Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Removing images on sight

I have started removing images which I tag as copyright infringements or policy violations from the article pages. The reason for this is that our hard-working administrators sometimes forget to remove the images from the article pages before deleting them. Ever so often I encounter dead links to deleted images (diff diff). Leaving a red link for a month is not very pretty, and certainly must appear confusing for some of our readers. There is also the possibility that the deleted media will be uploaded again by a user following the red link.

This matter was also discussed at WP:AN/I (here). I will continue removing tagged images on sight, while still staying within WP:3RR if the deletion is contested (except for egregious errors). --Oden 07:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And I quote from WP:3RR#Intent of policy:

It does not grant users any right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique, it is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence".

Emphasis is not mine. Cburnett 16:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Who authorized you to "have started removing images which [you] tag as copyright infringements or policy violations from the article pages"? Isn't that the job of the Administrator who closes the IfD debate on a particular image? I think you are too bold in doing so. -- Jeff G. 22:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot already removes links to images that have been tagged as lacking source or licensing information. There's no reason for a human editor to waste time doing so. —Angr 10:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Going through Category:Soviet cosmonauts I found red image links in:

• Konstantin Feoktistov (permanent link) - Image was deleted November 15, 2006
• Viktor Gorbatko (permanent link) - Image was deleted June 18, 2006 and June 30, 2006
• Pyotr Klimuk (permanent link) - Image was deleted July 1, 2006 November 15, 2006
• Yuri Malyshev (permanent link) - Image was deleted November 15, 2006
• Andrian Nikolayev (permanent link) - Image was deleted October 23, 2006
• Vladimir Shatalov (permanent link) - Image was deleted November 15, 2006
• Gherman Titov (permanent link) - Image was deleted November 16, 2006
• Vladislav Volkov (permanent link) - Image was deleted January 5, 2007
• Vitaliy Zholobov (permanent link) - Image was deleted November 27, 2006

Nine out of 75 articles in that category have red image links. Granted many of the images were deleted from the commons which the bot might not have detected, but there still seems to be a problem. --Oden 18:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:USERNAME

User:Ken Fogarty has the same name as Ken Fogarty. He even contributed 4 times on the article.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I filed a request on WP:RFC/NAME. Let's wait and find out. Hbdragon88 00:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sorry for posting my request in the wrong place, but some admins at IRC told me to go here.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 00:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a violation if he's the same guy. Then you just have to worry about WP:COI. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would the subject of the article write that he is living under a freeway in Houston? [1] Hbdragon88 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC admin channel

Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops, with a specific mandate to keep Wikimedia IRC channels polite and courteous. Behavior on the IRC channel may be taken into consideration with respect to arbitration cases if it results in disruption on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder for the Arbitration Committee 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not enough. The worst offenders are themselves chanops, as demonstrated by logs submitted to the ArbCom. IMO, their removal from the channel is the very least the ArbCom needs to do for the abused community and mistreated individuals. (The fact that the chanops in question are not actually admins should make the removal all the simpler.) What I see in Fred's message, however is not even a proposal to remove their chanop privileges. Are you serious? Bishonen | talk 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Indeed. Without some community involvement regarding who the IRC chanops are, this is unlikely to make much difference. I'm not sure who the worked-with "leaders" in Fred's message are; is it a secret? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was a proposal to speak of, where is this being discussed? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid, when arbcom have constantly declined to address rank and obvious incivility on-wiki, they forfeit all credibility in any attempt to extend themselves into IRC. Send out out strong signals that incivility stops on-wiki and perhaps that will filter through to IRC. Until then.....showing teeth isn't going to convince.--Doc^g 02:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's no different to the claim "we have article X which is clearly rubbish, so we cannot delete article Y" often raised by n00bs at AfD. If the Arbcom feel that these relatively simple steps will reduce incivility in IRC, then they should go ahead, not stop because they haven't solved everything on-wiki first. the wub "?!" 02:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. If arbcom have shown a total and continued failure to deal with incivility on-wiki, threatening to come down hard on off-wiki incivility just isn't credible.--Doc^g 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

how often have they been presented with on-wiki incivility to deal with it, though? Considering the issues that the channel has apparently given in past/current cases, it seems like they're simply doing what's asked of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the issue actually being raised here, in full public view, and not in private with the parties concerned though ? There's already enough disruption on-wiki concerning IRC channels (and this channel in particular) and as nobody outwith the sysop pool (and a few selected others, I'm led to believe) can see what goes on in that channel, posting about it here is perhaps a little overly transparent. I heartily support any promotion of civility however. --Kind Regards - Heligoland ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume Fred brought it up here to notify us of a change of policy. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

All this will start is anoth shit-storm (sigh)--Doc^g 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should work to fix incivility on-wiki too. These proposed remedies are more strict than how misconduct has been handled on-wiki as of late. --Cyde Weys 02:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is becoming a joke. Judging from the title of the heading alone shows that we are no different from Legislative Yuan. - Mailer Diablo 02:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I find a regulation of off-wiki activities by a panel with jurisdiction ONLY over this wiki somewhat disturbing. — Werdna talk 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

They aren't claiming jurisdiction, note Fred says they have been working with the IRC leadership. They are simply stating that IRC activity may be considered in on-wiki cases if it is relevant. the wub "?!" 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but why is this being discussed now? Efforts have been made in the past few weeks to put a stop to whatever negative activities are occuring in the channel. Frankly, I think most of us support the shutdown of the channel entirely, rather than creating more mess with the same parties, which is what's happening right now. —Pilotguy (ptt) 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to shut it down. RxS 02:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is shut down or not, the behavior we are trying to stop can easily continue through other means if people really want to do things subtly, but nonetheless I think that shutting the channel down is a poor move. The channel has its uses for immediate issues and things that require administrator intervention. Rooting out the behavior that would not be suitable even on-wiki is definitely a positive step in making the channel more useful so that there is less cause for disruption in the future, though. Cowman109^Talk 02:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but discussing administrator intervention issues there is what started all this in the first place. Sensitive foundation/WP:BIO stuff can find a new home, sometimes it's easier to shut something down and start over then trying to fix ongoing systemic problems. But maybe all it needs is an influx of new users/admins with these conversations in mind. RxS 03:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone point me to the discussion that everyone seems to have read, because I am lost here, what is everyone so pissed off about? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, ignorance is bliss. Just slowly step away and never look back. --Cyde Weys 02:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC comes up from time to time...buried in WP:AN and WP:ANI archives. Some admins are firm believers in it, some editors (mostly non-admins) are vocal against it, and others such as myself qualify to join but decline to do so. The civility aspect dovetails with another recent hot button topic not necessarily confined to IRC. On January 5 I set off a firestorm (quite inadvertently) after I left a civility warning on another admin's talk page. If I'd anticipated how heated some reactions would be I would have handled the situation with greater circumspection, yet the admin I warned wasn't offended and two other editors awarded me barnstars. It sprouted some threads in my most recent user talk archive and the top of my current page if you're curious. Durova^Charge 03:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is not sufficient, in my view. Lest I be counted merely among the "burn it down" camp, let me delineate:
  1. Additional ops would be enough if there were a suggestion that there were too few. In fact, in this case, the ones with "ops" have been implicated several times in the incivility.
  2. Additional ops are also not going to answer the glaring problem that at least two people with "ops" are not administrators on en.wikipedia. One of these was implicated in using that IRC channel inappropriately in September of 2006 and then again in December 2006. This is not a one time problem but a serial problem with two or three people.
  3. The channel still has no justification, as it is populated by non-administrators as well as being a place only a small fraction of en. administrators ever go.
  4. The channel will not be capable of behaving properly unless the people with control of it understand what it is that they have done that is not proper. So far as I have seen or heard, they still are in the dark about how calling for someone to be "killed, slowly" is bad, and there is no hope at all for them to understand how "let's start a pool on when X will be banned" is improper.
  5. The central problem remains undefined. If no one knows what "civility" means, then we're going to have more boots and blocks for someone using a wordy dird while detailed character assassination is cheered on. There is no actual guideline yet for the ops or users to employ for determining when they're acting improperly. In fact, one of the most hostile and reductive and bullying editors I've encountered is up above crying about on-wiki "civility" not being enforced. Obviously, what he means and what Fred means, and what I mean, are different things. He seems to hyperventilate about calling a he a she or a jerk an ass, while I care about trying to get people blocked so that their voices are no longer heard.
• I do think the whole thing should be disbanded, as I cannot see any room for it to help Wikipedia and built in ways for it to damage Wikipedia, but that would be merely philosophical if it weren't for the fact that ArbCom cannot act here and now because the people "in charge" are the people in the dock. They do not admit wrong, cannot conceive that they could be wrong, and will therefore not do anything differently, especially in the long term. If this is merely round two of a three round fight, if we have to wait for yet another horrendous case of star chamber blocks and rallying to destroy users, then that's a disgrace that proves that it's not what you do, but who you know. Incidentally, that is the charge trolls make all the time, and it's disgusting that we would make them right. Geogre 03:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, I think it's apparent that there isn't a definition of civility that everyone agrees on. Your comment above, "a he a she or a jerk an ass," illustrates the problem nicely. You didn't think anything of it, and still don't, but several people regarded it as one of the meanest, nastiest things ever said by one user about another, and the fact that you don't agree does not for one moment diminish the effect that it had. Mackensen (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• And, on the other hand, many people see absolutely nothing wrong with spending hours talking about users who aren't present and talking about how they're all "idiots" and how they should be banned. They see nothing wrong with it still. So, if we were to balance out the two, where would we be: one person saying, of another who says frequently that she is pleased to be able to identify either way, one particular thing about gendered speech, versus three sitting about every night with an enemies list and coordinating provocations, blocks, and actions to generate a ban? You're right, Mackensen, I don't see that there is any comparison at all. One is being disagreeable and the other is trying to interrupt Wikipedia. One is where all sides may defend themselves (or take revenge, which seems to be the preferred reaction), and the other is where only like-voices can be heard as revenge. That you could be such a blushing violet and see these as anything like the same is strange to me, you are correct. Geogre 13:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Geogre, you seem to be taking the same line that Giano is: incivility on the encyclopedia is justified by perceived off-wiki conspiracies. Let's say you're right, just for the sake of the argument: Kelly Martin and other persons are conspiring to drive you and Giano off the encyclopedia. How does that, in any way, justify you making the aforementioned statement? An eye for an eye, Geogre? If I allege an off-wiki conspiracy against me by User X, on flimsy evidence, may I start trash-talking them in public? Mackensen (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• No, Mackensen, I'm trying to illustrate to you the difference between being unpleasant (me) and disliking someone (as I do) and character assassination with the intent of blocking. I am justified in calling you a worm, if I want. That's my opinion, to which I am entitled. I would probably hope that you would be affronted, but I would have no expectation that you'd block for that, as no policy says that anyone may be blocked for expressing an unpleasant opinion. On the other hand, if I spend hours with only my friends in Wikipedia Divine Actions IRC, and we talk non-stop about how horrible Mackensen is, how he lies all the time, how he spends all his time complaining, how he's corrupt, how he's a hypocrit, etc., and then, when new people come in, that's all they see. If they protest, we all take turns telling that person that she should not be at our channel, because she may get blocked. Now, suppose, Mackensen, that you actually saw a log of that. How would you feel if I got sanctimonious about it? How would you feel if I threatened to block you (or did it) for telling anyone about the log? As for me, let them conspire. They've been doing it, and they'll do it still. I'm a big boy and am not threatened by pufferfish. The issue is much more concrete, much more precise. We are all free to be unpleasant, disagreeable, cantankerous, and ill humored, but we are not free to conspire to block other users. Or, in simpler words: we have to obey policy, not our inner rage. Geogre 00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, call me a worm if you like. That's not very collegial but I suppose if it floats your boat I won't argue. I wouldn't block you either, but I might start bringing up next time you ran for arbcom. I don't like civility blocks, and I'm on the record stating this numerous times, so let's move on. For all I know there are IRC channels where my name is mud; certainly there are talk pages on this encyclopedia that fit said description. I can't say that those bother me either. People of sound judgment can tell the difference between intelligent criticism and prattle, and I know whose opinion I value. Now, as it happens, I've been in a position where private evidence of someone bad-mouthing me was presented to me. I didn't do anything about it because frankly I didn't give a good damn. You're quite right that we have to obey policy. Last I looked WP:CIVIL was a policy, although not one with much weight any more. You talk about character assassination: why don't you look down below, where Giano is making slanderous remarks. You wanted to be an arbitator: is this your idea of handling a dispute? Mackensen (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe in ignorance is bliss, that has always seemed like a myth to me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom has discussed this at great length. Clearly there is a problem. However, with an issue this complex, involving this many actors, there is no solution that will please everyone. On one extreme is people who advocate shutting the channel down, and on the other is people who advocate doing nothing. I think the solution Fred mentioned - working with the structures currently in place to enforce civility in the channel - is a fair compromise. Raul654 03:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What structures? Is there any clear methodology for who and who isn't a chanop there? Who are the "leaders" Fred Bauder mentioned? It's a wild-west free-for-all where the most entrenched clique wins in there. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but how can you confess ignorance at the leadership structure and then characterize it? Mackensen (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin IRC? Is that the place where admins rubs their hands saying mwhahaha? -- ReyBrujo 03:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You joke, but I'm left with the impression that some people think just that. That's what happens when you cherry-pick from a log file. Sure, you'll find something objectionable, but extrapolating from that and coming up with the idea that the whole channel is rotten to the core is just bad propaganda. One should never build law on outlier cases or personalities, but we seem to be headed that way. Mackensen (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me point out, specifically, that I acknowledge the existence of specific abuses in the above comment. Mackensen (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never set foot ... err ... keyboard ... in the admin IRC channel. Is it any different from the regular one? On there, people ask for help. They bounce ideas off of each other. They talk about non-wiki things. They point out funny/silly/ludicrous things they've found while editing. Sometimes there's profanity or other rudeness. It's pretty much like life in general. Is the admin channel any different? --BigDT 04:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, except that the people in there discuss administrative actions too. The controversial nature of any admin action is squared if "IRC" is breathed, since it implies a conspiracy. Mackensen (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On the whole, the incidents which have prompted this constitute well under 1% of all traffic. Unfortunately, they also represent between 50%-100% of some users total experience with either this channel, or IRC in general. This is a problem, but I think it's a problem in search of a targeted solution. Mackensen (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, replying to Mackensen at 04:00) Thankfully, my knowledge about IRC is limited to /connect, /join, /alias and /quit, so I am pretty neutral here. Hmm... I once tried to download some movie through a channel, but it said something about being at position 5,000 in a queue, and after half an hour I was 7,000, so I turned the computer off and bought the DVD.

I know IRC is necessary to discuss in real time, but undoubtedly, it creates a separation between administrators, just like Category:Administrators open to recall. There are those that can/want to connect through IRC, and those that can't/won't. It is inevitable. Even I feel that difference when someone reports a user at AIV stating "sockpuppet of blocked XXX", and when reviewing XXX's block, I find a "[Un]blocked per IRC talk" or similar. However, I must assume good faith, especially without logs. Others just can't (because of personal experience or anything), and raise in arms. It is a real pity that we do not have a Special:Irclogs where to check the public conversations in the channels, available only for admins, that would make things much clearer for everyone. -- ReyBrujo 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There's the rub: you don't why an administrator is acting period, regardless of what discussion took place. Even when an administrator cites a specific policy, it still came down to the functioning of various processes in his or her head. There's a thousand IRC channels out there, and most of them prohibit logging. It only comes up with #wikipedia-en-admins because a) some things said there really aren't for public consumption because there are privacy issues, and b) the relative size makes it possible to enforce the rule. Mackensen (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course! However, if an off-wiki action (as in, a IRC chat) brings a on-wiki reaction (in example, blocking a user), I think it would be just to include at least some information about that, just like you would point to the AFD when deleting an article, or the external link when deleting a copyvio. Ok, so full logging is not a solution, but at least consider some way of IRC board where to post the juicy parts (as in, the statements that were used to build consensus about something). We can quote an AFD, a URL or a report, we can even quote a mail to the mailing list, but we can't quote an IRC conversation? As I said, I assume good faith even though a vandal has broken two test4 warnings. However, others are less patient, and you need to comprehend them. I would even say that everyone's priority is to open the process as much as possible. -- ReyBrujo 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I've said before, I see no reason to invoke IRC at all; every administrator is responsible for what they do. Heck, every editor is responsible for every edit they make. Whether it was discussed on IRC or not is frankly beside the point. Anyone should be able to give a rational accounting of their actions. The problem is that the mention of IRC often leads to an assumption of bad faith--not always, but it happens. Mackensen (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not that different from, in example, asking to review a block here, is it? I mean, some users may bring a review here (like #1 month block of 88.104.202.232), others may feel more comfortable with reviewing there. You are right, if you do something, you take responsibility. But if they can't and use some IRC chat as justification, that chat should be made public.

No need to reply, though, we will keep going in circles like the Line Rider avatar :-) -- ReyBrujo 05:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of this seems a bit moot. Even if the admin channel was shut down, it is technically impossible to prevent private communication between any group that decides to communicate privately. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The admin channel also serves as a place a lot of newer admins with questions go to get their questions answered. They hang out there, and see how abusive behavior is tolerated and encouraged. In short order they may come to believe such behavior is the correct and expected behavior for administrators. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point grapes, I went there when I was new at the mop for advice and it was very helpful. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It's a good use for IRC. We don't need an #admins channel for it; were there very many highly-sensitive issues you were asking about, that couldn't have been as easily asked and answered in #wikipedia-en? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you go where the people are. If you have a specific question about administration, you go where the administrators are. I find #wikipedia a bewildering place; I never got the impression that #wikipedia-en was highly patronized. Mackensen (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with private communication, some questions need to be asked in front of experienced users, instead of everyone. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but no reason to not ask a few well regarded administrators privately via email for the same advice or direction. Rarely, is something so immediate that it can't be resolved via email.--MONGO 06:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In camera (aka arbitrary section break)

It's been asked a few times, but I'll ask again: What discussion with whom? Would it not make more sense to have the whole thing conducted "in public" as it were? The easiest questions to answer are:

• Who are the "leadership of the IRC channels," and
• Who has been "appoint[ed as] additional channel ops?"

brenneman 04:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• The channels are under the control of James Forrester. The leadership is best described as James and Essjay, with help from others. The chanops on this channel in question include the following: FloNight, DavidGerard, Sannse, Fennec, Danny, Mackensen, Morven, Mark Ryan, Jimbo, Essjay, Angela, JamesF, Kelly Martin, Uninvited Company, Mindspillage and Dmcdevit. Mackensen (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good questions. Please, don't assume everyone knows what you are talking about, I only have a vague sense of what is going on here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm a bit thick I like it when things are spleed write out: this channel in question is the admin channel? JF is "in charge" of #wikipedia and #whateveritis-admins, and that list are the chanops for #admins? And "include the following" is hazy to me. Sorry to be pedantic, but can we have a complete list of

• Existing/previous chanops for vanilla wikipedia channel,
• Existing/previous chanops for admin channel, and
• Whomever are the "additional" chanops and what channels they are assigned on?

The more I read that response the less feeling of security I get... "with help from others" leaves a lot to be desired as well. Was this discussion conducted via mailing list, IRC, something else, and is it written on water or is there something that Morlocks like me can refer to?
brenneman 04:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, #wikipedia-en-admins is the only channel under consideration here. Latent abuses in other channels remain unexplored pending someone of importance getting wronged in one of them (no, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm quite serious about that). New chanops for #wikipedia-en-admins are: FloNight, David Gerard, Mackensen, Morven, Uninvited Company and Dmcdevit (thereabouts, anyway). JamesF, as I understand it, is controller of at least all English-language channels because of chaos at freenode following Rob Levin's death. There're numerous chanops on #wikipedia, too many to list here. The information is publicly accessible if anyone wants it. This was discussion on the mailing list of the Arbitration Committee, which happens to include the people responsible for the IRC channels. A happy coincidence proving that no good deed goes unpunished. Mackensen (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. I appreciate you having patience while I catch up. No, I'm not being sarcastic. ^_^
  brenneman 06:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Mackensen, a minor point about your list of 16 #en-admins chanops above. You say that the list "includes" these people; does that mean it's incomplete? I ask because a couple of weeks ago I was kickbanned from the channel by somebody who's not on the list. I won't inflame matters here by naming him, but you certainly know who I mean. Was he an op? Or temporarily opped in order to kick me? Is he an op today? I'm over it, but the action was random and remains unexplained, so I think the answers are of some general interest. Bishonen | talk 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

• I omitted all level 10s in the interest of brevity. It was also late and I knew I'd miss somebody. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Bishonen, that was awhile ago now. I think it's best to just get over it and stop constantly bringing it up. IRC channel actions really don't mean a lot. --Cyde Weys 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I have placed a copy of the access list, obtained via ChanServ, in my userspace (User:Bbatsell/IRC) so as not to clutter up AN. I have removed all those under accesslevel 10, which to my recollection is the level of CMDOP in the channel. If anyone objects to this list (although it is freely available in IRC), then I will remove it. The names there are registered nicknames, and may or may not correspond with Wikipedia usernames. —bbatsell ¿? 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am glad to see other syops on the channel will have the ability to boot those that are being incivil, but what level of incivility is needed before this happens? The problem as I see it has less to do with incivility than with the channels being used to speak a bit too openly about other editors...that should be reserved for private email only. I recognize that IRC would have usefulness if the sole purpose was to expedite a block on a troll, but all decisions to make blocks on established editors should be determined by consensus on wiki, not off it....so what pupose does it serve? Really now, are we a chat forum or are we a collection of encyclopedia writers?--MONGO 06:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Chatting vs. Encyclopedia-writing" argument is moot on IRC. IRC is for discussion of all types, and WMF has nothing to do with Freenode. Those who use IRC are not using Wikipedia as a chat forum, they're using IRC as a chat forum, whose initials, by the way, stand for "Internet Relay Chat". —bbatsell ¿? 06:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the chatting has led to blockings and has led to reverting blocks made by established admins and has led to formulating abuses that have taken place on wiki on established editors. I am well aware of what IRC stands for...I never use it however and won't.--MONGO 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it has. But it's very easy to pick out singular events that happen every so often, paint all of IRC with the same brush, and in so doing lose sight of what actually happens the majority of the time, which is positive discussion. I know that I personally have been talked down from blocks that I was ready to make when I asked for second opinions, I know that discussions take place that are very positive. I know that sometimes it's okay for someone who has been blocked to be able to get on IRC, get a one-on-one chat with an admin, and explain their side of the story that often doesn't come out on-wiki. The {{unblock}} template is great but sometimes it isn't very conducive to an in-depth review of a block. If an unblock happens based on that discussion, then it is absolutely the responsibility of the unblocking admin to monitor their contributions to ensure that they were not being disingenuous on IRC. Admins make mistakes, and discussions about what we do or about Wikipedia process or about the general goings-on can almost never be bad, in my humble opinion. I guess I just don't see the basis for the "OMG EVIL!" attitudes that some people (not you, MONGO) harbor towards IRC. Do people sometimes get into heated discussions? Sure, I got into one last night. Do sometimes administrators make bad judgments? Of course, that's true with or without IRC. I just think that people are looking at a very tiny subset of what goes on and are ignoring what goes on 99% of the time, which is very positive for Wikipedia. Anyway, just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary, etc. etc. —bbatsell ¿? 07:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course...the point is, I see that IRC allows less transparency than we should have. I don't have time to bother with IRC and am simply encouraging all admins and ArbCom members to do all they can to discuss matters on wiki and use IRC for non-harassing chat.--MONGO 07:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC

• My experiance with the plain olde #wikipedia channel is almost universally positive: People collaberating on articles, rational discussions of policy interpretation, etc. When the atmosphere turns poisonious there are enough people around to either tell the person to can it or for the offender to get the boot. (Once it was me, and I deserved it.) #admins I lurk in all the time, and the ratio is reversed: There are too many like-minded people there, and the toxicity gets multiplied. I have never, not even on one occasion, seen anything discussed there that would not have gotten a better airing on the main channel. More ops isn't going to solve this, when the list supplied above has listed as ops several of those often painted as "unrepentantly uncivil." - brenneman 07:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• You really need to try the channels again. #wikipedia is pretty much universally acknowledged as a cesspit. #admins at least has well-reasoned discussion, although it's going downhill a bit what with the recent influx of teen admins who don't seem to realize that it isn't for extended off-topic chatter. --Cyde Weys 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• The one thing I have never understood about the admin channel is that it appeared to me, on my infrequent visits, that people weren't using their Wikipedia username as their nickname. I guess I'm probably a little dense, but I never understood why. Steve block Talk 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How many people have access to the channel who are not admins? How many are former admins who resigned their sysop status, or were forcibly de-sysopped? Because not one of those should have access to the channel, yet they do. Proto::► 12:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've yet to hear why an admin who voluntarily relinquished adminship is no longer trustworthy. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Not to kick salt in someone's eyes when they are down, but if the ArbCom has said that you _must_ re-apply for adminship if you want it back there is clearly a grey area with regards to trust. - brenneman 12:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Plus at least some of those who voluntarily relinquished adminship jumped before they were pushed, so to speak. Proto::► 13:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Fred Bauder says "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behaviour absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops" Fred gives sufficient reasons for closing down the channel but then shows the complete lack of understanding of the problem by failing to say that some of the existing channel ops are not only the worst offenders but at least one is a member of the arbcom. He then goes on to say "we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels " again the self proclaimed owner of the channel; is not only a member of the arbcom, but yes, you've guessed it - one of the worst offenders. Well done Fred we yet again see that this arbcom is beyond redemption. However, I am glad that after so long of being told by Wikipedia's hierarchy that I am imagining these things, they do now seem to be completely unacceptable gross incivility even though the IRC logs show them to be far more serious. Bullying and intimidation are just two words which immediately spring to mind. It should also be remembered that the deplorable events which have been permitted on IRC (certainly in my own experience) are 100% to blame for any incivility which has happened on-wiki. However I must be careful what I say or Fred, Jim and Dm will be RFArbing me again for even thinking such things. Giano 12:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're still responsible for your actions on-wiki. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well of course that is true, and entirely why IRCadmins has been such a successful harassing operation, goad and plot against editors in secret, and then ban than when they respond it public. Thank you Mackensen for pointing that out so clearly. Giano 12:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• You're free to allege that; I've seen the evidence and it looks more like a comedy of errors than some deep rooted plot. How do you justify your incivility towards editors who do not use IRC, or who do use IRC but have never been a party towards comedy or malevolence? Feel free to ignore my earlier statements denouncing incivility towards other in IRC. It's also worth mentioning that as an ex-arbitrator I had a hand in drafting Fred's statement and fully endorsed it. There are no free passes here. Mackensen (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Of course it's fair to add more channel ops to combat incivility and personal attacks, but if some of the older channel ops are in fact party to making those attacks, it makes a lot of sense to replace them with friendlier ops. Otherwise, this will just turn into a rehash of "both parties are incivil but we're going to point at one of them and ignore the other's behavior". >Radiant< 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but this would seem to be wikidrama for the sake of it. Is there a point to this wikidrama? Is there a point to the admins channel? If something needs sorting out, AN and ANI exist for a reason. If something needs sorting out privately or you want a private opinion, as MONGO pointed out email should be perfectly adequate. If you are worried about privacy, IRC will hardly assuage your worries, as there would seem to be log leaks left, right, and centre. Does and has the admins channel caused harm, problems, and unnecessary wikidrama? That does not seem to be in dispute. The obvious solution is to nuke the admins channel and every other Wikipedia IRC channel with the exceptions of #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en, where on occasion I have had some enjoyable conversations that have benefited the encyclopedia. That will certainly put a stop to the wikidrama. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Mackensen, some of your arbcom colleagues have had a fee pass for far too long. I concur with Moreschi, any new channel ops will still be under the old disgraceful management? The arbcom's credibility can only be restored if this channel is abolished and its self proclaimed owner de-sysoped for bringing Wikipedia into disrepute along with the other admins involved. It must be remembered that leading members of the arbcom have known and approved of this deplorable situation for years. Now it is in the open heads have to roll for Wikipedia's reputation to be restored. Giano 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Then by all means bring an arbitration case, or appeal to Jimbo directly. I certainly don't consider myself JamesF's "agent," I can think for myself and act independently, for better or worse. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

First, Mackensen is arguing pretty vociferously, and he's one of the ops for the channel, so I'm not sure he's uninvolved. There are so many bad arguments being made that it's hard to know where to start.

1. First, is there "cherry picking logs?" What is the difference between "cherry picking logs" and "citing evidence?" Of course you're going to "cherry pick" because you're going to cite the dang evidence. The :15 when no one is there is not going to be cited. Sheesh. That's a Karl Rove like argument. The point is that the abuse is taking place by the same few people, who are chanops, on several occasions and arguably regularly. The evidence is clear enough for "several occasions," and "regularly" is what's in dispute.
2. That it's the same few people no one seems inclined to discuss. That these people are not administrators is similarly not being argued. As far as "giving up" status and having it stripped goes, an ArbCom decision said that Kelly Martin "left under a cloud." It demoted Tony Sidaway. Both are at en.admins.irc, and Greg Maxwell is simply not an administrator at en.wikipedia. He's a meta administrator, but I'm not aware of his being an admin at en.wikipedia at any point. However, people who give up their status give up their status, and being at that cursed channel is part of the status. If it's not, then why not open the channel to people who one day will be administrators along with people who once upon a time were administrators? I'm not being vindictive, here: it's simply built into the very definition of the thing. The arguments for its creation were that administrators needed to speak of sensitive materials. Well, why? So they could act. These people who are not administrators can't act. This isn't me being petty: I never supported segregating the beautiful people from the hoi poloi, but it's what the channel was supposed to do.
3. Go where the people are is, in fact, the critical feature. Admins are all over the regular wikipedia irc channel. Go there, because there are enough people there to turn the conversation away from abuse. In fact, the admins.irc channel is nasty precisely because it's not where The People are, but where only a small group is from time to time. The more populated the channel, the less commonly it goes into abuse. Every log I have seen of abuse has been when there are few people there, mostly like-minded about the central issue that admins are superior to users, that "clueful" people run things. They are philosophically inclined to believe it their right and responsibility to do what's "right" without policy.

Finally, the people are the problem, but the medium gives them their freedom to abuse. It's like LSD: the sane people will have a slight entertainment, while the mentally unstable will make a very bad trip. Geogre 13:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of one active non-admin wikipedian who requested "admission" to the channel and was last I heard roundly ignored. If that makes ay sense, it's a bit late and too hot for thinking. - brenneman 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Start an on-wiki procedure to appoint channel operators, so that we don't have clique accusations later. Remove all the non-admins from the channel. Seems like the best solution. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

First, Geogre, if you'd read the discussion you'd note that I'm a newly-appointed chanop, which makes me part of the solution, not part of the problem (note: this presupposes that the arbcom is sane). I don't appreciate the comparison to Karl Rove and wonder whether it was necessary. I mean, you score some points but it hardly helps matters. I say "cherry-picking" because there's an indictment on the channel as a whole based on the selected behaviour of individuals. That does not make sense. As you rightly note, certain individuals are the problem. That's cause for individual condemnation, not some broad-based approach. If you're going to indict the "medium," you have to actually prove that the medium is corrupt; to assert it is simply not enough. Mackensen (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A note of clarification, none of the new channel ops were appointed by the ArbCom. Paul August ☎ 17:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the comparison to Rove, but it's a Rove argument. It's exactly the kind of rhetorical flourish he's famous for. When evidence is presented of abuse, he says, "They cherry picked it." Well, how much would it take? The reason this is an issue, to answer the question the people who haven't followed all of this keep asking, is that on-wiki actions have been orchestrated on the "invisible" and unaccountable medium of that IRC channel. Each one of these actions has been quickly, if not instantly, reversed, but they just keep coming. Yes, the people are this problem, but there remains no rationale for the channel that shows any advantage to Wikipedia. What purpose does it have? What purpose does it actually serve that is not better served by media already in place that are already regulated, like AN/I? I asked that question a month ago and, unless I'm really biased, didn't get an answer that stood up. If, therefore, we have people who have to be "worked with" to get permission to change that channel and if these very people are demonstrably problematic, then what the heck are we doing? This is especially the case if they violate the very elitism the channel was set up to create.

I've tried to be helpful, to offer positive solutions, as well as to condemn what exists now. My essay was an honest effort at working out the inherent strengths and weaknesses. Although some of my points are getting repeated, the hatred and scorn poured out on me by the problem users will prevent their ever admitting that there is a problem.

Finally, I remind you of what we're talking about here. The subtext is not "play nice." That's lily livered. The subtext is "don't team up to beat on people in a private clubhouse." It's far more pointed than someone like me being obnoxious to Kelly. It's about blocking. It's about harassing. It's about pretending to be powerful. It's about encouraging new administrators to run roughshod over the project because they are important people. It's about learning to show some respect for the people who make Wikipedia, as those people are not the chanops who spend their lives on IRC. Geogre 00:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Geogre: Greg Maxwell is an admin on Commons. We need as many Commons admins in #admins as we can get. Yes, technically, English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are separate projects; in practice, they have a lot of related issues, and we frequently need actions taken on Commons (such as nuking shock images being used for vandalism). --Cyde Weys 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 2

Some insight into the reasoning:

• the AC has no jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins. Really, it doesn't.
• The channel was originally set up as a hotline for admin help being requested, particularly by Jimbo or Danny, and it's damn useful for that.
• It's not just for admins, it's for "trusted Wikipedians" of all sorts. There's Alphax on there as a Commons admin, Greg as a developer, etc. (That someone here may feel they have conclusive proof that a given chanop is a minion of Satan out to destroy Wikimedia is irrelevant to this - it's not yours to decide. I don't care. Really.) *and Greg is on as a Commons admin too, of course.
• It's also a good place for admins to sanity-check their personal decisions (or find another admin to deal or not with a matter they feel would be a conflict of interest to deal with or whatever). I'd like it if all new admins were invited onto it and someone should write up some suitable how-to process page.
• Many of the IRC logs received from the AC have clearly been edited and even when not don't include a metric shitload of off-channel communication that serves as context.
• There are admins already avoiding the channel because the cries of the torch and pitchfork toting mob above are making them afraid of what people would do with an out-of-context quote. So the AC going over the last six months of logs sent in from viewers looking for people to bring the vengeance of the Lord down upon really just is not likely to happen.

So the course of action chosen is to try to improve the tone of the place by leading from the front, hence the current /topic: speak like the person you're discussing is reading. And my frequent strong suggestions to behave better. YOU'RE ADMINS, DAMMIT, YOU WERE CHOSEN FOR YOUR GOOD JUDGEMENT. Mostly the channel shows that, by the way. Anyone characterising it as a festering snakepit that must be abolished is IMO smoking crack and I really can't take them seriously.

Note: I am an ex-arb and still on the AC list to kibitz advise. I have level 40 on #wikipedia-en-admins because Jdforrester landed it on me. I'm in there a bit lately, when I'm home and my laptop is on and I remember.

Any questions that show evidence of a shred of good judgement? - David Gerard 13:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

David I hope you will take my concerns seriously. Paul August ☎ 17:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "It's also a good place for admins to sanity-check their personal decisions (or find another admin to deal or not with a matter they feel would be a conflict of interest to deal with." Is there a reason why AN, ANI or even email cannot be used for this? Why the insistence on spurious - spurious, because this is clearly not happening - privacy that is only ever going to feed accusations of a cabal? Given that this channel seems to be causing far more wikidrama than it's worth, is there really a compelling argument as to why this should be kept? Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Because sometimes one wants a quick answer, because sometimes one is dead wrong and when ten people say HELL NO one gets awareness of it, because in many cases it creates less drama than ANI. Though I prefer ANI as well. Saying "we decided it on IRC" on admin matters is not a good way to do things, way definitely. Your point is a really important one and one to keep in mind: transparency has to be consciously worked for - David Gerard 14:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And I want the channel kept because it's damn useful for what it's damn useful for, and abolishing it would lose that without, my psychic powers predict, diminishing the dramatists' valiant and assiduous defense of the wiki or whatever they're doing one iota - David Gerard 14:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know is David Gerard making the above comments with the sanction and public approval of the arbcom, or are they just using him as a barometer of our opinions. No, I'm afraid a comment alone from Fred will not suffice, something a little more concrete from the arbcom is required. 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC){{subst:unisgned|Giano II}}

The above are David's private views. They do not represent the consensus view of the ArbCom. Paul August ☎ 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not speaking for the AC (I'm not on the AC, as noted), I'm speaking for me, though the matter is in a lot of discussion at present and I've asked the AC to stop by and clarify if any of them feel I've misrepresented things - David Gerard 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain your role in regard to the arbcom mailing list? Giano 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I did, above: "I am an ex-arb and still on the AC list to kibitz advise." Ex-arbitrators stay on the AC list as they choose - David Gerard 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's really very simple. It is said there are too much nasty remarks on the channel, and that the solution is to make more people channel ops. That makes sense. Then someone points out that the nasty remarks are in part made by the older channel ops. No solution for that has been proposed, but the obvious answer seems to be to de-op those. Note that I have never used the channel, nor do I believe it should be nuked. It's appears simply to be a case of two parties being incivil, and only one party being examined for that. >Radiant< 14:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If it was that simple it would have been resolved centuries ago, ergo it's not that simple. If someone wants someone removed from being a chanop on #wikipedia-en-admins they get to convince Jdforrester, because I'm certainly not going to, I can tell you now ... - David Gerard 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not just incivility, it is bullying and harassment and attempting to "get rid" of editors. This been condoned by the arbcom, by their assenting silence, - the only solution is to abolish the channel, then no-one has to worry about tackling Jim Forrester (I'm not frightened of him anyway) Giano 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is more than just incivility, and I don't assent. Paul August ☎ 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest it is unlikely you're going to get the lynching you're after. I also suggest you're barely on Jdforrester's radar - David Gerard 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I think you'l find our Jim knows exactly who I am - and I think you know that too! Giano 14:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're the one I blocked for egregious personal attacks that no other editor making would be tolerated. If you read what I wrote, by the way, you'll note the AC does not have the power to abolish the channel. I don't know if you've ever heard of "diplomacy" or "assuming good faith", but you could give them a go and see if they give you more results you want rather than less - David Gerard 14:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And the solution is not just to make more people ops, it's to ask people to be nice and use their admin-given judgement more. These are smart people, and if they have bursts of stupid then the first thing is to try really hard to stop those. This is the diplomatic solution and lacks the emotionally-satisfying and crowd pleasing character of a really good 'Bungee Saddam' Christmas special, but I submit is more likely to make things actually better - David Gerard 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are so disgusting as to mention "Saddaam" in this context is indicative of the behaviour and level of rubishing anyone who opposes that channel receives. I have been on the receiving end of long enough to know every nasty little trick used. You are going to have to find new depths to sink to now. Giano 14:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Any other questions? - David Gerard5 14:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've already implied that I'm among those who in your opinions "are smoking crack" and can't be taken seriously, so I suppose it would do me little good to ask a question, O your excellency. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I was speaking as someone who's actually on the damn thing and knows precisely what the usual content is, against those who characterise it in a manner bearing no resemblance to what I see. Of course, it may just be that my crack supplier is much better - David Gerard 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question - who is it that leaks all those logs to Wikitruth? Proto::► 15:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, but the best course of action I can think of is to treat it as a working-channel-with-chat like a sensible admin - David Gerard 15:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrrmm — if we knew, we'd definitely have done something about it already ... Cyde Weys 15:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• So to sum up,
  1. People should not be nasty on the channel,
  2. If you see someone nasty, you can ask a channel op to kick that person, but he is not obliged to comply,
  3. If you see an op being nasty, you can ask Jdforrester to deop that person, but he is not obliged to comply,
  4. The arbcom can request that certain people be opped, deopped, kicked or unkicked from the channel, but the channel ops are not obliged to comply,
  5. Being nasty on the channel can be taken into account in arbitration cases, and
  6. The cabal puppy eating contest is next wendesday.
• That broadly correct? >Radiant< 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Any chanop is no more obliged to take an admin action than any particular en: admin is obliged to take an admin action, i.e. not at all. People should not be nasty on the channel because it's bad for what is after all supposed to be a working-space-with-chat rather than a cesspit being a working-space-with-chat rather than a cesspit; and I think I'm asking nothing unreasonable by asking admins to act with GOOD ADMIN JUDGEMENT AAARGH. You can indeed and James is actually pretty approachable (if busy) and not insane and stuff. Not only does the AC have no jurisdiction over the channel, the Wikimedia Foundation specificially disclaims jurisdiction over the #wikipedia-xxx channels for reasons of possible legal liability, so bitching about it here does nothing and annoys the pig. Being nasty anywhere that affects the wiki can be taken into account by the AC. The puppy eating contest is Thursday. And NO CANNIBALISM - David Gerard 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• K, fair enough. >Radiant< 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 2.5

A somewhat more-to-the-point explanation, perhaps: the operative issue here is David's first point. The ArbCom does not have any power over the IRC channels. We cannot shut them down; we cannot replace the ops; we cannot, as a group, force anything to happen on IRC (except insofar as some members of the Committee happen to be ops on some channels). The ArbCom simply lacks that ability, and no amount of indignation—justified or otherwise—is going to magically grant it to us.

(As for anyone wondering why there's no desysoppings, etc.: well, the ArbCom has decreed, in the past, that off-Wikipedia matters were not its concern. This is likely not to be the case in the future—hence Fred's note—but it would be quite crass of us to extend this retroactively to past events. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.)

(And, on a further note, for anyone wondering: no, the ArbCom does not have Secret All-Seeing IRC Logs(tm).) Kirill Lokshin 15:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Further on this note: the AC has no power, but currently James, Mackensen and myself (arb and two ex-arbs) - not James very much in practice, he has plenty of other stuff he does - are working to make the place sweeter and happier for all concerned. i.e., we'd like it not to suck kthx and consider such important for the wiki - David Gerard 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You, Mackensen and Forrester - who do you immagine has any confidence in you? This is a joke! Giano 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that my judgment and capacity to serve were in question. I have always served at the pleasure of the community and if my services are no longer deemed necessary I will happily withdraw into private life, as it were. Mackensen (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you are aware. But compared to the unremittingly combative David Gerard, there's still hope for you. 88.198.5.138 16:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Joyous news, I am not a complete failure yet! Prithee, when did thee supplant our Fair God-King? Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So ... is this IP Giano? Or someone else? --Cyde Weys 17:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're definitely failing the community by consistently Cyding with the IRC gang, against all reason. But that is neither news nor new. 88.198.5.138 17:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde why not ask one of the secret channel to do an ilicit check user - and find out, that does happen there doesn't it? Giano 17:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I've just seen "Cyding" that really is very funy, I wish I had thought of that Giano 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You should withdraw that, if you had any concept of decency. Mackensen (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is indecent? I have seen far worse(far far worse) said by your heros on IRC, so is it vecause I'm saying it in public? Giano 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You are publicly insinuating that checkusers are breaching the Foundation's privacy policy, and possibly local law, by making unauthorized disclosure of private information. You are publicly accusing someone of an incredibly dishonourable, if not illegal, act. If you can't back it up then you should withdraw it. Mackensen (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Who knows what has been buried and concealed concerning that channel - nothing you people get up to there would surprise me. Giano 17:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I will ask one more time that you retract that statement. I'm quite serious. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Read what I wrote - "that does happen there doesn't it?" why not stop shouting and answer the question Giano 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Having to deny such accusations is degrading. I might as well ask whether you beat your wife. It does not. It would be a grave breach of the trust if it did. That you blithely assume so speaks volumes of the utter contempt you have for all concerned here. I wonder why you stay, when you're surrounded by such fools. Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I stay Mackensen, because in spite of the frequent clumsy and very obvious attempts by your colleagues to get rid of me, I know I am of use to the encyclopedia - a progect to which i am totally committed. You are quite correct on one point though "Having to deny such accusations is degrading" - I'd change my friends if I were you. Incidentally, why would saying "No! Check user has never been abused" be "a grave breach of the trust"?. Please Mackensen don't start clever games with me that you cannot finnish, because I see everything through to the end no matter how bitter (for some) that end may be. Giano 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Without wishing to cast aspersions at any users with checkuser access, it is certainly possible for checkuser privileges to be abused. I understand that there has been at least one complaint regarding checkuser being used outside of policy. Perhaps I have misunderstood what I have read (I can't guarantee that I could find a link if asked) but I understand the relevant person admitted that they undertook the checkuser complained of, "could not remember" why they did it, and that person subsequently lost their checkuser access. As I understand it, there are checkuser logs, but they are only available to other uses with checkuser privileges. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you count banned trolls and sockpuppets we get complaints all the time. Some of these were deemed important enough for investigation, but the checkuser was cleared in each instance. I am not aware of a direct link between any investigation and any loss of privileges. I've seen that story floating around too, but I've never seen it substantiated, and I first saw it months ago. Mackensen (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that IP and I are acquainted. It's a webserver in Germany with open ports. I had to deal with a nasty privacy violation coming from it just a few days ago. Could be anybody using it. Mackensen (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP troll blocked for 48 hours (not his first offense, either). And Giano, you shouldn't be cyding with trolls. --Cyde Weys 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, block duration changed to indefinite as open proxy per Mackensen's findings. --Cyde Weys 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's right Cyde, knock em senseless if they say something you don't like. Giano 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, how shocking that Cyde should follow policy! We can't have that. Mackensen (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How unshocking it is that when Cyde breaches the civility and personal attacks policies, Mackensen, David Gerard, and the rest of the IRC gang are nowhere to be found. Looks pretty one-cyded to me. 88.198.5.138 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello open proxy! France, this time. Mackensen (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello! It may surprise you, but I admire your work. I just hope you can find it in you to internalize these criticisms without becoming reactively defensive. [p.s. please block this latest open proxy silently] 88.198.5.138 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 3

"Behavior on the IRC channel may be taken into consideration with respect to arbitration cases if it results in disruption on Wikipedia" Fred, does this mean that the door is now open to launch RFA's relating to the orchestrated blocking incidents and use the logs as evidence? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deep breaths everyone. To sum up;

• Fred's statement
  1. ArbCom recognizes that a problem exists and has been discussing ways of dealing with it
  2. New channel procedures and operators are being pushed in an effort to increase civility
  3. Comments made on IRC may have 'on Wiki' consequences if they cause 'on Wiki' problems
• Outstanding concerns
  1. Channel continues to exist and thereby damages 'faith in Wikipedia'
  2. No punishments for past abuses - banning from the channel and de-sysoping were suggested
  3. Non en-wikipedia admins on the channel
  4. Failure to enforce civility on Wikipedia itself / double standards
  5. Lack of details about new channel operators/procedures that Fred mentioned

Disclaimer: After long avoiding IRC (ick, ptooey!) I requested access to the admin channel when this blew up about two weeks ago, and (after not hearing back) asked again and got access yesterday. This likely makes me either 'an evil insurrectionist mole', 'irredeemably tainted by IRC toxins', or both.

As to my opinions; I'd say that the changes Fred described all sound like good things. On the concerns/complaints: I have no doubts that if the channel were removed another (or several) would be set up - without any sort of civility requirements or access to people who might object to 'cabalism'... the same would be true for removal of the non admins. It has been de facto policy until now that 'what happens in IRC stays in IRC' - retroactively applying IRC bans and Wikipedia de-sysopings would thus seem improper to me (not to mention rather vindictive). Incivility on Wikipedia itself certainly has been a major factor here, but we have existing procedures for that which generally work - despite glitches and disputes over application. Finally, I would like to hear more about who is being asked to help operate the channel and what sort of guidelines / directions for civility are being contemplated.

