Wikipedia:AN

Three separate but related topic ban proposals for NYScholar

User:Chuck Marean

Resolved. llywrch has blocked Chuck Marean indefinitely, subject to review &/or a mentor stepping forward

was ==User:Who then was a gentleman?==

User:Who then was a gentleman? left two uncivil comment on my talk page (here). It was about this edit. He seems to be another trying to start an argument on my talk page. Doing so is edit waring in my opinion as well as uncivil. I am therefore requesting that he be banned. --Chuck Marean 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

While I wouldn't have characterized your POV pushing [12] as "vandalism", I don't see anything actionable ^{against Who then...?} here. – 20:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC) ^{superscript text added at 20:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)}

Ridiculous. --208.54.7.185 (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Marean parole(s)

Chuck Marean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log)

The only thing actionable here is Chuck's editing. Vandalism is certainly an appropriate word for Chuck's edit there. And it's the latest in a (very, very) long line of such edits. I think some kind of parole is in order. Raul654 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd characterise it as nonsense, certainly. It's rather blatant POV-pushing, even if it is unintentional. You need to be careful with your edits, ones like this don't help - I'd support some sort of supervised editing? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Chuck has a problem with the Current Events portal. May I suggest a topic ban? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good start, but I think the problem is deeper than that. He seems to go from one article to the next making disruptive edits. His editing on TANSTAAFL is a case-in-point. Raul654 (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the fourth? Fifth? I dunno, lost count, thread about Chuck Marean in the past couple of months. I suggest mentoring if anyone is willing to come forward. If not, I suggest Chuck be asked to explain why in the community's view his ongoing edits to Current Events (and elsewhere) is problematic and why he will stop doing such things. In the absence of both of the above, I think it is time to invite him to enjoy the world beyond Wikipedia unless/until either of the above happen. → ROUX ₪ 21:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My edit was good. --Chuck Marean 21:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Nothing about what Madoff did was good faith, as proved by a duly constituted court of law. It was part and parcel of your quixotic crusade to sanitise bad news from the Current Events portal.→ ROUX ₪ 21:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to pile on to Roux's comment - Madoff pled guilty and admitted he broke the law. Calling his actions "good faith" isn't inaccurate - it's completely, utterly divorced from reality, and anyone doing so is a vandal by any objective measure. Raul654 (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

He went bankrupt. Why would he plead guilty to something?--Chuck Marean 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh.. because his bankruptcy was directly caused by his monumental fraud? → ROUX ₪ 21:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh for the love of god. He wasn't charged with going bankrupt -- he was charged with securities fraud, and pled guilty to fraud. Why? Because when you tell someone you are running a hedge fund and, instead of buying stock, you use the proceeds to pay off previous investors, you are not actually running a hedge fund -- you are running a ponzi scheme. (1) Running a ponzi scheme is illegal; (2) lying to the investors about it is also illegal. Perhaps you shouldn't be editing articles when you don't have any idea of what you are talking about? This seems to be your signature with *every* article you edit. Raul654 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia.--Chuck Marean 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Which means what exactly? → ROUX ₪ 21:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the f'in article --208.54.7.185 (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to a) login with your username, b) be slightly less rude? One would imagine that doing a) will cause b). → ROUX ₪ 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the anon's comment was a reply to Chuck's comment, not mine. Raul654 (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Either way... → ROUX ₪ 21:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Which sort of means I think saying he was found guilty of investment fraud sounds biased because he may not have known his bonds needed to be secured by property or thought it was just an opinion. He didn’t go underground with the money. From what I heard on the TV months ago, he simply went bankrupt and got bad press about it. -- Chuck Marean 21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) I am quite literally flabbergasted, and possibly entirely gobsmacked, that you could even pretend in good faith that the statement you just made is in any way accurate or supported by reality. → ROUX ₪ 22:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And following on from Short Brigade's diff below ("He was selling bonds and paying them back with more bonds. There was nothing criminal about that. It may have been somewhat incompetant but it was not criminal."), you very clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. That isn't incompetence, it is the very definition of a Ponzi scheme. Which is, by the way, criminal. Good god man. → ROUX ₪ 22:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to mentor Chuck? (I'll assume if I don't get any affirmative responses here that the answer is no) Raul654 (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the relevant questions to this discussion are:

• (1) Does Chuck do any useful editing at all?
• (2A) In light of his long history and many failed attempts to "fix" his editing can Chuck be coached to improve? (2B) Is it worth the effort?

I'm interested to hear some opinions from other people who have previously dealt with him. Raul654 (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Just based on what I've seen here... let anyone mentor him if they want, but he should be blocked while this is going on. Then later, if the mentor wants to assert that he can edit usefully, an unblock could be discussed. I see no reason to continue exposing the project to this kind of nonsense in the meantime. Friday (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call. He can propose edits on his tpage, $Mentor can approve or not. When he's shown a pattern (say, a month and 100 edits?) of improvement and understanding how Wikipedia works, unblock. → ROUX ₪ 21:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I can't believe some of those diffs! This one is almost surreal. Whether he is deliberately distorting the facts, or is somehow incapable of understanding simple declarative sentences in news reports, the result is the same. Until he can show that he is capable of editing to produce constructive results he needs to be reined in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My edit was not nonsense. I thought saying he was found guilty sounded biased. If it had said he was appealing that would have been better. As it was, it ignored that he had a business that went bankrupt, and his investors were simply mad and charging him with fraud. I was also pointing out that his business did not recieve a bailout, which also is not nonsense. Maybe I could have mentioned my wording of the blurb on the talk page before doing the edit, but there is no rule that says to that I know of. I think the rule is to boldly do the edit you think with improve the article. --Chuck Marean 22:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How is reporting a widely-available proven fact biased? The man is a criminal. He engaged, knowingly, in a criminal enterprise. He confessed to knowingly engaging in a criminal enterprise. He was convicted of same. This has nothing to do with the investors being 'simply mad and charging him with fraud'. As for his business not receiving a bailout, bailouts were reserved for businesses, and not criminal enterprises, not to put too fine a point on it, so saying that is like saying I haven't received a child tax credit because I don't have children. → ROUX ₪ 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I join this pile-on? There no evidence that Madoff's problems are due to bad business decisions; he engaged in criminal activity. He confessed to it. Forensic accountants have verified that he did it. A legal court has found him guilty & threw the book at him for it. I'd also like to point out that Chuck Marean has been twice blocked for a month for disruptive behavior. Unless he can produce a verifiable expert opinion to support this bizarre thesis, I move for another ban. -- llywrch (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting angry now. --Chuck Marean 22:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm tentatively joining in to say that, Chuck, you sound like you're just making excuses, man. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My Madoff edit was reverted. I left it that way. I think calling my edit nonsense was uncivil because obviously, 150 years for going out of business seems a bid much, and my edit pointed out maybe his business or investors could receive a bailout. I did not put my edit back, you will notice. I complained about it being called nonsense.-- Chuck Marean 22:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It was nonsense because it had no basis in reality. He was not given 150 years for 'going out of business'. He was given 150 years for knowingly committing fraud. What part of that, precisely, is unclear? → ROUX ₪ 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Revising my above opinion to just block permanently now until Chuck can demonstrate he is conversant with reality as the rest of us see it. → ROUX ₪ 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Very funny.--Chuck Marean 23:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a joke. Are you capable of providing, say, two reliable sources that support your contentions? I know you aren't, but I'll give you a fighting chance to do so. Failing that, no, you are not operating in a way that is congruent with observed reality viz. Madoff is a criminal who committed fraud and confessed to it, not that he made a couple of oopsie business decisions.→ ROUX ₪ 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a joke, Chuck. I know I'm not an admin but I support this. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I read this NY Times article on Madoff. It does sound biased, which is what I was trying to avoid here. At least the blurb on Current events only says "investment fraud." That is less biased than calling it a Ponzy "Scheme." What he was doing is sort of what I think Reagan thought deficit spending was, although government bonds are actually backed by coining money.--Chuck Marean 23:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean you really can't see the headline in the linked article which says Madoff Is Sentenced to 150 Years for Ponzi Scheme? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Chuck Marean doesn't realise that reporting on actual reality isn't a 'bias'. → ROUX ₪ 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I just mean I don't feel my edit should have been called nonsense or vandalism, since it was neither of those. I thought 150 years for paying old bonds with new -- something anyone might do -- was an outrage, and I was therefore trying to improve the Current events headline on the subject. The part that says his business did not recieve a government bailout is common knowledge, as is that he went bankrupt. I take back my request for banning you, however I seriously didn't like it when my talk page was being used for arguments and insulting me and I don't want that happening again. --Chuck Marean 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a block, basically for that reason, if less crudely put. Having dealt with Chuck on and off across his time here, devoting to him as much time as any editor save probably ZimZalaBim, whose patience in attempting to reconcile Chuck’s idiosyncrasies with our policies and practices is to be commended, I can say with a great deal of confidence that he acts in good faith (even re Madoff, where his edits, I trust, stem from a factual misunderstanding and a general inability to communicate clearly); I do not doubt that he intends in every edit to improve the project. Notwithstanding that, he regularly obliges other editors to devote time and energy to reverting his edits, which tend to compromise quality, and to explaining to him why his editing is disruptive, and I am at last convinced that he is constitutionally incompatible with Wikipedia. I feel a bit bad when we block an editor who means well and tries to address concerns that are raised about his/her work, but the project must be our primary concern, and it is unquestionable that the net effect on it of Chuck’s presence is negative. Joe (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think my net effect is positive.--Chuck Marean 00:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're trying to be positive, but I'm afraid I don't think your edits come across positively in the end. I agree that you should only nominate something when you at least have some extent of knowledge in it, unlike when you clogged a very difficult, news-filled day with the discovery of the European Union. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

the existance of the European Union is news in the U.S. and perhaps elsewhere. I, uh... I mean, ah... gee, I don't know what to say. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Had a little encounter with Chuck the other day at finance. While I think the end result was positive (the lead became less about security markets), he seems unapologetic about his vandal edits like the one about Madoff, and banning/blocking seems like the only answer. II | (t - c) 00:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You just called it a vandal edit. Words are powerful. None of my edits are vandal edits. Do you consider it OK for you to talk that way? --Chuck Marean 00:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Haven't looked at the various pages and edits that have been mentioned, but would suggest that the allegation that this user "clogged" anything or made an inappropriate claim about the "discovery of the EU" looks a bit unfair. He suggested a news story that was probably bound to be covered anyway (where's the crime in that?) and made a couple of POV asides on a talk page. I'm fairly sure no-one had to cover their children's eyes.--FormerIP (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A great deal of time was spent explaining the European Union instead of covering the death of the longest-ruling non-monarch, two major art-related functions, a major LGBT event, two general elections, a referendum, the European election itself, on top of a major upcoming sports event and unfinished recent events like terrorist attacks, the wind turbine and the Irish and British local elections (along with Brown's ten cabinet resignations) were completely forgotten. It was quite disruptive. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this enormous waste of time in the talk page, though. More keystrokes seem to have been spent on Shanghai's gay pride event (jusifiably, perhaps), and Chuck doesn't seem to have been the biggest talker. His take on how big a story the EU elections were may have been disputable, but that is what the talk page is for. It's hard for me to see how this particular example can be seen as noteworthy disruption. --FormerIP (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? Have you looked at finance and the surrounding talk pages? Of course, we could all debate the idea of reducing every article to the lowest common denominator, but the entire place would be reduced to pablum, so why should we? I'll assume good faith, and conclude that the user in question is of a certain age prone to such disruption, and destined to eventually either earn attention on the merits or find someplace else to play. Steveozone (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

He's fifty. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've heard in the news recently that some of that age, and those around them, maintain a childlike attitude well beyond their years, at great pain to others. Steveozone (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's probably going a bit far. → ROUX ₪ 07:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So I don't need to start being a grownup now that I've passed the big five-oh? Goody, cause I'm still having serious trouble dealing with my age. (And I can't say that I edit Wikipedia because of a mid-life crisis because I've been doing it far to long to make that sound plausible, even to me.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, looking at some of the other edits, I agree there is an issue, and the finance edits alone merit it being brought here. But I would still say that some of the edits cited are IMO below the threshold where they can be called a major problem. ie he is maybe not as prolific as some comments above imply. --FormerIP (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-participatory edit: As only one comment of this lengthy discussion concerns User:Who then was a gentleman?, I altered the name of the discussion to User:Chuck Marean. I am otherwise making no content judgement. Manning (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Marean parole suggestions

I think the following restrictions are a good starting point for dealing with Chuck's editing:

1. Chuck Marean is prohibited from editing all Wikipedia articles. He may make suggestions on the talk pages. If other people find his suggestions useful, they may implement them at their prerogative; if they do not find them useful, they may ignore them at their prerogative.
2. Chuck Marean is prohibited from editing all current events articles (both the articles and their talk pages) and news-related Wikipedia pages (WP:ITN, the current events portal, etc including their talk pages)
3. Chuck Marean is prohibited from offering counterfactual suggestions. His editorial suggestions must accurately reflect the reality in which we live, and not waste the time of the people who read his suggestions.
4. Violation of any of the above is blockable by any admin for any period of time that admin believes is warranted. Admins enforcing these restrictions may impose further restrictions as the need arises.

