Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

*If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

Moulton (un)ban

Moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Given the recent dramaz relating to this user and the_undertow (see WP:RFAR#The_undertow), a fair bit of confusion has arisen as to if this user is actually banned or not.

Relevant links

Let's try and treat this the way we normally treat a ban/unban discussion and put aside the_undertow's antics for a bit. To get the ball rolling I promise we as a community unban (and subsequently, unblock) Moulton and allow him to resume editing. I say this because I see no significant discussion in the original ban discussion (ANI archive 297) and am willing to extend a second chance, over six months later.

But I'm not the community; we are. Comments, please. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's banned. Tagging notwithstanding, if there is someone willing to unblock, he's "blocked without consensus to unblock" not banned. I'm not prepared at this time to support an unblock, because I'm not completely sure that Moulton would edit constructively within our norms, based on his own communications with me, but I think there is merit in investigating the matter, especially the manner in which we got to where we are now. There may well be learnings here on how to deal with academics more effectively, in a way that doesn't sour them on wikipedia. Were I to get a positive committment from Moulton to edit within our norms that I felt was credible, I would support an unblock, with probation and monitoring, as we have done for other users. ++Lar: t/c 10:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that a probation and a commitment from Moulton would be necessary. naerii - talk 10:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't see enough "disruptive" behaviour in the original discussions to support a ban on Moulton. He's a bit of an oddball, yeah, but there was no consensus (unless a 'consensus' amongst a small group of editors counts) and I see no wider discussion. To be honest I've never really understood why he was indefinitely blocked in the first place, and would like to see him unblocked and given a chance to make helpful contributions. There is nothing to stop us reblocking if he does turn out to be disruptive, and I'm sure many eyes will be on his contributions should that happen. Moulton is obviously knowledgable on some topics and I think that if there's a chance that we could draw on that knowledge, we should take it :) naerii - talk 10:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the people who support a continued block lay out reasons as to why it is inadvisable. As is obvious, nobody wants to let a disruptive editor back on. Please try and avoid unnecessarily drama-causing statements such as "recruiting meatpuppets" as also content-free phrases such as "Civil POV-pusher." Reading the original statement at the RfC, I see that the statements that are reported as being disruptive are almost identical to those made by a dozen outside observers in the recent push towards consensus at Talk:Rosalind Picard. I'd like to see more specific complaints about misrepresentation of sources, or extensive POV-pushing. I'd also like to see MastCell comment on talkpage abuse, and Moreschi on what he saw as OR, since those are two editors that I generally agree with. I lean towards not thinking an unblock necessary at this time, but I'd like to see some actual reasons, not mad rushes to judgment. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given Moulton's experience with Wikipedia, I would be pleasantly surprised if he decided to contribute after this. An unblocking would be a reasonable manner in which to begin to try and resolve Moulton's case (for want of a better word). I believe Moulton's blocking issues stemmed from his opposition to the labelling of scientists (particularly Rosalind Picard) as supporting Intelligent Design on their biographical articles. Neıl ☎ 11:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors who interacted with Moulton and tried to meet his concerns, the evidence presented understates the tendentiousness of his talk page insistence on justifying his edit warring by rambling on about his own ideas of "standards" which are very much at odds with Wikipedia policies. There is also a question of whether he actually made any constructive edits, his emphasis was very much on removing properly sourced information on the basis of his own original research. He continues to campaign off-wiki for Wikipedia to be changed to accord with his ideas. Has there been any indication that he has changed? . . dave souza, talk 11:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As anyone whose spent as much time whacking fringers and POV-pushers as I have knows, "removing sourced information" is quite frequently a "constructive edit".

Campaigning off-wiki for changes to WP policy are also, IIRC, not considered inappropriate. Or are we going to ban Phil Sandifer for campaigning on the mailing list prior to trying to change policy on verifiability here? Or Doc Glasgow for doing the same at the Stalk Board?

If the central problem is that he goes on too much, a strict enforcement of WP:TALK should certainly be enough, IMO. I tend to be pretty strict on the subject, removing or blanking off-topic discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, I look forward to your support should I find it necessary to apply it. I disagree with your enthusiasm for WR. .. dave souza, talk 14:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What enthusiasm? You really need to try sticking a little more closely to what people actually write. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As some may know, I've chatted a little to Moulton, and will be chatting with him again tomorrow in a public conversation over at WP:NTWW (all are welcome, and if you'd like to speak with Moulton at all, it's not a bad opportunity). I think it's fair to say (without prejudice) that Moulton is quite angry at how matters played out here, and would like some assurance or recognition that something went awry in his case - I still haven't figured out quite what went on, despite having ploughed through an awful lot of material - it's very very muddy waters from my perspective. I personally would be happy for Moulton to be unblocked - particularly given the obvious level of scrutiny any and all edits would face - he's neither an 'under the radar' kind of guy, nor an irredeemable wiki-editor in my view. Privatemusings (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton was banned because he was trying to whitewash away some embarrassing facts about his colleague of his - Rosalind Picard - from her article. It took months of tedious work on the part of several knowledge editors in this area to debunk his claims (that the NY Times are not a reliable source, that they didn't really mean to include her, etc), and he never really did accept that he was flatly wrong. His contributions were not beneficial in any way - he was an SPA whose contribution was to simply waste everyone's time. And he was community banned for it. Now people who did absolutely nothing to deal with the problems he caused the last time around are proposing we forget all of the above, and pretend like he was a useful contributor, or had the potential to be. He was no such thing. Raul654 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I did nothing to deal with "the problem" when it took place—I wasn't aware of it at the time and am not pretending I was. But that doesn't answer the question being asked—is Moulton banned? And if not, why not give him a second chance? Admittedly, most of his work was done on the Picard article and in relation to other ID related issues, but he also made useful contributions to (to take a random example) Characterization. More of this, less of the undiscussed "whitewashing", and we have a good contributor. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, please back up your assertions with arguments, as I requested. Diffs about "whitewashing" that are substantively different from arguments independently made recently by those who have absolutely no connection with either Moulton, Rosemary Picard, or ID-pushers would be a start. Nobody is going to unblock the fellow without taking your concerns into consideration, but surely you need to demonstrate their weight first. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be asking me to provide a "substantially different" set of problem behaviors Moulton was banned for then was previously discussed on the Rosalind Picard talk page. That simply is a non-starter. He was banned for the reasons he was banned -- that he tried to whitewash the article. This is documented in excruiating detail on his RFC. Edits like this (linked from that RFC) are par for the course -- notice the hagiographic tone, the fact that he has completely removed any mention of the fact that she signed the petition (a total whitewash, as it were). Raul654 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul: When I compare the Picard article as it was then to the way it is now, I see a previous article that was a WP:COATRACK, because it gave undue weight to one episode in this person's life. That the event was properly sourced is not disputed by me. What is disputed by me is the slant the article had. It was at the time, in my view, a clear WP:BLP violation, and badly needed correction. Moulton went about it all wrong. But guess what? So do a lot of other people. See WP:DOLT for some tangential but related thinking on dealing with newbies that have issues. See also some essays on how the academic model of discourse may not be completely compatible here. In my view, Moulton's old approach wasn't going to work here. But if there is reason to believe he now realises that, and wants to change his approach, I'd support an unblock. At the present time, I don't see that. But a blocked editor that we are willing to unblock under conditions is not a banned editor. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had another round of communication with Moulton and I see no change in his position, which is (paraprhased and any inaccuracy introduced is mine) that he does not wish to edit here without a review of what occurred having happened first (in particular, he wishes that these concerns be addressed). I'm not sure that's going to happen. Therefore, I see no pressing need to lift the block at this time, but I however continue to state that he is not banned. There are conditions under which I, an administrator in good standing, would lift the block, therefore there is not unanimous consent for a ban, and therefore this user is not banned, merely indefinitely blocked. I have changed the template used on his user page to reflect that. It is a distinction with no practical effect on his ability to edit, but a distinction that matters nonetheless. ++Lar: t/c 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the original blocking admin, I am involved, but would like to state (possibly pointlessly) that Lar is correct: under these conditions "indef blocked" not "banned" is the accurate term. That said, I don't know anyone who hasn't accidentally used the wrong term once or twice, whether "block" when they meant "ban" or similar errors, and it would be nice if everyone overlooked any mis-statements or disagreements about terminology and avoided nasty accusations and ABF. It doesn't help the situation a bit and only introduces bickering about non-issues. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What ban? there was no ban - FM just randomly decided he was the community and added the template on his on initiative - but the template does not make it so. Viridae ^Talk 12:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H₂O, would you be willing to "keep an eye" on Moultan for a while if you unblock him? Your answer to this question is the same as mine to whether I'd support your unblocking him. WilyD 12:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am if he isn't. Or jointly, because I suspect I already know Giggy's answer will be yes. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a non-admin idiot who changed his mind about Moulton during the RfC, I wonder if the Arbcom decision not to hear an appeal of his ban (and it's worth reading the arbitrator's opinions) has any bearing on whether or not he should be considered banned.

I also wonder why we are having this debate now (other than the_undertow's actions). Is there any evidence that Moulton realises that anything he did was wrong, and if so, where is it? I just can't reconcile the view that he's going to contribute constructively with the view that Wikipedia is responsible for turning a respectable academic into a... never mind. Let's just say that, if the WR posts I've read are anything to go by, he's quite sure that any fault lay on the part of Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I suspect it goes without saying, I would also find this sufficient. WilyD 13:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In these more enlightened times, I'm pretty sure we can link to WR where relevant - Moulton's version of how he came to be blocked is here, which I think is relevant. If fifty percent of what he says is accurate, his block was unfair. Neıl ☎ 13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Banning policy, if no uninvolved admin is willing to overturn the block, he's banned. Maybe the undertow is in fact involved, but if another were to agree with his rationale and call for a review or unblock, would he not be de facto unbanned? Wizardman 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we're ignoring that it has been raised on Rfar, and we are currently waiting to see if ArbCom will clarify, whether their declining to hear his appeal changed the status of his case at all; it may be that changed his status from indef blocked to banned. It may be that it changed nothing, in which case as Wizardman notes the undertow is arguably involved, and is not the requisite "uninvolved admin". If a completely uninvolved admin were to state his/her willingness to unblock, then I agree, he would be de facto not banned - but he would still be indef blocked, with no consensus to unblock, as noted by Lar near the beginning of this thread. All that said, FM was justified in stating he was banned per the evidence available - no uninvolved admin was willing to unblock - and I find Viridae's attack on FM sadly divisive to no purpose. Viridae, I suggest you strike that accusation.

As Moulton is either indef blocked with no consensus to unblock, or banned, what is the best course forward? I concur with SheffieldSteel, nothing has changed regarding Moulton except that the undertow unblocked him, without, I might add, even bothering to post such a potentially disruptive unblock on AN/I, which is done for even fairly minor changes of block duration, let alone for unblocking indef blocked editors. This is insufficient rationale for unblocking - that a rogue, possibly involved, admin unblocked without community input. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly wrong in one point, and with it crumbles much of your statement. An admin deciding that they are willing to unblock does not make them stop being uninvolved. If they were uninvolved before they made that decision, they remain uninvolved after it. I have seen zero evidence presented that the undertow is an involved admin; the lack of such evidence is significant given that almost every other smear under the sun is being thrown at him. With no evidence for the undertow being involved prior to the unblock; he is and remains an uninvolved admin for the purpose of considering Moulton. So it is clear, solely from his action, that Moulton is not now banned. (It is debatable if Moulton was ever banned; I haven't yet concluded on that.) GRBerry 14:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you were at all accurate about my reasoning, you would be accurate, but as you are "clearly" stating my reason is that he's willing to unblock makes him "involved" and you're dead wrong about that, your whole statement is pointless. Feel free to ask any questions about my reasoning, rather than leap to such conclusion in the future. It wastes everyone's time to read such fantasizing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would perhaps say that if you were involved at the time, or now, it was not because of the block itself but rather because of previous history, if any, in editing in the somewhat contentious ID related area, which was a focus of some of the article disputes that lead to the block as I understand it. There are those that assert you do edit in that area, is that a correct assertion? ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, Lar? GRB and I are discussing whether the undertow is an involved or uninvolved editor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Lar's question, which is relevant to the overall discussion but differentfrom this subthread, I think this diff is sufficient evidence that KC listed himself as an editor in the intelligent design area. He remains listed as a participant in that project. GRBerry 16:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nod. to KC (the first reply :) ): I would note that in my imperfect understanding, ArbCom declined to review the matter (with one possible outcome being an overturn of a community banning), that is, declined to review the actions OF the community. If there is no longer consensus for a community ban, that overrides ArbCom's decline to review it, in my view. Unblocking him is, in my view, not going against an ArbCom finding. (but I see no pressing need for an unblock, unless we are applying something akin to a "we don't think we did anything wrong but we are unblocking you anyway so you can go away in good grace" reasoning that has been used with other WR regulars, given what I said above that he's not likely to edit constructively, or at all, for that matter, at this time) To GRB: I agree, I don't see 'tow as involved the way that others such as Raul, Fill, FM, etc are. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the unblock of Moulton, and don't believe a community of six involved editors have the authority to ban someone. Powers were abused in this case, and I believe Moulton deserves a second chance, as he did make constructive edits. I'd also be willing to keep an eye on his contributions and be available to answer questions for him. Lara❤Love 14:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Powers were abused? Really? Whose? Mine, as the one who indef'd? If not, then who? Please either be specific or retract that very serious accusation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to unblocking. Strongly. And a community ban remains a ban by definition: Wikipedia:BAN#Community_ban "Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" '". Moulton was not and remains not interested in collaboratively writing an encyclopedia, only in promoting a certain view on a single topic, consensus or NPOV be damned. The Arbcom recognized this when it rejected his request to be unblocked. As seen in his comments and efforts offsite, nothing has changed with Moulton, and he's simply unsuited to be editing Wikipedia, a fact the Arbcom recognized. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'd forgotten that, so yes, he's banned. No amount of discussion changes that. However, my point about bickering about terminology still stands - and I'm pleased to see that FM at least is not accusing those debating this point of BF. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, FeloniousMonk is misrepresenting what happend in that ArbComm appeal. Moulton asked the AbComm "to review the issues of due process that I am placing before the ArbCom" Wikipedia and the ArbComm doesn't do due process; so of course they rejected that request. The committee did not reject an appeal to be unblocked; the rejected a request for due process. As such, their decision there matters nought at all. GRBerry 14:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Further, a community ban requires consensus. Just as in the Mantammoreland case, in which a lack of consensus resulted in a reversal of a block, there is not demonstrated consensus for a community ban in this matter at this time. Certainly some are arguing for it, yes. And some are arguing against it. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think unblocking Moulton is a singularly bad idea. Aside from the actual edit warring at Picard's biography, and Tour's biography and at A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, which was considerable, and threats and other assorted bad behavior on the talk pages, the most fundamental problem with User:Moulton was his belief that a large fraction of the traditions, conventions, rules and policies of Wikipedia must be changed immediately if not sooner, by fiat issued by him. He has never renounced this belief to my knowledge and in fact continues to lobby for this position off-wiki extensively.

A more extensive discussion of my position is found here--Filll (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought about this a while, and reviewed more of the evidence than I had previously, I come to the following conclusions. 1) The original block and the RFC are quite problematic, because the articles he was accused of whitewashing or otherwise inappropriately editing were at the time egregious violations of our policies, most importantly WP:BLP, but also WP:NPOV. 2) The undertow's unblock was quite bold, but reasonable; in the original ANI thread announcing the block, the blocking admin said "Per usual, if anyone wishes to unblock feel free." As such, the unblock could reasonably be understood as having the explicit consent of the blocking admin, so no discussion prior to unblocking was needed. 3) There are conditions under which I would be willing to unblock Moulton. They are broadly similar to those Lar has described, namely editing within norms and being willing to work with our communal processes. 4) Moulton is not now a banned editor. (It is not worth concluding whether he ever was.) 5) I doubt that Moulton is currently willing to deal with the fact that this is encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but I could be wrong on this point. 6) It is unlikely that a consensus for an unsupervised unblock will emerge soon. 7) It would be best if his return was accompanied by supervision, but I expect the supervisors will have as much to do in educating those opposed to Moulton but in the wrong themselves as they will in educating Moulton. 8) If any admin receives any private indication of willingness to edit within norms, Moulton's talk page should be unprotected so he can make such statements publicly here. GRBerry 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to a certain extent with 1. I disagree with 2 -- when you have someone who has been indefinitely blocked for a substantial period of time, an unblocking should always be preceded by discussion. The block belongs not only to the original admin, but also to all those who did not unblock immediately. While the "one admin willing to unblock" standard is good for creating bans, it should not be interpreted legalistically when it comes to judging whether they should continue. I think the undertow had a significant lapse in judgment here.

With 4 -- the difference between "indefinitely blocked with no immediate prospect of unblocking" and "indefinitey banned" is very small. I would say, personally, that it is pretty much meaningless. Is he banned? Well, he can't edit Wikipedia from that account. That's the actual reality, rather than the theory, which can be highly misleading.

The question that needs answering is not "is this block valid?" (I say "block" rather than "ban" solely to avoid legalistic disputation) but "is this block right?" I would be interested in hearing from him -- he can feel free to email me (smoddy@gmail.com). Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I've been trying to say with my pleas to stop bickering about the terminology. Thanks, Sam. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton was blocked because of his behaviour. There's no indication that he has any desire to change his behaviour. So why should he be unblocked?

Moulton's problem is with the core principles of Wikipedia - he appears to be unable to grasp the fact that he cannot substitute his own experience for a reliable source. It isn't all that strange a situation for a new editor. I'm sure most people have read a newspaper article and thought "they got that completely wrong. And many of us have, early in our Wikipedia career, changed an article, despite it being sourced, because we "knew better". It's a typical newbie mistake. But it's explained to us, we accept it as "the rules", and eventually, we come to embrace sourcing because we see how important it is to the accuracy of the project as a whole. Moulton never made it past the first step. As late as his RFC, he still expressed surprise when he was told that Wikipedia is not the place to publish original thought - that despite being told that Wikipedia is not the place to publish original thought ~~for months~~ repeatedly prior to his RFC.

Moutlon was blocked because he was unwilling to adhere to our core principles. If there was some indication that he recognised the problem and was willing to change, then an unban may be in order. But he has done no such thing. So why unban him? Guettarda (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support unblocking him. I'm not sure whether or not his initial treatment was fair, but either way it's been long enough and he should get another chance. Everyking (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what has changed?--Filll (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we should never consider anyone beyond redemption. We block people who are actively damaging the encyclopedia, to prevent further harm to the encyclopedia. If Moulton returns and edits within our communal norms, then he's no longer damaging the encyclopedia. If he repeats offensive behavior patterns, he can be blocked again. So where's the harm? FCYTravis (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved administrator, I give notice here that I am willing to unblock Moulton, on the (standard) requirement that he edits within communal norms and policies. I will not do so immediately, in the interests of reducing Wikidrama, but will give time for those opposed to propose good reasons as to why this should not be done. FCYTravis (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that no one should be considered beyond redemption. However, this should be considered extremely carefully, given that someone who unblocks Moulton is most likely demanding the commitment of hundreds of wasted hours of other volunteer's time.

I also ask, are you in favor of discarding WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and WP:COI and WP:RS ? Are you in favor of unleashing someone who has repeatedly stated and continues to state repeatedly and aggressively he will not abide by Wikipedia's core principles, and summarily rejects them in favor of his own dictates and fiats and fatwas? If you are in favor of these things, then unblock/unban Moulton. Because that is what you will get.

Until such time as Moulton renounces his current positions and shows some acknowledgement of the part his own positions and actions played in this saga, I fear this will be a collosal waste, and a price that the person who unblocks will be visiting upon the community.--Filll (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FCYTravis states it rather well here. If he returns and is not disruptive, where's the problem? It's pretty much self-evident that Moulton was never banned but remains indefinitely blocked. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption to the project and right now, I'm not seeing him as being much of a risk. Having said that, I was not involved with this editor in the past, as many others here obviously are, so may not be aware of the entire history. If someone like User:Vintagekits can survive more than two indef blocks yet return rehabilitated, I daresay Moulton could too - Alison ^❤ 17:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the question of "why no?" I would direct people to MastCell's section below. He does not appear to have acknowledged that his blocking was in any way related to his behaviour, let alone resolved to change his behaviour. No one is beyond redemption, but there has to be, at the very least, a commitment to change. Guettarda (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deconstructing "recruiting meatpuppets"

What others seem to call "recruiting meatpuppets" actually follows a simple pattern - and one that involves no wrongdoing on anyone's part. Moulton says there is a problem with an article (he's allowed to have an opinion, and he's allowed to state his opinion, and this is as far as his actions go, full stop). Someone else, who is not banned and therefore who is free to edit articles, *gasp* _agrees_ that the article violates BLP or whatever, and makes an edit using their own judgement.

This is NOT meatpuppetry, this is not "proxy editing", this is nothing more than people fixing BLP issues with articles on people that for some reason a certain group of editors wants to smear as "anti-evolution". --Random832 (contribs) 13:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here Moulton calls for very specific edits to two specific articles: WikipediaReview, May 12, 2008 And here a new user, one who is engaged in the same behavior as Moulton in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose - Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets the very definition of a meatpuppet, making his first two and only edits in the article namespace matching Moulton's above requested content word-for-word within hours of Moulton's request: May 12, 2008 May 12, 2008 And here's the new editor acknowledging he acted in response to Moulton's call: [1] An editor who is engaged in the same behavior as Moulton and in the same context, and who appears to be editing solely for that purpose is by defintion Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets meatpuppetry. I have 16 more links of Moulton directing others, calling for certain edits. Would you like to go through each one as above? FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. If someone "calls" for an edit to an article by proposing text (on a talk page, in a blog, at some other site that I happen to read, or by mailing to me or whatever form the communication takes), and I happen to think that, after reviewing the article, that the text is good, or close to good, and thus use it verbatim or with little modification, that does not mean I am that person's meat puppet. It means that I am happy to take constructive input about ways to improve articles where ever I may happen to find it, and I stand behind the edit I made, not the other person. That was pointed out to you (in rather less detail) on your talk page, in the very diff you cite as evidence of puppetry. I think you may have overstepped a bit in your use of terms here. For the record, I am always happy to receive suggestions about improvements to articles, which I will act on or not, as I choose, and I am no one's puppet. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this does NOT contradict my stated intention to blanket mass revert the edits of editors who are banned and "singularly unwelcome" here. Mass reverting allows for someone else to then come in and selectively choose to incorporate material and stand behind it themselves. If I saw a sock of Moulton editing here I could very well revert all the edits that sock made without any inconsistency. ++Lar: t/c 15:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar speaks very sensibly here. A good edit should never be considered "tainted" because of who supports it. Content can be considered strictly on its own merits, without regard to who is on which side. Friday (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled. Are you saying it's ok to recruit meatpuppets if some editors in good standing decide to adopt the advice as their own? . . dave souza, talk 15:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's saying making a reasonable edit after noticing a blocked editor had suggested it does not amount to "recruiting meatpuppets" in the first place. If I see a blocked user point out a BLP violation on Wikipedia Review or anywhere else, my first instinct is to check it out, and fix it. I don't care if a blocked user was the first to notice it. I wouldn't consider myself to then be a meatpuppet for that user. Just in case I wasn't clear earlier, I support unblocking Moulton, as the circumstances of his indef block (not a ban - a ban indicates consensus - for which there is none, based on the above) were dubious, and as there's no doubt his actions would be monitored by more than one admin, if he does end up broaching policies, he can always be reblocked. Neıl ☎ 15:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would direct anyone who agrees with this line of reasoning to consider the recently forged and hard-fought consensus at Rosalind Picard which was almost immediately discarded by a new editor who admitted he was following Moulton's off-wiki direction. Is this the kind of editing environment you advocate? Where consensus stands for nothing?--Filll (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not remotely. Coming in and disregarding existing consensus is disruptive. This is true regardless of whether he was following some instructions or not. Friday (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure what this has do to with the discussion, really. I'm also not sure Moulton saying "I do not agree with the content of this article" can fairly be characterised as "off-wiki direction". Neıl ☎ 15:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Friday and Neil, but I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the consensus. Are you sure that the lowering of the amount of coatracking this article contains is due to your personal efforts, or is it more likely that it was a consensus reached against your wishes, that is, that the article is in a state you do not personally agree with is the correct weighting in that it doesn't emphasise the petition enough? The article in my view, still could stand improvement, even now. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I was on that talk page trying to get some discussion rather than the insult flinging and hate spewing I saw. I got threatened for my efforts with some sort of "outing". Consensus should not be built via wikibullying those who disagree with you away. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before, you were not threatened and that was a poorly stated post and a misunderstanding. I apologized before for any misunderstanding and I apologize again. That is off-topic in any case.--Filll (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. I will now disengage. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>I would dispute some of the characterization of my position and editing as recounted above. But is this really the place for such a debate?--Filll (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

This will be a bit lengthy, but please bear with me. I'm going to speak carefully here, recognizing that Moulton is a real and identifiable person with a real career and real feelings. There are a couple of issues here:

The legitimacy of his block/ban/what-have-you. Several editors have questioned this, some in more unfortunate and inflammatory language than others. The fact is that Moulton was indefinitely blocked after an RfC; his block was posted to WP:AN/I for comment; he appealed through numerous channels, from emailing various admins to unblock-en-l to Mike Godwin to ArbCom; and all of those lines of appeal were rejected. That was a legitimate and transparent block, according to Wikipedia's current standards - it was not unilateral, or unreviewed, or underhanded, or nefariously contrived by a handful of evil people, and anyone suggesting that it was is either ignorant of the facts or twisting this case to pursue a wider agenda (or both). The process of undoing such a block begins with discussion, not with a unilateral unblock, and I'd like to think that most admins have at least that much common sense. That said, there's clearly a feeling right now that this block needs to be reviewed again, so let's do it.
My views were expressed here back in 12/07, and haven't changed much. When it comes to unblocking someone, the most useful question is: "Has anything changed since the block? Is there any reason to think that anything will be different?" I see nothing to suggest that it will. Virtually all of Moulton's attempts to get unblocked, here and on WR, are couched in terms of smiting people he believes have wronged him. Nowhere is any acknowledgement that his own actions or behavior might have played some role in the outcome of the situation, nor an indication of a desire to contribute useful content. These absences makes it much harder to believe that an unblock will prove constructive.
I had no involvement in the whole Rosalind Picard thing; my take on the essential problem was that Moulton interacted largely in the form of abstract meta-diatribes. I hesitate to use the T-word, but I found his approach to be "trolling" in the pure sense - that is, editing with the primary goal of getting a rise or reaction out of other editors. It was a singularly unconstructive approach. Interestingly, my sense is that Wikipedia Review has been much more successful at handling Moulton's MO than we were. Many or most of his posts are simply ignored on WR, whereas Wikipedians, unfortunately, were unable to avoid engaging him on his terms with a resultant death spiral of argumentative silliness, to which Moulton was not the sole contributor.

