endorse the intent to do something about Whig. However a limited topic ban will have no long-term effect. He was under sanctions before which fizzled out with Whig eventually returning to this type of behavior. Past experience suggests that we will have the same conversation every three months or so (maybe one of the devs can write a script to automate the process). Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Then why not just ban him from discussing, participating in, or working on anything homeopathy/science related, at all? That would include editing the articles, discussing issues surrounding them here on Project space, user space, etc.--it's a big encyclopedia. Lawrence § t/e 23:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, if sufficiently airtight to avoid the possibility of circumvention that might be a workable alternative to an indefinite ban. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure it is broad enough to cover movies that pretend to be about science as well. I would hate to see him get bored and join that battle over at What the Bleep Do We Know.Kww (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Whig is one of several who hang around homeopathy and similar topics, agitating and not contributing much except irritation. His very presence impedes progress and contributes to a foul atmosphere. I have had private communications from people on both sides of the homeopathy debate who have become discouraged with the ugly attitudes on the homeopathy pages and related pages, and Whig is a major contributor to these unpleasant behaviors, I am sorry to say. Restricting Whig's actions on the mainspace pages is a pointless exercise because Whig is not really here to build an encyclopedia, but to get into fights with other editors over ridiculous issues, in my opinion.--Filll (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  One of the charges against me involves the fact that I have informed this editor that WP:AGF does not apply in his case when he makes statements without providing sources. I can provide the reason if that is requested. —Whig (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• support/endorse mainly Jehochman's remarks. The Tutor is correct that there have been serious AGF and other problems with some related articles on all sides; however, this is in no way mitigates the incredible disruptiveness that Whig has demonstrated. Indeed, I'd be inclined to guess that much of the failure to assume AGF comes from people exhausted with having to deal with Whig. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or greater. Whig is a consistently obstructive presence whose modest useful inputs have been consistently overshadowed by tendentious traits, obfuscation, baiting, rules-lawyering, and a general unwillingness to compromise. — Scientizzle 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support 6 mo. ban. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  Please read my response below, and explain your reasoning. —Whig (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The vast majority of the above editors are the usual suspects who have content issues with Whig and with homeopathy. Whig has shown great civility. Because he is knowledgeable about wiki-rules, he is more of a threat to the above editors who have frequently sought to silence him and who make up or exaggerate problems. Let's AGF even when we disagree with editors. DanaUllman^Talk 01:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Comments from Lawrence suggest that Whig's edits outside the broadly-defined areas of science, alternative medicine, and pseudoscience is unproblematic - and as such, the community ban which Whig would otherwise richly deserve may not yet be totally justified. I have read Whig's response below, and do not believe it even begins to address his disruptive behaviour. His constant refusals to listen - amply demonstrated in his declarations in previous AN/I discussions and at the RfC that he would continue to act as he has previously - his continuing wikilawyering, and the obnoxious schadenfreude make these further sanctions over and above the now-failed editing restrictions (which, I might add, he has wikilawyered about being described as a probation) long overdue. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support I've watched Whig for several months. He attacks other editors without remorse, and has not been a useful member of this community. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support a long vacation. I have posted further diff's for this case on the Incidents page. I did not want to clutter everything up here. I would also like to note that the two opposes greatly reinforce some of the comments I made in my evidence. In short, Whig willingly broke the terms of his editing restrictions (and even claimed he was never under any restrictions) and should be held accountable. Baegis (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite ban. Why indefinite? Because he has consistently revealed a pattern that shows he can't understand basic science, and even if he does, refuses to learn from it. This leads to an attitude problem where his energy seems to be focused on what he sees as "The Truth", and then, as Fill so aptly puts it: "Whig is not really here to build an encyclopedia, but to get into fights with other editors over ridiculous issues." I share his opinion. Many things have been tried, but nothing has worked, and a short ban has no hope of working. Nothing useful has come from Whig's presence here. Few users here are so successful at wasting vast amounts of our time. It's time to get rid of one of the major thorns under our saddles. -- Fyslee / talk 04:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support a 6 month community ban, for continuing tendentious editing. .. dave souza, talk 19:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support 6 month ban / block. Addhoc (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban from WP for 6months. After looking at his edits, the diffs above, and reading his response below, this action seems to be supported and sustainable. Whig could maybe become a good editor, but at the moment he is causing WP more problems. A vacation from WP, and then maybe a tutoring might help. And in the meantime perhaps WPs big problems with pseudo-sciences can be fixed so he comes back to a better ship. I have no "axe to grind" and have not been involved much with Whig, and I do not think that is what is driving this ban. --Partyoffive (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Fine by me. Really, Whig should have been banned a while back - he is the classic tendentious editor - but this works as well. Moreschi (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Curiously the above seems to be what the Community stated in Whig's various RfCs. So this is what the Community needs to do in order to encourage a tendentious but O so civil editor, not to be so disruptive. 3 RfCs, hours of edits, lots of posts on AN. But he is so civil, surely that counts for everything in Wikipedia? Shot info (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has commented above I'd like to point out that I've not been involved in any of the RFCs. Looking at the evidence, Whig is a problem editor who refuses to acknowledge that he has had restrictions placed on him. Some (only a few) people who have acted against him in the past have probably had too thin a skin where Whig is involved, but he has brought this on himself with his superficial civility and intentional misdirection and intentional misunderstanding. I want to make WP better, and having Whig removed for a while to hopefully cool down, while the rest of us get on with improving articles without his stonewalling, would do this. Hopefully when he comes back the articles will be in such a good state he'll have to contribute positively as any other actions would easily be identified as vandalism. However, I'm guessing you're being sarcastic with the civil and everything comments?? --Partyoffive (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am very unsure how to understand the term 'superficial civility'. This seems to be a far worse crime here than incivility. Whig has strived to ensure that the articles are balanced has not disrupted on the main page(s). He has 'Talked'; often against a relay team in opposition who often showing incivility and lack of AGF. In the unfortunate case involving me, he was trying to uphold my rights against the same relay team, as he thought (rightly) that it might be difficult for me to support myself. If editors did not wish to Talk with Whig then they should have simply stopped, but they continued to goad him, and now complain that he remained 'civil'. The Tutor (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Above probation, what it would entail

Rather than lose Whig indefinitely, the probation will be a 6-month ban on any and all interation on-Wiki, broadly interpreted, of any homeopathy or science articles, broadly interpreted. Any and all edits involving these articles, or discussions of issues with these articles, will result in escalating blocks from any non-involved admin. Simply put, that section of Wikipedia and discussion of it is off-limits to Whig, so that we don't lose him completely. He seems to be fine except with these articles. Lawrence § t/e 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The diffs above comport a false record of my activity and reflect a one sided presentation. As such, I protest any such ban or restriction. —Whig (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your history here is well known, per above supports. Lawrence § t/e 23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Would there be any point in my providing diffs in opposition? —Whig (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide diffs completely refuting your disruptive nature on science and homeopathy articles, and refuting point by point all the Supports, it would be in your best interests. Lawrence § t/e 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Will I be given sufficient time and opportunity to do so? —Whig (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's an important decision and your perspective is essential. I've added a topic heading below -- please respond at whatever length and in whatever manner you see fit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well.. If the community decides to place the sanction on you, it can always be removed later if you convince the community to do so with evidence. The participation of any one editor "now" on any one topic area is never so crucial that Wikipedia will suffer for their absence for a short while. You should completely not touch these articles in any capacity except for this thread for now, probably. Lawrence § t/e 00:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no evidence against me (refuted utterly below), what more would you like? —Whig (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You really need to try harder. Did you read the support comments? You are being put forward for probation for a long history of these issues. You still have yet to provide a satisfactory diff even once of these so-called attacks others have made on you today in violation of WP:NPA. Lawrence § t/e 00:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will obviously receive no fair hearing here. I have made my response. Should I wait to request arbitration? —Whig (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, this should be case closed. —Whig (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Response from Whig

Charge 1: "Demanding good faith of editors, while refusing to extend good faith in return". To respond to this I must demonstrate bad faith by other editors. Is it appropriate for me to do so here? —Whig (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 2: "Meatpuppetry". This is why we're here, I did not do anything that can be characterized as meat puppetry. I saw a new user who may or may not be a named person trying to protect his private identity, and sought to help. This is not meat puppetry. This is being a good Wikipedian. —Whig (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 3: "Wikilawyering". More of the same. I am not "wikilawyering" by trying to be helpful to a new user. —Whig (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 4: "Personal attacks". I was responding to personal attacks by Jehochman in one. The others aren't personal attacks either. —Whig (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 5: "Canvassing". I went to User:Dreadstar's talk page to discuss the attempted outing of the real named user. This is not canvassing. —Whig (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 6: "Arbcom threats". I have made no secret that I think the arbitration committee should probably be involved in this dispute. So what? —Whig (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 7: "Other disciplinary threats". I threatened nothing at all. —Whig (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 8: "Harassing admins who are trying to mediate the situation". This refers to me having a dispute with Jehochman. This dispute. —Whig (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 9: "Schadenfreude over the Matt Hoffman arbcom". This one is just bizarre. I think the Matthew Hoffman arbcom case was handled as well as it could be under the circumstances. That isn't Schadenfreude. —Whig (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Observation from a non-involved nonadministrator: If you look at all the diffs involved above, it really doesn't seem like Whig is being uncivil. Most of them are almost silly - "personal attacks" in particular. It really does seem like a group of editors interested in one area, and who do not agree with Whig's style, are ganging up to ban him. While I obviously don't know the entire situation and there is likely some merit to the whole case, I really hope that a "mob mentality" doesn't coalesce and go overboard on the sanctions. There should be no "punishment" involved, merely an upholding of Wikipedia policy. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My feelings about Whig are probably well-documented enough; I'm surprised he wasn't topic-banned following his RfC. He seems to have taken the message that he needs to be civil, and his civility has improved substantially; however, there has not been a corresponding improvement in the more fundamental problem of tendentiousness. It's just become civil tendentiousness, which I would submit is not a satisfactory solution. But community-based sanctions will probably not be effective here - no matter how many previously uninvolved admins get to know Whig and find him tendentious and topic-ban-worthy (I count Haemo, Jehochman, and East718 among them based on their comments above), he and his defenders will always paint this as a lynch mob or suppression of minority views - and that sort of tactic tends to be successful on Wikipedia. In that light, I would certainly support the proposed community-based sanction, but realistically it may be a better use of time to simply start preparing evidence for ArbCom. MastCell ^Talk 05:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Without responding to the other points you make and which I disagree with, I do agree that nothing short of ArbCom is likely to resolve the differences here. It would be nice if we could find common consent to ask them to take up the matter. I would in any event appeal any block or ban resulting from this proceeding based upon the refuted evidence submitted. —Whig (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What we need here is dispute resolution, not dispute escalation and increased disruption. In this circumstance, an Arbcom would be extremely disruptive and in the face of community support for a ban such a move is unnecessary. We need to cut down on the disruption, not wallow in it and expand it. That's what an Arbcom would do. -- Fyslee / talk 05:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am neither a defender or prosecuter of Whig. I merely saw a lot of fishy, frivilous evidence submitted, and wanted to post a general note that people should be wary of making this a personal matter instead of a policy matter. That's all. I heartily agree with Fyslee and the wallow/expand comment, and that's obliquely the point I was driving at. Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Tanthalas39, let's think about this a bit. Why is Whig still on a form of probation or editing restriction following a previous Arbcomm case? Why were 3 RfCs against Whig filed in the last few months? Why did Whig's RfC where he tried to get sanctions levied against an admin for violating WP:CIVIL by calling someone a "homeopathy promoter" get soundly rejected by the community and result in a call for a community ban? Is this evidence of someone productive and working well with others? How many others do you know that in 6 months have been involved in so much drama (3 RfCs and an Arbcomm case and several calls for a community ban, all from different editors)? I have had private emails, not just from pro-science editors but from pro-homeopathy editors, who state in graphic terms that Whig has contributed to such a poisonous atmosphere in the homeopathy articles that they no longer choose to participate. And for all this disruption, what has Whig produced? He has a handful of edits a year or two back on an article or two about marijuana and an article about Pope Benedict XVI. That is it. In the last few months, Whig has devoted his time and energy to fighting, not productive activities. When invited repeatedly to produce something, he always demurs. He would rather fight instead. When can the community just state that it has had enough?--Filll (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What previous Arbcomm case do you propose that I am on probation or editing restriction as a consequence of? —Whig (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Whig ALWAYS claims he is under no editing restriction. But he is, and this is just another of his tactics for muddying the waters and trying to avoid accountability. For example, see here and here and here. --Filll (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For more information, please see RFC#3, RFC#2 and RFC#1 and previous administrative noticeboard threads about Whig:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive311#User:Whig
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive317#User:Whig--Filll (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are a bunch of links which do not support your statement. —Whig (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Which part do you think it does not support? I am guessing you are referring to my mention above that the editing restrictions were placed on you as the result of an Arbcomm proceeding, when it appears that they are the result of an AN/I proceeding. Is this what you believe is inaccurate? If so, this appears to be hair-splitting to me, and is simply the result of me not being an expert on every aspect of your highly turbulent recent career here. Who could be expected to know every detail of your bad behavior and sanctions, given that there is so much of it? I am not here to engage in battles like Whig seems to be; I am here to write an encyclopedia so I apologize if my original statement was slightly inaccurate. It does not excuse the fact that Whig is disruptive and has a long rich history of being disruptive and is under a form of administrative probation or editing restriction which he continues to deny in the face of evidence to the contrary, and this denial is a common tactic of his, as are his other assorted disruptive behaviors.--Filll (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the editing restrictions in question were re-stated to Whig in December by FT2 [35], who emphasised that the community was likely to be intolerant of further problems. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Result