Did I miss anything? Raul654 (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Approve. Based from what I've read so far, Chuckie's actions are detrimental to the article and to Wikipedia as a whole. his remarks are just a way of trying to smart-ass his way out of accountability. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough to me. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Aye - though I'd add that he must provide valid reliable sources for his suggestions, to save time regarding #3. → ROUX ₪ 04:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Raul, you are too kind to this person. After putting this matter to one side for a few hours then returning to this thread, I still think he ought to be indefinitely blocked, if not banned. Not only for insisting on contributing his unsupported & bizarre allegations, but for requiring so many Wikipedians to waste their time on this matter -- not only in this thread, but in the article space. Maybe his edits technically aren't vandalism, but they are nonsensical -- which fits the definition of vandalizing articles. (And as a postscript, I first learned about the E.U. back in school, about the time Tricky Dick was president. -- llywrch (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is my dealbreaker. II | (t - c) 06:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm fine with the idea of an indef block/ban, to be honest. The problem here is that, while good faith, Chuck's edits are so useless and detached from reality that people spend a lot of time clearing up after him and then explaining in great detail what the problems are. Any solution we come up with here must be designed to correct this, and prevent people wasting their time on him when they could be doing more productive things. Having people supervising his edits does not do that. In addition, what we've basically done with the above suggestion is say that he can't edit the mainspace until his worldview lines up with reality. I can't see that happening, which begs the question - why is he here? Why do we tolerate him? He can't edit the mainspace, he can only make suggestions. His suggestions so far have been so out-of-touch and detached from the real world that nobody with the common sense of a garden gnome would touch them, so why bother? Why not just ban him outright, then we can get back to actually editing instead of supervising a user who can't contribute properly (or arguably, at all). Ironholds (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Any solution we come up with here must be designed to correct this, and prevent people wasting their time on him when they could be doing more productive things. - I agree. That's why, under the above sanctions, he must offer useful edits that don't waste peoples' time (#3). If he does not, he can be blocked for it (#4). Either he starts being useful or he is not going to be allowed to edit around here. Raul654 (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I think a community ban is in order. As Joe noted above, I have been a de facto mentor for Chuck for the past 3+ years, following nearly every edit he has made. I noticed early on that he almost always edits in good faith, but also is almost always reverted (I'd guess that over 80% of his edits are reverted, perhaps more). Chuck has shown a history of stubbornness, which sometimes reaches the bar of POV-pushing. He also has shown a clear lack of understanding of multiple concepts, both simple and complex, which leads me to believe that his abilities might be less than average in this regard. I have gone out of my way over the years to be kind, assume good faith, and try to steer him to be productive. These efforts have largely failed, for each time Chuck finds a new topic or new part of the project to participate in, he ends up being disruptive. My frustrations have risen in recent months, and Chuck's continued non-constructive/disruptive editing was a contributing factor to my overall frustration with the project, leading to my sudden retirement only a few weeks ago. I support an indef block/ban, as I simply don't see how Chuck can be a productive participant in this project, and his continued editing has demanded constant supervision, revision, and "banging-head-against-the-wall" discussion by me and numerous other editors. This has gone on long enough. -- 14:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If people think a community ban is in order, I'm fine with that. Raul654 (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support the above restrictions as a bare minimum, my first choice being an indefinite block (or ban) on the grounds of good faith disruption. ^TALK 14:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• I endorse SheffieldSteel's statement. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Ive seen some of his edits over the last couple of months and he adds stupid comments like the discovery of the EU and Tropical Cyclones do not exist thus i think something needs to happen to him.Jason Rees (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - as second choice. Honestly, I figure the indef is inevitable with the restrictions, but it is giving him one chance to redeem himself. I note with some amusement that he still hasn't provided sources for Madoff. → ROUX ₪ 03:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Chuck edits in good faith, but seems to have a simplistic view on the world sometimes. Unfortunately he ends up editing in articles and areas that he clearly knows nothing about, and refuses to take others comments seriously. His edits to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, and on Finance alone show that he isn't conversant with the topics involved and is not willing to listen to others. Unfortunately he comes in, is bold, and reworks things considerably from what they are based on very limited, simplistic and often just plain wrong understandings. 13:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - The sooner he's off wikipedia, the better. We don't need people like him wasting our time repairing the damage he's caused. --Eaglestorm (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Fundamentally confused, and there's not the slightest evidence that he even wants to learn. --Calton | Talk 21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Marean's continued WP:ICANTHEARYOU disruption

See this edit. He still argues without understanding a thing he's talking about. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

let eHow deal with him: www[dot]ehow[dot]com/members/chuckmarean.html. 166.137.133.137 (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with his disruption on Wikipedia? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, per the discussion above, I have blocked Chuck Marean indefinitely. Since I do this so infrequently, I have only blocked him -- not banned him -- & ask an Admin more experienced in this unpleasant chore to review my work, check that I have dotted my i's & crossed my t's, & finalize it with a ban notice if appropriate. If someone wants to mentor him, I'm fine with this block being reversed. However, I believe that I am acting per the wishes of the community here. -- llywrch (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've dotted the I's and crossed the T's for you. Raul654 (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I declined his unblock request (made on the grounds that he didn't think the parole/etc requirements for resuming editing were appropriate). User really totally completely doesn't "get it". DMacks (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Two questions: 1) I was under the impression that declined unblock requests may not be removed while the block is active, 2) is using his talkpage as a scratchpad for his study notes as he teaches himself about finance particularly useful? → ROUX ₪ 01:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reblocked with talk page editing disabled and have redirected the talk page to the user page. 01:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: As the Admin who originally blocked him, I think locking his talk page was going too far. Marean was editting in good faith -- the problem was that he just didn't get it, which was causing disruption not only due to his edits, but due to how people responded to them. Filling his talk page with gibberish was not disruptive in itself. We can allow him that much leeway; it might lead to less WikiDrama in the long run. -- llywrch (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to be unblocked

"Please unblock me. I will try to get a mentor, and I won’t again ask for a false accuser to be banned. Instead, I will try to explain to the person why I think he’s wrong." from his talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not an admin, obviously, but this is a community based ban, so... Oppose unblock. When he has proven (perhaps via email to ArbCom? In at least a month) that he actually has any understanding of why he was blocked (failure to agree with reality, generally unproductive requiring a lot of cleanup), I may reconsider my stance. → ROUX ₪ 04:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Community based ban, and his unblock reason suggests to me that he doesn't think he's done anything wrong - he honestly thinks that the big problem here is him asking for someone telling him off to be banned? Really? And he thinks the person is a false accuser, i.e the accuser was bullshitting. He seems to think he was blocked for asking the "accuser" to be banned, and that he's still in the right. Conclusion: nothing has changed in his attitude or paradigm. Ironholds (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose-I've been following the Chuck threads for several months now, and have been amazed at the patience of the community. Chucks motives seem to be the only thing that distinguishes what he does on wikipedia and what vandals and trolls do. But, the end result is still the same. And from his continued responses, I don't think he is capable of changing his editing habits. It's a shame, I'm sure he's a nice guy in person, but I don't think he is currently compatible with Wikipedia, and may not ever be. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The most straightforward way I can think of to put my own take on his contribution history is that after so long, this editor seems to either have no understanding of, or no willingness to abide by, the original research policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I looked through his talk page archives, and his attempts to understand finance stems from day one, and he still doesn't get it. Along with the rest of his areas of interest, it seems that Chuck just suffers from a complete lack of understanding of any of these areas, and is unable (or unwilling) to learn about them. His worldview seems to be based on some version of the Magic Kingdom, not real life. It is unfortunate as he is a good faith editor, not a vandal, but more time and effort is wasted cleaning up his edits than is good. Leads me to believe he is of more harm to the project than help. 14:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I think deep down he means well, but for whatever reason is simply incapable of editing in a way that is consonant with objective reality. I don't think it's possible for anyone to change the very nature of their thought processes overnight (again, not doubting his intentions). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - The unwillingess to follow consensus and to accept points of view other than his own have proven to be his undoing as a WP editor. His unblock request is no different than those who have been given many chances to reform, but as the adage goes, old habits die hard. People like Mr. Marean should stay off WP if they only do harm in spite of good faith. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot with no emergency shutdown button

Unresolved.

Further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Malfunctioning bot

Chrisbot does not have an emergency shutdown button. This bot is not functioning correctly, and is mucking up lots of railway diagrams. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The emergency shut down is just a cute way of accessing the block form. Can you give me an example of the wrongdoing? Also, it doesn't appear to be running. AWB bots can be stopped just by writing to their talk page. – 21:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

See this sandbox for a number of diagrams with incorrect continuation arrows. Mjroots (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Damnit Jim, I'm an administrator, not a trainspotter! – 21:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol, but you did ask for examples of what is going on. The bot is leaving these incorrect arrows showing for hours yet claiming to be doing so "temporarily". If the edit was completed in, say 5-10 minutes it could be lived with. But IMHO leaving diagrams with incorrect arrows for hours on end is not acceptable. Mjroots (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on the bots page pointing here... am also hoping a trainspotting admin will come along. – 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Though, the problem seems to be that the bot creates inaccuracies for a brief period of time in order to swap some things that necessarily need to be swapped? A necessary detriment perhaps? – 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've raised this at WP:UKRAIL. The problem is that this bot is that it is neither "necessary" nor helpful. The icons in question worked perfectly well before and this bot seems to have been agreed with minimal discussion despite its wide-ranging effects for templates. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) See my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Malfunctioning bot. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (a train-spotting admin!) 21:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's ChrisDHDR, the bot's owner. I would just like to say that there is a shutdown button: at the bottom of the template on the bot's page there is "Administrators: if this bot continues causing harm after receiving a message, please block it or remove from the approved accounts." You can also cause it to stop by writing on it's talk page which already happened 3 times yesterday. That gives three blocking options. Now about the point of this bot and what it does: when the CONT series of icons were made they were uploaded with names that didn't follow the naming conventions. In an agreement here it was decided that they would need to be changed to follow the naming conventions like all other icons. I then asked for approval here and started correcting the icons. Changing "u" and "d" to "g" and "f" is easy enough but swapping "l" and "r" is a bit trickier. To do this the bot changes "l" to "CHRISBOT", now that "l" is free it changes "r" to "l", and now that "r" is free it changes "CHRISBOT" to "r". Unfortunately this requires that there is a temporary blank square or a wrong facing arrow but this only lasts the time it takes for the cache to be updated and I really don't think that it blocks the overall understanding of the template. I had started by correcting the less used icons, giving me a chance to try it out with minimal impact. However now I am doing the more used ones it is getting a greater bit of attention.

Now that I have seen all these problems I gave this bot a good think, I can propose three possible solutions:

1. Either I can stop it strait away and leave the icons half done
2. Or I can continue with the same method
3. Or I can do it in another way:
   1. "u" and "d" will be changed to "g" and "f" (no problems)
   2. the "l" and "r" swapping will use another method:
      1. tCONTl will be uploaded to CHRISBOT. When the cache is updated,
      2. tCONTl will be replaced by CHRISBOT.
      3. tCONTl will be overwritten with tCONTr. When the cache is updated,
      4. tCONTr will be replaced by tCONTl.
      5. tCONTr will be overwritten with CHRISBOT (originally tCONTl). When the cache is updated,
      6. CHRISBOT will be replaced by tCONTr
      7. do the same for CONTl and CONTr
      8. during the change {{User:Chrisbot/Work status}} will inform you of the right icon name to use (plus you can place the template at "strategic" pages: WP:RDT, WP:UKRAIL, etc)

This however is a very long process as the cache can (in my experience) take a week to update, but I think it is a better method. It would also be better since I share my computer with my family and the old method forced that everything be done in one go, making my family get annoyed at me for forcing them to have the bot slow down the computer by running in the background. This method is in short, independent stages, so not-so-annoying, and since I'll soon be going on holiday, can be paused at any moment. Thanking you for your patience, ChrisDHDR 07:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As observed, this bot does not just change these things over quickly e.g. in 5 or 10 minutes, which I think was what the administrators/moderators were expecting when they approved its use, so diaggrams are wrong fOURS or DAYS, for what many see as a totally unnecessary change. Heaven help Chris when he actually changes the main icons rather than the minor, less-used ones. In my opinion it would have been better to change the icons FIRST, so that EVERYTHING was OBVIOUSLY wrong. To start changing small bits of text can only leave one puzzled as to what is going on, one undoes or changes it back, and then it's STILL going to be wrong once the change is finished. Now I've just made a new article conforming to the new conventions (Template:Ipswich to Ely RDT). It would not at all surprise me if the bot comes along and then reverses the arrows AGAIN so that they will all then be wrong. In short, this is a bad solution to a non-problem. SimonTrew (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the problems that I caused you Simon; tho I would like to note that the cache is updated and so everything is fine now. Also now that I have a new method there will be no problems. CHRISBOT has also had its cache updated so I could start changing the tCONTl icons but I would prefer to have a go ahead first. So: can I restart Chrisbot now that there will be no problems? ChrisDHDR 08:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot ignoring a {{nobot}} instruction

User:Chrisbot has vandalised my sandbox. I Specifically placed a {{nobot}} on the sandbox because I don't want bots interfering with articles and diagrams I'm working on in my sandbox. Despite this, Chrisbot edited my sandbox. This bot has already been reported here for the way it is performing. It is time it was shut down permanently as we editors can do the same job much faster and with less damage to articles. Mjroots (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The bot has not edited since 2 July, which is before you left a complaint at User talk:Chrisbot. If he resumes without responding to your concern, admins should consider blocking the bot. If you think the bot is totally unhelpful you could ask at WT:BRFA for the bot's approval to be withdrawn. EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I left the message at Chrisbot's talk page this morning on discovering my sandbox had been vandalised. I will raise the issue where you suggest, thanks.