I wish Moulton the best in general, but I'm against an unblock on practical terms - I see no benefit coming to the encyclopedia, particularly given that Moulton is still filing Petitions for Redress of Grievances which admit no responsibility, and has given no reason for us to expect anything other than a repetition of the same issues if he's unblocked. I'd like to see a separation between the fundamental question - whether an unblock will help the encyclopedia - and subsidiary issues like block vs. ban, grievances about the community ban process, etc. If the community consensus is to unblock, then I'd like to see specific guidelines in place on appropriate talk page use, along with one or more dedicated mentors to guide him on working within Wikipedia's policies and structures and review of his contributions at set periods to determine whether he should remain unblocked. I'm happy to go into more detail or discuss this further, but I think this post is long enough, so I'll leave it there for now. Incidentally, as the admin who protected Moulton's talk page, I'm going to unprotect it so that he can post directly there rather than having to email or post offsite to participate. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would like to commend Dihydrogen for bringing this to the AN board for a review. I think we can all agree that this is the best manner to go about any controversial unblock. If we learned anything from Stifle's handling Iantresman case, its that these sort of things need to be explained in full view of the community, as he did. If the_undertow would have done this, a great deal of the drama would have been avoided. Since we can't live in the past, let’s look at the case. What this boils down to is should a user who exhausted the good faith of the large majority of editors he dealt with be allowed to return, as many have previously mentioned. We have to temper that with the knowledge that Moulton has actively attacked the entire membership of the WikiProject for intelligent design and additional editors that he feels are associated with the ID project. Of course, he is not the only person to attack this group on WR. He has also engaged in what could best be described as drive-by psychoanalysis of several of the members of the project. It was a little insulting, to say the least and I am sure the other members will agree, especially those who were on the receiving end of the doctoring. I guess you could say that I am involved with this because Moulton believes I am a sock puppet and/or a troll of some sort and has made his feelings public about this. He had also, during his very brief period, contributed nearly nothing of value to the project. So, basically we have some very respectable admins and editors asking for a good faith unblock for a user who has attacked other editors, showed no remorse for any of his actions, and appeared to be incapable of working within WP policies to construct an encyclopedia and would rather argue for his own ideas on policy. With Lar clearly stating that Moulton shows no change in his behavior, there is no way that this block can be overturned, without proper consensus. Also, someone previously mentioned how campaigning off-wiki is not always frowned upon. But we need to use common sense on this one. Are we seriously going to extend any good faith to a website that has entire sections devoted to vehemently attacking single editors? I am sure SlimVirgin and JzG would love to know that we think so highly of this sort of off-wiki canvassing, since they are some of the favorite targets. If there are editors wishing to mentor Moulton, as a few have mentioned they are willing to do, if Moulton agrees to stay away from articles in which he has a serious COI problem, and if he ceases his attacks on the editors who he has had previous dealings, the unblock could be considered. Short of these being addressed, I see no reason to overturn this block. Baegis (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Moulton hasn't done enough admitting that at least some of his problems are caused by his own improper behavior, and some of his views are mistaken or inappropriate. But the same can be said of some of those here who are fighting him; some of them still don't seem to admit that there was any problem whatsoever with the "coatrack" status of some of the versions of the articles in question. Perhaps some apologies and adoption of greater humility would be in order on more than one side. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully beg to differ. I was the editor who constructed the RfC. I was also the editor who volunteered to call Moulton and talk to him for several hours about his concerns about the biography and tried to help him resolve these problems, with repeated emails and phone calls to a variety of Wikipedians and others. I have never denied there was a problem with the biography on August 22, 2007; otherwise, why would I have devoted so much time and energy trying to fix it? There are reasons why it was in that state which I will not bore anyone with here. There are reasons it did not change to its current consensus state for a few months after, which I will not bore anyone with here. If you want a more complete explanation, contact me.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for instance, there's Raul654's comments way up on this page, "he never really did accept that he was flatly wrong". This exhibits a mindset of "he's totally wrong; we're totally right; we must never even think about un-banning him until he admits it and grovels before us." This excludes a position where both sides have made mistakes and have problems. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have to defend the behavior and attitudes of everyone else. I can speak for myself and relate the positions of those who have shared those positions with me. I do not believe that everyone maintains that "he's totally wrong; we're totally right". It is not a matter of groveling. It is a matter of writing an encyclopedia according to our accepted principles. Do you favor discarding the five pillars? Do you favor unleashing people who have not demonstrated any evidence of being able to work with others on Wikipedia and follow the principles of Wikipedia?--Filll (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do not speak for others who engaged Moulton in discussions, it has been my observation that many others were unhappy with its status on August 22, 2007 for similar reasons to Moulton. However, again, there is a lot more to this story. And just pointing fingers without any knowledge of the background or the facts is not helpful. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the ball is now in Moulton's court. There were real BLP problems with that bio (since improved by the community), and he made mistakes common to overeager new editors. He had the door closed on him quickly, and several of the accusations made in the RfC were simply unfair. But as MastCell outlines, his willingness as a new user to understand and edit within all of Wikipedia's policies was wanting. We're not a justice system; in the end, "what's good for the encyclopedia" must win out; he needs to put aside his bitterness and acknowledge that he will live within the rules. - Merzbow (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To go back to Dan's point, I think there's some validity there, in that these sorts of disputes are rarely purely one-sided. Moulton's not crazy - he had some legitimate points (though his manner of addressing them was unproductive), and the ensuing fracas didn't bring out the best in any of its participants. The more all of us recognize that, the better, and I understand the appeal to basic fairness. Still, the immediate question, to me at least, is whether unblocking Moulton is going to help the goal of building the encyclopedia. Even if we accept that the actions of others warrant individual scrutiny, I don't see the answer being yes. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the request that I back my claim that tools were abused. These are the ~~admins~~ editors that formed the "community ban":

Three are members of Wikiproject Intelligent Design, five participated in the RFC, which the result of was the basis for the block. The RFC was initiated by Filll. Among the certifying parties, FeloniousMonk was listed. The discussion was closed by WP:ID member KillerChihuahua, who had otherwise participated only in keeping order. ~~The block was then carried out by involved FeloniousMonk.~~ And then KC carried out the block. Lara❤Love 19:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with LaraLove here that the situation was handled in a less than ideal manner. I'd always rather see a neutral, uninvolved party enact "consensus", and I would have also liked to see greater participation from a wider array of editors before the actual block was ultimately enacted. hmwith τ 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was developed in a publicised RFC. The decision was posted to AN/I for consideration by the community. The decision was reviewed by the arbcomm. How do you suggest that one widen the array of editors involved? Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the WP:ANI discussion could have used more editors who did not have prominent roles in the RfC. hmwith τ 19:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? We can't force people to participate. Generally, if something is uncontroversial and uncontested, people don't chime in. The question posed with a block review at AN/I is, in essence, "anyone have a problem with this block?" I'm pretty sure I've posted blocks before that got zero feedback on AN/I. I didn't take that as an indication that I should undo the block, and I don't think that anyone else would either. Guettarda (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just talking about this type of situation in general. I didn't even say that I objected to the actions of any editors. However, in ideally, things would certainly be different. However, I readily realize that an ideal situation is not always possible, as well. hmwith τ 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, no, those are not the admins who "formed the community ban". Those are editors who felt that a block was appropriate, following a public RfC. The block was then posted for review on WP:AN/I, the most public and widely-read forum on Wikipedia. It was reviewed via an {{unblock}} template, by the uninvolved admins at unblock-en-l, by the Foundation legal counsel, and by at least one admin whom Moulton contacted by email. The entire situation was then reviewed by ArbCom. After all of that exposure, which goes well beyond "6 admins", no one was willing to unblock Moulton. It is reasonable to equate that situation - a block which no admin is willing to undo - with a community ban, just as it's reasonable to consider Moulton unbanned since there are now admins willing to consider unblocking him. This whole line of argument - that the block lacked transparency or was not properly reviewed - is completely at odds with the easily verifiable reality of the situation, and I'd suggest that further discussion be informed more by those facts and less by zOMG cabalism. MastCell ^Talk 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of those people are administrators. Not that they would have to be to comment on a block notice. Just trying to set facts straight, Lara. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at some rough numbers. About 17 editors expressed displeasure with Moulton's editing style at his RfC. In addition, Killer Chihuahua closed the RfC and has expressed her unhappiness with how Moulton was behaving, and this is still true, as can be observed above. Only 3 other editors supported Moulton at his RfC and expressed no reservations with his editing style, and 2 of those had not edited with him or interacted with him. Some of these clearly were doing so for ideological reasons, and not to do with the subject of the RfC, which was inability to follow Wikipedia policy. At the RfAr another 3 independent editors chimed in, of which only one thought that an Arbcomm examination of the situation was warranted. So if one adds this up, one finds in the two proceedings, about 20 editors expressed some misgivings about Moulton's editing style, and only one editor who had edited together with Moulton did not (while 2 further editors supported him, but based on limited experience and knowledge). This does not appear to be a particularly good ratio, at least in my opinion. What do you think?--Filll (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is, though, a tendency for some fairly tight cliques to develop and to gang up on people they dislike for whatever reason. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that does seem to be how WikipediaReview operates. Raul654 (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dislike Moulton, no matter what you have read. I would not have put so much effort into trying to help him otherwise. Unfortunately, Moulton showed no willingness to follow the principles of Wikipedia, and has stated repeatedly that he does not want to abide by the principles that Wikipedia is founded on. And that is why Moulton was the subject of an administrative action. It was not because he was ganged up on by a clique or a "cabal".--Filll (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the admins to editors. My issue is how the RFC closed and how an involved editor carried out the block. I believe an uninvolved editor should have done this. Lara❤Love 21:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying meatpuppetry edits and banned users

Just to clarify a running thread in this discussion (no opinion on the fate of Moulton from me). So... if a banned user says "Article xyxabc on Wikipedia has a problem with content A-B-C for reasons X-Y-Z," anyone here making matching changes is then editing on behalf of a banned user? What if they are good edits--removing typos, BLP violations, or just really good suggestions for a content change? If that is reversible, because it's on "behalf of a banned user", if we enforse this, all that is required is for the banned people at Wiki Review to just keep giving good suggestions. Am I misunderstanding this? Wouldn't it make sense to only apply this standard to BAD edits? If, for example, someone at WR says to say Abraham Lincoln had a pet elephant, and someone added that fact (beyond it being stupid vandalism) that would be bad. But if someone at WR says that the 7th footnote on Abe's article would be better with different wording--and gosh, someone agrees--and implements that wording: is this a bad act? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the example given above, a careful consensus was achieved by discussion on the article talk page, then at Moulton's bidding a new user (albeit one who says they had edited previously under a different account) effectively reverted the agreed version to a previous version which had not been accepted. Is that a BAD edit? Does that make it ok to recruit editors to make changes that disregard consensus on Wikipedia, to conform to arguments put on an outside forum? ... dave souza, talk 17:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case by case sorta thing. Considering Moulton's past and his attacks on the ID project, making edits he advocates are questionable at best. Baegis (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all criticism is an attack. This was the state of the article just before Moulton's first edit. If anyone thinks that this is an appropriate biography of a living person, we don't really have anything further to talk about. This is an attack piece containing nothing but criticism of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. When Moulton attempted to fix it, he was attacked by the ID project, who turned around and banned him. The vast majority of those commenting on the RFC are ID project members. The person who instituted the block is an ID project member. When someone does something worthy of criticism and is criticized for it, that is not a personal attack. The way that this "ban" was handled was absolutely terrible and is very much worthy of criticism. There comes a point where the differences are irreconcilable, even though the fault may be Wikipedia's not Moulton's and an unban isn't helpful to anyone. I haven't formed an opinion yet as to whether we are at that point, but I have formed an opinion that Moulton was wronged at least as much as he was in the wrong. --B (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B, saying that this was the state of the article when Moulton first editing it, as if that were the consensus on the article, is deeply misleading and prejudicial. Hrafn, then a brand new editor, had removed the unsourced material per BLP. What ensued was some heated between two new editors; one (Hrafn) who understood sourcing, but not the idea of (UN)DUE weight, and the other who did not understand the idea of sourcing. Neither of them properly understood sourcing policy. So what happened? They managed to hash things out to the point where the article reflected the sources that they had. Not bad for a couple of newbies. Then what? Moulton spent the next few weeks insisting that the article should explain that Picard signed a blank petition, that she didn't know what she was signing, that she wasn't a supporter of intelligent design (and that he could knew it as a fact because he knew "Roz"). And since then - Hrafn, like any newbie, refined his understanding of policy. And Moulton continued to complain about the system. Both started out with an incomplete understanding of policy. One editor adapted to the principles of Wikipedia. The other insisted that Wikipedia adapt to him. Guettarda (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, no disrespect intended, but did you even read my post above? If I did not feel the biography should not be cleaned up when I first talked to Moulton August 23, 2007, why did I devote many hours to trying to do so? I sent out emails and made many phone calls. Why did I do so if I wanted to keep the biography in its August 22nd, 2007 state? Your claims are not supported by the evidence.

As I offered above, I will be glad to give you some information about why the biography was in that state on August 22nd, 2007 and why it did not drastically improve until a week or two ago, if you want to contact me. Otherwise, I will not clog this page with trivia that most people are not interested in. Ask me if you want to know; do not assume.--Filll (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not unban Moulton, as I am going out of town shortly and will not be around to be responsible for the consequences. However, as giving difficult users second chances is SOP, and given the issues surrounding the article and block, it seems that a second chance is appropriate. Thatcher 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though the editor does not seem to be aware of the problem with his behaviour? That seems rather odd. Guettarda (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In brief, yes. The block button will still be there in the event it is required again. Thatcher 19:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Odd. Then why do we permaban anyone at all? It seems to me that there needs to be, at the very least, some sort of assurance that the problematic behaviour will change, a willingness to abide by our core principles, like WP:V. Guettarda (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have blocked or banned (for example) Hkelkar and his socks so many times that it is clear he will never be an asset. I'm talking about a second chance, not a sixth. Thatcher 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my current position on the situation: User:Filll/Moultonunblock. If you want more details about the Picard biography and why it was a mess and why it remained a mess for a few months, then ask me and I will be happy to help you out. This is not the result of some nefarious plot or an attempt to smear someone or to get revenge. This has a far more prosaic set of reasons, and in fact I suggested repeatedly that we just delete the Picard biography if it was going to cause so much rancor, but I was overruled.--Filll (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively to asking you for your view, one could just walk the edit history of the article and its talk. That's what I did. Why exactly several of the ID project members are viewed by many as apparently seeming to favor giving undue weight to this petition seems a different and larger matter, that may not be amenable to determining from the histories of the articles, so perhaps you could shed some light on whether that is an accurate impression, and why or why not, and if it's inaccurate, why it seems to be held by at least a few folk? As for deleting the article entirely I would probably now comment favorably if it were brought to AfD again. ++Lar: t/c 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why he was, and why he is, blocked

We seem to have different ideas of just _what_ he did "wrong" to get blocked. The RFC seems unusually focused on the blatantly false claim that he is anti-evolution and is lying about it and is lying about other people not being anti-evolution. To all accounts this seems to be what he was, at the end of the day, banned for. Yet now people are saying that his engagement style is disruptive. Well - maybe the two are related - maybe he was driven to it - to the "trolling", even, by people who were making false accusations about him and trying to keep BLP-violating stuff in articles. He can't commit to improving his behavior if he isn't even told that _this_ (whatever exactly "this" is) - rather than supposedly lying about his own and others' beliefs - is what he's doing wrong. And continuing with extremely tenuous accusations such as "recruiting meatpuppets" isn't the way to go - let's focus on what (if anything) he's ACTUALLY doing wrong, rather than trumped-up misinterpretations. --Random832 (contribs) 19:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. The fundamental reason he was blocked was that he could not work with others, could not work towards consensus, and disregarded the policies of Wikipedia like WP:NOR and WP:COI and WP:RS and so on. And announced frequently that he intended to do so and continue to do. And still does.--Filll (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In short - if he keeps being told that he is a liar and a creationist, then of course he's not going to accept that there are problems with his behavior, and of course he's going to think the problem is the people telling him that, because he knows that those are false accusations. I think that the ID project members in general, and Filll and FeloniousMonk in particular, need to post a retraction of those accusations before we can move forward. (or, if you still think he _is_ a liar and a creationist, we can redo the RFC - if your evidence of those claims is as good today as it was then, I should have no trouble refuting it.) --Random832 (contribs) 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe I ever claimed he was a creationist. I am not sure what I believe about his personal position, since he changed what he claimed often. He could have easily been "gaming" the system or testing us and our responses, as he claimed he was doing in outside publications documenting his experiences on Wikipedia.

I do not believe it is relevant, frankly. I think the only thing that is relevant is the reason the RfC was filed; inability or unwillingness to work with others and abide by the principles of Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition Moulton presented himself as a supporter of evolution, someone opposed to intelligent design, someone opposed to creationism and the agenda of the Discovery Institute. Moulton did this in private emails, on the telephone and in numerous Wikipedia postings (for example, [101]). However, this actually is incorrect, and Moulton was falsely representing himself and his views: [102] [103][104][105] [106], which became copiously clear." these being links that, to my reading, contain neither evidence that he was falsely representing himself and his views, nor that his views were other than being pro-evolution / opposed to ID/creationism / opposed to the DI which you all but explicitly claim. Still want to say you haven't claimed that? --Random832 (contribs) 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Random points out, the RFC did contain strong accusations that Moulton was an ID/creationist sympathizer (from several different editors). But the evidence presented did not back that up, and I haven't seen any statements from him since then that do. This doesn't change the fact he needs to promise to change his behavior, but in turn we as a community need to be more careful about what we do claim about another editor's real thoughts and intentions. - Merzbow (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you say NOW that inability to work with others was the reason the RFC was filed, but from what I can tell, calling him a liar is what the RFC is all about - and I wouldn't want to work with people who call me a liar either. --Random832 (contribs) 20:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are picking out one small section of the RfC to focus on. The actual complaint, without endorsements, has 95 links and is 18,430 bytes, and does not include this material at all, but only focuses on some behavioral problems. The "Inside View from Filll" has 12 links and 2755 bytes, and is not the main complaint but a small addendum to clarify something that I found dismaying that I felt I had to reveal and complain about.

The "Inside View from Filll" describes my experience at being manipulated by Moulton, which really took advantage of my assumptions of good faith. I have no idea what Moulton's personal religious positions and beliefs are, nor do I care. What I object to is being manipulated. I am not sure I would call it "lying" exactly, since from his later publications, he maintained that he was trying to cause disruption on Wikipedia on purpose to test Wikipedia's response to disruption so he could publish about it. This was certainly being disingenuous, and a misrepresentation of Moulton's purpose on Wikipedia, but I am not sure I would call Moulton a "liar".--Filll (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, if it's simply behavioral problems rather than anything wrong with his ideas, then it's not clear why he shouldn't be allowed to point out problems in articles for others to fix in their own way, and how this "recruiting meatpuppets" is even an offence at all (since despite you calling them meatpuppets there's clearly no-one that's offering to uncritically regurgitate any and all edits he suggests) --Random832 (contribs) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read this long thread, and do not find any convincing arguments to lift the block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Moulton would be willing to abide by Wikipedia's rules, if unblocked. I was engaging him in discussion on his talk page shortly before he was originally blocked, and found him to be pretty reasonable, once he had calmed down from his interaction with several members of Wikiproject intelligent design, which had left him a bit aggravated and confused, IMO. I don't know if he has much interest in editing beyond addressing the coatrack, undue weight, and BLP issues he ran into on Rosalind Picard and James Tour, but I do believe it's time to give him a real chance here. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense but that really is not particularly compelling since this is at best 2nd hand. --Filll (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His behaviour is closely tied to his ideas that WP should produce original research in some sort of "journalistic standards". The suspicion that he was claiming to be anti-ID while appearing to support their views was only part of the RfC which came in the context of his tendentious conduct on talk pages, and was not commented on or supported by all those taking part. Looking over the evidence now it seems to me that his expressed support for an ID proponent comes from some similarities in ideas and his use of buzzwords gave an unfortunate impression, but that's not the meat of the problem. The essential is that he conform to policies and talk page guidelines, but there has been no indication that he is willing to make such changes in behaviour. .. dave souza, talk 21:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after only a few exchanges with him, Moulton told me that "I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Wikipedia." [2] Also note in that diff that he had been confused by the use of sarcasm, and had not picked up on the misconceptions regarding his beliefs.

So of course his exchanges with Wikiproject intelligent design did not help him become a good editor. They didn't deal with his actual issues and attacked him for something he didn't believe in, serving to further confuse him. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You miss out the rest of his paragraph – "I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Wikipedia. Which begs the obvious question. If Wikipedia is not an instance of journalism, then what the devil is it? Is it sui generis?" That's hardly an agreement to work within the constraints of Wikipedia policies.

I assure you that I did my utmost to deal with his genuine concerns about biographies, but as stated earlier in that thread do not consider that Wikipedia should exercise censorship of reliably sourced non-defamatory information on the basis of hearsay evidence. His beliefs remain obscure, but his citing at least one ID proponent with apparent approval and his use of the common creationist claim that microevolution and macroevolution are distinct gave the impression of some sympathy with their cause. However, open creationists have been welcomed at ID articles when they discuss issues constructively and work within policy. My concern, and evidently MastCell's, was with his tendentious and extended arguments and failure to accept NOR. .. dave souza, talk 23:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying that the comment was the end of the dialog, but it clearly demonstrates that Moulton is not as inflexible as he's made out to be. He has been willing to learn and understand what Wikipedia is and how to go about it. I have also seen that he's learned a lot about Wikipedia's policies in the time since his block was enacted.

However, I don't see why he would understand policies at that time, when they were applied unevenly. It took intervention by far more experienced editors on two separate occasions in order to improve the undue weight, coatrack, and BLP issues on Picard's article. He didn't know policy, but he knew the article was wrong, so why would he accept policy when it was quoted in order to defend something clearly wrong? Now that he's got a better understanding of policies regarding undue weight, coatrack articles, and BLP, I believe he's likely to accept policies against OR as well. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a mischaracterization of the situation isn't it? After all, when did we finally get access to a statement of Picard's personal beliefs? Just last week, even though we and others had asked for it many many many times for months and months. If she supposedly thought that intelligent design was nonsense, then we had to have a source. Were we supposed to publish this with no sources based on nothing? You think that would have been reasonable and ethical, even even reasonable and ethical "journalism"? And the reason there were many editors involved was that a huge war erupted when people attempted to white wash the sourced material out of the article. And the reason the article became a "COATRACK", or violated UNDUE, was material that violated copyright, or was plagiarized was removed from it last August. And although assorted BLP warriors such as Moulton appeared, they were unwilling to actually write anything, but instead just wanted to fight. This could all be solved if people (1) followed the sources (2) actually wrote something instead of plagiarizing.--Filll (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is blatantly obvious that if an article has some content that was a copyvio, it should be removed; if the article then winds up blatantly lopsided and unbalanced, that should be corrected by further removal. None of this is unusual except, apparently, in this particular sector of Wikipedia. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. For example, see the history of Mike Cox. I found this version. It had copyvio, I threw up a notice, announced my intentions on the talk page and waited. I then removed the copyvio and unsourced/unreliably sourced text, what remained was massively unbalanced, so it went too, and we are left with a stub. This is standard practice in handling BLP articles. If the ID project doesn't do things that way, that's a matter for considerable concern, I'd say. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the ID Wikiproject is any different from any other in this respect. And I did not remove the copyright violation and I do not know if a current member of the project removed the copyright violation at that time, but it was removed. And it was unbalanced. So Moulton and I and others tried to address it. And things went downhill from there. And it was so contentious I suggested several times just removing the article completely, as you suggested. But others did not want to go down that route. And so it had certain things done that needed to be corrected, and there was a request to the parties involved to correct them since last August. And finally, the cooperation that had been requested repeatedly materialized, and then things moved to their present much improved state and continue to improve, with a small firestorm or two in the last couple of weeks that was uncalled for. So what is the problem?--Filll (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... "what is the problem?" That it took this long and caused this much contention to fix one coatrack that seemed apparently to be a focus of the ID project. Take a read through what Sam Korn says, below. His dispassionate review of matters draws significantly different conclusions about several matters about which you and other ID members have been asserting, and I for one am a bit curious as to why that is. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have already mentioned that the ID wikiproject is different in terms of BLP cleanup, so your basic premise is wrong. I note with amusement that the recent improvements, which were at the time attacked as meatpuppeting, are now being touted as a success. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for that matter - on the ground, Wikipedia _does_ have some elements of journalism. For example, these articles. Or these ones. Yes, it's not supposed to be, but in practice articles do violate that principle, more often than NOT. --Random832 (contribs) 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you claim that most Wikipedia articles violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and that these are standards we should discard? Do I have that correct? --Filll (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll: That is a false dichotomy, and I suspect you already know it, but used it for rhetorical effect anyway. To be precise: I can feel that there are some (who said "most" ??) articles that violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR without wanting to discard them., the two views are not dichtomic. If this is the typical level of your argument I can see why Moulton had trouble with trying to work with you, but I'm going to assume instead that you've overexcited by matters and it wasn't typical at all. Just as a tip though, if you want to be taken seriously outside your own project where everyone knows you, and make effective points, it may be more effective not to use such rhetorical flourishes when they are likely to confuse or distract. ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask you to spare me the personal attacks and to WP:AGF it at all possible and avoid such aggresive and tortuous argumentation. It reflects quite poorly on you. Just a friendly suggestion.

And I of course was asking this for clarification because I wanted to repeat back what I thought I had heard since it seemed a little hard to believe. Do you think this is not permitted? I was under the impression that was a good technique to avoid misunderstanding. Do you dispute that?

Also, I interpreted "more often than not" to mean "most". Do you dispute that might be a common interpretation of the phrase "more often than not"? How would you interpret the phrase "more often than not"?

Also, the aspects of asserting that Wikipedia should function as "online journalism" that Moulton was advocating that got him into trouble were pushing for the discard of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, among other principles. Now in a journalistic setting, you can argue a point or take some sort of editorial stance that is decidedly not NPOV. And you are expected to do your investigation and not follow NOR. But those are our principles here, at least at the moment. So I was asking for clarification, since I did not want to misinterpret what positions of Moulton's you were advocating we adopt, or what positions you were defending. Is this inappropriate? Please show me the place in policy where it shows that I cannot ask these questions to understand better what you position you are a proponent of. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"So you claim that most Wikipedia articles violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and that these are standards we should discard?" which is a quote of your statement, is the FIRST mention of NPOV and NOR in this section. So it's not clear who you are talking to, now that I think about it. Who were you asking that of, anyway? Random832? Note that his "more often than NOT" was a link to a section of what wikipedia is not, rather than just an assertion about probability. Couched that way, it's too clever, and thus both confusing and true. True, because WP:NOT says "never should an article be X" for a lot of different Xs, including "news story like". But it is true that there is at least one article in WP that is "news story like" (I could find one, and so could you). Hence that's more often than "NOT" (which == 0 by that reasoning, 1 is more than 0). But it is also confusing, because it does read, at first glance, like "51%" which is the conventional meaning of "more often than not". It confused you, it confused me, and it was a rhetorical flourish I wouldn't have used were I Random. So, apologies there for not spotting why you were confused and jumping on that point. But I still think your own false dichotomy wasn't useful. As to you or anyone asking for clarification, it is absolutely a good idea. I just don't think that it's a good idea if it's not clear what you were asking! ...which I don't think it was in this case... The way your phrase was worded, it read like you were only posing that as a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. I'm not Random, but I don't think Random, you, or I are claiming that most articles actually are news stories at present, although some are. Apologies if you took offense.