The above discussion seems to result in a consensus for a 6 month community ban. Various options were discussed, and the 6 month ban seems to be the one that would have the widest acceptance. Is there any administrator who would oppose this? If so, speak now. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence against me. So go ahead and ban me and we'll see what happens. —Whig (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note the threat above. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, let me be more explicit because I do not intend to be vague. I will appeal any such ban. —Whig (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a moment. This has been open for barely 18 hours and Jehochman seems very involved. The Tutor (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman is involved because he is one of the admins enforcing probation on these topics, which is what Whig seems to be repeatedly violating. How is that undue or inappropriate involvement?--Filll (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

He has been in a contentious dispute with Whig over the past few days. Anthon01 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea for an editor to pick a fight with an admin who is administering probation on articles on which this same editor is disruptive.--Filll (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no editorial disputes with Whig. Troublemakers do not get to veto the administrators that respond to their disruptions by attacking those administrators. Sorry, no, that doesn't work. Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This dispute began as a behavioral dispute with you in regards to your carelessness in repeating a false accusation about a real named person and has escalated to this point. —Whig (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I also will note that the 18 hours is a bit of a red herring, since there have been repeated administrative actions involving Whig going back for months and months. It is not like this is something new that just popped up.--Filll (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but an actual community ban discussion should start with a clean state and last for at least a full day (maybe longer) or as long as needed, not as long as needed to get the "correct" result. Arbitrarily ending something like this gives the impression that the system can be gamed (ie. picking the right moment to end the discussion). I think all discussions like this should have an end point decided at the start, to avoid precisely this sort of dispute over when to end the discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I can believe that this is how WP functions. I'm sorry but it seems like a lynch mob. Anthon01 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. This seems like a mob rule. Anthon01 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, lynching is an example of a hate crime. Speaking as an editor who is subjected to hate speech here on WP, and to a group that is regularly targetted for hate crimes, I find your description of the people contributing to this discussion as a "lynch mob" to be personally offensive, and I ask that you refactor your comment immediately. Jay*Jay (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur, I am at no risk of bodily harm whatsoever. —Whig (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, the victim personality that you are using is offensive and degrading to someone who's people have been subjected to "lynch mobs" that ended in 6 million deaths. Odd language choice..OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When I see people talking about lynch mobs, I immediately think about the US Deep South, rather than the Holocaust. But not everyone reacts in the same way to the use of such language. The use of "lynch mob" as a rhetorical device is fairly common in day-to-day conversation for some people, and it is often used without any intended offence. Which doesn't mean that it doesn't cause offence, but that is on the part of the person being offended, not the person using the phrase. When I'm offended by something, I do try and step back and think "Did they mean it that way? Will me registering my offence actually help here or not?". Carcharoth (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is helpful to point out when a word gives offense if it is likely to offend others as well, or even if you are not personally offended certain words are best avoided unless you really mean them. This is not a lynching. —Whig (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>This is pointless nitpicking. An admin raised the question if another admin objected to closing at that point. One admin did object at closing before 24 hours is up, and so it probably will not close before 24 hours is up. So what? Let's not get all worked up over nothing. The bottom line is we have several editors on alternative medicine articles, and Whig is one of them, who do not appear to be here to write an encyclopedia, but to impede others who are trying to do so. That is the main issue. And so we will see what happens.--Filll (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lynching is the wrong term. I didn't mean it literally. My apologies to you all. This just doesn't seem right. I'm not sure how to best characterize it, but something doesn't seem right here. Anthon01 (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is disruptive and unfair, personally. The "evidence" has all been refuted away and Jehochman still wants to ban me. So be it. —Whig (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of support for the proposal and the discussion seemed to have been winding down. Everything that could be said has been said, especially since there have been multiple RFCs and noticeboard threads on Whig's conduct. Carcharoth suggested that 18 hours was not enough time. Very well, let's wait a full 48 hours before imposing the remedy, if no administrator objects by then. Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Anthon01 for striking that word "lynching." Although this wasn't the right word, what is true is that the vast majority of the editors above who are supporting the muting of Whig have content disputes with him. We should look at those observations from uninvolved editors, such as [Tanthales], who saw no significant problems with Whig. Also, it is important to note that no one has responded to Whig's response, where he effectively responds to each point and even shows that the allegations are inaccurate (anyone who reviews these allegations can confirm this). The bottomline is that Whig has shown impressive civility despite editing in a "war zone." Clearly, his work is so effective that many people who have content disputes with him are now seeking to stop him through other means. To me, this effort to mute him for 6 months or indefinitely is a tad ironic, when several of the above editors who seek serious penalties against him are not supporting serious penalties for [Randy Blackamoor] who has shown continual uncivility, hatred, and wishing death (!) of some pro-homeopathy editors (me).[36] The anti-homeopathy forces show a patable bias on who they wish to punish for minor and for major crimes against wikipedia policies. DanaUllman^Talk 20:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, I never said that there weren't significant problems. I keep repeating my stance, I don't wish to be painted as a Whig supporter (I keep thinking we're involved in early 1800 politics here). I was just trying to keep things in perspective. Consider my comments mild and from a "way-outsider". Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a war zone. You, and your perceived allies, and your perceived opponents need to urgently stop looking at it that way. Wikipedia is not for ideological struggle. If you have seen an editor wishing death on somebody else, post the diff to my talk page and I will block them indefinitely, without any 48 hours discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 20:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a public forum for free speech. Editors who come here for reasons other than to collaboratively build a high quality encyclopedia are routinely prohibited from editing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Better said, you, your allies and your opponents. I for one don't see it as such. Anthon01 (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have changed my comment accordingly. Jehochman ^Talk 20:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will be curious if you act upon your words above to block Randy B indefinately. I provided the link to his message of hate above (twice). My reference to the article on [homeopathy] being a war zone was in the light of the fact that this article and its related articles have been under probation. Believe me, I would rather that editors would do less edit warring, and my role here is to provide V, RS, and notable information so that wikipedia can maintain good and high standards of informatin. My point above was that Whig has shown great civility despite the dramas around him. Editors that have had content disputes with him are not objective observers on the issue, and they should identify themselves as such so that uninvolved editors can assess the situation. As someone who appreciates Whig's content contributions, I simply want him to be given a fair analysis (which I do not think he is getting by a vast majority of the editors above)DanaUllman^Talk 21:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind providing a direct link to the diff in which this took place? The link above just leads to another complaint of yours about this, which seems to link to yet another complaint... --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether Randy B. made a death threat or not, I am afraid that Randy B. is on a fairly negative trajectory at the moment. Unless he can reform himself, he will find himself in the same sort of hot water that Whig is in at the moment. I hope Randy B. can learn to collaborate cooperatively with others. Whig unfortunately does not seem to have been able to do that. All I have seen out of Whig is tendentious argumentation and wikilawyering, and absolutely no contributions that are of any positive value for the encyclopedia. Just fighting and we do not need more of that.--Filll (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support has been established for a 6-month Whig topic ban on Whig

Based on the support established at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed short topic ban for Whig, and the fact that the only "opposes" come from individuals on the same side of the general homeopathy battles as Whig, but with all the additional uninvolved Supports, there appears to be a clear and balanced support of enforcing a 6-month total topic ban on Whig from homeopathy/science articles. There may or may not be support for an outright 6 month ban. At the very least, Whig will be banned from editing, or posting about any homeopathy as detailed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Above probation.2C what it would_entail:

A 6-month ban on any and all interation on-Wiki, broadly interpreted, of any homeopathy or science articles, broadly interpreted. Any and all edits involving these articles, or discussions of issues with these articles, will result in escalating blocks from any non-involved admin. Simply put, that section of Wikipedia and discussion of it is off-limits to User:Whig under any username.