This still does not address the issue of why the bot is editing on pages that are tagged with {{nobot}}, the template means NO BOTS TO EDIT THIS PAGE (wikistress lvl rising). Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Bots do not have to follow {{nobots}}. Its just a suggestion. --Chris 08:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That makes a complete nonsense of "nobot". There is nothing of the bots user or talk page which states that it does not comply with {{nobots}}. If I wanted bots to interfere with my sandbox I wouldn't have it tagged with the template in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've nominated Template:Nobot for deletion because (I believe) bots won't recognize it. {{nobots}} is the correct tag that exclusion-compliant bots will recognize. – 16:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Troll?

I believe

• Kdpsssps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log)

Is trolling User:Star Mississippi, and creating harrasment pages about them on uncy. The user may beKip the Dip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log). Please investigate.--Otterathome (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors are presumed to be acting in good faith unless evidence indicates otherwise. Please present evidence. ^{273 featured contributions} 19:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if this user is Kip the Dip, block them for trolling and move on. They are clearly the same person as the user of the same name on Uncyclopedia, and clearly created a pages over there attacking StarM, and clearly came to Wikipedia to brag about it less than two hours later, and are clearly unproductive here on Wikipedia. Block indef. I don't know if Uncyclopedia is another version of ED or not, so I don't know if they actually clean up crap like that or not (certainly seemed impossible to find a page to report it to), but at least we can block trolls when we find them here, yes? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidence it is the same person, and not some "impersonation": [13] on Uncyclopedia, where he says Wikipedia is "bullish", meaning it bullies innocent users like himself, an odd turn of phrase. [14] says the same thing on Wikipedia 4 hours later, using the same odd "bullish" phrase. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoever or whatever the editor is, he/she is on a final warning notice, any further disruption should lead to immediate blocking. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That final warning is from 28 June. Their attack article on Uncyclopedia, and their bragging about it on User talk:StarM, occured after the final warning. Unless the plan is to give them a "this time we really, really mean it super-duper final only one more chance after this" final warning? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User is using the other wiki to harass User:Star Mississippi and bringing it to his attention acting as an innocent user. Don't know why he still isn't blocked.--Otterathome (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidently the 2009 Peter Damien crisis has occupied all admin free time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, why is that a redlink? :P MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

He's after me also--actually he got to me first. I deleted an article he wrote, after someone properly tagged it, and I see Star M warned him for his vandalism to my p., so that's how Star M got into it. DGG (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, DGG. Troll, without a doublt. Whether there's enough to connect him with the account above and warrant a CU, I have no idea. DGG and I have had a mutual troll before, who it could also be. I won't block as obviously involved but suggest it should be done. He can't do too much w disparaging me, this is the only place I use this username - thanks to some previous off wiki harassment. ETA see it's not me but Wikipedia. No idea how to have such content removed. Anyone know? THanks 01:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I blanked the page, and asked an admin to delete it: [15]. You would think they wouldn't have a big bureaucracy over there, hopefully that will be enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

On Uncyclopedia, at least, things get done the same century they're requested. Attack page deleted, troll blocked. I like that they have a block duration of "until Judgment Day", much classier than "indefinitely". --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Floque! Request someone here block the user, don't want to as I'm involved, but clearly here for no good. 03:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. Sarah 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

miss use of Refimprove?

I am not sure how to deal with an editor who is using Template:Refimprove in my view overzealously. The tag was added to Dunstable an article already with 28 references across all sections (quite unusual for a settlement article) by User talk:Jenuk1985. I reviewed the page and having not found the problem(s) I removed the tag adding an edit summary as required. This resulted in a level one warning been posted for removing a tag without giving a reason etc. On asking him at his talk page if he could draw my attention to the problem he had identified, his response was unhelpful and indicated in effect he could not be bothered to clarify why he added the refimprove tag so I advised I would remove it as I could not find anything wrong. He then decided to give me a further warning. I noticed his talk page is currently filling up with other editors complaints due to his overzealous and unexplained actions on other articles. A review of the edit history on his talk page suggests he has been annoying other editors for some time. This to me appears to be a disruptive editor who is doing little to contribute to Wp and is wasting and upsetting other editors whilst misusing guidance and deployment of threats to block. I have now tidied up a couple of cn's that have been around on the page for a while and added a summary of action taken on the Talk Page What should I do not just to spot this editor hounding me with warnings but for others sake too? Tmol42 (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, If the reason for a tag is not immediately apparent it is expected to leave some note on the talk page explaining why it was left. – 18:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Wikipedia:Gaming the system. This is not the only example. The same editor seems to have repeatedly antagonized, bullied and threatened other editors while making changes to articles and citing one interpretaion of different policies and guidelines in an authoritative manner. FairFare (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get too involved with this as I feel it is making a fuss out of nothing! When you are in the background cleaning everything up and using templates to alert problems, you never get any thanks, just a load of people moaning. I request that FairFare answers me one question, if you can't cite policies and guidelines, then what can you cite? A large number of editors seem to take it on themselves to unreasonably ignore guidelines (outside the remit of WP:IAR), and the only way to drill sense into them is to cite said guidelines. As an aside, I notice Tmol42 has stooped to what is verging on a personal attack in this edit, I don't take too kindly to being called a "sad editor". It would also be nice if said editor would refer to me as the correct gender, the name Jen kind of gives it away!  |  23:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are all very well, but their application is no substitute for consensus and discussion. Most guidelines are just that- guidelines, with exceptions for common sense, which invites proposals and discussion. They are not unilateral licences for "bull in a china shop"-type edits, even when cited by reference to some policy or guideline which is open to interpretation. Even more so when such edits are imposed without any discussion whatsoever as to their merits. Rodhullandemu 23:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So on one hand, I'm getting it in the ear from the US Roads Wikiproject that guidelines are everything and must be adhered to at all times, yet some people aren't happy with the guidelines and would prefer it if they didn't exist. I can't win! I'm working with other wikipedians around the globe to get the encyclopaedia up to a respectable standard, well referenced, meeting the MOS as appropriate, and I get moaned at for it! I read a comment a few days ago that if you get people moaning about your reasonable edits, it should be taken as a compliment, as good work will always attract people who don't like it! I'm guessing you are here because I removed the photo gallery from an article, whereas you feel it should remain, hence this note on my talk page? (Which wasn't really a useful message, hence the reply not being particularly useful) If you disagree with my edit, revert it and discuss it in an appropriate place, in this case WP:IG may be a suitable venue! Sometimes people forget about WP:BRD. The only times I re-revert in this situation is if the guidelines are blatantly not being followed, in which case, its verging on being disruptive. I always revert/warn on removal of maintenance templates without first fixing the problem, there are people out there that don't like templates on "their" articles, we just have to fight against these ownership issues.  |  00:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this thread is making a mountain out of a molehill. Killiondude (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This thread has angered me that there is such pettiness on WP, its nice for someone to come along and put some common sense input in :)  |  00:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick question: Jenuk1985, have you edited under another username before and received similar reminders? User:Docu 11:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, only username. ⁽⁾ 14:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Review of HanzoHattori continued if illegal editing

HanzoHattori (talk · contribs) was permmbanned in Feb 2008. Since then, he has created several socks, and seems to keep returning to Wikipedia; there is no indication that he will ever stop. His newest sock, User:Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji, was just discovered and banned today (although I cannot seem to find the CU request/evidence page...?). Yet I am not posting to complain about futile attempts to keep him away; instead I am posting here in order to request the review of the permban on him. Long story short, it appears to me upon a cursory review that his socks have been performing constructive, not disruptive edits; none of his socks has violated our polices, been blocked of even warned for anything as far as I can tell - they were editing constructively for weeks or even months, up to the point they were banned upon being confirmed as socks of HH (presumably due to editing the same articles/subjects). An unban of him was proposed by another admin already few months ago (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive470#Productive_socks) and since than we have accumulated more evidence (based on his continued pattern of editing via socks) that he wants to be a constructive member of our community. He is making constructive content edits (creating and expanding articles), he is not edit warring, and doesn't seem to be flaming or otherwise disruptive (which IIRC was a major complain against HH). As such, I believe we should review his behavior once again, since its shows signs of improvement, and consider unbanning him, perhaps under some restriction/mentorship. In the end, if Hanzo wants to help us build encyclopedia in a constructive manner, without repeating his past mistakes (as he has shown us he can), why should we not allow him to do so? Not to mention that blocking his successive constructive socks is making a mockery of our ideals that blocks/bans and such should be preventative, not punitive. PS. I'd like to strongly encourage all who had bad experiences with HH to review his behavior in the past year and so instead of remembering old grievances. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|} 04:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense but are we looking at the same sock? OKSK has edit warred, been ridiculously uncivil (including after his block), and has not shown a single solitary sign that he has learned from his past mistakes, but instead continues acting exactly the same. He hasn't shown any desire to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and his "good contributions" include tons of original research and copyvio's taken straight from IMDB! What constructive editing as he done? Making a glut of unsourced video game stubs? Sorry, but I support leaving the permaban in place, and I never had interaction with HH so I'm speaking only from new grievances, not old ones. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the diffs for his edit warring and incivility? The only incivility I saw was after his block, which I consider understandable (which doesn't mean excusable, of course). I did review his video game articles, and they are fine - as noted in relevant discussion, there is no obvious copyvio. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|} 23:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring (for which he has a huge glaring warning on his talk page for and which is how I got introduced to him) was on Naga the Serpent[16]. His response to the warning? "oh geez, come on. Do we need a drama?" [17] I left him a sternly worded note about his attitude during the edit war with another editor (and his edit summary offering to violate copyright to prove his OR is still OR). In addition to falsely claiming he wasn't doing anything but rewriting what's there (when clear check shows he added OR content[18]), he basically responded with "No U are edit warring"[19], then saying he didn't write the info he added[20] implying another possible copyright violation. When the other editor started a discussion asking for reliable sources instead of just original research, OKSK responded demanding to have one item pointed out one thing "you EXACTLY have a problem with, I'll prove you wrong, and you will go away" even though the editor had already done just that[21]. Later, having received the warnings I already mentioned, he responds to calm, rational discussion with "I guess it may be done, but this is idiotic. I only tried to clean-up this article (actually deleted only the stupid stuff about how cosplaying Naga is banned), then cleaned-up more and asked what exactly I'd have to prove, got a warning and you guys ganged-up on me, so now go and play but without me. Bye."[22] (but of course continued the conversation).

In Talk:Game Over (video game), his "starting a discussion" on his marking the article as censored, along with post a picture of a human nipple.[23]. He was asked to actually post a clear discussion of what he felt was wrong with the article[24], and instead asked if nipples were evil and later continuing to dodge the issue of what he actually felt was wrong with the article.[25][26] He left a note on the talk page of another editor he was disagreeing with using "You're doing it wrong" as the subject and a message of "Look what you're doing." (with no context, anything)[27] With another, he left a note saying "Please stop lying. Thank you"[28] in response to that editor having left him a note asking him to conform to the MoS and explaining why his edits to Jonestown were reverted[29] Said article was Jonestown, another place he edit warring in which two different editors reverted his image moving[30]. His history really speaks for itself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Few reverts don't equal edit warring, but if you think his return should be conditional upon 1RR restriction, that may be a good idea. As for his talk posts, they are a bit childish sometimes, but I am not seeing any serious personal attacks? But again, a civility parole and a mentorship could be beneficial for him. The point is that a user who is mostly editing constructively can benefit from our attempts to reform him, and the project will benefit from that more then from banning and rebanning user who is, most of the time, peacefully working on good content articles (ex. Lublin Ghetto). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|} 02:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Must say I am absolutely (not) amazed that Piotrus is going in to bat for the foul-mouthed editor that was HanzoHattori. Evidence? Look at the block logs...for example. User talk:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog/Archive 1 is full of warnings and blocks for edit warring, uncivility, etc. User talk:RamboKadyrov is full of typical HH tirades, telling the community at large fuck you on no less than 6 occasions -- this is brilliant and typical of why this user should never see the light of day again -- Quote -- "I think I am one of the best and most active users but I never looked for recognition for all my work (never cared to be whatever moderators are called here), but now I'm called "sock puppet" by some idiots (fuck you, your mother is a sock puppet) and barred from working, repeatedly. So, either I am officially allowed to return and someone says "sorry for that" to me, or fuck you, Wikipedians, for the last time.". I say let this child continue to say "Screw you guys... I'm going home!" and continue to block their socks at every opportunity. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Collectonian and Russavia, I interacted with Hanzo for years, and he was one of the most dedicated and productive content editors I have ever seen. While editing under several accounts, he made around 70,000 edits and created hundreds new articles (some precise data can be provided if needed, this is only a tip of the iceberg). I am mostly familiar with his contributions on Russia, Caucasus and Chechen wars related articles. I thought he lived in this area - so intimately he was familiar with the subject (I personally visited North Caucasus many times as a hiker/mountaineer). Hanzo was very cooperative, and we talked a lot about editing a number of articles. He did high quality work, as one can see, for example, from Beslan school hostage crisis, where he was one of chief contributors. He was very cooperative with me. If we decided to create an article, it was enough just to start it, as he was coming to help (see this article, for example). He was a very neutral editor and corrected my POV many times. But there was another side of the coin. He worked with extreme dedication (sometimes 15 hours non-stop) and definitely overworked here. He also had a lot of trouble explaining what he is doing to others, especially if they were not familiar with the subject (I remember helping him to explain others the difference between War crimes, Crime against peace and crimes against humanity). This led to tensions when he had a trouble controlling himself, which ultimately led to his ban. He also has an unfortunate habit of using foul words on talk. I would strongly support him coming back, but only under two conditions. First, he should make a promise and really to make an effort towards more polite and cooperative conversation with other users (I personally had no trouble communicating with him, but some others did). Second, he probably needs a mentorship and some form of civility parole.Biophys (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the administrators face a tough dilemma: an editor who is obviously dedicated and able to contribute productively, yet who also--one way or another--has difficulty within a consensus environment. Per Wikipedia:Standard offer HanzoHattori seems like the kind of editor who would be a good candidate for a return, yet would go about it a different way than this. Overall, we've gotten better results in the past from bringing back banned editors who went several months without socking, than by unbanning in spite of recent socking. So here's an offer: if HanzoHattori goes six months without socking at all, or makes at least 500 productive and unproblematic edits at another WMF site within the next three months, then at the end of the time frame I will initiate an unban discussion for him and support his return. If he wishes, he is welcome to participate at any of the three sister projects where I am a sysop (Commons, Wikisource, or Wikinews), although any WMF site would be fine. Best wishes, ²⁷³ 18:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed ban for Elance user Tayzen