All that aside... I personally don't think that Wikipedia should be "online journalism". We have Wikinews for that. I also don't think that "journalistic ethics" are a perfect fit for our environment. SOME sort of ethics clearly are, though, in my personal opinion (some others disagree but I think they're wrong, an ethics free project is not a good project). And starting from some tenets of journalistic ethics to develop ours may give some value (rather than starting from, say, ditch digger ethics, which have far less in common with writing articles...) From journalistic ethics, I'd keep the part about not deliberately doing harm, and telling the truth, or at least reporting accurately on what others are saying, but drop the part about it being OK to have an editorial opinion (a POV, in other words) that is so common in journalism which is often written to persuade rather than inform. We don't have POV here, nor should we. We have RS and V rather than "truth" and we have NPOV rather than editorial opinion. Those are foundational principles, and no one can edit effectively here for long without editing within the lines they proscribe. One doesn't have to AGREE with them, you just have to abide. Moulton did not abide before. Until and unless he does agree to abide now, regardless of his personal view, he would get blocked again for straying, (you know lots of people would be watching for any straying), sooner or later. That being so, it is still completely seperable from whether he found a problem in some of the articles that ID was apparently perceived (at least by some) as "owning" at the time. He did. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for any confusion caused by "more often than NOT" - I saw an opportunity to use a pun to emphasize the issue, and took it. That said, while it's obviously not really a straight majority of articles, the problem is systemic, and we should be responsible in the way we - if at all - cover recent events and in particular real people that are related to those events. To put it in clearer terms, my point is that whether we should or not, we do often engage - irresponsibly in some cases - in what can only be called journalism, and that Moulton should not be faulted for calling it what it is. My post was specifically in reaction to the statement "I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Wikipedia. Which begs the obvious question. If Wikipedia is not an instance of journalism, then what the devil is it? Is it sui generis?" That's hardly an agreement to work within the constraints of Wikipedia policies. --Random832 (contribs) 07:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely think you are right. It certainly isn't such an agreement on his part. And until Moulton agrees to work within the constraints of Wikipedia policies, unblocking him would be a symbolic gesture, because as soon as he didn't, bzzt, that would be it. You know it, because lots of people would be watching. That's why my primary advocacy here hasn't been for an unblocking, it's been that there be some examination of how we interact with academics. Further on, Filll relates an excellent example of how his experiences and Moulton's presuably were very similar, up until the part where Filll apparently decided "OK, there's a lot here that's different but I am going to work within the system" and Moulton apparently decided "This is BS, this will never work, these people need to have some other principles explained to them" and flamed out. I posit that both Filll and Moulton are outliers. The vast majority of academics, I suspect, merely give up in frustration, quietly, and go away, and then have nothing kind to say about Wikipedia or working there to their peers and students. Successful participation here is rare. Too rare. That's the bigger problem than unblocking one academic who is by his own admission not likely to change his approach from one of "here's what you all need to do to change, embrace it now!" to "I'm here to work with you under the current terms, and as I work and build credibility maybe I can advocate for some changes". ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me just now. My original statements about the problems with current events coverage were, rather, a reaction to the statement by dave souza: <<"I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Wikipedia. Which begs the obvious question. If Wikipedia is not an instance of journalism, then what the devil is it? Is it sui generis?" That's hardly an agreement to work within the constraints of Wikipedia policies.>>, which I marked by placing in italics - you seemed to think I was talking about the statement of Moulton's in quote marks, and that souza's remarks were my own. --Random832 (contribs) 03:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that that argument -- WP engages in journalism [paraphrasing here] -- will gain much traction. But, I could be wrong. Nonetheless, even if you and Moulton are correct in that assertion, it certainly does not excuse his behaviour. Not sure what part of this is difficult. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not requesting an unblock

Note that Moulton is not requesting an unblock, which may moot some of the discussion above. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question should be asked rather than making an assumption. When I read his arbcom statement way back when, I remember thinking that while he was probably right more than he was wrong, it was a non-starter because it was all lawyering. If he is saying and attempting to prove, "I was blocked unjustly" as a prerequisite to "please unblock me", then that's fine and it deserves a legitimate review. But if he merely wants to point out flaws in the system and does not wish to return (If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve) then you are correct, it's time to move on with life. --B (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, before we possibly move away from the Moulton issue, a lot of important notions have been raised about what to do with a community ban/indef block, including the difference between the two, and how to go about bringing back a user if an admin is willing to unblock (which negates the community ban). While this probably should be expounded on in a new thread, this is something that does need to be addressed and, if possible, standardized. We have recently had two separate editors come up for block reviews that elicited a lot of response and confusion about the lack of a system that is in place. I know that these have been carried out on the AN/I board and/or on this board, but it seems clear the community is confused by the whole issue. Short of any guidance from ArbCom, maybe we could work this out somewhere. Thoughts on that? Baegis (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current practice is that an indefinite block must have the unanimous tacit consent of those with the ability to undo the block (administrators). In society outside of Wikipedia, such cases are tried by a selected jury. The problem with a decision based on a popular vote on the former community sanction noticeboard or on ANI is that it would be like impaneling your jury from whoever happened to show up in court that day. So if 12 of the prosecutor's best friends show up in court, the evidence doesn't really matter. So in order to demonstrate that a ban is a community ban, rather than merely a lynching, it needs to have unanimous consent or it needs to be determined by an impartial select group (Arbcom). --B (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there is obviously still confusion about the whole issue. Codifying it can't hurt. Baegisthesock (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@B: I was looking at his statement in the above diff: "I am not seeking to be unblocked." Of course you're right, this all may be a prelude to an unblock request, but I'm not sure how much more angst we need to expend on the unblock issue at present when he's flatly stated he isn't seeking to be unblocked. MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the next sentence, "Rather I am seeking a review of the circumstances surrounding my encounter with the WikiProject on Intelligent Design." If that review is for the purpose of saying "ha ha, told you so", we have better ways of spending our time. If that review is for the purpose of demonstrating that the block is invalid and asking to be permitted to contribute to the development of the encyclopedia, then it is more worthwhile. --B (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That he is requesting a general review of events, rather than an unblock, suggests to me that he really doesn't understand how Wikipedia operates at all, which is very surprising given the amount of time he spends on WR. I was sympathetic to unblocking him earlier, but now I agree that it may be best to just forget about him. Everyking (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to his statements in the NTWW episode below. He wants to demand huge reforms of Wikipedia, based on his whims, including discard of several of its core principles, and he wants to have bad things happen to all those who "wronged" him. And then and only then will he be interested in returning. Or at least that is how I understand the situation.--Filll (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is free to advocate whatever reforms they wish on the appropriate policy talkpages and off-wiki. I don't see the relevance of that. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I've advocated several myself, some quite radical indeed. That in no way shape or form means that I am "demanding" them as a condition of my participation here (and such a statement should be met with "ok, then, don't participate, then..." User:Mindspillage/userpages is a special case statement of that notion, and you'll find it on my user talk). But the issue I have is that I'm not seeing Moulton's statements before the block as "demanding" changes in governance. I see them as suggestions. To the extent that they interfered with his ability to edit effectively, with his ability to participate in article discussions, in policy discussions, etc, they were a self imposed hindrance. But I don't see them as a blockable offense in and of themselves or else we would never be able to propose any policy changes at all. So I see Filll as presenting a bit of a red herring here with this. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>I think there is no problem with advocating changes at Wikipedia. After all, what am I doing at User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing and User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal, among other places? The reason this is relevant is (1) it is expressed as part of the preconditions and (2) it is expressed as part of Moulton's goals, and always was, and was the root problem that Moulton ran into at Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole issue is surreal. Claiming, in essence, that Moulton was standing on principle in refusing to follow WP's various policies -- no he was flouting the policies -- and that his absolute abject refusal to cooperate, his extreme COI problems, his inability to either comprehend or abide by NPOV and NOR are also indicative of a principled stand, is singularly ridiculous. There are things I think are problematic (i.e., broken) at WP, but I don't go around wreaking havoc to make a point; and that, my friends is precisely what Moulton has done: wreaked havoc at every conceivable opportunity. And, in light of all this, some folks think that, despite his continued belligerence garbed as martyrdom, he should get a second chance. If at first you don't totally screw the project up, try, try again? Meh. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I care awfully, but a couple of examples of said havoc would be good. None in this entire thread. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim62sch speaks strongly. I think others come to different conclusions, including myself. I think Sam's analysis below rather belies Jim62sch's assertions. It will be helpful if Jim62sch internalizes that the fault in this case may not be entirely with one party. ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Lar, I didn't realise that you were involved with Moulton from the get go. Oh, you weren't? Those of us who were there remember the series of events quite well.

As far as anyone's analysis belying anything, that's really just a matter of interpretation, both on the part of the analyst (in what he chooses to present) and the audience (in how they choose to internalise the presentation). Jim62sch^dissera! 15:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, I don't have to be involved with something from the get go to be able to recognize when something is not completely one sided. Your recounting of things makes it seem like everyone else acted perfectly throughout and the fault is all Moulton's. Others come to different conclusions. Why is that? They're all confused and only you have the truth here? ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I am astounded about this drum you have decided you have to beat over and over about "one-sidedness" of culpability. A day or so before you posted this, Dave souza made a pointed admission that "mistakes were made". Baegis and others have also made the same allusion in this same thread. However, if it makes you happier, I have compiled my own evaluation of the mistakes made here.--Filll (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is sure not how I read Sam's analysis. And that is sure not how I read the RfC. To claim the RfC contains not one example of problematic behavior? My goodness. Incredible. And no one caught that? Not the Arbcomm during the appeal. Not the handful of editors supporting Moulton. Not the 20 or so editors who thought Moulton was problematic. That is quite a story.--Filll (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll: Sometimes I'm amazed at your perceptiveness (my comment made just before this one references your analysis of your experience and Moulton's as similar up to a point) and at the good work you do (such as User:Filll/AGF_Challenge ... were you ever going to do some rollup analysis on what was said?), and sometimes I am not sure you're reading what I am saying and/or twisting it around. This is one of the latter times. Focus on my last sentence... "It will be helpful if Jim62sch internalizes that the fault in this case may not be entirely with one party." That's what I see here. Certain parties continue to assert that the fault here is entirely Moulton's. I think the truth is more nuanced than that. I think Moulton went about a lot of things all wrong, and there is a lot of truth in that RfC. " To claim the RfC contains not one example of problematic behavior?" Please give me a precise cite where I say there is no fault for Moulton. I after all have been saying I didn't support an unblock without a commitment to adhere. (now it's been advanced that it could be symbolic... ok...) Filll, please slow down and read what I say more carefully. "may not be entirely with one party" != "is all with the other party" Unless of course you were talking to Relata??? In which case never mind... (this is where using the "to userX"/"@ userX" construction or sticking your remark above the other so it is below who you are replying to, but indenting it deeper to show it came later, might be effective) ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I choose to make vague comments on some occasions, undirected towards anyone in particular given the treacherousness of this environment. However, it is my perception, accurate or not, that some have maintained or suggested that there is no evidence of difficult behavior by Moulton. I would like to disabuse anyone who holds that position of any such notion; that does not mean Moulton could not reform and should not be given a second chance. And as stated by Dave souza and others repeatedly, "mistakes were made" on all sides. To satisfy your somewhat peculiar desire to see a partial compilation of some of these mistakes, I present this.--Filll (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure that everyone has done things that can be criticised, editors accept the need to negotiate towards a consensus and then accept that consensus or follow dispute resolution procedures. The problem I found with Moulton was that he would agree to a compromise aimed at meeting his objectives, then resume tendentious demands for changes,[3] while describing Wikipedia as a "profoundly dysfunctional" "rigidly rule-driven bureaucracy" unable to meet his ideas of "ethics on online journalism".[4] . . dave souza, talk 14:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation with Moulton

'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' has just finished an audio conversation in which Moulton participated. You can hear it here (episode 16). I believe it's fair to characterise Moulton's position as wanting / demanding some sort of statement that his treatment was not representative of 'due process' before he would be willing to re-engage in the editing processes. We had some discussion as to how this might work (an arbcom statement?) - or indeed if it is even possible. I would support an unblock as and when Moulton lets us know that he wants one. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea there. Demand a statement/apology for the way he was treated even though he contributed nothing to the project. So when can I expect his apology for calling me a sock and a troll? Or when can the entire ID group expect apologies, both to the group and many of the individuals? I demand an apology from him for his behavior. Since I have contributed far more to the project, I would hope my request is honored if his is honored. I also want the apology written out and certified by a notary. Maybe gold leaf printing, I will get back to you on that. Come on... Baegis (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baegis, I looked through your contribs and basically you created your account, went head on straight into Moulton (without editing near him before) Then after he was banned you went after others supporting a few counter to the ID crowd (reverting vandalism off and on but usually between 10 or so "rough" sounding "talk" with people that didn't agree with the Project ID crowd. Odd. 195.216.82.210 (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you are hiding behind an IP address I will take your flimsy accusations that I am either a sock (well, technically this account is, but in line with policies), a troll, a meat puppet or what have you with a big giant chunk of salt. Did you ever think that maybe I was watching a great number of these articles before I ever started editing? Probably not, because it is so much easier to hide behind an IP and throw around accusations. Methinks this whole thing is slowly becoming less and less about Moulton and more about attacking the people who work on the ID articles. Strange that they have been advocating this attack on the WR pages for some time now. Strange times indeed. And I do want that apology from Moulton with gold leaf lettering. Baegisthesock (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the ID group also owe apologies. I don't recall that _he_ ever demanded them, but specific blatantly false accusations were made. --Random832 (contribs) 03:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"He contributed nothing to the project" is bullshit - he certainly drew attention to BLP problems. But I guess that's not worth anything, nor is anything else he could have done in the past eight months had he not been banned. --Random832 (contribs) 03:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He created more BLP problems than he solved, NPOV problems too. In fact, the articles he campaigned on remain essentially the same, in fact are now more complete, than before his attempts to whitewash them. Furthermore, you have a strange notion of solving problems: tendentious editing, edit warring and ignoring consensus are far from best practices if your goal is solving problems; creating problems, certainly, not never solving them. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you waste several hundred hours of volunteer's time, and end up with an article that is essentially unchanged in the particulars you are complaining about, I do not see that you have really solved many problems.--Filll (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure everyone agrees with that characterization. I'm assuming you were talking about Rosalind Picard... here it is just before Moulton appears on the scene. The last section is a WP:Coatrack of unduly weighted, negatively slanted material about what is, after all, a relatively minor incident, and it is placed out of the proper context. And that's AFTER considerable editing, including edit warring, had happened. The way the petition section reads now is much better, it places this controversy in a larger context of her overall views, all appropriately cited. If that is your view of an "essentially unchanged" article, then I suggest you may not be the best person to work on BLP issues. Now, was Moulton the only person to try to improve the article? Hardly. Did Moulton go about it the right way? Hardly. (but go read WP:DOLT for some perspective here... we have a real problem with fitting academics into our processes effectively). Yes, it took the efforts of others to fix it. But how long would it have sat unfixed? Therefore, to say that Moulton did not contribute to the encyclopedia in a positive way is false, in my view. Bringing problems to the attention of those that can effectively resolve them is goodness. Oh, and strolling through the talk page briefly, I'm not seeing your positive contributions, but I may have missed them. What I see is that it took Kim Bruning to try to straighten this out and that a goodly number of the same voices here decrying Moulton's every word, decrying his very presence here, were the very ones that seemed to be advocating that the article stay all nice and coatracky instead of balanced. ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think before you make any such claims, you should know a bit more than you do. Because almost everything you just claimed is wrong or a misrepresentation of what the situation was and what happened. Is this really the time and place to rehash this? And how many times do I have to repeat myself? If I do it a couple times, and people exhibit WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, then it is clear that there is some other agenda being pursued here. And that is what starts to become apparent. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some other agenda? Yes, I suppose there is. I'd prefer that we not have even the appearance of projects exerting ownership over articles to retain problematic information. I'd prefer not to see so much difficulty and resistance in fixing one BLP. We have 250,000 plus of them after all, with conservative estimates that hundreds or thousands are problematic or highly problematic. I'd prefer we find better ways to deal with editors that don't understand our ways. I'd prefer that we not move from an RfC to an indefinite block quite so fast. I'd prefer that we learn to accept valid input even if it's presented in invalid ways. I'd prefer that we not let things fester so long but address them sooner. I'd prefer that ArbCom not summarily dismiss quite so many things but instead maybe put a bit of effort into explaining matters. Again, I found Sam's analysis quite illuminating. Why is he not on ArbCom any more? As to the suggestion that the claims I make are invalid, I gave the diffs. The article was a mess before Moulton arrived. Now, it's not as bad a mess but it still has issues. I only go by what I saw, and what I found on the talk page. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see Moulton make any statement that one, acknowledges his behavior was a source of disruption and pledging to not recreate the same situation, and two, expressing any interest in actually contributing to building a neutral accurate and complete encyclopedia. If that were indeed his goal, rather than returning to the same articles he's disrupted, he's be clamoring with guarantees and solemn promises that he would avoid those topics and edit constructively elsewhere, I'd think. Unfortunately, Moulton has made no such statements, so I see no reason to let him return to his old ways. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has, to my knowledge, yet explained exactly _how_ his behavior was a source of disruption in a way that was not intermingled with demonstrably false claims about the nature of his behavior. Could it not have been other users whose behavior caused the disruption? --Random832 (contribs) 04:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moulton is a good start. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention above, I find few article-specific diffs reported there that are different in content from what a dozen previously uninvolved (and unrecruited!) editors have recently argued at Talk:Rosalind Picard in that article's recent push towards consensus. So your statement is going to need something more than that link to be credible, I think. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that to be an absolutely amazing and fantastic claim.--Filll (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I aim to please. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind that they are polysemes of course.--Filll (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but I'm assuming the only meaning compatible with good faith and basic rationality. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 20:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that Privatemusings is so keen to give a platform banned users through this medium. Perhaps he should hand the microphone to someone with better taste in friends. Moulton was banned for good cause, and his whining and special pleading are simply offensive to the many users he attacked. I'm pleased that Moulton demands an apology before he will deign to grace us with his presence again, that makes it much easier to keep him away by simply not apologising for doing the unambigously correct thing. While we're laying down conditions, I'd not let Moulton back until he acknowledges that WP:TRUTH does not trump WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, since he violated the last three in pursuit of the first and without acknowledging the problem he's not going to overcome it. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Guy sums this up quite well and with much less sarcasm than my message about this apology. Since when do blocked users get the chance to demand things from WP before they will return? How asinine is that? And who even speaks for WP? The ArbCom doesn’t speak for the whole of WP. Arguably, Jimbo is the only one who does (maybe WMF), so maybe Moulton should take this up for him. Baegisthesock (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People can make whatever demands they like. But I would say that a statement of the form "I can't return to supporting the Republican Party until they drop their plank advocating school prayer" is not a demand to the GOP, it's a statement of principle. Moulton's communications to me highlight that he sees serious problems with project governance and other issues and that until they are addressed and corrected, he won't return. That's not a demand, it's a statement of principle. I happen to not agree, I see problems with WP but not such that I wish to withdraw, but to call it a demand , as Baegis and others seem to be doing, is rhetorical twisting, in my view. That seems actually less helpful to matters than making principled statements. To say that one would like one's case looked into is not unreasonable either, if one feels that the previous investigations didn't get to the root of the matter. It may not be one that ArbCom, the community, whatever, choose to do (my reading of the tea leaves says probably not going to happen in this case), but it also isn't a demand. ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Lar, I respect you as an editor and admin. But it appears as though you are just fighting for Moulton’s right to do and say whatever he wants and it appears you want to give him anything he so desires. Moulton claims he was not afforded due process. But he had an ArbCom appeal rejected regarding the circumstances of his block, in which he felt it was more appropriate to ramble instead of appealing his block and admitting any fault. Since I gather you may not have examined the serious details of this case, I can assure you that Moulton has been making these “statements of principles” for quite a long period of time. There comes a point where these are no longer “statements of principles” so much as they are declarations of ill intent and of a wish to be the center of attention. If someone continually harped on the same topic over and over and clearly stated their goals, especially when they are clearly not inline with the betterment of the encyclopedia, when can we call a spade a spade? Moulton has become a less prolific version of Awbrey, with his arguing tendencies (bet $ that comment gets mentioned on WR). This is nothing more than a user who was blocked continually throwing up the unblock template, looking for a sympathetic admin. Baegisthesock (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I've confused matters. I am not "fighting for Moulton’s right to do and say whatever he wants". (much less to give him whatever he wants...) No one has that right here. We ALL must edit within the project's boundaries and basic principles, and do so civilly, or we lose the right to do so. I can say both that Moulton still doesn't look likely to be willing or able to do that, and also at the same time decry the way that he's been portrayed by some of his detractors. He seems to have been railroaded, at least a little. See Sam's analysis, below. The thing is, the project doesn't DO due process. There is no reason to expect it. This is not a governance experiment, a society, or even fair. Asking for systemic correction is going too far and Moulton isn't going to get that just on his say so... When we see an out and out troll or vandal, we don't give them much other than a swift block, we don't have time for more. But still, that said, Moulton wasn't an out and out troll. Didn't fit in here? Sure. (the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is PR. It's more true that not just anyone can edit here for long, it takes a certain mentality and willingness to do things the wikipedia way to fit in and be successful) But his detractors paint too black and white a picture. I haven't changed my view that I don't see the absolute need to unblock him at this time, what's the point? We're not going to change things to fit his conditions and he's not going to edit if we don't. But I also don't see the harm. As many have said, if he DOES act up, that's it, second chance done, gone.

At this point I'm more interested in what could be done differently in future with the next very smart person who comes along and points out things in articles that really do need fixing, but who doesn't fit in here (again, as I said before, see WP:DOLT for some views on this, they are tangential but very appropriate)... rather than just rushing them off and feeling self satisfied that we blocked another troll, maybe flappers/consiglieries/editorial assistants, whatever you want to call it, are needed. Because we don't need the bad PR from treating academics roughly.

I'm also more interested in trying to undestand what is going on with the ID project. Why are there these things swirling around saying that "the Anti ID forces are taking things too far" and the like? What really is going on there? ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton has been advertising his intellect for some time now. I don't doubt that he is smart in many ways, but he showed a disdain for nearly every other editor he faced and dismissed them while basically trying to bore them to death the long meta threads about tangential topics. Awbrey was arguably a very bright person as well, but he was shown the door because could not properly apply his intellect to the betterment of the project. Frankly, it wouldn't matter how smart a person was who came to edit. The current president of Mensa could try to edit here. But if they can't adhere to policies, tough shit for them. The policies can't be bent to accommodate every editor that is "smart". If they could be, can you imagine the chaos? And we already have a somewhat questionable reputation with academics as it is. The supposed mistreatment of one very minor person in academia is not going to cause any great problems. The problems that academics see with us have been noted in a variety of other places so I will not explore them here. But this incident is just a grain of sand in that desert. And that is not a problem easily fixed.

As great as this entire conversation has been, including the large amount of space devoted to it, the simple fact remains that there is an editor who has expressed zero, zip, zilch, nada, no concessions that his editing created problems. He has made no statement that could even be considered to indicate a modicum of change. When has a user ever been unblocked when they have never even admitted fault for their actions? I am not against the unblocking as much as some others, as long as it is tempered with a full assurance from Moulton that he will avoid all areas in which he has a COI violation and his attacks on other editors will cease. But I have yet to see that statement. So, for however much longer people want to continue this, Moulton should never be unblocked if he shows no signs of change. It is as simple as that. And it really goes no further,

The "problem" with the ID articles is that the editors of those articles are constantly bombarded by a trolls, vandals, and POV-pushers who seek to change the articles. It is the same problem that occurs on creationism articles and evolution articles (among others). But some of the editors may have become a bit jaded because, I would wager, that at least 70% of what gets posted on those talk pages is nothing more than trolling. A number of those posts are reverted or archived on sight, per WP:TALK because they do seek to improve the article. I guess some people have a problem with how we carry out business on what is probably the most trolled/vandalized group of articles on the project. Of course those people don't edit the topic or articles, so it is easy to make a drive-by assessment of the problems. Baegis (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ID is only one of many different areas of this encyclopaedia regularly bombarded by trolls and cranks, and nowhere near the worst. (That changes from time to time.) We do not need special pleading on behalf of its overzealous defenders. May I note that the people "don't edit" but "who have a problem" might well be those whom your methods of "carrying on business" are likely to cause them to merely "drive by." --Relata refero (disp.) 13:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have edited in 3 different controversial areas. And several other areas. And the Intelligent Design Wikiproject editors operate no different than those in any other area.--Filll (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that it is possible that you genuinely believe that to be true. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Baegis: "But if they can't adhere to policies, tough shit for them." At one level I agree. At another level, I think that's why Filll is an outlier, an academic who can edit here successfully. Those are too rare, unless you think we don't need any academics here at all. For some topics we don't, but for many encyclopedic topics, we do. That's a much bigger problem. I think it stems from how very hard it is to get an understanding of how things are done here, really. There is a forest of rather impenetrable jargon and policy. Most academics don't get that adequately packaged up in a usable form. Moulton was an outlier too... an academic who had it all patiently explained (that's rarer than the more common, 3RR and you're out sort of interaction) and chose to insist on doing things as he personally thought they should be done. You can call that "disdains us", I guess. I've pled with Moulton privately to commit to edit within the rules and with guidance, and he has declined. I haven't yet pled with him to look within himself and admit the things that he could have done differently (that is, admit there is some fault on his side), but I suspect I know the outcome there too. So, unblocking would be symbolic. But the problem here, the reason I keep worrying at this, is larger than Moulton. If he stays blocked, it's not the end of the world, it's one small pebble (maybe a bit bigger than a grain of sand! but not much). I'll again advance the notion that maybe we need a more structured assimilation program for academics. Not bending rules, but working to help guide. Maybe even interpret and stage material back and forth or something. Because we do need academics. Badly.

(cont'd) As for the ID project, I think you put your finger on part of the problem. We don't as a rule suffer fools gladly, and when a project sees a lot of fools turn up, it may cause members to get a bit embittered and rigid, and then throw some of the wheat out with the masses of chaff. Perhaps your project needs some new blood. If that new blood gets in turn corrupted, or if the older members drive that new blood out, then there is a bigger problem. But I'm also concerned that some of the charges that are being levied (about pursuing those that signed that stupid petition by making their articles coatracky...) that either there is some validity to those charges, or you have a big PR problem. Again, it's a sign of siege mentality to say "the problem here lies ENTIRELY with the other side, not at all with anyone involved with the project, and we refuse to apologise for anything" which (it is my perception that) some of the ID members have been saying, right here in this very thread. Relato rightly calls you on the special pleading aspect. ++Lar: t/c 13:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing the need for academics with the need for academic experts. What the project does not need are academics, like Moulton, who come and and make no sincere attempt to understand our policies or to understand how things operate and instead would rather bellow from the top of the nearest soapbox about how things need to change because they say things should. The project does not need these kind of academics. We have enough as it is. We don't need people who will constantly tell us we are doing it wrong and apply their own personal standards. We don't need an editor who has mentioned, on numerous occasions (damned if I can't locate the diffs for this message) mentioned how his entire case has developed into something that he is planning to write about as a study. These are the people we don't need. What we do need and should address, and the conversation has been raging for years, most notably on the Expert Withdrawal page (link further up) is the lack of experts, specifically ones from academia. These are the people the project needs to apply their specialized knowledge within the areas in which said knowledge applies. Moulton never did that. But we need to attract experts to the project and retain them. These are the people who need to be taught how to work within WP policies to contribute. They will help the collective articles and total knowledge base grow exponentially. Moulton, for all of his vitriol, never made an attempt to edit within the areas he was most knowledgeable. I am all for bringing in and retaining experts. There probably aren't many who would be opposed to that general premise.

And with regards to ID, Relato's comment must be taken with the knowledge that, until recently, he never (maybe rarely) appeared on these article. He made one brief appearance a month or so ago and is now holding what will probably be the world's longest grudge because his case for a source being unreliable meet with serious opposition. He has constantly sniped at any and all he feels wronged him, so it is hard to take anything he mentions with any seriousness. Sorry, but if you are going to hold a grudge like that, your advice will go wanting.

But there is a problem with the whole petition issue you brought up, Lar. This petition that these people signed should always be mentioned in their bio and in accordance with policy. Undue weight should not be placed on it. But when does it become the entire ID project's fault when a number of these people have a bio so short that any mention of the petition places it in violation of undue? The bio's need worked on, that is true. But why does it come back to us to fix them because we entered relevant information about them signing this document. Moulton's goal was never to work on adding to the bio of Picard. It was to eliminate or minimize the references to her signing the petition. For a person who claimed to know Picard so well, he was able to contribute shockingly little to flesing out her bio. Moving away from the Moulton issue, I don't know if some of the people here properly grasp what signing this petition means. No matter how much some will try to minimize or distort the implications of the petition, especially since the ultimate use of the petition has been made quite clear, putting your name on this petition is akin to signing a petition declaring the Earth is flat. It is at that level of complete ignorance for everything involving science. Does anyone wonder why no prominent biologist or evolutionary scientists signed this petition? You don't see Dawkins putting his name on this. So, in the world of academia in which Picard and many of these people exist, where your name and work is the best form of currency, the signing of the petition will be mentioned. They, being consenting adults, put their name to a propaganda piece that is being used by a group to try to hijack science education in the States. But I do concede that it should be mentioned in the bio's in accordance to the undue weight clause. But this is an issue that should be addressed on each biography article. Some of the outside commentators on this case feel that we are, for lack of a better word, libeling these people by making prominent mention of these the petition. In reality, these people signed this petition and are fully capable of removing their names. Remeber, it is verifiability not truth. We can't parse their intentions, we can only report that they signed it and how the petition was used. Baegis (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response only to the bits addressed to me specifically: my dear chap, if you think a month is a long time to bear a grudge....! In any case, if I noticed that the manner in which doing some routine BLP cleanup was exceptional, I would have forgotten. If it appeared to be merely unusual, I would have not bothered. If I observed that it happened all the time but had no major effect on article quality, I would have not have given it a second thought. None of those things are true. However, I note that since then I have not even once brought up my own experience; and have, with one 48-hour exception, followed the order handed out on my talkpage to "stay away from our articles". I do wish that other people would stop bringing it up, though it does tend to poke a rather large hole in the claim that I am the one "holding a grudge".