It appears this is enabled now per community consensus of uninvolved users. Lawrence § t/e 15:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you define "uninvolved" users? Could you explicitly spell out who you considered to be involved and uninvolved, as not everyone can tell that at a glance. Carcharoth (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Whig notified. Lawrence § t/e 15:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have logged this at User:Whig/Community sanction and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. I request that an administrator who did not comment above confirm this result. Lawrence Cohen is not an administrator, and while the result of the discussion is clear, our process for creating community sanctions does not specify whether an administrator or editor should record the result, nor whether an administrator participating in the discussion should close. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should change a thing that Lawrence closed it and notified Whig, but for what its worth, I concur. Consensus was clear support for the 6 month topic ban. Shell ^babelfish 16:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(to no-one in particular) My reading of #Proposed short topic ban for Whig is that there is considerably more support for a full ban of 6 months than a mere topic ban. Several supporters of the full ban detailed why a topic ban would be a worse solution than a full ban. The same cannot be said of those supporting the topic ban, who said little actually against a full ban. – Steel 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I supported a full ban, but would accept the topic ban on a trial basis. If problems continue or shift to other venues, we can discuss upgrading to a full ban. Jehochman ^Talk 16:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above, there may or may not be support to fully ban him. There was clear topic ban consensus, though, so I closed that bit out. Either way, it's final straw time. Whig is a smart guy, he may end up doing good work the next 6 months on the rest of the site. If not, he'll be gone soon, unfortunately. Lawrence § t/e 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I would prefer that someone present a concrete reason why, given a clear (IMO) consensus for a full ban and good reasons against a topic ban, we should favour the topic ban. Doing things on a trial basis is good sometimes but not when it will create avoidable extra work for the same end result. – Steel 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Because consensus can be wrong. I prefer that arbcom decide on cases of indefinite banning. Rump opinion in the community (especially one as large as this) is a bad way to call for indefinite bannings in non-obvious cases (and yes, I realise it might seem obvious to you). Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But we're not talking about an indefinite ban, and Whig can get the ArbCom involved if he feels consensus was wrong. – Steel 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy that so many editors that are involved in editing in the topic area supported the ban - it would have been better if more uninvolved editors had commented (would I have been considered uninvolved?) - but I can confirm that the above process does represent a consensus - a consensus of whom though, is not entirely clear yet. I'm also unhappy that the ban length started off as 31 days, and then became 6 months, and that there was no clear process of starting and finishing the discussion. It all seemed to come together ad-hoc and on-the-fly in response to Whig's initial posting. The appearance (at first glance) is that the AN posting by Whig prompted the following community ban discussion. We should try and avoid appearances like that, as we don't want to discourage people from posting here. I think the process of community banning could be improved a lot: (1) Clear start and end points; (2) People declaring their interest and article involvement (or uninvolvement) up front; (3) Clear presentation of evidence (that did happen here); (4) Giving the editor in question a chance to defend themselves (that also happened here); (5) Such discussions not being a response to the "latest incident", and hence not decided in the "heat of the moment". Carcharoth (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This page probably isn't the best for that sort of thing (the CSN page mentioned elsewhere could be dedicated to that) and something this severe should be structured better. But if people try to push that, the anti-process wonks will descend. :( Lawrence § t/e 16:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It should avoid becoming mini-arbcom, but equally I don't think the above haphazard process really works. People say a dedicated noticeboard turned into "Votes for banning", but the above process looked like "votes for banning" as well. I remain unconvinced that the community is coherent enough to deal with cases like this (by which I mean that coherency is found in subsets of the community, and this can lead to bias in decisions), and that the community shouldn't be afraid of passing such cases to arbcom. Well, what I really mean is that indefinite bans (which didn't happen here) should not be handed out by a sometimes capricious community, when arbcom doesn't presume to hand out indefinite bans. Carcharoth (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to define the process by contributing to Wikipedia:Community sanction. It would be good set expectations. Anybody is free to request arbitration at any time if they dislike the result or process. Likewise, any decision here can be appealed here and if there is substantial support to change the result, so be it. Additionally, you criticize lack of participation by the uninvolved, and at the same time criticize "votes for banning." Which will it be? If we encourage lots of participation, it looks like votes for banning. If we post a result and ask "does anybody object" we do not have votes for banning, but we have decidedly less participation. Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Whig has stated he intends to appeal, as is his right. The problem with going through yet another administrative procedure is that they are extremely disruptive and involved, eating up hundreds of hours of time and essentially wasting precious volunteer effort and goodwill. How many hours have been devoted to Whig's situation already in 3 RfCs (4 if you count the one he brought) plus assorted AN/I proceedings plus endless negotiation and fighting on the talk pages? And how many productive edits from Whig did the community get in return? We might easily be spending 500 or 1000 man hours per productive edit or more. At what point will the community realize that the methods that were developed when WP was smaller and a different sort of place do not work any longer? So in this sense, I agree with User: Carcharoth. All the methods we have for dealing with this sort of situation, including what just transpired above, basically stink. We need to think creatively about what we want out of procedures to deal with these cases, and how best to implement them, using some sort of cost-benefit analysis.--Filll (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Would you agree with the five points I raised above? Carcharoth (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I too support Carcharoth's concerns that the vast majority of people who have commented here (including me) have voted in a predictable fashion. We need more outsiders' POV. The one outsider to date who has expressed thoughts here, [Tanthales39], saw "fishy" allegations. This editor made it clear that he is not a "Whig supporter" and yet, he seemed to wonder where the beef is...and so do I. I hope that there is NO 6-month ban until some more outsiders weigh-in. DanaUllman^Talk 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I agree somewhat. Let's examine them one by one: (1) Clear start and end points; Yes clearly useful and obviously not so well done in this case. (2) People declaring their interest and article involvement (or uninvolvement) up front; This would be better for outsiders to be able to identify who is who. Those of us involved know, but outsiders do not. (3) Clear presentation of evidence (that did happen here); Yes we have some evidence, although to be honest this is just a tiny fraction of all the evidence that exists in this case. It would take a tremendous amount of time to compile an exhaustive record, or even a crude summary. Clear evidence is valuable to help outsiders evaluate the situation. Those of us who have lived with this for 6 months or more are very familiar with the particulars and do not really need to look at much more evidence; we lived it. (4) Giving the editor in question a chance to defend themselves (that also happened here); He has had an opportunity to defend himself; he has not always taken these opportunities and I think his defense so far has been somewhat underwhelming, although some might argue that he did not have enough time for a good defense. He will get another chance or two or more when he appeals however, and then his case can be made at his leisure. (5) Such discussions not being a response to the "latest incident", and hence not decided in the "heat of the moment". I understand and partially agree. However, in this case, there have been several votes for a community ban already over the last few months which were overwhelmingly in favor of more editing restrictions if not a total ban. However, the community has given him "one more chance" several times, and not much happened. Unfortunately, this tends to create a situation where the subject does not believe that WP is serious in these cases, since they have escaped punishment over and over and over. This is not a "heat of the moment" situation here, but just the case of someone who has had maybe three or more "last chances" and has failed to take advantage of them, and continued to figuratively spit in the face of his fellow editors (and I have been told in private communications by both proscience and proalternative medicine proponents that the atmosphere on these pages is so foul that they do not want to contribute). Also, our failure to ever act on these "threats" and "last chances" sends a powerful signal to other malcontents and warriors on these pages, on both sides of the issue, and gives them tacit permission to escalate their disputes and engage in bad behavior themselves. We could wait another week, but would it change anything after 6 months or more of "last chances"? Maybe this should be codified in some sort of standard procedure, but I do not think it was unfair in this case, at all.--Filll (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There actually was a significant amount of uninvolved input, though it was perhaps drowned out by involved editors. A series of uninvolved admins and editors felt that Whig's conduct justified a full or topic ban; perhaps most significant was User:East718, who was formerly Whig's mentor and now supports a ban. I agree with several of Carcharoth's points, the largest being that it's best to declare upfront one's involvement when commenting on something like this. That said, given Whig's determination to go to ArbCom, that is perhaps the appropriate next step as all of our other bureaucratic processes for dealing with this sort of thing have been hammered ad nauseum. MastCell ^Talk 22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be too little, too late, but I consider myself an only tangentially involved editor, and I fully concur that the comic opera otherwise known as Talk:Homeopathy would be better served by relieving it of the editing pattern shown by Whig there. For full disclosure, I also believe that there are other editors there who could improve the discussion by drastically altering their editing habits, or in lieu of that, not editing there at all. And in at least one other case, this appears to be happening. In both cases, I defer the severity to the community, but add that this may (or should) be the tip of the iceberg. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors who have expressed procedural misgivings about this discussion are invited to review the history at Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing. The guideline originally required a consensus of uninvolved editors because of concerns that partisans to various conflicts would drive out minority voices. About a year ago the uninvolved editor clause got removed from the guideline. Durova^Charge! 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Community sanction which contains process information. We need to decide whether to merge or do something else with this page. Regardless of the form, we need to record a process for establishing community sanctions so that these questions of fairness (How long does the discussion run? How do we count involved/uninvolved comments?) need not be revisited each time. Jehochman ^Talk 03:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We also need to make sure that those procedures make clear what is being proposed. There is serious reason to doubt whether the consensus above is for a 6 month broad topic ban, or a 6 month community WP ban. Procedural fairness necessitates such questions be addressed. Such discussions also should ideally be linked from AN or AN/I, but not held there, as these are community sanctions, not administrator sanctions. Ultimately, it may be appropriate to revoke the sanction on Whig, sort out these questions and then, follow the agreed procedure to make a decision. However, such should only occur if Whig was in agreement. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Username

A user has taken the username Jimbo1966 (talk · contribs).Jimbo Wales was born in 1966.[37] Jimmy Wales was born in 1966.This would create a wrong impression to new users or outsiders that it was one of the accounts of Jimbo Wales.How long do I need to wait till I get a response from the user to take it to WP:RFCN.My report was declined in WP:UAA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the standard is "a reasonable amount of time". I know that's unclear, but... for instance, if the user ignores you and makes other edits, a motion to RFCN is probably appropriate within an hour. If they take no other editing actions, I'd give them 24 hours. - Philippe | Talk 02:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, someone needs to keep an eye on their contributions just in case. Malinaccier (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I took a look. Frankly, I'm inclined to say this one's okay. - Philippe | Talk 02:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many accounts with the name Jimbo in them, one bad apple impersonater doesn't mean they all all. — Κaiba 03:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the impression that this username is fine. It may be coincidence, and, even if it's not, I doubt whether anyone would be fooled by this; anyone who known Wales well enough to know his birthyear wouldn't make that kind of error. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have put up in the WP:RFCN.Please feel free to put your comments.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC was closed with no vio. Surely there might be more than one person out there called Jim who is born in (or has a particular affinity with) 1966. This user seems legit. - 52 Pickup (deal) 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The contributions show that this user has spent his few edits correcting typos and making one bad (although not necessarily malicious) edit to Sato (rice wine). My guess is that this is someone who wanted to make a splash with a controversial username, but as long as he isn't doing anything harmful I suggest we leave him alone. Everyking (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Nmate

Hi there. I don't know where to report this, but I'm convinced that something isn't right with User:Nmate's editing patterns. Please see his/her recent contributions. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 22:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a little bit? It's a bit hard to fish through contribs looking for something if one has no idea what they are looking for. Natalie (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Votestacking at WP:FPC

All socks blocked via WP:AIV Malinaccier (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In which the photographer/sockpuppeteer, Mario1987, created several sockpuppets in order to get his pictures featured. It should be noted that his upload log has a large amount of red links due to copyvios - can we have a few admins to have a look at the images please? The following accounts need to be blocked, as per the checkuser request:

• Mario1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mariosamoa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Angelono2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sathmar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Medrano man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cameldog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Loganbailly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Negresti-oas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Based on the above abuse, I propose that Mario1987 at least be banned from FPC. For an editor of his experience, he really should have known better. MER-C 01:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All accounts are already blocked indefinitely. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Actually there's a related problem with the legitimacy of some of this editor's uploads. Claims to be from Romania, and the only photo uploads he's done that have metadata tags are of Romanian locations. Has also uploaded dubious images of New World species and of Senegal. I've checked the most recent uploads; details below. Durova^Charge! 02:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Short summary: all of the images listed below have dubious legitimacy. Items 6-10 from the first group might be worth checking out in more depth. The rest can all go. Durova^Charge! 03:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Image:Mule Deer.jpg: Western North American species; editor claims to be from Romania. No visible metadata.
2. Image:Pugmug.jpg: Looks like a studio shot. No metadata.
3. Image:Scarlet Tanager.jpg: North American species. No metadata.
4. Image:Blue Morpho.jpg: Mesoamerican species. No metadata.
5. Image:Faidherbe5.jpg: Claims to own rights to the photo, but image is sourced to a Swedish photographer's website that claims full copyright. Image was shot in Senegal in 2005.
6. Image:Faidherbestamp.jpg: Posibly okay: postage stamp with source link provided (returns 404 error).
7. Image:PlanSaintLouis.jpg: Possibly legitimate fair use, but wrong fair use rationale. Claims to be a newspaper scan. Actually comes from a website. Posts what purports to be reprint permission in French, but no OTRS submission.
8. Image:Podul Faidherbe2.jpg: Unclear license. Source links returns a 404 error. Editor claims this is public domain as 100+ years old. The Commons license info page doesn't list a separate entry for Senegal. Most former colonial countries have similar copyright laws to the former colonial power, which for France would be the artist's lifespan plus 70 years. We have no way of knowing how old this postcard really is, much less whether the photographer died before or after 1938. With this much murkiness I'm not going to dig further (to find out whether this specifically holds true for Senegal or not, etc.)
9. Image:PodulFaidherbe.jpg:Possibly legitimate. Valid source link to the Senegal national archives. Spent a minute surfing the site (which was in French) looking for a licensing statement. Didn't find it right away; could be worth investigating in more detail.
10. Image:VedereAerianSaint Louis.jpg:Probably legitimate. Google Earth with fair use rationale.
11. Image:Palatul administrativ sm.JPG:Legitimate. A location in Romania, metadata displays. Probably a representative example of the editor's actual photographic skill. Not used in any article.
12. Image:Sapanta 091.jpg:Legitimate. A location in Romania, same metadata. Not used in any article.

---

Previous uploads (dubious examples only; more to come): Durova^Charge! 02:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Image:24nr4.jpg: Metadata only displays the imaging software, not the camera.
2. Image:Iffg 2159.jpg: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
3. Image:Iyyu 2162.jpg: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
4. Image:Oasc 4728.JPG: No metadata, no description.
5. Image:Labd 5626.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
6. Image:Fsd 5671.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
7. Image:IerG 5674.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
8. Image:Imsunset 5793.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
9. Image:Smwaterfall 5867.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
10. Image:City 5911.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
11. Image:Landscape cal.jpg: No metadata, no description.
12. Image:Playground223.JPG: No description, not used in any article. Metadata is for a Canon PowerShot A620, taken 19 December 2005. From August 2003 through July 2007 the editor's regular camera was an hp photosmart 735.
13. Image:Playground223.JPG: Not the editor's usual camera (a Canon PowerShot A620 19 December 2005). No description, not used in any article.
14. Image:Playground32.JPG: Not the editor's usual camera. hp photosmart 735 22 August 2003. Not used in any article.
15. Image:Tuia'.JPG: Not the editor's usual camera. Canon PowerShot S5 IS 17 November 2007. No description, not used in any article.
16. Image:Woodsroad.JPG: Not the editor's usual camera. Canon PowerShot S5 IS 3 November 2007
17. Image:Europe FDI.png: Claims to be an original map of Europe. Likely derivative work. No sources listed.
18. Image:EU nat gas production.PNG: Claims to be an original map of Europe. Likely derivative work. No sources listed.
19. Image:Sunseta.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
20. Image:Dscspyder.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
21. Image:Iron production by country.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably a derivative work. No sources listed.
22. Image:Coal production by country.png: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably a derivative work. No sources listed.
23. Image:Firework8.JPG: Not the editor’s usual camera. No description, not used in any article.
24. Image:Firework7.JPG: Not the editor’s usual camera. No description, not used in any article.
25. Image:Palatuladministrativ2.JPG: No metadata, no description, not used in any article.
26. Image:Coal production world.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No source data.
27. Image:Al production.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No source data.
28. Image:My nephew.JPG: Not used in any article; outside project scope.
29. Image:The bug on the something.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
30. Image:Bee in the something.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
31. Image:Jungle lake.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
32. Image:Haunted house.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
33. Image:Sunsetover.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
34. Image:Sunset12.JPG: No description, not used in any article.
35. Image:Autoproduction.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No sources given.
36. Image:Fixtelephony.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No sources given.
37. Image:Oilprovenreserves.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No sources given.
38. Image:Gasprovenreserves-World-v5.PNG: Claims to be an original map of the world. Probably derivative. No sources given.
39. Image:Nicolita.jpg: No metadata, not used in any article. Indoor photo of a recognizable person that lacks model permission.
40. Image:Sapanta 067.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
41. Image:Sapanta 068.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
42. Image:Sapanta069.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
43. Image:Sapanta 070.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
44. Image:Sapanta 075.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
45. Image:Sapanta 077.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
46. Image:Sapanta 078.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
47. Image:Sapanta 079.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
48. Image:Sapanta 080.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
49. Image:Sapanta 082.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
50. Image:Sapanta 084.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
51. Image:Sapanta 085.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
52. Image:Sapanta 089.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
53. Image:Sapanta 090.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
54. Image:Sapanta 113.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
55. Image:Sapanta 109.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
56. Image:Sapanta 108.jpg: No description, not used in any article.
57. Image:Ad020v3.jpg: Not the editor's usual camera (Canon PowerShot A310 2 December 2004), not used in any article.
58. Image:Computerparts.JPG: No description, not used at any article.
59. Image:Fallerleafs.JPG: No description, not used at any article.
60. Image:Hboxe0746.JPG:No description, not used at any article.
61. Image:Floer11.JPG:No description, not used at any article.