• http://www.elance.com/experts/tayzen
• Yaromunna (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
• Vpopescu (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
• Cinagua (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
• Chabaka (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
• NEW - Desiphral (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)

If you participated in the paid editing RFC, you might have come across User:Ha!/paid editing adverts. Unfortunately that only scratches the surface with respect to Tayzen's paid spam. You'll find the evidence at WT:WPSPAM#Tayzen. Differences from what was posted in the RFC:

• The spam is cross-wiki.
• Found several more confirmed and suspected paid editing jobs. These are marked new.
• I also found several clusters of suspicious edits that look like paid editing jobs.

The four accounts above are (sock|meat)puppets operated by this user.

Furthermore, there are more jobs in the pipeline: [31], [32]. These comments suggest he has no remorse. I think it's time to use the banning policy to stop this nonsense. MER-C 12:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I should note that if you want to get the full text of the Elance postings, you can append a referrer string such as &rid=18J3T to the URL. MER-C 12:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban proposal (which I'm assuming will essentially amount to a carte-blanche to indefblock all identified role accounts, such as those above, on sight). It wouldn't be so bad if the articles created followed Wikipedia policy, but blatant non-notable vanity and puff-pieces have no place here, and maybe if the editor has to return enough fees when their rubbish is deleted they'll find something else to do. EyeSerene^talk
• Oh Good Lord. Support ban proposal/eradication project. This stuff should be discouraged and made unprofitable for the advertisers. Fine fine detective work there which deserves some sort of award. --Calton | Talk 21:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, the copyright violations noted at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diablo Tranquilo Bar.JPG, and the editor's subsequent willingness to misrepresent xyrself as the copyright holder when challenged, make the editor problematic irrespective of the issue of whether xe was paid to make these edits. Uncle G (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The spam is bad enough but there's also sockpuppetry in disruption of our processes. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support due to the socking and misrepresenting themselves as copyright holder. Probably worth getting a CU, if not done already. Good work Mer-c. Sarah 17:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. In addition to the sockpuppeting and copyright issues, Desiphral is a notorious POV-pusher when it comes to Roma articles, and is quick to accuse others of racism. He has long shown disregard for Wikipedia policies. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support I usually don't take a hard stance towards banning editors but he has very heavily abused our system in a way that typical POV pushers and vandals have not. I also recommend further action being taken with regards to his position on the Romanian Wikipedia. 02:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad news

[33]

Hi there,

I would like to apply for this project, possessing three years of experience in this field, now with about 11000 edits, accumulated in creating wiki content in Wikipedias in various languages, under the username Desiphral (at Romani Wikipedia I am also admin). Only on the English Wikipedia my work counts currently about 4000 edits in 1300 distinct pages:

http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Desiphral&site=en.wikipedia.org

I have a good knowledge of organizing a new Wikipedia article, if you provide me the links for citing and processing the info in Wikipedia style. I may provide articles in English, Spanish, French and Romanian Wikipedias (the languages that I know well). Usually, more Wikipedia articles, better for the subject they treat.

I am currently available Monday through Sunday and can be reached online by Yahoo Messenger or Skype.

[[File:Facepalm.jpg|150px]] Desiphral is the only administrator on the Vlax Romani Wikipedia. Does anyone here speak Vlax Romani? What do we do now? (Toolserver cross-wiki contribs and access to s3 are borked at the moment :( . )MER-C 08:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've long known that Desiphral is the only Administrator on the Romani Wikipedia, but didn't think it was possible to do anything about it. With him in power I shudder to think what sort of a point of view that Wikipedia must be putting across. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the most straightforward way is to get a steward to globally lock the accounts. Not sure of the best way to approach this - perhaps through a blacklisting request of all the spammed sites. MER-C 04:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

IB Diploma Programme

Strictly, this falls under WP:DR but it's an ongoing issue that doesn't fall neatly into any of the DR categories. It's possible that the matter could resolved quickly simply by an admin popping by and banging a few heads together; it's also possible that any solution will be harder than that! If, having read this, anyone can suggest a better venue then please do.

This article has become a battle-field, bogged down with different sets of opposing editors. The article's subject is a diploma issued by the International Baccalaureate (IB) organisation, which one set of editors apparently regard as being "bad", while in turn the other set consider it "good". "Good" and "bad" here roughly translate to "Promoting peace and opposing conservatism" and "The demon-spawn of the United Nations" ;-) Somewhere in the middle is a group who want the article to follow WP:NPOV.

The issue is particularly contentious as there has been a recent court case in which one or more editors may have been involved (at least one editor suspects that they met another editor during the case). This has led to possible WP:OUTING and a lot of distrust.

Content disputes become quickly heated, and turn into low-level edit wars, complete with accusations of vandalism.

Ideally, I'd like a non-involved admin or two (or three...!) to watchlist the article. Hell, I'll take what I'm given, and if you want to steer me towards a more appropriate venue then please do. All I want is for the pain to stop ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• To correct a couple of misrepresentations by TFOWR, whether editors consider the IB Diploma Programme "good" or "bad" is irrelevant. It is my understanding that Wikipedia is supposed to present facts in an encyclopaedic manner. The USC issue was resolved. The UN issue was resolved. The current dispute involves the placement of a sub-section titled Application, Authorization and Fees. I have never "met" the other editor in question in person, however this individual has stalked me all over the Internet and is using Wikipedia for their own personal war by reversing my contributions to the article in a destructive manner. Yes, there are two "camps" when it comes to IB, those who will draw blood to defend the IB programme and those of us who simply want the truth to be told. ObserverNY (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
• This noninvolved admin found that reading the article's talk page gave me about the same throbbing headache as listening to small children in the back seat of the car squabbling on a long trip over trivialities. Edison (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That's pretty much how I feel. Any chance you could make us walk home, or at least threaten us with no supper?! Anything to make the pain stop...! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Admins - To add full disclosure. I am also an editor on this site and have written on the talk page. Early today I was also seeking where an appropriate solution could be found to resolve the bickering. I sought out a neutral editor who had volunteered to help the community and posted on their page as they requested. You can read my post here if you so wish. --Candy (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • And while we are at it, I would like the administrators to take note of ObserverNY's uncivil and harassing behavior. For some reason, she (she has revealed her gender and first name) thinks I am someone she has met over the internet. She has repeatedly accused me of "stalking" her because I have reverted/changed a number of her edits in my attempts to prevent the article from becoming a platform for her self-admitted POV. She has even attempted to "out" me in an effort to stop me from editing. Let me also add that I work well with all other editors, as they can attest, and we can always reach a consensus among all of us except for ObserverNY.Tvor65 (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Tvor65 (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I think you're overstating your case, Tvor65. I also suspected that you were not a new acquaintance of ObserverNY's, and I did suggest that your challenges to her edits could be less confrontational. I agree that she is far from an exemplary editor, but she is a lot better than she was. Luke 15:7 anyone?

        Ewen (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

        • You may suspect whatever you want, Ewen, but it does not make it true, does it? Nor do ObserverNY's suspicions give her a right to repeatedly make insinuations about me. I have edited on Wikipedia for a while before I recently registered, and I have met people like her before, so perhaps I was a little more prepared to try to stop what I knew would inevitably escalate into the current situation.Tvor65 (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
          • You see, Tvor65, this is why ObserverNY isn't wholly to blame for the uncivility. a) I said suspecteed. Past tense. b) My point is that it wasn't just ObserverNY who thought your behaviour here on wikipedia was suspiciously familiar to that of other people elsewhere. I'm not saying her accusations were true - to claim I did is dishonest - but I am saying that her accusations are understandable.

            Ewen (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

            • Well, I certainly don't find her unfounded accusations understandable at all - and I hope the administrators will take note. I think her behavior in general is beyond the pale, and something should be done about it. If anything, it is getting worse, not better. Admins, please help.Tvor65 (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I reported her for violating the Three-revert rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#ObserverNY_violation_of_3RR_on_IBDP_page

      I also reported her behavior on Wikiquette about a month ago.

      She has been warned several times by different editors both on the IBDP talk page and her own talk page.

      Turn the car around and leave her home alone. She needs a time out.

      La mome (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

      • TFOWR's characterization of the climate on the page is correct. La Mome's allegations are correct. In my view, the talk guidelines have been violated, and any constructive work is aggressively blocked. Pull the car to the side and tell the kids they're stuck until they learn how to be quiet. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• TFOWR wants some heads knocked together. Consider this some head knocking:

  Tvor65: The situation is getting worse, not better, in part because of your actions. You and ObserverNY are both Single-purpose accounts, and your behaviour is a fairly evident contributory factor in this. Your first edit to any article talk page was this, and your talk page contributions have not improved from that low standard since. "Restoring the truth" as an edit summary reinserting a whole load of unsourced statements brings Wikipedia:The Truth directly to mind, and it is something that you should read. Repeatedly using edit summaries to argue about "right-wing propaganda" (example, example, example) is unacceptable, and "Sorry, I call a spade a spade" is not a defence. Stick to summarizing edits in edit summaries, and place your arguments on talk pages.

  ObserverNY: Your mis-use of edit summaries for making arguments (example) is just as bad. Make your arguments on the talk page. Wikipedia is no more for your version of "The Truth™" than it is for Tvor65's version. You, like xem, are still failing to get what we at Wikipedia want, here. On which point:

  TFOWR, Truthkeeper88, Candorwien, and Ewen: Unlike ObserverNY, Tvor65, and La mome, you are not SPAs. But you have all lost the plot. So much back and forth has gone on that you've lost sight of our core principles. Here's an example: So much back and forth has gone on over the content of the IB Diploma Programme#Certificates section that it no longer bears any relation to the cited source linked-to from the text, and is in clear need of a {{notinsource}} notice. Stick to adding content based upon what sources say. Actively hold both yourselves and all other editors to our core content policies. Require good sources, and require that content be supported by those sources. I can understand, from both the edit history of the article and the reams of talk page discussion, the reasons why you might have lost the plot. But you have, nonetheless.

  As such, I issue this warning:

  Tvor65 and ObserverNY, you're the main cause of the disruption here. (Although La mome is an SPA too, xyr talk page and article editing behaviour here is not in the same category as either of yours.) Any benefits that you bring in terms of content are being outweighed by the edit warring and the lengthy talk page squabblings that you have entered into. You are getting to the point where you are actively impeding the writing of the article with this. Cease edits like this and this right now. If you don't, then I or another administrator might well decide that Wikipedia is better off without the distraction that you both create, and revoke your editing privileges, leaving the article to be edited by the regular editors, interested in writing Wikipedia as a whole, that you've managed to cause to lose the plot here.

  The rest of you: Regain the plot that you have lost! Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Uncle G. Sorry for contributing to the reams of materials you've had to wade through. I'd just like to add that the main cause of losing the plot is considering which cited, verifiable material to include. Other issues are more black-and-white but we need to maintain good judgement to avoid giving undue weight to minority views, which leads to discussion as to what would be due weight, etc, etc. Have you any advice on steering an unbiased course through these poorly-charted waters?