As for the rest - "But why does it come back to us to fix them because we entered relevant information about them signing this document...'" and ", I don't know if some of the people here properly grasp what signing this petition means...They, being consenting adults, put their name to a propaganda piece that is being used by a group to try to hijack science education in the States" pretty much sums up why BLPs in this area, as in Middle Eastern studies, are unduly politicised. WP isn't anyone's weapon to strike back at those harming teh childrenz, thanks. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, for people who are constantly claiming that our goals are to be neutral or to be unbiased or not to take sides in any way, I find it somewhat comical that all of a sudden the signing of this petition is viewed as negative. Hey I thought we were not supposed to take sides? Do you think that the Discovery Institute views signing their petition as negative? Do you think that the Institute for Creation Research thinks signing a similar petition some sort of black mark? What do you think Answers in Genesis would say by the implication that standing up for what you believe in is some terrible slur against someone? This is the biggest load of hypocrisy I have seen in a long time. Whoever said signing was bad? Claiming it is bad stinks of bias and nonneutrality and assumptions, which we are forbidden to make. The only thing that is bad about stating a person signed the petition is if the person did not really sign it, or the subject does not adhere to the beliefs expressed in the petition and was tricked into signing. Then, the person has to ask to be removed from the petition, or to issue a statement rejecting the position of the petition, so we can use that as a source, which many have done. What is the problem?--Filll (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone wondering: yes, that is a genuine argument, not sarcasm, amused wordplay, or some form of irony. It has been made several times to support the retention of poorly-referenced negative - sorry "negative" - material in and about BLPs, by implying that it is a violation of NPOV to claim that such material is negative. The mind reels. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am stunned that you try to argue that it is negative necessarily. Huh? We are not here to judge. If they want to believe, what is wrong with that? You know there are claims that it is discrimination to not let people just believe what they want? I would agree. Don't judge. --Filll (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if I am not mistaken he has had his case looked into a few times and continues to do so in variety of fora. Am I wrong?--Filll (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. But the germane question is was it adequately looked at? Perhaps not. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets? Please elaborate, that is the first time I heard of that accusation... Why don't we toss around some more accusations... I'm sure he's a vandal, a terrorist (oh wait, WR makes you a terrorist automatically), and ... actually I'm not very good at fabricating accusations... I'll let the experts handle that, they're doing very well atm. 195.216.82.210 (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy's statement about how Privatemusings ought to find "better friends" brings to mind this exchange from the first Harry Potter book:

Draco Malfoy: You'll soon find out some wizarding families are much better than others, Potter. You don't want to go making friends with the wrong sort. I can help you there.

Harry Potter: I think I can tell who the wrong sort are for myself, thanks.

*Dan T.* (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from someone who was there

The episode itself primarily dealt with the present conflict as a springboard for a conversation about relevant policies and procedures. One observation raised in that discussion was that the community tends to deal with these flash point situations as if they were microcosms unto themselves: too much focus gets placed on evaluations of individual editors without enough attention to whether they may have been acting in faithful accordance with flawed policy. This very discussion about the episode--unfortunately--has become a demonstration of that dynamic.

When I recorded episode 10 I opened a thread at this noticeboard regarding one banned user who was part of the panel, and the responses were not only unanimous but somewhat indignant that a discussion was necessary at all. Now Privatemusings initiates a similar thread and the responses are radically different. I wonder why this dichotomy exists.

It's no secret that Privatemusings spent a short time as a banned editor and that he's made a legitimate return. He's one of a couple of editors whose bans I once supported and whose returns I also supported: both he and I are interested in finding out what works in these situations and how to replicate the success stories. We don't expect perfect success (or anyway, I don't) yet we've also observed that sometimes a voice environment is better than a text environment for communicating nuances and finding common ground.

That's not the only reason NTWW exists; we discuss plenty of other things also and try to provide a good menu of topics and guests for the community. If you'd like to see new items on the menu, please come over to WP:NTWW and propose them: this kitchen accepts requests. :)

Regards from Chef Durova^Charge! 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

moar evidence of meatpuppetry

See my self-accusation here [5]. Basically, all the section at ~~Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#Meatpuppetry_evidence_since_ban~~ Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#Meatpuppetry_evidence_since_indef_block is just an attempt to make User:Moulton guilty of meatpuppetry, using evidence that has undergone no review and has gone through no sockpuppet case. Notice that this same evidence is what caused the MfD on Moulton's user, and now it's being added to a page linked from there. If there is really meatpuppetry, then open a frigging case at WP:SSP even if the user is blocked, but don't post unproven unreviewed evidence on old unrelated cases. This RfC had nothing to do with puppets, and the timing is terrible. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Korn's review of the case

I mentioned before that I invited Moulton to email me with his side of the story and how he sees the situation. He has done so and, I think, has presented his views reasonably. I think he feels aggrieved that his ban resulted from his trying to help the encyclopaedia and to achieve the important goals that are set out in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There can, I think, be no doubt that his intentions were positive.

Furthermore, he is aggrieved that "due process" was not afforded him (he frames this as "I am not sure whether due process was afforded me, and so whether my treatment was systemic or accidental"). My impression is that this is, to a certain extent, true. The move from the RFC to an indefinite ban (I hold the distinction between an indefinite ban and an indefinite block without immediate prospect of unblocking to be spurious) was out of order. Indefinite bans should not be handed out so incautiously -- they are a big deal and they should be given with proper consideration. You should be very careful when considering a user in whose good faith there is no particular reason to doubt. The process by which it was affirmed was rather dodgy -- the brief conversation on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Moulton and a brief conversation on ANI were rather cursory (admittedly through no fault of the participants).

Frankly, I also think the Arbitration Committee got this one pretty badly wrong. This is exactly the kind of case where the Committee should be involved -- a good faith user who is apparently incapable (as I shall discuss below) of complying with Wikipedia's norms in a certain area. Community sanctions are a tool far too blunt to deal with situations like this: it needed the careful consideration of the Committee. As I shall explain below, I think there were ways in which this could have been more effectively managed with greater subtlty and care. Being so bold as to suggest the reason for the Committee's wrong decision, I would suggest that the wording of the request -- with its emphasis on "due process" -- would have been off-putting to the Committee members (had I been on the Committee, it would have been off-putting to me!); it would have made them think Moulton was attempting to rules-lawyer his way to an unblock. That said, the idea that the Committee should take on some kind of abstract "was the system wrong?" case is absurd: the Committee should make decisions that are entirely based on the future and ensuring the correct solutions are in place.

I have said all this in Moulton's defence to emphasise that his grievances have some merit. However, I do not wish to give the impression that I think there were no major issues with Moulton's editing. Moulton undoubtedly did engage in POV-pushing. I don't think he fully understands what the verifiability policy is about (in his emails to me he suggested that policies in this area were contradictory) means. This is a serious problem. Although the conflict of interest guidelines do not prohibit anyone from editing a particular area (and nor should they, as long as we have anonymous editing), they do rightly advise that anyone incapable of editing neutrally and without emotional involvement should recuse himself. This was a situation where that advice should have been heeded. Moulton's editing was not satisfactory and some remedy was necessary. The trouble was that the action taken was somewhat akin to knitting with a barge-pole.

The other policy violations that are alleged are somewhat spurious. The charges of edit-warring are, I think, accurate, but not particularly serious. The idea of "disruptive editing" is, again, accurate, but comprehensible, particularly as others in the dispute were also conducting themselves in an unhelpful manner. The charges of "personal attacks" are wholly unfounded -- while he may have (unreasonably) accused editors of malfeasance, I do not personally feel that his statements did indeed become personal attacks. The accusation of "disruption to cause a point" is similar if one makes a basic assumption of Moulton's good faith. The accusation of meat-puppetry fundamentally misunderstands what meat-puppetry is.

So what now? Moulton indicates that what he wants is some kind of statement that due process was not afforded. This is a problem because Wikipedia is not focussed on due process -- and rightly so. What it important here is that the action taken was not whollyy appropriate: that is indicative of the process being wrong. I don't know who Moulton would like to make this statement: I for one am happy to say "no, we didn't get this one quite right". From what he has expressed to me privately, though, he wants some declaration one way or the other: "this was the system as it should work" or "this was a malfunctioning system"; I am not sure we can give that declaration.

As to whether Moulton should be permitted to resume editing... As can probably be understood from what I have written above, I don't think the original block was correct. It could much more effectively have been managed with sanctions prohibiting the behaviour that earned the ban. Now, however, the situation is different. Moulton indicates to me (and I believe also in the NTWW conversation) that he requires the declaration of whether the system worked before he would continue editing: were the answer to be "yes", he would not want to; were the answer "no", he would want the system to be massively overhauled before he would consider editing again. Quite plainly, therefore, unblocking would have no practical effect.

That said, I advocate it in any case. A wrong should be righted. I advocate unblocking with a strict prohibition from editing in areas concerned with the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. We should, as a community, be prepared to say "we would like to see you editing productively", whether or not that will be upheld. We unblocked Lir and were right to do so. If Moulton is willing to return, there should be no obstacle preventing him from doing so; I see every reason to think he could be a productive editor if he was willing to engage with Wikipedia's policies.

Frankly, there is nothing to be lost from unblocking Moulton.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Sam - hear hear. Privatemusings (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your belief that arbcom got this one wrong, I hope that this is being discussed on Arbcom-L (which I know you are a member of) as well. Do committee members agree that they got it wrong? Or are you alone in this belief? Mike R (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I perceive there are two lists now, one for those currently arbitrators and one including alumni. Sam is an alumnus I believe. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct, Lar. This is very much my opinion; I have no idea what any other member of arbcom-l thinks. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is merit in unblocking on the basis that we (the community) may have got it wrong, because we can always reblock if we later determine that we were wrong about being wrong - we were right but perhaps for the wrong reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent analysis, Sam. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, this is greatly appreciated. Thank you. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he resumes editing Wikipedia, many people are going to emotionally experience first hand why the Athenian community finally told Socrates he had to leave one way or the other. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would bet on it.

So that is why, since we now know of a few areas in which Moulton has been unable or unwilling to contribute productively, we try to find some areas in which Moulton can potentially contribute productively. Just as we do here conventionally with hundreds if not thousands of similar problem editors. What do we do? We topic ban them. And we direct them to other places on the wiki to learn the principles of Wikipedia and to try to contribute.

In Moulton's case, this is what was requested in the RfC. This is what I have maintained personally for a long time and do suggest currently. And for those who are so loud and aggressive here on this topic, why do they not take Moulton into their own editing areas, and under their wing, and show him how Wikipedia works and why we have the principles we do, like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, which are the principles Moulton frantically wants to scrap or ignore. If you can turn Moulton into a productive editor on your part of the project, more power to you. I already tried. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Next!-Filll (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Sam: If all Moulton wanted was a statement that "due process wasn't afforded", he already has that: "there is no due process on Wikipedia"... (note that this was a quote of what I said back on March 20, which says what I've been saying here all along... I've been consistent the whole time) If there isn't any in the general case, then there wasn't any in his case. That comment of mine was meant to be in the context of what Wikipedia is not... it's not a government, not a system of justice, not something that is designed first and foremost to be fair... it's a project to produce something. We don't necessarily need due process, it's not necessarily relevant to projects. We need effective remedies that move the project forward. Which is for the most part what we get.

To Fill:I'll gladly take Moulton under my wing, if he first committed to work within our policies and guidelines, and I'd reblock him myself if he strayed and became a disruptive influence again. As to a topic ban, we've used it before. I'd support one to be reevaluated after some time. But this is all hypothetical, Moulton has made no such committment and I don't think he will. If he gets unblocked symbolically, without such committment, and then starts editing in ways not compatible with our ways, I'll block him myself. If I could beat everyone else to it. I think Sam's statement: What it important here is that the action taken was not wholly appropriate: that is indicative of the process being wrong. I don't know who Moulton would like to make this statement: I for one am happy to say "no, we didn't get this one quite right". is spot on (and I'd like to see more people acknowledging that the fault is not entirely in one place, that the block may have been hasty, etc.), but I don't think it will satisfy Moulton. He wants a systemic reexamination of quite a bit of our underlying culture and processes. Even if we agreed that was needed (and I'm not saying that it is or it isn't, I've advocated for changes, but I'm not sure the basic model is as flawed as he thinks), we don't do that as a precursor condition of unblocking one editor, nor should we. Perhaps at some future date if there are changes, he'll feel the conditions are satisfied, and agree to abide, and come back. I'd like to consider that the door is open here for him to do that. But meanwhile we do have other fish to fry. ++Lar: t/c 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to WAS 4.250) And the names of the Athenians who were no longer able to tolerate Socrates are...?

Fully agree that we didn't get this one quite right. A caution, don't know that there was a right way, the context was an accelerating waste of time situation and there's no way such a superior being could be satisfied. On the bright side it's provided plenty of material for a thesis or two on multi user internets collaboration systemic interaction failure and online ethics. Whatever :-/ . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak to the nuances of Wikipedia dispute resolution, so I won't try. What I can say is that various unretracted statements by Moulton commenting on the involvement of the Discovery Institute with the "Scientific Dissent from Darwin" are erroneous. Moulton has asserted that the list arose as a community effort around 2001 and was only misappropriated by the DI starting in 2006. In fact, the list was conceived, organized, and published as an advertisement in three national periodicals by the DI in late 2001. At this point, it seems doubtful that the one content area that Moulton has demonstrated any enthusiasm for editing could be improved by his apparent level of knowledge there. That, perhaps, is not the point in this discussion, but it seems to me that a good deal of the procedural wrangle that emerged had its origin in the persistence with with Moulton applied his misapprehensions on the topic to Wikipedia editing. While a statement that there has been a shift in Moulton's perceptions with respect to Wikipedia policy would be an absolute essential step (absent, AFAICT, at this point) in a process to re-admit him as an editor, it seems to me that without an acknowledgment that he was quite badly mistaken on the content, too, that the same situation would obtain as it did before. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your insightful comments, Mr. Korn. See, here's the insight we really need - the educated opinion of a former arbitrator and veteran editor. Valtoras (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Moulton disdains WP principles

It might not be obvious to those here why Moulton would be dismissive of the principles of Wikipedia. He is a lifelong research engineer and research scientist and academic. And frankly, although there is some similarity between Wikipedia and academic writing, it is far from identical, particularly in the sciences and engineering.

And I can say this with some authority, since my background and experience is quite similar to Moulton's.

When I first came to Wikipedia, I saw pages and pages of contradictory policy. I didn't read it. It was too long. It was poorly organized. And I was sure I didn't need to waste the time reading irrelevant drivel. Just like Moulton.

When I first encountered WP:NOR, I was stunned. No research? Huh? That is what academics and scientists are always seeking. That is the goal. Original thought. Novel interpretations. New ideas. Innovation. And it is forbidden here? I was stunned and dismayed and confused. I was sure this was a mistake. Just like Moulton.

When I first encountered WP:NPOV, I was shocked. First, the very name seems contradictory. How can something containing all views in proportion to their prominence be neutral; it makes no sense. Then, we are not allowed to advocate for one position or another? Or at least not supposed to? Even Encyclopedia Britannica does that in their articles, written by experts! What on earth? I didn't get it. I could not understand what the reason for this was. Just like Moulton.

The ideas behind WP:RS and WP:V were a little more clear, but still confusing. For example, academics often use personal communication as a reliable source, which is forbidden here on Wikipedia. Some of what is a reasonable source on Wikipedia would be unlikely to be accepted in academia, like the New York Times. After all, reporters are just basically boobs; they are not academics, or research scientists. They get stories wrong. They misquote. They are idiots, right? So I did not understand this either. Just like Moulton.

Even the principle of WP:SYNTH struck me as dumb when I first encountered it. Putting together two or three disparate sources to demonstrate a point is exactly what you are supposed to do and trained to do in academia and research. But you are not supposed to do it here. I was puzzled about WP:SYNTH when I first encountered it. Just like Moulton.

However, I had senior editors here mentor me and explain these principles to me. And after a while, I came to understand why the principles of Wikipedia were what they are. And to realize the wisdom of them. But I was willing to learn. Moulton has had decades of experience in designing and using online environments. He is positive he knows better. He has rejected any effort to coach him or tutor him. After all, why should someone with his experience submit to tutoring by someone who is probably a teenager or an undergraduate ? (or at least, this is probably what he thinks). Moulton has not been interested in learning, at least so far. He is sure he knows better. And maybe he does. But while people have tried to educate him, he was extremely disruptive.

Therefore, it was quite natural that Moulton rejected all the principles Wikipedia operates under. It was to be expected in fact; I did. I understand perfectly. And it is also quite natural that Moulton continues to reject all the principles that Wikipedia operates under. And it is quite natural that Moulton is resistant to learning about Wikipedia principles and accepting them. This is no mystery. I was the same way for a considerable time at first. But I was more submissive and willing to learn, and eventually I did. Moulton has not reached that point yet, and might never. But if Moulton is to learn how to operate in this environment, I would prefer that someone besides me try to train him, in their areas, rather than me and my associates, in the areas in which he has already demonstrated he has difficulty. Fair enough?--Filll (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I don't think anyone is going to necessarily believe your interpretation of Moulton's refusal to understand NPOV, V, OR, and SYNTH without specific diffs.

As far as I can see, he raised questions about those policies that other people on the mailing list and on the policy talkpages do all the time. See the old Covered Bridge discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I believe there is an RfC which has over 100 diffs. Did you not see it? (2)RR is not particularly credible in these matters given his past performance in interpreting these kinds of policies, IMHO.--Filll (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people have pointed out the problems with those diffs elsewhere on this page, perhaps you didnthearthat.

My credibility, of course, is another matter. I admit that I do tend to admit to being mistaken now and then, but in my estimation that does not necessarily lessen my credibility. You, no doubt, think differently about such admissions. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to read what was claimed about the diffs and the responses. And do you really think that so many would look at them and miss some huge mistakes? Check for yourself. Maybe you are suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

As for your credibility, I have seen 3 examples now. And just confirmed a fourth misrepresentation of yours by probing official channels. I won't embarass you by dragging it out here. But... what can I say?--Filll (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the diffs don't back up what they claim to. I don't accuse anyone of deception -- for most of them the mistaken understanding is actually reasonable. A lot of the diffs in that RFC do stand up, but a lot don't. I have addressed this in my statement. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with Sam) Official channels? Oh, my. I wonder what. I don't remember claiming to have had lunch with Jimbo, so I hardly think that "official channels" have any information on me. My dear fellow, I've told you before, endless gibes about the "credibility" of all the people who disagree with you over some trifling matter, and dark hints about the possession of damning private information are so tiresome. Nobody really listens beyond a certain point.

"..so many would look at them and miss some huge mistakes..." I believe that is an accurate, if extreme, statement of exactly the concern that most people have expressed. It is an understandable if regrettable consequence of editing in what can become something of an echo chamber. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. This is about Moulton, not about you, and I do not want to belittle you unnecessarily or expose past infelicities.--Filll (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to start a new section on this page with all possible exposure of past infelicities. I look forward to hearing them.

Incidentally, I believe what has caused a small proportion of the concern is the level of belittling considered "necessary" in these section of WP. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and may I draw everyone's attention to "me and my associates in the area..." etc. I note, again, nobody but he and his associates seem to be permitted in that area without being bitten.... someone really needs to do something about that sometime. Relata refero (disp.) 13:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In these areas new editors are welcomed all the time and edit productively. However, it is required that editors learn to abide by the principles of Wikipedia in these areas, as they are in all parts of Wikipedia. Is this a problem?--Filll (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, merely unrecognisable. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll: I think this is an excellent analysis, and as I said before, it highlights the "academic participation problem". I assert both you and Moulton are outliers. You figured the system out, he flamed out. Most academics, I suspect, just give up and go away quietly, or never even try to participate here, based on what they've heard already. That's a guess from anecdotes, rather than something backed up by study data but I think I'm right. That said, I think Relata makes some valid points. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming that Moulton will never be able to come to terms with the system. I just would prefer someone else do Moulton's training, not me. And not in my area, if possible.--Filll (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In his WR post of 6 May 2008, Moulton refers to his essays which conclude "Wikipedia is a rigidly rule-driven bureaucracy without sufficient responsible supervision to ensure that the chess games produces anything of lasting value to the general public (such as accurate stories that one can rely on). No wonder teachers don't allow their students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source. But Wikipedia does provide an interesting example of a good idea gone awry. And it provides a good example of how a rule-driven system becomes profoundly dysfunctional"[6] and "Not surprisingly, the ethical scholar or journalist would find Wikipedia a bizarre medium in which to craft a high quality article, especially on a controversial subject where competing factions are pushing competing points of view. To survive on Wikipedia, it helps to be mean-spirited, evasive, and allied to a powerful guild. The ethical and scholarly journalist need not apply."[7] "..putting a spotlight on the failings of Wikipedia. That's what the reformers of WR are here for." Has he changed his views? ... dave souza, talk 15:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC) clarify last quote dave souza, talk 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need to do some fact finding. I have asked him some questions at User talk:Moulton#Fact finding mission. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking Wikipedia is ridiculous is not a reason to ban someone. Frankly, I don't think Moulton will ever be a productive editor for Wikipedia. There is, however, an enormous difference between us holding him to be banned and him deciding that Wikipedia's systems are not good enough to merit his editing. Everything I have seen tells me that Moulton is a person of very high integrity; his issues come from having different philosophical ideas about how the encyclopaedia should be run. We don't, however, ban for the opinions people hold. Also, be careful lumping every critic of Wikipedia with the worst. There are many who are against the site on not unreasonable grounds and who don't carry out vicious personal campaigns. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton was not banned or blocked because he thought Wikipedia is ridiculous. I find many features of Wikipedia ridiculous, as I have stated repeatedly, and am working with others to try to change these aspects.

What happened to Moulton was that he was extremely disruptive and a net negative to the project. And he was disruptive and a net negative because he did not want to follow Wikipedia principles and policies and conventions. It was not that he was not told of these principles and policies and conventions. He was told what these are and instructed how to reach his goals within the system over and over and over. And he dismissed that approach, thinking he knew better, and became a disruptive element, unable to work constructively and productively with others in a consensus-driven framework. And that is what lead to him being blocked/banned.

Not that he "lied". Not that he had any particular view on some ideological issue. Not that he was not part of a clique or a cabal. Not that he was an academic. Not because he wants to change Wikipedia. Not for any of the myriad and sundry reasons I have seen posted to this thread. No, it was for something far more basic and far more fundamental and far more crucial. We have a way of doing things, and he did not want to do it that way, and did not want to follow advice. --Filll (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that was the reason he was blocked. It is, however, the reason a lot of people are advocating that he remain blocked. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason? Because he's academic? Part of a cabal? Ideology? "IT" is only of value when it refers to a specific antecedent. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

tl;dr. Can someone who's not part of the supposed "ID clique" summarise what exactly Moulton did to get banned? I know I'm going to come under fire for even using the phrase, but I have seen a bit of banding together from some of people opposing Moultion, and I (and I suppose many others) would like a true neutral summary. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am part of the purported clique, let me try:

neutral summaries do not exist
he didn't follow the rules and just fought instead--Filll (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral summaries can exist. Someone can just read the discussions leading to the banning and make a summary based on the reasons and such. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re neutral, see Rashomon effect. I gave my summary. --Filll (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, POV-pushing on a couple of BLPs (arguing that the presentation of facts related to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism was inaccurate and biased). He undoubtedly did have a point; however, he did not edit according to the standards we should expect. He did not conform, especially, to WP:V or WP:NOR. Whether this merited the ban it got is questionable. If you want to comment usefully on the matter, can I suggest you at least read the RFC (with care -- not all the claims it makes are substantiated) and my analysis above. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More like he "had" a WP:POINT, and took every opportunity to disrupt WP. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's your view, yes. It's not necessarily universally shared, or even where perceived to be correct as far as it goes, may not be perceived to tell the whole story. I sense that we're not developing new ideas here, though. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it not necessarily universally shared. Just by 18 of the 19 who encountered him and participated in the RfC. But that is not universal.--Filll (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call the question

We have talked about this for a while. I'd like to suggest that maybe we should look for a consensus here, explicitly. Sam Korn has suggested an unblock, with limitations and restrictions. How do we feel about that? (keeping in mind that it's likely that Moulton won't actually edit much if at all after he's unblocked, if we go by what he's said). Is there a clear consensus that the original outcome was correct, Sam's analysis was wrong? Or is there a consensus that maybe it was incorrect but there's no point in unblocking as it would likely have no practical effect? Or is there a consensus that maybe we should unblock to correct the bad outcome? Or something else? Please note, I'm suggesting a consensus check, not more discussion of an open ended nature... ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(bump) I think this needs wider input before any change from the status quo would be appropriate. At this point I think less folk have commented here than did in the RfC... ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's going to happen is that, since there is the group of editors and admins who have dealt with Moulton in the past who do not wish to see him unblocked, especially without any statement from him about his past behavior that gives a hope for a new future AND a group of editors and admins who have less actual on WP dealings with Moulton but have listened to him give his skewed version of the story on WR for the past few months, there will be a wheel war if he is unblocked and everyone will become even more embittered. Since WP doesn't do symbolic unblocks and he shows no sign of changing, we are left right at the same place. Moulton stays blocked, he continues his campaign on WR for whatever grandiose change he advocates, and we just move on. And, frankly speaking, thats probably what is best for everyone involved. Baegis (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if there is a consensus to remain blocked, you won't see me unblocking, and I don't suspect you'll see anyone else doing so either. On the other hand if there is a consensus to unblock, if I read you right, you are saying that there is some group of editors with long experience who would go against consensus and wheel war. I'm not seeing any such group, except for those that were at the start, the ID members... Am I understanding what you are saying rightly? I hope that I'm misunderstanding you. I'd strongly recommend against wheel warring to reblock, which seems to be what you're suggesting might happen. Sorry for replying but your statement wasn't a clear "I favour outcome X" sort of thing that we would use during a consensus check. Do you have such a statement? ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll break it down real simple like for you Lar. Let's just see if I have this right. You want to unblock an editor who has not made a net positive contribution, an editor who has shown a clear disdain for and attacked several members of ID Wikiproject, and an editor who has not made a single statement than can be construed that he will change for the betterment of this project. When in the hell has someone ever been unblocked when they haven't even acknowledged that their behavior needs to change in order for them to be a contributor here? You seem to gloss over that point. But please continue to talk to Moulton on WR, as opposed to his talk page which is currently open for editing. Double trouble! So, no, he should not be unblocked. Nothing should change and everyone should just step away because this entire discussion is nothing but a farce. You already decided to unblock him long before anything was decided. That's been clear. But please, continue to ignore the advice of the people who actually dealt with Moulton before in favor of him telling his side of the story. Next time I get into any sort of wiki trouble, I am going to use the scorned academic route to get out of it. It seems a very effective method. Baegis (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question about who it was you thought likely to wheel war... that seems a rather important point. You also give the appearance that haven't been reading what I've been saying very closely, since you did not acknowledge that I said from the start that I wasn't in favour of unblocking to make a symbolic point, and that I don't see where Moulton has acknowledged that he has to edit within our norms or not at all, so therefore I'm not in favour at this time, other than to leave the door open. What I did say was that IF he was unblocked, I'd keep an eye on him, take him under my wing as it were, and reblock him at the first sign that he was coloring outside the lines. I agree with Sam (an outside observer who came in after the fact to do a dispassionate analysis...) Moulton was not entirely at fault here. That's not the same as saying he's blameless. If this binary yes/no assertion style (rather than acknowledging there are shades of gray here) is the quality of the argument put forward by ID regulars (I've seen it now from you, from Filll, from Jim62sch...) I can see why people have concerns. Again, who do you think is likely to wheel war? ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anyone will wheel war, but I would think that the admins who have actually worked with Moulton will be very displeased to see such a move especially when the consensus on this will never be reached for an unblock. You are the one who keeps bringing up the symbolic nature of such an unblock. I am fairly certain that one could entertain the notion that the undertow already made the symbolic unblock and that just worked out super for everyone. You do keep ignoring the issue of his previous behavior through the classic "yeah, but..." line of reasoning. "He was disruptive...yeah, but it wasn't his fault." "He showed no concern for following policy...yeah, but he was just advocating for change." etc. The shades of gray are minimal at best. If Moulton really wanted an unblock, he would have asked for one at ArbCom. Since he has already said that if unblocked he will make an edit similar to Krimpets, ie plow right back into the same disaster he started last year, I really don't understand why you think this is a good idea. And with regards to the line of reasoning used by the "ID regulars" perhaps it is because we have actually dealt with him and we hold our particular thoughts. Just an idea. So no, he should never be unblocked until he makes a statement that shows hope for the future. Even then, I would have reservations. Baegisthesock (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sam - the last three paragraphs of his analysis I found to be particularly clear (and concise). Privatemusings (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam's analysis might be clear and concise. It is just inaccurate. But feel free to unleash a destructive force on your own project, if you feel so inclined. Just remember I warned you.

I see post after post from editors who have no experience edting with Moulton and who have not reviewed his record, or even the little bit of his record in the RfC. But they would do not seem to care about all the danger signals, or just want to ignore them. It is an interesting study in human dynamics alright.--Filll (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So there's absolutely no chance that anyone other than Moulton had the slightest bit of culpability, or could have done anything even the slightest bit differently? That's what I am hearing you saying, over and over. It's fascinating how every time anyone turns any attention to anything surrounding this, it always comes back to how Moulton is completely in the wrong.