A portion of these could be justifiable as transwikies to Commons, if anyone knows the Romanian countryside and feels motivated to add descriptions to the images that have Hewlett Packard metadata. Durova^Charge! 03:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at this case yesterday and also noticed the inconsistencies regarding the images. I'd be inclined to just speedy everything that doesn't have the HP data. I take it this fellow has a past history with posting copyvio images and I strongly feel most of the images listed here are copyvios. Sarah 03:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The SapantaXXX pictures are of the Merry Cemetery in Săpânţa, Romania, not far from where our sockpuppeteer apparently lives. The pics aren't bad, actually. Of course, there's unfortunately no way of knowing that they're definitely his... -- ChrisO (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The metadata for most of the images that have camera data is for the same make and model camera over a four year period. So it's safe to say that anything with hp photosmart 735 actually is this editor's work. A problem there is that he's been using Wikipedia as a personal photo album and putting them into user space only. That violates en:Wiki hosting standards, but those examples would be all right for transwiki to Commons if someone who knows the area wants to add a description. I've written the report with enough information to tell the difference. Durova^Charge! 04:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Senegal images might be legal for us to use,check this French page out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There also seems to be a few for HP Photosmart M537. Sarah 04:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts)Thanks Chris. Those ones all have metadata for HP Photosmart which I take it is what Durova referred to as his usual camera, but I'm not sure. The images I'm particularly concerned with are the ones with no metadata or different cameras with vastly different photographic skill. There seems to be a very wide range in skill, compare for example Image:Blue-fronted_Amazon.JPG (hp photosmart 735 metadata), Image:HPIM0058.JPG (HP M537) and Image:HPIM0224.JPG(HP M537) with Image:Scarlet Tanager.jpg and Image:Pugmug.jpg, both of which have no metadata. I'm just finding it very hard to believe these were all taken by the same person, as is claimed. See also User:Mario1987/Pictures_added. Sarah 04:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly right, Sarah. I'm assuming all the ones that lack metadata or show some other camera are copyvios. So I noted the missing metadata/unusual camera status on every image that had those problems. The entries that don't list any metadata problem appear to be his own actual photographs (those ones are also about the same level of quality and look like they were all taken in Romania). The situation is a little confusing, so I hope the notations are clear enough. Feel free to ask questions if something looks vague. Durova^Charge! 04:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dang, looks like a portion of these have been transwikied to Commons. I'll head over there to follow up on that end. Durova^Charge! 05:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Durova, can you indicate which ones you feel should be deleted? I've deleted some, mostly animals, that I feel are pretty obviously copyvios. Sarah 05:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent, reply to Sarah) I'll bullet point this:

• Items 6-10 from the first set might be okay. Worth checking out.
• Everything else on both lists is either a probable copyvio or outside en:Wikipedia hosting parameters. All the lines that mention no metadata or not the editor's usual camera really ought to be deleted. All the maps need to go.
• Some material would be viable for transwiki to Commons, if descriptions were added. In cases where I don't complain about the metadata or the camera model, then decide whether it's worth the time to add information about what the photo depicts. Commons does need to have some information about the subject (and I know very little about Romania).
• For the record, this editor also had some legitimate uploads and I haven't listed the stuff that was clearly legitimate. (Those are the instances where he was using his own camera and the image actually is being used in at least one article).

Durova^Charge! 05:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted everything except 6-10 on the first list. Anything else that is still blue has been deleted locally but still exists by the same name on Commons. Sarah 06:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much; that's a huge help. Now I'll have the joyous task of translating Senegalese copyright law... Durova^Charge! 07:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm adding a notation on this guy at WP:LOBU. Given these massive copyright violations (shades of Verdict?), it's obvious he'll never be allowed back. Blueboy96 13:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

He also had a "trophy case" of sorts at User:Mario1987/Pictures added. Nearly all of the pictures there have been determined to be copyvios, so I deleted the lot. Blueboy96 14:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image found notes

3. Image:Scarlet Tanager.jpg: North American species. No metadata. / copy found at [38], linked from [39] which claims at bottom the images are from PD sources. Original source not found. Google Image led to two other images but server not serving so can't get details nor context:[40][41] -- SEWilco (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

4. Image:Blue Morpho.jpg: Mesoamerican species. No metadata. / At [42] in lower resolution with a claimed author. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, SEW. :) Sarah 05:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, excellent find. For the first few of these I checked the first hundred or two Google Image returns, then worked from species origin and metadata. Durova^Charge! 07:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

More notes

• Image:PlanSaintLouis.jpg: I translated the French notice on the page to mean that it was only allowed on Wikipedia "with permission," so I ixnayed it per {{db-permission}}. Surprised you didn't catch that as well, Durova ... you speak French too, right?
• Image:Faidherbe5.jpg: Spiked as a fairly obvious copyvio. Blueboy96 05:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Good catch. I skimmed the French sources and it's possible I could have skipped over an image or two as I went down the list. Durova^Charge! 07:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh wait a sec. Yes that was on the first list. I had doubts about that one. Durova^Charge! 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Image:VedereAerianSaint Louis.jpg replaceable fair use, can use something from NASA World Wind instead. MER-C 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • These are items 6-10 stuff; I listed them as questionable and plowed down the list rather than slow down and check fair use parameters each time. Durova^Charge! 07:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Poofed. Man this guy was a timewaster. :( Sarah 07:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Europe FDI.PNG - copy of Image:Europe FDI.png deleted above.
• Image:Uvvg.jpg - OK fair use.
• Image:Camus.jpg - deleted, reuploaded by someone else as a (likely) different image. OK.
• Image:Sinagoguesm.JPG - no metadata, no description. Not used in any articles. MER-C 07:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Commons uploaded images

Suspected copyvios

Need someone to file a deletion request or a Commons admin to delete the following:

• Image:Ardei.JPG - no metadata, no description. Not used in any articles.
• Image:Fallenleefs.JPG - not the user's usual camera. Not used in any articles.
• Image:Winterlandscape.JPG - same as above.
• Image:Zinc production by country.PNG - map.
• Image:Icoanepestanca.JPG - not the user's usual camera. Possible derivative work. Not used in any articles.
• Image:Fireork14.JPG - not the user's usual camera. Not used in any articles.
• Image:Supercar.JPG - derivative work. Not used in any articles.
• Image:AD 051v2.jpg - not the user's usual camera. Not used in any articles.
• Image:AD 051.jpg - not the user's usual camera. Not used in any articles.

Other commons images

• Image:Bee there.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:Dragonfly23.JPG - no description.
• Image:Pisauramirabilis.JPG - no original description, not used in any articles.
• Image:Frogy - close look.JPG - no description.
• Image:Spikey.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:The something.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:Wonderfull look.JPG - no description, not used in any articles. Unencyclopedic composition.
• Image:HPIM0436.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:Blue-fronted Amazon.JPG - no original description
• Image:Palatul administrativ sm.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:The island - it`s fake.JPG - ditto.
• Image:Sunsetandthelake.JPG - ditto
• Image:HPIM0223.JPG - no description.
• Image:HPIM0224.JPG - no description.
• Image:HPIM0217.JPG - no description.
• Image:HPIM0085.JPG - no description.
• Image:Cathedral325.JPG - no description.
• Image:Lakepowerplant.JPG - no description.
• Image:HaloweenPumpkin.JPG - no description, not used in any articles.
• Image:Marinaa.JPG - ditto
• Image:Canoes.JPG - ditto. I thought this guy lives in Romania... MER-C 09:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Mario1987 - thanks Durova. MER-C 09:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't nominate the Commons files that came from the editor's camera. If you think anything else needs to be there, feel free to expand the nomination. I'm calling it a night (Senegalese copyright law can wait 'til tomorrow...and I thought I'd be editing biographies tonight!) Thanks to all who helped fix this problem. Durova^Charge! 09:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The images listed at the Commons case (at least, the obvious ones) have all been deleted. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One final deletion

Image:PodulFaidherbe.jpg - improper public domain claim (100 years after publication) Senegal copyright law does not not automatically place material in the public domain 100 years after publication. Their laws are a bit more complicated than that and I was unable to determine enough information to confirm the status for this image. Please delete Durova^Charge! 06:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check requests of possible "permission-only" image

On the talk page for Image:MARILYN MONROE.jpg, the uploader, Gouryella Tenchi (talk · contribs), posted this message on the talk page:

"To publish this painting, you must mention this name: Kay Johnson. It's not a photo."

I don't know about you guys, but to me, this makes this image speediable per {{db-permission}}. I was about to pull the trigger myself, but figured I ought to have a sanity look at this before I delete it. Blueboy96 20:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd be better to ask this question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Bovlb (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense - you can't release something under CC-SA, and then put a restriction like that on it. I'd be inclined to say that the message has no legal force, and the license stands. Whether or not the license is appropriate is another matter, possibly for WP:MCQ. Happy‑melon 21:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You can require attribution on the wikimedia projects (almost all users do), the creative commons licenses and the GFDL require attribution: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor", so I don't think db-permission would be the reason for deletion. Technically the licensing is correct. However it should be deleted anyway because there is no source given to verify the license, and an OTRS ticket would be needed if the source didn't not have a license with it already. Jackaranga (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

But Happy-melon you seem to be confused: the creative commons licenses, require you to attribute the author in a way he chooses, you have no other choice, also you must reuse the same license they used if you redistribute the work. Jackaranga (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I am/was, or at least ill-informed. I was aware that the GFDL permitted attribution, but thought we had disallowed all the CC variants which required it. If we allow licenses such as this, then even less reason to delete on this basis. Happy‑melon 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the image in question, but db-permission applies when the copyright holder gives permission "only to wikipedia" or "only for non-commercial uses" for use of the image. For attribution restrictions, we have a Category:Conditional use images, which includes Category:Images requiring attribution. If the image is licensed for anyone to use and just requires some specific form of attribution needing attention by downstream reusers, it belongs there. Gimmetrow 23:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Broken Sword

A persistent user (User:Firstwind) continues to add fora links to Broken Sword in clear violation of WP:EL, WP:NOT etc. I have explained why these links are not appropriate, but the user continues to ask for "proof" of this, then claiming I have assumed ownership of the page (for the record, I have no interest in the topic). I have provided ample reasoning on the article's talk page, but the user's edit summaries to the article indicate the assumption that there is consensus to keep the links. There is no such consensus.

Warning on the user's page are blanked, with helpful edit summaries such as "Removing garbage from my talk page". This user has also referred to another user as "little rats", which s/he considers a "good designation for such users". (see Talk:Broken Sword#External links). There is also a brief note on my talk page too.