My impression based on one whole day would be that the channel was 60% silly, 25% productive admin work, and 15% complaining about things... the last including occasional incivility which I'd consider on par with what is normally seen amongst admins on Wikipedia. One person was called a 'clown', there was a joking suggestion to ban everyone who supported a particular featured article, an old major dispute was discussed and one of the primary participants complained about, et cetera. Not perfect and surely not the worst which has taken place, but nothing which couldn't be managed. There was markedly less nastiness than this discussion for instance. --CBD 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• CBD has the thread here. It's part of the last 15% that we'd generally like to deal with, but sometimes it can't be avoided–especially when this very topic came up and partisans from both sides were in channel. On the other hand, as you rightly note, nothing was said there that wasn't said here, and it's also my impression that the conversation on IRC was more polite. This may be because on IRC you can be kicked for being a jerk. Mackensen (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you CBD, for actually investigating on your own and not just believing the mindless hype. The way some of the way people on here talk about it, you'd think #admins goes through a dozen kittens a day, and that's just the ones used for sacrificial purposes (feasts not included). --Cyde Weys 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• So how do you propose we deal with people on Wikipedia who are jerks? I'm not thinking of anyone in particular but this place frequently turns downright nasty. >Radiant< 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, blocking used to work, but recently this whole place has become downright partisan that the blocks are overturned even when the person really deserves it. As a result, the person feels vindicated, and continues on with the bad behavior. --Cyde Weys 15:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Obviously the answer is to delete WP:AN and subpages and salt them. Also, if we make a rule against incivility, that should stop it in its tracks - look how effective m:Don't be dense is - David Gerard 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, we definitely a board where people can come complain to mommy that "that nasty person hit me after I kicked him". >Radiant< 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• This always confused me. Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over the IRC channels, fine. If they were closed down people would only find other ways to communicate, yes, that's all well and good. But Wikipedia currently explicitly sanctions use of these specific IRC rooms, by pointing people to them on WP:IRC and meta:IRC. If Wikipedia wishes to bear no responsibility for these rooms, and insists that what happens in there does not relate to what happens on Wikipedia, then they should not be plugged on-Wiki, right? Proto::► 15:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Paul August ☎ 18:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we tone down the discourse and look at this in cost-benefit terms? Sure the channel has uses, but noncontroversial alternatives seem to exist for all of those uses. Wikipedia is almost entirely a volunteer operation. Part of the reason why millions of people have joined up is because it's an open meritocracy. Admin-only IRC introduces a degree of opaqueness. Although the overwhelming majority of that may be responsible dialog, a small number of serious problems can discredit the undertaking. I doubt effective fail-safes can be implemented. If ArbCom doesn't have authority then I'd like to see that formalized by disaffiliating the channel from Wikipedia. It's a recipe for trouble to have a secret-but-leaky chat that 1000+ people can visit that lacks firm admission criteria and that putatively has a formal connection to Wikipedia outside the reach of ArbCom. I'm an eventualist on this issue, which means I've always suspected the channel will sink under its own weight but maybe the folks who like it can patch the hull. Durova^Charge 15:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly for you Cyde the logs show it is not "mindless hype" and that is why we are all here. According to you Mackensen above - there is no problem of huge concern? No wonder they chose him to be chan op! It's going to be another "let's wipe it under the carpet and save the arbcom" - He is of course on the arbcom mailing list. I think we are having our intelligence insulted here by Cyde, Mackensen and David Gerard, I expect as we speak they are rounding up further little IRC admins to come here with their 10 pennies worth - it is truly amazing - what are they going to come up with next? Watching these peole on the run is truly wonderous Giano 15:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Your support is appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I in no way support you. You have been a member of that chanel and known full well what has been going on for ages, so suddenly why have you decided to do something about it, you have condoned it for ages with your silence. You just want to save the "club" at all costs, and when this has died down it will be just as it was before. Giano 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

For all of one day. It's that dangerous, is it? Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(Note: Giano wasn't talking to CBD, he was talking to Mackensen. I've moved CDB's comment down to make that more clear. Paul August ☎ 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Giano, much as I am really enjoying the humor value in the implication that I am a 'little IRC admin in cahoots with David, Mackensen, and Cyde' (ROTFL)... 'not a battleground' comes to mind. Yup, people have done things they shouldn't have. Welcome to the human condition... you need to get over it. 'An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind', 'forgive and forget', and all that. If everyone insisted that every wrong be punished we'd spend all our time fighti... <looks around> oh wait. You haven't been above reproach either and in expecting such lapses to be forgiven you should also understand the need to do so for others. People agreeing to 'try to do better' is a victory for everyone... and insisting that 'there will be no peace until vengeance is satisfied' a loss for all. --CBD 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 4 - ArbCom mailing list

It seems to me that the main issue here (other than the incivility that brought the issue into the open, and that official policy seems to be to sweep past indiscretions under the carpet) is that use of IRC is encouraged, as a quick and dirty way for interested parties to discuss issues as they arise, but there is no official relationship between Wikipedia and IRC (by design, it would seem, on account of legal concerns). There is no clarity about what the #admin channel for, and who should have access to it. Should it be limited to current admins? Should it be available to ex-admins too, or indeed any editors in good standing? And if it is being used to formulate consensus for taking admin actions on-wiki, shouldn't it be logged and transparent?

Reading User:David Gerard's comments above, I have a second concern: he says he is on the ArbCom mailing list, as a former arbitrator. I had forgotten that non-Arbitrators have access to the ArbCom mailing list (I seem to remember User:Kelly Martin calling herself an "arbitrator emeritus". And someone is bound to ask for a diff now). Who else, other than the current members of ArbCom, have access to the list (is there a list somewhere?)? Should they? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I beleive there is over 20 of them, and when somthing interests them they all but in and have a say, which is why they can't reach concensus on this problem at all, they say they can't abolish the channel, but they could easily abolish the admins who use it, and of course the members of their own comittee who like to make such questionable use of it. Giano 16:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

All former ex-arbitrators in good standing are permitted access, as are certain other trusted persons (people with oversight, checkuser). I should think the committee is capable of cleaning its own house. Mackensen (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I for one appreciate all the cleaning help I can get ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The committee have proven themselves far from capable of cleaning any house let alone their own, in short they appear incompetent. Now, how many are on that list, precise number please? Giano 16:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ginao, I one called you a knight errant, I now see you are getting back at me ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a list-admin so I don't have the exact number, but I suspect you can count as well as I can. Take the current committee, add all former members plus Jimbo, throw on a checkuser or two, subtract Kelly Martin since she unsubscribed when she resigned her adminship and other offices, and you have your potential list. Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No No NO we don't want throw in one or two, we want how many, and perhaps who, then we could amuse ourselves laughing at how many use the "secret channel". Why not ask David Gerard he runs the list doesn't he? He's bound to know. Giano 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The subscriber's list is available to every member of the list. There are 29 members of the ArbCom mailing list. Paul August ☎ 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure the ArbCom is capable of looking after itself, but then we peons have an legitimate interest in knowing who is copied in on the internal ruminations of what is essentially Wikipedia's highest decision making body, and which is privy to the most sensitive information about all sorts of topics.

There is no mention of an ArbCom mailing list at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, or indeed m:Mailing_lists/overview. But, given what you say, it seems rather odd that there are more people on the list who are not members of ArbCom than those there are (12 current members listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, compared to 21 former members on the same page - less one - plus more from Wikipedia:Oversight and "one or two" from m:CheckUser policy). Given the overlap between the various categories, presumably the list at Wikipedia:Oversight is quite close? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the names of those participating in the arbcom mailing list and the arbcom IRC channel should be public. Most input is useful. Although occasionally former arbitrators can weigh in with old issues I would rather not revisit. Fred Bauder 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fred. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The committee's internal mailing list is private, as is the committee's IRC channel. Subscriber lists for neither are published. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But why can't we just know who the recipients are? Surely that can be transparent - I know who the director of MI5 is so I'm sure the members of the ARBCOM mailing list can demonstrate similar openeness to the wiki community. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was not aware that there was an ArbCom IRC channel too. Something else that is not mentioned on any of the ArbCom pages. Anyway, I'm not sure why the names on the participants need to be kept "secret". For example, m:CheckUser policy mention a similiary-sensitive closed list, checkuser-l.

Fine, the contents of the ArbCom list e-mails are private, and I am not asking to be able to read them or for them to be logged publicly (although it may be interesting to look back on them in 30 or 60 or 100 years) but Mackensen (who, I understand, participates on the list as a former arbitrator) has essentially told us the answer anyway: "All former ex-arbitrators in good standing are permitted access, as are certain other trusted persons (people with oversight, checkuser)." plus the current members of ArbCom, of course. So why not have a public list of people who are on the mailing list? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they have very good reasons ALoan, why the names of those who govern us are on a peice of paper known only to he who guards the list, and incidentally decides not only what is allowed to be on it, but even more crucially WHEN! These things are not to be discussed openly, but I do happen to know "he who guards the list" did a check-user on me very recently, while performing himself yet another wrong and again reverted block of me. Obviously he felt I was a serious risk to the Encyclopedia, on the other hand perhaps he was just curious - who knows! Giano 19:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 5

why are we discussing IRC? IRC is off-wiki. AC has no jurisdiction there, we have no jurisdiction there, case closed. If there are problems, spell out in giant letters somewhere that IRC channels, even if called "wiki" have serve no official function on wikipedia, whatsoever. I've been an admin two years, and I've never been tempted to look into IRC. It's not part of Wikipedia, period. The AC must be out of its mind considering accepting evidence from IRC logs. Are they bored? Have they considered the difficulties, such as identity-theft and verifiability? Leave IRC alone, but crack down on anyone that takes IRC-feuds onto Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as that IRC channel bears Wikipedia's name, and is, or is seen to be, an official organ of Wikipedia administration, then Wikipedia needs to be responsible for that IRC's actions. If on the other hand that channel were to be no longer affiliated with the encyclopedia, by changing its name, and by suitable public statements of disaffiliation, then the encyclopedia could wash its hands of any responsibility. Paul August ☎ 19:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify a few things for the purposes of this discussion:

• There are 272 people with access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel which constitutes about 25% of all English Wikipedia administrators. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia administrators asking for access for the very first time and not being given it (however I believe there have been instances where channel occupants have had their access revoked due to abuse).
• These days there are usually between 40 and 50 people in the channel at any one time.
• James Forrester is not the "self proclaimed owner of the channel". He is the IRC Group Contact for the Wikimedia Foundation, and in that WMF-sanctioned role he is the person authorised to deal with Freenode on behalf of the Foundation.
• If Wikimedia/the ArbCom requested (e.g. through James Forrester) that the admins channel be shut down, then there would be absolutely nothing (apart maybe from goodwill on the part of Freenode) to stop people from creating an identical channel and picking up where they left off. The IRC channel is not a service of the Wikimedia Foundation, and as such the Foundation only has peripheral authority through the fact that several of those with high-level access on IRC are also deeply involved in one way or another with the Foundation or Wikipedia.
• I think I got given operator access in this channel because I asked for it, to fix some faulty channel mode:s or something like that. From there, I have just done the occasional access-giving to admins new to IRC. Rarely have I had to use my operator access to op myself in order to diffuse a situation. I am more hesitant to kick or ban people from the channel, or remove their access, because they are admins. But I've always been a devotee of civility, as some on the WikiEN-l mailing list might know, and I'm happy to enforce a stricter level of civility in the channel into the future.
• The channel is more useful than some people are giving it credit. At least twice in the last week I have found the channel useful to discuss extremely sensitive matters, which would be entirely inappropriate to discuss in larger, more public channels like #wikipedia.
• I would like to know what this new position of the ArbCom means when it comes to IRC logging. At the moment, public logging of #wikipedia-en-admins is strictly prohibited. How are the ArbCom going to take into account statements made on IRC if such logs which they take into account cannot be posted as part of their decisions?

I hope some of that made sense to someone. - Mark 16:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: arbcom... Logging and showing the log publicly isn't allowed, however private logging and mailing the logs to the private arbcom list is acceptable. (eg. many users probably have automatic IRC logging turned on for all channels) --Interiot 16:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But they're not exactly good evidence, since they can be so easily redacted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let alone altered or falsified outright. On-wiki the diffs do not lie. There is no such guarantee with any logs, especially when logs are furnished by parties with vested interests. The last logs I saw being circulated were three statements by James taken entirely out of context. If that's all that's being distributed, why in the world would ArbCom get involved and try to mete out punishment when they know so little of the situation? --Cyde Weys 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No that is not "all that's being distributed". The many logs I've seen have been apparently complete and unedited, and some have been independently verified. Paul August ☎ 19:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

However, the logs posted publicly were redacted, and that's what most people have seen. The decision to supply complete logs to the committee came after multiple people on the mailing list pointed out the severe problems that redacted evidence posed. Mackensen (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Because folks who think they've been wronged are threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue because it's unfair to them. SirFozzie 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It applies to both sides. Everyone just needs to let it go. However, there's one person in particular who can't seem to do that, and as a result, it just goes on, and on ... Cyde Weys 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue" - Cyde are you really suggesting that this is all a terrible fit-up and the ArbCom have been mislead? Hardly credible - I'd like to know why Freenode prevent public logging, perhaps there's some means by which they will make an exception for us - we could then release the logs in something akin to the 30 year rule - except 30 days perhaps, this would bring transparency to the channel, but preserve the immediate effectiveness of it for private deliberations. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Much worse things have been said on-wiki than anything the ArbCom has looked at from the #admins channel. ArbCom didn't seriously take any actions against the on-wiki stuff and they aren't seriously taking any actions against the #admins stuff either. This is just an advisement message. And no, the thirty day thing wouldn't work. Some of the stuff dealt with is stuff that needs to stay private over legal lifetimes — that is, decades. The only possible way for public logging to work would be for someone to go through and redact everything that cannot be said in public. I don't see that as being workable. Alternatively, #admins could be opened up and a new channel for dealing with private issues could be started elsewhere. I don't think that would solve the accusations of cannibalism, however. --Cyde Weys 17:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Cyde knows what logs the ArbCom members have seen. Paul August ☎ 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So do we ever get to know what logs have been considered in reaching any given ruling? The standard seems to be "discussing off-wiki is okay, but it must be justified on-wiki". --Cyde Weys 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the leaky nature of the channel I would have thought anything that sensitive should be confined to emails anyway. What other arguments are there against publicising the logs? --Mcginnly | Natter 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If much worse things have been said on-wiki then where are the law-suits?--Mcginnly | Natter 18:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're conflating two separate and highly different issues. One issue is common incivility against other Wikipedians (which happens on and off wiki). There are no legal ramifications. The other issue is stuff that must be discussed privately to avoid legal complications. This is not ever discovered on-wiki. As for the leaky nature of logs — yes, that is why, largely, other channels are being used to handle the tricky legal issues. --Cyde Weys 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is all getting very nastily near to the truth for Cyde! Giano 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that Freenode no longer uses the concept of "group contacts" for channels with no official relationship to the thing being discussed. I don't believe that any change to the logging policy is being proposed at this point. While I could be mistaken (and would welcome a link to the salient Freenode policy if I am) I believe that the logging policy is a tradition carried over from #wikipedia rather than a Freenode matter. I would hope that everyone involved in the channel would adhere to the highest standards of Wikilove. Be excellent to one another and to those not present. If there are any current and ongoing problems with misuse of the channel, I would welcome any logs emailed to me privately. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would hope so too, but this has demonstrably not been the case - so, in your opinion public logging is possible? I'd be a lot happier with a published, unredacted log for everyone to see and comment and be judged by. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that additional logging is warranted unless there is still a problem. I am unconvinced that there is a present or ongoing problem at this point, since the users of the channel largely cleaned up their act in the wake of the recent public criticism of the channel. I repeat my offer to investigate any logs emailed to me privately that show a present and ongoing problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but the point is I'm still in a position where I, and every other non-admin - just has to take your word for it. What I've seen over the past months, leads me to believe that there are personalities at wikipedia, in positions of trust, that abuse that trust. with 1000 admins you'd expect a few rotten apples - but when ArbCOM are implicated - you'd expect resignations really. It seems they are unable to police even themselves, let alone the rest of us - I'd prefer to be in a wikipedia, where behaviour like that isn't condoned by the authorities. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Step right up to WP:RFA; if you ask I'll probably nominate you myself. Got a problem with the process there? So do I; visit Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship and make yourself heard to help get it fixed. Want to join the channel but not an admin? Become one of the trusted non-admins in the channel by making your case to any chanop. I'm not convinced that the arbitration committee is implicated in anything other than inaction brought about chiefly by jurisdictional concerns. Until recently we treated IRC as completely outside our jurisdiction. Obviously, this is changing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom isn't implicated. There's one person making lunatic claims that are wholly unsupported by any evidence. The channel is being watched by a multitude of people. --Cyde Weys 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you wont mind the logs being made public from now on then. I think I'd like to be one of the multitude --Mcginnly | Natter 18:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Any chance you'll open up your correspondence? I'm certain you've nothing to hide either. How about the other commentators on this thread? Come on, give us your emails. Phone conversations would be good to. Talk to your wife about Wikipedia before bed? We'll need that to, thanks! Please transcribe private thoughts on a section of your userpage as you have them as well. This is an open project, after all. Call it reducto ad absurdum if you must, but where does it end? Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Even #wikipedia doesn't allow logging. It would hardly make sense to have the private admins channel logged, but not the general users channel. Go try to get logging allowed in #wikipedia first, and then we can talk. --Cyde Weys 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, you know damn well there's evidence - it's been submitted to the ArbCom - again, do you think it was a fit-up? Your mates got caught conspiring in the most reprehensible way, and the best we can come up with is "people have been quite naughty on both side - please stop. For those of you looking on we're going to keep the doors shut for legal reasons, but just trust us everything is going to be ok from now on." mmmmm -And for that matter - no, I'd have no problem with any of my wikipedia business being made public, in fact, wait a minute - it has! I don't use back channel communications.--Mcginnly | Natter 18:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And we're just going to have to trust that last assertion? Mackensen (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I think if this damning evidence of conspiracy that you spoke of actually did exist, the ArbCom might take some action. As it is, all they're talking about is minding civility on the channel. Stop repeating this hurtful, false, and unsupported accusation. It's not helping anything. You haven't even seen this so-called "evidence", merely blindly repeating something you've heard from others. It's wrong. Stop repeating it. It's little more than vicious gossipy rumors. --Cyde Weys 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't make the same assumption Cyde is making here. It is possible that the ArbCom has choosen not to act yet, for other reasons than lack of evidence. Paul August ☎ 19:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You should assume good faith until it is proven that doing so is untenable yes. My point is that I can't do that now with certain individuals. I'm not looking for complete transparency (from your comment above Mac) - I see the necessity of private communication - but this channel has been abused, to correct the public perception of it, no amount of assurances are really going to work and the scramble to protect it just adds fuel to the suspicion that there's something wrong with it. Let's make a clean breast of things, lets have some openeness, frankness, honesty and integrity. --Mcginnly | Natter 19:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, no amount of arguing to the contrary will convince people of the innocence of the accused. Mackensen (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 6

"But this channel has been abused" — Can you please, please, offer up some evidence to support this assertion? And especially the assertion of, "Your mates got caught conspiring in the most reprehensible way." These are very bold statements, but they also happen to be unsupported. It's not a good idea to make damaging and controversial assertions without evidence. Until you have more to go on than "But someone else said it", please desist. --Cyde Weys 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, I'm not here to trade insults or argue semantics with you. I have seen the logs and we could argue whether conspiring to remove an editor from wikipedia might be considered grossly uncivil. - The whole problem with substantiated arguments is precisely what I'm arguing - make the logs public, and everyone gets to see the behaviour, remove the rather convenient - "you can't substantiate that accusation" because no-one can publish the log. --Mcginnly | Natter 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please forward these logs to me then, so that I might review the evidence (and compare it against my own logs to make sure it is accurate). --Cyde Weys 19:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Or at least clarify what it is that you're talking about. If these are the logs regarding Giano's block, well yes, I've seen them and I'm dismayed by them, and steps are being taken. This, I believe, has already been discussed. If you have something new, say so. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's still not very clear. That could be any of a dozen times. Which block are we talking about? I at least want to go through my logs and see if I can find any of this evidence of a vast conspiracy. --Cyde Weys 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the best thing now is for Cyde to become cylent, and allow the arbcom to finish their deliberations. Giano 19:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And I think the same would apply to you as well. SirFozzie 19:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, fun. Cyde's back to the "I demand evidence! (If you give it to me, I will block you.)" <sigh> Then we get to "if there were evidence, ArbCom would do something" from one head, while another announces dismissively that ArbCom can't do anything and that no one on the channel has to give a rat's fig what ArbCom says about who is or is not an op there. This kind of spirit of cooperation, this level of self-examination, this desire to make sure only the highest standards of behavior are upheld by administrators is, in fact, what keeps this "drama" ongoing. If the actors would only leave the stage, we might at least get a new play. Geogre 00:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm honoring Cowman's closing of this thread (even though it's been overturned by Fred) and I'm refusing to continue with this mudfight. It's as plain as day to me that this isn't going anywhere productive. --Cyde Weys 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We really could do better than this. Giano (and Geogre too, for that matter) whenever you feel moved to make a personal attack on someone, please consider not doing so. And if goes without saying that if anybody really is engaged in some kind of conspiracy against Giano, they should also knock if off. While people are engaging in these gross and unacceptable personal attacks they are not helping Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• "if anybody really is engaged in some kind of conspiracy against Giano" "if???" You are behind the times Tony! However, you always have been a little out of touch with the mood of things here, anyway having proved my point beyond all reasonable doubt, I have now cancelled all wikipedia donations, and advise others to the same. Donating our time is enough from now onwards, if the money is ro be wasted in this fashion [2]. The whole thing is now ridiculous if you, Cyde, Mackensen and your friends want to inhabit a private world of spite then you may, so long as it is poweless and all opinions which eminate from it are shunned, ignored or laughed off, then what the hell. The place and its occupants are now thoroughly discredited. I don't see there is a lot more to say, and unless I am yet again commented on and attacked, I shallbe saying very little more on the subject. I shall not be funding but ignoring the actions and views of all IRCadmins and their non-nadmin cronies from now on. As far as I'm concerned they are in effect de-sysoped as they have forfeited all respect. I advise all others to do the same, thus leaving wikipedia a better place. Giano 10:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please consider carefully your use of language above. This isn't a school playground, it isn't about one faction or another "winning", being discredited, or whatever; as always it's about the continuation of behavior that is obviously damaging the community and the encyclopedia. If you've given money to the Foundation in the past, as a fellow editor I say thank you. All such donations are voluntary but nonetheless welcome. I'm just asking you, next time you feel that you should make a personal attack like this, to reconsider. That's all. It's no more than Wikipedia policy expects of all editors. That includes you. --Tony Sidaway 10:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Go tell it to IRC Tony, you have more credence there. Giano 10:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Within moments of the advising Tony to tell it to IRC admins he was indeed on the channel denouncing me yet again, denying any wrong doing on the IRC admin channel. Apparently I'm a fantasist. Where I wonder are the amazing new policemen? - well I told you nothing would change, but I did rather think they might behave themselves for longer than half an hour. They just cannot help themselves, so within seconds of me saying publicly all over this site I was through with the subject, they are all up to their old tricks. What would happen if I quote the logs here? Do I have your permission to quote your words, Tony, Doc Glasgow, and Phil Boswell? Giano 12:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you can manufacture some kind of conspiracy out of what I have been saying in the admins channel today, you are more than welcome to try. So long as you quote everything I said, providing proper context (timestamps would be nice also), without any kind of elision, summarising or editorialising, fire away. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think I'm daft enough to give you the timestamps! Giano

Whilst trying to answer a question about how this whole thing started I said on IRC "Doc_glasgow> The problem is, that when people believfe [sic] Giano has a free pass, they DO conspire, from a sense of injustice, to find a way to convince the community to act and stop his nastiness". I stand by that remark as my impression of what has happened. I was not 'denouncing you' in secret. There is a vicious circle: 1) your incivility isn't dealt with. 2) People feel aggrieved and discuss it. 3) You get paranoid and indulge in more incivility. I said nothing I haven't said on-wiki before. I have posted this analysis on an arbcom talk page in the past. Why anyone felt it helpful to send you the logs I have no idea! But that person out to be booted, not for breaching confidence, but for trying to stir up trouble and feed trolling. You are appearing like a fantasist, you are seemingly paranoid, and you are being quite nasty. And please don't try to have a civility contest with me - you lose.--Doc^g 13:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to Doc - you do a fine job yourself. Giano 13:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You have my permission to quote anything I've said or will say on #wikipedia or #wikipedia-en-admins. (Those are the only channels I visit, and indeed I plan to keep my involvement with #wikipedia-en-admins to the strictest minimum in future.) Bishonen | talk 15:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, you're a fantasist. This isn't a secret, nor does stating this as a fact amount to a personal attack. You have repeated false claims of a conspiracy, most of them made up out of whole cloth, some of them supported by dubious readings of purloined logs. Please stop. It is harming Wikipedia and the community, --Tony Sidaway 13:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Let nobody say you weren't warned, lets see who dares to block you for personal attacks. lets see where your free pass is. Come on Mackensen where are you?, what you Kylu? Lar? have you an opinion Giano 13:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As it happens I'm working on the Harzburg Front. Since I've never blocked anybody for personal attacks and as I've stated openly that I don't support such blocks I cannot begin to fathom what you're trying to prove here. Mackensen (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm proving that the new policing by yourself is none too imptressive - is it? Of course this whole business is just another example of the IRC goading that one has to contend with, they say these things on IRC to infuriate (they succeed) . Sadly their days on their poisonous channel though are now numbered. I shall not insult any of the above (as they would like me to) I'm sure all other editors can see exactly what sort of people they are, without my adjectives. Giano 13:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not, actually. Nothing was said in the channel today that in any way contravenes civility. Go ahead, post all the logs you want, because there's nothing there. What goading? What are you even talking about? Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not responding to your bait any longer. We obviously have very different interpretations of civility. I cannot be bothered to argue with you and your cohorts any longer. The channel is doomed, it has lost all creditability along with those of you who inhabit it. Please just stay away from me, do not comment on me and if possible do not discuss me on your sordid channel, that way their will be peace on wikipedia. Thank you Giano 14:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing would give me or anyone else any greater pleasure. I daresay no one on that channel wants the least bit to do with you and would gladly stay out of your way. In turn, of course, you have to stay out of theirs. I'm not baiting and I'm not goading; I'm asking honestly and with restraint how you think civility was breached this morning. If you're not willing to answer that's fine but don't then turn around and criticize me for not doing anything about it. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You had your chance - now go away and leave me alone - please! Giano 14:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be prolonging this thread here, but this is a direct response to what Mackensen says above. Mackensen, I don't understand your thinking when you insist that Giano should quote the log for today, or when you ask that he show how civility was breached (which is in turn hardly to be done without quoting). Aren't you asking rather a lot ? Tony Sidaway, the person who (in my opinion) did make attacks this morning, has been asked for permission to quote his words, but hasn't replied. Consequently Giano would be banned if he did quote them. Wouldn't he? Bishonen | talk 17:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

I think the question has been rendered moot. I have the impression that Giano would like to leave the matter where it sits, and I want to respect that wish. However, since you asked, allow me to clarify: I didn't ask Giano to post logs, though it's quite obvious he has them. A private communication would have been more than sufficient. I was mainly asking for clarification as he had me (and, still has me) at a disadvantage. Again, I've reviewed the logs from this morning on my own, and I see nothing–from any party–that rises to the level of a personal attack or would be construed by an uninvolved party as incivility. However, if you'll note below, I've taken the step of banning all further discussion regarding, mention of, or inference to Giano and these related matters. Under the circumstances, it isn't possible for those things to be mentioned without someone taking offence, and I've had more than enough drama this month. I should think we all have. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, in my opinion not one word that I have said about Giano on that channel comes close to being a personal attack, I consider none of the words I have uttered about Giano on that channel or anywhere else to be confidential. Nothing I have said there about the ongoing problematic behavior of Giano and one or two editors, to wit, their baseless personal attacks and their fantasies of a conspiracy, is other than what I have said on the wiki. Giano is a problem editor as long as he continues to launch false and baseless attacks on other editors. We have to recognise this fact in order to achieve a solution. --Tony Sidaway 11:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm hoping that draws a line under it all. Please, just stop now, it's not getting anyone anywhere. You think other people actually enjoy this? You think it makes us feel one jot better about contributing? You think it improves the mood or the tone? Think about the impact you have on others. If you have to do this, go and do it at arbitration and agree a settlement for once and for all. Let us have our encyclopedia back. Please, simply end it now. No more words. Thank you. Steve block Talk 12:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Wikipedia talk:Off-wiki policy discussion is probably a better place for this, although Wikipedia talk:Off-wiki discussion would be a better name for it. Can I ask that those involved here mosey over there so that we can try to acutally work out a stable solution?
brenneman 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If ArbCom cannot deal with this, why are we having this conversation? Only tempers are flying. If Jdforrestor controls the wikimedia channels, can we not have a simple appointment process for channel operators who can deal with off-wiki civility issues off-the-wiki? It is as simple as that, otherwise I do not see anything other than hypocrisy. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice

Per Giano's (and, frankly, my own) wishes, I have banned all in-channel discussion of him and related disputes, regardless of content and motive. We're at the point where good faith simply cannot be assumed, and it's time to move on. We have articles to write; an encyclopedia to build. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen, I think this is a very good idea, and want to thank you for doing this. Paul August ☎ 19:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion (2nd)

I haven't read all the above, but David Gerard did emphasise that the WMF and Wikipedia organisations like ArbCom have no jurisdiction over wikipedia IRC channels, which is fair enough, though I wonder whether they are allowed to use wikipedia in the channel name if this is the case. Maybe the names should be changed to include the qualification 'unofficial'?