Ewen (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, thanks Uncle G. I consider myself to be walking home without the prospect of any supper, and that you've made a fair point. Plot-regaining will be worked on. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet another thanks. I concur with your observations re: sources and will begin wading through sources to examine that the content is cited in the source. Won't fall into the mud again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Attention needed

I've been proactive here. I've dumped a whole load of balls on the article's talk page, in the hope that this will spur people back into the constructive processes of finding, reading, evaluating, and using sources to expand and improve the article. In the process, I've found that at least one of the people that an editor has self-identified as being is discussed at length in a few of the sources that document this subject. Whilst this is not an inherently bad thing, since that person will be able to point out the other sides to several coins with respect to the subject, there is a danger that the talkpage discussion will once again become a proxy for external debates. So additional eyes are needed to ensure that behavioural issues do not once again become a problem. And those include the behavioural issues of other editors deriding that person, as noted above. Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring...

and removal of rollback. I would like to have my rollback back because I had it taken away for edit warring with a rowdy user, and others had reverted this user also. If you look, you will see I have a pretty good track record and I beleive I should not have had my rollback taken away. By the advice of another admin, I post here to beg for my rollback back. Many users feel I have been unjustly revoken, along with threats of other users. Please regrant rollback because I was only reverting a vandal with over 200 nonsence edits. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 16:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't vandalism. The back and forth you fell into was a needless edit war over good faith edits and a wanton abuse of rollback. As someone else has said, you're lucky you weren't blocked too: In looking at User:Qelknap's contrib history, I don't see "a vandal with over 200 nonsence edits." Unless I'm missing something and you can put up some diffs which show otherwise, I think you might want to brush up on WP:Vandalism and WP:3rr. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

the diff. disruptive As I see it, there is no point in removing rollback. I FELL into it, and I should not be punished, rather the other person, seeing as he started it. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 16:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a new user who may not know what they're doing. Did you ask Qelknap about all those null edits? Did you try to discuss your worries about Qelknap's edits at Electronic_prescribing? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

See my deleted warnings, and pleas to stop. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 16:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked for diffs, put them here please. You call this odd, rude templating of a newcomer a "discussion."? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello admin--I assure you, most of the time I am not joking nor do I make "joke" edits. I haven't touched an article for a few hours. And when I did edit, it was GOOD work.75.21.114.176 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That was just left on my talk. Also, What else was I to do, maybe some humor would lighten them up, and this template has been used before here. Sorry, differant user saying "beware wiki-nazis"Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 17:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the dumbest template I ever saw, Andrewrp. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It was not made by me, by badmachine, I think. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I know I should have not reverted, but when other users are warning and blocking, what are you to do. I was never warned to stop, only after the user was bloced. I feel that after some sort of punishment, I should get rollback back, along with the same punishment for the other rollbacker. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 17:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well let me put this clearly. On Huggle, I saw Qelknap's 200+ nonsensical edits to Parliament be reverted and he/she received their first warning. They continued to edit Wikipedia in a disruptive manner and were repeatedly warned. So their "colour and number" changed progressively from 2, to 3, to 4 (yellow, to brown, to red). I was never one of the editors who reverted their original edits, nor did I warn them. When the user was finally reported, I naturally assumed that there was consensus that the edits were unconstructive and constituted vandalism. I then proceeded to revert changes they made to Wikipedia until the case was resolved at WP:AIV. Perfectly normal practice. If you want more information, feel free to browse the history pages relating to Qelknap.-- / 17:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same way, and I think I and him should get some sort of punishment (or maybe not), than back to rollback. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just James, do you still have rollback after this mess? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think so, seeing no one told him otherwise. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 17:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, both of you, we can talk further about this on Andrewrp's talk page (give me a tick, maybe 10 minutes, thanks). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Confirmed, he still has it. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 17:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) For the record, I removed rollback for Just James (talk · contribs) for edit warring on the same article at 17:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC) right before I found this thread. Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's it. I suppose it's time I leave Wikipedia after nearly 3 frustrating years.-- / 17:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please settle down and wait. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Removal of rollback is not about punishment, it's about preventing future problems. I'm sure if it's believed that the problem here is unlikely to recur, regaining it won't be an issue. However I'm not sure I like : "I naturally assumed that there was consensus that the edits were unconstructive and constituted vandalism. I then proceeded to revert changes they made to Wikipedia until the case was resolved at WP:AIV. Perfectly normal practice." - of it is perfectly normal practice it shouldn't be, we don't go by mob rule and it would seem a good excuse for no one to take responsibility. Every time you make an edit/action on wikipedia you are responsible for that edit, you need to be happy that if called on later you stand by it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Having looked this over and after speaking with the admin, I thought this seemed like a one-off, very unhappy but good faith slip-up and gave them back their rollback rights. However, the rights logs now show rollback was taken away from each of them for a short time and if something like this happens again it's likely rbr will be lost for a much longer time. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Could someone take a look at my new signature and make sure it's appropriate before I change it? Thank you --- --- 00:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(Non-admin response): If it is the version under "In Progress", it looks great. Just make sure there is a time/date stamp with it. People are sticklers for those. - • • 00:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the administrator's noticeboard isn't the appropriate venue for this (not that there necessarily is one). We don't vet signatures. -- 00:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that's my signature, signatures and timestamps are separate things. I guess I'll change my signature now. It links to my pages, it's not offensive, so.... --- --- 02:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a bit too long in the editing window. 04:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's only two lines long on my screen, which isn't too bad. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't really blame him for coming here for preclearance, given the fact that people who might find his signature out of bounds will commonly come here or to AN/I to complain about it. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Inactive sysop accounts

Are inactive accounts preserved indefinitely in case the user wishes to return? An example, Mintguy (talk · contribs) has not edited in five years, but still retains sysop privileges. Would it not be better to suspend those privileges (as they are not being used) until such a time as they are needed again, ie if the user returns and shows an interest in editing (and administrating) again? These accounts are a target for usurpation.  pablo_hablo. 05:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's been discussed again and again. Renaming an account, in order to usurp it by afterwards creating a new account, does not give away privileges, by the way. So usurpation is not a factor here. Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hacking is also a lot more obvious (and usually more unlikely) with a long-inactive account. ▫ 05:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • We just had a problem with a long-ago admin returning who didn't seem to understand how much has changed around here. For someone given the tools in 2005, I recognize that it's vastly different. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• I meant usurp, not usurp, and hacking was my concern. There's not much point in hacking a normal account, especially when there are admin accounts lying around unused.  pablo_hablo. 06:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Stealing account is generally done through packet sniffing, keyboard logging, or stealing browser files, all of which require an active user. An inactive account is far less likely to be hacked than an active account. 06:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• It seems relatively obvious that any admin account that has been substantially inactive for six months should have its privileges removed, with no prejudice for restoring should they return to active editing. The potential for widespread mayhem should someone get their hands on such an account (and I'm sure we can think of reams of people who would like to) is pretty severe, and we should address that. → ROUX ₪ 06:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • What is "relatively obvious" turns out not to be once one thinks about it in greater depth. In addition to the points made here already, other factors to think about are the human ones. In practice, the hurdle for regaining administrator privileges is actually quite high, and far from "no prejudice". There's also the effect that such actions have on editor morale. But, as I said above, this has all been discussed at length already, several times. I recommend reading all of the past arguments before repeating them.

    I also recommend looking at the specific case given above. Mintguy is not an inactive administrator. Xe is a retired administrator. But xe also makes a good example of how human factors raise this supposedly "no prejudice" hurdle that exists as an ideal but not in practice. Read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive/Mintguy and then tell us that the ideal of a "no prejudice" re-granting of administrator privileges would occur in practice. Uncle G (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

    • No, it's still obvious to me, and I have thought about it at some length. One of the issues with RFA--why the bar is set so painfully high, and higher with each one--is that it is next to impossible to be desysopped. If we were to routinely desysop inactive admins, we would be one step closer into making adminship what it should be: not that big a deal, really. The Wikipedia equivalent of being the Hall Monitor at school. I would propose that the policy be worded (and applied) roughly thus: users with sysop (or higher) permissions who have been inactive for 6 months will have those permissions removed as a matter of course. They will be automatically regranted upon request to ArbCom, though will be re-removed after three months if the user remains inactive but for the request. Simple, clear, unambiguous. Gameable, maybe, but not only do I seriously doubt that anyone would game it, IAR is easily enough applied to the one or two edge cases that may result. And really, what is the practical difference between 'retired' and 'inactive? Not much as far as I can see. Indeed, 'retired' is a much more conclusive argument for removing permissions. → ROUX ₪ 07:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'd actually agree, although I'd say 8 or 9 would be safer than 6 (it is actually entirely possible to be absent for 6 months for a variety of reasons, but a longer absence would suggest genuine inactivity). I also don't think ArbCom would be necessary - you could record all admins so desysopped on a list somewhere and a bureaucrat could simply check the list when such a request arrives (to protect against fraudulent requests). An even better way would be to have a special attribute "inactive-sysops" on the account so a bureaucrat doesn't even have to check the list. But these are all only ideas :) Orderinchaos 18:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Sure, 8 or 9, whatever. The timespan doesn't matter. The idea of crats managing it makes a lot of sense. → ROUX ₪ 18:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Hacking"? please define. As best I know noone has managed to gain illicit shell access to the wikimedia servers, if they could do so and then gain access to the database table of users, they could reset anyones password or change the privileges of an existing account without showing in the activity log (Steward rights would be useful). I assume you actually mean guessing passwords, in which case the age of the account or activity wouldn't be a factor. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If you feel strongly about inactive/retired admin accounts you can start a discussion at the village pump, if there is support you can create an RFC or centralized discussion. To date, the situation has been discussed many times, and there is no consensus to remove admin access from inactive/retired accounts; therefore, there is no point in appealing to the stewards or Arbcom until you have a community discussion that has a clear consensus. Thatcher 13:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Compromised admin accounts have actually done very little damage for about 10 minutes in the past. When this has happened in the past it was with active accounts. There is no need to implement this solution when there is no problem yet. There is no good reason to remove the sysop bit from users simply because they are inactive. This has been discussed many times, I don't oppose further discussion but I suspect consensus has not yet changed on this matter. 13:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • "There is no need to implement this solution when there is no problem yet." Well that's just false on its face. You can't build the levees once the floods have already started. You're arguing a reactive instead of a preventative approach. And let me tell you, that mindset has been dismissed outright in pretty much every professional field, from medicine to engineering to psychology to the Boy Scouts to, of course, computer security. -- 18:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'd support temporary suspension of administrator priveleges (with no-questions-asked restoration upon return) if only to have the "number of admins" be an accurate reflection of how many admins there actually are. – 13:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly. No questions asked is the point that Uncle G missed. → ROUX ₪ 17:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Wrong. I hit the point, and even contradicted it, pointing out that it is not well founded either in knowledge of human nature in general or in past experience of what has already happened, here and on other wikis. "no questions asked" is a theoretical ideal, and we've had enough past experience to know that in practice what is envisaged by that ideal will not happen. I suggest that, for starters, you go and look at what happened on Wikinews when inactive administrator Jimbo Wales asked for xyr administrator privileges back. "No questions asked" is an ideal not grounded in real world experience. Uncle G (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If the only concern is to get an accurate count of just how many active admins we have it's fairly trivial from a technical standpoint to add a count of "active" admins on Special:Statistics and such, or even add a checkbox or something to Special:Listusers that hide users that haven't made any edits (or other actions) in the last X days and such. We just have to make the suggestions and poke a dev to implement it. --Sherool (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I honestly don't understand the viewpoint that editors such as Chillum have in this case. If there is a gaping hole in security, you fix it - it doesn't matter if the security flaw has yet to be massively exploited. Preemptive measures are key when it comes to security. You don't wait for the worst-case scenario to happen and then implement measures; you take steps to ensure it doesn't happen in the first place. Moreover, there is little, if any, collateral damage or negative side effects with this proposal - if the account returns, you re-implement the tools. Couldn't be simpler. Opposing it seems silly. | 16:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • As usual, nail on the head there Tan. → ROUX ₪ 17:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • But this isn't a gaping hole in security. It's an almost non-existent security threat. As Chillum themself has pointed out above, inactive admin accounts are very unlikely to be hacked, and will do very little damage if they are. Algebraist 16:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree with Algebraist. I see no gaping hole here. Has there been any gaping going on that we should be aware of? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
          • But it is a gaping hole. Remember that rash of compromised admin accounts editing the main page not that long ago? Granted, some safeguards were put into place, but the most obvious safeguard, getting rid of long-inactive admin accounts, wasn't put into place. So if the other safeguards are again bypassed (which, inevitably, they will be, because Wikipedia is such a big target), we'll be screwed because we didn't implement an additional sensible safeguard. Security isn't piecemeal. -- 18:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Well, no, I don't remember that, or I probably wouldn't have asked the question I did. Now I'm curious; what did they do? Is this written about somewhere that isn't too "tl;dr"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
              • A few years back, someone brute-forced the passwords on a few admin accounts, blocked a few users, and deleted the main page. In response, a captcha was added to the login form after a failed login to prevent automated brute-force attacks, and every admin with a weak password was forced to change it. --Carnildo (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
              • See this Signpost article. Graham 01:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
        • A weak password is a weak password, and can be hacked easily enough. So it's not an almost non-existent security threat. MediaWiki has some safeguards against attempted password guessing, but they can only ever mitigate, not entirely prevent. It is a basic security practice not to leave unnecessary holes open in your system. Can you name any set of security procedures in which it is okay to keep an account's administrative access five years after the account was last logged in? At that point, if the account does log in again, it's more likely that it's because a malicious user has assumed control than it is that the original user has returned. -- 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
          • As an editor who has accounts on quite a few Foundation wikis, and who is still the person associated with those accounts, even though some of them have not been used recently, I point out that your assumption of likelihood is just that, an assumption based upon no empirical data at all. If you want two empirical data points to start off with, I give you q:Special:Contributions/Uncle G and pt:Especial:Contribuições/Uncle G. I haven't made an edit for a couple of years, but I'm still here and they are both still my accounts. My WWW browser is logged in under those accounts right now, as a matter of fact. Uncle G (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• I've supported this kinda of an administrative revocation of Admin rights for a longtime, as in years. (However, the idea is curtly dismissed every time someone suggests it, for being unneeded/unwanted bureaucracy.) Admin rights are only useful if a person is an active member of Wikipedia. Further, since few Wikipedians simply let us know that they are leaving & will never return, we end up with a lot of inactive Admins. And lastly, if this is simply an administrative action -- the bit if flipped without implying that the departed user did anything wrong -- should the former Admin return, all that person needs to do is ask a Bureaucrat to regain the bit. -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Myself, as well. As I have said before many times (either at the VP, WT:RFA, or WT:ADMIN), this is supposed to happen to Checkusers who are inactive for over a year. If adminship is no big deal, then it should not be a big deal for the bit to be switched off if the user is clearly not using it. I don't foresee the WMF anytime soon checking password strength of admins by trying to hack into them. It's also nearly impossible to ensure (besides AGF, of course) that those users who wish to become admins (i.e. those at RFA) have strong passwords. That's my take on it. MuZemike 02:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • " don't foresee the WMF anytime soon checking password strength of admins by trying to hack into them. " - really? As the above linked signpost article from a couple of years ago says, it's already been done "Lead developer Brion VIBBER has run a password cracker on all administrator accounts and invalidated the weak passwords of several additional admin accounts. These admins will have to reset their passwords by e-mail before logging in again." --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • That was 2007. This is two whole years since that. MuZemike 07:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
        • And what has the age got to do with it. Your statement suggested they wouldn't do it, clearly they've done it in the past and I can't see any reason why you'd think that a reasonable request for this apparently very serious problem wouldn't be entertained by Brion. --155.140.133.254 (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The important point is the "if". In practice it is not "no big deal" to regain administrator privileges. It does not happen with "no questions asked". There are several cases of people applying for restoration of administrator privileges, across several wikis, that show that human nature undermines this cosy ideal in practice, and that the theory does not occur in practice. Arguments based on the ideal being the case are thus ill-founded. Uncle G (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• The longer WP keeps going, the more this problem will arise. I would start off very slowly, with people who have been totally inactive for 2 years or more How many of these are there , by the way? I certainly wouldn't make it less that a year. We want to encourage people to return, not discourage them. For example, I've seen many people return at the end of an academic year.,DGG (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There are 75 accounts listed on Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive that have not edited in at least two years. MBisanz ^talk 07:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) (to DGG) That makes sense. Let me see if I'm catching your drift, and suggest a way to move forward. As of tomorrow (for the sake of argument), any account with permissions beyond autoconfirmed (I include this b/c rollback is regularly removed from retired/inactive/blocked editors) will have those permissions removed. With a post on the talkpage perhaps? Should any of those editors return to editing, a post at WP:BN (for +sysop +CU +crat +OS, whatever), WP:AN (for rollback) would be enough to have the next crat who walks by re-enable the privileges (or direct a steward to do so), no questions asked. Six (for the sake of argument) months down the road, same removal for anyone inactive for 18 months. 1 year from tomorrow, anyone whose last activity was today. Thereafter just sweep the inactive list (weekly? monthly?) and remove permissions of anyone inactive for a year. The idea is somewhat gameable, but as I said above IAR can take care of edge cases (and should only take care of edge cases). Perhaps we just say if someone has had to have their permissions removed for inactivity twice, they will have to go back to the usual process (RFA, WP:RFP, whatever's appropriate) to have the permissions reinstated. This should take care of the reasonable concern that an admin inactive for two years may well be out of touch with current norms and policies. How close am I batting to your thinking? Unrelated to that, Brion VIBBER should probably re-run that pw cracker for any admin or higher accounts. → ROUX ₪ 07:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Question: If an inactive administrator whose sysop bit was removed need only return and request that it be restored ("no questions asked"), what is to prevent someone who has compromised the account from doing the very same thing? Without the burden of proving one's identity (which I imagine would require advance participation in a verification system), I fail to see the point. —David Levy 07:52/07:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Good question. Perhaps the post to BN or wherever needs to be backed up with an email exchange via Special:Emailuser/Bureaucrats? OldUser emails crats, crats email back, OldUser emails back to crats confirming (this prevents someone sending via a compromised Wikipedia account), and posts some token on the relevant page confirming they are in possession of both email and Wiki accounts. I mean.. not everybody subscribes to confirmed identity, so there's only so much that can be done. → ROUX ₪ 07:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Except if you can log in you can change the email address on the account, so that wouldn't get you very far. --155.140.133.254 (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I told you so. If one thinks about this in depth — and this whole area has been gone over before, as I pointed out — one finds that this is not the "relatively obvious" case that it superficially appears to be. Uncle G (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• For what its worth, I was given my sysop bit at beginning of 2006, left for a short break due to personal reasons and ended up returning way late, with permissions and my old clerk job soon afterward. Shortly after I returned I made a few stumbles, got accused of being poetlister, made an unpopular block, tried to solve a multi-year intractable dispute by myself, had a few calls for my head and bit on a platter, and other drama. I've also done things bit wise that received no attention whatsoever. It has, I believe on the whole, turned out not to be a Big Deal, and I get into trouble within the same range as other admins. I personally think everyone should just chill about the inactive administrator thing. Administrators will make mistakes, "returning" admins will make more mistakes for a short time, and then either evolve, or find themselves quickly marginalized. Most returnees however, admin or otherwise, will simply quit. Desysop temporarily, or don't, it only fulfills a need for tidiness, it makes no substantial difference.--Tznkai (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