I'm recusing myself from further action with this individual, since s/he considers me biased. Can someone please inspect the article, my actions, and those of Firstwind, and take whatever action you deem necessary. Thanks you. Mindmatrix 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, I think a WP:3RR block was appropriate in this case, given his past history. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start by protecting the page for 5 days. On the Wrong Version^TM (sorry, didn't look to see which one it was). Anyone with more, er, diplomatic skills than me now care to bash heads/head? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 20:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

FT2 has left a mediating message on the talk page. We should see how Firstwind responds to that. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The message is from over 3 months ago, so any reply is now overdue. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that a reply of sorts has been made as Firstwind has blanked their talk page twice today and has left a rant on the Broken Sword talk page wanting the links put back in. In other words nothing has changedMarnetteD | Talk 21:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was the "little rat" :) For the record Firstwind behavior always going unpunished was one of the reasons I stopped contributing to WP (not being a native english speaker I could only do some RCP so it's not a big deal). However, since he's back I would suggest someone neutral takes a look at what he is doing at Tramway de Nantes before it degenrates any further. Mthibault (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also request someone to have a look at Tramway de Nantes - I've had one more attempt at negotiation with him on the talk page, but if that doesn't work, and he reverts to his garbled English (while calling my own English "uncorrect (sic)") then I'd request a straight block on him. Also for anyone who is interested, a checkuser case proved that Firstwind was using up to 5 IP addresses which, including his own account, had received 15 vandalism warnings in total without any block being placed on any account. Two of those IPs are now active again (194.51.96.182 and 195.101.63.39), so you may wish to block them before this situation escalates once more. Thanks. --Schcambo (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, he ain't playing ball - note his reply, once more accusing me of not being a native speaker of English, and once more restoring his garbled English to both Tramway de Nantes and Semitan. Requesting admin intervention please? Thanks. --Schcambo (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Need Ukrainian reading admin to check for Holocaust denial sources

I just removed a Holocaust denial reference from Ivan Rohach [43]. I am reviewing the other links, but some are in Ukrainian, which I do not read. Is this the place to look for help? Jd2718 (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There are currently 3 inline citations. First is 404, second is a book, third references exactly what it says. Two simple numbered links are memories that mention Rohach and should go to external links, kmv.gov.ua is in Russian and tells about executions in 1941-43, Rohach is briefly mentioned. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the first reference. However, I have no idea what it says. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Move requests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is not the place for these requests.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Pat Ryan move in favor of dab page

Now that we have the proper article traffic tool, I would like to request that Pat Ryan be moved to Pat Ryan (curler) and that Pat Ryan (disambiguation) be moved to Pat Ryan. Can an admin please perform the proper moves to preserve page histories and talk page histories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Bell

Based on the article traffic tool probably half the people arriving at Gordon Bell are arriving at the wrong page. Please move it to C. Gordon Bell and move the dab page to Gordon Bell. Please preserve the page histories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarence Williams

Clarence Williams III appears to be the primary Clarence Williams by far. Please move him to Clarence Williams (or redirect Clarence Williams to him) and move dab to Clarence Williams (disambiguation). See http://stats.grok.se/en/200801 --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Willie Johnson

Blind Willie Johnson is by far the primary Willie Johnson. Please move the dab page to Willie Johnson (disambiguation) and move pages to preserve page histories. Either redirect Willie Johnson to Blind Willie Johnson or move Blind Willie Johnson to Willie Johnson.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jumbo Elliott

Please move Jumbo Elliott (American football) to Jumbo Elliott and move the dab to Jumbo Elliott (disambiguation). Please preserve page histories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Probably needs to be nominated at requested moves. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • See http://stats.grok.se/en/200802

    Jumbo Elliott (American football) viewed 1528 times in 200802

    Jumbo Elliott (athletics) viewed 207 times in 200802

    Jumbo_Elliott_(baseball) viewed 134 times in 200802

This should be uncontroversial.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Please note that the dab was moved on Jan 29 so prior to this, the pages were not on a level playing field.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Breaking

According to the article traffic tool, Breaking (martial arts) should be at Breaking. Please move dab to Breaking (disambiguation) and preserve page histories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Car wash

Bassed on the article traffic tool, Car wash (disambiguation) and Car wash should be swapped.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop swamping AN with move requests. There is a designated place for those. The article traffic tool isn't everything, you know. —Kurykh 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Washington Park (disambiguation)

Based on the article traffic tool, Washington Park (disambiguation) and Washington Park should be swapped. Please preserve page histories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not exactly what you mean, is it? Don't you mean that the current Washington Park should be moved to something like Washington Park (baseball), and then the disambiguation page should be moved to Washington Park, right? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I got a bit lazy. I have made about 50 dab pages and now that there is this new tool, I am going through them all at once.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. In this case I created Washington Park, Chicago and it is on a malplaced dab page. I did not create Washington Park (disambiguation).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Simple solution

#REDIRECT WP:RM. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Aids POV

In Aids:Stigma the final two lines convey that conservatives are less likely to be informed about HIV transmission information. Citations cited are citations 132, 134, and 135. 132 only gives one isolated example of a conservative and one other of an antigay activist being biased against, not misinformed, about the relations between homosexuals and HIV. 134 does not say anything about conservatives. 135, however, initially states that they expect misconceptions to be held by conservatives. However, later in the document, specifically in the final paragraph of page 16, the study notes: "The fact that self-described liberalism-conservatism was not a significant predictor suggests that these systems are mainly based on moral judgments rather than political beliefs." This means that not only does the citation actually contradict the phrase in the stigma section, but rather, in response to an argument made noting that the phrase said "significant predictor", could even be interpreted as meaning that liberalism is also conducive of being misinformed about Aids. Either way, to say that a political party, whichever it may be, is more likely to be misinformed about Aids is in conflict with the citations. The final four words of the section in question are "or conservative political ideology". This phrase is, as I have presented above, clearly POV. When I tried to remove the phrase, the revert was undone by an editor. When I later presented this rationale, he refused to hear it, and he and another editor (OrangeMarlin and Baegis) reverted all my attempts to remove the blatant POV without providing correct rationale for their reversions. Several times my edits were reverted with them not even making a single comment on the talk page, when the phrase was clearly under discussion and they knew it. Quoting the wikipedia policy for Tendentious Editing: "the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it". No rationale has, of yet, been provided that is valid rationale. Furthermore, Wikipedia:verifiability says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." No evidence has been provided, yet these users (OrangeMarlin and Baegis) continue to stop me from removing the POV. Please help, perhaps by weighing in on the discussion (the new discussion, as the old one degenerated into name-calling) at [44]. I'm not defending conservatism, I'm defending NPOV.Merechriolus (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a case for dispute resolution. AIDS is one of our most heavily-watched articles, so one option is to let things sit for a day or so and you'll likely get input from some of the regulars, many of whom are solid and experienced Wikipedia editors and may be able to help resolve this. Another option is to request outside comment via a formal request for comment on the matter at hand. MastCell ^Talk 04:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will request comment (under science and technology, unless you would like it in Sports, Law, Society, and Sex) if my most recent withdrawal of the POV phrase is reverted again. I waited at least 40 hours after my last edit to be sure not to violate 3RR. If appropriate rationale is not provided, I will also update this section.Merechriolus (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Threatening to continue WP:3RR by gaming the system is not appropriate.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask for your input, marley. If you have something to say, I would be far more interested in your rationale for reverting my removal of the statement in question.Merechriolus (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We group Sports, Law, Society, and Sex into a single heading? That's interesting. I'd put it under Science/Technology, or perhaps Politics. MastCell ^Talk 03:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin has reverted my most recent removal of the POV statement without providing rationale in the discussion on the talk page. No clear reason was provided on the reversion description, bit I quote:"Reverted to revision 197113320 by Optigan13; Per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.using TW". Obviously, the validity of restoring the statement like OrangeMarlin just did is out of the question, yet he continues to revert my edits. I would like to request that an admin ask him to discontinue his actions, because he has requested that I not violate his talk page and I will comply, and I will request comment.Merechriolus (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin has removed the entire paragraph in which the statement is question was contained. I will wait 24 hours to see if he reinstates the statement in any form; if he does not, I will declare this thread moot. If he reinstates said statements, I will continue to pursue the removal of the POV. If he later restores the phrase in question after 24 hours, I will contact an admin directly rather than go here, because this page has proved to be largely ineffective in my pursuit of the removal of the phrase (other than mastcell's suggestion to ask for comment, thank you.) If, by 10:00 PM of Tuesday, March 11th, the phrase is still not restored, I will withdraw current pursuits and requests relating to the phrase in question. I'd just like to thank Orangemarlin for coming around and making this easier for all of us here at wikipedia. However, if an admin would like to comment, the comment would still be more than welcome.Merechriolus (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for use of a "bad image"

I would like to ask if the bad image Image:UC-smile.jpg could be allowed for use in the article unassisted childbirth. Rob T Firefly (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done —αlεx•mullεr 09:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WoW is back

Resolved

 – Not a big deal. Grandmasterka 13:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Be on the look out! Rudget. 10:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Doubt it's the same guy - why did he redirect the pages rather than moving them? Hut 8.5 12:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the account was only created today, so it wasn't able to move anything. I highly doubt this was the original; just a somewhat boring copycat. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, you're right. Rudget. 12:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Willy on Wheels was actually unbanned via the community sanction noticeboard back in the summer months of last year. He was permitted to create a new account (although the ban template was never removed from his userpage) and was allowed to contribute quietly. I still highly doubt this will be him, though. Qst (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? A vandal-only account is a vandal-only account. Though I think the 'original' person has long, long since moved on, perhaps even joined us as a productive editor. Grandmasterka 13:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Hmm, maybe that's who (or inspired to do so) move-vandalised Virginia Tech Massacre? Well, we have seen our fair share of move-vandals in recent times, especially that ultra-annoying Grawp which kept causing Hagger and Grawp pages appear on my watchlist. PS. I'm not an admin. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 14:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What? Whose idea was that? Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a kind heads up, Ive got a real time monitor that watches page moves and notifies admins instantly when a page move vandal such as wow is active. its what helped lead to a swift end of gwap. if there is another move vandal that pops up leave me a note and Ill get the monitor back up. β^_command 18:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with a cabal of a obstructive editors POV and OR

I've been dealing with what one could call the "haunted houses" of Wikipedia: the Killian documents-related articles. They are seemingly abandoned and derelict, with unref'd assertions and lonely "Citation Missing" tags left unattended for ages. But if someone decides to pop in to try to fix things up, then all of a sudden all sorts of ephemeral characters come out of the woodwork and things get very, VERY busy and strange. But not exactly in a good way given that the poor encyclopedic state of the Killian articles never changes. The central problem appears to be that the article is protected/owned by a group of editors who not only have little or no interest in fixing/improving anything, but who actually actively oppose anybody who tries. Past issues and clues indicate that most if not all of these obstructive editors are affiliated with the conservative/right wing blog site, Little Green Footballs, which also has a bit of a vested interest in the Killian business -- it's their main claim to fame.

I had thought to try out the dispute mediation process by following up with a suggestion to start at the bottom with WP:3O. Since I know this is a messy, complex situation, I thought to start a new discussion section on the Killian documents Talk page concurrent with a WP:3O request, and made a section note the WP:3O Talk page for interested parties to watch what happens. And sure enough, this is what ended up happening as is typical -- tortuously drawn out "discussions" consisting primarily of ad infinitum instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and chronic violations of the part of WP:CIVIL that goes, "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." I may be mistaken here, but this seems to make things now more of a concern to WP:AN since this type of purely disruptive behavior is a separate matter from content disputes. (PS: the WP:3O request was eventually declined because of there being more than two editors involved.)

Even when I have all primary and secondary sources on my side, never mind elementary logic, and the obstructing editors literally have nothing to refute with, they still won't give in only anything significant, with this last sectional sequence being a good example. The issue here is whether these possibly (and possibly not) forged military memos should be referred to as, well, memos. This sounds stupid and minor, but it's actually quite significant: military memos ("Memorandum for Record," "Memo for file" and such) have certain recommended and accepted formatting characteristics, like for instance how the signature block is on the right side, as opposed to it generally being the left side for more official documents. Every single available ref indicates that these are memos: descriptions and examples in both the the official USAF writing guide, The Tongue and Quill (PDF pgs 139-176), this ROTC powerpoint presentation, as well as any available samples, like this for instance. Even further, both CBS and USA Today, who had originally and independently obtained the memos, also clearly refer to the documents as memos.

For any other Wikipedia article, all these unimpeachable ref's would have been much. much more than enough to resolve the issue, but not with the Killian articles -- not only do all these ref's get chronically ignored no matter how many times I try to draw attention to them, some editors have gone so far to try to even self-reference the article itself as a ref: [45], [46]. To me this seems overall to be a textbook case of chronic gaming to block changes, regardless of how much they would improve the article, and to discourage anyone from even trying.

Some of you might wonder why this "memos" bit would be so significant and why would anyone bother to go to such extreme lengths to keep this rather innocent sounding term from being used, especially if it's inarguably an accurate description. Well, for one thing, memos are not archived like other military documents. For instance, this DoD repository of George Bush's military records doesn't contain a single memo. Only when they are classified are they archived, like this other declassified memo. What happened is that a lot of would-be Sherlocks in both the blogosphere and even the mainstream media kept comparing the format of the Killian memos to that of Bush's DoD records, and they misread the format differences as being an additional sign of forgery, especially the position of the writing block being on the right (where it's suppose to be for a memo).