Fiddlesticks. No one of us is perfect and I suspect the members of the ID project are no exceptions to that principle, despite their PR. Again, I don't expect anything to actually happen if Moulton is unblocked, despite repeated discussion, because he's continued to indicate he won't edit here the way things currently are construed. But if he gets too far out of the lines we color within, I expect him to last about 5 edits before reblocking happens. Maybe 6. Sorry for replying but your statement wasn't a clear "I favour outcome X" sort of thing that we would use during a consensus check. Do you have such a statement? ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am astounded at this Lar. Perhaps you missed Dave souza's acknowledgement and Baegis' comment and others that "mistakes were made" on all sides. Why would you expect that this would not be true? We are human, and just trying to do the best we can. But since this seems to be an extremely important issue for you, I have made a short list of what I believe the mistakes on "my side" of this issue are here. I do not think you will learn anything new particularly, since most of this is sort of obvious or has been said before in different ways, but since you keep bringing it up over and over (for what purpose, I cannot quite imagine), there it is. Enjoy.--Filll (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unblock per Sam's guidelines - I would rather see sam's analysis PROVEN incorrect. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've expressed my opinion above; to sum up, I think that unblocking a user disinterested in Wikipedia's core policies who has had absolutely zero evident change of heart and carries a chip on his shoulder over his perceived mistreatment is guaranteed to be unproductive. The block is not a comment on Moulton's personal integrity, value as a human being, or role in the cosmic soap opera. It's just a determination that his participation is unlikely to be a good fit for this particular website, and I think there's plenty of evidence to support that conjecture. But I'm one person and, quite possibly, a member of the ID clique (no, I'm not part of the WikiProject and I've never edited an ID-related article to the best of my memory, but since when has that stopped someone from being labeled as part of a clique?). I wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock if there was a strong feeling that one was warranted, nor would I wheel-war about it (that hopefully goes without saying). The only thing I ask is that the folks to whom he's an abstract cause at the moment help deal with him when he becomes an active editor. I appreciate Lar's offer in this regard, and I'd encourage as many experienced eyes on the situation as possible if he's unblocked, since much of the concern over the initial handling revolves around the limited response to the RfC, AN/I, etc etc. MastCell ^Talk 04:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say I agree wtih Sam K here, and I've found myself disappointed about the actions/behavior of a group of editors I had expected more from here. SirFozzie (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "group of editors" you mean, is it those who've tried working with Moulton? Stereotyping editors as "groups" is not a good idea. .. dave souza, talk 12:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblocking On the basis that Sam's proposal is "unblocking with a strict prohibition from editing in areas concerned with the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. We should, as a community, be prepared to say "we would like to see you editing productively"," then ~~I'm willing so see~~ it would be possible to consider unblocking on these conditions with close and effective monitoring. Moulton is not disinterested about policy, he appears passionately committed to changing BLP so that information from reputable sources is overridden by personal anecdote and speculation about improbable potential harm. Expect extended and tendentious discussions in that area, and care should be taken to ensure that these views do not unduly override community consensus. ... dave souza, talk 12:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Amended after reading User:Filll/Moultonunblock which refreshed my memory. Any unblocking is likely to lead to grief as well as being an enormous waste of time . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advise against unblocking/unbanning until Moulton at least expresses an interest to play by the rules here, no matter how ridiculous he perceives the rules to be or how how ridiculous the rules actually are. As I have stated repeatedly, if you absolutely must unblock/unban Moulton, then at least be prudent enough to topic ban him from the areas and articles on which he produced nothing but disruption. If he has something to contribute, it is not in these areas in which he has no expertise and potential conflicts of interest. Direct him to contribute in areas in which he has expertise, if his expertise is so important to have on Wikipedia. Otherwise, the argument to remove his restrictions makes no sense. A more extensive discussion of my position and experiences is at User:Filll/Moultonunblock.--Filll (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MU This is a more complex question than whether or not Moulton should be unblocked. I think any admin considering this question should instead consider the following sequence of questions:

If unblocked, do you feel strongly enough about this that you would wheel war to re-block Moulton?
Are you prepared to mentor Moulton and if so (see my comments at his RfC) do you think he would respect your opinion?
In the event that Moulton is unblocked and in your opinion his contributions are disruptive, would you be prepared to block him unilaterally, rather than seek consensus?
If (in the above situation) no consensus can be determined, would you consent to Moulton being re-blocked or would you unblock him again?

In my opinion, we need zero admins to answer yes to Q1, one or more to Q2, zero to Q3, and zero answering "wheel war" to Q4. Unless we can get consensus for all that, we're just stirring up a big ol pot of wikidrama. Just my 2p SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A) To answer the questions Lar posed: I don't feel strongly about Sam's proposal, but would like to see it given a try. I strongly believe that the original outcome was incorrect. I predict that unblocking will anger the participants of the Intelligent Design wikiproject - but even talking about it appears to have already angered them - and I make no prediction as to the other practical outcomes of unblocking. B) To answer SheffieldSteel's questions: 1) I might unblock myself, I certainly won't wheel war to reblock. 2) If Moulton actively seeks my advice, I'll be glad to give it, as I would for any other editor. Having never discussed anything with him, I don't know if he respects my opinion. 3) If I had been the one to unblock him, I'd be willing to reblock. If I'm not the one to unblock him, I'm not likely to reblock him. 4) I believe that if there is a discussion, we need consensus to block a user or keep them blocked - however, you'll note that I haven't yet unblocked Moulton from this discussion. GRBerry 14:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I am not angry. And I doubt if anyone else is angry in the ID Wikiproject. It might even work out fine, but it is a bit disconcerting to see someone so sure of their beliefs based on complete avoidance of the available information. But be my guest. This is a fascinating example of human dynamics. [8]--Filll (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ~~probably~~ help mentor ~~(probably, 1 open issue)~~. I proposed to Moulton that it might be useful to edit in an uncontentious area first 'till he gets his sea legs. He has agreed, and he will be acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I think that this would cover most of the concerns above, for now. ~~I'm still waiting for word back from 1 editor who I hope will help out as well, before I commit.~~ --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mentoring: I can commit to mentoring. I have asked an editor whom Moulton trusts to help Moulton get started on some non-controversial articles (especially at first). Later we can try to expand the range, but in this way, I don't think much can go wrong. :-) Moulton has also agreed to this arrangement. Remember that Moulton only had 2 weeks on wikipedia before. We can give him a chance to work in a safe area, and he can improve his understanding of how wikipedia works in practice in places where folks aren't writing BLP's about his friends (which tends to be a rather nasty sticking point, you know :-P ). If he doesn't like it, we can all part as good friends. For the paranoid among you, Lar will be watching too, as will several other people. AND I know where to find Moulton IRL, that's always a good motivator <innocent look> --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (Eh? What were you thinking? I'm totally going to use that address to send him a nice cool beer of his choice, when he hits FA or GA, of course!)[reply]
Support unblocking I frequently am limited as to how much time I have to edit, but I'm also willing to help Moulton, as I did before his block. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any point in unblocking Moulton. Is there any indication that he plans to abide by policy or contribute to the project in a constructive way? Kim Bruning has offered to mentor him. I have more than three years of experience observing Kim's "mentoring" and "mediation". Kim's intervention usually precipitates a worsening of the situation (e.g., in the Picard article, where Kim's intervention sparked another day or two of heated debate, after which I posted the solution I was working on when he intervened...and which everyone accepted). And he tends not to follow through with his promises of mentoring. Promises of mentoring or mediation from Kim are, at best, hollow. And since Kim campaigned on IRC to have me blocked because I was "behind Wikipedia Review" a year or two ago...I have absolutely no cause to trust Kim. There are actually few people I have less cause to trust. Guettarda (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, to clarify - I'd like to see some commitment by Moulton to abide by our rules and policies, and I would like to see a credible mentor. Guettarda (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been tracking me for 3 years? That's interesting, a lot of things I do are not very visible. The "intervention" you mention was just a single post on the talk page. That wasn't actually the intervention I did on the Rosalind Picard article. What I did was that I invited a skilled FA-level editor to come and help me, and to talk between several people. The result was a large amount of new text (with exception of the section on faith) , thereby reducing WP:UNDUE weight in the article, simply by adding a lot more to the *rest* of it. It would have been hilarious if we had gotten the page up to good or featured quality even while people were edit warring on the single section, but unfortunately someone ended up protecting the page.

I'm not sure you can lay the heated debate on my shoulders by the way. Heated debating tends to require some level of voluntary participation. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what trouble Guettarda and Kim Bruning might have had. However, I did observe the recent situation at Picard's talk page. It was clear to me that Bruning's "intervention" with one post, imprudently worded and located, did destroy a developing consensus and lead to considerably more conflict. It was the exact opposite of what a mediation is supposed to do. I have told Bruning this before. It is also true that Bruning has apparently recruited User:Ottava Rima to work with Moulton. Ottava Rima has introduced some of the material finally produced by Moulton, some 10 months after it was first requested (and repeatedly requested since that time, to no avail), into the main body of the Picard biography, to widespread approval of all sides. I do not know Ottava Rima, and I do not want to rely on assorted rumors that many tell me, but I am a bit skeptical of his ability to "supervise" and educate Moulton, given (1) Moulton's current stance on the rules under which Wikipedia operates and writes its articles, and (2) given Ottava rima's own history here (not to say people cannot reform themselves and do not deserve a second chance). My best prediction for this right now, knowing what I know from all sides, is that this action has a high probability of producing considerable unproductive conflict. On the other hand, I could be wrong, and in any case it will be an interesting experiment in human dynamics and the ways in which Wikipedia can malfunction.--Filll (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of Firewalled Ottava Rima and Moulton from each other so far (to prevent either party from being accused of meatpuppetry, etc). But yeah, somehow when they cooperate they do tend to get positive results.

Now as to people who decide to get themselves into a kerfluffel over a single section, especially when they're supposed to be experienced wikipedians. Hmph, the less said the better.

Is Lar a credible mentor to the both of you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"destroying a developing consensus"

Filll, you keep saying things in these terms, as if having a consensus - any consensus at all - is more important than having a sourced, verifiable, and most importantly of all NPOV article. And that's ignoring that if a consensus is so fragile that one person can "destroy" it, it never really was a consensus in the first place. --Random832 (contribs) 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take umbrage at this comment for the following reasons: (1) I do not believe you are even aware of the situation we are discussing (2) I disagree in the strongest possible terms that I have repeatedly advocated following WP:CON over WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Please provide diffs if you want to make such accusations. (3) I do not believe you have sufficient experience on Wikipedia to weigh in on such matters. (4) Your opinion is at the odds with those of several other experienced Wikipedians. I will thank you to try to WP:AGF and stop your semi-veiled attacks on me. Do you think that might be possible for you? Thank you.--Filll (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Random's first edit with his current account was on January 13, 2004 and he has edited since in some of the more drama-prone sections of WP. I dare say the rest of what you say is as accurate as that implies. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that Filll should probably reread the consensus policy. Consensus does not lock an article into its current state, and challenging consensus, even a "fragile" one, is not against policy. Stop lawyering by selectively choosing sections of policy to cite at people, Filll. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course consensus does not lock an article into its current state. Where did I ever state that? (diffs please) Consensus changes all the time of course. Of course challenging consensus is permitted. Who said it was not? (diffs please) There are consequences of challenging consensus of course; it can trigger a dispute that can rage for hours, or days, or weeks, or months, or years. And it can lead to all kinds of other problems, incuding preventing the editing of the article, which is somewhat counterproductive, as it was in the Picard case. Also, the consensus finally reached in the Picard case was not much different than what was forming a day or two earlier, and then was disrupted, or what had existed on the page for months and months. So what really was the point? Just another chance for unproductive talk page warfare I guess. What fun! And what parts of policy am I misquoting or selectively quoting? Please tell me so I can stop misrepresenting the policy. As before, diffs please.--Filll (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without even going to where you have said similarly on other pages: [9] [10]

You have repeatedly described "destroying consensus" as reflecting badly on editors. It does not. As for causing "talk page warfare," it is not a person's fault for that if they brought valid concerns. If you considered the talk page arguments so unproductive, perhaps you should re-examine your part in them, and how you might make future arguments more productive. Speaking of unproductive arguments, this one has been wandering into that territory as well, so, having said my piece, I will now disengage. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are engaging in a clearly unproductive argument and it is good of you to notice that. Even Bruning himself noted in the Picard talk page thread that he wanted to understand how his actions had caused such an undesired end. It happens and I will not vilify anyone for such a thing, as you seem to want to claim I am doing. I am afraid your diffs do not show what I had asked for, so I am underwhelmed by the seeming credibility gap here. As for the claim that editors who bring "concerns" that cause days and weeks of talk page warfare that ends with the same result that was there at the beginning, I am not sure that in that case I would classify them as "valid concerns". But you can do as you like. By the way, if the concerns were so valid, why was the goal to discard the text you yourself had written and agreed to some months earlier? If they were so valid, why were they dismissed by the overwhelming consensus? Hmmm...--Filll (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked questions, I'll give you a short answer: Just because I agreed to something previously doesn't mean I consider it a permanent solution. In addition, characterizing me as completely satisfied with the text at the time is quite a misrepresentation. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll the idea that those who came with BLP concerns to Talk:Rosalind Picard "caused" the talk page warefare is a convenient inaccuracy. Quick recap: 1) Several uninvolved editors came to the talk page because of a concern that the existing language was a BLP violation (most of these editors were pretty much "uninvolved" with ID entries generally, with this particular entry, and/or with each other). 2) Various members of the ID WikiProject very quickly upped the ante suggesting and supporting an alternative wording that even more strongly supported the claim that was at the heart of the BLP concern and to boot was (and remains) unverifiable through reliable sources. 3) After hours wasted in heated argument, a compromise was suggested and agreed upon that was and is notably similar to the original language, but for a few minor tweaks, and a significant amount of contextual information surrounding it that clarifies the BLP concern. A substantial amount, if not most, of the talk page "warfare" was in direct relation to the more extreme afore mentioned language authored by KillerChihuahua and backed by you (Filll), Odd Nature, Dave Souza and later Merzul. At the time of the compromise I expressed feelings of being "had", because of the ease at which you all dropped your, now apparently red herring argument, for the "not too different from the original" compromise version. It is without doubt that this red herring, and the unwavering support it garnered from you, share at least half the blame here (though in my mind they are much more culpable). Anyone interested in seeing this detailed but not wishing to wade through the archives of the entry talk page please refer to User_talk:Filll#Glad_to_be_of_service and particularly to User_talk:Filll#Response. Why on earth does someone who participates so causally in creating an undesirable condition go around accusing others of doing so?PelleSmith (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if you were allowed to do whatever you wanted, there would be no disputes. Well duh. But that is not how Wikipedia works, is it? You think I get to do whatever I want? Guess again. Lots of my suggestions have been dismissed. Lots of my writing has disappeared into the bit bucket.--Filll (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only 400 mainspace edits per year over the duration. And 100 mainspace edits per month since he started being more active in January 2007. Look at the ratio of mainspace edits to AN and AN/I edits and compare it to other editors. About 10,000 total edits in about 4.5 years. Enough said.--Filll (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude, Filll, but I think arguing that someone's disagreement with you has no validity because their edit count doesn't reach some arbitrary limit is a bit, well, low. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do it all the time. How much respect do fresh IPs get or newbies get when they try to lecture others on policy? This is not that different, frankly. But you are free to disagree. Provide me the evidence that those with low edit counts (particularly edit counts devoted to article-building) have a superior knowledge of Wikipedia policy. I would be quite interested to see that.

In any case, if I am not interested in NPOV, or RS, or V, please show me the diffs. I am waiting.--Filll (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting.--Filll (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's going to waste their time on it, Filll. Your behavior so far in this thread has provided enough information. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What part of working in a collegiate manner towards consensus don't you folks understand? If you like creating wikidrama by upsetting things, don't complain about the drama afterwards. .. dave souza, talk 18:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, who is that addressed to? --Relata refero (disp.) 21:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One might make the same evaluation of your behavior on this and other pages. I would gladly compare mine with yours any day. But I think it is best that I not stoop to such levels.--Filll (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate, then, that you already have :) --Relata refero (disp.) 21:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, Dave, they have reached a consensus that creating teh dramaz is good. ;) Jim62sch^dissera! 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, Filll might not quite get some of the finer points of wikidiplomacy, it looks like, but as far as I can tell at least he's trying to be honest. That's going a long way already. Be nice! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC) That and I recall something about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar :-) [reply]

User talk:Moulton

I asked at User talk:Moulton if he was willing to even try to edit appropriately and he would not even say "yes" (he said "mu" meaning that the question is invalid). He should be allowed to edit his user talk page, but he seems determined to play by his own rules; so I do not recommend an unblock. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he may have misread your question. I've asked him to think about it more carefully. I'll give my final recommendation after 23:59 UTC today. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was on a Not The Wikipedia Weekly episode with him, where he talked at greater length about his position. His belief is that Wikipedia is fundamentally broken, with contradictory policies that are impossible to follow and lack of proper due process for those accused of violating them. His response is to make "ultimatums" (ultimata?) that Wikipedia needs to change first before he would even think of participating in it. My advice to him on that show was that he at least admit that his own behavior caused some of the problems (even if he's right about there being some other problems outside himself) and that he agree to attempt to follow the spirit of Wikipedia policies to the best of his ability (even if they can be bizarre and contradictory at times). He didn't seem to be interested in that, however. Thus, although I have sympathy for his side, I think he's unfortunately undermining his own position by refusing to be constructive and cooperative, something that it's possible to do even with people and policies one disagrees with. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, that’s disingenuous to say that he misunderstood the question. Mu is his answer and it obviously struck him as appropriate, even though WAS has spent quite some time trying to help the situation. Can we end this farce and just archive this discussion please? It has taken up far too much time and we are right back to square one. Baegisthesock (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmph, he misread the question. But in a way that makes me go like Oy Oy Oy! He's definitely of good faith, but otoh not always equally diplomatic. Well 23:59 it is, we'll see then. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Baegisthesock here. This is a pattern with Moulton, as can be seen from the RfC. Over and over editors have tried to help him achieve his goals and educate him about Wikipedia. Me. Hrafn. FeloniousMonk. Ornis. Avb. Kenosis. Dave souza. ZayZayEm. SheffieldSteel. KillerChihuahua. Durova. And now Lar. And WAS 4.250. And Kim Bruning. (I am sure I have left a few out here). And eventually, all realize something is amiss with Moulton's mindset and goals and agenda and attempts to meet his goals and agenda.

Some have invested dozens of hours dealing with Moulton. Some maybe hundreds of hours in this. And the result is the same. Even at "that other site" some are lecturing Moulton that he is going about it the wrong way and has to change his way of thinking.

I have posted a short bit of advice to Moulton here. Otherwise, this is a completely wasteful exercise in futility. And we are just spinning our wheels here.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I gave my word and I'm going to stay true to it. 23:59 it is :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton's response to WAS' questions here and here says it all. This is someone accusing his adversaries of being "ineducable" (or rather, unwilling to accept him as a teacher), while refusing out of hand to be educated himself. All the talk of social contracts and rule-driven systems misses one of the most basic of all unwritten societal norms: when you enter a new social space, you make some effort to observe and understand its norms before telling people how they should be doing things. When you go to someone's house and they ask you to take off your shoes, do you immediately lead them in an interminable round of ostentatious Socratic questioning to educate them on why shoes should remain on feet? If you did, would you be surprised if you were asked to leave that house and not return, even if you were right about the shoes? I think this is the point being made less bluntly by Lar and WAS. This just isn't a good fit. An unblock is going to prove a waste of time, and not just Kim's time (in which case who could object?). MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's too bad really (except for the part about wasting Kim's time :), that would be a win, keep him off the streets and so forth! )... as there are things to learn from and improve on in the original sequence of events, I think. I get along fine with Moulton, I even see where he's coming from about certain things, and we have a cordial relationship. But until and unless something changes, we're at an impasse, he won't be able to successfully edit here. I suggest leaving the talk page open in any case, in case something does change but there's not much more to say. I won't oppose a symbolic unblock but I think we're at no consensus either way right now. ++Lar: t/c 17:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree both about the initial handling and the current impasse. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya but what about the part about keeping Kim off the streets? (or out of back rooms, or whatever :) ) THAT was my key point! ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, talked some more with Moulton. Now I finally get what's up, why couldn't anyone have figured this out months ago? I wish I had more time to work on this. Well, so be it for now. I'd like to keep the door ajar though. I'll chat with some people privately first. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to clue the rest of us in on this one? Back room deals for the unblock of a disruptive editor are a bit questionable. It would be better if the community was at least given some idea of "what's up", even though Moulton has had ample time to clarify the problem. Baegisthesock (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No back room deals from me. You should know me better than that. :-)

I just need advice from people on what would be the wisest thing to propose, possibly I'm out of options. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know where my email is if you want more input. ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need some sort of Training Wiki or Junior Wiki where people can learn the ropes without getting into too much trouble. This is particularly needed for people like Moulton who have shown some resistance to learning and understanding and following the rules. If they do well, and are productive, with their articles being moved into the mainspace of Wikipedia, then they can be welcomed back.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's actually a rather interesting idea, regardless of the relevance of the suggestion to this case, somewhere to practice that was more persistent than the sandbox might not be bad at all. ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, time to archive

Kim's self imposed deadline has arrived and passed without a move. I move that we archive this and file it in the "so close yet so far" file. I will be bold and archive it in 12 hours unless anyone has serious objections. Moulton's talk page will remain open (from what I gather) but I will remind any and all editors, myself included, to not bait Moulton. If people wish to have discussions with him, thats fine. And Moulton is cautioned against making any posting that could be considered an attack on any editors, especially those of any wiki-project. I do have misgivings about the length of time a harmonious environment will be kept on that page. Baegis (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I advised Moulton to avoid any attacks on other editors on his page after his last message questioning the ethics of the ID project editors. So he is aware of what is minimally expected of him if the talk page is to remain unlocked. Baegis (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask for a bit more time. (yes, I know this has dragged on...) Kim and I talked on the phone yesterday about this matter, and I think he might have something brewing that might have bearing. ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Lar, but I don't really see any grounds for more time. Moulton continues to ignore the calls to make a statement that he will try to edit within policy while also posting all of his talk page messages for comment on WR. I fail to see why, after 8 days of discussion, this should continue any further. Moulton has exhausted his chances. I do apologize to all of the great editors who stuck their neck out to try to help him. You all showed a large outpouring of good faith for willing to undertake this matter. Baegisthesock (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being a bit obscure here about why... let me try to clarify. Sometimes, as much as we might want our "adversary" to say "uncle", they won't say it exactly as we would want it said. But if they're communicating basically what we think is important, it may sometimes not matter if they use the exact words we want. That's what Kim and I were talking about when we talked... If you read for meaning, and strip away the rest, Moulton IS saying he's going to abide, at least under some interpretations. Just not in the explicit form some of us (including myself) would prefer. So I think it is prudent to keep this open a bit longer. ALSO, we still haven't had nearly the level of commentary here that we did on say, the Betacommand thread that was concurrent. Far fewer voices commented here than on his RFC even. ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry, but with comments that clearly show he is not asking to be unblocked, this conversation is over. How can you rectify this with your belief that you are close to any sort of amicable solution to this? I do not care for the fact that there are editors making phone calls and trying to figure how to use any means to get Moulton back here. Show some respect for the other editors and just end this charade. He needs to try to abide by community standards or he remains blocked. There is no go around. He doesn't get a free pass. If you want to continue this elsewhere, thats fine. If you find a solution, fine as long as the community is made aware of the coniditions and is not troubled by them. But this thread on this board has reached the point of being useful. Baegisthesock (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unarchived the thread. Please don't do this. We're not racing the clock here, and as long as Lar is pursuing something he believes may be fruitful, let's leave this open. We can trust Lar to be reasonable and circumspect here. You're not even making Moulton work very hard to push your buttons. :) Take a cue from Wikipedia Review and just ignore him if you think he's got nothing to offer. De-watchlist his talkpage. If/when Lar and Kim have a proposed solution, I'm confident they'll submit it for comment by the community. MastCell ^Talk 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baegis: There was a move. I made a post prior to the deadline stating that I had talked more with Moulton, and that I had learned of an important factor that hadn't been looked at previously. You then actually responded to that statement. Also, If you look at Moulton's talk page, you'll see he has basically agreed to adhere to the 5 pillars, (with one caveat), also well before the deadline. I still need to address the remaining factor, and I still need to get the solution for the 5 pillars caveat on-wiki. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed community ban of Betacommand

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

Given the comments here, the community has decided to place Betacommand under an editing restriction (the sam korn solution). He is banned from using an automated program to make edits, either on his main account, or bot account. He is also placed on a civility parole, and any edited seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of the restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry, I am proposing a community ban of Betacommand (talk · contribs) and all known aliases/sockpuppets, for a period of three months. If enacted, and per our banning policy, if he tries to evade the ban the block timer will be reset and his ban will start anew. Please see my statement there for my reasoning. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Based on the positive evidence of abusive sock puppetry, continued abuse of bot privileges, harassment of blocking administrators as detailed in my statement, continued incivility and continued failure to recognize and correct his behavior, I support the proposed ban. MBisanz ^talk 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, clearly exhausted community patience. I'd go for indefinite ban, but that may be considered too harsh by others. Seriously one of the rudest editors I've ever encountered on here. I cannot understand why this hasn't happened long ago. Al Tally (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
slow down someone will surely unblock, and that will be the end of the ban. I'd love to see something happen here, but only more moderate action will have general support.DGG (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this action but support escalating sanctions under individual admin discretion. Ryan P already had this ball rolling, then the universe exploded. Beta needs a series of steps applied by the entire community to realize the consequences of unmodified behaviour. Franamax (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, did you miss Betacommand 2? Specifically, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Betacommand_instructed, where he was already told to remain civil, and violated that, and was told to only operate his bot for approved tasks, and violated that as well? The balls been rolling for a couple of months, but nobody will pull the trigger. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually I haven't missed a heartbeat, Ryan made an unequivocal notice, that looked like a good line in the sand to work from. I'm not unaware of previous history ;) Franamax (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're saying the ArbCom remedy wasn't a line in the sand? If we keep up with giving out warnings without taking any action, we might as well change the Wikipedia:Blocking policy to the Wikipedia:Warning policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah it was, but there was some beach volleyball being played at the same time. ArbCom draws lots of stuff in the sand, some of it sticks, some of it melts. RyanP was poised on action, the Arb decision was there to back him up, the patent evidence was there - now we're getting on to several MB more server space without resolution, and many are focussed on the sock allegation and NFCC, which are far from the point. However, events are lately pointing toward a resolution, which is encouraging. "Mene mene", right? :) Franamax (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This definitely isn't about the sock issue (and definitely not NFCC, that's sooooo two months ago), it's about the overall effect his actions have had, and his totally unapologetic attitude (in fact I can't think of a time during this whole situation where he's apologized for his behavior, only that he's tried to skew discussion towards unblocking his bot, his alt and returning to a mostly business-as-usual status). "Mene mene" indeed. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 06:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It looks like the only thing ArbCom has done in the sand was to piss its name in Chinese characters: very impressive at first glance, but in the long run useless. ArbCom instructions are useless when ignoring them goes unpunished. Betacommand has ignored just about everything he could possible ignore. Bullzeye's description of Betacommand is the best I've ever come across: "a nuclear powered icebreaker with the throttle stuck on Flank and the Captain asleep in his cabin with his iPod on and a GO AWAY sign on the door." A ecis^Brievenbus 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal, along with the rest of this recent Betacommand drama, strikes me as an extreme case of overreaction. I too was taken aback by the sudden revelations everywhere that BC was sockpuppeting, since malicious sockpuppetry by anyone is completely inexcusable - but then I read into it for myself and found that his "puppetry" was limited to a single alternate account that had only crossed paths with his main one once? Please, let's just calm down and let this small incident pass. krimpet✽ 23:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Betacommand is blatantly violating the ArbCom remedies from Betacommand 2, and you believe this is an "overreaction"? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would support individual escalating blocks for continued incivility, but this proposal is far too draconian for my taste. Incivility needs to be stopped, but this sort of response is out of proportion to the offense at hand. I would support sanctions, just not this sanction. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Ugh...More overreaction. Looking at it, I guess I am not surprised. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, clearly overreaction, the community was expecting far too much by thinking he would abide by the Betacommand 2 remedies. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question A few days ago I proposed one week, and some people thought it absurdly short and others thought it absurdly long. I propose it again as a basis for discussion. DGG (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was noted above (or on what has forked onto a separate page) that BC has communication difficulties. He tends to do the more drama-prone jobs around here, compounding any communication difficulties which may exist. I'd suggest that none of the commentators here would be able to comport themselves any better than BC has done, if they were to be placed under the same workload as him. We shouldn't be aiming to get rid of Beta, but more to provide him with more support. Much as we appear loath to refer to ourselves as such, we are a community and we need to care of one another, indeed more than we do already. We don't kick people out of the fold for being imperfect. Martinp23 23:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This, by the way, is complete nonsense. If someone were somehow forcing him to work in this area, it might be valid, but he chose this work. If he knows he can't handle drama well, it's his responsibility to find areas that he can competently work in. His failure to do so only indicates that the problem is indeed him. Friday (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sam Korn solution

I strongly disagree with this action. As in strongly. While I won't call it precipitous (for fear of causing death through hilarity among certain members of the community), I will call it unnecessary. I totally agree without the slightest hesitation that concrete remedies are necessary. I would imagine them to function along the lines of these:

Betacommand is not permitted to run bots
Running bots should be a position of trust. It is plain that Betacommand does not have that trust. Criticism of his bot work has frequently unheeded and met with incivility. This is not good enough. Betacommand has no right to run bots. Any unauthorised bot activity should be met with blocking. I would suggest a minimum of a week.
Betacommand is placed upon civility parole
Betacommand's response to criticism has been totally unacceptable and must change. Any incivility should be met with an appropriate block. I would suggest that a month should be the outside; I do not expect anything less than three days to be the minimum. Unblocking should only be done with great care: I would be horrified if people continued to think that Betacommand can get away with incivility after the events of the last few days.