How about all inactive users for x amount of time gets indef blocked until requested in a "no question asked manner"? If the promoters think that re-sysoping would be easy then unblocking would surely be a piece of cake. If the account is hacked then they can't use it anyways. That way and admins don't get the special Big Deal treatment and we get around that security problem thingy. However, I personally prefer Tznkai's "everyone should just chill about the inactive administrator thing".--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Advice

I'm seeking advice on an article. The video game Dissidia Final Fantasy has seen frequent edit warring in the past due to the English voice actors. The Japanese voice actors are directly named in the game itself in the credits, but the English version of the game isn't going to be released until August. Until then, trailers and gameplay clips are being released, and that's where the problem has begun.

To date, only two English voice actors have been confirmed in print, and those are sourced. Various other characters can be heard in the trailers, and in the community and forums and such, their VA's have largely been identified by ear. But, they haven't been identified any other way - so far, none of the other VAs except the sourced ones have a reliable, written source identifying them, but the article has repeatedly suffered vandalism as registered and anon users alike add unsourced claims to the article regarding VAs. At times I was removing such unsubstantiated infor on a daily basis, but the page is currently protected.

Now, in a few days the protection will expire, and I will go on the record to promise the anon vandalism will begin right where it left off. In the meantime, as arguments on the article's talk page will show, everyone is intent to add the VA information back to the article with no source but for the users recognizing the voices by ear. Short of permanent protection from all editing until the game comes out I can't think of anything to stop these sorts of edits, but I really don't want it to come to that, especially since with the game nearing release we likely will get reliable sources for VAs soon. So....what can be done? The Clawed One (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep protection going, warn everyone about WP:OR and start blocking if they keep it up? Realistically, perhaps add an comment in the section saying "do no add voice actors based on mere speculation, i.e. without a source. It will be reverted and considered vandalism. Repeating it may result in a loss of editing privileges." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've said "source it" repeatedly in edit summaries and on the talk page. The general reply to such on the talk page seems to be "but listen to the voice, that's so obviously him!", at which point I just feel like slapping someone. But thank you for the advice, I'll keep the reverting, and will get ready for the third protection request. The Clawed One (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Put the hidden comments on the page. Make it clear there. That might stop some people and those it doesn't stop will definitely be on a shorter leash. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, I say do it in a way that they can't not see it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This looks appropriate for use of an editnotice. Let me know if you need help. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Postcard Cathy

It sounds pathetic, but it is still an issue that needs resolving. Despite four pokes [34] [35] [36] [37], this editor is refusing to use edit summaries. I have also bought the editor up on their position of maintenance templates on a page, guidelines clearly state that they should always go at the top (except for a handful), yet this editor seems to randomly position them on the page wherever he/she feels. It's not so much the minor infringements which are the issue here, but the editors blatent disregard to listening to comments made by other users, not replying to messages, blanking the messages shortly after.

They were recently blocked for similar disregard and refusing to listen to what people say by User:SarekOfVulcan [38] (relevant discussion on talk page [39])  |  07:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• First, have you asked Sarek about it? If someone gets blocked for something, and continues doing it right afterwards, that's worth adding another block. Blanking messages are not an issue (annoying) but by policy, we just assume they've been read. Comments like this aren't productive at all. I'd like to see others who have an issue over their edits as I don't see too many issues with the orphan tagging that's currently being done. The talk page is a little light on issues, is there something I'm not seeing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, I havent said anything to Sarek, as its not exactly the same situation, its just similar (showing disregard for what is being said), I pointed out the blanking to show that the messages are at least getting read, just blatantly ignored. The recent taggings should now be OK if you are viewing the live article, as I have been through most of todays and done a cleanup. It would be nice if said editor would justify why they feel they are exempt from using edit summaries, and why they feel the need to place maintenance tags in random positions on articles! It does nothing for consistency.  |  08:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • They do it because they don't care. It's easy to just do whatever you want, and there's plenty you can do without interacting with anyone. The difficulty here is the actual interacting with the other human beings part. Hell, a bot could goes around and list orphan articles all day (and I thought one did). That's not difficult. It's the "hi, let's talk" part that drives some editors nuts. There's plenty of editors for whom nothing sort of an indefinite block will make them respond or even acknowledge that other people here exist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • As it stands, I don't think there is grounds for a block, unless the user continues on disregarding attempts to put him/her on the straight and narrow, then it becomes more of an issue. He/she went inactive shortly before I posted this, I presume they have gone to bed, so its only fair to wait and see if this brings any response from the editor. In the mean time, would it be considered canvassing if I alerted Sarek to this thread? As he has had past experience with this user, his input may be useful.  |  09:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• PostCard Cathy seems to use edit summaries for edits that need an explanation, and no edit summaries for edits that are self-explanatory. Although I believe that people should use edit summaries for all edits, I think that's a pretty reasonable way to use edit summaries, and it doesn't seem to be necessary to badger her about it (disclaimer: I only checked a random sample of edits from the last couple of days). Kusma (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:FIES doesn't give an exemption for self explanatory edits, however that's being pedantic, and its only a minor side of why I started this thread! ⁽⁾ 09:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I posted a comment about the maintenance tags since that's a simple issue that's not too bad. No edit summaries are annoying but it's not like we're talking about giant edits though. We'll see. I doubt things will change. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem here actually seems to be that other people aren't understanding what Postcard Cathy is saying. I can sympathise to an extent if xe thought that xe was talking to a brick wall at User talk:Postcard Cathy#Orphan tags on {{surname}} pages, because there was a problem with quite a number of other people not comprehending a point that xe did make twice. Since I make no claims to being a member of Mensa on my user page, I'll try to explain what Postcard Cathy was saying to the editors who are making personal remarks about stupidity here:

Postcard Cathy is using the toolserver-generated list of orphan pages. In the list's description, there is a clear statement of the possibility that 'bots will go through this list and tag the pages. Postcard Cathy is working on the basis that this happens, and is stating that you should work on the basis that this happens. If you don't want to have certain pages not tagged by such automated processes, then you should fix how that list is generated. Complaining about automated or semi-automated processing of the list is a mis-directed complaint. Fix the way that the list of untagged orphan articles is actually generated in the first place. Then any automated or semi-automated processing of it will fall into line with your desires without need for any further effort on anyone's part.

For what it's worth, I did once suspect Postcard Cathy's edits of being 'bot-produced, and in the same class as my long-time wikistalker, SmackBot. Treat xem like a 'bot in this case. Doing so will obtain the result that you desire. Fix the input that is going in to the 'bot, the actual list of untagged orphan articles that is being worked from, and the output will as a consequence fix itself.

As such, a block for "refusing to listen to what people say" is not quite fair. Because the problem here in part is also other people not paying attention to what Postcard Cathy is saying.

And Ricky81682 and Jenuk1985, please use some sense of perspective. Placing a notice in a position that you personally don't like isn't "disruptive". People place article tags in all sorts of positions. I've seen {{prod}} at the very bottom of a long article before now. The encyclopaedia has yet to break from this kind of thing happening, in my experience. The advice to not sweat the small stuff is actually good advice. (Only sweat it when there are a lot of instances of the small stuff.) If you start calling for blocks of WikiGnomes because they aren't on your particular vision of what the "straight and narrow" is, you will end up losing the benefit of the WikiGnomes' activities.

Understand the fact that not everyone agrees on these things. (There's plenty of evidence that people disagree about such things. There are style issues that have gone to Arbitration, for goodness sake!) There are, further, good reasons for placing tags in different places in different circumstances, and legitimate reasons that one size — one vision of the "straight and narrow" — does not fit all. (I place certain tags in more appropriate places than all together the very tops or very bottoms of articles, and I've been recommending such placement to others, because experience has shown that it helps novice editors who are creating new articles, for about three years at this point.)

This is strongly recommended reading, too. Further understand that style warriors make life difficult for and annoy the WikiGnomes who are trying to keep up with what this week's fashion might happen to be. That isn't necessarily the WikiGnomes' faults. It doesn't improve such a situation to start calling for blocking the WikiGnomes. It only serves to turn the people calling for blocks themselves into additional annoyances.

