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

Proposed partial removal of restrictions on Δ/Betacommand

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

---

Δ (talk · contribs) (previously User:Betacommand) is currently under a series of community-imposed restrictions (listed below, see also original list here and discussion that led to them here):

• Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand [Δ] must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand [Δ] must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.
• Betacommand [Δ] must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.
• Betacommand [Δ] must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.
• Betacommand [Δ] is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. Blocks should be logged here.

I am proposing that the first two of these restrictions be rescinded, and the third be amended to read "Δ must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time while editing under his primary account." The reasons for this are several. Firstly, Δ is most valuable to the project for his work on bots and automated scripts. He has done outstanding work in these fields in the past, and remains one of the more experienced bot operators Wikipedia has. While it is in part the operation of these automated tools that led to these restrictions, this brings me to my second point. Δ has demonstrated that he is able to maintain and operate a bot within the expectations of our community. As a result of a community discussion here and a subsequent Arbitration Committee motion here, he manages User:Δbot, which does a good job of clerking the (frankly overcomplicated) pages at WP:SPI. Thirdly, these changes to Δ's restriction continue to restrict him from operating scripts from his main account, which in large part was what led to difficulties previously. Δ would still be required to obtain approval from the Bot Approvals Group (and/or ArbCom, as appropriate by their previous motions) before operating any other accounts or adding any more tasks to his existing bot.

I have asked Δ to come and explain what he would like to do on the project if these restrictions were lifted, although he has stated that he will have intermittent internet access for the next few days, so please be patient if you have questions for him. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I really would like to be able to say I support this, but I have reservations. On the one hand, Beta (or Delta now. Whatever greek letter he wants) has skills which are very useful to the project. On the other hand, Beta has two very serious problems related to the running of his bots which led to the above restrictions. The first is that he has, at times, made poor decisions regarding the running of his bots for sometimes nefarious purposes (such as making thousands of dummy edits to make a page undeletable under technical limits of the Media Wiki software). He also has shown, in the past, problems with personal interactions which are not helpful in a bot operator. Basically, he doesn't interact well when asked to explain his actions, his attitude seems to be "I know better, so leave me alone". This sort of inapproachability is part of the reason for the civility parole. I have concerns about expanding his bot-running privileges given these past problems. I would like to hear from him directly, and especially would like to hear about what he has learned from his troubles and how he intends to operate differently. I am open to being convinced here, I am just not there yet. --Jayron32 04:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ive spent a long time reviewing my past actions, Ive also spent a considerable amount of time reflecting and analyzing both my actions and the communities (actions and re-actions) and have learned quite a lot. I've since adjusted my approach, and I have changed quite a bit personally. If you would like we could take this to a private conversation off wiki. (I do not want my personal details public). I could write several essays about what I have learned, and about how I fucked up and what I could, (and should have) done differently but my skill with a pen just is not there to give it proper justice, so I would rather just go back to doing what I do best, gnoming. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Support: These restricitons cause nothing but problems Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, this was never asked for at VPR, and 50-60 edits in 10 minutes from 20:28-20:37. Relevant thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive643#Unauthorized bot: Δ again. I was fairly forgiving because I didn't know his restriction, but I'm not happy to hear about it now. I'm going with no; if you can't edit according to the already agreed sanctions, you shouldn't have your previous ones lifted, because we can't trust you. Period. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Jayron's initial sentence. How many times has Δ/Betacommand been given an inch, only to take a mile? There have been too many secondsecondsecond chances here. He can continue editing under these restrictions (though as Magog points out, he actually hasn't), or he can go elsewhere. → ROUX ₪ 04:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Generally per Jayron32. I'm OK with "triangle" and have asked him to help collate information in the past (when he was just Betacommand), he is really quite skilled in that area or at least has a decent framework to execute tasks on. I've seen no positive indication that he will interact better with the general community though, Hersfold, can you point to a successful execution of a WP:VPR request for leave to make a series of edits? Did that ever happen once? Franamax (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• As with others, I have reservations. These restrictions were put in place to protect the community, and certainly not without reason. He drained far, far too much from this project in the past because he had useful skills, and I have no desire to go down that route again. As of yet, I've not seen compelling reason to lift these restrictions, and in fact has broken one of said restrictions just recently. Resolute 05:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Based upon the available evidence, Betacommand/Δ seems no more trustworthy now than he was when the restrictions were enacted, so I oppose. —David Levy 05:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per problematic history of unauthorized bot activity, incivility, and negligent operation of automated and semi-automated tasks. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've detected absolutley no change in attitude that would justify this as yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Point of order — further information about this request, need a statement from Delta; please. I'm a bit confused about how this request came to be here. I don't see any discussion between Delta/Beta and Hersfold on their user talk pages about this request, though I gather that there was some communication between them in other fora. It's rather unusual for an unblocked, unbanned editor not to make requests for changes to paroles and sanctions on their own behalf. It also seems less than helpful – and kind of disrespectful to the community, Hersfold – for such a third-party request to be made while Delta is going to have limited connectivity. (Why couldn't this have waited a week?) At this point, there's no visible participation at all by Delta in this process; we don't have any information about what he wants, or why he believes that this request should be granted. I'm disappointed in Hersfold for bringing this forward under such inopportune circumstances, in Delta for going along with it (presuming he agreed) and with the editors above for being willing to jump to judgement without input from Delta.