My main point is that if they are unofficial and Wikipedia has no jurisdiction there, doesn't that place the wikipedia IRC channels in the same class of organisations, like Wikipedia Review, Wikitruth, Uncyclopedia and similar critical, humorous and attack organsiations, that are clustered around the behemoth that is Wikipedia? ie. Related to but not really part of it? If someone set up a website staffed by Wikipedia admins for Wikipedia admins to go to to get advice about admin actions on Wikipedia, would that be any different from the wikipedia IRC admin channel (apart from not being IRC)? If not, then I suggest leaving the IRC channels to stand or fall on their own merits, and simply make clear, here, on Wikipedia, that these IRC channels exist, but they are not official. Make them ex-officio, if indeed they ever were official. Then, if the IRC channels get a reputation for being closed and cliquey, and/or the wrong place to go to (I don't know the truth of this, as I've never been there), they will start to wither and die, and people will learn (or be prompted) to use on-wiki processes instead. Carcharoth 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• This seems a sensible reading of the situation. My only quibble is purely grammatical: ex-officio doesn't mean what you think it means. IRC channels don't exist by virtue of any office, unless you're implying that administrators have, ex-officio, an expectation to entry in one or more channels. Mackensen (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Presumably they will be handing Wikipedia's money back accordingly. Giano 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As they've never received any in the first place (that I'm aware of) that should prove a simple exercise. Mackensen (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh dear, I do hope the cheque [3] didn't bounce. Giano 18:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        • WMF gave a donation to Freenode, which is a free, open-source IRC network that provides much more than simply #wikimedia channels — it is in fact the largest FOSS IRC network in the world. None of the donation went to the people who you feel have wronged or conspired against you, it went towards the upkeep of an organization with similar goals as Wikipedia. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 19:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Interesting, I didn't know about that. Well, go take it up with the Foundation if you like. As that donation was in the name of the Foundation, it would also include all the channels for the other-language Wikipedias. Mackensen (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well I think it was a lovely charitable idea, I wonder who thought of it, and in spite of constant appeals the foundation can afford to give money away. Giano 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is one reasonable approach to take. Paul August ☎ 19:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • It is only reasonable if you start from the point that the channel is of net detriment to Wikipedia. Perhaps some dispassionate person should do a cost-benefit analysis to the project. I'd strong suspect that the net benefit is immense. (That's not to deny there may be some costs and problems.) I handle OTRS - in many instances I need help, second opinions, or oversight. I can't request that on-wiki for obvious reasons. I could e-mail, but that's inefficient. I'd have to e-mail dozens of people to guarantee a response - and each wouldn't know if it has been dealt with by the time they are reading it. The admins' channel allows me to call on, and discuss the issue, with a cross section of trusted people, and they is normally someone in there with the time to assist. (And yes, before someone points it out, some OTRS issues cannot be discussed even in that channel). Killing the channel would lose that, and I'm not convinced it would stop incivility. Frankly, I've experienced more incivility on-wiki.--Doc^g 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Disaffiliating it would not mean killing it. And the issues with that channel are more than incivility. Paul August ☎ 20:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well then I don't understand. If you disaffiliate it, what is the intention? If it is to discourage its use, then you lose the benefits or at least decrease them. You also forfeit some level of control. Will arbcom still watch over a disaffiliated channel. And wouldn't the 'issues' still continue? Either the intention is to diminish/discourage the channel's use - in which case you are saying it is a net loss to Wikipedia. Is it? Or you are not intending to diminish its use - in which case, what's the point?--Doc^g 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Will arbcom still watch over a disaffiliated channel" Please someone, anyone tell me I have not just read that phrase, after all that has been said, all the lies told, is Doc seriously suggesting that the arbcom have indeed been watching over the channel all the time? This whole thing is sickening me. Giano 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Giano, the way I read Doc G, he is referring to the way ArbCom members are currently watching the channel. Things are being done, by the looks of it. Even if it is not precisely what you want done, can you consider stepping back for a bit to let things settle down? Then things can be reviewed in a month or so. Constant argument is not productive. Unless something really bad happens, please let things calm down. Carcharoth 21:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I stepped back once today - remember? Giano 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't been following the whole thing that closely, so no, I don't remember. Carcharoth 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Off-wiki policy discussion

• #wikipedia-en-admins was proposed [4], given specific mandates [5] and announced on the WikiEN mailing list [6]. It continues, by all accounts, to be a place intended for discussion among wikipedia admins for wikipedia issues. The foundation donates money to irc in recognition of its importance to wikipedia. [7] All actions there, including who becomes channel ops, should be accountable to the arbcom and the wikipedia community. The latest posting by the arbcom only partially acknowledges this [8], they need to do better. To start with, a complete review of channel ops should be done - on wiki and transparently (for the #wikipedia-en-admins channel only). --Duk 05:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If WMF and Wikipedia organisations like ArbCom have no jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins then who does? The operators of the channel? If so, then the wikipedia community should choose who these people are (for the #wikipedia-en-admins channel only). --Duk 19:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• There's a flaw in your reasoning. The Foundation donated money to Freenode recognizing the importance of all IRC channels, and not just the English-language ones. #wikipedia-en-admins is a comparatively small operation (#wikipedia, for example, usually has at least 250-300 people in it). Mackensen (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intent to say the money was in recognition of #wikipedia-en-admins in particular. Yes, I should have been clearer. donates money to irc in recognition of its importance --Duk 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read between the lines of the post you linked to. The post says: "We hope it [the donation] will help the servers to keep running smoothly" - ie. there had been problems with the servers (which also explains why it was a one-off donation). The post also ends with: "We also renew our condoleances for the death, 2 months ago, of FreeNode founder, aka Lilo." - this refers to the death of Rob Levin. My reading of the post is that the donation is to help Freenode through a difficult period following the death of its founder. The Wikimedia Foundation is big enough now to stand on its own two feet (and maybe Freenode is as well, I don't really know), but consider what might have happened if Jimbo had died suddenly (Rob Levin was knocked down by a car while cycling) during the first year or two of Wikipedia. Imagine the chaos that could have caused, and how a donation might have helped. Carcharoth 21:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Who runs the #wikipedia-en-admins channel and who do they answer to in that regard? What is the chain of command? And is the following quote correct? --Duk 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

...as per Freenode policy, any channel with the word Wikipedia in it is an official, sanctioned to, and belonging to the Foundation channel. It doesn't matter who wants to put what there, if its not offical, it can't go there... [9]

If I remember correctly, it's James_F. But who cares. Just shut the damn channel down already. —Pilotguy (ptt) 21:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[Bah, edit conflicts.]

Try /cs access #wikipedia-en-admins list, but the highlights (in no particular order) are myself, Dmcdevit, Essjay, Jimmy, Angela, Mark Ryan, Mackensen, sannse, Uninvited Company, David Gerard, Kat, and FloNight. The "top dogs" are Essjay, Jimmy, and myself. I'm in eventual command of all Wikimedia IRC channels, by virtue of being "Group Contact Chair". The quote is correct, ish. We have an odd relationship with Freenode - I'm "officially unofficial", as it were.

James F. (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi James (may I call you "Group Contact Chair"?) - just out of idle curiousity, just to humour me - which of those names above are not on the arbcom mailing list? Giano 22:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but I'm certainly not involved with the arbcom in any respect, beyond voting in the elections. - Mark 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you've done a wonderful job managing 99% of the irc channels. #Wikipedia-en-admins is a special case - it holds a unique amount of power and influence, has special status from the way it was set up, and it has cause this incredible mess.

Do you answer to the community with regards to irc, the arbcom?

I'd like to suggest that the admin community from en and commons select the ops for this channel to serve under your leadership. I think that would address many of the fears, some of the pathological symptoms the arbcom has acknowledged, and maybe some of the underlying illness too.--Duk 21:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree that the channel holds "power and influence" - the people who hang out there have wiki-priviledges, and have influence through people's trust in them. It also hardly has "special status" - there are quite a few private invite-only Wikimedia-related IRC channels; this is merely the most publically-known.

Then we disagree. The channel does hold a special place, not only in the way it was set up, but in who gets invited there. And also because of the special problems it has caused.--Duk 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I can control the channel (in the technical sense), but I cannot control the people - I feel that a great deal of the concern in the channel is actually mis-placed, and should be directed at the members of our community with whom some have issues.

You can control who the ops are, correct? --Duk 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In my rôle of Group Contact Chair, I "answer" neither to the community (IRC, enwiki, metawiki, mailing-list, or otherwise), nor to the Arbitration Committee; in the end, I suppose I answer to the Board, but that is something that has never come up, so I'm not sure that there's a conceptual framework with which all interlocutors readily agree.

Agree, its murky, I don't envy your position. But now it has come up, in a big way. This channel is different since it was discussed and set up in WikEN-L, and the foundation partially funds it. --Duk 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I worry about accepting a concept of having a formal hold of who the "admin community" of a wiki is and isn't - were I to fail to talk to someone (through my ignorance), would it be seen as a snub of said community's ideals? I'd feel uncomfortable, I suppose - it's not my (currently) place to deign to designate the aristocracy of a wikicommunity. Note, BTW, that I'm a member of the Committee whose noting of fears you reference. :-)

We *do* have a formal admin community - it's here on the wiki. Come on James. --Duk 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

James F. (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The the channel in question (and possibly more, as you say) is an invitation only place that has accountability designed out it by virtue of secrecy and no logging. In reality, like minded friends go there and interact. It crackles with social energy. The arbcom (some of whom are regulars in that channel) has found "incidents involving gross incivility", only grudgingly after months of non-stop work by the victims, one of whom was threatened with banning while defending himself. They haven't yet corroborated (or denied) the allegations of character assassination and conspiracy. A quote from one of our articles (and I'm not implying criminal activity, this is just conceptual) - Under the common law the crime of conspiracy was capable of infinite growth, able to accommodate any new situation and to criminalize it if the level of threat to society was sufficiently great. So what's the level of threat when a secret, closed group allegedly gangs up on and trys to drive away some of wikipedia's greatest contributers? What other cases have there been where the victims weren't lucky enough to see the logs? What consequences have been given to the people responsible for this "gross incivility"? What is going to happen next time - when the victims probably won't be lucky enough to see the logs

This isn't about on-wiki-incivility on vs. off-wiki-incivility. When it happens on wiki people get a chance to hear each other and are therefore on a level playing field to resolve conflict. When "incivility" happens in irc and the victim isn't there, it can be predatory and destructive, opinions and minds can be poisoned against the victim, who might never know why everybody starts treating her worse and worse and worse. --Duk 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well for the past 4 hours it was mostly irrelavent stuff in the channel with some discussion abot currentdate template, DYK and Cplot, im never in the channel when most of the conflect occurs though Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Admin 100b and others

• Template:Admin 100b
• Template:Admin 1000d
• Template:Admin 2000d
• Template:Admin 200b
• Template:Admin 500d
• Template:Admin 500b
• Template:Admin 5000d

Would anyone object if I went rouge and just deleted these as being potentially divisive, in making blocking and deleting seem like a big fun competition, or will I have to take them to TFD?

Not that three are not used at all, with Blnguyen using two of the seven (500b and 5000d), and PinchasC and Moondyne using one each (200b and 1000d respectively). If I do have to go via TFD, is there any way to link multiple TFD notices to the one discussion (as with AFDx)? Proto::► 13:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe suggest he moves them to his userspace? yandman 13:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I'm suggesting they be got rid of, not shifted to userspace. Proto::► 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

They serve no useful purpose (and sort of imply that someone's worth as an admin is in how many blocks, etc, they've imposed). I won't deny that I've considered speedying them myself before. -- Steel 14:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy the unused and {{subst} the used ones. No one will complain, and if they do tell them Aaron "save the userboxes" brenneman suggested it. - brenneman 14:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• I say delete the lot of them, and make yourself a nice template that says "this admin has deleted at least 7 templates on enwiki", then delete that as well. Repeat as necessary. >Radiant< 14:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I killed the 100b one, now we just need a few more other rouge admins to take out the lot. --Cyde Weys 14:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone is deleting them before I've had chance to subst them appropriately.(ahem!) Proto::► 14:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I thought of that afterwards. Just C&P the text. -- Steel 14:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

All done now. :) Proto::► 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how many deletes I have to my name, but I do enjoy the irony of so many templates boasting these statistics now taking their destined course.  :) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not far off the 5,000, and approaching a thousand blocks. I need to get out more. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not far off 50, and approaching twenty blocks. I need to get out less, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do any of the counters actually tell you how many of each admin action on has performed? Proto::► 10:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, I think you just go to your log and hit "next 500" a bunch of times and count. >Radiant< 11:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Interiot's tool does, when it's working. Chick Bowen 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Free Republic

There's a real mess over at that page. It's been the focal point of a hot dispute for long enough that I've considered opening an arbitration request. User:Carolyn-WMF performed some deletions recently that included cited material, which has created confusion. The editors are presumptively respecting it as an office action but wonder why it was done. Jossi seems to be the most active admin. I looked into things today after I opened an e-mail from one of the disputants that contained a serious allegation and a broken hyperlink, which I've tried to chase down in the page history but haven't verified yet.

I'm not sure what to make of this whole situation. If it weren't for Carolyn's edit I'd contact Jossi and probably start drafting an arbitration request. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Durova^Charge 19:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, straight to arbitration would be skipping a few steps. Has anyone tried mediation? Or maybe an RFC? --Cyde Weys 19:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to look up some old diffs to be certain, but I think I pointed them in that direction two months ago. Durova^Charge

This mess is about to get huger now... And I am probably the most active admin. Prodego ^talk 21:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not certain I have a good solution. That's why I'd like to discuss it here. Any ideas? Durova^Charge 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think Merzbow is doing an excellent job as a stabilizing factor, and essentially a mediator, and that over time that should calm things down. However, it is possible, as you suggest, some more immediate remedy be preformed. Prodego ^talk 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not the impression I got when an editor petitioned me by e-mail. I'm on thin ice here because I was asked to treat it as confidential, yet I'd really like to see the page get some fresh eyes and additional feedback. Durova^Charge 21:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not so much content disagreements at the moment (I've found the long-time editors on this page intelligent and very willing to compromise), but the actions of a notorious banned user. I'm not going to speculate anymore on the alleged actions of this user (at least until the Wikimedia people clear some things up), but all the bizarre details are at the article's talk page. In fact, I doubt there is anything more any of us can do until Danny et al respond. - Merzbow 21:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it help if I did an investigation the way I did with BooyakaDell/JB196? Some old fashioned gumshoe work proved that Booyaka was a sockpuppet of a banned account that had been dormant for too long to get a checkuser. I'm sure you've got other irons in the fire. Yet I'm here if you need me. I've already been on this case for part of the history and I think I know who you're talking about. Durova^Charge 22:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd welcome your input Durova. Jossi was doing a GREAT job mediating until a notorious sockpuppeteer (now banned) started creating numerous sock puppet accounts to sway consensus and 'vote'. Although this user is banned, he is still affecting the article, and I believe he even might have contacted the foundation impersonating someone else and asking a Wiki employee to edit the article. Most unseemly. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a very serious accusation. Level it with caution. Durova^Charge 23:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're familiar with what's being discussed? The banned user's claims here were proven to be completely false here - Fairness And Accuracy For All 00:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with them, but they're pretty tough to encapsulate in a short request here. Please accept my apologies if I oversimplified. Bear in mind that, although your accusation may be meritorious, frivolous charges of that sort far outnumber real ones. The safe course is to be slow about making such a charge unless you're absolutely certain and ready to back it up with page diffs that connect all the dots. Durova^Charge 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good advice. Once I confirmed that the user's claims regarding authorship were bogus, I did speculate as to how it happened that a foundation employee ended up editing the article. Better to wait. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Presumptively respecting" something as an office action is insanity. If something is aWikipedia:Office Actions it needs to be clearly and explicitly stated as such. Have we learned nothing from the past stupidity (including dead-minning) with respect to this? There are "vanilla" edits as well from this account, like where she's listed herself as bookkeeper. Her removal of the section with citations should be treated just as any other user's would be.
brenneman 23:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is this edit, in which she says she works at the office that causes some speculation. Also, she actually removed herself from the employee list in the edit above??? Prodego ^talk 23:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're correct of course. Not that it matters, I simply meant it as an example of a "normal" edit, I could have used another example. I do note that the request for clarification has gone unanswered. We cannot and must not be put in the position where we are afraid to make straight-forward edits based upon random speculations. I am going to examine the removed section as I would if under normal circumstances, and if I'm satisfied by the reference I'm going to uncomment on it. - brenneman 23:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've uncommented out the section, re-written it since it was copyvio in the form of a long quote easily summarised,added details to the bare html reference, and noted on the talk page that I've done so. I stress this here again: Verification is not negotiable. In teh absence of either a real source saying Walker didn't write the piece or some real indication that this was "official" then the citation must stand. It is worth noting that the Walker part of the article is only very small, and the came citation could easily be used without mentioning the guy. - brenneman 00:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I posted here is because of the confusion about whether something was or was not an office action posted by a Foundation employee in the normal course of work, or a hoax, or something else. It deleted referenced material on a page with a longstanding edit war without explanation, which is definitely something I'd like to see the longstanding sysops comment on. Durova^Charge 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bryan is now trying to recruit people to insert material for him. See this FR thread. He specifically mentions the articles: Kwanzaa, Abortion, and President Bush. Prodego ^talk 16:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Now? That thread's entire lifespan was December 2005. Durova^Charge 18:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He bumped it after it had been laying dormant for 8+ months. Trollific. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 18:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see.[10] Although I'm not entirely clear on how you identify this as the same Wikipedia editor, I'll trust Prodego's conclusion. What would you like me to do? Durova^Charge 19:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like you to contact Carolyn and/or Danny, ASAP, possibly by phone. Frankly, I am shocked that Carolyn would NOT be checking her talk page after taking such drastic and unusual action. This needs to be addressed as well. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 20:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not necessary. It can be assumed that she made a normal edit, and it can be removed just like any other. However, just like any other, you should explain why you do, if you do. Prodego ^talk 20:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A Wiki employee makes an edit after recieving a mysterious phone call, possibly from an imposter, who we KNOW gave her false info - she deletes sourced info that a notorious banned troll happens to want deleted - and you call that a 'normal edit'? I'd hate to see what you'd consider an 'unusual edit'! ;-) - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 20:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean, that she is an employee should not carry any weight in this matter. She should be considered like any other editor. Prodego ^talk 00:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Something new to watch for?

Can someone identify or explain what this edit was? Spam? Vandalism? Something really nasty? Or a mistake--note that the previous edit by the same IP was a good edit--no it wasn't; I misread it as the other way around somehow. Perhaps this was just simple vandalism, then, in which case, I'm sorry for taking your time. Chick Bowen 23:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like just a new user playing around, light vandalism/spam. -Patstuart^talk|edits 00:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems to be the latest fashion in vandalism. I saw one like this the other day. Not quite sure how it's done though. Tyrenius 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The part that messes up the page display is the unclosed <div style="position:absolute;left:15px;top:110px;width:100px;height:31px;"> near the end of the added content. Most of the rest is simply dumped on the page verbatim. (BTW, I added diffonly=1 to the diff link above — doing that is probably a good idea when posting diffs to something that messes up the page.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

They have dumped a ready made myspace layout onto the page hoping it will look the same as on myspace. Viridae^Talk 12:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah--this is quite useful, and I'm glad to know of the diffonly trick. Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotr Blass

I feel that my page Piotr Blass is being vandalizes and targeted for deletion Please look into this. Thanks Dr Piotr Blass www.pblass.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pblass2002 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

No problem here: it's being discussed at WP:AFD. If the article is worth a keep, it will be kept. If not, then deleted. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, again, Dr. Blass, but his article, always an autobiography, has been deleted many times, and was recently allowed to be undeleted because it's {{deletedpage}} status was removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion log—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As a question, isn't courtesy blanking (as was done for his first AFD) intended for people who wish to go away? It seems he doesn't want to leave, he just wanted to remove the first round of embarassment. Fan-1967 03:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the result was delete before it was courtesy blanked. Check the log history (not providing a link, as it defeats the purpose of the courtesy blanking). -Patstuart^talk|edits 03:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. It just seems that for him to request the AFD be blanked, and then recreating the article, is gaming the system. Maybe I was wrong. I viewed courtesy blanking as an extension of right to vanish. Fan-1967 03:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Misunderstood your comments. Patstuart^talk|edits 03:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the AFD as Dr. Blass has shown no attempts to actually leave. I will contact Jimbo about my actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Addtionally, if someone feels that I was out of line, I will not object to its reversion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the opionion that Dr. Blass has been gaming our system. The new article offers little of substance beyond what was deleted before in the prior version and the user appears to be canvassing for support. My comment at the deletion discussion reflects that. Durova^Charge 04:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot Piotrek Blass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Piotrus Blass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Groan...salt the earth if possible. Durova^Charge 04:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It was. Centrx went out deleting {{deletedpage}}s. That's how he remade Piotr Blass—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, let's not extend any more courtesies. Fan-1967 04:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive135#Piotr Blass for a former discussion that I brought up.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And User:Piotr Blass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), the original account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see Dr. Blass's IP address was blocked for a month last year for a threat.[11] He's started four different threads on Jimbo's talk page today. How much do we tolerate before discussing a community siteban? He doesn't raise new points, just repeats himself. Durova^Charge 05:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, sock of banned user, recreation of deleted pages. Why are we even continuing to discuss? Fan-1967 05:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Have any of his accounts actually been banned? Durova^Charge 05:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought Piotr Blass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) had been. So why's he using the sock Pblass2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)?