I don't see the point of a restriction on the use of alternate accounts. If they are abusive, that is already covered. Abuse would include attempting to evade the restrictions of this kind of decision. If they are not abusive, and Betacommand manages to get to a point where he has an account that is not identified with him and behaves acceptably, all the more power to him.

I feel this kind of set of provisions would be more useful than the considerably blunt instrument of a ban. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his defiance of the BAG ruling related to the nature of his bot's messages, his continued abuse of bot privileges on multiple accounts, and continued incivility, this is also an acceptable sanction. MBisanz ^talk 23:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap anything else I've said - Sam proposes an unacceptable solution, but it's better than all the alternatives. Churchill would approve. Franamax (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. DGG (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Support It seems like there's a new thread about BC's behaviour, civility, unauthorized bots, and now sock puppets? His supporters continually say he's being provoked..but that's the problem. If he could control his temper we wouldn't be here. An angry response to a stupid comment is never acceptable. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sam Korn's version. Escalating and calculated sanctions are what are needed here, not a 3-month ban... Sam's sanctions (no bots, civility parole) is perfectly reasonable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll never agree on a complete ban. Forbidding Betacommand to run bots may be acceptable for a week, but a lot of people think that some tasks of BCB are very useful. I propose this as a longer-term alternative :
- Betacommand is forbidden from bot tasks on any account except Betacommandbot.
- All the tasks of Betacommandbot must be BAG-approved.
- Betacommand is on civility restriction.

For, say, three months, then see how it works and discuss again. Cenarium (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also support Sam Korn's proposal, but we should find an agreement on the duration. Cenarium (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am reminded of a conversation I had with Betacommand, in which he indicated he had a special relationship with the WMF and/or developers. He indicated that this special relationship permitted him to be granted SUL accounts for him and his bot, among other undescribed privileges, despite not having an admin flag on any WMF wikis. I therefore contemplate if there is an existing WP:OFFICE or m:Developers ruling that would prevent the community from stopping Betacommand's operation of his bot. If an authorized individual could respond to this comment, indicating whether or not the community has the authority to impose such sanctions, it would help clear up this situation. MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as being a bit too extreme here. However, Support Sam Korn's proposal - Alison ^❤ 00:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with regard to BCB's useful tasks: it is incumbent on the community to identify the BCB tasks with attention to mission-critical and other tasks and effectively "de-task" BCB with preferably open-sourced alternatives. This would at least defuse the argument over how important the bot is. Franamax (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Carnildo, his tasks are not significant or important, and even if they were, I disagree that his contributions are somehow relevant in the clear violation of policy. Even Betacommand says his bot won't be performing any tasks for the next thirty days, so a bot restriction wouldn't do much. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm fine with the botops being un-needed, if some relevant authority would confirm that, so much the better. If indeed all BCB tasks are redundant, then BCB should under the circumstances be permanently blocked. If BC wishes to resume botops (which is not evil, a lot of people/projects come to him for help), then there should be some clear parameters, such as defined tasks amd separate bot names for clearly separate tasks, rather than the loosey-goosey "my code is too complex for you to understand" status-(no longer)-quo. But let's quantify where exactly BC/BCB is too valuable to block and eliminate those roadblocks. Then we can address the actions of this editor of themselves. Franamax (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "civility parole" part of Sam Korn's proposal is reminding me of Roman legal history where the most unobeyed laws are the most restated. Besides normal wikipedia civility rules, he's already been placed under further civility restrictions by ArbCom. Unless I am misreading the date, this was only last month. Recommend restating to "Betacommand may actually have to adhere to his civility parole and some related wikipedia policies". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with fire - I support the community ban. Enough is enough. Not only was it proven he violated 3RR with his sockpuppet, but the fact that he has virtually ignored the issue is repulsive. Thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread involving BC also amounts to disruption of the project. I for one am tired of the "Defend Betacommand At All Costs Cabal" and it must end now. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 00:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a 3 month ban is an overreaction. Sam Korn's idea works for me. naerii - talk 00:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes us think he'll change this time? He's been to arbcom twice and it's had little if any affect. If Sam's proposal is adopted, it has to be his absolute last chance; if that doesn't work, I won't hesitate to support a ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Hesperian 00:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe Beta's work is quite irreplaceable, a line needs drawing. I'm in favour of Sam's proposal; Beta currently doesn't have the community's trust to run a bot. However, I think, he demonstrates that he can be trusted after three months, I don't see why not to give him back his bot privileges. The biggest issue here is the incivility; if you treat others with respect, they'll treat you the same. And if they don't but you do, they'll get blocked for disruption/incivility/harassment. Maxim_(talk) 01:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sam Korn's version. Enough is enough. ➪HiDrNick! 01:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nothing will happen here. BC has deserved a ban for a long time. But even if the community coalesces around a long block, or an outright ban, one of his bodyguards will overturn it unilaterally. It always happens. Why should this time be any different? Bellwether ^B _C 01:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you always have to assume an evil cabalist will always do something you won't like? Evaluate the situation without flamethrowing towards someone who supports Beta. Frankly, your communications aren't exactly better than his. Maxim_(talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support your assertion that my communications are no better than BC's or retract it. It's ludicrous on its face. There's no need to "assume" anything. It's evident that BC has bodyguards that ride to his rescue every time he faces any sanction for his actions. Bellwether ^B _C 01:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just proved my point. You're making unfounded accusations again... Seriously, why can't you be nice to Beta for a change? Trust me, he'll be nice too. Maxim_(talk) 12:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sam Korn's version. I would support a bot ban for a year. It's not a basic human right be allowed use of a bot. Allow him to only use his main account. And have him on civility probation, although I don't think that will stick... --Pesco (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely positively hell no to the community ban. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sam Korn's version. I'd like to note, however, that the vast majority of the previous complaints about Betacommand have been either people unhapppy with our image deletion policies (which is not Betacommand's fault), people unhappy with the way the bot works, or people unhappy at Betacommand's incivility. Has anyone in the BC lynch mob forming here had any issues with incivility from the now-blocked alternate account? BC is stuck in an awkward position, only part of which is of his own doing. He cannot turn over a new leaf (because he'll be blocked if he uses a sock) and he can't escape the past because of a group of users who will not let go of the past. Horologium (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just want to note that Betacommand has already stated that he will not use BetacommandBot for a month, except for one specific, uncontroversial task. See that statement here. I've spoken to BC about this and he said he does indeed have a list of tasks that he will hold off on, for this thirty day period. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A ban of a user who has contributed much in the past seems a bit cruel and draconian. --Sharkface^T/_C 01:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that the value of an editors contributions allows him to violate personal attack and sockpuppet policies (amongst others)? That's a slippery slope that nobody should want to go down, but I keep seeing that attitude in discussions about Betacommand and his behavior. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: Blah. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full ban, support Sam Korn's version. It's important for us to remember that blocks and bans should be preventative, rather than punitive--a major point brought up during the initial blocking was that Betacommand has a number of high-speed editing tools at his disposal. By banning the use of these tools for a reasonable amount of time, we ensure that the community has sufficient time to discuss their further use. While I personally have no reason to think that Betacommand is anything but sincere in his offer to refrain from bot editing, the fact that a full-on ban is being seriously discussed tells me that we need something a little more formal in nature. --jonny-m t 01:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sam Korn's version of it. Something has to be done. Enigma ^message 01:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the burning with fire of any plan which would prohibit a user who participates only in bot work from operating bots, and then masquerade itself as a less harsh alternative than an all out ban. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 01:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you also support encouraging said user to make substantive article-space contributions on his own initiative, in areas of his own interest, by manual means? If so, I'll help as best I can. The sole focus of anyone on Wikipedia shouldn't be just to make the computers run faster. Franamax (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose :| CWii is not pleased. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'll support graduated remedys here. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He technically can't be banned now, so let's just concentrate on Sam Korn's remedy. Wizardman 02:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - overreaction Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of Sam Korn's remedy? Franamax (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This goes on and on and on. Betacommand hasn't shown any self discipline and inspite of his contributions he needs to understand that, like everyone else, he has to respect the rules and other users. Instead he has a long track record of repeatedly breaking the rules and abusing others as he sees fit. That his work has made him a target is no excuse - he should have expected that going in and found more appropriate means to repsond. It seems like nothing applies to this guy and his bot work is a perpetual get of jail free card. Otherwise, someone might just want to get down to it and start work on WP:ßcommand immunity and just lay down some policy that makes it plain that he can do whatever he wants, to whoever he wants, however he wants to do it without fear of sanction or all kinds of wasted discussion. His behaviour is consistently appalling. It is fundamental that the folks who enforce the rules have to follow the rules themselves or face the consequences. Wiggy! (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of Sam Korn's remedy? Franamax (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn we deleted CSN so that we could have discussions here and not do votes for banning. Silly me. I oppose the ban. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of Sam Korn's remedy? Franamax (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sam Korn's remedy Community banning Betacommand is an overreaction. There are specific problems with Betacommand's behaviour that can be addressed with the proposed remedy and I'm pretty damn sure there is an admin willing to unblock anytime so community banning won't work. If you want him banned you'll need to convince ArbCom to do so. EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sam Korn's remedy. A complete ban would just polarize things more, as Betacommand's defenders would go to even greater lengths to find him a way out, but Sam's remedy is reasonable, appropriate to the situation, and has a chance of resolving the issues. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counting here with my trusty hacksaw, support = 3; oppose = 6; comment/indeterminate = 6; Sam Korn = 16. No consensus maybe, but a pretty clear preference. All figures +/- 4, 95% of the time. Franamax (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC) If anyone disputes my count, please comment and do not change my signed statement, thanks, or just do your own count, thanks. Franamax (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Absolutely not. We've already been over this, and BC hasn't even remotely violated WP:SOCK. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you missed the proof? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 05:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At best you have proof that BC was edit warring and breaking the 3RR, but the use of the other account is obviously a mistake. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand says it was a mistake. The things that Betacommand says to avoid scrutiny are not always true. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC with allstar, response to ned scott)I'm not sure this is about a single incident, but rather a pattern of behavior over a long period of time. For the record, I don't believe that there has been any sockpuppetry here at all, but the pattern of incivility needs to be addressed and remediated... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to addressing those concerns, but the proposals in this thread are based on the SOCK accusations. That is what I am opposing. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, because one thing he did wasn't bad enough for you, he should be forgiven for all the others? His violating 3RR with a hidden sock doesn't bother me as much as his violating his ArbCom restrictions with a run of thousands of unapproved, disruptive bot edits on his own account, or any of the frequent uncivil and disruptive edits he has made in the past year. I'd say it's pretty clear that Sam's remedy is mostly about his misuse of bots, not his sockpuppeteering. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposing Sam's remedy. I take no comment (for the time being) on how to handle the bot issues and the civility. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns Ned, but please look at MB's RFArb subpage where he clearly documents that BC had his rollback revoked on one account and then proceeded to deceive the RFR admins into granting it for his other sock. If that isn't abusive sockpuppetry, I don't know what is. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose, WTF? Locke Cole had conflicts with BC in the past, he shouldn't be the one who propses the ban. Sam Korn's propsal makes some sense, but was made at the wrong time, because many people seem to support is as an alternative of outright banning, not because they really feel like that. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 05:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When I say I support Sam Korn's remedy, I mean I support Sam Korn's remedy. I imagine this is is the case for the others as well. Anyone who supports Sam's remedy in preference to a ban but would actually prefer no sanction at all is free to say so. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Such effect doesn't need to be conscious, in fact, we may see an example of Good cop/Bad cop effect. (I don't mean that Sam and Locke are acting together, but a softer proposal as alternative of a harsher one will always make such psychological effect, and I feel that even Sam's proposal is too much, although something certainly needs to be done). MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well nobody else seems to be willing to step up to the plate and propose something with teeth. As you can see at the subpage discussion there was consensus that something should be done, though unfortunately it seems I overestimated the support for something that might actually get his attention. May I remind everyone that he's been grossly incivil (long after ArbCom "instructed" him to be civil), that he's abused a sockpuppet to evade 3RR (now you can take that two ways: 1) it was an accident, in which case he shouldn't have gone on to revert a fourth time and keep his alt a secret, or 2) it was malicious, in which case the reaction we should have should be obvious, but in either case, his use of that alt account was very inappropriate, and his attitude since then (unapologetic, wishing to brush it all under the rug seemingly) should not be tolerated or encouraged. Anyways, yeah, I'm involved, but something needs to be done with clear instructions on the results if he fails to abide by whatever is chosen (not vague references to "escalations", spell it out). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: We shall have no conspiring with the Forces of Darkness.--Hu12 (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there were sanctions proposed in the original thread that were far more appropriate as are those that Sam proposed above. Mr.Z-man 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He's been given far too many chances already. Everyking (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sam Korn's version, but oppose a complete community ban. The second would be an overreaction. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either version. This has dragged on far too long. Leithp 06:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not going to bold my stuff, cuz votin is evil and all that, but.. WTF? There's a lot of folks who believe that a 1 week block was more then necessary, considering it wasn't actually sockpuppeting, but one mistaken edit.... and now we're going for a "community" ban, or other significant restrictions, with no further mistakes by BC? Are we going Argumentum Ad Nauseum here? Seriously? SirFozzie (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the 3-month proposal due to repeated gross incivility, marginal sockpuppetry, disruption and abuse of bots. —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did not violate WP:SOCK "marginally", or at all. I have no comment on the other rationales you've presented. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I didn't explain that well - I mean, given that Beta was already "in a hole", on ANI every other pico-second (a splendid phrase I borrowed from White Cat!) and on an ArbCom civility ruling that was clearly being broken, running a separate account without at least notifying ArbCom, privately, was a dumb idea, really. Beta must have known that if/when he made a mistake such as he did, it would be looked down on pretty badly. —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He did violate WP:SOCK, he used an undisclosed alternate account to evade violating WP:3RR. This is a violation of WP:SOCK. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sam Korn's version, or at the very least a "bot parole": any rapid editing except that which has been explicitly approved by the Bot Approvals Group is grounds for blocking. He's had far too long a history of unapproved and disruptive bot-like editing. --Carnildo (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sam Korn option. Betacommand has been given numerous "don't do it again"s for more than a year, and has systematically disregarded any criticism. His bots are now giving no real benefit to the project, only problems (messing up articles, adding large numbers of edits which then need to be reverted), and we have plenty of bot coders who actually can handle people and follow the rules. Betacommand therefore should not run any bots ever again. That said, I am concerned that this community decision will just end up amounting to nothing. His unapproved DEFAULTSORT bot violated an arbcom ruling only two months old, so how is he going to react to any conditions set forth by mere editors, whom he considers to be trolls and drama queens? Also, given past events, I see it as highly likely that any blocks instituted for violating the conditions will be summarily undone within hours. But I am willing to give it a try. Is he back? (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (god I am so tired of these two), I disagree with the findings of facts above. I have no opinion on Sam's proposal (I have mixed feelings about it). -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sam Korn's proposal. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blocking Betacommand. Support banning him from operating bots, either on other accounts (ie, BC2 and BCBot need to be blocked) or on his main account. Neıl 龱 08:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ban, but only because it's never gonna happen; thus, support the Korn Plan. However, sad to say, Sam's proposal can be translated at its core into "The community will now tell Betacommand that we really, really, REALLY mean it this time, and we're NOT kidding. Don't MAKE us turn this Wikipedia around...." We'll find ourselves heading back here soon, I'm afraid, wagging our multiple megabytes of discussion behind us...Gladys J Cortez 09:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I don't think that's true. As far as I'm concerned, my suggestions would mean that Betacommand would not be running bots at all in the foreseeable future. Not just "only uncontroversial bots" -- no bots, no bot flags, no running bots on the main account. That is one of the major problems with Betacommand's editing. As to the incivility point -- the existing remedies have no teeth. This proposal has teeth and I for one would be outraged if people continued undoing blocks of Betacommand without very good reason. I don't see why the options have to be go ahead and do what you like and extreme ban with a kick as you go through the door. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify my concern (and please excuse my snark of last night--no more editing after bedtime for me!): Beta has been told--in a freaking ArbCom decision, for Pete's sake, which (even if the findings and remedies haven't any teeth, like in this case) generally amounts to AT LEAST a wake-up call for the individual on the receiving end to alter his/her behavior immediately--to only run bots acceptably; to act civilly, to do A, not to do B. If THAT hasn't stopped him, I question what will--especially since he seems to hold sway over the BAG.. Sam, I think your plan is by far the best-constructed option made available to the community, but I just don't trust that Beta won't find a loophole somehow. Gladys J Cortez 15:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    - Eternal optimism is good for the soul ;-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the Korn plan - no involvement with bots - either running them or as part of BAG. Viridae ^Talk 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Betacommand has himself already 'banned' his bot for any tasks except two uncontroversial, that is enough. I am again stating, I believe he is helpful (at least in the way I have always communicated with him). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do it SKorn's way. An outright ban is just not appropriate here... I think BC's intentions are good, but his communication difficulties often make this hard to see. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose even thouigh we love drama, this has gone way to far. _→AzaToth 12:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be an arbcom action. Lynchmobs of whoever shows up are not how we determine whether or not someone may edit. I think the time has come that despite his outstanding work with non-free images, Betacommand is too much of a liability. But a neutral arbitration committee needs to make that decision. --B (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No bloody way! Betacommand has done far more good than harm. He is no longer on the front line of the fair use management, and is going to stay away from BAG and bot policy. Any ban would be because of past issues. Yes, the community really means it this time; but we do not need to demand a pound of flesh to prove we mean it. If in a month he has kept breaking community expectations, it can be sent to arbcom for review. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but how many times do we have to keep saying "if in a month"? I've ran out of "if in a month"s long ago and have had to take out a mortgage on new ones - and the economy has gone to hell so all these new "in in a month"s are losing value every day that passes. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 13:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through everything tomorrow and get all my facts up to date but for the moment Oppose --Chris 13:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The total bot ban in Sam Korn's version. I don't know that the civility patrol will actually accomplish anything, but it might in theory help. I'd prefer not to go to a total ban, but I would prefer a total ban over allowing Betacommand to continue running bots as he has been doing. GRBerry 13:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any sort of ban, or bot restriction (which in Betacommand's case amounts to the same thing). I think the community's treatment of him is pretty shabby considering the invaluable work he has done for the project in the past. Protestations aside, I don't think this conversation would be taking place if Betacommand hadn't stepped up to do the Foundation's dirty work in regards to image tagging, and he's become the scapegoat for everyone who disagreed with either the policies or the methods. Kelly ^hi! 13:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A big troutslap to those who continue to defend BC's childish and disruptive nonsense. If you don't want to be involved in solving this problem, so be it, but get out of the way of those who are willing to try. He's had myriad chances- the only thing we know for sure is that he's unable or unwilling to behave like a reasonable adult. So, our only recourse is to forcably minimize his involvement here. The details of how we do this aren't very important, as long as that's what we're trying to do. Friday (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC) PS. Sam's specific plan seems reasonable to me, but good luck keeping BC's little fan club from unblocking him. This will amount to a re-vote any time he's blocked.. a really awful solution, but probably better than any of the others than have been thought of, as pointed out above. Friday (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the Kornplan, though I do have doubts about the willingness of some admins to respect any community-agreed sanction with regard to Betacommand. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support a community ban lasting at least three months. Betacommand has a long history of assumptions of bad faith, newbie-biting, incivility, personal attacks, drama and abuse of automated tools. Contrary to what some claim, Quercus basaseachicensis is indeed an abusive sockpuppet. A week after Betacommand had his rollback privileges revoked due to abuse, he requested and was granted rollback rights on the Quercus basaseachicensis account; he also used both accounts to edit war on a policy page and violated 3RR. Lesser measures, such as those proposed by Sam Korn, will not work. Betacommand continues to be incivil and abuse tools despite the recent arbitration case concerning his conduct and almost all blocks of him or his bot are quickly reversed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support KoЯn. Would people please stop saying BC is irreplacable! He is just as disposable as the next editor. Also, there are quite a few people who believe his image work is not helpful, but rather lazy disruption because many of the images could be fixed if he {{sofixit}}'d them. His default sorts shit was the final straw for many, and I agree. No more bots, he can edit and do good work like everyone else. Just because a task is tedious doesn't mean that special care shouldn't be used when doing it. It would serve him well to see how much time and effort normal people have to go through. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sam Korn's plan, makes sense. However, oppose a community ban, there is no need for any chickens without their heads here. BetaCommand has taken a lot of flak for his imagebots and the work they do, and everyone here is human. Although, BC has been given lots of chances: I feel that it should be made very clear that this is the last chance that the community will give him. BC's bots can be run by anyone, and he should not feel that doing valuable work gives him immunity. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:44, May 19, 2008 (UTC)
Support Enough is enough. Betacommand has shown repeatedly that he doesn't respect our policies and believes himself above the law. He does nothing that can't be done by someone else-- indeed, a number of such replacements for his bot were produced during the last arbcom case concerning him. No man here is indispensable. The fact that he recieves some flak is no excuse for his ongoing deplorable conduct. I would also support a community ban for some of his vocal supporters-- people who insist there should be exceptions to policy because WP:ILIKEHIM are of questionable value to the project. Jtrainor (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm no fan of BetaCommand or his bot but starting some kind of witch hunt against editors who support him and suggesting they should be banned for expressing an opinion that differs from yours is a draconian idea. Exxolon (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ban. Neutral to Sam Korn's. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 16:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sam Korn sanctions. Last chance only. Rudget (Help?) 17:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not convinced yet. Garion96 (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sam Korn Remedy generally, but with a view to unblocking the bot as soon as is practicable or necessary. We do need to experience whether we can live without the bot, but should not deny the appropriate use of the tool even if it were found not to be essential. WP's relationship with the bot and its use may also provide Betacommand with a new perspective regarding his standing in the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sam Korn, even though I believe it to be a Big Waste of Time. Any resolution that begins with "Community" anything, whether it end with "ban", or "sanctions", or "solution", or whatever, will fail. As long as he is doing "important work", there will never be consensus to enforce any community solution. --Kbdank71 20:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Korn's proposal appears reasonable to me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sam Korn Solution - this seems the most surgical option available to us. I don't think anyone who fully understands the history of this situation can argue that Beta can ever really be trusted to run a bot again. His pledge to only do "mundane" tasks is pure Crambe bis cocta, and frankly, I feel a bit insulted by his tone. Since when has "Fine, whatever...I'll stop doing whatever the hell it is you're mad about for awhile, alright? Ya happy now?" been an acceptable rationale for a user staring down a community ban? Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 06:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - Just to clarify, the "writing on the wall" reference referred to the silent but inevitable downfall that often awaits a user if they dare to imperiously tip some ancient Wiki-Deity's favorite cow. Based on the number of Reject votes given without any pretense of explanation, I'd say he's about a medium-sized one. Note also that this isn't a statement on his character, merely his status in the community. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 06:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sam Korn Solution - This seems reasonable enough to me. A ban may be unnecessary at this stage. The main problem lies with his bot, so we should be looking at remedies to that rather than banning Betacommand himself at this stage. .:Alex :. 16:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sam Korn solution but oppose a community ban. I have had concerns about BC's behaviour for a while, and expressed those at the RfAr and elsewhere, but am convinced he is a good faith user with serious issues rather than a malintentioned user. The socking issue in and of itself was a red herring in my view. Orderinchaos 17:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

There is clearly no consensus for a community ban. Rather than people continuing to "support" or "oppose" the initial proposal for a community ban, we should be moving forward on the issue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no support for a community band. There is substantial support for limiting Betacommand's automated edits. I've already blocked Betacommand's bot account to enact a set of sanctions proposed by Durova that are compatible with the first part of Sam Korn's proposal. A ninety day break from running a bot seems like a reasonable compromise, let us figure a way to fairly review Betacommand's actions during this period and decide how to give him a chance to re-implement bot tasks afterward in an uncontroversial and error-proof way. If successful, we may retain a prolific bot operator and allow ill-will to subside on both sides of the debate. The civility parole may be moot as all editors are expected to maintain a respectful tone in their on-wiki correspondence at the risk of being blocked for profane insults and other childish behavior. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

the civility part is not moot, as the "general expectation" doe snot seem to have accomplished anything. The point of it is to give a warning to beta that he is not exempt from it, and that a final warning has been given. Yes, it should be unnecessary, but experience seems to show otherwise.DGG (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I only meant to say that the danger of being blocked for gross incivility is a no-brainer. The concept of "civility parole" seems redundant given the circumstances. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think civility parole, at least when used by arbcom, is generally taken to mean "no warning necessary" - that any uninvolved admin can issue a short block if he is uncivil. Mr.Z-man 20:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice to say I wasn't clear on the process entailed by civility parole and I agree wholeheartedly with its intent. Thanks to you both for the elaboration :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'd support a community band. It could be called "Anetode and the Beta Blockers". I'll play drums. :) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Durova's suggestions are sensible, though I do not see the need for the account restriction. That seems nothing short of vindictive. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, if you're going to call my proposal vindictive in public, please give the courtesy of a heads up. It isn't helpful when someone of your standing posts such negative speculation. Fortunately other people haven't picked up on the tone, but in a heated discussion such as this one there's a distinct possibility of it being taken the wrong way. Durova^Charge! 22:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I phrased that really badly. I am certainly not saying that your proposal or the desire to restrict Betacommand's accounts is rooted in vindictiveness -- it was a terrible choice of words and I apologise for it. I was trying to say that it disputed that the accounts have been used abusively (certainly there was no intent to do so) and therefore that the proposal to restrict the accounts seem more rooted in general emotions towards Betacommand than in necessity. I would, however, urge anyone to follow MBisanz's advice below. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several users objected to account restrictions on similar grounds. Right now the Quercus basaseachicensis and BetacommandBot accounts are blocked, Betacommand and Betacommand2 are not. Since both proposals require an end to bot runs, I don't see any reason to unblock BetacommandBot and the Quercus account is still under some amount of controversy. Surely two accounts (including one for use on public computers and rc patrol applications) are enough. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sam is leaving open the door that Betacommand, could, if he wanted to, exercise his RTV and start a new account, unconnected to his former activities. My opinion would be that if he did so, he would need to stop using the Betacommand account, per WP:SOCK:

If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner. By "discontinue", it is suggested that the old account is noted as being inactive, in order to prevent the switch being interpreted as an attempt to abusively sock puppet.