Hersfold, you should withdraw this request until such time as Delta is able to participate fully in it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I discussed and requested Hersfold to do this for several reasons, He was a mentor of mine for a year, He has always been better at drafting request that me (I make the same points but just not as well worded), I have been doing quite a lot of gnoming lately and I have noticed several areas where I help improve the encyclopedia in some of these cases automated processes would drastically improve the process, and I have also seen quite a few Bot requests go stale due to a lack of qualified willing bot operators, while I sit around twiddling my thumbs. As for my connection issues, I let Hersfold know that I would have intermittent connection for a short time, (knowing he would post the request soon). That ended last night, however when he posted I was already offline for the day. As I stated above I just want to go back to doing what I do best, gnoming. I have a project Im working on right now that appears to me a fairly large task (15k+ items) that Ive been slowly working on for the last few months manually. I know my actions of the past have caused drama and that is something I don't like, and I am trying to avoid as often as I can. As I have stated I want to go back to my roots (running non-controversial, useful bots) and avoid the drama that led to my burnout (dramafest). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought it's more likely for specific exceptions to be agreed for specified tasks than a blanket lifting of restrictions, if you can show that the tasks have community support and how the restrictions limit your ability to do them. Rd232 ^talk 14:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We did that for the SPI bot, and I see no reason why we can't also consider another exception for your "fairly large task". Define this task for us and we can consider it. Resolute 17:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. "I want to perform an unspecified task comprising 15,000+ items, so please turn me loose!" (scare quotes) is hardly the best approach. —David Levy 17:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent this, I am not asking to "be let loose", rather just the freedom to file request for approvals for tasks that cross my path. Each task will then be assessed by the community, and BAG to determine the feasibility of each task. I am not asking for blanket approval on any bot activity, rather the ability to seek approval through the normal methods. As for my current project, a full listing of affected pages can be found here which is just over 15,100 pages. It is a listing of all articles which include deleted/non-existent files. I've been going though that list slowly for the last 6 months doing the cleanup myself. Ive got several other ideas on the drawing board but no clue if they will ever leave that. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The restrictions in question were enacted with very good reason. Please explain what has changed to warrant their removal. How will you behave differently than you did before? If someone objects to an ongoing task, how will you respond? —David Levy 19:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at my response to Jayron32. As for objections, that is a loaded question, it really depends on what the objection is, almost no two objections are the same and thus cannot be responded to in the same manor. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Beta, but vague statements about having seen the error or your ways don't cut it anymore. Not after all of the chances that you've been given. —David Levy 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You could perhaps take the time to discuss the objections (without causing trouble in the process) and coming to an agreement with the editor. Then you could ask for input from a third party (WP:3O) if you and the other editor cannot come to an agreement. That's just one possible route to take, though, and I'm sure that each objection will have a different best practice for dealing with it, however, most of the time, what I recommend here (civil discussion) would be involved somehow. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats just one of a dozen different approaches that could be taken depending on the user, their objection, and why they are objecting. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. My point was, in essence, that of the many different paths you could take in dealing with an objection, civil discussion must be involved. I raise this point because of some editors' concerns seen above about civility, and not necessarily because of my own opinion (I haven't looked deeply into the recent or far history of this, and so I do not have an opinion to share on this request attm.) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, for you Beta, that's the only approach to take. The big question is, if someone objects, will you stop your bot? Franamax (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

With any issue there are always multiple resolution solutions, however like Ks0stm stated remaining calm and civil is key. I actually used to have a feature enabled in my code that shut the bot off when it received the orange bar of death, I ended up shutting that off due to abuse. But with the ideas and tasks that I have planned, re-enabling it shouldn't be that much of an issue. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

For me to even consider supporting the proposed modifications to your restrictions, you would need to agree to stop your bot immediately upon receiving a complaint from a user in good standing, not restart it until the issue has been resolved or a community discussion has resulted in consensus that it is not grounds to halt the task, and revert any changes that the community deems harmful (irrespective of whether they were approved in advance). —David Levy 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that David Levy's suggestion is a good one; there needs to be assurances that, when reasonable objections arise to a bots activity, the bot is stopped until such time as the objections are dealt with. Given Beta/Delta's past, we need to take the default action to be to stop the bot activity if there is ANY doubt about what the bot is doing. Unlike David Levy, I am very willing to be convinced that Betacommand's restrictions can be relaxed in limited cases. To be fair, other than the recent glitch noted above, he's kept his nose clean since his return, insofar as I haven't seen his name on the dramaboards at all. At some point, given a long period of good behavior, we need to consider slowly relaxing restrictions, regardless of our personal problems with Beta. I would be the first to admit that, especially in the past, I did not like him. I will not mince words on that issue. Still, my own personal tastes need to be put aside, and we need to consider what can be good for the Wiki. It would be good to see some trial relaxations. One posibility I could propose would be that all bot requests at WP:BAG would need a notice posted to WP:AN, so that the wider community could review his requests; more eyes would be a good thing. --Jayron32 00:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually am quite willing to be convinced, but I haven't been yet; Beta's statements have been far too vague. Given his propensity to exploit technicalities (both real and imagined), it's important to eliminate any ambiguity. —David Levy 01:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As am I, which is why I would rather we moved to discussing the specifics of what BC/Beta/Delta hopes to accomplish. Discussing lifting the sanctions in vague terms accomplishes very little. Resolute 06:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My first major task, which I have manually been working on is removal of deleted/missing images, as I stated above, my goal is to file a BRFA for missing/deleted image removal using AWB. (I cant seem to figure out a good regex myself for removal). I was hoping for general relaxing of the restrictions so that I could avoid a majority of the knee jerk reactions that people have when me and bots are brought up. I actually think Jayron32's proposal above makes good sense. One of the main reasons Ive avoided VPR is just like this discussion, there are a flood of users who regardless of what I may say or do, just think that I should be banned from bots forever, regardless of how the circumstances may change. For the most part its just not worth the drama fight necessary to get small scale projects done. (Ive privately poked a few bot ops with ideas in the past). If anyone would like clarity on anything specifically let me know or just ask for it. Also if anyone wants to see how I respond to objections draft a situation up and an objection and it can be "role played" though. Short of someone objecting its the best case example that I can come up with. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, if someone wants to see how you respond to objections, they can check e.g. this discussion on your talk page from just one month ago, where you reacted to being called "Betacommand" with "Since you cannot show me the basic respect to use the right username I think this conversation is over with." (emphasis mine). Fram (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It would help people to extend good will to Delta if he had a link on his Talk page to his archives. The current revision of his talk page no longer contains that thread, which from the page history was archived here. (Further, the name of that archive page leads one to suspect there are even more talk archives in Delta's userspace, which would require anyone wanting to evaluate his behavior since his name change to do some determined fishing in order to find them.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose and troutslap anyone who proposes such a thing in the future. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In sum, if Delta follows the terms of Restriction 1 and proposes his specific task at VPR, he can as part of that proposal explain why restrictions 2 and 3 would be a particular limitation for that task, and ask for them to be relaxed for that specific task. A general lifting does not seem on the cards, at least at this point. Rd232 ^talk 10:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, is not able to handle objections in a reasonable way (see e.g. the link I gave above). Fram (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for many of the reasons above. Don't think lifting them would be a good idea. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support I admit that I may not know all the history and I understand the misgivings that many of the above editors have but I am going to be bold and be the first support that I can see and be willing to see this user get another chance at redeeming their honor and this is a worthwhile task that he wants to perform to do that. Remember, This is only to rescind the first 2 of the 4 restrictions. Although I am not sure myself how to stop a bot from making more than 4 edits a minute. The bot and its operator are still restricted to no more than 4 edits a minute and they are still being watched. Otherwise my advice is that someone else on this page needs to step forward and volunteer to perform the task that he is recommending. --Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• oppose - per Rd232, and that the user has a very hard time following community norms and restrictions placed by the community. I have no issue with task specific relaxation of specific sanctions, but only through a proper bot review process. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Mass redirect deletion request