Also understand that the goal is to deal with the issues represented by the tags, rather than to waste a lot of time mucking about with disagreements over exactly where the tags go in the article. Again, treat Postcard Cathy in this case like the 'bot that xe sometimes gives the appearance of being. Make the articles not orphans, or not listed as orphans, and then you won't have to care where Postcard Cathy might place {{orphan}} in an article. Uncle G (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

At least our bots use edit summaries. If I had any of those articles on my watchlist, I would have no clue what's going on. What is so difficult about "tagging as orphan"? If there's a style policy and other people have to redo it, it's becoming disruptive. Being a WikiGnome is fine, and being a very productive one is really fine, but not responding to questions doesn't help people. I'm not suggesting a block and I don't care where the messages are placed. However, it is generally done at the top of the page and if putting the tags where most people put them and actually using edit summaries is too much for someone, then I really don't care for their edits here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If people don't like the guidelines that are in place, surely its more productive to get them changed, than to blatantly ignore them? ⁽⁾_(Jenuk1985) 23:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I read FIES as a recommendation, not a requirement. Af least that's what the guideline says. "It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field, " It always helps to do it, but if we want to make it a requirement, that would need to be proposed as a change in policy. DGG (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

David, as I read through this, that's exactly what I kept thinking. Look, Jenni & Ricky, I'm a big believer in edit summaries, and have been nearly 100% with them over the past three years, but it is a recommendation, after all. There are real vandals out there who are devoting their energies to destroying good work here. Cathy may appear to be a bit on the misanthropic side, but she is trying to do what she considers to be valuable work for the encyclopedia. My advice is to spend your energy fighting the good fight, not the petty fight. _{(And, by the way, I know what it's like to believe that everyone else is missing the point, to believe that you are the only one that realizes that this issue is important. But withdraw from it today, and then look back at it in six months. I have found that I felt rather silly about some of the issues that I thought were "vital" to properly wikipedializing.)} Good luck to you. 14:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

censorship and edit war in several article

JRSP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log) and Dynablaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log) censor referenced information such (The New York Times ), about Hugo Chávez with no valid reason in several article.Alsoam (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First, it's proper to notify them. Second, talk page and WP:DR methods work. Third, it's clear that the issue is undue weight, not the reliability of the sources. I have to agree with that them that this statement doesn't look like it's worth adding. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

please see this edit in Human rights in Venezuela:remove:refrence (human rights watch and european parliament )Alsoam (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a primary source and should be avoided. Again, there's a talk page to discuss that, and then dispute resolution methods. Coming here isn't going to be very productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone with experience of copyright issues take a look at Wirtland (micronation) please

I placed the copyvio tag on this page as although it does appear to be a straight copyvio the author claimed permission and so the previous speedy tag wasn't really applicable. Since this happened a couple of days ago there has been a lot of discussion about in on the talk page and I feel that I, and the other editors on the talk page, are getting out of their depth. Could someone with copyright experience have a look at the article and talk page and either resolve the issues or explain better to the author what's happening and why. Suspect this would carry more weight coming from someone experienced in these things and who knows the issues better than me. Thanks.Dpmuk (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You could report this at Wikipedia:Copyright problems - the editors there specialize in cases like this. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note at the talk page. It is listed at CP, but on June 30th. It won't come due for admin closure until July 7th. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Licensing update: reminder

Hi. Yesterday an admin cleared a newly created article of copyright infringement because the source from which it was imported is licensed under GFDL. This matter was addressed with the specific admin, but I just figured it might be a good idea to remind everyone that we can no longer accept material (eta: text) that is solely licensed under GFDL. At minimum, it must be compatible with CC-By-SA, and GFDL is not. (See Wikimedia:Terms of Use.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious how old content that was previously imported under the auspices of GFDL now works. Is it still only GFDL compatible? How are these articles marked? – 13:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's all so complicated now. :) We received special one-time permission to transition everything on the site to CC-By-SA from GNU, so every article on Wikipedia is CC-By-SA, if it was placed in compliance with our policies--unless it was imported from a GFDL-only site (not owned by the Wikimedia Foundation) after November 2008. That permission only governed content placed prior to November 2008. If it was imported from a GFDL-only site after November 2008, it's now a copyright violation unless we can get it co-licensed.

Just for general interest, all text on Wikipedia placed before June 15 2009 can be released under CC-By-SA and GFDL (unless it's a copyvio or a quote). After June 15th, most text is co-licensed. Some text may be imported from CC-By-SA compatible sites that do not co-license, and that text needs to be clearly indicated so that reusers know it cannot be released under GFDL. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Was no text ever imported under GFDL-1.2-and-no-later-versions? Algebraist 13:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) That I don't know. If it was, the Terms of Use don't acknowledge it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(after e/c): I think that depends on when it was imported. Best way to learn about how this works is to jump in on commons where it's a much more complicated issue: see commons:Commons:License Migration Task Force/Migration (and maybe lend a hand!). -- |  13:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that would work with text. The Foundation's terms of use allow special handling for media files, but are very specific about reuse permissions for text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

<picking up pieces of exploded brain> Complicated indeed. I'm sorry I asked =) – 13:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

m:Licensing update/Outreach shows the interworkings between different licensing models. Templates, and pages using these templates - Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Wikis, must be checked and updated. - hahnchn 17:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So basically, anything you contributed before June 15 2009, you got screwed by the Foundation because they took it upon themselves to change what you originally agreed to, to something you didn't. Nice. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 06:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the Foundation put it to the community. We did it. It was a multiple-project vote, running three weeks in 32 languages advertised by site notices, with 75.8% of the 17462 who responded voting for transition. Kind of surprising, given how many people use Wikipedia, that there weren't more responders, but I guess most people either don't read the ads or didn't care. Speaking of which, I find it kind of funny that 2,391 people bothered to vote "no opinion." That's more than voted "no" (1,829). (see Meta:Licensing_update/Result if you're interested in more details. I myself think the breakdown of voter turnout by project is interesting, but I won't waste more bandwidth here. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that we agreed to release under the current and any later versions of the GFDL. The most recent version of the GFDL allowed relicensing. J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Morbid Fairy

Morbid Fairy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs ·  · block user · logs · block log · ban ·  ·  ·  · socks) who has also claimed to have edited as Satanoid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs ·  · block user · logs · block log · ban ·  ·  ·  · ) has made some excellent edits. However, very many of this editors edits are wp:vandalism, and are part of an ongoing 1-editor-wp:edit war accross a wide range of articles. Most problematically, the editor simply rolls back all edits to an unclear point in the past, declaring them to be vandalism, POV, and extremist. This includes much work converting naked references into Cite Webs, wikilinks, removal of duplicate periods and similar. This makes it even more difficult to recruit editors to help the edit-war-ravaged Sikh extremism/terrorism/Khalistan-conflict articles.

The editor was blocked for increasing periods as Satanoid, then blocked again as Morbid Fairy. On returning from the block as Morbid Fairy, immediately did this.

Today, the editor has made a flurry of rollbacks:

• Kanwar Pal Singh Gill here here here
• ISYF here and here

And has warned me that all my edits are wp:vandalism on both articles here. And has made a mixed edit, good and bad, here, removing an article flag while making a useful edit. The editor appears to be acting with entirely good intentions in pushing strong points of view, but without regard for the rules of Wikipedia. I mentioned the editor in an unrelated wp:sockpuppet matter Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gurbinder singh1. - sinneed (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify what the issue is?— () 22:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I fear not. This is why I have not brought this to ANI before. The editor sometimes makes useful edits. More often not. Blocked, the editor returned to edit warring immediately. Warned many times...and I see I lost the entire warning portion. Ow. Editor needs uninvolved editor feedback and/or a block. I cannot retype the lost warning list at the moment. I apologize and will add it.- sinneed (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

...and then the editor did this and I warned him here. Chopping others' posts out of my user talk page is just rude. I'll add the warnings from earlier later.- sinneed (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

An an uninvolved party (and non-admin), my impression is that this looks like a case of the usual nationalist edit-warring. The only thing your diffs really make clear is that both of you misuse the word "vandalism", which does not encourage taking action here at this point. Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That is actually great feedback. I realize I am asking for an unearned favor, but could you hit me with a diff where I called something vandalism that was not? No problem if not, of course. My understanding is that rolling back non-vandalism edits is vandalism, as I was rather kindly cautioned about it in the past.- sinneed (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

25/8

Resolved. Article moved and history merged. Graham 01:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone delete the page 25/8. I'm making way for a move for the page 25/8 (film). Since nothing else exists by this title, it's appropriate. There are no messages on the talk page, just a template. Thank You. --- ---- 00:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You An admin needs to do a history merge. 25/8 was the original article, created by User:Creamy3, in March. It was converted into a redirect, but when 25/8 (film) was created, it was a direct copy/paste of the old article, with no attribution. No significant overlapping edits, so I think a history merge would be relatively easy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please merge 25/8 (film) on to 25/8 then please --- ---- 00:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, an admin. Look where we are! --- ---- 00:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to save you some work, Scarce. Didn't want you to waste time researching how to do a history merge yourself. Also, the plot section needs to be completely rewritten, as it is a copyright infringement of [40]; see WP:Close paraphrasing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. Just to clarify, 25/8 (film) needs to be merged onto 25/8--- ---- 01:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the article to 25/8, and history merged all edits before 24 April, including this redirect edit. Graham 01:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ban the use of "Troll"/"Trolling" when describing editors/edits?

I've noticed a couple of threads recently where admins have used "troll" or "trolling" as a descriptor when interacting with editors and on both occasions all it's served to do is exacerbate the situation, infuriate the editors referred to in this way and obscure the real problems. It's probably time to enjoin the use of these descriptions in edit summaries and messages. There are plenty of other ways to neutrally describe the edit/action that don't engender the same visceral emotional reaction - it's no hardship to say "Revert edit - please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT" instead of "Revert trolling by troll editor". Exxolon (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we have to "ban" where we could educate instead? I think it's a lot better (and more difficult) to develop a culture where social norms lead us to ways of resolving disputes that stay away from personal territory. Banning words is such a gross thing to do... I just think of word taboos that actively kill people in the world today... No, I'm not suggesting that banning the T-word will lead to someone's death. Goodness. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a wet blanket. I definitely agree that if the "T-word" vanished from our vocabulary today, then tomorrow would be better. I'm just cynical about rule-based solutions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There are cases where it is a good term to describe someone who "posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion" as stated in the article Troll (Internet). This is like seeking to ban the word "vandal." If the shoe fits, wear it. Why should we be forced into length circumlocutions? Edison (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Because saying it, in practice, generates more heat than light. If you want to spend your time on Wikipedia arguing over whether the shoe fits, then by all means apply unprovable labels. If you'd rather write an encyclopedia, then help us end disruption the quick, clean, quiet way.

The test is empirical, and applying the label "troll" has failed that test. Note that I strongly oppose the banning of any word. I support people wising up to not using certain words where they simply will not help. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we should be careful to make a distinction between "troll" and "trolling." Without commenting on the merits of the former, I interpret "trolling" to mean "trying to get a rise out of someone" not "acting like a troll," indeed, the idea being that when I troll User:Foo, I want to turn him into a troll, by making him angry, not that I myself am a troll. I'm not sure I see a problem with that usage, but I'm open-minded on it. 03:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would definitely oppose any sort of political correctness mindset that disallows us to describe trolling by the word "trolling". As with vandalism, it is an accusation that should not be targetted against most longtime good-faith editors without good reason, though. Call vandals vandals, call trolls trolls, but be sparing in the use of these words when there is a way to WP:AGF instead. Kusma (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And who is advocating that? Does the thread here (after the first post) talk about disallowing something, or rather about being smart instead of stupid? I'm pretty sure it's the latter, and I'm not sure why somebody would object to that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Some people object to calling trolls "trolls", so let's call them "Ralph." We can say "reverted edits by Ralph," or "blocked for Ralphing", or whatever. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a particularly aggressive version of missing the point. Can you indicate one instance, anywhere in history, where calling someone a "troll" is helpful in any way? Or otherwise, are you advocating something that you admit is never helpful? What is your point here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia Reference Desk, trolls often post argumentative questions which disparage some nation, religious group, or race, or ethnicity, or generally seek to get angry responses. If they are identified as a troll, it is likely that they will not get the satisfaction they seek because others will not respond further. Edison (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see an example of that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We could call the quacking bird on the water a pickle as well, I would rather call it a duck. 03:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What are we supposed to learn from this aggressive missing of the point? Is it that calling someone a "troll" has ever been helpful? If so, then why not simply provide links to that situation? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Deprecation of hot button terms is best done gently. It can be counterproductive to create rules about them, because those same rules grant power to those words and to people who use them. _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 04:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As an occasional user of the word I would be sorry to see it banned, but mainly I'd like to point out that as I understand it, the derivation of the word refers not to monsters who live under bridges but to the verb as used in fishing -- "trolling" as in dragging a lure through the water in hopes of getting a bite from an unwary fish. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Trolling describes an action. We already rely too heavily on WP:CAPITALIZED SHORTHAND. There is no need to use a policy (POINT) to describe an action where a more commonly understood definition already exists. Besides, point doesn't strictly describe trolling--haranguing folks on a talk page isn't actually disrupting the encyclopedia, as any first year wikilwayer will tell you. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "trolling" describes an action. Is it a good idea (in the sense of real-world benefit) to use that word to describe actions here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is. It is also foolish to search for some on-wiki phrase as a substitute. Note that troll the verb and troll the noun are two different things. One can make the argument that we shouldn't call vandals vandals and trolls trolls--it's relatively compelling. But that is not the focus here (apparently). The focus seems to be on applying AGF to mean that a very high bar exists in declaring something to be trolling. I don't think that is necessary, nor do I think this whole discussion is very fruitful. People trolling pages should get shown the door, assuming that we can determine their intention. Admins and editors should behave like civil adults when doing so, but we don't need line after line of proscription against enforcing community norms. Protonk (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not talking about finding substitute words for anything. That sounds really dumb. I'm not focusing on AGF either. Maybe someone else is, but I don't think AGF has anything to do with this at all. Finally, what you say is "of course" helpful, a lot of editors are saying is empirically unhelpful, and they've got evidence. So, I'd say to you: ^{[citation needed]}. What we're talking about is what actually defuses situations the fastest, and the bar is set at providing examples.