So basically having a Wikipedia article simply accurately describing the memos as being, well, memos actually undercuts a large chunk of the forgery claims. It even throws suspicion on the credibility of the supposedly independent panel review that CBS had commissioned to investigate the matter: in the panel's final report on page 156 (by PDF count), the evidently less than investigative investigators also thought the signature block was suppose to be on the left side, and used that as another reason to come down hard on the CBS personnel who had dealt with the Killian memos.

Such a little word, such big consequences....

But more to the point here, what should be done, or what should I do further, to deal with obstructive editors apparently chronically and willfully ignoring standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines, nevermind WP:HONEST and basic manners? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(Note that I'm not an admin, just watching this page.) I've looked through the issues there, and it seems obvious that there is indeed a problem. I think the next step you should be taking is an article RFC. That should get some outside opinions on this issue from people who are more qualified than me to judge the issues. (Politics would probably be the best category there.) --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I second this motion. These editing patterns as bound to occur on such controversial articles, so filing an article RfC is definitely the best option. нмŵוτнτ 19:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Callmebc is now blocked. I think we all know what it means when a single user with a long history of blocks for tendentious editing and a very narrow set of editing interests complains about the "cabal" of "obstructive editors": in most cases it is an indication that all is as it should be, and that POV-pushing is being resisted.

The description above bears little resemblance to the truth; far from being abandoned, these articles have been the subject of relentless POV-pushing by Callmebc combined with vitrol personally directed against one of the cited sources, which has resulted in several OTRS tickets and related exchanges over several months. I went to get the references and found yet another complaint this week from this person towards whom Callmebc apparently cannot bring xerself to remain civil. Since Callmebc was unblocked on the understanding that tendentiousness and disruption would cease, and tendentiousness and disruption clearly have not ceased, I have reinstated the block. VRTS ticket # 2008030210009128 is the latest, others were at VRTS ticket # 2007111410017735 and VRTS ticket # 2007103010015799. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems about right. Ronnotel (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur. I must say that the sheer cheek of attempting to re-activate this issue by presenting it as a newly found issue from a previously uninvolved party is due some grudging acknowledgement... Does anyone need review the basis on which Callmebc was last unblocked, or is this moot following Guy's actions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, giant balls of brass (though I believe BC is female), but minus many many marks for smartness bringing this here in these terms - the complaint might just as well have stated up front that "I demand the WP:TRUTH be told and these people must be banned for insisting on WP:V instead". Guy (Help!) 22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully support the block. The involved user has a long history of disruptiveness and uncivil behavior toward editors, and, on the whole, has not been particularly helpful here. This is all evident by the myriad blocks for the same reasons, including one that was supposed to be indefinite but was retracted in a promise Callmebc would behave himself--clearly not a promise he has lived up to. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community sanction

I have proposed reviving this historical page so we can use it to document the process by which the community creates sanctions other than bans. The page would be a descriptive account of how things actually work. Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a new reason why we need this? If there's not, I certainly oppose this for all the many reasons I did so before. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a very good reason. On this noticeboard we are creating community sanctions (See the discussions about Whig and Igorberger), but there is no where to document how the process of doing that works. By simply recording the past consensuses of how this works, we can save time and avoid confusion. Jehochman ^Talk 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

May I laugh wryly? That's why I advocated WP:CSN it in the first place! Needless to say it rapidly got hijacked into "votes for banning". Guy (Help!) 20:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We got it under control here, so no need to open that up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not in any way attempting to resurrect WP:CSN. However, if we are going to create community sanctions, it does make sense to have a page explaining what a community sanction is and how it is created. Jehochman ^Talk 21:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Bring some order to the current chaos. --barneca (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree, I was just wryly amused. I know it is controversial, but if a centralised record were created and permanently protected (allowing others to make comments via talk) we might avoid the previous problems. We do need a centralised record of some sort to prevent people from exploiting our lack of racial memory. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The centralized records already exist. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community and Wikipedia:General sanctions#Placed by the Wikipedia community. The revived page, Wikipedia:Community sanction would document the types of sanctions commonly used and the community process for creating them. Jehochman ^Talk 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bloody IRL, you miss all kinds of useful wiki developments. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If what is to be revived is a page describing what sorts of sanctions have been imposed in the past, (as is what is at the Wikipedia:Community_sanction page now), that seems useful. But I'd really rather not see revival of the voting process we had before in the last days of WP:CSN... (and I know that's not what is being proposed but I want to make that point anyway) ++Lar: t/c 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this proposal is sound, provided that this won't turn back into a "voting" process. From what I understand, it'll just be a page explaining the CS process. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 23:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We have enough noticeboards as it is. I don't think we need more. Besides, everything we already have is already covered in our existing noticeboards. A noticeboard for explianing the process should be covered in something like a Wikipedia:Policy explanation noticeboard. Other than that, I don't think it is needed. That is about the only additional noticeboard I can think of that we need here on wikipedia. Yahel Guhan 23:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea for a noticeboard, but I don't think what is being proposed is another noticeboard. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 23:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting this as an alternative. Yahel Guhan 03:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

brr... but apparently not about voting, at least. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How can I complain against an admins actions?

Piotrus (talk · contribs) is in apparent collaboration with Molobo (talk · contribs). I don't think that it is right for administrators to behave as he has done in the article Bloody_Sunday_(1939), or in particular Morgenthau Plan for example. Molobos edits are heavily contested in the Morgenthau plan, see the article talk page, and he simply selects to revert back to include all of Molobos edits. And don't even bother to explain himself at talk.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To give a standard answer while I review it. You are at the right place to complain if you are looking that it end in constructive change. I'm reviewing the edits right now, and assuming there is a valid issue, a discussion will occur here. If this does not produce a satisfactory conclusion, there is the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct process and I'll note that User:Piotrus has defined a recall procedure for users who wish him to seek re-confirmation of his adminship. But in 99% of cases, it can be resolved here without longterm issue. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've given it a once over. Doesn't look like any admin tools were used improperly. Bloody_Sunday_(1939) appears to be an issue of the reliability of sources. That is addressed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. At Morgenthau Plan Piotrus did restore an older version, but does not appear to have used rollbacker powers. Its a POV issue that should be addressed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cold War. MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I simply expected higher standards from an admin such as Piotrus than from the rest. I will proceed as suggested.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Collaboration" isn't inherently bad -- Wikipedia is, after all, a collaborative project. There are ways in which it can be bad, but you'll need to be more specific in your complaint if you believe that's the case. Are they conspiring to violate policy or game the system? Has Piotrus used or threatened to use admin tools? Admins are perfectly entitled to get involved in content disputes, so long as they let uninvolved/neutral admins take care of any related admin-specific actions. If you have any more specific complaint, I'd highly encourage you to provide some supporting evidence (diffs are great, there). There are some affairs which will take a high precedence, but generally the dispute resolution process is the best way to go. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Should we be sending everybody to WP:NPOV/N whenever an admin performs an action that resembels POV. Not that I am saying it is in this case or it is not. But when an admin performce an edit should they not fall under the same guidelines as any other user? Should they not comment on their edits like any other user and get consensus to that edit? Do they just make that edit without any explanation and everyone else just have to take their action for LAW? I have had quiet a few edits like that done to me, and when I go to the admin talk page and ask for a reson they just ignore my request for an explanation. Wikipedia:NOT#bureaucracy and not a hierarchy. We have no bosses and we all suppose to be equals. Admins are granted sysop tools for maintenance, not as a show of power of superiority. And if anyone questions that status quote are labeled disrupt and violation of WP:CIVIL or now with the new board sent to WP:NPOV/N Igor Berger (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Luna Santin: Well, I'll have to see if I can collect relevant evidence then, I don't usually accumulate it as I go along. Might take a few days if at all possible, but the first thing that comes to mind if I remember correctly is that he apparently has an old history of unblocking Molobo, from before Molobos 1 year block.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. From Molobo's block log, it looks like that was back in 2005. Anything more recent? (as you said, feel free to take some time compiling -- if there's a history, here, it's important to document it) – Luna Santin (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As MBisanz noted, I have not misused (or even used) any admin power w/ regard to Stor Stark7 so this noticeboard is hardly a place for a discussion of my edits; the edits of Stor Stark7 may, however, be of more interests to the community. The user Stor Stark7 has been placed under general ArbCom restriction since January that year for his uncivil and disruptive behavior in January - (see here for details); in my experience 99% of edits from this periodically editing account involve whitewashing (or plainly removing) references to Nazi crimes during WWII and unduly highlighting suffering of the German people. Such edits rarely survive in mainspace, which as far as I am concerned proves that Wiki works well (NPOV, UNDUE, etc.) and as far as I am concerned this is the end of this story. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the administrator Piotrus does not attempt to explain his actions, instead he unleashes what I interpret as an attempt at character assassination against me, in an attempt to shift focus away from his activities.

Not the response you'd expect from a reputable admin. I naturally can not let this attack stand, and therefore reply here:

• Arbcom restriction. Yes I was placed under a restriction in January this year, not "that year". I explained myself here[47]. Please note that Piotrus was also placed under the very same restriction [48], but managed to talk his way out of it admin to admin. I feel it to be a bit hypocritical of him to bring it up here if he feels it to be such a grave issue to have been listed there.
• Piotrus accusation in reference to my edits. "in my experience 99% of edits from this periodically editing account involve whitewashing (or plainly removing) references to Nazi crimes during WWII and unduly highlighting suffering of the German people." This is a very serious accusation. In return I have no choice but to accuse administrator Piotrus of being a liar. He has provided no evidence whatsoever to back up this accusation of whitewashing Nazi crimes, which should be a minimum requirement when making such a shocking accusation. In view of his 99% statement I would expect him to be able to easily introduce a large amount of such edits as evidence into this discussion. He provided none, despite the extreme seriousness of his accusation.
• As to the accusation of "unduly highlighting suffering of the German people". I have specialized my edits on the topic of post war Germany, as anyone is free to specialize. Only those with Admin aspirations are supposed to "spread the edits around". I have specialized on this type of topic [49] since I feel it to be woefully lacking in wikipedia. It is not helped by admins such as Piotrus. For example, he seems interested enough in the topic of forced labor that he creates the article Forced_labor_in_Germany_during_World_War_II. Surely a Pole such as him would then be in an excellent position to write the article Forced_Labor_in _Poland_after_World_War_II, using sources such as this, the way the Russian admin Mikkalai created the article Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union but I presume that creating such an article by him, me or anyone else would be "unduly highlighting suffering of the German people" for Piotrus?
• "Such edits rarely survive in mainspace, which as far as I am concerned proves that Wiki works well" Yet again another unreferenced statement by Piotrus, meant to be believed and not investigated. As far as I can tell my edits survive just fine, where they dont bump up against the editing-team Piotrus and Molobo. The articles I've created, such as my latest article American mutilation of Japanese war dead is doing just fine. I admit that I prefer to edit publicly lesser known topics, since I see that as adding more value to the encyclopedia, topics that unfortunately seem to rile a certain category of editors extra much. I see this statement by Piotrus as simply just another unsubstantiated attempt to get away from the original topic by making false accusations.

My original accusation still stands, and I will take the time in what remains of my spare time to substantiate it, and I believe Piotrus reply here helped my case.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As something of an answer to the original question posed by this thread—how one complains against the actions of an administrator—I will say that, as a rule of thumb, such accusations are made through a forum by which the community has the opportunity to offer input en masse. Such a medium may very well be requests for comment, or a recall request. Whichever method one uses to express a complaint against an administrator, it must be approached with the utmost care and sensitivity: complaints against an administrator's action are amongst the most drama-attracting topics on the project, and it is very easy to turn a simple "admin X performed action Y (link), I think it's wrong because Z" into a bitch-fest.