Can a kind (and deletion hungry :) ) admin please delete some 30-odd implausible redirects listed at Talk:List of settlements in Bosnia and Herzegovina#Mis-merged villages? Thanks. No such user (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Some are still liked in to articles. I see no pressing reason to delete these. They are harmless at worst.--Scott Mac 09:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, none should be linked to -- which exactly? Those entities simply do not exist. Besides, every redirect is harmless, but we do have WP:RFD and CSD R3. No such user (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I spot-checked a few using Special:WhatLinksHere: for example, Zavalje i Zlopoljac (Bihać#Settlements) and Vršani i Zagoni (Bijeljina#Settlements) are linked from their municipalities. Oddly, Bijeljina#Municipal subdivisions has Vršani and Zagoni separated, but Zagoni redirects to Zagoni (Bratunac). Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

New AfD tool

I have had an AfD parser available for a while, but due to some toolserver configuration changes it has broke, Since I am unable to fix the issue that caused the break I re-wrote my parser so that scans all active AfDs. A full listing of all parsed AfDs can be found at tools:~betacommand/reports/afd, However in the process of re-writing the tool I have also implemented a summary tool, its WP:RFASUM but for AfDs which can be found at tools:~betacommand/AFD.html if you have any questions,feature requests, or bugs please let me know. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

PS please note that you can sort that table by any column. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have already been finding this the best way to scan quickly the thousand or so open AfDs. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Image restore

A request for an admin to undelete File:National Organization for Marriage.gif as it was deleted for being orphaned when a user who meant to remove the Unbalanced tag also inadvertently removed the article's infobox containing the image in September and no one caught this mistake until I just did now. Thanks.   allstar✰echo  19:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Allstarecho, I've restored the image. PhilKnight (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Phil.   allstar✰echo  20:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's {{pd-textlogo}} anyway. Someone change the tag, find an SVG version, and transfer to Commons. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it pd-textlogo, though? I think it's a debatable case, but I think interlocking rings may be unoriginal enough. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• Stevertigo (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year. If Stevertigo wishes to return to editing Wikipedia, he must first work with the Arbitration Committee to an establish a set of probation criteria. He may do this no earlier than six months after the closure of the case, and no more than every six months thereafter.
• Stevertigo is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article. Should he fail to do so, any editor may remove the material without prejudice. Should he cite a source that is subsequently determined not to support the material added, he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 20:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Requests for permissions

Resolved

 – Cleared out. Looie496 (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There are currently requests over a week out at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed. Could someone take a look there? Netalarm^talk 02:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Looie496 (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob

User has agreed to step away from CC for a few months. I'm hoping that can avoid yet another CC thread. Maybe some others need to voluntarily leave this issue alone for a while. Most of us uninvolved folk are now totally sick of it.--Scott Mac 13:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A few hours ago I blocked [[::User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] (talk · contribs) for 24 hours in response to a 3RR violation [1]. Upon further investigation, I found a lengthy series of problematic edits (see below), previous blocks, and at least one attempt at editing restrictions. He was previously placed on a 5 week 1RR sanction, which he stated he might continue of his own volition [2]. The blocks since [3], including the present block, seem to indicate a continued problem. In light of these, I wonder if there is community support for a permanent 1RR restriction for Off2riorob. Some evidence of problematic edits: April 2009: ANI discussion which resulted in a block. archived discussion The block was reduced when he showed remorse and an intent to improve [4]. August 2009: He was again blocked for edit warring [5] and again promised to desist in the future [6]. His block was again reduced[7]. July 2010: Personal attacks [8] (deleted edit), which resulted in a block. October 2010: Petty vandalism [9] when questioned about recent reverts (archived discussion). My block for 3RR on William Connelley. Keeping in mind he is currently blocked, does anyone have thoughts or suggestions on this? --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC) User notified --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Proposal: 1RR restriction Regarding his most recent block, I didn't see a block notice that is customarily given when a block is issued. Did I miss it? Regarding the sanctions, I would support a 1RR sanction. In addition, Rob has been identifying as vandalism content disputes and using Twinkle in an inappropriate manner. I would also support removing his Twinkle access for now. Basket of Puppies 06:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC) See [10] for the block notice (plain text, not a fancy template - I suspect per WP:DNTTR).--Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Oh there it is! Yeah, I just missed it. My eyes are much too tired. Off to sleep! Basket of Puppies 06:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I agree with the proposal above by TeaDrinker and the comment by Basket of Puppies, and support a permanent 1RR sanction. (Note: Off2riorob was previously blocked for engaging in disruption at a GA-quality article that I wrote.) I would also support removing Off2riorob's access to Twinkle. -- Cirt (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Support both. doesn't this belong on ANI? Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 06:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Support the proposed permanent 1RR restriction/sanction. Defer to others on Twinkle. I also note that in this November 2009 AN/I, the great bulk of his support was from ChildofMidnight, who has since been banned from Wikipedia for a year.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC) … which is both irrelevant and outdated. (We have an article on what the Institute for Propaganda Analysis called transfer explaining why ChildofMidnight's endorsement is not relevant to Off2riorob's actions.) One could equally try to call Off2riorob a single-purpose account based upon what Cirt said in the April 2009 AN/I discussion. That's clearly outdated now, too. If the compelling evidence for action here is discussions from 2009, then I suggest that people take a look at Special:Contributions/Off2riorob. Early 2009, late 2009, and 2010 are not the same animal. We should not institutionalize hanging onto grudges like this. Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I'm not in principle opposed to a restriction, but what's wrong with the standard method of escalating blocks? If he doesn't comply with 3RR, he's not much more likely to comply with 1RR. If a restriction is to be imposed, somebody would need to spell out what exactly is being proposed here (one revert per page per 24 hours, I suppose?). Also, since the current edit war is in the climate change topic area, discretionary sanctions are also a possibility.  Sandstein  06:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC) One revert per page per 24 hours seems most reasonable. -- Cirt (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Agree that 1-revert-per-pg per-24-hours seems appropriate. As to escalating blocks, I note that Off2 was blocked for 24 hours (March 2009), 72 reduced to 48 hours (April 2009), 72 hours (April 2009), 1 week (April 2009), 24 hours reduced to time served (July 2009), 2 weeks (July 2009), 3 weeks (reduced on promise to desist edit warring in the future; August 2009), 31 hours (July 2010). All prior to this 24-hour block. Per our standard method of escalating blocks, which Sandstein refers to, it strikes me that the current 24-hour block is too low — it would have been appropriate for a first-time offender, but this editor has been blocked numerous times in the past year and a half, up to 3 weeks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Support I agree with the 1RR restriction. Off2riorob has also got into lengthy arguments and edit wars on the British National Party and other articles about the British far right, which he thought were written from an anti-BNP bias. TFD (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose And the BNP argument holds no weight with me. Too much sounds like "let's get even" with a valued editor. Collect (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Proposal: Climate change topic ban Overall 1RR may be fine for Off2riorob, but one revert per day is 'too lenient for a CC articles. One revert per week is more in line with the type of editing restriction needed to get CC articles to have stability. Otherwise, the result will be tag team edit warring that would be supported by the editing restrictions. I suggest Off2riorob be put on a stricter restriction for the CC articles. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 10:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Completely stepping away from the CC topic (and any other areas where Off2riorob gets heated and loses control) is a better restriction than a blanket 1RR which allow too many problematic edits on controversial topics and perhaps too few where otherwise needed. If there are overall problems beyond reverting then that needs to be determined (maybe with a RFC or ArbCom case) and further editing restrictions or bans can be imposed. So, I support a complete CC topic ban for now. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I think now would be a good time to ask Off2riorob to step away from the climate change topic entirely. For technical reasons it is not possible at this stage to propose a topic ban at WP:AE, but the conclusion seems reasonable. He is by all accounts a very productive editor elsewhere, but as he admits himself he has a bee in his bonnet about William M. Connolley. --TS 12:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose A 1r restriction on an editor who mostly works BLP`s and the BLP noticeboard would hamstring him from the productive work he does. Everyone make`s mistakes, he ought not be overly punished for this one. mark (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)This editor is topic banned from processes related to climate change, broadly construed. --TS 12:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Making multiple reverts shouldn't be required in BLPs any more than anywhere else; remember that removing contentious, unsourced information about living persons is one of the exceptions to 3RR and by extension to an imposed 1RR. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Yes but there`s the rub, what if it is sourced but not written in a NPOV manner? Or as an attack piece? We see such on BLP`s all the time, if he is restricted to 1r he will quite simply be unable to work the BLP noticeboard. Why not a simple restriction of 1r on this one article? I think that would be more suitable given the nature of this offence mark (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)This editor is topic banned from processes related to climate change, broadly construed. --TS 12:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I agree with Tony Sidaway, and I suggest that people look away from AN/I to all of the work that Off2riorob does at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. The slice of history presented here purports to cover a year's worth of editing but is very limited and one-sided, and really isn't the whole picture by any means. It reflects, I suspect, the area where Off2riorob is influenced to err by (a) xyr perception of climate change POV-pushing and (b) the proximity of a subject to Wikipedia itself. Contrast that to xyr work at (to pick just one BLPN example) Ed Miliband where xyr work has been edits like this one and efforts to stop our article from labelling Miliband (who has stated for the record that xe does not believe in God) as "the Jewish leader of the Labour Party" and having religion=Jewish in an infobox. When the biography is not climate-change related or close to Wikipedia, there's a rather different Off2riorob here. There's also a significantly different Off2riorob now to the one that Cirt characterized in April 2009, the discussion of whom is being used as evidence for action here. Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I agree that in considering Off2riorob's editing history we must look at this work at BLPN - I'd be sorry to lose his help there. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Would a community topic ban from Climate Change articles, following the wording of those recently applied to various editors by ArbCom, and a permanent ban from the William Connolley article suffice? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, I think a full topic ban for CC is best for now. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose(ec) Off2 was not mentioned in any CC arbcom discussions, and imposing a topicban is absurd over-reaction. He is a valued editor, and all of this is simply going to be a matter of "let's remove anyone we disagree with" type rationale. In other words -- why not openly say "anyone with any position on CC whatever is to be topic-banned ab initio" as the easiest way to deal with the topic? Nope. Draconian solutions generally do not work, and all this will do is make that more abundantly clear than ever. Meanwhile the BNP is so far rremoved from any reasonable argument on this as to be quite nicely irrelevant - we ought not have personal disagreements with anyone dictate banning a good editor who, as I noted, was never even mentioned at the arbcom discussions on CC. Collect (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC) It's not about opinion, it's about behavior. He edit warred on a BLP in a topic area that was under arbcom-imposed sanctions. The only reason he isn't being topic banned at WP:AE is that arbcom sanctions require prior formal notification. The community has the opportunity to say "enough is enough." --TS 13:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC) The entire point of discretionary sanctions is to allow for editing restrictions for users not named in the ArbCom case. So, this editing restriction is perfectly reasonable given his edit warring on a CC related article within days of the case ending. I see no problem with discussing this here since this is where the discussion started. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Questions Can each user please state their level of involvement (if any)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Why can't ArbCom discretionary sanctions deal with the CC related matters? Why does the Community need to relitigate this aspect here at WP:AN rather than WP:AE? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Metadiscussion Question Why was the above discussion archived? I understand that Rob has agreed to modify his editing, but the consensus seemed to be in favor of a 1RR restriction and, possibly, revokation of Twinkle. Basket of Puppies 16:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Because it seems more urgent to de-escalate the CC fiasco, than to worry too much about the rest of it. Besides, after Rob had agreed to step away from the immediate flashpoint, nothing else needed urgent admin action. If you want to pursue more general complaints, then I suggest a user RFC is the normal way.--Scott Mac 16:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC) It's been closed because the issue was resolved and, as Doc has correctly stated, the community is sick and tired of the subject. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I am only confused as to why this discussion was closed, seemingly out of process. Isn't it against consensus to close a discussion where a consensus has nearly been reached? The underlying issue of Rob's behavior isn't much of a concern to me as the issue of prematurely closing a discussion. Basket of Puppies 16:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC) And doesn't this belong on /Incidents anyway? Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 16:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Shrug* Basket of Puppies 17:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC) It is in the interests of this project to allow issues associated with CC to cool. Rob has seen that, and we should thank him for it and drop this. Sanctions are always a piss-poor substitute for getting agreement and peace. The technicalities of which board and broken process are worthy casualties of drama-ending. Now, walk away. This has ended as well (indeed a lot better) than any other possible ending. And I, for one, don't wish to waste any more time on CC and those who can't let it go.--Scott Mac 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC) That was unnecessarily dramatic. Basket of Puppies 17:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I disagree with the closing of the thread. Way too early. And there is no reason to roll it up, other than to conceal its contents from future searches. I don't believe Scott's action in in line with the sentiment of the community on this page. And I don't think his and editor Tasty (who is "sick and tired of the subject" after under 1,000 edits) are reflecting the sentiment on this page in suggesting that we should sweep it under the rug because of their sense that the community prefers that. Rob has made agreements before, which triggered sanction reductions -- and which he has just violated with his edit warring here. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Have you discussed your concerns with Rob? If so, unless there's need for urgent admin action, I'd suggest that a user RFC is the place to take ongoing concerns. (For your info Tasy = User:Tony Sidaway, not that the edit count should really matter).--Scott Mac 19:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Let's be clear here. This was quid pro quo. Scott Mac did exactly what he promised, shut down discussion, on the basis of Rob's consent. My personal opinion is that's entirely OK and within the scope of administrator discretion to "talk someone down" like that, but I think that Scott should have been a bit more open here about the deal he offered and concluded. Jclemens (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yo dawg, I herd you like hats, so here's a hat for your hat, so you can hat while you hat. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Question Why was this thread again archived when the discussion is ongoing? Basket of Puppies 21:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Not sure. However, the user that hatted the thread, noted he did not read it at all: "discussion of whatever it is that they are discussing on AN, and which I am not even going to bother looking at." Most inappropriate to archive and declare something as closed, which one has not even bothered to read. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC) This constant hatting of discussion without notification or warning is leaving multiple users (myself included, and i'm not even involved in the discussion) with a sense of bad faith toward the hatters. SilverserenC 22:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I think it should be closed, Rob learned his lesson, no one wants to ban him or but any restrictions on him. He does an excellent job with BLPs, so I'm against any sactions for him. Secret account 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Proposal that we all agree to refrain from hatting/archiving/similar action threads when there is ongoing discussion. Additionally, for the hatter/archiver/similar to read and understand what they are doing before the action is undertaken. Agreed? Basket of Puppies 02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 02:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Comment. From what I can read (in what has been rolled up), it appears that the close was a unilateral one done against consensus at the time. In fact, broad comments used by the closer as a basis for the non-consensus closing such as "Most of us uninvolved folk are now totally sick of it" are not supported by the comments of "most of us uninvolved folk" on this page, and I find such comments to be quite curious (as well as contrary to what my own guess would be, reading this thread). I understand that such a non-consensus close is contrary to our core consensus guideline (which, though I agree with the remarks about hatting/archiving, I view as an even graver problem with the goings-on in this string).--Epeefleche (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Question Am I correct in assuming it was Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who collapsed the discussion for the second time? Just want to make sure I am seeing it correctly. Basket of Puppies 04:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Regarding the premature hatting/archiving of the above discussions, I've created WP:DAOHATTHOD to hopefully provide some useful advice. Basket of Puppies 06:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tiamut/Palestine