I oppose any kind of "proscription", so I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to that. I'm in favor of enforcing norms in the most intelligent and effective way. The evidence I've seen is that this means avoiding the label "troll" or "trolling". I'm open to seeing evidence to the contrary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we'd go about banning the use of an individual word... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We wouldn't, and we won't. We're not going to ban any words. The real conversation is about whether there's ever a good reason (in the sense of real-world benefit) to describe someone's participation here as "trolling"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Troll is usually an uncivil term. Looie496 is partially correct, but the word has both meanings; the verb is as Looie describes, from fishing usage, the noun is clearly uncivil, and it's remarkable to see the noun form defended above. (It would be "troller" if it were derived from the verb.) (Long-time internet discussion usage played on both meanings.) Even as a verb, it incorporates an assumption of bad faith, mindreading; I've known for a fact that, sometimes, the assumption wasn't warranted, the goal of an edit wasn't disruption or a point violation, the goal was improvement of the project, mistaken or otherwise. Blocking someone for "trolling" or "disruption" or even "POV-pushing," without specific examples of violations is convenient, and occasionally warranted, perhaps, for an overworked administrator. But it would be better to allow unblocking any block that isn't accompanied by evidence, after a reasonable attempt to contact the blocking admin. Too often, it's an excuse for an administrator displaying a dislike of the editor or the editor's work.

It's not necessary to ban the word, what's necessary is to enforce WP:CIVIL. Starting with administrators! Warnings first. --Abd (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "warnings first" or even "enforcement" are good ways to think about civility, but you're right that it's about using civility to improve situations, and not about "banning" anything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't use the word myself (my experience is that if someone is truly trolling, they enjoy the attention they get from being called a troll, and if they aren't trolling they are quite rightly insulted). However, as a practical matter, banning the use of a word just won't work. If someone uses the word inappropriately, talk to them in a polite, friendly manner and explain the issue. Unfortunately, too many times the editors who try to enforce civility are less-than-civil in the process and no real progresss gets made.-- | 20:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is going to "ban" any word. That would never fly in this community. Your last sentence I agree with 100%. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we should ban anyone calling anyone else a 'little shit' - I don't think you'll find much support, GT, for your position that this is somehow 'ok', perhaps we could work on a poll to see if your position is in tune with the community - maybe on the question 'is it ok for editors to go around calling each other little shits?'. I'm afraid if you can't agree that the answer is 'no', hence should be banned, then clearly you'll be acting firmly against the long established principles of this project. Privatemusings (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)or maybe not...? - who loves ya, baby!

Huh. So you're saying that... if I don't want to "ban" a word or phrase... then I think it's appropriate to use it? That's a strange deduction, if you're not joking. You mention, "[my] position that this is somehow 'ok'." I hold no such position. I think "banning" things is stupid.

Your statement "if you can't agree that the answer is 'no', hence should be banned," seems to imply that anything that we shouldn't say, we should ban. That seems very unhealthy to me. I don't think there's ever an appropriate instance for calling someone a "little shit". I don't think the phrase should be "banned". There's no contradiction there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

maybe 'block' is a better word? - and maybe we should have an extended discussion about it (well, we change exchange posts, but I can't promise to read or understand yours I'm afraid). Do you think we should change policy to make calling people a 'little shit' a non-blockable offense? Privatemusings (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah... different uses of the word "ban". There's talk of "banning" a word, whereas you're talking about blocking (or banning) an account. Strange to confuse the two.

You and I also seem to take different views of policy. You seem to think it's something we can change by adjusting what it says on various webpages. Policy is this: "Use civility to resolve disputes." Nothing anybody writes down will change that.

Ongoing disruption is always a cause for blocking, not because someone "committed" a "blockable" "offense", but in the interest of preventing continuing disruption.

Anything that is disruptive and ongoing may be stopped via blocks. There's nothing particularly subtle about this. We're not lawyers, and we're not here to talk about laws. We're here to build an encyclopedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

but you're getting dangerously close to suggesting that someone shouldn't be blocked for calling someone a 'little shit' once, when upset. This cannot be! The fundamental principles and traditions of wikipedia surely dictate something like a three hour block for such nasty behaviour - after all, who is looking out for the victim here? Privatemusings (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)stretching a bit now..... stay on target... stay on target.....

You may stop trying to claim that I'm saying something about a topic you know damned well I'm not even addressing. Just be ingenuous, brave and honest, and tell us what you're really saying. Let's do it the adult way.

Now, what part of "we're here to write" are you having trouble with? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

heh... none - I apologise if my rather clumsy satire / sarcasm has put your back up and obfuscated what I really think is a rather serious point - that it's really silly to talk about banning words, or trying to make silly rules about who's allowed to say what to whom. I felt your shoulders were broad enough to take a bit of silliness - but the disruptive effect of someone not listening, and perhaps even willfully misunderstanding (true I guess in my case, perhaps in others?) is real... and it's a bad thing.... there's some ridiculous winds blowing around the wiki and I think there's cause for concern... Privatemusings (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries... I think that you and I are probably on the same page that this talk of "rules" is silly, and distracting from the project. There's been an unpleasant episode, in which both JW and Bish have behaved in ways... that are worse that what we've indef blocked some people for, and yet on the order of behavior that we tolerate, coddle and enable on a daily basis. It just depends who's at the receiving end. In this case, both participants were very well-known and well-liked, at least in certain circles. Even so, this too will pass.

The larger issues, I think we're working on. Have you been over to Wikipedia:Civility/Poll yet?

Regarding my shoulders... I've been on the receiving end of some pretty toxic incivility already once today, and I'm not in a very holiday humour. Perhaps I should go offline. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think little shit is rather alike to troll or trolling. If something's blockable, there are other, policy-linked ways of putting it. Please don't call other editors trolls or little shits, please don't say they're trolling, it never helps, as we've seen time and again. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

absatively. ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So... you're saying that's the topic of this thread, or that's what you'd rather talk about than the topic of this thread? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So cut the founder some slack, if that's what it takes. Meanwhile, please don't call other editors trolls. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Censorship? Really? What. The. Fuck? Come off it. This is plain and simple censorship. If admins are banned from using 'troll' and 'trolling' to epxlain behaviors, and instead must enumerate in longer verbosity the same ideas individually for each offender, they just won't waste their wiki-time dealing with those problems. And once the admins can't do it, the editors won't be allowed to either, enforcing a culture of thought-policing. Once irresponsible, idiotic, touchy-feely censorship starts, it doesn't stop till someone's segregated entirely from the community. What a collosal failure of an idea. Totally stupid, and practically a Poltical-Correctness Trolling post in its' own right. ThuranX (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm trolling and stupid for saying "please don't call other editors trolls"? Please see WP:NPA. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, have you noticed that, since the first post, no one in this thread has supported banning any words? No one. We've all come out against it, so don't worry. Nobody's banning any words. Meanwhile, let's all continue to do our best to use civility to resolve disputes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Gwen Gale, but Exxolon's OP may be. ThuranX (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see my attempt at humor fell flat. Anyway I have sympathy for the position of avoiding words like "troll" or "trolling" because it does tend to irritate people. In that vein we also should not use terms like vandal(ism) or sockpuppet(ry). Labels aren't necessary, a concept that was put more poetically by one of my favorite musicians. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I was a nasty mood earlier for reasons unrelated to this thread. I'm sorry for letting that splash on you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As I said, if a behaviour is blockable, it's canny blockable, nouns aside. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

When you deny the use of a word, you deny the intended meaning of that word. 02:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the meaning of troll as most often written on en.Wikipedia? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

When I use it, I use it to describe anyone, admins included, that post things just to get a reaction, be it on a user's talk page or AN/I discussion thread.. doesn't matter where. Provoking and baiting = trolling. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

How can you tell when the poster's intent is to get a reaction? Do you think that false positives are possible? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely it's possible for a false positive. Generally though, it's obvious. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 06:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, this thread in itself hints at the reason why trolling isn't in the drop-down menu of the block dialog and why there's no troll template/tag (that I'm aware of). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the eternal fight between WP:SPADE and WP:NOSPADE. Will it ever end? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Block proposal on an IP

Resolved.

User 68.56.168.185 has crossed the line when it comes to vandalism, look at his edits, 50% of them are vandalism, including one to my talk page. I think this guy needs a ban to teach him a lesson. RandomGuy666 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

Blocked for a few days. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

But note that (per the blocking policy) blocks are not given as punishment, but, rather, to prevent harm. 03:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, duh. Are you suggesting that this was otherwise? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He was probably talking about the "teach him a lesson" part. – 12:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

GT, I was responding to the original poster, not you. :) I agree with your block. I just wanted to make sure that RandomGuy knew it wasn't done "to teach him a lesson". 16:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. Sorry about that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

Resolved.

My request is nearing 48 hours old (it's just a few hours away). A couple of other requests are waiting there to. So I'm placing this message here as the page itself suggests. Thanks! RandomStringOfCharacters (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see this notice until now, but I addressed all the requests about an hour ago. ^☆ 14:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

About a discussion

I would be grateful for an opinion on a discussion that I have been having with an administrator. I am hoping for an amicable outcome. The discussion is on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ruff/archive1, where it can be identified having some of the most recent edits to the page. Yours sincerely, Snowman (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Coffee

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Coffee's administrator privileges are restored, effective immediately. He is reminded to abide by all policies and guidelines governing the conduct of administrators.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 15:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

User deleting all contributions of other users

Hello. I wonder if anyone here can help me. All my edits were deleted by User:Nmate. He replaced a citation of an academic book with a "citation needed" tag, deleted several other citations and deleted all information about the history of the official name of a town.[41] I asked him not to do that,[42] but he did it again. [43] If I understood him well, he claims that everyone using an IP range belonging to a major internet provider in Slovakia is in reality one blocked user MarkBA (He said to me: “Yes, of course your argument would be logician if you weren't MarkBA. But i just revert you because as known a sockpuppet has to be reverted. So, i may only suggest you to download this game, where you can do your monkey business instead of here.”[44] To a different user with the same provider he said: “Sorry, i will be deleting your all edits from here, because: * 1, a sockpuppet has no right to edit wikipedia * 2, the 78,xxx ip range belongs to MarkBA” [45]) So, he deletes contributions of everyone using that internet provider. What is funny, I’m not actually using that provider or that IP range and he can’t know my IP anyway because he isn’t an administrator. So can he just say wrong things about other users and delete their quality contributions? What can I do? Thank you. Modrajedobra (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If Nmate wants to accuse you of being a sockpuppet, he should use WP:SPI, and it can be handled there. The two of you are engaged in an edit war at Banská Bystrica, and the two of you will use the talk page to sort out your dispute. There's nothing else we need to do here. Cheers. ++ 17:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What should I do if he doesn't use WP:SPI and deletes my contributions again? Modrajedobra (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I won't revert Modrajedobra's edits with my previous reason because MarkBA's recent sockpuppets have not yet been proven by checkuser.

--Nmate (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock problems with Greg L (talk · contribs)

Resolved. Block #1506928 has been removed. – 18:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Greg L (talk · contribs) was erroneously blocked by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) (see block log). Sandstein unblocked him, but for whatever reason autoblock set in and Greg still can't edit. Can an admin fix this please? I notified Sandstein, but he doesn't seem to be online at the present and I don't see why Greg should be prohibited from editing when he did nothing wrong. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Concern about Eric McDavid

On another board, Eric McDavid's defence attorney is posting about our coverage of him (here). Some more eyes on this might be worthwhile, because of WP:HARM. (Also cross-posted to the BLP noticeboard).— / 20:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Warning to other admins

A friend (or imposter of a friend) has recently returned. You may want to watchlist Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/MascotGuy and other related pages; he's only created two accounts so far that I could find (I blocked them both based on obvious names) but we may want to keep a heightened state of alert as he may not stop with just those blocks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Very likely an impostor. Unless he's moved cross country.— () 07:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue (remove this message once resolved)

In less than one hour Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the Next update if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo}} to the top of the page and save the page
4. When the next queue is good to go remove this entire message from the board

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKadminBot (talk) DYKadminBot is operated by Ameliorate! ^(talk)

Yikes, this has all changed since last I did it - any DYK regulars around?? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I did it manually as I couldn't figure out the above - can someone do the creds manually - I will archive in a moment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)