Just as recreating a page automatically contests a prod, recreating a page implies waiving your right to a courteousy blank. Savidan 05:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotr Blass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been speedied and salted. Fan-1967 05:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

<devil's advocate> Anything to suggest this the the real Blass other than his claim to that end, and does it make any differance? Just exploring the possibilities here...
brenneman 05:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He's invited me to one of his lectures, at some point. Also, it's hard not to tell its him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's inconceivable that anyone other than him could duplicate that level of vanity. Besides, the argumentative writing style is inimitable. Fan-1967 07:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been receiving quite a few emails from him, as in the past I tried communicating with him and explaining what Wikipedia is and such. Unfortunatly the last time we talked he was convinved Wikipedia is a cult... I cannot guarantee it's the real Piotr Blass, and it's one person, but the level of disruption - good of bad faithed - has reached the level where I'd support ban as well, even if only to stop real Piotr Blass from geting defamed more for vandalism on Wikipedia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ban time?

Based on Dr. Blass' constant abuse of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and the community, I propose that we ban him from contributing to Wikipedia because he has clearly exhausted our patience. His only contributions to the project are his autobiography, the article on Zariski surfaces, Jimbo's talk page whenever his article is up for deletion (appealing to a "fellow Floridian"), and the talk pages of those who oppose him, because they are not knowledgeable in the fringe area of mathematics. This would include a ban on Piotr Blass (talk · contribs), Pblass2002 (talk · contribs), and the IP 69.163.189.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well as any others he may use.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Clearly has abused Wikipedia. Edit history on the latest article (before it was deleted) showed that when anyone else tried to edit the article, he immediately reverted or added a bunch of "yes, but..." text. Apparently believes that the subject of a Wikipedia article can WP:OWN it when the Wikipedia community has already decided (repeatedly) that the article doesn't belong here at all. What he wants to use Wikiopedia for is totally at odds with what Wikipedia is. Fan-1967 15:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Not only is his campaign to establish a vanity bio on our site a waste of volunteer time, it would set a dangerous precedent if the vanity-by-attrition strategy actually succeeded. A ban could be a useful deterrent for other users. Durova^Charge 15:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per the above. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• I tried to explain to him what Wikipedia is. I failed. I have no choice but to endorse per my comment above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sitebanned

This has gone far enough. While the siteban discussion was underway Dr. Blass started yet another thread on Jimbo's user talk[12] and made a vanity insertion into Zariski surface.[13] Support for a ban has been unanimous so far and the prominence of Jimbo's page sets a bad example if we're too slow. I'll be slightly bold and implement the ban now. Durova^Charge 20:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• And another endorse. Vanity and excess of zeal we can forgive, obdurate refusal to get the point after many, many patient explanations is more of a problem. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Good call. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

His favorites

Seeing that he is not a notable individual, all that remains is the Zariski surface article, which JzG doesn't think is significant (that is what I believe he means from that diff at least). Google solely mentions the Zariski surface without Dr. Blass' name a total of 374 times, some of which are solely on Oscar Zariski's Wikipedia articles and its mirror.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Put it on the block and see if the chicken squawks before the cleaver comes down. Durova^Charge 23:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it's hack and thoroughly overdone, but LOL! That genuinely did make me laugh out loud, and I will file it for shameless plargarism later. Oh, plargarism - that one came from a discussion on H2G2 a very long time ago. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Done—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Even more Primetime

I did a little browsing of Primetime (talk · contribs)'s back catalog, and lo, more stuff, namely re-creating the copyright violation that is Reinhard Sorge by Udht (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- the violation which got him busted in the first place -- and into John Abbey by Anfvh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). (Their last edits were in October, unfortunately, so Checkuser presumably wouldn't work.) Looking over the list of copyright violations from his user page, all the links which I recall being red are now blue: perhaps an admin can compare the new articles and additions with the deleted copyvios:

• Bernardo Davanzati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jean Coralli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Salvatore Quasimodo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ramón Menéndez Pidal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sergio Marchionne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wilhelm His, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pascual Ortiz Rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paolo Fresco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anastasio Bustamante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Retentivity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ebira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Manuel Gómez Pedraza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Calton | Talk 02:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: the user names I suspect to be sockpuppets up to monkey business are listed on the Checkuser page, but let me list them here also:

• Udht (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Anfvh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• OK1900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (minor contribution to Reinhard Sorge, may be inadvertent)
• Lmbrjk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yahme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Durango96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ch98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tnu3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Layamon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pnt22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chin33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mykeneji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jnmh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Calton | Talk 04:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Reposting:

Okay, I'm reposting this item:

• because it involves a long-term vandal
• because it involves repeated and deliberate insertion of copyrighted material, which could damage Wikipedia in the long run
• because it requires administrator action

• to confirm that the inserted material is the same copyrighted material that was deleted (not reverted, deleted)
• to confirm that new articles are re-creations of the same copyrighted material (not reverted, deleted)
• to delete recreated articles and, perhaps, delete the copyvios from existing articles

and, of course

• because no one has done bupkis.

Anyone want to actually step up to the plate (or step up to the crease) here? 'Cause I can't do this. --Calton | Talk 14:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, they may have done nothing to block the accounts, but I certainly looked at them, and decided it was too much for my pore brane to take in. Plus the pay is crap for being an admin so I have to do work on the side. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• You know, if this were the "JZG Noticeboard to Pester Him Personally" you might have something resembling a point. But since this is the "Admin Noticeboard" for notifying several hundred active admins? Not so much. --Calton | Talk 04:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• My point was that I, for one, did not "do bupkis" about this. I am sure others looked at it and decided they did not have the time or the knowledge to fix it either. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think I'm familiar enough with Primetime to really judge all this, but after about 20 minutes perusal things look okay. Michael Snow removed Primetime's copyvios from these articles on 18 May 2006, so I just browsed the diffs since then and nothing glaring popped up. Lmbjk and OK1900 contributed heavily to articles on Latin-American subjects, they could be the same person but I don't think it is Primetime based on the concentration of their editing. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go cash Guy's paycheck. Teke ^(talk) 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  They look ok because I removed the most egregious of the reinsertions, some of them word for word copies of the deleted articles. The obvious socks have been blocked, Lmbjk and OK1900 have not because I have doubts that they are. Thanks fo keeping an eye on this Calton. pschemp | talk 19:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to keep digging, I found that Anna Cora Mowatt was recreated by Igtrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both the article and the user are now gone, of course. I'll add it to the LTA page and browse some more. Teke ^(talk) 20:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Salvatore Quasimodo and Chester A. Crocker also had problems. Socks blocked, more later as I am hungry now. Teke ^(talk) 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm going through his contributions to list articles that match his particular style in copyvios, the page will be kept here. Teke ^(talk) 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I've found the info I need elsewhere. Teke ^(talk) 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Johann Hari's entry

I have tried for over three months to reach consensus on the entry for British journalist Johann Hari with a wiki user called ‘Felix-Felix’. I'm pretty concerned at the attitude and approach of Felix-Felix and I'd appreciate some advice.

Hari is a fairly well known young liberal journalist who writes a column for the Independent and has written for the New York Times, Le Monde and others. Felix-Felix appears to be motivated by extreme hostility to Hari, who he has described as “a little tyke”, a supporter of “genocide”, and in favour of "the destruction of untermenschen." He described the original wiki entry for Hari – which included accusations that he was soft on paedophiles, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, “fat”, “a Stalinist”, and “naïve” – as “a love letter”, which gives you some sense of how low his opinion of Hari is.

I'm afraid this user has repeatedly tried to insert false and libellous arguments into the article. To give just one example, he has tried to claim that Hari – a left-wing writer from a working class family – went to Harrow School, one of the most expensive and elite public schools in Britain. Even when it was pointed out to him that this was wholly false (Hari went to a nearby school!), Felix-Felix kept trying to insert this claim.

He also admits to inserting meaningless sentences into the article, "out of frustration".

Felix-Felix has a strange perception that Hari is some kind of right-winger, and has attempted to delete from the entry the copious evidence that contradicts this claim. For example, Hari supports total nuclear disarmament by the US, Britain and all other nuclear states, and is a vociferous campaigner on the question of global warming. Felix has tried repeatedly to delete these facts, on the grounds that these positions are “uncontroversial”. I pointed out that far from being “uncontroversial”, the idea of total nuclear disarmament is widely regarded as a radical position and is supported by, for example, just 6 of 651 British MPs, and no US Congressmen at all. He refused to accept this and just kept deleting it, even when the polls he himself cited showed that almost half of Americans oppose disarmament.

He is presently trying to delete all the major criticisms of Hari in the entry from prominent right-wingers (presumably because they contradict his view that Hari is himself a right-winger). He has dismissed criticisms by Bjorn Lomborg, who was named as the twelfth most important intellectual in the world by Prospect magazine, and David Starkey, who was later named as one of the 100 most important intellectuals in Britain by Prospect. He claims these figures are “spurious” and “unimportant”. However, he believes that a minor blog-based group called Medialens, who he happens to agree with, should be quoted at great length (without quoting Hari’s response).

I believe in quoting a range of critics from across the political spectrum (and as it happens I personally agree with the Medialens criticism of Hari). So I repeatedly offered Felix-Felix a compromise: we should quote Medialens at length, provided we quote other critics at length and quote Hari’s responses. He has consistently refused to do this. He insists that we quote the critics he agrees with, and almost none of the others, no matter how eminent, and give only a single sentence of Hari’s response. This seems to clearly contradict the rules on POV.

I am concerned that Felix does not even seem to have read Hari’s work, and offers summaries of it that directly contradict what Hari actually says. For example, Hari wrote several articles claiming he was wrong to have supported the Iraq war. He wrote:

“The lamest defence I could offer – one used by many supporters of the war as they slam into reverse gear – is that I still support the principle of invasion, it’s just the Bush administration screwed it up. But as one anti-war friend snapped at me when I mooted this argument, “Yeah, who would ever have thought that supporting George Bush in the illegal invasion of an Arab country would go wrong?” She’s right: the truth is that there was no pure Platonic ideal of The Perfect Invasion to support, no abstract idea we lent our names to. There was only Bush, with his cluster bombs, depleted uranium, IMF-ed up economic model, bogus rationale and unmistakable stench of petrol, offering his war, his way. (Expecting Tony Blair to use his influence was, it is now clear, a delusion, as he refuses to even frontally condemn the American torture camp at Guantanomo Bay).

The evidence should have been clear to me all along: the Bush administration would produce disaster. Let’s look at the major mistakes-cum-crimes. Who would have thought they would unleash widespread torture, with over 10,000 people disappearing without trial into Iraq’s secret prisons? Anybody who followed the record of the very same people – from Rumsfeld to Negroponte – in Central America in the 1980s. Who would have thought they would use chemical weapons? Anybody who looked up Bush’s stance on chemical weapons treaties (he uses them for toilet paper) or checked Rumsfeld’s record of flogging them to tyrants. Who would have thought they would impose shock therapy mass privatisation on the Iraqi economy, sending unemployment soaring to 60 percent – a guarantee of ethnic strife? Anybody who followed the record of the US towards Russia, Argentina, and East Asia. Who could have known that they would cancel all reconstruction funds, when electricity and water supplies are still below even Saddam’s standards? Anybody who looked at their domestic policies.”

Yet Felix-Felix tried to summarise this statement as “half hearted-apologising for Bush mucking up an invasion which he would have supported if it had been done better.”

Felix-Felix’s summaries of Hari’s arguments are consistently so far from what hari has actually said I can only assume he hasn’t read them, or is deliberately misrepresenting them.

It is hard to achieve agreement because, as looking through the archive will show, Felix simply denies facts which do not match his world-view. For example, Hari is a consistent defender of the Enlightenment tradition, and was nominated alongside Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali by the National Secular Society as one of the best defenders of the Enlightenment in Britain in 2006. Felix-Felix, however, declared that Hari was not a defender of the Enlightenment and this was simply an attempt to big up a “trivial op-ed writer”. I tried to answer him by offering evidence which included Hari’s attacks on postmodernism, which prompted Felix to deny postmodernism opposed the Enlightenment. Even when I pointed out that the wikipedia entry on postmodernism included in its first paragraph that fact that postmodernism opposes the Enlightenment, he insisted it did not.

Nonetheless, I have been keen to try to achieve consensus on the page with Felix in any way I can. In the archive, you can see over six instances in which I say, “I’ll compromise on this, what will you compromise on?” and receive no answer.

Some posters on the page have occasionally agreed with Felix, and some have agreed with me. I have compromised and engaged with those who agree with specific points by Felix. However, Felix by contrast has simply accused anybody who posts in agreement with me of being a sock-puppet and ignored them. (Indeed, he ignored me for a long time, claiming I was Johann Hari, until somebody who we both know pointed out that I am not). Several of the posters have become so exasperated with this that they have taken the unusual step of offering their telephone numbers so Felix can verify their identities – but still he continues to accuse them of being me. He has started attacking other people who post, and following them to their wikipedia entries and negatively editing them (see Van Badham).

He has also persistently ignored the wikipedia administrators who have intervened. For example, the archive shows Charles Matthews, an administrator, clearly telling him to “stop deleting well-sourced material for the sake of it”, and Felix proceeding anyway.

Last week I discovered that Felix-Felix is a defender of the notorious anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon, and denies it is anti-Semitic to write this: "We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously...American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world." He has also written articles describing Israeli strategy called "The Protocols of the Edlers of Zion (part Two)".

It's pretty worrying; does anyone have any advice about what I can do to stop this guy trashing Johann Hari's entry? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David r from meth productions (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

• David, it sounds like you have a good attitude towards this -- based on your description, you are trying to engage Felix on the specifics and (mostly) not personally. Have you offered to try the various stages of dispute resolution with Felix, either with regard to your overall dispute or some specific issue? Thanks, and good luck, TheronJ 16:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • see Talk:Johann Hari and Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-04_Johann_Hari Catchpole 17:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks. The mediation request is open, and the page is protected, so there doesn't seem to be any imminent threat. I have just stuck my nose into the debate, but I will see if the parties will accept me as a mediator. TheronJ 17:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Troll organization

This article was voted to be deleted and redirected to Internet troll per afd, but the page was simply redirected and was not deleted. Could an admin please delete it and recreate it as a redirect? Thank you.--Azer Red Si? 16:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll organization was closed as redirect, not delete and redirect. Azer Red is one of two people who said 'delete and redirect per nom', the other contributions to the discussion varied from keep, to merge, to redirect, to redirect and protect. Azer Red, if you have some genuine reason why it needs to be deleted, rather than redirected, you should say so, rather than misrepresenting the result of an AfD.

KillerChihuahua, you missed the talk page. That is still a redirect, and its history is still viewable, as seen in this version of talk page before it was made a redirect. I'd hold off on deciding what to do until more input arrives in this thread. I'd suggest moving Talk:Troll organization to be an archive of Talk:Troll (Internet), or at least to link it from the archives of that page (effectively merging the two talk pages). Carcharoth 21:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a difference between voting "redirect" and "delete and redirect". If the consensus is to redirect, there is no reason to keep the past revisions of the page intact, and this prevents users from going against the consensus by reverting the redirect.--Azer Red Si? 03:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If there was anything to merge, I presume that has been done (?) and whatever is left was found not valuable to the encyclopedia. Is there any reason not to have deleted? I'd prefer not to compound any disputes by undeleting a completely unecessary and unused page unless there is a good reason to do so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Two issues here. Please correct me if I get any of the following incorrect. (1) What happened (that is something that KillerChihuahua can answer, or should have had the answers to before deleting) and (2) What the closing user stipulated should happen (that is something Azer Red could have discussed with the AfD closer before coming to WP:AN). Firstly, 'redirect', the term used by some of the !voters and the AfD closer is a vague term. 'Redirect' should be qualified by saying what happens to the content already at the page. ie. the two redirect options are merge and redirect, or delete and redirect (there is a third option of blank to a redirect, effectively keeping the content available in the page history, but not merging it). (1) If what was done was merge, then past revisions are indeed needed for GFDL attribution of the merged content. If no merging took place, then delete and recreation of the redirect (or blanking back to a redirect) is OK. Looking at the page history for Troll (Internet), there is no edit summary for the dates concerned to suggest that any content was merged. KillerChihuahua might like to double-check that there was no mergeable content in the page that was deleted, instead of presuming that this was done (I find it is always dangerous to presume someone else has done something on Wikipedia). In all probability, there isn't any mergeable content, but those page revisions probably contain stuff that is no worse than stuff in the page history of Troll (Internet). (2) The AfD closer said 'redirect'. The question here is whether the analysis here should override any need to find out what the AfD closer really meant. Probably not, but I'll drop a note off on the talk page of the AfD closer. Finally, the talk page. I'll move it to the archives of Talk:Troll (Internet), and link from the archive box on that talk page. Then someone can delete the redirect. I wonder if the AfD should be updated as well, to clarify what has actually happened? Carcharoth 11:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth is correct, I did not do the thorough due diligance I should have done (and usually do.) Lesson to me not to get lazy! I saw no merged content, but I could have missed it. I have added to Carcharoth's note on Yuser31415's page a specific query about any merged content. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. No, I did not merge any content, simply blanked and redirected. Was that against consensus? I think not. Also, it happened to be my purpose to leave it that way, instead of deleting all of the previous history to normal users. I'd appreciate if KillerChihuahua (is that spelt right? Template:Emot) undeleted it to my revision. Cheers. Yuser31415 19:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that the dreaded GNAA is linked from there, but if that is not seen as an issue, and if consensus is that the article should have been blanked and redirected rather than deleted and redirected, I will cheerfully do so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a request for input, apologies if I was unclear. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd appreciate the article to be undeleted and redirected as per my decision in the relevant AfD. Yuser31415 04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

More Cplot... (*sigh*)

After seeing yet more of Cplots quite futile and "self-sacrificing" (ie - he's clearly doing nobody any good, including himself) reverted edits at VPP, and seeing it was the same account repeatedly, I went to his talk page. On seeing what at least appeared to be a little bit of gloating about "the admins" missing him this time around, I couldn't resist adding the following advice which I felt may be reasonable for him to note - here.

I'm not generally one for incivility or any such thing, nor am I usually one for either failing to assume good faith or "feeding the trolls". I don't think I've done either, but I would appreciate it if somebody could just double check that I haven't said anything that's in any way inappropriate. As I say, I doubt it, but it's probably worth checking (for my own peace of mind if little else) that others see the message in the same way I intended it. I certainly hope that he see's the futility of it all (well, explaining the reality of it was worth a try! lol) Crimsone 17:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Civil, but it's kind of like throwing a few chips and some guacamole to the hungry green critter who lives underneath that bridge. Durova^Charge 18:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Note looks fine, Prodego indef blocked the account. He did make a point in letting that username slip through; looks like he expected to be found right away and was surprised to not be. Teke ^(talk) 18:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you for that - it's much appreciated. To be honest, I do find it all a little bit painful to watch. Even so, if it was troll food I apologise. Here's hoping that sooner or later it'll dawn on him that the message I wrote actually said what it said, rather than what he's like to think it said (or he otherwise reaches the same conclusion) Crimsone 18:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are some people who construe any response at all into affirmation: if absurdity receives a reply then they claim it merits discussion, then dignify it into difference of opinion, etc. Over at User:Raul654/Raul's laws my first contribution was no. 98: Any editor who makes an assertion that is simultaneously wrong on three or more levels is a person who is immune to reason. Or as Louis Armstrong used to say, There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them. Durova^Charge 19:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It looked like a polite comment in my opinion. Anomo 19:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of salted pages

There are a few people who routinely remove WP:SALTed pages. This is fine, they are an eyesore and for the most part the original creator loses interest after a month or so. But some, like Piotr Blass above, get re-created every time the delete protected page is removed. And nobody seems to get notified when the protected pages are removed. Is there a list of formerly delete-protected pages anywhere, or if not can some botmeister create one? I look every now and then for bluelinks in my deletion log but with around 5,000 deletions on file that is a long job. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Durova^Charge 18:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

People who deleted salted pages MUST take a good look at the history and work out what's going on first. Most can be deleted after a few weeks, but in some cases not. We've had slow-burning slanders re-inserted, and libellous redirects cropping up every few months. Some things when killed need to stay dead.--Doc^g 18:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a great one for raising artificial hurdles or excessive process. Most are not a problem, a few are a problem. If we can come up with a bot to list salted pages, and another bot to transfer them to an unsalted salted pages list when they are deleted again, then a few eyes down the list will be enough. HighInBC's idea has merit, or we could simply subst the template and recategorise them into a separate category for serial problem articles. Or put a comment in the list for those and ask Centrx and others to work from the list instead. Lots of ways to solve a minor but persistent problem. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A bot already lists salted pages and protected redirects on a page linked from WP:SALT. —Centrx→talk • 23:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't process to ask people to look at the history of an item before deleting it, and to apply a little common sense. Indeed one should always do that before pressing the trigger. However, the ultimate solution to this has always been to nag the devs to allow us to protect actual deleted pages as deleted. Then they wouldn't show up in searches, and we could leave protection on them pretty well indefinitely, unless someone makes a good case for a real article. That would be a lot quicker and less process than your suggestion (which I could buy as a good interim fix, btw). It would also avoid silliness like this which was caused by people (with reason) insisting that we didn't have a long-term SALT, in the face of constant recreations (thankfully, a little creativity has now solved that particular problem).--Doc^g 22:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I just don't think we need to formalise anything, is all. Many, probably most, are completely uncontroversial (although February is approaching). Of course if the logs show multiple deletions over many months, then deleting the salt is likely to invite trouble, that's not in dispute. I'm just trying to be fair, here, and emphasising that I do not imply any kind of censure of Centrx. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Without getting rid of them, there would be 10,000+ of these pages. As it stands, there are 1350. Hundreds of readers see them as results to Special:Random, and many inhibit the creation of legitimate articles. The vast majority are never re-created at all, and of those that are re-created some are created as legitimate articles or have been changed into redirects. It really does take hours to look at every log in the way you are suggesting—I used to do it, and I was the only one doing it. If other people want to help get rid of these pages, or to follow up on all the many pages they protected one day in May because one person was re-created some joke for 5 minutes, please do so. —Centrx→talk • 23:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Centrx, how likely is it that something would get salted if there seemed any good chance of a legitimate article following? And what's the cost/benefit between letting editors petition for desalting when necessary vs. relisting cruft for deletion and community banning the persistent cruftmasters? I guess you do what you do for good reason, but I'm not in your shoes and would like to understand the logic. Durova^Charge 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A significant portion of SALTed pages are simply personal names, names which belong to several different people. That little Timmy created a vanity article about himself one day does not mean there is not a Tim Jones that can support an article, which is not going to be created if someone finds they have to go through a bizarre three-step process to create it; on Wikipedia, you do not need to "petition" to create an article. The second issue is that these are non-articles in the main namespace. They show up in Special:Random, so hundreds of average readers encounter them even when their number is kept to a minimum, they inflate Special:Statistics, and they appear as A-OK blue links. They show up in Special:Shortpages where they need to be maintained in a special way or that special page becomes completely useless, so they probably affect other things as well. This has not been encountered as a big deal because the number of these pages has been kept low, but if thousands of active users and tens of thousands of average readers encountered these SALTed pages on a regular basis, and the article count was 10,000 higher than it should be, then 20,000, etc., the discussion here would not be "how could you delete those three pages that we had to re-protect again!" but "someone please delete these thousands of useless pages, by any means possible!" —Centrx→talk • 02:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Do redirects show up in Special:Random, Special:Statistics, and Special:Shortpages? The SALT template could be turned into a redirect to a special (?Wikipedia-space) page containing the text of the current template. (Yes, they would still be blue.) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. —Centrx→talk • 13:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A list of formerly protected-deleted pages can be found in the page history of the current listing. Listings prior to September 23 may be found in the history of the old listing. I do not know of any non-extremely-old listing prior to July 2006. —Centrx→talk • 23:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can make a separate salt template for pages that are recreated every time they are unsalted. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Or just a parameter for the number of recreations, so that an admin would be quickly able to say whether removing the protection would attract people to recreate the article or not. After all, the template parameter can only be edited by administrators. -- ReyBrujo 23:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Tourette's Guy, Tourettes Guy, Briefsism seem to be frequently re-created, perhaps these should be left salted. I've just had an email asking where the Tourette's Guy article went... and I told the sender it's not going to come back. --SunStar Net^talk 01:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes things are salted for really serious (perhaps even legal) reasons. I salted a couple of libellous/attack redirects at one point, that aimed at associating people's names with other articles. Admins deleting salted articles MUST at least take the time to see what's going on. Else we'd have Brian Peppers back every two months.--Doc^g 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that {{deletedpage}} pages are usually sorted in Special:Shortpages, I suggest forcing a parameter with an explanation about why the page has been salted, that would make things easier for everyone. -- ReyBrujo 02:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single one like that be in the category. Brian Peppers is in Category:Office protected; similar situations I have seen do not use the protected-deleted template. If there is a legal or other situation where the page for some reason needs to protected for more than 3 months, it doesn't go in the SALT category. What legal situation would go on for 3 months yet OFFICE would not be involved? What SALT protects against someone just putting whatever illegal text at another title? —Centrx→talk • 03:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I kindly invite you (or anyone, for that matter) to unprotect Gay Nigger Association of America in 3 months. -- ReyBrujo 03:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not a legal issue, and if it were re-created it would quickly be deleted and protected again. I would notice to put it on my watchlist anyway. —Centrx→talk • 12:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible for the devs to change it so sysops can protect empty pages, thus keeping it as a redlink that wouldn't show up on stats, random page and the like, but preventing obvious garbage from being recreated over and over? The talk page of said garbage could have some kind of standard 'this is what to do if you honestly believe this could be a valid article' on it, as talk pages don't affect the above. I don't know much about what is and is not possible - can empty pages be protected? Proto::► 09:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't forget to watch-list every formerly salted page you delete. Kusma (討論) 10:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

By default protection is harmful to the project. Salted pages included. In every case we need to weight the benefits of stopping recreation with the harm having it protected causes. We can't lose sight of that delicate balancing act. I think Centrx did the right thing for the right reasons and it is likely that only a few of the articles will end up being re-salted.