Resolved

 – I got one, and User:Horologium closed the other. --RL0919 (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tiamut/Palestine? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I closed the first one, but I had a personal opinion on the second, so I commented instead. --RL0919 (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

BLPs and maintenance tags

I invite participation at a discussion here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Maintenance tags. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Banned users and their userpages

At this deletion discussion, an issue has arisen concerning a banned user and whether his User page should have the "banned" template while his User Talk has the same template.

I seem to remember that banned users do not always have a "banned" template placed on their user page, such as when they have retired. I'm also sure there have been instances where a banned editors user page has been blanked for the duration of the ban. Does anyone know of more details or the circumstances? Or is my memory failing me? :( Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If someone is commenting on this, it may be better to comment here, so the discussion doesn't fork off in three ways (it's also happening at the MfD). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough's persistent disregard for community norms and (semi-)automated editing guidelines

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/January 2009-September 2010

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

SmackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

Earlier today, I advised Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) that I would request both he and his bot be blocked if he continued making trivial and unnecessary changes that have proved controversial without first obtaining consensus for these changes [11].

Rather than cease making the changes, he simply went on ahead with them on both his bot account ([12] [13] - unnecessary capitalization changes), and his main account ([14] changes spacing around header for no reason; [15] capitalizes template for no reason).

It is perfectly reasonable to hold the view that all templates should be ucfirst, it is perfectly reasonable to hold the view that headers should have no spacing around them. However, it is unreasonable to push these views on the community without first obtaining consensus for them. The edits today display a shocking disregard for the collaborative editing model and indicate that Rich feels that he does not have to operate within the consensus model.