To move away from the general ideas of complaints against an administrator, and approach the specifics: Stor stark, if you are sure that Piotrus has abused his administrator tools (whether he has or has not, I will make to comment to), then it is important that you take some action, rather than simply discuss the matter (although, on an online project, the two are somewhat overlapping). Whether that be filing an RfC, opening discussion on the matter on his talk page, or another option, is for you to decide: however, throughout the process, bear in mind that you must be acting for the good of the project, rather than to fulfil any personal grudges. AGK (contact) 21:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I realize that I will have difficulty proving abuse of admin tools, and that this probably is rather an issue of a POV pushing admin. I believe other admins should be encouraged to keep an eye on his activities, especially when he is collaborating with Molobo (talk · contribs). His use of character assassination tactics here only underscore the importance of this.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 22:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are on a hiding to nothing. Your best bet is to use article RfCs if you think there is significant dispute, because if there is no abuse of tools (and I don't see any cited) then we're not going to do anything and ArbCom isn't either. Sorry, that's just how it is in these highly charged subjects. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a point that is implied in some responses here, which bears making explicitly: this (or WP:ANI) is a good venue to complain about an admin's abuse of admin tools, but it is the wrong place to bring a content dispute, even if one of the disputants happens to be an admin. It's important to distinguish the two. To respond to Igor's point above, while admins have clearly received some measure of trust from the community, we are still peers with all editors in the context of normal editing. Our changes are not "law", and can usefully be discussed in all the normal venues, just not this one. I hope this helps. Bovlb (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ThisMunkey and attacks against me

To demonstrate a point on Talk:Main Page in response to ThisMunkey's claim that the content on the main page should be moderated (asking "Should sex and violence not be banned from the main page?") (see thread) I said that I would prefer to read controversial fiction than Booker prize winners. I used The Sea as an example of a Booker winner, and Lolita as an example of controversial fiction, to which ThisMunkey replied thusly, calling me silly names (Mildew, fickface) but, more seriously, accusing me of 'promoting paedophilia', and (it's difficult to read exactly what ThisMunkey means) I believe calling me a 'child molestor'. TM was subsequently blocked for 2 days by CloudNine for "gross incivility". However, TM did not retract what was said, and continued to moan and abuse me (and others) on his/her talk page from this section down. TM claimed to be proud of attacking me, continued with his/her assertion that I was promoting child abuse and child pornography, as well as saying plenty of things which I can't decipher but am pretty sure is more casual abuse of me, including "If Milburn is a candidate for child porno he is the candidate/perverter of child sex abuse." Several users (myself included) warned TM for incivility, while trying to show him/her how ridiculous his/her assertions were through use of common sense/logic. CloudNine eventually locked the talk page, but TM's block has now ended, and the only comment retracted was calling me a 'dirt bird'. What looks sort of like an apology was posted on the main page talk page, but my questioning as to whether attacks against me have been retracted went completely ignored, with TM continuing to reply to talk page threads about this whole affair moments after I posted my question. TM has continued to attack me since he was unblocked.

Other relevent diffs are some of the spam messages on various talk pages, in which TM again accuses me of child abuse/perversion. It wasn't even a case of taking my comments out of context- even out of context, I am expressing an opinion on two pieces of literature I have read. TM simply outright lies about what I said.

• Mine (only found this when looking for evidence, was mercifully reverted at the time)
• GordyB
• Fuzzform
• RHaworth
• Tangerines
• Geometry guy

I don't think I need to defend my own comments- I said, simply, that I preferred one book over the other, or at least that that book was of more interest to me. Anyone can see that saying I preferred a book concerning paedophilia to one about a retired artist no more suggests I condone paedophilia than (to use the same analogy I used with TM) saying I preferred Saving Private Ryan to Juno says I condone war. In any case, I am bringing the matter up here because I am not comfortable with the way this whole issue has worked out, and would like some others to weigh in on the situation. I may be over-reacting, but I don't think I should take accusations of this sort lightly. I am now going to leave messages for TM and CloudNine about this thread, as they are the two other people most involved in this matter. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments by User:J Milburn regarding filtering the main page for suitable content.

My God, I am sick and tired of people saying 'Wikipedia is not censored, but we mustn't let people see anything that might offend them.' We cover all topics; if people want to pretend that things they don't like don't exist, then they can go elsewhere. People may be interested in these topics, and the featured article is to offer people something they may wish to learn about. Seeing as everyone else is throwing their opinions around as fact, I will too- a controversial book is of far more interest than a Booker prize winner. Booker prize winners suck. If given the choice between Lolita and The Sea, I know damn well which one I would read or read about... J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Provided by user:ThisMunkey and deleted from this noticeboard instantly by user:J Milburn. ThisMunkey (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted instantly from the noticeboard because this is not the correct use of the noticeboard. Providing a link to the diff in the thread that already exists would have been suitable, this is not. This comment does not stand alone as an issue, and so should not have its own section. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Now a sub-section, no problem with that. See my comment's diff. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Milburn is striking out my comments. The first link above to a comment by me that I worded innacurately but all the rest are quite accurate and it is hardly a different ball game. You will find that I was very heated in response to his comment, being blocked for 48 hours. I have zero reason to apologise for being outraged by this user. The attack and statement in the quote above is of quite clear meaning and may be found at talk:Main page#Computer game article yesterday. ThisMunkey (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I should point out the innacuracy in Milburns claim that my suggestion was avoiding "sex and violence" on the main page as it was avoiding "graphical sex and violence fiction" on the main page in light that Wikipedia 1.0s being promoted to schools on dvd. A reasonable topic. ThisMunkey (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the links posted, I think your actions are indefensible and you'd better apologize to J Milburn. Not being an admin, I can't threaten you with anything, but it would be the decent human thing to do. You're acting like a baby right now. JuJube (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a bit of clarification (I haven't looked at the links):

Wikipedia is showcased not just by its article quality, but by its article scope. Traditionally we pretty much don't censor the main page. After all, anyone can read the articles anyway, and the fact we can take a controversial subject and make a high quality article from it, is far more credit to the project and its editors to those seriously evaluating the site. (Other criteria, such as article stability are however taken into account.)

We cover Christianity, surgery, cosmology and optics; we also cover penis, bestiality and torture. (I think I've edited on most of these and several hundred other topics, both as an author and in an administrative context.) Each is capable of high quality, or low quality treatment. Each of them, if well written, showcases Wikipedia to the world. Each of them may also be a topic that some people - probably many people - will find educational, interesting, or useful to know of. In some ways it can be very helpful to have some focus on marginal subjects, since generally more attention encourages others to edit and more editorial eyeballs.

As for personal attacks, the assumption that someone reads matters connected to X, or edits on topics of X, is in no way a justification for personal attack. People have wide ranging interests here - but personal attacks are never to be considered acceptable. If their editing is improper, or they do not leave an obvious non-neutral approach at the door and try to edit war, that would be far more to the point. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now looked at the links. Comments such as this ("perverts like USER"), this ("You are the fickface [sic] that makes a nice bloke slit throats"), this ("I would believe that a person expressing taste for books of perversion are perverts"), this ("This user says he would prefer small girls at LINK") and the like show a grievous misunderstanding. Yes, some topics are offensive. No we don't judge editors by the topoics they edit, but rather, by the nature of their editing. No we don't misrepresent others this way - it is unlawful to do so. And yes, Wikipedia is not censored.

I was going to give a final warning, but I see you have already been blocked for continuing your personal attacks. (see below) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have Indef Blocked User:ThisMunkey

I should like my actions to be reviewed, and if there is no consensus for either the block or the tariff for it to be adjusted without further reference to me. I do not think that making these claims, the same that which lead to an earlier shorter sanction, should be tolerated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur, but note he may not consider me a neutral person to opine and you should probably ask others too. Seems unlikely to comprehend that posting an expression as an editor on a choice of topics does not cascade all the way to "is a criminal". We get that, sometimes. Was blocked, discussed an apology (I gather), then re-commenced attack. Note that indef blocks do not mean "ban", rather they mean "block until communal concerns over misconduct are genuinely seen as resolved (if ever)". He may not realize that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the block length. It was clear, from a email discussion I had with Munkey, that he wouldn't change his views (even when presented with a convincing argument), and even insulted me over the medium. His failure to realise a misunderstanding or apologise to Milburn, (surely naming someone a paedophile on a public website must be close to libel?) combined with his continuing personal attacks mean he shouldn't be allowed to participate for a good while. CloudNine (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

TM has posted an unblock request. J Milburn (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have declined it as premature because they have not shown an recognition of what they did wrong, nor given any assurance that they will not repeat the unacceptable behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the block was more than justified, along with declining the unblock request . Tiptoety ^talk 04:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly support both the block and the decline of the unblock request. ThisMunkey has acted in a extremely inappropriate and damaging fashion and should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia at least until he/she show genuine understanding for the harm they have caused - both to J Milburn and the wider project - and issued an unconditional apology. Gwernol 16:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support LHvU. It seems to me that the Foundation has decided that no hint of advocacy of paedophilia not perhaps even to editors who edit paedophile articles to push it will be tolerated; so it stands that such accusations or posting of views that a editor may be a paedophile or be sympathetic toward same should not be tolerated either. Regardless, the continued personal attacks, from whichever side, can not be tolerated. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Repeated re-creation of hoax/vandalism page

Resolved

The page Sam chalsen has been created three times and speedied twice (so far), all by different usernames (all of which are SPAs). Any chance of getting some form of page block for that page? Justin Eiler (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

done. re-deleted and salted. - Nunh-huh 01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Another pair of socks...

202.0.35.163 (talk · contribs · block log) seems to be a persistent source of vandalism ever since it started editing in November 2007. Prior to being blocked (again), the IP user created two sockpuppet accounts today - Ihtw (talk · contribs · block log) and Dzrstricken (talk · contribs · block log) (see Special:Contributions/Ihtw and Special:Contributions/Dzrstricken). Ihtw has received a 24-hour block for vandalism and Dzrstricken has received a warning; since the person behind the IP address has not made a single constructive edit, would someone indef-block the two accounts? I know that blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, but I think this is a case of prevention - the IP has not shown any interest in anything beyond vandalism. Since I'm technically "involved" on some level (though I couldn't care less about a vandalised user page), I thought I'd ask someone else to have a look rather than blocking myself. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked as single-purpose disruption. Keegan^talk 06:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

possible vandalbot

Anyone else notice a lot of vandalism along the lines of this: Here. Appears to replace every newline in a section with an instance of _nl_

Seen it quite a bit tonight/this morning. A lot a just random IPs doing. The behavior seems to suggest vandalbot, but I dunno. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 06:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That IP address seems to be doing it too slowly to be a vandalbot, unless you know of others. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know I've seen other IPs that were reverted by others. Also I had speedied a talk subpage that contained just _nl_. That's what originally led me to thinking possible vandalbot, cause I remember reading somewhere that there's a certain bot that creates tons of subpages. But, yea you're right, it hasn't really happened enough to be a vandalbot. Was expecting to see more if it after I made this report. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 07:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there some way (like with hidden cat's cat) to track pages using the NL magicword? That would show any longterm trends. MBisanz ^talk 07:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

List:

• 139.30.45.41 (talk · contribs)
• 155.187.2.2 (talk · contribs)
• 85.214.68.204 (talk · contribs)
• 194.55.112.104 (talk · contribs) (created template talk that was deleted)
• 195.75.146.229 (talk · contribs)
• 198.54.202.102 (talk · contribs) (This one has some regular vandalism)

Well 2 of them are from Germany (one's a university) and the other is from Australia, so I'm not sure their related, unless its some werid proxy thing. MBisanz ^talk 07:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't now much about IPs, but judging from style of edits I'd say they have to be related. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Try running this by Ryan, he knows a lot more about IPs and proxies and what not that I do. MBisanz ^talk 09:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Left him a note. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Add 70.253.45.45 (talk · contribs) found by a quick Google for wikipedia+"_nl_" ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 09:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

and 66.135.55.196 (talk · contribs) (created category talk that was deleted). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Def something bizzare going on here 195.75.146.229 belongs to IBM Italy. Makes me think of a case I had earlier this week at [50] with identical vandalism edits from widely dispersed IPs. Just gave up and semi-protected the page. MBisanz ^talk 09:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here there's no one page to semi-protect - this vandal seems to go for a different page each time, and creates talk pages apparently at random. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

139.30.45.41 and 66.135.55.196 blocked as confirmed open HTTP proxies. Mr.Z-man 09:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Doing the same thing as Redvers I saw this: [51] made on the 4th, so this has been going on for at least a few days and isn't isolated to this wiki. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 13:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And just now 155.187.2.2 (talk · contribs). Blocked for a couple of days by me. Is this some sort of HTTP proxy, like the ones that '/'/are known'/'/ to do '/'/ this type of thing? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 13:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to blacklist _nl_ (which is something we'd never need in an article AFAICT) so a page can't be saved with _nl_ present? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 13:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be easier to just have the Devs disable the magic word for the en-wiki. Maybe Bugzilla? There isn't a reason to use it, but I'm sure its already being used places, and rather than create an unsaveable page (blacklisting), simply turning it off might be better. MBisanz ^talk 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think _nl_ is an actual magic word (it doesn't seem to do anything), so there's nothing really to turn off. It could be added to $wgSpamRegex, but I doubt they would use that in this case. Mr.Z-man 20:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Opps, I assumed it was a real magicword being used inappropriately. I have no idea how the blacklists work, but if it would stop this sort of vandalism and probably won't cause collateral damage, I don't see a problem with adding it. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, this is probably some new variant of the backslashing proxies (badly-configured proxies that put backslashes before quote marks and other backslashes, and often turn out to be open). So the IPs are quite likely open proxies, and almost certainly proxies of some sort, but badly configured and escaping newlines. The problem with backslashing proxies was ended when the code was changed to request that a backslash be sent back with every edit; however, doing that for a newline might be more problematic. So most likely it's a misconfiguration rather than a deliberate vandalbot, but it's harmful either way. --ais523 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

194.55.112.104 and 85.214.68.204 are also open proxies. Mr.Z-man 20:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Favour requested from nice admin

Please can you give me the text of the deleted Template:User_vomit?