I think the best idea would be to create a new template... {{longtermsalt}} that must be substed and includes a timestamp and make the common practice only to un-salt those pages with a WP:DRV or after 6 months. With the troublemakeing articles out of the mix we can get more aggressive with deleing the other salted pages. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I need some fresh opinions

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Shapiro (second nomination) is taking some strange turns and if a few people can take an interest, I would like to bow out. Jim Shapiro is without doubt worthy of being taken notice of in wikipedia. Exactly how we do that is up to the community. Well, take a look and see if you wish to get involved. Thank you. (The issue of Wikipedia articles named after living people but not really biographies is involved here, too.) WAS 4.250 22:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly is a biography. And even if it wasn't, BLP still applies. Sarah 10:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Cplot

Anyone think it's time to call up his IP or file a WP:ABUSE report? I'm not sure how to go about this, and I don't know his IP range. But this is getting entirely out of hand. Patstuart^talk|edits 23:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already an investigation going against his IP there... a second... the one under the 68.30.65.203 heading. -- ReyBrujo 23:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He has recently used:

• 24.148.7.123
• 64.241.37.140
• 66.73.80.206
• 66.149.74.142
• 67.167.7.81
• 67.167.7.187
• 68.30.156.41
• 75.22.229.188
• 75.57.102.247

I suggest we start gathering a definitive collection, to be followed with ISP complaints and range blocking. Raul654 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Add:

• 68.251.35.198

To that list. --Wildnox(talk) 00:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a cplot ip blocked for a month. Since we blocked the ips for a week and did not work, I suggest extending to one month, until the investigation is finished. -- ReyBrujo 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My theory about Cplot, although probably flawed, is that Cplot is probably multiple people using different IPs. And yes, a WP:ABUSE report will probably help. --SunStar Net^talk 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you can't have a single person with so varied internet accounts. -- ReyBrujo 01:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Sunstar means that it is being used as a Role account, possibly with access gained by the posting of the name and password to something like a forum or BBS, to be manipulated by multiple users to game the system. Teke ^(talk) 01:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, gotcha. I suggest keeping a bot deleting posts that are over 60kb automatically :-) -- ReyBrujo 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• They'd have to be really dedicated to carry out this much of an attack on Wikipedia. BTW, I found a "parody" of Wikipedia, which is also called Wikipedia (confusingly enough), maybe Cplot can take his stuff there?? --SunStar Net^talk 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to knock on SBC's door and tell them to tell this guy to put a sock in it. —Pilotguy (ptt) 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This may be a role account, per Teke's suggestion above. I'm sure some forum will probably have a thread somewhere on this. --SunStar Net^talk 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I just searched google for the terms "government" and "cplot" and came up with nothing but many questionable sites syndicating wiki content (including user talk) in order to increase their page rank. I also came across a Harvard law site with a discussion involving a user called "thewaythingswork" which seemed to digress onto Cplot. Either there's nothing out there, or I need to refine my search terms. Could a proxy service be responsible for the numerous IP's? Crimsone 01:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably some open proxy, if that's what Cplot's using... --SunStar Net^talk 01:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that possible? The IPs resolve to major commercial ISPs. Chick Bowen 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but to say specifically how might offer ideas if it's not the case. It's not a particularly common thing to see from average internet users, but it is possible.For example, my IP is registered to PlusNet (and yes, it's static), but I could still be running a proxy on a second machine for others to connect through. Crimsone 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I always figured it was a bunch of guys from the same area working together, given the various Chicago ISPs listed in the suspected sock list. I don't really have any experience with this kind of thing, though. WarpstarRider 03:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

From a nontechnical angle my hunch is it's one person. A group of people would manifest a variety of writing styles. Yes, this means prolific and dedicated effort from one individual, but some irrational people are prolific and dedicated. This person ignored my repeated offers at Village Pump to accept evidence via e-mail and conduct an independent investigation. So while the emperor has no clothes, it's also human nature for the emperor to insist he's wearing fine duds while the crowd giggles. Durova^Charge! 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

At one point, I began thinking they were common people who had been cheated by Cplot to post those comments there. However, noticing how the sockpuppets try to insert the text in as many sections as possible reflects careful planning. Suppose Wikipedia asked for confirmation whenever it detects more than XXkb of text is being inserted at the same time (a copyvio warning, in example), wouldn't that stop him from doing this automatically and also help catch some copyvio infringements, especially when User:Wherebot is down? -- ReyBrujo 04:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So the question, is, now, would anybody like to call up SBC and give them the nastygram? (that's me honesetly asking for volunteers). We will need some checkuser information from Mackensen that we can email to SBC. Patstuart^talk|edits 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked an IP last night who was either Cplot or a Cplot wannabe which resolved to the University of Virginia computer lab. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite sure there are Cplot imitators out there. Cplot himself uses a few different ISPs. I'm willing to discuss via e-mail, but not here. --Aude (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Getting a feel for unblock flow

Attention fellow administrators, you may want to check this out: User:Cyde/List of requests for unblock.

It updates every hour, making a list of the current talk pages in the category on {{unblock}}. What's interesting so far is that every hour it's run, it's had something to do (if the list didn't change, it wouldn't commit an edit). So the unblock stuff has a bit of a higher turnover rate than I would expect. I'll let this run for awhile, and we might get some good statistics out of it. Certainly we'll get a better feel for how the unblock process works. --Cyde Weys 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Similar concept, different category: User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion. Yeah, there's an image bug right now, I'm working on it ... Cyde Weys 02:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I approve of this. Easier to navigate than the Cat for sure. Teke ^(talk) 02:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Very very nice. Patstuart^talk|edits 02:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The image bug is fixed now. --Cyde Weys 02:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, how's the time period sound? Is once every hour good enough? There's not really a threat of going too low, because if the category hasn't changed at all, then no new edit will be committed. --Cyde Weys 02:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks excellent. The next thing it needs (I know it's easy to make suggestions like this) is an indicator of which requests have been reviewed yet or not.

If it's going to be used purely for analytics, every hour is fine. If it's going to be used by admins to make sure all unblock requests are reviewed on a timely basis, I believe it should be much more often than that. Newyorkbrad 02:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As for which have been reviewed, that is a bit harder to do. Not that hard ... just download the texts of all of the pages in the category, grep for the reviewed template, and strikeout items on the list accordingly ... but it will take a little bit of work to manage. I'll see if it's worth it. --Cyde Weys 02:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say every 10 minutes would be a good balance between server load and lag time. I'm liking the CSd list too, but I'd prefer if they were listed chronologically instead of alphabetically. Can you set the thing not to include items already on the page, so that new ones are at the end and working down the list will be roughly chronological? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorting chronologically is something entirely different than what I had in mind here. I could do it (might take a bit of work), but that would involve not only looking at the texts of all of the pages, but also their edit histories, to see when the template was added. That would involve downloading the texts of lots of revisions (sometimes many edits are made after the template is added). And pyWiki doesn't yet have code to parse out histories. Or I could have the bot run frequently, keep an internal state of which is on the list, and add all of the new items to the bottom. That would be a lot simpler. --Cyde Weys 02:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The latter is what I was thinking. You don't need to run frequently either; just insert a horizontal bar or section break after each update and reload the old list to make sure you aren't adding dupes, then you have blocks based on which run they were added during. Close enough to chronological to keep things from getting stale. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into doing that on another page. I'll probably want to make a separate bot for that right now; as it is, I'm almost over-extending what category.py is supposed to do. --Cyde Weys 02:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've bumped up the run-times to once every 20 minutes. --Cyde Weys 02:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never really looked at how many people are in the category/on the list at once. If it's 7, as it is now, I suppose it's no big deal for a reviewing admin to quickly skim each. If there are times when there are dozens of names on that list then adding the "already reviewed or not" functionality could be more helpful. As for sorting chronologically, we could ask the user making the request to fill in the time (of course that assumes the typical blocked user can speak UTC and would provide accurate information, which might be too much to ask). Newyorkbrad 03:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, a useful suggestion: if you add these two pages to your watchlist you don't have to keep track of the actual categories. Just whenever you see these ping on your watchlist, it means there's something you might want to do. Anyone have any other ideas for categories that might make sense to watch closely? --Cyde Weys 03:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Pages tagged as db-attack would be a good one. Those should be dealt with quickly and I've seen them linger for hours. Newyorkbrad 03:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So, just Category:Attack pages for speedy deletion? That's certainly doable. Doesn't look like much traffic in there, though. --Cyde Weys 03:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The unblock list that pops up on watchlist is great. Thank you, Cyde! I don't think an extra attack page list is strictly necessary: I check User:Dragons flight/Category tracker/Summary every time it is updated and always check out the attack page category if it is nonempty. Usually it is empty by the time I get there, only minutes after the summary updates. Kusma (討論) 10:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

John254 (talk · contribs)

This user seems to think that he owns Wikipedia:Vandalism. I have made some cleanup edits to the page and he has reverted them for no real reason and accused me of being a vandal just for editing the page. Could an admin please talk to him? Thanks.--Azer Red Si? 04:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the most recent diff of this reversion.--Azer Red Si? 04:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Both parties basically got into a bit of a hot edit war. I'm already on it. Hopefully I can just mediate this quietly. :-) --Kim Bruning 05:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I dropped an neutral opinion note, I don't plan to participate further. Teke ^(talk) 05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is obvious that Azer is not a vandal, so John's accusatory tone is inappropriate, as is his use of the "final warning" template. I've also tweaked the header here since John isn't a vandal either. I'll have to do some more thorough reading about what the dispute is over, but it sounds like a difference in opinion about the wording of a policy page, of the kind we can usually reach a compromise on. >Radiant< 10:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Unusual behavior

I ran across this edit while doing RC's, and it quite raised my eyebrows. It's his own userpage, and he's not done anything since then, but someone might want to keep an eye. Seraphimblade 11:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's nice of him to warn us. Proto::► 12:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but his former minibio looks almost as though he's refering to several notorious vandals, the first one is Antifinnugor[sic], the second the notorious Loyola dude, I don't know about orthodoxy, and the last is Bonaparte. I know this is a little tenuous, but he may have had this in mind for a while? 68.39.174.238 14:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on... it's a fun thought in a somewhat eerie way, but let's be realistic. The guy has always be a brilliant contributor, and he's genuinely competent in his academic subjects. A link to either Antifinnugor or Bonaparte is totally out of the question. And by the way, his bio seems to be genuine too ([14]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiPrograms that are not useful

Well, it appears to be the month for reforming or deprecating projects that have gotten out of hand (doesn't WP:CREEP call for a regular pruning of process?) I invite people to take a look at Wikipedia:Editor review and Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Both purport to be pages that help new users towards overall constructive behavior, and eventually adminship. However, both have gotten out of hand. They now steer people towards socially acceptable behavior as judged by the alleged RFA crowd. Thus, they reenforce editcountitis, as well as all sorts of arbitrary criteria like "an admin candidate must put X amount of work in AFD/RC patrol/AIV/whatever". This is certainly not good for the encyclopedia. Comments please on how to deal with this. >Radiant< 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to suggest we MFD them (see my comments on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Editor_review_.28and_admin_school.29.2C_and_RFA and Wikipedia_talk:Editor_review, but Editor review used to be a useful aid to newer editors before being subverted (perverted?) into its current use as a tool to shape user's edit counts so they perfectly fit the RFA hole, so I am reluctant to see it just cast asunder. Lose the school, redefine the aims of Editor Review. Proto::► 12:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally (having spent a good time doing editor reviews), I agree with Proto that ER used to be useful. While in the beginning most asked for counsel about how they handled a particular situation, what they could do to complement their current self, and why determined areas were useful. Nowadays, most ask advice about how to become admins. I am not sure, but "I think" it is because now the RFA page advertises it. While many would have posted their [unlikely successful] RFA, now they read the line that says If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try an editor review first. and ask the same in the editor review. Maybe, and it is a big maybe, if we change that line to If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try to get advice at Admin coaching then ER would go back to what it used to be. -- ReyBrujo 12:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin school has serious issues, and I'm not sure they can be "fixed" - which would render ReyBrujo's well reasoned suggestion ineffective. An Mfd may be the solution; whether an Esperanza solution is adopted or not, the attention and input would be beneficial. I concur with Proto that Editor review has the potential to be a useful tool, but I'd like to hear ideas on how to redefine it effectively. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

We can't say "Don't ask about becoming an administrator", can we? We can't put a minimum threshold (5,000 edits or over), can we? We can't remove editor reviews that ask whether the subject would pass a RFA at this time, can we? Well, what we can is to turn the "unfriendly" switch to the maximum, don't praise users but criticize them, so hard that they will think twice before asking for another editor review or RFA. "I want to be an administrator, what do you think?" "With only 7 Wikipedia namespace edits? Sure, post your application on WP:BJAODN." But then, we would be biting them. No, as of right now, I don't have any idea about how to improve it. -- ReyBrujo 12:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As a relative newcomer, I've just signed up for editor review because I'd like to be a better editor. I've made a specific request for advice in my submission. If people use it to fit RfA better, why not? Then again, if they use it to improve themselves, why not? What's the big deal. No need to delete it. The biggest problem I see with it is lack of participation from the experienced users, actually reviewing us. It takes a certain amount of guts to put oneself in the stocks... it's a bit disconcerting when few people can be bothered to throw tomatoes. --Dweller 13:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• The point is that the intent of the page is good (indeed, encouraging people to be better editors is obviously a good thing) but what the page actually does is not good (in that it actually encourages people to mold themselves to arbitrary standards that are allegedly but not really required to pass RFA). In that, it is gaming the system: it's going by the letter of the (perceived) rules rather than the spirit. >Radiant< 13:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My own opinion of admin school is that it's basically telling people what to say at RFA. Nothing wrong with that if the person in question really should be an admin, but I think it's too easy to abuse to push unsuitable people through RFA and to trick, so to speak, the RFA voters. I would certainly vote delete at MFD. Editor review I think is O.K, if only as a way of preventing RFAs that are never going to pass in a million years. And it is useful, on occasion. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Per Moreschi, I'd keep ER if only to avoid giving Bureaucrats even more work. yandman 13:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have seen a fair few editor reviews that go like "I'm about to run at RFA tomorrow!!! Any last-minute tips????" - followed by "You're a complete newbie. You haven't got a hope in hell at RFA, and you need to seriously rethink your attitude towards adminship". That sort of thing is useful, I think, to avoid clueless newbie RFAs. But admin coaching sucks. Shall I wheel out my fellow deletionist cabalists to nom the admin coaching MFD, or does someone else want to have a turn? Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Per baby/bathwater issues, I've not experienced admin coaching, but the arguments against editor review don't, erm, hold water. --Dweller 14:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

One possibility is that the concept of improving as an editor (and possibly being more suited to being an admin) is becoming too focused on editor review and the concept of an admin school. There are many different ways of improving as a Wikipedia editor. Recently I tried to list some of the more interactive methods at Wikipedia:Coaching. Maybe that would be a good link to have in the "If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try ... first." bit? i.e "If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try one of the options at Wikipedia:Coaching first." Though I've always been more in favour of the concept of learning by yourself, and improving by experience. Indeed, I was recently complimented on this quote:

"Enculturation really just needs people to talk more and demonstrate how they do things (rather than just doing them). Takes certain types of people to be role models. Actually following someone's edits, or meeting in person and watching how they do things, can be very instructive." (Carcharoth)

My point is that there are many ways to learn. If we work to diversify the options, that might help any one area degrading and becoming unacceptable.

Right, now I'm off to post this in the other two threads on this matter. Please focus this thread on specific things, um to do with the Administrators noticeboard? Why the hell is this thread on this noticeboard anyway? <sigh> Gathering admin views on what to do with admin coaching and editor review? Fair enough, but this thread really needs to be focused and directed towards the places where the discussion should really be happening (and that is also an apology for lengthening the thread). Probably best to close this thread and direct discussion to here and here. And if there is an umbrella MfD nomination, can all the pages be listed this time, and the post-closing actions be planned a little bit beforehand? Carcharoth 14:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If it were up to me, it would say, "If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, don't." -- Merope 15:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Section break 1: crunch the numbers

Yes, I worry about the quality of some WP:RFA nominations that succeed. Part of what it takes to be an administrator just can't be taught: it's about temperament and judgement. I waited until I had 9000 edits, three featured pages, and shared authorship of a guideline before I thought I was ready. Yet there just aren't enough people to keep this site running if we set the bar that high. WP:ER and admin school have their flaws. Yet I've been telling myself lately I ought to spend more time over there because we have to make a priority of ensuring that the growth of the administrative pool keeps pace with the growth of the project. If this is accurate we've got over 3 million registered accounts Wikipedia.en and 1090 administrators total (including inactive ones).[15] There are systemic issues and long term trends at work here and we're kidding ourselves if we don't address them. Durova^Charge! 15:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia.en has a sysop to user ratio of 1:2774, which is the third lowest ratio among all Wikipedia languages.[16]
• That ratio has fallen steadily at this project for two years.[17]

Durova^Charge! 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the active admins to active user ratio? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I'm the writer - most of you guys are the techies. It amazes me that you don't already have bots to track this and that I'm the one raising the issue. Durova^Charge! 15:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Possibly if there's a feeling we need more admin's, people would like to run their eye down the list at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits and discuss nomination with anyone who jumps out as a likely candidate. Maybe we could all nominate one candidate each? Steve block Talk 17:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Though the discussions will likely move elsewhere, I'd like to add a couple of things about Wikipedia:Admin coaching (I am not much familiar with Editor Review). Admin Coaching clearly states, and has always stated, that it is not for the purpose of teaching someone how to do well in an RfA, or to teach someone what is needed to pass an RfA. It is about learning the skills that administrators use, so that when/if an editor does become an administrator, they are well prepared to use their new tools. How many of us felt nervous to delete our first page of nonsense, block our first vandalizing user, or protect our first page undergoing an edit war? Admin coaching helps editors understand the tools of administrators, and to learn their usage. Those editors undergoing admin coaching are able to practice deciding if something is appropriate to be deleted under the CSD, to learn when to and when not to protect a page, and to become confident and deciding what is vandalism and what is not. These skills mean that if an editor goes through an RfA and is successful, they will be well-versed in the tools they have acquired, and will be able to benefit the encyclopedia by using them in the best fashion possible. -- Natalya 17:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I for one would like real action and not cheap talk. The way to get ready for admin, and an effective admin, is to do RC or CVU and you will know how to deal with the vandals and dubious material. And to get involved in image tagging. Talking about it doesn't prove anything, my RfA participation works upon "runs on the board", not because somebody did a theory "Q&A answer" - I think that for anybody who even played sport or music at an amateur or school level, their coach or teacher would have said that what you gain in 15 minutes of actual playing time on the field or stage, can't be substituted for lots of practice. Personally, as soon as Essjay tweaked my access, I slaughtered about 50 pieces of rubbish in the first two or three hours [18]. A lot of people don't have any proven skill in the mopwork and pass simply by giving the "politically correct" answers and then don't use them much anyway. In any case, if they get too smooth sounding without actually having done anything, I am likely to ignore their RfA and perhaps even oppose it. I would have to say that no practical skill improvement is gained from AC from observing the coaches, only PC, PR and toilet training. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oooh er, Natalya, I'm not sure. The damn thing even has a disclaimer: "Admin Coaching does not guarantee that you will pass the RfA. Ultimately, this is your responsibility, not the responsibility of your coach. So if you come here looking for a personal coach in order to pass RFA, you're at the wrong place." Either this needs serious rewording or it does make it sound as though the whole point is to get you through RFA, as does language like "Admin Coaching is a program for people who would like the special attention that only one-on-one coaching can provide" - and the purpose of the coaching is to get you through RFA, eh? I remember looking at User:Riana dzasta/Admin coaching - I mean, at one point, semi-ironically, Glen says "Depends if you want the "RfA" answer, or my real thoughts". Sorry, but even as a joke, your RFA thoughts should be your real thoughts! My fingers are itching over the MFD button, cause at RFA I don't want a product, I want the real deal. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem with fishing through the high edit count list is that a lot of the people who are on it don't wan't adminship or have failed nominations - or haven't tried because they know nomination wouldn't succeed. It's the people who registered last July and who raised a couple of pages to GA and are becoming active in one of the WikiProjects that we should look at, but mostly they aren't on our radar yet. So a couple of people have set up places where they can go. I applaud that. We need to be there too and honestly tell some of them they're good editors but maybe not cut out for this and foster the ones who seem to have the right stuff. If these efforts are undermanned - and a lot of things are undermanned because sysops are scarce - then of course they don't work so well. Now I'll put my money where my mouth is (or where my typing fingers are) and go follow my own advice. I welcome others to join me. Durova^Charge! 17:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be no difference; hearing "Depends if you want the "RfA" answer, or my real thoughts" makes me want to cringe. However, in my opinion there is still much potential, as long as the purpose of it is made clear to all participating. Is it bad to prepare people who may become administrators for the tasks they will have to perform? It doesn't seem so. -- Natalya 00:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

RFA is so broken that experienced editors are scared to go near it until they're 100% sure they'll pass. This, in effect, delays potential admins for several months. I cite Newyorkbrad's current RfA as a primary example, and I can think of one or two other people who are as well. 150.101.239.146 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean the Newyorkbrad RfA that is passing with 99% support? —Centrx→talk • 23:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think his point was that Nyb should have been nominated months ago. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That is true though, RfA is a very scary procedure to go through, because, if you fail, you are probably going to have to wait about 3 months before trying again. RfA is 'broken' only because there are too many people. RfA is more effective when the 'voters' actually know what the person they are 'voting' on's character is from personal experience, rather then using edit count and other arbitrary factors to try and guess. Prodego ^talk 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I sometimes wonder if it would offer some real insight if it were possible to run a small experiment. Simply pick a pre-rfa candidate about to "run the gauntlet", (secretly, so as not to affect the outcome) collect opinions from existing admins on whether or not the candidate should pass if RfA were running perfectly and as it should ideally be (or perhaps based on WP:SYSOP alone rather than any arbitary criteria), and then compare that with the actual result. Maybe even repeat it a few times. The results may then be evidence either of a problem, or of the lack of a problem. I'm not saying that it could or should be done. I have no opinion there. It's just an idea I've thought on a few times. Crimsone 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think admin coaching, etc. shouldn't be about the RFA but about all that comes afterward, as in what the tools are for and what sort of stresses go with them and whether the kind of participation someone wants to do would really be helped by that - and getting to know the site well enough that they'll use the tools correctly. If they've learned Wikipedia well enough that they're ready for adminship and they've got the right temperament for this, then RFA shouldn't be a problem. It's not the admissions board at Harvard. Durova^Charge! 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. They will pass RfA when they are ready, and now they'll be ready for what comes afterward. -- Natalya 12:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status

Someone linked this http://www.ifilm.com/video/2681285 and I can't work out what the copyright status is. Any thoughts? Guy (Help!) 12:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I lost two minutes of my life watching that thing, and would remove it just because of the anger I feel within myself ;-) My rule of thumb: when in doubt, remove it. If the copyright is not clear, remove it. Note that, while promotional videos are supposedly promotional, companies exert a pretty hard control over them. In example, Japanese record companies do not allow these promotional videos to appear in YouTube, in example, and request their deletion in a daily manner. Personally, I only leave links to videos if they are in the artist or discography sites. -- ReyBrujo 13:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

While iFilm does accept user submitted content, such content is marked as being user contributed. This is not user content, so is being hosted by iFilm in the same way they host other Music Videos, MTV, and Comedy Central clips. I see no reason to assume that iFilm are breaching copyright to reproduce this video, and it's more than likely to be legitimately hosted.

iFilm, incidentally, is wholly owned by Viacom. It may be that Viacom are infringing upon someone's copyright by reproducing this video, but I think it's unlikely. --Barberio 01:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyvios

I have stumbled across a user all of whose contributions (multiple articles) appear to be copyvios and is in the process of reverting all of my speedy tags. I have to leave for work right now. Can someone take up where I left off? Only tagged a few articles and reverted one speedy tag removal.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is spam. I will see what I can do. -- ReyBrujo 13:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be on his lunchbreak. Looking at his contribs, he'll probably start again in about an hour. yandman 13:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted three articles due copyvio, prodded their software, and removed the advertisement stuff in the other articles. We will see if he recreates them. -- ReyBrujo 14:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

They're back at it. I haven't the time to focus on it right now, though - anyone else want to look over the user's contribs? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user while we fix this. Many links to pile.com, and a pound says the user works for that company. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A pound of what? hehe. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That's his dollar, pal. And it's better than yours or mine. ;) Durova^Charge! 17:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and apologies for having to make a living. I have just finished a final cleanup, including sending one of the articles to WP:CP, as it was still substantially similar to the website is was previously wholly pasted from.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoring an article's previous edit history?