This is unacceptable behaviour for a bot operator and administrator and I request he be blocked pending the decision of the proposed restriction below, which has been copied here from the ANI subpage for greater visibility. –xeno^talk 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed editing restriction: Rich Farmbrough

This is an alternative proposal to more strict proposal here, which generated a fair amount of support for a complete ban on non-manual editing

Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged.

Thoughts? –xeno^talk 15:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What about emptying and deleting categories? This is what happened in the immediate incident. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Added a sentence, though that is expected of any editor already. –xeno^talk 15:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless a guideline directs such a change. There's always the potential for future guidelines on the matter. Otherwise, it seems a fine proposal to me. --Bsherr (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's covered by 'demonstrable consensus'. –xeno^talk 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Good enough. --Bsherr (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support --Bsherr (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this has become stale now, but I'll revisit if that seems to change. --Bsherr (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• I think this is agreeable, this has my support. Rich, I hope you will do an effort in checking the diffs before you save, and not save them if they are mere changes of capitalisation, etc. Real mistakes, well, we all make them (as do our bots), I do hope your fellow editors will treat them for what they are. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Now that's a whole lot better, being a lot less disruptive and punitive. But how about discussing with Rich about the categories' name changes and moving, instead of immediately reaching out for punishment? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussion doesn't help if he ignores objections and continues full-steam ahead without stopping to gather consensus for his changes. –xeno^talk 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This proposal is more about setting a bot policy rather than addressing or remedying the allegations. Bot policy should be debated elsewhere. Glrx (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  Policy already exists to prohibit these changes (WP:AWB#Rules of use #3/4), this is more of a compliance issue. –xeno^talk 19:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• We're prohibiting him from something that's already prohibited (using a bot or script to make cosmetic changes) and telling him to use the processes that he's already supposed to be using (CFD/TFD). Is there any substantial difference here from doing nothing and hoping the problem resolves itself? Mr.Z-man 21:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I suppose there's also the prohibition of using even manual methods to make those cosmetic changes, and it looks like even if those cosmetic changes are made at the same time as another edit they would still be disallowed (without bot approval, which I suppose is already bot policy). To my mind this is just because it's difficult at times to tell if Rich is making manual, semi-automated or fully automated edits from his account (because, as you know, in violation of the bot policy he appears to make all three from his main account, without using proper edit summaries). Personally I think we should be stopping this problem there. With enforcing the bot policy and stopping him from making any bot like edits from his account, as proposed above. But would also support this alternative proposal after the original one. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The restriction would make it clear that these changes lack consensus and he may be blocked if he continues making them prior to gathering consensus. –xeno^talk 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense

This is a storm in a teacup. No one cares about the bot capitalising clean-up templates, except that they think I am offending others by doing it. There are no others, except apparently xeno has moved to-day from neutral about it ("I don't care about the actual minor bits themselves") to opposed ("Me for one") and dePiep is saying the same in the next comment (about 20 minutes ago). Hardly anyone cares about any of them. Those that do have an opinion would almost certainly, by the figures, support capitalising of Infoboxes. I have explained that for technical reasons that I made a choice, some four years ago for Ucfirst rather than lcfirst - after much careful thought. the reason is to enable me to write regexes like:

• {{\s*(Cleanup|Attention[ _]+\(on[ _]+talk[ _]+page\)|Clean|Cu|CU|Tidy|Cleanup-quality|Cleanup-date|Attention[ _]+needed[ _]+\(article[ _]+page\)|Attn|Attention[ _]+see[ _]+talk|Attention|Attention[ _]+needed[ _]+\(talk[ _]+page\)|Clean[ _]+up|Cleanup-because|Clean-up|Cleanup-reason|Cleanup-since|Ugly|Cleanup-Pitt|Improve|Quality|Clu) *([\|}\n]) => {{Cleanup$2

and then do the date manipulation on a much simpler regex - a sample of which still runs to maybe 4 or 5 k.

Here's my proposed solutions:

1. Forget it and go and write an enyclopedia.
2. Have an centralized discussion on the case of cleanup templates. Tell me the result. I will implement that.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Your dismissive attitude ("No one cares..."; "Forget it and go and write an encyclopedia."; "There is no controversy here. Nothing to see, keep walking.") is a major part of the problem.

I don't know how many people care about this, but I can tell you that I do. When I consult diffs to evaluate the edits, your bot's inconsequential changes waste my time. I've gone to your talk page to raise the issue, only to be reminded by the existing complaints (and your [non-]responses thereto) that you routinely ignore/dismiss such criticisms. So I don't bother to add my voice to the futile chorus (and I assume that others act in kind). —David Levy 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well not bothering hardly helps. Nor does the negative characterisation of my talk page. Nor yet quoting out of context.Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Well not bothering hardly helps.

Nor does wasting still more of my time by posting yet another comment for you to dismiss/ignore.

Nor does the negative characterisation of my talk page.

You mean my observation that you routinely dismiss/ignore these criticisms (just as you've done above)?

Nor yet quoting out of context.

How have I done so? Two of the quotations are taken from this very section, and I linked directly to the third's diff. —David Levy 00:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The diff is not the context. The context is an extensive conversation over several pages. Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Please link to whatever threads/diffs you believe provide essential context. —David Levy 00:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally on the substantive point you raise, you can set your w/l to ignore bots. HTH. Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

And that would not be a reasonable solution. Sometimes people will still want to see bots. We shouldn't have to stop seeing other bots because yours is behaving badly. I will have to agree with the other people in that these edits cause more trouble than help. -DJSasso (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that. I don't want to ignore bots (which would cause me to overlook problematic mass changes, including those caused by malfunctions). I want to be able to monitor their edits without having to wade through the utterly pointless ones that your bot performs. —David Levy 00:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd add on that score that ignoring bots seems to cause another issue: if, say, an editor vandalises a page, (edit 1) then a bot goes past and makes a change, (edit 2), nothing turns up in your watchlist. As you are set to ignore bot edits, the watchlist code doesn't notify you of any edits, as it only checks to see if the most recent one warrants notification. Thus you are lead to assume that nothing has happened in the article. I found this to be a particular problem with SineBot, but generally that flag causes too many issues to use it. - Bilby (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well as not a great user of watch-lists, I had seen that comment before, but not got round to investigating it. It seems like a suboptimal way for watch-lists to work. Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

"Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" should bypass that particular concern. –xeno^talk 18:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding your explanation regex: AWB can do this with the stock engine now without having to change the case (WP:AWB/TR). This is why I asked you to update SmackBot to the latest SVN snapshot. And you're right, I said I don't care about the minor bits themselves - I do care about the unnecessary, disruptive, and distracting changes to the minor bits that lack consensus - I would similarly ask an editor who was going in the other direction to stop. –xeno^talk 15:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What actually needs to be done now: Need an uninvolved admin

I think, at this point, we've discussed this to death. What I think we need is an uninvolved admin who has maybe a couple of hours to read up on this, and then close the discussion and editing restriction proposals at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010. A number of different remedies have been offered there, and I think a closing admin can judge a suitable consensus on how best to proceed. I don't think it's worth our time talking about this all over again at this point. Especially when the previous discussion hasn't yet been closed. At this point I feel that the discussion and editing restriction proposals are ripe for closure, as that thread is no longer constructive (it appears to have degenerated to edit warring, repetition, and personal comments, rather than actually furthering discussion on the actual issue tat hand, despite this I think there is already enough content there to reach a consensus). If the solution provided by a closing administrator does not work after some time, then there are other venues, such as a RfC/U, which would be more appropriate, since it appears ANI is not helping this issue much. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Fram (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we need an uninvolved admin to step in here. Subsequent to this thread being posted, Rich made nearly three thousand edits with SmackBot [16] that 1) do not appear to have BAG approval (I found this, but perhaps it should be revisited - approval should not have been granted for spell-checking) and 2) appear to violate the bot policy on spell-checking (based on new information what happened was the operator had set it wrong, as opposed to the bot running amok) and 3) made obviously erroneous edits like this [17]. We have policies and guidelines on automated and assisted editing for a reason, and flagrant disregard for those norms is unacceptable, especially when the result is editors having to manually review thousands of bot edits for errors. –xeno^talk 14:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit of a rabbit out of a hat. "editors having to manually review thousands of bot edits for errors". Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Should I assume the one edit I picked out at random and found to be in error was 1 in 3000? Are you going to check the rest of the edits yourself? (I see you ran over the pages to fix World Series of Poker back to how it should be - Thanks for that). –xeno^talk 17:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I picked up a bunch of other WSOP errors too. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

• He also made this edit which does nothing but capitalize a template while tweaking some whitespace. Making disputed edits while they're under discussion at a noticeboard strikes me as inflammatory. –xeno^talk 14:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  Again human error, some small task I started nearly a week ago, and that item was already fixed - by an unassisted human. (I won't say why the task is taking so long - I will mention that it would have just happened in the good old days prior to 29 Spetember.) Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
  

  So you had it in auto-save mode? –xeno^talk 19:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm .. indeed, that last one should not be there. I don't think that I saw any spelling-changes. Most decapitalisations seem OK and proper, but there are some decapitalisations in headers which should actually be capitalised (like the example you gave). Xeno, did you point Rich to these edits, and asked for explanations on the errors and .. useless edits? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but because of obfuscation and handwaving, I've just about exhausted my patience for speaking directly with Rich. (Further reading: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Capitalisation of section titles, Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#Probably erroneous approval for a form of spell-checking (SmackBot)) –xeno^talk 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Handwaving! I have supplied pretty much the only hard facts , the majority of the argument is fuzzy to an extreme. Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Uninvolved admin would be good. But if they can get through it in a couple of hours I would be amazed. This debate has eaten hundreds of hours of my time, and every time we get close to closing it down there is a change of venue. Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Funny enough, I do think that this edit contains two 'errors' .. one title which is probably correct in the current case was (half) converted to a lower case title, while the next section, which should have been converted, was neglected. Whatever the case, I don't think that this gets over 28 errors (i.e., less than 1%; I still refuse to see the capitalisation/whitespace change as an error, I do define it as 'useless'. And though I also think that of the fuss about it is equally useless: Rich, is there really no way of not doing that, it is certainly not necessary (run regexes on the wikitext with the 'i' parameter and it does not care whether it is upper or lowercase, so why uppercase them all), and it will stop the equally, if not more, unnecessary complaining about it?). I also don't think that this falls under a spelling correction, and I do think that it is important enough to be done by a bot - unfortunately it is too error prone (I would suggest to add the standard ones, and record all the rest with statistics, if there are other common ones which need conversion, add those to the list, but be careful with converting them all).

All these discussions are not worth this fuss, Smackbot makes by design on every task some errors, some inevitable and some avoidable - others should be repaired (and are generally repaired) before continuing. The errors are minimal, diverse, and IMHO Rich either explains that some errors can not be avoided (e.g. the subst problem), most errors don't break things (they annoy people), and for the rest, a lot of complaints are about useless edits. I understand that the regular errors do give a feeling of 'Smackbot makes a lot of errors', but overall I don't believe that there are really thàt many (and then, some are because the bot is fed a broken page to begin with; or other errors which can not be repaired, still get regurgitated over and over). I also think that many errors were resolved, but also still regurgitated. Now, if we take away the annoyances (I suggest that Rich tries to take most annoyances away, and the annoyed to stop complaining about these things that IMHO do not need this much complaining; it is not worth it), and that future errors are met with 'could you do this different, or ignore these terms' (which I then also expect Rich to follow), then it is now time to move on. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't have a huge problem with honest-to-goodness errors; it's the fixing things that aren't broken that I take issue with. As best as I can tell, the main excuse (other than ILIKEIT) for the template capitalization changes is because it's easier to write a regex that results in capitalization changes. Well, that's not a good excuse, and regex can fairly easily be written to maintain the case (and I know Rich is a wizard when it comes to these things - he helped me with some code for Xenobot Mk V); and in fact, AWB now has built-in redirect bypassing at WP:AWB/TR that won't do the unnecessary capitalization changes. So if Rich just worked within that framework, we can be done with this. –xeno^talk 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change: enough is enough!