Thank you 81.149.238.64 (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It says "This user just vomited all over their computer. Ewwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". You're welcome. At one time, this was apparently considered "divisive and imflammatory". Grandmasterka 10:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, thought it would be more interesting than that. I've been reading a lot of old policy pages recently, will be an expert in no time. 81.149.238.64 (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's divisive. What if someone thinks vomit is beautiful? Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I will admit, depending on what I've eaten, that on rare occasion, I've found my vomit to be, well down right pretty. A challenge: eat too many cheese puffs and tell me that the vomit isn't simply a spectacular shade of orange. On the other hand, one of my janitor jobs, like most good janitors, is to clean up vomit.... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

LMAO at Cyde's deletion reason... --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Can never have too many But think of the Children!!!! posts. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Favour required

Resolved

Speedied by Blueboy96 per user request {{subst:empty template|}}

Note that TheCaseofDaniel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), indef-blocked as na attack account, is a likely reincarnation of ColScott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 14:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Block review

I blocked Zenasprime (talk · contribs · block log) for 48 hours after reviewing this AIV report. However, there is a diff in the report that has apparently been oversighted, so I have no idea what it contained. In any case, this edit doesn’t give me much confidence that the user will behave after the block expires. Comments? Thanks —Travis^talk 16:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Eliot Spitzer

Breaking news -- about the NY Governor's involvement in prostitution -- will surely bring out the trolls and vandals. Please keep on eye on this one. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear - Spitzer is accused of hiring a prostitute, not of "involvement in prostitution," which is an entirely different thing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The trolling would be unbearable if that were the case. Lawrence § t/e 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he has not yet been charged with any crime. There is speculation that he may be charged with violation of the Mann Act, and with monetary improprieties (of the sort he has prosecuted others for). So there is no question this will become a big story; we just have to be sure that all the information is properly cited - with all the reportage, that shouldn't be difficult. IF the details of his requests (as "customer #9") leak out, resignation is likely. - Nunh-huh 23:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd begun a thread previously on ANI for this. Please watchlist Eliot Spitzer; the BLP violations in some cases are sneaking through for several revisions and will need a close eye. Lawrence § t/e 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Who would have thought...

that there were so many {{future airline}}s? Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Future airline. Mind suitably boggled. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot. And? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, heh, heh, how embarrassed will they be when instantaneous matter transportation comes online (perhaps somebody should create a Portal?)LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And learn that the cake is a lie? How dare you. I take pleasure in the belief that each day will end with a tender and moist peice of cake. HalfShadow (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

MOAR CAKE PLZ. And Portal 2, si vous plait. FCYTravis (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The fun thing is how many of them are unsourced crystal-ballism. Time to PROD. FCYTravis (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Planned airlines has nearly as many subcats. Gimmetrow 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some could be magnates' brainchildren that have failed to take off as expected. Got one of those. And this filters out non-articles linking to the template. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hou Yifan -- mass redirect creation

There are a number of users making redirects to the page Hou Yifan. Most of the redirects are unrelated to Hou except in that they are chess-related (and they all appear in a certain ChessBase article) -- many or most of them did not exist before they were created in this way. Most of them are the names of non-notable Turkish chess players and coaches.

I have tried to deal with some of them but I realized how huge the problem was when I tried to redirect one of the pages somewhere, and discovered that the target I tried to set up was already a redirect to Hou Yifan. I suspect there is sock- or meat-puppetry going on (although probably sockpuppetry as the users have very similar edit patterns, including creating a user & user talk page before going on the redirect spree), and I could use some help in dealing with this.

The users involved include:

• Eddy^kid (talk · contribs)
• FaustXmen (talk · contribs)
• Gfeig9940 (talk · contribs)

There may be others, but if so, I haven't found them.

--128.12.103.70 (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Most redirects deleted, except one for the Chinese version of his name. The above accounts were also indefblocked, though anyone can remove/reduce the blocks if they feel I'm too harsh - stress from real life might be getting to me. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indef block seems mostly justified to me considering that puppetry was probably going on, and in particular due to Gfeig's use of deliberately misleading edit summaries. Thanks much. --128.12.103.70 (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:FrozenPurpleCube changing signatures

This user is changing the signature on many pages, for example this closed AFD here. There is an explanation at User talk:FrozenPurpleCube. Is this a legitimate action please? BlueValour (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't hurt anything. It hides the person's old name from casual google searches. It does not really do anything positive either, but carries little harm as long as the user is only changing sigs and not other parts of the archived discussions. Thatcher 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.

Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, now that I actually read the notice. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Autoblocks

Anybody happen to know why we can't search for autoblocks anymore? Temporarily broken? Gone forever? That was a very useful tool, and I've hated not having it. - auburnpilot talk 01:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How long do autoblocks last, anyway? When a sockpuppet I operate was blocked[52], my IP was blocked as well--presumably, for 24 hours. But it appears I have already come back...... Weird.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're referring to pgk's toolserver utility? The data was noticeably out of date (in the order of days), last I used it. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am. I saw AzaToth (talk · contribs) remove it from MediaWiki:Blockiptext a couple weeks ago as a "defunct tool" but couldn't find any mention of what happened to it, or if it would be coming back. - auburnpilot talk 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for unbanning

Resolved

 – No.

Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(moved from talk - Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

I was advised that this is the place for making a case for unbanning editors.

I would like to request that User:Lir be unbanned (agan).

The user is required for participation in editing/authoring articles as part of Military History project Eastern Front revamp/expansion. While I appreciate the difficulties Lir has with Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia admins have with him, these issues seem to me to be quite separate from his ability to contribute to Wikipedia content.

Lir has expressed to me that he wants to contribute productively to the articles in question, and has demonstrated this ability, albeit his edits were undone by another editor based on the banning, and having foregone any discussion in talk. Given Lir's personality, and history, this seems to have been an expected result. I dare say that behaviour in administrative realm does not equal poor article content assumption.

My proposal (I'm aka mrg3105) is that Lir is unbanned on the basis that he limits his contributions to project articles and lets bygones be bygones. All discussions should be limited to article talk pages.

There is a lot of editing and authoring to do there, and I would ensure Lir has what to worry about as part of the team of editors and proposed project parameters and goals.

It seems to me that people like Lir need a bit of mentoring and understanding, and for lack of it they become perennial banned editors, literally since Lir is clearly not masochistic, but has been banned, and unbanned since 2002, including by Jimbo Wales. People with that much dedication, even if exhibiting a degree of self-destructiveness, should not be excluded from Wikipedia because, although seen in a negative "light", are also the best advocates of Wikipedia, and its best defenders.

I do not think it will be productive to dwell on the past. I propose that Lir be brought back on a 6 months probation to allow him to demonstrate ability for editing without seeking administrative recourse. Is this acceptable?

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shattered Wikiglass (talk • contribs) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we JUST do this? Or am I confused? I seem to remember that Lir came back to Wikipedia very recently. - Philippe | Talk 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Seems to have gotten reblocked pretty quickly - see the history of User talk:Lir. Sarcasticidealist (talk)

Yep, let's put a quick end to this please. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely no reason to unblock (again). Lir simply wasted whatever chance he was given, stirring the pot rather than contributing. - auburnpilot talk 02:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't participate in earlier "history", so profess impartiality with a strong bias towards inclusivity of editors capable of contributing to the project. Actually, with all the arguing of his case in admin, Lir also managed to contribute to an article, and, as an editor, I did not find him difficult to deal with. I have seen the history, but the history am interested in is his active contribution to content. It seems to me that had he not been encouraged to participate in administrative cases, eventually his demands for justice in an undemocratic community will have turned to editing articles. It seems to me there are two separate issues for which only one solution was sought. One is claims of administrative "due process", the other, the ability to contribute to content. Has this banning thrown out the proverbial "baby with the bath water"? Are there actual clams of bad article editorship on Lir's part?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point it's a dead issue, but he had fairly baleful effects on DNA, Christopher Columbus, and Saddam Hussain, as well as several articles on imperialism. I don't think the DNA article ever recovered. It's really not worth your time and trouble to investigate, but if you want to, those are the places to start. His editing at Colin Ferguson (as "Vera Cruz") was also fairly typical. - Nunh-huh 03:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one scratching my head over why would a day-old account ask for unbanning of a user with who he has no past communication? - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I couldn't see any recent edits (since last year) in those articles. I'm asking, what has Lir done since his most recent return from a ban to be banned again?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

His contributions since being unblocked include edit warring, repeated incivility and a threat to abuse sockpuppets]. Euryalus (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So where are you involved in this Euryalus?

In any case:

• re: edit warring - I can actually speak for myself on this. Lir made contributions to the article Battle of Stalingrad, most of which were were valid, if possibly needing some references. These were summarily undone by another editor with no discussion in talk, and based on one source of his own. On my questioning, the editor offered to revert the edits. It seems the "edit waring" was somewhat justified (and mislabled) since no editor likes their edits undone without talking about it first.

• I can safely say that what you may consider incivility is probably part of Lir's personality of "give as good as he gets". Should all societies "screen" for such personalty traits at childhood and eliminate such disagreeable people? In any case, incivility takes at last two "to tango". A fiery personality does not a bad editor make. What it does take is cool heads, and if Lir lacked one, then obviously so did the other party. Where there no other editors that could have intervened and called a "time out"? It seems not.

• Threat of using sockpuppets is not actually banable! One has to be caught being a sockpuppet to be baned for it as far as I'm aware. For example if I threaten you now with being uncivil towards you, I can't be banned since I haven't actually done anything that would warrant such action.

So, why was it that Lir was banned?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed - such intimate knowledge of the ins and outs of Wikipedia policy, and you've only been around for a few days. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's almost Lirlyrical. (^_-) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ThreatsOfViolence

The above proposed policy has been created in order to set the standard that Wikipedia takes all threats of violence seriously. This should hopefully put to rest any discussion as to a threat being a hoax, joke, etc. My apologies for posting here but very recent events seem to indicate that wide community discussion is appropriate. Bstone (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for review of User:Hornetman16's community ban

I know its unusual to see someone ask for a review of a community ban imposed on a user that has presented cronic sockpuppetry after said ban was issued, but this case is different, every time that one of this user's sockpuppets is blocked the same discussion appears on WP:PW, the arguments in favor of Hornetman are usually "should he be given a second chance? he has tried to be a better editor when given the chance", other users have also noted that he hasn't been given a second chance yet. The arguments for keeping his block are his cronic sockpuppetry as well as often using these socks to repeat past disruptive patterns. Now the idea of finally bringing this to the community has been pitched around several times, the user has been in contact with some of the members of WP:PW and has agreed to comply with the community's decision if he is given a review of his ban before the community. Please note that personally I object this unblock strongly and am only taking this action for the wellbeing of WP:PW, thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is still the same: he doesn't deserve more chances. What is this... his 1000 chance already? People fall for Hornetman's lies too much, which leads to problems. People have made deals with him, and even told him how to "lay low with socks" which is simply unacceptable. Hornetman's deserves to stay banned, period. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. He's been socking right up until last weekend and has been disruptive on other wikis. He's even gone to the trouble of bugging me about his block on other non-English speaking wikis (in English!). The mayhem and the Utter. Waste. Of. Everyone's. Time last time round was too much to bear again. I'm pretty AGF-y at the best of times - ask others here - but this guy wore me down. Add the fact that he lies about his socking again and again and again and promises reform then doesn't deliver - Alison ^❤ 05:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but per Alison, this is as close to an open-and-shut case of "no, sorry, this isn't being overturned for a long time to come" as any. Daniel (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, per Alison. I don't think we're missing out on much either, he wasn't very constructive even when he wasn't banned. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Alison. Leopards can't change their spots. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm - and he's still causing problems on simple.wiki. It's patently clear that absolutely nothing has been learnt - Alison ^❤ 06:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)