I have Hazrat Ali on my watch list, because I did much of the work creating the article. There hasn't been much activity on it. Last night I saw someone had edited the article, and saw it had been scaled back to a stub.

Confusingly, when I checked the history, I learned that the article had just been created.

I contacted the administrator who deleted the original version, and the deletion was due to human error. A vandal blanked the page, an editor camed along and marked the blanked article for deletion because it was blank, without checking the history. And the administrator didn't notice the nominator's lapse.

The administrator copied the penultimate version of the original iteration to my User space, and I have merged it in to the current article. But they weren't able to merge the edit history from the previous instance with the current instance. My recollection is that this is possible. The administrator thought it was possible too. He just didn't know how to do it.

He suggested I ask here, for a friendly administrator to try to merge the edit histories. And I am following his advice.

Thanks in advance, and after too!

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 14:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored everything, including the blanking and the CSD tag. The article spent over two weeks without content after the blanking, so the deletion was understandable. -- ReyBrujo 14:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the restoration. -- Geo Swan 17:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Beeing a bit too quick on the delete button I can understand, I am a bit more worried that he don't know how to undo it though. I know all the new buttons can be overwhealming for fresh admins, but I would sort of expect them to either, ask, "RTFM" or play around on a user subpage before they run off and start speedy deleting stuff (or at least try out the link that says "View or restore XX deleted edits?" when viewing a deleted page). No offense to this particular admin, but learning how the basic admin features work and how to undo them rely should be required learning for fresh admins. Maybe linking things like Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list a bit more prominently from the RFA page would help... --Sherool (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Help deleting an obvious spam page

Talk:Jason Kottke/ consists only of obvious spam, but it won't let me save any changes (like nominating it for speedy delete) because it has a blacklisted url on it. Recury 15:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Community ban of sneaky spammer

This was discovered because of the amazing research skills of Hu12 and the full research can be read on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam project page.

The user in question is Professorgupta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Over the course of quite a campaign this user changed references to link to a series of legitimate looking websites. He also created dozens of articles with these websites as the sole source. On the surface all of this activity seems like it might be good faith... however, every one of the dozen or so website he's linked too uses the same AdSense account. Here's a short list of what spam Hu12 was able to discover:

onlineloanofficers.com http://www.onlineloanofficers.com search wikipedia for onlineloanofficers.com

• edits- [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]

shaadibliss.com http://www.shaadibliss.com search wikipedia for shaadibliss.com

• edits- [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]

crazysportsfan.com http://www.crazysportsfan.com search wikipedia for crazysportsfan.com

• edits- [57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99]

gurusofdating.com http://www.gurusofdating.com search wikipedia for gurusofdating.com

• edits- [100]

yourmoviepal.com http://www.yourmoviepal.com search wikipedia for yourmoviepal.com

• edits- [101][102][103]

presidentpolls2008.com http://www.presidentpolls2008.com search wikipedia for presidentpolls2008.com

• edits- [104]

amifobornot.com http://www.amifobornot.com search wikipedia for amifobornot.com

• edits- [105][106]

nflsystems.com http://www.nflsystems.com search wikipedia for nflsystems.com

• edits- [107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114]

camsfaq.com http://www.camsfaq.com search wikipedia for camsfaq.com

• edits- [115][116][117][118][119]

didbarrycheat.com http://www.didbarrycheat.com search wikipedia for didbarrycheat.com

• edits- [120]

lasvegasbuyeragent.com http://www.lasvegasbuyeragent.com search wikipedia for lasvegasbuyeragent.com

• edits- [121]

It is our suspicion that this user owns every one of those sites and has engaged in a campaign to increase his PageRank and advertising revenue though the use of wikipedia. The user was never warned, but the sophistication of the deceit and the shear amount of work involved to hide it shows foreknowledge that spamming is unacceptable.

I propose a community ban of this user. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, the user cleans up other spam while adding his own. [122] The user does have "good faith" edits, but I suspect they are there to obfuscate his activities. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse banning. My next edit after this post will be to award a barnstar to Hu12. Durova^Charge! 17:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse barnstar. Oh, and endorse ban as well. Overwhelming proof against pub-3279714273926761. A pity, he seemed a good user. -- ReyBrujo 17:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Absolutely, this is outrageous behaviour of someone who is obviously well versed in Wikipedia, and well versed in SEO/spam. - hahnchen 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Um, it seems like the first warning the user was given was today. I'm all for stopping continuing spamming, but why not at least give him one solitary chance to reform, and then go for the community ban. I'd be for that if he doesn't stop right away, but a first and final warning and immediate ban seems just a little much. Of course, it would be worth asking/checking if it's gone on in other languages. - Taxman ^Talk 18:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  The editor was acting in bad faith for nearly 8 months before we caught 'em. The editor quoted WP:SPAM when removing competitor's links. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  That doesn't mean there is no need for a warning - we aren't here to punish people, we are here to prevent abuse. Now that we know about it, we only need to make sure it does not continue. -- Renesis (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Quoting the policy he's violating does strongly indicate bad faith, I hadn't had a chance to go through them to see that. And trust me, I'm the last person that's going to defend someone that's not helping Wikipedia, but now that we have these links, we know what to look for to revert/blacklist/etc. What's wrong with once simply asking the person to stop? Really it comes down to, after the links have been removed and can't be put back in, what is the upside in banning, how will it help the project? - Taxman ^Talk 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse wholeheartedly. It bugs me when people make money at the expense of Wikipedia when it is ran by volunteers. Basically I see unauthorized advertising it as a form of theft. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Taxman about a warning first, but most importantly, we need to blacklist all of these sites. We also ought to make sure this is the only account being used and the only sites being advertised. -- Renesis (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Personally, I believe this is one of those cases when an exemplary measure must be taken. Be sure, he is not the first one to do it, nor will be the last one. And it took Wikipedia months to discover this. He was quoting WP:SPAM, knowing at the same time that what he was doing was morally wrong. We use warnings for people acting in good faith. This is a case when good faith just can't be assumed. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. -- ReyBrujo 18:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  "We use warnings for people acting in good faith" - no, we use warnings for all sorts -- level 1 warnings (if that) are the only that are for people acting in good faith. I am not saying to go easy - I just don't see the point. He would know now that there is no way he could continue this, so a ban really only hurts us (unless the punishment makes us feel better). His game is over now. -- Renesis (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  As I said, I personally think this is an exception. Other spammers will know about this (WP:BEANS), and do it until warned. As you said, game over for this guy. But it is at insert coin for others thinking about how to make easy money here. -- ReyBrujo 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  I just noticed it can be misunderstood: Wikipedia is easy money for us all, as long as we follow a set of rules when using its content. The fact that the user wanted to make profit by setting up almost empty sites that were used as references is what really damages Wikipedia. So, in this specific context, easy money implies forging references and external links that, overall, decrease the quality of the encyclopedia and deliver a blow against our open community. -- ReyBrujo 19:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I hereby award [insert username here] with the Sherlock Holmes deductive reasoning award in the Case of [insert descriptive name here]. This is what I received at User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. I don't think it's formally filed anywhere. Durova^Charge! 20:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A great piece of work by Hu12 - if we don't have a "sherlock holmes" barnstar, we need one! --Larry laptop 18:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Warning someone who is already aware of the rules is pointless. Warnings are to educate, not intimidate. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. A warning is irrelevant. He knew full well that what he was doing was bad. I'll never understand the attitude of "Oh but you can't punish them unless they were warned first." Here's a hint: in the real world, it most definitely does not work like that. And real world judicial systems have had thousands of years of refinements, so I think they know what they're doing. --Cyde Weys 18:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• When you use the word "punish" and "judicial" you're thinking of it wrong. The best thing for articles and the project is the only thing that matters. Punishment is only likely to make people angry and not help anything. I don't buy into the absolutes that we can't block/ban without a warning either, but that also doesn't mean warnings don't have some value. - Taxman ^Talk 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, and what's in the best interests of the articles and the encyclopedia right now is to ban the person who was undermining them by using them not for their intended purpose, but to try to make money with Search Engine Optimization. --Cyde Weys 21:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a Sherlock Holmes barnstar. I also agree with Cyde that the person knew it was against policy, evident by the surreptitious manner in which the links were added. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Bah. I just blocked him indefinitely. He knows exactly what he's doing -- masking his SEO work with trivial but mostly useful edits so that we have exactly this conversation and these second thoughts. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  I was actualy hopeing Professorgupta would issue a statement on his own behalf. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  For what? Entertainment? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This does highlight the problem of spam in general. Don't think I'm defending the spamming, just that when it's been identified and removed, the banning of that user is a bit of a separate issue. I am glad to see people coming out strongly against letting spam go on. It's increasingly becoming a problem and we need to work on more advanced ways to fight it. With so many articles, not all are being watched (and can't all be watched in a coordinated manner), and more spam slips through unnoticed. Perhaps we should get some tools listing the number of links to certain sites, like what the spam reporter channel does, but keeping a cumulative list accross the project. Then when we see a certain site has 27 links to it over a few weeks it can be investigated. Ideally with legitimate sites like CNN with 27,000 links to it from articles we could take it off the tracking list, to leave only unreviewed potential problems. Perhaps also some tools to remove all links to a certain site in one go would help, for example a link in [123] that would allow zapping them all in one go rather than reverting one by one. - Taxman ^Talk 19:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

#wikipedia-spam[-t] monitor spam and dumps a list of people adding links at User:Veinor/Link count/January 12, 2007, I was just told. I used to have a bot at that spam link to put everything in a sqlite base so that I could query which were the links that had been inserted the most, the users that had inserted the most items, etc. Now, with this "new" kind of spamming, I am thinking about a bot that downloads the external link inserted in articles to verify whether this Adsense vandalism is used. Note that at WP:SPAM there is another investigation going, a user inserting links to sites with the same Adsense id. This is not an isolated case, and that is why I endorsed the ban. They will come back, most likely, but at least, and hopefully, we will have the right tools awaiting. -- ReyBrujo 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a concept for a bot... I'll drop a request with the BAG people latter. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What's best for the wiki is that we make an example of this hardened, systematic, and hypocritical misuse. Firm action has a deterrent effect. Durova^Charge! 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The offending diffs could do with being deleted too. Jimbo has already set a precedent with regards to this - Steroid Expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely and Jimbo proceeded to delete every version of the pages containing the spam link. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've just come along to gloat, and to bitch, pretty much in equal measure. If either we had enough users and especially enough admins in irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam 24/7 to check the bulk of the links that come in, this shit would never have happened. Yesterday, we spotted the first link being added at 17:37UTC and by 22:58, the IRC bot was warning that User:Professorgupta had added links to 5 pages that day. If we had enough manpower, especially trusted users and admins, we could have been checking the website out and deciding what to do, if needed, we could have been adding these links to User:Shadowbot and having edits inserting those links reverted automatically. We're short of people to help, short of admins to roll back, block and we lack the time to explain why we need blocks when our admins aren't around. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 20:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm IRCphobic but am willing to use my tools when contacted with evidence. Durova^Charge! 20:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I need to spend more time in the IRC channel... It would also be nice to get some other admins activly involved in the spam wikiproject. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. This is a simple common sense issue for me. He was obviously familiar with the policy, which is the reason that we warn people in the first place. Sneaky and systemic abuse. Savidan 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to backup just what heligoland just said. We do need help. Becuase of the channel feed bot, we are now able to compile statistics, like User:Veinor/Link count/January 13, 2007, and User:Veinor/Link count/January 17, 2007. There is data on the rate of link insertion found at User:Heligoland/Link. These are all generated from linkwatcher feed logs. If people are afraid of IRC for whatever reason, I strongly advise people to please start checking some of the resources that are coming on line. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse pernament community ban. And I mean pernament. These kind of people are abusive of Wikipedia, and they know it, gaming the system to stave off bans to add a few more bad links to hit up their google pages. This is just ONE abuse, and it's something being dealt with at the highest levels of Wikipedia.

Other areas of abuse have also come up, to the point where some arbitrators have been helping us deal with them. This includes Ebay sellers that are spamming their accounts, or the items they are selling on Wikipedia. People that see this occurring should contact Dmcdevit or Jimbo with the diff, user account, and the ebay account being spammed, and it will be dealt with.

I find it almost kind of laughable that there was debate about the banning. These people know what they are doing, and citing the policy you break shows that they are acting in bad faith. People that are damaging the wiki willfully should not be permitted to be here. To me, it is really that simple.

As Jimbo said once on IRC, "isn't this the thing we should indef blocking people over?" My answer is unequivocally "YES". Cheers. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban - what Peter said. We cannot have Wikipedia being abused in this manner for promotion. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban. In my RC patrolling time, I find much vandalism, but nothing is more hated than the dreaded spam. Perhaps it is because advertising goes against the philosophies and purposes of Wikipedia, which is free in more than one sense. Let us destroy all spam forever. Yuser31415 21:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban - whoops, should have done this up above with my other statement. This is part of our problem. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 21:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. It is a shame, as the chap is clearly quite bright and knows his way around Wikipedia. Proto::► 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse -- Wikipedia-spamming is actively discussed in the closed spamdexing forums -- the handling of this case will be noted and discussed among other spamdexers -- they're watching. To the extent that spamming Wikipedia becomes "too hard", they will put their energies elsewhere. Here are Google searches of the topic in just the open forums; note the number of hits and check out a few samples: [124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131]. Firm handling of high-profile, hard-core types (such as this one (see WT:WPSPAM#royalessence.com and .medi-vet.com) has a multiplier effect within the spamdexer community. --A. B. ^(talk) 06:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: more help needed at WikiProject Spam! We have nowhere near the quantity of editors we need to handle the volume. It's interesting work, especially for people that like to track down stuff -- we deal mostly with complex spam -- see the WikiProject Spam talk page for a sense of what we do. It can be like solving a puzzle and the pay is great, too. --A. B. ^(talk) 06:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Userpage:PRODs

I'm trying to clean up the PROD backlog right now and I'm seeing a bunch of Userpages on PROD for WP:NOT a Social networking site. Most (if not all of these) are inactive editors and many are converted vanity bios and the like. I don't see this as necessarily a WP:USER violation, but they probably are not necessary as well. Has anyone dealt with these before? Any thoughts on this? --Isotope23 17:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still a 5 day prod. I don't think it's much of a problem, either, but I also don't think it's a big enough deal to protest the prods. Besides, contested prods get speedy-undeleted, so it's no biggie. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Show me someone who would speedy-undelete something that should be deleted merely because of some arbitrary five day thing, and I'll show you someone who values process to the point of actively interfering with and hampering doing the right thing. --Cyde Weys 19:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy undeleting prods is doing the right thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not when it's material that rightfully deserves to be deleted. --Cyde Weys 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just delete them. You should pull the deletion trigger on userpage stuff with even less hesitation than articlespace stuff. --Cyde Weys 18:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

MfD is that way, 7th door on the left. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:NOT applies to userpages as well, a prod is a fine way to mark them. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority tend to be for drive-by editors who showed up to create the profiles and haven't been seen since, so for the most part there's nobody to challenge the Prod. Easy way to just clean them out. Fan-1967 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Drive-by editors -- excellent way to put it. When I've cleared these, I've been fairly careful about it -- if somebody's only made 10 edits to their vanity bio, and nowhere else, and hasn't posted anything in months, it's fairly safe to say they're not coming back, no? Where people have been even minimally active, or anywhere inside at least a month or two, I usually play it safe (waiting or going for MfD, as appropriate). But that's just my thought. Luna Santin 19:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree. I've looked at some of the ones on my watchlist. Some are articles that were userfied, and when they were informed that this isn't myspace, they went away and never came back. Fan-1967 19:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User pages of non-editors have been eligible for PROD tagging for months now, per Template_talk:Prod#Miscellaneous_Prod and long-standing precedent at WP:MFD. After having tagged several hundred of them, I'm convinced that userfying is a waste of time, since the vast, vast majority of those whose vanity bios/nonsense/MySpace page substitutes have been userfied don't do anything afterwards. Which is how I'm finding them: I'm just using data from the Move Logs of some admins to work through the candidates, and boy, is it depressing. --Calton | Talk 00:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone invoke IAR and just whack these uesr pages: User:Marc-oliver (only edits to user page), User:Daniel.kim (apparent sockpuppet of Wikiman09 as self-admitted), User:Wikiman09 (very few mainspace edits), and User:Jpfeehery (only edit to create a vanity article, userified by Guy)? Hbdragon88 04:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Just prod tag them. Proto::► 12:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to rush. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but the WP:PROD idea is a good one. Creative use of process. Wikiman09 is still here, though, albeit not very active. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Why wait? I'm only up to October's batch of drive-by pointless userfications, but what the hell: PROD tag added to Daniel.kim (talk · contribs) & Marc-oliver (talk · contribs). If they want to play silly buggers with vanity pages, let 'em go to MySpace. --Calton | Talk 14:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Nstab-special

There's currently an {{editprotected}} request, here, proposing we change the tab from "special" to "special page." The change was made, previously, but was apparently reverted (possibly accidentally) during a spate of April 1st jokery. Seems like a good idea, to me, but thought I should run it by somewhere, first, to make sure this is something people would like. Luna Santin 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I lowercased it as well, to match the other types of pages. Prodego ^talk 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

2004 Madrid train bombings

An unusual request:

The request: I ask for an administrator to check if my own edits on this article (history) starting 31 December 2006 are valid or should be reverted.

The reason: There´s a (IMO) POV-pusher (see his/her contributions [132])asking for the deletion of all the contributions made by other users:

It's unfortunate that removal of your imposed changes also means removal of other users changes in response to yours, but it's an unavoidable consequence of you deciding to impose partisan changes. I hope that other users who have become involved in the discussion will join attempts to resolve the disputed content of this page by common agreement.[133]

Anyone who has made contested changes to the article should have their changes removed and be invited to join the discussion on how to resolve the conflict over the content of this article. [134]

Why?. Because he/she was on vacation, and he/she supposed that the article should be untouched during 4 weeks. Seems that we should have wait for him/her: [135][136].

My going on vacation does not justify any of your actions, an article does not cease to be disputed because someone goes on holiday[137]

I am afraid that this issue is well beyond Arbitration, and, if I am asked to do so, I can write a complete report about the (I think) hard-as-nails reasons that leaded me to reach this somber conclussion.

Admin attention is also needed at Talk:Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings: The article is a bag uf unsourced assertions, but the POV-pusher refuses to engange in any kind of constructive action.

This same guy rejected (after weeks of work and discussion) a RfC [138] [139]

Important note:

• Number of sources provided by this user to Wikipedia in six months: ZERO.
• Besides the massive blanking linked in his/her talk page [140], he/she also blanked a whole section (never restored, BTW) months ago [141], asking for "discussion and consensus".
• The fruits of the "discussion and consensus" with this user can be seen at Talk:Aftermath 2004_Madrid_train_bombings and subsequent sections.
• At the beginning of Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings you can see three new sections full of sources and new facts, all of them stopped by the POV-pusher.

My one-word assesment of this user behaviour: STONEWALLING.

Randroide 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN: articles don't go on Wikibreak because particular editors go inactive. I dealt with this dispute before. An arbitration request becomes reasonable after months of fruitless WP:DR. Durova^Charge! 03:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

AFAIAC, case closed. Thank you for your attention, Durova. Randroide 08:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the strong temptation to reply to the tendentious, and in some cases, patently false claims made by Randroide in his description of the situation, I would like to ask for some clarification. The contested changes imposed by Randroide were made after agreement had been reached to submit a mediation request, and in defiance of the disputed nature of the page. Also, the users (plural) who objected to these changes were not absent from the page when many of the changes were made – their objections were simply ignored. Is it not appropriate in these circumstances for these disputed changes to be reversed pending resolution of the dispute by mediation or arbitration? Is there any impediment in Wikipedia policies to this being done? What options are available to me to prevent further imposition of contested changes while the dispute resolution procedures are being exhausted? Southofwatford 09:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeet Kune Do

There's been a lot of mess concerning this article. After edit warring, I have protected it but now some new accounts are making legal threats. Can someone keep an eye on the situation, I am not sure how to handle all of it. A permanent block would probably do it but since I've previously acted in favour of an established user, I would prefer someone else to take care of it. --Tone 21:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This is also being discussed on AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#URGENT:User:WORLDJKD. Anchoress 01:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Proposed deletion

Would seem to be around 200 articles sitting there over the five-day limit. Is this usual? Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Make that 168. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of prods, these may be useful:

• User:Cyde/List of old proposed deletions
• User:Cyde/List of current proposed deletions

Particularly, if you see things being removed from the list of current prods, it might be something worth investigating. --Cyde Weys 22:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A rouge admin?

cburnett is an administrator who seems to lack a good grasp of being a good sysop. Here are a few examples of cburnett's actions:

• Applies 3RR as a 2RR (diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 and log). (I know 3RR is not a literal rule, I usually apply 1RR personally except when enforcing policy. I terminate libel, original research, POV-statements, unverified statements and copyright infringements on sight.)
• Does not know the difference between a block and a ban (diff). (Yes, I know that the edit which prompted that remark was inappropriate, I have since self-reverted and made sure that the user knows that I know that the edit was inappropriate here.)
• Issues blocks so that users will learn a lesson (diff). Where is that in our blocking policy?

I have suggested that this sysop take some time to try to learn more about Wikipedia in order to reduce the risk of making mistakes (although avoiding them entirely will probably be impossible). --Oden 22:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ryan! The title is a little tounge-in-cheek. I am suggesting that someone with more experience could take cburnett under their wing.--Oden 22:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok, let me be more verbose. Enforcing the 3RR policy for a 2RR is legitimate if it is in the spirit of the policy. Using the word ban instead of block is more often a mis-choice of words than a lack of understanding about policy. And as for blocking someone to teach them a lesson, blocking is used for preventative reasons, not punitive, and blocking someone to teach them a lesson is a preventative from of block. In short, I don't see what this user has done wrong. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's really necessary; my Spidey senses are telling me you're a bit bitter about a decent block (or rather two decent blocks). -- tariqabjotu 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Oden added an extremely long and verbose post to Alex Bakharev's talkpage, consisting in great part of copypasted quotes from January 11; then also copypasted the whole thing to this noticeboard, in a separate thread just below this. On the basis that we really can't have the noticeboard spammed in such a space-wasting way, I've removed it. Here is a diff link to it instead. Please note this technique for future reference, Oden. Bishonen | talk 23:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Inforceing the 3RR as 2RR is not aceptable.Geni 01:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've only had a superficial look at the history of "Standard_test_image" but in the event of questions of copyright policy is very clearly on erring on the side of caution: After any good faith removal of images where a violation is suspected, the image is not to be replaced until consensus is reached on it's status. - brenneman 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

1 week block on Ilena

Today I extended a 24 hour block against this editor into a 1 week block. The situation is sensitive for several reasons and I would like to get some feedback.