As an uninvolved admin, I thought the end of the arbcom case would draw a line under this, by spelling out to all those obsessed with it that the community had simply had enough. However, it seems that the participants haven't quite got the message.

Since the closing of the case, we've had wikilawyering over whether the letter of the topic ban allowed banned users to contribute to the articles by posting comments on their talk pages ("what does topic banned mean?"). We've had two threads on this board regarding disputes.[18] [19] (And probably more I've missed.) And now we've got a dispute on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Marknutley about whether a banned user can carry on commenting on sanction on another involved user.

I am thoroughly sick of this. There's a point where some people are simply refusing to hear the community saying "ENOUGH". I thus propose that uninvolved admins agree the following:

1. Topic banned means "find a different topic", and shall be very broadly construed. It's that simple: take the related articles (and users) off your watchlist and do something else.
2. Given that the problem wasn't content, so much as the unacceptable interactions between the participants, the ban shall be taken to mean the participants should cease all hostile (or conceivably hostile) interactions. They should cease to comment on each other entirely.
3. All other editors, who have been party to the conflict, are strongly urged to consider stepping back from the topic - including commenting on enforcement.
4. Continued hostilities by any user in this area are likely to result in speedy blocks, without too much regard for who started it. All reasonable blocks will be endorsed without lengthy discussion and rule-mongering.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's had it with this.--Scott Mac 14:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Put simply, the ruling means that these users are no longer invited to contribute to the shaping of Wikipedia's Climate Change related articles. If other editors act improperly then the topic banned users' contribution is not needed to correct it - uninvolved editors without a history of poor judgment and conduct in the topic area will comment if comment is needed; their comment is not. The ruling is also not intended to swap one major dispute for many small user page disputes; if the topic is raised on a user page the correct answer is "I am topic banned from responding, please ask [[useful link|here]]". However careless blocking "without too much regard" is not a good response. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. As another Arb wrote ( Carcharoth, at [20], "My intention, when voting for the topic bans, was that those topic-banned would stay away from the topic area completely (as Beeblebrox has said). If we (ArbCom) had intended to allow limited discussion of sources on user talk pages, we would have made provisions for that. As we didn't, there are no provisions for that to take place." This has gone on long enough. I'm with Scott Mac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support there is a time for discussion, and a time to knock some heads together. I think the latter has arrived. Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Note - I've proposed an update to the policy explanation of topic bans to clarify these issues/loopholes, as they affect all topic bans, not just Climate Change related ones. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Admins should be able to impose sanctions under CC discretionary sanctions if there is a problem, and the only possible reason any CC related issues should pop up here is in the event of a well-timed and well-framed appeal/review request/special notification. If AE has already dealt with an issue (such as by issuing a warning), it's unhelpful to propose a CC specific sanction at AN or ANI ~10 hours later (in circumstances where no other DR has occurred and the editor has made no other edits since the time that AE thread was closed). Certain users and their approaches are the problem - not the drafting. Therefore, I oppose shaping the rest of the project more (or even less) aggressively because of a single topic area - CC - that is out of control. "I am thoroughly sick of this" hits the nail on the head. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• The ArbCom was quite explicit about the intended scope of the topic bans that they imposed, though there does seem to be some attempt by several editors to rewrite those provisions. The case remedies already allow uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions in response to conduct which is harmful to the project. It is not clear to me why another thread needed to be started here; poor judgement on Scott Mac's part, I think, to ignite another fire to no useful effect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Ignite a fire? Help, can't you see the forest is ablaze already. My intention is to draw a line in the sand by saying that those trying to continue this war by other means need to "get it". The topic bans are not limited restrictions, they are intended to close the whole chapter. Some people obviously haven't got this at all.--Scott Mac 17:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I am very sympathetic to the community reaction to the CC mess. As Ncmvocalist puts it: " 'I am thoroughly sick of this' hits the nail on the head." That said, I don't see how this proposal helps. The numbered list of statements either matches the ArbCom findings or it does not. If it matches, it is redundant, if it does not, it suggests that this group can overturn an ArbCom decision with a simple vote (or !vote). I see deficiencies in the ArbCom decision, but think there are better ways to address it. (FT2's link is a start). I'd also note that hostilities are winding down, and perhaps just letting the AE process get sorted out would be a better approach.--SPhilbrickT 17:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing new in my proposals. They simply are intended as an opportunity for us to say that we will not brook anyone wikilawyering around the spirit of what arbcom has said, and we will have zero tolerance with people simply continuing disputes in some way that arbcom didn't explicitly prohibit. Banned editors should move on entirely, and not pop up in discussions of the userconduct of their old opponents.--Scott Mac 17:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Support: FGS ban the lot of them and delete the subject for ever. It's not that I am unsympathetic to polar bears having to live off bananas and the starving millions having to take skiing holidays (I am recycling my yogurt pots and newpapers to help them) but enough is truly enough. This bickering has gone on far too long - let's talk about sex or something interetsting we can all join in.  Giacomo  18:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Support 1: those banned are banned inter alia from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. End of. Rich Farmbrough, 19:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Very important: Need an uninvolved admin to help close an RFC

We need an uninvolved admin to formally close an RFC. Just to give you a little bit of background:

• We started an RFC about the Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists in late August.
• I documented a few broad principles where there appears to be consensus, despite other areas of controversy.
• One week ago, I posted a notice to close the RFC on the talk page at this section

All we need from someone is to undertake a few tasks.

1. Close this thread to close the RFC, with some kind of discussion/summary template.
2. Close this list of principles with some kind of discussion/summary template.

It was a long and difficult discussion. But the issue is an important one and it would be a shame to lose the consensus principles that this RFC produced. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think what you are seeking is an "offical stamp" for your views on the RFC, but although you believe them to be the "consensus", in reality they are actually disputed. I don't see how the administrators can "sign off" your views as being the basis for changes to any policy guideline. Last time I looked, no policy or guideline had to have an admin's Imprimatur. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way Gavin, but most editors share those views even though you do not. Consensus is not unanimity. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Noting that Shooterwalker has not in fact asked anyone to endorse his own views. He has asked for the discussion to be formally closed and a summary written. That's exactly correct and this is a suitable venue for the request. The bad faith of "I think..." isn't needed here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)