MBisanz ^talk 20:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious. The Korn Solution is running at nearly 2:1 support. Let's not squeltch the discussion here prematurely. ➪HiDrNick! 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't think much will come out of this discussion. However, I think it is very fair to say that there is wide support for (a) placing BetaCommand on civility parole and (b) giving him less leeway even if that means being harsher with him than with the average user. There was little made of the block he received on April 22nd, just a few days after the end of the arbitration case. Not only was the block lifted inappropriately soon, it was also lifted despite BetaCommand's absolute refusal to admit he'd done anything wrong. Sure, anytime BetaCommand slips up, all the people he's aggravated over the years want him to go down but, hey, that's the hand he's been dealt and it's not like he's got no responsibility in this. So if you're BetaCommand, no alternate account for you, no quick unblock for any civility-related block, no reverts except in cases of blatant vandalism, no putting yourself in conflict situations. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well he's aggravated me, & I don't have a strong desre to see him go down. I just want him to act more civil & be more careful with his automated edits. (And if he did so, maybe Carcharoth would find the time to do less stressful things than constantly mediate this ongoing forest fire.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem - competence

As someone wrote above, "There is substantial support for limiting Betacommand's automated edits." Yes. Whether or not there is a community ban, this editor should not be running 'bots. As a programmer, he's just not good enough and nowhere near cautious enough. For his latest botched effort, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry#Current block status. He was trying to undo some damage he did with a previous bot, and tried to use a self-modified version of AWB to do it. His modified version was buggy, but by his own count, he did 144 edits with it without noticing that he was creating bogus edit summaries. His edit history does not show him trying any edits with his new program on a sandbox article or something in his own user space; he just started editing live articles.

It's this lack of caution that's the real problem. This can be trained out of beginning programmers, but this editor has been making mistakes like this for several years now and doesn't seem to be improving. So he should probably be making them somewhere else. The cleanup costs are too high here. --John Nagle (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not using bad software, so please stop the attacks and insults saying I was. I was looking that the edit summary function of AWB, because I find it annoying that it always appends that to the edit summary. it was not buggy software but rather a typo in the edit summary. I was examining every edit that I made and there where no problems with the edits, just a minor typo in the edit summary. β^_command 13:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, really. It's "annoying", so you disable it. It couldn't possibly be there for a good reason. Rules are for other people. --Random832 (contribs) 14:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no where does it say that edit summaries made by the tool requires that using WP:AWB is in the edit summaries. In fact there is an option avaialble for bots that allows that to be turned off. Also AWB is released under a GPL license which allows others to modify the code at their will. so Im not sure what "rules" Im violating. β^{_{command 2}} 14:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably no rules beta, just common sense. Non-sensical edit summaries are not helpfull, especially not 144 of them before you even realise you made a mistake. MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could swear we've had this conversation before... I don't object to Betacommand's work but he has shown no will to let others help him fix his bot or even acknowledge that the bot has problems that one simply wouldn't accept in any mission-critical software. The closest we got to something that looked like co-operation was when he explained how it works but he never accepted our offer to help him fix the bot. That said, those who are making a career out of continuously baiting him and pushing his buttons shouldn't feel too safe either. The way I got him to finally explain what his bot does from a programming point of view was by changing my attitude and be nice to him. Unfortunatey it wasn't enough. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes all bots do make mistakes, but I fix all the bugs that are brought to my attention (the few that popped up). I may have not implimented every feature request, but I dont like giving extreamly powerful code to just anyone. β^{_{command 2}} 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you put a lot of work into this and try to help out where no one else would but when you make a mistake like this which really boils down to you not spending enough time hacking the code to figure out why it still left half of the edit summary you wanted to remove it really doesn't look good in the eyes of others. I've tried this out myself Betacommand, it isn't hard to do if you just spend the extra minutes it takes and look what it is doing before you make over 100 edits. You can do this on a test wiki without much hassle. Can you see why this was unwise? EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the refusal to share, I would state that John Nagle is not just anyone. He's someone with significant programming experience which includes, among other things, major contributions to fundamental TCP/IP functionality which we all take for granted today. I suggest that his criticism of your programming methods is spot on. Furthermore, should he think it helpful, I would suggest that he be given full access to all of your source code in order to evaluate its suitability. If you won't take advice from the community, at least take advice from a genuine expert. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here we have the great myth: That your code (rather than, say, your ego) is extremely powerful. I could probably code a bot in a day that could make 100 edits per minute or more. Those edits would likely be page blankings, but still. Being able to edit quickly is not something that code has to be "powerful" to do. --Random832 (contribs) 14:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi

A community ban exists when no administrator is willing to unblock. I am willing to undo any indefinite block on Betacommand. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me also. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fine, because then the editor is simply indef blocked until there is a consensus to unblock. In this instance, should any admin unblock against consensus I would re-impose the block, block the admin, and open a RfAR to have the admin desysopped. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. The point is not that I am threatening to wheel war over a block (and I know you're not either). The point is that a community ban on BC is not possible because there are admins who are willing to unblock - thus nullifying a community-imposed ban. If a ban is wanted, Arbcom will have to impose it. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I got the point - BC cannot be community banned because there are those who would be willing to undo the block (but will not because were there is not yet consensus to do so). I was making clear that, following previous misunderstandings, that non-consensus to ban is not consensus to unblock. In what appears to be developing into a potentially divisive matter I was attempting to draw a clear line over what actions admins might be able to take in pursuit of their position in the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting, for the record, that Betacommand's main account is not currently blocked. [11] ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, yes, but we are talking about how the community may act in trying to resolve the problem (after gaining consensus there is in fact a problem) regarding BC. As you say, and last time I checked the wording was such, that a community ban is broken as soon as there is one admin that is willing to unblock. Unlike some other correspondents below, I feel that the above is a timely comment that stops the community enacting such a ban because it is immediately invalidated. The community can therefore decide to enact a block for a length of time or for an indefinite period, which is then open for anyone to try to form a new consensus to get it lifted. This is appropriate. However, if anyone is sufficiently emBOLDened by the non-consensus to enact a ban to attempt to lift any agreed block before a consensus (created over days rather than hours, and a range of opinions rather than the first few agreeing respondents) then there should - and will, if I consider it appropriate - be consequences. If, per the statements by Demon and Redvers, there cannot be a ban then we are left with discussing if and what type of block is considered appropriate, and the result of that discussion is not invalidated by the actions or opinions of just one (or a few) admin(s). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these disruptive admins are indeed a problem. Thank you for identifying yourselves. Do you care to explain why you have a particular user you would unblock regardless of the circumstances? This is quite a surprising and bold statement to make. Friday (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I don't particularly care why. It's enough for me to know that a couple of admins would promise, before the fact, to actively interfere with admins in the performance of their duties. Would you guys mind resigning your tools in advance rather than wheel warring? Betacommand has been "untouchable" for a good while now, and we've gotten a good look at what this accomplishes. It's not pretty. So, it's time to try something else now. If you don't want to help, don't help, but don't get in the way, either. Friday (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say I "would unblock regardless of the circumstances"? Please point to where I said that. Go on. No? Also "If you don't want to help, don't help, but don't get in the way, either": don't threaten me, Friday - you're not entitled to bulldoze those who do not agree with you out of the way like that. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I interpret "I am willing to undo any indefinite block" incorrectly? That's what you were "me too"ing, right? I'm not trying to threaten anyone (with what?!?) but you're not entitled to interfere with those trying to solve an ongoing problem, either. Those who keep unblocking BC are a big part of the problem here. You've had plenty of time to try your "let him off no matter what" approach, and we can all see how well it works. Don't continue to be part of the problem. Friday (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider that some people might think your assertions above mean that if you're not part of this lynch mob, you're not welcome to be involved. Telling people who do not agree with you that they are interfering with what you are attempting to do is a travesty of our consensus government and you should be ashamed. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that Demon did not accurately paraphrase what we have writte on community ban. It sort of suggests that if just 1 admin out of 1,500+ would unblock a candidate, a community ban can never exist. This is not what the policy says. Rather, what I think Demon and Redvers are suggesting, is that there simply is not a consensus to impose a community ban, therefore if an admin imposed one, they would undo it. Correct me if I am wrong. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some confusion here with a de facto community ban, which exists when no admin is willing to unblock, as opposed to a community ban which is effected by consensus of the community? Franamax (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I agree with the application of the "I would unblock" rule in this situation. See my thoughts expressed in a lame graph here: http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/1953/banningza1.jpg Cheers, Daniel (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A community block is block that imposed per consensus of a majority of the Wikipedia community (I say majority because obviously not every user would participate or possibly be even aware of such a situation). That consensus imposes the block and cannot be lifted without another consensus to lift the block. Yes it works both ways, in case you weren't aware. As said above, just because one or two admins, out of however many hundreds or thousands there are, does not agree to the ban and is willing to unblock a user, that does not mean they can override the block or that it cannot indeed exist. That is not how consensus works. Here's a little bedtime reading that you might be interested in. .:Alex :. 16:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just all be exactly clear about this. What you demon and presumably Redvers are saying, that no matter the arguments made in discussions like this[12], you would always unblock beta. Why? Just put some thoughts here that illustrate why you would go against the well put and endorsed thoughts of Durova, just so we can adequately assess just how deadlocked the 'community' is with regards Beta and any further violations, because as sure as eggs is eggs, and based on his own actions and statements, change in his attitude or behaviour is not coming, and never will, and good will banked by NFCC tagging is being extended indefinitely. Similarly, any actual actionable incidents are clearly going to continually be treated in isolation despite repeat final warnings, as seen by the above proposal, and even worse, any subsequent blocks thus recieved are actualy watered down, rather than be increased, as happens with other persistent repeat offenders. Even even worse, people have completely ignored beta's apparent solution to all this, to dissapear, and run unapproved bots on user accounts. With comments like this section, I can only see one outcome, an extension of the second arbcom case to force the standards and expectations already stated, to actually be linked to real and descriptive consequences, and to take the issue of how to deal with beta out of the community's hands altogether. MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am an admin and I personally oppose a community ban (and at this stage anyway I seriously doubt one would get off the ground), I would make the general comment that in my view threats or indications of future action are unhelpful. If a process goes to the conclusion and people war it just because it meets their personal definition of "wrong" rather than some objective standard, they're making a rather big statement of how they see their own role with respect to the community, and how they see the community's expressed views. Regrettably I think it's going down the ArbCom road again, although what good it will do I have no idea given that we're still arguing over enforcing the last one. Orderinchaos 18:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of action was apparently down to no the case not having anything to 'enforce'. I requested clarification here [13], as well as at ANI at the time of a beta civility alert 5 days after the case closed, but there was no response to either. So the next step imo would be to extend case 2 to include enforcement, in light of beta's behaviour since the close of case 2. MickMacNee (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There being nothing to enforce provides something of a clue as to why the calls for enforcement aren't working. The "punishment first, verdict later" idea has little merit. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We all already know you think there is nothing to enforce, but this is simply not the case. In fact your repeated one line assertions and silly links in light of pages of contrary views only support the case being made that community action is no longer appropriate for dealing with anything beta does. MickMacNee (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the ArbCom set precedent [14] that a sufficiently large number of edits is more important than adhering to ArbCom restrictions. BetaCommand has a very large number of edits, thus restrictions do not apply to him. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request that betacommand updates his user pages

Right now, beta is prevented from doing anything but a few tasks with betacommandbot for 30 days, so I would request someone requests beta to change the large WP:BITEY boxes on top of his talk pages here User talk:BetacommandBot and here User talk:Betacommand, to actually reflect the current status. Their persistence there, despite beta not having done any image tagging for ages, might explain why some people in the above discussions were not even aware he has stopped doing this.

However, I would also point out, bar the current 30 day restriction, this appears to be by his own choice, and not through any official unapproval, [15]. Therefore, with a number of people proposing to monitor the bot's actions for this 30 day restriction, I would request that beta is also asked to update on the bot's user page User:BetacommandBot with what it is approved for for the 30 day period, and what it will still be approved for after that, i.e. an accurate summary of these pages [16] in regards to which he considers active and likely to be resumed after the 30 days. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable; I've always thought that they were a bit rude - but then I entered into dialogue with Beta :-) No, seriously, if they're BITey and inaccurate (worse, misleading), then they ought to come down pronto. That said, the bot info isn't essential to update IMO, that just creates un-necessary confusion.

I'm sure enough people are watching to make sure than no lines are overstepped, but I do

SuPpORt with a capital 's', 'p', 'o' and 'r' the removal of the nasty talkpage templates. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how about you take a look from my point of view, Im still getting questions that happen from edits BCBot made over a year ago. those notices clearly address 98% of all the common questions. Id rather not have to go back to being a broken record when those messages answer the questions. β^{_{command 2}} 20:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who promised to do image work in his RfA and then was foolish enough to do some, I can plainly and completely vouch for Beta here. The FAQ at the top of his talk page is required, is sensible and is useful. It will cut down vastly the number of complaints he gets - and he will still get them, even if he never touched an image for the rest of his life. Anyone who works with Wikipedia image problems knows that it gets you stupid complaints, ad hominem attacks, death threats, legal threats, email bombs and threats of banning from powerless twerps with nothing better to do. And you get them for the rest of time. And that's after you put up an FAQ. If you don't have one, you might as well pin a $50 bill on your ass and scream "victim here, victim here!". And there are plenty of people trying to do that to him already. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 20:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point actually; ongoing issues are... erm, ongoing. However, I do have some specific points to make. 1: "Read this talk page and its archives before registering your complaint" - it is unreasonable to realistically expect newbies who don't understand why they've been templated to read through over 50 pages of (let's face it) uninteresting dullness. 2: "I do not want to see images deleted" - asking for trouble; while I appreciate the point, it's going to cause more trouble than it's worth to say it! Could perhaps those points be actioned? —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the reason that #7 exists is because I always got those "you want all NFCC images deleted" messages, I dont want to see images deleted what I want is for all of our images to be compliant with policy, that means some will be fixed and others will need to be deleted, not delete all. As for the read the archives, at one point it pointed to a specific archive, not sure when/how that changed. as for your over 50 pages of (let's face it) uninteresting dullness the same could be said about our policy pages, people are still required to follow policy, even though its dull and uninteresting. β^_command 20:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but policy can be easily explained to a user if necessary, by templates or the first paragraph of the relevant policy page. If they require more technical details, then they can read deeper. Expecting users to wade through 50 pages of drivel before posting a simple (and tbh, frequently justified) question to a more experienced user, is totally unreasonable. What's more, no-one ever does. I bet you. Not one single four-day old account will have read each and every one of your talkpage archives - so why continue to have the notice there? —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be too long on my talk page, otherwise I would use the same (or similar) box. Especially since I am working again on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images and Wikipedia:Copyright problems. When dealing with copyright, you actually need something like that. Garion96 (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed about two since 1 April, from editors logging after months long absences from wiki, amongst what must be over a 100 non NFCC related queries. I seriously doubt these types of editors are ever assisted by the boxes, but more to the point I think you revel in the continued defence it allows, per Redvers above unsurprisingly, of your right to be incivil because you once chose to image tag, and the confusion in others as to whether you still do it. They always were a violation of BITE and POINT, but now they have no practical use they should be gone. MickMacNee (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment and question from a non-relevant user

Hi. I usually find little interest in cases from ANI, however this one got me quite interested, mainly due to the "size" of this debate/boxing match. I also looked up previous cases as well, such as this user's arbitration case for bot abuse. At this point, my question is: if this user was me and did not have all that power (or priviledge as many here like to call it), how long would it take to ban him? In other terms, would I, for example, be able to get away with this? Do you? ^yes...|_{or no} · 01:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you (or almost anyone else) be able to get away with incessant incivility, disruptive bot edits, sockpuppetry, biting newbies, running a bot on your main account without authorization, and repeating most of the above after an arbcom case told you not to? In a word: no. 166.128.57.118 (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That, sadly, is actually one of the clearest summaries I've seen of the problem. Orderinchaos 20:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've talked it to death...

...what, exactly, have we decided to DO??? Gladys J Cortez 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. What can be blocked is blocked and there are admins willing to unblock the main account so this needs to go back to ArbCom if you want him banned. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I, personally, want him banned; I just wanted to know what was the result of all that sound and fury.Gladys J Cortez 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was being unclear. I mean those advocating a ban. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration request has now been filed so nothing further is going to be achieved here. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem

By my highly unreliable count, in the above thread 66 editors made an indication of !voting. 48 commented on the ban, 40 on the Sam Korn solution, 20 on both. (I'll leave that discrepancy of two as an exercise for the reader). ;) Of the 48 commenting on the ban, 8 for, 36 against, 4 neutral - a pretty clear indication. Of the 40 commenting on Sam Korn's remedy, 34 for, 1 against, 5 neutral. I submit that the community has made its wishes clear. Sam has well expressed the community sentiment, combine that with Durova's earlier proposal, which also gained approval - there is a way forward which doesn't have to include ArbCom. Franamax (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator User:OhanaUnited

Few weeks ago I nominated my own image of a green turtle to be delisted because a better one was taken. Administrator OhanaUnited voted like this: "Keep. Wikipedia is not a place to advocate your personal views. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)".I was more then surprised because I could not understand what personal views I was advocating. So I asked him. Here's his response. Today I nominated the second image at Commons FP without delisting the first one.The image got opposed because the other image is already featured, so I left a message at Administrator OhanaUnited talk page.I hoped that he will admitt that I was right,when I tried to delist an old image in the first place and apologize for blaiming me in POV.His reaction was more than strange, but what has followed was even stranger.Administrator OhanaUnited has deleted my message from his talk page with the edit summary: cleaning out some garbage.He also protected his talk page from my editing, which IMO is using his administration power for a personal purposes.I understand that Administrator OhanaUnited has the right to blank his talk page.I do not believe Administrator OhanaUnited has the right to call my message a garbage.IMO administrators should be a sample of politeness and fairness.IMO Administrator OhanaUnited has none of these qualities and cannot be an administrator. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

though there is no reason not to have both images, and Ohana is right about that, the whole sequence of responses seems rather unhelpful to a contributor.DGG (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notified him. Ok, I'll admit that the protection seems a bit strange (full protection on a talk page?) but I want to see if he has an explanation for his comments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Ok, per this comment, OhanaUnited says "per his gut feeling", he thought Mbz1 was just trying to start an argument so he's going to ignore. Well, I guess that's an explanation, but I still don't like an admin full protecting their own talk page after a single comment from a user they don't want to talk to (I don't particularly like the "I will not respond to anonymous editors' comments. Go create an account!" on his talk page but that's for another time). I really expect better conduct out of fellow admins but I'm not sure it's sanctionable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my time to present my views. I chose to vote "Keep" that image as Featured picture because there's no guideline against having multiple images of the same subject. The image he attempted to replace with the already-featured is his own creation. Although there's no rule against being the nominator of your own image, but my gut feeling tells me he's trying to discredit someone else's picture so that his can showcase his image here. Also, at that time, his reason for demotion is "because I like this image better"[17]. Doesn't that statement looks like POV-pushing and falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It's totally his opinion and does not relate his decision to any technical aspect such as contrast, noise, composition, or focus. (Actually, this is a grey area. Neither the policies on commons nor wikipedia explicitly mention about allowing/disallowing multiple pictures of same object. However, the actual practice allow such occurance. For example: Image:Daisy1web.jpg and Image:Pollen.arp.750pix.jpg describe the same subject, Osteospermum, yet both are featured pictures. This proof, along with more, tells me that in Wikipedia, it's ok to have more than 1 featured picture on same subject. He even admitted this fact and found supporting evidence himself.[18] )

Then a month later, Mbz1 is upset at Commons regarding Featured pictures. He nominated the green turtle image that he took on Commons. Someone opposed his nomination because the same image Mbz1 attempted to replace with on FP on Wikipedia is already featured.[19] So Mbz1 came back to my talk page and dig up the argument that I thought it was over. Look at what he said.[20] He blamed me because he took my "advice" and nominated his image on Commons, which faced an opposition. Clearly, he's trying to find a culprit for being upset.

The reason why I removed the comment is because:

I am not the person who opposed Mbz1's nomination on Commons. It's another user. I am totally uninvolved in the Commons' nomination. I have no rights, nor the power, to change that user's mind.
It's on commons, not here, and they may have different criteria than wikipedia. He's trying to bring his displeasure back to wikipedia and unleash it on me.
Digging up a month-old argument puzzles me. Honestly, it's a month ago, give it a break!
I was exercising WP:BLANKING, yet Mbz1 ignores this official policy as if it's not there.
I don't want to be blamed for being the person who suggested something and someone else took up the suggestion but failed while trying to do so.

yet Mbz1 keeps coming back, adding the stuff I removed. In addition, his edit summary of this entry [21], which says "removeone it one more last time to show your incivility once again" tells me he's being pointy and willing to get into edit war just to illustrate his point. This is my reason to protect my talk page to stop this situation from escalating.

In my opinion, he is disappointed because he got 2 differently opposite response under the same situation in the featured picture nominations in Commons and Wikipedia and decided to rant it out. We are all humans, and sometimes we got angry because of setbacks or didn't get what we anticipate would come out fine. Hence, I ask the closing admin not to issue any warnings or blocks on Mbz1. (It's past 2am here in Toronto and I'm going to bed. Please don't anticipate a response or clarification from me again for at least next 6 hours.) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid OhanaUnited does not know what he is talking about. I've never blamed him that I nominated the image in Commons. As I said earlier I simply hoped that he will admitt that I was right,when I tried to delist an old image in the first place and apologize for blaiming me in POV. I left him a very polite first message and very polite second message, and after he told me he was going to ignore me from now on, I left him a very polite third message. Then he deleted my mesages with the edit summary: "cleaning out some garbage". I would have never restored them, if the edit summary were polite or there were not edit summary at all, but I hope you would agree that removing messages is a bad practice in the first place and removing messages with the summary "cleaning out some garbage" is first of all rude and second of all pointy while protecting his own talk page (it still is protected) is using Administrators' power for a personal and absolutely unjust purpose, and is also pointy. IMO what could be forgiven to a Wikipedia user cannot be forgiven to a Wikipedia Administrator. The bottom line is that OhanaUnited is impolite, incivil, ignorant and very rude. IMO a person with such qualities could be still a good contributer to Wikipedia, but cannot be a good administrator.I ask the closing admin to issue at least a strong warnings at the Administrator OhanaUnited. I said everything I wanted to say and I am not going to post anything more here, but may I please mention that, if I am issued a warning or I am blocked, or the Administrator OhanaUnited is not issued at least a warning, I would consider this to be a very, very big unfairness. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

n.b. I've interacted briefly with the participants here. That said, I do not think anyone needs to be blocked and jumping to that conclusion would be highly drama-inducing. After looking at the situation, I do not think anyone is at fault here. To set the facts straight, there is no actionable issue (in my opinion) regarding the nomination of the images etc. People differ on opinions and that is okay. However, there is a slight issue with the communication between the two. Mbz1 should realize that if asked to cease posting on a user's talk page, it might just be best to not post. Also, that editors can simply remove messages. Once removed, it can be assumed that they were read. OhanaUnited should realize that fully protecting his or her talk page and calling good-faith efforts to talk "trolling" is not helpful. A simple message stating that you disagree, etc. and explaning that you routinely remove messages would have been more helpful than simple reverting and then protecting. Also, the protection issue happened today, not a month ago.

At this point, I would simply ask Mbz1 to apologize for repeatedly posting the message and escalating this, and not to bring this issue up with OhanaUnited again, and OhanaUnited to unprotect his page and apologize for calling Mbz1's messages "garbage" and "trolling". I think we can all just move along and avoid further escalation if both sides can apologize. I realize this might be a lot to ask. Any takers? Mahalo to the both of you. --Ali'i 14:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone unprotect his talk page already. Seriously, WTF? ➪HiDrNick! 18:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not wheel-war on that so I will just highly suggest Ohana unprotect it himself and reduce the drama. Mbz1 now knows he isn't interesting in continuing the conversation and so, don't further annoy him in a useless effort. Thus there is no need for the protection in my view (and I really find it highly inappropriate). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He can't hear you as he's got his index fingers in his ears while saying "lalalalalala"... at least that's the equivalent of an administrator fully protecting his own talk page. Not a mature or proper use of the sysop tools, in my opinion. Someone might want to also let him know this notice on his talk page "I will not respond to anonymous editors' comments. Go create an account!" is not very welcoming. --Simple Paradox 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that both me and Mbz1 are cooled off, I will now unprotect the talk page but I sincerely hope Mbz1 stops digging up old arguments when I thought it was resolved. I formally apologizes to anyone who is affected by this incident. Here's my question: Does Wikipedia and Commons allow more than 1 featured picture per subject? If anyone knows, please let everyone know so this won't happen again. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my talk page) Frankly, I haven't the faintest idea. The criteria don't seem to say anything about it: the closest WP:FP? comes is to say that featured pictures should be "among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer". Commons:COM:I says that "normally there should never be two featured pictures that are just different versions of the same image, so if a better version exists the original version should be delisted", but I don't think the two turtle images are quite similar enough for that to necessarily apply.

In this particular case (and this is really more addressed to Mbz1 directly), I'd suggest bringing the issue up at commons:Commons talk:Featured picture candidates; I'm sure the folks there will be more familiar with the process. If you ask me, though, one possibility might be to try a special "nomination to replace", with voters asked to express the preference to either keep the currently feature image, replace it with the ostensibly better one or, possibly, to feature both. Or just let the current nomination run its course; things may sort themselves out on their own now that the issue has been brought to wider attention. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(now very confused) Let's look at commons:Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds. There are 2 FP of Anas platyrhynchos, a whopping of 6 FP on Cygnus olor. And that's only the bird category, more of this in other categories such as mammals. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do not explictly forbid more than one featured picture per subject. Essentially, it's just another "other stuff exists" type of argument. MER-C 08:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break (Administrator User:OhanaUnited)

I'm not going to comment on the dispute itself, but this message on User:OhanaUnited's talk page "I will not respond to anonymous editors' comments. Go create an account!" is simply unacceptable. Wikipedia admins are by definition going to have interactions with anon IP editors. Discouraging/disallowing communication from anon IPs is extremely counter-productive not to mention a violation of WP:BITE and WP:AGF. To be blunt, if you're not willing to engage with anon IP editors, you shouldn't be an admin. Exxolon (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there's no harm in saying publicly now that I was dangerously close to starting an RfC on OhanaUnited, based on that comment and other significant judgement issues. I request the statement be removed immediately (and apologise if it has been as I type this). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could another admin not just simply remove it per WP:USER? —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the talk page and Ohana is an admin. I'd say it'd reflect well (or not) on his judgement to see what his response to these requests are, rather than just taking it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, it's not like removing the warning will magically change how he interacts with others. Frankly, if he doesn't want to deal with those editors (and I surely don't like the idea of admin basically violating WP:BITE), I think it would be better if he announces it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he is unwilling to deal with anonymous users, he should not be an administrator. Neıl 龱 08:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil said it best, "If he is unwilling to deal with anonymous users, he should not be an administrator". Also, a review of the protection policy is in order, his talk page should not be full protected, short of serious abuse. There is nothing actionable here, but if an admin were to form a pattern of such behavior it would likely end badly. _{1 != 2} 14:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the wording according to User:Ali'i's suggestion. But just to let you know, some foundation staff do semi-protect their talk page, preventing any IPs and new editors from even editing their talk pages, which is way beyond than just a notice saying "I don't respond to anonymous editors". For those who wonder why this notice was there, a detail explanation can be found here. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His page is no longer protected, OhanaUnited has apologized, and he has now changed the warning to anonymous users. I think all is done here. --Ali'i 15:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I please thank you all for the responses? I'd like to clarify my position please. I strongly agree that there could be few FP at the same subject. I nominated my image for delisting becase I knew other users might think differently. Now may I please ask you to forget about FP? The matter of my complain is absolutely different. I disagree that Administrator OhanaUnited first blamed me in POV with no reason whatsoever, second told me that he was going to ignore me with no reason whatsoever, third removed my message with the edit summary " cleaning out some garbage" and at last protected his own talk page using admin power for the personal and absolutely unjust purpose. That's why IMO OhanaUnited cannot be an administrator on WIKIPEDIA. IMO he does not deserve such honor. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say this but if that was enough, a lot of admins would be gone here. Unfortunately, I can't really pinpoint what conduct it takes to lose adminship (short of reverting Jimbo or an WP:OFFICE action) but most would say basic uncivil conduct isn't sufficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one more thing, which shows that OhanaUnited has no idea what he's talking about. He said: "Although there's no rule against being the nominator of your own image, but my gut feeling tells me he's trying to discredit someone else's picture so that his can showcase his image here." without ever realizing that both pictures the featured one and the new one were taken by me. He knows now that it is tha case, but he even did not bother to cross out his stupid and false acusation.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Mbz1, you should just let this go. OhanaUnited has already apologized and unprotected his page. Please also see my comment before the section break. A lot of drama can be avoided if everyone just drops it. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologized? For what? He's never apologized for calling my message a garbage, he's never apologized for falsely blaiming me in POV, he's never apologized for falsely blaiming me in trying to discredit someone else's picture. There were no apology about any of my complains directly to me, but you are right in one thing, Ali'i, I should let it go and stay as far away as possible from OhanaUnited simply because it is really hard to communicate with a person, who never knows what he's talking about. Thank you all for the responses.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His talk page now strongly implies he is going to simply ignore IP msgs. He shouldn't be an admin. Simple as that. If he's not committed to communicating with other editors it's doubtful he's even on the right project. I think we should empower bureaucrats to enforce "no big deal" and simply desysop people without prejudice when they demonstrate a point of principle incompatible with their duties, or indeed a grasp of the project, as in this clearcut case. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your post, 86.44.28.186. Agree with you 100%. I do not consider the matter resolved at all.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirm change (sort of)

The autoconfirm level has been changed from 4 days to 4 days and 10 edits. There may be future changes (per this bug) but I'm not really sure. As a reminder, the consensus was here and some instruction guides/ help pages might need updated to reflect the change (Would it be wise to let the change settle in first?) GDonato (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let us hope that the second change does not take place, as it will cause more cut and paste page moves. Z gin der 2008-05-21T00:28Z (UTC)

I think it's kind of excessive, too, but there is a very clear consensus for the 7d20e requirement. WODUP 05:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the 7/20 option was by far the top choice, with 92 respondents picking it as compared to only 58 for all of the other options combined. 4/10 had only 25 people supporting it; the bug request should have implemented th e7/20 option. What happened? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke to Brion Vibber and he said that he would implement the half-way option until we were actually sure what the consensus was, GDonato (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bad idea to run a poll on a question that was considered and debated by a large number of editors, and then have a very small number of administrators decide that these editors in fact chose an option preferred by only 14% of the people involved. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't informed at all (I would probably have voted for an even stricter one than 7/20, but my point is it didn't see a wide enough audience) - where was it advertised? --Random832 (contribs) 19:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list, community portal (I think there was also something on Village Pump or similar earlier too) GDonato (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and The Signpost too, GDonato (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally - how hard would it be to require mainspace edits? In particular, for edits to the sandbox or one's own userpage to not count. --Random832 (contribs) 19:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but it is not currently possible. I think debating issues which are not presently technically possible was avoided intentionally, GDonato (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine anyway. If I see a "new" user who has been making 10 sandbox edits, it's the equivalent of having done no real edits. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had updated a couple of guide/help page yesterday to reflect the change. KTC (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First results from this sockpuppet and this sockpuppet. Seems to slow them down a bit, and might even contribute to vandal RSI, but this won't be a replacement for flagged versions. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't slowed down User:Scibaby at all: [22][23] Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin review needed at Taser

Could neutral admins familiar with NPOV policy and especially POV Forking review the discussion on the Taser and Taser controversy articles at Talk:Taser#RFC:_Criticism? There are only two or three regular editors of the article, all relatively inexperienced, so if an experienced admin could weigh in it would help us proceed.