• The blocked editor is the successful defendant in a case that went before the California state supreme court.
• The blocked editor alleges that Fyslee, another editor in her Wikipedia dispute, is an employee of the other side from her court case.
• Fyslee denies that this is true. He says he used to volunteer for that person's website and stopped volunteering a while ago.
• User:Wizardry Dragon, Ilena's informal mentor, has been a heartfelt advocate for her. Unfortunately that advocacy, in my opinion, has become so counterproductive that I left a request at his user talk to change his approach or recuse himself.
• Ilena's post that prompted the block extension included a link to her personal website in which she identified Fyslee by his real world name. I consider that post to justify the block extension on several grounds - this element is particularly troubling.

There are two bright spots here. First, no one appears to have crossed the line into a blockable legal threat. Second, Fyslee has been cooperative about retracting objectionable statements when requested and generally responding well to feedback. User talk:Ilena and its tangled archive are relevant reading for this.

Have I handled this appropriately? I welcome suggestions. This is a tough nut to crack. Durova^Charge! 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

People giving RL identities of editors (whether these are in fact the correct RL identity or not) actually on wikipedia, or linking from wikipedia to that information, can be blocked indefinitely if it is considered that they will repeat the action. I trust the link has been deleted. It has been considered that what is posted on external websites is outside our jurisdiction, as we're not here to police the internet. Tyrenius 01:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Bannable offense from someone who has been here to continue an offsite war and has contributed nothing of value to the project. alteripse 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to comment -- if people are going to go around changing ilena's text on talk pages, please do so by changing it to something like (personal attack removed) or (link to attack site removed) and sign, rather than altering someone's signed message to say something different with no indication of a change. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call. There were so many issues floating around at once that I didn't cover that one, other than to encourage strikethroughs. Durova^Charge! 03:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had some exchanges with Fyslee over this, although he is clearly insulted and annoyed by some of Ilena's abuse he does seem to be making an honest effort to resolve the conflict, fair play. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef block for this?

I guess I should give the question its section. I understand the limits of Wikipedia sysop authority and understand this is bannable. Due to the surrounding fireworks I didn't want to be the sole admin to make that call so I gave a comfortable margin for decision making. My opinion is that a Usenet veteran who carries all the baggage that implies and hasn't adjusted to this site in over half a year has already been handled with kid gloves far too long. Durova^Charge! 01:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather unfortunate. Clearly a talented person and could be a valuable contributor. But, it's just not that hard to get along. If not an indef block, how about a quickly escalating one? Looking through her talk page it doesn't seem she makes much effort to get along, nor understands the give and take of a collaborative site. Assuming that continues and she demonstrates no desire to change that by discussion on her talk page, then perhaps go with the indef block before the week is up. Linking to an editor's real name is unacceptable, so the one week block to sort it out is a good call. - Taxman ^Talk 03:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Taxman. It would be more fair to warn her of a possible indefinite block and give her a chance to rectify the situation. I also agree that the linking to a real name has to stop. Jance 03:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I notified her of the WP:AN thread when it opened. I've updated to state that banning is under discussion and invited her to comment or take conciliatory steps. Yesterday I gave her a link to WP:DR so she's been made aware that a community ban is a possibility. Durova^Charge! 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to be yet another battleground in her ongoing drama. There are other better places. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could be a bit kinder than the above comment? At least giver her an opportunity to understand what the problem is and what the consequence will be if she doesn't rectify it.

I do not see that she has been here a year and a half - I looked at her contrib. and it looks like she has been here since July 06. So about 6 months. Maybe suggest she try editing some different articles. And Durova's invitation seems like a good way forward.Jance 05:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"over half a year" was the wording above. She has also edited under many different IPs (especially from Costa Rica), so it's hard to really know for sure how long she's been here, but she is definitely not a newbie, unknowing about how to make a diff, how to provide evidence, or how to make severe enough accusations about others that it got her sued for libel. The only reason she won is because of a totally new application of a new law that protects republishers of even the most defamatory material. No matter how unethical and immoral it is to do so, she and any other republisher is now totally protected. (The original publisher in this case is now awaiting an upcoming trial. Original publishers are not protected.) -- Fyslee 05:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I misread it. Thank you for pointing this out.Jance 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I don't support an immediate indefinite block, even though I am currently the primary target of her accusations here. The suggestion of a "quickly escalating one" sounds good, with an increase in increments from the current one to a month, then to six months. After that an indefinite block or permanent block, considering the severity of the offenses, and in the light of the fact that likely no other user has ever gotten away with so much for so long after so many warnings. -- Fyslee 07:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't support an indefinite block at this stage, much less a ban. I encroached on this territory when trying to mediate Breast implants and I don't think either side has behaved very well. Ilena's bad behaviour has been well documented, however, Fyslee, for his part, has editorialised about Ilena, accused her of "hate speech", posted links to a blog that attacks her and generally provoked and aggravated the situation. He didn't even try to pretend the blog was posted for any constructive purpose but acknowledged he was posting it for other editors' "enlightenment and enjoyment". The edits identifying Fyslee should be oversighted but if Ilena indicates that she understands posting other editor's possible real life identities is completely unacceptable and may result in an indefinite block, and if she promises not to do it again and agrees to follow policy, I think she should be allowed to return when the current block expires. I hope all parties become willing to participate in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barrett v. Rosenthal that Peter has started up and that they understand that we are not looking for a slanted or sanitised article but an accurate and unbiased one. Sarah 11:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, this is a much broader issue than a content dispute on Barrett v. Rosenthal. It includes many other barrett related pages. In its current name this mediation request makes little sense. Especially since the disputes on the Barrett v. Rosenthal article are cleared up. Why not an RfC or does everyone seem to think these are too negative? It seems like a much better forum for such a discussion. David D. (Talk) 19:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey David. I do agree that the problem is far more widespread than just Barrett_v._Rosenthal. In fact, it was actually on the talk page of The National Council Against Health Fraud that I first encountered them, having stumbled across from Breast implants. I had a poke around and also discovered them bickering at Talk:Stephen Barrett. I would favour giving mediation a go first and failing that, I would support an RFC. I just haven't seen many RfCs actually achieve anything. They seem to generate a lot of words, but in the end they just sort of die off without any conclusion and everyone goes back to where they were when it started. Maybe I just haven't been involved in the right ones, I don't know. I understand what you're saying about the mediation request as it stands, but it can be renamed and refactored to include a far broader and more appropriate scope. Sarah 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This user's behaviour is deplorable on occasion, but as Sarah mentions, by the same token so has Fyslee on occasion also. Provocation is a bad thing on Wikipedia, especially when dealing with a touchy sitatuion like this.

I think that both users, but esp. Ilena, should be told in black-and-white that if they do this sort of higher-end naughtiness, for want of a better word, again - ie. linking to attack blogs^{"Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking", Arbitration Committee in /MONGO, October 2006}, speculation about real life identities^{"Posting another person's personal information ... regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct is harassment", Harassment guideline, January 2007} et al - they will be blocked for an appropriate period of time, even up to indefinite. It is then that discussion about a community ban may be appropriate. But for now, I feel it is premature.

Like Sarah above, I wait with great anticipation of the end results of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barrett v. Rosenthal. If all goes well, and these users sort out their differences and problems, then all well and good. If it descends back into chaos and nuisance conduct, then the time may be right. But I'm not comfortable with blocking/banning this user right now, given that this situation is a two-way dispute which may be resolved. Play it by ear, I say. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't want to make it sound like I'm giving Fyslee a free ride here. The provocation has got to stop. Fyslee, if we don't see significant improvement in your handling of the situation, you're just as likely to be sanctioned. Both of you need to stop, tone down the rhetoric and attacks, and work with the facts. - Taxman ^Talk 16:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Everyone would say I'm "for" Ilena, but Taxman said exactly what I've been saying all along. Ilena's behaviour is poor, and is regrettable, but so is Fyslee's, and we should not be giving him a free ticket. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Which is the very reason several people have been suggesting an RfC. Such a forum offers an opportunity to look at both sides as well as a chance to mentor. David D. (Talk) 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The previous threads regarding Ilena and Fyslee happened before Ilena linked to a disclosure of Fyslee's real name, which in itself can be bannable. From what I have seen, Fyslee has been reasonably responsive to feedback and appears to be making a genuine effort to abide by site standards. From the evidence that I have noted: providing a diff and subsequently behaving as if she did not understand what diffs are, then altering Fyslee's post header into something inflammatory while she accuses him of inappropriate action, Ilena's lease on WP:AGF is past due. She appears to be gaming our system. Durova^Charge! 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Posting another person's personal information", could someone remove Ilena's repeated breaches from her talk page, including the two she made today [142] [143]? I don't think she'll take kindly to my doing it. --Ronz 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I will request the diff be oversighted. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would certainly support a final warning here. I am pretty confident that Fyslee will pull back from the brim, less so that Ilena will. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, her response at her user talk is entirely in line with her pre-blocking norm: it boils down to accusing Wikipedia of persecuting her. She's ignored my suggestion to enter WP:ADOPT, which KillerChihuahua endorsed, and provides little documentation for her aggressive accusations. She hasn't supplied any additional evidence for her previous allegations or rescinded anything. It's as if she expects this site to accept proof by assertion or else Wikipedia must be biased against her. Per the discussion here I won't extend to indef at this point, but I hope some of the experienced editors at this thread drop a few words at her user page. The formal mentorship program in particular might be the best thing for her. Durova^Charge! 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A question, 3 suggestions, and a request please

First, a question. I have had two different administrators delete articles I was working, one of them doing so just a few minutes after I had created it. This surprised me. I thought administrators were only authorized to delete articles at the end of an {{afd}} discussion; five days after an uncontested {{prod}}; or if someone had placed one of the speedy tags on it.

The administrator who deleted the article within minutes of my saving of the first draft, kept asserting that WP:CSD was the policy document that authorized her to delete articles on sight.

The other administrator also assured me he was authorized to unilaterally delete articles. But he didn't cite which policy document authorized him to do so.

I spent a considerable time, going over all the many policy documents, procedure documents, and and guidelines that concern deletion, looking for the document that authorized administrators to unilaterally delete articles, without waiting for them to be tagged by another wikipedian. The closest I could find was a passage in Wikipedia:Deletion process#Speedy deletion. It doesn't say anything about checking that the tag the first wikipedian left was valid. And this could imply that authority.

So, is it really a standard, accepted practice for administrators to unilaterally delete articles, on sight, with no consultation or discussion?

1. If it is, perhaps the policy documents could be amended to spell that out more clearly?
2. I've got to say that this seems to be very open to abuse.
3. Even if administrators are authorized to unilaterally delete any article, on sight, I'd like to suggest that they should still check the validity of the tag, if they are performing a deletion of an article because another wikipedian tagged it.

I asked the seocnd administrator to move the article he deleted Jennifer Tharp, and its edit history, to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Jennifer Tharp. He refused. Here is our exchange.

I don't think asking for the article to be moved to my User space, so I can work on it, and see if I can turn it into an article that I feel confident would pass {{afd}} is an unreasonable request. Can I ask another administrator to move it to my User space? Thanks. -- Geo Swan 03:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a common question, so clearly we need to work on making it more clear.

1. The first line of the speedy deletion page says The "Speedy deletion" policy governs limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media "on sight" without further debate. The tags are intended only to bring the attention of an administrator, nothing more.
2. The first line of "Deletion process#Speedy deletion" is Decide whether the page meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion. It doesn't say anything about tags at all, please notice.
3. You're 100% correct, this means that administrators have wide (very wide) latitude here. The potential for abuse is proportional to the visibility of the articles, however.

I occasionally make a mass purge of various stub-classes, deleting as fast as I can push the button, and have never had a complaint... but ask someone else about the "biscuit wars" and understand that egregious mistakes (as determined by the community) are usually corrected in short order. Many eyes make light work.

The general consensus is that the additional "paperwork" does not add increased "safety" in that for the (rare) times someone goes to far a squeaky wheel will laugh loudest. Or something like that.

If you ever want content restored again, deletion review has a section specifically for that. I'll restore the article for you now.

brenneman 04:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Now at User:Geo Swan/Jennifer Tharp. I've put a {{prod}} on it, which of course you can remove but I'll be dissapointed if you do so without moving it out into mainspace first. - brenneman 04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you want to get it back in the article space, I recommend you fix whatever got it speedy deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

An odd unsourced image situation

I know how much we all love unsourced images. Aren't they great?

Sorry, been reading WP:SARCASM. Anyway...

I was browsing the Minor characters in 24 article when I came across the entry for the character Haas. I was a bit taken aback, because instead of the image that currently resides there I saw this. That did not strike me as how Fox might portray a man who assasinated a former president.

After doing a little poking I discovered that the problem was with the image Haas.jpg. Apparently V-Line (talk · contribs) uploaded an image of the wrestler Charlie Haas over the existing image; why they did this is unclear, though I think the numerous "no source/license information" warnings on V-Line's talk page may be somehow related. Anyway, I've since reverted the image (though someone tried to do that once and was reverted in turn) and removed the link from the Charlie Haas article. Unfortunately we are now left with two archival copies of the image of the wrestler, which was never sourced properly.

The long and short of it is that I'm guessing that the wrestler versions of the image should be deleted; they completely lack source information or a fair use rationale, to say nothing of the possibility of some well-intentioned but clueless wrestling fan thinking this was some kind of "24-fan conspiracy attack." Provided I'm right, could someone please delete these unneeded versions of the image with all manner of haste? -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. This happens all the time. You might want to consider downloading the image and re-uploading it under a more specific name. Chick Bowen 05:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock evading block to keep reposting vanity page

L46kok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) after repeatedly reposting a fatuous and vain autobio, Sokwhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Sokwhan Huh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is blocked for another 46 hours. Sokwhan Huh, identical to the last deleted version, has just been posted again by ZeroX2)Fire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). At the very least can we salt the page titles? Fan-1967 04:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sokwhan Huh protected by Physicq210, Sokwhan protected by me. Teke ^(talk) 06:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm psychic! Watch me report WP:SPAM and WP:COI issues before they happen!

I have a feeling that Wikipedia is about to get another dose of grade-A spam and WP:COI from Hannesrensburg (talk · contribs). I bet you even more that it will be about the company Fundamo, it will use this picture and it'll contain this text:

"Fundamo is a mobile commerce and banking company founded in 2000 in Cape Town, South Africa. The company was originally founded by Hannes van Rensburg and funded by Venfin and Sanlam."

How do I know this? I'm psychic. Things come to me, but only when I'm out in the backyard, staring at the sandbox.

Seriously though, is it okay to report this before it happens? -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's kind of pointless to report something that hasn't happened yet. We can't act on such a thing. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Not time to report an issue, its too early. Report it when it happens. Its pointless to report now, since nobody can do anything about it. Terence Ong 11:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually we can watchlist Fundamo and see what happens. I doubt preemptively blocking someone would be such a good idea, though :) (Minority Report, anyone?) >Radiant< 13:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There's one other, even better thing to do - engage the user! I saw that he/she had a redlinked talkpage, so I left the {{subst:welcome}} message. If someone feels so inclined, sharing WP:CORP or WP:CSD with the user wouldn't be a bad thing. If someone creates an article which qualifies for speedy deletion (or, in this case, the pre-cogs tell us that they are going to), telling the user why we are deleting the article and giving them some kind of reading material is better than just confusing them. --BigDT 14:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I must be psychic, too. Take a look at Talk:Www.getjar.com. I predict that any article created from that source information will be pure spam. Fan-1967 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I tagged the page for speedy as an orphan talk page. --Spartaz 14:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Take a look at that user's contributions ... Special:Contributions/Mathiastck ... there's a little subtle advertising going on there. "Created page with 'Glad to see this, was looking for info on getjar.com" --BigDT 14:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Doesn't look that subtle to me. I'll keep the title on my watchlist; somehow I have a feeling it's going to show up. Which raises the question: if orphan Talk pages should be speedied (and I've tagged hundreds), what is the point of Template:Future article talk page, which was requested by that editor? There is a note on it that says articles with that template shouldn't be speedied, but I know of no exception to WP:CSD to support that, and it didn't save this one. This somehow seems like an end run around Wikipedia:Requested articles. Fan-1967 14:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
              • ------> TFD anyone.... Spartaz 14:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Done. It seems the template is being used on at least one talk page to promote a website (blatant advertising). It could well be used to create talk pages, almost legitimately, that just advertise a website, company, product or service. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 15:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Just fried Talk:Revolutionary Marxist Group (Canada) and Talk:Red Circle, which just consisted of spammy links to a company named Red Circle. Blah :/ -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• If you think there's about to be a whole heap of spam where there's going to be external links being added to articles, please drop by irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam and we can help by having User:Shadowbot take care of some of the workload. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 14:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've burninated just about all pages containing that "future talk page" template per CSD#G8 and the fact that many of them were linkspam. >Radiant< 15:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I did tag the one I mentioned in the TfD as speedy G11 but thought it might be useful to have an example of how the template is and could be abused. Not complaining the page has gone though. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 15:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, the sandbox -- makes interesting reading and I've played in it, too. I'm leary of warning new users ahead of time unless it's really friendly -- perhaps a modified {{welcomespam}} with a nice note mentioning the domains of concern. Here's a suggestion -- set up a user subpage with the domains and user IDs, then check them the next day. If you are handy with a text editor and creative use of find and replace, you can set up a page like this subpage of accounts I've encountered that are major spammers (as opposed to spam0 and spam1 types) or this subpage with domains to watch for (I use the {{linksearch}} template. Alternately, watch the link addition feed on IRC channel #wikipedia-spam. There is a bot on there that reports all newly added links and keeps track of serial spammers. You can check the stuff that the bot's not already pre-programmed for (such as our sandbox friends).

The feed is all but useless unless we can get some admins into the channel and watch for problems unfolding in real-time, otherwise we have one admin and about a half dozen editors removing links upto 30 hours after they are added, when Eagle 101 and the rest of us go through the logs. thumb|250px|left should give admins and editors some idea of when they are most needed. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza

Wikipedia:Esperanza - the tag at the top says (paraphrasing) 'This page is protected from editing until disputes are resolved, please visit the talk page to discuss any changes'. That's fine. But the talk page is also protected from editing (and displays the very same protected tag, despite the tag stating 'to discuss changes to the page, please see the talk page') - I'm at the talk page, you foppish template. Some kind of bespoke template would be better suited, perhaps? Not really knowing much about the whole issue, there's probably someone who could craft a better one than I could. Proto::► 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you need to use the meta talk page then, which is located at [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Esperanza]]. --Cyde Weys 16:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed now. >Radiant< 16:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • My solution is better :-/ --Cyde Weys 16:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Now, see, I would have suggested Wikipedia talk talk:Esperanza. But your solution would have technically worked. Ral315 (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Both would have been in the main namespace however. How about Wikipedia talk:Talk Esperanza ? --pgk 18:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        • When I protected it I left a direction to a subpage of my user space, but... I love the fact that people edit protected pages. Really reinforces that good faith feeling... Steve block Talk 19:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Oh for the love of.... sheesh, I was going to revert myself but it turns out it was already unprotected. I had no idea you had become such a hair-splitting wonk, Steve. I will try to refrain from helping new users in the future. >Radiant< 23:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use issue

I noticed that this image Image:Parental_Advisory_label.png which is listed as being usable only to "illustrate the organization, item, or event in question" is being used in the following places, which I'm pretty sure is a violation of fair use on the image:

• User_talk:JosephBarillari
• User:Ace_Class_Shadow
• User:Ace_Class_Shadow/User_isn't_censored
• User:R6MaY89
• User:Clientele/DirectTV (its a userspaced article, but a placeholder can be put in until or if this returns to article space)
• User:Myselfalso/List_of_DirecTV_channels same

I'd remove them myself, but I just had a disagreement with one of the users in question and wouldn't want to be seen as harassing them, and it might look odd if I cleaned those all up but one. If there is an image page to report this, I'd appreciate a link.--Crossmr 17:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed them all. In short, I don't think there is a good place to do this, but most administrators, myself included, will do such removals. Ral315 (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Next time feel free to do it yourself, quoting Wikipedia:Fair use criteria#9 or simply WP:FUC#9 (fair use images can only be used in the article namespace). -- ReyBrujo 17:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ya, the RIAA especially is pretty possessive about it's copyrights. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I'd just had a disagreement with one of the editors so I didn't want to appear as harassing them.--Crossmr 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A wise precaution. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Promotional images and the Creative Commons.

I've been working with Janina Gavankar to make sure her article and related ones are up to policy. But she really wants me to put a promo pic on the Papi (The L Word Character) article, and has uploaded this particular photo to Flickr under the CC-BY-SA. Even though the image is of Gavankar, it still has an ©Naomi Kaltman/Showtime watermark on the bottom of the image. Unlike the image for her own article, where it is permissable since Gavankar has permission to distribute under the CC, the one of Papi is released by Showtime to promote the show. I'm not sure what to do with this. You may also want to talk to User:t00tsie, since that is her Wikipdia username. --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask her to send an email to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org asserting that she is the copyright holder of the promotional image and that she agrees to so license it. I would imagine that you're correct in assuming that she's not the copyright holder of the promotional image, and we won't be able to use it, but it is possible that some copyright arrangement can or has been made. Jkelly 19:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. You can also suggest her to talk with the photographer to release the image with a free image. I am betting that would be the best course. -- ReyBrujo 19:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict). Under Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images, copyrighted promotional images can't be used if there are reasonable free image alternatives. Although Ms. Gavankar is the subject of the photo, she doesn't necessarily own the copyright, and in this case, it looks lik Ms. Kaltman and/or Showtime does. If Ms. Gavankar can get them to release copyright under a GDFL-compatible license, then Wikipedia can use the picture, but that may be difficult. TheronJ 20:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is that she has asserted that it is licensed CC-BY-SA. Fair use doesn't come into this at all. Jkelly 20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If she can establish that license, then you are completely right, and I shouldn't have jumped to the conclusion that the license was unobtainable. The absolute best outcome would be to establish the license clearly, but given that the image is marked copyright by Showtime and Ms. Kaltman, I suspect any proof of the license would have to address those assertions fairly conclusively. TheronJ 20:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

IP Address 24.147.72.135

At 16:11 on January 15th, 2007 I posted a notice on here regarding IP address 24.147.72.135. If you recall, this person would post rumors and their own speculated theories to several SeaWorld pages. You blocked this person from editing any pages to Wikipedia. After the block was lifted, this person once more started to post rumors on the same SeaWorld articles. A Wikipedia bot, reverted this person's information, "21:30, 19 January 2007 Shadowbot (Talk | contribs) (RV -- Reverting edits by 24.147.72.135 due to detected spam.)" However, this person edited the article by adding more un-referenced speculations. Can you please post another block against this person or do something? Thanks! SWF Senior Trainer 22:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cplot or Starbucks

Today two admins overturned checkuser-applied hard blocks on IP addresses used by Cplot and replaced them with softblocks. Since Cplot has other places he can go to create accounts, this essentially lets him back in. The IPs were 208.54.95.1 (talk · contribs) and 208.54.95.129 (talk · contribs), which apparently are part of a small number of IP addresses assigned to thousands of T-mobile WiFi hotspots, many in Starbucks locations. They undoubtedly affect some good users. However, they also act as free anonymous open proxies. And, as far as I know, registered users can be advised to use the secure server, like AOL addresses. So, I bring it here to the community to choose: Cplot or Starbucks. Thatcher131 23:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• While we're on the subject, TheOnlyChoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a longstanding Cplot sock of the strawman style. His edits are actually anti-conspiracy, but he uses laughably weak arguments and his username, userpage, and topics edited all match Cplot to a T. Could someone please confirm my observations and block him if they agree? I don't think it's obvious enough for AIV. --tjstrf talk 23:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The only way to know for sure (maybe not even then) would be to request a Checkuser at WP:RfCU, providing more details and diffs providing the basis for your suspicions. Of course the editors with Checkuser access may be reading here anyway.... Newyorkbrad 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the parameters, and have reset them back to what Dmcdevit had, per his approval. Although this was changed with approval from a different checkuser (at least that's what I'm being told), checkuser blocks should never be touched without approval. In any case, this block will stay to what Dmcdevit had earlier, and until I hear different from him or anyone else (I am still trying to get to the bottom of this). I would encouage all registered users in the meantime to please edit from our https, or from another location in the meantime. —Pilotguy (ptt) 23:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrators should not undo any block that is specifically called a "Checkuser" block. Period. The Checkuser knows something that you don't. If the unblock template goes up you need to ask the Checkuser why the block is there. He might not tell you, but he will review the situation and decide whether the block can be lifted. It may not be obvious why that block is in place, but there is a reason. Mackensen (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)