Sexy ass not being watched enough

For more than half an hour, the state of Rhode Island became known as "sexy ass u boys out there better watch out im out here" on Wikipedia[24]. Clearly, not enough users are watchlisting this important article. Please consider adding Rhode Island to your watchlist, it's not the first time I see flashing vandalism sitting there for an unusually long period. Thanks. Húsönd 00:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, and I've watchlisted accordingly. However in fairness Rhode Island is the smallest state, so it is somewhat more difficult to spot vandalism there.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always interested in watching sexy ass, especially when it is smaller. ;o) Reso lute 03:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted. Anything involving sexy asses is liable to get my full attention. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've had some surprising lapses of attention lately — Talk:Internet recently stood for half an hour with the sole content of "É uma merda". Which might be true, of course, but still... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when I saw this section header I thought "Honey, we've ALL got problems." (adds RI to w/l)Gladys J Cortez 16:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That made me laugh. Thank you. :) Rudget (Help?) 16:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'd much rather watch an actual sexy ass, I've added Rhode Island to my watchlist. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Does someone realize that the Sexy Ass article has been incorrectly called Rhode Island for something like 5 years? Please more watch listing. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unban notice: Rootology

The Arbitration Committee has granted an appeal of the ban on Rootology (talk · contribs). Rootology is unbanned subject to two conditions, namely:

a topic ban with respect to September 11, 2001 attacks and related articles, and Encyclopedia Dramatica and related articles; and
a ban on interacting with MONGO (talk · contribs).

For the Arbitration Committee, bainer (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to the ArbCom on their recent unbannings and assumptions of good faith; the net result should be positive. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't MONGO (talk · contribs) retired? --Dragon695 (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contribs should answer that one. Viridae ^Talk 09:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bainer, and everyone, thank you. I won't disappointment all of you. rootology (T) 12:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a sec, wasn't he one of the major contributors to harassment on ED? If so, then why are we letting him back? I can extend good faith a long way as most people know, but not as far as the dirty tricks he's played in the past. This is one of those editors we can do without. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably best to contact the unbanners; ArbCom. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 13:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ryan, I take your point, but I think you need to extend good faith just a bit farther... Yes, all that stuff in the past was very problematic but Rootology was away for a long time, and has said he has a sincere desire to reform. Given the specific topic bans, and the number of people likely to be watching him closely, the risk to the project if he was shining us on is low, he would be reblocked swiftly I would expect. And the potential gain in contributions and in good will is very large. Seems a good gamble to me. Support the unblock (not that unblocking needs my support per se, just wanted to say so.) Best of luck, Rootology. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... are there particular people you are intending to disappoint? Actually, if some of those you are intending to disappoint are those critics who believe you will not be a useful contributor then I am all for a little disappointment! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war in Iraq

There are some very strange goings-on at Civil war in Iraq and its associated talk page. The talk page shows a number of threads calling for the deletion of the article, due to it being outdated and requiring a major rewrite. They all have a vaguely similar style and structure to them, but have been contributed by a various crowd of anonymous editors and single-purpose accounts. The most recent of these discussions, at Talk:Civil war in Iraq#Article is massively outdated; needs major updates., has resulted in a number of content deletions and revert tussles, which can be seen in the article's history.

The anonymous editor calling for the deletion/rewrite and removing the "outdated" content is on a dynamic IP in the netrange 204.64.0.0/14, generally in the 204.65.x.x area. Interestingly, this range is registered to the State of Texas General Services Commission. I am at a complete loss for what to do; I'm posting here in the hope that some ideas on how to proceed will be forthcoming. However, I have a real fear that this could become a much larger-scale edit war, and as I voiced yesterday, I think that a period of semi-protection would not solve the problem, given the long time-span of the "delete/outdated/rewrite" contributions. haz (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking on the web the General Services Commision provides an integrated purchasing system for state agencies, maintenance and repair services, operates a central telephone system and a mailing system for state agencies, constructs state office buildings. No opinion on the content question but i'd say the IP is probably just a state worker with an opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Pages

Hihi...wondering if we can start talking about these Secret Pages things. I was wandering around New Pages and saw a strange user subpage, so I followed...this user is building a HUGE (like 20 or 30 pages) sub section of his page as a 'maze' that you wander through to earn a Barnstar. I looked into the history and saw that he'd made a couple of edits and then found someone else's secret page and after that, nearly all of the WP contributions were to his own secret pages. I don't think any of us wants to be the jerk that tells people to stop having fun on WP, but at what point does this help the project? It seems like there are bunches of these things out there...are we getting so big now that we just have to let the kids be kids as long as they aren't disrupting the article side? It's not like the "you have new messages" prank that made people actually think they had WP business to deal with...Any thoughts/ideas? Its frustrating when you see someone putting that much thought into a game you wonder what they could do with an article! Anyway...feel free to tell me to go away if this isn't something that anyone else is worried about. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 16:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you've missed the drama, which is a plus for you Legotech! There have been several discussions about this recently. Check MFD, check the ANI archives, the AN archives, then the other DRV.....if you want links I'll get 'em. Generally, it was determined that secret pages are the purest form of evil incarnate. And also ironically, harmless. Very deletable, also very non deletable. Complete wastes of time, and also helpful and fun. A big fat no consensus that ended in a resounding Meh. if I recall...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found the most pertinent link anyway, here. Happy reading! Warning:According to the Surgeon General, reading that MfD may cause premature death by drinking, random twitches and other seizure-like behavior, and a general sense of hopelessness. Also, may cause birth defects in unborn fetuses, even if you're not pregnant. Just random unborn fetuses. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So was it just coincidence, or an act of the cabal to have Secret close the discussion about Secret pages? In either case, the matching of actor with topic brought a smile to my face. -- llywrch (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat after me Llywrch....It was a coincidence....it was a coincidence...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are legitimate differences of opinion. The best that can be said for such stuff is that it might be a honeypot (computing) for the kiddies who would otherwise be running amok, touching important things like articles. The worse that can be said for such stuff is that as long as we're content to let children play here, we'll continue to attract children. It'd be best if Wikipedia were seen by these children as boring, rather than as a fun myspace-like place to play. If this userspace nonsense attracts children and keeps them out of the way, it's a bit like a bug zapper- sure, it zaps bugs, but it attracts them too. So, does it do more harm than good? I see no clear answer to that quesiton. Friday (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[ec]Here is the relevant ANI thread on the subject. If my brain is working right, it seems that the general idea was to look at these things on a case-by-case basis as there is such a wide variation in their style and content. My opinion: generally pointless but harmless, the particularly egregious/complex/sprawling ones should be deleted. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:12, May 23, 2008 (UTC)

Wow, interesting reading! I went back to the one that sparked this interest and the last 100 contributions for this user are JUST the secret pages and his userpage. I don't want to call him out in public tho...and I'm not sure how to approach without him getting really upset about it...maybe someone could drop me an email and I'll point them to the user? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:PERF may be relevant here, so is WP:NOTMYWEBSPACE, WP:NOT#HOST. I say we delete the maze and block the user if he persists, this isn't his personal playground. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...perhaps a friendly note on the user's talk page first, asking why/what they intend to do with them would work. However, given that they are the user's first contributions and that they created 30+ of them... delete the lot and warn the user about MySpace-y behaviour. There are other places for that kind of thing. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:54, May 23, 2008 (UTC)

And also perhaps a reminder about what barnstars are and how giving them out for this tarnishes their value. --bainer (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agreed, bainer. Barnstars are explicitly not earned, they are received, and unexpectedly at that. Once they are "earned", they've completely lost their value. I've seen the "Original Barnstar" severely misused. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legotech, any word on the secret pages? Have you managed to contact the user? If you want me to do it [you mentioned above that you weren't sure how to go about it] you can email me the username. Just thought I'd try to sort this out. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:30, May 24, 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MTC

The page Wikipedia:MTC redirects to the user page User:Betacommand/Commons. This is intentionally deceptive to users and is the most blatant violation of WP:OWN imaginable. In effect the user is saying "I am the wikipedia policy." --Lemmey talk 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its a fairly common practice see for example WP:DOUCHE (no offense meant, its just the first example that came to mind) β^{_{command 2}} 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This is intentionally deceptive to users and is the most blatant violation of WP:OWN imaginable" Uh, have you read WP:OWN? This implies no ownership whatsoever, and is not in any way deceptive (unlike your signature, Lemmey, which links the word "talk" to the article It's Obvious You Won't Survive By Your Wits Alone). For another example of a WP link that points to userspace, see WP:BRC. - auburnpilot talk 18:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRC and my signature (which abides by all requirements) are obvious jokes. WP:MTC contains no such disclaimer that it is not policy like WP:DOUCHE does. --Lemmey talk 18:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its designed as a tool, and thus is not a joke. β^{_{command 2}} 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And doesn't claim to be policy either. It's nothing more than a description of how to properly use a tool, just as the desriptions on WP:TWINKLE and other tools are not policy (but for no reason must say "NOT POLICY!!"). This is a non-issue. - auburnpilot talk 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPRF is another example. β^{_{command 2}} 19:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Lemmey, I don't really see your sig as an 'obvious' joke. Few people will look at the status bar to check the target of a link when clicking on something that they expect to be a simple link to your talk page. Oh, and no, I don't think that the redirect is 'deceptive' or a vio of WP:OWN. It is a useful shortcut to avoid having to type out the full name, not a declaration of ownership. RichardΩ612 Ɣ

ɸ 19:18, May 23, 2008 (UTC)

To say nothing of that sig directing to a REALLY weakly-written article. I went to the edit history (to make sure I wasn't going to insult anyone here if I spoke my mind) and I swear I half-expected to find "Catbert" as the main contributor. ...Putting THAT one on my "improve" list...Gladys J Cortez 00:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since BCBot's MTC function is currently suspended, it makes sense to temporarily replace the redirect with a brief explanation of the process that links to Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:Why was the image I uploaded moved to Wikimedia Commons? (as per {{commons ok}}). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortune Global 500

Resolved

I thought I would bring it to your attention the edit war on Fortune Global 500. Beenlaw (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both users have been blocked. That was some edit war... weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 20:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a talking with User:Signsolid because doing things like this and this is a violation of WP:SOCK. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to request for a checkuser? seicer | talk | contribs 01:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CoolKid1993

User talk:CoolKid1993 is creating poorly designed logos and inserting them in company articles. There have been complaints about the poorly designed logos in his talk page. Look at his "contribution" to the Whirlpool Corporation article history to give an example. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started reverting the changes and are restoring some logos that were deleted. Nakon 23:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the logos I created have problems. The only complaints I've had on logos was the Whirlpool logo, TV Guide Channel logo, and the In-N-Out Burger logo. There is no other problems with any other logos, and I will try to be accurate in creating company logos if it means that all of them are going to possibly be removed, and I will not add those that I cannot personally replicate. But blindly removing them, just by removing all the one's I've created, does not solve the problem. Especially since 99% of them are entirely accurate. CoolKid1993 (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The complaints are because you use fonts and elements which do not match the originals at all (The Morgan Stanley logo for instance is not in the company's color and the font does not look equivalent). There's nothing wrong with the previous logos and they were all appropriately licensed (and are not at risk of being removed as long they have appropriate credits and F-URs), and to change the logo to something which does not resemble the original can be seen as cheapening the company's image; companies even print guidebooks as to appropriate display and typefaces to use for their logos, which although this is a volunteer project, we do follow to respect their copyrights.. What you're doing is tantamount to changing the New York Times masthead font to resemble that of a cheap local newspaper. Please don't fix what's not broken. Nate • (chatter) 00:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through the uploads of CoolKid to see if the problems were just with Whirlpool, TV Guide, In-N-Out, and Morgan Stanley. Here is what I've found. The AP logo, WTWO, Jeep, etc clearly are not copies of the logos in question and cannot be used as such. Dodge, JC Penny, Helio, Yahoo mail, etc have minor issues such as color, letter spacing, size, and shape that are not glaring, but still problematic. And for CoolKid to claim that "Nothing is different in this logo from the actual logo" is simply not true. These recreations are simply not the same thing as the "actual logo" from these companies. Some are better than others, but NONE of them are the "actual logos" in question. I really appreciate that people who have graphic talent want to donate their time to wikipedia. I think a good place to start is Wikipedia:Requested pictures, WP:GL, (and for someone who likes SVG and inkscape) Category:Wikipedia requested diagram images. I do not see any call for (or need) for these logos to be amateurishly converted to SVG. A side note, my personally preference is to avoid SVG when it comes to copyrighted logos due to WP:FUC #3b, but I know that SVGs are not forbidden. My strong advice to CoolKid is to find a way to use his skills to contribute free and/or original content to wikipedia. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out to me, Andrew c. I agree that it would be best from now on that I not add any logos whatsoever unless I know I can accurately present the logo better than I have been, which I had not seen as extremely problematic. The thing about SVGs though, as you know, is that anybody can correct it, which is why I do not think that removing the logo warrants any purpose if someone else can fix it... CoolKid1993 (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there is absolutely no reason to alter perfectly good images for some perceived benefit of SVGs, particularly when the logos aren't 100% accurate. I also share Andrew c's concern that fair use SVGs should be avoided because of 3b. Ral315 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just this image of the People magazine logo doesn't meet any of the familiar hallmarks of the People logo. It's always been highlighted with a bold band surrounding the letters, and it always appears with white text with a color border, never as one solid amalgamim. Your logo for SC Johnson does not match up to the same font as the SC, and the A family company tagline has become as much of a part of the company's identity as the name itself. We're not trying to put down your work, but it's best to use the company logo properly rationaled rather than creating a copy on your own. It certainly doesn't meet the standards for public domaining them, the images are too large, and as much as I hate to say it, if some corporate lawyer hits an article for a company they represent and see a logo that doesn't look anything like their own, they might file a copyvio lawsuit against WMF. We need well-rationaled logos with a small size and the proper guidelines of display much more than recreations. Nate • (chatter) 07:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question on a rare situation

I was reading over blocking policy the other day, and I realised there is no accountability within that states whether accounts that have been unblocked (with the intent to be reblocked) but haven't been. For example: say if I was blocked for 48 hours, but then someone unblocked me to reduce it to 24 hours, but never did, do admins have a responsibility to re-add that time to make sure it fulfills the initial sanction? And if so, how long would the admin have to wait before the re-blocked happened? Sorry for this slightly weird question. Rudget (Help?) 17:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if the editor hasn't breached policy while being mistakenly unblocked, the block has had its intended effect; if they have, they can be reblocked for the fresh breach, although personally I'd make it the same length as was intended in the reblock, to be fair. Unless there had been a repeated or egregious (how I hate that word!) breach, in which case I'd have no problem extending it to match the circumstances. --Rodhull andemu 17:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Rod said. We do need to remind ourselves and each other that blocks are not punishment and are not "sentences" to be served concurrently or consecutively, they are simply one tool we have to protect Wikipedia and its community. There have, of late, been a couple of editors (not admins) who appear regularly here and on ANI, shouting loudly for punishment and particularly for long blocks to teach various nebulous lessons and generally wanting an iron fist on anybody who isn't perfect. This damages Wikipedia rather than protects it. In the above case, if a mistake is made and no block happens but the editor in question had their behaviour corrected anyway, then a block would be inappropriate to the point of ludicrousness. Amending the policy to say this (or a variant, or the opposite) would be instruction creep. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 17:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that blocks are preventative and not punitive, and I do endorse that a block would be inappropriate if the editor served a reasonable length of time and had recognised and reflected upon their behaviour. So common sense is in order, if this situation was to occur? Rudget (Help?) 17:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this very situation awhile back, but I figured it was best to simply leave the user unblocked. After all, if the editor continues the same behavior that lead to the first block, they'll earn a second one soon enough. A note on the unblocking admin's talk page, just to make them aware of the slip up, wouldn't be out of order. - auburnpilot talk 18:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense is always in order. Mr.Z-man 19:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the user has been unblocked and noone has seen fit to block for new behaviour then chances are they wouldn't have needed to be reblocked. Orderinchaos 22:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with "egregious" :D ?? I think it's a great word... but yes, definitely common-sense - if the reason you're looking at their block log is to decide whether to block them again, then something like this would probably swing it, but if they've been good ever since, then let sleeping dogs lie... Happy‑melon 22:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten O'Clock Classics

I'm not sure exactly where this should go, so I'm posting here instead of one of the other pages (WP:OTRS, WP:SPAM, WP:RFPP, etc). If there's a good place for it to go, feel free to move everything.

I first became involved in the Ronen Segev article when it was up for deletion in January last year. Apparently the subject of the article was involved in an incident with Priceline which, while not relative to his notability, showed up when you Googled his name. User:Jimbo Wales was one of the voices to delete, on the basis that there was a small but insistent group who kept trying to insert the Pricelinegate thing into the page (apparently, Segev tried to get mention of the incident purged from t'internet with the services of Reputation Defender, and RD are apparently not a popular bunch).

Anyhoo, despite the AfD's "keep", Jimbo later speedied the page. His edit summary was a bit misleading—"courtesy delete, non-notable but for some tabloid nonsense, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, vandalism magnet, etc" makes it sound like he just over-ruled the AfD for the hell of it—but there was in fact an associated OTRS ticket (#2007011710000088). I had it on my watchlist, so I was able to salvage the notable stuff and move it to Ten O'Clock Classics, the organization Segev founded. I later asked Jimbo if a permanently protected redirect could be created, and that was OK'd both at his talk page and at a procedural DRV, on condition I kept an eye on the TO'C target.

I've done so since, and it's not been a big job; it hadn't been edited in months before today. However, this morning I noticed an anon IP had inserted three external links to the old story.[25] I reverted,[26] but a (slightly different) IP restored it again.[27]

I've reverted a second time and added a little "please stop" notice,[28] but I thought I should post here as a preventative measure as well. I'm not as busy on WP as I used to be, so some extra eyes on the page while I'm not around would be useful, especially if the edits continue, or escalate to the point where a measure of protection is required. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I've added it to my watch list and also left a notice on the talk page for the IP editor to not add the link again. Perhaps an innocent mistake by a newbie. If the editor persists I think short term semi-protection should do the trick. Too bad, if I were the gentleman in question I would be rather proud of the incident - taking one for consumer rights! Oh, well. Wikidemo (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SB/Incivility

Forum shopping, see ANI. east.718 at 03:50, May 25, 2008

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

I am getting fed up of this user (including his false characterisations of other editors - including pedophilia and pro-pedophilia accusations towards editors who have been forced into veiling their language with unnecessary anti-molester rhetoric). He has driven too many good editors off the project, incited the blocking of too many good editors, and now resorts to characterising my friendly reply as "trolling", removing it from the talk page of someone from who he has no permission to behave in such a way - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Googie_man&diff=prev&oldid=214654729.

If any administrator really doesn't know what he has been up to, and is willing to actually do something about it, I will be more than welcome to flood this page with diffs. J*Lambton ^T/_C 17:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An example from only a while ago - of how this editor is forcing very strongly held POV on the encyclopedia, and characterising the editors who he is supposed to be working with as pedophilia advocates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=prev&oldid=214652507 (and the following diffs). J*Lambton ^T/_C 17:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. "and/or reform of child pornography legislation, the latter in order to deliberately humiliate publicly the children they sexually abuse for the rest of the child's life (for instance child porn on the internet compounding an original abuse many millions of times)" J*Lambton ^T/_C 17:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Advice

I've just blocked Admin User:Arthur Rubin for 24 hours for edit warring on the Alex Jones (radio) article. He made 4 reverts in 24 hours. Is my block justified or not? I also feel slightly miffed by blocking an admin. Thoughts? Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 20:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. There's no need to warn him because he's an admin. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur's been blocked I see for 24hrs for edit warring, it's nice to see the same standards applied to admins as to us lowly editor peons. So all in all a good block. RMHED (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the block. Even though Arthur Rubin was discussing the edits on the article talkpage he should know enough that there should be a max of two reverts before going to dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments: That article seems rather contentious. There has been a lot of reverting for at least several months related to whether Mr. Jones is a "conspiracy theorist" or otherwise. Perhaps an RFC with more than the regular editors would be beneficial? Also, this is the third time Mr. Rubin has been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule on that article. Something more than a block might be warranted. --Iamunknown 02:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, is this trash still going on? I previously bombarded the lede with about nine citations of sources calling him a conspiracy theorist, but apparently that wasn't enough for those of his fans who are disrupting the article. WP:3RR is policy, so is WP:NPOV, and editors who are clearly determined to break the latter should also be blocked. <eleland/talkedits> 10:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In particular this fellow is clearly a WP:TEndentious editor and needs more than a series of wrist-slaps for 3RR. <eleland/talkedits> 10:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs

I have just left Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) a warning about his ongoing habit of leaving uncivil comments on ANI. Things like lest it get promoted to Featured Article, Spam is spam, no matter how well written, My assumption is that they've got egg on their face, any moron can edit and this are really not needed and appear as gratuitous insults on other editors. I have notified him about this posting. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse warning. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 21:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness an editor with strong opinions who employs sarcasm as a tool of expression, ban the bastard toot sweet I say. (Yes, that too was sarcasm). RMHED (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes me as someone who simply likes colourful ways of saying things, I'm not seeing any particular incivility here, although they wouldn't necessarily be phrases I'd use, "gratuitious insults" seems a bit strong. Orderinchaos 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but bad warning. Nothing wrong with the first couple of diffs, whilst the latter two were unhelpful but certainly no more than the usual rough and tumble around here. If warnings are to be issued from so little, then by extension there are blocks to be handed out to half a dozen people on this page alone. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested that he needed to be blocked or even thought that he should be. On the other hand I am surprised to find that some editors agree with Baseball Bugs that an editor deseves to be called a cunt based on their user name. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that last one was over the top. But the others are not, and there's even some perceptive commentary in there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not endorse vulgar or obscene name calling under any circumstances. I only said that someone who chooses that username is asking for trouble. And I am no pal of Mr. Shankbone, I assure you. He and I have also clashed at one point in the past (though I don't recall when or why, as I try not dwell on those kinds of things). Otherwise, yes, I do get too sarcastic at times. If you think my comments are fundamentally unfair or untrue, you may take appropriate action. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from the admin who blocked DS for using the specific obscenity referred to; I am both familiar to why Merkinsmum is so named (i.e. who and what "Merkin" is in this instance), and that a merkin is a female genital "wig" which covers the mons pubis - not specifically the labia. Given that BB was not aware that Merkinsmum was female, I considered that BB was not in full possession of all the facts in regard to DS's comment toward MM and made a reasonable comment in view of the knowledge they had. I do not feel that BB was inferring that DS was correct in using the term, only that there was a interpretation of Merkinsmum that could lead to such a term being considered. At the time I thought it best that BB's comment be ignored, so not to cause more drama. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse warning for the TFA related comments. IMO Special:Contributions/Laser brain says it all in that regard. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors also complained about the promotional nature of that article. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used to aid and abet sales. That's "spam" disguised as an article. This is another sore subject that I have called editors on from time to time. Sometimes they get away with it, sometimes they don't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are accusing Laser brain of being a spammer because he wrote a featured article? Come on, you can't seriously think that writing what the sources say is spam. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? I missed where we established that Laser brain was acting in bad faith to promote the company. Mr.Z-man 04:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never accused the editor specifically of attaining any personal gain from the article, that's a false spin that some are putting on it. Nonetheless, the article was prominently featured. Others complained about its promotional nature also. Wikipedia needs to decide whether promotional articles are OK or not. At this point, it's unclear. The message is muddied. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could write a fine, glowing article about a certain insurance company, for example. I don't happen to work for that company, but I think it's a good company, and if I do it well enough, I could theoretically get it to FA status. And it would still be spam even though I gained nothing from it financially. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that LB is acting in bad faith? Mr.Z-man 04:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None, nor have I ever accused him of such, despite his attempts to spin it that way. In the self-hypothesis I described above, I would also have been acting in good faith. And it would still be spam. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec galore) I have nothing against Elderly (I've bought parts from them for my Stratocaster), but the article is written in a bit too laudatory tone. That's not at all saying that the author wrote it in bad faith, just that it could take a more detached tone. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. I hate to quote that, but I notice we have boatloads of edit conflicts (process wonking) with people getting angry at someone for issuing a warning (process-wonking) about the nature of someone's posts at ANI (process-wonking). We're several steps removed. (Meanwhile, I've been fighting sockpuppet vandals all night, most of the time of which AIV has been backlogged). The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Spider-Man metaphor an updated way of saying "making a mountain out of a molehill"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was already warned by the admin, and it was a fair and justifiable warning in general, even if I don't agree with some of the specific complaints. And you're right, there are many other fish to fry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just woke up to see this and the only person I agree with 100% is The Evil Spartan. To Raymond Arritt's first comment above, I did tell Baseball Bugs that he made good comments. To Baseball Bugs' first comment, a user should not expect to be insulted based on the fact that they may have chosen the first name of their child or the family surname as part of their uesrname. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica#RFC:Dead link or live link?

Appologies for using this board, but it get's a wide audience. Could we have some more views at the above RfC? It's important we get a wide community input into this so we can put it to bed once and for all. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise Ryan, your post hath brought forth comment from me. Love thy enemy say I, not because of any Christian doctrine, but mostly because they really dislike it when you show up their intrinsic bitterness. RMHED (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

history merge backlog

There's a bit of a backlog at Category:History merge for speedy deletion. For the dramatic majority of these you'll just need to move the page indicated in the tag over the tagged page, deleting it temporarily, then restore all deleted revisions. --Rividian (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it, but deleting/restoring many revisions seems to be tasking the servers. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That was really fast. --Rividian (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Can an admin delete User:SimsFan/monobook.js. Jimbo has given me a second chance, and I want to break my wikibreak to request unblocking.
If an admin would unblock me, as Jimbo suggested here, it would be great, but otherwise, i'll just go through the normal procedure. 92.5.91.181 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC) PS: Please don't put 'wait for your wikibreak to end'.[reply]

I've blanked the monobook. I think unblocking requires further discussion, considering there are so many sockpuppets. See User:SimpsonsFan08. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Delete

Can you actually delete the page. I'm still getting messages about enforcing a wikibreak. I really need this.92.5.91.181 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards